Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Proof Nifong knew of the case by March 20; not March 23?
Topic Started: Feb 16 2010, 09:14 AM (808 Views)
Quasimodo

Nifong's standard account claims that he first learned of the lax case on March 23rd, when he just happened to see the NTO at a xerox machine. (This in itself is hardly credible, as it is unlikely that such a broad and likely unconstitutional legal request, made in the course of the biggest case in Durham's history, would be unknown to the DA; but I digress...)

However, the subpoena supposedly presented to the hospital for Magnum's medical report, is dated March 20, 2006; and is personally signed by Nifong (one of the very few documents to bear his signature).

Posted Image

(hat tip to the Johnsville news, March 13, 2007--one year, btw, since the party)

http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/03/dukenifongcooper59-hoax.html


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

It has been suggested that Nifong's signature was only stamped on the document; but in that event, the ADA who stamped it should have initialed it.

From Talk Left discussion :

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=n316gavfcoe55nkh2qv1fudc75&topic=1289.15

In the mid 90's, Judge Stanback issued a consent order requiring Durham Police to have subpoenas used to acquire personal records issued upon approval by a judge ( or an officer of the court, I don't recall which). The order was issued in response to the practice of DPD using photocopied and forged subpoenas with signatures of attorneys from the DA's office. The practice was approved (with limitiations) by DA Ron Stephens and fought for by DA Hardin after it came to light and lawsuits began flying after it was discovered that the DPD used these affidavits while investigating an alleged prostitution ring in its own department.

If a stamp of Nifong's signature was used and not approved by him, its likely that Judge Stanback's order has been violated.

There would be no reason for an ADA to use a stamp of the DA's signature when they could sign it themselves if attorneys are allowed to issue investigative subpoenas (there is a distinct difference between the use of subpoenas pursuant to a court proceeding and their use to investigate).

If someone other than an attorney, a magistrate, the clerk of the court or a judge (ie anyone who not need to use his stamp) used Nifong's stamp to approve and issue the subpoena there are additional problems for someone.

Whether Nifong issued the subpoena revealing a misrepresentation to the bar or whether he allowed someone else to use his stamp (again indicating his approval) or whether DPD or another unauthorized individual used his signature without his knowledge (whether by policy of his office or of their own decision it violates a court order and the statutes that led to the lost lawsuits in the 90's) there is something foul that has occured.

So, take your pick: either Nifong is guilty of having misrepresented a material fact (or two) to the State Bar, has an office policy that violates the rules of criminal procedure and a court order, or another actor (Himan? Gottlieb, a non attorney in the DA's office?) has violated the law and the court order. Or perhaps Nifong simply has no recollection of signing the March subpeona that he had to answer to in court in June.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

From John in Carolina (June 14, 2009)



SUNDAY, JUNE 14, 2009

Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14

(First posted on 6/13/09)

(snip)

If Nifong didn’t learn of the DL case until after his close friend, mentor and predecessor in the DA’s office Judge Ronald Stephens had already signed the “toxic” DL NTO that’s been described an “mammothly unconstitutional,” when did he learn of it?

I’m certain Nifong learned of it on Mar. 14, 2006, just hours after false accuser Crystal Mangum made a series of unbelievable, self-contradicting charges that she’d been robbed, beaten, strangled and gang raped at a party hosted by members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Here are some of the reasons why I’m certain:

As a matter of routine, the Durham Police Department (DPD) quite properly keeps the DA’s office current on cases that may make considerable demands on the time and expertise of the DA office and/or will garner heavy media attention.

The DL case was such a case.

It’s impossible to believe DPD didn’t on Mar. 14 directly inform Nifong and/or a member(s) of his office staff about the charges Mangum made in the early morning hours of that day at Duke Hospital’s ER.

It’s also impossible to believe any member of Nifong’s staff (it then consisted of about 20+ ADAs and 25+ other staffers) who knew about Mangum’s charges, would not have made sure “the boss” knew about them ASAP.


Any DA would want to be informed of such explosive charges that has already led to a police investigation, in response to which he might have to take certain immediate actions if arrests were made that day and about which he might have to respond at immediately if asked about the charges by a member of the press or by a citizen at a public event.

Would any Nifong staffer want “the boss” returning upset on Mar. 14 from a Kiwanis luncheon where he’d just spoken and had to tell the guy who asked during Q&A about “what they say happened last night at Duke Hospital” that he didn’t know what the guy was talking about?

For that matter, would anyone supporting Nifong in the tough primary election battle he was then fighting for the Democratic Party’s DA nomination, considered a sure lock on election in November, not want Nifong to know ASAP about Mangum’s charges so he’d be prepared for questions?

No, they’d all want Nifong to be able to say to anyone something like:

“If you’re referring to charges a woman made about crimes she alleges happened at a party last night in Trinity Park, there’s obviously a lot I can’t tell you at this time. But I can say I spoke with the police this morning and they’re right now in the process of conducting a full investigation. My office is ready to provide the police any assistance they ask for.”

Given he was the DA, it was right and important that Nifong should learn about the DL case on Mar. 14. His campaign situation also made it essential he know then.

[Actually, the matter might not have become public knowledge by then, if it hadn't been widely reported in the media; but JinC still has a good point, in that of course staffers would want to be sure their boss was prepared to answer any questions, instead of having to say, "what case"?]

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
You can also sign for someone, but you note that where you signed...

If anyone can stamp the DA's sig without note, it doesn't look good...
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

(JinC, cont.)

What I’ve just said about why Nifong knew about the DL case on Mar. 14 can be classified as some of “the formal reasons” why Nifong knew then.

I want to now lay out some of what can be classified as “informal reasons” why Nifong knew of the case on Mar. 14.

(snip)

By about 7 AM that morning at least a few hundred people in Durham already knew something about Mangum’s extraordinarily explosive charges, with most of them not knowing they were false.

Those people included, of course, the officers directly working the case and Duke ER personnel. They also included brother and sister police officers on duty who learned by various means something of the case as well as non-ER hospital personnel who, for example, would’ve entered the ER area for any of a number of reasons, such as to transport a patient up to a floor.

Around 7 AM shift changes were occurring at Duke Hospital and DPD. Hundreds more began learning from those they were relieving something of what Mangum had said. It was part of their jobs to know what had happened on the shifts they were relieving.

At 8:15 AM the doors of the Durham County Courthouse (pictured here) opened. The Durham Sheriff’s Department has administrative responsibility for the building, including security.

Most court sessions wouldn’t begin before 10 AM. But by 8:30 ADAs, attorneys, courthouse staffers such as bailiffs and secretaries, jurors and prospective jurors were already entering the courthouse.

It’s safe to say most prospective jurors were hoping they’d be in the building just a few hours and wouldn’t be picked for a jury.

It’s also safe to say that by 8:30 the “courthouse regulars” – ADAs, attorneys, DPD and Sheriff officers and others – had started that day’s “buzz.”

The “buzz” in Durham’s courthouse is like the “buzz” in most other county courthouse across America: some of it relates to bond hearings, trials, witness testimony, court calendar scheduling.

A lot of the buzz has to do with seeking and granting small favors: “Will you agree to a trial postponement. I’m just not ready?” and “Judge, can you be sure to hear my client’s bail bond reduction plea before lunchtime? I need to be in Charlotte by 5:30 for dinner and a Hornets game.”

And some of the “buzz” has to do with what’s happened at the Duke ER where many crime victims are taken and where most gunshot wound victims in Durham County are taken.

It’s by keeping up with what’s happened at Duke’s ER that ADAs and criminal defense attorneys often first learn of events involving someone they’ve prosecuted or defended; and whom they might soon be professionally involved with again.

Anything that happened in Duke’s ER involving Crystal Mangum would have gotten lots of “buzz” at the courthouse on Mar. 14.

[Actually, I think the number might be in "scores", rather than in "hundreds". OTOH, how was Gottlieb officially supposed to have learned of the case--except that he was at the courthouse and heard about it (a story which I think may be fictional, but it does back up the idea that a courthouse buzz is a recognized factor.

OTOH, I don't know if anyone by then would have heard of the "rape" story, since it really wasn't considered a "rape" story until after Gottlieb got ahold of it. But, certainly there would have been a "buzz" about afterwards--one that would have extended through the DA's office, and where Nifong could hardly have avoided learning of it, even if he wasn't directly informed--and I find it hardly credible that he would not have been directly informed.]


(snip)

Here are some things that would have added to the Mar. 14 courthouse “buzz” about Mangum:

The deputy she tried to run down, John Carroll, is still a Durham deputy. He’s sometimes assigned to security at the courthouse and is there at other times to testify.

So most regulars know Carroll as do a great many DPD officers; and among those groups, many also know Carroll as a friend and neighbor.

The attorney who represented Mangum in the car jacking and attempt to run down Carroll is Woody Vann.

Like his criminal defense attorney father Art Vann before him, Woody Vann is a courthouse regular who in Mar. 2006 was long-time friend of Mike Nifong’s. ( I don’t know anything about their current relationship)


But with all the buzzing about Mangum going on at the courthouse, none of it reached Nifong’s ears.

And what about Nifong’s wife Cy Gurney? She’s regional coordinator for NC’s Guardian Ad Litem program. Her office is right across the street from the courthouse. She’s often in the courthouse in connection with her job. [And she may, or may not, have had dealings with Crystal before.]

Most courthouse regulars know Cy Gurney. So do many Durham police officers and sheriff’s deputies.

But if we believe the stories Neff and Nifong have told about Nifong only learning of the DL case on Mar. 24 after the NTO had been signed, we have to believe that not only did Cy Gurney not learn about the case on Mar. 14; she didn’t learn about until after Nifong learned about it with his copier “discovery.”

It’s either that, or Gurney did know about the case before Nifong’s copier “discovery,” but somehow didn’t tell her DA husband.

Unbelievable!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

(JinC, cont.)

Something else is unbelievable.

It’s that among all the literally hundreds of people including DPD members, his staff, his friends, campaign supporters and members of the courthouse crowd wanting to stay in good favor with him who should have told Nifong or would want to tell Nifong about the case on Mar. 14, not a single one did.

Folks, if we ever learn the full truth of what happened in Durham on Mar. 14, one of the things we’ll learn is that friends, campaign supporters, Trinity Park and Durham “activists” and others who called Nifong’s office on the afternoon of Mar. 14 to “let Mike know about this” were told something like:

“Yes, it is shocking. And he’s known about it since this morning. You know how Mr. Nifong keeps up with things. But I’ll be sure to tell him you called. I know he’ll appreciate it."



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

And sceptical responded at the time :

John,

Your contention that courthouse buzz insured that Nifong would have known about Mangum's charges is logical but not entirely persuasive.

In the first few days of the incident there was a lot of confusion about who lived at 610 N. Buchanan, whether they were Duke students, what Duke sports team was involved, etc. In retrospect everything is clear, but at the time there was the law enforcement equivalent of the "fog of battle."

Furthermore, B. Jones and John Shelton of the Durham Police, Chris Day of the Duke Police,and others at the scene had concluded that there was no evidence to proceed on Mangum's charges. Jones had planned to close the file.

At the Duke ER, Mangum was left to lie on a gurney for hours until the day shift arrived-- no one there took her seriously (seven nurses and physicians) until ultra-feminist Tara Levicy R.N. got involved.

Now remember I am just talking about the first two to three days after the party. Once Sgt. Mark Gottlieb became engaged with the case on March 16, the situation changed.

[I agree; probably Nifong didn't know immediately on the 14th; but sometime soon thereafter, after Gottlieb had turned it into a rape case--and before he "found" the NTO order on the copier--I think he must have been informed.]

But before then, I doubt there was much "buzz" because of the skepticism concerning Mangum's claims by Duke ER staff and by the Durham and Duke Police who responded. There was also the initial confusion as to who held the party and whether they had a connection to Duke, let alone represented a Duke sports team.

Your information about the Durham courthouse crowd is important and interesting. But the incestuous connections between police, prosecutors, and attorneys do not prove that Mangum's charges were a topic of conversation early on.

The first mention of the case in the press was the brief notice in the N&O on March 18. There is no mention of any connection between the incident and Duke students other than to say it happened near the campus.

The N&O's second report on March 19 quotes Gottlieb and say it happened at a party involving both Duke students and non-students. Again the explosive racial connotation and athlete connection were not mentioned.

Even the Trinit Park listserv sent out by Gottlieb would not necessarily raise eyebrows:

"Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:15 am

"The Durham Police District 2 Criminal Investigations Violent Crimes Unit is conducting an investigation concerning a rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan that was reported on 3/14/06 in the early morning hours."


In retrospect, the Mangum's charges were a big deal, but just after the incident Mangum's claims were not unlike dozens of other claims of sexual assault the police deal with all the time.

So, while your conjectures concerning courthouse buzz and Cy's connection are plausibke, I still do not think they PROVE that Nifong knew about the case before March 23 (when he claims he saw the NTIO application) and March 24 (when he talked to Capt. Lamb about taking it over).

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Again from JinC, on June 25, 2009

(snip)

Joe Neff’s Apr. 2007 copier “discovery” story – the same story Nifong testified to at his State Bar trial in June 2007 - has Nifong first learning of the DL case AFTER the “toxic” NTO was signed on Mar. 23.

If the Neff-Nifong story were true, it would mean Nifong knowingly had nothing to do with the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed.

That would be huge because the documentation presented to the court to justify its issuance of the NTO is indisputably a frame-up document.

That being the case, if we believed the copier "discovery" story, we’d have to agree the frame-up was well underway BEFORE Nifong was ever knowingly involved in it.

Think about the implications of that.

Who would have the authority and drive to knowingly push through the court a “manmouthly unconstitutional” NTO request based on documents attested to by police investigators which were laced with fraud?

Why would anyone in the DA’s office go along with the NTO request?

Especially why would anyone in the DA’s office go along with such a request without first “checking with the boss?”


The same people who pump the Neff-Nifong “discovery” story say the answer to those two questions is: because a Durham Police Sargeant and a rookie investigator asked the DA’s office to go along with it.

That's unbelievable!

Certainly others were involved in the frame-up attempt besides Nifong; and some of them may very well have engaged in framing activities before Nifong did.

But to claim as Neff and Nifong have that Nifong wasn't aware of the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed is an absurdity for the reasons I've cited in previous posts along with others I've no doubt overlooked or failed to mention.

On the other hand, if Nifong knew about the NTO at any time BEFORE it was signed, that’s huge for a number of reasons.

Here are two of them:

1) It means not only is Neff’s Apr. 2007 story bunk, but Nifong’s June 2007 testimony at his State Bar trial is false.



2) Since Neff cited Nifong's chief ADA David Saacks as a source for his copier “discovery” story;

and since Saacks has never as far as I know publicly disputed what Neff reported,

we have to ask whether Saacks in fact witnessed Nfiong’s “discovery” which Nifong may have staged to deceive Saacks as to his prior knowledge of the DL case;

or whether Saacks in fact told Neff a falsehood in order to cover-up the fact Nifong knew of the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed.

As I’ve said now in a number of posts, I have no doubt the copier “discovery” story is a cover story which at present is essential to helping sustain the ongoing cover-up of the frame-up attempt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

(more) :

The Duke undergrads were all reading about the case on Mar. 20 in The Chronicle. But Nifong didn't know?

Back in May 2006 outside the Durham County Courthouse, David Evans warned us we’d all been told “some fantastic lies.” He was right then.

If Evans came back to the courthouse today and said, “You’re all still being told some fantastic lies,” he’d be right now, too
.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

This thread has been a good refresher course on the details and theories included here!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

I have always doubted Nifong's copier story. My personal feeling is once the false accusation was made at DUMC. The DA's office would have been notified by the Sexual Assault Response Team almost immediately.

The DA in charge of sexual assaults would have been on top of it. Who is that? Tracy Cline. Why did Himan speak with her? It's her job.

It has been rumoured that the DA's Office was looking for a case for Nifong to prosecute to get some publicity. They got it alright.

I also believe Cy would have heard about it quickly.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sherp

I am sure the Nifong's heard the story as quickly as everyone else did. The case was well publicized from the get go in both the papers and TV news. Upon hearing the first report I and many others said "Never". Nifong lied as he lied about almost everything in this case with that little smirk on his face. Its not like it was not a news event.
I thought Nifong said he learned about the NTO at the copier.
Edited by Sherp, Feb 16 2010, 03:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

I am absolutely certain the copier story is a "bunch of crock."

Nifong has been caught in so many bold-faced lies. This is just another one of his bizarre tales.

It is clear that Nifong was continually scheming. The more important question is: what was the purpose of this particular lie?

By picking March 23, what was he trying to get out of responsibility for?

Of all the 20+ ethical violations that Nifong was found guilty of by the NC State Bar, what did it matter whether or not he knew about the allegations before March 23?

As much as Nifong publicly accused the defense, it was he who was the purveyor of fiction in this case.


Edited by MikeZPU, Feb 16 2010, 06:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
By picking March 23, what was he trying to get out of responsibility for?


Maybe the decision to reopen what was a petty theft case (in which btw Kim would have been the prime suspect)
and turn it into a rape case.

If he didn't learn about it until the NTO was already being sought, then it wasn't his decision, but Gottlieb's, and he could claim he was only relying on what the DPD and its officers were telling him. (Blame Gottlieb!)

OTOH, if he is trying afterwards to create evidence to support that scenario, then that suggests to me that in fact he did know prior to March 23, and was most likely involved in the decision to pursue rape charges, but is trying to cover himself and get ready to blame the police.

(JMOO. for discussion purposes only)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Quasimodo
Feb 16 2010, 05:35 PM
If he didn't learn about it until the NTO was already being sought, then it wasn't his decision, but Gottlieb's, and he could claim he was only relying on what the DPD and its officers were telling him. (Blame Gottlieb!)
I think you're right. In one of his earliest answers at the Bar Trial, Nifong stated defensively that he was
relying on information from "a police officer and a nurse." (He didn't say their names.)

Since the copier story was also part of Bar Trial testimony, it's possible that it was all part of
a "I was doing my job based on information from two highly trained professionals" strategy.


Edited by MikeZPU, Feb 16 2010, 07:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply