Viewing Single Post From: Shake up in Durham Police attorneys!

Viewing Single Post From: Shake up in Durham Police attorneys!
Quasimodo	Jun 18 2008, 12:46 PM
Posts: 4,878 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Bar hearing solidifies push for city probe Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - June 19, 2007 Author: RAY GRONBERG The detective, Ben Himan, told an N.C. State Bar disciplinary committee that investigators and Nifong knew two weeks into the Duke lacrosse case that the accuser had given police contradictory accounts about what had transpired. The discrepancies were so serious that Nifong responded to his initial briefing by detectives with the words, "You know we're f-----," said Himan, who also testified that he'd later voiced skepticism about the case when told Nifong would seek indictments. Himan's testimony undercut comments Police Chief Steve Chalmers made to The Herald-Sun last month after the City Council ordered an inquiry into the department's handling of the case. Chalmers claimed the accuser's story had been consistent before Nifong sought grand-jury indictments of since-exonerated players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. [Did the media ever press Chalmers about his comments? No? The media were not interested in why a police chief during the biggest case in his department's history should be absent on full salary for a year? Don't the media in Durham ever ask hard questions of anyone in the city government? Maybe it's the custom to just accept everything, no matter how bizarre--such as a police chief's absence--at face value? Is that how we ended up with a year-long lax prosecution despite the defendants being proved innocent even before any indictments were brought? How much did this fiasco cost Durham? ] The obvious contradiction didn't escape council members. "The questions that came out of Investigator Himan's testimony last week reinforced the necessity for having a third-party investigation," Councilman Mike Woodard said. [So what happened to the Whichard Commission? Or couldn't the Council itself call its employees in--sworn DPD officers--and ask them what happened? Can it call the police chief in and ask him about the discrepancy? ] "Obviously, there was either miscommunication or no communication, or tacit approval from someone to go forward," Councilman Eugene Brown added. "And that's one of the reasons we're having this independent investigation." The investigation, chaired by former N.C. Supreme Court Justice Willis Whichard, could begin next week. [It could end abruptly, too, after one session and a few 'private' meetings of Whichard with himself.] Council members on Monday settled a key detail, making it clear the committee will be able to subpoena witnesses. They agreed to exercise their authority to compel testimony if the investigators need it. [Sounds nice, but it was all just smoke and mirrors, apparently. The people of Durham should find out how much was spent on this charade and demand a refund.] Baker added as defendant in lacrosse lawsuit - Complaint alleges city manager conspired to levy false charges Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - December 12, 2007 Author: RAY GRONBERG The follow-up session occurred the afternoon of March 29 and included Baker, Chalmers, Himan, Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge, supervising detective Mark Gottlieb, police attorney Toni Smith and a group of officials from Duke University. [By this time it was known that there was no DNA match. Ergo, there was no case. Who were the Duke university officials; what did they know; when did they know it; and what course of action did they endorse? Everyone in the Duke family--alumni, faculty, students--ought to be interested in the answers to those questions. Do even the Trustees want to ask these questions? ]


Shake up in Durham Police attorneys! · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers