| Documents, Links, etc. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 28 2008, 09:28 AM (6,160 Views) | |
| out on a limb | Apr 28 2008, 09:28 AM Post #1 |
|
Should a thread be started compiling the various documents, links, lawsuits, etc. concerning the lacrosse case? I would imagine if all who post here combine their talents we should be able to have a fairly extensive list of documentation to help replace what was lost from the old board. |
 |
 
|
| agatha | Apr 28 2008, 09:32 AM Post #2 |
|
I have been able to pull up google links to cached pages. For instance: Google Cach "Escort Services Revsited" pg 1 Maybe a folder for the various ones we pull up as we go along might not be a bad idea. |
|
|
|
| brittany | Apr 28 2008, 02:09 PM Post #3 |
|
Will we ever be able to get Meadow's thread with all of Nifong's quotes? It was the heart of LS reference library. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Apr 28 2008, 03:10 PM Post #4 |
|
We will slowly rebuild. |
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Apr 28 2008, 03:35 PM Post #5 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Don't forget the wayback machine. I was just looking at Meadow's thread. http://web.archive.org/web/20070308223150/z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=202 |
|
|
|
| abb | Apr 28 2008, 03:50 PM Post #6 |
|
I want the Sgt. Schultz avatar back! 
|
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Apr 28 2008, 03:55 PM Post #7 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Your wish is my command. |
|
|
|
| abb | Apr 28 2008, 04:02 PM Post #8 |
|
Some things just shouldn't be changed... 
|
|
|
|
| JSwift | Apr 28 2008, 08:41 PM Post #9 |
|
Should I post my questions again? I have not updated them, but I have them saved in Word. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Apr 28 2008, 08:43 PM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
. YES, Please! |
|
|
|
| JSwift | Apr 28 2008, 08:52 PM Post #11 |
|
The following questions deal with the activities of the DPD during the early stage of the “investigation” (prior to the involvement of either Nifong or any of the defense counsel): 1.The alleged attack was first reported early on March 14. The Durham Police Department (DPD) knew at that time the address of the house where the attack was alleged to have occurred. The Duke University Police Department sent officers to check the house, but left when no residents were there. •Why did the Duke Police, rather than the DPD, send officers to check the house? •Was the decision to ask the Duke Police to become involved in the early stages of a felony investigation consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Why did the DPD not follow up that night? •Why was the alleged crime scene not secured or searched until March 16, more than two full days after the attack was first reported? •Why was the DPD not concerned about the potential contamination of evidence? •Is the failure to secure an alleged crime scene consistent with standard DPD procedures? 2.The accuser was released from Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) in the afternoon on March 14. •Why were no officers available to question or escort the accuser from DUMC upon her release? •Were there no concerns for her safety? •Is the failure to make contact with the accuser upon her release consistent with standard DPD procedures? 3.It has been reported that responding officers did not believe the accusation. Sgt. John Shelton was the first DPD officer to see the accuser at the Kroger parking lot on the morning of March 14. He described the accuser as “passed out drunk” and noted no injuries. He indicated that he believed that the accuser was lying. Officer William Barfield took the accuser to Durham Access. Officer Gwendolyn Sutton spent several hours with the accuser at DUMC. In their depositions or testimony in connection with Nifong’s Bar trial, Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan were extremely critical of Shelton. •Is this report correct? •If so, on what basis did the responding officers make the judgment that the accusation was not credible? •On what basis was this initial judgment overturned? •When were the reports of the responding officers available to the investigation? •Why was there a delay in receiving the responding officers’ reports? •When did the investigators first speak with the responding officers? •How extensive was the interview with Shelton? •Were Barfield and Sutton ever interviewed in connection with the investigation or did investigators merely rely on their reports? •Why did Shelton file an addendum to his report in early April? •Why were attempts made to discredit Shelton’s initial response? •Who made the decision to attempt to discredit Shelton? 4.The accuser was first encountered by the DPD in the Kroger parking lot on the morning of March 14. Angel Altmon, a security guard at the Kroger, made the call to the DPD. Altmon later was quoted in the media indicating strong doubts that the accuser had been raped. Himan’s typewritten case notes include an interview with Altmon on December 7. •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? 5.There is no reported activity by the DPD reported on March 15, the day after the attack was first reported. It has been reported that the Duke PD directed the DPD to pictures of the lacrosse players on GoDuke.com. •Did the DPD obtain pictures of the players on that day? •What actions were taken with the pictures? •Why was there no attempt to contact the accuser on that day? •Why were there no attempts to question other witnesses on that day? •Why was there no attempt to search or secure the alleged crime scene on that day? •Why were there no attempts to question medical personnel on that day? •Why were there no attempts to question neighbors on that day? •Why did the DPD lose a full day in the critical first stages of this investigation? •What actions did the DPD take on March 15 in furthering this investigation? •Is the failure to take action immediately after receiving a felony accusation consistent with standard DPD procedures? 6.In his deposition in connection with Nifong’s Bar trial, Gottlieb indicated that he had received a call on March 15 from Investigator Jones from District 5. In this call, Jones asked that District 2 Investigations, headed by Gottlieb, take over responsibility for the Duke investigation. •Is this statement correct? •Who made the decision to transfer responsibility from District 5 to District 2? •Why was this decision made? •Why had the case originally been assigned to District 5? •Was this transfer consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Why was the highest profile case in Durham assigned to an investigator still in training and supervised by a head of investigations who had been in his position for only two weeks? 7.On March 15, the accuser went to UNC Hospital claiming severe neck, back and knee pain, and she repeated the rape accusation. She claimed that she felt no pain in the DUMC emergency room because she was drunk. One physician observed that the accuser was a frequent visitor asking for narcotics. The accuser would return to UNC Hospital again on March 28 and April 5. •When did the DPD become aware of these visits? •Did the DPD interview any of the attending medical personnel? •If so, at what time? •How did the DPD reconcile the accuser’s statement that she felt no pain at DUMC with subsequently uncovered evidence? •How did the observation that the accuser frequently sought narcotics affect her credibility? 8.On March 16, after two days of complete inactivity, the DPD sprang into action. DPD officers interviewed Tara Levicy, the SANE nurse-in-training who had assisted with the SANE exam, and the accuser and executed a search warrant on 610 N. Buchanan and interrogated the captains who lived there. At least four DPD detectives were assigned to this previously inactive case. •Was the accuser known to the DPD prior to this investigation? •If so, on what basis? •After two days of inactivity, why did the DPD suddenly begin to appear to take the accusation seriously? •What was the catalyst for this decision? •Who was responsible for the decision? 9.On March 16, Inv. Benjamin Himan spoke with Tara Levicy, the SANE nurse-in-training who assisted in performing the SANE exam. Levicy apparently provided a statement in which she characterized the signs exhibited by the accuser as consistent with her accusation. The actual SANE report was not available at this time. •Was Levicy’s lack of certification as a SANE known by Himan at this time? •If so, did the lack of certification make her opinions less valuable in the investigation? •Did Himan attempt to speak with Dr. Julie Manly, the resident who had performed the exam? •If not, why was no attempt made? •Did Himan make attempts to speak with other medical personnel at DUMC who had treated the accuser? •If not, why not? •Why did the DPD seek a statement from only one person? 10.There are no public reports that the DPD attempted in the initial stages of the investigation to interview any of the personnel at Durham Access, the substance abuse facility where the accuser first claimed that she had been raped. The accuser made this accusation only when prompted. Himan’s typewritten case notes include an interview with Mariecia Smith on June 14. •Did the DPD interview personnel at Durham Access prior to June 14? •If so, when were these attempts made? •If not, why not? •Do standard DPD procedures require investigators to interview all witnesses to whom a felony accusation is made? •Why was there no attempt to interview Durham Access personnel prior to the indictments? •After serving a subpoena on Durham Access on April 5, did the DPD make any attempt to obtain those records? •If not, why not? •If an attempt was made and records were obtained, why did the prosecution claim that no such records existed? 11.On March 16, several officers met with the accuser. In this meeting, she provided another version of her accusation, the details of which were inconsistent with the versions provided at DUMC. •What attempts were made by these officers to reconcile the new version of the accusation with the prior versions? •If no attempts were made to reconcile the version of the accusation with earlier versions, is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures? •If no attempts were made to reconcile the different versions of the accusation, how did the DPD officers decide which version of the accusation was the “correct” one? •Which version of the accusation formed the basis for the investigation? •Is a failure to reconcile differences in critical details between different versions of an accusation consistent with standard DPD procedures? •How does the DPD generally proceed in cases in which the accuser provides conflicting versions of the accusation? •Was the DPD’s investigation consistent with those prior cases? 12.The accuser apparently had made accusations while at DUMC that the other dancer had stolen her money on the night of the alleged attack? •Was the accuser asked about the alleged robbery during the March 16 meeting? •If not, why not? •If so, why were these conversations recorded in Himan’s case notes? •Why were the robbery charges against the other dancer never pursued? •Was this decision not to investigate robbery charges consistent with standard DPD procedures? 13.At this meeting, Officer Reid took pictures of the accuser. These pictures demonstrate that the accuser had no physical injuries consistent with the brutal attack she had alleged. Reid’s report contains no description of injuries. •Based on the accusation of a brutal attack, did the DPD officers expect to see physical injuries? •Was the accuser asked to explain her apparent lack of injuries? •If not, why not? •If the accuser was asked no questions regarding her lack of injuries, is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures? 14.Sgt. Mark Gottlieb’s report of the meeting contradicts Reid’s report and pictures. He describes the accuser as moving with great pain and unable to sit as a result of that pain. Gottlieb has indicated that he did not take contemporaneous notes. •Why did Gottlieb not take notes? •Is the failure to take notes standard DPD procedure? •Why is Gottlieb’s account inconsistent with Reid’s report and pictures? •Does the DPD expect that two officers participating in the same meeting will have radically different recollections of that meeting? •How were these radically different recollections resolved? •Why were Gottlieb’s observations apparently given more weight than Reid’s photographs? •Is the decision to discount photographic evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures? 15.In his deposition in connection with Nifong’s Bar trial, Himan also described the accuser as moving with great pain. The portion of his case notes that described this part of the interview on March 16 were not included in the exhibits released publicly. •Why is Himan’s account inconsistent with Reid’s report and pictures? •Does the DPD expect that two officers participating in the same meeting will have radically different recollections of that meeting? •How were these radically different recollections resolved? •Why were Himan’s observations apparently given more weight than Reid’s photographs? •Is the decision to discount photographic evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures? 16.At this meeting, the accuser provided descriptions of her alleged attackers. According to notes provided by Himan, these descriptions matched none of the players on the team or other attendees. She generally described the attackers as short and chubby, with one weighing 270 pounds. The DPD had received pictures of the lacrosse players on March 15. •Was the accuser challenged on these descriptions? •How did the officers reconcile these descriptions with their knowledge of the appearance of the lacrosse players? •How does the DPD proceed in cases where the descriptions provided by the complaining witness are vague and match no known suspects? •Was the DPD’s investigation consistent with those prior cases? •Why did the DPD not ask a sketch artist to draw depictions of the alleged attackers? •Is the failure to provide sketches consistent with standard DPD procedures? 17.Gottlieb’s report contains descriptions that are radically different than the descriptions contained in Himan’s notes. As noted above, Gottlieb has indicated that he did not take contemporaneous notes. His descriptions, provided in late June, months after the indictments, match the accused players with astonishing accuracy. In his deposition related to Nifong’s Bar trial, Gottlieb claimed that his descriptions were based on Himan’s notes and his own memory. •Why did Gottlieb not take notes? •Is the failure to take notes standard DPD procedure? •Why are Gottlieb’s descriptions so inconsistent with Himan’s descriptions, particularly if Gottlieb used Himan’s notes in preparing his report? •Does the DPD expect that two officers participating in the same meeting will have radically different recollections of that meeting? •How were these radically different recollections resolved? 18.The accuser was not asked by the DPD on March 16 to provide a formal statement. •Why was the accuser not asked to make a formal statement? •Is this failure to obtain a formal statement consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Does the DPD not believe that it is important to receive a statement as soon as possible? •Does the DPD believe that recollections become more accurate with age? 19.At the March 16 meeting, the accuser was asked to participate in a photographic lineup. The lineup consisted photographs of some of the members of the lacrosse team. No non-player fillers were included as required by DPD regulations for photo lineups. The accuser was not able to identify any attackers in this lineup. •Why did the officers adopt procedures that violated DPD guidelines? •Why were no persons known not to have been at the party included as fillers? •How were the players included chosen? •If the descriptions of the players as recounted by Gottlieb matched the indicted players so precisely, why was Collin Finnerty, the player on the team with perhaps the most distinctive appearance, not included in this lineup? •Does this failure to include in a lineup an obvious suspect make the descriptions in Gottlieb’s report questionable? •Is the failure to include an obvious suspect in a lineup consistent with standard DPD procedures? 20.On March 16, the DPD applied for a search warrant for 610 N. Buchanan, the house at which the party had taken place. Himan filed an affidavit in the application for the search warrant in which he included statements of fact now known to be false. Himan claimed that the victim stated that she was “sexually assaulted…anally, vaginally and orally…[and] was hit, kicked and strangled.” In her statements, she had apparently never claimed to have been strangled. Himan had seen the accuser’s lack of injuries earlier that day, and the lack of injuries he had observed did not support his statements. •What were Himan’s sources for this claim? •Was he relying only on the accusation? •To what extent was he relying on Levicy’s statement? •Why did he ignore his personal observations regarding the accuser’s lack of injuries? •Were the mistakes based on erroneous information or exaggerations? •To what extent did Himan know that some of the statements in his affidavit were false? •Has Himan been asked to explain his false statements? •Has he been disciplined? 21.On March 16, the search warrant was executed on 610 N. Buchanan, and the three captains who lived there assisted police in locating the evidence seized. All three volunteered to be interviewed. They voluntarily provided DNA samples and offered to submit to polygraph tests. The captains denied the accusation. •Why were the captains’ denials in their interviews that any sexual activity had taken place, consensual or otherwise, not viewed as credible? •What did the captains say in their interviews that provided any credibility to the accusation? •Were female officers used to take suspect kits from the captains? •If so, is the use of female officers consistent with standard DPD procedures? •If not, why were standard procedures violated in this case? •Why were the captains’ offers to take lie detector tests rejected, particularly if the officers who interviewed them thought that they were hiding something? •Is a decision to reject offers to take polygraph tests consistent with standard DPD procedures? 22.There are reports that one of the DPD officers claimed to have found cocaine in the house and that one of the residents was involved in an unrelated assault. When these allegations were denied, the officer is alleged to have indicated that he was just kidding. •Are these reports correct? •If so, were these actions an attempt to intimidate a witness? •Is the intimidation of witnesses consistent with standard DPD procedures? •If not, has the officer been disciplined? 23.In connection with the execution of the search warrant, all three of the resident captains voluntarily provided the DPD with access to their e-mail accounts. The DPD is reported not to have accessed the captains’ e-mail accounts before the initial indictments. •Is this report correct? •If so, why did the DPD fail to examine the e-mail accounts? •Is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures? •If the DPD accessed the e-mail accounts of the captains, what additional evidence did this provide? 24.On March 17, Gottlieb sent a message to the Trinity Park server asking for assistance in the investigation of the alleged rape. •Why did Gottlieb fail to describe the attack as “alleged” as with most accusations? •Why did the DPD make no attempts to interview neighbors to determine if they had any relevant information? •Is the failure to interview neighbors consistent with standard DPD procedures? •What other actions did the DPD take on March 17 in this investigation? 25.On March 17 and March 18, the accuser reportedly danced at the Platinum Club and signed into the VIP room while there. While there, she apparently told co-workers that she was going to get money from some boys at Duke, but did not mention the alleged assault. The accuser was filmed dancing at the Platinum Club on March 25. The film apparently was offered to Nifong. She apparently was observed engaging in a sexual act at the Platinum Club on that night. •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? •Did the DPD ever interview any of the accuser’s co-workers at the Platinum Club? •If not, why not? •Is a failure to follow up reported activities of a complaining witness consistent with standard DPD procedures? 26.There is no reported activity on March 18 or March 19. •Did the DPD take any actions over the weekend regarding the investigation? 27.On March 19, the News & Observer published a short article describing the report of a rape. Gottlieb was quoted in this article: “It was an act where alcohol was involved.” •Was Gottlieb accurately quoted? •If so, why did he fail to describe the report as an allegation? •Is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures? •If Gottlieb was not accurately quoted, was an attempt made to correct the record? •If not, why not? 28.On March 20, Gottlieb sent a message to the Duke server asking for assistance in the investigation of the alleged rape. •Why did the DPD make no attempts to interview neighbors to determine if they had any relevant information? •Is the failure to interview neighbors consistent with standard DPD procedures? 29.On March 20, Himan spoke on the telephone with Kim Pittman, the other dancer at the party. Pittman characterized the accusation as a “crock” and estimated that she had not been separated from the accuser for more than five minutes. •Did Pittman’s comments raise any questions about the credibility of the complaining witness? •Because her reaction did not support the allegation, was Pittman challenged at this time? •What attempt was made to reconcile Pittman’s statement with the details of the accusation? •Did Himan ask Pittman any questions or did he merely take notes of her comments? •If no questions were asked, is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures? 30.On March 21, Gottlieb claims to have met with Levicy and that at this meeting Levicy characterized the accuser’s injuries as consistent with a sexual assault. He claimed to have picked up the SANE report at this time. A subpoena for the medical records was served on DUMC on this date. In her testimony in Nifong’s Bar trial, Levicy denied meeting with Gottlieb on this date. •Did Gottlieb meet with Levicy on this date? •If not, why did he make this claim in his report and in his deposition? •Was a version of the SANE report available at this time? •If the SANE report was not available at this time, when was the report made available? •Did Gottlieb read the SANE report prior to his interview with Levicy? •If so, did Gottlieb realize that no significant injuries were documented in the report? •If so, did Gottlieb challenge Levicy to determine why her earlier statement was not consistent with the SANE report? •Did Gottlieb challenge Levicy to determine why her statement regarding blunt force trauma was not consistent with either the SANE report or the lack of physical injuries observed on the March 16 meeting? •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? •Was Levicy’s lack of certification as a SANE known by Gottlieb at this time? •If so, did the lack of certification make her opinions less valuable in the investigation? •Did Gottlieb attempt to speak with Dr. Julie Manly, the resident who had performed the exam? •If not, why was no attempt made? •Did Gottlieb make attempts to speak with other medical personnel at DUMC who had treated the accuser? •If not, why not? •Why did the DPD seek a statement from only one person? 31.On March 21, the DPD met with the accuser for a second time. At this meeting, the accuser provided another version of her story. •What attempts were made by these officers to reconcile the new version of the accusation with the prior versions? •What attempts were made to reconcile the accusation with Kim’s characterization of it as a “crock” and her statement that she had not been separated from the accuser for more than five minutes? •What attempts were made to reconcile the accusation with the statements made by the captains in which they denied that any sex had taken place? •If no attempts were made to reconcile the accusation with other evidence, why not? •Is the failure to reconcile conflicting statements consistent with standard DPD procedures? 32.At this meeting, the accuser participated in another photographic lineup. This lineup also violated the DPD guidelines for lineups because it contained no non-player fillers. The accuser once again failed to identify her attackers. •Why did the officers adopt procedures that violated DPD guidelines? •Why were no persons known not to have been at the party included as fillers? • How were the players included chosen? • Were any attempts made to reconcile the choice made and not made with conflicting choices in the previous lineup? •If not, why not? •If the descriptions of the players as recounted by Gottlieb matched the indicted players so precisely, why was Collin Finnerty, the player on the team with perhaps the most distinctive appearance, once again not included in this lineup? •Does this second failure to include in a lineup an obvious suspect make the descriptions in Gottlieb’s report even more questionable? •Is the failure to include an obvious suspect in a lineup consistent with standard DPD procedures? 33.Brian Taylor, one of the accuser’s two drivers, drove the accuser to 610 Buchanan on March 13. Taylor apparently dropped her off at approximately 11:40 p.m. The special prosecutors’ report indicated that he purchased a drink at a nearby gas station at 11:43 p.m. Taylor was first interviewed on March 21. He indicated that they left for the dance at 10:40 p.m., but apparently was not asked the time of their arrival. Based on Himan’s typewritten case notes, Taylor was asked few questions. •Why was Taylor not asked to estimate the time of arrival? •Did the interview with Taylor help to establish a timeline? •If not, why not? •Is a failure to use witnesses to establish a timeline consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Was the DPD aware that Taylor had purchased a drink at the nearby gas station? •If not, why not? •Did the DPD question Taylor about the accuser’s activities prior to the lacrosse party? •If not, why not? 34.The accuser was not asked by the DPD on March 21 to provide a formal statement. This meeting is one week after the initial accusation of the attack. •Why was the accuser not asked to make a formal statement? •Is this failure to obtain a formal statement consistent with standard procedure? •Does the DPD not believe that it is important to receive a statement as soon as possible? •Does the DPD believe that recollections become more accurate with age? 35.On March 21, Jason Bissey, the next-door neighbor called Himan to provide information. Himan’s typewritten case notes do not provide specific times for the dancers’ arrivals or departure. The DPD did not follow up this call for more than one week. •Why have the DPD not canvassed neighbors in the first week of the investigation? •Why was Bissey not asked for an estimate of the time of the dancers’ arrivals and departure? •Why did the DPD apparently not believe that an eyewitness could provide information related to establishing a timeline for the alleged attack? •Why did the DPD not follow up for more than one week? 36.On March 22, Kim Pittman appeared at a police station where she gave her formal statement. In her statement, she claimed that she and the accuser had not been separated except for two periods of approximately five minutes. Her statement left no time for the twenty to thirty minute attack then alleged. •Was Kim challenged on the inconsistencies between her formal statement and the accusations? •Did Kim’s formal statement raise questions regarding the credibility of the accusation? 37.Kim Pittman was not asked at this time to make identifications of any of the players who had attended the party. Despite the failure of the accuser to make identifications on either March 16 or March 21, the DPD appeared to be uninterested in Kim’s ability to make identifications. •Why was Kim Pittman not asked to make identifications at the time she had given her formal statement? •Why would the ability of a witness to identify either suspects or other witnesses not be relevant to the investigation? •Is this failure to ask a witness to make identifications consistent with standard DPD procedure? 38.After she provided her formal statement casting doubt on the credibility of the accusation, Kim Pittman was arrested on an outstanding warrant. •Was this arrest an attempt to intimidate a witness or is the arrest of a witness standard procedure for the DPD? •Was there an attempt by the DPD to convince Kim to alter her story? •Was the only such attempt to intimidate a witness made by the investigator in the DA’s office? 39.In executing the search warrant on 610 N. Buchanan, the DPD seized the accuser’s cell phone. The contents of the phone apparently were not analyzed by the DPD. The defense attorneys were required to ask the court to require that the phones be analyzed. •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? 40.In executing the search warrant on 610 N. Buchanan, the DPD seized several cameras. It is unclear whether the contents of those cameras were analyzed. •Were the contents of the cameras analyzed? •If so, what did the pictures show? •Did the pictures provide any evidence that supported the allegations? •Why were the pictures not used to identify which players had attended the party? •If the pictures provided no evidence that supported the allegations, what actions were taken to reconcile that lack of evidence with the accusation? •If the pictures were not analyzed, why not? •If not, why did the DPD believe that photographs of the party were not relevant to the investigation? •If a failure to analyze photographic evidence consistent with standard DPD procedure? 41.On March 22, a lawyer retained by Duke to “facilitate” a meeting between the players and the DPD called to cancel the meeting. Apparently, one of the players had told his father about the meeting, other parents were informed, and the parents insisted on legal representation. The report confirms that this meeting was first rescheduled for March 29, then cancelled and not rescheduled a second time. •At what time was the meeting rescheduled? •Who cancelled the March 29 meeting? •If the players’ attorneys had agreed to have the players meet with the DPD, why did the DPD act in bad faith as described below? 42.On March 23, the DPD sought a non-testimonial order (NTO) to require all 46 of the white players to submit to DNA testing and to sit for photographs. This NTO has been criticized as potentially unconstitutionally broad, particularly in light of the accuser’s inability to provide credible descriptions. •Who made the decision to apply for a broad NTO? •On what basis was the decision made to apply for such a broad order? •Is this standard procedure? •Has the DPD sought equally broad orders in other cases? •The Baker/Chalmers report made the claim that not all of the players were suspects, and they were included in the March 16 and March 21 lineups as fillers. Is the mandatory testing of non-suspects consistent with standard DPD procedures? •If so, what is the value of subjecting non-suspects to this mandatory testing? •Has the DPD subjected non-suspects to mandatory testing in other investigations? 43.The affidavit filed by Himan in the application for the NTO contained false statements. Himan claimed, “medical records and interviews … revealed that the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and assaulted vaginally and anally.” Although Levicy’s statement provided support for portions of this claim, Himan was aware that the SANE report and other medical records did not support the claim. Moreover, neither Levicy nor the medical report supported the alleged anal assault. •What were Himan’s sources for this claim? •Did he conduct multiple interviews as claimed in the affidavit? •If not, why was this claim made? •Was Levicy the only source? •Had either Gottlieb or Himan reviewed the SANE exam obtained by Gottlieb on March 21 as he had claimed? •If so, why did Himan ignore the results of the SANE exam? •If not, why did Himan cite the results of the exam in the affidavit? •Were these false statements merely mistakes or did Himan commit perjury? •Does the DPD excuse making false statements in affidavits? •Was Himan disciplined for these false statements? 44.The affidavit filed by Himan in the application for the NTO adopted the “false names” theory in which for the first time it was alleged that the accuser had claimed that the assailants (previously identified as Adam, Bret and Matt) were not using their real names. •On what basis was the “false names” theory adopted? •Had the accuser made this statement without prompting by DPD? •If not, why did the affidavit contain this claim? •Is the inclusion of false statements on sworn affidavits consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Why did the DPD appear to avoid any evidence not consistent with this theory? •Is a failure to test a theory consistent with standard DPD procedures? 45.When the players appeared later that day on March 23 to submit to the NTO, the media was there to photograph them. The doors had apparently been locked, delaying the entry of the players. •Who had alerted the media about the NTO and the players’ appearance? •Were the doors locked? •If so, why were they locked in the middle of the day and at the time the players were required to appear? •Were the locked doors an attempt to further humiliate the players? •Why did the DPD choose to act in bad faith at this critical stage? •Does the DPD believe that humiliation is the most effective means to convince witnesses to cooperate? •Is a “media ambush” consistent with standard DPD procedures? 46.On March 24, Cpl. David Addison made his first statements regarding the accusation. Unlike other such statements made by DPD spokespersons, Addison used highly inflammatory language, describing the attack as “horrific.” He justified the NTO in emotional terms, stating that 46 DNA tests were justified as a result of an attack on a mother or sister. He claimed that none of the players had cooperated and failed to include the captains’ cooperation on March 16. •Why was the attack not described as “alleged” as in other DPD cases? •Who instructed Addison to use such inflammatory language? •Was the claim of non-cooperation by all of the players merely an oversight or was it an attempt to portray the players as negatively as possible? •Why were his statements not corrected? •Why was he or the superior who had ordered the inflammatory language and false statements not disciplined? 47. On March 24, the News & Observer published a sympathetic interview with the accuser conducted by its reporter Samiha Khanna in which the accuser claimed that the players had begun “barking” racial slurs moments after their arrival. This accusation apparently had not been made previously by the accuser—either at Durham Access or at DUMC on March 14 or in interviews with the DPD on March 16 and March 21. •Had the accuser made the claim regarding racial slurs (except during the alleged attack) in any of the prior versions of her story? •If not, did the DPD recognize that the claims made by the accuser in the Khanna interview were inconsistent with the claims she had made previously? •Was the accuser asked any questions regarding this interview? •Did the DPD make an attempt to reconcile the accuser’s new version of her accusation with her prior versions? •If not, why not? •Is a failure to reconcile different versions of an accusation consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Did anyone from the DPD discuss this interview with Khanna? •If so, what was discussed? •Did anyone from the DPD encourage Khanna to interview the accuser? •Did anyone from the DPD provide Khanna with information regarding the accuser (e.g., her name and address)? •Did the DPD provide additional background information to Khanna? •If so, is this consistent with standard DPD procedures? 48.On March 24, the DPD conducted tests on three of the phones seized in the execution of the search warrant. No results of these tests are included in Himan’s typewritten case notes. •Why did it take more than one week to test the cell phones? •Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Were all of the phones tested? •If not, why not? •What information was obtained through these tests? •What actions did the DPD take to follow up this information? •Why were the results not included in Himan’s case notes? 49.On March 24, Capt. Jeff Lamb instructed Gottlieb and his team of investigators to report to District Attorney Mike Nifong on this case. Gottlieb confirmed these instructions in his deposition in connections with Nifong’s Bar trial. Nifong had no experience in conducting a criminal investigation. •Is this report correct? •Who was responsible for this decision to give Nifong full responsibility for the investigation? •Does this represent standard DPD procedure? •Was there any continuing oversight by the DPD? •When Nifong instructed DPD officers to violate standard procedure, were they told to do so without questioning Nifong’s instructions? •Were DPD officers told to advise senior officers of their activities or were they told to communicate only with Nifong? |
|
|
|
| JSwift | Apr 28 2008, 08:55 PM Post #12 |
|
The following questions relate to the activities of the DPD after Nifong’s involvement and the decision by the players to retain counsel. None of these questions deal with the failure of the players to provide evidence to the DPD: 50.On March 27, Officer Angela Ashby provided the first round of evidence, including the rape kit, to the SBI. •Why did it take almost two weeks to process the rape kit and provide it to the SBI for testing? •Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Had the DPD’s crime scene investigation unit run any tests locally (e.g., to test for the presence of semen)? •If not, why not? 51.Nifong is reported to have received his first briefing on the case on March 27. He began his media appearances later that day. In his testimony during Nifong’s Bar trial, Himan reported that Nifong’s reaction to the evidence was: “You know, we’re f**ked.” •Is this report correct? •Who briefed Nifong on that day? •What information was provided in the briefing? •Did Nifong receive only an oral briefing or was he provided with investigators’ notes or any written reports? •Were the statements Nifong made to the media consistent with the information provided in the briefing? •What information was Nifong given prior to this initial briefing? •Did the DPD believe that the investigation had uncovered evidence that supported the charges? •If so, what evidence was cited? •If not, on what basis did the DPD continue to pursue charges? 52.On March 27, police executed a search warrant to search Ryan McFadyen ‘s dorm room. The affidavit filed by Himan in the application for the search warrant contained false statements. Himan claimed, “medical records and interviews … revealed that the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and assaulted vaginally and anally.” Although Levicy’s statement provided support for portions of this claim, Himan was aware that the SANE report and other medical records did not support the claim. Moreover, neither Levicy nor the medical report supported the alleged anal assault. •What were Himan’s sources for this claim? •Was Himan’s claim of multiple interviews accurate? •Was Levicy the only source? •Had Gottlieb reviewed the SANE exam on March 21 as he had claimed? •If so, why did Himan ignore the results of the SANE exam? •If not, why did Himan cite the results of the exam in the affidavit? •Were these false statements merely mistakes or did Himan commit perjury? •Does the DPD excuse making false statements in affidavits? •Was Himan disciplined for these false statements? 53.On March 28, Addison, the DPD liaison to the Crimestoppers organization, released a wanted poster. This poster contained inflammatory language: “The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.” This language was not corrected until April 10. •Why was the attack not described as “alleged” as in other DPD cases? •Who instructed Addison to use such inflammatory language? •Why was he permitted to use inflammatory language a second time on this case? •Why was he or the superior who had ordered the inflammatory language and false statements not disciplined? •Why was the language not corrected for more than two weeks? 54.On March 29, police searched a second residence of lacrosse players. Several items were seized. No search warrant apparently was issued. •Why was no search warrant issued? •On what basis was evidence seized? •Did the residents of the house cooperate with the search by police? •If the residents of the house cooperated with police in the search and voluntarily permitted the seizure of evidence, how was that cooperation consistent with the statements made by DPD spokespersons that no players had cooperated? 55.On March 29, Officer Angela Ashby provided a second round of evidence to the SBI. •What evidence was included in this delivery? •When was this evidence obtained? •Was the delivery made on a prompt basis? •If the delivery was delayed, is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedure? 56.On March 30, Officer Angela Ashby provided a third round of evidence to the SBI. •What evidence was included in this delivery? •When was this evidence obtained? •Was the delivery made on a prompt basis? •If the delivery was delayed, is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedure? 57.On April 3, Himan picked up the statement provided by Jason Bissey, the next-door neighbor. Bissey had been interviewed on several news shows. Bissey’s statement helped to provide a time line. Himan asked Bissey no questions, and Bissey was never interviewed by the DPD. Himan did not ask to speak with Bissey’s housemate. •Why did the DPD not obtain Bissey’s statement for more than one week after he had initially contacted police? •Why did the DPD not obtain Bissey‘s statement for more than two weeks after the alleged attack? •Did the DPD first learn of Bissey’s observations when he was interviewed on television? •Why did the DPD not interview Bissey? •Why did the DPD not interview Bissey’s housemate? •Is the failure to interview eyewitnesses consistent with standard DPD procedure? 58.On April 3, Addison distributed a news release offering a cash reward for information. Addison continued his inflammatory language: “The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.” This release was twice rewritten and resent. •Why was the attack not described as “alleged” as in other DPD cases? •Who instructed Addison to use such inflammatory language? •Why was he permitted to use inflammatory language a third time on this case? •Why was he or the superior who had ordered the inflammatory language and false statements not disciplined? •Were any rewards paid? •If so, for what information? 59.On April 4, the accuser was asked to participate in a photographic identification procedure. This procedure violated DPD policies for lineups because it contained no fillers. It also violated DPD policies for lineups because Gottlieb, one of the investigators in the case, conducted it. For the first time, all of the white lacrosse players were included in the lineup. Neither of the non-players known by the DPD to have attended the party was included. The lineup was videotaped, to permit “potential jurors” to see the process. The accuser identified four of the players as her three attackers. •Why did the officers adopt procedures that violated DPD guidelines? •If the lineup was designed only to identify who had attended the party, why was the African-American player who attended the party excluded? •Why did the lineup exclude the non-players known by the DPD to have attended the party? •Why did Gottlieb not pursue questioning after the identification of Matt Wilson, a player identified by the accuser as one of her attackers? •Why was Wilson not pursued as a potential attacker after the identification? •Why did Gottlieb ask the accuser the leading question of whether Finnerty was the player who had strangled her when the medical report had shown no signs of strangulation and the accuser had earlier denied being choked? •Are leading questions in lineups consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Was the accuser asked to explain her certainty of the attackers (100% in the cases of Finnerty and Seligmann and 90% in the case of Evans) in light of her inability to make any identifications in the earlier lineups? •Was the accuser asked to explain the errors she made in her other identifications when the DPD obtained information that demonstrated these errors? •If the DPD was merely attempting to identify players who had attended the party, why was the other dancer not asked to make identifications until May 11? •If the DPD was merely attempting to identify players who had attended the party, why was it videotaped for the benefit of “potential jurors” and other judicial officials? •If the DPD was merely attempting to identify players who had attended the party, why were so many DPD officers involved in its creation? •If the DPD was merely attempting to identify players who had attended the party, why did they not also use the pictures in the cameras for the same purpose? •Why were the players identified by the accuser in this lineup as either witnesses or suspects never brought in for questioning? •What steps did the DPD undertake to confirm the identifications? 60. On April 3, the day before the lineup, Travis Mangum, the father of the accuser, appeared on Rita Cosby’s show on MSNBC and stated that his daughter had identified her three attackers. Although Mr. Mangum has frequently made statements connected to this case that were proven to be false, the timing of his statement is interesting. •Were you aware of this interview? •When was the interview scheduled with the accuser? •Did the DPD interview Travis Mangum and ask about his statement that his daughter had identified her three attackers before the identification session had taken place? •If not, why not? •Was Mr. Mangum’s comment merely a misstatement? •Did the DPD ask the accuser about any conversations she may have had with her father? •If not, why not? 61.The accuser was not asked by the DPD on April 4 to provide a formal statement. This meeting is three weeks after the initial accusation of the attack. •Why was the accuser not asked to make a formal statement? •Is this failure to obtain a formal statement consistent with standard procedure? •Does the DPD not believe that it is important to receive a statement as soon as possible? •Does the DPD believe that recollections become more accurate with age? 62.On April 5, an e-mail written by Ryan McFadyen is released when the earlier warrant is unsealed. In this e-mail, he “threatens” to “kill strippers.” The e-mail is later shown to be a riff on the book and movie “American Psycho” that is included in several Duke classes. Although McFadyen is apparently not a suspect and the e-mail has no relevance to the investigation, the release was used to further inflame the community. McFadyen reportedly was questioned and told that the e-mail would be released if he did not identify the attackers to police. •Why were other e-mails that showed the context not also released? •Who alerted the Herald-Sun to the sealed warrant? •Is the report about the questioning of McFadyen correct? •If so, is this threat an attempt to intimidate a witness? •Is an attempt to intimidate a witness consistent with standard DPD procedures? 63.On April 5, Himan reportedly picked up the medical records covered by the subpoena served on DUMC on March 21. These medical records apparently included the triage and discharge reports and the nurse notes. •Is this report correct? •Did Gottlieb obtain the SANE examination on March 21 as he claimed in his report and in his deposition before the Bar? •Had the SANE examination been reviewed by the DPD prior to this date? •If so, on what date and by whom? •If so, was the DPD aware that the SANE exam did not support the accusation and contained no record of injuries? •If not, how was Himan able to cite the medical records as supporting the accusation in the affidavits included for the NTO on March 23 and the McFadyen search warrant on March 27? 64.On April 5, the computer equipment taken from 610 Buchanan was provided to the DPD computer forensics lab. •Why was the computer equipment seized in the execution of the search warrant not analyzed for almost three weeks? •Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures? •What information was obtained through this analysis? 65.On April 6, the accuser was finally asked to make a formal statement—23 days after the alleged attack. In her statement, she described the onset of the attack as a violent separation. The accuser and the other dancer were grabbing onto each other as they were separated, with three players grabbing each dancer. The accuser claimed that she was dragged into the bathroom, where she was sexually assaulted. She claimed to have great recollection of the event and participants, even going so far as to identify what type of pants certain people were wearing. This scene is not included in the other dancer’s formal statement. The accuser’s statement is not referenced in Himan’s typewritten case notes. •Why was the accuser not asked to make a formal statement for 23 days? •Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedure? •Why was the accuser not asked to explain critical inconsistencies between her statement and that of the other dancer? •Why was the accuser not asked to explain why she did not recognize in the earlier lineups the three men who she claimed separated her from Pittman? •Did the accuser's failure to identify these critical "separators" in earlier lineups raise questions as to her credibility? •If not, why not? •Why was the accuser not asked why she didn't identify the men who came to the car and interacted with Pittman and her prior to luring them back into the house? •What efforts did DPD make to investigate the identities of the accomplices who separated the two dancers? •If no efforts were made to investigate the three accomplices alleged in Mangum's statement, why not? •Why were the three accomplices who separated the three dancers later cleared after the third indictment was handed down? •Is this failure to investigate the other three accomplices consistent with standard DPD procedures? •What efforts were made by DPD to reconcile the accuser's statement with prior statements she had given to the DPD and medical personnel? •Why was the other dancer not asked to confirm the separation? •Why was the other dancer not asked to explain critical differences between her statement and that of the accuser? •Particularly given the accuser’s inability to provide credible descriptions and identifications, why was the other dancer not asked to make identifications? •Is the failure to ask an alleged eyewitness to an attack to make identifications consistent with standard DPD procedure? •Is the failure to reconcile critical inconsistencies between two witnesses’ statements consistent with standard DPD procedure? 66.At this meeting on April 6, the accuser was asked to describe her activities prior to the alleged attack. She indicated that she had been dancing at the Platinum Club on the night of March 10-11. •Was this the first time that the accuser had been asked to provide information on her activities prior to the alleged attacked? •If so, what is the reason for the delay? •Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Does the DPD believe that the accuser’s activities prior to the alleged attack were irrelevant to the investigations? •Did the DPD follow up this interview at the Platinum Club? •If not, why not? 67.On April 6, the DPD briefed City Manager Patrick Baker on the investigation. Baker reported these findings to the City Council. Baker claimed in an interview with the local press that the accuser had been consistent in her accusation. This claim is now known to be false. •With which officers did Baker meet? •What information was provided to Baker? •On what basis did Baker make the claim that the accuser had been consistent in her accusation? •Was Baker lying or was he misinformed? •Did the officers claim that the accuser had been consistent in her accusation? •If so, on what basis did they make that claim? •Have any officers been disciplined as a result of the information they provided? •What other aspects of the investigation did Baker discuss with the DPD? •Was a record of this meeting kept? •Did Baker pass on false information to the Council in his briefing to them? 68.On April 6, the DPD interviewed Jerriel Johnson, one of the accuser’s drivers. Johnson stated that he had driven the accuser to several one-on-one dates in the days preceding the party. He also noted that the accuser had behaved strangely at times during this period, getting out of his car and refusing to get back in. Johnson was not able to drive the accuser to the party that night. •Why did the DPD wait for more than three weeks to interview Johnson? •Did the DPD question Johnson about the accuser’s strange behavior? •Did the DPD realize that Johnson would be able to provide information related to the activities of the accuser in the days prior to the alleged attack? •Why was this information not relevant to the investigation? •Is the failure to interview witnesses consistent with standard DPD procedures? 69.In early April, shortly after the cancellation of the season, Brad Ross, one of the players, provided the DPD with evidence that he had been in Raleigh the night of the party. The accuser had identified Ross in two separate lineups with 100% certainty as one of the players at the party. The evidence Ross provided included cell records, his dorm keycard record and other electronic evidence. •Did the DPD review the evidence provided by Ross? •If not, why not? •Did the DPD question Ross about his activities on the night of March 13 and 14? •If not, why not? •Did the DPD make any determination whether the evidence Ross provided proved that he did not attend the party? •If not, why not? •Is a failure to pursue alibi evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures? •How did the DPD reconcile the evidence that placed Ross in Raleigh with the accuser’s two-time identification with 100% certainty that he was one of the players she had recognized from the party? •If the DPD failed to reconcile the accuser’s identification with the conflicting evidence, why not? •Is a failure to reconcile identifications with conflicting evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Did the DPD believe that the accuser’s flawed identification of Ross as an attendee at the party raised doubts about the reliability of her other identifications? •If not, why not? •Is a failure to consider flawed identifications in assessing the reliability of a witness’ ability to make other identifications consistent with standard DPD procedures? •How is this evidence consistent with the claim made by the DPD and repeated by Chalmers in his report last month that the DPD received no cooperation from the players? 70.On April 10, Gottlieb and Himan attended a meeting at DNASI with Nifong and Brian Meehan, President of DNASI. Meehan has testified that he disclosed that his tests had discovered male DNA on and in the accuser and that this DNA matched none of the players or other students at the party. Meehan further testified that at this meeting, he and Nifong agreed to exclude this information from the report in violation of the North Carolina discovery requirements. •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? •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? 71. On April 10, the News & Observer published photographs from the party that had been provided by defense attorneys. The pictures showed that the dance had taken place in the living room, not the master bedroom as claimed by the accuser. •Was the DPD aware of the photographs from the party prior to their being published in the N&O? •Why were these pictures not used to identify players who had attended the party? •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? •Did the DPD request these photographs from either the N&O or the defense attorneys? •Was this evidence subpoenaed? •If not, why not? •Is the failure to pursue photographic evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures? 72.On April 11, The DPD ran a background check on the accuser. This background check revealed that the accuser had a been convicted on a number of criminal charges, including driving while impaired, and a number of charges related to automobile theft and assault on a government official. •Is a background check regularly performed on complaining witnesses? •If so, was the delay in requesting a background check in this case consistent with standard DPD procedures? •If the delay is not consistent with standard procedures, what is the explanation for the delay? 73.On April 11, Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan and Lt. Mike Ripberger met with the accuser. •Was the accuser asked at this meeting whether she continued to maintain her earlier claim not to have had sex for a week? •Was the accuser asked at this meeting about the positive DNA tests and the presence of at least four men’s DNA in and on her body? •Does the DPD believe that evidence that contradicts the statements of a witness raises questions about the credibility of that witness? •Did the DPD make any attempt to identify the sources of this DNA? •If not, why was the DPD not interested in the sources of this DNA? •Was the accuser asked about her criminal background? •If not, why not? 74.On April 11, Himan received the accuser’s medical records from UNC Hospital. Himan met with Sheila Ford. There is no reference in Himan’s typewritten case notes to any interviews of medical personnel. •Did the DPD interview any of the attending medical personnel? •If so, at what time? •If not, why not? •How did the DPD reconcile the accuser’s statement that she felt no pain at DUMC with subsequently uncovered evidence? •How did the observation that the accuser frequently sought narcotics affect her credibility? 75.On April 11, Major Ronald Hodge was interviewed after a forum for candidates. “I don’t think we would be here if it wasn’t (a strong case)” Hodge said about the Duke case. By that time, the DPD was aware that the accuser had changed her story on numerous occasions, the SANE exam did not note any physical injuries, pictures of the accuser showed no injuries, the other dancer did not support the accusation, describing it as a “crock,” and the timeline did not provide an opportunity for an attack to have occurred. Attorney General Roy Cooper would later note: “there was no credible evidence that a crime had occurred.” •Are public statements by senior officers related to the strength of active investigations consistent with standard DPD procedure? •If not, why did Hodge make an exception in this case? •On what basis did Hodge make this statement? •Did Hodge realize that the statement he made was false—that in fact the case had no evidence to support the accusation? •Does standard DPD procedure allow senior officers to make public statements they know to be false? •If not, was Hodge disciplined for making false statement? •If not, why not? •If Hodge was not aware that his statement was false, who provided this false information? •Do standard DPD procedures permit officers to provide false information to senior officials? •If not, was the source of this information disciplined? •If not, why not? 76.On April 13, several detectives attempted to question players as part of the ongoing investigation. Although the DPD knew that counsel represented the players, they made no attempt to request interviews through counsel. •Why did the DPD not make the interview requests through the players’ counsel as required? •Is this failure to make interview requests through counsel consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Did the DPD coordinate this attempt with the Duke University security department or did they simply follow other students into the building? 77.On April 14, Time reported that each member of the team received an e-mail allegedly sent from the e-mail account of one of the players. In this e-mail, the player purportedly stated that he was going to the authorities, tell them that a crime had occurred and implicate a number of his teammates. The player from whose account the e-mail had been sent denied sending the e-mail and demonstrated that he was in class at the time the e-mail was sent. •Is this report correct? •Was the DPD involved in sending this e-mail? •Does the unauthorized use of another person’s e-mail constitute a crime? •What actions were undertaken by the DPD to investigate this fraudulent e-mail? •If no action was taken, why not? •Does the DPD know the identity of the sender? •If so, who sent the e-mail? •If the identify of the sender is known, was any action taken against the sender? •If not, why not? 78.During the week of April 10, Nifong decided to seek indictments of Finnerty and Seligmann before the grand jury on April 17. At this time, there apparently was no evidence that Seligmann had even attended the party. In his testimony during Nifong’s Bar trial, Himan claimed he raised the question “with what?” in conversations with superior officers and that these superior officers endorsed Nifong’s decision to ask for indictments. In his deposition, Gottlieb confirms Himan’s account and identifies the senior officers as Ripberger and Lamb. •Is Himan’s testimony correct? •With which superior officers did he raise this question? •Is Gottlieb’s identification of Ripberger and Lamb correct? •On what basis did the superior officers endorse Nifong’s decision to ask the grand jury for indictments? •Is a decision to ask a grand jury for indictments with no credible evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures? •Did superior officers give Himan instructions on what to say (and what exculpatory evidence to exclude) in his testimony? •If so, what instructions did they provide? 79.On April 17, Himan and Gottlieb testified before the grand jury. The grand jury handed down indictments of Finnerty and Seligmann. In his deposition before the Bar, Gottlieb indicated that his testimony included the claim that the accuser had not changed her story from the time that the SANE nurse had calmed her down, a statement that is false. •What was included in their testimony? •Did Gottlieb and Himan discuss the results of the April 4 lineup? •Did Gottlieb and 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 Gottlieb and Himan discuss the negative DNA test results? •Did Gottlieb and Himan discuss the negative SANE exam? •Did Gottlieb and Himan discuss the critical inconsistencies between the accusation and the other dancer’s formal statement? •What version of the accusation did Gottlieb and Himan provide to the grand jury as their evidence? •Did either Gottlieb or Himan commit perjury in their testimony? 80.On April 18, Finnerty and Seligmann were arrested. The media had staked out the police station where they had been brought for booking. •Why were Finnerty and Seligmann not arrested after the accuser had made her identifications on April 4? •What additional inculpatory evidence did the DPD obtain between the identifications on April 4 and the arrests on April 18? •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 were dangerous criminals left on the streets of Durham? •Why was no attempt made to interview either Finnerty or Seligmann at any time before or after their arrests? |
|
|
|
| JSwift | Apr 28 2008, 08:57 PM Post #13 |
|
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? |
|
|
|
| Kerri P. | Apr 28 2008, 10:27 PM Post #14 |
|
MOTION FOR SPEEDY TRIAL http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2006/12/09/1086673/sppedy_trial_motion.swf |
|
|
|
| Kerri P. | Apr 29 2008, 07:00 AM Post #15 |
|
David F. Evans, et al., http://www.wral.com/news/local/flash/1963159/ |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
11:02 PM Nov 8
