Has Anything Changed Since the Duke Lacrosse Case?

Someone asked the question recently...has ANYTHING changed because of the Duke Lacrosse case?

Well...in some ways, yes.

Those of us inside and outside of academia have had the "Rules of Instant and Egregious Condemnation" clarified for us.

1. Three white privileged Lacrosse players accused of raping a Black woman? The three P's apply: POUNCE! PONTIFICATE! PROSLETIZE!

CARPE DIEM!

2. A Black Fraternity guest is accused of raping a white woman? SILENCE.

3. A White but Gay Employee of Duke is accused of pimping out his adopted Black Son? SILENCE.

There would be absolutely no Faculty "Listening" allowed in the latter cases. There is no agenda currency in listening to the agony of a white rape victim or the fear of a poor Black child, sexually exploited by his adopted father. There's no PC teaching moment in it. In fact, the opposite...hence the mandatory group-muffle.

In those last instances the only sound heard on the Duke campus was Kathy Davidson's yawn. Nothing like the incessant public yowls of the Lacrosse case.

We understand now.

The empathy shown for any victim, even a child, must be weighed against the Societal PC Victim Status afforded the Offender....and any Angry Studies Career Protection Points available through incessantly pushing the Metanarrative.

The Duke faculty also understands that if they abide by these rules, and only condemn within these clarifications, their careers will flourish.

So a mutual better understand sans respect does exist.

It's something.

But, how about over at the Durham Police Department? Has anything changed THERE?

Well, in that case, no.

On May 4th 2010 The NC Court of Appeals issued a rebuke of the procedures employed by Durham Detective Richard Clayton, the Durham PD, and the prosecution by overthrowing a conviction and issuing an order for a new trial in the case of STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEMONTRE ANTHONY SAMUEL
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/...df/091230-1.pdf


"Richard Clayton? Now that name rings a bell....a REBUKE?

Oh yes.

Detective Clayton is remembered for his supporting role as one of Sergeant Gottlieb’s investigators in the discredited 2006 Duke Lacrosse Hoax. He was the officer who gave Crystal her first ID attempt on March 16 at her home. Just to review...he showed her four photo arrays of 6 people. Those 24 were ALL members of the Lacrosse Team.

His narrative of the event wasn't submitted until the second round of discovery. This was the first of the violations of DPD General Order 4077 covering ID procedures. Later Clayton was the officer who was sent to arrest Reade Seligmann's alibi witness on trumped up charges, cab driver Moezeldin “Elmo” Elmostafa. Mr. Elmostafa would later testify to what Clayton said to him before his arrest, "The detective asked if I had anything new to say about the lacrosse case. When I said no, they took me to the magistrate..."

Mr. Elmostafa was later exonerated at trial, but nevertheless, he had to endure the injustice of that trial that was without a scintilla of credible evidence or as Stuart Taylor commented was "transparently contrived" and "unworthy of belief."

So what was the basis for this new rebuke of the DPD in the Samuel's case?

One of the main contentions in the Samuel's Appeal Court decision was the introduction of weapons at the trial which also had no scintilla of evidence linking either of the guns to the crimes charged. These weapons came from a search warrant obtained from a questionable ID procedure and subsequent investigation of witnesses who would have conflicting statements to the Police and the Court. These weapons were used to influence the jury decision of guilty.

In the appeal opinion of appellate Judge Linda Stephens and concurred by Chief Judge John Martin it stated;

"..Clayton called Larry down to the station so that Larry “could identify who did it[.]” Larry was shown a photo array created by Clayton containing Defendant’s picture. Larry did not identify his assailant the first two times he viewed the array. Believing that Larry had “paused” at picture number five, Defendant’s picture, Salmon left the room to talk with Clayton. Clayton and Larry’s mother then entered the room to lend “moral support” to Larry. After talking with Larry for five minutes, Clayton and Larry’s mother left the room, and Salmon again showed the photo array to Larry. This time, Larry identified Defendant as the assailant. Salmon went to Clayton’s room with a “smile on his face” to tell Clayton that Larry had identified Defendant in the photo array.

Based on this questionable identification, Clayton obtained a search warrant for Defendant’s home. As a result of the search, the two handguns were found. As discussed supra, there was not a scintilla of evidence linking either of the guns to the crimes charged...."

Now isn't this all very interesting? Was the Duke Lacrosse case one rogue event of "funny business?" Or just business as usual for Durham DPD?

In the civil lawsuit filed 10/05.2010... the exonerated former Lacrosse defendants, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans sought to change the methods and manners of how the DPD investigates cases. Specifically it calls for a federal monitor...for a system out of control and seemingly out of integrity.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1896692/

Richard D. Emery, a New York-based civil rights attorney representing Reade Seligmann, one of the plaintiff trio said to an interview to WRAL TV

"The demands here are to protect other people from false accusations that these boys suffered – other people in Durham and other people throughout the country – by using this case as a deterrent," Emery said.

In particular the civil lawsuit demands

"that all eyewitness identification arrays, lineups, and similar procedures conducted by the Durham Police Department, whether formal or informal, and/or of suspects or “witnesses,” conform to the provisions of General Order No. 4077 and be recorded by videotape "

Some have tried to argue this was unnecessary. Durham is doing fine overseeing itself. The NC Court of Appeals certainly gives the lie to that line of defense.

Two years and 9 months have passed since the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit.

The May 4 Court of Appeals rebuke tells us that at the DPD...nothing much , except the unfortunate targets have changed. The circumstances and ID procedure that were one of the root causes of the false arrest of Duke Lacrosse Players and the harassment of the 2006 Lacrosse Team ... were used again in the case against Demontre Samuel.

One of the same officers is even involved.

Once again we hear essentially the same words..

"There was not a scintilla of evidence..."

Still think the DPD is run by the book?

Still think the DPD doesn't need that Federal nanny?

Still think the Civil Suits are just about money?

Well, then, you must be a Duke Professor...fiddling with that "PC Fairness" calculation by which you wish to run your skewed new world.

Hat Tip: sdsgo