It is not surprising that the grand jury did not indict Honolulu Police Sgt. Darren Cachola.

The possibility of any criminal charges against the officer likely was doomed from the start, because the Honolulu Police Department officers who responded to the 911 call failed to conduct the impartial and unbiased investigation necessary for a proper review of the case.

There’s much that we don’t know.

No police report containing witness statements or photographs was filed.

We don’t know whether the first responders tried to take a statement from Cachola; we don’t know whether any witnesses were interviewed; we don’t know what caused the witnesses to become unwilling to testify in court to what they saw.

Finally, we don’t know what evidence was presented to the grand jury, or whether alternative charges were considered, for example, trespass, mutual affray, or harassment.

We do know that someone out there was concerned enough about Cachola’s behavior to:

» Call the police to respond to Kuni’s Restaurant;

» Intervene on behalf of the woman during the fight, and;

» Send a videotape to news organizations when HPD did not take action that night.

We also know that HPD treated Cachola’s case differently from the start. And this is where the problem lies. Because of the special treatment Cachola received, we will never get to the bottom of what occurred at Kuni’s Restaurant.

In many criminal cases, witnesses and victims are most willing to speak while they are still frightened or hurt. Those statements are later admissible in court as "excited utterances" or "present sense impressions." Photographs also document victims’ and witnesses’ demeanors and physical evidence at the scene.

Taking statements, gathering evidence and filing a police report at the time of the incident are standard operating procedures. These procedures are essential in cases where victims and witnesses are likely to later recant or be reluctant to testify — especially where a police officer is a suspect.

The failure of the responding HPD officers to follow standard procedures in this case means that the opportunity to gather critical evidence was lost forever.

HPD leadership has been largely silent on this point, attempting to misdirect attention with the claim that the grand jury’s inability to indict somehow vindicates their handling of this case.

The joint legislative briefing revealed that HPD’s response to the Cachola incident was not unique. Cathy Betts, executive director of Hawaii’s Commission on the Status of Women, provided testimony from numerous people that revealed a pattern of special treatment for police officers and their colleagues, specifically in the area of HPD response to calls of domestic violence.

What the Cachola incident demonstrates is that change is needed at the Honolulu Police Department.

Clear policies, which require complete and unbiased investigations of fellow police officers, must be written and honored. Mandatory techniques designed to investigate cases that do not depend on complaining witnesses must be implemented and followed. Input from community providers in the field of domestic violence must be welcomed and respected.

The grand jury’s decision does not vindicate HPD. Far from it — it demonstrates what happens when responding officers fail to follow procedures and give a pass to one of their own.