Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Duke knew March 14th -- at once--; that there was no case
Topic Started: Mar 1 2010, 08:04 PM (392 Views)
Quasimodo

(from the Eckstrand suit) :

Duke Police Department Initiates Its Investigation

Duke Police and Durham Police execute the Case
Transfer Protocol


When the transfer protocol was initiated, the Officer in Charge (“OIC”) at DUMC, Duke Officer William Mazurek, responded to the E.D. He found Mangum being examined there by DUMC medical staff. From his observations of Mangum’s interactions with nurses, doctors, and police, OIC Mazurek’s impression was that Mangum was “faking.” Pursuant to protocol, OIC Mazurek contacted his supervisor, Defendant Best.

Duke Police Officer Sara Beth Falcon was also stationed at DUMC when Mangum’s rape claim was transferred to Duke Police. Pursuant to protocol, Officer Falcon, the only female Duke Police Officer present, was directed to assist Mangum. As she was assisting Mangum, Officer Falcon watched as at least four Duke Police Officers and “all of the supervisors” meet on the loading dock of the E.D. to be briefed by Durham Police on the case, pursuant to the transfer protocol.

[Note that the Durham police were handing off the case to Duke police.]

At or around 3:08 a.m., after arriving at DUMC to coordinate the Duke Police investigation, pursuant to protocol, Defendant Best was advised by OIC Mazurek that the complaining witness was in the E.D., and claimed that she had been sexually assaulted at 610 N. Buchanan, during a “frat Party.” The “bachelor party” Mangum reported earlier was now a “frat party.”

Officer Falcon observed Defendant James Schwab, Duke Police Major, at the E.D. loading dock. In addition to Defendant Best, Schwab was present to oversee the coordination of the investigation by Duke Police.

(snip)

While at the E.D., Officer Day took a full report of the findings of the Durham Police investigation up to that point.

Among other things, Durham Police related to Duke Police:


Mangum was picked up by Durham Police at the Kroger on Hillsborough Road, where her behavior was at first bizarre and then alarming; and involuntary commitment proceedings were underway when Mangum nodded yes, when asked if she was raped;

Mangum claimed she was raped by approximately 20 males at a bachelor party;

Mangum had already given several conflicting accounts in interviews with doctors, nurses, and Durham Police, and recanted the claim when questioned by Sgt. Shelton;

Durham Police decided that the rape investigation should not be pursued any
further, leaving open only the possibility of misdemeanors arising out of
Mangum’s claim that Pittman stole her money, ID, cell phone, and purse;
and

E. Duke Police did not file charges based on the reports from the Durham officers.

Defendant Best was advised that the 911 call reporting a racial epithet at 610 N. Buchanan was a ruse made by Mangum’s cohort, Pittman, and, that the professionals who interacted with Mangum earlier did not believe her rape claim.

[If the Durham police believed that the call reporting a racial epithet was a ruse, then why was so much made of it later by the DA? It was this call, which was the basis for Brodhead's "apology", as well. Did he know it was a "ruse"?]

Some, but not all, of these findings were included in Officer Day’s written report, submitted the same morning, and reviewed and approved by Duke Police Supervising Defendants Dean and Best, and Duke Police Investigator Defendant Gary N. Smith, the same day, March 14, 2006.

On March 14, 2006, Defendant Robert Dean, Director and Chief of the Duke Police Department, notified Defendant Wasiolek, Assistant Dean of Students, of Mangum’s allegations. Wasiolek, in turn, immediately contacted the lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, the Director of Athletics, Joe Alleva, Associate Athletics Director, Dr. Chris Kennedy, Defendant Moneta, Vice President of Student Affairs, and Defendant Trask, the University’s Executive Vice President.

Consistent with Officer Day’s summary of the Duke and Durham Police encounters with Mangum, the Duke Senior Administrators and Officials were advised that Mangum “kept changing her story and was not credible.” This synopsis was derived directly from the transition report written by Officer Day.

[After police tell you that an accuser's story is not credible and that she keeps on changing her story, why is she given the benefit of credence later? Brodhead might not have known ALL the facts; but he knew THIS fact: that she kept changing her story, and that the DURHAM police, as well as the Duke police, did not finder her credible.]


Officer Day’s report was an accurate synopsis of the Durham Police Officers’ reports he obtained that night.

However, weeks later, Defendant Brodhead commissioned a report by William G. Bowen and Julius Chambers to review his own handling of the case. Bowen and Chambers did not know that the Duke Police Department’s initial response and investigation during the early morning hours of March 14, 2006 were facts that had been buried.

To support their thesis that Brodhead’s poor initial
response was caused by the lack of good information early on, Bowen and Chambers pointed to Officer Day’s report as an example of the poor police work that misled Brodhead into believing an aggressive response was not required early on.

When Bowen and Chambers’ report revealed the existence of Officer Day’s report and what it said, the media began asking a barrage of questions about Day’s report and why he was involved in the investigation.

Duke Police and Durham Police agreed to misrepresent what transpired on the loading dock of the E.D. and told reporters that Officer Day was “eavesdropping” on Durham Police conversations, and had no place in the investigation.

Defendant Patrick Baker, Durham’s City Manager, orchestrated the agreement and the ensuing media campaign to mislead the public about the Duke Police Department’s role in the case. Defendants Baker, Graves, Dean, and Burness all participated in the media campaign to impeach Officer’s Day’s Report. Graves and Dean even held a press conference for that purpose.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

So in order to continue the frame, it was necessary also for Duke and Durham to smear both Officer Day (whose "poor police work MISLED Brodhead")

and officer Shelton.

(That's two more who ought to be suing the city and the university.)

As well, if Brodhead's defense of his early "inaction" is to be that he was "misled" by poor police work...then that demonstrates that he was indeed told of at least much of the substance of Officer Day's report--that Mangum was not credible. And that he must have believed it (since at first he took no action).

So, what made him change his mind later, and decide that Mangum was credible? What evidence emerged to get him to change his mind?

If there was no such evidence forthcoming, and yet he changed his course, and was willing not only to apologize for non-existent racial slurs, but also to believe that the rape charges needed to be heard in court where the accused could "prove their innocence"...

what was the basis for this change in response?

(Inquiring minds want to know...)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

(REPRISE : Once again, the files of the TORTMASTER are temporarily opened; and the following is again made available briefly for examination. )

So Shines a Good Deed in a Weary World
« on: June 29, 2007, 01:19:45 AM »

"So Shines a Good Deed in a Weary World" -- Willy Wonka

There were so many who were actively evil within the Durham Police Department and the office of district attorney. Then, there were the passively evil, those who would allow injustice to occur without comment. One man did not fit either description.

SGT. J.C. SHELTON.
In the very early morning hours of March 14, 2006, Officer Shelton arrived at the Kroger's store and used common sense to tackle a routine police call. He reported what he saw and what he heard. He attempted to resolve the situation in the best possible way. What was his reward?

MIKE NIFONG. In his deposition, Nifong described Sgt. Shelton as having an improper attitude when dealing with rape victims. This comes from a man who admitted that, as of the date of his deposition (May 17, 2007), he still had not read Sgt. J.C. Shelton's police report. Yet, Nifong could somehow say that this police officer did not "appreciate that this [the fake rape] was a very serious situation." Nifong wasn't the only thorn in the side of Officer Shelton.

MARK GOTTLIEB. Gottlieb also complained about Officer Shelton in his deposition. He said that there was an officer in the department who was raising a hue and cry about Mangum and telling everyone about what happened on the night of the Hoax. This was an obvious attempt to paint Shelton as unprofessional. The lead investigator in "Ben's Case" went out of his way to complain about Shelton in his deposition. But, Gottlieb wasn't the only person who saw Shelton as a problem.

LINWOOD WILSON. In an apparent attempt to silence him, or alter his story, Linwood was dispatched to "interview" Sgt. Shelton about what he saw and heard on March 14, 2006. Wilson also claimed that this officer was making too much noise in the department. The pressure didn't just come from the district attorney's office and the police department, though, it also came from City Hall.

PATRICK BAKER. As the City Manager for Durham, Baker took a keen interest in the goings-on in the Duke Hoax. He was quoted as saying in a local paper: "I've had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate the accuser changed her story. If that were true, I'm sure someone would have mentioned it to me." That is a lot of pressure for a police sergeant, especially one who had noted multiple "changes" in the accuser's "story."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

(From the TORTMASTER, cont.)

Instead of caving into the pressure, Sgt. J.C. Shelton stuck to his story. When he finally came out with his written police report, it was not manipulated based upon what others wanted him to say. No, it reported what he saw, heard and did that morning. Some highlights:

1. “I [Sgt. Shelton] got an ammonia capsule from my patrol car. When I used it, the female began mouth-breathing which is a sign that she was not really unconscious.”

2. “Some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her.”

3. “She told me that no one forced her to have sex.


4. Sgt. Shelton let his Watch Commander know that Precious “had recanted her rape allegation.”

5. “Within a few minutes, I was told that she told the SANE doctor that she had been raped.”

6. Sgt. Shelton returned to ask Precious “if she had or had not been raped….She did not want to talk to me anymore….”


Not only did Sgt. Shelton honestly and correctly report as any police officer should, he also failed to bend to pressures from every side. In fact, by all accounts he railed against what was happening to his police department. Something inside this man would not allow the dishonesty to continue.

It is almost ironic that the pettiness of Gottlieb, Nifong and Wilson, in decrying the officer in their depositions, really only shined a light on his bravery, honesty and good deeds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darby

Quasimodo
Mar 1 2010, 08:10 PM
So in order to continue the frame, it was necessary also for Duke and Durham to smear both Officer Day (whose "poor police work MISLED Brodhead")

and officer Shelton.

(That's two more who ought to be suing the city and the university.)

As well, if Brodhead's defense of his early "inaction" is to be that he was "misled" by poor police work...then that demonstrates that he was indeed told of at least much of the substance of Officer Day's report--that Mangum was not credible. And that he must have believed it (since at first he took no action).

So, what made him change his mind later, and decide that Mangum was credible? What evidence emerged to get him to change his mind?

If there was no such evidence forthcoming, and yet he changed his course, and was willing not only to apologize for non-existent racial slurs, but also to believe that the rape charges needed to be heard in court where the accused could "prove their innocence"...

what was the basis for this change in response?

(Inquiring minds want to know...)

The only logical answer to this question in my mind is the Duke Crisis Management Team. They were notified very, very early on in the case.

The evidence leads me to believe the point man of this whole debacle was not the milquetoast Brodhead but the Duke Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Robert "they can fix it on appeal" Steel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

darby
Mar 3 2010, 08:35 AM

The only logical answer to this question in my mind is the Duke Crisis Management Team. They were notified very, very early on in the case.

The evidence leads me to believe the point man of this whole debacle was not the milquetoast Brodhead but the Duke Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Robert "they can fix it on appeal" Steel.
I think you are absolutely right. I think Steel sprung into action to protect the Duke brand (of course, his actions served to severely damage the Duke brand.)

One thing I am sure of is that in those emergency meetings that Mayor Bell convened, there's no way in hell that Nifong and Gottlieb
were honest about the evidence (or total lack thereof)

I am sure that they lobbed verbal bombs about the LAX players to spark outrage. I am sure they played up the 911 call by Kim as evidence of rampant racism on the LAX team,
and then stated as gospel Mangum's claims in her statement that while they were assaulting her, they chanted "f__k the n____r b___h"

I am sure that they made heavy use of the DUMC SANE nurse's conclusions that there had been a sexual assault.

I am sure that McFayden's email was presented by Nifong and Gottlieb as strong evidence of guilt.

I am sure they continued the lie that the boys were not cooperating. I am sure that they claimed that their refusal to cooperate -- that they got lawyered up -- was strong evidence of guilt.

And Nifong's favorite: the fact that everyone from the party scattered away so quickly -- now that's strong evidence of guilt!

I am sure that they totally mislead everyone on the evidence, grossly exaggerating whatever supposed "evidence" they had.

Remember what Hodges said at the NCCU Forum: "We wouldn't be here if the evidence wasn't strong."

We are not dealing with very intelligent people here. They were easily snookered by Nifong and Gottlieb.

Edited by MikeZPU, Mar 3 2010, 11:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply