Although the post-Duke game riot happened more than a month ago, university officials had not turned over what some say is one of the most important pieces of video evidence taken from a university surveillance camera until earlier this week.
The video — which covered the hours of 12:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. — was the only relevant footage missing from the 60 hours of tape the university had turned over to Chris Griffiths, the attorney who represents 21-year-old John McKenna. The footage, however, does not appear to show the beating of McKenna, which was captured on film by senior electrical engineering major Ben Winter. University officials attributed the mix-up to a technicians’ error and said they have invited state police to investigate. But Griffiths said the amount of time it took for the video to surface raises serious concerns about the way the university handled this matter.
The controversy began Tuesday when university officials recovered video footage that officials said had been missing for weeks from university surveillance camera 158, which covers the portion of Knox Road from South Campus Commons buildings 3 and 4 all the way to Route 1.
The missing video surfaced in the hands of Lt. Jim Goldsmith, the commander of the University Police investigative unit. He had been conducting his own investigation of the riot since early March. Once Goldsmith learned the footage was missing from clips subpoenaed by Griffiths, he turned his copy over to officials. The original footage, which was logged on a system with a fixed capacity, would have been lost forever had Goldsmith not made a copy of his own.
A technician — or team of technicians — was responsible for removing the hours of footage requested in the subpoena. They removed 60 hours from multiple other cameras of the 350 on the campus but did not log any footage from the one camera with a clear view of the location where McKenna was beaten.
“Of the 15 or so cameras that we received, it was the one camera — the most important camera — that was omitted,” Griffiths said. “Again, they say it’s a mistake, but it’s a coincidence which raises enough questions that one would hope that it’s thoroughly investigated.”
University spokesman Milree Williams and University Police spokesman Paul Dillon said the university has asked state police to investigate the matter. Both officials, who spoke at a press conference at the university visitor’s center yesterday, said they don’t believe any employee misconduct took place during or after the riot, adding a state investigation should help clear up any uncertainties.
“As of today, the Maryland State Police have begun an investigation or a review of our processes,” Williams said. “We’re expecting that review to show us some of the things that we can get a little better at.”
Dillon and Williams both said they can only characterize the coincidence as a technician’s error.
“Well, it started with what we believe was a technician’s mistake,” Dillon said, adding that because the university was otherwise compliant, had the 90 minutes from camera 158 never been misplaced, there would be no controversy to look into. “However, we are having the Maryland State Police come in to do a review to make sure that is the case. If they find out something differently, then we’re going to take appropriate action to fix it if we have any employee misconduct.”
Dillon added since the footage does not show McKenna’s beating, the argument that his department is trying to hide something “doesn’t hold any weight.”
There are still three minutes of missing footage, roughly from 11:59 p.m. to 12:02 a.m., but Dillon said nothing germane happened during those few minutes. A review of the moments directly before and immediately following the missing minutes seems to confirm Dillon’s statement.
Another element of controversy that recently surfaced was that Lt. Joanne Ardovini — who was in charge of monitoring the university’s surveillance system on March 4 — is married to one of the mounted county police officers who was on duty during the riot. Her husband, Officer John Ardovini, was named in the charging documents against McKenna and sophomore Ben Donat, both of whom no longer face charges.
Williams said Ardovini has since removed herself from the investigation because of a potential conflict of interest. He noted her motives are not being questioned by the university.
“Lt. Ardovini has been working for the university for a very long time,” Williams said. “She is a very trusted employee.”
Students said although they would like to trust the university to do the right thing, the entire chronicle of events don’t quite add up.
“It’s not a coincidence,” junior aerospace major Steve Sherman said. “That seems a little unlikely.”
Sophomore individual studies major Lauren Englehart also said the series of events seems suspicious to her.
“I hate to think that the people that work here would do that,” she said, referring to Ardovini’s potential conflict of interest.
present@umdbk.com
