Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
13 issues for the Whichard Committee; the defense wanted explored
Topic Started: Oct 16 2010, 05:45 PM (162 Views)
Quasimodo

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/07/defense-thirteen.html

FRIDAY, JULY 20, 2007

The Defense Thirteen


The 13 issues identified by the defense attorneys as worth exploring for the Whichard Committee:

1. Who's in Charge?

2. Sergeant Shelton

3. Moez Elmostafa

4. The DPD Public Statements

5. Sergeant Gottlieb's Supplemental Case Notes

6. The DNA

7. The Search Warrant Affidavit

8. Jason Bissey

9. When Did They Plan the Cover-up

10. The False Accuser's Weekend

11, Her Work Schedule

12. Was She Drunk?

13. The "Identification" Process
Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 16 2010, 05:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Some things were left out.


Some things are curious ("The false accuser's weekend"; "her work schedule")

should we assume the attorneys were attempting to bring something to light?


Others are more vital ("When did they plan the cover-up?")


Of course, we already know from Whichard that "the ID session was not an ID session,
so # 13 ("The identification process") can be omitted...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Willis Whichard, the panel chairman and a former N.C. Supreme Court justice, said the police department's handling of the case had important implications for the justice system.

"Nothing less than civilization as we know it is at stake here," he said

(N&O, July 20, 2006)




I guess civilization lost...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/07/summarizing-day.html

FRIDAY, JULY 20, 2007

Summarizing the Day

Mayor Bell opens the committee inquiry--publicly thanks the committee members.

"You have the full support of the Durham City Council as you carry out your duties.
" The committee is charged with investigating the "conduct" of the DPD and of Mike Nifong.

The purpose is to ascertain the "truth" and to assist the department in avoiding similar problems in the future. If DPD performed correctly, then the Council wants to know that, too.

Chairman Whichard: purpose is to ascertain the "truth" about whether "unconstitutional or otherwise improper procedures" were followed. "The goal is a properly functioning justice system." Importance of producing reliable results and constitutional procedures, with goal of bringing "clarity" and "closure."

Wants people to know that policemen take risks--part of their jobs. "Deeply grateful" to what police do. But must also be mindful that "we have a Constitution. We have statutes." These impose "some restrictions" on enforcing the law. "It is essential to an orderly and just society that the public have confidence" in law enforcement.


:roflmao: :roflmao:

It gets funny once you understand it was intended to be a comedy in the first place... :SarC:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/08/whichard-committee-in-jeopardy.html

MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2007

Whichard Committee in Jeopardy?

ABC-11's Tamara Gibbs is reporting that a threat from the city's insurer to terminate the policy might lead to the suspension of the Whichard Committee, which was charged with investigating the DPD's mishandling of the lacrosse case.

Gibbs:
Sources tell Eyewitness News the insurance company, which would pay for a potential lawsuit settlement, threatened to suspend the city's policy if it didn't reconsider the Duke Lacrosse Investigative Committee. We're told the company sent its request by fax last Thursday. The city's policy would cover up to $5 million in the event of a lawsuit.

Of course, had the committee's inquiry not moved at such a glacial pace, this threat would be irrelevant.
Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 16 2010, 10:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

POSTER COMMENT from the site:
Quote:
 

At the risk of dislocating my own elbow patting myself on the back, this is what I posted on 05/25/07 at 6:49PM

If you want to talk about the Whichard committee, why don't you probe their schedule and why they haven't met?

Given the information we've read here about potential lawsuits against the City of Durham, do you think that has any bearing on the Committee's activities and schedule?

Do you think the City of Durham might have realized that by continuing to meet and uncover facts about the activities of the DPD, they're about to shoot themselves in the head, if not the foot?


The reason I posed those questions is because I think we could see this action of the City's Insurer coming ...


NOTE: If the city's actions were entirely defensible, what did the city have to fear from establishing those
actions for the record?

And why wouldn't the city (and its insurer) be eager to get into court where these issues could be decided,
rather than pursuing an expensive series of delays (presumably to be followed by expensive settlements)?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

POSTER COMMENT

Quote:
 
There are clauses in most liability policies that require the insured to cooperate with the insurer in case of a claim. Cooperation can be construed (easily construed in my opinion) as requiring the city to terminate the commission if the insurer believes it is in their interest to do so. Much depends on the language in the policy, which is probably accessible to the public in Durham. I would be interested in seeing a copy posted.

Having a city manager fire culpable employees now would be stupid to do on their part. It would be an admission of wrongdoing.


Are the (early--Titus is only 53) retirements of Stephens, Titus, and Hodge, then in effect "admissions of wrongdoing"?


(MOO)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

POSTER COMMENT :

Quote:
 
Insurance companies have all manner of their own type of "spooks" whom they employ from time to time. Sometimes they're called "Loss Prevention Specialists." These folks read English, look at satellite maps, and gather lots of information and data using various methods, just like real spooks.

They are on this case like white on rice right now, and I'd guess they're paying real close attention and reading a lot now, including this blog and local news, daily.

While this fact might come as a big shock to liberals, insurance companies are in business to NOT pay big claims.


How likely is it that the insurance companies are going to be willing to settle rather than go to trial?

How likely are Duke/Durham going to be willing to settle rather than go to trial?

But how likely are the insurance companies going to be willing to pay for Duke/Durham's settlements if they don't have to (because Duke/Durham violated the conditions of the policies?)

What's in the depositions in the suits between Duke and its insurers? Who was deposed, and about what?

And shouldn't the Duke stakeholders have the right to know WHY Duke's insurers are unwilling to pay
on policies which insured Duke against losses--losses which Duke itself is now going to have to make up?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply