THE SCREWY DRUG BUST, THE FATAL CAR CRASH, AND THE NEWEST DRUG FROM HELL

 There is the assumption by several of Watertown’s more vocal social media commenters that crime in our city is steadily rising. It’s their perception and I don’t know if they are right or wrong. My own perception is that the threat of crime in Watertown is rising and will continue to rise.

And how could it not? Drug traffickers compete for customers and territory and we are prime territory for violent street gangs operating out of their home bases to our north, south, west, and of course Boston.

Thankfully we don’t get to see them on our street corners. We would have to tour certain neighborhoods in Boston, Lawrence, Lowell, Springfield, or Providence to get the best sightings but they are here too. Just less visibly.

In a previous blog post, I likened the local crime picture to a jigsaw puzzle, where, for understandable reasons, most of the pieces are kept hidden from the public. The rights of suspects need to be protected. Delicate investigations require secrecy. Victims are entitled to their privacy. So, in the interests of justice, we end up seeing a trailer for the movie instead of the movie.

Citizens and policymakers who demand absolute transparency in policing are choosing utopian ideology over true public safety.

So, is it worth the time and effort of collecting the puzzle pieces, if our entire collection amounts to a mere one-tenth of Watertown’s crime picture?

Yes, if we want our perceptions of the threat of crime to be based on all the evidence available to us rather than on a gut feeling.

Let’s suppose that, in examining that evidence, you come to the conclusion that Watertown is under-policed and you feel compelled to share that view with your district councilor and your favorite at-large councilor, or even your least favorite at-large councilor.

Shouldn’t you bring your “A game?” After all, residents who hold the opposite opinion have a track record of bringing theirs.

With that in mind, allow me to present my first puzzle pieces of 2023. But first, let’s be clear that there’s a big difference between seeing the puzzle pieces and collecting them. If you are only seeing them, most will probably be soon forgotten. When you are collecting them, you will file them away for future reference.

Technically, this one took place in 2022, but I think it needs to be included here because it just might set the stage for what will be occurring more often in 2023.

The following details are taken from the Watertown police report given to Watertown News.

“Dec. 29, 9:53 p.m.: Watertown detectives who were in the parking lot of Target attending to another matter spotted a car with New Jersey license plates pull in. Then a second person walked over and got into the vehicle. The car pulled out of the lot and got onto Arsenal Street.

The officer observed the vehicle get stuck trying to make an illegal left turn into Arsenal Yards from westbound Arsenal Street. The car then headed west on the  wrong side of the road.

Police pulled over the vehicle on Bond Street in Arsenal Yards. The officers asked the men what they were doing in the Target lot and one said he was meeting someone to collect $15,000.

Based on the officer’s experience and knowledge he suspected a drug sale was taking place. He got permission to search the vehicle and in the rear of the car he located a kilogram of a substance suspected to be fentanyl. A field test of the substance confirmed it was fentanyl.

Aneudy Richardson-Jimenez, 34, of Jersey City, New Jersey, and Socorro Alcantra De La Cruz, 34 of Jersey City, New Jersey, were arrested. Both face a charge of trafficking fentanyl.”

The account reads like a comedy and would be laughable were it not for the fentanyl – the single most dangerous illicit drug that, over the past few years, has found its way into every product peddled by drug dealers.

You might be tired of hearing that fentanyl is 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. That message has been blasted by public health agencies through every bullhorn at their disposal.

But teenagers, happily unaware of their not yet developed brains and their overly expressive hormones, are able to tune out those bullhorns and pump up the volume on their inner voices that nudge them toward experimentation and risk-taking.  

Thanks to the high profitability of cutting all drugs with cheap, easy-to-transport fentanyl, one experiment can end in death or lead quickly to addiction.  

Stories of bright teenagers and young adults with brilliant futures, who bought a counterfeit Percocet or Xanax on the internet and either died instantly or went on to become fentanyl zombies are becoming all too common.

A few key questions about the screwy drug bust that will receive no immediate answer:

For drug traffickers, is Watertown a regular stopping point on their drug dealing route?

Is the Target parking lot viewed as a safe and convenient “place of business” for drug traffickers?

What about the Home Depot parking lot or other public Watertown locations?

Where would the fentanyl have ended up, if not for the arrest? Would it have been sold to Watertown residents?

Could the Watertown Police use more detectives who can spot drug deals when they see them?

Those are my questions. You might have questions of your own.

 

And now, puzzle piece number two for 2023.

The following information comes from the Rhode Island State Police and/or WPRI News.

According to Corporal Michael Doherty of the Rhode Island State Police, police in Lincoln, Rhode Island, responded at about 2:34 a.m. to a motor vehicle crash on Route 146 North, near Route 116.

The car was traveling north on Route 146 when the driver lost control, striking a highway barrier head-on as it entered the highway.

The front seat passenger, later identified as William Molloy of Ashland, Massachusetts, was killed. The unnamed backseat passenger was taken to Rhode Island Hospital in Providence to be treated for serious injuries. His name and condition have not been made public.

The driver, Christopher Vincent, 25, of Watertown, Massachusetts, was charged with:

driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, death resulting;

driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, resulting in serious bodily injury;

driving to endanger, death resulting;

and driving to endanger resulting in personal injury.

According to WPRI News, a witness on the scene told police that they saw Vincent throw a bottle into the woods, which troopers later found to be vodka. They also found a bottle of cognac on the passenger-side floorboard.

On scene, troopers said Vincent refused to answer questions. He was observed to have bloodshot and watery eyes and slurred speech. His breath smelled of alcohol and he refused to take a sobriety test.

Vincent later refused a chemical test at the hospital, but troopers obtained a search warrant for his blood. The results are still pending.

Vincent also faces a controlled substance possession charge. State police said they found suspected ephedrine and cocaine in the vehicle, along with several cell phones.

In court, police noted that Vincent was also charged with drug possession in Buffalo, New York, back in September.

Vincent was released on bond, pending his arraignment and the accident remains under investigation. He is due back in court at the end of March.

There is nothing unusual about a car crash involving alcohol and drugs. And there is certainly nothing unusual about a car crash taking place on New Year’s Eve. In fact, this was not the only such car crash taking place in Lincoln, Rhode Island on this past New Year’s Eve.

This story is relevant here only because the driver of the car is a Watertown resident. Let’s be clear. Not all the facts are in and Mr. Vincent is innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

Once all the facts are in, which will be months and maybe years away, it will be valuable for us to know:

Were additional drugs, such as fentanyl (or a drug to be named later in this post) found in the vehicle?

Were the drugs his?

If the drugs were his, did he buy any of all of them in Watertown?

If they were his, did he sell drugs in Watertown?

What drugs, if any, were detected in the toxicology reports?

And most important to me and to some of you:

What facts will emerge from this tragic incident that might contribute to our understanding of Watertown’s current crime threat?

 

My third puzzle piece for 2023.

It’s not an incident or an individual. It’s a substance.

Xylazine is a powerful tranquilizer used on horses and other large animals. “Tranq,” as it’s known on the street, is rapidly emerging as the newest secret ingredient added to illicit drugs.

Drug traffickers are always looking to develop the perfect cocktail to keep users coming back for more. And xylazine may have brought their cocktail recipe one step closer to perfection. Fentanyl delivers a quick and intense high while xylazine prolongs the high.

As with fentanyl, xylazine works with every drug delivery system. It can be inhaled, swallowed, smoked, or injected, which also means it can be hidden, along with fentanyl, in any illicit drug.

Xylazine is not an opioid so it doesn’t respond to naloxone, popularly known by the brand name, Narcan. Individuals suffering from an overdose of any opioid, including fentanyl, can usually be revived with a dose or two of naloxone. But if they also have xylazine in their system, they are unlikely to wake up.

Xylazine is a central nervous system depressant that can cause drowsiness and put users into a deep sleep, leaving them vulnerable to sexual assault.  When, and if, they wake up, they often suffer from amnesia.

Users who have fallen into a xylazine sleep may not appear to have overdosed, leaving others to assume that the person has passed out from too much alcohol − something college students might consider when attending their next dorm or frat party.

Testing for xylazine is not standard practice and routine toxicology screenings do not detect it. So, how prevalent is it in drug overdoses? We have no idea.

But we do know this.

The federal government should have been addressing the fentanyl epidemic years ago instead of continuing to target heroin as the number one threat coming across the southern border. Municipalities across the country saw the fentanyl epidemic at ground level, one overdose at a time.

Should we expect the feds to be ahead of the curve on xylazine? Of course not. Right now they do not even know where the supply is coming from. It may be coming over our borders or being pirated from the veterinary supply chain, or both.

Our first line of defense is right here in Watertown.

In 2023, every drug seizure in Watertown should be tested for fentanyl and xylazine. And every prospective user – especially teenagers − should be taught to assume that every harmless-looking pill or powder purchased from a friend or off the internet contains both fentanyl and xylazine.

If they can’t be convinced with facts and reason, maybe they can be convinced through facts and fear. Or maybe a combination of both. Solving the problem is still a puzzle.

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

MY POLICE-RELATED COMMENT FOR WATERTOWN NEWS WAS "TOO PERSONAL" SO I HAD TO RUN IT HERE INSTEAD

Here's an article recently published on Watertown News:

City Planning to Appeal Decision in Sexual Discrimination Case Involving the Police Department

Here's the comment from the commenter:

"And now we will be hiring a new chief from within the department. That person was either complicit and allowed the discrimination and harassment to continue, or participated in it. Or, that man (the only choices are men) was completely oblivious, in a job that requires being observant. And we wonder why people don’t trust the police."

 

Here's my response (which is kind of personal) to that commenter:

People don’t trust the police? Are you referring to the people, within your social circle, who share your belief, or are you speaking for the entire Watertown community? If it’s the latter, you have it wrong.

It's interesting how certain police critics demand transparency for everyone except themselves. As part of the leadership of Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment, you might have led with that disclosure.

Now that you’ve pronounced the next chief as having been “either complicit, or a participant” or “completely oblivious,” I guess we should all assume that this will be an open and shut case of his worthiness to lead the WPD.

Maybe he was highly observant of drug dealers, sex traffickers, and violent criminals who operate in cities and towns surrounding Watertown and maybe he paid too little attention to what he may have regarded, rightly or wrongly, as office gossip.

The city manager will surely be asking the candidates for the job: What did you know and when did you know it? He will also be asking: Are you the man who can best keep us safe?

In my opinion, the greater community understands that the freedom to walk down our streets at night, without fear, is not an accident, nor is it a reality in every city and town. 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

CAN EXPLORING THE F WORD (NO, NOT THAT ONE) BE THE KEY TO TURBOCHARGING OUR KIDS’ BRAINS AND SAVING THEIR FUTURE?

 Dragnet was an iconic tv cop show in the 1950s, starring Jack Webb as Sergeant Joe Friday. The show, the character, and the actor became famous for the catchphrase, “Just the facts, ma’am,” which he would frequently utter to some well-meaning but overly talkative female witness to get her to stick to the essential information, relevant to the case.

The phrase leapt off the tv screen (well, not exactly) and into our everyday life conversations and arguments, when one individual would encourage another to hurry up and get to their point. I can remember my sixth-grade teacher saying, “Just the facts, ma’am” or “Just the facts, sir” when one of us (often me) would begin rambling on when giving an oral report – usually a book report −in front of the class.

The reality is that Joe Friday never actually said: “Just the facts, ma’am.” He came close, when, in one episode, he said: “All we want are the facts, ma’am.”

So the statement that Joe Friday frequently uttered the phrase: “Just the facts, ma’am” is verifiably false, because tv geeks took the time to watch, from start to finish, all 276 episodes of Dragnet in search of the famous phrase and failed to find it.

That, my friends, is research, though you might consider the point of this particular research rather trivial. But it means something to me because it’s a perfect example of how misinformation can become “sticky” and how any information, whether true or false, could go “viral” well before the invention of the internet.

I attended Meadowbrook Junior High School (now the Charles E. Brown Middle School), in Newton, Massachusetts for eighth and ninth grade, which were the academic years beginning in 1961 and 1962. At the beginning of a ninth-grade social studies class, several instructors from Harvard showed up in our classroom to conduct a mini-course that would take place over several consecutive classes.

We had been told earlier that year that we should expect to be participants in special programs run by educators who specialized in those special programs. “Guinea pigs,” we joked.

Our social studies teacher, whose name I don’t remember, introduced the three visitors, told us we were in for a treat, then took a seat with the rest of us.

One of the instructors said, “We’re going to explore some concepts,” then went to the blackboard and wrote, in big letters: CRITICAL THINKING, and then asked us for a definition. Hands went up and the class was underway. Every time one of us offered a definition, the instructor asked: “Who else?” or “Give us an example.”

The two other instructors, positioned in different corners of the room, would throw out questions. What did we think about that definition? Other hands would go up.

They frequently asked us: “Who agrees?” and “Who disagrees?”

If my memory is correct, I had never before heard the term critical thinking and I believe that was true for most, if not all, of us.

This team from Harvard certainly knew how to engage a class. It was fast-paced and there were smiles and laughs all around, from them and from us. The room was energized as I had never before seen it.

But did we reach a consensus on the definition of this unfamiliar term − critical thinking? Not exactly. We came up with multiple definitions, which we eventually decided were all partial definitions.

Then, the instructor at the blackboard, who had been madly jotting down key points, smiled, shouted “Aha!” and wrote this, or something very close to this:

Being able to distinguish between fact and opinion is fundamental to critical thinking.

It might have been one of the instructors or it might have been one of us who suggested that we call that the “first cardinal principle” of critical thinking, which didn’t matter because it ended up seeming like a group decision.

So just how competent were we at distinguishing between fact and opinion? If we were going to consider ourselves critical thinkers, we would have to assess our competence and we would begin that process by defining those terms, which brought us to our “second cardinal principle.”

(This may not be exact but it’s pretty darn close)

In a serious discussion or debate, always define your terms, even when you believe the definitions are shared by everyone in the conversation.

And here the mood in the room would dramatically change.

The man with the chalk wrote FACT on the blackboard, underlined it, and asked us for the definition.

 A hand went up. “A fact is something that’s true,” one of us said. “Who agrees with that definition?” asked one of the instructors. Every hand, including mine, went up.

The man with the chalk wrote a definition on the blackboard, and then turned around to gauge the class response. After giving it a minute or two to sink into our heads, he read this definition:

A fact is any assertion that can be proved to be true or false.

I am sure we all looked puzzled. This was not the definition we grew up with. How could “The moon is made of blue cheese” possibly be called a fact?

 

A Way With Words is a radio show/podcast that deals with language. One episode, which aired in 2012, is titled: Can Facts Be False?

Here’s their introduction to the episode:

“Does a statement have to be true to be a fact? When it comes to the difference between facts and opinions, some may argue that facts are merely claims that can be proven true or false. Most dictionaries, however, assert that in order for an assertion to be a fact, it must be true.”

And that last sentence is true. Most current dictionaries define fact as a true statement. When dictionaries do list (what I will call) the “Meadowbrook definition,” it was well down the list of preferred definitions.

A listener to the podcast, named Eric, called in to relate this story. One morning he heard his eight-year-old daughter, a third-grader, saying aloud: “fact, fact, fact, fact.” He walked into the kitchen and saw her reading a cereal box. When he asked what she was doing, she explained that she was practicing a lesson taught at school on identifying facts and opinions.

In the course of telling him more about the lesson, up popped the definition of fact. And – as you may have guessed – it was the “Meadowbrook definition,” which Eric found disturbing enough to question her teacher, who explained that words change their meaning over time. And this was the “evolving” definition.

Eric wasn’t convinced. He remained disturbed by this changed definition and the two hosts of the podcast sided with him. They all agreed that a fact must be true or it is not a fact.

But wait! A commenter to the podcast, named Glenn, made my day with this written comment:

“Back when I was in 4th or 5th grade in 1980, I remember being taught the exact same lesson about facts being any verifiable piece of information vs. opinion. What’s remarkable is the fact that I remember that lesson clearly (yup, just as sticky for him as it was for me) − in my opinion, a great lesson that helps kids think. To this day, especially when talking politics with special relatives or friends, I often say ‘yes, those are your facts, but I can prove them wrong,” and I always think back to that lesson 30 years ago.’”

Exactly!

Have you watched a political debate, or two, when one candidate addressed the audience and said, “My opponent is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts?”

For Glenn, me, and some unknown number of others, everyone is entitled to their own facts and we are entitled to do the research, present the evidence, and do the thinking required to prove those facts false. It’s what our brains are wired to do and with the right training, it’s what our brains will do.

Does it matter that my definition of fact has lost the popularity contest? No. What’s important is knowing that our own facts are verifiably true and being competent at defending our true facts and at debunking their false facts. And that takes critical thinking.

Of course, people who stubbornly embrace their false facts are unlikely to be persuaded by logic. Can they be educated? Or should we regard them as hopeless? That’s a long conversation for another day.

I expected the next segment of our Meadowbrook mini-course – a simple fact/opinion quiz − to be entertaining and easy. The instructors would present a statement and we would raise our hands and answer either FACT or OPINION. It started with easy ones to lull us into a fall sense of self-confidence and then it got tricky.

Guess what, if you take a commonly held opinion and dress it up to look like a fact, you can fool even the so-called smart kids. And, when that started happening with statement after statement, fewer hands were being raised and most of those were kind of tentative.

I can’t specifically remember any of those dressed-up questions but some of them probably resembled this one:

Spinach is a healthy food.

Well, of course, that’s a fact. We’ve all been told often enough by parents and health experts to eat our spinach. But what about those who are allergic to spinach, where the symptoms range from a rash to anaphylaxis? Definitely unhealthy for them. So the sentence would have to be modified to be true.

How about this: Spinach is a healthy food except for those with a spinach allergy.

It sounds true to me but can it be called a fact or is it just an extremely popular opinion? Honestly, I don’t quite know where to put it, but had it not been for my mini-course in critical thinking, back in junior high, I might never be asking myself that kind of question.

Whenever I do find myself asking that kind of question, I automatically think back to my almost 60-year-old classroom experience, just as the commenter Glenn thinks back to the lesson he was taught 30 years before he listened to the All About Words podcast.

 

And now you will understand why this recent headline grabbed my attention.

ILLINOIS WILL NOW REQUIRE HIGH SCHOOLS TO TEACH MEDIA LITERACY

Here’s the opening to one reporting on this story:

“This academic year Illinois became the first state in the nation to require that media literacy be taught in high school classrooms. It’s an effort to combat misinformation.

The Literacy Education Law was signed in July of 2021, but went into effect this year and now requires a unit of instruction on media literacy that includes lessons on how to access information, evaluate media messages, create media, reflect on media consumption and explore one’s social responsibility to ethically consume media.”

My first thought was: Media literacy? This sounds like critical thinking expanded for a world where anyone with a smartphone can become a ‘trusted” information source.

My second thought was: Illinois? Not Massachusetts?

Being a critical thinker, since ninth grade, I naturally pulled up multiple articles written about the Illinois law and began reading the slightly different definitions of media literacy. Here’s one that I found both concise and comprehensive:

“Media literacy means the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and communicate using a variety of forms, including, but not limited to: print, visual, audio, interactive, and digital texts.”

Can I sum up media literacy as critical thinking for those who consume media content and for those who produce it? I think so.

Illinois State Representative Lisa Hernandez, who championed the law, stated the obvious when she said: “it’s more important than ever that young people learn to discern truth from fiction."

Is it ever!

As ninth graders in the 1960s, many of us had one or two daily newspapers delivered to our doorsteps and we had three national news magazines and three network news programs to choose from. In my house, it was Time Magazine and usually the CBS Evening News With Walter Cronkite. One smart kid in my Meadowbrook mini-course voiced the opinion that U.S. News and World Report was his choice because it was “less biased.”

I think it’s safe to say that most of us didn’t worry about media bias back in the day. Most of my generation would likely agree that, compared to now, those were much simpler times for consuming information.

Our diet of generally reliable information, coming from mainstream news sources, may still arrive at our doorsteps and on our tv screens but now, through our electronic devices, information along with misinformation and disinformation constantly knock on our internal doors and ring our mental doorbells, begging, tempting, demanding to be let in. Without discipline, it’s easy to succumb to the noise.

According to a Pew Research 2021 study, 48% of U.S adults say they get their news from social media “either often or sometimes.” Of that 48%, 31% say they “get their news regularly” from Facebook, 22%  from YouTube, 13% from Twitter, and 11% from Instagram.

As for teenagers, an Ofcom survey revealed that more teens use Instagram as their main news source, with TikTok and YouTube coming in a close second and third. Perhaps most alarming is the fact that more TikTok users (47%), according to the study, get their news from “other people they follow” than from any news organization (24%).

Social media influencers, with millions of followers and few if any credentials, deliver misinformation to young people with such speed and in such volume that fact-checkers can rarely keep up. Information and misinformation in the age of Joe Friday could take months to go viral. A tweet from Taylor Swift or even about Taylor Swift can go viral in a matter of minutes.

One high school student, Braden Hajer, was acutely aware that teens need help in “deciphering fact from fiction.” As part of a project that he chose as a student at Naperville High School, he helped write the Illinois legislation and helped move it through the state legislature. State Rep Hernandez credits his efforts for “providing the inspiration” to get it done.

Once that mission was accomplished, Braden Hajer had this to say about integrating media literacy with standard curriculums:

“People love to complain about how school doesn't teach you what you need to know. Hopefully, this is one of those times where someone can look at a class and be like, huh, that's pragmatic.”

Before covid, Illinois began running pilot programs at schools across the state, where these skills were taught in biology and geology classes to ninth-graders, under an integrated curriculum called Civic Online Reasoning.

Here’s a discovery that shines a light on the problem:

Biology teacher Adrianne Toomey at Neuqua Valley High School, in Naperville, Illinois, asked her ninth-grade students, who were looking for information on the health effects of caffeine consumption, if they should trust the accuracy of the website foodinsight.org.

The biology teacher found that students tended to assume dot-org websites to be trustworthy. But after digging deeper, the students found that foodinsight.org was supported by beverage companies with a vested interest in selling caffeine to consumers.

This is exactly the kind of active, eye-opening discovery that makes a lesson stickier for young learners versus having passive information drummed into their heads. Such discoveries were not just eye-opening for the students, but for the teacher as well.

Toomey says that when she started integrating media literacy, “she would never have guessed that identifying health and science misinformation would become as important inside and outside of the classroom.” She had expected that media-savvy teenagers would be good at fact-checking, but they weren’t.

In videos featuring individuals wearing scrubs, Even her “smartest kids” were fooled into assuming that those individuals were doctors.

“Overall,” she says, “they were much more adept at spotting disinformation by the end of the year.” But she adds, “it’s going to take a lot more practice across every subject to make media literacy second nature to them.”

 

I am encouraged by what is happening in schools across Illinois and in other school districts across the country, but I happen to live in Watertown, Massachusetts and I wonder if we have teachers like Adrianne Toomey and if we are nurturing students like Braden Hajer.

I wonder what our educators are doing to make critical thinking and  media literacy second nature to our future adults, given the challenges that await them. I wonder what our administrators and teachers are doing in the face of an international media il-literacy crisis.

And I think about Eric’s cereal-box-reading, eight-year-old daughter, whose third-grade teacher set her on a course of critical thinking to prepare her for navigating the information minefields she is sure to encounter for the rest of her life.

Do we have empowering teachers like that teacher? And are they empowered by critical thinking principals?

 

Medial Literacy Now is a national non-profit organization whose website provides this description:

“Media Literacy Now is leading the grassroots movement to create a public education system that ensures all students learn the 21st century literacy skills they need for health, well-being, economic participation, and citizenship.”

When browsing their website, I assumed they were based in Illinois. I was wrong. Erin McNeill, their President and Founder is based here in Watertown. You might want to go to their website and check out her bio as well as their Board of Directors, HQ Team, National Advisory Council, and State Chapter Leaders.

Very impressive!

Maybe you’ll agree that, with so much at stake, a resource like this one would be a terrible thing to waste.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

MISSING PIECES IN THE LOCAL CRIME JIGSAW PUZZLE – QUESTIONS FOR THE NEXT POLICE CHIEF

Sometime in our near future, Watertown will have a new police chief. Whomever that individual turns out to be, they will bring with them to the office a new personality and a new relationship with members of the city council and with members of the community.

The new chief should be at ease fielding questions, complaints, and demands coming from all corners of our community, including from those who challenge the honesty, credibility, and legitimacy of the police.

As a member of the community, I have questions about how policing is being conducted in Watertown at a time when non-violent crime – shoplifting and other categories of theft – seems to be rampant while violent crimes, common in nearby communities, seem to be almost nonexistent within our borders.

At the top of my list of questions are:

What should the general public know about the threat of violent crime in Watertown? (How serious is it?)

How does the WPD deal with it? (I’m looking for specifics)

What should we not know about how the WPD deals with violent crime?

Why exactly should we not know it?

A recent story appeared a few months ago on the Massachusetts State Police Facebook page. There are three mentions that stand out to me.

One mention will be obvious everyone. One will be obvious to tv crime junkies like me and a third surprised me and might also surprise you unless you are a member or close observer of law enforcement.

We’ll see if you have the same reactions to those three mentions that I had. Also, I would like you to ask yourself two questions: What information does this story leave out? And what more would you like to know about this story, if you were allowed to know it?

Here’s the story:

August 21, 2022 – Massachusetts State Police

STATE POLICE, FEDERAL AGENTS, TASK FORCE INTERCEPT 15 KILOS OF COCAINE BROUGHT INTO MASS. FROM MEXICO, TAKE TWO INTO CUSTODY FOR TRAFFICKING

“Massachusetts State Police, federal agents, and members of a joint task force on Monday apprehended two Mexican nationals who brought 15 kilograms of cocaine into the state from Mexico in a tractor-trailer. The two suspects were arrested after surveillance officers observed a narcotics transaction at the Ludlow Service Plaza.”

“Gerardo Madrigal Quintero, 23, of Culiacan, Mexico, and Joel Enrique Armenta Castro, 30, of Mochis, Sinaloa, Mexico, were taken into custody by State Troopers, FBI-Boston special agents and task force officers assigned to the FBI Boston Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force, including members of the State Police Narcotics Section. Both men have been charged by the state with trafficking in 200 grams or more of cocaine and conspiracy to violate drug law and are being prosecuted by Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gulluni’s Office.”

“This case is being investigated by the Boston Organized Drug Enforcement Strike Force that includes the FBI Boston Division, members of the Massachusetts State Police Narcotics Section, the Concord, Hudson, Peabody, Reading, Waltham and Watertown Police Departments, Massachusetts Department of Correction, and the Norfolk County Sheriff’s Department.”

The stand-out mention obvious to everyone is the Waltham and Watertown Police Departments. What was conspicuously left out is: What was their involvement in this investigation? The arrests were made 75 miles away, in Ludlow.

The less obvious stand-out mention is Sinaloa, Mexico. If you binge-watched Narcos Mexico, you are aware that Sinaloa is home to one of the oldest, most prominent, and most ruthless drug cartels in the world. Were the two suspects independent operators? Highly unlikely. Were they members of the Sinaloa cartel? I would like to know.

The surprising stand-out mention (to me) referred to the number of law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation, comprised of federal, state, county, and local – totaling eleven! This raises several questions. Clearly (in my amateur opinion) this case did not begin with the arrests in Ludlow. So, where exactly did it begin? Possibly Mexico? And how did this investigation, involving an extensive network of law enforcement agencies begin?

If we had the whole picture, would we see a dotted line connecting the Sinaloa cartel and the WPD?

I doubt that we will learn more until the investigation moves forward to the point where the DOJ or the DEA makes more of the story public. In the meantime, I am forced to speculate.

We know that the Mexican and Latin American cartels are drug suppliers that smuggle heroin, counterfeit opioids, and fentanyl into the U.S. In fact, it is reasonable to suspect, from following recent trends, that the cocaine that was seized might be laced with fentanyl, making it more profitable, more addictive, and more deadly.

Once smuggled into the U.S., distributors take over, either selling the product directly to users or wholesaling it to dealers. These distributors are violent street gangs, waging ongoing battles for territory and customers while terrorizing the neighborhoods they occupy.

Ten miles from the Ludlow service plaza is the city of Springfield, home to approximately 30 violent street gangs, including the infamous Latin Kings. All of them distribute or deal illicit drugs.

So, what exactly does the WPD know about how much of the cocaine supply was headed to Waltham and Watertown, how it would arrive here, and how it would be sold once it arrived?

Another case that is even more alarming and also hits close to home is this one. Like the previous case, it provides us with some valuable puzzle pieces but keeps some key pieces in a box, out of our sight.

(I’ve mentioned this one in a previous blog post, Gangbangers, Fentanyl, Snapchat and Why Teenagers Are Sitting Ducks but it has equal relevance here)

February 16, 2022

Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts

TWO RHODE ISLAND MEN CHARGED IN WIDE-RANGING FENTANYL TRAFFICKING CONSPIRACY

“Jasdrual Perez, 33, of Cranston, R.I., and Erik Ventura, 33, of Providence, R.I., were charged with one count each of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.

According to the charging documents, in September 2019, agents began an investigation into a drug trafficking organization (DTO) headed by Perez. The investigation revealed that Perez, Ventura and others allegedly conspired to distribute large quantities of controlled substances, including fentanyl pills, to customers in numerous locations across Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York.

The investigation further revealed that the DTO manufactured fentanyl pills for distribution. In July 2021, law enforcement seized close to 1,100 counterfeit oxycodone pills suspected to contain fentanyl in Dedham, allegedly attributable to the Perez DTO.”

So, this press release is alarming because it identifies “counterfeit oxycodone pills, suspected of containing fentanyl.” And while it indicates intended distribution across Massachusetts and specifically mentions Dedham, there is no specific mention of Watertown or Waltham.

However, the Facebook page of the Newton Police Department adds a critical piece of information. Here’s the headline:

February 16, 2022

ANOTHER HUGE CASE INVOLVING A NEWTON POLICE TASK FORCE OFFICER THAT RESULTED IN THE ARREST OF TWO INDIVIDUALS AND MORE THAN 50,000 COUNTERFEIT OXYCODONE PILLS SUSPECTED TO CONTAIN FENTANYL SEIZED.

Here’s their shoutout to a Newton police detective:

“TFO Detective Spirito was instrumental to this case and the culmination of this incredibly successful investigation. We are grateful to Detective Spirito for representing NPD as a member of the DEA task force and for the team's efforts in removing this poison from our communities and holding drug trafficking organizations accountable.”

So why was a Newton police detective involved in the arrests of two Rhode Island drug dealers?

I asked that question through the Newton Police Department’s Facebook page.

The answer provided was that the Newton officer was assigned to the Boston area task force of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and he “was a significant asset in assistance with the investigation.”

I also asked if the fact that a Newton police officer was involved in the case meant that some amount of those counterfeit pills was intended to be distributed in Newton. Because if Newton was one of the communities being targeted, residents of Watertown might have reason to be concerned that some of those counterfeit oxycodone pills, laced with fentanyl − a drug 50 times stronger than heroin − would have gotten into the hands of some unsuspecting Watertown residents, including school kids.

Here’s the answer I received from the Newton Police Department:

“We have no direct information that any of the drugs seized were heading to Newton, but with that large amount, I'm sure some would have definitely made it this way!”

Well, if “made it this way” means Newton, it also means Waltham, Belmont, and Watertown. Drug dealers go where the customers are. And there are customers everywhere.

If we add to these two stories, the many reports of drug-related gang turf wars in Boston, Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, Cambridge, and Somerville and the reports of drug deals and arrests in Watertown (there are dozens), Waltham, Newton, Belmont, and other Boston suburbs, over the past few years, a picture emerges of a serious regional crime threat being countered by a regional law enforcement network.

I’m guessing that there are many ongoing investigations, some of them interconnected, and that key information cannot be shared with the public without those investigations and future prosecutions being compromised. The jigsaw puzzle will always have missing pieces because, when releasing information, there must be a line that can’t be crossed.

But the new police chief might be willing and able to bring us closer to that line and give us a better reading on Watertown’s current crime threat and some valuable insight into how the WPD addresses it.

Maybe then, we can begin to gain valuable perspective on the challenges of policing in a rapidly changing environment that surrounds and permeates a rapidly changing city.

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle for Watertown

 

CATCHING LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE - WATERTOWN'S SNAGGING OF GEORGE PROAKIS

If you don’t spend a lot of time on social media sites, good for you! If you use that spare time to get healthier, wealthier, or wiser, you are a much happier person than many of your friends and neighbors – and former neighbors.

On the other hand, there is something you are missing.

I am speaking, or course, of the animosity and resentment that exists between longtime residents regarding relative newcomers, homeowners regarding renters, drivers regarding bicyclists, bicyclists regarding drivers, residents regarding developers, and ordinary people regarding local government.

Here are some specific comments that I’ve collected from the past two years:

“There are ugly buildings everywhere you look. The council is only interested in money.”

“The town has sold out to the developers. It’s a shame.”

“The traffic is ridiculous. You can’t drive down Main Street anymore.”

“They keep taking away parking spaces from businesses. Nobody cares. Their customers will just go someplace else.”

“The town I grew up in is ruined. I will never move back.”

“I came back to Watertown to visit my mother and I couldn’t even recognize the streets. I will never move back here.”

“This was a special town. Not anymore. What made it special is gone.

“Normal people can’t afford to live here.”

“Newcomers from Cambridge are trying to turn us into another Cambridge.”

“We have already turned into Somerville.”

 

Enter the new Watertown City Manager, the former Executive Director of Strategic Planning and Development of the City of Somerville, George Proakis.

The city manager search committee reviewed twenty-three applications from those wishing to be interviewed. Twenty either failed to make the cut or dropped out for reasons of their own.

On May 9, at a special meeting of the city council, the three finalists came before the public to introduce themselves and to be grilled. George Proakis was up first.

I expected that many of the questions would be very specific focusing on whatever particular issue was nearest and dearest to the resident asking their question.

I went to the podium to ask him my own question. I wanted it to be broad. I wanted to see if, without prompting, his answer would address deep divisions within the Somerville community that would have a bearing on how he would address deep divisions in Watertown.

I asked him this question:

What was the single biggest struggle you faced in dealing with the people of Somerville and how did you handle that?

Here is the beginning of his answer:

“I think the single biggest struggle occurred early in my time in Somerville when we were trying to solve…one of the quintessential problems of local government in Massachusetts is trying to solve the pull and disagreement between those who want nothing to change and those who want to make all of the difference in the world in our community by changing everything.”

The “pull and disagreement.” He certainly hit that nail on the head. He might have stopped right here and taken the next question from the podium but we would soon be learning that when George Proakis answers a question, he leaves no particle of it unanswered.

He continued:

“And I think really when you get down to it, one of the fundamental issues is that communities are going to change. They’re going to change whether you like them to change or don’t like them to change they’re going to change.”

Change is going to happen, whether you like it or not. This will of course upset a bunch of people who air their grievances mostly or only on social media sites – especially those who believe that the Watertown they once knew has been hijacked by developers with the help of our elected representatives.

“What you have in a position of city manager or in a position as I have in Somerville right now is a determination to make whether you let those changes happen or whether you guide those changes.”

How will the new manager guide change? He provided a solid road map in the remainder of this answer and in his answers to other questions in both the meeting on May 9 and the meeting on May 12, where this time he would face questions, not from the public, but from each member of the city council.

At the May 12 meeting, George was up last.

Councilor Izzo asked him a question that needed to be asked. Of the three finalists, George was alone in not being a current town/city manager. She asked him how he would handle being a first-time CEO.

“The challenge of being the chief executive officer involves having the right team, doing a lot of listening, doing a lot of delegating and making sure that the team as a whole is pulling in the direction of the vision and values of the community and where the council wants everybody to go and that is certainly on a larger scale than what I have done in communities where I have worked but I do believe that I can pull those pieces together and continue to do that in that circumstance.”

This is the first part of his answer and it was pitch-perfect, summarizing his management style, while conveying the rare managerial combination of confidence and humility. He then went on to add details and examples.

Here and throughout the process, George did what the two other candidates did not do. Both of the other candidates took every opportunity to assure us that they could do the job. George used his time to demonstrate how he would do the job.

The sharp contrast between a three-dimensional candidate and his two opponents, who both came off as two dimensional by comparison, was crystal clear.

At the end of the March 12 meeting, with all the interviews completed, City Council President, Mark Sideris opened the meeting for discussion. There would not be an official vote – that would come later – just discussion. Would the councilors tip their hands as to where they were leaning or would they choose to play it close to the vest?

Well, they did more than just tip their hands. They threw their cards on the table for all to see.

Council Vice President Piccirilli, deciding that there was no reason for subtlety or nuance, or hand wringing (They were all so great, it’s hard to decide) declared that “George Proakis was head and shoulders above the rest.”

Council President Sideris ended the discussion with his own declaration that he would be voting for George Proakis and he would not be changing his mind.

Every other councilor, except for one, either stated or strongly hinted that they would be voting for George. Councilor Palomba told us that he was not ready to weigh-in, because he needed to go back through his notes.

Go back through his notes? What did he see that the others didn’t? Or what did he miss that the others saw so clearly?

But it was Councilor Gardner (I can’t believe I’m saying this) who best captured the essence of the Proakis performance.

“I too was so impressed by George Proakis and I don’t want to pile on but I just will say I thought his answers were the most substantive and specific, which I really appreciated. There were a lot of generalities that were said over and over again.”

True. Giving generalities is playing it safe. But we saw for ourselves that generalities are not part of the Proakis repertoire. At this moment, when transparency is such a popular buzz word, he was not just transparent, he was aggressively transparent.

“I think he really understands at a level that I don’t think I yet understand, I hope I do one day, the intricate connectivity of the issues that we’re facing. Climate has to do with transportation, has to do with urban growth has to do with revenue growth from businesses coming in, has to go back to housing so we have all these things that have to work to together and I think he thinks of these things in a systemic way which I think is important.

And I think he’s a learning machine.”

Yes, Councilor, he demonstrated that he is both teacher and student − natural roles for a manager who embodies generous amounts of both confidence and humility.

The councilor continues:

“And I think we’re going to need him, because whoever gets this job is going to have to hit the ground running very very quickly.”

In an answer to a resident’s question, at the May 9 meeting, George said: “There a thousand ideas swarming through my head of what I might do if I get this job but I haven’t figured out what I will do first.”

I strongly suspect that he has already hit the ground running and that some of those thousand swarming ideas have already begun to see the light of day. We will soon know what he decided to do first.

The councilor ends with a final observation:

“And I think he’s got a very curious mind.”

Yes, Councilor, all lifelong students are driven by their irrepressible curiosity.

On May 24, by a unanimous vote of the city council, George Proakis became Watertown’s first city manager in over twenty-nine years.

As he goes about his job and as his actions and style become known to the general public, social media will begin to heat-up. It is the nature of the job that he will become a hero to some, a villain to others, and probably a mixed bag to the majority.

Probably sooner than he would like, he will be facing some very deep-seated cynicism.

Government doesn’t give a damn about what we think!

Government does whatever it wants to do!

Government thinks we’re stupid!

Government has always told us lies and always will!

What those of us who have carefully watched the interviews have learned is that George is both a world-class explainer and listener. He will be on an endless mission of reaching out to the entire community.

The question is:

How much of the community will be reaching back?

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle for Watertown