More than two months after a Vermont inmate hung himself in a mop closet, more details have emerged about how it happened.
Findings from two investigations — by the Defender General and the Vermont State Police — into the death of Robert J. Mossey have left lawmakers with a glut of additional questions.
The Corrections Oversight Committee was updated on Mossey’s death Tuesday morning. Mossey’s stepfather, Todd Jimmo, was among those in the audience. It was the second time the committee has discussed the matter. The last suicide in a correctional facility, prior to Mossey’s death, was in 2004.
Both reports provide a step-by-step account of how Mossey managed to kill himself Aug. 30 while under Department of Corrections (DOC) supervision at Northern State Correctional Facility in Newport, and how the incident was subsequently handled.
According to the Vermont State Police report, Mossey fashioned a noose ahead of time, using razor blades and a bed sheet. He put three suicide notes into the outgoing mail, jammed an ink canister into the lock of the mop closet door, and tied a rope between the inner door handle and the sink inside to prevent anyone from entering. He was found that Friday afternoon, hanging by the bed sheet, which had been fastened to a vent.
The body had second-degree burns likely caused by contact with a steam pipe and/or hot running water, the police report said. The scene also contained “fluids and tissue of the decedent, as well as blood from the injured Corrections Officer,” who was hurt while cutting down Mossey’s body, the report said.
The police investigation didn’t unearth evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of inmates or corrections staff. But Defender General Matthew Valerio’s report uncovered several disturbing details about what transpired.
After Mossey was cut down, inmates were dispatched to clean the scene.
According to Valerio, they weren’t trained or equipped — with rubber gloves and proper footwear, for instance — to properly handle the situation and to take precautions against blood-borne pathogens.
“They were slopping around in there cleaning this up,” Valerio continued, describing a macabre task that involving cleaning up tissue and blood. “I don’t think it’s appropriate, frankly, that inmates be involved in cleaning up any of these major incidents.”
While incarcerated, Mossey had been taking antidepressants with potentially serious emotional side effects. Valerio told lawmakers that the medication’s instructions recommended regular follow-up visits with a medical provider to monitor side effects, but his investigation turned up no record of such check-ins occurring.
Based on the timeline his office assembled, Valerio also raised questions about the amount of time that elapsed between when inmates notified officers of the locked closet, and when Mossey’s body was discovered. After noticing the locked door and hearing running water inside, inmates “repeatedly” notified corrections officers, starting at approximately noon.
According to the report, at some point within the next 95 minutes, staff attempted to open the door but couldn’t because the lock had been jammed. Mossey was discovered missing during a headcount at roughly 1:45 p.m., after which janitors were dispatched to force open the closet door.
One of the more galling findings, from Valerio’s point of view, had to do with a completely different department of state government. His ability to obtain answers from corrections staff was stymied, not by the DOC, but by the Department of Human Resources, which, according to Valerio, had advised staff not to speak with the investigator from the Prisoners’ Rights Office.
While it’s reasonable for some corrections officers to invoke their Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions, staff who weren’t directly involved in the incident should have been able to speak about it, Valerio argued.
“We’ve been butting heads, frankly, with a lawyer [Steve Collier] from Human Resources,” Valerio said. “In the past, we’ve had discussions with corrections officers regarding incidents, and that has not occurred in the particular case.”
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, echoed Valerio’s frustrations and said he is in the midst of drafting legislation to remedy the roadblocks the Defender General encountered. Sears said he was not yet ready to disclose the details of that bill.
Department of Human Resources Commissioner Kate Duffy said she was not aware of any specific order, originating within her department, asking corrections staff not to cooperate with the Defender General’s investigators. But she also said that if staff had been advised against sharing information it was “precisely to ensure the integrity of the [criminal] investigation.” If they had provided information without being apprised of their rights, those facts could have been rendered unusable during a prosecution, she said.
DHR just commenced its own investigation into the matter — it will look for evidence of misconduct among corrections staff. The department had been awaiting the results of the police investigation, according to Duffy.
Sears said he was impatient for answers and concerned about the pace of the investigation. “My concern is it could be two years. As a legislator, I feel that once again the Legislature is in the dark,” he said.
Corrections Commissioner Andy Pallito provided the following email response to the investigations.
“At this point, we are evaluating some of the concerns that the DG raised in his report as well as evaluate the VSP report. We have referred the VSP portion to DHR to evaluate for potential employee misconduct. It does not appear there is any, but DHR will need to weigh in.”
