Charges Facing Woman Who Accused LM Cop of Sex Assault Held Over

The case of Gabrielle Drexler, the Rosemont woman who authorities say falsely accused a Lower Merion police officer of stalking and sexually assaulting her, is headed to trial in the Court of Common Pleas.

Drexler, 26, appeared before District Court Judge Margaret Hunsicker Tuesday morning for a preliminary hearing.

She  against two Lower Merion officers, the Lower Merion Police Department and its superintendent, and against the township, alleging that Police Officer Michael John had "repeatedly stalked her while on duty" and "also that he physically assaulted her."

Drexler first made her .

After a grand jury was convened to investigate the allegations, Drexler was  and charged with third-degree felony perjury. She also faces charges of false swearing in official proceedings, two counts of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence and false report/falsely incriminating another—all second-degree misdemeanors—according to Montgomery County court records.

All charges were held over for county court, and a formal arraignment for Drexler has been scheduled for April 25.

Drexler's lawyer, Edward Rideout, with the Montgomery County Public Defender's office, maintains his client's innocence.

"It's important not to lose sight of the fact that this officer was married with children," Rideout said after the hearing. "And he was having a relationship with a client while on duty."

Assistant District Attorney John Gradel, who is prosecuting the case, said after the hearing the evidence against Drexler is "overwhelming."

"The reason we're pursuing it is that it's such a setback to women who have been harmed and are afraid to come forward," Gradel said. "[John] sending emails while on duty of a personal nature to someone not your wife is wholly unprofessional... What he did was not criminal. She's the one who committed crimes here."

County Detective Katherine Hart testified at the hearing that she had received two sets of emails—one set emailed and one set hand-delivered by Drexler—and that there were differences between them.

Hart testified that she asked for Drexler’s permission to see her laptop and that she executed a search warrant for all the computers in Drexler’s Rose Lane residence. 

When questioned by Gradel about words added to a particular email that mentioned John’s presence outside Drexler’s home, Hart said: “It was more incriminating for the police officer.” 

In Rideout’s cross-examination, Hart confirmed the email in question had been sent by John when he was on duty. 

“You said [the altered email] was more incriminating,” Rideout said. “Is it fair to say [the unaltered email] was incriminating as well?” 

Hart said it was.

Also testifying for the county was expert witness David Schanes, a detective for the District Attorney’s office in forensic services, specializing in computers and electronic media.

Schanes testified the changes made in the two sets of emails would have had to be done from Drexler’s computer. 

In Rideout’s cross-examination of Schanes, Schanes said he had no direct knowledge of who had access to Drexler’s computer or who specifically altered the emails. Schanes said his search revealed the emails were altered. 

Schanes also searched John’s computers taken from police cars but said he did not conduct an exam of any of John’s private computers.

“I would submit that the commonwealth has not supplied evidence of who altered the emails—just that they were altered,” Rideout said. “The defendant has maintained throughout that she did not alter them.”

Gradel requested that the case proceed to county court.

“What we did prove is that, through her own words, she was the only one who had access,” Gradel said. “She excluded all others.”

After the hearing, Rideout questioned the fairness of the way the case has unfolded. 

“The Detective [Hart] testified that the evidence against the officer was incriminating,” Rideout said. “While on duty, he had physical relations with her. And my client, somehow, is a defendant… Our office is going to defend her the whole way, if she wants us to.” 

Gradel called John’s conduct “unprofessional” but emphasized that it is Drexler who is facing criminal charges.

“He’s not reported as some lily-white victim,” Gradel said of John. “It was consensual, but he had no business doing it on township time.”

John was placed on desk duty for several months but is now back on patrol.