Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Viewing Single Post From: Documents, Links, etc.
JSwift Apr 28 2008, 08:57 PM
Member Avatar

 The following questions relate to activities of the DPD after the initial indictments and arrests:


81. On April 19, one of the local television stations showed pictures of the party that had been taken with one of the player’s cell phones. Gottlieb asked the station for the originals of the pictures. None of the defense attorney’s were approached. The DPD chose not to subpoena the cameras.

• Was the DPD aware of the photographs prior to their being shown on television?
• Did the appearance of the players in the photographs confirm the accuser’s description of them as “excited” or did they appear somewhat bored?
• Was the accuser asked to explain why the photographs contradicted many of the details in her story?
• If not, why not?
• Why did the DPD ask the television station for the photographs and not the defense attorneys?
• Why was this evidence not subpoenaed?
• Is the failure to pursue photographic evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures?


82. On April 21, Nifong, Himan and Gottlieb met with Meehan at DNASI for a second time. The results of the DNA testing were discussed at this meeting and the decision to exclude from the report any discussion of the positive matches to unknown males was renewed.

• Did Gottlieb or Himan report this decision to their DPD superiors?
• Do DPD officers have any legal or ethical duty to report a violation of the discovery law?
• Is their failure to report this information standard DPD procedure?
• Did Gottlieb and Himan take notes at this meeting?
• If not, why not?
• Is the failure to take contemporaneous notes consistent with standard DPD procedure?
• Did the DPD believe that the lack of DNA matching the players was consistent with the accuser’s story?
• If so, on what basis?
• Did the DPD believe that the male DNA found in and on the accuser that matched none of the players was consistent with the accuser’s claim that she had not engaged in sex for a week prior to the attack?
• If so, on what basis?


83. In addition, at the April 21 meeting with Dr. Meehan at DNASI, Meehan reported that a “soup-like” sample produced from a number of the fingernails contained DNA that did not exclude Dave Evans (and approximately 2% of the population) as a source. The fingernails were found in a trash can in Evan’s bathroom.

• Did Gottlieb and Himan believe that the non-exclusion of Dave Evans from the DNA found in the soup-like sample represented credible evidence?
• If so, on what basis?
• Did Gottlieb and Himan dismiss Meehan’s explanation of the transfer of DNA?
• If so, on what basis?
• Did Gottlieb and Himan believe that the non-exclusion of Evans from the DNA found in the soup-like mixture was more important than the male DNA found in and on the accuser?
• If so, on what basis?


84. On April 21, Seligmann’s attorney released information publicly that provided a clear alibi. Seligmann had made several calls on his cell phone beginning several minutes after the dance had ended. He called for a cab at 12:14 a.m., entered the cab several minutes later and provided photographic and electronic evidence that Seligmann was using an ATM machine and buying food. The taxi took him to his dorm, where the record shows his entry.

• Based on the interviews with the accuser on March 16, March 21, April 4, April 6 and April 11 and other evidence, at what time did the DPD maintain the alleged attack had occurred?
• If the DPD had not established an expected time of the alleged attack, why had it failed to have done so?
• How did Seligmann’s alibi evidence affect the timeline?
• The photographs showed that the dance had ended at 12:04 a.m. If the information was valid how could Seligmann have been involved in an attack beginning after the end of the dance?
• What steps did the DPD undertake to verify this alibi evidence?
• If the DPD took no steps to verify the alibi evidence, why did it fail to do so?
• Is a failure to verify alibi evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• How did the alibi evidence produced by Seligmann affect the perception of the credibility of the accuser?
• Was the accuser questioned after this evidence was released?
• If not, why not?
• Is the failure to reinterview witnesses in light of new evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures?


85. On April 25, cabdriver Moez Elmostafa gave his formal written statement to the DPD. According to Himan’s notes, he asked Elmostafa if Seligmann had paid him to give this information to police.

• What evidence supported Himan’s question regarding a payment to Elmostafa to provide certain evidence to police?
• If the DPD was attempting to discredit a witness, how could it ignore the other evidence—phone records, ATM records, restaurant records and dormitory records?
• Was this question an attempt to intimidate a witness?
• Is an attempt to intimidate a witness consistent with standard DPD procedure?
• If not, was Himan disciplined for this attempt?


86. On April 28, a previous allegation by the accuser of a gang rape was made public. She had claimed to have been raped by three men more than a decade earlier when she was 14. Apparently no hospital records support that claim. When questioned by Himan, the accuser apparently gave contradictory claims.

• Was the DPD aware of the earlier claim?
• If not, why had the accuser’s background not been adequately investigated?
• Did the DPD first learn of this prior allegation when it was reported in the media?
• Did knowledge by the DPD of a prior rape claim by the accuser affect the perception of her credibility?
• Did the DPD ask the accuser any questions about the inconsistencies in the different versions of her prior claim?
• If not, why not?
• Is this failure to ask questions consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• How did the contradictory stories about a prior gang rape claim affect the credibility of the accuser?
• Did the DPD follow up this previous accusation by obtaining records or interviewing any of the men named?
• If not, why not?


87. On April 28, the DPD re-interviewed Brian Taylor, one of the accuser’s drivers. Taylor had originally been interviewed on March 21. In this interview, Taylor was asked for the first time to estimate the time of arrival. He provided more detail on the accuser’s activities and was generally consistent with his comments provided on March 21.

• Why did the DPD wait for more than six weeks to ask the accuser’s driver for an estimate of their arrival time?
• Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Did the DPD follow up Taylor’s statement that he had purchased gas at a nearby gas station to corroborate his time estimate?
• If not, why not?


88. On May 1, the DPD interviewed Matthew Murchison, the accuser’s boyfriend. Murchison provided a DNA sample at this time. The accuser had claimed that she had sex with Murchison a week before the alleged attack.

• Why did the DPD wait for three weeks after DNASI had found male DNA in and on the accuser that matched none of the players?
• Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures?


89. On May 11, Kim Pittman was asked to make identifications in a photographic lineup. She was not asked at this time to reconcile differences between her written statement and that of the accuser. This is the first time she had been asked to make identifications.

• Why did the DPD wait almost two months after the alleged attack to ask the other dancer to make identifications?
• Why was Pittman not asked to make identifications prior to the initial indictments?
• Does the DPD believe that eyewitnesses to alleged crimes can provide information relevant to an investigation?
• Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures for identification of suspects and witnesses?
• Why was Pittman not asked questions to reconcile her statement with that of the accuser?
• If not, why not?
• Is the failure to reconcile inconsistent statements between eyewitnesses consistent with standard DPD procedures?


90. On May 11, Himan and Investigator Richard Clayton, two investigators working on the Duke case, arrested Moez Elmostafa on a three-year-old misdemeanor shoplifting warrant. He was asked whether he had anything new to tell them about the Duke case. When he said no, he was held for more than five hours before making bail. He was later acquitted when the testimony of the security guard was shown to be inconsistent with the security tape.

• Was this arrest of a witness on an old misdemeanor charge consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Why were detectives responsible for the Duke case involved in his arrest?
• Why did these detectives attend the trial?
• Was this arrest an attempt to intimidate a witness or to convince a witness to change his testimony?
• Is witness intimidation consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Was the DPD aware that the testimony of the security guard would be inconsistent with the security tape?


91. On May 12, Nifong, Himan and Gottlieb met with Meehan at DNASI for a third time. At this meeting, Meehan provided his report. At Nifong’s Bar trial, Meehan and Himan testified that they went through the report in detail at this meeting. As previously agreed, the report did not discuss the positive DNA matches with unknown males.

• Did Gottlieb or Himan report this decision to their DPD superiors?
• Do DPD officers have any legal or ethical duty to report a violation of the discovery law?
• Is their failure to report this information consistent with standard DPD procedure?
• Did Gottlieb and Himan take notes at this meeting?
• If not, why not?
• Is the failure to take contemporaneous notes consistent with standard DPD procedure?


92. On approximately May 13, the DPD destroyed the radio tapes from the night of March 14. The defense had filed a motion on April 28 asking that the tapes be preserved, and this motion was granted on May 18. The DPD explained that it was departmental policy to destroy all tapes after 60 days to permit them to be reused. In response to a defense suggestion that all of the appropriate officers be called to testify, Nifong indicated that he did not believe that officers would be able to remember accurately their conversations from that night related to this case.

• Were the tapes actually destroyed on May 13 as stated?
• Are there records that document the destruction on that date?
• Was the DPD aware of the defense request that the tapes be preserved?
• If not, why not?
• Does the DPD policy provide for any exceptions to the 60-day destruction policy (e.g., ongoing felony investigations where there has been a specific request for preservation)?
• If not, why not?
• Are transcripts available for the related conversations?
• If not, why not?
• Does the DPD maintain that the conversations of responding officers and others on that night related to this case are unimportant?
• Were there comments made by officers that cast doubts on the credibility of the accuser?
• How does the DPD policy permit this information to be provided and preserved for use in trial?
• Have tapes been destroyed in other cases where their preservation had been requested?


93. On May 15, Himan testified before the grand jury. The grand jury handed down an indictment of Evans.

• What was included in his testimony?
• Did Himan discuss the results of the April 4 lineup?
• Did Himan discuss the earlier failed lineups on March 16 and March 21 in which the accuser failed to identify any of her alleged attackers?
• Did Himan discuss the negative DNA test results?
• Did Himan discuss the negative SANE exam?
• Did Himan discuss the critical inconsistencies between the accusation and the other dancer’s formal statement?
• What version of the accusation did Himan provide to the grand jury as his evidence?
• Did Himan commit perjury in his testimony?
• Why did Gottlieb not testify as with the earlier indictments?


94. On May 15, Evans was arrested. He was permitted to turn himself into police.

• Why was Evans not arrested after the accuser had made her identifications on April 4?
• Why was Evans not indicted and arrested at the same time as Finnerty and Seligmann?
• What additional inculpatory evidence did the DPD obtain between the identifications on April 4 and the arrest on May 15?
• Why was this case treated differently than every other rape case in Durham County in recent years (arrests were made by the DPD without waiting for a grand jury indictment)?
• If the DPD believed the accusation, why was a dangerous criminal left on the streets of Durham?
• Why was no attempt made to interview Evans at any time before or after his arrest?


95. On June 14, the DPD interviewed Mariecia Smith of Durham Access. Smith provided a summary of the accuser’s time at Durham Access on the night of the alleged attack.

• Why did the DPD delay for three months before conducting interviews at Durham Access?
• Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Did the DPD interview Alycia Wight, the attending nurse, or Gerry Wilkes, a security guard, who had also interacted with the accuser?
• If not, why not?


96. On June 14, the accuser’s cell phone was made available to the defense for analysis. The DPD apparently had not analyzed the phone previously.

• Why were the contents of the phone not analyzed?
• Why did the DPD not believe that the information contained in the phone was relevant to the case?
• Could the times of telephone calls helped to have established a time line?
• Could interviews with the persons with whom the accuser had spoken immediately before or immediately after the party have provided additional information relevant to the case?
• Is the failure to analyze evidence standard procedure for the DPD?


97. In late June, Gottlieb provided his formal report into his activities in the investigation, conducted almost three months earlier. He indicated that he had not kept contemporaneous notes. His report contradicted the reports of numerous other DPD officers.

• Why did Gottlieb provide his report more than two months after the conclusion of his activities?
• Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Why did Gottlieb not take contemporaneous notes?
• Is the failure to take notes consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• What attempts were made to reconcile the inconsistencies between Gottlieb’s report and the reports and notes of other investigators?
• Does the DPD expect that officers who participate in the same meeting will have different recollections of that meeting?
• Did the DPD attempt to reconcile the information contained in Gottlieb’s report with the conflicting information contained in Reid’s and Himan’s reports and with the first two lineups?
• If not, why not?
• Is the failure to reconcile these inconsistencies standard DPD procedure?
• Is the failure to take contemporaneous notes and/or delay the submission of a report consistent with standard DPD procedure?
• If not, was Gottlieb disciplined as a result?


98. On July 24, Linwood Wilson, an investigator in the District Attorney’s office, interviewed Kim Pittman. Pittman was in Nifong’s office. Her attorney was discussing her parole violation with Nifong. During this meeting, Pittman “remembered” the events of the evening differently. She now “remembered” that the separation she had described as now more than five minutes may have been as much as 15 minutes. Pittman also “remembered” that she heard the accuser in the bathroom with several players.

• Was the DPD aware that Wilson intended to interview Pittman prior to the interview?
• If not, why not?
• Did investigators from the DPD discuss with Nifong and Wilson the failure to include DPD investigators in the interview?
• If not, why not?
• Did DPD investigators discuss with Wilson the statements made by Pittman in this interview?
• Did the DPD interview Pittman subsequently?
• How did the DPD reconcile the new version of Pittman’s story with the prior version?
• If no attempt was made to reconcile the new version of statement, why not?
• Is the failure to reconcile conflicting versions of a witness’ statement consistent with standard DPD procedures?


99. On October 15, 60 Minutes aired a segment on the case. The segment contained interviews with Kim Pittman and each of the defendants. In her interview, Pittman claimed never to have heard the accuser’s story that she and Pittman had been separated at the onset of the attack, with three players grabbing each dancer.

• Was the DPD aware that Pittman was going to be interviewed?
• Was the DPD aware that Pittman would claim that she had never been questioned about the separation contained in the accuser’s statement?
• Is Pittman’s claim correct?
• Had the DPD questioned Pittman in an attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies between the two dancers’ statements?
• If not, why not?
• Is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Was this failure corrected after it had been disclosed on a national news program?
• If not, why not?


100. The 60 Minutes segment included a tape of the accuser pole dancing at a strip club on March 25. The accuser appeared to be uninjured.

• When did the DPD become aware of this report?
• Was the DPD aware that the film had been offered to Nifong?
• If not, why not?
• Was the DPD aware of the report prior to its publication in the media?
• If not, why not?
• Is this report correct?
• Did the DPD believe that the activities of the accuser both before and after the alleged attack were unimportant?
• If so, why are the activities unimportant?
• If the report is correct, does this activity affect the credibility of the accuser?
• Does the ability of the accuser to dance at a strip club three days after the alleged attack raise questions about the extent of the injuries she allegedly suffered in a brutal beating?
• Does the claim that she was going to get money from the players raise questions about the credibility of the accuser and any motivations she may have for making the accusation?
• Was the accuser ever asked about these reports?
• If not, why not?


101. On October 18, Himan met with Linwood Wilson and Victor Olatoye, owner of the Platinum Club. Olatoye provided an affidavit stating that the accuser had not danced at the since before the alleged attack. He later attempted to correct the affidavit based on club records.

• Did the DPD make any attempt to determine the accuser’s activities at the Platinum Club prior to the 60 Minutes tape?
• If not, why not?
• Was Olytoye pressured to provide an affidavit that claimed that the accuser had not danced at the club since the alleged attack in an attempt to discredit the 60 Minutes tape?
• If so, is the creation of false evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• What was the reaction when Olatoye attempted to correct the affidavit based on club records?
• Was he permitted to correct the affidavit?
• If not, why not?


102. On October 24, Himan met with Linwood Wilson and “Fats” Thomas, a bouncer at the Platinum Club. Thomas showed them a DVD with the dance scene from 60 Minutes. He did not allow them to keep the DVD. The dance apparently had occurred on March 25. Himan met Thomas again on November 2 with Thomas’ Attorney, Butch Williams to discuss the DVD. They indicated that many people could confirm that the accuser had danced at the Platinum Club on March 25.

• Did the DPD make any attempt to determine the accuser’s activities at the Platinum Club prior to the 60 Minutes tape?
• If not, why not?
• Did the DPD ask the accuser about the tape?
• If not why not?


103. In his deposition for Nifong’s Bar trial, Himan claimed that in October, he sought to have Nifong press robbery charges against two of the unindicted players. Himan claimed the investigation had produced evidence that these players had stolen money from the accuser. Nifong made the decision not to press additional charges.

• What evidence supported the robbery claim?
• When was this evidence obtained?
• If the evidence was obtained in the early stages of the investigation, why were charges not pressed at that time?
• Did senior DPD officers support Himan’s attempt?
• Why did Nifong decide not to proceed with additional charges?
• Was this an attempt to intimidate potential witnesses?
• If so. Is an attempt to intimidate witnesses consistent with standard DPD procedures?


104. On November 2, Butch Williams provided information that the accuser had visited Josephus Van Hook at the Millenium Hotel several days prior to the alleged attack. Himan obtained hotel records and interviewed Van Hook in subsequent days.

• Was the DPD aware of these reports prior to this statement by Williams?
• If not, why not?
• Did the DPD follow up the report by Jarriel Johnson that the accuser had several one-on-one “dates” in area hotels the weekend before the alleged attack?
• If not, why not?
• Is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Does the DPD believe that the activities of the accuser are irrelevant to the investigation?


105. On November 16, Himan and Linwood Wilson interviewed Yolanda Haynes, a bartender at the Platinum Club. Haynes was critical of “Fats” Thomas, but confirmed that the accuser had danced at the Platinum Club on March 25,

• Did the DPD make any attempt to determine the accuser’s activities at the Platinum Club prior to the 60 Minutes tape?
• If not, why not
• Did the DPD ask the accuser about the tape?
• If not why not?


106. On December 7, Himan interviewed Angel Altmon, the security guard at the Kroger’s who had called in the DPD on March 14.

• Did the DPD interview Altmon before December 7?
• If not, why not?
• Is the failure to interview Altmon prior to seeking indictments and more than eight months after the accusation was received consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Was the DPD aware that Altmon had been interviewed in the media?
• Did the media interviews suggest that Altmon may have information useful to the investigation?
• Why does the DPD believe that the observations of witnesses in felony investigations are irrelevant to the decision to seek indictments in an investigation?


107. On December 21, Linwood Wilson interviewed the accuser. In this interview, the accuser admitted that she no longer remembered critical aspects of the alleged attack and for the first time claimed that the attack had occurred well before midnight. As a result of this information, the rape charges were dropped. No DPD officers participated in this interview. The interview was not taped, and no record exists except for Wilson’s report and notes. In his testimony during Nifong’s Bar trial, Himan indicated that he was not aware that Wilson intended to interview the accuser.

• Why was the DPD not aware that Wilson intended to interview the accuser prior to the interview?
• Did investigators from the DPD discuss with Nifong and Wilson the failure to include DPD investigators in the interview?
• If not, why not?
• Did DPD investigators discuss with Wilson the statements made by the accuser in this interview?
• Did the DPD interview the accuser subsequently?
• If not, why not?
• How did the DPD reconcile the new version of the accusation with all prior versions?
• How did the DPD reconcile the new timeline with other evidence, including Bissey’s statement, photographs and the accuser’s cell records?
• If no attempt was made to reconcile the new version of the accusation, why not?
• Is the failure to reconcile an accusation with all other evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures?


108. On January 10, Himan re-interviewed Levicy. Levicy summarized again her treatment and examination of the accuser. Levicy confirmed that she had indicated on two occasions that her findings were “consistent with a sexual assault.” Levicy indicated that in her view the accuser was not sure whether condoms were used because a victim can never be sure. She indicated that she was not surprised that DNA was not found. On the following day, she called to revise her statement, conceding that another reason DNA is not found in an investigation is that the attack did not happen.

• Did Himan realize that no significant injuries were documented in the SANE report?
• Did Himan challenge Levicy to determine why statement was not consistent with the SANE report?
• If not, why not?
• If no attempt was made to reconcile Levicy’s statements with the SANE report, is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Was the DPD aware at this time that the accuser had claimed at UNC Hospital on March 15 that she had felt no pain at DUMC?
• If so, what attempt was made to reconcile that statement with Levicy’s characterization of the accuser’s demeanor?
• Did Himan challenge Levicy based on the knowledge that the accuser had been pole dancing at the Platinum Club as early as March 17 or March 18?
• If not, why not?
• Did the lack of certification make her opinions less valuable in the investigation?
• Why did the DPD seek a statement from only one person and meet with that same person on multiple occasions?



The following questions relate to the reactions of senior DPD officers after Nifong’s agreement with Brian Meehan had been exposed, Nifong was charged by the North Carolina Bar with ethics violations and had been recused from the case:


109. In January, DPD Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge expressed the view that the case would move forward and proceed to trial: “I don't think it changes anything that we've done," Hodge said. "It just means that we'll have to deal with a different attorney." This observation was made after Nifong’s agreement with Meehan to hide exculpatory evidence had been exposed and Nifong had asked to be recused from the case.

• Did Hodge’s statement reflect the belief of the DPD as an institution?
• What role did Hodge play in the investigation?
• Was he aware of the investigators’ activities?
• Did Hodge believe that “probable cause” existed?
• On what basis did he make this determination?
• If probable cause did not exist, on what basis did he believe that the case should move forward and proceed to trial?
• How is this statement consistent with the view that Nifong is primarily responsible for the decision to proceed to trial with “no credible evidence” to support the ever-changing allegation of the accuser?


110. In May, DPD Police Chief Steven Chalmers described the DPD’s investigation as typical and he defended it. He denied that Nifong had taken over responsibility for the investigation. He claimed, “at the time we did go into the grand jury, Mangum’s accounts were consistent.” Based on the Attorney General’s report, we know that this claim is false.

• On what basis did Chalmers make his claim regarding Mangum’s consistency?
• Was he intentionally making false statements or was he merely misinformed?
• Had he read relevant portions of the file?
• How was he able to investigate the DPD’s activities if he had not read relevant portions of the file?
• How can Chalmers retain the confidence of the Council in his ability to carry out his responsibilities when he has demonstrated publicly that he is either a liar or is completely unaware of critical details of a case he has just completed investigating?


111. In June, DPD Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge at a forum expressed the view that he is not aware of any major mistakes made by the DPD in the past five years, a claim that was met with laughter.

• Is Hodge aware that Attorney General Cooper, in declaring Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans “innocent” of all charges, indicated that there was “no credible evidence” to support the accusation?
• Is Hodge aware that Attorney General Cooper noted that the accuser had never been asked a single question in the ten months before he took over the case to attempt to reconcile the many inconsistent versions of her story?
• What evidence had the DPD found to support the indictments and arrests?
• Is the indictment and arrest of individuals with “no credible evidence” to support the charges consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• In how many other cases, has the DPD supported the arrest of defendants with “no credible evidence” to support the charges?
• What other cases should be reviewed for DPD misconduct?



Online Profile Quote Post
Documents, Links, etc. · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers