Quote:

 

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/10/but-if-addsion.html

Oct. 8, 2007

We know it's good to ask sensible questions.

I thought about that a while ago when I read Scott’s comment which came in on the thread of "Suit filing & DPD Cpl. Addison (Post 1)"

To best understand what follows, you should be familiar with that post and the five Addison Series posts which I link to in it.

Now with Scott's comment in italics and my responses in plain; and allowing that during a busy work day I won’t provide links, but will post soon on everything I say here and at that time provide links, let’s begin.

From Scott:

What is confusing to me goes back to your earlier posts concerning [statements by DPD Cpl. David Addison’s supervisor, DPD Maj. Lee Russ, and Durham City Manager Patrick Baker ] that DPD and the City of Durham bear no responsibility for the Wanted Poster issued by Addison. They both claimed the Wanted Poster was a Crime Stoppers operation and Crime Stoppers is totally independent of the DPD, even though Addison is a DPD officer and draws a City of Durham (DPD) pay check.

Scott is referring to posts I published beginning last May. He’s done a nice job of highlighting some of what I was told and reported.

And there’s much more Scott could have said about claims made by Russ, Baker and others such as Duke’s Police Director, Robert Dean, who at the time the CS Wanted poster was produced was not only Duke’s Police Director but the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Durham CrimeStoppers.

Be sure to read those Addison Series posts and keep checking in here for more about Addison, Russ, Dean, Duke and many others, including Durham’s new top-flight justice fighters, Brendan Sullivan and Barry Scheck, the lead attorneys representing David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

[note: Brendan who and Barry who? Have they been involved with this case?]

If that is the case, how come Russ ordered Addison on April 10, 2006, to change some wording in the poster, not once but twice within the space of less than an hour, and Addison complied?

Russ directed Addison to make changes three times and over the course of some hours.

That aside, Scott’s question is a smart one. By directing Addison to change the CS Wanted poster and by Addison’s prompt change each time, didn’t all that indicate that Addison was answerable to DPD for what he was doing with the CS Wanted poster? And wasn’t DPD Maj. Russ “supervising” Addison?

Attorneys Schenk and Sullivan will surely ask those questions and others like them.

[They will? ]

The DPD/Durham City defense will likely be that Addison was acting in his capacity as CS Coordinator and Russ was merely suggesting changes, much the way police officers often make suggestions to citizens who are working to help them.

I plan to post further on this line of defense once I've had a chance to update material I have and hopefully interview some of those involved.

Where I work, if I issue a memo and someone who has "no responsibility" for it (from a supervisory point of view) tells me to change some wording, I would tell him or her to go pound sand (politely, of course).

That’s right, Scott. And won’t it be interesting to hear what the DPD Supervisors, Baker and [Durham Mayor Bill] Bell have to say about all that and more.

A police officer can do a lot of plausible denying about what h/she knew or didn’t know about, say, a DNA report or what the officer talked about with the DA and the other officer during the 40 to 50 minute car trip from Durham to DNA Security’s lab in Burlington, (“Well, the one thing I remember for sure about that trip is as we passed a Bojangles, Investigator Himan said he really liked their fried chicken. Mr. Nifong disagreed. He said KFC extra-crispy was the best; and we all agreed, meaning no offense to Bojangles, you understand.”)

But it's hard to deny something there's a video tape of you saying; and it's hard to deny you didn't know someone you were responsible for supervising was making false statements that were being reported in every major newspaper and on every news program in your state.

Addison and Russ are right in the center of the "hard to deny" place.

Russ has stated that he is Addison's supervisor (or at least one of them -- it is possible that there are others in the chain of command between Russ, a major, and Addison, a corporal.

It’s very reasonable to think there would be others in a police chain of command between a Cpl. and a Maj. But Russ is Addison’s direct supervisor. Russ told me that during both my interviews with him. He also said he directly supervises a civilian DPD employee, Kammie Michael, who is DPD’s full-time spokesperson.

That a DPD Major, listed as third on the DPD’s organizational chart just below the Chief and Deputy Chief, directly supervises Addison and Michael is an indicator of the importance DPD, like all police departments, places on public statements made in its name.

Where I work, my supervisor definitely has the responsibility to "supervise" my work and if the "fit hits the shan", my supervisor is going to be held accountable, either because he was ignorant of what I was doing so he is negligent or knew what I was doing and did nothing to correct it or was in on a cover-up and enlisted me as part of that cover-up.

Scott, are you trying to tell us you don't work for Durham City?

Seriously, what Scott just said is a nice summary of what Russ will have to explain. And he can’t claim he and Addison were talking about KFC extra crispy. The statements Addison spoke and wrote are matters of public record. Russ surely knew about many of them. He surely knew they were false. What did he do?

Let's establish that I don't work for a police department nor do I work anywhere near Durham, so my experience may be totally unrelated to how things work in that organization and / or in that city.

But someone needs to tell me how Russ gets Addison to make corrections on a document when Russ / DPD doesn't have any responsibility (he claims) for that document and how Crime Stoppers is completely independent of the DPD when its representative (Addison) draws a DPD paycheck and reports to a DPD senior officer.

I’ll tell you that, Scott, if you'll tell me either how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or where Nifong keeps that smoking gun he never produced.

As a result of the civil litigation that is now underway, I hope Addison and Russ lose their jobs. They're both poor excuses for police officers.

Durham just has to do a better job of getting quality people in public service positions. But that's kinda the point of all this civil litigation, isn't it?

A lot of the civil litigation is intended to lead to outcomes that will make Durham less corrupt and safer. That’s going to be the hardest part of the suit.

The easiest part of it will be proving the young men’s civil rights were violated; that Durham City employees, officials and others inflicted grave harm on them; and that in inflicting harm on the innocent citizens the then DA and others may very likely have committed crimes.

[Of course, if your ancestors immigrated to North America from the wrong land mass, you don't have any right to sue for violation your civil rights (according to Judge James Beaty)...]

Quote:

 

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/10/suit-filing-dpd-cpl-addison-post-1.html

Oct. 7. 2007

(snip)

Now lets begin with Addison.

(snip)

[lawsuit brief] :

The Durham Police Statements

---

159. Beginning on March 24, 2006, Addison and Hodge made a series of public statements in which they, like Nifong, stated falsely that Mangum had been
brutally assaulted by members of the Duke lacrosse team and that the members of the lacrosse team were obstructing justice (the “Durham Police Statements”). At the times they made these statements, Addison and Hodge knew or should have known that they were false.

160. Examples of Addison’s and Hodge’s false and malicious statements include the following

a. On or about March 24, 2006, Addison told a reporter for WRAL TV:
“You are looking at one victim brutally raped. If that was someone
else’s daughter, child, I don’t think 46 would be a large enough number
to figure out exactly who did it.”


b. On or about March 25, 2006, Addison told reporters from CBS and
ABC News that a “brutal rape” occurred at 610 N. Buchanan.

c. On or about March 25, 2006, Addison told the Durham Herald-Sun that
when Durham Police served the search warrant at 610 N. Buchanan on
March 16, 2006, the Duke lacrosse players who lived there had refused
to cooperate.

d. On or about March 25, 2006, Addison told the Durham Herald-Sun that
there was “really, really strong physical evidence” of a crime.

e. On or about March 25, 2006, Addison told the Raleigh News &
Observer that an attack had occurred, that some or all of the Duke
lacrosse players knew about it, and that the players should stop
obstructing the investigation and come forward to provide evidence.
Addison repeated these statements to the Durham Herald-Sun, ABC
News, and WRAL TV on or about March 25, 26, and 28, 2006.

f. On or about March 28, 2006, Addison colluded with Himan and
Durham Crimestoppers to produce a “Wanted” poster, which he caused
to be disseminated in and around the campus of Duke University. The
flier stated that:

On Monday, March 13, 2006 about 11:00pm, the Duke University
Lacrosse Team solicited [interesting and suggestive word choice;
"hired" would have been more accurate, but less suggestive]a local
escort service for entertainment. The
victim was paid to dance at the residence located at 610 Buchanan.
The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The
victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific
crime sent shock waves throughout our community. Durham Police
needs your assistance in solving this case. We are asking anyone
who has any information related to this case, please contact Inv.
Himan at 560-4582 x229.

Information can also be provided anonymously through Durham Crimestoppers at 683-1200 or by email to david.addison@durhamnc.gov
(Please use an anonymous email account). Durham Crimestoppers will pay cash for any information which leads to an arrest in this case.

g. In subsequent days, Addison, acting with the approval of senior
command officers in the Durham Police Department, and pursuant to
existing Department policy and custom, colluded with Himan and
Durham Crimestoppers to produce different versions of this same
“Wanted” poster.

h. On or about April 11, 2006, Hodge was interviewed by MSNBC while
attending the public forum at North Carolina Central University with
Nifong. When asked if Durham Police had a strong case against Duke
lacrosse players, Hodge told MSNBC, “I don't think we would be here if
it wasn’t.”

161. The Durham Police Statements also had direct and foreseeable consequences for the criminal process instituted against David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann.


162. The Durham Police Statements foreclosed any objective search for truth and committed Durham Police to arrest three Duke lacrosse players. The Durham Police Statements also inflamed the public, including those who would eventually serve on the grand juries that indicted Plaintiffs, by marking the Plaintiffs as violent sex offenders whose guilt was already established beyond doubt.

163. Upon information and belief, Addison made each of these statements while under the supervision and with the approval of the Supervisory Defendants, and he was acting pursuant to existing Department policy and custom. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware of Addison’s statements and did not retract them, remove Addison from his position, or reprimand him.

**********************************************

The following five posts were published last February and March. If you were interested in the filing portion above, I think you'll be very interested the Addison Series posts below. The provide background to the events described in the filing and more.

The Addison Series #1 – “This horrific crime” 2/16/06

Addison Series #2 – “CrimeStoppers will pay cash” 2/20/07

Addison Series #3 – “Not my poster” 2/25/07

Addison Series #4 - "They call it 'squeezing'" 3/2/07

Addison Series # 5 – “Major Duke Involvement" 3/11/07

Now a few closing comments: If you haven't yet, I hope you find time to read the Addison Series posts. I'll be referring to them in future posts.

In the "squeezing" post I suggested what things might be like for Addison in the event a Federal inquiry into the Hoax frame occurred.

[Right...]

Currently he's a defendant in a civil suit. But much of what I said in the "squeezing" post applies to his current situation. In fact, I think he may be facing a far more difficult situation with the attorneys who'll depose him in the civil suit than he might with federal investigators. Have any of you ever seen Brendan Sullivan in action?

(No, I haven't)



The Addison Series leaves no doubt that as the civil suit progresses we're going to learn a lot more about not only what Nifong and DPD did but what Duke University did as well.


[Still waiting... Can someone get Brendan Sullivan on the line? ]

Quote:

 

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-crimestoppers.html

FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2007

More CrimeStoppers

I spoke yesterday with two members of the Durham CrimeStoppers board, Dean Sue Wasiolek and Dan Hill. They gave me details of the group’s monthly meeting, which was devoted solely to the issue of last spring’s “wanted” poster in the lacrosse case. (Dean Sue had asked that the issue be placed on the agenda.) Cpl. David Addison, the Durham Police liaison to the CS board, was out of town on a previously scheduled matter; Major Lee Russ briefed the board.

Russ reported the sequence of events as follows:

1) On March 28, 2006 (four days after Mike Nifong, improperly, assumed personal command of the police investigation;

[How did he do this without police consent? No officers would have obeyed him, unless they had been ordered to by superiors. And by "taking command" of the police investigation, Nifong stopped being a DA and became just an investigator (hence forfeiting his immunity). That's clear from many case decision. (note to Judge Beaty--who apparently and imho wasn't paying attention ... and it took him THREE YEARS to come up with his (imho) wildly erroneous decision. (CC to Brendan Sullivan, who also imho may have not noticed what was going on...)]

and after a weekend in which Addison, serving as DPD interim spokesperson, made a series of comments about the case that proved either misleading or outright false), Addison sent out an e-mail to various list-servs with which he deals. The e-mail read:

On Monday, March 13, 2006 about 11:00pm, the Duke University Lacrosse Team solicited a local escort service for entertainment. The victim was paid to dance at the residence located at 610 Buchanan. The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.

Hill and Dean Sue reported that while Addison had used such rhetoric in previous high-profile crimes, he clearly was “overzealous” in the wording of this e-mail.

2) Soon thereafter, a district commander of the Durham Police heard that an anti-lacrosse protest was going to occur outside 610 N. Buchanan. For reasons that are unclear,

[Well, let's ask him and "make (those reasons) clear". (And who was this District Commander?)]

he decided to create a flyer to distribute at the rally. That poster is scanned here; it was produced on the stationery not of CrimeStoppers but of the Durham Police Department. Addison did not create the document; though it used the wording of his e-mail and contained a notice asking people to contact CrimeStoppers, it was, technically, a Police flyer.

3) On April 10, Major Russ fielded complaints from people who considered the language in the Police flyer inappropriate. At that point, for the first time, he reviewed the wording of Addison’s March 28 e-mail. He agreed that it was improperly phrased, and ordered Addison to e-mail a revised version. The next day, Addison did so, modifying the first sentence to read, “The victim alleges that she was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed.” He also deleted the editorializing sentence about the incident constituting a “horrific crime.”

4) After Russ saw the revision, he realized it still was not correct, and ordered Addison to send another version, eighteen minutes later, which described “the victim” as “the complainant.” This version also for the first time asked for information from the “Duke family,” which the e-mail described as part of the Durham community.

5) Russ said that to his best recollection,

[not a phrase which inspires confidence in me, since
most of those who have given depositions--to include Dean Wasiolek--seem to be unable to remember much
of anything about the biggest case in their experience...]

no blogger asked either him or DPD spokesperson Kammie Michael about who served on the CrimeStoppers’ board. (John in Carolina has said he did contact Russ about this issue in June.)

6) Both Hill and Dean Sue reiterated that neither they nor any other member of the CS board ever made any attempt to hide their connection with the organization. Both have been completely forthcoming with me, both over the phone and via e-mail, when I have approached them on the issue.

[Dean Sue sure wasn't "forthcoming" in her deposition, imho.]

7) The Durham Police Department has changed its procedures on how it deals with CrimeStoppers e-mails. Now, at least one other person reviews Addison’s text before it is sent out. There have been no complaints of improper wording in any CrimeStoppers e-mail or press release since the new policy was instituted.

8) Both Hill and Dean Sue reiterated their hope that CrimeStoppers will not be judged on this episode,

[Sorry, but when the crisis came, it proved to be morally incapable of standing up for defendants' rights, imho. And convicting innocent persons for a crime which never happened is also a "crime" which should be "stopped"; and members of the Crimestoppers organization should have been front and center in opposition to Nifong once it became clear (say, around April 10, 2006, with the release of the DNA results) that there had never been any crime.]

since the organization has done much good in dealing with the problem of crime in Durham. From everyone I speak with, it appears the organization has an excellent reputation outside of the lacrosse case.

[I'm sure the Scottsboro/Decatur Justice system had an excellent reputation, outside of the Scottsboro Boys trial.]

Two conclusions regarding police behavior on this matter:

1) Addison’s improper wording created a bell that couldn’t be unrung. His e-mail circulated for two weeks, at a time of extraordinary press attention on the case. Russ acted appropriately in ordering Addison to send out the modified language. But without a clear accompanying statement that Addison’s original language was improper, the modified e-mail left the recipient to infer that Addison had been overzealous, rather than simply admitting the error in the language.

[Was he ever reprimanded? On the contrary, he was promoted. Only Sgt. Shelton was ever investigated or reprimanded by the DPD. (Where was Crimestoppers on that one?)]

2) In June, John in Carolina reported that Russ had told him that the Durham Police played no role in the creation of the “wanted” poster. While it is true that the poster’s language came from an Addison CrimeStoppers e-mail, the production and distribution of the poster, Russ has now conceded, was undertaken by a Durham Police officer unconnected with CrimeStoppers.

[So who was the officer, and why did he create the poster, and why was the poster blithly distributed without any superior's authorization; and what was the ensuing response to the officer whom, I assume,embarrassed the department?]

My thanks both to Dan Hill and to Dean Sue for speaking with me about this material.

Quote:

 

I'm sure Dean Sue is just a wonderful person but for the life of me I can't figure out what she knows about the 'criminal element' in Durham. Duke has practically no hard crime according to the US Department of Justice.

Maybe she's there to protect the interests of Duke students?






(MOO)