Henry v MOA - Fanning, Plummer, Carson

Things started late.  Retired APD Deputy Chief Myron Fanning was the first witness.  The second witness was via video deposition - Retired (I think) Deputy Chief Plummer.  Both witnesses knew Henry a long time and both told a story of him as a good cop until the Whetsell situation came up. (Whetsell was a canine officer who got diagnosed with MS and Henry was protective of him.)

Fanning seemed to be more of a rival. (Ray Brown suggested that.)  He'd called Henry The Golden Boy who was in tight with the chiefs and could by pass the chain of command, but he always was able to make thing work.  Fanning also was the one who'd said, Henry "had destroyed more careers than anyone else in APD." When plaintiff attorney Ray Brown attributed this to Fanning and added, he was the golden boy until 2012, Fanning replied,

F:  He always had conflicts with people.  He affected a lot of careers.  

Fanning said he grew up in Alabama and graduated from the University of Alabama with a degree in criminal justice and a minor in military science.  And his concern with following rules, appropriate discipline, and chain of command seemed consistent with that.

We saw Plummer via very edited video of his deposition.  (Nothing nefarious about the editing, it seemed more a time issue, but it jumped a bit now and then.)  He billed himself as a good friend of Henry's for 27 years and called Henry his best friend.  But with the Whetsell issues, his behavior began to change.  Plummer sounded genuine to me and that he was pained to be giving testimony that might hurt his friend.
[As always, WARNING:  these are my rough running notes. I miss a lot of words or change to shorter ones so I can keep up.  I think the gist is preserved.  Some words below added in to make more sense.]

Halloran:  Was there a time frame when conduct seemed to change and began to go out of control?
Plummer:  Yes sir
H:  When?
P:  Really became hard to deal personally with Henry in time frame Whetsell being transferred out [of SAU] to canine.
H:  Time when you and others met with Dr S about his conduct?
P:  yes.
H:  Reason?
P:  Commanders, captains had experience, inappropriate behavior from Henry, discussions, similar about his emotions, not being himself.  Discussion about what we should be doing.  Concerned something would happen.  Capt ?? Had relation with Dr. Spurlock, so talk to him
H:  psychologist?
P: I think Lt ??? Invited Spurlock to talk to captains.
H:  Outcome?
P:  He listened to us, then pulled out for another meeting, never heard anything else.
H:  Tony trying to protect Whetsell as one of his….  
P:  I think he was upset, he felt the officer not being treated appropriately.
H:  Aware of Henry trying to protect others?
P:  yes.
H:  Appropriate?
P:  Couple of occasions inappropriate .
H:  Example?
P:  Swing shift pursuit,  on the street, asked H to investigate, he did, We agreed there was a violation.  He wanted to handle it as a training issue.  I didn’t agree.  He didn’t want to give the punishment.  There will be a letter.  He decided to take the letter himself and not give to the SGT.  [My understanding, Henry took the discipline for his officer, but I could be wrong] Violations officers would make, not major, not enough to fire someone violation.  In house solution rather than write up and document.
H:  You said occasions when H handling discipline in own unit instead of using dept policies and resources.?  
P:  Commander or SGT have certain amount of discretion on how to handle complaint and discipline.  But Henry made decision, somewhat in his discretion, but no documentation to show what if any action happened.  Made it so later on, if any action to take, no documentation.  

He also talked about Henry being more emotional, swearing more often, outbursts.  Said that he didn't swear and Henry tried to not swear when they talked, but in this period, Henry lost control much more often.  It was ok in their personal relationship, but inappropriate in their professional relationship.  

I typed appropriate and inappropriate a lot this morning.  Two words used often, especially by Plummer.

The picture that came out was of a technically good officer who solved problems and was fiercely loyal to his team, wanting to solve problems in-house.  This is consistent with my impression earlier in the trial.  I thought of him, possibly, of the excellent employee who contributes a lot more than most to the organization, but who also thinks he should be treated differently due to his value to the organization.  Sort of like the banks that were seen as 'too big to fail.'  But I'm also careful to categorize people because that makes it easier to stop evaluating new information, and because we tend to categorize people into available existing categories, so we may stick them where they don't really belong.  But it's a natural human activity.  It's like when FBI special agent Annie Kirkland talked about how she thought of Blaylock as a disgruntled employee.  Sometimes you're right sometimes not, but we do it without thinking.  

Carson was next - and will continue after lunch, and time's getting short, so I'll talk about him later.  Maybe.  Basically we've heard so much about Carson it's hard to see him without all that influencing my interpretation.  

Basically, two different Deputy Chiefs, one a friend, one not, both describing a man whose behavior got increasingly volatile as the Jason Whetsell health issues emerged as an issue.  

Carson finishes later and if there's time we may see Kenneth Blaylock this afternoon