While the owner of the security firm accused of participating in witness intimidation in the William McCormick case denies wrongdoing in a November deposition obtained by The Herald, his testimony fails to put the issue to rest.
In the deposition, Pat Brosnan — the owner of Brosnan Risk Consultants — states that an investigator in his employ anonymously hand-delivered a package to the home of witness Mike Burch's girlfriend to get a photograph of Burch. But the investigator already possessed a picture of Burch from the internet, and did not take a picture of him after delivering the package. Brosnan states the purpose of the ploy was to covertly surveil — not threaten — Burch, but the investigator called Burch about the incident the following day from a blocked phone number. He testifies that the investigator was offered money to obtain the picture in 2009, but the investigator did not attempt to do so until late 2010. He testifies that he was unaware Burch had spoken in the press about the case, but he had received news articles — attached to e-mails — about the case.
The deposition was taken Nov. 3 by McCormick's lawyer, Scott Kilpatrick, two weeks after he filed a motion alleging that Burch had been subject to witness intimidation. Burch — a former assistant wrestling coach and the University-appointed adviser to McCormick when he was accused of rape in 2006 — received an anonymous package Sept. 27 inviting him to a free dinner at the DownCity Diner "to show our appreciation for everything you do."
The following day, Burch received a phone call about the package from a blocked number. Using subpoenas, Kilpatrick's law firm traced the call to a phone owned by Pat Brosnan, the founder of a New York private investigative firm known to work for the father of the female alum who accused McCormick of rape. McCormick is suing the female alum, her father and the University in federal court.
In the deposition, Brosnan states he was retained in 2009 to surveil Burch and ensure his daily patterns would not bring him into contact with the female alum, then a senior. Brosnan says the surveillance ended in 2009, but that at that time he offered the investigator assigned to the case, Sharon Clatch, $1,000 to obtain a picture of Burch if she were to find herself in Providence in the future. He states delivery of the package was not a threat but a ploy to lure Burch into a situation in which Clatch could take a picture of him, and that neither he nor the female alum's father were aware of the ploy until after it had taken place.
But according to Clatch's notes — subpoenaed in connection with the deposition — Brosnan's firm already possessed a picture of Burch taken from the internet. And according to Brosnan's deposition, Clatch did not take any photograph of Burch after delivering the package, even though Burch went to the restaurant after receiving the invitation.
Brosnan says he asked for the photograph "because I suspected, particularly when the civil case came above ground, that there may be a possibility this may evolve at some later date for the client into a focused surveillance … and it would certainly be very handy to have a recent photograph."
Brosnan states that his employees performed surveillance of Burch in September of 2009, but "never got a photograph."
Kilpatrick asks Brosnan, "You needed a picture of him because you didn't have one and didn't know what he looked like; right?" to which Brosnan responds, "I didn't have a picture, no. There was no picture."
According to the deposition, Kilpatrick then brings Brosnan's attention to notes from Clatch's 2009 surveillance of Burch, which include a headshot of Burch taken from the internet.
Brosnan confirms the photograph is of Burch and responds, "We didn't feel that the photos were of sufficient quality and clarity and crisp enough in case that we had to go on a surveillance, on a focused surveillance, at a later date."
After Clatch finished the ploy, Brosnan says Clatch called him to tell him, "it worked; he went to dinner. And unfortunately, she still didn't get the picture."
When asked why Clatch failed to get a photograph of Burch, Brosnan first responds that he does not know. When asked why Clatch said she did not get a photograph, Brosnan responds "lighting."
"Maybe because she tried to draw him on at 7:30 at night," Kilpatrick replies. Clatch's invitation requested Burch come to dinner at 7:30 p.m.
Later in the deposition, the questioning turns to Clatch's phone call to Burch the following day, and the role it played in the ploy.
When first asked why Clatch called Burch the following day from a blocked number, Brosnan responds, "I don't know." When asked again about the purpose of the call, Brosnan says Clatch "wanted to convey to (Burch) that there was no ulterior motive to the extent that she thought that this would be helpful to him to understand in some way. That's what she said to me."
Brosnan states in the deposition that he did not know that Burch was a witness in a lawsuit "until recently." He also states that although the female alum's father had sent him news articles in which Burch talks to reporters about the McCormick case, he did not read the articles and was unaware Burch had been vocal in the media about the case.
Brosnan says he does not think the package — which consisted of an invitation and flowers — could reasonably have been considered scary.
He did not respond to e-mails and a phone call seeking comment for this story.
