| Viewing Single Post From: Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, July 3, 2009 | |
|---|---|
| abb | Jul 3 2009, 03:56 AM |
|
http://www.johnincarolina.com/ Thursday, July 02, 2009 DPD & The Non-Lacrosse Students At The Party Readers Note: On the thread of Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie there are six comments – three each from cks and skeptical – concerning the actions and inactions of DPD Duke lacrosse investigators in the first days and weeks of the hoax and frame attempt. I’ve combined cks and sceptical’s three comments each on the thread into two comments each here on the main page. Combining their comments that way sets up a Q&A which is very informative as to what DPD was and was not doing in Mar. and Apr. 2006 regarding the non-lacrosse students who were at the party. The exchange between cks and skeptical will also no doubt lead many of you to ask probing questions which ought to have been asked in 2006 by media and answered then by DPD. Keeping in mind the wise admonition: “Don’t get in the way of a good thing,” I’ll say nothing more in this post except "thank you" to cks and sceptical. John _____________________________________________ cks asks - - - If, as the news reports indicated, there were both students and non-students in attendance at the party, why were only lacrosse members' (who of course had to be students at Duke)pictures shown to Crystal Mangum? I think that this also goes to the heart of the frame. . . . sceptical responds - - - There were at least 2 students at the party who were not members of the lacrosse team-- Brent Saeli and Blake Boehimler (see Himan's case notes). That prompts cks to ask - - - This raises the question as to why those two students pictures were not a part of the photo array shown to Crystal? Who made the decision not to include them? Would their inclusion (in the photo line-up)have made the frame more difficult to maintain? sceptical answers - - - cks asks why pictures of [the two students] who were not lacrosse players were not shown to Mangum. The answer is that the police were not really sure of who was at the party, even among the lacrosse players. Duke Police gave them pictures of the lacrosse team which is what were used in the March 14 and 21 ID sessions with Mangum. The April 4 session used the pictures taken pursuant to the NTO on March 23. However, by then Himan had contacted and interviewed Brent and Blake. From his notes: ** 3/28/06 1720hrs - Went to the apartment of William Blake Boehmler ---/---/---- /7/84, he agreed to come to the station to talk about what happened on 3/13/06. Mr. Boehmler signed a non-custodial form and was advised that the meeting was voluntarily and he was free to go at any time and that he was not in custody. He stated that he was invited by some of the lacrosse players to the party, he stated that he came over. The girls started to dance he stated that none of them looked impaired and that he stated that there was an argument and someone mentioned something about a pimp. Mr. Bohemler stated he got scared and decided to leave (due to him being on probation) and that he left with Brent Saili back to 1107 Urban Ave. He gave name of friend that he was with at the time of the party and who he was during the night Brent Saeli... ** So pictures of Brent and Blake could have and should have been used in the April 4 session-- they were not. . . . Posted by JWM at 12:13 PM 0 comments |
 |
|
| Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, July 3, 2009 · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers | |
5:58 AM Dec 8
