Addison, CrimeStoppers, and Duke

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)

• “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.” (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)

• “Addison said 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, Addison was serving as interim Durham Police Department spokesperson. There is no record of his being disciplined in any way for his false or midleading public statements. I suspect, however, that his remarks will come up again in post-case civil litigation, especially given the remarkable coincidence that his inaccuracy-laden barrage of statements began on the very day that Mike Nifong improperly assumed command of the police investigation.

Addison’s sixth statement came in the context of his position as coordinator of Durham CrimeStoppers, a technically autonomous organization that offers payments to witnesses who come forward with evidence of a crime. Last spring, CrimeStoppers issued a “wanted” poster declaring,

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., Addison e-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 Carolina, who has spent several months investigating the matter. Incredibly, public spokesperson Addison has refused to speak with JinC. Only in Durham does a public spokesperson refuse to talk to the public.

Addison’s DPD supervisor, Major Lee Russ, told JinC that the DPD had nothing to do with the “wanted” poster. Instead, he claimed, Addison was given carte blanche authority from the CrimeStoppers board to issue “wanted” posters. And who was on the board? Russ refused to say, adding that he knew neither where nor when the board met. Durham CrimeStoppers has no independent website (it instead has a non-descript page hosted on the DPD site, calling into question the degree of its autonomy) that might list its board members.

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 Addison was away for professional obligations.

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 Georgetown game. Her own behavior, in turn, generated pressing questions from the parents. She had, after all, set the stage for the captains to meet with Wes Convington, the lawyer whose basic approach to the case appeared to be ensuring that no Duke students hired attorneys. At the meeting, she defended her actions by preposterously asserting that she—an attorney herself (NCCU J.D.)—would have no problem with having her son be interrogated, without counsel present, by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

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 Addison and the CrimeStoppers advisory board explain why the organization publicized misleading or outright false information. But it is just as clearly in the interests of Wasiolek, others on CrimeStoppers’ advisory board and Addison to maintain its “wall of silence” regarding the production and dissemination of the “wanted” poster.

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 Covington and seemed resistant to the idea of the players hiring attorneys, was Wasiolek guided more by her role as Duke dean of student life or by her status as a member of CrimeStoppers’ advisory board? And with regard to the “wanted” poster: What did Dean Sue know, when did she know it, and why has neither she, nor Dean, nor any other Duke official involved in CrimeStoppers arranged for Addison to come clean about his springtime actions?

[A commenter asked for the distinction between the Addison "wanted" poster and the potbangers' "vigilante" poster; JinC explains here.]