Free Statement of Material Facts - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 1 of 60

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 BY: LAW OFFICES OF HOWD & LUDORF Attorneys for the Defendant 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114-1190 BY: DEPOSITION OF: APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAMS & PATTIS, LLC Attorneys for the Plaintiff 51 Elm Street Suite 409 New Haven, CT (203) 562-9931 TIMOTHY J. MAHONEY, ESQ. 06510 DANIEL G. MALCHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DANIEL G. MALCHMAN VS. CITY OF NORWICH : : : : 3:01CV01877 (MRK) AT HARTFORD FRIDAY APRIL 9, 2004

(860) 249-1361 JOHN J. RADSHAW, III, ESQ.

Exhibit A

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 2 of 60

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deposition of DANIEL G. MALCHMAN, a witness, taken on behalf of the DEFENDANT, CITY OF NORWICH, in the herein before entitled action, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before Heather A. Pellerin, duly qualified Notary Public in and for the State of Connecticut and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, held at the LAW OFFICES OF HOWD & LUDORF, Attorneys for the Defendant, 65 Wethersfield Avenue, Hartford, CT 06114-1190, (860) 249-1361,

commencing at 10:00 a.m. on FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 2004. STIPULATIONS It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among counsel for the respective parties that all formalities in connection with the taking place of this deposition, including time, place, sufficiency of notice, and the authority of the officer before whom it is being taken may be and are hereby waived. It is further stipulated and agreed that objections other than as to form are reserved to the time of trial. It is further stipulated that the proof of the qualifications of the Notary Public before whom the deposition is being taken is hereby waived.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 3 of 60

3 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 DIRECT 4* *By Mr. Radshaw **By Mr. Mahoney DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS Exhibit 1, Renotice of Deposition Exhibit 2, Complaint Exhibit 3, Responses to Interrogatories Exhibit 4, May 13th, 1999 Document PAGE (premarked) (premarked) (premarked) 50 CROSS DANIEL G. MALCHMAN REDIRECT RECROSS INDEX

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 4 of 60

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Good morning, Mr. Malchman. Good morning. My name is John Radshaw, and I am an attorney DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RADSHAW: MR. RADSHAW: MR. MAHONEY: Usual stips? Yes, read and sign. DANIEL G. MALCHMAN, called as a witness by the defendant, having first been duly sworn by the Notary, was examined and testified on his oath as follows:

here at Howd and Ludorf, and I represent the City of Norwich in a lawsuit that you have brought against it, and I want to go over a couple of ground rules. had your deposition taken before? A. Q. taken? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I think once. Okay. How long ago was that? Yes. Okay. About how many times have you had it Have you ever

Seven or eight years ago, maybe. And what was that concerning, briefly? Somebody hit me in the back. So it was as a result of a motor vehicle

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 5 of 60

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. And there is no relation. I know that, I already heard them. I was

laughing when I came in, no offense. Q. And tell me -- I'm sorry I interrupted you.

Please continue. A. The reason I haven't filed the suit yet against

Mr. Bogdanski is that I'm in the middle of an in-depth court trial -MR. MAHONEY: lawsuit. THE WITNESS: lawsuit. But it all pertains to this It's all one scope. There Remember, we're talking about this

It's all part.

will be more suits brought forthcoming. MR. MAHONEY: THE WITNESS: I understand. See, I'm not allowed to bring

anything, according to the court, against any of the witnesses in the case, so I have to wait for the case to be resolved, and when the case is resolved I will go forth with my other suits. Q. (By Mr. Radshaw) As I understand, there is at

least one criminal charge against you that has to do with illegal dumping? A. with it. Q. I understand that, but as I understand it -- let I didn't own the building, had nothing to do

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 6 of 60

11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me ask the question. As I understand it, the state is

accusing you of illegal dumping of something? A. Q. illegally? A. Okay. I bought a building -- let me shut my Let me shut my phone That is correct. And what are they accusing you of dumping

phone off because that's very rude. off. I apologize. Q. A. Q. No problem. Yes.

You have more than one?

I apologize.

I'm only interested in what are you accused of

dumping illegally. A. Q. A. Q. something? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Supposedly, yes. And what was that allegedly contaminated with? Paint. And that was lead paint? Correct. And how is it that -- withdraw that. And how is I have to explain it. I will give you an opportunity to explain it. Sand grit, sand. And was that allegedly contaminated with

it that Bogdanski fits into the illegal dumping, the alleged illegal dumping of sand?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 7 of 60

17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I can't tell you that because I don't understand

what that means. Q. Let's start with if there were more than one

defendant, you would refer to them as defendants; is that correct? A. Q. Correct. So if someone wanted to refer to a multiplicity

of defendants, there would be an "s" somewhere in the complaint if this lawsuit was addressed to multiple defendants; isn't that right? the answer, you don't know. MR. MAHONEY: THE WITNESS: this. Q. question. (By Mr. Radshaw) Let me ask you a better Do you believe that as a result of this lawsuit Do you understand the question? I think so. I had my attorney do I mean, if you don't know

you have sued Robert Aldi? A. Q. A. Q. No. Okay. No. All right. So we talked about the failure to You were telling me

protect you from criminal conduct.

briefly about Robert Aldi allegedly giving information to the state's investigator. Other than those two incidents,

and I will go back to them, are there any other bases for

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 8 of 60

20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. A. Q. The police reports. Okay. Let's start with paragraph 6, paragraph 6 You allege that on the night of

of Defendant's Exhibit 2.

October 31st through November 1st, 1996, at your residence on Tanglewood Drive, your automobile was spray painted with a swastika; is that correct? A. Q. A. Q. Swastikas, many. How many were there? Four or five. And you also allege that you reported this hate

crime to the Norwich PD? A. Q. Yes, I did. And you provided investigating officers with the

name of the most likely perpetrator; is that right? A. Q. Which I thought at that time, right. And then the last sentence here is, "Although

the police pretended to investigate the crime they, in fact, conducted no investigation of the chief suspect because of his connections to Robert Aldi, at that time a prominent member of the Norwich PD." A. Q. That is correct. Let's take that sentence right there. What Is that right?

evidence do you have that the police pretended to investigate the crime?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 9 of 60

21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, I spoke with now, his name is lieutenant,

captain, I think he's lieutenant, Lieutenant Rusty Ward at a later date, and he told me that they dropped the ball on the case. In fact, he did it in front of the city manager

in Norwich within the last six months, that was one thing. Q. A. What is this guy's name? Captain or lieutenant, I think he's lieutenant

now, Lieutenant Rusty Ward, in a meeting, because there was another incident that happened with the fire department, which there will be another case coming up shortly. Q. A. Q. Okay. Okay. What did Rusty Ward say to you that made you

think that the -- let me ask you a question, when was this written? A. Q. A. Q. When was this written? Yeah, Defendant's Exhibit 2? It says here October 1st, 2001. What evidence did you have on or about

October 1st, 2001, that the police pretended to investigate the hate crime incident with the spray painting of swastikas? A. Q. A. They never went and talked to -No, no, what evidence do you have? Evidence?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 10 of 60

22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Yes. In speaking to Captain Aldi on about 20

occasions and talking to him, he kept telling me that the investigation was going on and little to no -- after he got out of the police department, I went in and had a conversation with Rusty Ward, that it wasn't, and just within the last year they sent detectives out again on the same case, questioning neighbors. Q. Now, do you have any training in law

enforcement? A. Q. No. And I was going to say you probably don't

have -- you can't be in all places at all times; is that right? A. Q. No, nobody is. Okay. And this is the incident that occurred

sometime on the night of October 31st; isn't that right? A. Q. If that's the date that's down, that's correct. Do you know if -- now, when you called the

police, did the police come out? A. Q. generated? A. Yes, but it was not turned in to the State of It was not followed through. Yes, they did. Okay. And do you know if a report was

Connecticut.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 11 of 60

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q. Okay. Answer my question. Do you know whether

or not a report was generated by a member of the City of Norwich Police Department concerning the crime that allegedly occurred -A. Q. Yes. -- on the night of October 31st, 1996?

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Q. report? A. Q. A. report. Q.

Yes. Okay. And do you know who completed that

Do I?

If you show me the report.

You don't know, as you sit here today? No, I don't remember, but we must have the

Okay.

And were you interviewed by an officer

sometime after the swastikas were spray painted on your car back in 1996? A. Q. It was done that day, that morning. That would have been the morning of

November 1st? A. Q. That's correct. Because you called to -- you discovered the

swastikas at 6:20 in the morning; is that right? A. Q. about it? That's right. But an officer did come out and speak with you

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 12 of 60

24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. In fact, several. But at least one did? Correct. And did they take a picture of the graffiti? One picture. Okay. Now, do you have any personal knowledge

of what the Norwich Police Department or its members may have done other than that activity? A. Q. Yes. Okay. And do you understand what I mean by

"personal knowledge"? A. Q. Yeah, told. No, no. Personal knowledge is when you see it

or you hear the -- not spoken from someone, but when you personally observe or perceive activities. say "personal knowledge." That's when I

When someone tells you something

that happened somewhere else that you didn't see, that's hearsay. So, when I ask you this question, and if you

don't understand it, ask me to rephrase it. A. Q. I don't understand it. For example, because you and I are sitting here

speaking you and I will have personal knowledge of what happened this in room. Why? Because we can

contemporaneously see and hear what happens in this room. However, my colleague in the office across the hall,

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 13 of 60

25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because she can't hear us through closed doors has -- or does not have personal knowledge of what transpires in here today. I can go in and tell her about what happened, but

she has no personal knowledge of what occurred inside this room. Okay. Is that helpful in your understanding of

"personal knowledge"? A. Q. See, I consider it something different. Let's go with my definition. Because, for

example, would it also be possible that I could go into the other room or in another part of my office building and tell a colleague and totally fabricate a story about what transpires in this room? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Is that possible? Yes. And that colleague, not having personal Is that fair?

knowledge of what occurred in this room, couldn't be sure necessarily what I would be telling him is true or not, because he did not contemporaneously perceive it through his sight and his own hearing. A. Q. Now I do. Okay. You understand?

So, getting back to the incident when the

officers came out on November 1st, they interviewed you, they took a photograph, do you have personal knowledge of what other things were done by the Norwich Police?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 14 of 60

26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have? A. I don't think so. A. Q. No. Okay. Because you weren't riding around with

the Norwich Police on that day or any other day after? A. Q. A. Q. Uh-hmm. Is that correct? That's correct. And for all you know they may or may not have

interviewed people concerning this? A. Q. That's correct. Okay. So when you said back in 2001 that the

police pretended -- excuse me, that the police conducted no investigation of the chief suspect, you have no personal knowledge that supports that allegation, do you? A. I should have phrased it a little different

because I do have knowledge from captain -- Lieutenant Rusty Ward. Q. But that knowledge you only received recently;

is that right? A. Q. That's correct. And that's totally based on what Mr. Ward said

to you; is that right? A. Q. That's correct. Mr. Ward could have lied to you, couldn't he

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 15 of 60

27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Okay. No. So you're telling me that the evidence that the But is it possible?

police conducted no investigation whatsoever of this incident is based on what Mr. Ward said to you; is that right? A. follow-up. Q. Almost. They did a little bit. They didn't

They didn't do the hate crime report. So when it says here that they, in fact,

conducted no investigation in paragraph 6, that's wrong; is that correct? A. Q. That is correct. Okay. So that particular statement is not

appropriate in this complaint? A. Q. No. I disagree.

So -MR. MAHONEY: THE WITNESS: You disagree? I disagree with that.

(By Mr. Radshaw) That's fine. Okay. I disagree.

And what exactly did Mr. Ward say to you? He informed me that in a case like this there

should be a document done for the State of Connecticut called a hate crime report. Q. A hate crime, okay.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 16 of 60

28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 unit. Q. Who did you call? A. And that report was not filed. It was not

followed through. Q. Let's back up. It's your testimony that a hate

crime report was not filed with the State of Connecticut; is that correct? A. Q. That is correct. Is it your claim that a hate crime report on

state -- State of Connecticut forms was not, in fact, filled out at all? A. Q. It was not filed. When you say it's not filed, what do you mean by

"not filed"? A. You have to mail it and file it and send it to

the State of Connecticut. Q. And on what evidence do you have that that

report was not filed with the State of Connecticut? A. Calling the State of Connecticut hate crime

20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.

The office. And do you know who you talked to? No, I don't. When did you call them? 2000 -- 2002. And so that was in 2002?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 17 of 60

29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Uh-hmm. So that would have been before -- excuse me,

that would have been after you filed this lawsuit against the City of Norwich; is that correct? A. Q. Uh-hmm, yes, it is. And you believe that it's incorrect to say that

Norwich did no investigation, but it's correct that they just did some investigation, but it was a substandard investigation; is that correct? A. Q. A. Q. Very substandard. But they did, in fact, investigate? An iota. Let me ask that question again. Yes or no,

isn't it true that the City of Norwich Police Department investigated that crime, that incident that occurred on the evening of October 31 to the morning of November 1st, back in 1996? A. Q. A. Q. again. Not properly. Did you understand my question? Yeah. It was a yes or no question. So let me ask it

Isn't it true that the City of Norwich Police

Department investigated the hate crime incident that occurred on the evening, sometime between the evening of October 31st, 1996, and the morning of November 1st, 1996,

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 18 of 60

30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 yes or no? A. Q. Can I ask my attorney a question? Absolutely. If you'd like, you can step out.

I'd prefer that you not ask any questions while a question is pending. question -A. Q. A. Q. I understand it, but it's a twofold -Let me ask you -- I will withdraw that question. Okay. You understand we have been talking about a hate If you can't -- if you don't understand the

crime incident that occurred in 1996; is that right?

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Q.

Yes. And were there any other crime incidents that

occurred in 1996? A. Q. No. Okay. So if I were to say the hate crime in

1996, you would understand that to mean the incident that occurred sometime either in the evening of October 31st or into the morning of November 1st in the year of 1996 when some unknown parties sprayed swastikas on your vehicle; is that correct? A. Q. A. Q. That's correct. And you understand what I'm saying? Correct. So if I ask this question, and it's a yes or no

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 19 of 60

31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question, yes or no, did the Norwich Police Department investigate the 1996 hate crime incident? A. Q. Yes. Thank you. But I understand that you believe

that they did not do a proper investigation; is that correct? A. Q. That is correct. And it's your belief that it's substandard, that

there are other things they should have done; they should have worked harder on it, including, you believe, they should have sent this particular form to a particular office in the State of Connecticut; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. Okay. Now, turning your attention to

paragraph 7 of the plaintiff's complaint, which is Defendant's Exhibit 2, it says that "sometime on the evening of October 31 to November 1, 1997, dog feces were placed in the plaintiff's mailbox." A. Q. Uh-hmm. Now, then the last sentence of that paragraph

says, "The Norwich Police failed or refused to investigate the incident." Let's start with how did you discover that

there were dog feces in your mailbox? A. I went out to the mailbox to get my mail and it

was full of shit.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 20 of 60

32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Got you. Excuse me. Now, did you see -- let me back up. Turning

back to the hate crime incident in 1996, you didn't see who spray painted the swastikas on your car, did you? A. Q. No, I did not. And no member of your family saw who spray

painted the swastikas on your car, did they? A. Q. No, they did not. And you do not have the names of any person who

witnessed the spray painting of the swastikas; is that correct? A. Q. No, I do not. Let's go back to the dog feces, and I will ask You didn't see who put

you the same bunch of questions.

the dog feces in your mailbox, did you? A. Q. A. Q. No, I did not. And no member of your family saw them? No, they did not. And you have no information or witnesses that

would -- withdraw that. You have no witnesses that saw the dog feces get put in your mailbox; is that correct? A. Q. No, I did not. Okay. After you found the dog feces in your

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 21 of 60

33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mailbox did you call the police? A. Q. A. Yes, I did. And what happened next? I asked the police to please check the feces

samples, because Mr. Bogdanski had a big dog, you know, in his backyard, and it was fresh. feces. It was real nasty. That's terrible. I'm sorry. I mean, it was a fresh

Q. A.

And it would not be a hard lab test to check,

and according to my reports, it was never done. Q. Now, let's back up. Did a police officer come

out and speak to you? A. Q. A. Q. to you? A. Q. Absolutely. And a report was generated concerning this Yes, he did. Do you remember who it was? No, I don't. But an officer did, in fact, come out and speak

incident; is that correct? A. Q. That is correct. And other than his -- that officer's interview

of you after the incident occurred in 1997 about the dog feces, you have no personal knowledge of what else that officer or some officer might have or might not have done;

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 22 of 60

34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is that true? A. Well, I called the department on numerous times

speaking to -- captain or lieutenant, Mr. Aldi, I don't know which, asking him to do certain things and check certain things and asking about -- when I got the police report from the police department, it did not show, or it didn't show me that the feces was ever checked like I asked. Q. So back on paragraph 7, that last sentence where

it says, "The Norwich Police failed to investigate this incident," that's not true, is it? A. Q. They didn't follow-up on it. But they did, in fact, come out and investigate

the incident when they talked to you; is that right? A. Q. They talked to me. And they collected as much information as was

available; is that right? A. Q. A. Q. As much dog feces, yes. And did they take the dog feces with them? Some. And it's your claim that because they did not do

an analysis of the dog feces that were there in your mailbox with the dog feces that might have been found at Mr. Bogdanski's house, that that was a substandard investigation; is that right?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 23 of 60

35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. Q. A. Q. Yes, I do believe that. But you concede they did some investigation? Yes. It's just that you don't believe that they did

enough of an investigation to suit you; is that right? A. Q. That's correct. Okay. Now, in paragraph 8 that goes over to the

next page in Defendant's Exhibit 2, you allege that on October 26th, 1998, and again on November 3rd, you received harassing and threatening mail, and you believe this mail to have been sent to you by Bogdanski; is that right? A. Q. Absolutely. Okay. And you reported this hate mail to the

police; is that right? A. Q. A. Q. That is correct. And did an officer come out and talk to you? Yes, he did. And was a report generated, if you have any

knowledge of that? A. Q. Yeah, I think, so. Okay. And was the October 26th, 1998 mail

22 23 24 25

signed "love, neighbors"? A. Q. I don't remember. There were several of them.

And do you know if the Norwich Police took that

letter and took it as evidence?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 24 of 60

40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this? A. Q. I do not. So your belief is really just supposition and A. Q. I do not. And you have no witnesses that would suggest

conjecture; is that right? A. Q. No. It's not correct.

It's not -- if you have no evidence, it's just

your belief? A. Q. The police didn't follow it up. So, again, because the police did not

investigate Mr. Hoover, that's another example of what you believe to be their substandard investigation? A. Q. That is correct. Okay. All right. And then, in paragraph 9 of

Defendant's Exhibit 2, you allege that you received a letter on April 12th, 1999 that says no one forgets; is that correct? A. Q. Police? A. Q. That's correct. But the Norwich Police came out and investigated That's correct. And you did, in fact, report this to the Norwich

that; is that right? A. That is correct.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 25 of 60

41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And what evidence do you have that the Norwich

Police refused to conduct a handwriting analysis of the letter received in April of 1999? A. Because I asked them also to check on

Mr. Hoover, and again Mr. Hoover was not checked on. Q. And that's the only reason why they refused to I'm sorry, withdraw that My apologies.

do a handwriting examination? question. A. Q.

That didn't make any sense. No problem.

With regard to the April 12th, 1999 letter, you

reported the crime; is that correct? A. Q. That is correct. And you requested that Bogdanski's handwriting

be compared to that letter; is that correct? A. Q. That is correct. But it's your testimony that Norwich Police

refused to compare it to Bogdanski's handwriting; is that correct? A. Q. I did not say that. I said one of the letters.

Let's read the second sentence in paragraph 9.

"When he reported this crime to the Norwich Police and asked that the handwriting be compared to that of Bogdanski, they refused to do so." A. Q. That's correct. And the "he" in that sentence would be you; is Do you see that?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 26 of 60

42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. that correct? A. If I'm correct, that was the missing letter I There was three that were sent to the state

asked about. forensic lab. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.

Let me just get back to my question, all right? Uh-hmm. You have paragraph 9 there in front of you? Uh-hmm. When you say "um-hmm," you mean yes? Yes. The second sentence says, "When he reported this

crime to the Norwich Police and requested that the handwriting be compared to the handwriting of Bogdanski, they refused to do so." A. Q. Do you see that sentence?

I don't see where he's talking about. Paragraph 9? MR. MAHONEY: THE WITNESS: Starting there. Oh. "He" must have been me. In

(By Mr. Radshaw) That's what I'm asking you.

the context of the sentence "he" is the plaintiff, Daniel Malchman? A. Q. Police? A. That's correct. That is correct. The "they" in the sentence is the Norwich

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 27 of 60

43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And it's your testimony and your allegation that

the Norwich Police refused to compare the April 12th, 1999 letter to the handwriting of Bogdanski; is that correct? A. Q. At one point, yes. And do you know if they were empowered to

compare it to Bogdanski's handwriting? A. Q. A. Q. Empowered? Were they able to do so? I don't know if it was done later. Do you know whether or not Mr. Bogdanski refused

to provide any additional handwriting exemplars? A. Q. He did. And isn't it true that he refused to provide a

handwriting exemplar in connection with the April 12th letter? A. Q. I do think so. Do you have any special training or expertise

concerning handwriting analysis? A. Q. No, I do not. So that would be a subject for an expert or

scientist in that field, and that's something that you have no knowledge or experience or training in that area; is that correct? A. Q. That's why I hire somebody. So you wouldn't know whether or not in order to

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 28 of 60

44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 compare someone's handwriting to determine whether they're not -- they're the author of a document, whether it is necessary for the person to whom you compare is required to write out that letter using the exact same words and the same paper? A. Q. Do you know whether or not that's the case?

I don't know what you mean. Do you remember when you gave a handwriting

sample to the Norwich Police department? A. Q. Yes. Okay. And isn't it true that when you gave the

handwriting sample to the Norwich Police Department, one element of the handwriting sample was for you to write out the exact threatening mail that you received? A. Q. A. Q. That is correct. It seemed kind of strange, didn't it? No. I mean, it wasn't -- it was strange to you to

have to write out these threatening words, wasn't it? A. Q. No. But you, in fact, in order to complete the

analysis, had to write out the threatening letter; isn't that right? A. Q. Yes. So if a new piece of threatening mail came, you

would also have to write out that threatening mail,

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 29 of 60

45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wouldn't you? A. Q. Yes. Okay. So for each new piece of threatening

mail, all the persons' handwriting to whom that new piece of mail would be compared to would have to submit a new piece of mail, a new exemplar; isn't that true? A. Q. That's correct. So Mr. Bogdanski refused to cooperate, and he

did not submit an exemplar of the April 12th, 1999 letter, did he? A. Q. That's what you're saying. So how could the Norwich Police compare it to

Mr. Bogdanski's handwriting if he refused to provide an exemplar? A. Q. They couldn't. So, again, you concede that with regard to the

April 12th letter, the Norwich Police did some investigation. They did talk to you. They did check this

particular item for fingerprints, but they didn't do enough; isn't that right? A. They did not -- again, when I say "again,"

Mr. Hoover is there, would you please ask him -- nothing was done. Q. Okay. But there's nothing in your complaint

that mentions Mr. Hoover, does it?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 30 of 60

50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Yes. It was done by Judge Handy from the bench,

yup, and a letter to him. Q. Do you know if there was ever a written order

that was reduced to paper as a result of Judge Handy's oral order from the bench? A. Yes. There was a letter from the state's

attorney's office to Mr. John Bogdanski, uh-hmm, and you have it in your hand. MR. RADSHAW: Exhibit 4. (Defendant's Exhibit 4, May 13th, 1999 Document, Marked for Identification) (By Mr. Radshaw) Showing you a document that's Can we mark this as Defendant's

been marked Defendant's Exhibit 4, it's the State of Connecticut Department of Criminal Justice addressed to John Bogdanski, and it is signed by what appears to be Tamberlyn -- T-A-M-B-E-R-L-Y-N, Conopask. that letter before? A. Q. Yes, I have. And you believe that's the evidence of the Have you seen

existence of the order; is that right? A. This is not the first order. There was one

before this from the bench orally, also directed by Judge Handy directly to Mr. Bogdanski. Q. Tell me what the date of that letter is? It's

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 31 of 60

51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 13th, isn't that right, 1999? A. Q. Yes. And it's your testimony that the no-contact

order was entered on May 4th, 1999; is that right? A. It could have been before that also. We had to

have it brought up twice. Q. A. occasions. Q. A. Q. that true. A. Q. Yes. I just want to be sure the record is clear. The When was it violated? It was violated at the Pagoda Restaurant. When was that? It was on July 26th, 2000; isn't Okay. It was violated, and there could have been two

first time the no-contact order was entered was on May 4th, 1999; isn't that right? A. It could have been that or one before. I think

there were two, to the best of my ability. Q. violated? A. Q. A. Q. Twice. Was it violated before May 4th, 1999? I don't remember. Do you have any evidence that it was violated How many times was the no-contact order

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 32 of 60

52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before May 4th, 1999? A. Q. No. Okay. Now, getting back to this order, I'm

looking here at this letter, Defendant's Exhibit 4, Mr. Malchman, this isn't signed by Judge Handy, is it? A. No, but there was an order from the bench

directed to the state's attorney's office. Q. I will give you an opportunity, and your lawyer

can have an opportunity to ask you questions later. A. Q. Okay. I just ask that you answer my question because

this will be put down, and you will see how the transcript works. A. Q. A. Q. Okay. This letter isn't signed by Judge Handy, is it? It is not. And it doesn't indicate that it's copied to the

Norwich Police Department, does it? A. Q. does it? A. Q. What does that mean? You know when you write a letter you put cc, and It does not. And it doesn't list an enclosure or enclosures,

sometimes you put E-N-C or enclosure to reflect whether the letter includes an enclosure?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 33 of 60

53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. I did not see this letter until after. But my point is that this particular letter

doesn't list an enclosure; isn't that right? A. Q. Correct. And the first paragraph merely summarizes the

sum and substance of Judge Handy's order of no contact on -- from May 4th; isn't that right? A. Q. That's correct. There is not a separate piece of paper that says

order and a writing out which is signed by Judge Handy directing John Bogdanski to have no contact with you, is there? A. Q. A. Q. No. And there -Excuse me. I'm asking you today, there is no document

existing today, a separate document signed by Judge Handy, that sets forth the terms of the no-contact order, is there? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes, there is. Okay. And where is that document?

In the court records. Do you have a copy of that? No, I do not. So you believe that that document exists in the

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 34 of 60

54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. court record? A. Q. order? A. No. MR. MAHONEY: THE WITNESS: Do you need to take a break? No. I absolutely do. Have you ever had a copy of that no-contact

(By Mr. Radshaw) Let's turn to paragraph -- let You have no evidence that a copy of the

me back up.

no-contact order which you believe to be in writing in the court's criminal file was ever provided to any member of the Norwich Police Department, do you? A. Q. No. Turning to paragraph 12, you allege that

Bogdanski -MR. MAHONEY: break. Q. (By Mr. Radshaw) Bogdanski violated the If we need to talk, we can take a

no-contact order at the Pagoda Restaurant; isn't that correct? A. Q. A. Q. A. Absolutely. And you furnished an independent witness? Absolutely. And who was that witness? Mr. Darryl Burchman.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 35 of 60

55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And you furnished a copy of Attorney Conopask's

letter to the police; isn't that right? A. Q. A. Q. I did not. Okay. So when, if we're reading paragraph 12 --

They got it from the lawyer, my lawyer. Let's focus on my question. Why don't you have, Start in the

I think it's page -- it's paragraph 12. second sentence.

"The plaintiff filed a complaint with the

Norwich Police concerning the unlawful conduct, furnished an independent witness to the event, and furnished a copy of Attorney Conopask's letter to Mr. Bogdanski." Reading

that second sentence, I'm left with the impression you furnished a copy of Attorney Conopask's letter to Mr. Bogdanski to the Norwich Police; is that true? A. Q. That is correct. So a few minutes ago you, when you said you

never provided this letter to the Norwich Police, you would have been wrong? A. Q. A. Q. That is correct. That's fine. I just want to --

There's a little more to it. I understand. Now, did you, at that time, ever

provide a copy of the written no-contact order that you believed existed in the court's files to the Norwich Police Department concerning the July 24th, 2000 incident?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 36 of 60

56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A. Q. No. Okay. So, again, this is another example where Do you know if

while the Norwich Police -- let me back up.

the Norwich Police generated a report as a result of this incident? A. Q. A. Absolutely. And did they investigate this incident? Yes, they did.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.

And did they speak to you about it? Yes, they did. Did they speak to Mr. Burchman? Yes, they did. Did they take a statement from Mr. Burchman? Yes, they did. Did they investigate by speaking to other people

who were at the Pagoda Restaurant? A. Q. A. Yes, they did. Did they take written statements from them? The Chinese people who were there really

couldn't speak English that well and didn't understand. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Did you understand my question? Yes. So when I asked -No. Let me ask the question again. The officers

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 37 of 60

57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 took statements from people who were employed by the restaurant; isn't that true? A. Q. Correct. Okay. So they did, in fact, investigate this

issue, but they did not investigate it sufficiently or as much as you had wanted them to; is that correct? A. Q. A. Q. That is correct. Okay. That's understandable.

That's easy. And you believed that because the officers

didn't believe they could rely on Attorney Conopask's summary of Judge Handy's order that they falsely claimed there was no evidence that Judge Handy had issued such an order; is that correct? A. Q. They covered it up. I understand that, and your attorney can have

the opportunity to ask you questions about cover-ups and everything else. A. Q. Okay. So let me get back to my question, because you

make a serious allegation that the Norwich Police were doing false things. A. Q. things. Yes. And I want to uncover the evidence of those

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 38 of 60

61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. What went on in the courtroom with the Attorney

Hubert Santos, Judge Handy, and Mr. John Massameno. Q. Were any members of the Norwich Police

Department present? A. Q. No. And on what day did this colloquy go on between

Attorney Santos, Attorney Massameno, and Judge Handy? A. Q. violated? A. That is correct. MR. MAHONEY: THE WITNESS: me down. Q. (By Mr. Radshaw) Turning to paragraph 13, you Do you need to take a break? I'm fine. He's not going to wear I do not remember the date. And that was after the no-contact order was

allege that July 28th, 2000, you received a threatening phone call from Bogdanski; is that right? A. Q. A. Q. That's correct. Did you have caller ID? No, I didn't. So the fact that you believe it was Bogdanski is

solely based on your perception of his voice; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. And you don't have any documentary evidence that

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 39 of 60

62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would establish a telephone call was placed from the Bogdanski residence to your residence at that time, do you? A. Q. A. Q. It wasn't a residence. Where was it? It was my business. Well then, do you have any evidence, documentary

evidence, that a phone call was placed from Bogdanski at some location to you at your business? A. Yeah, my secretary was sitting there, and I was

-- I mean I was very upset. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. What is your secretary's name? At that time, I think it was Tracy Sylvester. Is Tracy still employed by you? No, she's not. Is she still alive? Yes, she is. Do you know where she lives? In Norwich. So who answered the phone? I picked up in the office. I pick up a lot.

And that's when you received the phone call from

the person whom you believe to be Mr. Bogdanski? A. Q. I thought to believe, yes. And when you say that your secretary has

evidence, she doesn't have any documentary evidence, right?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 40 of 60

63 1 2 3 4 5 6 A. Q. No. So she's just a witness to your exclamation that

it's Bogdanski; is that right? A. Q. That is correct. But if you were -- it's possible it could have

been somebody else?

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Q.

Absolutely. Okay. Now, I think I asked you this before, you

don't have any particular law enforcement training, do you? A. Q. A. Q. No. You have never been a police officer? No. Never taken any classes or education about law

enforcement? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. No. Crime? No. How about -- have you ever studied law? No. Never been to law school? No. Never passed the bar? No. So what evidence do you have that -- withdraw You called the police concerning the

that question.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 41 of 60

64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 threatening telephone call; isn't that right? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. steps? A. They said they called the telephone company, Yes. And they came out and investigated it? Yes. And a report was generated? Yes. Do you know if the Norwich Police took any other

they really couldn't prove it, and the officer said, look, I went out and Bogdanski supposedly saw me driving down the street and I said it wasn't at that time, and he said there was really too much conflict to the thing and that I really couldn't prove it and there's nothing -- could I prove it

15 16 17 18

was his voice, and I basically said no, so that was really -- he did a good job. Q. So let's go over that. So it's your testimony

that the police did contact you about the telephone call

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

trying to investigate this -A. Q. A. Q. Bogdanski? A. Absolutely. Absolutely. The mechanics of that? Absolutely. And the police officer went out to speak to

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 42 of 60

65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And the officer tried to put it together; isn't

that right? A. Q. Absolutely. And you testified the officer did a good job but

he just couldn't establish it was Bogdanski on the phone; isn't that right? A. Q. That's correct. All right. On August 25th you called the police

because someone left a large rubber penis in your driveway; is that right? A. Q. A. Q. I was in court with Judge Santinello in Groton. Judge Santinello is a great judge. It wasn't court, it was called a referee, okay. Let's back up. Who discovered the rubber penis

in the driveway? A. Q. My children. And do you have any idea when it was that it

deposited it there? A. Q. No. The reason why you have no idea is because you

were at this meeting at some other location with Justice Santinello? A. Q. A. That is correct. And who called the police? My wife.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 43 of 60

66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. respond? A. Q. right? A. Q. funny. A. Q. questions. A. Q. right? A. Q. Yes. They conducted an investigation by speaking to I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I have to ask a bunch of dumb They took the penis away. Do you know if they -- sorry. That sounds Yes, they did. And they conducted an investigation; isn't that Your wife called the police. Did the police

There's no nonfunny way to say it. He was mortified. It was awful strange.

The police came out on the call; isn't that

your wife; isn't that right? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. And children, yes. They collected the object that was left there? Yes, they did. And tagged it as evidence; isn't that right? Yes, they did. Do you know if they conducted any other

investigation or analysis of the object in order to determine who might have left it there?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 44 of 60

67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. They fingerprinted it. Are you aware if they were able to obtain any

readable or comparable fingerprints? A. Q. They were not. And isn't it true that neither your wife nor

your children saw the person or persons who deposited the object on your driveway? A. Q. That's correct. And you're not aware of any witness who saw the

object be deposited on your driveway? A. Q. That's correct. So now tell me, how do you know that Bogdanski

knew you were at this meeting with Justice Santinello? A. He had this relationship with an investigator by

the name of Schroeder who works under the chief state's attorney's office, under Mr. Massameno, and he would follow up on an ongoing basis when I was going to the hearings, when I was -Q. A. Q. So you believe Schroeder told Bogdanski? That I was going to a hearing, that is correct. What evidence do you have that Schroeder told

Bogdanski, or Bogdanski asked Schroeder and Schroeder told him? A. Just from all the things that happened on the

same time in the way --

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 45 of 60

68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Q. But it's just your belief that he told him;

isn't that right? A. Q. prove it? A. Q. A. Q. A. No, no. For example, you weren't present -No. -- with Bogdanski and Schroeder? No. MR. MAHONEY: Wait for him to finish. That's correct. All right. Because you have no evidence to

(By Mr. Radshaw) So when you say in the second

sentence of paragraph 14 that the Norwich Police failed to investigate the incident, that's really not true, is it? A. Q. A. Well, they didn't find anything. But they did investigate it, didn't they? They investigated it, but they didn't go around They didn't --

to the neighbors. Q.

So you believe, again, that they did some

investigation, but it wasn't a sufficient investigation? A. Q. That's correct. Okay. So if we were to compare what I just --

your testimony here that it wasn't a sufficient investigation, that's different than from failing to investigate it at all; isn't that true?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 46 of 60

69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Somewhat. Other than those incidents, the letters of '96,

the dog feces in '97, the threat mail in the fall of '98, the mail in 1999, the chase, the no-contact order, the phone call, and the rubber penis -A. Q. There were more. Okay. What other incidents, or are there other

incidents in which you believe the Norwich Police failed and refused to protect you from criminal conduct? A. Q. Yes. Okay. Let's start with the first one after the

August 25th, 2000 incident. A. There was an incident where -- I'm trying to There were two more incidents.

think which one came first. Q. A. Q. So --

I don't know the exact dates. Let me ask you a couple dates, so we talk about

the universe of what we're dealing with, and then we will talk about each one specifically. A. Q. Okay. So other than the ones that are listed in the

complaint, you believe there are two additional incidents; is that correct? A. Q. Yup. And you're not sure which one came before the

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 47 of 60

70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other; is that right? A. Q. That is correct. Okay. Well, let's start with in what year did

either -- did either or both occur? A. occurred. Q. A. Q. So that would have been in 2002 or 2003? Yes. And that would have been subsequent to the If I'm correct, I think last year one of them

filing of the complaint, isn't that correct, after? A. Q. Yes, after I filed the complaint. And when I say "the complaint," I mean the

lawsuit we are here about today. A. Q. Yes, it was after, correct. So tell me, in no particular order, which you

believe -- if you believe which one is first, or perhaps if you recall the season we could pin things down? A. My kids were going to school. We will go with

the first one I think, and Mr. Bogdanski lives across the street from my house, maybe from here to the white car, which is maybe 100 feet. Q. A. Okay. 150 feet. And when he leaves his house to go

down the road, you go down the road on the right-hand side. Well, he came across the road, directly across the road in

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 48 of 60

71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the front of my driveway on the opposite side of the road, and my two young children were there going on the school bus and he made the awfulest of faces. bathroom. My wife was in the

She watches the children go to school from the

window to catch the school bus because, you know, you watch your kids get on the bus. Bogdanski pulls by the house,

creeping by, making the most awfulest of facial expressions to my two children. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. police? A. Q. I think she did. Do you know if the police responded to your Okay. Were you present for this event?

No, my wife and children were. I understand that, but I just want to -No. -- make sure who was there, you weren't there? No, not to the best of my recollection. And did your wife call the police? I think she did. Are you sure? Do you know if she called the

wife's call? A. Q. issue? A. Yes, they did. I think they did. Okay. And they came out and investigated this

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 49 of 60

72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes, I think they did. Do you know what Bogdanski said? I have no idea. Do you expect that Bogdanski probably denied it? Absolutely. So it would be fair to say that the police did this? A. Q. I think you have it. And do you know if they spoke to Bogdanski or Q. Okay. And did they generate a report about

investigate this incident, didn't they? A. Q. Yes. But, again, it's another example of where they

just didn't do sufficient, enough investigation to suit what you believe to be the appropriate standard; is that right? A. I think because of the litigation that's going

on now and Bogdanski being a protected witness in this case, the state's protected witness, that I think they're giving him special preference, yes. Q. But it's just another example of what you

believe the Norwich Police is not doing enough of a job to meet your standard of what police should do? A. Yes, absolutely.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 50 of 60

73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Essentially, you're suggesting that the police

are just -- they're just doing a shoddy job? A. I believe their hands are tied and they're not

able to follow through and do their job properly, that's correct. Q. They're kind of doing, you know, 50% of what

they should, not 100% or 110%; is that right? MR. MAHONEY: Objection to the form. You can

answer if you understand. THE WITNESS: doing 75%. Q. (By Mr. Radshaw) So it's not quite, you know, I understand. I think they're

10% of the job they're doing halfheartedly; is that right? A. Q. But their hands are tied, uh-hmm. Do you know if any citations were issued as a

result of that? A. Q. A. No. And what about the second incident? The second incident was my neighbor across the He asked

street, his name is Frankie Bokoff, B-O-K-O-F-F.

me to help pull a couple hundred yews out of his yard, so I got a friend of mine by the name of Kenneth Wiese to come down and to contract as a favor for Frankie, and I was talking with Mr. Wiese. I was standing in my yard, on the

corner of my yard, Kenny was at his bulldozer, which is

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 51 of 60

79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So I guess my question is: Do you know if, at

the time that Mr. Novak told you this stuff about Bogdanski, whether he had a continuing relationship with Bogdanski, or was Novak's relationship with Bogdanski at some point in the past? A. Q. I can't answer that. Okay. All right. So other than the incidents

left in the complaint, the two we just talked about, and then this thing with Novak, do you have any other evidence that establishes your claim that the Norwich Police Department has failed to protect you from the criminal conduct of John Bogdanski? A. Q. No. Okay. Tell me a little bit about your

educational background. A. I'm a dyslexic person. I'm a nonreader. I

really didn't kind of get through high school.

I had

something called viral pericarditis, and I stayed home, and the state was very fortunate to provide teachers to come to my house to teach me. Q. A. Q. A. Was that in Worcester? No Norwich. But you said earlier you were born in Worcester? I was born in Worcester, lived in the Cape, and

moved to Danielson, Connecticut, in 1960, moved to Norwich

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 52 of 60

80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. in 1965. Q. A. Q. Okay. And have been in Norwich since. And tell me a little bit about your employment

history, starting, you know, after high school. A. I got a job. Before I ended high school I got a

job working for a paper company, and in 1968 I was making about $800 -- I was making $40,000 a year in the '60s and doing pretty good. Q. A. Right. I was booking bands, musical orchestras, Sly and I'm involved in

the Family Stone, the Iron Butterfly. publishing. Q. A.

And real estate you were telling me? Yeah, real estate, big, yup. I can't read too

good, but other than that, I can do certain things, that's why I have a lawyer for a partner. Q. A. too well. Who is your partner? Attorney Stuart Greenfield, because I can't read You need a guy to dot your Is and cross your Ts. MR. RADSHAW: Off the record for a moment.

(Off record discussion) MR. RADSHAW: Back on the record.

(By Mr. Radshaw) I will show you a document

premarked Defendant's Exhibit 3, and I'd like you to take

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 53 of 60

81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two minutes and take a look at that, and then I will ask you some questions about it. before? A. Q. Yup. And you understand that document is your Have you seen that document

responses to my interrogatories and request for production; isn't that right? A. Q. Yes. And I want to turn your attention to the

second-to-last page. A. Q. This one right here? Right. And you see that the caption is "oath of

respondent"? A. Q. Yup. And there are typewritten words, Daniel G.

Malchman; is that right? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yup. And above that is a signature? Yes. Is that your signature? It is. And you signed this oath as all the responses

being true and accurate to the best to your knowledge and belief? A. It is.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 54 of 60

89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 investigated, and police officers came to the scene, turned in reports, and failed to investigate the case." start with the last part first. Let's

When you say "failed to

investigate the case," as we have discussed, that sentence should probably say failed to investigate the case to my satisfaction, and when I say "my," I mean to Mr. Malchman's satisfaction? A. Q. No. Do you recall us talking here today about the

complaints you have alleged in your complaint? A. Q. Correct. And in each one you told me that, well, the

police did some investigation, they just didn't do enough investigation; is that right? A. Q. That's correct. So when I read the last part of this sentence,

that the police failed to investigate the case, that's not really correct, like the sentence before? A. Q. A. Q. Correct. I'm not a good writer.

I understand. Words. But it would be more accurate to say the Norwich

Police, in your opinion, failed to investigate as much as you wanted them to? A. As much as they should have.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 55 of 60

90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. But that's based upon your opinion of

what the police should or should not do; is that right? A. Q. That's correct. Okay. Now, the first part of that sentence,

there were many other complaints where cases that were not investigated -A. Q. Uh-hmm. -- we have talked about the case -- the things

that were listed in your complaint? A. Q. Uh-hmm. The two additional complaints concerning your

children, the two face making incidents? A. Q. Uh-hmm. And this recent threat that you have told me

that happened two weeks ago? A. Q. A. Q. Uh-hmm. That you were not going to report? Uh-hmm. Are there any other complaints or cases were not

investigated as set forth in this answer? A. Q. A. Yes. Please tell me what that is. I don't remember the year. It could have been

2000, 2001.

Carl Hoover came over to my house because Carl

was an alcoholic, and he always wanted, you know, a little

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 56 of 60

91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not? bit of wine or something, and I always really kind of liked him. I gave him my old shirts and kind of helped him. To

see him, he was a tattered soul. you got to be careful.

So he said to me, Danny, They call

I said why, Too Tall?

him Too Tall, he's seven foot tall, like Lurch. And he says, "John's going to take your neck and he's going to snap it and kill you." are you telling me the truth?" So I said, "Too Tall,

And he said, "Danny, I'm

telling you the truth, on my heart." Q. basement? A. No, not in the basement, in the house, but the And this is when Mr. Hoover was living in the

basement of Mr. Boganski's house. Q. A. Q. A. Q. police? A. Q. belief? A. Q. Yes. And do you know if they talked to Mr. Hoover or I saw the police officer there. And they came out and investigated it, to your Did you call the police? Yes, I did. And do you know when you called the police? No, I do not remember. Do you have any evidence that you called the

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 57 of 60

100 1 2 A. There was a trailer that was parked in a parking

lot directly across from my property that I own, not on my

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

property, that I let Charles LaValle borrow. some planks of wood in that trailer. impounded. Q. A. Q. By whom? By the State of Connecticut.

He stored

That trailer was

It wasn't impounded by the Norwich Police

Department? A. thing. They came along. They were a party to the Both Aldi and

He walked in with Schroeder to me.

Schroeder came together. Q. So because the Norwich Police accompanied the

State Department of Environmental Protection to the seizure of this trailer, just by their presence you believe they're involved? A. Well, he incited Tamberlyn Conopask by a comment

I made, guys talking, you know, she's over there laughing, ha, ha, ha, I got him. Q. A. was. Q. A. But did the Norwich Police arrest him. No. I turned myself in. Ryan turned himself in Did the Norwich Police arrest Mr. LaValle? LaValle, yeah. He was charged the same as I

to Norwich.

Charlie was picked up by Schroeder.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 58 of 60

101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Who charged -- what agency brought the charges

against Mr. LaValle? A. Q. A. Q. State of Connecticut. It wasn't the City of Norwich, was it? No. It was done at Norwich Police Department.

So because Mr. LaValle surrendered himself to

Norwich PD -A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. He didn't surrender himself. Who put the cuffs on him? Mr. Schroeder. It wasn't a Norwich police officer, was it? No. But just because you believe they were there you He was arrested.

think it makes the City of Norwich involved? A. Q. A. Q. A. What do you mean there? Present at the time Mr. LaValle was arrested? I wasn't there. So you don't know what happened at that time? I was told in the cell by LaValle that Schroeder

came to his house. Q. A. Q. So you have -And he threw him in the car. So you weren't present for the arrest of

LaValle, you weren't present for the seizure of the trailer at his place?

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 59 of 60

113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 My Commission expires: May 25, 2008 (In MA) My Commission expires: April 30, 2006 (In CT) _____________________________________ Heather A. Pellerin, RPR, CRR, Notary CERTIFICATE I, Heather A. Pellerin, License #00144, Notary Public for the State of Connecticut and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the deposition of DANIEL G. MALCHMAN, was taken before me pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at the LAW OFFICES OF HOWD & LUDORF, Attorneys for the Defendant, 65 Wethersfield Avenue, Hartford, CT 06114-1190, (860) 249-1361,

commencing at 10:00 a.m. on FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 2004. I further certify that the witness was first sworn by me to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and was examined by counsel, and his testimony was stenographically reported by me and subsequently transcribed as herein before appears. I further certify that I am not related to the parties hereto or their counsel, and that I am not in any way interested in the events of said cause. Witness my hand this 20th day of April, 2004.

Case 3:01-cv-01877-MRK

Document 51-3

Filed 09/23/2004

Page 60 of 60

114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 _____________________________ DANIEL G. MALCHMAN I, DANIEL G. MALCHMAN, have read the foregoing transcript of the testimony given at the deposition on FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 2004, and it is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and/or with the changes as noted in the attached errata sheet. CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT

11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 19 20 21 22 NO:

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____________ day of _______________, 2004.

___________________________________ Notary Public/Commissioner of Deeds

My Commission Expires:

CV.

3:01CV01877 (MRK)

DANIEL G. MALCHMAN vs. CITY OF NORWICH DANIEL G. MALCHMAN, (a.m.) APRIL 9, 2004 HAP