Now that it appears Beau Biden is going to be fine after suffering a mild stroke yesterday, it is time to talk about the political ramifications of the Ammon Report on the Bradley case. You are saying to yourself right now that this case is not political, and no one should be playing politics with it since it is such a grave matter concerning a horrible crime against our most innocent. And I agree, but given the polarized age we live, everything is political, with one side always looking for political advantage over the other, and thus nothing is sacred from the touch of politics. Indeed, when this story first broke, we saw politics being played.
But in reading the report, I am more convinced than ever that there is no political advantage one side can take over the other.
First, everyone is guilty, especially in the most oft repeated failure contained in the report: that everyone failed in not reporting what they knew or suspected to the medical board. Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, nurse and doctor, parent and police officer, Attorney General and Judge, everyone…. EVERYONE failed to report what they knew when they knew it. And that is both a moral and legal failure, since the law does require police, prosecutors, doctors and nurses who “reasonably believe” a doctor is guilty of misconduct or unfit to practice medicine to file a written complaint to the board. And even if you were a person not required by law to report it, you were required by your conscience to report it. And people remained silent.
Thus, everyone shares in the blame for the tragedy that befell Earl Bradley’s victims.
Second, in looking for political ramifications, you naturally look at the two political actors in this tragedy: former Republican Attorney General M. Jane Brady and current Democratic Attorney General Joseph R. “Beau” Biden III. But the report exonerates both insofar as there was no specific decisions, actions, or failures to act that you can point to and say, “But for this, the tragedy could have been avoided.” I know you are thinking how can I say that, especially in reference to Jane Brady, as she refused to prosecute Bradley after being informed of the Milford PD’s investigation of Bradley in 2005. Indeed, Jane Brady was the guilty party in my mind, for at least Beau Biden’s AG office was investigating Bradley and trying to get a search warrant in the fall of 2008. As a Democratic partisan looking for political advantage over my Republican rivals, I would love to blame Brady for refusing to investigate. But the truth is not that simple.
Dean Ammon’s full report says this:
There is no indication that [Brady] was aware of the decision not to prosecute. Judge Brady stated she had no knowledge of the case, and it seems reasonable to believe that as fact because Steve Welch, the Deputy Attorney General responsible for the criminal investigation of Bradley in 2005, stated he never discussed it with her.
Now you may say she is still responsible for the conduct of her office, and she is. And you may question how she her office was run if she was not involved in decisions to prosecute. But if I am going to honest here, it is Steve Welch who really has to answer for the decision not to prosecute in 2005. Ammon asked him.
Steve Welch was the head of the Kent County Felony Unit for the Delaware Department of Justice in 2005 and was also the Deputy Attorney General who sat in on the CAC interview with Victim #2. After the CAC interview, Deputy Attorney General Welch contacted his superiors, Steve Wood, the State Prosecutor, and Bobby O‘Neill, the Kent County Prosecutor, and advised them that there was insufficient evidence for an arrest, but that Detective Brown would investigate further. […]
The results of Detective Brown‘s investigation were presented to the Attorney General‘s Office. On May 23, 2005, after consultation with Steve Wood, the State Prosecutor at that time, Deputy Attorney General Welch decided not to prosecute the case. There was no indication that the discussions between Welch and Wood went any higher in the Attorney General‘s Office. In an interview with Welch, he indicated that he has a handwritten note on a May 25th e-mail sent to Wood which said that Welch spoke with Detective Brown the day before and Brown would contact the Medical Board. According to the note, Brown agreed that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Welch also maintained that it was his idea to report the allegations regarding Bradley to the Medical Board. According to Welch, he determined that Deputy Attorney General Michael Tischer represented the Medical Board and he sent Tischer an e-mail asking if Tischer did indeed represent the board. Welch also claimed that he followed up his E-mail with a phone call to Tischner. It does not appear that Welch had any other contact with Tischer, and there was no evidence that anything more was done regarding reporting the allegations regarding Dr. Bradley to the Medical Board.
For his part, Tischer remembered receiving the call from Welch and Bobby O‘Neil and remembered an e-mail from Welch. In what he described as a 5 minute conversation, Tischer said he was told by Welch that a doctor was being investigated and was asked if [Tischer] thought it was unprofessional conduct for a doctor to kiss a patient. Tischer said he told Welch that standing alone the prosecution would have a hard time. Tischer maintained that Bradley‘s name was never mentioned and that he was not privy to the evidence gathered in Welch‘s case. Further, Tischer did not want to have access to the information because of his role representing the Board. Tischer was the Deputy Attorney General who advised the Board with its hearings, and therefore he felt he had an obligation to ensure objectivity by not being involved either in the investigatory or the prosecution of cases that might come before the Board. Tischer recalled telling Welch to report the matter to the Board and the Division of Professional Regulation. When Welch was asked why he did not contact the board, he said “We relied on him (Brown) to contact the board, and he did.” Welch added, “I didn‘t have any doubt that Brown would call…We did take this seriously; I think Brown did a thorough investigation.”
Detective Brown vehemently disputed Welch‘s account on who agreed to report the allegations against Dr. Bradley to the Board. Brown maintained that before Welch had decided not to prosecute Bradley, it was Brown who went to the Medical Board to get them to investigate the Bradley allegations and was turned away. Brown further stated that out of his frustration with the way the Board investigator refused to assist him, he relayed the information to Welch, and it was at that point, Welch said he would reach out to the Deputy Attorney General who represented the Board.
Yeah, I agree, there is a lot of CYA and He Said-He Said-He Said going on here. Everyone ducting responsibility. Brady’s office and her subordinates will have to answer for and defend the decision not to prosecute, Welch specifically. But is Jane Brady directly responsible? I can’t say that she is with a straight face.
Now let’s turn to Beau Biden. For his part, when the State Police investigation began in the fall of 2008, Beau Biden was shipping off to Iraq, leaving Acting Attorney General Richard Gebelein in control of the AG office during the investigation and attempts to obtain a search warrant.
[State Police] Troop 4 of the Major Crimes department received three (3) reports of inappropriate conduct by Dr. Bradley during exams of patients. These complaints included that of a 12-year old female, who was taken to Bradley for a sore throat and pink eye, and was given a vaginal exam; a 6-year old brought to Bradley for Attention Deficit Disorder and given a 4 minute vaginal exam; and an 8-year old with an excessive urination problem who was given at least three (3) vaginal exams over a six-week period. A forensic interview was conducted of each child at the Sussex County CAC.
As a result, in December 2008, Deputy Attorney General Stacy Cohee, based on affidavits of probable cause from Delaware State Troopers, with the assistance of the State Police High Tech Crime Unit, applied for a search warrant from the Delaware Superior Court in Georgetown for Bradley‘s computers. That warrant application was denied. According to Cohee, the judge indicated that the application was better as an arrest warrant. A former State Police Detective, who has since retired, confirmed that the judge who denied the search warrant stated that he would sign a criminal arrest warrant. The criminal arrest warrant was not obtained. As there is no written decision or transcript of an oral decision, it is not clear as to why the search warrant application was denied, nor is there a contemporaneous documented explanation as to why an arrest warrant was not requested.
However, Deputy Attorney General Cohee stated that she was concerned about making an arrest without more evidence because of the nature of the information DOJ had at the time. In 2008 there were three complaints, which alleged vaginal exams in the presence of guardians, and a complaint about kissing of one of those persons. Cohee indicates she called the Delaware Department of Justice‘s child abuse expert at that time, Dr. Allen DeJong, and asked for an opinion regarding the propriety of Bradley‘s exams, and was told that vaginal exams in certain circumstances were acceptable as a routine procedure. As will be discussed supra, DeJong considered this an informal consult, but Cohee stated that she talked with him at great length -for at least 15 minutes – and was specific about the facts concerning the vaginal exams.
When the alarm bells did not go off for DeJong, Cohee contacted another doctor, Dr. Cindy Christian at Children‘s Hospital of Philadelphia. While Cohee did not go into great detail about her discussions with Christian, Dr. Christian allegedly told Cohee that generally vaginal exams are not appropriate. Thus, conflicting opinions from experts led Cohee to conclude that making an arrest under the circumstances was not the best way to proceed at that time.
After deciding not to arrest and prosecute Dr. Bradley in early 2009, the Delaware Department of Justice and the Delaware State Police stated that they continued to investigate Dr. Bradley using other methods. According to Cohee, there was no indication of the magnitude of the alleged offenses until after Bradley was arrested in December 2009.
To my conservative friends, if I cannot with a straight face blame Brady, than neither can you, on these facts, blame Biden. It would appear that decisions to prosecute are delegated to Deputy Attorney Generals handling the cases. Whether that is a good idea is up for discussion and debate, but in past practice during the Bradley case during both Brady and Biden’s terms as Attorney General, it is the reality.
If the culpable party in letting Bradley go in Brady’s encounter with the Bradley case is Steve Welch, the culprit in 2008 is the unnamed Superior Court Judge who denied Deputy Attorney General Cohee’s application for a search warrant. And I would definitely like to know who that Judge is (I have narrowed it to three Judges but I am not going to guess), and I would like to know his reasons for his decision. Because if cause existed in his mind for arrest warrant to issue, then cause existed for a search warrant to issue.
We will likely know what other methods were employed to continue the investigation past that denial of the search warrant (which Ammon referenced in the report) once the trial of Earl Bradley begins.
But in my mind, the trial of Jane Brady and Beau Biden is over, and by the Ammon report, they were both acquitted of specific wrongdoing.
Yes, they both were guilty, but only insomuch as everyone was guilty in this case.