On Monday, the blog offered some unanswered questions that remain about the case. At the time, I invited readers to offer their own—and reproduce some of the more intriguing ones, some slightly modified for clarity (with a few answers, for those to which I know the response).
The Lacrosse Players’ E-mails
Who was responsible for the “sting” e-mail? This was the e-mail that appeared to originate from the account of one of the players, and “informed” his teammates that he was sick of “covering up” and would be going to the police to tell them who was responsible for the “crime.”
What is Duke’s policy on their network and computers? I would assume McFayden computer was his own, but would also assume that the network and servers used for connection were Duke’s. So -- would Duke claim the right to give LE that email without a subpoena as it was on their network and their server? This is the rule I work under at my company....no right to computer privacy -- it’s their computer, their network, etc.
This set of unanswered questions is critical; and there has been no light shed on the origins of the “sting” e-mail, the bogus Collin Finnerty e-mail, or who forwarded the McFadyen e-mail to the police. It does seem very unlikely that the police obtained the McFadyen e-mail from the captains’ computers, as I originally had believed. Duke’s John Burness has also told me that no one from Duke officially supplied the McFadyen e-mail to police.
The Federal Government
Did the DPD, Michael Nifong’s DA’s office, or DUMC use ANY federal funds via the Violence Against Women Act in conjunction with any aspect of this case? If so, the feds do not have to look any farther for a hook on which to hang a criminal investigation.
Crystal’s children - where are her kids? If she had mental problems substantial enough so she could not be indicted, is the state of NC allowing her to keep her kids?
This one’s been asked - (by me and lots of others) - but it deserves an answer: whose DNA was on CGM’s person? Whose “privacy” was Nifong protecting?
Why did the Durham access intake nurse suggest to Mangum she was raped? Did this nurse know Mangum was a nut job and want to pass her on to someone else? Or is this a common part of the intake process?
[A reader provided a thoughtful answer:
I am a psych nurse that has worked many years in various Crisis/Intake units. It is NOT a a direct question I would ask unless the client indicated to me that they had a specific physical trauma that needed to be immediately medically addressed. If clients don’t state they were raped as a chief complaint in their initial explanation of why they are there, the events surrounding their coming to the unit, it would be totally inappropriate to ask. You do not give often unreliable and manipulative psych clients suggestions. It’s improper interviewing.
Both nurses in this sordid saga were sub-standard clinicians in my opinion. I can’t figure out how Tara Levicy was able to operate with so much autonomy. Before I ever spoke with police, I would have accessed the doctor and probably the administration to review all clinical records and opinions.
Tara Levicy should no longer have a nursing license. She violated nursing ethics. The other nurse was just stupid, most likely poorly trained.]
How much money did the City of Durham, County of Durham and State of North Carolina respectively spend on room, board and other support for Crystal Mangum? What is their usual policy and practice with regards to supporting witnesses?
Police & The Investigation
Will Crimestoppers - (and its posters) - be an issue in the case against Durham?
I have wondered why it took [Kim Roberts, on the night of the party] so long to get from 610 Buchanan to the Kroger store [where Roberts called 911 to ask the police to take Mangum off her hands]? What happened during that time?
Did the DPD and/or someone in the DA’s office coerce or coach CGM to make an ID in the taped session?
Duke made the effort to crack down on campus drinking and immature behavior and then provided off campus rental houses to students which resulted in de facto “Frat Houses” which were unregulated and unsupervised. How does the DPD feel about Duke outsourcing their issues with student drinking to the Durham community? Will Duke take back its responsibility in this area?
[I’ll add another to this question: who selected Nartey for membership in the Campus Culture Initiative and to join President Brodhead at the Charlotte “Duke Conversation” event?]
President Brodhead made this statement in his August interview with 60 Minutes:
The facts kept changing. Every day we learned new things that no one knew the day before. Every day we were being urged to speak with certainty about facts that were full of great uncertainty at that point. (emphasis added)
Who was “urging” Brodhead to speak and what was the nature of that “urging”? Was there any written communication or e-mails that memorialized that urging? And if so, were any of the faculty or other administration officials consulted by or about those who urged Brodhead to speak with certainty?
Have attorneys ID’d people photographed with the “castrate” poster? I’d like their names published. Not for really for lawsuits, but for public shame, as this case wraps up.
The Authors of the Vigilante Poster: Duke students and employees, or outsiders? Sam Hummel? Serena Sebring? Were such Duke parties part of the Duke Settlement?
The Group of 88’s Ad
In submitting the Group of 88’s ad for publication, what assurances did Wahneema Lubiano provide to the Chronicle to support her claim that five academic departments officially endorsed the ad?
What steps has Duke as an institution (rather than KC and others privately) taken (a) to determine whether the faculty departments in question in fact endorsed the ad in accordance with department procedure, (b) if not, to determine if individual faculty members knowingly used the name of the concerned department(s) without proper authorization, (c) to determine whether department funds were used to pay for the ad and, if so, was that in accordance with applicable Duke procedures, (d) to determine if publication of the ad, whether or not properly authorized and funded, was consistent with applicable Duke procedures and the obligation to protect the interest of students, (e) determine if any Duke faculty member engaged in misconduct with respect to the treatment of lacrosse team members or their supporters in class or in grades, (f) if improper conduct occurred, to seek to prevent such conduct from occurring in the future and (g) if improper conduct occurred, to hold the individuals and departments engaged in that conduct publicly accountable for their misconduct.
I have some questions about the Gang of 88 ad in the Chronicle. I understand the ad received formal endorsement from five Duke academic departments. Who actually paid for the ad? Was it paid for by one of these departments with Duke University funds or was it paid for by one of the individual professors? If it was paid for with Duke funds, are there no rules covering University money expenditures?
[A: According to e-mails from April 2006, the ad was paid for by Duke funds, funneled through the African-American Studies Program. This action violated official Duke policy.]
How many names and email addresses are in Wahneema Lubiano’s email filter? Is this her idea of dialogue?
[A: A good question indeed.]
Law Enforcement Enablers
How did her fellow jurists—both in Durham and around the state—react to Judge Marcia Morey’s sworn testimony that it is less important for attorneys to be candid at trial than in pre-trial proceedings?
Why is Dr. Meehan still in business? How can anything from his lab be trusted?
[A: I don’t know; and nothing from his lab can be trusted.]
What sort of conversations occurred between Nifong, Linwood, and DPD about the arrest of Elmostafa, & between Nifong and Ashley Cannon regarding the prosecution of Elmostafa?
[Liestoppers provided a comprehensive analysis.]
Who else in the DAs office helped with this case? Why are they so quiet?
Did anyone in the Durham D.A’s Office ever have any doubts about Nifong’s actions? I can’t believe he was able to maintain a total vacuum around the case. I would presume there was some “shop” talk between ADA’s, paralegals and administrative folks. One would think at least a few people asked Nifong a probing question or two.
[A disturbing answer to the two questions above was provided in an interview yesterday by interim DA David Saacks.]
Here’s a question in line with my earlier statement, why did the hospital administration allow Tara Levicy to be point person in this high profile case? Her continued egregiously unsubstantiated insistence that Magnum was raped to the police had to have come to light and should have had them combing the records and interviewing the attending doctor. She should have been be put on leave or fired as soon as it became clear what she was doing.
Was Tara Levicy asked to leave DUMC? Did her leaving have anything to do with Duke’s (and presumably DUMC’s) settlement with the accused?
Wendy Murphy. Because she claimed to be talking in an official capacity as a law professor representing New England School of Law in her various media rants, and because she regularly wrote defamatory statements on the Federal government supported website (via CDC) National Sexual Violence Policy Centers - Murphy’s current defense that she is just a pundit paid to say provocative things on TV simply for entertainment value, and not just the Duke case, seems very weak.
Q: Why are there so many unanswered questions in this matter?
A: [from another reader] It seems the more questions that get answered, the more questions that arise.
Q: I believe one thing is apparent. The frame-up was conducted with the cooperation of the DPD, the city fathers, the Duke administration, certain district judges and the media. The breadth of it is stupefying.
The single most important question (that will be answered soon) is: what will the City of Durham do?
[A: I’ll be discussing this issue in Monday’s post.]
slight delay tonight with post.