Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Analyzing the Defense 13

Friday’s defense presentation laid out thirteen issues upon which the Whichard Committee could focus.

The issues, in turn, divide into three categories: investigative failures; procedural failures; and possible abuses of power.

Investigative Failures

The defense attorneys identified five principal failures of basic investigation—caused, as Jim Cooney speculated, by the intent of both the DPD and Mike Nifong to prove the truth of Crystal Mangum’s story rather than to determine what actually happened.

“In this rush to indict,” Cooney concluded, the department decided “to cut off an investigation.”

Three of these failures flowed from the DPD’s decision to accept wholeheartedly Mangum’s word (or whatever version of the truth she happened to be offering at that point in the investigation). As a result, as Cooney pointed out, the DPD never:

  • conducted a detailed interview with Jason Bissey, to help establish a timeline;
  • did any substantial checking into Mangum’s rather robust activities in the weekend before the party, which would have more than explained a finding of “diffuse edema on the vaginal walls”;
  • looked into Mangum’s work schedule, and discovered that she went back to “work” very quickly despite her false claims of trauma;
  • reconciled her disparate statements about the amount and effect of alcohol (and prescription drugs) that she consumed the night of the party.

Moreover, once the DNA results showed the presence of DNA of multiple unidentified males (including that of her three acknowledged sexual partners), the police never asked Mangum who these unidentified males might be.

A host of other items fall under this category, such as:

  • the failure to re-interview Kim Roberts before indictments, after Mangum’s April 6 statement described Roberts as a witness to the beginning of the “attack”;
  • the failure—as Officer Michelle Soucie’s April 5, 2006 notes stated needed to be done—to interview the one non-suspect lacrosse player, Devon Sherwood, who police knew attended the party. Sherwood would never be interviewed by law enforcement until the AG’s office took over the case.

Of course, to committee member Aurelia Sands-Belle (whose April 11 statement strongly implied that a rape might have occurred), such investigative practices might be acceptable, since the “victim” must be believed. But hopefully the other 11 committee members will recognize the extraordinary impropriety of such an incomplete inquiry—whether it flowed from incompetence or malevolence.

Significant Procedural Errors

Cooney’s presentation concluded—in great detail—about the procedural violations associated with the April 4, 2006 lineup, which violated Durham regulations in just about every manner possible.

The most alarming aspect about the April 4 lineup is that even now—after the lineup led to the indictments of three innocent people for a crime that never occurred—no one in the DPD has acknowledged that the lineup was procedurally flawed. Indeed, they have done just the opposite. Police Chief Chalmers (in the Baker/Chalmers report), Lt. Mike Ripberger (in his Bar deposition), Sgt. Mark Gottlieb (in his Bar deposition), and Officer Ben Himan (in his Bar deposition) each asserted that the April 4 lineup was procedurally proper.

As JinC has pointed out, the record of an official police spokesperson (Cpl. David Addison) giving out false information to the public is unacceptable. Yet no record exists that Addison was disciplined in any way for his false and inflammatory statements.

Committee members appeared most interested in the third procedural irregularity—namely, an investigation that did not follow the established chain of command. The tone of some comments, however, suggested a fundamental misreading of this issue, a suggestion that the failure came in Chalmers and his underlings failing to stand up for the police—who wanted to do the right thing.

The more appropriate line of inquiry would be to ask why the chain of command didn’t use the power they had to ensure that Gottlieb, et al., conducted a thorough investigation, instead of leaving the holes outlined above.

Possible Abuses of Power

Finally, five of the defense issues deal with possible abuses of power—indeed, possible criminal misconduct. As with the improper April 4 lineup, no one in the DPD has acknowledged any error.

The Gottlieb “supplemental case notes” should—in and of themselves—be enough to earn the sergeant a pink slip. As Bill Cotter noted Friday, “We were getting the idea that people were cheating . . . [they were] so determined to convict these boys that they’re not playing by the rules. That was our biggest fear in this case.” Nothing better exemplified that fear than the sudden appearance of the “straight-from-memory” notes that conveniently plugged holes in Nifong’s case.

But take Gottlieb at his word: he thought his contemporaneous notes—dutifully penned on a dry-eraser board, he claimed—were being preserved by Officer Himan photographing the board at the end of every day. And for more than three months, in the highest-profile criminal case in the city’s history, Gottlieb never noticed that Himan, in fact, wasn’t taking snapshots of the dry-eraser board. Any police department should consider such behavior totally unacceptable.

Cooney raised four other issues involving possible abuses of power. The arrest of Moez Elmostafa certainly looks like witness tampering—especially since the five principal figures involved each gave different, and in some cases mutually contradictory, explanations for the decision. The alleged Linwood Wilson internal affairs inquiry into Sgt. Shelton appears like little more than an abuse of government power to punish a whistleblower. The NTO affidavit claimed that evidence existed that the players called each other by their numbers at the party—but no such evidence was in the possession of the police. And the entire affair raises the possibility of a cover-up.

These five items all beg for a federal criminal inquiry.

Other Issues

Two other issues—possibly not central to the Whichard Committee’s charge—nonetheless deserve an examination.

First: the relationship between the DPD and the Duke Police. This issue should have been comprehensively explored by the Bowen/Chambers Committee. But the politically correct duo appeared interest only in information that would cast the lacrosse players in an unfavorable light, and so ignored the matter altogether.

The Bar depositions, however, revealed that Duke officers met on several occasions with their DPD counterparts before the April 4 lineup. No clear record exists of what transpired at these meetings.

Second: the DPD’s handling of SANE Nurse-in-training Tara Levicy. In her initial conversations with police, Levicy implied that she, rather than Dr. Julie Manly, conducted the critical portions of the SANE exam; stated that Mangum exhibited the effects of “blunt force trauma”; and asserted that Mangum’s behavior and injuries were consistent with a sexual assault.

All of these items, it turned out, were wrong. Yet police (and Nifong) appear to have accepted Levicy’s word without question. Did that decision reflect official DPD policy in dealing with SANE Nurses (or SANE Nurses-in-training)? If so, it would seem that the policy needs a second look. And why did the police never interview Dr. Manly? Was it because they feared Manly might contradict the testimony of Nurse-in-training Levicy?

The committee, in short, has a massive record of dubious behavior to examine.


Anonymous said...

I'm still looking for any reason to think that what happened once could not happen again. Nifong is gone, but his DPD and Duke faculty enablers are still in place. The only criterion for evaluating the work of this committee, of Nifong's temporary replacement, of the NC AG, and of Herr Brodhead, is whether they are decreasing the chances of another disaster. Again, so far the only thing that has changed is that Nifong is gone.

Anonymous said...

Will the Whichard Committee examine these 13 defense points or will Mr. Whichard and his key assistant allow the Durham city manager and the enablers of the frame-up of the lacrosse players to divert and delay? What a travesty! Why isn't attorney general Cooper launching a fullscale criminal investigation of the criminal conduct by the corrupt Durham police, the other corrupt members of Nifong's office and the corrupt Durham officials?

Gary Packwood said...

Is Duke engaged in an internal investigation in preparation for their accreditation visit ...hopefully at the insistence of their Board of Trustees?

Along those same lines, are the Duke alumni groups taking any position at all with respect to the actions of the Board of Trustees and Duke administration?

AMac said...

"The facts kept changing" is an explanation that's done yeoman's work for one prominent participant in this case.

Alas, this post's clear and concise summary of the defense counsels' concerns knocks that rationale off the Whichard Committee's table.

"I had no idea that Casey Somebody was writing about the case on the InterBlogs" just doesn't have the same alluring ring to it.

The particulars of the Hoax/Frame won't remain mysterious because of a lack of avenues of investigation to pursue.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

1. The category of "investigative failures"

A. I fault the DPD for the failure to interview Bissey, Roberts and Sherwood.

B. I don't fault DPD for failure to investigate Mangum's prior activities that night including alcohol use. They had a very PC client who would not be willing to use such information so why would they waste scarce resources on it. As I will agree below, they should not have let Nifong take over their investigation, but the DPD has to use its resources in a way that is useful when they know their one client has certain biases. Investigating how quickly she went back to work, might have been useful. One thing they should have done was press Mangum about her conflicting statements. Tonights post does not mention that but pressing her on her statements might have cause her to recant which would have solved the PC DA problem.

2. The category of "significant procedural errors"

A. DPD institutionally is at fault for the faulty lineup. Nifong needed those IDs to get the needed indictments prior to th primary. DPD did not have that need. I don't fault individual detective for failing to stand up to the DA, but the higher level administrators in DPD most certainly should have stopped that bogus photo array session.

B. The is no evidence that Addison should in any way be disciplined. He did his job and unless one knows he did more than just repeat the information given to him, there is no reason to complain about him. DPD might be institutionally responsible for failing to give their spokesperson correct information. But Addison should no more be disciplined than Nixon's or Clinton's press secretary should have been discipline for misinforming the public about the crimes of the presidents they served.

C. I agree to a certain extent that the DPD chain of command should have assured that a complete investigation should have been done. Shelton, Roberts, Sherwood etal statements should have been completely examined. But investigating Mangum's activities prior to the party would have been a waste of time given their PC client and I hear they had other crimes to investigate in Durham during that time frame. The chain of command at DPD could have and should have seen to it that their investigators pressed Mangum on her conflicting statements.

3. The category of "possible abuses of power"

A. I think the commmittee should ask why Gottlieb's supervisors even allowed his notes to be forwarded as evidence. And certainly he should be "retired" on the basis of them. [I think Professor Johnson is misreading the Gottlieb deposition though. I do not belive Gottlieb was taking NOTES on the dry erase board, but rather listing assignments. That is who was responsible to go interview what witness or arrest what defense witness. Thus, notes of actual interviews were not lost, but the ability to pin the blame on Gottlieb or the person he assigned for not following through on various parts of the investigation was conviently lost.]

B. I agree that Gottlieb's notes, the arrest of a defense witness, ignoring Shelton and attempting to punish him and the false claim in the NTO all are serious issues for the committee and each could be a crime. BTW, Professor Johnson said four more issues were raised but only listed three, perhaps the missing one is the whole role of Wilson in this affair?

4. The category of "other issues"

A. I think the relationship of the DPD to the DUPD is a very important issue for this committee. Should there be a liason between them in such cases so the DA is not getting back channel information from another police force? It is not that important to the lacrosse cases, but certainly important for anyone investigating why the DPD did not do its job.

B. As for the SANE nurse, I am not sure other than adding Manly to the list above of people the DPD should have interviewed early on what there is here. They apparently talked to Levicy. She apparently offered an opinion that matched their theory of the case. There is nothing much more there, but by not interviewing the MD they failed to double check their information. That would be an issue for this committee.

MikeZPurdue said...

"Was it because they feared Manly might contradict
the testimony of Nurse-in-training Levicy?"

I think this explanation holds true for many of the
holes in the investigation that the defense and Prof
Johnson have pointed out.

Nifong and the DPD never followed through on anything
that MIGHT potentially detract from their quest to
convict the three people that they were responsible
for indicting. Shortly after the indictments,
Nifong/Linwood and the DPD basically did only
one thing: whenever the defense would get a
statement from a witness that would contradict
The Mangum Hoax, they would follow and try and
get that witness to change their story through

Anonymous said...

IIRC the blunt force trauma comment came from the notes from memory, that would be the untruthful Gottleib. I would like to know how Levicy mislead the police about who conducted the exam. Is this another item reported by the police?


Anonymous said...

As a point of reference, a counterfactual might be in order: What exactly did the DPD do right? I might be wrong, but off the top of my head I can´t think of anything they did correctly.

mac said...

There is an appropriate summary statement and photo illustration for the following:

DPD - (failure to interview relevant sources, determine reliabilty/veracity of complainant)
Nifong - (same)
88 professors' presumtion of guilt (even before the DNA was processed)
MSM's many declarations of guilt...

One picture says it all:

Agent Mulder's picture/poster of a UFO, with the caption:


Anonymous said...

The committee must address the issue of the DPD targeting Duke students and their attitude toward Duke students. If not, as stated previously, it is only a matter of time before the DPD wrongfully RETALIATES against a Duke student or students. The next time around they will know better how to successfully cover up their illegal actions.

Anonymous said...

KC >great overview as usual. Your book should be a must read for parents of upcoming high school seniors and all college age students. Duke has it's special issues that won't change, so buyer/ incoming and present students beware. Some version of this could happen at any other school in the country that is sitting in the middle of an impoverished area with resentment/hatred for the student body in their midst.

wayne fontes said...

I doubt any of the readers of this blog buy Gotleib's fairy tale about the dry erase board notes. I anticipate the committee will ask him to produce photo's of his dry erase board taken by other officers in other cases. I would be some what mollified by any picture from any dry erase board of any officer from the DPD.

Until that time I think we can substitute "dry erase board" for the over worked cliche "down the memory hole".

Anonymous said...

Too many Communists to count!

Anonymous said...

KC, good logical summary of Cooney's 13 points.

I would have added 2 others to his presentation:
1) The "false names" theory in the NTO application. Since Crystal could not identify guys with the names of Matt, Brett and Adam as her attackers, Gottlieb and Himan made up the idea that the players used false names in talking to each other during the incident. The only basis for this falsehood was that Dan Flannery used a different last name in making the appointment (although he showed Kim Roberts his real dirver's license when asked at the start of the party). The false names charge is as bogus as the claim the players referred to each other by their jersey numbers.
2) Addison, police spokesperson Kammie Michael, and Nifong all lied when they asked the puiblic to identify the 911 caller. Kim Roberts admitted making the call right at the beginning. By claiming an unknown person made this racially-charged call, these lies hightened racial tensions at the time.

Anonymous said...

KC doesn't need bells and whistles. His blog is too good and so thorough that bells and whistles are completely unneccessary. Leave them for the DPD to use when they issue a statement. That way, one might believe that the confusion was on the part of the listener!

Anonymous said...

Welcome and glad you like KC's work. Since his book will be the definitive Duke "bible" of the case, and most likely the basis for not only movie screenplays and federal criminal charges, I don't think he needs to add cartoon characters and widgets. This work is scholarly and penetrating stuff....not cutsie.

Anonymous said...

Soon after the hoax began, the two 911 tapes were available online -- Roberts' initial "me and my black girlfiend were walking, uh, driving by..." call, and then the call to police from the Krogers, which included the clearly audible comments of Kim Roberts in the background while store security spoke to the dispatcher.

The moment I heard the tapes, it was instantly OBVIOUS that the woman who drove Precious to the Krogers (Roberts) was the same woman who made the "they called us N-N-NIGGERS (sob!!! sob!!!)" 911 call.

Roberts' somewhat affected diction and tone are very distinctive -- there was no way to mistake it, and certainly the police knew it even before Roberts admitted to making the 911 call.

The police denial was among the first of countless stupid, pointless lies from the police in this hoax. A conspiracy to defeat the truth was already afoot.

And frankly, the whole thing began to stink from the first 911 call, with Roberts doing such a "convincing" job of choking out her tale of the awful slur-that-never-happened, a pathetic catch in her voice, on the ragged edge of weeping, while pretending to bear up so bravely under the heinous verbal assault ("I'm not hurt (snif! gasp!), I just wanted you to know what happened...").

Yeah, right. Eccchhh. And Roberts, it turned out, was a paragon of truthfulness compared to Mangum.

It just reeked of over-acting, yet I could tell that lots of people would fall for it. So, from the start I was expecting a bumpy ride, recalling that, as Mark Twain said, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

Anonymous said...

"The committee, in short, has a massive record of dubious behavior to examine."

KC, I believe you misspoke. Your final sentence should read:

"The committee, in short, has a massive record of dubious behavior to ignore and cover up."

Anonymous said...

Could someone point me towards a timeline for the Committee workings?

Anonymous said...

JLS @ 12:42 makes a very important point:

"I think the relationship of the DPD to the DUPD is a very important issue for this committee."

If there had been formal communications from the start, with observations and comments being memorialized in writing, it would have been almost impossible for DPD to do a 180 degree turn ... too many people would have destroyed ...again in writing ... CMG's credibility.

Further, if those reports were public domain material, even some of the duller knives in the media drawer would have backed off.

--- 20 assailants, 4 assailants, 5, 3 ... CMGs respective accounts were like a math class.

--- Communications from DPD to DUPD that CMG was not credible.

Only because these comments were not readily available to the media and only because Nifong was in a position to trumpet his indignation and resolve and only because Nifong and his henchmen were allowed to trump the truth with convenient illusions of fancy dressed as fact,...

...did this ever happen.

When there is publicly available documentation that can prove someone is a liar, it becomes harder for the person to lie.

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan @ 10:28

I suggest the following:

The committee, in short, has a massive record of dubious and potentially criminal behavior to examine; but (in a manner that makes great magicians blanche in awe) it will likely and effectively ignore the behaviors and cover up using allusions, wrist slaps and a few "policy changes." The committee will then congratulate itself on a job well done.

christoph said...

I'm not experienced in the administration of police departments or DA's offices. Following this case requires me to both learn how these organizations work ordinarily, and then how these organizations worked disfunctionally in this case. It's very difficult, kind of like a Martian learning about human families by doing a case study of a disfunctional one.
What I'd like to better understand: what are the motives for an ordinary police department to do an investigation properly? It's hard for me to discern my own naive wishful thinking from reality on this! Do they feel accountable to the DA? The mayor? City council? Do they expect their actions to be publicly known? Scrutinized by defense lawyers? Their peers in other cities or state government?
The stronger these institutional and personal motivations for proper conduct, the less likely it is for misconduct to be the result of mere lackadaisical ineptitude or g-88 groupthink. That would leave me looking for a very strong and particular motive for misconduct: maybe somebody high up was blackmailed, for instance.
To me, the DPD's mistakes appear so consistently one-sided, labor-intensive, legally jeapordizing, and (I hope) uncharacteristically amateurish that they must have been the product of a deliberate high-stakes policy. I understand what was at stake in Nifong's mind: re-election and the domination and manipulation of other people. But what was at stake for the director(s) of the misbegotten police investigation?

Anonymous said...

off topic

Ward Churchill finally fired

Maybe there is hope.

Anonymous said...

I agree totally with Christoph. This was not an investigation; it was a frame. No doubt, the Whichard Committee will try to make it look like botched policework (which is what a socialist website already is saying) instead of what it really was.

That way, people can be told how to have "better procedures," when, in reality, procedure had nothing to do with. The "procedures," or lack thereof, that the police used were meant to frame people, not to solve a real case.

Unfortunately, most people who are in authority are going to want to accept the "bad policework" excuse instead of looking this thing directly on. Thus, the Whichard Committee is not "investigating" anything; it is nothing more than a ruse by which to cover up a crime.

The purpose of this committee is not to find out what happened. Its purpose is to cover up what REALLY happened.

Anonymous said...


Nifong took over the investigation. His political motives are clear.

It is likely that Nifong, either explicity or implicitly, provided cover to Gottlieb, Himan and Wilson.

Their behavior is like the accounting clerk who is asked to "cook the books" by the boss. Nothing is directly in it for the clerk, but the "wink" that says: "I'll look out for you, if you know what I mean."

Finally, there is even less in it for the stooges to now come forward and testify that the cover-up was explicit, for (and I may be wrong) that becomes the basis for a charge of criminal conspiracy, with potential Federal overtones.

Any lawyers thoughts on that?

Anonymous said...

From a New Jersey lawyer. Thank you, KC for systematically organizing and summarizing a bewildering amount of material. I think you also hit the nail on teh head concerning the procedural violations when you said that comments by the committee reflected "a suggestion that the failure [of the DPD to follow the established chain of command] came in Chalmers' and his underlings failure to stand up for the police -- who wanted to do the right thing." I smell revisionist history in the making. Blame everything on the disgraced rogue prosecutor Nifong; give his enablers a free pass. I wonder if the revisionists will be successful.

Anonymous said...

RE: Anonymous at 12:42 a.m. Good response. Except, as any government lawyer (I represented the IRS for 4 years while I was at the US DOJ) knows or should know, the governmental agency (or, as we accurately called them, the client agency), a government attorney, and not the attorney or the legal office, is the client. Here, the City of Durham, through the DPD, not Nifong, was the client and, like my private clients now, should have called the shots more.

Anonymous said...

"It is likely that Nifong, either explicity or implicitly, provided cover to Gottlieb, Himan and Wilson.

Their behavior is like the accounting clerk who is asked to "cook the books" by the boss. "

But in the case of Wilson & Gottlieb, Nifong isn't their boss. He's not in their chain of cammand. He can't give them crappy performance reviews or unpleasant assignments.

Somebody they do report to told them to obey Nifong.

Who? (Captain Lamb? Chief Chalmers? City Manager Baker?)

Why? (Desire to participate in a frame that looked as politically advantageous to them as it did to Nifong? Desire to score points with a newly elected district attorney? Fear of what a psychopath like Nifong would do if crossed? Habit, because in the NC criminal "justice" system everybody ... police, judges, crime labs, court clerks, whatever ... is the DA's bitch?)

Anonymous said...

Does anyone out there hold any hope at all of federal interention/investigation/civil rights trial or should I just give it up and get over it? I cannot watch Whichard insist "it wasn't a lineup," and refuse to read the material because it is too long.
I don't mean KC gives up on the documentation of historical fact, but should I stop believing in the Tooth Fairy now?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone doubt 11:16 was a government attorney? His answer is as clear as the Tax Code...:)

Gary Packwood said...

christoph 10: 44 said...

...I'm not experienced in the administration of police departments or DA's offices. Following this case requires me to both learn how these organizations work ordinarily, and then how these organizations worked dysfunctional in this case. It's very difficult, kind of like a Martian learning about human families by doing a case study of a dysfunctional one.
What I'd like to better understand: what are the motives for an ordinary police department to do an investigation properly? It's hard for me to discern my own naive wishful thinking from reality on this! Do they feel accountable to the DA? The mayor? City council? Do they expect their actions to be publicly known? Scrutinized by defense lawyers? Their peers in other cities or state government? ...
Great questions.

The U.S. Department of Justice collects statistics that are used to compare crime rates and of course cities receive a risk designation from insurance companies.

However, you are getting into the 'real world' questions of police departments behaving as if they are elected officials.

Soon we are going to hear the DPD telling the committee that they are Soooooooo ooooo under funded and Sooooooo ooooo understaffed that all kinds of bad things happen which are outside of their control. And of course, Duke presents a special problem for their Sooooooo oooooo under funded little family of peace officers.

The fire department should chime in at about the same time with their awful funding problems and staffing levels.

Awful - Awful - Awful

The committee should require 'RESULTS' statistics from the DPD but I'll bet we won't hear a peep about results. Lots of NEEDS but no results.

Anonymous said...

I still think the DPD tapes were deliberately erased.... evidence tampering. And the interogation of Brian McFadden... attempt to get a false confession

Anonymous said...

Excuse my ignorance. Who was Brian McFadden?

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone out there hold any hope at all of federal interention/investigation/civil rights trial "

Civil suits can still hurt the taxpayers of Durham (and Lord knows they deserve it for electing people like Nifong and Bell.) When it comes to prosecuting the criminals in the DPD the Feds are indeed the only hope. I don't feel any confidence in my ability to their actions.

Anything useful this committee accomplishes will be a total shock to me. When the CIty Council agreed to race/gender quotas, and then arranged them so as to exclude white male civilians, the victim class, I gave up on this committee as anything other than comedy.

On the other hand I do feel confident about my ability to predict the behavior of NC actors. Basic principals:
(1) They are all enmeshed in the web of corruption, and wish to preserve as much of it as they can.
(2) State level politicans are professionals who will do a competent job of calibrating the absolute minimum corrective action they can take. (See State AG calling out Nifong but not CGM or any cops. See state bar apologizing for intervening in a live case, and promising all the other NC prosecutors that it will never happen again.)
(3) County and city level actors are used to having the state and the press let them get away murder. They will sometimes overplay a weak position because they've never faced real opposition before (Nifong at bar hearing, laughable Chalmers report, "investigation" committee with self-discrediting race/sex makeup.)
(4) Everybody's looking to keep their jobs. Minimizing one's employer's damage payouts in civil suits is helpful in this endeavor, but it's a means, not an end.

Based on the above, I predict that this committee will produce a "nothing to see here, move along" type of report, but it will be too transparently BS to have any effect on any non-Durham entities. They will drag their feet enough that nothing embarrassing to any current office holder will come out until after election day.

The non-Durham committee members will write a minority report that is slightly more critical of the DPD - just harsh enough to not insult the intelligence of a fair-minded but uninformed and casual observer.

Anonymous said...

One of the many elephants in the living room: Crystal Gail Mangum is still claiming she was raped. Why is she not prosecuted? Why is she never called as a witness?

Anonymous said...

You squashed my Tooth Fairy....

Anonymous said...

Tara Levicy should have charges brought against her for obstruction of justice, falsifying records, giving false and misleading statements to the DA, DPD and press. Crystal Magnum should either have charges brought against her or be institutionalized if the state thinks she is to mentally incapacitated to have legal charges brought against her. She broke the law.

And lets not forget the DPD raiding the dorms, questioning lacrosse players without attorneys present and breakingn and entering a lacrosse players dorm and sending an email from his computer pretending to be him to get other players to talk. Those are crimes.

Anonymous said...

Of course they're crimes, and everyone knows they're crimes. There are enough crimes in this story to keep courtrooms full for 3 years. BUT the only ones wtih power to do anything (federal or Cooper) have indicated they will do nothing.This commission CAN do nothing -- they are powerless. So until and unless federal prosecutors come in (no chance) or Cooper steps up (no chance -- he already indicated that) nothing is going to happen criminally. We can only hope the families still plan civil suits...

Anonymous said...

1:03 -- Hear Hear!!

mac said...

I'm not sure why everyone thinks the Feds will be reluctant to
jump in: a federal prosecutor loves a case like this!
It's a chance th show off!

I've seen two such cases in my hometown,
one of which was a PP choice for prosecution,
the other being a fishing expedition for bigger game.
The first one basically lost with two hung juries,
and the second one was mostly a farce.

Looking at the Mike Dick dogfighting
case, it's clear that the Feds waited
for the local to self-abrogate their authority -
(with respect to that particular case) -
and the Feds pounced when it became evident that
Surry County DA "P." was either incompetent (failing to carry out a search warrant)
or was possibly in someone's pocket.

Frankly, a federal prosecutor should
love a case like this, if only because it's going
to be the biggest notch on his/her
belt they're likely to attain.

Anyone think feds are loathe to prosecute?

They're just waiting to see if
the locals (North Korealinians)
will either do their job or to
fail to do their job.

I think Williamson and Cooper are
of the same opinion.

Anonymous said...

Agree with Mac/1:39. I don't believe the Feds will (or should) intervene until all local resources have failed.

mac said...

May be that the feds have their ducks in a row already,
like they did with M.V.

Can you say "pounce?"

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

1. The incentive of the DPD and individual officers is to close cases. There are always more crimes to investigate and they are somewhat judged by their ability to close cases.

2. In THEORY the DPD works for the citizens of Durham. But in fact they have to provide enough legal evidence to satisfy the DA's office. [As an aside you will notice that the election results of the primary indicate the view of the DA in fact seemed to match the view of the Durham electorate.] Thus when Nifong was going to believe Mangum no matter what she did prior to the lacrosse team party, they had no incentive to investigate what she was doing. In fact once it became clear to the DPD that the DA was going to indict, they had little or no incentive to do anything more and they didn't.

This case was a Nifong event to win an election. The DPD could do little or nothing about that. What the DPD should have done was:

A. Fought for its turf and not let Nifong order officers to violate DPD's own policies.

B. Kept the chain of command intact including the Chief on the job. [Another important question for the committee is what conflicts of interest in DPD were hidden in this case? Who in DPD if anyone's phone numbers for example was in Mangum's phone records?]

C. Cautioned their officers about Nifong and thus Gottlieb not to put himself into such serious personal legal liability with his false notes.

D. Communicated the facts as DPD had them to its spokes people so they did not follow the Nifong lead.

Anonymous said...

I think 6:50 makes a very good point. These guys have long memories and, I suspect, are already thinking about revenge. I fear that after all the dust settles, they will seek retribution, and yes, they will learn from their mistakes.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Anyone who thinks a private citizen can be charged with giving false statements to the press is not serious.

Anonymous said...

It occurs to me that Federal prosecutors are more concerned about dog-fighting and/or some dogs being destroyed by their owner than they are about the fact that various public officials in Durham , acting under color of state law attempted to deprive 3 citizens of certain inalienable rights protected by the US Constitution and probably the NC State Constitution . People , not dogs , should be a priority if resources to investigate crimes are limited .

Anonymous said...


(1) The dogs were transported across state lines.

(2) The dogs weren't middle-class, male and white.

Anonymous said...


An even better illustration of the USDOJ's priorities: they're currently suing the NYC fire department for using a written test that has a lower pass rate for blacks than for whites.

Remember the fuss in the papers about Bush firing DOJ attorneys for political/ideological reasons? Apparently he didn't do nearly enough of it.

Anonymous said...

"I think 6:50 makes a very good point. These guys have long memories and, I suspect, are already thinking about revenge. I fear that after all the dust settles, they will seek retribution, and yes, they will learn from their mistakes.'"

All the more reason for white people not to send their kids to Duke.

Anonymous said...

11:49 - "Excuse my ignorance. Who was Brian McFadden?"

It's a phonetically misplaced reference to Ryan McFadyen, the lax player who sent the unfortunate email referencing American Psycho.

Someone at Duke conspired with the DA/DPD to poison the well for the lax team.


Anonymous said...

Thanks.....Ryan I knew; Brian was a new one on me.

Anonymous said...

Sweetmick to JLS: Can't buy not faulting the DPD for not investigating Mangum's activities prior to the party? Your logic is flawed. If DPD had done an investigation, what if it showed she spent the weekend playng scrabble and chess with her father, doing homework, going to the mall with her kids, watching movies with the family, cooking Sunday dinner, going to bed at 9PM every night prior. If the fix was in from the start, then an investigation of her prior activities could only help reinforce the frame. If the investigation was damaging to Mangum, then they'd ignore it.
And who got the indictment? It was the DPD, Gottlieb and Himan who were the 2 grand jury witnesses.
So, let's see, JLS, no need for an investigation by DPD of Mangum prior to the party, a claim of ignorance by Himan/Gottlieb of what Meehan was saying at the 4/10 meeting(What part of NO lacrosse player matches, but multiple DNA of unidentified persons not lacrosse players did the Mensa twins not understand?) And then these 2 thugs go to the grand jury and get Nifong his indictment.
Right, no faulting the DPD. The DPD is guiltier than Nifong.

Anonymous said...


Thats an interesting take on the DPD investigation of what Mangum was doing prior to the party. I think you're right,...if they found she was the virginal, hardworking, mother-of-two forced to dance to buy milk for her babies...well they'd announce that from Duke's Cathedral Tower. But if she was who she turned out to be, it didn't matter because they'd ignore that evidence.

Begs the question: Did they in fact conduct any investigation and then ignore the results? Is there any evidence to support such a theory?

Or does that evidence, if it existed, fall into the "darn I forgot to take a picture of the whiteboard" convenience?

One way to find out: A P.I. interviewing the logical people who they would have interviewed. OH ... and I'll bet Ma Bell would have a telephone log showing a call(s)to NCCU!

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: sweetmick, 4:06

1. what if it showed she spent the weekend playng scrabble and chess with her father, doing homework, going to the mall with her kids, watching movies with the family, cooking Sunday dinner, going to bed at 9PM every night prior.

Then it would not have been probative, ie it would have had no bearing on the case, unless the defense tried to argue he swelling was do to prior activity.

2. And who got the indictment?

Nifong sought the indictment and the grand jury voted a true bill. Despite the thoughts of some uninformed here, witnesses do not get to say whatever they want. They get to answer the questions put to them.

3. a claim of ignorance by Himan/Gottlieb of what Meehan was saying at the 4/10 meeting

This is a potential interesting area of investigation, but I promise you if I am in the room with the sitting DA of a juris diction and he does not see any problem, then as a non-attorney as with Gottlieb and Himan, I am not arguing AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

4. The DPD is guiltier than Nifong.

Anyone who says somthing this foolish essentially knows nothing about these cases. You really should do a lot of reading starting with the first reports of Mangum's claim and read on.

Anonymous said...

To Ralph @ 3:08 "The dogs weren't middle-class, male and white":

That line was too good to pass up. LOL! In fact, I have spoken with a few of the dogs in question. They aksed me to represent them in a class-action lawsuit against Vick et al. Some of the dogs are indeed upper-class, male and white. One quoted Homer in describing the vicious fighting. He'll make one helluva witness! Cha-ching!

That reminds me: [Harry Potter Spoiler Alert!] Many Harry Potter fans are more heart-broken over the loss of fictional animal/elfish lives than fictional human lives in the latest book! It, apparently, depends on the ratio of eye size to head, even in the fictional world. That's why baby seals are top of the "sad death" pecking order.


I liked what the committee did during the first day of hearings. However, that could be explained by the fact that it was the defense attorneys who presented. Other witnesses will not likely be as forthcoming. Also, I don't think the defense attorneys would have let committee members get away with inane questions.

The other worry I have is that the committee will delay long enough that federal authorities will let the "moment" pass them by. Sorry for this cynical belief, but it seems that one possible reason for the City Council and Mayor Bell to acquiesce to the hearing process is the hope to delay, delay.

I will be optimistic and believe the committee is out to find the truth (in a timely manner) until I see otherwise.


The Chinese "alphabet" has 3,500 characters describing K.C. Johnson, his moods, what he is writing about, and his choice of breakfast food. Golf Ping, The History of Letters (Taiwan Press 2006). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

"I will be optimistic and believe the committee is out to find the truth (in a timely manner) until I see otherwise."

I have this mental image of Charlie Brown charging at a football held by Lucy van Pelt, believing that somehow, this time, things will be different.

It may just be the drawing style, but Charlie Brown appears to be hydrocephalic. What's your excuse?

Anonymous said...

Ralph - Very Funny!

Anonymous said...

Yes, I just about wet my pants --

Anonymous said...

To Ralph @ 4:43 -- You have brought up the perfect example of my "big head, beady eyes" theory of death-sympathy. Nobody liked Charlie Brown, but EVERYBODY loved Snoopy.

Since my head is bigger than Charlie Brown's and my eyes are beadier, then I guess that explains my optimistic attitude (and the relatively few mourners who will attend my funeral).

I do agree that the committee was set up - in part - to protect certain people and to protect the city from liability. Mayor Bell's selection to the committee, the Mayor Pro Tem's selection, and Council-Thing Diane Catotti's selection were all meant to be "insulators."

On the other hand, Mayor Bell's selection may be like Harry Blackmun was to Richard Nixon. At least he is asking the right questions now. Additionally, Chief Norris did an excellent job on day one, and Whichard and the other Judge asked some relevant questions.

The committee is going to have to expose DPD corruption, as it is apparent as the chocolate mustache on the 6-year-old cookie thief. With WRAL and NBC 17 providing live internet coverage, it is a good thing.

Also, the Duke Three will get a lot of free legal "discovery" from the hearings. Himan and Gottlieb's depositions were only taken in pursuit of Nifong. What will they say now that their own skins are on the line?

P.S., Whoever called them the "Mensa Twins" is a genius! However, I think that plays into their hands. They want to look dumb, they don't want to look corrupt.


K.C. learned to speak "Salmon" just so he could suggest that they needn't spawn downstream (or is it "upstream"?). Nature, at p. 74 (June 2007). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

8:19 Damn it, they're not communists, they are progressives. Didn't you get the notice?

Anonymous said...

If you believe there should be a federal investigation, send a letter to:

Anna Mills Wagoner
U.S. Attorney
Middle District of North Carolina
P. O. Box 1858
Greensboro, NC 27402

Phone: 336-333-5351

Anonymous said...

1:46 Inre; "I don't believe the Feds will (or should) intervene until all local resources have failed."

Amen. Let NC get it right.

Anonymous said...


Is she related to Rick Wagoner, GM Chairman, Duke Grad ('75, I think)and Duke BOT member?

Just checking conflicts.

Anonymous said...

Also, does she have an e-mail address?

And is there an attorney on this blog who could offer various theories under which the Federal government could potentially undertake an investigation. (Certainty is not required. Nifong proved that beyond any reasonable or even unreasonable doubt.) Although I could articulate my outrage at the injustice and potential criminal activity, it would have more teeth if I could quote "scripture" so to speak.

Anonymous said...

Sweetmick says to JLS: DPD is guiltier than Nifong.Ask Shelton if I'm right.
We have little clue what went on in the grand jury room, other than it is improbable that Gottlieb and Himan informed them that there was no DNA match to the Lacrosse players, but that there was DNA in and on Mangum's body from at least 4 unidentified males, and that, NO, we haven't conducted a DPD investigation to determine who these men are.
So, Nifong "did not see a problem" after Meehan told him ,in effect, on 4/10, that his case had been blown out of the water? Right. But you may have a point JLS. If you're right that Gottlieb and Himan did not see a problem because Nifong had no problem with this exculpatory news that any 6th grader not on drugs could understand, then the DPD was in on the fix. You're proving my case.

Anonymous said...

The Feds don't want any part of it. The Governor doesn't want any part of it. The Attorney General is praying that citizens will give him a pass since he declared the Hoaxed 3 innocent. The people of the territory of Durham are far too ignorant to realize that they have been pawns in a masterful chess game. The PC crowd has played them for fools and they have obliged and played the part.

To say that the DPD has no blame is somewhat akin to saying that CGM might have picked up some of that DNA from those other 4 males in the back seat of a police cruiser. If you'll buy that one, I have some land with water rights that would be fantastic for development (it's in central Florida and it's called the Everglades).

Durham is a cesspool. The stench gets worse as each day passes. Broadrot would like us to believe that the stench does not have any origins at Duke. They say when you live with a smell long enough, you become immune. He is! The Klan 88 are tweaking Broadrot and it's his own fault--after all, he is one of them. He brought much of the disgrace on himself when he sought out the ilk that he has now. To say that he has no input into the hiring of his teaching faculty is ludicrous. If that is truly the case, then his position is nothing but ceremonial. The only ceremony over which he is capable of presiding at the present is a funeral--the death of Duke University as a viable, worthwhile institution of higher learning. Now it appears to be more a haven for those needing institutionalization.
If this committee comes up with a mere tap on the wrist, the citizens of North Carolina should immediately demand a recall election for all those at the top (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, AG, Senators).
The committee is stacked now in a most politically correct way. The question for the committee members is simple: Do you have the moral conviction to look at this hoax and bring ALL perpetrators to bear their just due in this case? Your reputations depend on your actions.


Anonymous said...


see "black privilege" and "why whites are so willing to capitulate to the black agenda"


Appreciate any feedback.


Anonymous said...


1. Shine a light on the issue.

2. Have an FBI agent show up at the doorstep of any professor who claims to have seen a "floating penis," requiring that that professor,

a. describe the location of the floating penis;

b. describe the floating penis in detail, including any flashing lights and whether the floating penis was cylindrical or saucer-shaped;

c. take a drug test.

3. Get more brave, real academicians to challenge the work of the mob, and to do so without having to join a "witness protection program."

4. Have Jon Stewart (or one of his clones) do a weekly piece about one of these frauds.

5. Keep shoving test data in people's faces which shows the United States lagging behind in literary, mathematics, and dodge ball skills.

6. Publicize the Ward Churchills of the world.

7. Outlaw bong (or "head") shops within a 10 mile radius of any college campus.

8. Get students to clog university message boards with posts about how the "Emperor has no clothes."

9. Hire students with a real education.

10. Conduct studies to determine the efficacy of an Angry Studies degree (i.e. job placement, eventual employment, income, etc.).

11. Follow the tenents of the "Fairness Doctrine," which would require Scottish-American Studies ("SAS") and a Scottish-American House on campus, Italian-American Studies ("IAS")and an Italian-American House on campus (but don't let them call it "Little Italy"), Guam-American Studies ("GAS") and a Guam-American House on campus, etc.


K.C. Johnson forged Excalibur, and he let Arthur kill a couple of Goths with it, but when the King went after some innocent Visigoths, well, K.C. got it back to hang in his office. From: Merlin's Story (Cambridge Press, 1189). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

thanks, Gregory

good suggestions


Anonymous said...

It ceases to amaze me Durham PD can't even cover their butt right. Many of the issues KC brings up could have easily been explained away by using the "Nifong made us do it" defense.
It is not unusual for the DA to get involved in high profile cases. Nifong made the decision to take the evidence available (Mangum's ever changing story, the procedurally flawed lineup, and the SANE nurse statement) and get an indictment. He knew or should have known all the so called evidence available was no where near the proof beyond a reasonble doubt standard that was required to get a conviction.
JLS is right about Addison. Public Information Officers do not say anything that is not approved by the command staff.
There will be a reluctance of any prosecutorial agency to conduct a criminal case. Despite what many think on this blog, this is not a slam dunk case in terms of getting convictions. There is a huge political risk for the Attorney General or DOJ to criminally prosecute and then lose the case in court. Outside the blogs, there is little interest by the general public for criminally prosecuting the officers. From their perspective, why take the political risk to prosecute a case when the vast majority of the public doesn't care.
Cops learn at a very early stage in their careers not to ever admit to any wrong doing. To do so gets them disciplined, fired, or criminally prosecuted. They know the system and how it works.
Most juries are very reluctant to criminally convict cops. That's why civil litigation is thw way to go with punitive damages assessed to the individual officers which would not be covered by the City of Durham.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant actually