Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Mint Hill's Chief Ledford Talks to the Big "O"

This morning the Rodney Monroe saga goes down a dead end as the Observer makes an effort to get up to speed on the Marcus Jackson cover up. Gary Wright pens a story titled: "Police at odds over Jackson incident: with a sub that reads "Mint Hill, CMPD clash over fired officer's episode with ex-wife", and it all seems a little over the top.

Reading the body of the story things are hardly as sensational, but it does shed a little light on the Monroe spin machine.

From the Observer:

Mint Hill police are taking issue with a suggestion by Charlotte-Mecklenburg police that they made a mistake in how they handled an incident involving former CMPD officer Marcus Jackson.

In September, Mint Hill police were called to the apartment of Jackson's estranged wife after Jackson allegedly pushed his way into her home to retrieve some belongings.

Jackson, 26, is the CMPD officer who has since been accused of sexually assaulting six women while on patrol.

Mint Hill Police Chief Tim Ledford told the Observer Monday he disagrees with the way CMPD has described his department's actions in the September dispute between the Jacksons.

The rest of the Charlotte Observer's story is here.

What is missing, is how was the Jackson vs Jackson episode relayed to CMPD? The answer to that question would have justified Wright's salary for the week.

He would be better served taking a drive up to Vinnie's at Mountain Island Lake where he could find a key player in the Monroe regime hiding his shame in a bucket of rocks.


Anonymous said...

Cedar, you are right...the real question would be exactly what kind of contact did MHPD have with CMPD?

THAT would have been the story.

It's quite obvious there was contact between the two over how it was going to be handled....who knew what and when.

You will notice that MHPD did NOT mention when or how or who talked between the two departments.

And the spotlight needs to be squarely on Rodney Monroe in this and how he has pulled so many others into his web of deceit.

The people I talk to are just so sick and tired of rodney getting away with all he has, and the latest example of him LYING to everyone, and still no action taken
taken by anyone to pin him down on this crucial matter....

And our USELESS City Council, I mean, could they be ANY MORE useless??

Seems they are circling the wagons and it's Cover Your Ass time for all...pitiful...the lack of honest, ethical leadership in Charlotte and at CMPD.

JAT said...

If I'm Wright's editor, I am throughly underwhelmed by the story, advancing not one iota on what WBTV got a couple nights before.

Then again, maybe TCO does NOT want to advance the story or clarify the time line in this matter.

Anonymous said...

Would that be ray/ray you are referring to at Vinnie's?

I have heard he has been missing in action for a few weeks now....

Listen, you know it's bad when even ray/ray doesn't agree with the tactics of rodney!!!!

Anonymous said...

Okay, it's called DOMESTIC CRIMINAL TRESSPASS....remember that...it has nothing to do with a B & E per se...they had been living apart for two weeks, and he had been told not to enter the residence.

Mint Hill Police SHOULD have taken a report.(And should not have been allowing a dispatcher to dispense "legal" advice on a 911 call).

Even IF Jackson's wife did not want to make a complaint.

What if Jackson had come back later and really harmed his wife, and a report had not been taken for the earlier incident?

The fact that Jackson said he would fix the door that he had broken was in fact an admission that he HAD BROKEN THE DOOR.

What clearly happened was, Jackson told MHPD he was an officer with CMPD. "Professional courtesty" ensued. And thus the net of rodney was cast even farther to ensnare even more people.

BOTTOM LINE: A report should have been taken by Mint Hill Police Department.

Anonymous said...

A crime has to have three elements, offender, victim and place. There was not a victim in Mint Hills incident. Say you and your wife get in a argument and you leave for a couple hours or days to cool off. Does that mean you can never return to your residence? The are married and have common law ownership of the lease and both are named on the lease. There is no time table in law that states a certain amount of time that you are away from home that establishes that you no longer live there. Technically by law if a renter leaves the home he can come back anytime because eviction was not served. I know it sounds crazy but that is how it is written in law. It's called unlawful eviction and you can thank the old landlords from years ago throwing people out in the same day for this law.

Anonymous said...

Domestic Criminal Trespass can be enforced with a 50 B order which there was not one in place in this case. Same thing if your roommate or wife tells you to leave and not come back. If they become tired of you and want you gone are you going to leave or are you going to say that this is my house too.

Anonymous said...

My whole point was:


No report was taken for anything.

I am not talking about "enforcing" any kind of law, or arresting anyone.

But MINT HILL PD had an obligation and a JOB to do in TAKING A FREAKING REPORT!!

If Jackson had come back later and hurt his wife, the LACK OF MHPD having a report taken would be a HUGE issue.

But it should be a HUGE issue anyhow.

Anonymous said...

To the report Nazi,

Please explain how a report would have made this all better? The call was obviously documented by responding officers as to the events of that night. If MHPD "covered" anything up do you honestly think a report would contain that info?

A report does not make anything better. If a crime is commited and a victim wants to press charges then a report is needed, otherwise it is all discretionary.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 2:47
Report Nazi, a good one!

Because that is what is supposed to be done.

You really don't think this "incident" should have been documented? As I said, if Jackson had come back later and done more, serious harm to his estranged wife, do you think the fact that a report wasn't taken would have been an issue?

Yes, because it shows the Officers were not taking this seriously, and that obviously they were influenced by the fact that Jackson told them he was a CMPD Officer.

"Discretionary?" Perhaps, but I think it showed bias and very poor judgment that a report wasn't taken.

This is how "crimes" are not counted....no report taken, well I guess it didn't happen, huh?

If this happened to someone I knew, and no report was taken, I would be finding out WHY.

Not a "report nazi", just someone in favor of correct, ethical procedures being followed.

They didn't take a report because they were trying not to get Jackson in trouble, i.e., save his ass and his job.

How has that worked out for them and CMPD?

Anonymous said...

Mint Hill Police did take a report of what had happened. They have it posted on the channel 9 news site and it's been up there for several days.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:19
Wasn't that generated after CMPD Internal Affairs got involved?

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:19
Got a link to that?

Anonymous said...


Here is the link to the police report that was written about the incident.

It was created at the time of the incident

Anonymous said...

I, too, thought they went back and created it after CMPD IA got involved.

Anonymous said...

the reports i believe are time stamped by a computer system it has a couple of times listed

The General said...

Did anyone ever answer the question? Was CMPD notified of the incident at the time MHPD responded to their call for service and discoverd Jackson was a CMPD officer. Its not that hard to figure out where the cover up started and who it started with. There is no professional courtesy to be given to any officer commiting an incident such as this.

Anonymous said...

I really dont want to piss anybody off, but the truth is he should have been charged with a misdemeanor.

§ 14‑134.3. Domestic criminal trespass.

(a) Any person who enters after being forbidden to do so or remains after being ordered to leave by the lawful occupant, upon the premises occupied by a present or former spouse or by a person with whom the person charged has lived as if married, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if the complainant and the person charged are living apart; provided, however, that no person shall be guilty if said person enters upon the premises pursuant to a judicial order or written separation agreement which gives the person the right to enter upon said premises for the purpose of visiting with minor children. Evidence that the parties are living apart shall include but is not necessarily limited to:

(1) A judicial order of separation;

(2) A court order directing the person charged to stay away from the premises occupied by the complainant;

(3) An agreement, whether verbal or written, between the complainant and the person charged that they shall live separate and apart, and such parties are in fact living separate and apart; or

(4) Separate places of residence for the complainant and the person charged.

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, upon conviction, said person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(b) A person convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a Class G felony if the person is trespassing upon property operated as a safe house or haven for victims of domestic violence and the person is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the offense. (1979, c. 561, s. 2; 1993, c. 539, s. 76; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1998‑212, s. 17.19(a).)

Anonymous said...

I have to add this since someone mentioned no victim. The 911 operator already informed her that he had a right to be there. In my opinion, she sounded frustrated and upset and possibly scared due to her realization that she had no control over him barging in whenever to do whatever. Also it seemed like the 911 caller made her feel sort of stupid for calling even though they agreed to send someone. by the time police came she was already clear that she had no rights and since she would have no reason to question the 911 operators knowledge she would not have thought they could charge him with anything, unless the officer specifically said we can charge him with a misdemeanor, do you wanna? then she would not have been aware of any rights in the first place. In my opinion, this is a big part of the problem...911 OPERATORS PRACTISING LAW.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:01

You are, IMO, 100% correct and hit the nail on the head.

And, General, of course there should be no "professional courtesy" in this, I think that was sarcasm.