Hey, there! Log in / Register

Redacted file on 1995 child-rape allegation against Patrick Rose released; Janey blasts him and BPD

The city law department today released a copy of the file about a 1995 child sexual-assault charge against Patrolman Patrick Rose, who later became head of the police union before retiring and being charged in court last year on charges of raping several children - allegedly including the daughter of one of his initial victims.

A memo attached by the law department says the file was redacted to ensure no information about potential victims was released; this included all details of the alleged crime. The file doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know thanks to the Globe's recent reporting.

The file says that the department's internal-affairs division "sustained" the 1995 allegations - which were initially filed in West Roxbury, the same as last year's charges - and that the department took Rose's gun away and assigned him to desk duty, but never tried to fire him.

In 1997, the file continues, the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association threatened to file a grievance, in response to which the department reassigned Rose to active patrol duty. The Globe reports a court case fell apart after the victim declined to go forward.

In a statement, acting Mayor Kim Janey, who ordered the file released, said:

Based on a review of former officer Rose’s internal affairs file conducted by the City’s Law Department, it is clear that previous leaders of the police department neglected their duty to protect and serve. Despite an internal affairs investigation in 1996 that found credible evidence to sustain the allegation against Rose for sexually assaulting a minor, it appears that the police department made no attempt to fire him.

It is deeply unsettling and entirely unacceptable that Rose remained on the force for two decades and eventually became the president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association. What’s more, Rose was allowed to have contact with young victims of sexual assault during the course of his career, and we now know that he allegedly went on to assault several other children.

His alleged behavior is disgusting, and the apparent lack of leadership shown by the department at the time is extremely troubling. This culture of secrecy cannot be tolerated. When members of law enforcement violate their sacred duty to protect and serve the community, we have no choice but to expose their misconduct and attempt to rebuild trust.

Innocent, etc.

PDF icon Redacted Rose file767.35 KB



Unless Essabi-George wins, we're not going to have the kind of mayor next year who happily covers for cops like Walsh, Menino, Flynn, White, etc... did through the decades. It will be an improvement .


Let’s see Janey blast Ed Davis, Paul Evans , Billy Evans,Dennis White and Secretary Marty Walsh.

They all knew.


While a lot of BPD live outside the city, cops are still a good block of votes she doesn't want to toss out. That's why I framed this more as a question of what the relationship between City Hall and BPD will be when the next full term mayor is voted in.

Nice smear job, but there’s no evidence behind it. Does Janey have any idea why BPD didn’t terminate him? What evidence did they have other than a recanted witness statement? She offers no specifics and basically rips unnamed BPD leadership. Who is she criticizing? What are the details? Why hasn’t BPD made a statement to explain why it didn’t terminate Rose?

The public has almost no more information post release than it did before. That’s on Janey! She’s in charge now and can order explanations to be made and documents be released. What is she doing?


What is the standard of evidence to fire a police officer? It would be lower than convicting someone. It also could be worth the financial hit possibly. This is a bad choice made in the 90's, trying to what about Janey seems false and desparate.


She's getting the bulk of donations from cops. Stands to reason that they believe she is the most cop friendly candidate in the race, that's all.

Just checked on this and EG has gotten @ $90k from contributors who state 'police' as their occupation vs. $8.5k for Janey, $4k for Campbell, $1300 for Wu (lol) and $2.3K for Barros

So yeah, she's certainly viewed by cops as being their best bet.


That's enough reason to vote for Wu, right there.


Seriously.. Um hello. The mouse is in charge of the mouse trap. You bet they won't set it and just eat the cheese.

My point is.. they were looking out for a brother. They knew it was wrong. And covered it up. Thats why BPD didn't fire him. Its all one big cover up so he could molest kids repeatedly

Also its pretty damn hard for the charges to stick (which is what you need to be fired), when the victim mysteriously recants.

Don't fuckin tell me the victim had a change of heart.. No, they were leaned on by the BPD to drop it. It don't take much effort... just have a few cops tail you around town and issue you tickets. After the 3rd or 4th one, you'll clue in to why you've gotten so many.

They made it go away, fast. To protect him.


"that doesn't happen"

This happened to me.

When I was a teenager working overnight at Dunkin Donuts. A local town cop came in, obviously high on cocaine (he was talking fast and sniffin). He was rude to the other customers and to me. SO I called his commander.

For the next 3 months I got stopped so many times & got so many tickets for the tiniest infraction. I got sick of it and sold my car. I moved a few months later to Atlanta.

About a year later, come to find out that same cop was taking evidence out of the evidence room and putting it up his nose. He's in jail (and has since been released).

Funny how that worked out.


There’s a collective bargaining agreement between the city and the union. There are civil service laws. Employees are entitled to due process. The employer has the burden of proof.

There’s no evidence that the BPD pressured a 12 year old to recant. The child was pressured by his abuser. It’s a horrible and too common practice. Rose should not have been allowed to contact the victim. That’s a huge failure by the DA, the Court, and BPD. If that hadn’t happened, it’s likely Rose’s termination would have been upheld.

You are really showing your ignorance of the process here. Didn’t you want to be an elected official? Did you attempt to learn how things work?

You think John Collins did a good job with law enforcement.

Just as Joan Collins did a good job with plastic surgery.

And this would be problematic how exactly?

Because the next step is a lawsuit. If BPD couldn't prove they had cause to put him on desk duty or terminate him, they'd ultimately lose a court case and be forced to reinstate him, with back pay and likely punitive damages.

When you pay your union dues, the union has a duty to represent you in disciplinary matters with your employer, even if you're a piece of $#!+ like this guy. The victim recanted so BPD had no evidence.


Do you think the police union would defend a probable child molester in open court? If BPD threatened to actually take it that far my guess is they would've folded.

I don't know the answer to this question, honestly, but I suspect not.

Not a fan of police unions but generally I think the overall concept of a union is that it will fight for you against any termination by the employers. So if Rose wasn't charged (meaning the union could wash their hands of him), then their hands were tied in terms of choosing to just not defend his rights. Any labor lawyers on here who can confirm?

This again is why I'm still surprised this wasn't handled by city hall / BPD by leaking copious info about this guy so at the least, he wouldn't become union head.


Of course legally they would've had to defend him, but my uninformed guess is, they would've "encouraged" him to resign.


A lawyer experienced in labor law would. And the City probably couldn't even say he was a "probable child molester" because there was no witness. A BPD personnel report doesn't carry any weight legally if there isn't any actual evidence to back it up.

an internal affairs investigation in 1996 found credible evidence to sustain the allegation against Rose for sexually assaulting a minor

Thank you Mayor Janey for your decisive action. Next release the files on the Boom Boom Room and the investigation of the internal affairs sergeant who was arrested in New Hampshire.


Acting Mayor, who's skipping out on debates and pounding on issues to instead pound the table in front of cameras.

The only decisive action so far has come from the Globe.


Doing the job is the best campaign. The verdict is important, they could have delayed it.

She really has an advantage and she needs to use it.


So what happened between 1995 when they sustained the allegations, and 1997 when they dropped everything? That seems to be the missing part here, and these documents do nothing to explain that.


If it's not in the one I linked to, my apologies, but in one of their recent stories, they said the DA couldn't go forward after the victim decided to stop cooperating (which the Globe said is not uncommon with such cases).


But what happened in between the DA dropping the case and the decision to remove him from admin duty? People seem to be drawing the conclusion Evans got the letter from the Union lawyers and then it was done. But what were the realities of trying to sustain the charge? What was going on before that meeting?

I find these documents are rather lacking. Yes, I agree Evans should have done anything and everything to prevent this guy from coming back. If it meant firing him even knowing he would get a job back on appeal, at least it would be on open record that you did it.

But in the end, I feel like the documents don’t completely answer everything.


Let’s all just remember this was pre Catholic Church scandal. We are viewing the administrative process back then like it’s 2021 or even 2002. The charges are nightmare fuel disgusting and there is no sane person who would support this type of monster but pre church scandal all this stuff was being swept under the rug. Doesn’t make it right obviously but that’s just the way it was. Hindsight is always 20/20. For a the crap we can give the Globe, that story and subsequent fallout was the catalyst this type of abhorrent behavior needed to be put on the forefront and stay at the forefront.

How exactly did it take so many days for them to redact these 14 pages?

The redaction procedure is not just some intern with a marker crossing off names. You need to follow a line between putting out useful info and not putting out info that could pinpoint a victim who did not want to be named.

If you say "The wife of the officer" clearly that would be a marker of the victim. How about cousin of? Maybe they are a football coach and one of the players was a neighbor. How many players could be his neighbor , would saying either of those things pinpoint that person?

I know this stuff seems straight forward but it is not. If you redact too much the document is useless. If you don't redact enough it is harmful to innocent people.

But my point here is that i find it impossible to believe that this whole matter can be summarized in only 13 pages. There had to be a lot more than that, and according to Paul Evans there were more documents that were left out.

Apparently our transparency process might not have been an honest endeavor

How exactly did it take so many days for them to redact these 14 pages?

IHNC but I'll venture a guess that that's how long it took to have conversations with the people who'd seen the unredacted document and get all the stories straight.

As in all cases, the future mayor's actions will speak louder than campaign rhetoric.