Friday, March 23, 2007

More CrimeStoppers

I spoke yesterday with two members of the Durham CrimeStoppers board, Dean Sue Wasiolek and Dan Hill. They gave me details of the group’s monthly meeting, which was devoted solely to the issue of last spring’s “wanted” poster in the lacrosse case. (Dean Sue had asked that the issue be placed on the agenda.) Cpl. David Addison, the Durham Police liaison to the CS board, was out of town on a previously scheduled matter; Major Lee Russ briefed the board.

Russ reported the sequence of events as follows:

1) On March 28, 2006 (four days after Mike Nifong, improperly, assumed personal command of the police investigation; and after a weekend in which Addison, serving as DPD interim spokesperson, made a series of comments about the case that proved either misleading or outright false), Addison sent out an e-mail to various list-servs with which he deals. The e-mail read:

On Monday, March 13, 2006 about 11:00pm, the Duke University Lacrosse Team solicited a local escort service for entertainment. The victim was paid to dance at the residence located at 610 Buchanan. The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.

Hill and Dean Sue reported that while Addison had used such rhetoric in previous high-profile crimes, he clearly was “overzealous” in the wording of this e-mail.

2) Soon thereafter, a district commander of the Durham Police heard that an anti-lacrosse protest was going to occur outside 610 N. Buchanan. For reasons that are unclear, he decided to create a flyer to distribute at the rally. That poster is scanned here; it was produced on the stationery not of CrimeStoppers but of the Durham Police Department. Addison did not create the document; though it used the wording of his e-mail and contained a notice asking people to contact CrimeStoppers, it was, technically, a Police flyer.

3) On April 10, Major Russ fielded complaints from people who considered the language in the Police flyer inappropriate. At that point, for the first time, he reviewed the wording of Addison’s March 28 e-mail. He agreed that it was improperly phrased, and ordered Addison to e-mail a revised version. The next day, Addison did so, modifying the first sentence to read, “The victim alleges that she was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed.” He also deleted the editorializing sentence about the incident constituting a “horrific crime.”

4) After Russ saw the revision, he realized it still was not correct, and ordered Addison to send another version, eighteen minutes later, which described “the victim” as “the complainant.” This version also for the first time asked for information from the “Duke family,” which the e-mail described as part of the Durham community.

5) Russ said that to his best recollection, no blogger asked either him or DPD spokesperson Kammie Michael about who served on the CrimeStoppers’ board. (John in Carolina has said he did contact Russ about this issue in June.)

6) Both Hill and Dean Sue reiterated that neither they nor any other member of the CS board ever made any attempt to hide their connection with the organization. Both have been completely forthcoming with me, both over the phone and via e-mail, when I have approached them on the issue.

7) The Durham Police Department has changed its procedures on how it deals with CrimeStoppers e-mails. Now, at least one other person reviews Addison’s text before it is sent out. There have been no complaints of improper wording in any CrimeStoppers e-mail or press release since the new policy was instituted.

8) Both Hill and Dean Sue reiterated their hope that CrimeStoppers will not be judged on this episode, since the organization has done much good in dealing with the problem of crime in Durham. From everyone I speak with, it appears the organization has an excellent reputation outside of the lacrosse case.

Two conclusions regarding police behavior on this matter:

1) Addison’s improper wording created a bell that couldn’t be unrung. His e-mail circulated for two weeks, at a time of extraordinary press attention on the case. Russ acted appropriately in ordering Addison to send out the modified language. But without a clear accompanying statement that Addison’s original language was improper, the modified e-mail left the recipient to infer that Addison had been overzealous, rather than simply admitting the error in the language.

2) In June, John in Carolina reported that Russ had told him that the Durham Police played no role in the creation of the “wanted” poster. While it is true that the poster’s language came from an Addison CrimeStoppers e-mail, the production and distribution of the poster, Russ has now conceded, was undertaken by a Durham Police officer unconnected with CrimeStoppers.

My thanks both to Dan Hill and to Dean Sue for speaking with me about this material.


Chicago said...

After reading this, it is quite obvious that the Durham PD is wide open to civil suits on the basis of the posters alone from the enitre lacrosse team.

Cedarford said...

KC -

Thanks for taking this forward. Also for Dean Sue and Major Bob Dean following through on what they told you they'd do.

And to Major Lee Russ of the DPD in helping clarify certain matters as well as taking steps to require Addison to fix his statements after Russ got complaints.

I would have expected Duke people to display more initiative. According to John in Carolina, in a new blog post about Crimestoppers, the letter he got from Major Dean said that no senior Duke administration official contacted him to complain about the "Wanted posters" though John's discussion w/him omitted the Vigilante poster..

Also, I still think that there was coordination with Nifong and Addison. Nifong announced on TV a day before the Crimestoppers poster came out that he, Nifong was aware that the Crimestoppers poster on the "crime" would be made available and would urge people to come forth...(suggesting that Nifong was not only aware of the upcoming CS poster, but its content...and perhaps even green-lighted it's message)

bill anderson said...

I also understand that Duke employee Sam Hummel also reproduced a "wanted" poster and had the players' phone numbers and emails. Obviously, I could be mistaken about this, but I am raising the question about his role in producing and distributing posters.

Gary Packwood said...

You notice that KC has posted today's message under the category of POLICE?


CrimeStoppers is just one example of government work that is being moved out to community organizations.

The same thing is happening with government health and human service organizations.

Such a strategy makes good financial sense in that small community organizations such as CrimeStoppers do not have 'deep pockets' and are therefore not especially attractive to those who wish to sue for damages. Also, the indirect cost of community organizations is much MUCH less than a government organization.

The 'slippery slope' here is the qualifications of the board members and their employees if any ...and whether or not the police department in this case, will pay any attention to CrimeStoppers. Lets face it. Government employees (The Police, here) are not at all happy when part of their work goes to a community organization.

I'm sure Dean Sue is just a wonderful person but for the life of me I can't figure out what she knows about the 'criminal element' in Durham. Duke has practically no hard crime according to the US Department of Justice.

This sound like one more example where the government is going to do what it wants to do and transfer the 'heat' if the community organization... CrimeStoppers.

I for one do not volunteer to take such 'heat' and it will be interesting to see if Dean Sue is associated with CrimeStopper this time next year.

Anonymous said...

So when do the lawsuits get filed?

bill anderson said...

During the early days of this affair, we heard much about the "blue wall of silence." Well, it turns out that there was a "blue wall of silence," and that "blue wall" was and is the Durham police.

Is it not interesting to watch police officers cover for each other when they are involved in criminal behavior? I hope the Durham PD is forever disgraced by this.

As for Crimestoppers, "coming clean" a year after the damage was done is not acceptable. Where was Dean Sue a year ago? Where was Hill? My point is that they did nothing when reasoned voices were needed.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

My guess Professor Johnson is that you are being spun like a top. Dean Wasiolek may well be fighting for her job internally. She certainly should be.

I see no mention in your post providing you documentation about:

1. What they claim went on in the recent board meeting.

2. What they claim was the sequence of events.

I certainly would not and DO NOT take the word of someone with responsibity in such a matter. She is most certainly trying to paint herself in the most positive light possible and likely as I said above trying to save her job. She does not have tenure.

Major Russ is similarly trying to cover for the DPD. Convient that board meeting would be held while the liaison was out of town.

My belief until I see some concrete evidence otherwise is that Major Russ and the CrimeStopper's board got together and decided what was the best way to spin this for all involved. Notice the absent Cpl. Addison is a low level fall guy.

What you got is likely the spin story settled on at this meeting not the how the actual meeting went down. The board members can Sgt Schultz like claim to know nothing all they want. They can claim they were not hiding all the months it took you and JohninCarolina and other websites to track them down. I am not buying either claim without proof. And I bet the various attorneys for the vicimize Duke students feel the same way.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

I don't buy CrimeStoppers' story one bit. CrimeStoppers' whole purpose for existing is to stop crime. Yet for a year it refused to lift a finger to stop the crime of a corrupt DA using a prostitute's lie to railroad three innocent kids into prison for a rape that never happened.

I believe the Bible has a saying - "By their deeds, ye shall know them." Well, the deeds of CrimeStoppers makes me know their pathetic story is nothing more than a desperate attempt to shield themselves from the lawsuit they so richly deserve.

Anonymous said...

Big thanks to KC, JiC, Alex C(?) and others who followed up on this.

Dean Sue and Dan Hill deserve some credit too.

Glad to see that Russ had obviously done his homework and we have someone from DPD answering tough questions with the truth.

We need to get answers for some other troubling actions (or inaction) taken by DPD and other public officials in this case.


Anonymous said...

It seems that the tainted water has caused Durham public officials to become forgetful with respect to meetings and conversations they may have had while involved in the Duke rape hoax investigation.

I am fearful the "forgetcies" will become a virtual epidemic once the remaining charges are ultimately dropped.

There appears to also be a variant of the affliction which has attacked some or the Duke University faculty and administration. They are infected with the "I may have said that but that's not what I meant" strain. It causes them to deny the meaning of their original words and present an alternate position without admitting error. Some of the advanced cases indicate a propensity to begin descibing eletronic queries as hate mail, filtering all non-supportive messages and the ability to overhear the most bizarre conversations from anonymous Duke students discussing racial and sexual abuses on campus.

The CDC has been notified in hopes of containing the problem to the Durham region. Others are fearful that FEMA may become involved once the bug hits the national media.


Ryan said...

I've seen this trick played before. Hide and then when found out, claim you weren't hiding and that the issues were so long ago resolved, you don't understand why anyone would be upset about it now.

While Crimestoppers may do all sorts of fine work, they were party to a public condemnation of the players, and they're responsible for that, even if they didn't approve it ahead of time.

Here we are about a year later, and they're just now partially owning up to that responsibility. Any organization that expects people to do the right thing (give information that will help catch criminals) should go out of their way to do the right thing themselves.

Even now, they don't appear to be doing that.

Anonymous said...

KC, who is the police commander who ordered the flyers? Why won't you name him?

"Soon thereafter, a district commander of the Durham Police heard that an anti-lacrosse protest was going to occur outside 610 N. Buchanan. For reasons that are unclear, he decided to create a flyer to distribute at the rally."

Anonymous said...

And who was the district commander who saw fit to distribute the flyer essentially convicting the team with Addison's words at the protest at 610 N. Buchanan?

Anonymous said...

Yes, let's have the district commander's name.

The boys names were smeared in every possible way. But now we must not NAME those who were responsible?
Where was Dean Sue last year speaking out against this as a Board Member..taking some initative..showing some decency to her own students.
Now she is certainly only looking out for herself.
She had a leadership position. She enabled this terrible witch-hunt.She should be held responsible in every fashion. Don't allow this woman to duck, spin and cover.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to note that Cpl. Addison's first list-serve posting occured on March 28. Then, on April 8 (according to the handwritten notation on the flyer), the text of this posting is used by an "unnamed" person at the DPD to create a flyer for use by the pot-bangers at their 610 Buchanan St. protest. Then, on April 10, Mjr. Russ finally gets around to reviewing the list-serve posting and requiring revisions.

The impression created earlier by the DPD was that Addison's original text had been corrected almost immediately by Mjr. Russ. I am surprised to hear that it actually took more than ten days for this to occur, and not as the result of any internal DPD review of Addison's work, but rather as a result of "public complaints" (i.e. threats of lawsuits?).

There is still more rot here than has been disclosed. We must know the name of the person within DPD who produced and distributed the condemning flyer. It is my guess that this person, rather than acting independently, was taking orders directly from Nifong or Gottlieb. The DPD should be made to disclose this information. And members of the board of Durham CrimeStoppers should be in the lead of those demanding full accountability.

Anonymous said...

So Russ now "concedes" that a DPD person produced and distributed the "Wanted" poster.

How does he explain his previous lie that the poster and the language used therein were entirely the work product of Durham CrimeStoppers?

Does Russ now admit to telling a lie, or does he claim that he has only recently determined the truth that DPD did produce the poster?

I expect that Russ knew very early on that Durham PD had produced and distributed the poster, but that he was willing to allow CrimeStoppers to take the fall. After all, who could be against CrimeStoppers, which has done so much good for the Durham community.

Dean Sue and Mr. Hill and the remainder of the CrimeStoppers board should be furious at Major Russ. They should demand to know when Russ became aware that Durham PD had actually produced the poster (after all... it has been reported that Durham attorney, Alex Charns, had requested many months ago a DPD investigation into the process by which the poster was produced, and had been told that since the poster was the work product of CrimeStoppers, that DPD was refusing to conduct such an investigation) and why he is only now admitting to the pivotal role played by the DPD in this debacle.

The board of Durham CrimeStoppers should not be let off easily. They should be motivated to participate in the process of determining exactly why Major Russ was willing to deflect responsibility for the "Wanted" poster from the Durham PD to Durham CrimeStoppers.

Anonymous said...

I thought a lawyer requested information from the police and they denied any involvement. This says the opposite.

Anonymous said...

MacD says...
Was there any discussion on the vigilante poster? Did the unnamed police commander also create that?

scott said...

Major Russ' timeline creates more questions that it provides answers.

I remembered reading in JinC that Russ denied ANY involvement of the DPD in the Wanter Poster incident. He is either a liar or ignorant about what goes on in his own department. If the former, he should be sanctioned; if the latter, he has no business in any role as a spokesman for the DPD. Russ' assertion that 2 weeks passed from the time Addison wrote the email until he was first aware the language (he supposedly reviewed it 2 weeks later due to complaints about the language) doesn't pass the smell test. I'd bet every cop on the Durham force knew about the email and poster. Word of stuff like that "gets around." Another point, why after noticing that Cpl. Addison's first email was over the top did Russ leave Addison alone to correct it. Wouldn't a bit more supervision have been warranted at that point? Instead Addison had to issue a 3rd verson with still more corrections "eighteen minutes later." What a farce.

It seems to me that since it took a year for the facts of the genesis of the Wanted Poster to finally come out -- an email written by Addison turned into a poster by the DPD -- that the DPD was trying to cover-up their involvement. The DPD is a cesspool, rampant with dishonesty.

Who is this mystery district commander who decided to turn Addison's email into a poster? Why after a year is it still unclear why the district commander created it? That begs the question of how can the citizens of Durham expect their police department to investigate and solve crimes in the community when they can't even uncover the "what and why" of something that happened in their midst created by one of their own. It's starting to become more clear why people like Gottlieb and Himan are permitted to handle their jobs the way they do.

At least it sounds like they finally got Addison some much-needed supervision to help in creating future written material. We're not told who that "at least one other person" is, but for the sake of CS and crime fighting within the Durham jurisdiction, I hope it's someone other than Major Russ. It sounds to me like a better moniker for him would be Major Screw-up.

gak said...

I have to agree with JLS on this one. John In Carolina said Russ spent a month "running him around the barn" on the liestoppers membership issue. The idea that Dean Sue " reiterated that neither they(Dean or Wasiolek) nor any other member of the CS board ever made any attempt to hide their connection with the organization." just does not ring true here. We will see what happens.

Anonymous said...


Don't expect truth until the civil suits begin to take depositions. This is spin on behalf of Duke and DPD; take it for what it is.

Thanks KC for reporting the positions of Duke and DPD. This information will be a good starting point for drafting the complaints. The civil lawyers will be working overtime in Durham this summer!!

Kilgore said...

It sounds like they are admitting to some of their mistakes...but I don't hear an apology. How about that.

I agree with the others who have said that they are spinning this as best they can.

Anonymous said...

This report raises more questions than it answers.

Who is the district commander?
How many of these guys can there be in DPD? I would presume he is the commander for the district 610 N. Buchanan and/or Duke U are located.
Why did this DC take it upon himself, or at whose request did he create the poster? What is DC's connection with CrimeStopper, if any? What did Addison, the CS liasion, know about the poster? Why didn't Major Lee Russ take Gottlieb's “straight-from-memory” class? Why did it take a year?

Anonymous said...

Calling all tort attornies: the Durham field has been plowed and harrowed. It's ready for planting. DPD watch your backs 'cuz the suits are on the way!! I hope the Duke3 families and their lawyers grow very wealthy on Durham and Duke money. I only wish I were able to be on the jury; I have developed a hearty and sincere contempt for Durham because of their criminal conspiracy and for the Duke administration because of their fecklessness. I am thankful that neither of my children chose to attend "higher education" because they haven't been warped by low-lifes like the G88.

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that Duke has a fine law program. Do any graduates of Duke law read these boards? If so would you mind commenting on the specifics of a law suit?

Grounds, damages, whether there is a case...those kinds of things.

We have a lot of conjecture by layman, but I would be interested in reading a professional's opinion as to if a civil case by the LAX boys is credible threat.

One reason I ask is my beilief that the system needs fixing. In the United States, many times the system is "fixed" through a law suit. Products get safer, citizens are protected, and in many cases justice is served.

The State government needs to feel this. Elected officials need to be held accountable. The people who come in after need to shudder when they think of what happened after the Nifong days...

I am completely intrigued by this travesty of justice and trampling of constitutional rights that I hold so dear. I believe we are lucky that this family is well to do and can afford excellent representation.

I am very concerned on how the indigent in Durham would be able to speak for themselves against a crooked justice system.

My fellow Americans...We dare not allow Issues of this matter stand.

LtCol M

P.S. Sorry about the SoapBox but I hold our Constituion protections dear and will not stand idly by while it is trampled.

Anonymous said...

We can expect to see no end of covering up from here on!

BTW, the "accidentally" leak something a few days before an official announcement is a well-known tactic that is widely used to either break things gently and give people a chance to prepare or to heighten interest in the official announcement.

My guess is Monday -- not "this week" and shows a departure from Nofing's infamous Friday afternoon surprises.

Anonymous said...

The real truth about the posters will come out in doscovery and depositions.


Anonymous said...

The DPD is the joke of law enforcement agencies nation wide. They are the butt of all sorts of jokes.
In the northeast,suspensions would be handed out to police officers quicker than lightening. Addison, among other needs to pay the consequences for his actions.
I hope every member of the LAX team financially benifits from this horrific crime committed against them.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I think I understand: this explains how, in their rush to lynch the entire Duke lacrosse team on the word of a known felon and hooker, Duke admin. and DPD failed to cover their tracks and now will pay for their hastiness, if not for the animus that motivated their rush to do the worst to the best. Shame upon Dean Sue and everyone in the Allen Building. How you treated our students entrusted to you is unthinkable and criminal. sic semper tryannis

Anonymous said...

All kinds of new legislation will be produced due to the outrageous behaviour of DA Nifong. NC and probably many states will be looking at their procedures and checks and balances laws. But most importantly who is going to give these young men their reputations back. Will the Governor, Senators, Congressmen, the lawmakers of the state who slandered these boys stand up and say, we are sorry. You are innocent and have always been innocent of the crimes an out of control DA put on you. Who is going to clear their names and leave no doubt of their innocence? I would like to see President Bush stand up when all the political garbage is out of the way and state for the world, an injustice has been made against these young men and it is time to correct it, and move on, fix what is broken in the system and strive to make it better. These young men have their whole lives ahead of them and they at least deserve to continue without the shadow of this Hoax always following them.

jim2 said...

I find it very hard not to find great fault with the named folk of Crimestoppers.

They themselves had essentially committed slander and harmed Duke students, or saw that it had been done in their name.

How can they justify their failure to publicly set the record straight when they learned this a year ago? Should they not be held to a high standard since their very reason for existence is supposedly to stop crime? Yet, here, they plainly were the doers, and/or abetted other doers who acted in their name.

AMac said...

Some of the unresolved questions about Durham Crime Stoppers concern how its performance in the Rape Hoax case compares with its Standard Operating Procedures for handling high-profile violent crimes.

This is an organization that routinely deals with publicizing information about criminal charges. Thus, Durham CS Board members have surely considered the extent to which the transmission of false or misleading information might make Durham CS or its Board vulnerable to charges of libel or defamation.

Surprisingly, cursory Google searches on "Crimestoppers libel" and "Crimestoppers defamation" yielded few relevant hits--other than to websites discussing the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax.

But here is the 122-page Texas CrimeStoppers Operations Manual. Thus, at least some CS organizations have extensive SOPs.

Is the Durham CS (and Cpl. Addison) guided by SOPs as well? If so, they must be written documents. Are they accessible? What do they say concerning the issue of inadvertant transmission of incorrect information? About correcting errors, once discovered?

Have the Durham CS Board members taken steps to protect themselves and their organization from charges of misconduct? Do they carry insurance? Did their insurer require that they take any steps to minimize exposure? Were those steps taken?

Here is a discussion of Board liability from pg. 122 of the Texas CS Operations manual:

-- begin excerpt --

Section 414.013(b) of the [Texas] Government Code protects the Advisory Council, Crime Stoppers board members, and law enforcement officers from civil liability if they act in good faith. This statute section states: “A person who in the course and scope of the person’s duties or functions receives, forwards, or acts on a report of criminal activity communicated to the Council or a crime stopper organization is immune from civil liability for damages resulting from an act or omission in the performance of the person’s duties or functions unless the act or omission was intentional, willfully or wantonly negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.”

-- end excerpt --

If NC and TX laws are similar, wronged lacrosse players will have to meet a high burden of proof to establish legal liability on the part of Durham CS or its Board.

This may highlight an important difference between the CS poster and the Vigilante poster.

On the basis of circumstantial evidence and listserv emails, it has been alleged that an (at-the-time) Duke employee (non-faculty) was a key figure in producing and distributing the Vigilante poster, possibly using University resources to do so.

Durham CS board member Sue Wasiolek may have little to worry about concerning personal or Durham CS liability for the CS/DPD poster. However, Duke University Dean Sue Wasiolek may be quite worried about her employer's liability for the actions of one (or more?) of its employees for the production and distribution of the Vigilante poster.

MTU'76 said...

Must read.
Bill Anderson's latest:
Fiat justitia ruat caelum: An Open Letter to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper

Michael said...

re: 9:03

Certainly correct on suspensions in the Northeast.

And in places like NYC, police will get indicted too for certain things. The case in the news is the three officers that were indicted for killing a guy outside a strip club that was going to get married the next day. They fired an amazing number of bullets into a car with three people in it. It appears that they got spooked by something.

Michael said...

re: Kilgore - absolutely on the "no apology line". Maybe JinC can try to find out about Dean Sue and her recommendation to not get an attorney.

Last I heard is that the University denied it but that's not the same as Dean Sue denying it.

The lacrosse players would be able to confirm or deny the recommendation though. I assume that KC wanted the answer to the Addison mess and didn't ask Dean Sue personally about the legal recommendation.

I imagine that someone is going to get a list of district commanders last March to try and figure out who it was.

DPD seems to be broken up into districts. I was able to find the District Commanders for districts 3 and 4. It looks like each district has a District Commander and an assistant District Commander. So it shouldn't be hard to figure out who the District Commander is now for the district that Duke University resides in.

The trick then will be to figure out if that District Commander has been there since last March.

A quick google search turned up the District Commanders for District 3 and District 4

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 1:30 mentioned Sgt Schultz of the old TV series, Hogan's Heroes ...who was fond of saying I KNOW NOTHING.

I had forgotten about Sgt. Schultz. Thanks for the smile.

I could make the case that CrimeStoppers became necessary because so many people tell the police ...I KNOW NOTHING.

Now we have CrimeStoppers saying I KNOW NOTHING.

All of us Blog Hooligans are now functioning as CrimeStoppers for CrimeStopppers!

We need a flyer!

Locomotive Breath said...

District 2 is responsible for Trinity park

It is headquartered in Northgate Mall and is the district from which Gottlieb was running his harassment of Duke students

Anonymous said...

From "Baldo" at Liestoppers:

As was reported above District II was responsible for the investigation. Lt. Lamb is the senior officer & Lt. Ripberger second in command. Sgt Gottlieb was head of Squad B and had Investigators Himan, Clayton, and Soucie under him on this investigation.

E-mail from Gottlieb
March 17

The Durham Police District 2 Criminal Investigations Violent Crimes Unit is conducting an investigation concerning a rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan that was reported on 3/14/06 in the early morning hours. The female arrived at the residence for a party close to 11:30pm on Monday 3/13/2006 and left on Tuesday 3/14/2006 reportedly after midnight. Anyone in the area who saw or heard anything unusual, please contact Investigator Himan at 919-560-4582 x 229 or I at 560-4582 x 228. Thank you for your continued assistance.Sgt. M.D. GottliebDurham Police District 2 Investigations919-560-4582 x 228

Lt Lamb & Lt Ripberger were briefed by Gottlieb March 31 on how Nifong suggested the Line-Up was to be held. Despite knowing it violated Durham PD guidleines, four Durham PD Personnel were at the line-up.

On April 11 Lt. Lamb attended the meeting with Nifong & Gottlieb where CGM was too upset to talk about the allegations.

My money is on Lt. Lamb as the person who distributed the flyer if the report is correct. That is HUGE. He is a SENIOR PD Officer. Lt Lamb is also the alleged person who told Gottlieb to follow Nifong's orders.

Great Job on KC's part. We now have proof of a Senior PD Officer spreading the inflammatory & FALSE flyer.

Anonymous said...

The more I read about the DPD, the more I hear "The Dukes of Hazzard" theme song in my mind. Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane probably has a framed portrait in the entryway of the DPD. How can anyone take the word of these cops seriously? They are serial liars with no moral compass. And a very cloudy idea of how to properly do their jobs. At the very least, questions have to be raised about the propriety of promoting a police officer who fails to grasp the distinction between an alleged crime and one that has been verified.

Dean Sue's attempt to mollify her critics with the "I didn't realize this was still a problem" line is redolent of the G88's clarification of the listening statement where they alleged that it had nothing to do with the LAX case. She has taken over a year to clarify her position here. This seems more like a half-baked CYA move more than anything else.

In sum, this is crap. It is an attempt at damage control from 2 disingenous bottom-feeding sources looking to minimize their own culpability in a civil case. Pass the antacid.

Tall T

Anonymous said...

JLS says.....,

I think what people are missing here is that the job of a police department is to investigate. It is the job of a police department and really investigators on the crime to decide if a crime was committed and a theory of the crime. From the DPD point of view at some point early on a crime had been committed. [The was clearly a reversal of their earliest view and possibly at Nifong's direction, but never the less it became the DPD point of view. ]

When a police organization takes on a point of view that a crime was committed, it is not the job of individual officers whether the spokesman or watch commander to do a personal investigation and form a personal opinion as to whether or not a crime actual happened. Once it was the official DPD, then DPD members act on that official opinion. DPD is NOT a journalistic organization trying to be even handed.

So DPD is not trying to cover for itself. A police department has no obligation not to try to publicize who they suspect etc. In fact they have the opposite obligation.

What is being covered up is that certain Duke administration types, worse administration types with responsibilities involving student life, participated in smearing Duke students. It would be not very classy but as a tenured prof like the 88 gangsters, I can publically criticize a group of students at my university. I could publically say that the Baptist, Gays, the college Democrats, the college Republicans, the college Libertarians, or the baseball team etc are a bunch of bums who should not be allowed on campus or any such nonsense. As the Dean of Students if I do this it will cost me my nontenured job. And I most certainly can not call a group of students criminals on the one hand while advising them not to seek legal representation on the other. This is what is being covered up or at least minimized.

This is the stupiditiy of Wasiolek. Her ever being on the Crimestopper Board was a mistake. Sure Duke students are sometime crime victims. But as we know from all the alcohol discussion related to this case, Duke students fairly frequently commit crimes too. The Dean of students just can not put themselves in a position to bring down criticism on a Duke student who is technically innocent until proven guilty. However that is the charge of the police and Crime Stopper. Part of their job is to hold criminals, ie who the police are charging, up to public criticism as part of a campaign to reduce crime. [That they were wrong, that Nifong and the police investigators lied to the rest of PDP in this case is beside the point.]

Clearly, when these charges are dropped, some head or heads will roll at Duke. Brodhead will be trying to save himself and will have a fall guy or guys. Some head will be given to the families to try to placate them and signal potential student families that Duke has reformed. The 88 gangster can not be fired for the most part and Duke probably would not want to admit to firing them for this. But Sue Wasiolek can be fired. And if the stories of her advising these players not to seek attorneys or tell their parents are true, she deseverse to be fired. Any knowledge or participation in the Crime Stopper's poster compounds her guilt. I suspect this whole yarn spun to Professor Johnson is just her sad attempt to save herself. Well again she deserves to be fired. She was stupid in her job to be on the Crimestoppers board. Someone at Duke deserves to be fired at the end of this academic year and if she in fact advised the students under investigation not to tell their parents or seek attorneys, she is at or near the top of the list of those that should be fired.

Soobs said...

Off topic, but a new story in N&O today.

"Faculty could have more say over athletics at Duke University under a reorganization of a panel that oversees athletics policy.
Duke President Richard Brodhead reviewed the changes Thursday with the Academic Council, the major faculty governing body at Duke. He also announced the creation of a new position -- a dean to oversee undergraduate life inside and outside the classroom."

Anonymous said...

Wenatchee Washington previously held the record for a small town having to pay out millions for police misconduct.

I would be surprised if Durham doesn't have this "honor" by the time the civil suits get done.

Jim said...

Nifong's attorney, David Freedman, has another major case on his hands: the impending trial of a news anchor accused of driving drunk and killing a pedestrian.

Appropriately, he's admitting his client "feels horrible" and "sad for the family" of the victim , even before his client has actually been charged with the
man's death.

Anonymous said...

Not sure if I just overlooked it, but can someone post the CrimeStoppers poster created following the recent rape of the Duke coed?

David Page said...

Why do we still call the wanted poster a CrimeStopper poster? Just because the discredited Nifong called it that does not mean that we have to or want to follow his lead.

Your post and PDF makes it very clear that it is a Durham Police flyer. The fact that it was rushed into production by the police to give to the "potbangers" shows that the intent was not information gathering but crowd incitement.

There is little value in anonymously treating Dean Sue and CrimeStoppers the way Nifong treated the Lacrosse players.

When I asked KC to contact Dean Sue and a connection was made (did she contact him?) She promptly answered his questions and provided us with the facts as we now know them, even though she does not have to report to us or anyother bloggers. She does however have to , and does, protect the students and report to an administration which appears to be being pushed in many directions by forces from with-in and with-out.

We should not assume that no corrective actions were taken untill recently. Most good management teams, even volunteers, critcize in private and praise in public. The public condemnation that some ask for would only hurt the chances of future cooperation.

The hatefullness posted anonymously is only self serving. It reminds me of Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Duke literally through these boys to the wolves and then Brodhead and the Duke 88 jumped in for the feeding fenzy. They acted like crazed animals.

michael (engineer on ls) said...

Lamb is the District Commander of District 2.

Durham Police District 2

Anonymous said...

Take a look at 0 criticizing Crown family for giving scholarship money to duke and Lacrosse players. really nasty

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson wrote a very nice letter, referenced in MTU'76s 9:43 comment. One can only hope that Roy Cooper is a man a sense of right and wrong and that he does the right thing in this case. Time will tell...

Cedarford said...

JLS - She was stupid in her job to be on the Crimestoppers board.

I have a very different opinion about university people foraying out from their Ivory Tower to have civic involvement and serve as volunteers or advocates on an issue.

I think JLS and others who see those doing civic duty should be sued or punished because - what? they are stupid to volunteer to help others or wish to help create a safe community? - should do some serious thinking on the chilling effect of targeting community volunteers.

You go on CRimestoppers not because you are interested in doing actual detective work but to (1)Help gain community support for solving crimes (2)Work for contributions in the community to fund private money for tips (3)Provide civilian oversight into the overall effectiveness of your local chapter. You're looking at your basic pillars of the community sort - not a bunch of Nancy Drews off mystery solving.

Amac is right about liability limits. Good research, Amac. I also looked for what immunity or limits attach to civic volunteers when I did some parades and craft shows with my own civic volunteer group. And tried to get what North Carolina gives it's volunteers to keep the tort lawyers off them, without much luck.

Is there spin? Undoubtedly. If there was a "do-over" no doubt everyone outside the Group of 88 "leadership" would take it.

Anonymous said...

Jim 12:02 wrote about the other cases the Nifong defense attorney has...

In order to be "fair and balanced", I took a look at the client lists of the attorneys representing the boys at Duke.

Astonishingly, each and every one of their thousands of clients from over the years is/was innocent! There aren't any shameful accusations that come close to a "Death-by-DWI" where the guilty party "feels really bad for the family".

Are you serious Jim? A defense attorney is a defense attorney, and I'm sure the Duke attorneys have some, um... unsavory clients!

Are you kidding man?

Anonymous said...

I am an attorney (not a tort attorney), and my opinion is that, despite how despicable all of these bad actors are (G88, DPD, Nifong), you're kind of grasping at straws.

I could end up proven 100% wrong here, but due to the difficulty of brining "libel/slander/defamation" and "1983 Civil Rights" suits, and the tiny chance of success based on history... my opinion is that it is wishful thinking.

hman said...

To David Page
I was struck by your mention of the fact that the administration at Duke was under pressure from many forces within and without. If that was intended to be an excuse of some sort it was not a very good one.
Everyone experiences various pressures in a situation like this, so what? That was never in doubt. But the guiding beacons of due process and "innocent until proven guilty" were always in plain sight to anyone who needed help in keeping priorties straight.
I suspect that you agree now that Brodhead, Dean Sue, et al did and said a great many things last spring that they would re-do and un-say if they could. And the goal of their revisions, I confidently bet, would be to avoid creating the impression that they were trying to stay neutral in the contest between mob rule vs. due process, truth vs. lies, the reptilian Nifong vs. their innocent students, and so on.
But trying to appear neutral in a struggle between due process and Nifongery is simply what they did. It is a matter of record.
Here is the core issue, imho. Duke leadership had to choose between honoring some "larger" truth which gratfied their PC fantasies and the simpler, plodding old fashioned truth of, you know, what actually happened. The only reason that "pressures" got to them is that they lacked the moral back-bone that much less powerful and exalted folks in this country live by day to day.

Anonymous said...

If this much is coming out now, imagine the deluge of information when Federal discovery begins.

Of course, the maneuvers of the defendents in the civil suits to avoid discovery/prosecution will by a legal education in itself (but probably not one that will ever be taught at Duke Law).

One can only hope that the yoeman work by KC continues through the entire legal process.

Anonymous said...

Artice at 3/22/97 by Keith Hann

Anonymous said...

Just read the Supermogul article - what a horrible, nasty piece of trash. Right up there with one of the worst articles I have read since this case began.

xyz said...

Dean Sue Wasiolek and Dan Hill are to be commended for passing along this information. It clears up quite a few questions, even as it creates some new ones.

Anonymous said...

I am Possibly off Topic

This is a direct link to Consumer Health Digest and the full statement:
Nurses create quack specialty

I wonder if there is a similar site, Consumer Higher Education Digest? I mean, besides DIW.

Corrupt professors, corrupt DAs, corrupt courts, corrupt justice, corrupt priests, and now corrupt nurses.

"There is no beauty to the world I see
Save moments
Stopped in time
Preserved in unreality.."

Who said that?

Anonymous said...

For the record, a top-level administrator stated that Dean Sue ABSOLUTELY denied to the university that she ever advised the players not to contact their family.

If Dean Sue did, that information will come out eventually. It is hard to imagine a Dean of Students, an attorney by education, doing something so obviously stupid.

The available information, however, suggests Dean Sue believed, in the early days of the case, that something did happen and did not support the players, no less help them as one would expect from a Dean of Students, and allowed actions that placed the players in dangerous and compromising positions. She is not alone and many officials both inside and outside the university will rue the day.

Inside Duke, President Brodhead, despite his changing attitude as time marched on, displayed a lack of character, leadership and courage. He didn’t believe the captains and there is no question caved into the initial pressure caused by among other things Nifong’s numerous press conferences confidentially delivering guilty proclamations.

This case is a big black eye to many and Duke comes off as brazen university, clearly placing other considerations (response of radical faculty) above the well being of its students. Shameless, shameless, shameless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LaxParent said...

Don't forget that it was Dean Sue who recommended that the parents not be informed. It was 10 days after the incident that the lacrosse parents (other than the captain’s parents) learned of the allegations. Many learned of it when their sons were ordered to give DNA samples. Dean Sue also recommended that the players, as a group meet with the DPD without legal representation. Remember, Dean Sue has a law degree. There is no excuse for her actions, other than incompetence and a rush to judgment. Dean Sue screwed up royally and is definitely motivated to do anything to keep her job.

Anonymous said...

Can the Herald Sun be sued for its support of Nifong, the DPD, and overall functioning as a mouthpiece for the Duke88?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

David Page - please read something first before you comment on it. The reason why it is called a 'CrimeStoppers' poster is because the poster demands that people with information on the alleged rape must call - CrimeStoppers. Okay? Get it?

And the reason why so many of us are not dewy eyed with gratitude for Dean Sue's 'prompt' answering of the questions about CrimeStoppers is because there's nothing prompt about her answer at all. It's been nearly a year since that poster was issued and in the entire time Dean Sue has lied by her silence about her connection with CrimeStoppers. ONLY after someone else uncovered her membership on its board did she finally come forward. As for your specious claim that Dean Sue "provided us with facts" - bull! She's given no facts at all - just a self-serving statement on a meeting none of us were allowed to attend, concerning statements none of us were allowed to hear, about 'facts' none of us were allowed to see. Sound and fury signifying no answer to the burning question - what did CrimeStoppers know and when did they know it?

As for your assertion that Dean Sue 'protect(s) the students' - good LORD! what parallel universe are you in that protection by you is defined as ordering innocent students NOT to call their parents or have their own lawyers present when Nifong comes after them?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

People - this may be off the topic - but then again, not.

In today's (March 23) NY Post, John Podhoretz has written an article "Duke: who won't pay". In a nutshell, Podhoretz says none of the Duke professors will pay for their disgraceful behavior in the fake rape scandal. Reason? The professors have tenure.

Dang, I would give anything to prove Podhoretz is wrong. But, sadly, I must admit he's right.

Here's the link:

Anonymous said...

"Crown family decides Yankees not evil enough, gives money to Duke Lacrosse" article at a site called

Anonymous said...

There is a strange, old-timey aspect to this whole Durham fiasco; it's like something out of a time warp. Got you your clownishly corrupt cops, a rogue DA straight out of a bad 30's novel, shifty judges, a town mob baying for revenge, even outraged ladies with big hats standing at microphones...venal, cowardly, barefaced liars all trying to cover their butts, of course, but many of these villains have that sort of reassuringly dumb way about them that villains in old movies and early TV shows had.

This has no doubt been mentioned many times, but seen through the lens of this mess, Durham just comes off pretty much as the Mayberry of Hell.

So it's high time to wrap up this episode, throw these crooks in the hoosegow, and run the Lucky Strikes commercial.

Anonymous said...

Nifong in news again. A black man by the name of Raymond Lee Parker has been in jail for nearly 28 years. One would think murder would keep him behind bars that long, but no. He was convicted of stealing $173 in a robbery!

The Durham Minister of Justice wants to keep Parker in jail longer. Wonder how the New Black Panthers, NAACP, and Group of 88 is going to view this?

The story gets more interesting. Guess who Parker's lawyer is?

Freda Black. The plot thickens...

Anonymous said...

Can any of you computer types link the article "Crown family decides Yankies not evil enough, gives money to Duke Lacrosse" to this site? Thanks if you can, Thanks for trying if you can not.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the Duke 88 won’t pay. Perhaps they will. Tenure doesn’t mean the square root of shit when it comes to civil or criminal litigation.

We’ll find out soon enough…

- Richard

Anonymous said...

The city of Durham and the Durham PD should have been nicer to these three the time the civil suits are paid off, they may OWN the town....

Anonymous said...

Here's a question specifically for KC.

Does tenure protect a professor when a university decides to eliminate an entire department, program, or college?

(and enough of the supermogul spam! For God's sake, do you think anyone believes it? One post sure, 2 maybe. 5? Not clicking through on that one.)

Georgia Girl said...

[quote]..."Gutfeld: "Don't you think that being accused of rape is as bad as being raped? Those guys' lives were ruined!" Marsden bit back, "Let's give it 10 years and see if their lives were ruined."

The lax players will get over it and the scandal will probably benefit them in the long run (career wise). As Marsden might agree, the lax three will be part of the "good ol guys" within 10 years.

Is being accused of rape as bad as actually being raped? I don't think so... not quite.

gs, I see you gave yourself a name today.