Two outside investigations into Castro case find no collusion; Bennett report recommends discipline

Two outside investigative firms presented differing but complementary accounts of a Lawrence police incident and the processes that followed, and their findings were discussed at a special City Council meeting on Feb. 4.

Daniel Bennett of Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting concluded his investigation (submitted to the city in October 2024) with multiple findings about a Feb. motor-vehicle pursuit and related conduct. Bennett recommended three forms of discipline: termination for false reporting, termination for alleged unethical hiring practices, and termination for intimidation; he also recommended a 90-day suspension on one pursuit-related sustained allegation. Bennett told the council he reviewed video, dispatch calls and witness testimony and said those materials supported his findings.

Maverick Investigative Services, led by Rob Morin, was asked by the city to determine whether the initial investigation had been compromised by collusion or interference. Morin said his firm's scope was narrower: "We were tasked with first determining how the investigation expanded from the initial complaint ... and then if there was any collusion that would have somehow, interfered with Bennett's investigation," he said. Morin summarized his primary finding bluntly: "There was no collusion." He added that while Maverick noted procedural missteps — including careless handling of confidential documents and gaps in scheduling and legal accommodations for interviews — the firm concluded those issues did not compromise Bennett's investigative integrity.

The Massachusetts Division of Police Standards (the state Post division) weighed in by letter dated Feb. 4, signed by Matthew P. Landry, director, Division of Police Standards. The letter said the commission found "no factual or legal basis to support" Maverick's characterization of Lieutenant Paul Rossi's actions as a violation and emphasized the commission's statutory role in receiving complaints from any source. The letter warned that the commission "will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the ability of any law enforcement officer in the commonwealth to make a good faith report to the commission ... and will forcefully act in response to any evidence of actual or threatened retaliation." The council submitted the letter for the record during the meeting.

Union and department reactions were strongly divergent. Sergeant Mike Samard, president of the Superior Officers union, criticized the administration for what he called a cover-up and said members of the department felt dragged through the mud. He praised Bennett's work and accused the administration of favoring an internal candidate for chief. Samard also said his own interview with Maverick was recorded and that he provided documents in support of the Bennett findings.

Maverick reported interviewing roughly eight city employees, including officers and administrative staff, and said the firm attempted multiple contacts with the central respondents. Morin testified that the firm conducted a forensic extraction from two city-owned devices, reviewed text messages and email, and sought context from the account holders; after that review the firm did not find evidence that compromised Bennett's conclusions.

Bennett told the council he made findings without a formal in-person interview of former provisional chief William Castro because Castro did not participate despite multiple scheduling attempts and, later, because the mayor's office instructed Bennett to "halt" further investigatory steps. Bennett said he nonetheless relied on circumstantial and direct evidence in preparing his findings: "You don't just because a respondent refuses to talk to you ... that doesn't end your investigation," Bennett said.

The council and attendees pressed both contractors on process differences — recording of interviews, who received draft reports and whether the mayor's office or others had influenced the timing and scope of subsequent inquiries. Morin said he hand-delivered a hard copy and a thumb drive of the Maverick report to Mayor Brian De Pena and that the firm did not distribute the report further.

Taken together, the two independent reviews leave the council with a complex record: Bennett recommended significant disciplinary steps for Castro and other officers on specific allegations; Maverick found no collusion that would have invalidated Bennett's work but identified communication failures and procedural lapses the city should fix. Councilors asked the city attorney to investigate how an unredacted version of the Maverick report reached the public; the council also withdrew the agenda item after discussion.

What's next: the council directed the city attorney to investigate the leak, and the Division of Police Standards letter signals possible state follow-up if there is credible evidence of retaliation. The council did not take disciplinary action at the meeting; any personnel decisions would be separate and follow relevant civil-service and legal processes.

Votes, evidence and exhibits from both reports were submitted to the meeting record for council review.