The News & Observer, with a big boost from its recent four-part series on “Agents’ Secrets,” in which it actually shares blame with someone other than Mike Nifong for the abysmal state of the North Carolina justice system, is now the front-runner for my annual “Jedi Mind-trick Award”… barely squeaking ahead of NBC-17 News. The series by staff writers Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff predictably places blame for all the state’s criminal justice woes on a few bad apples in the State Bureau of Investigation and the forensic lab that it runs. The four-part series recounts numerous horrific tales of injustice and wrongful incarcerations that have occurred in the state in the not so distant past, but what is truly remarkable is that the writers did it while mentioning the name of a prosecutor (linked to a case) only once! And even when mentioned, it was not in a derogatory context. Ms. Locke and Mr. Neff surely deserve accolades for adhering to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy when presented with such a challenging topic. And they did well to shift all responsibility from North Carolina State prosecutors to SBI agents and SBI lab personnel.
When it comes down to it, a few individuals in the SBI and its lab were sacrificed as scapegoats to take the downfall and accept blame for all of the malicious and baseless prosecutions and lengthy incarcerations of the innocents that have occurred. The prosecutors, the newspaper would like you to believe, were nothing much more than bystanders and onlookers when the prosecutorial treads of injustice squashed designated individuals (mostly the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color) along with their civil and constitutional rights. From reading the four-part series, one would swear that the investigative agents and lab technicians were single-handedly in charge of determining the fate of the state’s defendants.
The Gregory Taylor case was, of course, mentioned. Revelations from his hearing before a three judge bench in February 2010 was responsible for media focus being directed at the SBI and its forensic practices. But Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name was never mentioned in the series, and his actions in that case were some of the most despicable in the annals of North Carolina juris prudence. Ford was responsible for the vindictive and malicious incarceration of Mr. Taylor because he (Taylor) would not bow to Ford’s urgings for him to implicate an innocent African American man in a murder. Without any credible evidence, Mr. Taylor was sentenced to life, and served 17 years before he was freed by a three judge panel. Ford was even a pivotal figure in attempts to persuade the recently seated panel to deny Taylor’s bid for freedom by arguing against Taylor’s release.
In the Taylor case, The News & Observer left the SBI lab workers and its lab protocol, which in general heavily trended in favor of the prosecution, holding the bag when it came to the fact that the prosecution identified blood on the bumper of Taylor’s car… crucial in winning a conviction against an innocent man. It was the only so-called “evidence” used by Ford against Taylor besides the trumped up testimony of two so-called “witnesses” seeking shorter sentences in exchange for their statements. Prosecutor Tom Ford is neither dumb nor naïve… to the contrary, he is smart, cunning, and calculating. Make no mistake about it, Ford knew in 1991, as well as in February of 2010, exactly what the SBI lab’s complete results were with respect to the red substance on the bumper of Greg Taylor’s vehicle. He was aware that the confirmatory tests did not support the specimen being human blood.
But with the murder of African American prostitute Jacquetta Thomas, Ford was not interested in solving a crime… because he cared not about the victim, his priority was in closing the case. Despite Tom Ford knowing that Taylor was innocent, Taylor’s refusal to falsely implicate Johnny Beck, a black “suspect,” was all it took for Ford to seek a life sentence conviction. Prosecutor Ford could care less whether results forthcoming from the lab were bogus or legit, as long as they supported his case against Taylor.
In another case cited by the newspaper, unnamed prosecutors referred to only as “Davie County prosecutors” supposedly relied on lab work and forensic testimony in prosecuting a Kernersville dentist for the murder of his wife. It seems that the SBI agent involved in the case did not make the appropriate notes and documentation, predated a document, and made false statements about evidence. According to the newspaper, the misdeeds by the agents and bloodstain pattern expert were done to fit the investigator’s theory. The reader is to believe that the unidentified prosecutors were totally out of the loop? Such a scenario is not to be believed as it is the prosecutors who drive the prosecution of defendants, not the other way around. The investigators and agents try to conjure up results backing up the prosecutor’s story about how the crime(s) unfolded and the defendant’s role.
Perhaps the most blatant example of the PAPEN Policy in The News & Observer series is a redacted quote by Barry Scheck who is questioning Alan Gell investigator Dwight Ransome: “When you were talking with [the district attorney], didn’t you…” Mr. Scheck probably said, “When you were talking with David Hoke, didn’t you…” So in order to protect the identity of the Gell prosecutor (Hoke) who put an innocent man (Gell) on death row despite exculpatory evidence that proved Gell could not possibly have committed a murder, the newspaper substituted a generic [the district attorney].
There are many more examples which I could point out, but doing so would only be redundant. The fact is that whether it’s DNA, bloodstain patterns, confirmatory testing for human blood, missing notations and documentation, false testimony, purposely not conducting tests on evidence, etc., the investigators and lab analysts who are acting unethically and inappropriately are doing so at the behest of the prosecutors to help win a conviction. By and large, prosecutors are anything but “ministers of justice” whom they are portrayed to be… prosecuting a case but seeking the truth and assuring that the defendant receives justice. In North Carolina with its system of “selective justice based on Class and Color,” prosecutors have absolutely no qualms about putting away individuals in society who are disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. Likewise, as exemplified by the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, prosecutors lack the resolve to solve to crimes against the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. They just want to close their case by sticking any body fitting the desirable profile (disenfranchise, poor, and of color) behind bars.
There once was a district attorney who did not fit the mold of the typical North Carolina prosecutor. Nearly a quarter of a decade before it became mandated, he had an open file policy wherein he shared all of his evidence with defense attorneys. He was a district attorney of the highest integrity, who believed in the principle of “equal justice for all.” He had the same respect for the law, sense of fair play, and obligation to duty as famed lawmen Wyatt Earp and Elliot Ness. And he had the independence and courage of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett to forge ahead and do what was right… and not do what was expedient or expected. As a result, Mike Nifong, former Durham district attorney was persecuted by the state and crucified in the media. The best district attorney the state of North Carolina will probably ever see was figuratively speaking thrown under the bus because he would not adhere to the Carpetbagger agenda in the Duke Lacrosse case. Unfortunately, the crimes by the state against Mr. Nifong are an abomination that has placed a scar on the justice system from which the state will never recover.
Although prompted by testimony at Greg Taylor’s hearing just months ago, the problems with the state’s criminal justice system have festered for many decades. What I find thoroughly disingenuous is the reaction to The News & Observer four-part series, with politicians and prosecutors feigning shock and indignation at problems which they have known to exist and have tolerated. Durham Representative Mickey Michaux, according to the newspaper, “was disturbed to read about false reports filed by SBI agents and the innocent people harmed, and said that agents who violate law and policy need to be punished.” But Michaux knows that the rights and liberty of innocent people (especially the poor and of color) are violated routinely by police and prosecutors. What has Representative Michaux done about it? Nothing, at least that I am aware of. And punishing agents who violate law and policy seems to be misplaced when they do so in response to the persuasion and pressure applied by prosecutors. Punishing wayward prosecutors, who are the driving force behind many innocents being locked away and mistreated, is not an unreasonable step. In my mind, it is also unlikely to be undertaken.
After reading the newspaper series, North Carolina Prosecutor Ann Kirby was quoted as saying: “It’s an absolute betrayal to us as prosecutors and to the agents who are doing their job fairly. To find out that people we relied on so heavily in so many cases were slanting results – by their own accord or by the instruction of supervisors – is the ultimate betrayal. We are not playing a game here. These are people’s lives.” To me, the betrayal seems to be on the other foot. The prosecutors entice, cajole, plead, demand, threaten and do whatever is necessary to extract results, regardless of how bogus, from willing or vulnerable agents and lab technicians in order to prevail in court. Then, when the unsavory practices for which these prosecutors are responsible are exposed by the media spotlight, they attack the agents and lab techs who did their bidding. Now that’s what I call the ultimate betrayal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Sidney,
This is an interesting post.
You impose on the prosecutor responsibility for the completeness, accuracy and lack of bias in a police investigation, even for those activities by law enforcement officials that took place before the prosecutor first became involved. As you know, in many criminal cases, the prosecutor is not involved until after police have identified suspects and developed probable cause to arrest or indict those suspects.
Your position obviously places greater onus on the prosecutor to ensure the fairness of the investigation on which he bases his prosecution. I agree with you that making the prosecutor responsible for the overall investigation should result in prosecutors asking more questions of investigators to validate their work. We may hope that fewer wrongful prosecutions would be the result.
Your post has convinced me that I may have been wrong about Mr. Nifong’s role in the lacrosse case.
I have placed most of the responsibility for the highly flawed DPD investigation on the DPD investigators, Sgt. Gottlieb and Inv. Himan, and their supervisors, Capt. Lamb, Lt. Ripberger and others. The “investigation” was flawed well before Mr. Nifong became involved in late March.
The DPD failed to conduct a bona fide investigation. Virtually every step of the "investigation" was deeply flawed. In one of the most highly publicized cases in City history, the police repeatedly failed to interview relevant witnesses, examine evidence in their possession or known to exist and reconcile conflicting evidence. They allegedly attempted to create evidence by filing inaccurate affidavits and reports and intimidating and influencing witnesses. The DPD violated policy with their inflammatory public statements, the method in which they conducted lineups, and their failure to maintain a contemporaneous record of their activities. Supervisors failed to monitor the activities of their subordinates even after media reports raised serious doubts about those activities. Despite a case that relied on the changing allegations and fatally flawed identifications from a tainted witness, the DPD made no real attempt to discover additional evidence. It appears that the DPD designed its “investigation” merely to select defendants and avoid uncovering exculpatory evidence.
You argue in this post that Mr. Nifong bears personal responsibility for these many flaws. I am willing to consider your argument that Mr. Nifong deserves far more blame than I have been willing to give him.
I admire your candor. Although you began this website with the objective of regain Mr. Nifong’s law license, you now attribute far more blame to Mr. Nifong than other observers. This additional responsibility for the actions of the DPD can scarcely help that cause.
Sidney, you're comparing Nifong to St Thomas à Becket?
Just when we're convinced that you have run out of sharks, you find another one to jump. lol
To JSwift:
Mr. Nifong never did have the opportunity to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse case as he was forced to recuse himself because of the trumped up trifle disguised as ethics violations by the State Bar.
As lead prosecutor in the case, Mr. Nifong did bare responsibility, but since no trial was held, I am unaware of any misdeeds or malfeasance by the prosecution.
In the Gregory Taylor case and Alan Gell case, prosecutors proceeded with trial with evidence and witnesses they knew was false or exculpatory evidence which was withheld. You cannot make comparisons between the Duke Lacrosse case, which never went to trial, and the prosecutions of Gell, Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, and other innocents.
In the Duke Lacrosse case no perjured testimony was given, no false or doctored lab results were presented to the court, and no exculpatory evidence was withheld.
Attorney General Roy Cooper was in sync with the Carpetbaggers early on, and once his office got a hold of the case, it was game, set, and match in favor of Joe Cheshire's team.
Trying to compare the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case to the prosecution of other criminal cases is like comparing apples to coconuts.
Thank you for your comments.
JSwift...prolific liar.
To Anonymous 2:42,
You can disagree with JSwift if you wish. Would you care to elaborate on your disagreement?
At least JSwift is willing to identify himself.
Mr. Harr
What evidence was there to indicate that the members of the Duke LaCrosse team ever committed a crime?
Crystal Mangum was a mentally disturbed woman who had a significant criminal history and a history of filing false rape complaints. Why should her word have been accepted at face value?
So she identified three members of the Duke Lacrosse team as her assailants. As has been pointed out to you in your blog, two of the men whom she indicted could show evidence they had not been present at the time she said she was assaulted. She said she would have been 90% certain the third man was an assailant if he had had a mustache. The "wanted poster" published by David Addison showed that this man did not have a mustache.
So, that you would call Mike Nifong the best prosecutor in the North Carolina justice system is truly insane.
Correction
I should have said two of the men Ms. Mangum IDENTIFIED, not two of the men she INDICTED.
I apologize for the error
Anonymous 2:42 pm:
You have called me a "prolific liar." Please provide a catalogue of my "lies."
As you know, a lie is not only a false statement, but an intentionally false statement. You obviously cannot know my intent.
I ask that you provide not only a list of my false statements, but also an explanation of why those statements are so obviously false that my error or inadvertent bias is not a reasonable explanation.
If you fail to do so, I demand an apology.
To Anonymous,
Crystal Mangum did not have a history of filing false rape complaints. There was one single previous incident. Not "complaints" plural. And there is no evidence that the incident did not happen. She dropped the charges. She most certainly may have been gang raped as a teenager.
Some have advocated that this previous possible rape (if the rape had occurred) could have contributed to her emotional instability.
As for JSwifts comments, the media, the defense, the blogs, the Attorney General, et al, never went after the police in any significant way compared to the onslaught of attacks that Michael Nifong underwent.
The problems that you point out with the police investigation supports that it was much more convenient to scapegoat a single person for all the complicated mistakes in this horrific case.
If your comments are not meant to factious, they're simply disingenuous.
Dan ThIerriault,
You suggest that my comments are disingenuous. How so?
Based on my review of the DPD reports, the "investigation" was so riddled with "mistakes" that one can only explain it as the result of gross incompetence or as a deliberate frame.
Why after more than four years in one of the most publicized cases in recent history are we still waiting for a credible explanation of what went wrong?
A far simpler task would be a catalog
of any honest statements in the four
year anthologies of Jswift.
Let's see.
He gets the name of the school right.
Go DOOK ! ! !
To the clueless gowen.
NO...NO...NO.
Is that supposed to be a meaningful post?
The anonymous poster is unable to provide even a single example of my "prolific lies" and prefers simply to continue to make ad hominem attacks.
I demand another apology.
The anonymous poster has been unwilling to identify any specific area of disagreement. I note that my most recent comments have been focused on the numerous "mistakes" made in the DPD investigation. As a result, I assume that is the area of greatest interest to that poster.
As I have noted, the DPD "investigation" was so riddled with what I see as inexcusable errors that I have concluded that one can only explain it as the result of gross incompetence or as a deliberate frame.
I concede that I do not have all of the facts. I seek a credible investigation into the activities of the DPD. After more than four years, we still do not have answers to basic questions about the faux investigation.
Sidney has once again feigned a lack of knowledge. claiming that because there was no trial, he is unaware of any misdeeds on the part of the DPD.
In subsequent comments, I will raise questions regarding the "investigation. I raised these questions in 2007 with Mayor Bell, the members of the Durham City Council, most of the members of the Whichard committee and Chief Lopez.
I ask that other commenters answer these questions. Perhaps there is an innocent explanation for what I see as mistakes or malfeasance.
I thank you all in advance.
The following questions deal with the activities of the DPD during the early stage of the “investigation” (prior to the involvement of either Nifong or any of the defense counsel):
1. The alleged attack was first reported early on March 14. The Durham Police Department (DPD) knew at that time the address of the house where the attack was alleged to have occurred. The Duke University Police Department sent officers to check the house, but left when no residents were there.
• Why did the Duke Police, rather than the DPD, send officers to check the house?
• Was the decision to ask the Duke Police to become involved in the early stages of a felony investigation consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Why did the DPD not follow up that night?
• Why was the alleged crime scene not secured or searched until March 16, more than two full days after the attack was first reported?
• Why was the DPD not concerned about the potential contamination of evidence?
• Is the failure to secure an alleged crime scene consistent with standard DPD procedures?
2. The accuser was released from Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) in the afternoon on March 14.
• Why were no officers available to question or escort the accuser from DUMC upon her release?
• Were there no concerns for her safety?
• Is the failure to make contact with the accuser upon her release consistent with standard DPD procedures?
3. It has been reported that responding officers did not believe the accusation. Sgt. John Shelton was the first DPD officer to see the accuser at the Kroger parking lot on the morning of March 14. He described the accuser as “passed out drunk” and noted no injuries. He indicated that he believed that the accuser was lying. Officer William Barfield took the accuser to Durham Access. Officer Gwendolyn Sutton spent several hours with the accuser at DUMC. In their depositions or testimony in connection with Nifong’s Bar trial, Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan were extremely critical of Shelton.
• Is this report correct?
• If so, on what basis did the responding officers make the judgment that the accusation was not credible?
• On what basis was this initial judgment overturned?
• When were the reports of the responding officers available to the investigation?
• Why was there a delay in receiving the responding officers’ reports?
• When did the investigators first speak with the responding officers?
• How extensive was the interview with Shelton?
• Were Barfield and Sutton ever interviewed in connection with the investigation or did investigators merely rely on their reports?
• Why did Shelton file an addendum to his report in early April?
• Why were attempts made to discredit Shelton’s initial response?
• Who made the decision to attempt to discredit Shelton?
4. The accuser was first encountered by the DPD in the Kroger parking lot on the morning of March 14. Angel Altmon, a security guard at the Kroger, made the call to the DPD. Altmon later was quoted in the media indicating strong doubts that the accuser had been raped. Himan’s typewritten case notes include an interview with Altmon on December 7.
• Did the DPD interview Altmon before December 7?
• If not, why not?
• Is the failure to interview Altmon prior to seeking indictments and more than eight months after the accusation was received consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Was the DPD aware that Altmon had been interviewed in the media?
• Did the media interviews suggest that Altmon may have information useful to the investigation?
• Why does the DPD believe that the observations of witnesses in felony investigations are irrelevant to the decision to seek indictments in an investigation?
5. There is no reported activity by the DPD reported on March 15, the day after the attack was first reported. It has been reported that the Duke PD directed the DPD to pictures of the lacrosse players on GoDuke.com.
• Did the DPD obtain pictures of the players on that day?
• What actions were taken with the pictures?
• Why was there no attempt to contact the accuser on that day?
• Why were there no attempts to question other witnesses on that day?
• Why was there no attempt to search or secure the alleged crime scene on that day?
• Why were there no attempts to question medical personnel on that day?
• Why were there no attempts to question neighbors on that day?
• Why did the DPD lose a full day in the critical first stages of this investigation?
• What actions did the DPD take on March 15 in furthering this investigation?
• Is the failure to take action immediately after receiving a felony accusation consistent with standard DPD procedures?
6. In his deposition in connection with Nifong’s Bar trial, Gottlieb indicated that he had received a call on March 15 from Investigator Jones from District 5. In this call, Jones asked that District 2 Investigations, headed by Gottlieb, take over responsibility for the Duke investigation.
• Is this statement correct?
• Who made the decision to transfer responsibility from District 5 to District 2?
• Why was this decision made?
• Why had the case originally been assigned to District 5?
• Was this transfer consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Why was the highest profile case in Durham assigned to an investigator still in training and supervised by a head of investigations who had been in his position for only two weeks?
7. On March 15, the accuser went to UNC Hospital claiming severe neck, back and knee pain, and she repeated the rape accusation. She claimed that she felt no pain in the DUMC emergency room because she was drunk. One physician observed that the accuser was a frequent visitor asking for narcotics. The accuser would return to UNC Hospital again on March 28 and April 5.
• When did the DPD become aware of these visits?
• Did the DPD interview any of the attending medical personnel?
• If so, at what time?
• How did the DPD reconcile the accuser’s statement that she felt no pain at DUMC with subsequently uncovered evidence?
• How did the observation that the accuser frequently sought narcotics affect her credibility?
8. On March 16, after two days of complete inactivity, the DPD sprang into action. DPD officers interviewed Tara Levicy, the SANE nurse-in-training who had assisted with the SANE exam, and the accuser and executed a search warrant on 610 N. Buchanan and interrogated the captains who lived there. At least four DPD detectives were assigned to this previously inactive case.
• Was the accuser known to the DPD prior to this investigation?
• If so, on what basis?
• After two days of inactivity, why did the DPD suddenly begin to appear to take the accusation seriously?
• What was the catalyst for this decision?
• Who was responsible for the decision?
9. On March 16, Inv. Benjamin Himan spoke with Tara Levicy, the SANE nurse-in-training who assisted in performing the SANE exam. Levicy apparently provided a statement in which she characterized the signs exhibited by the accuser as consistent with her accusation. The actual SANE report was not available at this time.
• Was Levicy’s lack of certification as a SANE known by Himan at this time?
• If so, did the lack of certification make her opinions less valuable in the investigation?
• Did Himan attempt to speak with Dr. Julie Manly, the resident who had performed the exam?
• If not, why was no attempt made?
• Did Himan make attempts to speak with other medical personnel at DUMC who had treated the accuser?
• If not, why not?
• Why did the DPD seek a statement from only one person?
10. There are no public reports that the DPD attempted in the initial stages of the investigation to interview any of the personnel at Durham Access, the substance abuse facility where the accuser first claimed that she had been raped. The accuser made this accusation only when prompted. Himan’s typewritten case notes include an interview with Mariecia Smith on June 14.
• Did the DPD interview personnel at Durham Access prior to June 14?
• If so, when were these attempts made?
• If not, why not?
• Do standard DPD procedures require investigators to interview all witnesses to whom a felony accusation is made?
• Why was there no attempt to interview Durham Access personnel prior to the indictments?
• After serving a subpoena on Durham Access on April 5, did the DPD make any attempt to obtain those records?
• If not, why not?
• If an attempt was made and records were obtained, why did the prosecution claim that no such records existed?
11. On March 16, several officers met with the accuser. In this meeting, she provided another version of her accusation, the details of which were inconsistent with the versions provided at DUMC.
• What attempts were made by these officers to reconcile the new version of the accusation with the prior versions?
• If no attempts were made to reconcile the version of the accusation with earlier versions, is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• If no attempts were made to reconcile the different versions of the accusation, how did the DPD officers decide which version of the accusation was the “correct” one?
• Which version of the accusation formed the basis for the investigation?
• Is a failure to reconcile differences in critical details between different versions of an accusation consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• How does the DPD generally proceed in cases in which the accuser provides conflicting versions of the accusation?
• Was the DPD’s investigation consistent with those prior cases?
12. The accuser apparently had made accusations while at DUMC that the other dancer had stolen her money on the night of the alleged attack?
• Was the accuser asked about the alleged robbery during the March 16 meeting?
• If not, why not?
• If so, why were these conversations recorded in Himan’s case notes?
• Why were the robbery charges against the other dancer never pursued?
• Was this decision not to investigate robbery charges consistent with standard DPD procedures?
13. At this meeting, Officer Reid took pictures of the accuser. These pictures demonstrate that the accuser had no physical injuries consistent with the brutal attack she had alleged. Reid’s report contains no description of injuries.
• Based on the accusation of a brutal attack, did the DPD officers expect to see physical injuries?
• Was the accuser asked to explain her apparent lack of injuries?
• If not, why not?
• If the accuser was asked no questions regarding her lack of injuries, is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
14. Sgt. Mark Gottlieb’s report of the meeting contradicts Reid’s report and pictures. He describes the accuser as moving with great pain and unable to sit as a result of that pain. Gottlieb has indicated that he did not take contemporaneous notes.
• Why did Gottlieb not take notes?
• Is the failure to take notes standard DPD procedure?
• Why is Gottlieb’s account inconsistent with Reid’s report and pictures?
• Does the DPD expect that two officers participating in the same meeting will have radically different recollections of that meeting?
• How were these radically different recollections resolved?
• Why were Gottlieb’s observations apparently given more weight than Reid’s photographs?
• Is the decision to discount photographic evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures?
15. In his deposition in connection with Nifong’s Bar trial, Himan also described the accuser as moving with great pain. The portion of his case notes that described this part of the interview on March 16 were not included in the exhibits released publicly.
• Why is Himan’s account inconsistent with Reid’s report and pictures?
• Does the DPD expect that two officers participating in the same meeting will have radically different recollections of that meeting?
• How were these radically different recollections resolved?
• Why were Himan’s observations apparently given more weight than Reid’s photographs?
• Is the decision to discount photographic evidence consistent with standard DPD procedures?
16. At this meeting, the accuser provided descriptions of her alleged attackers. According to notes provided by Himan, these descriptions matched none of the players on the team or other attendees. She generally described the attackers as short and chubby, with one weighing 270 pounds. The DPD had received pictures of the lacrosse players on March 15.
• Was the accuser challenged on these descriptions?
• How did the officers reconcile these descriptions with their knowledge of the appearance of the lacrosse players?
• How does the DPD proceed in cases where the descriptions provided by the complaining witness are vague and match no known suspects?
• Was the DPD’s investigation consistent with those prior cases?
• Why did the DPD not ask a sketch artist to draw depictions of the alleged attackers?
• Is the failure to provide sketches consistent with standard DPD procedures?
17. Gottlieb’s report contains descriptions that are radically different than the descriptions contained in Himan’s notes. As noted above, Gottlieb has indicated that he did not take contemporaneous notes. His descriptions, provided in late June, months after the indictments, match the accused players with astonishing accuracy. In his deposition related to Nifong’s Bar trial, Gottlieb claimed that his descriptions were based on Himan’s notes and his own memory.
• Why did Gottlieb not take notes?
• Is the failure to take notes standard DPD procedure?
• Why are Gottlieb’s descriptions so inconsistent with Himan’s descriptions, particularly if Gottlieb used Himan’s notes in preparing his report?
• Does the DPD expect that two officers participating in the same meeting will have radically different recollections of that meeting?
• How were these radically different recollections resolved?
18. The accuser was not asked by the DPD on March 16 to provide a formal statement.
• Why was the accuser not asked to make a formal statement?
• Is this failure to obtain a formal statement consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Does the DPD not believe that it is important to receive a statement as soon as possible?
• Does the DPD believe that recollections become more accurate with age?
19. At the March 16 meeting, the accuser was asked to participate in a photographic lineup. The lineup consisted photographs of some of the members of the lacrosse team. No non-player fillers were included as required by DPD regulations for photo lineups. The accuser was not able to identify any attackers in this lineup.
• Why did the officers adopt procedures that violated DPD guidelines?
• Why were no persons known not to have been at the party included as fillers?
• How were the players included chosen?
• If the descriptions of the players as recounted by Gottlieb matched the indicted players so precisely, why was Collin Finnerty, the player on the team with perhaps the most distinctive appearance, not included in this lineup?
• Does this failure to include in a lineup an obvious suspect make the descriptions in Gottlieb’s report questionable?
• Is the failure to include an obvious suspect in a lineup consistent with standard DPD procedures?
20. On March 16, the DPD applied for a search warrant for 610 N. Buchanan, the house at which the party had taken place. Himan filed an affidavit in the application for the search warrant in which he included statements of fact now known to be false. Himan claimed that the victim stated that she was “sexually assaulted…anally, vaginally and orally…[and] was hit, kicked and strangled.” In her statements, she had apparently never claimed to have been strangled. Himan had seen the accuser’s lack of injuries earlier that day, and the lack of injuries he had observed did not support his statements.
• What were Himan’s sources for this claim?
• Was he relying only on the accusation?
• To what extent was he relying on Levicy’s statement?
• Why did he ignore his personal observations regarding the accuser’s lack of injuries?
• Were the mistakes based on erroneous information or exaggerations?
• To what extent did Himan know that some of the statements in his affidavit were false?
• Has Himan been asked to explain his false statements?
• Has he been disciplined?
21. On March 16, the search warrant was executed on 610 N. Buchanan, and the three captains who lived there assisted police in locating the evidence seized. All three volunteered to be interviewed. They voluntarily provided DNA samples and offered to submit to polygraph tests. The captains denied the accusation.
• Why were the captains’ denials in their interviews that any sexual activity had taken place, consensual or otherwise, not viewed as credible?
• What did the captains say in their interviews that provided any credibility to the accusation?
• Were female officers used to take suspect kits from the captains?
• If so, is the use of female officers consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• If not, why were standard procedures violated in this case?
• Why were the captains’ offers to take lie detector tests rejected, particularly if the officers who interviewed them thought that they were hiding something?
• Is a decision to reject offers to take polygraph tests consistent with standard DPD procedures?
22. There are reports that one of the DPD officers claimed to have found cocaine in the house and that one of the residents was involved in an unrelated assault. When these allegations were denied, the officer is alleged to have indicated that he was just kidding.
• Are these reports correct?
• If so, were these actions an attempt to intimidate a witness?
• Is the intimidation of witnesses consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• If not, has the officer been disciplined?
23. In connection with the execution of the search warrant, all three of the resident captains voluntarily provided the DPD with access to their e-mail accounts. The DPD is reported not to have accessed the captains’ e-mail accounts before the initial indictments.
• Is this report correct?
• If so, why did the DPD fail to examine the e-mail accounts?
• Is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• If the DPD accessed the e-mail accounts of the captains, what additional evidence did this provide?
24. On March 17, Gottlieb sent a message to the Trinity Park server asking for assistance in the investigation of the alleged rape.
• Why did Gottlieb fail to describe the attack as “alleged” as with most accusations?
• Why did the DPD make no attempts to interview neighbors to determine if they had any relevant information?
• Is the failure to interview neighbors consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• What other actions did the DPD take on March 17 in this investigation?
25. On March 17 and March 18, the accuser reportedly danced at the Platinum Club and signed into the VIP room while there. While there, she apparently told co-workers that she was going to get money from some boys at Duke, but did not mention the alleged assault. The accuser was filmed dancing at the Platinum Club on March 25. The film apparently was offered to Nifong. She apparently was observed engaging in a sexual act at the Platinum Club on that night.
• When did the DPD become aware of this report?
• Was the DPD aware that the film had been offered to Nifong?
• If not, why not?
• Was the DPD aware of the report prior to its publication in the media?
• If not, why not?
• Is this report correct?
• Did the DPD believe that the activities of the accuser both before and after the alleged attack were unimportant?
• If so, why are the activities unimportant?
• If the report is correct, does this activity affect the credibility of the accuser?
• Does the ability of the accuser to dance at a strip club three days after the alleged attack raise questions about the extent of the injuries she allegedly suffered in a brutal beating?
• Does the claim that she was going to get money from the players raise questions about the credibility of the accuser and any motivations she may have for making the accusation?
• Was the accuser ever asked about these reports?
• If not, why not?
• Did the DPD ever interview any of the accuser’s co-workers at the Platinum Club?
• If not, why not?
• Is a failure to follow up reported activities of a complaining witness consistent with standard DPD procedures?
26. There is no reported activity on March 18 or March 19.
• Did the DPD take any actions over the weekend regarding the investigation?
27. On March 19, the News & Observer published a short article describing the report of a rape. Gottlieb was quoted in this article: “It was an act where alcohol was involved.”
• Was Gottlieb accurately quoted?
• If so, why did he fail to describe the report as an allegation?
• Is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• If Gottlieb was not accurately quoted, was an attempt made to correct the record?
• If not, why not?
28. On March 20, Gottlieb sent a message to the Duke server asking for assistance in the investigation of the alleged rape.
• Why did the DPD make no attempts to interview neighbors to determine if they had any relevant information?
• Is the failure to interview neighbors consistent with standard DPD procedures?
29. On March 20, Himan spoke on the telephone with Kim Pittman, the other dancer at the party. Pittman characterized the accusation as a “crock” and estimated that she had not been separated from the accuser for more than five minutes.
• Did Pittman’s comments raise any questions about the credibility of the complaining witness?
• Because her reaction did not support the allegation, was Pittman challenged at this time?
• What attempt was made to reconcile Pittman’s statement with the details of the accusation?
• Did Himan ask Pittman any questions or did he merely take notes of her comments?
• If no questions were asked, is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
30. On March 21, Gottlieb claims to have met with Levicy and that at this meeting Levicy characterized the accuser’s injuries as consistent with a sexual assault. He claimed to have picked up the SANE report at this time. A subpoena for the medical records was served on DUMC on this date. In her testimony in Nifong’s Bar trial, Levicy denied meeting with Gottlieb on this date.
• Did Gottlieb meet with Levicy on this date?
• If not, why did he make this claim in his report and in his deposition?
• Was a version of the SANE report available at this time?
• If the SANE report was not available at this time, when was the report made available?
• Did Gottlieb read the SANE report prior to his interview with Levicy?
• If so, did Gottlieb realize that no significant injuries were documented in the report?
• If so, did Gottlieb challenge Levicy to determine why her earlier statement was not consistent with the SANE report?
• Did Gottlieb challenge Levicy to determine why her statement regarding blunt force trauma was not consistent with either the SANE report or the lack of physical injuries observed on the March 16 meeting?
• If no attempt was made to reconcile Levicy’s statements with the SANE report, is this failure consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Was the DPD aware at this time that the accuser had claimed at UNC Hospital on March 15 that she had felt no pain at DUMC?
• If so, what attempt was made to reconcile that statement with Levicy’s characterization of the accuser’s demeanor?
• Was Levicy’s lack of certification as a SANE known by Gottlieb at this time?
• If so, did the lack of certification make her opinions less valuable in the investigation?
• Did Gottlieb attempt to speak with Dr. Julie Manly, the resident who had performed the exam?
• If not, why was no attempt made?
• Did Gottlieb make attempts to speak with other medical personnel at DUMC who had treated the accuser?
• If not, why not?
• Why did the DPD seek a statement from only one person?
31. On March 21, the DPD met with the accuser for a second time. At this meeting, the accuser provided another version of her story.
• What attempts were made by these officers to reconcile the new version of the accusation with the prior versions?
• What attempts were made to reconcile the accusation with Kim’s characterization of it as a “crock” and her statement that she had not been separated from the accuser for more than five minutes?
• What attempts were made to reconcile the accusation with the statements made by the captains in which they denied that any sex had taken place?
• If no attempts were made to reconcile the accusation with other evidence, why not?
• Is the failure to reconcile conflicting statements consistent with standard DPD procedures?
32. At this meeting, the accuser participated in another photographic lineup. This lineup also violated the DPD guidelines for lineups because it contained no non-player fillers. The accuser once again failed to identify her attackers.
• Why did the officers adopt procedures that violated DPD guidelines?
• Why were no persons known not to have been at the party included as fillers?
• How were the players included chosen?
• Were any attempts made to reconcile the choice made and not made with conflicting choices in the previous lineup?
• If not, why not?
• If the descriptions of the players as recounted by Gottlieb matched the indicted players so precisely, why was Collin Finnerty, the player on the team with perhaps the most distinctive appearance, once again not included in this lineup?
• Does this second failure to include in a lineup an obvious suspect make the descriptions in Gottlieb’s report even more questionable?
• Is the failure to include an obvious suspect in a lineup consistent with standard DPD procedures?
33. Brian Taylor, one of the accuser’s two drivers, drove the accuser to 610 Buchanan on March 13. Taylor apparently dropped her off at approximately 11:40 p.m. The special prosecutors’ report indicated that he purchased a drink at a nearby gas station at 11:43 p.m. Taylor was first interviewed on March 21. He indicated that they left for the dance at 10:40 p.m., but apparently was not asked the time of their arrival. Based on Himan’s typewritten case notes, Taylor was asked few questions.
• Why was Taylor not asked to estimate the time of arrival?
• Did the interview with Taylor help to establish a timeline?
• If not, why not?
• Is a failure to use witnesses to establish a timeline consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Was the DPD aware that Taylor had purchased a drink at the nearby gas station?
• If not, why not?
• Did the DPD question Taylor about the accuser’s activities prior to the lacrosse party?
• If not, why not?
34. The accuser was not asked by the DPD on March 21 to provide a formal statement. This meeting is one week after the initial accusation of the attack.
• Why was the accuser not asked to make a formal statement?
• Is this failure to obtain a formal statement consistent with standard procedure?
• Does the DPD not believe that it is important to receive a statement as soon as possible?
• Does the DPD believe that recollections become more accurate with age?
35. On March 21, Jason Bissey, the next-door neighbor called Himan to provide information. Himan’s typewritten case notes do not provide specific times for the dancers’ arrivals or departure. The DPD did not follow up this call for more than one week.
• Why have the DPD not canvassed neighbors in the first week of the investigation?
• Why was Bissey not asked for an estimate of the time of the dancers’ arrivals and departure?
• Why did the DPD apparently not believe that an eyewitness could provide information related to establishing a timeline for the alleged attack?
• Why did the DPD not follow up for more than one week?
36. On March 22, Kim Pittman appeared at a police station where she gave her formal statement. In her statement, she claimed that she and the accuser had not been separated except for two periods of approximately five minutes. Her statement left no time for the twenty to thirty minute attack then alleged.
• Was Kim challenged on the inconsistencies between her formal statement and the accusations?
• Did Kim’s formal statement raise questions regarding the credibility of the accusation?
37. Kim Pittman was not asked at this time to make identifications of any of the players who had attended the party. Despite the failure of the accuser to make identifications on either March 16 or March 21, the DPD appeared to be uninterested in Kim’s ability to make identifications.
• Why was Kim Pittman not asked to make identifications at the time she had given her formal statement?
• Why would the ability of a witness to identify either suspects or other witnesses not be relevant to the investigation?
• Is this failure to ask a witness to make identifications consistent with standard DPD procedure?
38. After she provided her formal statement casting doubt on the credibility of the accusation, Kim Pittman was arrested on an outstanding warrant.
• Was this arrest an attempt to intimidate a witness or is the arrest of a witness standard procedure for the DPD?
• Was there an attempt by the DPD to convince Kim to alter her story?
• Was the only such attempt to intimidate a witness made by the investigator in the DA’s office?
39. In executing the search warrant on 610 N. Buchanan, the DPD seized the accuser’s cell phone. The contents of the phone apparently were not analyzed by the DPD. The defense attorneys were required to ask the court to require that the phones be analyzed.
• Why were the contents of the phone not analyzed?
• Why did the DPD not believe that the information contained in the phone was relevant to the case?
• Could the times of telephone calls helped to have established a time line?
• Could interviews with the persons with whom the accuser had spoken immediately before or immediately after the party have provided additional information relevant to the case?
• Is the failure to analyze evidence standard procedure for the DPD?
40. In executing the search warrant on 610 N. Buchanan, the DPD seized several cameras. It is unclear whether the contents of those cameras were analyzed.
• Were the contents of the cameras analyzed?
• If so, what did the pictures show?
• Did the pictures provide any evidence that supported the allegations?
• Why were the pictures not used to identify which players had attended the party?
• If the pictures provided no evidence that supported the allegations, what actions were taken to reconcile that lack of evidence with the accusation?
• If the pictures were not analyzed, why not?
• If not, why did the DPD believe that photographs of the party were not relevant to the investigation?
• If a failure to analyze photographic evidence consistent with standard DPD procedure?
41. On March 22, a lawyer retained by Duke to “facilitate” a meeting between the players and the DPD called to cancel the meeting. Apparently, one of the players had told his father about the meeting, other parents were informed, and the parents insisted on legal representation. The report confirms that this meeting was first rescheduled for March 29, then cancelled and not rescheduled a second time.
• At what time was the meeting rescheduled?
• Who cancelled the March 29 meeting?
• If the players’ attorneys had agreed to have the players meet with the DPD, why did the DPD act in bad faith as described below?
42. On March 23, the DPD sought a non-testimonial order (NTO) to require all 46 of the white players to submit to DNA testing and to sit for photographs. This NTO has been criticized as potentially unconstitutionally broad, particularly in light of the accuser’s inability to provide credible descriptions.
• Who made the decision to apply for a broad NTO?
• On what basis was the decision made to apply for such a broad order?
• Is this standard procedure?
• Has the DPD sought equally broad orders in other cases?
• The Baker/Chalmers report made the claim that not all of the players were suspects, and they were included in the March 16 and March 21 lineups as fillers. Is the mandatory testing of non-suspects consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• If so, what is the value of subjecting non-suspects to this mandatory testing?
• Has the DPD subjected non-suspects to mandatory testing in other investigations?
43. The affidavit filed by Himan in the application for the NTO contained false statements. Himan claimed, “medical records and interviews … revealed that the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and assaulted vaginally and anally.” Although Levicy’s statement provided support for portions of this claim, Himan was aware that the SANE report and other medical records did not support the claim. Moreover, neither Levicy nor the medical report supported the alleged anal assault.
• What were Himan’s sources for this claim?
• Did he conduct multiple interviews as claimed in the affidavit?
• If not, why was this claim made?
• Was Levicy the only source?
• Had either Gottlieb or Himan reviewed the SANE exam obtained by Gottlieb on March 21 as he had claimed?
• If so, why did Himan ignore the results of the SANE exam?
• If not, why did Himan cite the results of the exam in the affidavit?
• Were these false statements merely mistakes or did Himan commit perjury?
• Does the DPD excuse making false statements in affidavits?
• Was Himan disciplined for these false statements?
44. The affidavit filed by Himan in the application for the NTO adopted the “false names” theory in which for the first time it was alleged that the accuser had claimed that the assailants (previously identified as Adam, Bret and Matt) were not using their real names.
• On what basis was the “false names” theory adopted?
• Had the accuser made this statement without prompting by DPD?
• If not, why did the affidavit contain this claim?
• Is the inclusion of false statements on sworn affidavits consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Why did the DPD appear to avoid any evidence not consistent with this theory?
• Is a failure to test a theory consistent with standard DPD procedures?
45. When the players appeared later that day on March 23 to submit to the NTO, the media was there to photograph them. The doors had apparently been locked, delaying the entry of the players.
• Who had alerted the media about the NTO and the players’ appearance?
• Were the doors locked?
• If so, why were they locked in the middle of the day and at the time the players were required to appear?
• Were the locked doors an attempt to further humiliate the players?
• Why did the DPD choose to act in bad faith at this critical stage?
• Does the DPD believe that humiliation is the most effective means to convince witnesses to cooperate?
• Is a “media ambush” consistent with standard DPD procedures?
46. On March 24, Cpl. David Addison made his first statements regarding the accusation. Unlike other such statements made by DPD spokespersons, Addison used highly inflammatory language, describing the attack as “horrific.” He justified the NTO in emotional terms, stating that 46 DNA tests were justified as a result of an attack on a mother or sister. He claimed that none of the players had cooperated and failed to include the captains’ cooperation on March 16.
• Why was the attack not described as “alleged” as in other DPD cases?
• Who instructed Addison to use such inflammatory language?
• Was the claim of non-cooperation by all of the players merely an oversight or was it an attempt to portray the players as negatively as possible?
• Why were his statements not corrected?
• Why was he or the superior who had ordered the inflammatory language and false statements not disciplined?
47. On March 24, the News & Observer published a sympathetic interview with the accuser conducted by its reporter Samiha Khanna in which the accuser claimed that the players had begun “barking” racial slurs moments after their arrival. This accusation apparently had not been made previously by the accuser—either at Durham Access or at DUMC on March 14 or in interviews with the DPD on March 16 and March 21.
• Had the accuser made the claim regarding racial slurs (except during the alleged attack) in any of the prior versions of her story?
• If not, did the DPD recognize that the claims made by the accuser in the Khanna interview were inconsistent with the claims she had made previously?
• Was the accuser asked any questions regarding this interview?
• Did the DPD make an attempt to reconcile the accuser’s new version of her accusation with her prior versions?
• If not, why not?
• Is a failure to reconcile different versions of an accusation consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Did anyone from the DPD discuss this interview with Khanna?
• If so, what was discussed?
• Did anyone from the DPD encourage Khanna to interview the accuser?
• Did anyone from the DPD provide Khanna with information regarding the accuser (e.g., her name and address)?
• Did the DPD provide additional background information to Khanna?
• If so, is this consistent with standard DPD procedures?
48. On March 24, the DPD conducted tests on three of the phones seized in the execution of the search warrant. No results of these tests are included in Himan’s typewritten case notes.
• Why did it take more than one week to test the cell phones?
• Is this delay consistent with standard DPD procedures?
• Were all of the phones tested?
• If not, why not?
• What information was obtained through these tests?
• What actions did the DPD take to follow up this information?
• Why were the results not included in Himan’s case notes?
49. On March 24, Capt. Jeff Lamb instructed Gottlieb and his team of investigators to report to District Attorney Mike Nifong on this case. Gottlieb confirmed these instructions in his deposition in connections with Nifong’s Bar trial. Nifong had no experience in conducting a criminal investigation.
• Is this report correct?
• Who was responsible for this decision to give Nifong full responsibility for the investigation?
• Does this represent standard DPD procedure?
• Was there any continuing oversight by the DPD?
• When Nifong instructed DPD officers to violate standard procedure, were they told to do so without questioning Nifong’s instructions?
• Were DPD officers told to advise senior officers of their activities or were they told to communicate only with Nifong?
I have additional questions regarding the activities that occurred after Mr. Nifong first became involved. I will post those questions after I have received comments on the initial stage of the DPD "investigation" I have posted on this thread.
I thank all commenters in advance.
Attention: This blogsite will now also be available by e-mail subscription for your convenience. Just click the "Subscribe" link on the side bar.
Jswift...assiduous liar.
Deliberate and malicious.
Proven with 100% scientific accuracy.
By his own hand.
Or does Jswift plead ignorance
and incompetence?
Why how could that be?
Much too smart for that.
Anonymous said...
"Correction
I should have said two of the men Ms. Mangum IDENTIFIED, not two of the men she INDICTED.
I apologize for the error"
Thank you for recognizing your error, admitting it, and apologizing for it... although it was an honest mistake, I believe, and no apology is necessary. I think that the State Bar should learn from you and admit that it wrongfully conspired against Mike Nifong in taking away his law license, and that it should do the right thing by reinstating it.
As you pointed out, Ms. Mangum is no more able to indict the Duke Lacrosse defendants than Roy Cooper is to declare them "innocent."
Thank you for your comments.
"You cannot make comparisons between the Duke Lacrosse case, which never went to trial..."
Yes you can. Mr. Nifong tried to prosecute the members of the Duke Lacrosse team when he had evidence which unequivocally established that no one on the Duke Lacrosse team had perpetrated any sexual assault on Crystal Mangum.
"In the Duke Lacrosse case no perjured testimony was given, no false or doctored lab results were presented to the court, and no exculpatory evidence was withheld."
Crystal Mangum lied about being raped, even if it was not under oath, and exculpatory lab results WERE withheld from the court and from the defendants.
Sidney Harr's opinion, that the lab results were not exculpatory, has nolegal or moral weight.
"
Attorney General Roy Cooper was in sync with the Carpetbaggers early on..."
Attorney General Cooper did not get involved in the case until 9 months after the case broke, and it was because Mr. Nifong asked him to take over the case.
Mr. Nifong could have refused to ask Mr. Cooper to take over the case. Mr.Cooper could not have gotten involved had Mr. Nifong not recused himself. The only pressure exerted on Mr. Cooper was by people who wanted convictions.
"Trying to compare the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case to the prosecution of other criminal cases is like comparing apples to coconuts."
Trying to describe Mr. Nifong as an honorable prosecutor is like comparing Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa.
"As for JSwifts comments, the media, the defense, the blogs, the Attorney General, et al, never went after the police in any significant way compared to the onslaught of attacks that Michael Nifong underwent."
Michael Nifong was trying to convict three innocent men who had been exonerated by forensic evidence. There was no evidence Crystal Mangum had been raped. Crystal, Sidney Harr notwithstanding, was unable to reliably identify any Lacrosse team member as an assailant.
Michael Nifong deserved the attention he received from the bloggers. If not for the bloggers, three innocent men would have been wrongfully convicted.
Anonymous @ August 21, 2010 8:27 PM:
An example of an ad hominem attack, which happens when an individual dislikes a situation but has to accept the truth of a situation.
As you pointed out, Ms. Mangum is no more able to indict the Duke Lacrosse defendants than Roy Cooper is to declare them "innocent."
And your opinion that they are guilty has no legal weight.
Sidney, the falsely accused Lacrosse team members ARE innocent, regardless of any statement by Mr. Cooper or by you. The evidence conclusively shows no crime happened.
Anonymous said...
"As you pointed out, Ms. Mangum is no more able to indict the Duke Lacrosse defendants than Roy Cooper is to declare them 'innocent.'
And your opinion that they are guilty has no legal weight.
Sidney, the falsely accused Lacrosse team members ARE innocent, regardless of any statement by Mr. Cooper or by you. The evidence conclusively shows no crime happened."
If I am not mistaken, underaged drinking is a crime. The Carpetbaggers and their surrogates and the media want the public to believe that no criminal activity whatever took place.
I believe that, in addition to the underaged drinking, Ms. Mangum was sexually assaulted.
The following post deals with how those in authority oft times handle situations in which they are at fault... namely by lying and scapegoating.
"If I am not mistaken, underaged drinking is a crime. The Carpetbaggers and their surrogates and the media want the public to believe that no criminal activity whatever took place."
Sidney, underage drinking is not an issue. The innocent men were charged not with underage drinking but with raping Ms. Mangum. The forensic evidence and the medical conclusively proved that did not happen. Your opinion, borne of hatred for the innocent men, does not outweigh the evidence. Your opinion, the opinion of an individual who is uninformed about the case and who has no standing in the case would have no weight, even if you expressed it on a giant planet like Jupiter.
Sidney, did you ever ingest alcohol when you were below the legal drinking age? If that s so, doesn't that indicate by your own standards that you are the moral and legal equivalent of a felon?
To Dan Therriault
Ms Mangum did accuse three men of raping her but did not press charges. Multiple men accused means multiple charges.
The DNA evidence from DNA Security, if nothing else, confirmed Ms Mangum had been sexually active after that first alleged rape. Is that typical behavior of a woman traumatized by rape?
Is it usual for a woman traumatized by rape to work as a sex worker? Her performance, or lack thereof was not the first time she had provided sexual type services to clients. Apparently she had sex with her driver and had appointments with other individuals before the party. Is that typical of a woman suffering long term stress from a rape?
Shortly after the party, Ms. Mangum became pregnant by someone other than a Lacrosse player. Testing showed none of the falsely accused Lacrosse team members had fathered her child. Is that typical behavior of a woman who had been recently brutally raped?
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, did you ever ingest alcohol when you were below the legal drinking age? If that s so, doesn't that indicate by your own standards that you are the moral and legal equivalent of a felon?"
The answer to your question is "no." I never drank alcohol when I was young. Even after reaching the legal age, it was some time before I drank any alcohol. It is very rare that I drink period. Now and then occasionally a glass of wine... but that's it. That's not to say I haven't had beer or other drinks during my adult life.
I much more prefer the taste of a root beer.
Well well well.
Gee Sidney you really have a habit of backing the wrong horse!
Wonder what bullshit you will find to write in your next post. Don't you wish you had never ever ever ever got involved with her? I have never been able to fathom your attraction for her - unless .......
eeeeew!Hopefully even you would not stoop that low - Sid.
Will the bail bondsmen Hammond and Hammond be stupid enough to provide more bail. Did Hammond and Hammond lose their original payment? Hope so.
Will you be putting up the bail money in this new indictment - Sid?
Will the camel obsessed kenhyderal send $150k from the deserts of Dubai?
Will the citizens of Durham hold fried chicken and watermelon events to raise the money?
Will Mike Nifong hand over his pension money?
Will Sidney play the RACE Card like he always does because he is too intelectually stupid to argue rationally? Will he blame Rae Evans for unleashing a Carpetbagger Gihad on her?
This is more fun than Jersey Shore. Perhaps you could write a script for a new series,Sid? - YOu could call it Durham Whore
The lacrosse players did solicit prostitutes.
That is breaking the law you know.
Post a Comment