The Astonishing Mr. Chalmers

At the point we did go into the grand jury [on April 17], Mangum’s accounts were consistent up to that point.

--Steven Chalmers, Herald-Sun, yesterday

Until his impromptu press conference Thursday night, it was possible to buy into one of the case’s urban myths: that perpetually absent police chief Steve Chalmers actually absented himself because he recognized early on that the investigation was—to borrow Kim Roberts’ phrase—a “crock.” Instead, Chalmers appears to be among the truest of true believers in the case.

In yesterday’s Herald-Sun, Chalmers made one of the most astonishing statements offered by any Durham figure of authority in the past 14 months. Only two explanations exist for his claim that “at the point we did go into the grand jury, Mangum’s accounts were consistent.” First, he is incompetent. Second, he is delusional.

In reality, Mangum’s accounts were inconsistent in virtually every respect possible.

Identifications

On March 16, Mangum said she was 70 percent certain she saw Reade Seligmann someplace at the party. On April 6, she said she was 100 percent certain he looked like one of her attackers.

On March 21, Mangum said she didn’t recognize Dave Evans. On April 6, she said that she was 90 percent sure Evans looked like one of her attackers, except that Evans had no mustache. She hadn’t mentioned that any of her attackers had mustaches at any point previously.

On March 16, Mangum described her three attackers as a “white male, short, red cheeks fluffy hair chubby face, brn”; “Heavy set short haircut 260-270”; and “chubby.” On April 6, she said she was 100 percent Collin Finnerty, who doesn’t even remotely resemble any of those descriptions, attacked her.

But according to Chalmers, Mangum’s “accounts were consistent” between March 14 and April 17.

Number of Attackers

On the morning on March 14, Mangum spent several hours with Officer Gwen Sutton (who Mangum later would not recognize); she told Sutton that there were five attackers. Then, in her interview with SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy on March 14, it was three attackers. The number was still three on March 16, when Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Officer Ben Himan interviewed her. But by April 6, the number of attackers had risen to six—three who committed the crime, and three who dragged a crying Kim Roberts away from her at the bathroom door.

But according to Chalmers, Mangum’s “accounts were consistent” between March 14 and April 17.

Names of Attackers

In the Levicy interview, Mangum said her attackers names were Matt, Adam, and Brett. She said the same in her March 16 Gottlieb/Himan interview, and the officers then constructed photo lineups using lacrosse players with those first names as the suspects. But by April 6, Mangum said her attackers’ real names were not Matt, Adam, and Brett, and that these three names were “aliases.”

But according to Chalmers, Mangum’s “accounts were consistent” between March 14 and April 17.

What Her Attackers Did

In the Levicy interview, Mangum said that Matt assaulted her orally and vaginally; Adam assaulted her anally; and Brett did neither. By March 16, the claim was that Matt assaulted her anally; Adam assaulted her orally; and Brett assaulted her vaginally and anally. And on April 6, Matt and Brett assaulted her vaginally and anally; while Adam assaulted her orally.

But according to Chalmers, Mangum’s “accounts were consistent” between March 14 and April 17.

The Marital Plans of Her Attackers

On March 14, Mangum claimed that, during the attack, Matt mentioned he was getting married the next day. No record survives of Mangum making any such claim in her March 16 interview with Gottlieb and Himan. By April 6, one of the attackers was back on the eve of betrothal, only this time it was Adam who was getting married the next day.

But according to Chalmers, Mangum’s “accounts were consistent” between March 14 and April 17.

The Role of Kim Roberts

In her interviews with the Durham Access Center nurse and then with Levicy, Mangum accused Roberts of stealing her money; the Levicy interview also featured Roberts as a de facto accomplice to the criminals, someone who carried her back into the house and then helped clean her up and dress her after the “attack.” By April 6, however, Roberts was a fellow victim, torn away—in tears—from Mangum at the bathroom door.

But according to Chalmers, Mangum’s “accounts were consistent” between March 14 and April 17.

The Nature of the Attack

In her discussions with Duke Hospital medical personnel, Mangum denied that she had been struck during the attack. The next day, she told UNC doctors that she had been “knocked to the floor multiple times and had hit her head on the sink.”

But according to Chalmers, Mangum’s “accounts were consistent” between March 14 and April 17.

Mangum’s Alcohol Intake

In her March 14 interview with Levicy, Mangum said she might have had one or two beers before the dance. The next day, she informed UNC doctors that during the attack, she was “drunk and did not feel pain.” The following day, according to the Gottlieb memo, Mangum was a virtual teetotaler, having consumed no alcohol other than a mixed drink the sergeant implied had been spiked.

But according to Chalmers, Mangum’s “accounts were consistent” between March 14 and April 17.

---------

Brad Bannon correctly termed Chalmers’ statement “the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard in my life, and I can't believe anyone who has read the case file would say those things. Crystal Mangum never told the same story twice. Her accounts were all over the place between March 14 and when these cases were submitted to the grand jury. That statement by the police chief lets me know he knows nothing about the investigation he's commenting about.”

But in the Wonderland that is Durham, wholly inconsistent stories are the paragon of consistency—just as defense attorneys are to blame when the police and prosecutor seek indictments against demonstrably innocent people without probable cause.