Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 21

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

March 3, 2006
The Washington Post's John Wagner summarizes the issue for its readers in an article that might as well be titled, 'What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.' Wagner starts off comparing Martin from eight years ago when he made headlines by accusing the city police commissioner of vastly overstating a decline in Baltimore's shootings, calling the numbers "a massive hoax," with the Martin of today who is receiving criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, accusing him of having cooked the books.
Wagner consults an expert - L. Douglas Ward, a retired Maryland State Police major and an administrator of Johns Hopkins University's public safety leadership program. He aptly states,
"'The bottom line right now is there are a lot more questions than answers,' Ward said. 'It's a very complicated mess.'"
The article mentions how the issue is becoming one of credibility for Martin and notes how his supporters are disappointed in his defensiveness. The article also mentions, in addition to the usual recap, former Commissoner's Clark's call for additional audits that "that might show 'substantial problems in the way that crime was counted in the city'" and the Mayor's response.
Again, TWP does not pick up on the misreporting of the homicide numbers first reported by WBAL-TV's Jayne Miller on February 14, 2006 and then followed up by WJZ TV on February 15, 2006.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 21

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

March 3, 2006
Not much on the issue today, but an interesting reference is a tangentially related article in the Baltimore Messenger by Brandon Dudley. The article talks about how Mount Washington is being proactive to keep crime down at a time they have experienced "sizable drops in burglaries and larcenies from vehicles in 2005, and only a slight increase in robberies and stolen cars." (Of course, this is based on Martin for Maryland's police statistics). Notably, Dudley writes "though crime is down, and Mt. Washington has a low crime rate in general, police are still concerned about the statistics. 'That's still a decent number of (crimes),' [Northern District Community Liasion Officer Doug] Gibson said. 'That's still a little problem up there.'"

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 21

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

March 3, 2006
The Baltimore Sun reports on the bipartisan bill prohibiting police departments from knowingly providing false info re: crime reports. This time, reporter Andrew Green, actually writes that the bill stems from "the politically tinged debate over Baltimore police practices" without acknowledging any substance to the issue that WBAL-TV's Jayne Miller has found.
The paper includes quotes from lawmakers who say that this should be part of the audit package because audits are usually if police officers aren't providing the raw data.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 20

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics."
On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

March 2, 2006
WJZ-TV reporter Adam May files a story about a bi-partisan bill introduced in the State Legislature to "prohibit police departments from knowingly providing false information about crime reports." This bill called the Accurate Crime Reporting Act apparently is intended to protect police officers from being pressured to skew arrest numbers. Of course, this bipartisan bill did not make mention in the Baltimore Sun with its emphasis on political squabbling.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 18

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics."
On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 28, 2006
The Baltimore Sun, as usual, reports on the issue framing it with respect to how O'Malley responds and painting it as an issue of mere politics w/o substance. First the newsworthy piece - The Baltimore City Council "approved the introduction of a resolution last night that would attempt to create a task force of academic experts to audit crime statistics."
Doug Donovan instead leads with "Mayor Martin O'Malley dismissed yesterday recent criticism of his crime-fighting record as part of a political smear campaign, comparing it to attacks leveled at Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election." Of course, the piece later acknowledges that the newsworthy aspect did not contain criticism of Martin for Maryland - "Most council members said they were certain that such a review . . . would erase doubts raised by O'Malley's critics." How a Baltimore City Council resolution is a political smear campaign is beyond me when most of the supporters figure it will actually help the Mayor.
Martin for Maryland also said that he wouldn't trust an FBI audit of the crime statistics because Bush has been President for six years (as if he actually cares about Baltimore). Of course, Martin states that his own internal audits not to be trusted and have not been influenced by politics.
For those that read the print edition, there's an online qualification (not sure what it means) - "City Council action on an audit of Baltimore's crime statistics was mischaracterized when this article was published in the print edition. The Sun regrets the error."

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 17

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics."
On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 27, 2006
Baltimore Sun's editor David Nitkin responds to reader questions on this issue. Nitkin blatantly states that "there is no evidence the mayor has lied about crime statistics in Baltimore." What about the false homicide numbers for 2005?! The discrepancy between the Mayor's numbers and the State Medical Examiner's numbers that the Sun refuses to report about. You can make a mistake about homicides...people can count dead bodies...the police have not even come up with an "explanation" for the discrepancy. The only reasonable conclusion is a lie to help Martin for Maryland become governor.


WBAL TV's Jayne Miller continues her intrepid reporting on this issue leading with a story about a man who states that he was carjacked and flagged down a police officer while on the phone with 911 as the carjacker was driving away with his truck. Miller reports that the injured 57 year old retired grocery store clerk was taken to one police station only to be taken to another once police found the crime occurred in a different district. A Sergeant at the new district who just met the man then started interrogating him accusing him of soliciting a prostitute. The Sergeant then threatened to charge him with false statement and told him to leave or they would lock him up. The man left, no crime reported, the truck is not listed as stolen.
The police report about the incident said the man went to the district to report the crime, but kept giving differing versions of the event.
Miller also uncovered a 2004 police directive stating "The mere refusal of the victim to cooperate in an investigation or prosecution cannot be the sole basis to unfound an incident."
Perhaps more significantly, Miller reports about a similar incident the credibility of which is buttressed by a recent jury award of $1 million against the City. Miller reports that "In December 2004, the 70-year-old reported the theft of his van from his southwest Baltimore home" and the responding police officer locked him up for false statement to a police officer because he thought the man was lying.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 14

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics."
On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 24, 2006
The Baltimore Sun now reports on the release of the report from the City's health and fire departments (Reported by Doug Donovan and Julie Bycowicz). The Sun, as usual, includes a rehash of the political side of the story. Also, an interesting aside on the numbers. The article (as well as WBAL) reports that the two hospitals reported a 37% decline in the gunshot-related ER visits. That's not accurate. The City's report says that the hospitals report a decline of 32.2% in all gunshot-related visits from 1999 to 2005 and a decline of 37.4% for those visits for Baltimore City residents. It seems that the proper number should be the number of ALL gunshot-related visits. It's unlikely that the non-Baltimore City residents would get shot outside the city and then come to a City hospital. Strange reporting?! I wonder if the O'Malley administration fed them the 37% number to mislead them.
Also, why did the Health Department used only data from two hospitals. The WBAL TV report of the gunshot wound that went unreported despite 911 calls from passing motorists and Harbor Hospital ER staff occurred at Harbor Hospital and not Johns Hopkins and Shock Trauma. I wonder what the numbers would look like if the City and gotten all the data.

On the political side, the Sun article ends with City Councilman Kenneth N. Harris Sr. comments that the "shooting statistics were 'too narrow' and not 'indicative of all violent crime.' He said he planned to go forward with introducing a resolution on Monday calling for an independent audit by academics from four area universities."

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 13

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics."
On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 23, 2006
In the Baltimore Sun, Eric Siegel publishes a piece under Urbarn Chronicles entitled, "To some in city, crime statistics debate is meaningless." The piece quotes a "small, random" sample of leaders in crime-ridden neighborhoods on the issue of the funky numbers and the call for an audit. Again, there's much talk about the politics of the issue, but the article concludes with some important points...the preception of crime. Essentially, the community leaders see positive progress in reducing crime, but note that more needs to be done. "I'd give [crime-control efforts] a C-type rating" . . . The key questions the article ends with: "Are you safe in your home?" and "Are you safe when you walk out the door?" . . . One leader's answer "I feel safe in my home," but "Walking, I wouldn't want to do."
The problem with messing with the crime statistics is the misrepresentation of a problem as having been mostly taken care of which makes people want to divert resources to more pressing problems. Crime remains a big problem in Baltimore and the City needs more police officers on the streets so they can develop relationships with the communities they serve to properly fight the problem. Moving police around all the time detaches them from the community and they start hassling non-criminals in their efforts. This turns the community against the police and a vicious cycle ensues that makes policing more difficult.

Much Ado About Nothing? WBAL TV and Radio come out with stories about the City's health and fire department releasing statistics to support the police departments statistics. WBAL Radio reports about a report from these City Departments reviewing data measuring homicides and shootings from 1999 until 2005. Police statistics say that gun-related homicides and non-fatal shootings dropped 39%; based on ambulance calls, the City Fire Department reports a 34% drop in gun-related calls; based on info from two hospitals, the health department says that gunshot injuries dropped 34.1% during that period. I wonder what those criminologists say about this? The report ends with notes that this does not include rapes because those may be reported to private doctors. There's no information on reports of robberies or property crimes. Former Commissioner Clark wanted an audit on property crimes, but current Commissioner Hamm doesn't think it's possible.

WBAL TV has Lowell Melser report on the story (Jayne Miller must have been busy doing actual investigation for her reporting instead of relying on press releases). The report includes this quote, "Our conclusion was that the data trends from the 911 calls and the hospital trauma services are consistent, remarkably similar to what the police have reported for gun-related violence," Baltimore City Health Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein said." Interestingly, the report includes a cool chart (above) comparing the figures. The discrepancies between the numbers is rather consistent from 2001 to 2005. The police statistics in 1999 and 2000, however, are compartively a lot higher. Why is that?

The City's health and fire department report is here. The report says that all gunshot injuries at the two hospitals declined by 32.2% from 1999 to 2005. I wonder why this number is different than the 34.1% WBAL radio reported. In any case, the police reported a 39% decline. That seems like a significant misrepresentation to me. The problem has never been whether crime has reduced in Baltimore since 1999; the problem is whether O'Malley was using false or misleading statistics to inflate his accomplishments. It's a question of credibility. We don't need a politician with the credibility issues that the White House has, running the State of Maryland, especially without a legislature of the opposite party to keep them in check.

WJZ TV has a short report on the story.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 12

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 22, 2006
Jayne Miller continues her intrepid reporting with an interview with former O'Malley Commissioner Kevin Clark in this piece. It turns out, when Clark took office he started an audit of O'Malley's crime statistics. You see, O'Malley was trumpeting that Baltimore was leading the nation in violent crime reduction by 26 percent since 1991, but the number of calls to 911 were actually increasing. This seemed strange to the observant Commissioner so he started a limited audit.
According to Miller's report, auditors found that 20 percent of the rapes police had declared to be unfounded were rapes that actually occurred. Also, 15 percent of the robbery reports police declared to be unfounded were reports of robbery that actually occurred. The audit found that the crime reporting system allowed "almost anyone with access to make a change to a crime code" and did not provide an paper trail of who changed the code.
Based on these findings, the astute Commissioner Clark felt that other crimes should be audited, also. After he reported the limited audit results to Mayor O'Malley, he encountered resistance from O'Malley's Director of Operations for CitiStat and from O'Malley's Deputy Mayor. He was then shut down from pursuing the broader audit. Clark says that the O'Malley's Deputy Mayor "clearly said they weren't going to go any further because the mayor had already been out front and had told everyone nationally that Baltimore was leading the nation in the reduction of violent crime . . . and if suddenly we were to have an audit that showed the numbers were going to take some type of change, it would kind of leave him out to political scrutiny."
Miller reports that Mayor O'Malley responded by saying "Kevin Clark is not telling the truth. He never raised his concerns while in office" and that Clark was a disgruntled employee. It seems apparent, however, that Miller sought Clark out, not the other way around. Clark does not have an axe to grind and can back up his statements with the actual limited audit that he conducted.

WBAL radio reports that current O'Malley Commissioner Hamm says "bring it on." Hamm says he supports an audit of the city's crime statistics as part of a larger statewide audit of crime figures that includes those from every county in the state. As mentioned before, it is very important to have an audit of the crime statistics of the whole State, especially, Kent County (pop. 19,197), Somerset County (pop. 24, 747), Caroline County (pop. 29,772), Garrett County (pop. 29,846), Dorchester County (pop. 30, 674), Talbot County (pop. 33,812), and Queen Anne's County (pop. 40,563).
WBAL radio also reports that Hamm insists the city's crime statistics, showing a drop in crime since 1999, are accurate.

WJZ-TV reports that O'Malley's Commissioner Hamm appeared before the Baltimore City Council this afternoon at a meeting to address his performance and recent concerns about the city's crime statistics. At the meeting, a 2005 progress report was scrutinized that shows what Hamm calls "the lowest crime on record since before 1970--a 50% reduction in crime since 1995 and 32,00 fewer victims during the last seven years." Does anyone really believe that Baltimore has the lowest crime since before 1970???!?

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 11

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000? "Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 21, 2006
WJZ-TV reports (by Derek Valcourt) that "on Monday, councilman Kenneth Harris will introduce a new bill calling for an independant audit of city crime statistics." So now, that will be three independent audits of Baltimore City's crime statistics. How close do you think they will be to O'Malley's claim of over 98% accuracy?
The report also mentions the Governor's appearance on the Ed Norris Show. The Governor is quoted as staying "It's a legitimate area of inquiry . . . I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I don't know what occured concerning the inflation of crime statistics, the charge anyway made."

WBAL radio publishes a Commentary (by Ron Smith)on the subject, entitled "Crime Statistics: Who Are We To Believe?" Apparently, callers to the radio station have identified themselves as former Baltimore police officers and have recounted pressures and procedures that seem designed to minimize the reporting of serious crimes.

Still no word from the Sun on the false (faked?) homicide numbers.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 9

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000? "Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 19, 2006
Baltimore Sun Columnist Laura Vozzella makes light of the issue in her column. She quotes Baltimore Councilman Ken Harris who said, "It's like a small snowball that's turned into a snowman that's walking around this city. . . . It's a snowman, and it's walking around here, over the citizens of Baltimore, and saying, 'OK, I'm alive here.' I'm saying, 'Let's get rid of the snowman. Let's melt the snowman, turn him into water and let it dry up. And that will be the end of the snowman.'" She also referenced the previously reported inconsistent positions of Sheila Dixon on whether to have an independent audit. Still, no substantive investigative reporting.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 7

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000? "Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 17, 2006
The Sun once again acts as O'Malley's mouthpiece in an article by Doug Donovan, entitled "Mayor's camp fighting back." This article also focuses on the political back and forth, adding little substance to the story. (Gee, I wonder if they ever thought to try to interview some crime victims or officers on the street.) Apparently, O'Malley's campaign sent an email to his supporters linking Duncan with the Governor because he dared criticize O'Malley. Reminder- despite the Sun's attempt to politicize the issue, this story took life from a state National Victimization Study of 2004 as well as a reports from "several criminologists" who said that O'Malley's crime data was misleading (See February 11th recap). Notably, the Sun reports, O'Malley repeated his questioned claim of a "37.4 percent violent crime reduction between 1999 and 2004." This is the same claim that is based on statistics that "several criminologists" - not politicians - called worthless. It's like comparing apples with oranges and remarking that the apple is better because is has a better quality redness to it.

The Sun also authored an opinion piece on the subject. After recapping the story, the Sun opines: "What gets lost in the numbers debate is this fact: Crime statistics are only an indicator of the prevalence of crime. Federal surveys show that less than 50 percent of crime victims contact the police. But accuracy in crime reporting is essential to assessing public safety and Mr. O'Malley's role in it. In the absence of an independent, nonpartisan audit of city crime stats, the mayor will be defending his record and critics will be attacking it. At the very least, Mr. O'Malley should offer evidence that the data accurately reflect reported crime in Baltimore."

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 6

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000? "Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 16, 2006
The Baltimore Sun (Andrew Green collaborates with Doug Donovan on this one) reports on the story with a political angle with a story entitled, Duncan Backs MD Crime Audit. Why does the Sun focus primarily on what the politicians think about this as opposed to doing some investigative reporting ala Jayne Miller at WBAL-TV?
In any case, the Sun rips quotes from the Washington Post piece and reports that mostly Washington-area legislators (but also two Baltimore based legislators) announced that they would introduce a bill requiring a state-wide audit of crime statistics. Instead of going along with the study already started by the Governor (which brought their attention to the issue), these legislators politicize the issue and announce one of their own. This now provides the political cover for the Sun to report that "officials from most of the five jurisdictions subject to [the Governor's] study have said they will not participate." Yes, it is so much better to include in the study the crime statistics in Kent County (pop. 19,197), Somerset County (pop. 24, 747), Caroline County (pop. 29,772), Garrett County (pop. 29,846), Dorchester County (pop. 30, 674), Talbot County (pop. 33,812), and Queen Anne's County (pop. 40,563). (Population figures from Year 2000 obtained here). What a waste of resources this Democrat study is and they are called the Governor's study politically motivated?!
The article lets the Governor respond to allegations that his study was politically motivated, ""Next I guess I'll get blamed for the WBAL reports the last couple of days." The Sun then describes the WBAL reports this way: "WBAL-TV has reported a handful of incidents of questionable crime reporting and quoted Baltimore Police Commissioner Leonard Hamm as saying that police officers are permitted to not report serious crimes, including shootings, if victims do not cooperate. "
The Baltimore Sun made no mention of the WBAL-TV report about the discrepancy in the homicide numbers! Why? Homicide numbers by the State Medical Examiner's Office are backed by medical science and cannot be refuted. Yet the Sun refuses to even reference this discrepancy reported by WBAL-TV. O'Malley certainly has not come up with an answer for it.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 5

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000? "Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 15, 2006
Jayne Miller at WBAL-TV updates her investigation with this report. The report notes that O'Malley would not object to an independent audit. City Council President Sheila Dixon first agrees, then says "an audit is all about politics and there's no evidence the city's crime numbers are anything but accurate." Buried at the end of the report, is news that some city police officers have described to reporters pressure from commanders to underreport crime!

David Collins at WBAL-TV reports that "lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday calling for an audit of 911 calls, 311 calls and the state medical examiner's office." He quotes Montgomery County Sen. Jennie Forehand, "Anyone who is a victim of a crime really deserves to know that they will be treated with respect and the crime will be fully investigated and reported."

WJZ-TV reports that "Maryland lawmakers called for an audit Wednesday of Baltimore's crime statistics." One lawmaker, Delegate Jill Carter from Baltimore, said, ""The numbers of bodies in the Coroner's office are not matching up with the numbers of homicides and other deaths we are finding in the city."

Doug Donovan at the Sun authored an article about O'Malley's defense of his crime data. He writes that O'Malley says "Baltimore does more to internally verify and review its crime reports than most cities and that the process is so thorough as to make unnecessary a one-time annual audit as extensive as the one conducted six years ago." The article references Baltimore City Councilman Ken Harris's call for O'Malley to call for an independent audit "to put closure to the matter." The article says that O'Malley refused to call for an independent audit.

No word from the Sun about the discrepancy in O'Malley's homicide numbers.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 4

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000? "Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 14, 2006
The most notable -- and shocking -- report yet. Again, Jayne Miller of WBAL TV files a report noting that the State Medical Examiner's Officer counted 275 homicides in Baltimore for 2005 (not including justifiable homicides and inmates murdered while in detention). No big deal, we had 274 in 2004. The shocking part - O'Malley's police department reported that Baltimore had 269 homicides for 2004. What gives?

[A City Paper reader was suspicious back in 2003 of 'fixing' the homicide numbers. Read Jack Stout, Jr.'s letter to the paper about an increase in the number of "suspicious deaths" that corresponded to a decrease in homicides under O'Malley's watch. He cites an example of "one situation [where] the State Fire Marshal's Office considered a death to be a homicide, but the city police department listed it as suspicious" and did not include it in the homicide totals.]

Miller reports that "Police commanders said three of those cases involve the timing of homicide rulings by medical examiners. They continue to check the medical examiners numbers for an explanation of the remaining difference."

The WBAL report also says that O'Malley will not ask for an independent audit and that he had not seen the WBAL report on underreporting crimes. They then provided him with a transcript.

Also, WBAL reports that "police officers in different parts of the city have described to the 11 News I-Team pressure from commanders to underreport incidents or make no record at all. These officers did not want to be identified because of the positions they hold."

More reports of politicians questioning O'Malley's crime statistics. This article in the Sun focuses on the political catfight between Duncan and O'Malley and rehashes the previous stories on the subject. Not much substance here. (Article by Andrew A. Green and Jennifer Skalka). The Washington Post has a similar article with more quotes by Duncan, such as: "I am accusing him of misrepresenting the facts," and "Asking people to believe the numbers while they see the problems with their own eyes is not leadership." The article then references the audit O'Malley did when he first entered office that raised crime statistics. (Reported by John Wagner and Tim Craig).

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 3

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000? "Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 13, 2006
Jayne Miller of WBAL television files a hard-hitting investigative report on how the police choose not to report some crime. Miller tells the story with three examples that seem shocking. It makes you wonder if Mayor ComStat, with all his emphasis on governing by statistics, is pressuring the police department not to report crimes to keep the statistics low for his run for Governor.

Miller begins with the story of a woman who woke up one morning in September 2005 to find her window screen cut and her purse missing. She had left her window open and her purse sitting near the window on the kitchen counter. Stupid, true, but after she called her credit card companies, she called the police. The police responded and choose not to make a report of the Burglary/Theft. Instead, the officer told the woman to get a big dog. Burglary/Theft reported to the police, no crime report, no crime occurred according to O'Malley's system.

Miller continues with the story of a shooting in a Cherry Hill Shopping Center resulting in the victims being taken to Harbor Hospital. Miller reports that on an October 2005 afternoon, several motorists reported a gunfight in the shopping center. Moments later, Harbor Hospital ER staff make three calls to 911 to report that they have "a couple of victims of assault. . . one of them, for sure, is a gunshot victim." The police report to investigate. After requesting an incident number (which would record that a crime occurred), the officer calls back less than 90 seconds later, without explanation, and says the report was unfounded. No crime occurred according to O'Malley's crime reporting policies.

Miller interviews O'Malley's fourth hand-selected police commissioner (who has been on the job for about a year) about this incident. Commissioner Hamm says the officers were right to make no report of the shooting because the victims would not cooperate. No crime is reported because it cannot be proven it was a crime (as if the 911 calls don't show it was a crime). Even though it is unlawful to shoot a gun in Baltimore City, no crime occurred despite the fact the hospital staff say that someone suffered a gunshot wound.

A classic exchange ensues when Miller asks the Commissioner about the shooting non-incident:

What if one of these two guys died three days later?" Miller asked.

"What if they had died three days later? Then, we would have initiated an investigation. But they didn't," Hamm said.

"Do you know?" Miller asked.

"I beg your pardon?" Hamm replied.

"Do you know?" Miller asked.

"That they died?" Hamm replied. "Do you know?"

"I don't know, I'm asking you," Miller (the reporter) said.

"I don't know either, I don't know either," Hamm said.

Although you wouldn't think it was necessary, Miller consulted an expert regarding O'Malley's crime reporting policies. "Doug Ward, a retired Maryland State Police commander who spent years overseeing crime reporting by local departments, now teaches police leadership at Johns Hopkins University. ". . . it certainly raises a lot of questions in my mind," Ward said. "It's highly unusual to say it's unfounded when you have a victim in the hospital with an injury. Put it that way, it's highly unusual.""

Finally, Miller reports that one November evening in 2005, nearly a dozen 911 calls were made about a shooting where one witness heard 6 gunshots. "Police responded and located the intended target of the gunman: a man who wasn't hurt. The incident would seem to fit the definition of an aggravated assault. According to federal crime reporting guidelines, such an assault includes an unlawful attack accompanied by the use of a weapon for the purpose of inflicting severe injury. The guidelines make clear it is not necessary that injury result for an aggravated assault to occur. But in fact, Miller reported, police wrote no report at all of the . . . shooting. Instead, officers lumped it in with an armed robbery that had occurred earlier that night a couple of blocks away. . . . So, instead of two crimes that night in south Baltimore, just one was written up, and the report on the robbery makes no mention of the shooting."

WJZ-TV reports that "Duncan called for audits of crime statistics statewide, including his own county, in order to get a better idea of how serious crime is in local jurisdictions." (Reported by Pat Warren). WBAL radio had a similar report. WBAL radio also picked up Doug Donovan's story in the Sun from February 11th.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 2

"On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 12, 2006
The Washington Post picks up on the story in a short piece on the misleading crime statistics entitled, "O'Malley Downplays Questions on Crime Statistics". They includes a great quote by O'Malley, "No one's ever come forward with reams of crime reports that were dropped in a dumpster or anything like that."

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 1

Today, we begin a review of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's Use of False/Misleading Crime Statistics. But first, a quote: In response to reporter Jayne Miller's question of "On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?"
Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 11, 2006
Baltimore Sun reports "Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. is funding a study to determine whether Baltimore City and four Maryland counties are correctly reporting crime statistics." The Sun's story emphasizes criticisms of the study, but buried in the middle of the story is the reason why the State is initiating the study. "The National Victimization Study of 2004 indicated inaccurate reporting of certain violent crimes. . . . [The State Crime Control and Prevention Office] is funding this study to help ensure that victims report violent crimes and that local jurisdictions accurately track reports of violent crime." (emphasis added). (Reporter Andrew Green wrote the Sun story).

Baltimore Sun also reports that 'several criminologists' say that O'Malley's crime reduction claims are false or misleading. Specifically, the Sun reports that 'the "nearly 40 percent" claim of violent crime reduction prominently featured in his campaign literature, is an inflated assessment based on an inaccurate calculation of statistics.' Essentially, the article reports that the criminologists say that the year O'Malley took office, he counted crime one way, increasing the statistics, but for each year after, he counted crime a different way, so the comparison is meaningless.
The article explains how the change in the calculation affected the statistics. The 1999 review changing the calculation boosted total crime by 14.5 percent and violent crimes by 22 percent. The biggest change involved assaults (Before audit - 7,138 aggravated assaults; After audit - 10,452, a 46 percent increase. The city had never before exceeded 10,000 aggravated assaults.) After these changes, O'Malley reported statistics using a different calculation claiming a 40% reduction in violent crime. Using the unchanged numbers, violent crime fell 23.5 percent from 1999 (assuming that police report (or don't report) crimes now the way they did in 1999 - See story reported February 13th by Jayne Miller, WBAL TV). Martin - It's the lies that are your problem, not your inability to conquer Baltimore's crime problem.
The article also used the inaccurate report of the number of homicides for 2005 (see story reported February 14th by Jayne Miller, WBAL TV). The article also notes the beginning of Democratic politicians turning against him: "City elected officials including Del. Jill P. Carter and City Councilman Kenneth N. Harris Sr. say the mayor should counter criticism by inviting an independent audit." (Reporter Doug Donovan wrote the Sun story).

WJZ-TV had a short story on the criminologists questioning O'Malley's crime statistics and WBAL radio had a similar story.

My new favorite phrase re Baltimore's Crime Problem

"The city has left-winged itself right into its own hell."
A City Paper reader, Maggie Blom, coined the phrase in a letter venting about the lack of police resources in our beloved Baltimore. http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=11386
I love it. It coincides with one of my favorite lines from Batman Begins "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding." Too often left-wingers are more concerned with criminals and their problems than in providing consequences for their actions and protecting our city from crime. Criminals take advantage of this to further their criminal lifestyle...they thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding.
Baltimore has been ruled by left-wingers for over forty years. Look what has become of the city. It'a mess. There's a lot of good things happening here, but that's despite the left-wingers - not because of it. Competition, investment, and free enterprise are driving extraordinary growth in the areas around the harbor. Things are great in these areas, but many areas of the city are struggling. I believe it's the fault of left-wing policies.
Too often left-wingers are trying to fix other people's problems. They see crime as a result of societal factors and discount punishment. I believe that as a society we have an obligation to provide punishment to those who commit crime. In fact, we do them a disservice when we let them off easy. People need to see the consequences of their actions or they will never learn why their bad behavior is bad. Letting people off easy only encourages that behavior because there has been no serious consequence for their actions.
Now, I will acknowledge that there are many imperfections in how our justice system works and it's evident that there is a racial bias in how our society enforces it's laws. The problem is not that persons of color are punished more severely, however. The problem is that whites are not punished severely enough or targeted enough. Too many people in this town see the solution to countering this bias as letting people of color off easy. That's counter-productive. Much like the welfare system of the 1980s that only provided an incentive for people to stay on welfare and not find work, instead of providing an incentive to get off welfare and find work -- this approach only encourages criminal behavior.
Finally, this is not to say all left-wing positions are bad. What is needed is the push and pull, the balance of a bipartisan system. That has been absent in Baltimore for a long time and its had serious negative affects. A balance between the right and the left is the best. Of course, to achieve this balance in Baltimore, there's going to have to be a LOT of tugging to the right just to get close to the center.