| More Durham curiosities; from the suits | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 1 2010, 09:07 AM (419 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Mar 1 2010, 09:07 AM Post #1 |
|
April 12, 2006: Nifong Sought Sealed Indictments to Further Stigmatize the Plaintiffs The day after Nifong’s angry reception at the NCCU Forum, Nifong prepared a motion requesting a court order sealing the indictments of Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann until the Durham Police are able to apprehend and arrest them. Nifong's motion claimed that sealed indictments were required in this case, on the grounds that Seligmann and Finnerty were flight risks. Nifong's actual motive in securing the order sealing the indictments of Seligmann and Finnerty was simply to abuse the indictment process as a means to orchestrate a nationally televised "perp walk," to serve his electoral interest in the mass of outraged voters that he feared he would lose if he did not arrest somebody. Just as Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan had abused the NTID Order, Nifong, Baker, Gottlieb, and Himan intended to create video footage of Seligmann and Finnerty walking to police cruisers in handcuffs across Duke’s campus main campus. [If they had been flight risks, then why weren't their passports confiscated after they were given bail?] |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 1 2010, 09:08 AM Post #2 |
|
At the NCCU forum, on April 11, Nifong argued with Victoria Peterson and when she said her information was that Crystal had already ID'd her attackers - Nifong bluntly told her she was wrong. But Nifong knew that the suspects had been identified on April 4. What did Victoria know, and when did she know it, and how? (Was she in contact with Crystal?) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 1 2010, 09:10 AM Post #3 |
|
On April 13, 2006, in the mid-morning hours, someone sent an email through Breck Archer’s “duke.edu” email account. The email stated, “I am going to go to the police tomorrow to tell them everything that I know.” Breck never sent the foregoing email to his teammates, nor did he authorize anyone to send any email through his account for any reason. [Why did they choose his email? Was it random? Didn't they likely have access to all the players' email accounts? Or were they still considering making him the possible third suspect?] |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 1 2010, 09:19 AM Post #4 |
|
Gottlieb and Himan, Aided by the Duke Police Department, Enter Dorms to Obtain Information from Represented Lacrosse Players On April 13th, Duke Police Officers assisted Himan and Gottlieb in gaining access to locked dorms where most of the sophomore team members lived. Their purpose was to interrogate those they found there to develop evidence that Seligmann and Finnerty were actually present at the party before the two would encourage a Grand Jury to indict them. They feared that the already planned indictments of Seligmann and Finnerty would be followed by a defense press conference revealing that one or both of them were not and could not have been at the party at the relevant time. [IOW, they didn't even know if they had been at the party--but they were going to indict them anyway? ] When the officers finally cornered team members in their dorms, they did not demand to know what happened at the party, or ask for any detail or evidence they may have. Gottlieb and Himan only asked who was (and was not) present at the party. [If they really believed a rape had taken place, why wouldn't they have asked questions? Would it seem, from this failure, that they weren't really interested in investigating a rape charge itself?] Duke Facilitated and Condoned the Investigators’ Warrantless Entry into the Dorms and the Custodial Interrogation of Represented Team Members Duke Police facilitated Himan’s and Gottlieb’s entry into one of the dorms, and then left them there to sneak into other dorm buildings. When news broke of the police misconduct at the dorms on April 13th, Defendant Graves quickly and publicly condoned it by issuing the following press release in his official capacity as the Associate Vice President for Campus Safety and Security: “Two Durham police detectives visited a residence hall on the Duke University campus yesterday evening. They were there as part of the ongoing police investigation of the March 13 incident on North Buchanan Boulevard, and they notified the Duke Police Department ahead of time. The purpose of the visit was to conduct interviews. We do not know who they interviewed during the hour and 15 minutes they were in the Edens Residence Hall. Duke reiterates its earlier statements that it is cooperating fully with the police investigation and urges anyone with information pertinent to the events of March 13 to cooperate with the authorities." Consistent with Addison, Gottlieb, and other Defendants in this action, Defendant Graves failed to use the qualifier, “alleged” when referring to the “March 13 incident on North Buchanan Boulevard.” |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 1 2010, 09:28 AM Post #5 |
|
(hat tip: Baldo) What did Himan and Gottlieb tell the Grand Jury? 1) There was no DNA found by SBI and they knew it on March 29? 2) Did they say Kim said she was with Crystal for all but 5 minutes and it was "Crock?" 3) The DNASI YSTR backed up those SBI Results and they found multiple Non Lax DNA and NO Lax DNA? 4) The SANE exam kit did not make any conclusion of rape? 5) The SANE exam shown no major injuries, just two small scratches on her knee and heel? 6) Crystal admitted to being really drunk to the Drs at UNC on March 15th so she was drinking & taking Flexeril? 7) Crystal failed to ID any player in two previous ID attempts? 8) The 4 April ID was off line-up Procedures and violated City DPD standards? 9) Dr Manly did not complete the SANE kit because Crystal refused to continue? 10) Dr. Manly conducted the exam but did not sign it and Levicy was not authorized to conducted the exam? 11) Crystal pointed out a person in the IDs who were not at the party? 12) The DA had refused to see exculpatory evidence from the Defense attorneys? If not, why not? |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Mar 1 2010, 12:57 PM Post #6 |
|
That's very telling: they only asked about who was present at the party. Boy, the DPD sure had a lot of confidence in Mangum's ID's from the rigged ppt line-up ![]() Think about that: Mangum's "ID" was the only "evidence" that they had (as admitted by Baker in the Baker/Chalmers Report) and clearly the DPD had no confidence in their only "evidence." And, yet, they still got indictments. You can't make this stuff up. Edited by MikeZPU, Mar 1 2010, 12:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |








7:14 PM Jul 10