- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| NO NOTES!; But CALEA certified! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 31 2009, 08:55 PM (386 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Oct 31 2009, 08:55 PM Post #1 |
|
(Deposition of Lt. Ripberger for Nifong's bar hearing) : A. I was hired back in 1986, so I have a little over 21 years here now. (snip) Q. ...You became a lieutenant in the 2nd district, it sounds like, at the same time Sergeant Gottlieb became a sergeant in that district. A. He was already a sergeant in the district. He became the--he took my place as the district 2 investigative sergeant. Q. Okay. A. So, that's correct, he took my place. I just moved across the hallway to the lieutenant's office and he moved down a couple of offices from the Patrol Sgt. to the Investigative Sgt. (snip) Q. What has been your involvement with the Duke lacrosse cases? A. Sgt. Gottlieb, well, as--I am his immediate supervisor, over Sgt. Gottlieb. And that would include the investigations unit. . . (snip) Q. Did you take any investigative notes of any of the activities that went on in the Duke lacrosse cases? A. No. Q. What is the standard or typical procedures for officers within the Dept. on matters--and I guess what--let me ask it more specifically. If you are involved in a case in a supervisory role, what is the standard practice for the supervisor with respect to taking notes of meetings? A. I have never seen anything that says specifically what the supervisor should do on taking the notes. If it's something that I am part of the investigation where I am actually investigating where I'm doing an interview of somebody in the case or something of that nature, I would take notes on that. But I have not taken notes on anything that has just been told to me about the case from Sgt. Gottlieb. (snip) Q. Do you have any knowledge about Mr. Nifong making statements to the Dept., Capt. Lamb or anybody else that the investigatory activities should go through him on the Duke lacrosse case? A. I have heard that. That was not told to me specifically. (snip) [He is Gottlieb's supervisor, but nobody ever told him directly that Nifong was in charge of the investigation? During the course of a year? And he never heard that in the press, or asked anyone for clarification of that?] Q. Typically, would the Dept. keep records of what kind of information is exchanged back and forth with the District Attorney's office? A. You know, I can't say that the Dept. would have a record of that. As far as I understand, we give the DA's office everything that we have, whether it's notes, papers, anything. [So the Dept. has no record of what documents it had and turned over to Nifong? And this is a CALEA-certified dept.?] |
 |
 
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 31 2009, 09:02 PM Post #2 |
|
Gottlieb's deposition for the Nifong bar hearing: Q. Going back to the type written notes, first tell me other than the three pages of handwritten notes here, were there other notes that you prepared in the Duke lacrosse cases? A. I believe I had wrote like a date or a time on different documents. But as far as me taking notes, I really wasn't doing an investigation. So, no, I didn't take handwritten notes. I was acting as a supervisor just trying to coordinate things. [Even though Ripberger said he would have taken notes if he were actually doing an interview...?] ---------- Q. I take it then there are not separate notes like you'd have, for example, a legal pad where you had written out things that happened? A. No, sir. --------- Q. Okay. So, for example, if you were participating in an interview with Ms. Mangum with Investigator Himan, you didn't have a separate pad where you kept notes of what she said or questions that were asked? You had no handwritten notes of that type of -- in that situation, for example? A. Absolutely not. Investigator Himan was keeping the notes. I wasn't there as an investigator. I was there, one, as a witness because we did it in her house; two, to give him advice if there were something that he needed advice on. It was his investigation. And for anything else that happened to come up. ---------- Q. Let me see if I am understanding you. From the 15th of 2006, March 15, 2006, through this meeting on April 4th [the first two weeks of the investigation] where you were asked to prepare a time line for the City Manager, you had not kept typewritten notes of the investigation up to that. The ones that we now see here they didn't exist on the 4th. A. No, not to my knowledge. [?] ------------ A. The case -- I never took handwritten notes, per se. I kept track of my activities by radio log. Meaning, if I stopped at somebody's house, I called in to police dispatch. If I was doing something, I called in to police dispatch for that. If I went out to Duke to assist them, I would call in to police dispatch, keeping track of that. Again, this --is Ben's [Himan's] operation. This is pretty much something that Ben is responsible for keeping up with the case. I'm there as his supervisor, and I wasn't keeping up with the notes as far as that goes. --------------- A. Sir, we had meetings every day with command staff, the District Attorney's office. And I'm not saying that we met with him every day. But if I kept track of meetings, I would probably have thousands of pages. ------------- Q. Was there any discussion during that conversation about letting the Department have some more time to develop additional facts before going forward with the indictment? A. Well, I told him [Nifong] our concerns and basically he made the decision. I don't remember the exact conversation. Q. And did you keep any kind of notes of that conversation with Mr. Nifong? A. No. Q. To your knowledge, did anybody in the Department keep any notes of that conversation? A. I don't know. . . Q. You don't know of any notes that were kept? A. I don't. ---------- Q. Okay. Did Mr. Nifong ask any questions during any of these meetings with Dr. Meehan about the results? A. Not that I recall. It is always possible, but I just don't recall. Q. Did Mr. Nifong take notes of any of the meetings or during any of the meetings with Dr. Meehan? A. I don't know. I'm sorry, I don't know. Q. And in your other meetings, not the ones with Dr. Meehan, but the other meetings that you would have with Mr. Nifong, would it be his practice to take notes if you were sitting down and having conversation with him? A. Just very casual. No, not that I recall. Q. I take it from your previous answer that you didn't take any handwritten notes of the meetings that you had with Dr. Meehan? A. Oh, no, not with Dr. Meehan. Q. And did you . . . A. I really didn't take notes like that. . . would get information and put it in later. Q. And did Investigator Himan, do you recall if he took notes at the meetings? A. I don't recall. Investigator Himan was very -- I was very impressed with him. He was very meticulous in what he did, and that's all I can remember. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 31 2009, 09:04 PM Post #3 |
|
Himan's deposition for the Nifong bar hearing : Q. I think I know the answer, but let me make sure. Did you keep any kind of log or record of what you provided to Mr. Nifong during the course of the investigation, documents that were provided? A. No, there was no log. I know when discovery came, basically he said, basically around every other week or every near the end of the month, he would ask for anything new, and that is when I would update him. Q. Okay. And how often would you say that you met or spoke with Mr. Nifong about the investigation? A. I would say probably every other day to daily. I don't know if it was directly with him or not. It may be--some of the things there was just nothing happening so I wouldn't go up and tell him nothing was happening. I would just--just if something came up, I would go up and tell him what we had. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 31 2009, 09:14 PM Post #4 |
|
OTOH, standard police procedure calls for the making and retention of notes during any investigation. Officers carry log books (or field note books) in which they record every significant event of the day. Books are to be open to inspection by superior officers during random checks and signed off at the end of each watch.
Do we have any of these notes for the lax case? A daily record of every meeting with Crystal, every occasion when she was driven somewhere, what she said when she met with Nifong on April 11, 2006? How she looked, her demeanor, etc.?
Didn't Gottlieb as Himan's superior check to see if Himan had kept any notes and see if he had to sign them? Didn't Ripberger check to see if Gottlieb (and Himan) had kept any notes and see if he had to sign them? Didn't these two keep a daily log of everything they did for that day? Every conversation? Details regarding the times of arrivals and departures, the names of persons contacted, their identifying characteristics, evidence discovered, and how and by whom that evidence was handled? Sketches and charts? Measurements? Photos of locales? Exact words used by witnesses? (Bissey? Co-workers?--were they even interviewed?)
But in the lax case, the biggest case in Durham's history (and hence in the careers of these officers), almost no notes were kept; pictures of board charts were not made, no notes were kept by officers, the DA, or the lab technicians during three separate meetings at the lab; etc. And yet this Dept. is CALEA-certified (CALEA being an organization that places great stress on record keeping...) And the Chief absented himself for months and became invisible to the press and the public...  |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Oct 31 2009, 09:42 PM Post #5 |
|
When the lawsuits do come into Court the DPD is going to be made out to be fools and/or Liars. Durham is a metropolitan city and they pretend its large police force is run like some hick 3 man PD. They don't keep notes! Sure, what he really means we don't keep evidence of our criminality. It is also what the Police didn't do in the "Lax Investigation" in addition to what they did. IMHO the DPD knew no assault ever happened. They were just trying to frame any member of the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team and we wouldn't want to have notes, would will? Edited by Baldo, Oct 31 2009, 09:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
| sceptical | Oct 31 2009, 09:58 PM Post #6 |
|
The Durham PD was either engaged in a conspiracy, incompetent, or more likely both in the lacrosse case. See JSwift's list of questions in the "pinned documents" section above (posts #11-13) http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/241201/1/ Edited by sceptical, Oct 31 2009, 10:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 31 2009, 11:09 PM Post #7 |
|
We all owe JSwift a big pat on the back. Did a wonderful job on that list, one I appreciate and will never forget! |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Nov 1 2009, 12:08 AM Post #8 |
|
I like how Gottlieb states very strongly that he didn't take notes, that he was not an investigator in this case, only a supervisor, so he had no responsibility to takes notes. Then why produce those homegrown notes 6 months later? Who asked for his notes? Why didn't Gottlieb tell whoever asked him for his notes the same thing? That he did not take notes, that he was only acting in a supervisory mode, etc. And if Gottlieb was only acting in a supervisory mode, then why on earth did he conduct the "pick any three -- not four" Powerpoint ID? |
|
|
|
| Bill Anderson | Nov 1 2009, 07:27 AM Post #9 |
|
To me, this is more proof of the frame. A cop who won't take notes is a cop who does not want to have his lies found out. Remember Gottlieb's "report" that the NY Slimes trumpeted as "evidence"? Well, it was evidence, all right, but evidence for a frame. Furthermore, the leadership of the Durham police and the political leadership of the city and the Duke leadership was all-too-happy to promote and continue the frame. 
|
|
|
|
| Diesel | Nov 1 2009, 08:39 AM Post #10 |
|
Gottlieb's answers are consistent and correct. First, he didn't take notes. Second, he made up the notes he produced 6months later! |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 1 2009, 10:18 AM Post #11 |
|
http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/nypd-official-police-officers-memo-book Sold Date: 07/08/2007 Channel: Online Auction Source: eBay NYPD OFFICIAL ISSUED POLICE OFFICERS' MEMO BOOK. for auction is what's considered an OFFICIAL NYPD DEPARTMENT RECORD . This little piece of Police History contains the daily assignments , arrests , locations posted , partners , Police Cars assigned to, and many other informational anecdotes of what occurs in the daily shift of a MEMBER OF THE SERVICE OF THE NYPD. Search all over Ebay, you won't find any of these Official Department Issued, serially numbered, Officers' Memo Books. Check Barnes & Noble, they don't have them; . ? NOPE!!! ONLY !!! I GUARANTEE IT. Each Memo Book is a little different and unique just like the Officers' who write in them. They capture all the details of all the events of a typical day at the office except the COPS' Office is THE STREET. From shootings to missing children, car chases that end in crashes followed by foot pursuits and then hopefully 1 (or more) Under Arrest, or disarming the armed, everyday can be, and is, different. You can read all about it in:THE MEMO BOOK .THE GOOD , THE BAD , THE INDIFFERENT, OH YEAH THE UGLY TOO !!!If you're looking for an unique piece of NYPD memorabilia you can't go wrong with one of these ONE OF A KIND MEMO BOOKS . It would be a real conversation piece on your COFFEE TABLE , DESK AT WORK , or to add to your LAW ENFORCEMENT COLLECTION OR DISPLAY.EXCEPTIONALLY UNIQUE: NO TWO ARE EXACTLY THE SAME !!!EXTREMELY RARE: MORE RARE THAN A WINNING LOTTERY TICKET !!! These OFFICIAL NYPD MEMO BOOKS are over 20 years old.PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THESE ARE OFFICIAL, ISSUED BY A SUPERVISORY OFFICER, SERIALLY NUMBERED, HAVE BLOCKS AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE BECAUSE THE PAGES ARE SEQUENTIAL, HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN, AND HAVE COVERS THAT IDENTIFY IT AND TO WHOM IT IS ISSUED. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH OTHER SO-CALLED MEMO BOOKS LISTED ON EBAY THAT APPEAR TO BE LINED PAPER WITH A BLACK BINDER.Review my feedback, read the comments and then bid with confidence because persons who have completed transactions with me are always more than satisfied with their items and service provided.Any questions please ask prior to bidding.Shipping to the USA $4.00, Canada $5.00, Europe $6.00. Everyw Else --- Please Ask.Thanks for viewing my items and GOOD LUCK. (And Gottlieb didn't keep any notes... not even when he went to Meehan's...) Did Ribberger issue Gottlieb a memo book? Did he check it every day and sign off on it? If not, was he aware that Gottlieb was not keeping a daily memo book? (How could he not be?) Was Ripberger therefore negligent in his supervisory duties? In the biggest case in Durham's history (and in Ripberger's career), did he not once ask to see the memo books to make sure that every "i" was dotted and every "t" was crossed, in order to assure himself that departmental policy was being followed?) Edited by Quasimodo, Nov 1 2009, 10:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 1 2009, 12:10 PM Post #12 |
|
The defense attorneys for the City of Durham/DPD know they have a real problem on this issue. It isn't even a close call. Standard Protocol for all Police works calls for a notebook. They also use mini voice recorders to take statements in the field. The most preposterous is the lack of a written or recorded statement by Crystal from March 14 to April 6. Then again the copious note taker Nifong has an unbelievable lack of notes. Why should you record evidence of a Frame? |
|
|
|
| J. Elliott | Nov 1 2009, 01:24 PM Post #13 |
|
Of course, it's possible there are no notes because there was no investigation. The officers involved all figured it to be total BS and a waste of their time, and were just waiting for the day when it all went Poof. I suppose they simply drove over to Crystal's house for a friendly chit-chat on the way to Dunkin's. Mebbe they figured they'd talk some sense to her that day and she'd drop it. But at every step, they knew it to be a sham and having faith in what's right, thought sooner-or-later it would go away. Notes would only highlight the bogus nature of it all. Either Nifong would drop it or the boys would cave and plead - no notes needed for that! Not taking notes was the sensible gamble here, even though unprofessional. Once DAMN took over, it signaled the end of any real investigation. From that point on everyone was just coasting. Why take notes of a non-investigation? The cops were just going through the motions, hoping the players, or Nifong, or Levicy would end it quick one way or another. This brings me back to one of the central issues of interest to me, one that I've posted several times and not yet quite gotten the full answer. I suspect no one really knows the answer, and even if there is a cut-and-dried response, none of us have the wherewithal to find it or know it. To wit: If a citizen finds himself indicted for a crime, does he have a right to see that alleged crime competently investigated? If not, then there is no penalty for false indictments other than what varied Bar Associations might inflict, yes? Edited by J. Elliott, Nov 1 2009, 03:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
| chatham | Nov 1 2009, 07:11 PM Post #14 |
|
The investigation started very early on in the case when the cops showed up at Krogers. All the cops took notes right through the events that occurred up to the time mangum was released from the ED. I cant exactly remember but there may be notes indicating that Gottlieb was to investigate something further and was then assigned to the case. At this point the silence was deafening. No notes by gottlieb even though he was put in charge of investigating the robbery. When he decided he needed to investigate more he knew he could not do it himself so he assigned a naive investigator in Himan to just sniff around and gather some info about the "rape" Himan could be in charge and gottlieb could just sit around and supervise with plenty of suggestions about what to investigate. Himan had the notes and he had no idea what he was to do or what he was doing. Gottlierb had his chest out, proud that he could royally screw some Duke kids. Gottlieb knew there was no rape. That was decided in the ED. Just look at the evidence in the notes and memos existing at that time concluding that nothing more than simple assault could be the charge. Look at what dean sue received. Look at all the early evidence and the only conclusion was "nothing happened" Yet, the naive investigator himan was having leg tingles working with gottlib in a possible rape case that HE was in charge of. Of course gottlieb needed no notes. Then add the defect for reelection, DAMN. We all know the story here about wanting to win the primary. He did hear about this party and he most likely caught wind that gottlieb was assigned to investigate some stolen money. He kept close watch on it because this could be a case that could become very public locally. Local publicity could gain him votes. I am wondering if nifong and gottlieb talked on their phones about the robbery and during the conversation someone mentioned maybe investigating the possibility that if she was telling the truth they need to investigate. From that point the plan was designed and put into force. Others were told we need to teach these Duke TP students a lesson and they all agreed, all the way to the top, and with that agreement chalmers disappeared because he knew if something went wrong all hell would break loose. By the time of the primary nifong has it pretty good but everyone knew, including the biased folks over at NCCU that it was all a hoax. And they knew that before the primary so nifong had no choice but to continue working to make a case out of nothing ( we all know cops and DA's can make cases out of nothing ). And worse yet for Durham, someone challenged DAMN after the primary so he was once again forced to continue the hoax/frame/lies going. And of course all the named members of the DPD could not come forward and tell the truth because they would turn the DPD upside down. And they had warnings about this from Chalmers. So no notes were needed because the plan by gottlieb was nothing more than to make sure no more Duke TP students would cause trouble and gottleib would have his final revenge. Gottlieb knew he could get the supervisory support for his simple frame. And blinded by the excitement of success getting the Duke students, their plan fell upon hard times because of a known DNA collection unit not being able to remember to say the same sentence twice. The case was settled in the ED with notes. The case was proven to be a hoax with himans notes. The frame that allowed this case to be moved forward was noteless. The path to the lies was gottliebs. The recorder was himan. Durham, Duke NCCU all went along with it. Joyner, the great law professor, had to get involved to protect the black girls reputation. He was very familiar with the Bwanna brawley story and did not want this to happen to this highly educated black girl "earning" her way through NCCU. Just like in speech class. No notes needed, just make it up as you go. Just another opinion. |
|
|
|
| abb | Nov 1 2009, 07:56 PM Post #15 |
|
And then there was the NandO and Linda Williams... |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:01 PM Nov 30
