Thursday, August 07, 2008

The Baker File

[updated] From Ray Gronberg's article in this morning's H-S:
Notes officials took from Mayor Bill Bell's regularly scheduled Wednesday morning meetings with City Manager Patrick Baker, for example, show the two discussed the case every week after reports surfaced that police took DNA samples from team members [3-23-06] to the time grand juries indicted the three players [5-15-06].

But save for that bare acknowledgment, they don't document the substance of those conversations.
Former City Manager and current City Attorney Baker must have received his information about the case from someone in the Police Department. Who kept him informed each and every week? What did they tell him? What did he say in response? What orders, if any, did he give to cover up evidence of misconduct?

Some other questions, based on the timeline above:

When did Baker learn that the Police Department had allowed Mike Nifong to take over supervision of the investigation (3-24-06)? How did he react?

When did Baker learn that Supervisor Nifong had ordered police to run a third lineup (3-31-06), only this time violating their own procedures and confining the lineup to suspects? How did he react?

When did Baker learn that even though Crystal Mangum had "identified" people in this lineup (4-4-06), the police didn't even consider her "identification" serious enough to seek a search warrant for the rooms of the "suspects" before police went to the grand jury (4-17-06)? How did he react?

When did Baker learn of Supervisor Nifong's decision to hire an outside DNA firm (4-5-06)? How did he react?

Was Baker informed of the 4-10-06 meeting in which the DNA lab director passed on news of unidentified male DNA in Crystal Mangum's rape kit? If so, how did he react? If not, what was he told about this meeting?

Did Baker's DPD liaison inform him of the evidence Ron Hodge claimed to possess when he told MSNBC on 4-11-06 that the DPD had strong evidence against the players?

When was Baker informed that the DPD had waited three weeks before taking a statement from Crystal Mangum (4-6-06)? How did he react?

When was Baker informed that Kim Roberts' statement (3-22-06) had contradicted Mangum's in every respect? How did he react?

When was Baker informed that despite the requirement that a NTO be obtained only against those who authorities had a reasonable belief could have committed the crime, the police had actually obtained an NTO against Brad Ross, who provided police with evidence (4-12-06) that he wasn't even in Durham on the night of the party? How did he react?

When was Baker informed that Cpl. David Addison had been forced to issue multiple "clarifications" to his inflammatory CrimeStoppers poster? How did he react?

This item, in short, opens up a whole range of questions as the civil case proceeds.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

And again, points out why it is so important that discovery be allowed to proceed. Frankly I do not understand (and I will admit that I am not trained in the law) what the issue is before the court regarding permission (for lack of a better word)for discovery to take place. What are the DPD, the prosecutor's office, DUMC, Duke, and the individual defendants in this case, trying to hide? If they think that their actions were above board and lawful, then I would think that they would welcome discovery to be able to show to all that the letter of the law was followed at all times and in all places.
cks

Anonymous said...

Just when did Baker, Bell, et. all, understand that this was a frame?

And what did they do about it?

Baker is a lawyer and a city official. Knowing about a felony and not reporting it is "misprison of felony". It can also be a violation of someone's civil rights "under color of law".

bill anderson said...

It is called destroying evidence, but what else should we expect? The people who have done this also committed a number of crimes, but have realized that they would not be held accountable for them.

Thus, why not destroy evidence and continue to break the law? No one in North Carolina or the federal government will punish them or even investigate them. When people are held above the law, why should we be surprised when they are lawbreakers?

Debrah said...

By now everyone following the case even slightly knows that Durham operates with its own set of rules.

The paragraph that KC cites really says it all.

However, I'm not sure if those living outside the Triangle fully appreciate just how intertwined the city manager, the mayor, and the DPD are.

Recalling past scandals---and there have been many---this is how things are always handled. No exaggeration to compare Durham to a banana-republic.

I'm waiting for KC to someday devote an entire book on the place. If he doesn't, I might!

There's an entire level of corruption, melodrama, and litany of off-center characters that would fill an entire novel.......

.......and then, the author would be accused of inventing unbelievable absurdities. LOL!

What I don't understand is WHY can't ANYONE do ANYTHING about these nuts?

Anonymous said...

Is Baker a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Why do I think when it's time for the depo, they won't be able to remember a thing? I can only pray there's a Deep Throat out there.

Anonymous said...

"What I don't understand is WHY can't ANYONE do ANYTHING about these nuts?"

I agree. Enough is enough. It is high time that one of the great legeal minds of the century be enlisted to clear matters up: Karla Holloway.

Anonymous said...

Baker & Bell knew the results of the preliminary SBI Results on March 29, 2006. They knew the evidence was saying there was no assault. They knew the first two line-ups went bad. Yet they supported the Hoax. What happened was the City of Durham PD along with Nifong tried to frame any member of the Lacrosse team. Shocking as it sounds, that was what happened and Duke was too cowardly to stand up and stop it. In fact their employees were helping the PD.

Gary Packwood said...

Barbara Jordan ...Revisited
::
Seems like we are moving towards articles of impeachment of sorts for several elected officials in Durham as we watch several Duke employees frantically attempt to remove the ties that bind them to Durham officials.

Congresswoman Barbara Jordan helped us at one time back in the 1970's understand the impeachment process.

Now it is time for us to listen to her again.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

What did they know and when did they know it?
::
GP

KC Johnson said...

To GP:

I ended my time in Israel doing a one-week seminar for Israeli HS teachers. My topic was US politics; among the items I played was that Jordan speech. It's an extraordinary address.

af said...

Which one plays the part of Sgt. Schultz and which one is Col. Klink?

Is Baker a Communist? No, he must be an idiot. (different party)

Anonymous said...

8/6/08 10:13 AM
What I don't understand is WHY can't ANYONE do ANYTHING about these nuts?

Hopefully Senator Barack Obama will take time out from his busy schedule to help straighten things out.

Anonymous said...

?

miramar said...

My favorite Baker moment has to do with his comments on Duke police officer Christopher Day. Dean Sue and the Duke administration initially concluded that the charges were baseless because Day overhead a Durham police officer report in that CGM kept changing her story and was not credible.

Baker challenged that assertion by noting that Day only heard one side of the conversation with DPD headquarters. I have often wondered what Officer Day missed out on. Was it "Roger that" or "10-4"?

Debrah said...

TO 6:25 PM--

())))))))))))))))) YAWN (((((((((((((((((()


No, I would prefer that someone retrieve John Edwards, (who, btw, lives just a few miles from where the Hoax took place).......

......from the current loo in which he's been hiding.

Anonymous said...

WHY can't ANYONE do ANYTHING about these nuts? ------ Because not enough people WANT do do anything about them. In Rio Rancho, New Mexico, the mayor used the city credit card inappropriately ($3000.00 for concert tickets and refreshments). After it was discovered, he was subpoened to appear before the City Council and was out of office within 3 weeks. Different set of rules and different citizen population here. Steve in New Mexico

W. R. Chambers said...

"What I don't understand is WHY can't ANYONE do ANYTHING about these nuts?"


I think Deborah's question is terribly important. It applies not only to Durham but all around the country.

My premise is that citizens COULD do something by voting and petitioning and otherwise mobilizing to educate their community and bring pressure to bear on elected officials.

But citizens can't do that if they are not well enough informed. For those of us who have been following these stores for years, that there are important issues at stake which affect the entire community is well understood. But I wonder how many people in Durham even know who Mike Nifong is or know that Durham is a defendant in a lawsuit that (a) draws into question the honesty, integrity and judgment of top elected officials, (b) alleges that government power was exercised in an entirely unlawful way and (c) could have devastating financial consequences for Durham.

I don't think enough people take the time or make the effort to fulfill the first obligation of citizenship, which is to be minimally well informed. Add to that the uneven performance of mainstream media and there is a real risk that we have a democracy in name only.

It would help if there were real leadership from somewhere. Years ago, in my community, there was massive litigation over prolonged, extensive illegal wiretapping. The local government was, under normal circumstances, obligated by statute to defend and indemnify, government employees sued for actions arising out of the performance of their duties. And that is just what the government did to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars.

What no one said was that there was an exception to that statute for willful and wanton misconduct. The wiretapping was obviously illegal and went on for a very, very long time. The citizens of the community were not obligated to and should not have been required to pay for the overtly criminal activity of certain public officials. But no one said a word.

And so the citizens paid.

Durham could use someone to speak on behalf of and to represent the citizens of Durham. The elected officials, it seems to me, are making decisions that benefit themselves. (Could the case have been settled? Wouldn't it be appropriate for government to admit wrongdoing and apologize where the facts are as severe as they appear to be in this case?)

The citizens of Durham need a lawyer or someone to speak for them. As things stand, the citizens of Durham (via the risk to the public treasury) are the real defendants in the case. (Does anyone know how much of the litigation risk is covered by insurance?)

jamil hussein said...

Since Jamie Gorelick is a central figure in the Duke Hoax and its cover-up, I think it is useful to look at her past shenanigans and cover-up wrt 9/11 commission and Fannie Mae.

Gorelick story

It includes interview of former FBI director (Freeh) who explained the cover-up by 9/11 commission (which would have exposed Gorelick). Also, interesting comparison between Enron and Fannie Mae.

Debrah said...

This is a kind of Diva end-of-week roundup of reminders and requests, but first of all, it is being reported now that John Edwards has finally admitted to an affair with the videographer he hired for his campaign.

Ok, fine. DUH!


Now, what is the status of Mangum's goofy film venture at this time?

KC's UPI will be updated into a paperback version come September; however, he also has another book coming out by the end of the year. He needs to post about this at some subsequent time.

Also, related to the paperback edition, he needs to update with a current photo of the little boy reading the paperback, as he did with the manuscript....and then the book.

Will either KC or Stuart be making any appearances for UPI's this fall?

Please update.

Debrah said...

OK, good.

I see that the Diva reprimand and threat to expose have brought Reharmonizer to a better understanding of how to conduct himself.

It is my belief that Wayne Fontes and perhaps another idle clown are the ones who have been using my name occasionally to post on the Chronicle fora.

Why are men so envious of KC?

The Diva question of the week.

SULax88 said...

W.R. Chambers said...

"But citizens can't do that if they are not well enough informed. For those of us who have been following these stores for years, that there are important issues at stake which affect the entire community is well understood. But I wonder how many people in Durham even know who Mike Nifong is or know that Durham is a defendant in a lawsuit that (a) draws into question the honesty, integrity and judgment of top elected officials, (b) alleges that government power was exercised in an entirely unlawful way and (c) could have devastating financial consequences for Durham."


The problem here is that what the citizenry IS aware of is "(c)could have devastating financial consequences for Durham", and combines that with one of the prime characteristics of poverty...an external locus of control; i.e. "It's those rich white boys from out of state that are bankrupting our city!!!"

THAT is the sum total of the problem. The 88'ers are just well educated external locus of control types.