Wow, you can’t even trust Officer Friendly anymore …
David L’Esperance recently resigned as Chief of Police in Salisbury, Massachusetts amidst allegations that he was abusing his position of power to get sex. Namely by exchanging drugs and moola.
It sounds shocking and rather sensationalized on the surface, but the whole story is actually even stranger. Basically, the Salisbury PD in general and David L’Esperance in particular were accused of hanky panky during their investigation of a bunch of burglaries committed in the area, so they arranged for an independent investigator to …
… look into the claims, most notably one of the burglary suspects spilling the beans on L’Esperance.
Now, if the guy was innocent as newly fallen snow, it would make sense for him to categorically deny the allegations and get on with his job while the independent investigator did what independent investigators do, am I right?
Nope, L’Esperance instead decided to immediately resign as soon as the independent investigator tried to independently investigate him in a January 18th interview.
Which seems like the actions of a very guilty man.
The investigator submitted a 31-page report to the town that alleges, among other things, that L’Esperance had sex with women charged with crimes, provided them with illegal drugs and cash, interfered with arrests and falsified police reports.
“We will be forwarding the report to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for whatever action they may deem necessary, whatever prosecution, if any, they feel is necessary,” said Salisbury Town Manager Neil Harrington.
This is serious stuff. I’m not naïve enough to think that all police officers are beyond reproach (that particular fairy tale was cleared up after I read The Godfather), but, I mean, coercing women into what amounts to prostitution using cocaine and cash?
And then not just being evasive but waving a red flag of guilt by walking off your job?
At least one person is standing up for L’Esperance, though.
A neighbor, Richard Janvrin, called L’Esperance “an excellent guy” who would go out of his way to be helpful.
“Like, the other day, I needed an egg to make something,” Janvrin said. “He said, ‘I don’t have any, but I’ll give you a ride up the store.’ I mean, he didn’t have to do that. But it’s just that if he can, he will.”
Okay, so because he’ll give a cup of sugar to neighbors means that he can’t be a sexually desperate scumbag?
To be fair, there’s an argument to be made that the women accusing L’Esperance of wrongdoing are untrustworthy because they are “known criminals”.
I have a real problem with that. While their criminal history might lessen their cred, I remain convinced that, if L’Esperance had nothing to hide, he would have stayed the course.
And just because you have a criminal record does not mean that you deserve to be exploited by a police chief, particularly when the currency is sex.
Criminals are the most likely people to be victims of other criminals, so I wouldn’t doubt the credibility of these women coupled with the fact that this guy just up and resigned when things got a little too hot for him to handle. At best he’s a total creep, and he probably also abused his position of authority, which makes what he did all the more revolting.
“To be fair, there’s an argument to be made that the women accusing L’Esperance of wrongdoing are untrustworthy because they are “known criminals”. I have a real problem with that.”
.
Who is are focus when you say this? I can only assume you mean the average Joe. Why? Well an investigator is looking into the accusations and seems to be doing a thorough job so I would say the law has assumed nothing.
.
Its sad that this gets reduced to he said she said, but unless evidence comes to light what else is there to go on? How is a criminal suppose to win in a he said she said against an “officer of the law?” I don’t know, but we can’t default assume hes telling the truth and we can’t default assume shes lying either.