In an interview Saturday, Durham City Councilman Eugene Brown astutely noted that the Baker/Chalmers report “raises more questions than answers.”
Mayor Bill Bell has, appropriately, called for the Attorney General to investigate the DPD. In the meantime, however, the City Council should exercise its oversight power and summon Police Chief Chalmers to answer the questions that the report has raised.
The Grand Jury
1.) The Baker/Chalmers report states that all
2.) Did Gottlieb and Himan also explain to the grand jury that in six previous photo arrays at least loosely conformed to DPD guidelines, Mangum had identified no one?
3.) The Baker/Chalmers report discusses the city’s record of “seeking exculpatory statements and evidence.” Did Gottlieb and Himan share with the grand jury that indicted Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty the results of the April 10 meeting with Dr. Brian Meehan, which confirmed that no DNA matched either of the people that Mike Nifong wanted to indict?
The April 4, 2006 Exam
1.) The Baker/Chalmers report stated, “It was the primary intent of the investigator at the time the photographs were shown to the witness to have her identify which of the individuals she recalls being at the party rather than to identify her alleged attackers.” Yet that photo array took place at the police station, and was videotaped. The six previous photo arrays, which loosely conformed to DPD guidelines and sought to have Mangum identify her “attackers,” were not videotaped. Wouldn’t common sense, if not good police practice, suggest that videotaping lineups designed to produce suspects is more important than videotaping lineups ostensibly designed to produce witnesses? If so, why did the DPD follow the reverse practice in this case?
2.) How many other cases since February 2006 have indictments been made on lineups that did not conform to the provisions of G.O. 4077, which requires five filler photos per suspect?
3.) At least three people that the police knew attended the party (Devon Sherwood and two white non-lacrosse players) were not included in the April 4 lineup. If the goal of that lineup was simply to identify witnesses, why would the DPD confine the lineup to suspects?
4.) At no point before obtaining the first two indictments was Kim Roberts shown the April 4 photo array. If the goal of that lineup was simply to identify witnesses, why did the DPD not show the lineup to Roberts as well as Mangum?
5.) On March 16 and March 21, Mangum already had been shown the photographs of 36 lacrosse players. She had recognized four with 100 percent certainty as attending the party, and one (Reade Seligmann) with 70 percent certainty. Why did police believe that two weeks later, her memory would suddenly improve if shown photos of the same 36 people?
Disinclination to Examine Exculpatory Evidence
1.) The attorney general’s report was clear-cut: the meetings between the special prosecutors and Mangum were “apparently the first time these questions of inconsistencies were asked formally.” Why did the police never ask Mangum any hard questions about discrepancies in her multiple statements?
2.) Why did the DPD never attempt to determine the identities of the other male DNA found on Mangum?
3.) In Mangum’s April 6 version of events (the one on which indictments were based), she listed Kim Roberts as a witness to the start of the crime. Roberts mentioned no such thing in her March 22 statement to police. Why wasn’t Roberts called in for additional questioning in the 11 days between Mangum’s statement and the next meeting of the grand jury?
4.) In Mangum’s April 6 version of events (the one on which indictments were based), she listed six “attackers”—the three who “attacked” her, and the three who tore Kim Roberts away from her at the bathroom door, which made them accomplices to the crime. Why was Roberts never asked about the identity of these three people—or did the police simply not believe Mangum’s tale?
5.) If the police were so interested in obtaining exculpatory evidence, why did they never interview the person who conducted the medical exam, Dr. Julie Manly?
6.) Why, after obtaining access to the captains’ e-mail accounts on March 16, did the police not complete their examination of the captains’ e-mails before arrests were made in the case?
Police Procedure
1.) Was Sgt. Gottlieb’s “straight-from-memory” report consistent with DPD policy? In how many other cases in the last five years has the lead investigator produced a “straight-from-memory” report bolstered by no contemporaneous notes?
2.) The Baker/Chalmers report repeatedly uses the adjective “typical” in describing the DPD’s handling of this case. The Attorney General’s announcement made clear that no probable cause existed to seek indictments in the case. Is it “typical” for the DPD to endorse indictments without probable cause?
3.) Was the interaction between DPD officers and SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy “typical” of how the DPD handles rape cases?
4.) The Baker/Chalmers report made clear that at least until March 21, 2006, the DPD accepted as valid Mangum’s original claim that the attackers were named Matt, Adam, and Brett. Yet in the March 23 non-testimonial order, Officer Himan affirmed that evidence existed that the players used first-name aliases at the party. What evidence emerged between March 21, when police treated Mangum’s Adam/Matt/Brett story as valid, and March 23, when police no longer treated the claim as valid, to convince the police that first-name aliases were used at the party?
5.) Why did the police not take a statement from Mangum on March 16, and instead wait nearly three additional weeks to do so?
6.) When and how did the police clear Kim Roberts as a suspect for robbery, as Mangum repeatedly alleged in her early statements?
7.) Why did the DPD apparently learn from the media of Mangum’s previous allegation of a three-man gang rape?
8.) On what basis did Cpl. David Addison make repeated false statements to the press about the nature of the evidence and the investigation between March 24 and March 27? Has Cpl. Addison been disciplined for his conduct?
9.) In her March 22 statement to police, Kim Roberts admitted that she made the first 911 call, and that she had not been honest about the background of her decision to call. On what basis did DPD spokesperson Kammie Michael give false statements to the press on March 28-29, to the effect that police knew Roberts did not make the first 911 call?
10.) In his report, Police Chief Chalmers stated that police accepted the April 4 lineup because “investigators hoped this [procedure] would develop some leads, such as potential witnesses, for them, since those initially developed in the case were becoming exhausted.” At that time, the police still hadn’t spoken to Crystal Mangum’s two “drivers.” Nor had they tracked down in any way what she had done in the 72 hours before the lacrosse party. Did police consider these avenues of exploration insignificant? Did police find it at all unusual that a woman with no apparent means of financial support had two private “drivers”?
11.) In his report, Police Chief Chalmers concedes that no member of the DPD could ever recall a DA investigator behaving as Linwood Wilson did in this case. Then, in the next sentence, Chalmers stated that
Patrick Baker
1.) In a case with no physical evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and an accuser who constantly shifted her story, any police force interested in “discovering the truth” would have pressed Mangum on her inconsistencies before moving forward. Yet not only did the DPD fail to do so, but Baker publicly asserted that this matter was no problem. On May 10, 2006, the city manager stated, “I’ve had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate the accuser changed her story. If that were true, I'm sure someone would have mentioned it to
Mangum, we know now, never told the same story twice. It appears, therefore, that either: (a) Baker was lied to by police officers; or (b) Baker himself misled the public. Which of the two options occurred?
2.) On March 31, Mike Nifong instructed police to violate their own procedures and construct a lineup confined to the publicly identified suspects in the case—the 46 white lacrosse players. Yet both Baker and Chalmers denied that Nifong usurped control of the investigation. What of Gottlieb’s statement that he was ordered to report to Nifong for direction after March 24, 2006; or the evidence presented by the N&O that the Durham Police did just that; or the DPD’s decision to accept Nifong’s instructions without apparent dissent?
Duke law professor Jim Coleman correctly identified the basic problem of the report: “They admit the procedure was inappropriate, and they didn’t do anything to fix the problem . . . It seems designed to respond to the most criticized aspects of the case. It was a useless exercise, not worth whatever effort they put into it.” The City Council should hold Baker and Chalmers accountable.
*--modified
69 comments:
After Cooper, Cheshire et al get through with derm, the dpd should be forced to change their official uniforms to something more appropriate:
http://www.gaspee.com/Tz03clowns.jpg
Another first-rate analysis by Professor Johnson, who continues to run rings around the New York Times and the rest of the press. It would be nice for the council to ask Chalmers these questions. It would be even better if attorney general Cooper would direct the SBI to initiate an investigation and ask these questions of Chalmers and Baker.
They should hold Magnum accountable also.
In their April 5,2006 article with Colin Finnerty's front page picture, did the NYT deliberately violate his civil rights by acting on illegally obtained infomation from the April 4,2006 "lineup" days before he was charged formally. Is that a crime in NC and would it impact on the statue of limitations?
I agree with Mayor Bell that an independent study is warranted but must the AG always get the call? He is becoming the Pooper Scooper of Durham these days!
Excellent KC!
One point, Gottlieb never testified before the Evans Grand Jury. According to his notes he waited outside the Grand Jury room but was never called. The Grand Jury indicted Evans on Himan's testimony only!
Baldo
one can see how superficial the MSM are, how the duke supposed social scientists are, how the duke administration and BOT were, selecting the head of GM made sure no speaker would redefine the group of 88, the DPD are superficial, the DA's office topped the list
the question is who on the duke campus has the guts to join the 1000 students who questioned the superficiality of the duke culture?
where are the heroes ?
only the lonely voice of KC and a few supporters cry out for justice...the wheels of justice grind slowly but they will roll over the syndicate that has developed to deny the players their rights...a syndicate that has been blessed because racism isnt about justice, its about payback, its about envy, and it will never end as long as universities "dont get along" with the majority
It's time to demand action from the U.S. Department of Justice. Forget Gonzales. Contact other officials in the department.
JLS says...,
Someone posted a bunch of questions on another board too. I think Professor Johnson's and those questions are too what oriented and not enough WHO oriented. Afterall we know what happened, a criminal investigation should focus on who cause this miscarriage of justice.
So some questions I am curious about are:
1. Who in DPD decided to allow Nifong to take over the investigation.
2. Who at DPD decided not to interview Dr. Manley.
3. Who decided to arrest the cab driver.
4. Who decided that the cab driver would be picked up by the Mangum rape complaint detectives.
etc.
In addition, wasn't Mangum [forcibly?] held incognito by the DA? Apparently, even her family members couldn't find her. Did they sign Mangum into a psychiatric facility at the behest of Mr. Nifong?
This would answer many questions, particularly the lack of [official] communication between Mangum and Nifong. Not to mention the protections available to both parties based of confidentiality.
Mr. Cooper? Please.
Ouch. A painful, powerful list of questions that cries out for the State of NC to launch a 2nd probe.
(The Feds are useless as long as Bush hack Alberto Gonzales is running DOJ).
I would add a few more questions:
1. On what basis were the two white non-lacrosse players at the party ruled out as suspects and never offered in any ID lineups?.
a. Did DPD determine they had non-functioning penises?
b. Did Crystal claim that she knew her 2,3,5, 20 rapists were lacrosse players for sure? Were they in team Jerseys or singing lacrosse songs as the "raped her".
c. Were they "extra 2 whites" just inconvenient and besides the point?
2. If ID'ing witnesses was so important - why weren't Jason Bissey, the 49 people at the party (46 accused, 2 white guests, black player), and Kim Roberts not shown photo lineups.
3. The only witness besides Crystal who was given much police attention was Moez Elmostafa on Seligmann's alibi - and he was interviewed only in the course of processing him after arresting him and being told how hard it would be if he was lying. Did the Chalmers-Baker investigation determine if the arrest was proper and Elmostafa not intimidated to change his testimony?
4. What is the past history of Crystal with Gottlieb, Clayton, Addison, Lamb? Was she a "well-known individual?" Were any of the 4 employed as part-time bouncers at the Platinum Club or as escort drivers where they may have run across Ms. Mangum in the course of her employment?
5. Did the police investigation dispell rumors of police getting kickbacks and "favors" from a Durham prostitution ring that may have led them to place unusual emphasis in Ms. Mangums allegations?
6. Note-taking appears both expected and extensive on the part of DPD and the DA's staff in previous cases. Yet after DA NIfong "took over" there appears to be scant if any note-taking by either party, even at critical interviews, and no recordings. Did Baker-Chalmers investigate this and uncover a valid reason for this?
7. The report states that "cooperation" is customary as DPD chain of command considered and sometimes aceeded to "suggestions" by DA staff. Is it the position of the City of Durham after this investigation that they never formally transferred city personnel to DA Nifong's supervision and that the DPD and it's supervision retained liability for any improper action since DPD supervision alone ordered police actions?
If there was a formal transfer of control of city employees to state direction and control, where is that document? If it was on verbal orders, whose? The Council? Mayor Bells, City Manager Baker, or Chief Chalmer's "interim replacement?"
I continue to shake my head that some of the moves made in this case haven't been career enders. Time after time after time I read about someone commiting career suicide and everyone in Durham just sort of yawns and says yeah, did you hear about that, oh well.
Houston Baker should never be allowed to teach again after his plainly racist letter.
David Addison and whoever authorized his actions should never work in a more serious position than security guard.
Kim Curtis should never be permitted to walk into a classroom as anything but a paying student.
Patrick Baker cannot possibly be permitted to continue to run the city of Durham for another minute. Steve Chalmers doesn't deserve to teach boy scouts how to build fires. And of course Mr. Nifong....
All of these people in my opinion have done things that are deserving of them (at the very least) being relieved of their positions. And yet in Durham it seems to be just business as usual.
And for all of the bad press for Duke itself from the group of 88 on down, whether I have agreed or disagreed with their position, continuing to employ Kim Curtis is is an all time low. This is tantamount to the NY Times continuing to employ Jason Blair.
I have yet to criticize President Broadhead's actions. I know his situation was difficult and he did the best he could, so I have given him a pass to this point.
But for his administration to continue employing Curtis and pretend the advertisement from the 1,000 plus students in the Chronicle didn't happen is simply pretending real problems do not exist.
When a professional betrays the basic tenants of their profession it is inexcusable. For Duke to continue to employ her shocks and saddens me deeply. If I were on the faculty at Duke I would resign my position before I would allow Kim Curtis to be one of my coworkers.
It is an absolute disgrace for Kim Curtis to be associated with the University in any way. I have sent my condolences to the proud students, alumni, and parents at Duke in the past. At this point I don't know what to say to them.
I'll tell you this, for a campus that likes to protest about all things white and priveleged Durham has fallen awfully silent.
I can only tell you that if my University employed someone who had done what Curtis did, I'd be on her sidewalk with a bull horn and half the student body yesterday.
4.) At no point before obtaining the first two indictments was Kim Roberts shown the April 4 photo array. If the goal of that lineup was simply to identify witnesses, why did the DPD not show the lineup to Roberts as well as Mangum?
KC makes an excellent point here. Roberts was clearly in a better mental state during the events on the night in question. It would have made more sense to ask Roberts to identify witnesses.
Carolyn says:
Anon at 1:29:
I couldn't agree with you more. It stuns me that Curtis is even on that campus! When it changed the 'F' grades last year, Duke thereby confirmed they were unfair. Yet Curtis was not dismissed or even suspended. Even when the Dowd lawsuit was brought, she STILL remained. Duke could have only settled the Dowd lawsuit by admitting Curtis abused her power over her students - yet Curtis will be teaching next year. I can just see her greeting new students, each of whom will fearfully wonder if they're going to be her next victim.
It's unbelievable! Professors flunk their students, segregate them like Untouchables in India, demand they be castrated, drive frightened students from their homes to live in cars, display posters of them as rapists! And yet not a single professor has even been publicly criticized, yet alone privately suspended. Instead, they're each and every one preparing for new students next fall!
I'm at an utter loss for words.
KC calls his site 'wonderland' - for the students coming to class next fall, I think 'nightmare' might be a more appropriate name.
re: "It would have made more sense to ask Roberts to identify witnesses." - 1:45:00 AM
The problem was/is, Roberts said there had been no crime, so the best she could do was identify a motley line-up of party goers, if that.
"I have yet to criticize President Broadhead's actions. I know his situation was difficult and he did the best he could, so I have given him a pass to this point".
Amazing. If, as you say, he did the best he could, then he's incompetent and should be fired. I think it's a LOT worse than that. Take another look at his odious and inflammatory letter to the Duke Community of 5 April 2006, then ask yourself if you have been FAR TOO lenient on Duke's President. This awful letter makes sense only on the assumption that the lacrosse players were guilty of racially-aggravated gang rape. (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/04/rhbletter.html).
"It's unbelievable! Professors flunk their students, segregate them like Untouchables in India, demand they be castrated, drive frightened students from their homes to live in cars, display posters of them as rapists! And yet not a single professor has even been publicly criticized, yet alone privately suspended. Instead, they're each and every one preparing for new students next fall!"
And parents still happily send their children to Duke! So long as they do, present trends will continue. If it gets away more or less unscathed (as appears likely), then Duke will not reform.
A crime (and very likely many crimes) were committed in this case, by the accuser, the DPD and others. Yet Brodhead does nothing but sheepishly call for everyone to "move on". Yet when a crime of rape was first alleged (a crime that didn't actually occur), he fell over himself with firings, suspensions, several investigations, and the cancellation of the lacrosse season.
The race/gender double standard is alive and well in America.
How has he gotten away with it?!?
"I pledge that Duke will respond with appropriate seriousness when the truth is established".
This is the stern promise of President Brodhead in his letter to the Duke community of 5 April 2006.
Now that the truth IS established, we await a response of "appropriate seriousness".
When the allegation of rape was first made last spring, President Brodhead immediately responded with the following investigations: of the men’s lacrosse team by the Athletic Council; of the Duke Administration's response to the rape allegations; of student judicial processes and practices by the Academic Council’s Student Affairs Committee. He also convened a presidential council "to give advice and offer guidance to me and the Board of Trustees".
The allegations proved to be false. But we now know that other crimes were committed against Duke students, by the accuser, the DPD, and perhaps others.
So why has Brodhead not initiated ANY investigations to address THESE crimes (which, unlike the rape allegation, did actually occur)? What underlying principles are governing his dramatically different approach to these two situations? It appears as though there are simply two standards in operation. How can this be so? How does he get away with that? Why is no one (not even D-in-W) holding him to account for this? What the hell is going on?!?!
"On March 16 and March 21, Mangum already had been shown the photographs of 36 lacrosse players. She had recognized four with 100 percent certainty as attending the party, and one (Reade Seligmann) with 70 percent certainty. Why did police believe that two weeks later, her memory would suddenly improve if shown photos of the same 36 people?"
Because (see Reed Hunt, PhD below) all good psychological data shows that the more one sees pictures the more the faces become familiar. (called unconscious transfer):
"When the court ruled that Dr. Hunt could not testify, that meant the jury never really learned what the psychologist meant that Jennifer Thompson may well have unconsciously transferred her choice of Ronald Cotton at the physical lineup from having seen his face, and only his face at the photo lineup. So the jury never really understood that the scientists know that human beings can make eyewitness identification, not falsely in the sense that it's a lie, but incorrectly because of unconscious transfer. They saw an event, number one. They have another event, number two, and they use number two, the photo lineup, instead of the rape scene, itself, to make their selection in the physical lineup."
Reference: Frontline- What Jennifer saw- Dr. Reed Hunt, UNCG This case took place not 30 miles from Durham.
One other question:
If there was a crime committed -
(in the prosecution's mind, and in
the mind of the investigators) -
then the DNA must be evidence.
Since the accuser claimed that
she had not had intercourse or
other sexual activity in the
week prior to or week after
the event, then the DNA must be
evidence of a crime.
These questions naturally arise:
Is the DPD covering up a crime?
Are they protecting the identity of
the person(s) who hold that DNA?
(Nifong already admitted that he
was protecting the privacy of
someone)
Who is Nifong protecting?
Are the persons whose privacy
is thus being protected law enforcement,
judicial, elected officials, University
officials, powerful figures in
the City of Durh.?
Isn't the suppression of the
evidence another example of
evidence tampering?
If evidence is ignored, doesn't
this violate the most basic of
tenets of law enforecement?
I meant "law enforcment,"
but in this case, "law enforcement"
is probably more accurate:
all force, no mentis.
whats really "typical" here is the performance of small town single party gov. basically the " law" is whatever they say the law is, which means, in effect, there is no law.
JLS 12:56
Those questions should be added
to the "official list," too.
Cedarford's questions and Legal
Eagle's, too.
Who might officially ask these is
an open question, as well.
Surely they won't be asked by
U.S. Attorney General "Fez!"
Prove us wrong, Bush-baby!
Prove us wrong!
Good post, K.C. This exposes the out-and-out lie of what Baker wrote regarding the April 4 lineup. We are dealing with lies, not a "botched" investigation.
To me, the most unbelievable thing is Baker's trying to put the entire blame on the attorneys. Given the state of things last year, with the police arresting Elmostafa and Nifong's literally putting his hands over his ears, the attorneys realized they were up against a stacked deck.
Lies, lies, lies, and more lies. Does ANYONE in a government position in Durham ever tell the truth?
Bill? That's why it should not
be called "Durham," but rather
"The City of Durh."
Like Homer Simpson's "durh."
Professor Coleman has noted the following about the report: "It was a useless exercise, not worth whatever effort they put into it." Since they didn't put much effort into it, it reminds me of the so-called investigation.
Bill Anderson,
Remember you said - about the
impending release of the report -
that "people need to flyspeck
this document?"
Now it is apparent that they
decided to throw in the whole
load of horse-patties, lightly-
cooked, hoping that the ensuing
gathering of flyspecks would be
too great to inspect individually.
As today's column - and posts -
show:
Neither Brilliance
Nor Bullshit
Shall keep the appointed Rounds
From being made:
Each fly will get it's day.
I think the reason the April 4 line-up was taped is b/c the DPD knew it was against policy and wanted cover.
Also, the fourth LAX player Crystal identified was in Raleigh and not at the party. Why did DPD include people not at the party if they were trying to drum up witnesses?
Big, big question......
How in the hell would the April 4 lineup lead to witnesses? By this time no one was talking to DPD. All 36 of the players could have been there and been identified as having been there and no witnesses would have come of it...
DIW has focused on four key individuals/organizations for many months. 1) Nifong, 2) Durham Police, 3) Duke, 4) members of the press engaged in slanted reporting.
To date, the searing glare of total focus has been brought to bear on Nifong and is currently being brought to bear on the DPD.
My recommendation to Duke is to clean house prior to the total focus being brought to bear on you. You are no doubt next in the list of organizations to be totally focused upon.
While cleaning house prior to this scruting will not eliminate it, but it will blunt the intensity and make the duration of the upcoming focus less than it would otherwise have been. And thereby less damaging to one of our State's jewlels, who needs to move past this episode in its history.
Act proactively, quickly, and with the confidence that what you do is the right thing for the right reason. Do not remain "frozen in the headlights" as additional and potentially more damaging negative publicity. Be a leader, lead the other top institutions in the US, and ultimately help chart a course of reason on America's campuses.
Understand what is going on here. And understand that Duke is likely next in the line of total focus as this mess is exposed and cleaned-up. And Duke, please do not allow yourself to be mired in the bureaucratic tangle as usual. The price will be too high.
Follow the DNA: behind one of
those 4 - (or 5 or 6) - doors
might the answer be.
Prithee: for whom doth the
DNA ring?
Is there any doubt now that after 6 failed attempts to have Crystal identify her "attackers", that the DPD were going for broke on April 4th with the no wrong answers line-up. They were determined that 7th time's a charm would be the order of the day and they were going to get an answer -- any answer -- that day they could take to the grand jury.
Seeking witnesses, my ass. That is a story that has been created out of thin air after the fact by Baker, Chalmers, Nifong, and the others involved in this conspiracy. The questions asked in this post that demonstrate the steps that were not taken if they had really been trying to seek witnesses bears this out.
My guess is that in no way did Gottlieb tell the grand jury that Mangum had failed 6 times to identify anyone. He went in with the story that she identified these 3 (the jurors presumed on her first attempt), so they indicted. Of course, since NC doesn't keep a written transcript of GJ proceedings, we'll never know unless we put Gottlieb on the rack and torture him until he tells the truth.
KC,
It would be helpful to the reader if we knew the dates the Grand Jury took place and the dates the indictments took place.
This way we can put what Nifong and the police knew in context with the dates of the photo line-ups, the Meehan meetings, etc and what they told the grand jury.
Did Nifong have all the DNA results back before the Grand Jury meeting?
How in the hell would the April 4 lineup lead to witnesses? By this time no one was talking to DPD. All 36 of the players could have been there and been identified as having been there and no witnesses would have come of it...
May 14, 2007 7:04:00 AM
There is another event that in NOT unrelated, and that is the April 5 releasing of the McFayden email. Don't forget that the police and Nifong demanded that McFayden either cooperate and "name" people or they would release the email.
Crystal already had "identified" her "attackers," so I suspect that they were going to have him concoct a story that would have implicated the three of them. Instead, McFayden chose to tell the truth, Nifong and Judge Ronald Stephens released the email, and we know what followed.
There was no legitimate "investigation" that occurred in Durham, so why should we expect the investigation of the "investigation" to be any more legitimate. These people are liars, pure and simple. There is nothing else to say except that Durham government is full of liars.
I'm guessing that the answer to
the Dr. Manley/Tara Levicy question
is that Dr. Manley wasn't willing
to go along with the hoax
(what would happen if it went
on record that she told the
Investigators/Nifong to go to hell?)
Levicy may have been rattled.
Those are plausible explanations,
considering the way things have
gone.
To "legal eagle"-just get a clue.
Even after Nifong was gone from the case, Mangum wanted to proceed with it, according to AG Cooper. So, does it make any sense that she was forcibly held somewhere by Nifong? No, it does not.
I have always thought that the supposed accomplices--the three players who purportedly separated the two dancers so that the first three could rape Mangum--were an important proof that Nifong really didn't believe what the accuser was saying. If so, he would have asked Roberts to confirm the story and he would have arrested another three players. But since Nifong only needed to arrest three players, any three players to get his pension, he didn't even follow up on what would have been a key part of the case.
What if Cooper turns down the mayor's request to investigate?
Carolyn at 2:07--
I disagree with your assumption that in order to settle the Dowd law suit, Duke would necessarily have admitted that Curtis abused her authority. By its terms, the settlement admits nothing of the kind; in fact it apparently contains (according to K.C.'s post) a fairly routine statement that the settlement doesn't constitute an admission of liability or of any of the alleged facts at issue.
In fact, one of the main motivations for defendants to settle law suits is to avoid admitting anything. In this case, the havoc that could be wreaked on a university by a precedent in which a court would get involved in second guessing grading decisions would be a strong incentive to settle, whether or not the University was willing to acknowledge wrongdoing on Curtis' part--and for the Dowds, on the other side, they received the main relief they sought (changing of Kyle's grade to "P") and possibly other, undisclosed consideration, while avoiding further attorneys' fees.
I'm not saying there was no such admission; I have no idea whether Duke officials might have privately acknowledged this as part of the settlement. I'm just saying they explicitly did not publicly acknowledge it and there is no way of knowing whether they did so privately unless the parties are willing to break the terms of their settlement agreement.
Bill Anderson--
Your post is the first time I've read that the police used the threatened release of the e-mail to try to coerce corroborating testimony from Ryan McFadyen, and it explains a lot. Has this been reported elsewhere?
Something interesting in K.C.'s quotation from Patrick Baker, circa last May: “I’ve had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate the accuser changed her story. If that were true, I'm sure someone would have mentioned it to me.” But why would "officials at Duke" have any idea whether the accuser changed her story? At best they could only offer third-hand hearsay--what Duke Police Department officers told them they overheard DPD officers saying on the phone. Probably this was just a case of Baker not really thinking about what he said before he opened his mouth, but it seems to suggest that he didn't have a very clear idea of where to get information on the accuser's story.
(Here's my list of questions I posted yesterday on Liestoppers Forum)
TWENTY-ONE QUESTIONS ABOUT AN ATTEMPTED FRAME-UP
1) Why did the Durham PD take two days to secure and search the crime scene at 610 N Buchanan? Was it because Officer Shelton and other Durham and Duke police officers believed there was no crime?
2) Why did it take three weeks for the Durham PD to obtain a written statement from the complaining witness Crystal Mangum?
3) Who came up with the “false names theory” stated in the application for a non-testimonial identification order after Mangum could not identify a “Matt,” “Brett,” or “Adam” in the initial two photo ID sessions?
4) Why did the Durham PD not interview eyewitness Jason Bissey until Bissey contacted the police weeks later and gave them a written statement?
5) Why did the Durham PD, to ascertain her credibility, not interview Mangum’s co-workers, employer, or customers from the Platinum Club where she worked as a dancer?
6) Why did Duke University Medical Center SANE in-training Tara Levicy tell the Durham PD that there were “signs” of a sexual assault when this was not reflected in the written medical record? Why did she concur with a diagnosis of “blunt force trauma” when this was raised by Sgt. Gottlieb?
7) Why did the Durham PD not interview Dr. Julie Manley who actually performed the pelvic examination and specimen collection during the SANE procedure?
8) If the April 4 photo lineup was to identify witnesses, why did it not include the black lacrosse player and the two non-lacrosse players who were also at the party?
9) If the April 4 lineup was to identify witnesses, who did Sgt. Gottlieb pass over Matt Wilson, the first of four players identified by Mangum as an attacker, yet focus on Collin Finnerty by asking Mangum if Finnerty had strangled her?
10) Was DA Mike Nifong directing the Durham PD investigation? If not, why did he order Sgt. Gottlieb to perform the April 4 photo lineup in a manner that violated Durham PD, state, and national guidelines?
11) If DA Nifong believed Seligmann and Finnerty (and later Evans) were rapists, why didn’t he order them arrested immediately to get them off the street instead of waiting for a grand jury? Was it because arresting them would trigger a show-cause hearing?
12) Why did it take the Durham PD over two months until June to show Kim Roberts, the second dancer, a photo lineup?
13) Why did the Durham PD not re-interview Kim Roberts after Roberts made additional statements about what Mangum had told her regarding “making marks?”
14) Durham PD officers Gottlieb and Himan were at the meetings between DA Nifong and DNASI director Brian Meehan where Meehan and Nifong agreed not to disclose DNA results from additional men in the rape kit sample from Mangum. Why did Gottlieb and Himan not disclose that exculpatory evidence was being withheld in violation of discovery laws?
15) Why did the Durham PD, if they were looking for rapists, not investigate the identity of the men’s DNA found in Mangum’s rectal swab and panties?
16) Why did Sgt. Gottlieb come up from memory with a delayed police report in July which was at variance with contemporaneous notes from others and which attempted to fill holes in Mangum’s versions of the events?
17) Why did Durham DA Mike Nifong not discuss the discrepancies in Crystal Mangum’s stories with her earlier in the case? Why did he rely on her initial statement and not have the police re-interview her?
18) Why was witness Moez Mostafa, a cab driver, picked up on a two-year old warrant after he refused to change his story about March 14 and then two police officers involved in the Duke case glared at him in the courtroom during his trial? Was this witness intimidation?
19) Why was witness Kim Roberts given a favorable bond hearing on a prior embezzlement charge after she cooperated with police? Was this witness inducement?
20) Why did Investigator Linwood Wilson of the Durham Prosecutor’s Office interview Mangum in December and come up with a new timeline and description of the events?
21) Why did the Durham PD or Mike Nifong never interview Reade Seligmann, Collin FInnerty, or Dave Evans before (or after) they were indicted?
I agree with you, miramar. I, too, always found it very suspicious that Nifong showed no interest in knowing the identity of the three men who allegedly pulled Kim Roberts away from Mangum. After all, if Mangum's story were true, that would mean that those three were active participants in the crime (not to mention the fact that the three had committed a separate assault against Kim Roberts, for which they could have been criminally charged as well). If Nifong believed Mangum's story, why didn't he ever ask Kim Roberts to identify the three men who had assaulted her? We know the answer. Kim Roberts had already given police a statement that flatly denied that any assault occurred. Nifong knew there was no way to reconcile Roberts' statement with Mangum's. Nifong and the police were not interested in finding the truth. They were, as Bill Anderson has repeatedly pointed out, simply interested in perpetuating a frame-up. The police "report" is nothing but an attempt (and a bad one at that) at a CYA whitewash.
We already know the answer to the questions about whether the grand jury was informed of the DNA results: they were not. We know this because a few months ago, two of the grand jurors spoke to the press, and said they would not have indicted if they had known about the DNA. That paragon of the law, Orlando Hudson, threatened to have those grand jurors prosecuted for violating their oaths (although he apparently has decided not to follow up on the threat).
To the Anon at 8:13,
I disagree with your simplistic (and very DU-administration troll-like) characterization of the Dowd settlement.
You glibly refer to 'possibly other consideration' being received by the Dowds - when we all know that the huge monetary settlement paid was the only 'admission' of guilt by DU in this disgusting affair, and they would only agree to pay it if it was kept confidential.
"Admission" or not, it is a simple matter of fact, and a uncontested matter of public record in the Dowd case, that DU changed the grades that Curtis gave, thereby acknowledging faculty wrongdoing in a very public way.
Who is responsible? North Carolina or Durham?
If Nifong took over the case as has been alleged, does the State of North Carolina assume responsibility for all due process issues?
The charges were North Carolina charges, not local charges.
Seems to me that the Mayor of Durham is trying to move the responsibility for this hot potato over to the State of North Carolina.
8:13 wrote:Something interesting in K.C.'s quotation from Patrick Baker, circa last May: “I’ve had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate the accuser changed her story. If that were true, I'm sure someone would have mentioned it to me.” But why would "officials at Duke" have any idea whether the accuser changed her story? At best they could only offer third-hand hearsay--what Duke Police Department officers told them they overheard DPD officers saying on the phone. Probably this was just a case of Baker not really thinking about what he said before he opened his mouth...
I think the "Duke" Baker is referencing is "Duke Univ. Medical Center," not "Duke University."
maggief on the LS board recently highlighted this article, http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/
index.php?showtopic=3508&st=50
from which I quote:
"Defense team wants rape evidence quickly
Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC)
May 16, 2006
Author: RAY GRONBERG
...
But Baker took the document as an attack on the Durham Police Department. The morning after it came out, he contacted officials at Duke to find out what they'd heard from city investigators.
They quickly conceded that the information that formed the basis of the Bowen-Chambers report's claims about Durham police came from a single low-ranking Duke police officer, Christopher Day, who overheard one end of a Durham patrol sergeant's cell-phone conversation.
Baker said the sergeant, John Shelton, was talking with his superiors while police were trying to figure out exactly what they were dealing with. Patrol officers initially believed the woman was intoxicated.
But Durham authorities -- tipped off, Baker said Monday, by medical personnel at Duke University Hospital -- soon decided they were dealing instead with a potential sexual assault, and called in investigators."
It appears that Nurse Tara or someone she spoke to at the hospital made a call to someone, perhaps Baker himself, and said: "Hey, the cops aren't taking this rape seriously. It really really happened."
To anon 8:13:
Make no mistake, Duke's lawyers told them that Curtis' conduct was legally indefensible. That is the real reason for the settlement -- to hide Duke's shame, and their employee's palpable guilt.
Others here have cynically predicted that Kimmy will be protected, even promoted. I say she will get shamefully shit-canned, come contract renewal time for her pitiful, lowly post of "visiting assistant prof" -- and rightly so, notwithstanding her spousal anchor. Her poor judgment and unlawful conduct have cost Duke real cash-money, and this will not be easily forgiven.
JLS says....,
re: David M. Brooks
Or possibly Baker was just lying to the paper with that statement. That is the problem trying to assign blame. There was a lot of lying going on then on the part of:
1. Police spokespeople
2. Nifong
3. And possibly Baker. [We can not know for sure if at first Baker was being lied to and repeating them or affirmatively lying himself. We do know now with his report, Baker is not being truthful.]
And of course later there would be more lying by Gottlieb and possibly others.
"5.) Why did the police not take a statement from Mangum on March 16, and instead wait nearly three additional weeks to do so?"
Himan apparently took a statement from Crystal on March 16. It has been noted that Crystal did not mention being strangled at this meeting because Himan made no note of it.
LTC8K6
The Duke student body has shown that they are willing to protest just about any perceived wrong. Where are they when a student sues a professor who flunked him infairly (perhaps the biggest ethical breach possible aside from sexual abuse of a student) and the University quietly settles out of court?
Sceptical:
Answer to #7 might be:
they didn't interview Dr. Manley because
she wouldn't give them what they wanted.
David M. Brooks:
Hmmm. Discovery, discovery:
who might have made the call?
That could be dangerous for
someone's alibi - (which could
mean that DUMC might be in a
world of trouble.)
Where to look?
Cell phone records, calls from
DUMC to the DPD (which someone
might be able to obtain from the
phone company, since DPD doesn't
apparently keep records of anything other than their pay stubs)
Great analysis, KC.
David M. Brooks, Patrick Baker was reacting to the Bowen-Chambers Report. I believe when it says he contacted Duke officials about it, he's talking the University, not DUMC, which had nothing to do with the report. The Bowen-Chambers report refers to reports from Durham police to Duke police officers, and from Dean Sue to her colleagues. I believe Baker contacted Duke U administration.
I'm sure that the last thing that the AG wants to do is to investigate the DPD and potentially taint any cooperation between prosecutors and police departments in the future.
This seems like more of a job for the Feds but I'm not holding my breath on them.
KC,
Great list of questions. One of my biggest concerns is how the police could justify not investigating the source of the other 4 DNA samples found. This was in early April when it could still have been a friend of the Lacrosse players.
You also questioned the lack of video tapes of the questioning to Ms Mangum in March or April. I wonder if the police avoided them due to how she acted. The state investigators reports she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol everytime they spoke to her. Could this be the same problem with the Durham police? Interesting question?
JLS says....,
Or possibly Baker was just lying to the paper with that statement. That is the problem trying to assign blame.
True. But the mystery of the case has been how did the police position turn around from "nothing happened" to "this horrific crime?"
A phone call from Nurse Tara or hospital management at Nurse Tara's instigation to Baker explains this.
I think that Baker did talk to hospital staff, perhaps Nurse Tara herself, and was told that CGM's story was consistent and that CGM was raped. Baker then forced the investigation forward on the assumption that the rape had really happened. Before Nifong ursurped the DPD's investigation, Baker had already done so; though I think Baker thought he had reason to believe Duke Medical, and not the initial Durham cops' assessments.
I think the "ground zero" of the hoax is in Nurse Tara's instigation of or personal initiation of a hospital contact to Baker that a rape happened, and that the police were not treating it seriously.
The Duke student body has shown that they are willing to protest just about any perceived wrong. Where are they when a student sues a professor who flunked him infairly (perhaps the biggest ethical breach possible aside from sexual abuse of a student) and the University quietly settles out of court?
Some students and some professors (88 out of 1500) chose to assume guilt and paraded around on campus (and at 610 Buchanan) banging pots and flashing signs.
The majority of Duke Students and faculty, however, was more measured in their response. The students, especially, determined the case to be a hoax early on- hence the "innocent"bracelets sported by so many of them. They also published their own "ad" after Cooper's press conference that demanded the University stand up to the 88 thugs. Over 1000 Duke students signed that ad.
It is not fair to characterize the student body as being either complacent or race-pimps in this case. In fact, it is a shame that the administration did not simply "listen" to its students. They showed much greater intelligence and reason than the faculty!
Dowd's mark was changed either because:
a) it was undeservedly failed; or
b) it was deservedly failed but Duke had other reasons to allow a pass mark.
Why would an elite educational institution allow a student who had not managed to meet their educational standards obtain a pass mark - and potentially hold a Duke degree undeservedly? Would Duke risk its reputation to do that? I don't buy it.
The Dowd mark was a Pass because he deserved to pass. Curtis wronged him, IMHO.
To anon. 10:43
I would assume that the reason that Nifong did not attempt to identify the DNA found on Mangum is that it would have added further proof of her activities and profession. After all, the original charges indicated that there had been a cowardly assault on an honor student and single mother, not on a drug addicted prostitute. The first N&O article also indicated that she had only begun to work two months before because the pay was good and the hours fit in with her class schedule, and obviously that narrative would have been destroyed by DNA found in her mouth, vagina, and anus.
One question: I know that they found four separate DNA samples somewhere, but do we even know how many separate DNA samples were found in total?
Finally, if you read the original article you see that either Mangum is an excellent actress or the N&O reporters are beyond naive. Virtually every single statement is untrue, which means that she is completely delusional, or if not then she must be more clever than we give her credit for:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/421799.html
re: 10:52
KC Reviewed Dowd's papers
I took a look at Dowd’s three papers—each worth 25% of the overall grade. Let me say at the start: subjectivity is an element to all grading, especially grading of papers. No two professors will analyze the same paper in an identical fashion. But it’s not hard to detect failing papers. In short, subjectivity and differing grading scales can explain why a paper to which one professor might give a B would receive a C from another faculty member—something that happens all the time in higher education. But subjectivity can’t explain how such a paper could get an F.
Anonymous said... "To 'legal eagle'-just get a clue. Even after Nifong was gone from the case, Mangum wanted to proceed with it, according to AG Cooper. So, does it make any sense that she was forcibly held somewhere by Nifong?.." - 7:35:00 AM
Yes.
Unless you have implicit faith in Mr. Nifong. And accept that everything else in this case makes sense.
Keep in mind that Mr. Nifong had no difficulty defining his/her case during Ms. Mangum's extended [public] absence.
That she was held forcibly remains an open, relative-to-coercion, question. One might also argue witness protection, or that she was a danger to the community - especially had she been allowed to sit and talk from her own front porch.
To put it another way, everyone except Ms. Mangum knew she had no case.
Call or write to the learned Durham City Manager, Mr. Baker. It's defense counsels' fault, eh?
http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/manager/
Once Nifong enter into the fray, the police involvement was almost non existent. No investigation on the event was carried on by anyone except Super PI Linwood. Criticizing poor,uneducated, Mary and Travis is like shooting fish in a barrel. I would think most posters would be above that.
Once Nifong enter into the fray, the police involvement was almost non existent. No investigation on the event was carried on by anyone except Super PI Linwood. Criticizing poor,uneducated, Mary and Travis is like shooting fish in a barrel. I would think most posters would be above that.
I'm 8:13. First of all, I want to assure 9:12 that I am not an administration troll--far from it. I'm a Duke parent who has believed in the lacrosse players' innocence since before the first indictments, and I don't actually know anyone in the Duke administration.
If you think my remarks are simplistic, okay--that's possible. But I'm puzzled why my mention of "possibly other consideration" in a confidential, unpublished agreement is more glib than your assertion that "we all know that the huge monetary settlement paid was the only 'admission' of guilt by DU"--when we don't actually KNOW whether a monetary settlement was paid and, if so, how big it was. (Nor do we know--unless 10:05 has a secret source--whether any part of the settlement involved a private acknowledgement by the University that Curtis acted unfairly.) And, by the way, your own statement seems to confirm my point that, at least officially, Duke did NOT "admit guilt" in the settlement.
All of this, of course, is a very different point from whether Curtis's actions were, actually, wrong. Other commenters on this thread may have thought that I was defending her actions; that is not so. I did note that, regardless of whether she acted wrongly or not, any university would have a strong incentive to avoid having judges and juries poking into individual grading decisions.
To the commenter at 10:52: At least officially, Duke awarded Dowd his degree because it allowed transfer credit for a class that he had taken but, apparently, not previously received transfer credit for, thus giving him enough credits for his degree. During the summer after his graduation, Dowd's mark was changed from an F to a D because of a "calculation error"; the settlement has changed that passing, but unattractive grade to a neutral P.
Does this sequence of events suggest that Dowd probably deserved a passing grade (and quite possibly a passing grade higher than D), and that the University recognized this? Probably. But it's not the same as an official acknowledgement that Curtis acted wrongly, which was the point I was focusing on.
To David Brooks and other commenters responding to my question about Patrick Baker's remarks--thanks; your discussion has been very interesting.
To the commenter questioning why Duke students are not protesting the Dowd settlement, in addition to the excellent response made by 10:52, I might add one other point: the settlement was announced after school had ended for the semester, and few people were around except for graduating seniors and athletes still in NCAA competition--who might have had other things on their minds. Even assuming there are students who would feel like protesting a settlement that the Dowd family agreed to (which would be a little odd, really), they had probably already left for the summer.
Carolyn says:
In reply to my statement that Duke's settlement proves Curtis was wrong - Anon. at 8:13 and 1:36 wrote: "I disagree with your assumption that in order to settle the Dowd law suit, Duke would necessarily have admitted that Curtis abused her authority."
First, actions speak louder than words. If it walks, talks and has feathers like a duck, it's a duke. Duke's actions 'quack' of Kim Curtis' guilt.
The action of Duke settling proves they couldn't win - and the one thing that can't win is guilt. The action of Duke gagging Dowd and his family to silence means Duke doesn't want the world to know Kim's guilt - no university prevents the world from knowing its innocence. The action of Duke in changing the grade Kim gave Dowd means her grade was wrong - you don't change a grade that's right.
Actions speak louder than words - and the actions of the settlement spoke loud and clear. Kim Curtis was guilty.
Quack! Quack!
Why did all hoax enablers involved in this conspiracy to frame and railroad 3 innocent men into 30 year prison sentences act so brazen?
Because they all knew that, in a jurisdiction such as Durham, the 3 innocent men would most likely "get to" tell their side of the story (prove their innocence) in front of a jury.
And they all knew that once anyone is charged, they are damaged goods in the eyes of society and the media. As damaged goods, they would have no credibility. Did anyone miss the near universal lack of presumption of innocence? Nobody is ever vindicated after being charged with a crime. Nobody ever comes out of a trial vindicated.
What the hoaxsters, fraudsters and sociopaths assumed is that the 3 innocent men would be, at a minimum, charged, giving all the hoax enablers a green light to do their dirty work. The universal presumption of guilt would cover their asses.
Thank you, NCAG, even though a bit late, for an actual vindication. The lowest forms of humanity have had their dirty hands manipulating the justice system causing tremendous grief to factually innocent people. It's time to remove those dirty hands.
Anon @ 3:04pm
You said: "The lowest forms of humanity have had their dirty hands manipulating the justice system causing tremendous grief to factually innocent people. It's time to REMOVE those dirty hands."
I imagine there many, many people who would like to take this suggestion literally!
Carolyn--
I acknowledge the logic in your drawing the conclusion that Duke probably wouldn't have taken the actions it did if it felt strongly that Curtis had fairly graded Kyle Dowd. And I'm probably being a bit technical. But because I used to practice law, I get a little fussy about statements that a settlement "confirms," "proves," or "admits" the truth of something at issue when the settlement agreement specifically states that it does not do that. My guess is the distinction I'm making is one you don't particularly care about, which is fine--and our disagreement is probably more semantic than substantive.
Maybe the Dukies don't care about the settlement. Maybe the Dukies are so tired of this case, they want it to go away also. Protesting would only prolong the agony. Any Professors who would do the same thing, after this case are beyond stupid.
Post a Comment