- Adam: "white male, short, red cheeks fluffy hair chubby face, brn"
- Matt: "Heavy set short haircut 260-270"
- Brett: "Chubby
(Digression Alert! As we have discussed before, Sgt. Gottlieb waited until after the accuser ID’d suspects to match his made up physical descriptions to their appearances. By then the Adam, Matt, and Brett theory was long gone and Gottlieb simply wrote suspect #1, suspect #2, and suspect #3. Is it odd that he could recall the descriptions well enough to match them to the suspects but apparently could not recall the names? Can you imagine if all investigators opperated that way? Gottlieb S.O.P.: Interview witness, witness gives name of suspect, write nothing down, use description to apprehend the bad guy. "Who did it Sarge?" "Uh, she told but I forgot but she said he was tall. Put out an APB on tall guys.")
The importance of the names to the police is evidenced by the fact that later on the 16th they showed the accuser photos of Duke lacrosse players in their blue uniforms, arranged in four groups with an Adam in one group, a Brett in another group, and a Matt in each of the other two groups. The police had organized 24 photos into four sets of six photos each. The sets were labeled A, B, C and D. The police had put one named suspect in each group: Matt in A, Adam in B, Brett in C and a second Matt in D. After each photo, none of which were "fillers", the police asked: Is this the person who sexually assaulted you? She did not identify any assailants. She did not recognize any of the players named Adam, Matt or Brett. [News and Observer]
On March 21 the police showed the accuser another 12 photos of lacrosse players, and still she was unable to identify any attackers.
(Digression Alert! We suspect that these last two photo arrays were aimed at the third Matt and Breck (sounds like Brett) Archer. It should also be noted that David Evans was included in one of these two March 21 photo arrays photo arrays. Further, to again point out the ridiculous notion put forth by Sgt. Gottlieb that suspect #1 was described in almost perfection to Collin Finnerty, it must be noted that Mr. Finnerty was not included in any of the six photo arrays. Of the 6 players suspected as indicated by the photo arrays, none was Collin Finnerty yet Gottlieb would have us believe that the accuser gave a description closer to him than anyone else. Of the 36 players shown to the accuser as of March 21, none were Collin Finnerty but Gottlieb claims that the accuser gave a description of him. If that bizarre inconsistency doesn't make one blink, oh nothing will.)
Then on March 22, the police interviewed the second dancer, Kim Roberts, who had told them earlier that the rape claim was a “crock.” She now gives a handwritten statement describing the night’s events, leaving virtually no time for a rape to have occurred. Ms. Roberts also very cleary refers to Dan Flannery as Dan and states the players were members of a sports team [singular]. Detective Himan's notes from his interview with Ms. Roberts indicate that she informed him: "Every on Spring Break, on Lacrosse Team." The Joseph Neff of the News and Observer notes, “There is no mention of baseball or track or any other sports team” in [Himan's] handwritten notes." It is very important to note that Ms. Roberts completes this written statement at 4:00pm on March 22.
To review briefly, as of 4:00pm March 22 it appears from all available information and police activity relating to the attempts to identify suspects that there is no evidentiary reason for the police to believe that the players used each others names in an effort to confuse anyone about anything nor is there any reason to believe that the players attempted to disguise the sports team they belonged to. Ms. Roberts knew Dan by his first name and writes that they were all members of a singular team. Himan writes that this team is specifically the Lacrosse team. Through six photo arrays the Durham Police have targeted six specific suspects. There are exactly six players whose name is or sounds extremely close to Adam, Matt or Brett. Of the six, we know that 4 were targeted in the first 4 photo arrays. While assumptive, it stands to reason that the next two photo arrays targeted the last two of the name matches. Oh, and what the heck, let's throw in there that the belief in the names being accurate must have been stronger than the belief in Gottlieb's "recollective" description of Finnerty.
With no evidence that any of the lacrosse players even touched the accuser, the police and DA’s office apparently became creative and hatched the fake names theory in order to cast suspicion over the entire team. By then it was obvious the Adam, Matt, and Brett theory hadn't panned out, and they had to quickly retreat and rationalize the specific names given in the accuser’s original description, which the police transcribed in the 610 N. Buchanan search warrant issued Mar. 16. The original search warrant for 610 N. Buchanan contained no mention of fake names.
However, on March 23 the affidavit filed to support the order for the players to submit to photographs and DNA testing miraculously added the fake names theory:
"The victim stated she did not think the names the suspects were providing her were their own. She stated one male identified himself as Adam, but everyone at the party was calling him Dan. In addition, the witness/co-worker stated the men at the party told her they were members of the Duke Baseball and Track Team to hide the true identity of their sports affiliation - Duke Lacrosse Team Members. In a non-custodial interview with Danniel Flannery, resident of 610 N. Buchanan and Duke Lacrosse Team Captain; Mr. Flannery admitted using an alias to make the reservation to have the dancers attend the Lacrosse Team Party. The three residents stated during their non-custodial interviews that their fellow Duke Lacrosse Team Members were the ones who attended this party. They knew everyone there, and stated there were no strangers who showed up at the event. It is the Affiant's belief the suspects used each others names to disguise their own identities and create an atmosphere where confusion would become a factor in this event should problems arise in the future where any actions or conduct would be questioned."
Where did the Affiant's (Himan's) belief and the fake names theory come from?
Clearly the accuser didn’t mention the fake names during her interview with Det. Himan and Sgt. Gottlieb on March 16, or else the police
(i) wouldn’t have organized the line-up with Adam, Matt, and Brett as the principal suspects and(ii) would have mentioned the fake name theory in the search warrant that was issued around 6:00 p.m. that evening.
If the accuser had mentioned the Adam/Dan story on March 16th, one would think the police would have focused on partygoers named Dan, instead of the lone lacrosse player named Adam. Only after the two line-ups failed and the election grew closer, did the fake names theory arise.
The police appear to have based this theory on nothing more than one claim, one misstatement and one distorted fact:
(i) Det. Himan claimed that the accuser said there was a player at the party named Adam who everyone was calling Dan;
(ii) Det. Himan appears to have falsely claimed that the second dancer said the players identified themselves as members of the baseball and track team;
(iii) team captain Dan Flannery used an “alias” to make the reservations for the dancers.
Many people put (i) and (iii) together to claim that the “alias” used was “Adam” Flannery. It appears that Himan's affidavit was specifically design to create that assumption and that one of those many people was Judge Stephens who signed the order.
The New York Times, however, revealed last week that the alias used was Dan “Flanigan.” Kim Roberts, the second dancer, even identified him as Dan F. in her statement, and described asking him for identification when she first arrived. Was this Adam/Dan story added deliberately to mislead the court and the public by suggesting that (iii) corroborated (i)? Even more troubling is the prospect that the actual alias used (Dan Flanigan) was omitted to hide the fact that (iii) actually contradicted (i). How could the accuser’s memory have been so accurate as to identify a single individual being called different names, yet so “traumatized” that she could not identify any of her attackers? And why didn’t Kim Roberts mention this atmosphere of confusion?
Adding to our belief that this deception may very well have been deliberate and that the Affiant's belief was invented, Himan’s typed notes contradict his handwritten notes. The undated typed version of his interview with Roberts state, “She was then told that it was not a bachelor party but a get together amongst friends. She stated they had told her that they were on sports teams, track, baseball and they all were grad students.” However, as mentioned previously, Det. Himan’s handwritten notes of the interview state "Every on Spring Break, on Lacrosse Team." and there is absolutely no mention of baseball or track or any other sports team in his handwritten notes as related by Joseph Neff.
(Digression Alert! Himan's notes taken by hand are now revealed to contradict Gottlieb's undated typed notes at times and his own undated typed notes at other times. Who needs white out when you have a perfectly good typewriter trained to conform your notes to the desired supects and preferred case?)
Adding to our confusion and suspicion is this curious typed notation by Himan which appears timed only 15 minutes after Ms. Roberts completes her writen statements stating the opposite:
3/22/06 1615 HRS - WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED IN REGARDING TO USING DIFFERENT NAMES, DIFFERENT TEAMS, STATING THAT THEY WERE ON THE BASEBALL AND TRACK TEAMS
It appears that Himan's "belief" that fake names were used arose within 15 minutes of the conclusion of his interview with Ms. Roberts. Certainly it appears that they were not based on the writen statement she gave him nor on the notes he took by hand. The notation we refer to above appears at the bottom of page 15 of Osborns June 8th motion. Wouldn't you love to see the end of that statement to know where "the information the we received" is from? It's difficult to imagine that there would have been enough time for Himan to receive additional information from anywhere between 4 and 4:15.
Our conclusion, of course, is that this is yet another shameless Hoax Within a Hoax born not out of information received nor evidence gathered but rather out of the necessity to find somebody, anybody, preferably three-bodies to charge.