Baker’s Dozen Case Settles

“It’s good closure.” That’s the response from Laura Aziz, mother of Yale student, Sharyar, to today’s settlement reached in San Francisco Superior Court. Sharyar came to San Francisco on a national tour with the Yale singing group “The Baker’s Dozen” at the end of 2006. They attended a New Year’s Eve party in a Richmond District home and sang the Star Spangled Banner at midnight. That’s when the trouble began. Rich Aicardi was nineteen years old at the time, a San Francisco native. He made fun of the singers and got into an argument with them. According to several witnesses, the Yale students said they didn’t want to fight. But, Aicardi called reinforcements – his brothers and several friends who were caught on surveillance camera in a van at the scene. As members of the Baker’s Dozen trickled out of the party, they were jumped – up to eight assailants on a single Yale student.

Peradotto and the Aicardi brothers

We’ve heard no reports of injuries to the San Franciscans, but several of the Yale singers suffered injuries: black eyes, sprains, a concussion, and the worst case – Sharyar Aziz’s jaw was broken in two places. It had to be wired shut; he’ll forever have two metal plates in his jaw; he suffered permanent nerve damage.

A judge threw out felony assault charges against Rich Aicardi and his friend, Brian Dwyer. Witnesses could not identify them as having attacked Yale student Evan Gogel. Prosecutors did not pursue charges against anyone for the attack on Sharyar Aziz.

Evan Gogel

Today’s settlement provides closure for the family. Under the agreement, the dollar amount will not be released, but Aziz family lawyers called it “significant”. Laura Aziz told me by phone from New York tonight that the public apologies are even more important than the money. You can read Dwyer’s here and the Aicardi brothers’ here.

There’s one loose end. Aicardi’s friend, Marino Peradotto, refused to agree to the settlement. He’s also being sued by the Aziz family for his role in the attack. Lawyers for the Aziz family tell us he’s trying to delay settling the case until he’s released from the Marines. There’s a court hearing next month. We’ll keep you up to date.

SFPD Inspectors Decision

Late on Friday, after a six-hour hearing, the San Francisco Civil Service Commission announced its decision on the SFPD Inspectors test.

As we reported last September, Chief Heather Fong wanted to cut the rank of inspector and fill openings in the Inspections Bureau with sergeants. There are differences in the two roles: the department's 302 inspectors are detectives, the ones who investigate crime, homicide, robbery, sexual assault and fraud. They usually work alone or with another inspector. On a separate track are sergeants who supervise patrol officers and respond to crime scenes.

More than 50 officers who passed the inspectors test ten years ago filed a complaint with the commission, because they were passed over and Chief Fong filled openings in the Inspectors Bureau with sergeants.

It was somewhat of a split decision by the Commission. Its members ruled against the officers, but decided:

- Chief Fong did make out-of-class assignments, but that it had also been done in the past.
- The inspectors list from ten years ago is still active, that the inspectors Q-35 position should continue to exist, and a new test for the rank should be given.
- Fong should stop assigning sergeants to the Inspections Bureau.

Lawyers from Public Advocates represented the 50 officers, and are now considering taking the matter to court.

Trial Updates

We have updates on two I-Team investigations.

You may remember Phau Lam, the owner of a Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, who ran from our camera when we tried to ask him about some questionable charges to his customers’ credit cards. We documented how he continued to charge his customers’ credit cards, almost a year after the restaurant shut down.

Lam pled guilty in December, but there was a problem at his sentencing this week. Lam had to be interviewed by the Probation Department before he could be sentenced, but he told an interviewer, “I am innocent. I only pleaded guilty because my lawyers told me to.” After the judge read that, he said in open court that he can’t sentence a man who says he’s innocent, that Lam needed to go to trial. This morning in San Francisco Superior Court, Lam’s defense attorney, Carmen Aguirre, told the court that Lam was referring to a prior conviction in San Mateo County, that he didn’t have a translator during the probation interview and had to speak English, that he was feeling the effects of medication for a head injury and was confused. Aguirre said Lam does take responsibility, that he admits he’s guilty of the 37 counts of identity theft, forgery and credit card fraud. The judge ordered a new probation report with another interview, and he reset the sentencing date for February 26th. Under the plea deal, Lam will receive three years in state prison. That will be offset by time served – he’s been in custody since November 2007.

Lake County Boat Crash

We first raised the question in August of 2007 – is the wrong man being charged in a fatal boat crash on Clear Lake?

Bismarck Dinius was sitting at the wheel of his friend’s sailboat on a lazy sunset cruise, when a powerboat driven by the second in command at the Lake County Sheriff’s Office slammed into the sailboat. Lynn Thornton of Willows, a passenger on the sailboat and the fiancée of the sailboat owner, died. The Lake County District attorney did not charge the powerboat driver, Russell Perdock, even though we was driving the powerboat 40 to 50 miles an hour or more in the dark. Prosecutors charged Bismarck Dinius with manslaughter, with the allegation that the sailboat’s lights were off at the time and that Dinius was under the influence of alcohol.

Here’s the latest. The case was scheduled to go to trial next week, but the defense has agreed to a prosecution request to delay the trial. The new date – May 19th. We’ll be there and bring you the latest.

SF Crime Cameras: "No Impact"

We ran a story last August about San Francisco’s million-dollar surveillance camera program – how it was largely failing in its mission to deter violent crime. In fact, the cameras had helped two men escape murder charges.

So, it was no surprise to us when the City quietly posted a report on the Police Commission Web site late this afternoon, showing that the 71 video cameras have had no impact on violent crime at all. You can read the full report here.

The program has become something of an embarrassment for Mayor Gavin Newsom, who enthusiastically championed the cameras as a way to clean up high-crime neighborhoods. The City Administrator commissioned UC Berkeley to do a comprehensive study on the program's effectiveness last year, but if the timing of today's release (late on a Friday afternoon) is anything to go by, the City isn't all that interested in letting the public know the results. Sources tell us that city officials originally wanted to release the report on New Year's Eve, when it would have made even less of a splash.

One of the key findings: researchers discovered that the City is failing to comply with its own ordinance, which requires it to keep videos on file for 30 days. Right now, they get erased after just seven days because there's not enough server space on city servers. Researchers estimate it'll cost at least $500,000 to buy the servers needed to meet the requirement.

What's more, privacy restrictions on the videos were so tight that the City would not let researchers view any of the actual videos. The only videos the researchers saw were the recordings related to the I-Team's earlier story, which we sent them, and the ones they watched on another news website.

Researchers did find a 24 percent drop in property crime near the cameras. The report is on the agenda for next Wednesday's Police Commission meeting, where the findings will be open for public discussion.