Did Duke Police Officers Concealed Exculpatory Evidence?

In the amended complaint filed by Durham attorney Robert Ekstrand he makes a serious accusation against the Duke PD as they followed the Chairman's Directive.

A. To cease all efforts to find evidence of the truth, particularly evidence that contradicted the accuser’s account;

B. To conceal evidence of Duke Police Officers’ prior investigative role in the investigation; pg 140

Following that direction Duke Police Officers "concealed their observations during their interactions with Mangum that tended to prove Mangum’s claim was a fraud"

C. Duke Police Officers Concealed Exculpatory Evidence by Fabricating False and Misleading Hospital “Witness Statements”

466. On or about March 27, 2006, Nifong directed the Duke Police Officers who interacted with Mangum to submit reports of those interactions to his assistant, Sheila Eason. In response, Duke Police Supervising Defendants directed those Duke Police Officers who interacted with or observed Mangum at the hospital to write—not reports—but instead what can only be described as “bystander witness statements” that deliberately concealed their exculpatory observations of Mangum during the early morning hours of March 14th.

467. As a result of The Duke Officers’ statements were all remarkably consistent in substance. They were identical in form. Each one was a one-page statement written on plain paper, and identically styled. The Duke Officers’ statements repeatedly refer to the investigation of Mangum’s claims as “the Durham Police investigation.” They also uniformly disavow any role whatsoever in an investigative capacity; describe their role in the investigation as the functional equivalent of a bystander witness. Among other things, the Duke Police Supervising Defendants directed the officers to:

A. Conceal the fact that the Duke Police had jurisdiction over the investigation;

B. Conceal the fact that the investigation was a Duke Police investigation, until Duke abdicated its jurisdictional responsibility to initiate and conclude an investigation of Mangum’s allegations;

C. Conceal their observations during their interactions with Mangum that tended to prove Mangum’s claim was a fraud;

D. Reveal observations of Mangum’ s behavior only to the extent that the observations tended to enhance the reliability of Mangum’s claim; and

E. Two officers who wrote these “witness statements” have since taken employment at other law enforcement agencies. Their accounts changed significantly when they left the Duke Police Department.

1. Officer Mazurek

468. In his March 29, 2006 “witness statement” as a Duke Police Officer, Mazurek wrote:

“On 03-14-06, I was the Officer in Charge at Duke Hospital. I was informed by security that... a male nurse was evaluating Ms. Mangum. When he tried to gather information about her injuries she started to cry and asked him to leave her alone.... Ms. Mangum ’s shirt appeared to be torn on the left shoulder.... [The Durham Officers] told me that this incident may have occurred at 610 N.
Buchanan involving several Duke Students. After my initial observation of Ms. Mangum I did not have any further contact with her.”

469. After obtaining employment elsewhere, Mazurek was free to reveal the exculpatory information he obtained at DUMC on March 14th, and he did. On November 2, 2006, Mazurek reported, among other things, his belief—formed at the time he observed Mangum—that Mangum was “faking” the whole thing.

2. Officer Falcon

470. In her March 28, 2006 “witness statement” regarding her observations of Mangum, Officer Falcon wrote that Mangum “was shaking, crying, and upset. ... She kept crying out to the male nurse and Durham Officers (in the doorway) that she was violated and raped and that her friend stole her money and left her at the event that she was working at.” Regarding her role in the investigation, Falcon wrote:

“I stood outside the ED Triage area as a Duke Representative, while Durham City proceeded with their investigation.... Not at any time did I direct any questions to Ms. Mangum concerning the investigation by Durham City PD. Not at any time was I a direct party to any investigation(s) of Durham City PD of this alleged incident, other than to assist the outside agency of Durham City PD.”

471. After obtaining employment elsewhere, Falcon was free to report any exculpatory information she obtained at DUMC on March 14th, and she did. On October 30, 2006, Falcon reported, among other things, that an unusual number of Duke Officers, even Major Schwab, were called in shortly after Mangum arrived at the E.D.; she thought it was odd that “all the supervisors met out on the loading and had a meeting.”

472. Further, Duke Police Supervising Defendants had required Falcon to conceal from her written “statement” her recollection that “a Durham Police Sergeant kept going in and out of Mangum’s room, saying ‘I have to conduct an investigation’ ... .” After some time passed, the Sergeant emerged from Mangum’s room, and “he said loudly so everyone around heard him, ‘I think she is lying!’”

3. Officer Day

473. Officer Day had already submitted a bona fide Duke Police Department report on March 14, 2006, before the Chairman’s Directive was issued transforming the Duke Police investigators into bystanders. Day’s original report is therefore not written on plain paper styled as a witness statement; it was written on a pre-printed Duke Police Department standard police report form, it contained a synopsis of much of the exculpatory evidence gathered by Durham Police and Duke Police on March 14th, and concluded that the felony investigation had been closed.

474. Because everything in Day’s report was already approved by the Day Chain of Command and was at odds with the directive to conceal exculpatory material, Duke Police did not submit his original report with the “bystander” statements. Instead, Duke Police sent a “Continuation Report” that the supervisors in the Day Chain of Command directed him to write. Day’s “Continuation” report states:

This narrative is a continuation to an operations report in reference to assisting Durham Police at 610 N. Buchanan Street [sic]. After all Duke Police officers cleared from 610 N. Buchanan Street [sic] I went to the Duke Emergency Department to meet with Lt. Best (watch commander for Duke Police). While standing at the emergency department entrance I overheard the District 2 Sergeant state that the victim (which [sic] was inside the ED) had changed her story several times, and that if charges were filed they would probably not exceed that of a misdemeanor.

In reference to the conversation with Durham Officers I did not speak directly with the victim or with an investigator, nor did I ask questions regarding the case. The information was second hand from the patrol Sergeant standing on the emergency room dock outside the ED."

475. Day’s “Continuation Report” deliberately impeaches his own contemporaneously written report of the events he observed that evening, including his synthesis of all the reports he received from the Durham Police Officers in the transition briefing at the E.D. in the early morning hours of March 14, 2006. The effect of Day’s Continuation Report was to nullify the evidentiary value of his report of the many immediate impressions of the Durham officers who interacted with Mangum throughout the evening and believed Mangum’s claims were a hoax.

The full amended complaint with embedded Video