Aug. 1—As Portland police closed off a section of Forest Avenue Tuesday night to investigate a shooting near Morrill's Corner that claimed one woman's life, neighbors tuned into online police scanners and scrolled through their social media.
In Facebook groups and Reddit threads, they shared observations and predicted who could have been responsible.
Days later, Portland police have released little information about what happened, saying too much transparency could hinder their investigation. Meanwhile, the public is speculating online about what may have occurred and some are doing their own amateur detective work. At best, they might beat police to the punch — at worst, they might be spreading misinformation.
Others are confused by the silence and some are afraid, given there have been no announced arrests.
"We've been checking for updates and nothing," said Theresa Rhodes, who works near where the shooting occurred. "The least they could do is let people know if there is a threat to the public or anything, seeing as the shooter appears to be at large. They usually say by this point that it was a personal, isolated incident or something to that effect. I just think they are holding back information and I can't understand why."
Police lifted a shelter in place recommendation early Wednesday, saying "we don't believe there is any threat to the public at this time." Investigators were back on the scene Thursday night as "part of an ongoing investigation into the Forest Avenue shooting," department spokesman Brad Nadeau said in an email.
It has become common for law enforcement agencies in Maine to withhold information out of concern it could jeopardize an investigation.
Some of this concern is well-founded, experts say. Saying too much without having all the facts in place can lead to more misinformation. It can put victims at risk and scare off witnesses, or tip off suspects.
"If I'm an investigator, I prefer not to say anything until we have all our ducks in a row — a person of interest, a suspect in the case," said David Sarni, an adjunct professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
But other experts who spoke to the Press Herald suggest the practice is dismissive of the public's needs, and that transparency doesn't mean releasing everything police have — it's explaining why police aren't able to answer certain questions, and when they expect to. It's about offering more than blanket reassurances that there is no ongoing risk to public safety.
"I think with any situation, the follow-up is key," said Justin Silverman, director of the New England First Amendment Coalition. "It's helpful to believe that police don't believe this is an ongoing threat, but it's even more helpful to know why they believe that."
THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE
Police responded to a shooting in the 1110 block of Forest Avenue shortly before 9 p.m. Tuesday. Four people were injured and brought to Maine Medical Center. Late Wednesday night, they announced one of the victims — 54-year-old Susan McHugh of Gray — had died.
McHugh died of a gunshot wound, police said, but they won't elaborate on where she was shot, how or why. Nor will they release any of the other patients' identities or conditions.
They haven't indicated what could have happened and whether it was an isolated event. They haven't announced any arrests or who might be responsible for what happened.
Following several inquiries and interview requests from multiple Portland Press Herald reporters, Maj. Robert Martin put out a statement Thursday, explaining the lack of public information.
"The Portland Police Department never releases details that could jeopardize an active investigation," Martin said. "In situations like this, information is very fluid and details are changing all the time. Please know that it is prudent and strategic to make sure all information is correct. In cases like this, with a homicide and a forthcoming prosecution, we are only allowed to release details that the Attorney General's (AG) office says we can release."
The Office of the Maine Attorney General handles homicide prosecutions in the state. Assistant Attorney General Bud Ellis has been assigned to the case, spokesperson Danna Hayes said.
"The focus of our office is a careful, thorough investigation," Hayes said in an email. "Releasing information prematurely risks the integrity of that investigation and ultimately jeopardizes our ability to bring a successful prosecution. The victims in these cases and their families deserve justice and that is our focus."
Martin said the department has dedicated many resources to this case — nearly a dozen detectives and evidence technicians, who have collected hundreds of hours of video and interviewed several witnesses.
He said they are focused on "putting together an investigation that is thorough, fair and accurate," and that the "premature release of information" could taint witness memories or lead to a dismissal.
"We understand the desire to have more information, but we will not compromise our investigation or impede any potential prosecution by prematurely or inaccurately releasing information," he wrote.
A spokesperson for the city said Chief Mark Dubois was not available for an interview Thursday.
Other city leaders who returned calls from reporters Thursday said they weren't concerned.
Mayor Mark Dion, who previously served as the Cumberland County sheriff, said he was "disturbed" by the Tuesday shooting, but that the sparse information available is typical for any major investigation.
"Until the police are ready to say something we have to give them the benefit of the doubt," Dion said. He empathizes with police because some of his investigations were compromised by the early release of information. He didn't provide any specific examples.
Councilor Pious Ali said he also is confident in the police investigation and that they will update the community as needed, although he said the "lack of information understandably causes concern about the gunman's whereabouts and may lead to rumors."
Police haven't said whether there was one gunman or multiple shooters.
Councilor Roberto Rodriguez said he expects transparency from police, "particularly in an incident like this that doesn't happen in our city very often."
'IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST'
Silverman, the First Amendment coalition director, said Thursday that it's in everyone's best interest for police to answer questions and provide as much information as is reasonable at that time.
"Without questions being answered and information being provided, it's just going to lead to a lot of speculation that I think certainly may make members of the public question whether police are doing their job effectively," Silverman said. He stressed that he wasn't aware of the details of the shooting and was only speaking generally about law enforcement practices.
He said police generally withhold information more than is necessary, often to their own detriment. Silence can "chip away at the trust police have with their communities," Silverman said. It can also sometimes allow misinformation to flourish, particularly online.
Hours after the shooting, online commenters made several conflicting assertions about where the shooting occurred. Two bars in the area even had to put out statements that the shooting didn't take place on their grounds.
"So, I think that's problematic," said Silverman. "I think it's disconcerting that a shooting could happen in one of our neighborhoods, and we aren't being informed exactly where it happened."
Thea Johnson, a professor at Rutgers Law School and former law professor in Maine, said the police do have some obligations of public transparency. But, she said, it's a push-and-pull between the needs of the public and the integrity of the investigation. As a former defense attorney, Johnson said early missteps by police can later be used to undermine a prosecution.
"One accusation can be that they identified a suspect too quickly and then they put all their attention on that suspect and failed to investigate other suspects further," Johnson said. "On the flip side, you can imagine that if the police identify someone early on, and then they're wrong and later say, 'We have this other person, a new suspect,' well that's really good fodder for a defense attorney later in trial.'"
Sarni, the John Jay College professor, said he believes it's best for police to keep all of the details "close to the chest" until police are certain of them.
He was a long-time detective for the NYPD and teaches a course in homicide investigations. He said early stages of an investigation often include notifying victims' families, establishing a case parameter and separating speculative accounts from real eyewitness statements.
Johnson said it's also important to tread cautiously at the start of an investigation out of interest for the innocent and wrongfully accused.
"There's no clawing that back," Johnson said. "Once you say somebody's name or you identify them as your leading suspect, that's a lifelong allegation. Even if you come back and say they're totally innocent. In the internet age, there's no way to take that back."
Staff Writers Grace Benninghoff and Daniel Kool contributed to this report.
Copy the Story Link
