Friday, May 11, 2007


The report is out. It is divided into two parts, one a memorandum by City Manager Patrick Baker, the other a memo by Police Chief Chalmers. Both use the adjective "typical" to describe the DPD's behavior in this case--all but begging a federal intervention.

A quick summary: Baker clings to the preposterous story that the April 4 lineup wasn't a lineup, but rather an attempt to identify witnesses--even though (a) Sgt. Gottlieb told Crystal Mangum that everyone she would see the police believed attended the party; and (b) the police made no good-faith effort to contact any of those identified as "witnesses."

Who's fault was it that it took so long for justice to be served? The defense attorneys. "In attempting to answer what I believe to be the penultimate question as to why justice took nearly thirteen months to arrive on the scene in this case, I would submit the answer rests primarily in the contrasting relationship between the defense team and the two prosecuting agencies in this matter. The working relationship between the Durham District Attorney’s office and the defense team during the first 10 months of this case was not conducive to an efficient and thorough review of the facts of this case. While I have seen media accounts suggesting that defense counsel made numerous attempts to present the District Attorney with their exculpatory evidence, no such attempt was made by defense counsel to present this information to the Durham Police Department despite numerous requests and opportunities to do so."

Of course, given that Nifong assumed personal command of the investigation as of March 24, 2006, why would the defense attorneys seek to go through anyone other than Nifong?

To Baker, this question is wrong-headed: he claims that what we all witnessed over the past 13 months was nothing more than the "typical relationship between the police and the prosecutor."

Chalmers: concedes that Linwood Wilson's role as DA investigator was unprecedented, but then contradicts himself (in the next sentence) by saying Wilson's behavior "would not be unusual."

Says consultation with Nifong in directing the investigation typical DPD behavior.

Says throughout the case, the players offered a "wall of silence"--even though Mike Nifong said as early as March 27, 2006, that he was only interested in speaking to players willing to confess.

Says General Order 4077 (five filler photos per suspect) is an administrative guideline, which the DPD can ignore whenever they see fit to do so.

Items unaddressed by both Baker and Chalmers:

1.) Why did the DPD never, apparently, attempt to determine the identities of the other male DNA found on Mangum?

2.) Was the Gottlieb "straight-from-memory" report consistent with DPD policy?

3.) 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?

4.) Why, on March 16, did Durham Police not tape record their initial interview with the accuser? That way, the debate over the wildly divergent descriptions she allegedly gave could have been easily settled.

5.) Why, after obtaining access to the captains’ email accounts on March 16, did the police not completed their examination of the captains’ emails before arrests were made in the case?

6.) When and how did the police clear Kim Roberts as a suspect for robbery, as Mangum repeatedly alleged in her early statements?

7.) If the goal of the April 4, 2006 lineup was to identify witnesses, why did the lineup not include the photos of the two non-lacrosse players that police knew attended the party but that Nifong had not described as suspects?

8.) Why did the DPD apparently learn from the media of Mangum's previous allegation of a three-man gang rape?

9.) Does the DPD believe that Ben Himan's affidavit in the March 23 non-testimonial order (suggesting that probable cause existed of a rape existed) was accurate? What evidence did the DPD have--then, or later--that the players used first-name aliases at the party? What justification did the police have to have avoid mentioning in the March 23 affidavit that the department had already done lineups with the lacrosse players’ photos; and had obtained descriptions of the possible attackers from Mangum; and in those lineups, the accuser couldn't identify any suspects?

10.) Why did the police NOT take a statement from Mangum on March 16, and instead wait nearly three additional weeks to do so?

11.) Why did police not ask Mangum any hard questions about discrepancies in her multiple statements?

12.) Why did Baker himself claim--falsely--that Mangum told the same basic story to all law enforcement officers in the case?

13.) How does Baker explain both Cpl. David Addison and spokesperson Kammie Michael giving misleading statements to the press about evidence in the case last March?

City Councilman Mike Woodard, quoted by the N&O before the report was released:

"I've come to the conclusion that having a third-party review of our process is actually a good idea . . . I think it removes any doubt about our department looking at its own processes and its own procedures. If we relied solely on the department's report, I think people would consider any findings of that report to be suspect, and there would be concerns about cover up and whitewash."

Woodard's remarks look prescient now.

More to come.


Anonymous said...

Can you say independent third party review? Baker cannot really believe he will get away with this, and it might just cost him his job.

Anonymous said...

Would you expect ANYTHING any less of the DPD???????

Anonymous said...

Not unexpected - DPD and the truth in this event have never met.

Anonymous said...

According to this report there were 6 previous attempts to identify suspects which yielded nothing. If that is correct then this 7th procedure was used strictly to frame. That is stunning. Is it correct?

If it is true the bastard Nifong should be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Anonymous said...

They blame the defense for not proving their innocences (Innocent unitl proven innocent is correct). What about interviewing Manly? Why would the defense speak when the time-line might get changed? I thought they would blame the whole thing on Nifong- but to blame it on the defense is crazy.

They are saying- if it wasn't for the 5th Amend. we would have the truth.

This is a report that more or less repeats- Nifong's why do you need lawyers if you didn't do anything wrong?

Finally, they brag that they interviewed the cab driver- the nerve!

Anonymous said...

The yo yo does not know what penultimate means. Maybe he should not use such high fallutin language.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer/retired professor: The most ironic statement is when they blame the defense attorneys for the delay in resolving the case. Huh?

Anonymous said...

Hey, anyone who expected anything other than a whitewash is hopelessly naive.

The City is staring down the barrel of a humongous civil rights / wrongful prosecution lawsuit. The last thing they're going to do is issue a report that admits that the DPD screwed up.

In typical DPD fashion, however, they can't even do a whitewash correctly. Trying to blame the defendants and the defense attorneys for this disaster is unbelievably foolish, even by DPD standards. Look for the attorneys in the civil case to have a field day with that one.

Anonymous said...

The citizens of Durham should be embarassed that those whose salary they pay to keep order are so intent on sweeping this whole thing under the rug.

When this one is over, and all those on the Durham payroll have long since gone, it will be those very taxpayers on the hook for huge damages, not just to the 3 indicted players, but to all of those players who were implicated of wrongdoing. The litigation traid which is coming down the track is going to be very expensive and embarassing for the city government.

Anonymous said...

The report is sadly what we all were expected. But could we really expect individuals who staked so much on the wrong pony to come forward and say, "We did something wrong and are willing to accept the financial consequnces of our actions."?

Anonymous said...

This report really is an outrage, and as far as I am concerned, it rises to the level of obstruction of justice. It is an attempt by the city government to lie about obvious police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Anonymous said...

DPD didn't exactly rise to the defense of Nifong. They only gave him a half-hearted defense against charges he stepped out of his role as DA to run the investigation. There's not enough material in the report to cover one ass, much less two. If Nifong was looking for comfort in this report, I don't think he gets it.

Anonymous said...

The Million Dollar Question was avoided.

Who ordered & why was it ordered that PD investigators were to follow Nifong's orders?

Why wasn't the investigation completely before the indictments? Notice how the Chalmers & Baker drop out that very real statement.

NO attorney is going to give information to the Police after the indictements. It will always go through discovery after the indictments.


Anonymous said...

DPD knows how to tapdance. Their legal staff has done a good job of editing out anything that could be used to criticize the police handling of this train wreck. Too bad the US DOJ isn't interested.

Anonymous said...

"Outrage" is absolutely the correct word to use. Felonious might also apply.

Anonymous said...

How does everyone feel about the footnote at the bottom of each page of the report that reads "Good Things are Happening in Durham"?

Anonymous said...

This is EXACTLY why I've been following this case for the last year.

The irony, lies, weak deceptions and foolishness of the offenders (those who attempted to throw the Lacrosse team under the bus) is beyond fascinating.


It was those damned defense attorneys who were the problem after all.

Oh, that's rich indeed.

How can you not laugh at the absurdity of that?

Anonymous said...

There is a critical section in there about how the defense attorneys did not present their exculpatory evidence to the DPD "despite numerous requests and opportunities to do so."

Is there any documentation of such numerous requests? It appears that the DPD is attempting to set this up as a defense line against impending litigation.

Of course, as Prof KC notes: once the prosecutors take over the case, and particularly the investigation, the point of contact become the DA's office, not the police. Communications are attorney-to-attorney.

Anonymous said...

I CANNOT WAIT for the civil suits.

Anonymous said...

That sappy report is what's to have been expected. Just bring on the lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

the manner in which Professor Johnson is literally destroying the Durham, media and Duke statements astounds me.

There are only so many hours in a day available for analysis.

Dr Johnson, I doubt you are doing this level of a job even remotely alone. Where did you get your staff because I want one.

Anonymous said...

Glad I'm not a Durham taxpayer.

Taxes are going up, once the civil suits (how could they refrain from filing now?) go down.

Anonymous said...

Just when you think you've heard the ultimate in strange stories about this case...this may prove to be the most fantastic of the lies: it's the defense attorneys' fault!! I can't wait to hear what Joe Cheshire has to say about this report!!

Lies, lies and more lies--when will it end. I want to see Gottlieb in an orange jumpsuit next to Mikey in his!!

Anonymous said...

This report is going to be shredded and is so incomplete as to be almost worthless.

Also, at one point Chalmers refers to CGM as Magnum. I think the DPD could have used Magnum in this case.

Anonymous said...

forgot to sign my 5:01 post!

duke 2009mom

Anonymous said...


Who hired Chalmers? Baker?

Anonymous said...

Does the City not have any competent lawyers reading this stuff before it's published???? Or are they so ignorant they cannot see that this just increases civil liability? Oh, they were are AAAF graduates and hires, too... I see.

Anonymous said...

During the 4/4 lineup, why did Gottlieb ask Crystal if Collin Finnerty had strangled her? Crystal did not say anything about being strangled by anyone she saw during the lineup. Gottlieb just asks her out of the blue.


Anonymous said...

"Reno 911" will soon be replaced with "Durham 911."

Anonymous said...

Baker writes: "In attempting to answer what I believe to be the penultimate question as to why justice took nearly thirteen months to arrive on the scene in this case..."

He does not even know the meaning of penultimate: "next to the last," for example "the penultimate chapter of a book" (

So if that's the next to last question, I think this is the final one: Why does Patrick Baker still have a job?

Chicago said...

Not at all a surprise from an unethical, unprofessional and under-handed group.

The beat goes on, this is Durham, this is how we do it, is what they should have stated.

I guess we are seeing a different type of blue wall of silence now.

Anonymous said...

Again, it's "those rich-white-boys high-tone lawyers."

Anonymous said...

Re my 4 35 post
Can someone tell me if this is correct or am I misunderstaning something.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that this document is going to prove a treasure trove of civil action --- contradictions, provable falsehoods, etc. I know Cheshire and the gang are going to enjoy the weekend!

Anonymous said...

Baker really is a moron. Where did he get his law degree, NCCU? Baker appears to comprehend the law and legal theory about as well as Irving Joyner does. Scary.

Anonymous said...

Since the lawyers are clearly at fault, I think that Chalmers needs to set up a photo lineup so that Baker can determine which one was responsible.

I think it was probably Joe Cheshire...

Anonymous said...

5:12 and 5:17
See 5:08 for your answer

Anonymous said...

The nonsense that they were using pictures of the team to determine if she had been on an amnesic drug or not; ie if she could point to anyone her "memory was intact" makes you wonder if Nifong helped them write this.(They knew she was unreliable) If cops/DA remotely beleived that a rape had occurred to someone incoherent and did not demand urine and blood tox screen means they did not beleive her during the first week.

Anonymous said...

What'll you bet that the Herald Sun lauds the report as comprehensive and thorough? If this was a TV show, no one would watch it because it would be unbelievable.
BTW, I just filled out my Duke parent survey. I responded to the many questions fairly positively until I got to the end. The open ended question was: what has disappointed you about the university? (bingo!) I won't print the entire 300+ words but suffice it to say, I blasted them for still employing the 88 professors, the lack of support for the 3 boys, the committees, etc. I named names, too!

Anonymous said...

Please , please can we NOW expect to see some ACTION from the FEDS ??

Another Durham Croc of Sh**!!!!!


Ex-prosecutor said...

I have several comments.

I'd like to hear what Mr. Baker would say if asked what "penultimate" means. I'd bet that's not a word he often uses.

I think the memorandum and report were written by a lawyer or lawyers (more likely) with substantial knowledge of criminal procedure and civil rights liability of police departments. They have figured out what superficially is plausible, so long as the officers present a united front.

The report is accurate in saying that it is not unusual for officers to seek legal advice from prosecutors during a criminal investigation. By simply giving advice, prosecutors do not necessarily step out of their traditional roles so as to incur civil liability. But doing so involves a risk, part of which is that the police will dump on the prosecutor if things don't turn out right.

The unanswered questions posed by Dr. Johnson are all very good ones. Only the taking of depositions will test whether officers can stick to this story, and present a united front in doing so, and the extent to which Nifong and Wilson may return fire, with their own versions.

Frankly, if I had been involved, as a prosecutor, in this horrendous treatment of the defendants, my desire to save my skin would be tempered substantially by shame at what I'd done.

Apparently, shame is an emotion unknown to Durham law enforcement.

Chicago said...

Other questions:

Why didn't anyone question the marching orders Nifong was giving when he stepped out of his role as DA and appointed himself lead investigator?

Why, when Nifong told invesitagators to violate line-up procedures did no one inform him it was a violation of policy (if he claims he did not know)?

Why after 6 tries, did she get a 7th line-up? At what point do they say , well, she can't find the right person.

If it was not a line-up as Baker claims, was it explained to the Grand Jury that it was not a line-up?

Who actually spoke to the Grand Jury?

Anonymous said...

If the DPD supposedly couldn't get exculpatory information from the attorneys, why didn't they just get it from the newspaper? Are they saying that they got all their information from the Herald-Sun because they didn't have 35 cents for the News & Observer?

Gary Packwood said...


The General Order 4077 Eyewitness ID Policy and this report today remind me of the TV series with the same name ...MASH 4077.

The weekly episodes of MASH 4077 were seen as allegorical to the war in Vietnam.

This report is allegorical to the actual truth.

It was an attempt by Corporal 'Radar' O'Riley (aka Baker) to sanitize the actions of Majors Burns and Hotlips so as not to bring down the Inspector General (IG) into an already muddled situation.

The real Radar, unlike the Durham PD, just pronounced everyone as inmature and issued a pass with a stern warning.

Baker tell us that the Durham Police on the other hand, were waiting for the members of the Lacrosse team to pronounce themselves guilty... and actually said so in the report.

Now I understand why the feminists groups on campus were SCREAMING about SPEAK UP to the Lacrosse Team members.

Where is Radar when you need him?

Anonymous said...

Skipped right over the part about the decision of having Linwood Wilson interview Mangum alone in December with no recording devices didn't they?

David Addison, not mentioned.

This report is so lacking it's almost hard to be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

Did Patrick Baker really expect anyone to be satisfied with that whitewash?

He's almost taunting..."let the civil suits begin!"

I especialy liked the line "It is the standard practice of the Durham Police Deartment to not release criminal investigative files for a variety of reasons"...such as covering our a$$es. They must cut and paste this into every report they release.

Anonymous said...

What is so sad is that just proves the combined IQ of the entire city of Durham government is less than what would be required to get into NCCU.

Chicago said...

I guess the DPD is the only person in North Carolina that did not see Reade's alibi when it was released to the media.

I guess no one in Durham saw Reade on the video camera at the ATM.

Wasn't it Kirk Osborn (May God rest his soul) that asked for a fast trial (something that is a constitutional right)? If Kirk asked for a speedy trial, how exactly did the Defense Attorney's delay things?

Did the DPD not read the numerous Motions to dismiss in which blatant exculpatory evidence was presented? Why didn't anyone speak up then?

Anonymous said...

The DPD did in fact follow their usual procedures - they are probably use to framing innocent people and getting by with it.

Baker and Chalmer just mooned the
people of Durham and hopefully Durhamites will finally get with it and demonstrate some backbone in the face of this pile of s**t.

Anonymous said...

Nifong- So ladies and gentlemen of the grand jury we showed her 6 line-ups and she could not identify anyone. We showed her some other pictures of the players while looking for witnesses and on the 7th try in what was not a proper line up she picked these guys out. I ask that you indict these men based on this evidence alone.

Anybody buying that?

Now, it's important we know what lies were told and who told them to secure these false indictments!!!

I believe that Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan all lied to the grand jury and need to be prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

What was the point in writing that "report"? What a waste of time. DPD could have arrested at least 10 Duke students for non-crimes in the time it probably took to compose that garbage.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Ex-prosecutor says it very well: this is a dishonest report, and it is a crime to cover up a crime. So, in the end, we see the police giving us the "blue wall of silence" while they lie and break the law.

Anonymous said...

I have been following this case in detail for a long time and had no idea that there had been 6 bites at the apple for line ups before the 7th which had no purpose or result other than to frame innocent people.

Hanging is too good for these pieces of s**t.

Anonymous said...

The report does not mention that the responding officers thought that Mangum was not credible. It also does not mention that Kim Roberts told the police that the rape claim was a crock. They also knew about Mangum's psychological and dependency issues, not to mention that she was a hooker rather than an honor student and working mother.

Given these serious problems, then the case really hinged on the medical examination and the DNA evidence.

Since the examination and the DNA evidence demonstrated that no physical and sexual attack took place, then we should conclude that the case lasted 13 months because DPD and Nifong wanted it to continue.

Anonymous said...

Glad Steve Chalmers could pop his head out of the sand long enough to write a report about the DPD involvement in the case.

Since we know DPD was thoroughly involved in all aspects of the investigation their role was so important as to warrant a report of......7 PAGES. ta da!!!

Way to go Chief, you really earned your salary there!!

Anonymous said...

Curiously, Baker does not explain why he told the responding officers to keep quiet about what they saw that evening. So one of the people responsible for the hoax is blaming it on the lawyers.

Anonymous said...

In essence, Baker is pleading the 5th.

At this point, it would be nice if one or more of the grand jurors broke their silence, given the high probability they witnessed the commission of a dastardly crime in order to induce their fair-haired indictment.

Anonymous said...

Baker wrote:

I requested Chief Chalmers concentrate on 3 very specific areas; 1) define the roles and responsibilities of the Durham police department vis a vis the DA in this investigation, 2) address concerns related to the April 4th ID process and 3)describe our investigative efforts to uncover exculpatory evidence in this matter.

**The portion of Chalmers report on the police search for exculpatory evidence encompasses 1 1/2 pages and contains mostly the notes of a police officer. Basically he says, we asked for evidence and they didn't give it to us.

This is Barney Fife reporting on the Keystone Cops if I have ever seen it.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, this report serves as a sufficient basis for the State of North Carolina to suspend the formal incorporation of Durham as a municipality. I as a North Carolina taxpayer not living in Durham (to the extent that there are residents of Durham contributing to the state's tax base) should not be required to cosign, underwrite, subsidize or otherwise deplete my State's tax base with the liability that may arise from permitting the local governments of Durham or Durham County from continuing further business.



Anonymous said...


It's not a tapdance:
it's the whatever-it-was
that the UBUNTU chick was
performing. That's
what the report is:
a tortured dance.


Anonymous said...


Don't know the answer to
that question. It's a good question.



Anonymous said...

This comment from 5:26 is not only the funniest so far, it's also absolutely eviscerating:

Anonymous said...
If the DPD supposedly couldn't get exculpatory information from the attorneys, why didn't they just get it from the newspaper? Are they saying that they got all their information from the Herald-Sun because they didn't have 35 cents for the News & Observer?

Anonymous said...

Oh. 5:39 has your answer.
(among others)

Maybe I can go to work for the


Anonymous said...

Ha, ha, "...penultimate question..."

KC, you should ask when they plan to answer the "ultimate" question: why did the Durham PD make a sustained, concerted effort to aid and abet Mike Nifong in his attempt to wrongfully convict the LAX students despite the evidence (or lack thereof)?javascript:void(0)

Anonymous said...

Maybe I can go to work for the


Sorry Mac you're not corrupt enough and you don't have a "studies" degree from Duke.

Anonymous said...

I did not expect an honest report from Chalmers and Baker because they are facing multi-million dollar lawsuits. Certainly an independent investigation is warranted.

What suprises me is that they did not do what most everyone expected-- blame Nifong. The only tangential criticism of Nifong in the report is the description of how Nifong went directly to a grand jury to avoid a probable cause hearing.

The report does seem to falsely attack the players and their lawyers for not cooperating-- an odd tactic of blaming the victims for police incompetence.

The report does not address many of the questions Blog Hooligans have raised-- among them issues about Gottlieb and Himan's actions before Nifong's involvement, the lies in the applications for search warrants and the non-testimonial identification, the interactions between Gottlieb/Himan and Duke University Medical Center/Tara Levicy, the failure to identify the sources of DNA in Crystal's panties and rectum, andthe failure to interview key witnesses for weeks, if at all.

They have tried (not very well) to address 3 issues (lineup, who led the investigation, and exculpatory evidence) but have not addressed the big picture.

Durham PD did not do a credible investigation, because if they had done so they would have concluded this was a hoax. Top police officials were still backing Nifong until recently after the Attorney General took over. They dare not contradict Cooper's innocent verdict, but in affirming that this was a miscarriage of justice they fail to admit their incompetence.

Durham PD did not do a good investigation; they let Nifong run it and did not act as a brake on the train.

Regarding the lineup, Baker gives a half-assed apology that the lineup was used to target Dave, Reade and Collin, but then makes the unbelieveable assertion that Gottlieb went into the April 4 lineup with the intention of Crystal NOT identifying her attackers. What did Nifong and Gottlieb expect her to do?

Their attempt to make a distinction between a lineup to determine witnesses as opposed to attackers is disingenuous at best, especially since Crystal had participated in previous lineups where they could have asked her who was at the party.

Regarding their claim that the defense attorneys didn't give police exculpatory evidence, Baker/Chalmers are trying to make a false distinction-- the lawyers gave or tried to give exculpatory evidence to Nifong but didn't give it to the police.

First, as Jim Cooney pointed out in his statement, the police DID receive exculpatory evidence from the defendants.

However, I thought that the police and Nifong were operating together under Nifong's direction in this case. Did the attorneys need to give duplicate copies-- one for Mike Nifong and the other for Mark Gottlieb? Were Nifong and the Durham PD on the same or different teams?

Seccond, it was the Durham PD's responsibility to investigate and get evidence, not just the defense.
Of course, Durham PD, like so many others, twisted the presumption of innocence in this case.

Anonymous said...

This is sad - even more pathetic than Duke's covering of Brodhead's backside.

I wish I still lived in Durham so I could start a drive as a taxpayer to remove Baker and Chalmers as well as Nifong.

The people of that County need to clean house - and not wait until the next election to do so. Someone please put some pressure on these clowns to resign or on the City Council to fire them.

Do they not see that every action they take makes Durham even more of a national joke.


Anonymous said...

Carolyn asks:

Chalmers is lying in broad daylight.

AG Cooper said NO fillers were used in any of the photo lineups. But Chalmers' report says fillers WERE used. At least that's what I thought Chalmers said - until I squinted really carefully at his words and suddenly realized - ohmigod! - all of the 'fillers' were Duke lacrosse players!

Damn, Chalmers has just given the middle finger to justice! And no, that does NOT mean 'good things are happening in Durham'.

Anonymous said...

IF the lineup was not a lineup and there was no DNA

Then what evidence did Nifong take to the Grand Jury?

Baker has really made things worse for Durham

Anonymous said...

Dear City Manager Baker,

I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. Your printed report is before me. Soon, it shall be behind me.

Anonymous said...

Duke parent 2004: You've just plagiarized from George Bernard Shaw.

Better, perhaps, is a graffiti campaign in public restrooms with the written-in-crayon (or magic marker) call to "Please remember to wipe your Nifong."

Anonymous said...

Even assuming that the defense attys did not cooperate with the DPD, they were correct in such a choice. Let's not forget that they tried to intimidate an alibi witness. Also, remember how Nifong changed his timeline? These people act as if people should have taken on faith their honesty. Who in their right minds would have done so?

Anonymous said...

anonymous 8:42:00 PM:

Methinks Shaw might have borrowed it from Voltaire.

Anonymous said...

Was Mr. Elmostafa mentioned
in the report?

This is the signal for the
Feds to drop in:
ready, set, go!


Anonymous said...

Why did DPD erase the 911
and back-channel tapes from
that night in March?

Anonymous said...

Why is Patrick Baker behaving as if he's a member of the Police Dept? Shouldn't he be beholden to the City Council only? Why did he restrict the PD investigation to just those three issues when there are so many more that needed to be addressed? Why was the investigator note cited on page 12 written in Nov, some six months after the indictment? At that point, there was already exculpatory evidence all over the media, but did they ever mention to Knifong that maybe they have the wrong guys? If they were so truthful, did they ever put the brakes on Knifong? Re the photo lineup, both the investigators and Knifong should have known what's considered and not considered admissible in court. In the real world, if you do something that's different from the approved SOP, you're required to file an exemption, state a rationale, and get an approval from a senior manager. Apparently, this policy is non-existent within the Durham PD. Maybe it's too much work. I don't know. Only human lives are at stake after all.

Anonymous said...

If civil suits are brought will they be heard in from of Durham juries?

Anonymous said...

KC when you market your book will you have a dvd or web page that gives all the relevant public documents, court filings, and video clips to give a full picture of this ca-ca? Plus all of DIW? There is no way anybody could get the full flavor and smell of this without all that, particularly the abuse of language. This is all boggling to this other.
"DUKE- The "OTHER" University" new slogan for Duke marketing types.
SNL should have someone come on and read Farrad verbatim.

MikeZPurdue said...

Such arrogance and such ignorance --
it's just incredulous.

I'm confused: if the police did not know
about exculpatory evidence, than why did
they "interview the cab driver"?

Such an argument can be so easily ripped to
shreds in court: why would the boys want to
present further exculpatory evidence to the
DPD after the DPD attempted witness
intimidated by picking up the cab driver
on a five-year old bogus charge?

If there was any shred of doubt whatsoever
whether the defense attorneys plan to file a
civil lawsuit against the DPD, there should be
absolutely no doubt now.

Is there anyone in either the DA's office or
the DPD that understands even just the basic
tenets of our legal system?

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 6:27 said...
GREAT point and your statement should be also be included.

I can't help but wonder if Precious after the 3rd try at identifying bad guys, decided that she had better find someone to finger or she was going to make that trip to the police station forever. Parking expense and Baby Sitters are expensive.

There are so many young students at Duke who look forward to offering support to sexual assault 'victims' and who would gladly offer support and help for the 'victim' in identification the bad guys...and then help keep them guilty ...until they are proven innocent.

Precious should tell us about her new friends and all about their many offerings of support.

MikeZPurdue said...

oops: editorial typo: I meant "witness
intimidation" in my post above

DJ Stillwater said...

KC brings up some valid points, but at the risk of being thoroughly blasted, let's take a devil's advocate position for a moment:
1) Durham's PD initial response of not believing the accusor's story changed when the SANE nursed advised investigators her injuries were consistent with sexual assault. We can criticize those findings all we want in terms of her qualifications or agenda, but she is supposed to be the professional so shame on her not Durham PD. Why didn't the attending physician initially speak up?
2) It is not unusual in a high profile case for the DA or an assistant to be directly involved. Just look at the Jon Benet Ramsey fiasco for proof of that.
3) The last "line-up" was conducted at the direction of Nifong. Durham PD reported the results and procedure accurately. It's because they reported it accurately is why it's been so criticized.
4) It was Nifong who decided to use the results of the flawed identification procedure and present it to the grand jury.
5) It was Nifong who decided to rush the case to the Grand Jury before the primary election.
6) It was Nifong who refused to meet with the defense attorneys regarding exculpatory evidence. It's also Nifong's job, not Durham PD's to dismiss the case when the exculpatory evidence is found.
7) This report by the City Administrator/Police Chief is clearly a CYA document.I'm sure it was reviewed by a legion of attorneys before it's release.It appears they are utilizing the tried and true "we acted in good faith" legal argument. Only time will tell if it will work.

Anonymous said...

Too bad the US DOJ isn't interested.

just an idea: Duke3 can buy forged social security numbers and drivers licenses for a few bucks. They could use names like Pablo and Juan.

That way it would take about 24 hours until FBI and US attorneys to establish martial law in Durham. Gonzales may be accused of many things, but questioning law breaking illegals named after Pablo is not one of them.

Duke3 should "de-legitimize" themselves. By de-legimitazing yourself you don't have to pay taxes every year (even the amnesty bill suggest you pay taxes only 3 years in 5) plus other freebies and full protection of DOJ. Sounds like a pretty good deal.

Anonymous said...

1) Durham's PD initial response of not believing the accusor's story changed when the SANE nursed advised investigators her injuries were consistent with sexual assault. We can criticize those findings all we want in terms of her qualifications or agenda, but she is supposed to be the professional so shame on her not Durham PD.

The SANE nurse in training was not yet a professional. It is the Durham PD that is supposed to be professional. Regardless of the findings, the Durham PD should have contacted the examining physician.

Anonymous said...

Utterly predictable.

What I find most ironic, perhaps, is the fact that the Democratic Party controlled the Southern states for decades, including those during which Blacks were struggling for their basic rights. Now, Blacks wholeheartedly embrace the Party which was happy to maintain them in a form of servitude - and continues to do so by means of the whole cult of victimhood.

This is the Party of North Carolina politics, of Nifong, of the DPD. The Party that desperately depends on the Black vote. This is the biggest scam on the planet. What did you expect from this crowd? Honesty?

Anonymous said...

1. Someone ought to inform the AG/Bush admin that if the Feds do not get involved it will be one more reason for swing voters to switch back to the DEMS.

2. Duke's reputation will survive, Durham's will not.

3. Can anyone take the New York Times seriously about anything after this?

4. Anyone (as many letter writers in the mainstream media have) who brings up underage drinking in this case is an idiot.

Anonymous said...

What can an average working class Durham citizen do to demand that our city council open a real investigation into DPD and its activities? Is there an email address to write to? Is there a petition to sign?

Anonymous said...

Face it. If you are a white male your screwed.

Anonymous said...

Nifong did not present at the Grand Jury - Just Gottlieb and Himan.

Anonymous said...

Global Warming and Big Al are the biggest scam on the planet.

Anonymous said...

A New Jersey lawyer asks why Baker and Chalmers aren't being cautioned to remain silent. Their "report" seems designed only to add to the potential claims that could be asserted in litigation against the City and County of Durham and the various individuals involved in the Duke Lacrosse hoax.

mac said...


Probably attempting to bolster
an insanity defense, when it comes
down to the criminal charges that
MAY come their way.

They don't give a shit if
the City of Durh gets sued,
as long as they stay out of

So far - (if that's their strategy) -
they're doing a pretty good
job of it!