As the blog winds down, I thought it might be interesting to turn to questions that remain unanswered in the case. It’s possible that information on some of these matters will come to light, especially if a criminal investigation occurs. I suspect, however, that the questions about Duke will never be answered.
1.) It came out during the Mike Nifong ethics hearing that the ex-DA was planning to prosecute the case alongside ADA Tracey Cline (who still works for the office). How many conversations did Cline and Nifong have about the lacrosse case—and how much support did Cline provide for Nifong’s efforts?
2.) Why did Nifong—who had to have known that he needed a biased judge to get the case to trial—consent to the appointment of Judge Smith, who (unlike, say, Judge Ron Stephens) he couldn’t be sure would always rule in his favor?
3.) Did—as some defense attorneys believed—Stephens and Nifong have ex parte conversations about the case before the first two indictments?
4.) What sort of conversations occurred between Nifong and Linwood Wilson in the days before the Dec. 21 “interview,” in which Wilson and Mangum produced a wholly new version of events, one that minimized the importance of DNA?
Durham Police Department
1.) Just how did Sgt. Mark Gottlieb manage to wrest control of the case on March 14-March 15—and why did his superiors, who had been alerted of his abusive behavior toward Duke students, not assign someone else to head up the investigation?
2.) What, precisely, did Gottlieb tell the grand jury on April 17, 2006?
3.) Who ordered or authorized Cpl. David Addison to go on his March 24-March 26 slander spree, when he asserted, among other things, “You are looking at one victim brutally raped. If that was someone else’s daughter, child, I don’t think 46 (tests) would be a large enough number to figure out exactly who did it”; “Addison said police approached the lacrosse team with the five-page search warrant on March 16, but that all of the members refused to cooperate with the investigation”; There is “really, really strong physical evidence”; and “We’re not saying that all 46 were involved. But we do know that some of the players inside that house on that evening knew what transpired and we need them to come forward.”
4.) How involved was Deputy Chief Ron Hodge in the pre-indictment investigation; and what was the basis for his
5.) Why, exactly, did Police Chief Steve Chalmers decide to totally absent himself from departmental affairs (with the odd rationalization that he had to look after his mother, who lived in Durham, hardly someplace inaccessible) during the highest-profile investigation in his department’s history; and why did City Manager Patrick Baker allow Chalmers to do so?
1.) Did President Brodhead clear with the University Counsel’s office his summer 2006 response to Friends of Duke, in which he asserted that a trial would present an opportunity “for our students to be proved innocent”?
2.) President Brodhead met with a delegation of African-American Studies faculty on
3.) Why, even though he had been informed of in-class harassment of lacrosse players at an
4.) It has been widely rumored that multiple drafts of the Group of 88's ad exist, and that the Chronicle required some items to be toned down before printing the document. What was the language of the ad, as originally drafted by Wahneema Lubiano? And what evidence did Lubiano present to the Chronicle to substantiate the assertion that the ad received formal endorsement from five Duke academic departments?
5.) What, precisely, was the relationship between the Duke and
6.) Why did her superiors at the
What, precisely, was Mangum’s relationship with NCCU? How many courses had she really taken? Was she ever really a full-time student?
[And, picking up on the suggestion in the comment thread, I invite people to submit their own unanswered questions; will post the better ones later this week.]