| Shake up in Durham Police attorneys!; Baker, Toni Smith, Duke Lacrosse | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 18 2008, 01:32 AM (504 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Jun 18 2008, 01:32 AM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
. From Ray Gronberg / Herald-Sun... Toni Smith has chest deep in the Duke case and was in critical meetings pretty damn early in the case Baker plans transfer for 2 city lawyers By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun gronberg@heraldsun.com Jun 18, 2008 DURHAM -- City Manager Patrick Baker plans to reassign two lawyers who work in the Durham Police Department to the city attorney's office. The two police attorneys, Toni Smith and Arnetta Herring, now report to Police Chief Jose Lopez and are on the payroll to give legal advice to the chief and the department's officers and detectives. The impending move likely will mean they'll report to Baker instead, after City Manager-designate Tom Bonfield arrives later this summer and Baker takes over as city attorney. Baker said he would talk to Bonfield about the change before completing it. "I just want him to understand what we're doing," Baker said. "If he has concerns about it, we can address it with the council and make changes if need be." But the groundwork for the move is in place because the city's fiscal 2008-09 budget will shift the money allotted for Smith and Herring's salaries from the Police Department to the city attorney's office. Documents show that Mayor Bill Bell and City Councilman Farad Ali questioned the rationale for the move as council members were reviewing Baker's budget proposal. Baker answered that the police attorneys "need to report independent of the Police Department and [city manager's] administration," according to a "flagged item list" from the budget review. The city attorney in Durham and most other North Carolina towns works directly for the elected council, not the city manager. That means the manager has no hiring and firing authority over the attorney and his or her staff. Neither the transfer nor the announced rationale for it are unprecedented in North Carolina. Winston-Salem City Manager Lee Garrity ordered a similar shuffle in his city's organization last year in response to the findings of a report on the Winston-Salem Police Department's botched handling of the Darryl Hunt/Deborah Sykes murder case. Hunt spent almost 20 years in state prison after being falsely accused and eventually convicted of raping and killing Sykes, a newspaper copy editor. Eventually, DNA tests exonerated him and pointed to the guilt of another man. Winston-Salem officials have essentially conceded that a detective's inexperience and the poor supervision he received from his bosses contributed to Hunt's conviction. The supervisory reforms Garrity ordered last year included the reassignment of the Winston-Salem police force's lawyers, a move he said on Tuesday helped eliminate any "conflict about who their client is." But observers noted Tuesday that Durham's situation differs from Winston-Salem's. Baker's decision to alter the Durham police attorneys' chain of command comes as city officials try to fight off a trio of federal civil-rights lawsuits stemming from the Duke lacrosse case. Baker is a defendant in all three lawsuits. Smith was also a behind-the-scenes player in the early stages of the Durham police's spring 2006 investigation of what proved to be a stripper's false charges of rape. The former Police Department sergeant who supervised the lacrosse investigation, Mark Gottlieb, said in his case notes that Smith advised detectives to follow orders coming from former District Attorney Mike Nifong's office. Smith also attended at least one key meeting with the detectives, Baker and former Police Chief Steve Chalmers to discuss the investigation's progress. A local lawyer and frequent critic of the Police Department, Alex Charns, said attorneys for the Duke lacrosse players now suing the city are likely to probe the rationale for the change if the city fails to get the lawsuits dismissed. Charns said there were problems under other Durham city managers and police chiefs because there "was a perception the police attorney or the police attorneys were the personal attorneys of the police chief." That belief "led to officers and staff at the Police Department not necessarily trusting the police attorney when there was discord or problems within the department," he said. Altering the chain of command for the police attorneys could eliminate that worry, but given the current lawsuits it also could "lead to perceptions that there's a movement to get all the ducks in a row," Charns said. Charns added that he's reserving judgment. "In Durham, changes that seem like they'd be a step forward don't always work that way in practice," he said. "I hope it improves things over at the department, but after practicing here for 25 years and litigating with the city, I'll wait and see." Asked about the lacrosse tie-in, Baker said "the people that think that are going to think it anyway" and added that officials started debating the merits of the change during former City Manager Lamont Ewell's administration. Ewell favored assigning the police lawyers to the city attorney's office, but former City Attorney Henry Blinder preferred leaving them under the police chief, Baker said. http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-959881.cfm? |
 
|
|
| Tidbits | Jun 18 2008, 01:47 AM Post #2 |
|
Baker gives Baker power over key witnesses in the trial of charges against Baker. |
 |
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 18 2008, 08:28 AM Post #3 |
|
And the new city manager will not be able to fire the two attorneys; only Baker can do that.
Likely indeed.
Yep.
Some people aren't likely to reserve judgment. . .
Smart move.
I can't imagine why they would think that. First Baker is moved to the city attorney office, and then two DPD lawyers are placed there under his control, where they can't be fired by the incoming city manager. But it has nothing to do with the lax case. [where's that sarcasm smiley when I need it?] |
|
|
|
| Bill Anderson | Jun 18 2008, 09:49 AM Post #4 |
|
The cover-up continues. Interestingly, they commit their crimes in broad daylight, knowing that they are immune.
|
|
|
|
| Acc Esq | Jun 18 2008, 11:28 AM Post #5 |
|
This raises a few unanswered questions I have always had. I knew one of the lawyers who defended the City of Winston Salem and the Police Deptin the civil suit that supposedly led to the reforms. All these reforms were based on a summary judgment entered by the trial court. What perplexes me, however, is that it is my understanding that the summary judgment was subsequently overturned on appeal and the full trial resulted in a finding of no liability. That would be another reason why W-S is not comparable to the Durham reorganization. |
|
|
|
| chatham | Jun 18 2008, 11:48 AM Post #6 |
|
They don't really have any other choice now, do they? |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jun 18 2008, 12:00 PM Post #7 |
|
As usually the Blog Hooligans can smell a rat right out of the door. IMHO Baker is up to his ass in the Hoax/Frame. TS has long commented about the relationship between Baker & Gottlieb. I believe pressure was applied on Baker, Bell, and the PD to not close Inv Jones Investigation. It may have come from Gottlieb, & local NAACP-Community activists inside and outside Govt. I am sure there is more we don't know. But I do have a hunch it was more Baker's reacting to pressure and Gottlieb may have been just a more than willing "plumber!" It really answers the question why Gottlieb & Himan were allow to stay on this case despite more experienced and independent investigators who were at Durham PD HQ. Who BTW were long rumoured to believe this was false. Also why would Capt Lamb tell Gottlieb & Himan to report directly to Nifong. The fix was end before they briefed Nifong on March 27th. Bring everybody in close. Protect under Baker's authority as City Attorney. Under no case allow depositions. Try every trick in the book. They are in deep doo doo and they know it. Edited by Baldo, Jun 18 2008, 12:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
| maggief | Jun 18 2008, 12:26 PM Post #8 |
|
Bar hearing solidifies push for city probe Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - June 19, 2007 Author: RAY GRONBERG A detective's testimony in the hearing that produced District Attorney Mike Nifong's disbarment has City Council members saying they're even more convinced an investigation of the Durham Police Department is necessary. The detective, Ben Himan, told an N.C. State Bar disciplinary committee that investigators and Nifong knew two weeks into the Duke lacrosse case that the accuser had given police contradictory accounts about what had transpired. The discrepancies were so serious that Nifong responded to his initial briefing by detectives with the words, "You know we're f-----," said Himan, who also testified that he'd later voiced skepticism about the case when told Nifong would seek indictments. Himan's testimony undercut comments Police Chief Steve Chalmers made to The Herald-Sun last month after the City Council ordered an inquiry into the department's handling of the case. Chalmers claimed the accuser's story had been consistent before Nifong sought grand-jury indictments of since-exonerated players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. The obvious contradiction didn't escape council members. "The questions that came out of Investigator Himan's testimony last week reinforced the necessity for having a third-party investigation," Councilman Mike Woodard said. "Obviously, there was either miscommunication or no communication, or tacit approval from someone to go forward," Councilman Eugene Brown added. "And that's one of the reasons we're having this independent investigation." The investigation, chaired by former N.C. Supreme Court Justice Willis Whichard, could begin next week. Council members on Monday settled a key detail, making it clear the committee will be able to subpoena witnesses. They agreed to exercise their authority to compel testimony if the investigators need it. City Attorney Henry Blinder also advised the council Monday that the committee, which is supposed to meet in public, has to be careful not to violate the state's personnel-privacy laws. The committee should focus on "broader operational and criminal-procedure issues," not on "individual employee performance or [recommending] any disciplinary actions against individual employees," Blinder said. Also on the personnel front, council members acknowledged that last week's hearing could influence City Manager Patrick Baker's pending decision on a replacement for Chalmers, who's retiring. Baker has said he wants the new chief on board by mid-August. He is considering three finalists: Durham Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge, Hartford, Conn., Assistant Police Chief Jose Lopez, and Knoxville, Tenn., Deputy Police Chief Don Green. Any weighing of the lacrosse case could damage Hodge's chances. The case notes of Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Himan's supervisor, indicate that higher-ups in the department twice told detectives to follow directions coming from Nifong's office. The first such order came on March 22, 2006, from Police Attorney Toni Smith as Gottlieb and Himan were preparing a court order that compelled lacrosse players to submit DNA samples. The second came on March 24, 2006, from Capt. Jeff Lamb, commander of the operating district the investigators worked in. The police attorney's office answers directly to Chalmers, and Lamb's chain of command runs to the chief through Hodge. (snip) Baker added as defendant in lacrosse lawsuit - Complaint alleges city manager conspired to levy false charges Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - December 12, 2007 Author: RAY GRONBERG DURHAM -- Attorneys for three former Duke lacrosse players filed new court papers Tuesday to add City Manager Patrick Baker to the list of defendants in the players' federal civil-rights lawsuit against the city. The amended complaint alleges that Baker was among the city officials who conspired last year to levy false charges of rape against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. Lawyers for the players singled out Baker's participation in two meetings that occurred on March 29, 2006, two days before detectives and former District Attorney Mike Nifong planned an against-policy photo lineup that enabled the players' indictment. The first of the meetings occurred the morning of March 29 and involved Baker, Mayor Bill Bell, former Police Chief Steve Chalmers, Senior Assistant to the City Manager Reginald Johnson and lacrosse case lead detective Ben Himan. The follow-up session occurred the afternoon of March 29 and included Baker, Chalmers, Himan, Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge, supervising detective Mark Gottlieb, police attorney Toni Smith and a group of officials from Duke University. Lawyers allege that the two meetings gave senior officials an avenue to pressure the detectives to make quick arrests in the case, regardless of evidence that was by then pointing toward the players' innocence. Quick arrests were supposed "to satisfy a Durham community that had been misled by ... false and inflammatory Nifong statements and Durham police statements into believing that three white Duke lacrosse players had committed a violent and racially motivated gang rape," the amended complaint said. The complaint lumped Baker in with Chalmers, Hodge and several other Durham Police Department commanders who are alleged to have put pressure on detectives, or to have failed to supervise them properly. The players are suing them not just as city officials, but as individuals who are personally liable for what occurred. (snip) Assistant DA gets harassing messages - Cline denies callers' claims of her role in lacrosse case Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - January 10, 2008 Author: RAY GRONBERG DURHAM -- Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline says callers have targeted her with racist hate messages after she was identified -- incorrectly, she maintains -- with a key document in the since-debunked Duke lacrosse rape case. "It's really nasty people," Cline said of the anonymous phone callers. The content, she added, is "racist stuff." She quoted one caller as saying "How's your black a-- going to run for DA?" because of a document that local defense lawyers maintained was unconstitutional. "It's really distressing me," Cline said of the hate calls, which she said are jamming her voice mail. "I'm just stressed out." At the heart of the matter is material taken from the notes of lacrosse case lead detective Ben Himan, and notes and a deposition from Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb. They referred to Cline's role in the creation of a non-testimonial order, or NTO, that allowed police to take photographs of and collect DNA evidence from 46 of the 47 members of the Duke lacrosse team. Cline denied that she had any role in writing the order. "The record will indicate that David Saacks did it," she said. Saacks is the interim district attorney but was an assistant DA at that time. "I didn't prepare any paperwork on that case. Nothing at all. I've never even seen or laid hands on a non-testimonial order." She said, "I remember Gottlieb asked me about a non-testimonial order, and I told him I was not available." But when asked by The Herald-Sun whether she'd asked police to draft the non-testimonial order, Cline responded, "I don't recall." Himan's notes and Gottlieb's deposition indicate that police consulted Cline on March 22, 2006, after they learned players, on the advice of attorneys, wouldn't show up that day for a scheduled meeting with investigators. As soon as that was clear, Himan contacted Cline, who handled most sexual-assault cases for the district attorney's office. Himan -- who turned over his notes to defense lawyers in May of 2006 -- reported that the conversation took place at about 4:15 p.m. He said Cline urged police to secure the order. "I went to Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline and spoke to her about our case," Himan said, summarizing what happened. "She stated that we should do the non-testimonial on the players including upper-torso pictures, current mug shots and cheek swabbings." Gottlieb's notes -- turned over to the defense in July of 2006 -- backed Himan's account. "I spoke to [Police Attorney] Toni Smith and notified her that Investigator Himan spoke with ADA Tracey Cline. Ms. Cline asked them to draw up the NTO so the DA's office could present it to a judge in the morning. [ Smith ] stated follow the directions of the DA's office since they are the ones conducting the possible future prosecution." The sergeant's deposition -- given to N.C. State Bar investigators as they assembled evidence for then-District Attorney Mike Nifong's eventual disbarment -- echoed his notes. "I had actually spoke with Ms. Smith and Investigator Himan spoke with the District Attorney's office, Ms. Cline, and they decided to -- the district attorney's office thought it was a good idea [--] to go ahead and do a non-testimonial, and I assisted Investigator Himan in preparing it," Gottlieb told bar investigators. (snip) |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 18 2008, 12:46 PM Post #9 |
|
Bar hearing solidifies push for city probe Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - June 19, 2007 Author: RAY GRONBERG The detective, Ben Himan, told an N.C. State Bar disciplinary committee that investigators and Nifong knew two weeks into the Duke lacrosse case that the accuser had given police contradictory accounts about what had transpired. The discrepancies were so serious that Nifong responded to his initial briefing by detectives with the words, "You know we're f-----," said Himan, who also testified that he'd later voiced skepticism about the case when told Nifong would seek indictments. Himan's testimony undercut comments Police Chief Steve Chalmers made to The Herald-Sun last month after the City Council ordered an inquiry into the department's handling of the case. Chalmers claimed the accuser's story had been consistent before Nifong sought grand-jury indictments of since-exonerated players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. [Did the media ever press Chalmers about his comments? No? The media were not interested in why a police chief during the biggest case in his department's history should be absent on full salary for a year? Don't the media in Durham ever ask hard questions of anyone in the city government? Maybe it's the custom to just accept everything, no matter how bizarre--such as a police chief's absence--at face value? Is that how we ended up with a year-long lax prosecution despite the defendants being proved innocent even before any indictments were brought? How much did this fiasco cost Durham? ] The obvious contradiction didn't escape council members. "The questions that came out of Investigator Himan's testimony last week reinforced the necessity for having a third-party investigation," Councilman Mike Woodard said. [So what happened to the Whichard Commission? Or couldn't the Council itself call its employees in--sworn DPD officers--and ask them what happened? Can it call the police chief in and ask him about the discrepancy? ] "Obviously, there was either miscommunication or no communication, or tacit approval from someone to go forward," Councilman Eugene Brown added. "And that's one of the reasons we're having this independent investigation." The investigation, chaired by former N.C. Supreme Court Justice Willis Whichard, could begin next week. [It could end abruptly, too, after one session and a few 'private' meetings of Whichard with himself.] Council members on Monday settled a key detail, making it clear the committee will be able to subpoena witnesses. They agreed to exercise their authority to compel testimony if the investigators need it. [Sounds nice, but it was all just smoke and mirrors, apparently. The people of Durham should find out how much was spent on this charade and demand a refund.] Baker added as defendant in lacrosse lawsuit - Complaint alleges city manager conspired to levy false charges Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - December 12, 2007 Author: RAY GRONBERG The follow-up session occurred the afternoon of March 29 and included Baker, Chalmers, Himan, Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge, supervising detective Mark Gottlieb, police attorney Toni Smith and a group of officials from Duke University. [By this time it was known that there was no DNA match. Ergo, there was no case. Who were the Duke university officials; what did they know; when did they know it; and what course of action did they endorse? Everyone in the Duke family--alumni, faculty, students--ought to be interested in the answers to those questions. Do even the Trustees want to ask these questions? ] |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jun 18 2008, 12:53 PM Post #10 |
|
Great work again Maggief. It is hard to understate the importance of those two meetings. In reality everyone who attended those meetings knew the charges were almost impossible to believe. The SBI preliminary results were not in essence preliminary. They were info-ed there would be no further tests between Crystal's swabs and any Lacrosse Player. It was a definite fact and later as the DNASI results came out there never was. Baker, Smith, and any other attorney along with the PD from Durham & Duke knew exactly what those results meant. No Case. If anyone had any integrity or courage they would have said stop this witch hunt immediately! A couple of points... All those in attendance withheld that data from the general public. Imagine the difference if people knew there would be no matches. The case would have collapsed immediately. Crsytal's true profession would have been revealed. The egg on people's faces would have been outrageous. Many had already gone on record with the young college mother of two routine. The Prism of Race, Class, and Gender would have been destroyed. But I still suspect something more sinister was at play. I have no idea what cause so many officials to wash their hands and allow this case to move forward. But the biggest lie is that it was the "Lone Roguer!" |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jun 18 2008, 12:58 PM Post #11 |
|
Deleted User
|
. Tomorrow that article will be a year ago to the day. All they have done is backpedal and obfuscate in that year. Whichard, Eugene Brown and the lot of them have no integrity whatsoever. Either the law means something to you - or it doesn't. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jun 18 2008, 12:59 PM Post #12 |
|
Police Chief Chalmer's missing from action in this case is a mystery. I do not know the real reason. It was stated his Mom was ill. That very well may have been true. However this was the biggest case in Durham's history. Don't ya think he would have said get my best and brightest Investigators on the case? That would have taken a few minutes phone call. Instead he went missing from this case for the longest time as Quasi said. Then he defended it when clearly it was a Hoax as did Deputy Chief Hodge after the Dec 15th DNASI revelation. Also why would Hodge defend the case on April 11th at NCCU when he had to know it was a Hoax? They must be covering up something. It doesn't pass the smell test. Edited by Baldo, Jun 18 2008, 01:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Jun 18 2008, 02:28 PM Post #13 |
|
There is more than one cover up going on here. The big one is the rape hoax. The smaller one is the cover up for Chalmers' disappearing act. On the latter, we have no clue why the coverup. By then, Chalmers was protecting his department, just as they had protected him. The blue wall, if you will. Either Hodge was and is totally out of touch with reality, or he was hip deep in the hoax. I agree. At the very least, the DPD is trying cover up its own poor performance. Walt-in-Durham |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
4:00 PM Nov 8
