Amendment added to suit against sheriff, officers
By Erin Rickert
The Daily Reflector
Thursday, July 12, 2007
A lawsuit involving top officials in the Pitt County Sheriff’s Office and its investigation into the 2005 death of a deputy’s husband was amended Wednesday, based on comments Sheriff Mac Manning made Tuesday in response to the original complaint.
The amended complaint contends Manning was wrong to say the State Bureau of Investigation had closed its investigation in the death of Stacy Pollard.
The complaint, filed by Greenville attorney David Sutton, said the SBI review is ongoing.
The SBI agent in charge of the investigation was asked to conduct several follow-up interviews, Pitt County District Attorney Clark Everett said Wednesday. However, his office has closed its involvement in the case.
The 19-page lawsuit, originally filed July 5, states the investigation into Stacy Pollard’s Nov. 18, 2005, death was improperly handled because Pollard’s wife, a lieutenant in the department, had romantic relationships with two of Manning’s chiefs.
Manning denied the allegations.
The SBI’s investigation into Pollard’s death was initially requested in March 2006, said Jennifer Canada, an SBI spokeswoman.
“That investigation technically wrapped up Dec. 22, 2006,” Canada said. Per procedure, she said, the report was provided to the Pitt County District Attorney’s Office.
“When the agent came and delivered most of his information, there were some issues discussed that we wanted resolved,” Everett said. “We also talked to Pollard family members who had some information they wanted to discuss. I told them in the spring that there was insufficient evidence to rule this as anything but an accidental death.”
Everett said while he closed the case, he asked the SBI agent to follow up with some interviews. The agent then underwent surgery and had to recuperate, Everett said, so they have not had time to discuss the follow-up.
Manning said Wednesday he had not yet seen the amendment to the lawsuit.
“If there is anything different, then I’m not privy to it,” Manning said. “What I stated at the press conference is what I know.”
The lawsuit states Stacey Pollard was found by his wife Nov. 18, 2005, floating lifeless in a swimming pool at the couple’s Grimesland home.
Barbara Pollard, mother of the late Stacey Pollard, names Manning, Chief Lee Moore, Chief Rick Fisher and her daughter-in-law, Lt. Michelle Pollard, in the suit.
Manning said the investigation into the death — ruled a drowning by the N.C. Medical Examiner’s Office — was more than thorough and having an outside agency step in was not typical in this type of case.
“I am confident we did everything we should have done, when we should have done it, and I want the folks of Pitt County to know that they can rely on the sheriff’s office and have confidence and faith in the sheriff’s office that we will perform our duties to the best of our ability,” Manning said Tuesday. He said his office’s investigators reported directly to him.
The amendments to the suit challenge Manning’s statement concerning Michelle Pollard’s accounts about her husband’s death. She gave the sheriff’s office and SBI differing versions of the events leading to the discovery of her husband. Manning said his investigators found and photographed evidence supporting the statement she made to his investigators.
The amendment further states ” … it appears that the Pitt County Sheriff Mac Manning is still ‘investigating’ the matter (regarding the romantic relationships).”
The suit claims Manning is using this to further cover-up and protect his office and Michelle Pollard.
Manning never said he was investigating claims of the reported relationships. On Tuesday, he said the allegations of romantic relationships were rumors and he had never been able to “determine any such thing occurred.”
July 25th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
The Sheriff wants the “folks” of Pitt County to trust the Sheriff’s office, but I don’t think I’d trust someone who has knowingly lied to the people of the county.
July 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Raecheal,
You seem to know very little about Michelle and are probably not even using your real name, however, Slander and Defamation of Character are at hand and she has not lied… Would you ike to be added to her attorneys list of people that will be sued for slander when all is said and done - if so be a real woman and use your real name.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Sara (is that YOUR real name??????!!!)
I did use my real name, but I’m not stupid enough to give out my last name and have that crazy woman stalking me. And if I were you, I wouldn’t threaten people that you don’t know. I could take you to court for that. I know my rights and I also DO know Michelle well enough to speak my mind. I would also ask you a question, when do I not have the right to voice my opinion? What is she going to do? Sue all of Pitt County for talking about her? I don’t think so. Don’t give me your attitude. And you would know if you had read the reports that she did lie because she told two totally different stories, so maybe you should check yourself andverify your information before you leave comments.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Gosh, Sara, or should I say MICHELLE, that woman didn’t say anything about you in that comment, only your boss. Why don’t YOU be a real woman and say YOU’RE real name. It’s so freakin obvious to anyone who’s reading these posts, almost humorous! The part that’s not funny is that you killed your husband and til now have gotten away with MURDER. By the way, darlin’, my name is KAREN. I’m not the one that has a reason to cover ANYTHING up!
August 1st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
And by the way “Sarah”, I’m pretty sure that I’m a real woman because I don’t have the right equipment to be a man.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 am
I’m glad someone actually read the article and paid attention to what I was talking about. Gosh “Sarah”, do you think the whole site and all the comments revolve around Michelle? Very interesting. I was just expressing how I felt about the article. How about an apology?
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
I guess “Sara” gave up trying to intimidate people. Isn’t that wonderful. Now maybe we can actually have discussions about this situation without being interrupted with crap!
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
It is a shame that we witnessing a civil suit brought forth to correct a wrong that should have been handled by the criminal division of the courts 2 years ago. We all know how this is going to end, Sherriff Manning, please end it now before we become fodder for CNN, Fox News, and every other station out there. I really would like to know where the D.A. was on this, and how heavily he was influenced by the sherriff
August 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Can the person that sent the e-mailed to Nancy Grace share the love and give all of us the e-mail address. That way we can flood her with e-mails. Then maybe we can get somewhere with this.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5c.html?24
If you will copy and paste this link, and fill in that info they requested, they’ll send the email for you. This is what I did when contacting NG. So maybe if she gets DOZENS on this one particular case, she’ll jump!!!!!