THE WPPA Challenges Madison Police Monitor’s Homicide Determination
Monitor rejects conclusions of multiple layers of independent review
(MADISON, Wis.) Following the release of a report by the Madison Office of the Independent Police Monitor regarding the 2024 death of Richard Johnson, Wisconsin Professional Police Association Executive Director Jim Palmer issued the following statement:
“The death of Richard Johnson was a tragedy. It deserved a thorough, objective, and evidence-based review, and that is exactly what it received.
This incident underwent multiple layers of independent review. It was thoroughly investigated by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, reviewed by the Dane County District Attorney, and evaluated by the Dane County Medical Examiner, who determined that Johnson died due to complications of cocaine toxicity. As such, his death was ruled an accident. The District Attorney cleared the officers of any wrongdoing nearly 11 months later.
Now, despite the fact that the embattled Monitor is neither a prosecutor nor a medical examiner, she has concluded that officers are to blame for Johnson’s death. In choosing to reject virtually every official review and instead adopt the opinion of a consultant retained by her office, the Monitor asks the public to believe that everyone else got it wrong and that only she and her chosen consultant got it right.
That is an extraordinary and inflammatory claim. It demands compelling evidence.
Unfortunately, the report repeatedly presents disputed interpretations of evidence as settled fact while dismissing the conclusions reached by investigators, prosecutors, medical professionals, and other officials who reviewed the same evidence. Serious allegations require more than disagreement with prior conclusions; they require clear and convincing support grounded in the record.
The officers involved in this incident deserve the same fair and objective evaluation that every citizen is entitled to receive. They do not deserve to be publicly condemned based upon conclusions that conflict with the findings reached by the very officials tasked with reviewing the evidence.
Oversight serves an important role in promoting accountability and public confidence. But oversight loses credibility when it dismisses expert findings, substitutes advocacy for objective analysis, and asks the public to disregard the conclusions of every official review that came before it.
The public deserves transparency, accountability, and an honest assessment of the evidence. Those goals are not advanced when disputed interpretations are presented as settled fact and every contrary conclusion is dismissed.
This report does exactly that.”