Attorney: State agents 'whitewashed' deputies killing man

A local attorney believes state investigators deliberately ignored important details while determing if charges should be filed against two Sandusky County deputies who shot and killed a man in his home last year.
Melissa Topey
Sep 26, 2011


A local attorney believes state investigators deliberately ignored important details while determing if charges should be filed against two Sandusky County deputies who shot and killed a man in his home last year.

“Having whitewashed the investigation (the Bureau of Criminal Identification agents) created a false sense that what they did was proper,” said Dennis Murray Sr., who is representing the family of 26-year-old Bryan Jones in a wrongful death lawsuit against the Sandusky County Sheriff’s Office, the county and the deputies.

Murray is not alone in his criticism of BCI. Other experts who reviewed the file raise other issues with the killing of Bryan Jones, and the mop up afterwards.

Click here for an index to related articles. 

Be sure to get this Sunday’s Register for:

• Critical analysis of BCI's investigation by experts on police shootings.

• Comments from the Jones family on how the shooting has affected them, and their fight for answers.

• A response from the Ohio Attorney General, who has pledged to review the BCI investigation.


Taxed Enough Already

Of course Murray is touting that.  He wouldn't have a case if he said, the parents feared for their lives, called the police, who came in and did their job.  If he was no danger to anyone why did his parents call the police to begin with.  I believe they have no case.

William Jeffers...

Doesn't the AG have some real work to do down there with the rest of my employees? 


money suckers


What experts? Hey register if you are going to the family comments how about his previous record? Maybe...just maybe sandusky county will be better off in the long run without Bryan. 


Do us a favor and post his jail house photo!


People forget this guy shot into a house with a 5 year old in  it.  He wasn't concerned about hitting the kid.    Maybe  his mom and dad should have handled  themselves that night.  BUT they did not- why -because  he was a menace and THEY called the  LAW!!     That's why.    I still say it was all for the $$ they could leech out.  That family are experts at mooching.

Darwin's choice

This past week, thousands of do-gooders protested the execution of the fellow in Georgia, who was CONVICTED in a court of law of murdering a police officer. After years of appeals, delays and other bs., he was put death. Mr. Jones NEVER had the right to a trial for his actions, perceived or real. He was simply executed by an overzealous rambo wanna-be, who himself was not allowed to carry a weapon while on duty of his job! This is a slam dunk for Mr. Murray, the police were wrong. No hostage, by himself, sleeping in a chair in his home, startled awake by a grenade, confused, and then shot. Sounds like extreme injustice to me. If this is what you readers think is justice, our country is in a terrible state.....................who will be next? And, what about the punk that beat PJ at the Crystal Palace a couple of weeks ago, should he be executed as well? He put a man in a coma, with possible brain damage, what sentence should he receive?  Mr. Jones may have been an azz, but his actions did not warrant death........

Julie R.

Wasn't it reported when the first shots were heard the young man was heard asking "Why?" I can't even imagine what that kid's last thoughts were. Makes me sick to think about it.  

I Judge you

Is it true one of the cops said "watch this" before murdering him?

I Judge you

Is it true one of the cops said "watch this" before murdering him?


This story really makes me angry for a couple of reasons but first there is some need for corrections to the commenter’s.

First, Darwins Choice...  The man who fired the first shot was Mario not Jose.  Jose was transferred to the jail not Mario.  And if you took the time to read the reports everyone confirmed that it was Mario who pulled the trigger first.  If you went into a house as a law enforcement officer under a direct order and someone pointed a gun at you, the officers claim (Keep in mind there is no evidence to dispute this), what would you do?  I know that I would squeeze off as many rounds as I could at the perp. I am sorry but if we send men into harms way we need to give them the opportunity to walk out of harms way, sometimes they may have to take a life.

Now onto my points about this story and the great job that the Register is doing about being the Murry's mouth piece and contaminating whatever jury pool their is around here.  Of course the Murray's are going to be able to find "experts" that will say that these guys acted dangerously, for enough money you can find an expert to say anything!  Case in point I sued an insurance company after they denied my claim after a traffic accident.  The attorney told me that we will hire our expert to recreate the crash and they will hire theirs and the jury will decide which they like better.  It's a joke, and it is no different here.  The only thing is the Murray's have a lot more money to throw at their experts. 

Also why not speak to the officers involved about how they are dealing with taking a man's life, why is it just the family that gets a platform.  I have a relative in law enforcement and taking someone’s life is not something that anyone just walks away from they carry it with them. 

Bottom line is this, a mans life was ended early as a result of his actions.  No one forced him to get drunk, no one forced him to posses a shotgun, no one forced him to threaten to kill his parents and anyone who tried to come in after him.  His parents felt that this was serious enough that they needed to involve law enforcement who in an unfortunate set of circumstances had to end this young mans life.  The problem is that personal responsibility is no longer part of this country, because you know what if he didn't do all those things above he will still be here wouldn't he?



Confusedbysandusky, Thank you, been saying it all along, The perp had a history of issues with being a positive contributor of his community...(other than being a sperm donor, which everyone else pays for.) Convicted violent felon, in possesion of a firearm while under disability (can you say felony 3?!), under the influance of alcohol and drugs....yeah a real recipe for disaster and it's all his fault, LEO"s didn't get involved but for what 2 hours, while he had a lifetime up until then to make sound choices and didn't! Hey is Tracy out of prison yet?


Doubled up for some reason.


ConfusedBySandusky, GREAT COMMENT, could not agree more, 

Julie R.

It says in the SR that prior to shooting Jose Calvilo had been assigned to jail duty as part of a "last chance" agreement if he wanted to keep his job ....... and he was ordered to surrender his service weapon as part of the reassignment. So if he was ordered to surrender his service weapon why was he there with a gun to begin with? Murray is going to have a field day with that.     


Julie R., Read the last chance agreement, he was back on duty. The surrender of service weapon and badge was when he was placed on administrative leave while the investigation was being conducted. I don't think Murray is going to have a much of a field day as one thinks. I'm thinking the insurance company will offer a million and the white trash family will fall all over themselves grabbing for the check. 


mr jones legacy is one of bad choices through out his whole life...... a drain on society with a drug user mentality ....... listen to the 911 call placed by the father , that will put a better perspective on the story !


murray's tryin to make a buck ...... BS !!!


The Registerag rehashing an article to further their agenda and be the PR for the House Of Greed........


 Julie...  The problem with your premise is that Jose was the one who fired the first shot.  Because the reports confirm the fact that Mario fired the first shot I am not really sure how this is all coming to rest on Jose.  Oh wait, yes I do...  It is because the Murray's would have a hard time being critical of a good officer so they go after the one they can make people dislike.  

On another note, and this is something that I have been wondering about for awhile now, doesn't the county have sovereign immunity when it comes to these matters.  It has been shown that the officers acted within the bounds of their duty as law enforcement officers, and in addition to that they followed the regulations that were adopted by the county in this matter.  It does not appear to me that there was an overt criminal act that would nullify the protection.  Anyone know why it doesn't apply in this situation?




Julie R.

Numerous complaints about Jose Cavilo made by his wife and girlfriend? So what did the complaints pertain to? Threats of violence? If so, he shouldn't have been allowed to have a weapon at all much less be the leader of the group that went into the home.

That said --- it's way past time somebody investigates the crap going on with the Bureau of Criminal Investigations. 


The simplest of minds believe the Registerag.....

Darwin's choice're making my doesn't matter if it was Santa Claus who went through the door, who made the decision to breach the home?  Without any negotiation, with two hours of time on the scene, who made the termination order? By their own words, he was asleep in a chair.  Why not let him sleep it off, no hostages, alone, no need for rambo to be in harms way!  Your own words.....who gave the order to go in??????  This kid may have been a trouble maker..but this should have been handled differently.  With all the training that our law enforcement is supposed to have, a confrontation with an armed person is low on the list of options. All I'm saying is no matter what the wording of the officers involved, someone used very poor judgement, and Murray will prove it so.


Darwin's choice, So I guess when a call is placed where a convicted felon known to fire a weapon at people (shooting into a house when you know someone is in it constitutes that), is committing a felony by having a weapon under disability (Can you say felony 3), hey let's wait and see what he will do! They did defuse the situation, just not the way I'm sure everyone would have wanted it to end. Once again The Perps choice. And what is with the picture is he modeling from when he was in prison last time or maybe a Calvin Klein ad?  


 Darwin, how exactly am I making your point?  Here is what it comes down to.  The man had a gun, the police entered the home, the man pointed the gun at the police, the police ended his life in accordance with their procedures and polices.  The BCI, Witnesses, and A Grand Jury all found that there was no criminal act here.  The only person that has a problem with this is detective Consolo who has a documented dislike for Jose.  If you look at the deposition that was posted on the register even the sheriff knew that he was not Jose's biggest fan.  

This is a joke.  If the family just wanted to know what happened and wanted more training for the local agencies then they wouldn't be suing for $20 million dollars.  

I think this reporting is disgusting and lacking in journalistic integrity, I read the articles and it was nothing but a mouth piece for the Murray's.  The only people that were contacted about this story agreed with the Murray's.  Seems strange that several people from different agencies and backgrounds found this to be a clean shoot but the only people that agree with the Murray's get paper time...  Strange...

Marcus M

Every report and article indicates that Jones was holding the shotgun, raised it towards the officers, and had gun residue on his hands all which was confirmed by the corner's report.


 Yes, quite possible.  A drunk, angry man who needed help was surprised by the cacophony of police needlessly breaking into the house and he reacted like any drunk, angry man who needed help would react in that situation.  The question is why the police felt they needed to go commando on this guy who at this poin twas  in an otherwise empty house.  The induced a reaction that resulted in a man's death when they could have waited him out.



While it's quite apparent that you're a dyed-in-the-wool police apoligist judging by your posts, your argument fails address the one gaping hole in this entire story. Why did they have to enter the home?  He was in there by himself. At that point the only threat he posed was to himself.  Why would the police enter a home by force, place themselves at risk, and pretty much gaurantee a violent outcome when there WAS an option that involved waiting him out, allowing him to sober up some and possibly surrender peacefully. No one is saying this guy was an upstanding individual.  Its quite obvious he has some severe personal issues.  But are we saying that the police or anyone for that matter should have to have the power to put a value on a man's right to live based on his lifestyle? He made bad choices.  Yes, he placed himself in a bad predicament along with his family.  But the reaction of the police condemned this man to death without a trial when they could have simply waited him out.  Again, under what pretense did the police feel they needed to storm this home with guns drawn when no one but the perpetrator was inside?  You can talk about police procedure, and litigational mouthpeaces all you like, but it's just spin.  Nothing but spin.  A man is dead and he didn't need to be.  You can't argue with that.  Not to anyone who looks at this story with an unbiased eye, anyway.


Gavin...  People like you truly make me sad...  My point is this, you can second guess the decision all that you would like but you weren't there.  You are as bad as you claim I am because all you are doing is blindly accepting reports from the Register that doesn't even present both sides.  Did you read the articles on Sunday?  There was no dissent from the Murray's theory of the incident.  That's not spin, that is quantifiable, read it and you will see that the only people that were asked were people that felt the police acted poorly.  Why hasn't in the interest of full disclosure the Register pointed out that Consolo, the person that this is based on had a problem with one of the deputies that enter the house?  If you think that is spin please read sheriff Overmyer's deposition where he said that he knew Jose and Consolo had issues.

Now I agree with you that a man is dead and he didn't need to be, but it appears that it was his actions that put him in that position does it not?  Did the police force him to drink for days?  Did the police force him to pickup a shotgun and threaten his family?  The answer is no, but you knew that already didn't you.  

If you want to question tactics I don't have a problem with that.  I think that any time that there is an incident such as this it is a time to reevaluate the procedures put into place.  Did the department do things wrong?  Of course they did, but so did the individual.  Should the procedures be changed as a result of this incident? Maybe, that is for people that are smarter than us to decide, people that have training and knowledge.  Also the procedures and the actions of the officers are different and here is why.  The officers acted within accordance to the procedures that they were bound to follow.  They were acting under the direct order of the sheriff of Sandusky County.  Thus if there is a problem it should fall on the back of the sheriff that gave the order and not of the officers dutifully carrying out that order.

On a final note, I am a "dyed in the wool" law enforcement supporter.  Knowing that someone wakes up everyday and is willing to give their life to protect my life and the lives of my family members stirs me to give these men and women the utmost respect and support.  In a city that has lost an officer it is strange how quickly we forget the sacrifice that these officers are willing to make every time they set out onto the streets.  It makes me sick when I read these comments.

Julie R.

Every report and article indicates that Jones was holding the shotgun, raised it toward the officers and had gun residue on his hands, all which was confirmed by the coroner's report.............

I thought it was said that the gun wasn't even LOADED?




 Julie...  There is no way to know wether or not a shotgun is loaded just by looking at it...  I never saw where they reported that he had GSR on his hands, any idea where that was reported?

This is the story that maybe someone was thinking of.

"Wukie said any evidence of gun residue on Jones’ hands — which would indicate he also fired a shot — would be noted in the final autopsy report. That final report is pending lab results."

That is a quote from a story called Coroner: Autopsy shows Jones lifted gun at deputies.  It was written by Sarah Weber and was published 9/27/2010.  I can't post the link for some reason.

Julie R.

I never saw where it was reported there was gun residue on his hands, either. I was quoting the comment made by Marcus M.


 Julie, that was my fault on that one.  I missed the italics, I apologize.  

Darwin's choice talk as if you were there.....your statements are exactly what the police want you to know! Dead men tell no tales. Simple....there were NO shots fired by Jones!!!!!! Your opinion is based on something that you know from a previous encounter? Regardless of what he had done..... In this standoff the police were WRONG to enter the home. His father certainly didn't want his son shot, he probably could have done that himself. My point is the police are not GOD, they have to answer to the people who employ them...US !!!!  The legal process was bypassed by their actions. Read my original remark about the YEARS long process for a man CONVICTED of murdering a police officer, to be put to death.  It seems by the comments posted, that this is OK? To take someones life for being a dumbass???  Many people better watch out..............    


Darwin, I was not there nor were you, all we have to go on is the reports that have been made about the case.  I have read all of the reports and out of a sense of wonder read all of the depositions that the Register posted on the internet, all 600+ pages.  And the conclusion that I have come to after all of this is that what the police say happened happened, there appears to be nothing more than the dismay of one man as to how this was handled, dective Consolo.

Also I have never had any interaction what so ever with Mr. Jones or any member of his family, the facts are simply the facts.  His family will stipulate to the drinking, the gun, and the threats I just view them as bad choices made that had devestating results.

And agian this is another point that I have been making, does the policy need to be changed?  Maybe, but that responsibility rests on the sheriff not the deputies that follow the order to go into the house.  Again, I do not understand why the deputies are being lambasted for going into a house on a direct order and doing what they were trained to do, perserve life.  In this case it was their lives and unfortunately not the life of Mr. Jones which is truly sad and unfortunate.  The issue is that the gun swung and there is no way to know if it is loaded, split second decision - what do you do save your life and the lives of your team or take a risk that its not loaded. 

This is a moot point because what I am trying to say Darwin is that if anyone should be held responsible as a result of this incident it should be the sheriff, hes the guy that gets elected to deal with this stuff.  If deputies follow the rules and protect themselves why is it that this has become about them?


For some reason it double posts a lot.


For all you experts when a drunk, drug intoxicated person raises a gun towards you have two choices. Shot for a fatal hit or wait and see if its loaded, at which time you survivors will attend your funeral. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. 


I couldn't agree more Sam.

Jones may have been a dirtbag, and his actions are not defendable; but parts of this story are troubling.   If Jones was passed out or asleep (as they all seem to agree) looks like the person responsible for putting everyone in harms way would be Overmyer. SWAT/LEO are supposed to try and end situations peacefully, don’t think they tried.   Not sure how dynamic entry (TFE) is taught in the cop world, but in the military its: surprise, swift speed, violence, and termination of threat. If their goal was to surprise a sleeping drunk, and terminate the threat; by golly they should get a medal. That’s about the only outcome one could predict using that method. It doesn’t take a “tactician” to figure out what’s going to occur when you storm into a house and startle a drunkard holding a weapon.  

Before you say I am anti-police, I am not. I question if they tried to resolve this peacefully, and why they felt so compelled for dynamic entry. If Jones was asleep looks more like LEO wanted to play with their toys; than to extract him less than lethal


Gila, you make a very good point about entering the home and I have only found one real piece of information as to why they went in.  According to sheriff Overmyer's deposition they felt they needed to enter the home becuase Mr. Jones had stopped moving.  According to the sheriff there was a worry that an overdose may have occured and they were entering to perserve Mr. Jones life.  Thats the explantion, I am not sure why they felt they needed to throw the flash bang and not just sneak up from behind and something tells me policies have changed. 

With that being said this reminds me of the situation in either Bellvue or Norwalk a while back when two officers shot and killed a man who was on his porch after he pointed a gun at them.  Like in this situation I think that you can criticize the policy and procedure that was followed but not the actions of the officers.  There was nothing criminal about following a direct order and having to take a mans life to protect your own.  And again if anyone should answer for the incident it should be the man that gave the order not the men that followed it.


Wow! Wouldn't know who the Register and Topey are rooting for in this lawsuit would you?! I wonder if they get a cut. Topey and the Register editors certainly aren't worried about balanced reporting when they print these one sided slanted statements. Apparently Murray, Topey and the Register have decided to target the Calvillo brothers. Consolo..."concluded that deputies acted prematurely when they entered the home..."  Scott said that Jones was only a threat to himself until "the tactical team chose to storm the house." The tactical team and the deputies did not "choose" to make a tactical entry. They were ordered to enter by their boss. Was that a poor decision by the Sheriff? Maybe. The Register didn't bother to report in this story that the Sheriff was under the impression that Jones was suicidal. An earlier story implied that a dispatcher or bystander told the Sheriff that Jones was suicidal. That information makes a big difference in what decisions are made. Was Jones asleep or unconscious from an overdose? No police department is going to wait around for hours and give a suicidal person time to kill themselves. They'd be facing an entirely different lawsuit. The rest of the accusations of a whitewash by the BCI is garbage. They weren't investigating departmental policy,  procedure or the Sheriff's decision making. They're job was to determine if the shooting was justified or not. How or why the deputies were ordered into the house had no bearing on whether the deputies faced an imminent threat. The autopsy report alone, without the deputies statements, would have confirmed the threat. A pointed gun is an imminent threat. It doesn't matter if it was loaded or not, because the police (or anyone else) aren't expected to be psychic. There was no crime commited by the deputies. Should they have entered the house then? Probably not, but it wasn't their decision that put them there.

It's unfortunate that this situation ended in a death. Maybe better decision making or procedures would have made a difference. Maybe not. I doubt, however, that editorial witch hunts and ambulance chasing attorney's will clarify or help anyone.


 Look, IMO, if someone were suicidal or asleep (drunk, passed out)... A 'Flash-Bang" entrance is absurd and absolutely WRONG!  WTH did they expect to happen when scaring the he77 out of someone, especially knowing they were passed out on the couch with a weapon in their hands?!   Don't know anyone involved, nor do I have a horse in the race.. But, common sense tells me, even an "ignorant bystander,"  that this is NOT the way to go and would turn out badly! 

 Like I said, JMO and my observations....


 Was the entrance tactic wrong?  Maybe, but this is my major objection and you can tell me what you think.  I think that when it comes to this case the lawsuit is absurd, I know you won't agree with me about that, but I also think that if you allow the lawsuit there is not one reason why the police should be named in the suit.  Don't you think that it is wrong to punish someone for following orders and doing their jobs when it was proven that they acted legally, illegally is another story entirely.   The responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the sheriff who made the call, and I have respect for someone that has to make that call, but I think that he is the only one that should own that decision.  Why are you going after the cops who thought they were going to die so they used justifiable deadly force.

BW1's picture

"   The responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the sheriff who made the call, "

Confused, where do you see anyone here claiming otherwise?  The only person who's come even remotely close to blaming the two deputies is Julie R., and the only reason she's participating is that she's looking for a way to make this about her mother's estate being stolen.

Julie R.

BW1: If you're going to single me out, I think you better get your facts straight.

"Stealing an estate" is when scum bags steal from the dead. Sort of like all the money that the Ohio Clients Fund has paid out over the last five years alone because attorneys stole from the probate estates of their deceased clients.  

That's criminal, of course, but I believe it's totally different then attorneys and dirt bags from an insurance company and a Huron bank engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity to criminally defaud an elderly, incompetent person prior to her death, including criminally defrauding members of her family, forgery, theft, fraudulent transfers of property causing serious defects in the title ---- not to mention all the Medicaid fraud that the d-bags assisted in.