PHILADELPHIA PAPER RETRACTS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST WILLIAMS : WILLIAM'S REACTION.

Byline: Knight-Ridder Tribune News Wire

Two Philadelphia Inquirer articles about a 1988 police corruption probe relied on two sources as saying that Willie L. Williams, then Philadelphia police commissioner, had been briefed in advance on plans for a sting aimed at four officers, and transferred them to new assignments anyway.

The paper has since determined that the sources, both former police corruption investigators, say they had no first-hand information that Williams was briefed. One said his earlier statement was based on his belief that a police commissioner would be told of such a sting as a matter of course.

The Inquirer also has determined that Williams is not under investigation.

The four officers were suspected of pocketing money from drug raids. Williams approved their transfers at a time when, according to Police Department documents and sources, departmental investigators were preparing an undercover operation aimed at catching them.

Officials involved in the 1988 investigation told The Inquirer the transfers effectively killed the plan. None of the four was ever charged.

The Inquirer reviewed the articles, published on the front page April 18 and 19, after Williams, now chief of police in Los Angeles, said they were inaccurate and unfair. Reporters rechecked notes, reinterviewed sources and re-examined Police Department documents. Williams declined to be interviewed.

The articles stated that a sting was to occur Oct. 13, 1988 - the day after the officers were transferred. Police documents indicate that a sting was being prepared, and sources involved in the planning say it was imminent. But there are conflicting accounts as to whether a date had been set.

The Inquirer's review confirmed that the transfers made an undercover operation against the officers impossible, and that the move left law enforcement officials puzzled and angry.

Although Williams is not under investigation, the transfers and the alleged theft of drug money that prompted plans for a sting are being looked at by authorities, the review also confirmed.

``The Inquirer is committed to fair and accurate reporting,'' said Maxwell E.P. King, editor of the paper. ``In this instance, we found that it was appropriate to correct the record, as this story does.''

Williams' lawyers demanded a retraction by letter dated May 8. Publication of this article was delayed until Friday by The Inquirer's review of its reporting, by efforts to obtain an interview with Williams, and by discussions with his lawyers over how to correct errors in the original articles.

The April articles described a 1988 investigation by the Police Department's Ethics Accountability Division (EAD). Documents detailing the probe were released recently in connection with lawsuits over police misconduct. The documents show that an informant gave EAD potentially incriminating information about the four officers, then with the Major Crimes Unit.

Investigators planned to lure the officers to a fictitious drug location, leave a pile of money, and videotape them as they divvied up the cash. A sting was initially planned for May 1988, but was canceled at the last minute. In September and early October of that year, renewed preparations were made for an undercover operation.

On Oct. 12, 1988, the officers were transferred from the Major Crimes Unit to police districts around the city.

The Inquirer sought comment from Williams for several weeks before the two articles were published and sent him a copy of EAD's summary of the probe. Through a spokeswoman, Williams declined to comment.

On the day the first article appeared, Williams issued a statement saying he had not known a sting was planned and would not have approved the transfers if he had known.

Others who were in top command positions in the Police Department at the time have either declined to comment on the transfers or have said they cannot remember why the officers were reassigned in 1988.

In their May 8 letter to The Inquirer, lawyers for Williams cited statements in the two articles that they contended were false. In several instances, the complaints center on the issue of whether a sting had been firmly set for Oct. 13, 1988.

The letter said Philadelphia Police Inspector Jerrold G. Kane, who was in charge of EAD at the time, ``has confirmed that while EAD was trying to catch the allegedly corrupt officers . . . no stings were scheduled for a date around or after the date of the officers' transfers.''

The letter quotes Kane as saying that to his knowledge, Williams ``was not involved with any of the plans regarding potential stings.'' It says that ``Kane never spoke with Chief Williams about such plans and is not aware of any other EAD officers'' who did.

Kane declined to comment for this article.

Williams' lawyers also cited information they said they obtained from Deputy Police Commissioner George E. Craig, who was head of the Major Crimes Unit in 1988.

Craig ``has confirmed that he was the officer who initiated the transfers,'' the lawyers wrote, because he ``was concerned about the alleged corruption'' and about ``EAD's inability to catch the allegedly corrupt officers.''

``As such, he felt it was advisable to separate the officers by transferring them to other duties within the Department,'' the letter said.

``Chief Williams did not transfer these officers to `scotch' an EAD sting and cover the alleged corruption . . .,'' the letter said. ``On the contrary, these transfers were intended to separate the officers and remove the opportunity for them to continue to engage in the alleged corruption.''

Craig declined to comment when contacted by The Inquirer.

In Los Angeles, Police Chief Willie L. Williams issued the following statement in response to The Philadelphia Inquirer's retraction:

``I'm extremely pleased that The Philadelphia Inquirer has finally printed a retraction absolving me of any wrongdoing regarding the transfer of officers in 1988,'' Williams said.

CAPTION(S):

Box

Box: WILLIAM'S REACTION (see text)