Woodstock Early Bird has been struggling with this particular issue: Whether to press Woodstock Police for a standard-issue press release on the accident that left Dr. Hasse Halley dead on October 1st or whether, due to circumstances, to let it be — for the time being.
It’s been over two weeks since the tragedy, a tragedy we presume not just for the victim, her family and our community, but also for the person driving the vehicle that hit Halley. We hear that the individual who was driving the vehicle on that fateful morning is an older person known locally to many. We also hear that the individual is not in good health and, perhaps, for that reason, there may be some foot-dragging by the police on issuing a full report (or pressing charges if that is still a possibility). But that is the issue and the point: Woodstock Early Bird has not been able to get the simple facts from officials about what really happened that morning. For our WEB report that day we went to scene, observed the situation and spoke to friends of the family who told us what they knew.
Today, WEB went to the police station to inquire as to the facts of the matter from Police Chief Blish. However, he is apparently out of the office this week. We asked if an official press release had ever been given out summarizing the bare-bones facts of the incident that fateful morning. The answer is no, no press release. We were told that Officer Peter Mantello was the person following the investigation and that as of last week, it was not complete.
We hear pretty much all over town that “everyone knows” who was driving that morning. But, do we have the official facts? The answer is no. Are we doing a service to this individual or to Dr. Hasse Halley by allowing rumor and whispering on the street to be the guiding source of “fact through story-telling” about this incident? We don’t think so.
With all due respect to ALL the individuals involved in this tragedy, we, the public have a right to know — in a timely manner – the basics of that fatal accident and frankly, of ALL accident and incidents to which our public police servants respond. Even for ambulance calls where legal privacy issues are of paramount importance, the public has a right to know how many people were transported by our Woodstock ambulance from the scene of an incident and whether they were male or female. It is natural for people to want to know what is happening in their community. Not all of it is our business. But a lot of it IS.
A press release should be issued routinely for anything of any substance that occurs in our community. This should not be foreign concept to anyone, or even be a subject in need of discussion. Let’s say three words: Freedom of Information. Let’s say another word: Democracy. For example, just up the road, over in Hartford, Vermont, the police department issues press releases routinely to WEB and every other member of the working press in the Upper Valley. This is done on every incident of substance. The responding officer fills in the blanks on a sheet, sends it up to a supervisor for approval and it’s sent out through a listserv. We (and that means you!) can then get the official news of “what happened” within 24 hours on traffic crashes, assaults, robberies, incidents involving drugs or alcohol and so forth. Our Hartford police neighbors do it, why can’t Woodstock?
In this case, what we might refer to as the “Hasse Halley Fatal”, neither WEB nor any other media outlet has actually been issued the facts of the case : 1. The names and ages of those involved. 2. The type of vehicle. 3. The time of day. 4. The weather. 5. Was speed involved? 6. Was alcohol involved? 7. Were all parties apparently, or apparently not, obeying the traffic laws at the time? 8. Was anyone transported from the scene? 9. Where did the incident happen?
WEB knows that our Woodstock Police Department is a group of well-trained professionals. It’s not rocket science to write and issue a press release and to do so routinely. We’re pretty sure they could make up a form to do it. It’s perfectly acceptable to let us know an incident is still under investigation or that no charges have yet been made. That said, let’s get the whispering and rumor out of the picture for this and all future incidents. The days of a small town quaintly and quietly protecting individuals by sweeping information under the rug are over. Not in this day and age when the internet is faster than a phone call. Now, there is an even greater need for timely and accurate information than ever before. Greater. Not less. Keeping information from the public does not keep the truth from becoming known. I’m sure there are some World Historians who could tell us a lot more about that.
Let’s get more specific about the current “accepted” situation with Woodstock Police: A week-late Twitter feed of vague one-line reports on some, but not all, incidents doesn’t cut it from a public information point of view. And while everyone — including Woodstock Early Bird — enjoys a good newspaper “Police Blotter” read about all the funny skunk and dog rescues in town and who hit a deer, a “Police Blotter” cleansed of all stains (real criminal behavior that absolutely does occur here – drug activity, domestic and sexual assault) does not serve the public good. We (You!) need to have all the information — good and bad.
Woodstock Early Bird writes this particular call for information — in part — as a result of a conversation with a long-time journalist, now retired to Woodstock , who, although hearing — as in hearsay — “on the street” the details of the fatal accident and who he heard was driving the vehicle actually wanted to know the FACTS of the accident. “What,” he asked, “really happened?” “Who was,” he wanted to know, “actually involved?” This journalist said, “You know, this isn’t Russia, we have a right to know.”
Julia Carlisle
Woodstock Early Bird 
Posted by Marie Flower Starrs on October 17, 2011 at 18:26
Excellent reporting Julia – as usual – don’t ever give up
LikeLike
Posted by Chris Silva on October 17, 2011 at 19:05
I disagree.
I believe that the VT standard reported (via WPD) that neither speed, drugs or alcohol were a part of the accident in question. Investigations, criminal or otherwise take time. And yes, in a small town, where everyone knows everyone else there is additional pressure to make sure it’s gotten absolutely right. I’ve know members of the drivers family for 35+ years and I’m fine waiting until the facts of the investigation are known complete and documented. Both of these families have suffered tremendously, lets not make it any worse by putting undo pressure on anyone for facts, that, in the end seem trivial when compared to the tragedy that has occurred.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on October 17, 2011 at 19:23
Chris, you are correct about what was correctly reported in The Vermont Standard. That is not the same as a press release. Being told by officials that essentially “Everything is okay, there was no fault that we can tell from alcohol, speed or drugs so we’re not releasing the name” does not make it an official statement or give the police the right to keep the individual’s name out of the press. It happened. There were two individuals involved. Like any other incident, the parties involved need to be issued in a press release. That press release can officially say “No charges have been filed against Operator A, whose name is X.. No alcohol and no drugs involved.” That’s concrete information. Everyone then knows.
No one is saying the individual is at fault based on the preliminaries and certainly we are all fine waiting for a thorough investigation. That is definitely as it should be. . What should be made clear and absolutely factual from the start and not subject to weeks of rumor is the basic facts of the incidens IN A PRESS RELEASE. It is standard operating procedure by most police departments to issue such a formal piece of paperwork to every member of the press. There is a legal duty for officials to provide information to the public notwithstanding the great suffering that has occurred and will continue for some time to exist.
I totally understand and appreciate what you’re saying, Chris, but if you start protecting one person from being named in an incident you start setting up a situation where the police or the town or the state or the country never have to give out any information and never have to reveal anyone’s name in an attitude like this: “Oh, we’ll take care of it. Don’t worry about the truth — We’ve got it covered.” you start going down a very sketchy road.
The other thing is this, Chris: Why should YOU know the name of this individua (and their pain) l and no one else except those others who have whispered among themselves about it? It’s “on the street” and it might as well be stated officially. You notice WEB is not naming the individual because I haven’t gotten the name from official sources and won’t until police release the name. That said, it’s not going to make any difference, ultimately, whether the name is posted here or anywhere else. People already KNOW. And I’m sure the individual already knows that people KNOW. Let’s get it out in the open and move on.
LikeLike
Posted by Chris Silva on October 17, 2011 at 21:35
I see your point, and strongly agree with you about our right to get information form local, state or federal govt. However, I have to plead ignorance on what might be considered standard practice on the timely distribution of press releases. Two weeks? I’m not in a position to say if that’s a long time. If I were to put myself in the shoes of “driver X” I guess I might selfishly want my name to be released with the findings, up or down. At this point it’s a matter of what any of us consider timely. If I could show deference to the parties, and still meet my legal obligations to the press and otherwise, I guess I would.
LikeLike
Posted by South Woodstocker on October 18, 2011 at 07:18
Kudos for asking the tough questions. And thanks for combatting the groupthink that lies on Woodstock VIllage like a smothering blanket.
LikeLike
Posted by A. E. Norton on October 18, 2011 at 08:38
RE: your recent comment on the Halle tragedy: You are providing the service once provided by the old town Crier. If the driver was some favored good old boy local, well, too bad. The town (read: police) needs to finish its investigation fast, and let the people of Woodstock know what happened. This silence is puzzling and, frankly, suspicious.
What you do is long overdue around here. It’s a superb service you provide. My wife and I, too, have been wondering when the public will know the facts about the Halle accident. Well done.
LikeLike
Posted by Avonblue on October 18, 2011 at 09:32
I agree – tough question but this silence is very odd. Thanks for bringing into the spotlight.
LikeLike
Posted by windsorresnow on October 18, 2011 at 12:46
If you read the final sentence in last week’s Standard submitted by correspondent Linda Maxham, you will undoubtedly find what you are looking for – albeit vague.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on October 18, 2011 at 13:45
Thanks for reference. I, personally, have been learned who was involved, as have many people and we certainly feel badly if that person is suffering. However, as a matter of principle, and this has nothing to do with that individual, police do not have the right to pick and choose whose name they report and whose name they withhold. If there is a record of an incident and they are asked for the information, it should be forthcoming in its entirety. While vague references will get us to the information, from a journalism standpoint, it’ really important that we are provided with the information from someone official. Not just in this particular case but in all cases.
LikeLike
Posted by Lynn St. James on October 18, 2011 at 16:45
With Chief Blish’s new regime, I would give him and the Woodstock Police Department a little latitude, very little latitude. While other agencies may have more immediate press release policies, those are also considerably larger departments. Woodstock currently only has four full time officers and three part time officers, and Chief Blish will not be certified until the end of this month. While the vacancies were anticipated, the onus is still on the Woodstock Police Department for accurate and timely reporting.
Having said that, I agree that there should be consistency in reporting; there should be a standardized press release for all non-typical incidents with typical incidents being listed in the Police Blotter. For those who do read the Police Blotter, I agree there has not been a lot of uniformity there either.
In the past there has not been a lot of headlining news happening here in the Village of Woodstock, but crime rates in this sleepy village are changing. This is evident by the increasing number of reported crimes, arrests and criminal prosecutions. This is no longer a community where we know everyone personally (although at times it still feels that way). The Woodstock community is changing. We have a regional high school that does not have a school resource officer; and ask your children, WUHS has a plethora of availability to illicit substances. And illicit substances lead to a higher crime rate. Why don’t we “hear” about that at in the community? Or better yet, a school board meeting?
In the matter of Dr. Halle’s death, I support the Woodstock Police Department in not immediately releasing the names of the parties involved until the investigation is complete. This is done out of compassion for the BOTH victims, as I am sure the driver is suffering irreparable guilt as well as the grief Mr. Halle is experiencing. In accidents with injury or loss of life, the investigation is substantially more in depth; experts are consulted, medical reports request, etc. While all this is time consuming, the State of Vermont does have guidelines mandating officer reports for crashes…
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on October 18, 2011 at 17:01
Thanks Lynn, definitely appreciate this well-considered and thought-out response. Excellent points worth considering.
However, the assumption is that the public knows this person and what has happened to that person since the accident. We don’t. That’s the point. While YOU may know the particulars and the need for discretion, others don’t because we have no information. So we, the public, have nothing upon which to make a determination. .
There is nothing wrong with asking for latitude — and we understand why. It’s even acceptable for police to ask journalists to respectfully hold off on publishing a name. Woodstock Early Bird has done this several times (withheld names) out of respect for local police and for the work they are trying to do. . However, that is AFTER being being provided with the information that public records law require be issued if asked. The rationale for all this is so the public will know what their police and public officials are doing. It is not acceptable for public policie and other officials to pick and choose whose name they will or will not release based on their close relationships to the people involved.
As to the other points…all excellent. Thank you!
When the request to keep names private occurs more than once in a short period — as has been the WEB experience in the last several months — one has to call even a new Police Chief on it. We were never given the name of the car break-in burglary suspect. We were never informed of the names of two others involved in the spree until see ing their names in a later letter sent to victims. Even an opportunity to provide names of those involved in a recent non-injury accident was brushed aside. We got one name, but not three. Not acceptable.
LikeLike
Posted by Pat Crocker on October 18, 2011 at 18:41
It seems reasonable to ask that this or any other incident be handled with the same consideration for individuals rights, privacy, and dignity and so we would expect to see similar discretion and fact finding before future “police blotter” reports are issued to the weekly press. WEB is also correct that the rumors are flying and surely, at this point, it is time to nip them with a thoughful disclosure of what is known while the investigation proceeds.
LikeLike
Posted by Akankha Perkins on October 18, 2011 at 19:14
Hi Julia,
I very much appreciate all you do to keep us abreast of events, etc., especially during Irene’s worst days.
However, I feel compelled to comment on this blog of yours. I see a big difference between our democratic RIGHT to know vs. our NEED to know. Hasse Halley’s family and the driver of the truck and his family can work out things between them, without the whole town knowing who is who. Knowing the details of her death helps no one and may, in fact, be hurtful to many. The NEED to know only feeds our gossipy tendencies. Lets aim for the higher goal of compassion and let people who are ashamed of and sorry for their behavior alone. It does no good to know who the domestic abusers are, for instance, unless we plan to live with them!
I understand your reporter’s desire to get to the bottom of a story, but in Hasse Halley’s case, please consider the families of all involved when you call for more exposure. They have to live in this community the rest of their lives. Let’s give them some space and peace.
Thank you,
Akankha Perkins
LikeLike
Posted by Janice Prindle on October 19, 2011 at 15:58
I have to disagree with the idea that we don’t need to know, and that compassion requires stone silence “officially” while, of course, rumors that may be even more hurtful are free to flourish as a result.
We need to know not because we are lacking compassion but for one simple reason: The public has a vested interest in knowing that all such public incidents are handled in an even-handed manner, without different standards for different fatal accidents, different drivers, different victims, and without different standards of what the public has a right to know from one town to the next in Vermont. This even-handedness is what creates our trust in our government, local and otherwise.
Providing information through a police press release for a fatal accident is standard, and I can say from my years as a journalist that two weeks is way past the norm. To officially report what can be known at the time is not to “take sides” or to “punish.” Nor does it intrude on families. The real intrusion was what happened and that is the cause of the pain, to the families of course, but to the community as a whole. We do not lack a “higher order of compassion” who ask for honest reporting by our public officials, without showing favors not shown to others, as Pat Crocker points out.
There are plenty of things we don’t need to know about this and many other events. But we do need to know from our public officials what happened on a public road, who was involved, and the status of an investigation.
LikeLike