December 18, 2009 8:18 am

Latest On Cummings Trial

In Stamford Superior Court action, the defense has made a motion to have state prosecutor Richard Colangelo removed from the case and the case transfered to another state’s attorney. The argument made was� that Colangelo could be called as a potential witness because the investigators he used allegedly had a bias against Cummings. The earlier motion to dismiss based on that alleged bias was dismissed.

The Crumb

Is this for real? So let me get this right: You are a tenured police officer who is gay. Ok, no problems there. Only thing is, the word “patrol” to you means that you are patrolling the internet looking for minors to take advantage of sexually. A problem. Our loser leaders/police union then allow you to retire and collect your pension while all the taxpayers foot the bill? A problem. And your crying because Rich Colangelo is going to burying your a__? Not a problem. Can someone help me see this differently.

Secondhand Rose

Seems to me I remember hearing that these “victims” were well above the age of fourteen – I hardly think they were “taken advantage of”. Unless you are a child, it’s pretty difficult to be “taken advantage of” without your own cooperation. Nowhere in this story does it ever say that Cummings “overpowered” them or forced them to perform at gunpoint.

Mikey

Rosie you just don’t get it do you…A fourteen year old is a child…Why do you keep insisting on defending individuals that abuse children…Maybe you need to check the law..You seem to think it’s the world according to secondhandrose..Well thank God it’s not…Try a FACT check for a change. Also just for you information you do NOT have to be “�overpowered� or forced them to perform at gunpoint to be RAPE. Rosie you really really need help with you mind set or should I say lack of mind set…

Secondhand Rose

Took you a whole month to respond to this comment,huh? Wow, you’re Speedy Gonzales. It’s too bad that in your rush to find something from me to jump on, you have absolutely nothing to say that is worth the time it takes to read it. Maybe next time you can figure out how to come up with a comment that actually adds something to the discussion, instead of this kind of inane nonsense. But hey, that’s Mikey – “Personal Attacks R US”

OLD TIMER

When you have little or no real defense, you clutch at straws, you attack the process, you claim your right to a fair trial is compromised because investigators for the State’s attorney, retired cops who knew you for years, said bad things about you, you claim the State’s attorney isn’t impartial. He doesn’t get paid to be impartial, he gets paid to be an advocate, just as the defense attorney gets paid to be an advocate for the accused. If any of that works, there is an outside chance the trial will be moved to someplace where you may have a little better chance of being found not guilty, or, you may find grounds for appeal if there is a conviction and some little mistake was made in handling all these motions. It is all part of what defense attorneys do. They are supposed to improve the defendant’s odds of avoiding prison, even if only slightly. The longer a trial is delayed, the more likely it is that already reluctant witnesses will become unavailable and there will be no trial, or gloves will shrink and will not fit and juries will be told they must acquit. (OJ)
The pension is considered deferred compensation for all the years he served as an officer and is guaranteed, along with the right to retire, if and when he meets the contract requirements. (Is he old enough ?) When he retired, he was legally an innocent man. If he had been convicted first, retiring with a pension could have gotten difficult. You can be sure the City didn’t give away anything they didn’t have to. Anybody know if he is now employed somewhere ?
Some of the financial wizards who get convicted of fraud spend years manuevering to stay out of prison while former employers pay the legal bills.

NorwalkSpectator

OldTimer –

His pension was approved shortly after his recent birthday, or so I am told.

OLD TIMER

Rose:
If there was evidence of force, or the threat of force, he would be facing different , more serious charges. The fact is, the law makes it a crime for an adult to have sex with somebody under the age of 16, and it doesn’t matter if the child is a willing participant.
If he is convicted and sent to prison, he will not be treated kindly by other prisoners once they discover he was a cop who had sex with kids.
Secondhand Rose is lost

So Secondhand Rose it seems by your post that you think the sexual abuse of children is OK as long as it is done by a police officer…Maybe you are not aware but the age on consent is not 14 it is 18.

Secondhand Rose

So all you armchair psychologists think you “know” what I was saying in my post, huh? What a bunch of typical undeducated knee-jerk responses from the bunch of you . (eye roll)
Secondhand Rose

Oh gee, did I actually say that? Word for word? Your post is a direct quote of mine?

Seems you need to go back and re-read what I wrote, as your reading comprehension is obviously lacking, particularly since I don’t see ANY of those words – “the sexual abuse of children is OK as long as it is done by a police officer” – in MY post.

Maybe there’s something wrong with your computer if those exact 17 words are appearing in my post on YOUR screen.

Lester

I’m not even sure Rose even deserves a response. I can’t think of any level on which one could defend this, but hey nothing surprises me in America anymore. I mean, this is perfectly acceptable behavior that happens all over our great country. Where grown men OR women have sex with minors. Teachers never get in trouble for this either. What the heck was I and the rest of us thinking? We weren’t, I guess. Sorry Rose and thanks for setting me str8 on this.
Secondhand Rose is lost

You know Lester you are so right Rose is not worty of a response.Her post is so horrible it really should be deleted.
John

Age of consent in CT is 16. He should have waited another year and he wouldn’t be in this mess.
Anon

John: Waited another year? How about being a police officer and simply having to know the laws to protect those that you serve and if you are so desirous of “younger males” pick one that is over the legal age! It’s quite obvious that pedophiles don’t think like this. That why they call them pedophiles.

Hey Rose: the poor guy doesn’t deserve any punishment either. He’s suffered enough having to be outed and losing his job, right?

Crumb: you are right on to question this.
OLD TIMER

It is remotely possible that Cummings thought these kids were old enough. It wouldn’t be the first time that mistake had been made. He was a ranking police officer who knew, better than most, the danger when a 40-something adult has sex with kids. There have probably been many other young men in his experience and he came to believe none would ever talk or call themselves victims. I don’t think the kids in this case ever went to the police, they talked to other people who went to the police. I understand the “victims” are still not eager to be identified and testify at a trial. The defense will say they each came to him, looking for homosexual sex. That is not a defense, but it tends to discourage testifying. Without their testimony, there is no case. The defense may figure time is on their side as the “victims” move out of state to college and become even more reluctant to testify.
I don’t think Rose is defending him, , she is just considering that his crimes are not the same as forcible rape of a small child, and she is correct, but the law doesn’t see a great deal of difference. The law looks to the age of the victims, and to the age of the accused, and if there was any force or coercion involved.
Secondhand Rose is lost

John age of consent in CT is not 16 it is 18. OLD TIMER how i read it is that Rose is defending him..Its right there in black and white..Also I don’t think it’s even remotely possible that Cummings thought these kids were old enough as he was picking them up at the high school. This scum is guilty and needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. When police violate the trust of the community especially “children” they need to be held to a higher standard than others.

Secondhand Rose

Hi Mikey, nice to see you again.

John

The law is pretty clear. The age of consent is 16. And it does t matter if the cop knew they were underage or not. It doesn’t even matter of the teens lied about their age. It is the responsibility of the adult to verify age.
Secondhand Rose is lost

The law is pretty clear but the age of consent is not 16 it is 18 in CT…It is most definitely not 14, as Secondhand Rose seems to think is acceptable as long as it was not a forcible rape…Boy oh Boy is that a sick mind set or what.

Secondhand Rose

No; the words were “being taken advantage of”. I hardly think that CONSENSUAL sex is “being taken advantage of”, ESPECIALLY when all parties involved are, each one of them, old enough to know exactly what they are doing with the other, and are going ahead and doing it anyway.

“Being taken advantage of” implies a state of one person overwhelming the other without the other’s knowledge. And since this is a case of CONSENSUAL sexual activity, “being taken advantage of” was hardly possible, and to assume so is ludicrous.

Secondhand Rose is lost

Wrong all the parties are “not old enough to know exactly what they are doing”, thats why we have a age of consent law that protects childern..As I said before I just hope and pray that you do not have any children because your a real nut.

Anna Duleep

There is no one “age of consent” in Connecticut that applies to all cases of consensual sex with an adult. Generally, consensual sex between an adult (18 yrs +) and a 15-year-old is not considered sexual assault in the fourth degree. (Sec. 53a-73a) However, there are circumstances under which consensual sex between a person over 18 and a person under 18, or even between two people over 18, meets the definition of sexual assault in the fourth degree. For example, a person over 18 cannot have consensual sex with a person under 18 if the first person is the second person’s legal guardian. An 18-year-old paraprofessional working in a school cannot legally have consensual sex with a 19-year-old high school student in the same school district. It appears that consensual sex with a 15-year-old could, however, be considered risk of injury to a child; I defer to an attorney’s interpretation of that statute. (Sec. 53-21) Whether a person is over or under age 13 is a decisive factor in situations where both people are under 18 and could be close in age.

Here are the relevant portions of the CT General Statutes for your interpretation:

Sec. 53a-73a. Sexual assault in the fourth degree: Class A misdemeanor or class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree when: (1) Such person intentionally subjects another person to sexual contact who is (A) under thirteen years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such other person, or (B) thirteen years of age or older but under fifteen years of age and the actor is more than three years older than such other person, or (C) mentally defective or mentally incapacitated to the extent that such other person is unable to consent to such sexual contact, or (D) physically helpless, or (E) less than eighteen years old and the actor is such other person’s guardian or otherwise responsible for the general supervision of such other person’s welfare, or (F) in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person; or (2) such person subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person’s consent; or (3) such person engages in sexual contact with an animal or dead body; or (4) such person is a psychotherapist and subjects another person to sexual contact who is (A) a patient of the actor and the sexual contact occurs during the psychotherapy session, or (B) a patient or former patient of the actor and such patient or former patient is emotionally dependent upon the actor, or (C) a patient or former patient of the actor and the sexual contact occurs by means of therapeutic deception; or (5) such person subjects another person to sexual contact and accomplishes the sexual contact by means of false representation that the sexual contact is for a bona fide medical purpose by a health care professional; or (6) such person is a school employee and subjects another person to sexual contact who is a student enrolled in a school in which the actor works or a school under the jurisdiction of the local or regional board of education which employs the actor; or (7) such person is a coach in an athletic activity or a person who provides intensive, ongoing instruction and subjects another person to sexual contact who is a recipient of coaching or instruction from the actor and (A) is a secondary school student and receives such coaching or instruction in a secondary school setting, or (B) is under eighteen years of age; or (8) such person subjects another person to sexual contact and (A) the actor is twenty years of age or older and stands in a position of power, authority or supervision over such other person by virtue of the actor’s professional, legal, occupational or volunteer status and such other person’s participation in a program or activity, and (B) such other person is under eighteen years of age.

Sec. 53-21. Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children. (a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, or (2) has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section 53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of such child, or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3) of this subsection and a class B felony for a violation of subdivision (2) of this subsection, except that, if the violation is of subdivision (2) of this subsection and the victim of the offense is under thirteen years of age, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.
NorwalkSpectator

At what age are they teaching Sexual Education in the schools now?
OLD TIMER

Cummings faces 8 charges, all Felonies, apparently involving 3 victims.
3 counts of enticing a minor by computer 53a-91
2 counts sexual contact with a child 53-21
2 counts Sex assault 2nd degree, of victim 13-15 yr old by actor more than 3 yrs older 53a-71
1 count risk of injury to a child 53-21
Next court date is 1-22-10.
He is out on $25,000 bond on each case. Total $75,000
Secondhand Rose is lost

Secondhand Rose seems you are the typical uneducated one. It also seems you have a perverted idea of what is and is not �being taken advantage of�. Let me try to put this in simple terms for you as you seem to be simple. When a 46 year old cop sexually assaults a 14 year old boy that he picked up from the high school that he was working at to protect 14 year olds, this is sexual assault plain and simple. If you think anything different you are a fool. The law is the law and the laws Secondhand Rose are not made by you…. Thank GOD. Also I have noticed that every time someone disagrees with you, that you think it is Mikey. It is clear the reason for this is because you can not bring yourself to believe that more than one person would disagree with your sick ideas..I got news for you it seems more disagree than agree with you.
Secondhand Rose is lost

I wonder how many other that are out there that he assaulted that are afraid to come forward…They say that with career criminals such as Cumming that you only find out about 10 percent of the crimes that they are responsible for…You do the math….
John

Don’t think he picked up the kids at the high school. I think he met them on lionline at a gay adult dating site.
http://www.exenecervenka.com/ exene cervenka

Wait… How’d you get all this information if you weren’t even AT the trial and didn’t pull his affidavit or call his lawyer or the prosecutor? Oh, you don’t attribute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3XIlEUO-VE bez

or she ‘ad some of dem fine, fine e-pills and smoked wet like me an shawn did last eve.
John

Was in The Hour months ago. Think it was even on here at the time. Even gave name of the website. Don’t remember the name though.
OLD TIMER

The three “enticing a child by computer” charges tell us how he contacted these kids, on a gay website. That was in the paper. I wonder why there are no charges of serving alcohol to minors. I think alcohol was in the early stories.
Rose: there are probably a lot of others who really do not ever want to be “outed” as prowling gay websites, much less going to visit someone like Cummings they met on the internet. Cummings was probably a regular on websites for gay men looking for gay men. (there are thousands) He will probably never be charged for most of the other kids, because the victims are too embarassed to be identified. He came to count on that embarassment, like many serial sex offenders. He probably told every kid he ever had sex with that they should never tell, because they would be branded as gay. How many female rape victims never tell anybody because they are too embarassed and blame themselves for being raped ?

turfgrrl

Old TImer: Whoa there. There’s a big difference between a rape victim and someone who goes onto a “dating” site pretending to be someone they are not. Or to put it another way, “no means no” and, “yes and I’m not going to tell you I’m jailbait” speak to the motives to not just the perp but the victim.

Secondhand Rose is lost

John I think you are correct that Cummings did pick up some of the “children” that he molested online, but if I am not mistaken he also found some of his victims at Norwalk High while working there as the duty officer.
Secondhand Rose is lost

What you say in your post old timer is oh so true. Let me ask you are you sure that none of his victims were students from Norwalk High I thought I read that somewhere but not sure?
Secondhand Rose is lost

turfgrrl when a underage individual {14 years old} is sexual assaulted by a 46 year old man, that 14 year old is a rape victim. With that in mind not only is there not a big difference there is zero difference between a ” rape victim and someone who goes onto a �dating� site pretending to be someone they are not.” What you need to keep in mind is that a child does not have the legal right to accept sex from the adult, so that in turn is RAPE..Plain and simple RAPE IS RAPE and anyone who thinks differently needs to recheck there morals.

turfgrrl

Secondhand Rose is lost: When a site positions itself as an “adult” web site, and exists soley to enable hookups, then sorry, there is intent to deceive on the part of the underage member. And let’s call it for what it is, fifteen year olds soliciting sex. Not child rape.

Secondhand Rose is lost

turfgrrl You are Wrong.. Whether or not a site position itself as an adult web site for whatever reason has zero to do with the FACT that when 46 year old sexually assaults a 14 year old it is in FACT RAPE. I suggest you check the law. The fact of the matter is that the 14 year old has no legal right to consent to sex, this making it non-consensual sex and that fact making it child RAPE..

OLD TIMER

TG:
Of course there is, but there is still a lot of unreported rape because the victims are ashamed or made to feel in some way responsible. The serial predators make it a point to make the victim feel guilty, and it works too many times. It works particularly effectively when the attacker is someone older, in a position of power, and the victim is very young. Think back to the stories of pedophile priests who operated for years without being reported. That brings us right back to ex-Lt. Cummings. His victims, that we know of, did NOT go to the police, but spoke to others who went to the police and then the police had to find the victims and convince them to tell their story. I am sure the defense is counting on the victims refusing to testify or becoming unavailable. If anybody would know why prosecutions of this nature fail, it would be Cummings. If he is convicted, other victims may then come forward.

turfgrrl

Old Timer: But we aren’t talking about unreported rape here, are we? Does someone who signs up for an account on “manhunt.com” have any excuse about what they were doing there? Hence the quotes around “dating.”

Secondhand Rose is lost

turfgrrl I have a bit of a story that may help you understand how the fact of the age of the child is all that matters. I once observed Cummings have a conversation with volunteers at the Norwalk Seaport Oyster Festival beer tent that was in regards to serving underage beer. The patrons at the beer tent are already pre screened with a wrist bracelet that shows that there of age, so the volunteer felt no reason to cheek id again. Here is where it proves my point, Cummings stated that even if the patron has a wrist bracelet and if the patron was underage, it is the responsibility of the person serving the beer to be sure that the patron was not underage, and the the volunteer could and would be arrest for serving the underage. I would hope that he would follow his own rule, that even thought the child did advertising for sex on a manhunt website that he would be responsible to be sure that the individual is not underage..The responsibility is with the adult not the child..This in fact making it RAPE.

turfgrrl

Secondhand Rose is lost: First get your facts straight. The ages of the victims was 15 at the time of the incident. Second, John was correct to point out that it is sexual assault and not rape, due to the absence of the use of force. Lastly, in principal I would argue that it is impossible to verify with certainty anyone’s age. The concept that legal responsibility rests solely with the one side of a transaction is unfair.

Secondhand Rose is lost

I suggest that you are the one that needs to get the fact straight, the age of 14 vs 15 is of no importance as both are childern…I would suggest that you research the law as non-consensual sex is considered forceable and a child under the law, can not consent to sex…This is in fact RAPE and you turfgrrl are 100 percent wrong…

Secondhand Rose

I take umbrage with a mere 4 words: “being taken advantage of”.

It’s obvious by the charges that at least some of these “victims” were listed on a gay website. If anyone is offering themselves for sex on a website for WHATEVER reason, that removes all claim of “victimhood”, regardless of whether the person is male or female. Furthermore, if a person offers themselves on a gay website in order to find a sexual partner, that certainly is in absolutely no way “being taken advantage of”.

But it’s not surprising to me that the knee-jerkers here can’t make that sort of distinction for themselves. It does, after all, take some degree of intelligence and maturity.

And hey, Mikey, a person’s posting style is pretty much unchangeable. The lack of punctuation, grammar and misspellings in your posts point a very literal arrow at your identity regardless of what name you hide behind. Oh, and did you disagree with me? You’re so meaningless I hadn’t noticed……

Secondhand Rose is lost

Wow Rose your a real NUT..If a 46 year old man has sex with a 14 year old child for WHATEVER reason, this is RAPE and that makes the child a victim. I just hope and pray that you don’t have any children.

John

I think there is a hangup over terminology here. Rape no longer a legal term here. Connecticut uses sexual assault for just that reason. Rape has an implication of the use of physical force and many states went away from that term for that reason. Sexual assault is divided by degrees and the use of force would increase the severity of the offense and the penalty. Cummings is being charges precisely for the reason you described in the alcohol incident. It is his responsibility to know the age of his partners. From what I have read and heard, all of his victims were met online. They were certainly seeking homosexual contact and are not innocent victims, but it was still his responsibility to verify that these individuals soliciting sex were of legal age.

turfgrrl

John: Yes it’s important to use the correct terminology, and hence my objection to using rape in comparison. You raise an interesting legal question which is age verification. It gets to the heart of personal identification. In any transaction, sexual or otherwise, there is enough ambiguity when someone falsifies their credentials. I think motive on the part of the falsification deserves greater scrutiny. If someone is underage and they falsify their age why should they be absolved of their behavior?

Secondhand Rose is lost

Yes they should be absolved of their behavior as it is up to the adult and not the child to verify age…This is according to Cummings himself as I posted in regards to the beer id issue.

Secondhand Rose is lost

Oh John finally someone on here that makes sense.

John

Don’t entirely agree with you either. If the youth involved were seeking sexual activity and misrepresenting themselves on the web, I don’t absolve them completely. As much as Cummings is held responsible for violating the law, I have to wonder if the youth also violated some laws also. Not sure if any misrepresentation, fraud, or child pornography laws were violated by the minors in question. Should they be held accountable for their violations which precipitated this offense?

NorwalkSpectator

I think one issue could very well be that some of the “victims” involved may have had falsified IDs. I seem to remember not so very, very long ago, in Fairfield, a number of students (more than a dozen) were busted for having falsified IDs in a bar. If these kids were trolling on a porn site for hook ups, then it would almost behoove them to have the falsified documents.

Also, knowing someone is a student in high school does not automatically imply that one would be aware of their birthdates. As a matter of fact, that the kids were familiar to Cummings, it would almost be more reassuring just on the level of familiarity alone. And it might have been an added thrill on both parts to hook up with someone they knew, however slightly. Should he have checked, absolutely. However, he might have checked and been presented with a doctored I.D. and not realized it, especially if it was someone he was familiar with.

The other thing that is interesting about this case is that the “victims” themselves had to be “coaxed” to tell their stories to the police. They obviously ran their mouths off to others who in turn reported it to a third party. but they may not have wanted to talk to the police because either they were “content” with the encounter OR they didn’t want their role in trolling a porn site as underaged students exposed. That means they may have wanted to continue to troll the site.

OLD TIMER

TG: Under the law, what Cummings is charged with is what they used to call statutory rape. He had sex with children and they now call it by a different name, but it is still, by definition, rape, because the victims are “jailbait” not legally capable of consent. Force changes the degree of rape, and the penalty, but it is still rape, with or without force. Don’t assume he didn’t know they were underage and don’t assume that they were listed, or advertising on a gay website. He may have been, and they looked at the site and responded to his listing. As I understand it, these were three totally seperate cases, different victims, different times. The defense will draw attention to the fact that they contacted him and try to shift some blame to them. That may influence a jury to see him as a little less guilty than if he had solicited them in front of a junior high school, but it does not in any way absolve him. Defense in most rape cases tries to blame the victim or claim the sex was consensual. That is a large part of why so many cases are never reported, especially when the victim knew the rapist before the attack and the rapist was in some position of authority or control. Did these victims contribute in some way to being chosen as victims ? Of course they did, a lot of crime victims contribute to being made victims. That in no way diminshes the severity of the charges or the possible sentence Cummings faces if convicted. Teen age boys do a lot of stupid things, believing that bad stuff only happens to other people, not as cool as they see themselves. I’m sure, if those kids would speak freely, they know others who met with Cummings, drank his liquor, enjoyed his video games, took advantage of his hospitality, and did not have sex with him. Predators of any kind choose their victims carefully after making a judgement about vulnerability. They do not go after every opportunity, when they sense any risk to themselves.
John

I am curious why no other adults have been arrested in connection with this case. I can’t imagine that Cummings was the only adult that these kids met on this website to meet for sex I doubt he was the first and last adult these kids met. They have the technology to research who else these kids communicated with and met. Why haven’t they also been charged.
I want answers!

What’s lost in all of this is that Cummings was “tipped off” to the investigation by his co-worker, who ALSO just happened to be the head of the Youth Division. Thus allowing him to RETIRE WITH HIS PENSION! That police officer was subsequently fired for this. Why isn’t anyone questioning that? They should have put the cuffs on him when he clocked into to work and ended any chance he had to tax the Norwalk citizens further. There seems to always be some backdoor deal on every level that stinks worse than the South Smith Street water treatment plant! WHY?

NorwalkSpectator

I have a feeling that the issue of the pension is not something under the Police Department or the City’s control. It’s probably a union issue, and it is most definitely a labor issue, which I think had to do with State mandates and Federal guidelines. So, I don’t think there was a “backdoor deal” as you put it.

The issue of him being tipped off…well, the officer that made that decision paid for it with the loss of his job, his benefits and possibly his pension. I don’t know if he was vested or not, and it’s actually none of my business.

OLD TIMER

I don’t think the confrontation with Couture had any effect on the pension, nor would an immediate arrest. It may have had some effect on the investigation, giving Cummings the time to dispose of any evidence he had linking him to these, and possibly other, victims. We will never know what records, written or on a computer, he was able to get rid of before an investigation got up to speed. Anyone know what Couture is doing now ?
anonymous

I don’t think there was a way to avoid paying him a pension. The pension is something that he accumulated over years of service with contributions by both his employer and himself. Think of it like a forced savings account. If the city was able to prove any of these activities occurred during his work hours, and were able to do so before he retired, they may have tried to fire him and withhold his pension. I am not sure that this could have been done in time before he submitted his paperwork. I have been following this case for a while and am anxious to see it go to trial. I expect there will be many mistakes to be found on both the part of the defense and the investigators.
OLD TIMER

COMMISSIONER TORRANO MOVED TO APPROVE THE
RETIREMENT PENSION REQUEST FOR FORMER LIUTENANT
THOMAS CUMMINGS.
** MAYOR MOCCIA SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Source police commission minutes Oct 19. 09)

NorwalkSpectator

I think you need to ask your question about why he got the pension to the City Personnel Department and quite frankly, I don’t think you are going to get an answer because of the confidentiality of personnel files. The Police Commission would have been advised as to what the law states regarding retirement pensions and by not approving it, the City would have been taken to court over it. And what would that prove, other than more legal expenses for the City? They didn’t have to like it, they just had to approve it, just like they have to approve all the DROP retirements. If they delayed it, they’d just be fined and have to pay him interest or something like it. So, you can fuss all you want, but it’s not going to get you anywhere.

OLD TIMER

It is a very clear contract issue. The police union contract spells out how a pension is calculated, how much the employee contributes to the pension fund (8% of base salary), and what it takes to qualify for a pension. It is available online at the City website, and doesn’t seem to have language that would disqualify an otherwise qualified officer charged with, or convicted of, a crime.
exene cervenka

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Beat%20Biter&defid=1650968
NorwalkSpectator

I’m not exactly sure why exene cervenka posted the above link, but it takes you to a dictionary page that talks about repeating remarks.
Lauxe Somoh

# 50 John,
That�s a really good question. You should ask Inspector Mecozzi that question because he is the only one that can tell you why he didn�t ask a single question about the other men the �victims� mention in their statements. Maybe it�s because Cummings was investigating him at the same time Mecozzi was �taking� these statements.
Lauxe Somoh

Almost forgot�..Why is it that Mecozzi did the investigation but Pat Mooney’s name and only his name were on the arrest warrants? Did Mecozzi not what to be connected to Cummings for some �conflicting� reason?
Lauxe Somoh

One more thing�.. Why haven�t there been any stories on Anthony Santo on this site? If you search for Cummings a bunch of stuff comes up. Nothing for Anthony Santo� until now I guess.

Unbelievable

Anybody else here notice that this moron’s posting name is “Homosexual” spelled backwards?

OLD TIMER

Whatever he calls himself, he has the facts wrong. Mecozzi was long retired from the police dept. before this case came to light. Where does he get the idea the victims Mecozzi interviewed mentioned others ? I got the impression none of these kids were happy to be interviewed and gave as little information as possible. The next court date is Jan 22. What inspired this backward character to speak up now ? He is not a cop, or a lawyer, neither would ask that question about the arrest warrant.
I will not make jokes about backward homesexuals, or is it homsexuals backward ?.
Lauxe Somoh

Your right I�m not a cop or a lawyer, I�m a gay man living in Fairfield County;

I go from seeing Cumming on news 12 almost every night about cases (all the bank robberies) that were going on at that time. I knew he was gay. He goes from being in line for the Deputy Chief position to being arrest for what seems like unbelievable circumstances. With all the drama that goes on with the Norwalk Police department (that�s almost what all of you talk about on this blog) I felt that I should go to the source and see for myself.

Your right Mecozzi was retired when this case came to light but he was still moonlighting as a private investigator and per Rilling�s testimony there was an investigation being conducted by Cummings in Mecozzi�s activities. Also in the testimony of ether Mooney or O�Grady there was mention of �other men� in the �victims� statements but the judge would not allow Cummings lawyers to explore that.

I used a little thing called �The freedom of information act� and flipped thru the file at the courthouse on the case. Everything I have said on here is fact it�s in court records. Don�t believe me, that�s your choice.

Thank God we live in America; Cummings will have his day in court. He will be found innocent mark my words.
OLD TIMER

You are not a cop, or a lawyer, nor very knowlegeable. There has not been a trial yet, so the judge has not been in a position to put any limits on what questions defense counsel may ask. No defense lawyer would want to ask, in court, about other young, possibly under-age, men Cummings may have had similar relationships with. If those “other men” were mentioned in the statements, there may be questions about them at a trial, but not from defense lawyers. Cummings may be found not guilty, that does not make him innocent. Not guilty finding, for whatever reasons, means the state was not able to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. There could still be a preponderance of evidence, enough to convince a civil court of responsibilty for a crime. Look back at the OJ case. He was found not guilty of criminal charges and then found responsible at a civil trial and ordered to pay damages. The civil court was satisfied he was not innocent.
If the victims were under age at the time and Cummings had sex with them, and they are going to testify, how could he possibly be found not guilty ? There were three different kids, three different times, similar circumstances and essentially identical stories.
NorwalkSpectator

Hey, OldTimer, Thanks for fielding the questions from Lauxe Somoh for me. I didn’t realize that his post was directed at me, because it mentioned the name “John”, which is not my name and I simply didn’t realize my post was #50.

Also I’m much too busy to run down to the courthouse and read case files. I haven’t been tracking the Cummings case at all lately. I know we disagree on a number of issues, but thanks for picking up the slack on this one. You are obviously better informed that I am about the finer details.
anonymous26

I am not sure that the “other men” they are referring to is underaged youth Cummings had contact with. I believe they are asking about other adult males these minors had sexual contact with through the dating site and why they had not been questioned/arrested in connection with these underaged youth. Defense Attorneys would definitely want to ask about this so they can determine if the District Attorneys are hiding information regarding the youth soliciting sex posing as adults.
OLD TIMER

If that is correct, and there are other men doing what Cummings is accused of doing, and these kids identified them, you can be sure there is an investigation that devolped out of that information, probably in the town where crimes were reported to hace happened. I doubt it, but, even if that is what happened, that investigation, or investigations, would not be reported in the Cummings files, it would be in seperate files for each victim. Notice the court records show three distinct court files for Cummings, one for each victim. If victims were not identified, but suspects were, then there would be a seperate file for each suspect until victims were identified. As long as there are active investigations in progress, regardless of what eventually happens, nobody is going to talk about what may be in those investigations, and no judge is going to order anybody to reveal the content of such files..
Lauxe Somoh

There was a hearing for a motion to dismiss. All three �victims� testified so did Rilling, O�Grady, Mecozzi, and a number of other people. You �old timer� don�t know what you�re talking about. So the Judge did have a chance to put limits on what was being asked. Google it!

Also they arrested Cummings almost two years ago to this date. So you�re telling me they are still investigating the �other men� (and yes the other men were adults that one of the �victims� said watched) after two years, with the same statements they used to arrest Cummings because statements are all they have btw. I find that odd. Just like I find odd that Cummings was forced to retire after he was arrested, cutting all financial and health benefits for him and his family. Don�t forget he has two children. Anthony Santo was arrested for the same reason and he is still collecting a pay check every week and still has health coverage to bad he two cats aren�t covered.

Old Timer this is for your last sentence in your # 68 thread.
All three of the �victims� knew each other, that to is on record. In fact Cummings reported one of them to DCF months before the investigation began, the transcript of the call he made and a copy of the DCF report are in the file and were heard at the hearing.

No mater what I say or you say on this site it doesn�t really matter. Cummings trial will begin and we will see what happens.
OLD TIMER

You do know Cummings gets a pension and full health benefits ? We don’t know all that went into the decision to retire, but he was not forced.
If he had not resigned, he could also have continued to collect a salary.
I am not telling you anything about any other men. I said that the details of any investigation about other men would not be in a file available at court unless, and until, that investigation identified other crimes and other suspects or victims and arrests are made. It would not be in the files currently at the court, one for each victim, all three naming Cummings as an accused. Two years later, if nobody else has been identified as a victim and nobody, that we know of, has been accused of any crime related to these cases, it probably is not going to happen. Don’t be too quick to rule out that an other person has been identified and agreed to testify. Cummings and his lawyers may be counting on the passage of time to make it more difficult to get the kids to testify. He is not locked up, and may be in no hurry for a trial. That hearing was limited to a motion to dismiss and is not a trial. The judge would not have ruled on questions that he may allow at trial.
I am not that familiar with Santo’s case. He is accused of some of the same charges, but there seems to be only one case, not three, and the victim in his case was also under age. You are correct, we’ll see what happens, and nothing here will make any difference.