Detective Wibrew – Attentiveness to Duty, Gross Neglect of Duty, Gross Dereliction of Duty, Gross Maleficence of Duty and Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer.

Detective Wibrew was the primary investigator responsible for a thorough and complete investigation into the homicide of Scott Dingman.  In the initial review of the crime scene, Detective Wibrew, Lt. Healing and others on scene developed a theory that supported JP Morgan’s claim of self-defense that revolved around one single brass 9mm round that belonged to Scott Dingman being located under the body of the suspect when he was taken into custody.  Loosely, that theory was that the victim had obviously presented a gun that misfired, he conducted an emergency action drill, ejecting a round onto the ground.  This gave the suspect time to respond in self-defense, saving his own life by shooting and killing Scott Dingman Video 16, (BCPD042_LL0042) from 23:54:00 begins a conversation with Detective Wibrew explaining and demonstrating what that would have looked like.  In this conversation, he is speaking to Officer Calzada and Officer Salazar.  Officer Calzada never corrects him about how the round got there and tells him that he observed it when he rolled the suspect over, even though he is seen removing the round from the suspect’s pocket, Video 1, (BCPD042_LL0042) 20:58:34.  Officer Salazar incorrectly tells Detective Wibrew at 23:57:16 that when he arrived “it looked like he (suspect) was checking on him (victim)”.  This is absolutely contradicted by his BWC footage, Video 2 (BCPD077_LL0077) 20:56:49.  This theory grew a life of its own and ultimately led to a flawed investigation based on an anchored bias that was developed early in the investigation.  This can be seen echoed numerous times by other investigators sharing this theory as if it was a fact that was actually known to them at the time.  Video 16, (BCPD042_LL0042) 00:08:04, Lt. Healing is explaining investigative steps that would be taken if this thing wasn’t so “cut and dry”.  This is an example of unnecessary arrogance that led to all investigators “closing the case” before the suspect had even been interviewed. 

Detective Wibrew had evidence readily available and at his disposal, in the form of body warn camera footage (BWC) from initial responding officers that he should have reviewed.  Had he not neglected his duty as an officer/detective and taken the time to review the BWC footage, he would have found that not only did Officer Calzada remove that round from the suspects pocket and place it on the ground where it was located, but he would have also learned that Officer Calzada removed Scott Dingman’s wallet (evidence item #13) from the suspect and threw it near Scott Dingman’s body, where it was later photographed and collected, Video 1, (BCPD042_LL0042) 20:58:34.  He would have also learned that when Officer Salazar arrived on scene that the suspect was in fact nowhere near the victim and definitely not rendering aid or checking on him, as he falsely wrote in his report, Video 2 (BCPD077_LL0077) 20:56:49.  This action can be cross referenced by the 911 call that the suspect made to dispatch.  The audio matches Officer Salazar’s BWC footage.  Further, Detective Wibrew was also responsible for the interview of the suspect at the police station.  During that interview, Detective Wibrew was told by the suspect that he had that round in his pocket from earlier in the evening and offered an explanation as to why he had it.  Detective Wibrew wrote in his report, page 29 of 67, #18 – Morgan explained that while in the kitchen, Dingman was showing his gun to him and Suvaco and that while in the kitchen, Dingman ejected a live round of 9mm ammunition from his gun, which Morgan explained that he had later placed in his pocket.  Even without the benefit of watching the BWC footage to see the round removed by Officer Calzada, Detective Wibrew heard firsthand from the suspect as to why the round was there and was inattentive in his duties that he never revisited the initial theory of self-defense that came from the round location.  Even if Officer Calzada doesn’t remember and never reported removing the round, Detective Wibrew knew or should have known that it wasn’t from an ejected round from Scott Dingman’s gun. 

Because Detective Wibrew had developed a bias in his investigation and in his mind had already solved this case, he began to eliminate and discount obvious investigative techniques and opportunities.  First, Detective Wibrew discounted the testimony of the eyewitness who was the initial 911 caller and told the DA’s office that he did so because the witness could not have seen what he said he saw from the distance he was at.  He would later write in his report a statement that contradicts his own reasoning for discounting the witness.  Detective Wibrew wrote on page 31 of 67, paragraph 3: On 06/02/2021, at approximately 1118 hours, Detective C. Gelson (P#334) and I arrived at 1432 Pueblo Drive to view the vantage point that Henn described.  Upon arrival, we were unsuccessful in contacting any occupants of the residence.  While at the property, I walked along the left side of the property’s backyard gate/wall (on the outside of the backyard).  While at the backyard gate/wall, I observed that the area where the decedent’s body was located (indicative by a still-visible demarcation in the roadway) was visible from this vantage point of 1432 Pueblo Drive.  The mere fact that he was able to see a demarcation line in the roadway would cause a reasonable person to believe that a person should be able to see two grown and large men, near or greater than 6 feet tall at that same distance.  However, because Detective Wibrew had already decided that this was a self-defense case, it was easier to find a reason to discount what the eyewitness reported. 

Detective Wibrew further failed to interview the suspects girlfriend who was present at the scene prior to the shooting, and he failed to interview the victim’s wife.  Had he, he would have learned that not only was Scott Dingman right-handed, but he had an injury to his left hand that prevented him from being able to shoot a gun with his left hand.

Detective Wibrew was told early on by the victim’s wife, Ashley Dingman that her husband had withdrawn $1,000.00 dollars from an ATM machine prior to going to the suspects house that day.  She asked him if her husband’s metal wallet/money clip with the money had been located and she explained that she could prove her husband had not gone anywhere but to the suspect’s home since making the withdrawal.  Detective Wibrew told Ashley Dingman that no wallet or money had been located.  She asked him if there had been any questioning about the items and he told her that he had asked the suspect who stated that he hadn’t seen it.  In his report, Detective Wibrew wrote that the suspect told him that the victim arrived with two baggies of cocaine, which the suspect watched the victim snort from a rolled-up bill off the counter in his bathroom and offered that he must have spent the money on the cocaine.  Ashley Dingman asked Detective Wibrew if he was just going to take his word for it and Detective Wibrew stated, unfortunately, I have no reason not to take his word for it.  Detective Wibrew later obtained the toxicology report that proved that Scott Dingman did not ingest any cocaine or other illegal substances, however he again neglected his duty as an officer and failed to follow up with the known lie about Scott Dingman snorting cocaine in the suspects presence.  Detective Wibrew further was not attentive to his duties and grossly negligent in the fact that he (the police department) had Scott Dingman’s wallet in their possession and that it had been booked into evidence at the police department.  He failed to familiarize himself with the evidence that had been collected and had no idea that it existed.  The wallet wasn’t known to have been in the police custody until February 28^th, 2022 when Ashley Dingman obtained her husband’s property and clothing from the police.  It was then that she learned they had possessed it the entire time and they failed to have it analyzed for DNA or fingerprints of the suspect.  Detective Wibrew was additionally negligent and committed maleficence by not conducting a thorough investigation, which ultimately led to presenting misinformation to the District Attorney’s Office that led to no prosecution of the suspect.  Had Detective Wibrew taken the time to review the BWC footage of the initial arriving officers, he would have learned that Officer Calzada removed Scott Dingman’s wallet from the suspect’s pocket and threw it towards Scott Dingman’s body where it was later photographed and collected as evidence item #13.  Had the fact that the victim’s wallet was in the possession of the suspect been known to Detective Wibrew, it would have led to an entirely different outcome of the way the suspect was questioned, which could have resulted in the truth coming to light.  Why did he possess the victim’s wallet and tell investigators he had never seen it?  Instead, the suspect was allowed to deny that he had any knowledge of a wallet or money, he was allowed to introduce his own theories and give misinformation time and time again that was never followed up on and no search warrant was ever obtained to look for the cash money that was missing.  Ultimately there are several key indicators and leads that could have been followed up on that were completely neglected because of Detective Wibrew’s gross negligence, extreme arrogance, and incompetence.  Detective Wibrew took a position of frustration, arrogance and intolerance with the victim’s wife, Ashley Dingman and he was rude and discourteous in his treatment and interactions with her.  Conversely, he developed what appears to be a rapport with the suspect and he took a friendly approach in his communication and interactions with him.  Although sometimes in police work it is necessary to build a false rapport with a suspect, Detective Wibrew went over and above in his conduct with the suspect and the information that he provided him.  Video 30, (BCPD082_LL0082) 03:19:11, Detective Wibrew is having a discussion with the suspect and asked him questions regarding the missing $1,000.00 that Scott Dingman had when he arrived at his house.  Detective Wibrew goes on to tell the suspect, “No way are we looking at this like a robbery” JP responds “I hope not, cause I make a thousand bucks in a day.”  Not proof, however, any basic investigation class will teach investigators that when a suspect answers a question with a “reason they wouldn’t” they likely have done it.  This should have been caught and followed up on, however Detective Wibrew had already made his mind up that no criminal charges were going to be filed and that the suspect hadn’t committed a crime.  His bias investigation and lackadaisical approach ultimately has led to a miscarriage of justice and a murderer walking free in Boulder City, bragging that he knows how to commit murder and get away with it by making it look like self-defense (two independent witnesses testified to hearing JP Morgan say that in Boulder City Court, on record, transcripts available).