A quick summary: Baker clings to the preposterous story that the April 4 lineup wasn't a lineup, but rather an attempt to identify witnesses--even though (a) Sgt. Gottlieb told Crystal Mangum that everyone she would see the police believed attended the party; and (b) the police made no good-faith effort to contact any of those identified as "witnesses."
Who's fault was it that it took so long for justice to be served? The defense attorneys. "In attempting to answer what I believe to be the penultimate question as to why justice took nearly thirteen months to arrive on the scene in this case, I would submit the answer rests primarily in the contrasting relationship between the defense team and the two prosecuting agencies in this matter. The working relationship between the Durham District Attorney’s office and the defense team during the first 10 months of this case was not conducive to an efficient and thorough review of the facts of this case. While I have seen media accounts suggesting that defense counsel made numerous attempts to present the District Attorney with their exculpatory evidence, no such attempt was made by defense counsel to present this information to the Durham Police Department despite numerous requests and opportunities to do so."
Of course, given that Nifong assumed personal command of the investigation as of March 24, 2006, why would the defense attorneys seek to go through anyone other than Nifong?
To Baker, this question is wrong-headed: he claims that what we all witnessed over the past 13 months was nothing more than the "typical relationship between the police and the prosecutor."
Chalmers: concedes that Linwood Wilson's role as DA investigator was unprecedented, but then contradicts himself (in the next sentence) by saying Wilson's behavior "would not be unusual."
Says consultation with Nifong in directing the investigation typical DPD behavior.
Says throughout the case, the players offered a "wall of silence"--even though Mike Nifong said as early as March 27, 2006, that he was only interested in speaking to players willing to confess.
Says General Order 4077 (five filler photos per suspect) is an administrative guideline, which the DPD can ignore whenever they see fit to do so.
Items unaddressed by both Baker and Chalmers:
1.) Why did the DPD never, apparently, attempt to determine the identities of the other male DNA found on Mangum?
2.) Was the Gottlieb "straight-from-memory" report consistent with DPD policy?
3.) If the police were so interested in obtaining exculpatory evidence, why did they never interview the person who conducted the medical exam, Dr. Julie Manly?
4.) Why, on March 16, did Durham Police not tape record their initial interview with the accuser? That way, the debate over the wildly divergent descriptions she allegedly gave could have been easily settled.
5.) Why, after obtaining access to the captains’ email accounts on March 16, did the police not completed their examination of the captains’ emails before arrests were made in the case?
6.) When and how did the police clear Kim Roberts as a suspect for robbery, as Mangum repeatedly alleged in her early statements?
7.) If the goal of the April 4, 2006 lineup was to identify witnesses, why did the lineup not include the photos of the two non-lacrosse players that police knew attended the party but that Nifong had not described as suspects?
8.) Why did the DPD apparently learn from the media of Mangum's previous allegation of a three-man gang rape?
9.) Does the DPD believe that Ben Himan's affidavit in the March 23 non-testimonial order (suggesting that probable cause existed of a rape existed) was accurate? What evidence did the DPD have--then, or later--that the players used first-name aliases at the party? What justification did the police have to have avoid mentioning in the March 23 affidavit that the department had already done lineups with the lacrosse players’ photos; and had obtained descriptions of the possible attackers from Mangum; and in those lineups, the accuser couldn't identify any suspects?
10.) Why did the police NOT take a statement from Mangum on March 16, and instead wait nearly three additional weeks to do so?
11.) Why did police not ask Mangum any hard questions about discrepancies in her multiple statements?
12.) Why did Baker himself claim--falsely--that Mangum told the same basic story to all law enforcement officers in the case?
13.) How does Baker explain both Cpl. David Addison and spokesperson Kammie Michael giving misleading statements to the press about evidence in the case last March?
City Councilman Mike Woodard, quoted by the N&O before the report was released:
"I've come to the conclusion that having a third-party review of our process is actually a good idea . . . I think it removes any doubt about our department looking at its own processes and its own procedures. If we relied solely on the department's report, I think people would consider any findings of that report to be suspect, and there would be concerns about cover up and whitewash."Woodard's remarks look prescient now.
More to come.