A local Facebook account that named and shamed cooperating witnesses followed the same pattern in each post.
A photo of the supposed witness.
A photo of the criminal complaint highlighting the information the witness gave police.
And a caption berating the witness.
“The ratting is about to be over,” an Aug. 7 post read.
The account underscored the deeply ingrained culture of “no snitching” that in some communities vilifies people who cooperate with police. It also disturbed local victim advocates, who on Thursday characterized it as witness intimidation and called on police to investigate the account.
“It’s incredibly dangerous for [witnesses] to have someone doing this to them,” said Tracey Provident, vice president at the Center for Victims. “It takes a lot of courage to come forward and talk to law enforcement and be involved in an investigation ... People’s lives have been forever changed by a gunshot injury, and then you add to that this fear to come forward, and with good reason.”
The Facebook account was connected to more than 1,500 ‘friends,’ and appeared to have made its first public post in late July. Since Aug. 2, the account published the names and photos at least seven supposed witnesses in area shootings and homicides. In response to an inquiry from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Friday, Facebook determined the account violated the company’s “authenticity policy” and removed the page. That policy forbids fake names, multiple accounts, shared accounts and a variety of other actions.
Before the page was removed, the posts prompted hundreds of comments, with some people defending the named witnesses, others scolding them. Some questioned whether the posts are accurate and others demanded more. At least twice, the supposed witnesses commented on the page and denied cooperating with police. The homicides and shootings featured in the posts happened between 2014 and 2016.
It’s not clear whether the posts rise to the level of witness intimidation or warrant criminal charges. A Pittsburgh police spokesman said Thursday the bureau is aware of this particular page and others, but would not say whether an investigation is underway.
“The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police has in the past and will continue to investigate and prosecute witness and victim intimidation,” Cmdr. Victor Joseph said in a statement, which also said police rely heavily on cooperation from witnesses and community members to solve crimes.
“The value of this type of trust and cooperation cannot be overstated,” Cmdr. Joseph said.
A variety of factors influence a witness’ decision to cooperate, he said in the statement.
“Postings on social media ‘outing’ a cooperating witness or victim can and does cause substantial fear for the witness,” he said. “Just as it does when the media identifies a witness in print or shows news footage of the police talking to potential witnesses at a crime scene.”
Mike Manko, spokesman for Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., said his office can’t give a “blanket statement about what constitutes witness intimidation.”
“Any effort to dissuade people from helping to solve crimes in their community is a significant concern to all law enforcement,” he said. “We are fortunate to have people in every one of our communities and neighborhoods who want to come forward and assist law enforcement, and any attempts on social media or otherwise to negatively impact that willingness will be dealt with accordingly.”
State police Lt. Dale Brown, criminal investigations section commander for Pittsburgh-based Troop B, said Friday that each post would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if criminal charges are warranted.
“If it’s a current case, and because of those posts the victim starts receiving threats, then I’m sure the district attorney would agree that would be something we need to look into and perhaps file witness intimidation charges,” he said.
He added that investigators tend to see more hesitant or uncooperative witnesses in tight-knit communities, and said some people stay silent because they fear retaliation.
“Sometimes they don’t trust the police, don’t want to be involved,” he said. “But if you have someone who lives outside the community who saw [the crime], like a delivery driver or a mailman, typically those people will come forward and be witnesses.”
In some investigations, Lt. Brown said, returning to the community in the days or weeks after a crime and continuing to be present and ask questions can prompt a witness to come forward.
“We hope they see us there and know we’re trying to do the right thing,” he said.
The longstanding ‘no snitching’ sentiment has morphed over time, said David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
Initially, the idea was narrowly aimed at criminals who turned in other criminals in order to gain some sort of personal benefit, he said.
“What it came to be seen as is a whole much broader message, which was, ‘Don’t help the police, don’t talk to the police,’” Mr. Harris said. “The small number of people who are engaged in serious crimes very effectively terrorize the community to the point where if the police come to your door and your brother was shot, you won’t tell who did it.”
Police have worked to combat that silence by focusing on building relationships with community members and offering protection to some who do testify and cooperate.
The Rev. Paul Abernathy, director of FOCUS Pittsburgh, a nonprofit that provides social services in the Hill District, said he’s recently seen community members become more willing to talk to police.
“We have a long way to go,” he said. “But I believe there is an increasing number of community members who are no longer content to be enslaved by this culture of silence. What we need to do as a region is to capitalize on this momentum, get to the heart of the community and let people know there are ways to speak out and still maintain security and protection.”
The recent Facebook account is far from the first time a list of “snitches” has been circulated in Pittsburgh. In 2007, typewritten fliers with 126 names of supposed cooperating witnesses, confidential informants and attorneys turned up at the Allegheny County Jail.
That list, which warned readers not to trust anyone it named, raised concern among law enforcement at the time.
But a typewritten list does not have the reach and impact of a Facebook account, said Valerie Dixon, director of family and community support at the Center for Victims. Even if no one is physically harmed, she said Thursday, the posts could deter other witnesses from coming forward.
“They’re utilizing a new tool,” she said. “This feels very dangerous.”
Shelly Bradbury: 412-263-1999, sbradbury@post-gazette.com or follow @ShellyBradbury on Twitter.
First Published: August 10, 2018, 1:50 p.m.
Updated: August 10, 2018, 6:42 p.m.
