In late March and early April, Cpl. David Addison was a ubiquitous presence in coverage of the lacrosse case.
- “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.” (WRAL, March 24)
Addisonsaid 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.” (Herald-Sun, March 25)
- “We’re asking someone from the lacrosse team to step forward . . . We will be relentless in finding out who committed this crime.” (N&O, March 25)
Addisonsaid police can’t force samples from anyone they believe to be implicated in a crime. But he said that, in this situation, there was ‘really, really strong physical evidence.’” (Herald-Sun, March 25)
- “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.” (ABC, March 26)
- “Although we have received many calls expressing concerns and anger about this incident, we have not received any calls which will allow us to assist in resolving this case. We are extending our plea for information and help to our Duke family, who are also part of our community.” (WRAL, March 28)
Each of these statements was at best misleading and at worst outright false. In the first five,
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.
On April 11, the organization issued a news release twice amending the poster’s wording. As the N&O noted,
Tuesday at 11:16 a.m.,
Addisone-mailed the same release, but modified the first sentence to read: “The victim alleges that she was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed.” The  sentence calling the incident a “horrific crime” was deleted.
Eighteen minutes later, an amended CrimeStoppers release was sent. The only change was that “the victim” was now referred to as “the complainant.”
There the story might have ended but for civil liberties attorney Alex Charns, who has demanded, thus far unsuccessfully, that the DPD publicly explain how the initial inflammatory release was created; and especially for blogger John in
After some digging, however, JinC discovered fairly intimate connections between CrimeStoppers and two key Duke officials. In the listing for the Duke Alumni Association board of directors, Sue Wasiolek, dean of student life, is listed as “involved in the boards of Durham CrimeStoppers.” And, as of February 2006, Bob Dean, director of the Duke University Police Department, was listed as chairman of Durham CrimeStoppers.
Moroever, the organization has an in-depth link to Duke through longtime Duke Police Director Paul Dumas—who, one Duke insider told JinC, “was always ‘recruiting’ for CS. He worked with them for years.” Another added, “Duke is a dominant presence within Durham CS. I don’t want to go as far as saying Duke controls it, but it’s been at least close to that for many years.” Indeed, Duke Police officers briefly ran the organization in 2005, when
On March 25, Dean Sue was one of four Duke administrators who met with the lacrosse parents to explain the administration’s rationale for the last-second cancellation of the
At the time, Wasiolek told the parents that her sources said the accuser wasn’t credible—that the accuser’s story kept changing, the Durham Police knew she was a prostitute. It seemed hard to believe that a dean of student life would have such contacts. But a CrimeStoppers advisory board member certainly would.
Wasiolek’s dual Duke/CrimeStoppers role reveals an obvious conflict of interest: what happens when the interests of CrimeStoppers and Duke students do not coincide?
In this instance, it clearly is in the interests of Duke students that
Similarly, on March 25, it was clearly in the interests of Duke students to retain counsel, so they couldn’t be railroaded by Sgt. Gottlieb. But it was just as clearly in the interests of CrimeStoppers’ advisory board to have the students speak to Gottlieb without attorneys present.
When she involved
[A commenter asked for the distinction between the Addison "wanted" poster and the potbangers' "vigilante" poster; JinC explains here.]