Matt or Adam?

While his report to the mayor and city council is nearly void of useful information, Durham Chief of Police Steve Chalmers does offer some insight into the Fake Names Hoax Within a Hoax that was employed to secure a non-testimonial identification order for DNA samples and photographs of 46 innocent men. Contrary to the impression given by the affidavit of DPD Investigator Benjamin Himan and Assistant District Attorney David Saacks, Chief Chalmers admits that the Fake Name Theory was hatched by police prior to Inv. Himan’s interview with accidental outcry witness Kim Roberts. The Chalmers report also provides additional reasons to believe that the “evidence” offered in support of the Fake Names Theory was either transparently false or blatantly manufactured.

In direct contradiction to Investigator Himan’s sworn affidavit, Chief Chalmers contends:

"By this point, investigators were becoming suspicious as to the accuracy of the names provided by the complaining witness. Officers knew that Dan Flannery had used a false name when hiring the dancers. In addition, records indicated that Magnum had previously alleged that Dan Flanagan (“Flanagan” being the false name provided by Flannery to the escort service) was a fake name and that “Matt” was the individual’s real name."

In their affidavit supporting the NIO request, Inv. Himan and ADA Saacks stated that “Adam” was the name the false accuser attached to Flannery.

“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.”

It is unclear whether the discrepancy is an indication that the Durham Police Department is having difficulty keeping their stories straight or simply an honest mistake on the part of Himan, Saacks, and/or Chalmers. Alternatively, the discrepancy might indicate that Crystal Mangum attached three fake names (“Adam”..“Matt”..“Dan Flanagan”) to Flannery sometime after the first four lineup attempts on March 16, 2006, and the next two lineup attempts on March 21, 2006, and well before Linwood Wilson produced her December 21, 2006, statement that Dave Evans was “Adam"... “Matt".. and “Brett".

By indicating that the Fake Name Theory was not in place at the time of the first four lineups on March 16, Chalmers gives the impression that this Hoax Within a Hoax was hatched in response to Mangum’s inability to identify the people she had named. Further, Chalmers states that it was the Fake Names Theory that led directly to the targeting of Dan Flannery and David Evans as the principal suspects in the March 21 lineups.

"Because investigators had previously focused upon individuals with names provided by, or similar to those provided by, the complaining witness and that those names now seemed to be of questionable accuracy, Evans and Flannery had confirmed that they were at the residence the night of the alleged attack, and that Evans and Flannery had made arrangements for the party including hiring and paying for the dancers, investigators began to turn their attention to these individuals and decided to conduct photo arrays on March 21, 2006 with Evans and Flannery as the potential suspects. One array contained a photo of Evans and one array contained a photo of Flannery."

Unfortunately for the Hoaxers, the next day Kim Roberts debunked the Fake Names Theory by identifying by name, directly to Inv. Himan in both oral and written statements, the two specific players who, according to Chalmers, were suspected of using fake names and committing the imagined assault.

According to Himan’s typed summary of Ms. Roberts oral statement taken at 12:40 p.m. on March 22, 2006:

“She stated she walked to the back of the house with Dan and Dave.”

After her interview with Inv. Himan, Ms. Roberts said in her handwritten statement:

“I walked to the back of the house with Dan and Dave and entered the house thru a back door.”

Certainly, if the second dancer knew the real names of both men targeted as suspects based on an illogical Fake Name Theory, an honest investigator would find reason to doubt the suggestion that either man used an alias with the dancers. Instead, Inv. Himan ignored the demolition of his theory and created a Fake Name Hoax by, incredibly, ascribing statements to Ms. Roberts that are contradicted by his handwritten notes, her own written statement, and her later statements to the media. Armed with the comments only he alleges Ms. Roberts spoke and omitting her statements that clearly disprove the Fake Name Hoax, Inv. Himan offered the court his sworn contention that fake names were used.

In his affidavit, Himan writes:

“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 direct contradiction to Himan’s sworn statement that the lacrosse players told Ms. Roberts that they were members of multiple non-lacrosse teams, Ms. Roberts indicates in her written statement that the players admitted to being members of one team.

“They told me that they were on a sports team.”

Further, Inv. Himan’s handwritten notes from the interview indicate that Ms. Roberts specifically stated “lacrosse team” and offer no indication that a baseball team, a track team, or any other team was mentioned by Roberts.

In an article last summer, Joseph Neff noted the discrepancy between Himan’s sworn statement and Ms. Roberts statements:

“To justify the request, prosecutors argued that players used deception. Himan wrote that they used one another's names to disguise their identities and confuse the situation. Kim Roberts, the second dancer, "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," Himan wrote in the request to the judge.

“But there are contradictions in Himan's accounts. He had interviewed Roberts the day before, on March 22. Roberts told Himan that she knew the identity of at least one of the players, because she inspected the driver's license of the player who requested the dancers from the escort service. According to Himan's handwritten notes of the interview with Roberts: "Every on Spring Break, on Lacrosse Team." There is no mention of baseball or track or any other sports team.”

Curiously, Inv. Himan’s typed notes summarizing Ms. Roberts statements include the alleged statements that his affidavit ascribes to her, but appear to be contradicted by her written statement, a subsequent media interview, and his handwritten notes of her spoken words.

Himan typed:

"SHE STATED THAT THEY HAD TOLD HER THAT THEY WERE ON SPORTS TEAMS, TRACK, BASEBALL AND THEY ALL WERE GRAD STUDENTS."

To Vanity Fair, Ms. Roberts would acknowledge that upon arrival and prior to entering the house and prior to the arrival of the false accuser, she was informed by the players that they were members of the lacrosse team. Whatever misunderstanding Ms. Roberts may have had prior to arrival, it was clearly rectified immediately and therefore could not have logically fit Saacks and Himan's sworn statements.

"Once she got to the rear of the house, she said, she was told that in fact they were members of the lacrosse team."

Further detracting from Himan's forced Fake Names theory, photographs from the party show that a Duke Lacrosse poster prominently adorned the doorway. Vanity Fair described the poster:

"Over a doorway on another wall is a poster with the slogan it's hard to beat a team that never gives up! and an insignia of the Duke lacrosse team."

In yesterday’s Duke Chronicle, defense attorney Joe Cheshire suggests that an investigation into the Durham Police Department’s participation in the Nifong/Mangum Hoax would likely find evidence of obstruction of justice and creation of evidence.

"I would not be surprised if an independent investigation; would uncover conduct that was criminal in nature as it relates to obstruction of justice and creation of evidence," Joe Cheshire, an attorney for Evans, wrote in an e-mail.

If there is to be an independent investigation into the framing of the three Duke Innocents, two places to start might be the records that Chief Chalmers referred to in his report which appear to contradict ADA Saacks and Inv. Himan’s joint affidavit and the seemingly misrepresented statements ascribed to Ms. Roberts.