Bad News for the LAPD: The Tabloids Offer Big Rewards

STANFORD, CALIF. — The bountiful reward money--now up to $300,000--offered by two supermarket tabloids for information leading to the identity of Ennis Cosby’s killer probably brought no joy to LAPD investigators. In fact, it adds to their problems.

The murder of Bill Cosby’s son appears to be a classic “whodunit?”--a difficult case compared with a “grounder” or “slam-dunk” murder investigation, in which there is an identifiable suspect and sufficient evidence of guilt to warrant an arrest.

The Los Angeles Police Department is clearly, and justifiably, withholding information from the news media. Usually in highly publicized cases, a parade of people will confess to the crime or claim to be witnesses to it. The police can more easily identify frauds when they misstate crime details that have not been publicly disclosed.

Every investigation seeks to answer the same basic questions: When, where, how and why was the crime committed? And by whom? Physical evidence such as fingerprints, blood stains, fiber particles, weapons recovered and autopsy results point to answers. Most important are statements from witnesses or others with information about the crime.

The rewards offered by The National Inquirer and The Globe may set off a gusher of false leads that overwhelm police. What detective wants to spend time interviewing people who dote on stories of Elvis’ reappearance, men giving birth or space aliens landing on Earth? There’s the rub, however. In rare instances, an eccentric person can provide valuable information. So, every tabloid-triggered lead must be followed up. Followers of the O.J. Simpson murder trial will recall that the defense harshly criticized the LAPD for allegedly focusing only on O.J. and not pursuing other possible suspects.

An equally serious problem arises when someone with significant information chooses to deal it to the tabloids first. This ultimately can damage the prosecution’s case. Cops want to solve a case; reporters want to seize a story. Statements elicited from a possible witness by a tabloid reporter that conflict with later statements to a homicide detective could discredit the person’s trial testimony. Media disclosure of the witness’ identity and statements could lead to intimidation or even murder, though this is a rare scenario. More likely, a tabloid’s premature disclosure of important information from a witness could prompt the killer to destroy evidence.

It would be inappropriate and unwise for the LAPD to suggest that the Cosby family counter the rewards put up by the tabloids. However, unless it already has solved the case, the Police Department would greatly prefer that any reward offer come from the family or another group who could guarantee investigators an immediate interview of the person with supposed information. The police would be most displeased if a tabloid conducted its own investigation and presented vital material to them only after its story was published.

This would be especially galling to the LAPD. For, once again, the world is watching the department investigate a sensational crime. The victim is the son of one of the nation’s most popular and beloved entertainers. His violent death is a sad, ironic twist to his father’s decades-long television and literary celebration of fatherhood. The Police Department, indeed the city of Los Angeles, is still bruised from the Simpson case, which the LAPD investigators initially viewed as a slam-dunk. Criticism of the department’s homicide investigation, footage of Mark Fuhrman invoking the 5th Amendment when questions about his role in the investigation were asked, and the eventual acquittal exacerbated already-tense race relations.

Police Chief Willie L. Williams tried to put a calming spin on the Cosby case when he announced that “the men and women of this department pay as much attention . . . to each and every homicide.” But do we really believe that the police chief spends 20 minutes on the telephone with every victim’s father, answering his questions and offering reassurance? Have as many detectives been assigned to other homicides as there have been to this case?

Solving the murder of Ennis Cosby is, rightly or wrongly, more important to the reputation of the LAPD, the city of Los Angeles and the future of Chief Williams than any other murder case in the city. Williams spoke in belated and tepid defense of his department’s Simpson investigation only after rank-and-file officers complained that he wasn’t supporting his own investigators.

Now with the Cosby case, the stakes are even higher for Williams, who is seeking reappointment as chief. He enjoyed a lift when a bereaved Bill Cosby said he had full confidence in the LAPD. A swift arrest would all but seal a second five-year term for Williams, who enjoys strong support in the African American community. On the other hand, failure to solve the crime or media criticism of the department’s handling of the investigation could give the Police Commission another reason to end Williams’ tenure.

None of this will affect the professionals conducting the investigation. Yet, they can jeopardize their chief’s survival if they’re unable to crack the case, engage in questionable conduct or criticize management decisions guiding the investigation. Previous complaints from rank-and-file cops about inadequate management and leadership have seemed to trouble the mayor and Police Commission.

One thing is certain. The heightened publicity generated by the tabloids’ rewards and their potential interference in the case is not good news for L.A.