$1,245,591.37 and counting

$1,245,591.37 is the bill that the attorneys representing the City of Durham have submitted for their time and expenses in the three lawsuits over the Duke Lacrosse Hoax/Frame. SO FAR!

Kimberly Grantham, assistant city attorney, said the city has sought $229,350 in reimbursements from the American International Group, the company that owns the insurer the city was under contract with in 2006 when the Duke lacrosse case started.

Under the insurance contract, the city was responsible for the first $500,000 and then the insurer would pick up the next $5 million.

Grantham said Tuesday that all five firms -- Faison & Gillespie, Poyner & Spruill; Kennon Carver Belo Craig & McKee; Maxwell Freeman & Bowman and Troutman Sanders -- are providing their services at below-market rate. N & O

While Asst City Attorney Grantham was assuring the citizens of Durham they were on the hook for "only" $500,000, questions were raised immediately about the accuracy of that claim. Is the Office of the City Attorney advising the City Council about the potential financial risks in their strategy or is it passing out advice they want to hear?

See LieStopper's Forum for discussion

Hat Tip: Walt-in-Durham

Baker gets added to civil lawsuit & becomes the new City Attorney

In another strange twist for this city it was announce today that City Manager Baker will be leaving his post as City Manager and become the new City Attorney. Baker will be replacing City Attorney Henry Blinder who is retiring. Baker cited this as his reason,

"I am proud to have been a part of a great time in Durham's history
and to have worked with such a talented and dedicated group of employees," Baker said in a prepared statement.

"Serving as the city attorney is a great professional opportunity that will also allow me to spend much-needed time with my family." N&O

Considering that the City of Durham has been sued for 30 million dollars in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax it seemed like a strange excuse. Especially since it was announced that Baker was added as an individual to the Civil Lawsuit.

The lawyers representing the three exonerated lacrosse players amended the civil suit in federal court today to include City Manager Patrick Baker as one of the officials they are suing.

The players amended the lawsuit on the day Baker announced he would be stepping aside as city manager on June 30 to become city attorney, a job that comes with the same salary but less decision-making power.

As Baker met with reporters to discuss his plans to end a tumultuous three years as the city's manager, the lawyers for the exonerated lacrosse players filed their amended complaint in a Greensboro federal courthouse.

The new complaint portrays Baker as a city official who was very involved with decisions to push ahead with the Duke lacrosse case despite evidence to the contrary.
The lawsuit now details at least one meeting on March 29, 2006, where Baker was among high-ranking police officials and other city administrators and investigators assigned to the case.

According to the lawsuit, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and investigator Benjamin Himan were summoned to a meeting on March 29 by Baker, Steve Chalmers, who was then the police chief, and other senior city and police officials.

At that meeting, the investigators were ordered or "otherwise pressured" to push ahead with a case that already had shown evidence of the players' innocence. N&O

So far in the Durham shake-up over the false prosecution of three totally innocent Duke Lacrosse players Cpl David Addison has been promoted to Sergeant, Former Chief of Police Steve Chalmers has been working as a special assistant to City Manger Baker while receiving his salary as Chief even though there is a new Chief in town so he can build up his pension benefits, and City Manager Baker who oversaw the PD activities in the Hoax is getting pay raise and deciding to take it easy as the City Attorney.

Details of Undisclosed Police Document Revealed in Durham Herald-Sun Article

Durham Herald-Sun Reporter, Ray Gronberg, dropped a bomb on the City Council's meeting scheduled for this Thursday with the report of an undisclosed police document that "investigators talked with the accuser more than they disclosed previously, and that Mayor Bill Bell and other high-ranking city officials convened two days before a stalled case got a jump start with a photo lineup that violated policy."

It also details that Investigator Himan interviewed the false accuser, Crystal Magnum, more than he reported and did not reveal in his notes.

Police document details lacrosse events
By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun

DURHAM -- A police document detailing new information about the Duke lacrosse case investigation reveals that investigators talked with the accuser more than they disclosed previously, and that Mayor Bill Bell and other high-ranking city officials convened two days before a stalled case got a jump start with a photo lineup that violated policy.

Bell urged police to expedite a resolution to the case partly because he worried that racial unrest could erupt, he acknowledged Tuesday. That fear was hidden from his public statements at the height of the Duke lacrosse case when he expressed confidence in Durham's racial unity and condemned national media portrayal of black-white tension.

A copy of the police document -- labeled "Timeline of events for council" but kept so tightly under wraps that it may never have reached elected officials -- was obtained by The Herald-Sun.

Among other data entries, the timeline said Ben Himan, Durham's lead detective in the Duke lacrosse case, spoke to the accuser on March 28, 2006. That discussion isn't mentioned in the case notes of either Himan or his supervisor, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

According to the document, Bell met with Himan March 29, 2006, two days before authorities agreed to conduct a photo lineup that violated city policy but prompted indictments of three innocent men.

Documentation shows City Manager Patrick Baker and former Police Chief Steve Chalmers were at the discussion. It occurred in a regularly scheduled Wednesday morning meeting that allows Bell, Baker and Senior Assistant to the City Manager Reginald Johnson a chance to confer about the city's business..." Herald-Sun

The article also reports about another high level meeting when the case was stalled and makes clear that City Manager Baker, Mayor Bell, high level City of Durham Officials, and Duke University Officials were discussing the investigation which would result in three innocent Duke Lacrosse players being indicted for a crime that never happened. At that time all 46 Lacrosse players were being investigated and being publicly scorned in the community and on campus by the Duke Professors called the 88. Wanted posters of the Lacrosse Team were later distributed on campus. It raises the question was justice denied the entire Lacrosse team to "solve" a potential racial community upset over a crime which didn't happen.

A racial problem that was created by the false accusations of Crystal Magnum and repeatedly in the inflammatory remarks of Durham PD Crime-stoppers Cpl Addison on WRAL TV, in the Durham Herald-Sun, and the NewsObserver. Those comments would claimed a young Black college student, mother of two, who was dancing for the first time before a group to support her children, was brutally raped orally, anally, and vaginally. They would later prove to be totally false as declared by NC AG Cooper.

The article reports.

"Bell's morning meeting with Himan and Chalmers was only the first high-level conference about the case to occur on March 29, 2006.

That afternoon, Himan and Gottlieb conferred with Baker, Chalmers, Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge, a police attorney and two Duke officials, Aaron Graves, associate vice president for campus safety and security, and Duke Police Director Robert Dean. After that, the detectives met with Nifong.

The timeline -- compiled the following week by Gottlieb with help from Himan and Investigator Michele Soucie -- shows Himan met again with Nifong on March 30, 2006. Himan and Gottlieb also met with Nifong on March 31, 2006, a key date in the investigation. That is when Nifong told the detectives to show the accuser a photo lineup that omitted "fillers" -- images of people who weren't on the lacrosse team. Such a lineup violates policy because any pick would have been a lacrosse player..."

This article comes at an unfortunate time for the City Council as it is scheduled to discuss the terms of a settlement with the threatened civil rights lawsuit by attorneys representing Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann.

The deadline for the City's response is Friday Oct 5.

(Reporter Ray Gronberg - LieStoppers tips its hat to you!)

Big Trouble for Durham?

abc11tv.com is reporting the threat of a lawsuit is so eminent that the City's Insurance carrier has demanded the City Panel appointed to look into misconduct by the Durham PD should be suspended.


Lawsuit Threat Could Suspend Duke LAX Panel

(08/27/07 -- DURHAM) - The threat of a potential lawsuit against Durham's police department has put an investigative panel in jeopardy. Sources tell Eyewitness News Reporter Tamara Gibbs that city leaders may have to consider suspending the panel, or risk possibly losing the city's insurance coverage for a potential lawsuit.

Sources tell Eyewitness News the insurance company, which would pay for a potential lawsuit settlement, threatened to suspend the city's policy if it didn't reconsider the Duke Lacrosse Investigative Committee. We're told the company sent its request by fax last Thursday. The city's policy would cover up to $5 million in the event of a lawsuit.

Attorneys for the city and the former Duke Lacrosse defendants spoke for the first time last week. They plan to meet face-to-face within the next few weeks. The high-powered talks have forced Durham leaders to hold at least two closed-door sessions.

"We don't know the details of a potential lawsuit," said spokeswoman Beverly Thompson, with the City Manager's office. "It would be inappropriate to comment before."

Eyewitness News has learned that Brendan Sullivan, a Washington, D.C. attorney, has been tapped to represent the former Duke Lacrosse players. According to Eyewitness News sources, Sullivan was instrumental in the players' recent settlements with Duke University.

The State Attorney General declared David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann innocent after rape allegations against them were determined to be false. The Attorney General's findings and the recent disbarment of former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong have raised questions about why and how the case was allowed to proceed...

Also according to the report members of the Police Department were requested to save all correspondence. No mention was made of Sergeant Mark Gottlieb's EZ Dry Erase Board.

Is the Day of Reckoning approaching for Durham?

The Snooze Room has apparently awaken from it’s deep slumber and is reporting the City of Durham faces the possibility of litigation over the Police handling of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax.

In today’s Herald-Sun reporter Ray Gronberg writes;

Two of the country's best-known lawyers are representing three former Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape and may file a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the city next month, multiple sources say.

The players have hired Washington, D.C., lawyer Brendan Sullivan and New York City litigator Barry Scheck to represent them in the pending civil case.

Confirmation of that came Friday from Chris Manning, a law partner of Sullivan's in the Washington firm Williams & Connolly.

Manning said that Scheck -- a member of O.J. Simpson's legal "dream team" in the 1990s -- is representing the third falsely accused player, Reade Seligmann.

Sources say Sullivan and Scheck contacted the city's lawyers recently and told them Durham faces litigation over how police handled the Duke lacrosse case.

Their move prompted City Council members, senior administrators, City Attorney Henry Blinder and a private-practice attorney retained by the city, Joel Craig, to huddle behind closed doors twice this week for consultations.

Blinder and Craig are supposed to attend a face-to-face meeting with the players' attorneys sometime in the next few days to hear them describe the basis for a lawsuit and perhaps terms for an out-of-court settlement.

The council has scheduled a closed-door meeting on Sept. 6 to hear a report from Blinder and Craig on the results of that meeting....

News of this development should be the final five-alarm fire bell warning to Durham’s City Leaders. Despite the many warnings that disgraced, disbarred, and former DA Nifong along with the Durham PD were attempting to imprison three innocent players for a crime which never happened, the Durham Leaders did little to stop the impending train wreck. Those heady days of indignation, protests, and false statements of March-April 2006 are coming home to roust.

There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation, which permits envy or to be acted out under the guise of virtue. Erich Fromm

Updated Titus Played the Fool Timeline

Timeline:

March 27, 2006: Sheila Eason requests information from Duke Police

Hi, Lt. Best. As we discussed on the phone, Mr. Nifong, our DA wants any and all details documented in writing concerning the incident involving the alleged gang rape by the Duke Lacrosse Team members of Crystal Mangum….All details, even though they may seem insignificant, may add together to help us with this case. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

March 27, 2006: Nifong, Himan, Gottlieb possibly discuss obtaining emails and additional "stuff" from Duke

Brocker: What else, if anything, do you recall discussing with Mr. Nifong during this initial meeting?

Himan: I think we discussed possibly -- I don’t know the initial meeting. But I know we started talking about getting court orders for e-mails and stuff like that for Duke University.

March 29, 2006: Gottlieb & Himan meet with DPD Police Chief Steve Chalmers, City Manager Patrick Baker, DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge, an attorney for the Durham Police Department, Duke University Associate Vice President for Campus Safety and Security Aaron Graves, Duke University Police Director Robert Dean.

The two detectives met on March 29 with Baker, Chalmers, Hodge, a police attorney and two Duke University officials -- Associate Vice President for Campus Safety and Security Aaron Graves and Police Director Robert Dean.

Baker on Tuesday said the March 29 meeting allowed him to hear from Gottlieb and Himan first-hand, to make sure they and Duke police were working smoothly together... H/S

3/29/06 - 1300
Inv. Himan and I were summonsed to a meeting at Police HQ to discuss the case with the Durham Police Command Staff, Duke Police Command Staff, City Manager, and the Police Department Legal Advisor. - Gottlieb

March 31, 2006: Duke PD delivers key card data to Sgt. Gottlieb. Gottlieb notes that key card information was "requested by us."

Inv. Smith and Stotsenberg from Duke Police drove up to the District 2 substation as I was leaving. They had three reports they delivered reports to me requested by us. Two were for staff at Duke who are being harassed due to this case (Duke reports #2006-1548 and 2006-1515), and one is a key card report for the team members on 3/13/06 to 3/14/06.

April 17, 2006: Gottlieb presents the illegally obtained key card data to the Grand Jury.

With Mr. Finnerty, we were able to show that he was at the party and that she had identified him. And we had the time cards, per se. I don't know what exactly you would call it, but each student has a magnetic card that if they go in the parking lot or dorm room or buy food, whatever, if they use that card it leaves an electronics stamp. And we had a document showing that he arrived back at the dorm at the time as the of the people who we knew were at the party. So we were able to put together information to at least corroborate, one, he was there; two, he met the description; three, she was able to show him; the SANE nurse's report was consistent with a sexual assault. So we had something to work with there for an indictment.

With Mr. Seligmann, we never had anything to tie him to the party directly. Meaning, when we asked the players, you know I had asked the two about the list, the two that I asked never placed him at the party, and the third guy never placed him at the party. And, yes, he met the physical description. But strictly looking at a picture and saying, "That's the man who raped me," Ben was very concerned. We knew that he came in close to the same time that the other players came in. So it wasn't out of the question that he was at the party.

...I told the facts of what's documented in my report. … I spoke to them about the time cards issues. …

April 24, 2006: Himan asks Nifong to add the names of all lacrosse team members to the subpoena.

4/24/06 1157hrs - Mr. Nifong contacted me in reference to the subpoena that was to be given out. I asked that all names be from the lacrosse team be added to those subpoenas.

May 31, 2006: Himan receives subpoena from Nifong's office.

5/31/06 - Received subpoenas from Candy Clark in reference to key card access.

July 17, 2006: Sgt. Gottlieb's homegrown notes, including the reference to the illegally obtained evidence, are finally turned over to the defendants.

July 17, 2006: Judge Titus conducts fake hearing on motion to quash subpoena ordering production of records already in the government's possession as if the records had not yet been obtained illegally by the government.

July 18, 2006: Defense attorneys inspect the files of the Durham Police Department and discover evidence that had been withheld from discovery. In an August motion detailing the withheld evidence, no mention is made of the key card data.

Defense attorneys Brad Bannon, Buddy Conner, Bill Cotter, and Kirk Osborn reviewed the investigative file and physical evidence "in these matters" at the DPD. CSI Angela Ashby and lead investigator Ben Himan were present. Counsel for the defense discovered the following items in the investigative file which had not been provided to the defense in discovery:

a. Major Milhaich's May 25 memo directing the preservation and production of all e-mails sent to or from case investigators. The version of the memo sent specifically to CSI Ashby was located in her file of case materials, along with e-mails to and from her about the case which were obviously produced in response to the memo and retained in her own file. Those e-mails had also not been provided to the Defendants in to-date discovery.

b. A computerized criminal history and DPD criminal case description history regarding [the AV], which was sought and produced on April 11. In addition to listing the alleged rape charges in this case (DPD case number 06-008310) and the original felony charges and ultimate misdemeanor dispositions of cases that arose against [the AV] on June 21, 2002, regarding the theft of an automobile followed by a high-speed chase and felony assault on a law enforcement officer (DPD case number 02-060468). the documents also listed the following DPD case numbers in which [the AV] was somehow involved:

Date of incident Case No. Srce. Inv. Description
8-30-2000 00-030407 ARRS PRIS Driving while impaired
9-17-2000 00-032879 OFFN SUSP Larceny
10-25-2000 00-037545 OFFN OTHR Family/minor-other offense
4-26-2004 04-011166 OFFN CMPL Child molestation

Other than the investigation of the above-reference case, the investigative file does not contain any underlying substantive reports of any of [the AV's] previous interactions with the criminal justice system that resulted in the assignment of a DPD case number.

[Joint Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery, paragraph 16, filed August 31, 2006]

July 21, 2006: Judge Titus issues meaningless protective order and order quashing the subpoena.

July 28, 2006: Nifong dumps Judge Titus by agreeing to have the cases declared exceptional. The special designation removed Judge Titus from the case and paved the way for the appointment of Judge Osmond Smith.

Court officials have taken steps toward having the Duke rape case declared "exceptional," which would allow a single judge to schedule and manage the cases against three lacrosse players.

Durham Trial Court Administrator Kathy Shuart said the parties in the case have agreed in principle to the designation, which would remove the case from Durham's case management system. Instead of monthly court hearings being set, a single judge, who would be appointed by state judicial officials, would decide when to hear motions or call the parties into court, Shuart said. N&O

Click here to read Titus Played the Fool.

Click here to participate in the Blog Hooligan's discussion of the post.

John-in-Carolina offers additional thoughts here.

Baker's No-Brainer

In May, Durham City Manager Patrick Baker narrowed the search for Durham's next Police Chief to three final candidates: Ronald Hodge, Durham's current deputy police chief; William Donald "Don" Green, a deputy chief of the Knoxville (Tenn.) Police Department and Jose Lopez Sr., an assistant police chief of the Hartford (Conn.) Police Department. In announcing the finalists, Baker noted that, in his mind, all three were viable candidates for the position:

"I am thoroughly impressed with the solid experience of these finalists," City Manager Patrick Baker said in a release.

"They meet the criteria and qualities I had in mind for the next chief, including having risen through the ranks at a similar size police department, holding positions that allowed them to develop strong field and management experience, combined with an appreciation for strong community relations," he said. N&O

Seven weeks later, Baker has yet to conclude the search process with the hiring of a new Police Chief. Given the three choices he left himself, it would appear that the decision is a no-brainer. Although each of the three candidates possess similar experience and career paths, as noted by Baker in his press release, Hartford's Assistant Police Chief Jose Lopez Sr. is the only logical choice among the three remaining candidates.

Knoxville Deputy Chief Green's rumored reluctance to commit more than a few years to the post combined with his acceptance of the duplicitous Chalmers/Baker report on the department's role in the Nifong/Mangum Hoax (Green stated: "[the] justifications that were in the report seem reasonable to me.") clearly remove him as an acceptable replacement for the invisible Chief Chalmers. While championing the empty Hoax report that was widely decried for its absence of substance, merit, and truth is sufficient to distrust his candidacy, Green's apparent short term commitment is the bigger issue. For a city that has faced this search process several times in the past two decades, the prospect of repeating the effort again within a few years is unattractive at best.

Jim Wise of the News & Observer's Durham News described the revolving door at DPD headquarters as follows:

It's been just five years since Durham last went looking for a chief, and our next will be our sixth in the last 20 years.

In 1988, Chief Talmadge Lassiter retired after an inquiry found "severe organizational stagnation" on his watch. His successor, Trevor Hampton, quit in '91 over internal problems -- including unsubstantiated reports of a call-girl ring working through police headquarters.

Then there was Jackie McNeil, who took early retirement in 1997 after giving up administrative duties in the wake of sexual-harassment accusations and a record 43 murders in the city the previous year.

Teresa Chambers arrived to start 1998, ran a secretive but sound outfit and left in '02. Her chief of staff, Steve Chalmers, was named interim while then-City Manager Marcia Conner sought a replacement.

Five months later, Gregory Watkins from Kansas City had the job -- only to resign before starting after his history of female- abuse came out. Chalmers' hat was in the ring, but he heard through the search consultant that he was out of the running. A third candidate, William Carcara of Kentucky, had meantime lost out on the chief's job in Sarasota, but when offered the Durham post said he was changing careers.

After another month's search, Virginian Douglas Scott accepted Durham's call, only to quit -- again, before he ever started -- over his benefits package. Just in time for Christmas, the slighted but loyal Chalmers got the job after all.

Now he's retiring, and word that a leading chief candidate, Ron Hodge, went to court 10 years ago over spanking his son with an official city of Durham nightstick -- already gives 2007 a feel of deja vu all over again.

Well, if the current litter doesn't produce a pick, Baker has an unannounced candidate at hand -- a lawman known in the community and not afraid to take on a town, who shoots from the hip, calls 'em as he sees 'em and needs a job.

Mike Nifong.

This is Durham. Stranger things have happened.

Durham Deputy Chief of Police Ron Hodge is an entirely unacceptable candidate for the top post in a department in desperate need of restoring the public trust. The appointment of Hodge as Police Chief would only serve to signal acceptance of the status quo. At a time when the department is under intense public scrutiny for its complicity in the framing of three innocent men for crimes that have been proved to have never occurred, the promotion of Hodge, whose own actions in the Hoax investigation are likely to come under review, is the worst choice available to Baker.

At his Bull City Rising Blog, Kevin Davis makes the case for change within the Durham Police Department:

Which brings up the greater point: is it time for new leadership in the DPD? Hodge certainly represents the status quo, given Chalmers' absences over the past year.

Personally, my mind in at least one candidate's case was made up by comments that Ron Hodge made at the public forum for the three finalists earlier this month. As Andrea Weigl of the N&O reported:

At the public forum Tuesday, Hodge told the audience, "I don't recall that the Durham Police Department has been involved in something where we made major mistakes in the last five years." He said that though some errors may have been made, they were not "fatal to the outcome of the case."

On Friday, Hodge said he stands by his comments. "A major problem to me is uncovering corruption in the department," he said. "I don't see, at the end of the day, whatever is uncovered about what the Durham Police Department did not do as it relates to the Duke lacrosse case will be major."

What's really galling about this turn of phrase is that it's the ultimate lose-lose thing to say. If you believe the DPD erred in the case (which we truly won't know until the end of the upcoming committee investigation, if even then), then you're immediately biased against Hodge, probably irrevocably so.

On the other hand, if you think the fault lies strictly with Mr. Nifong -- you're probably still flabbergasted by the comment, which shows the nuance and subtlety of, well, a brick. I mean, there's lots of better ways to have said this, right? Such as:

"Obviously the lacrosse case has not shed the most glamorous light on the City of Durham, its government or its police department. I believe that an investigation will show that the Durham Police Department didn't commit mistakes that lost the case; I think that particular case in general, which is on everyone's mind, will go down as an anomaly amidst a period when we made progress on crime and have reduced the murder rate in the Bull City. By the way, did I mention my experience doing just that as a District One commander?"

...and so forth. If you can't talk your way past a hardball question, what are you going to do when the City Council throws real heat at you, or the next time (God forbid) the Durham police chief is in the national spotlight?

Chalmers certainly didn't do the department any favors by walking, no, running away from reporters' questions every time they came up and giving the impression, warranted or not, of ducking the issues. The next DPD chief is going to be in the spotlight with the local media at the least, given Durham's "gritty" reputation.

Does this mean you want a PR wonk running the police department? Absolutely not. But I'm a firm believer that your ability to communicate effectively doesn't begin and end when the cameras and reporters' tape recorders shut off. You need to demonstrate leadership to your department, too, and part of that lies in the ability to communicate well and often to them.

Beyond communication, it's the little problem of leadership that's really at the heart of the problem with Hodge's statement. A much wiser man than I once told me that managing was about following the process. Dot the i's, cross the t's, and no matter what happened, you did things right, he said.

Leadership, on the other hand, is about the results you bring to the table. Process still matters, but there's something more important at stake -- you also have to execute and you have to make good outcomes happen. If managing is doing things right, leading is doing the right things.

Hodge's statement at the public forum reeks of a managerial mentality: check and cross-check the regs, keep your head down, don't screw up, and you're doing just fine. Technicalities over outcomes, chain of command versus being a commander. It does not demonstrate a readiness to step forward and take the reins of leadership.

At his Dependable Erection Blog, Barry Ragin, Durham Precinct 19 chair, offers a succinct description of the decision facing City Manager Baker while questioning the delay in making a decision.

It's been well over a month since the field of candidates to replace outgoing Durham Police Chief Steve Chalmers was narrowed down to three finalists. And it's been over three weeks since the finalists appeared at a "meet the community" forum at City Hall. City Manager Patrick Baker was quoted back in late May as saying he'd be making a decision in mid-July. I heard a rumor last weekend that the decision may be pushed back into August.

Basically, I wonder who's being served by taking that long to make the decision.

The main fork on the decision tree, it seems to me, is do you think that Durham's Police Department needs a change of direction? If you say no, then Ron Hodge is your guy. If you say yes, then he's not.

...

My own feeling is that the need for change probably goes even deeper than Mr. Hodge's inability to come up with the right answer to a question at the public forum. The reputation of the DPD is pretty low right now in a lot of circles. Promoting from within, which i'm usually a pretty big fan of, is not going to help with that problem. And moving forward, if DPD doesn't want every single move it makes to be questioned by those with axes to grind, fixing the reputation problem should be job 1.

So for that reason, i think it would make sense for Patrick Baker to step forward earlier rather than later, and let us know what his answer to the question of whether the Durham Police Department needs to move in a new direction is. Even if he hasn't settled on a final choice, i don't think it violates protocol for him to announce that decision. Both of the out of town finalists are candidates for other positions. The longer he waits, the more likely that circumstances may tie Mr. Baker's hands.

In our view, the choice of Jose Lopez Sr., given the unacceptable alternatives, is so clear that if, for any reason, Lopez is deemed unacceptable, or declines the position, the second option for Baker should be to renew the search process and develop new candidates.

What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?

Throughout the Nifong/Mangum Hoax, one enduring question has been: "What did Mike Nifong and his Durham Police Department accomplices know and when did they know it?" The question appears central to the next round of repercussions for the rogue DA, his accomplices in the Durham Police Department, and the enablers of the Hoax. To date we have witnessed: the criminal charges against the Duke Innocents dismissed and proved false; the rogue prosecutor disbarred, disgraced, and removed from office; a city council committee appointed to review the actions of the police department commission; five civil settlements conceded to by Duke University; and a criminal contempt of court hearing scheduled for former DA Nifong. As the prospects of anticipated civil litigation as well as State and Federal Department of Justice criminal and/or civil rights investigations await, the recent State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Committee proceedings have offered some insight and answers.

In her opening statement to the Disciplinary Hearing Committee of the North Carolina State Bar, prosecutor Katherine Jean began Mike Nifong’s ethics trial with the revelation that the rogue District Attorney, motivated by his flailing election campaign, initiated his self-serving public assault on the entire Duke University lacrosse team, and belligerently pressed forward with the State’s false prosecution of three innocent players for a crime that never occurred, despite having prior knowledge of evidence which suggested that the contradictory accusations made by Crystal Mangum were as fraudulent as they appeared to DPD Sergeant John Shelton when the false accuser first uttered her fantastic lies.

North Carolina State Bar prosecutor Jean opened her arguments with the following statements:

In March of 2006, Michael Nifong was the appointed District Attorney of Durham. He was engaged in a contentious political campaign to keep his office. On Friday, March the 24th, Mr. Nifong learned for the first time that an African American exotic dancer had alleged that she was raped by three white men at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd in Durham. That is a house that was rented by three team captains of the Duke lacrosse team.

By the time Mr. Nifong learned about this allegation, the Durham police department working with Mr. Nifong’s office had obtained non-testimonial identification orders from the court requiring that all 46 Caucasian members of the Duke lacrosse team provide DNA samples and be photographed for identification purposes.

When Mr. Nifong saw that this case existed, he immediately recognized that this case would likely garner significant media attention and decided to handle it himself instead of having the case handled by the assistant in his office who would ordinarily handle such cases.

Mr. Nifong called the Durham Police Department, notified the Durham Police Department he would be handling the case himself, and instructed the Durham Police Department to go thru him for any directions on the factual investigation of the case. Mr. Nifong also made an appointment to meet with Investigator Himan and Sgt. Gottlieb of the Durham Police Department on the following Monday. So he learned about this on Friday the 24th and had a meeting the following Monday with the Police Department.

At that meeting he was briefed by Investigator Himan and Sgt. Gottlieb. And, he learned a lot about the case. He learned that the accusing party, Crystal Mangum, had given a number of different versions of what happened on this night and had in fact twice recanted and said that no rape occurred at all. She had alleged variously that she had been assaulted by three or five or twenty men. Mr. Nifong learned that the other exotic dancer who was present at the party called the entire story a crock. He learned that the three team captains of the Duke lacrosse team who lived in the house were this allegedly happened had voluntarily provided DNA samples for comparison purposes, had voluntarily given statements to the police, and had cooperated fully when the police executed a search warrant at the house. And, he learned that those three team captains denied entirely Ms. Mangum’s allegations.

Mr. Nifong did not review all of the evidence that was available. He reviewed some of the evidence that was available.

And, he left that briefing and proceeded on a series of television and newspaper interviews, appeared on television, appeared on local television, appeared on national television, and said a number of things about this case…And in these interviews, he said the lacrosse players are not cooperating with the investigation…he detailed Ms. Mangum’s allegations on national television repeatedly as if they were established facts. He expressed his personal belief in the truth of Ms. Mangum’s allegations. He went on national television and demonstrated the choke hold that the lacrosse player who allegedly assaulted her had allegedly put on her neck, [he] described how she struggled to breathe during the alleged attack…He stated that the guilty will stand trial and there’s no doubt a sexual assault took place…He called the perpetrators hooligans. He characterized the alleged crime as abhorrent, reprehensible, and absolutely unconscionable… He said this was the worst thing that had happened in Durham since he became the District Attorney. He compared it to a quadruple homicide and to multiple cross burnings…

While Katherine Jean points to Nifong’s March 27 briefing with DPD Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Investigator Ben Himan as the source of his initial understanding of the falsity of the allegations he hijacked for his desperate campaign to keep Freda Black from taking his office, it appears likely that some of Nifong’s initial information on the fraudulent nature of Ms. Mangum’s claims came not only from his willing accomplices in the Durham Police Department but also from his own assistant Sheila Eason whose husband was one of the Duke police officers to first respond to Duke University Medical Center the night of the non-event before visiting the home of the Duke lacrosse team captains to follow up.

In his report date March 14, 2006, Duke University Police office Christopher Day confirms the participation of Eason's husband. Day wrote:

Lt. Best stayed at the Emergency Department to gather information from the victim with Durham Police. PO Eason, PO Robertson and I went to 610 N. Buchanan Street to follow up... The victim changed her story several times, and eventually Durham Police stated that charges would not exceed misdemeanor simple assault against the occupants of 610 N. Buchanan.

In his State Bar deposition, Mr. Nifong at first expressly denies having prior knowledge of the facts of the case other than the false details presented on the non-testimonial order prior to his March 27, 2006 meeting with Inv. Himan and his supervisor Sgt. Gottlieb.

Brocker: What -- prior to going into the meeting with the two investigators, what did you know? Other than what was in the Non-Testimonial Order, was there anything else that you knew?

Nifong: I don't believe so. I just think what was in the Non-Testimonial order is what I knew when I got to the meeting.

…

Brocker: Did you have any indication before you walked in that meeting about, beyond what was in the Non-Testimonial Order, what Ms. Mangum had said or alleged

Nifong: No, sir.

While his briefing with Inv. Himan and Sgt. Gottlieb began at 10:40AM as noted by Sgt. Gottlieb, email correspondence indicates that Nifong had already instructed his assistant, Sheila Eason to follow up on the information relayed from her husband. At 10:35AM, Mrs. Eason sent an email to her husband’s superior officer, Lt. Jeffrey Best, confirming an earlier request she had made by phone for “any and all details documented in writing concerning the incident involving the alleged gang rape by the Duke Lacrosse Team members of Crystal Mangum.”

Eason, who was recently re-hired by Nifong’s mentor/replacement Jim Hardin (Eason resigned last fall from the DA’s office after apparently being demoted to allow Linwood “The Fixer” Wilson’s promotion from part time check chaser to Chief Investigator), notes that her request is made at the behest of Mr. Nifong and is based on “our understanding that your squad was working the night Ms. Mangum went into the emergency room.”

In her request to Duke police, Mrs. Eason pointedly directs:

“Included in this should be any observations of the victim, whether anyone was with her or brought her to the emergency room and any statements she made to any law enforcement officer. All details, even though they may seem insignificant, may add together to help us with this case.”

Click image to view Eason's email:

Despite his earlier denials to State Bar Prosecutor Doug Brocker, Mr. Nifong would later admit to instructing Mrs. Eason to gather reports from Duke police after having received information relayed by her husband. In his admission, however, Mr. Nifong, perhaps conscious of the implications of revealing that he had evidence that the allegations were thought to be false prior to his hijacking of the Hoax, would attempt to revise the timing of his conversations with Mrs. Eason from prior to his “initial” briefing until “maybe the week after.”

Nifong: This is a report from the Duke Police Department, and I know that at some point, probably in the second week, maybe the week after March 27th, I had asked Sheila Eason, who was my assistant--she was in the investigator's position, but was not really an investigator, she was an administrative assistant to Mr. Hardin and I retained her in that position--to obtain the reports from Duke Public Safety because I wanted to see them.

I had heard that there were, you know, reports that the officers, the Durham Police Department officers, hadn't seen. And her husband was associated with the Duke University Police Department, and so I asked her to get them because I knew they had -- and at some point probably that week, I did receive reports from several Duke university police officers.
Brocker: Okay. During the week of March 27th or the week after?

Nifong: The week after.

…

Brocker: I am going to ask you to look at Exhibit 10 there, which I think is an e-mail that you've already referred to in your testimony. see if you recognize that as the e-mail that Ms. Eason had written on your behalf?

Nifong: I don't know that I ever saw the e-mail, but this would appear to be that.

Brocker:But you had asked her to --

Nifong: I had asked for to do this. Yes, sir.

Brocker:You had said Ms. Eason's -- that Ms. Eason's husband was a member of the Duke Police Department or the --

Nifong: Larry Eason at the time was an officer -- I believe he was an officer with the Durham Police Department. He subsequently left and went back to the Sheriff's Department where he had been before, but he was an officer over there. As a matter of fact, I'm not certain about this, but it may have been that she told me that Larry, who was her husband, had said that they had some reports over there. But at any rate, I asked her to get whatever they had.

Brocker: Can you read the e-mail and just tell me if it's consistent with what you were asking Ms. Eason to do?

Nifong: Well, certainly the part, "Could you please have each member of your squad that has any information about this incident to document same and forward to this office Mr. Nifong's attention." That part of the e-mail is certainly what I said. I don't know what this part about, "At this time we did not have the exact date because the Assistant District Attorney handled this in court." I don't know what that refers to or who that refers to.

Brocker: Let me ask you about a different part of that statement. she just writes down here that, "All details, even though they may seem insignificant, may add together to help us with this case." Is that consistent with what you had talked to her about and wanted her to get all the details the Duke Police Department had?

Nifong: Yes, I would say that it was consistent.

In his State Bar deposition, Inv. Benjamin Himan would confirm that Mr. Nifong had prior knowledge of the inconsistencies that belied Ms. Mangum’s accusations prior to the March 27 briefing.

Himan: I don’t know about that initial statement [to Officer Sutton], but her stories that she said at Duke Hospital, I know that is what he brought up, that she had changed her story at Duke Hospital. But those specific statements weren’t actually discussed. He just brought up the statements from that….No, he said it right in the beginning. He said -- he said -- we started talking about some things and he goes, “You know we’re fucked?” And that is when he was asking about the stuff what we had done and what she had said and what was going on.

Brocker: Okay, So, in addition to his statements about no search warrant being done immediately and not talking to the players, he was also referring to the fact that she had made these inconsistent statements at the hospital?

Himan: Yes. That would have been afterward, yeah, about the -- and I believe, I think he was getting that information from one of his assistants whose husband worked at Duke Police Department…. Sheila Eason, I believe. I think that’s where he was getting some of the information from.

Earlier in his deposition, Himan described the conversation about Mangum’s inability to tell the same the story twice as if the purpose of the “briefing," in part, was perhaps for Sgt. Gottlieb and DA Nifong to not-so-subtlety sell the rookie investigator on overlooking the discrepancies while trusting their greater experience rather than his lying eyes and ears.

Himan: Mr. Nifong actually brought up the discrepancies, and that’s where they were explaining why it could possibly be some discrepancies.

Brocker: What do you recall Mr. Nifong saying in that initial meeting about the discrepancies?

Himan: He just said that, you know, she has made some other stories or there’s other sides of the stories from what she is saying. And that’s when they also started to get into that she could have been possibly drugged and that’s why there’s different allegations. He was asking Gottlieb what his experience in rape cases were, he asked what my experience was in rape cases. He asked how many had gone to trial with Gottlieb. And basically the experience.

Brocker: The two of your’s experience?

Himan: Yeah. Basically. I mean there would be questions brought up and then he would ask Sergeant Gottlieb, “well, how many rape investigations have you done, how many have you gone to trial on?” And basically seeing what Gottlieb’s experience was in rape cases are.

Brocker: What was Sergeant Gottlieb’s response?

Himan: I believe he had done -- he did them for about 23 years, I think he said, and that he done multiple rapes, sexual assault cases. He gave the number, I think, eight (8) that had gone to trial, I believe. And I think he asked me how many rape investigation I had done.

Brocker: And what was your response?

Himan: One.

…

Brocker: Did Mr. Nifong talk specifically about what the inconsistencies were in Ms, Mangum’s statements?

Himan: I believe it was in regarding to her statements of who was actually involved, the number of people.

Brocker: The number of people?

Himan: Yes, her differing stories that she had told in the beginning while she was at the hospital.

Brocker: And did that include -- so the discrepancies that he talked about was the number of people involved. Did he talk about any discrepancies about whether in fact a rape had occurred?

Himan: No, that wasn’t -- that wasn’t brought up.

…

Brocker: Did Mr. Nifong talk to you about what he had reviewed to become aware that there were inconsistencies in her statements initially?

Himan: I think -- I thought he mentioned the police reports. I don’t know if he had already looked them over, but he knew that there was some discrepancies in her story from the initial -- the initial night that she went to the hospital, and he asked us about those.

Brocker: Do you know whether he had spoken with any other officers who were initially involved before that?

Himan: I don’t know if he did or not. I don’t think he did.

In his State Bar deposition, Sgt. Gottlieb - whose reluctance to take notes, avoidance of signing any of the affidavits he composed or helped to compose, carefully guarded statements, and overt attempt to create the impression that this was “Ben’s investigation” have given the distinct impression of a conscious effort to escape criminal culpability - coyly disputes Himan’s assertion that there was a detailed discussion of, and explanations offered for, the damning inconsistencies offered by Ms. Mangum.

While Sgt. Gottlieb, of course, does not admit to the apparent effort to sell the green investigator on overlooking the inconsistencies in Mangum’s fantastic lies, he does ominously acknowledge the initiation of the purposeful spin that has been put forth by former District Attorney Nifong, City Manager Patrick Baker, and Police Chief Steve Chalmers.

The information that we would have shared with Mr. Nifong was that between the uniformed patrol officer's initial response up to the SANE nurse, things were inconsistent but from the time that she spoke with the SANE nurse all the way up through December, her story didn't really change.

As additional information becomes available, the appearance of an intentional, calculated, and cold-blooded effort to prosecute innocent men for crimes that never occurred becomes increasingly obvious. Rather than revisionist history employed to downplay errors and misjudgments, Nifong's actions and Gottlieb's words clarify that the distortion was in place as the hijacking of the Hoax commenced.

"There was laughter, as well there should be"

On June 5 Durham Deputy Police Chief Ronald Hodge participated as one of the three candidates in a public forum for potential replacements for retiring Durham Police Chief Chalmers. In a Q & A segment with the candidates, Hodge commented about Durham Police actions during the Duke Lacrosse case:

"I don't recall that the Durham Police Department has been involved in something where we made major mistakes in the last five years." He said that though some errors may have been made, they were not "fatal to the outcome of the case." N & O

He was immediately the target of snickering in the audience. How could the Deputy Police Chief, who was the highest ranking police official during the investigation when Chief Chambers was absent, make such a statement?

As Councilman Eugene Brown has pointed out in his letter to the City Council Independent Investigator regarding the Hoax:

One basic question is why did three Durham residents have to go to Raleigh and to the Attorney General's office to get justice? What was in the collective DNA of some within the Durham Police Department (DPD) that denied the accused justice in our City? Who was really in charge of investigating this case, the Durham Police or the DA? Who was driving the train and who was stoking the coal in the fire engine to keep this hoax of an investigation going? What was the role of the Durham Police Department in creating what the Attorney General deemed a "rush to conviction" but apparently not to justice? Letter

In response to the critics Deputy Chief Hodge has replied in the News and Observer:

On Friday, Hodge said he stands by his comments. "A major problem to me is uncovering corruption in the department," he said. "I don't see, at the end of the day, whatever is uncovered about what the Durham Police Department did not do as it relates to the Duke lacrosse case will be major." N & O

Councilman Eugene Brown had this comment:

Durham City Council member Eugene Brown was flabbergasted by Hodge's comments at the forum. "There was laughter, as well there should be," he said. And lawyers for the players say the department made major mistakes and the city should be wary of hiring a chief who might do the same. N & O

One can't help but wonder if Deputy Chief Hodge has learned a bit of Nifongese.... perhaps he'll see, at the end of the day, whatever is uncovered about what the Durham Police Department did do as it relates to the Duke lacrosse case will be major. Certainly his and Chalmer's problems uncovering corruption in the department played a part in Mayor Bell's call for an external investigation. In view of the fact that this obvious apologist for the status quo in Durham is a finalist for the position, we believe the Durham City Council should review the search for a new Police Chief and start anew by taking over the search from City Manager Baker.

Questions from Durham City Councilman Eugene Brown

To: Independent Investigator

From: Eugene A. Brown, Durham City Council

Re: Questions concerning role of Durham Police Department in the Duke Lacrosse Case

Date: May 31, 2007

.

Based upon my analysis of the case and conversations with numerous attorneys, community leaders, reporters and police officers, I submit the following questions:

.

Overview

One basic question is why did three Durham residents have to go to Raleigh and to the Attorney General's office to get justice? What was in the collective DNA of some within the Durham Police Department (DPD) that denied the accused justice in our City? Who was really in charge of investigating this case, the Durham Police or the DA? Who was driving the train and who was stoking the coal in the fire engine to keep this hoax of an investigation going? What was the role of the Durham Police Department in creating what the Attorney General deemed a "rush to conviction" but apparently not to justice?

.

Although the relationship between a police department and the district attorney is often symbiotic, roles are generally defined as investigator and prosecutor, respectively. The relationship in this case seemed one-sided, with the District Attorney's office taking both roles. Is the relationship between the District Attorney and the DPD in this case typical of the approach used in most criminal cases in Durham?

.

Chain of Command

Who was in charge of our police department during this case? We know that for several months Chief Chalmers was attending his mother who was seriously ill. This is understandable, but it begs the question of who had oversight of this major national case? Deputy Chief Ron Hodge spoke to the press on several occasions; was he the "go to guy"? What about the lead investigator, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb? It is unclear who he was reporting to, Indeed, where is the evidence that he was actually in communication with the police leadership?

.

The Baker/Chalmers report states that the DPD was in control of and accountable for the investigation. Yet, on March 24, 2006, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, DPD senior investigator, wrote that he conveyed to his boss, Captain Jeff Lamb, that Mike Nifong would be running the case. Lamb told Gottlieb to "go through Mr. Nifong for any directions on how to conduct matters in this case." How does one explain this difference? Who was correct? And is there any major evidence that the DPD challenged District Attorney, Mike Nifong, at any time throughout the life of this case?

.

The Lineup

How were three lacrosse players indicted with no physical evidence, no corroborative witnesses and numerous and conflicting stories from the "victim" about her alleged rape. The answer, unfortunately, appears to be primarily a tainted lineup.

.

The Baker/Chalmers report states that the reason for the special lineup was that "the witness had failed to identify her attackers from six previous suspect identification processes which were governed by G.O. 4077." Query: shouldn't that fact alone have been a red flag to police investigators concerning the credibility of the witness? In essence, are police admitting that they tried doing the lineup the right way six times with no positive results, so they had to change their procedure to get what they wanted?

.

Several other DPD procedures seem troubling. Doesn't the standard lineup policy call for an independent administrator to run it? This avoids any unintended influence from the primary investigator. Why was lead investigator Sgt. Mark Gottlieb running the lineup and did he assume the same role in the other six lineups? Who allowed this to happen and when Gottlieb went to the Grand Jury, did he acknowledge that the only identification he had was from the suspicious lineup that probably would not stand up in court? Did he or the DPD say anything to the Grand Jury about the conflicting stories of the alleged victim?

.

Throughout the country, the use of "fillers"—people who have no connection to the case—is common and standard practice. The argument advanced in the Baker/Chalmers report was that the police guidelines regarding the use of "fillers" didn't apply because DPD was using the identification procedure to find witnesses. This makes little sense when all the lacrosse players were considered suspects. In essence, one can argue that for Ms. Mangum this was like shooting fish in a barrel. Whoever she chose would and could be identified as a suspect.

.

In addition, the Baker/Chalmers argument that the April 4, 2006 "lineup" was for identification purposes only is also called into question by the unusual measures of preparation for the photo session. Why did Sgt. Gottlieb seek additional help from colleagues in implementing the April 4 lineup, when such assistance was not needed for earlier lineups? Why was the April 4 lineup videotaped when earlier lineups were not? Sgt. Gottlieb recently admitted that the April 4 lineup was videotaped to allow "potential jurors, defense attorneys, prosecutors and other judicial officials" to see how the procedure was conducted. If this is the case, how can the Baker/Chalmers report argue that there was never any intention to use the April 4 lineup as a suspect identification procedure?

.

Another question surrounding the photo lineup is why did the description Ms. Mangum made on March 16 of alleged attacker Finnerty, as reported by Sgt. Gottlieb's July written report of the identification procedure, directly contradict handwritten notes taken by Investigator Benjamin Himan during the same photo lineup procedure? Sgt. Gottlieb's report of Ms. Mangum's description of Finnerty was as follows: "W/M, young, blonde hair, baby faced, tall and lean," while Hirnan's notes report Mangum as describing her three attackers as "heavyset, dark. chubby or short." This stark contrast of descriptions creates uncertainty in either the accuser's credibility, or in the recording and reliability of accounts by police. Either way, there are unanswered questions surrounding the photo lineup procedure. Also, why did Sgt. Gottlieb, unlike Investigator Himan, wait several months to finally put his report on paper?

.

Exculpatory Evidence

The Baker/Chalmers report attempts to show that the DPD had a record of "seeking exculpatory statements and evidence", but why did DPD seem to accept axiomatically the validity of Mangum's story? Was there any proactive attempt on behalf of the DPD) to investigate her background or to check out her mental health?

.

DPD's evidence hunt seemed to be one-sided. Indeed, DPD spent an incredible amount of time, energy and money investigating the 46 members of the Duke Lacrosse team. Yet, according to the Attorney General's report, after 10 months of this case languishing with the DPD and District Attorney, it was the Attorney General's special prosecutors who first questioned the conflicting gang-rape stories of Crystal Gail Mangum. The result: "The state's case rested primarily on a witness whose recollections of the facts of the allegations were imprecise and contradictory."

.

After the City Council work session last week, Chief Chalmers spoke with the media about the case for the first time in nearly 13 months. He stated that there were no inconsistencies in Ms. Mangum's stories from March 14, 2007 until the police took the case to the Grand Jury in April. Many questioned his recollection of the facts. Indeed, the overall consensus is that the complainant gave at least six conflicting accounts of what transpired that night at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. Even the DPD officer who first picked her up in front of Kroger's that morning was skeptical of her story. Her first concern was that she had been robbed, not raped and according to the officer, it appeared to be a business deal gone wrong. Duke Hospital officials also spoke of her changing story.

.

In DPD's search for evidence, why was Dr. Julie Manly, who conducted the medical exam of Ms. Mangum at Duke Hospital, not interviewed? Why did it take nearly a month for DPD to talk with John Shelton, the officer who first picked up Ms. Mangum at the Kroger's on Hillsboro Rd. and why was Officer Shelton's dubious belief in Ms. Mangum's story given no credence with the investigators?The Baker/Chalmers report attempts to accuse the lacrosse team members of not cooperating with the DPD. Yet, it fails to even mention the initial meeting with some of the players who gave testimony. Nor does it state that the DPD actually turned down an early offer from the Captains of the lacrosse team to voluntarily submit themselves to an SBI-administered polygraph test.

.

Wanted Poster

Before any indictments were issued, the DPD officially and repeatedly told the public that horrific crimes had been committed at the lacrosse party. In late March 2006, I, and many others, received an email "wanted poster" from Durham CrimeStoppers which stated: "The Duke Lacrosse Team solicited a local escort service for entertainment. The victim was paid to dance at the residence located at 610 N. 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." The message later appeared, I believe, on the Trinity Park list serve and other media outlets as well. Several questions arise from this:

.

-Who authorized Officer Addison to create and distribute such a false and libelous posting and to personally appear on WRAL (March 24, 2006) and state: You are looking at one victim brutally raped." Since he was not an investigator on this case, how did he reach this fallacious conclusion? Who finally ordered the poster to be removed from the public arena?

.

-The poster states that "CrimeStoppers will pay cash for any information which leads to an arrest in this case." Was any money paid to any citizen for such information and if so, what was received in exchange? The second dancer, Kim Roberts, who accompanied Mangum changed her story often, including after the reward poster became public. Were any public funds paid to her?

.

Intimidation of a Witness

As a City Council we have been discussing for several years the problem of Durham's unserved warrants. Indeed, we have learned that our city may have as many as 50,000 unserved warrants going back many years. Some of theses warrants are minor and unworthy of pursuit. However, with such a backlog of warrants, why did the DPD serve an old warrant for the arrest of the cab driver who, according to reports, had driven accused player, Reade Sliegman [sic], the night of the alleged rape? Was the close proximity of the service of this warrant to the rape case a coincidence, or aimed at intimidating the cab driver who could possibly supply an alibi for the accused, Seligman [sic]?

.

Conclusion

Is the Durham Police Department proud of its role in the Duke Lacrosse case? If so, what does DPD feel went right with this case? Will other criminal cases in Durham be handled in a similar manner? What has DPD learned from what some would describe as one of the worst chapters in the usually proud history of public safety operations in our fair city?

Mayor Bell's Memo to City Council

Memo To: Durham City Council
From: William V. 'Bill" Bell, Mayor
Subject: Durham City Council Third Party Duke Lacrosse Investigative Committee
Attachment: Resume of Attorney Willis P. Whichard
Date: May 30, 2007

Suggested Committee Charge: The committee is charged with performing an independent review of the conduct of the Durham Police Department and the Durham County District Attorney's action (in as much as it possibly can include the DA's actions) in the prosecution of charges of rape and other offenses brought against three Duke Lacrosse players. It is to review documents, interview or take testimony from participants on both sides of the prosecution, and perform such other tasks as it deems necessary or appropriate. In due course, as expeditiously as feasible but without the restrictive constraints of arbitrary deadlines, it shall present to the City Council a report of its findings and conclusions.

The purpose is, insofar as possible, to ascertain and report the truth about these now terminated prosecutions; and, if unconstitutional or otherwise improper procedures were followed, to assist the Department in avoiding similar improprieties in the future, The sole objective is a properly functioning justice system: one that discovers and appropriately punishes the perpetrators of anti-social conduct that our lawmakers have defined as criminal, but that does so in a manner best calculated to produce reliable results and within the procedural boundaries established by our democratic constitutional system.

Suggested Committee Size: The committee shall be comprised of: 9 - 12 members including the committee chairperson. The members shall reflect diversity by race and gender as equally as possible. None of the members should have had any relation or association with any former or existing members of the Duke Lacrosse team, the accuser, witnesses or have any ties to Duke University or NCCU which may be perceived by the Durham City Council as prohibiting them from making a fair, objective and impartial investigation.

The committee shall establish its own rules and procedures for operations. All committee meetings shall follow the open meetings policy of the Durham City Council.

Suggested categories of members: The committee shall be divided as equally as possible
among the three categories of representatives as follows:

1. 3 - 4 Law enforcement officials (i.e. Policemen, District Attorney, etc,)
2. 3 - 4 Criminal Defense Attorneys.
3. 3 - 4 Community Persons

Suggested Chairperson of the committee: Attorney Willis P. Whichard

Latest Suggested date for having the committee appointed and the holding of its first meeting: Week of June 18. 2007.

Suggested time for the committee to complete its investigation: 30 - 60 days from the date of its first official meeting.

Suggested Budget: A budget proposal shall by prepared by the committee and presented to the Durham City Council within two weeks of its first meeting. The Durham City Council shall make the final budget determination within two weeks after having been presented the proposed budget.

Staff support for the committee shall be provided by The Durham City Government from the offices of the city manager, city attorney and city clerk as appropriately determined by the city council as a result of recommendations from the committee, or else suggested by the committee or the Durham City Council. In any event the Durham City Council reserves the final right to determine how the staff support shall be provided to the committee.

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
WILLIS P. WHICHARD

Born in Durham, NC, May 24, 19A0. Resident of Durham until August 2002, when moved to Chatham County, N.C. Part-time residence in Hayesville, N.G., since 1979.

FAMILY

Father (deceased) native of Pitt County; served as teacher and principal for 36 years.

Mother (deceased) native of Clay County: taught for 21 years and worked for county hospital for 24 years.

Married Leona Paschal of Chatham County June 4, 1961. Two daughters: Jennifer W. Ritz, born August 7, 1968; Ida W.-Siikanat, born November 12, 1376. Six grandchildren: Chamberlain Whichard Silkenat, born September 29,1996; Georgia Coleman Ritz, born December 24, 1997; Dawson Gflbert Silkenat, barn May 11, 1999; Evelyn Grace Ritz, born February 13, 2000; Thessaly Larissa Silkenat, born May 7, 2001 and Cordia Franklin Ritz, born April 20, 2002.

EDUCATION

Durham City Schools (1946-58).

A.B. in History, University of NC at Chapel Hill, 1952. Member of Phi Beta Kappa, Order of the Golden Fleece, Order of the Grail and other honorary societies.

J.D. (Juris Doctor), University of NC School of Law, 1965. Board of Editors, NC Law Review. Order of the Coif, highest scholastic honorary society for law students. Phi Delta Phi legal fraternity.

L.L.M. (Master of Laws) in Judicial Process, University of Virginia, 1984.

S.J.D. (Doctor of Judicial Science), University of Virginia, 1994.

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION

Member, Mt. Carmel Baptist Church, Chapel Hill, N.C.

POLITICAL AFFILIATION

Affiliated with Democratic Party since 1959. Served as President of University of North Carolina Young Democratic Clubs. Member of group that founded College Federation of Young Democrats.

MILITARY

Enlisted man, Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, NC Army National Guard, Raleigh, NC. 1966w72. Life member, NC National Guard Association (Judge Advocate, 1972-73; Chairman, Constitution and By-Laws Committee, 1973-74; member Legislative Committee, 1974-76).

PROFESSIONAL

Law Clerk to Justice (later Chief Justice) William H. Bobbitt, NC Supreme Court, 1965-66.

Practicing attorney with Durham, NC, law firm Powe, Porter, Alphin & Whichard, P.A., 1966-80; with Moore & Van Allen PLLG 2006 - .

Dean and Professor of Law, Campbell University 1999-2006.

Instructor of Business Law, Duke University School of Business Administration, summer and fall 1978; instructor for American Institute of Banking law course, 1972.

Adjunct professor, University of North Carolina School of Law, 1986-1999.

Member of American Bar Association, NC Bar Association (Vice-President 1983-84 and 2001-02) and Durham County Bar Association, UNC Law Alumni Association (President, 1978-79; First Vice-President, 1977-75; Second Vice-President, 1978-79; Board of Directors, 1971-73; 1979-82).

PUBLIC SERVICE

NC General Statutes Commission, 1969-73.

NC House of Representatives, 1970-74. NC Senate, 1974-80.

Judge, NC Court of Appeals, 1980-86. Associate Justice, NC Supreme Court, 1986-98 (Note: Justice Whichard is the only person in the history of North Carolina who has served in both houses of the state legislature and on both of the state's appellate courts.)

Chair and member of numerous committees and commissions, including chairing Senate Committee on Courts and Judicial Districts (1975-76) and serving on Judicial Planning Committee of Governor's Crime Commission (1977-80); member, N.C. State-Federal Judicial Relations Council, 1986-98 (chair, 1988-89,1997-98); N.C. Courts Commission, 1994-98.

Comments from Attorney Willis P. Whichard

Re: Third Party independent investigative committee.

In one sense this committee is about the past. Its function is to attempt to ascertain and report the truth about events that are now history. In a broader, more significant sense, however, it is about the future. Its overriding purpose is not just to identify any improprieties or mistakes that may have occurred in the handling of the lacrosse players` cases, but to assist local law enforcement in avoiding such in the future.

I look forward to working with the mayor, the City Council and the committee in this endeavor.

May 31, 2007

Coincidental or Circumstantial?

Awakening from its Hoax-long hibernation, the Snooze Room confirms some of the meticulous choreography assumed to have preceded the April 4, 2006, made-for-video lineup that led directly to the indictment of the Duke Innocents. Undermining the recent deceptive efforts of City Manager Patrick Baker and Chief of Police Steve Chalmers to disguise the real purpose of the contrived lineups, the Herald Sun’s Ray Gronberg reveals that Sgt. Mark Gottlieb described not only the elaborate staging of the Hoax enabling lineup in his case notes, but also the devious intention which motivated the contrived identifications that Baker and Chalmers have taken great pains to reinvent as accidental.

Gronberg writes:

Detectives conducted the key photo session with the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case with an eye firmly on how it would play in court, according to one description, despite recent assertions by city officials that they weren't expecting her to identify suspects.

The case's supervising investigator, Durham Police Department Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, reported that he and other authorities staged and videotaped the April 4, 2006, session in a way that, in his words, would allow "potential jurors, defense attorneys, prosecutors and other judicial officials" to see for themselves how it unfolded.

…

The mere fact that Gottlieb had it videotaped made it different from the two failed and unrecorded ID sessions another officer, Investigator Richard Clayton, had conducted with the accuser previously, Brad Bannon, one of the lawyers who represented Evans, said Tuesday.

"It was videotaped for presentation in court," Bannon said. "It's ludicrous on 10 different levels that they're saying it wasn't to identify people."

Gottlieb's summary, along with a separate set of notes from lead investigator Ben Himan, showed that police went to unusual lengths to prepare for the April 4 photo session.

Gottlieb told his immediate commanders, Lt. Mark Ripberger and Capt. Jeff Lamb, that the plan was in the works, and both investigators sought help from colleagues with the crucial PowerPoint presentation. …Gottlieb's photo session with the accuser supplied most, if not all, of the evidence police and Nifong used to indict the three players.

…

The reports from Gottlieb and Himan show that the plan emerged during the final week of March 2006, as the case was gaining notoriety following media reports about the department's successful attempt the week before to gather fresh photos and DNA samples from 46 of the team's 47 players.

…

The detectives met with Nifong on March 29 and again on March 31. In the first meeting, the district attorney asked them to contact members of the lacrosse team to see if they'd talk. In the second, according to Gottlieb, he suggested assembling the photos taken the week before and showing them to the accuser "to see if she recalled seeing the individuals at the party.

...

Gottlieb said he reported the [sic] Nifong's suggestion to Lamb and Ripberger on March 31, and had Himan and Investigator Shanda Williams start working on the PowerPoint. Himan finished the job on April 3, the following Monday, after having Clayton and another investigator, Michele Soucie, review the presentation. The next day, Gottlieb had an office assistant, Van Clinton, look over the presentation again, and then had Clayton and two crime-scene technicians, Angela Ashby and Heather Maddry, help him show it to the accuser.

…

Once the photo session started, Ashby ran the video camera, which was set up to record both the accuser and the screen of the laptop computer displaying the PowerPoint. Gottlieb set up a separate monitor for the accuser. Clayton took notes and Maddry timed the presentation.

In total, Gottlieb’s notes detailed the participation by no less than ten members of the Durham Police Department (Lt. Mark Ripberger, Cpt. Jeff Lamb, Benjamin Himan, Michelle Soucie, Van Clinton, Angela Ashby, Heather Maddry, Shanda Williams, Richard Clayton, and Gottlieb himself) and Defendant Mike Nifong in the meticulous orchestration and manufacture of the fraudulent identifications of the innocent men indicted for crimes that never occurred. Yet, despite the massive undertaking, both Chalmers and Baker have repeatedly pretended that the made-for-video lineup was not a lineup and the "surprise" identifications were inadvertent.

In his memo to the Mayor and City Council, Baker wrote:

As stated in the report, it was the primary intent of the investigator at the time the photographs were shown to the witness to have her identify which of the individuals she recalls being at the party rather than to identify her alleged attackers. This decision to attempt to identify witnesses rather than suspects was driven primarily by the fact that the witness had failed to identify her attackers in six previous suspect identification processes which were governed by G.O. 4077. For the stated purpose of obtaining her recollection of the individuals at the party who could be of assistance in the investigation, this process was well suited to achieve that goal. The process however was not well suited for suspect identification primarily due to the fact that it was not conducted with the safeguards provided for in the policy. The identification of her alleged attackers in a process not designed or intended to produce such a result created a significant evidentiary quandary for the prosecutor. Regardless of the intent or expectations of the investigator, the resulting April 4 suspect identifications were procured through a process that would significantly reduce the likelihood that they could have survived the defense motions to suppress
their admission into evidence at trial. This issue is magnified substantially given the fact that these photo identifications appear to the strongest incriminating evidence against these young men. It is not lost on the Police Department that regardless of our intentions, the April 4 photo process created the opportunity for the false allegations to be specifically linked to Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty and further played a critical role in the decision by the Durham District Attorney to seek and ultimately obtain indictments of these individuals. Given the ultimate use of the results of showing the witness those pictures on that day, we regret the inadvertent creation of the opportunity to perpetuate false charges against these individuals. Nevertheless, I do not concur with the assertion that the investigators went into the April 4 photo process with the intention, either on their own initiative or at the direction of the District Attorney, to violate G.O. 4077 by inducing the witness to identify her alleged attackers through a less reliable process.

In his empty report to the Mayor and City Council, Chalmers stated:

On March 31, 2006, Investigator Himan and his immediate supervisor, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, met with District Attorney Nifong to update him on the case. During the meeting, investigators inquired as to what, if any, use could be made of the new photographs that were taken as a result of the non-testimonial identification order. The District Attorney suggested showing Mangum all of the photographs in order to see if she could provide any additional information or details about the night in question. Investigators hoped that this would develop some leads, such as potential witnesses, for them since those initially developed in the case were becoming exhausted. In addition, investigators had been unable to determine whether Mangum was impaired on the nightof her alleged attack and, if so, by what substance. Certain date rape drugs, such as Rohypnol and GHB, often result in amnesia of the victim but other substances, such as ecstasy and alcohol, typically do not. If the victim had some recollection of any of the individuals in the photographs, then this could help establish that she was not impaired by a memory altering substance which would then assist in gauging the reliability of Mangum’s allegations.

On April 4, 2006, Sgt. Gottlieb, assisted by another officer and two crime scene investigators, showed Mangum the recently acquired team photographs. In the process of describing her recollection of persons and events at the party, she began identifying certain individuals as potentially her attackers. Officers did not intend, nor were they expecting, Mangum to positively identify her alleged attackers during this process, particularly since she had not done so in any of the earlier photo arrays which contained the individuals she had identified by name or which had been placed at the party and closely associated with its arrangements. Had it been the expectation of investigators that use of the photos in this manner would have resulted in Mangum identifying a suspect, officers would have believed that General Order 4077, “Eyewitness Identification” was applicable and would have acted in accordance with it. Faced with this turn of events, theinvestigator decided to note Mangum’s comments and proceed to show her the remainder of the photographs. Abruptly stopping the observations after such comments could have been construed by the witness as confirmation that she had selected the “right” individuals and could arguably taint either these, or future, identifications.

Clearly, Gottlieb’s notes and the extravagant made-for-video production contradict the innocuous motives ascribed to Gottlieb by Baker and Chalmers. It defies reason to accept that the admittedly staged April 4 lineup was conducted without confident expectations that Crystal Mangum would finally provide the indictment enabling identifications she had failed to provide in earlier less manipulated attempts. While Gottlieb’s admission, as related by Gronberg, offers confirmation of the expectations of police investigators and Defendant Nifong, his article fails to ask the ominous question underlying this revelation.

If identifications were confidently expected on April 4, 2006, ... so confidently expected, in fact, that ten individuals, from the district tttorney down to a DPD office assistant, participated in the planning and production of the staged event ... what gave investigators the certainty and belief that identifications would be forthcoming from a false accuser who had failed through the course of six previous lineups to identify a single imagined attacker? Short of an indication in advance from the accuser that she would come through with Hoax saving identifications in the wake of the SBI’s failure to detect any DNA evidence supporting her false accusations, there is nothing that would have reasonably given Nifong or Gottlieb the confidence that the staged lineup would result in compelling, even if contrived, identifications.

Certainly, at this point, and without a full scale criminal investigation into the Nifong/Mangum Hoax, the suggestion that the fix was in prior to the choreographed lineup is highly speculative and based primarily, although not entirely, on the confidence demonstrated by Gottlieb’s noted expectations and the elaborate staging of the event. Despite the speculative nature of the suggestion, it is far less of a stretch to accept that investigators had reason to expect identifications prior to pulling out all the stops, than to gullibly believe they got lucky and serendipitously obtained the false identifications when the cameras happened to be rolling.

In addition to Gottlieb’s admission to staging the carefully planned production and the extravagance of the production itself, there are several other factors that support the speculation that the leading lady was at least communicated with, if not prepped, for her role in the video-taped event. Foremost among these indicators that the fix was in are: Travis Mangum’s premature revelation on the eve of his daughter’s starring role that identifications had been made; Defendant Nifong’s statements preceding the identifications foreshadowing their arrival; Nifong’s initial admission to meeting with the accuser followed by his adamant and convoluted denials of ever having discussed the case with her; and the subsequent CYA meeting between Nifong, Baker, Chalmers, Hodge, and police attorney.

Travis the Prescient

One of the most colorful cast members in Durham’s Theater of the Absurd production of “The Hoax” was Travis Mangum, the father of the false accuser, Crystal Mangum. Throughout the thirteen month run of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax, Mr. Mangum interjected comic relief into the drama with his misstatements, inventive descriptions, and exaggerations. Obviously, Mr. Mangum, despite the challenges presented by truth and reality, was motivated by a genuine fatherly concern for his daughter and the desire to believe that his daughter was deserving of his trust. From broomsticks to bruises, the father of the false accuser has been a fount of misinformation. Yet, on one occasion, it appears he was remarkably prescient.

On April 3, 2006, one day BEFORE Durham police investigators, at the direction of rogue District Attorney Mike Nifong, conducted the choreographed lineup that led to the indictment of innocent men for a crime that never occurred, MSNBC’s Rita Cosby aired an interview with Travis Mangum. Amazingly, some twenty-four hours before the staged lineup session occurred, Mr. Mangum revealed that his daughter, who viewing six separate photo arrays during the previous three weeks had failed to identify any of her fictional attackers, had identified the three men she would point her finger at the next day

MSNBC April 3, 2006:

Cosby: “In just a moment, we’re going to hear from her father in his first national television interview. We’ll be breaking some big and some surprising news in that interview that may bolster the woman’s claims…And the father of the alleged victim in this case speaks out in his first national television interview. He does not want his face to be shown in order to protect the identity of his daughter. He told me what she says happened the night she was allegedly raped. And some big news. For the first time, we’re learning that the woman, his daughter, says she was able to immediately identify three boys in photos supplied by authorities.”

…

Cosby: Would she be able to ID them?

Travis Mangum: She said she did. She ID’d them to the (INAUDIBLE)

Cosby: Was she able to ID all three?

Travis Mangum: Yes.

Cosby: Positively?

Travis Mangum: Yes.

Cosby: No doubt in her mind it was those three?

Travis Mangum: No doubt in her mind (INAUDIBLE)

Cosby: And why is she sure that those are the three?

Travis Mangum: Well, she said she’d know their face.

While Mr. Mangum has repeatedly proven himself void of credibility, the coincidence of his leaking the identifications on the eve of their occurrence, taken in context with Sgt. Mark Gottlieb’s admission that the April 4 lineup was staged in the days preceding the event, gives rise to additional concerns about the extent of the overt manipulation involved in the framing of the Duke Innocents.

Nifong hints at ID’s

Initially, media darling Mike Nifong repeatedly assured a national audience that DNA testing conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation would clearly identify suspects for him to indict. However, within days Nifong learned that the DNA tests were a bust and immediately began to publicly dismiss the importance of the DNA results. Simultaneously, Nifong gave instructions for the staged lineup and began to hint at having an accuser who could identify her imagined attackers.

On March 27, Durham County Defendant-in-Chief Mike Nifong asked the NC State Bureau of Investigation to rush the testing of the 46 Duke lacrosse players' DNA samples taken after Judge Ronald Stephens, "duped” by the factually inaccurate affidavit of Assistant District Attorney David Saacks, granted a non-testimonial order. NC Department of Justice spokeswoman Noelle “The investigation isn’t over” Talley quickly announced that the SBI would eagerly comply. On March 27 and into March 28, Nifong assured the public that DNA evidence would identify the “hooligans.”

"March 27-28: In his first public comments on the matter, Nifong repeatedly expressed confidence—in interviews with MSNBC and with North Carolina stations WRAL and NBC-17—that the DNA evidence produced by the court order would solve the case." Durham-in-Wonderland: What Did Nifong Know, and When Did he Know It?.

"On March 28, he announced, “There won't be any arrests before next week. I have decided not to make arrests until DNA evidence is back.” Durham-in-Wonderland: The Soucie Memo

At some point on March 28, Defendant Nifong would be informed of the first results from the eagerly expedited DNA tests. There was no semen, blood, or saliva detected by the SBI lab.

"On March 28, 2006, the SBI lab examined the items from the rape kit and was unable to find any semen, blood, or saliva on any of those items." NC State Bar

"March 28, Nifong got DNA test results." Stuart Taylor

Given the findings, Nifong did an immediate and bizarre about face. DNA, which Nifong's office had promised would "immediately rule out the innocent," went from being definitive evidence to totally irrelevant. Later that evening, Nifong would begin his “How does DNA exonerate you?” campaign with two live, nationally broadcast interviews that signaled the start of his continuing effort to downplay the importance of the once urgent DNA testing.

ABRAMS: I assume based on the fact that you requested DNA from 46 of the 47 members of the team that there is DNA evidence that was found that's relevant to the case.

NIFONG: We hope that there will be DNA evidence that will be relevant to the case. We cannot know that for certain until all of the evidence has been tested. MSNBC

COSBY: You know, you say three men. I know that you‘ve gotten DNA for what, more than 40 members of the lacrosse team. Why is that critical? What are you trying to hone in on?

NIFONG: Well, if there is DNA evidence within the victim, then this will enable us to definitely establish who the perpetrators of the offense were. At this point, of course, we don‘t know whether or not there is DNA available to test, but if that is found, then we have—by taking samples from all the members of the lacrosse team who fit profile, we will be able to determine which of those players was the person or which ones of those players were the people who committed the assault. MSNBC

March 28, 2006

Nifong and the Accuser

As was the case with his attempts to deny meeting with Dr. Brian Meehan on April 10 and learning that DNA testing had exonerated the men he would soon indict, Defendant Nifong, after initially admitting to discussing the case at great length with Crystal Mangum prior to the staged identifications, would eventually take great care to deny meeting with the false accuser.

Joe Neff's second installment of the News & Observer’s five part series on the Nifong/Mangum Hoax indicates that, contrary to Nifong’s repeated assertions to the Court, he did claim to have spoken with the false accuser prior to bringing indictments and more importantly, prior to her identification of four “attackers” at the corrupt April 4 identification lottery.

“[Defense Attorney Bill] Thomas said Nifong wouldn't listen: "He said that he had personally interviewed her and had spoke with her at length about this case, and that he fully believed every word she said about this incident, and that he knew a lot more about this case than I did, and that e was going to proceed as he saw fit."

“Nifong was smug and self-assured, Thomas said: "I had 27 years of experience with him, and he was looking me in the eye. He said he had interviewed her, he discussed the details of the case, he believed her and that my view of her as perhaps being a call girl working for an escort service, running around making things up for financial gain, was absolutely false. ... He went on to say what a wonderful person she was. He said she was fully believable, she was intelligent, articulate ... and telling a convincing story about what happened."

Gronberg’s article reveals not only that the lineups were as staged as they appeared to be, but also that Durham officials met specifically to discuss how to spin the lineups. From Baker’s description of the meeting, it appears that the accidental identification spin presented by the City Manager and Chalmers was not an original thought but a suggestion fed to them by the District Attorney last spring.

City Manager Patrick Baker said Tuesday he didn't know why Gottlieb's report alluded to recording the session for potential jurors and court officials.

In the Police Department's eyes, "that was not a lineup," Police Chief Steve Chalmers said previously, echoing the explanation he and Baker adopted in a May 11 report on how authorities handled the investigation.

Baker said Tuesday that after he learned of the April 4 session, he asked for a second meeting with the detectives, the police attorney, Chalmers and Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge. This time District Attorney Mike Nifong also attended.

"I asked the question point-blank as to what we were doing, what were we trying to accomplish and why wasn't it done pursuant to [department policy]," Baker said. "And the response that I got from the district attorney was the response that we have put out, that it wasn't a lineup, that it was not looking for suspects."

Admittedly, this post is rife with speculation, but when you have the City Manager admitting to a coordinated effort on the part of himself, the Chief of Police, the Assistant Chief of Police, the District Attorney, and a police attorney to deny both the obvious and a damning admission by the lead police investigator, who was coincidently removed from the case shortly after the notes detailing his confession appeared, it doesn’t take a black helicopter pilot to say, "Hmm..."…