IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

TRIAL DIVISION
‘1
IN RE: : MISC. NO. 0006987-2016

THE TWENTY-NINTH COUNTY

INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY NOTICE C-43

TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT P. COLEMAN, SUPERVISING JUDGE:

PRESENTMENT NO. VII

We, the Twenty-Ninth County Investigating Grand Jury, were impaneled pursuant to the

Investigating Grand Jury Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 4541 et. seq., and have been charged by the Court to
investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the potential criminal activities of former

Philadelphia Homicide Detective Philip Nordo.

THE GRAND JURY’S FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

I. Philip Nordo (“Nordo”) became a Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”) officer on June

23, 1 997, became a detective on December 23, 2002, and joined the Homicide Unit on

November 10, 2009.

2. Nordo used his position of authority to engage in police misconduct involving interviews

of potential witnesses and suspects. He cultivated relationships with male suspects,

4
 witnesses, or individuals who may or may not have been related to an investigation. Nordo

cultivated these relationships by grooming the individuals, engaging in conduct to make

the targets of his advances more susceptible to his sexually assaultive and/or coercive

behavior. He also used intimidation and manipulation to keep his victims from coming

forward.

3. Nordo’s official misconduct involved:

i. Coercing potential witnesses and suspects to appear at meeting locations chosen by

Nordo outside of PPD properties, including

ii. Threatening some individuals with continued detention, arrest, and prosecution,

despite knowing that he lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause;

iii. Helping some individuals avoid criminal prosecution or significant punishment for

crimes they had committed that were readily provable by the Commonwealth (in

some cases Nordo prevented charges from being formally filed, and in other cases

he requested leniency from prosecutors or judges);

iv. Using threats, coercion, and force to prevent individuals from broadly sharing

information about him;

v. Forcing, coercing, and/or attempting to coerce witnesses to sign interview

statements/75-483s that were not true recitations of what witnesses said during

interviews;

vi. Submitting requests for individuals to receive crime reward monies that contained

fabricated and falsified information, in violation of reward program requirements;

and

5
 vii. Seeking promises of loyalty in exchange for promises of Nordo’s loyalty.

4. Nordo’s sexually coercive grooming and assaultive behavior included the following:

ii.

iii. Discussing sexual conduct with individuals;

iv. Giving individuals money, including deposits to an inmate’s commissary account,

and gift cards;

v. Inappropriately staring or looking at an individual’s penis while the individual was

under arrest or confined to a correctional institution;

vi. Commenting on the size and condition of the individual’s penis,

vii. Touching the non-intimate parts of an individual’s body, such as the individual’s

shoulder, arm, or leg;

viii. Discussing having sexual relationships with the individual in person, or over the

phone, utilizing code words,

——

ix. Requesting that incarcerated individuals refer Nordo “homosexual inmates” who

were soon-to-be released from incarceration, so he could have sex with them or

sexually groom them.

6
5. Nordo engaged in these behaviors during his investigations, including while inside

interrogation rooms, official visiting rooms at prisons, and with individuals he met through

his official capacity as a member of the PPD.

6. While a member of the Homicide Task Force, Nordo often volunteered to handle

ministerial work for other detectives. This work gave him greater access to his victims and

allowed him to gather information about them. For example, Nordo typically volunteered

to transport inmates and witnesses for other detectives. These transports allowed Nordo to

meet more potential victims and mask his interactions with his victims. Further, Nordo

often created and submitted packets documenting a witness/tipster’s involvement in an

investigation to crime-reward programs, allowing Nordo to fraudulently divert up to

$20,000.00 in funds from the Mayor’s Office’s Crime Reward Program (“CRP”) to

individuals and victims of his choosing.

7. During his initial meetings with his victims and potential victims, Nordo would start by

discussing something related to their case, such as general law enforcement business or the

victim’s potential to act as a confidential informant. Nordo used this small talk to get

victims to drop their guard and make the conversation more comfortable. After this

introduction, he would then veer into other more personal topics

Nordo discussed these personal topics to test the person’s

reaction and their likelihood to resist or comply. At the end of these initial meetings, Nordo

would give the victim his contact information,

7
8. Nordo often intimidated witnesses or attempted to impair the credibility or availability of

witnesses. For instance, Nordo often prominently displayed his firearm during his crimes.

Alternatively, Nordo targeted individuals who were in custody and often restrained with

handcuffs and/or leg shackles—his dominating position reduced the individuals’ ability to

resist or report the assault. Nordo admonished several victims that if they came forward to

report the assault, authorities would not believe the victims because he was a detective and

they were not. Nordo implied that coming forward would cause serious problems for them.

Nordo also repeatedly contacted young men whom he sought to groom, sometimes over

long periods of time.

I
I
I
I
I
I

8
9.

II. Nordo used his power and position to coerce and intimidate his potential victims. He

groomed them to submit to his sexually coercive advances by gaining their trust and

bestowing favors on them. After these periods of grooming, Nordo sexually assaulted them.

9
THE TESTIMONY

12. In April 2005, Nordo was a detective in East Detective Division (“EDD”), headquartered

at 3901 Whitaker Avenue.

13. On Sunday, April 10, 2005, at approximately 8 p.m., the lAD of the PPD received a

notification on police radio of a complaint against police. lAD investigators responded to

EDD’s headquarters to investigate an allegation of indecent sexual assault made by

regarding Nordo.

14. On April 9, 2005, Nordo spoke with regarding a robbery

that occurred in the area. Nordo ultimately obtained a signed confession. In that confession,

admitted involvement in the robbery and that he had used drugs that night

including cocaine, marijuana, and Xanax.

15. During the interview, Nordo asked questions about the robbery,

16.

17. At Nordo’s direction, began masturbating. While masturbated, Nordo

touched him and massaged penis. During the assault, Nordo kissed on

the right side of his mouth. He stepped out of the room, then returned to watch

10
 continue masturbating. He asked if was done yet; replied, “Yes.”

ejaculated while Nordo was out of the room and then cleaned himself with a

piece of paper, balled it up, and threw it on the floor. Nordo then asked “Do you want to

put that in my mouth?” He also asked if he was anxious. did not reply.

Afterwards, Nordo gave a cigarette, which smoked.

extinguished the cigarette in his ejaculate.

18. was transported to a cell in the first floor of EDD. He reported the assault the

next day, after the police shifts had changed.

19. On April 10, 2005, was working in the cell room at EDD. During

his shift, repeatedly told “I got to talk to you.” Based on

demeanor, believed that wanted to tell him something different

from a typical detainee concern, e.g. asking for a phone call or food. stopped

doing what he was doing and opened the cell to ask “What’s the problem?”

replied that the white detective who took him upstairs had “sexually harassed”

him.

20. asked what had happened. told him that the detective

had kissed him and forced him to masturbate. While spoke to

appeared anxious—his body was shaking and his voice was quivering.

told that he would get a supervisor. notified

about the allegation and moved from the ceilblock to a more private area where

he could talk to then left and alone while

they spoke.

11
21. After that conversation, told that he wanted to take

upstairs to the interview rooms. All three went to the area of the interview rooms. When

they got to the room where was interviewed and assaulted, he told

that they were in the correct room. then identified where he

had sat. He also showed where he had ejaculated.

statement to TAD shows that when he spoke witi related the

following:

i. Nordo said he “didn’t have anything to worry about with this case. That he was

talking about other topics with the detective, which then lead [sic] into

ii. Nordo asked if he was interested in said he stayed quiet.

then told him that Nordo said that they could both make a lot of money

from it.

iii. Nordo asked to see his penis, was shocked. When Nordo asked

if he was scared to show himself, took his penis out of his pants. Nordo

then walked over, grabbed his penis, and began to rub it.

iv. While was rubbing it, the Detective kissed him on the right corner of his

lips. Eventually ejaculated and put the cigarette out in the ejaculate.

22. After spoke with , they placed him in an isolation

cell by himself so he would be easier to observe. Following this assistance from the new

shift of police officers, appeared to have calmed down to a more normal

demeanor.

12
23. On April 10, 2005, the Crime Scene Unit collected

samples of a white-colored substance from the floor of the interview room in which Nordo

interviewed . They also retrieved a cigarette butt and a crumpled piece of paper

from the floor.

24. Scientific testing showed that the white-colored substance was ejaculate.

Criminal analysts found high levels of acid phosphates, a component of human semen.

They confirmed their suspicion with microscopic examination of the samples, which

revealed the presence of sperm. Later DNA analysis of the samples concluded, to an

extremely high mathematical probability (1 in 9.69 quintillion in the random unrelated

African American population), that DNA was present in the sample.

25. These events occurred more than ten years before the date of this Presentment.

26. was murdered in 2015, and his murder remains unsolved.

13
 RECOMMENDATION OF CHARGES

Based upon the evidence that we have obtained and considered, which establishes a prima

facie case, we, the members of the 29th

Philadelphia County [nvestigating Grand Jury recommend

that the District Attorney or his designee institute criminal proceedings against defendant Philip

Nordo and charge him with the following offenses:

As against

18 Pa. C.S. § 3121, Rape (Fl)

18 Pa. C.S. § 3123, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Fl)
18 Pa. C.S. § 3124.1, Sexual Assault (F2)
18 Pa. C.S. § 3126, Indecent Assault (Ml) — two counts:

18 Pa. C.S. § 2709.1, Stalking (Ml)

18 Pa. C.S. § 5301, Official Oppression (M2)
As against

18 Pa. C.S. § 3123, Attempted Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Fl)

18 Pa. C.S. § 3124.1, Attempted Sexual Assault (F2)
18 Pa. C.S. § 3126, Indecent Assault (Ml)
18 Pa. C.S. § 2709.1, Stalking (Ml)
18 Pa. C.S. § 5301, Official Oppression (M2)

As against

18 Pa. C.S. § 3121, Rape (Fl) — four counts:

36
 18 Pa. C.S. § 3123, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Fl) four counts:
—

18 Pa. C.S. § 3124.1, Sexual Assault (F2)—four counts:

18 Pa. C.S. § 3124.2 Institutional Sex Assault (F3) three counts:

—

18 Pa. C.S. § 3126, Indecent Assault (Ml) four counts:

—

18 Pa. C.S. § 2709.1, Stalking (Ml)

18 Pa. C.S. § 5301, Official Oppression (M2) four counts:
—

37
As against The City of Philadelphia:
18 Pa. C.S. § 3922, Theft by Deception (F3)

18 Pa. C.S. § 4114, Securing Execution of Documents by Deception (M2)

38