I would believe that they encouraged cops to go after vulnerable people (e.g., transients, people with records, etc.) in order to reduce the number of "unsolved" crimes, and that they looked the other way in the face of tenuous or falsified evidence. That by itself, if true, is horrifying, and should be met with the stiffest of penalties. Moreover, I wouldn't be inclined to give the police any benefit of the doubt, especially if I see a "blue wall of silence." We as a society should have zero tolerance for corrupt police officers.
I am however very skeptical of the "targeting people of color" claim because it gets thrown around so much with very little factual basis. Remember those supposedly racist cops who were exonerated by body cam footage? Remember Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown? All those cases proved was that there's a whole industry devoted to transforming ordinary police misconduct issues into racial issues. The mere fact that a person of color happens to be the target of an investigation (assuming he's actually innocent) means nothing, because it can be explained by other non-racial factors (e.g., if he already has a criminal record, prior similar incidents, violent disposition, etc.). Also, the mere fact that one officer is willing to make this accusation means nothing in itself. He might have an axe to grind, or perhaps he's conflating "racism" with targeting innocent transients. Whatever the case, he better have evidence to back up his assertions.
IMO, one way to turn the public against your cause is overplay your hand. If the police were falsifying evidence to increase the rate of "solved" cold cases, present evidence of that. But the moment you start charging racism, you've raised the bar substantially. Come forward with undeniable "smoking gun" evidence of racism, or prepare yourself for another acquittal.