Readers' Note: Attorney Alex Charns, representing one of the unindicted Duke lacrosse players, is asking the Durham City Manager and Police Chief for an official investigation into the production and distribution of a series of Durham CrimeStoppers “wanted posters.” Charns is also asking for an official public apology on behalf of the city and police department for producing and distributing the posters, which he says libeled the players.
If your not familiar with the Charns/Durham CrimeStoppers story this post, "Duke lacrosse: More about CrimeStoppers and "vigilante posters," supplies background as well as links to related posts. Also see a post by Historian Robert KC Johnson,"Roy Cooper’s Silence." It includes a summary of Charns' actions and some commentary. John
______________________________________________
Folks – I think the best way to bring you up to date on the story is to have you read a June 13 email Charns sent Durham City Manager Patrick Baker and Police Chief Steve Chalmers, which Charns was kind enough to share with me.
I'll follow Charns’ email with part of an Apr. 12 Raleigh N&O report of at least some of the sequence of changes to the CrimeStoppers “wanted” posters.
I’ll end with a report on my June 29 phone interview with Charns.
Here’s Charns email:
Subject: RE: Follow-up Public Records Request and Second Request for an
Internal Investigation into libelous DPD Duke lacrosse posters
Dear City Manager Baker and Chief Chalmers:
This is a follow-up Public Records Act (N.C.G.S Sec. 132-1 et seq.) request
as well as my second request for an Internal Affairs or city manager investigation of
the libelous posters that you admitted in the letter to me signed by Major Lee Russ, dated May 26, 2006, "was copied by a member of our agency using a Durham Police Department header".
This is a public records request for certified copies of all city and police
department e-mails, letter, memos, fax transmissions, authorizations or
other records in any format (paper, audio, digital or electronic) that were
generated or followed my initial public records request for records concerning the Durham Police Department poster offering cash for “assistance
in solving this [Duke lacrosse team] case” that impugned the entire lacrosse
team with its assertion that “The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and
robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.”
In response to my initial request for certified copies of all city of Durham
and Durham Police Department press releases or posters concerning the Duke lacrosse alleged rape investigation, some records were released to me. I do not believe all records concerning these posters were given to me because I received a certified copy of the poster that I provided to the city as proof instead of copies of the poster from police department files or computers. If records have been destroyed or deleted, I request records concerning the destruction of the records including but not limited to authorizations for their destruction and the date of their destruction.
In addition, I have not received a formal letter from Internal Affairs
notifying me that an IA investigation of this matter has begun with me as
the complainant.
I again formally request an internal investigation. Furthermore, under the
libel laws of this state, I request a press release correction and apology
for the DPD poster in question. This correction and apology is to be
disseminated to every person, neighborhood association and media entity that
received the original libelous communication on official city of Durham
Police Department letterhead.
Sincerely,
Alex Charns
_______________________________________
Here’s the N&O Apr. 12 article, "Crimestoppers amends news release."
A news release from Durham CrimeStoppers has been amended several times since the original release:
In an April 3 news release offering cash rewards for information, CrimeStoppers coordinator Cpl. David Addison wrote, "The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community."
Tuesday at 11:16 a.m., Addison e-mailed the same release, but modified the first sentence to read: "The victim alleges that she was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed." The second sentence calling the incident a "horrific crime" was deleted.
Eighteen minutes later, an amended CrimeStoppers release was sent. The only change was that "the victim" was now referred to as "the complainant."
Addison did not return calls inquiring about the change.
_____________________________________________________
When I interviewed Charns on June 29 he had read the JinC posts I’d sent him. We agreed that what I told you regarding my interview with Durham Police Major Lee Russ fit with what he was experiencing with the police as regards an investigation.
Charns did not agree with Russ’ contention that because the Durham police had “corrected” the posters there was no need for an investigation.
Charns said he was “not satisfied” that simply correcting earlier versions of the “wanted poster” took care of matters.
Charns went on to say, “The police made an egregious mistake. They told the public the players were criminals when they had not even completed their investigation. What they did libeled a large group of people. They just can’t walk away from that.”
What will Charns do now? “I’m going to take some time and think about what to do.”
He was not more specific than that and I didn’t press.
I’ve brought you up-to-date in a post that’s awfully long so I’ll end now.
But look for at least some JinC commentary in a few days.
In the meantime we should all be wondering why these matters are not getting more media attention.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Duke lacrosse: Attorney Charns’ email to Durham officials and my interview with him
Posted by JWM at 5:44 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have been waiting to post this until the right time. This is it.
The "Wanted Poster" that Durham Crimestoppers put out and the aid and letterhead provided by the DPD, most definitely are indefensible and libelous. They had better settle before going to court.
Libel is actionable even if unintentional. Intent to malign resulting in libel is more serious and harder to prove. Except in this case. Intent to malign is obvious. Here is why any jury of people with more than room temperature IQ's would see it the same way.
A wanted poster, or crime stopper advertisement is of use in locating suspects when the suspects' whereabouts are unknown and the public may be useful in pointing the police in the proper direction.
Every one of the Duke lacrosse players whereabouts were known and every one of them had made themselves available to the police department and the DA. Therefore the only possible explanation for the wanted poster had to be to vilify the players, engender hatred for the players, and predispose the public to assumptions of guilt of the players,even before the investigation had taken place, much less a trial. The DPD and the Da intentionally set out to impugn the players' integrity, destroy their reputations and deny them due process.
Not only should there be large cash settlements in favor of every player, but there should be serious jail time for the parties to this crime committed under color of authority.
Ordinarily this would be a tort and a civil matter, except the circumstances surrounding this should most definitely require felony prosecution of Nifong and the police personnel that helped him. I believe a determined DA, an honest one, not Nifong, could find the proper felony charges to lay.
From the San Diego Union-Tribune:
America's worst district attorney
It's Durham County, N.C., DA Mike Nifong, as every new revelation in the Duke lacrosse case makes clear. Ruth Marcus, a Washington Post pundit who was certain the three accused men were guilty in the case's early days, now finds it simply incredible that Nifong is pursuing the prosecution:
[The accuser] gave six different accounts of what happened the night of the incident: She did not originally mention rape to the police when they found her in a car outside a grocery store; raised the rape allegation after being taken to a substance abuse facility; later said that "no one forced her to have sex"; and gave accounts of the alleged incident that differed in various ways, including the number of attackers and the type of assault.
This is what the public has learned over the months as more official evidence has been released. Nifong has known it all along. And yet he refused to accept the evidence that one of the accused's lawyers provided that made plain the dancer was lying:
Reade Seligmann's lawyer has presented evidence that during the post-midnight time frame in which the attack allegedly occurred, Seligmann called his girlfriend six times and another person twice (12:05 to 12:14); was picked up by a cab (12:19); used an ATM (12:24) and returned to his dorm (12:45). The lawyer tried to present this evidence to the prosecutor before the indictment but was rebuffed.
This is despicable. Nifong is a disgrace.
There's an odd dynamic to this case. The fact that the accuser is a minority and the accused are wealthy jocks at a snooty private school seems to have lessened the media fury that otherwise might be expected over a prosecutor ruining three students' lives to win re-election.
Too bad. Because Nifong deserves to be pilloried every day the rest of his life.
Posted by Chris Reed at June 28, 2006 10:45 AM | Send a comment
Question: When Melanie Sills' Raleigh News & Observer published the so-called vigilante poster libeling the members of the Duke lacrosse team, who provided the poster to Sills' newspaper?
Question 2: With few exceptions, why have the major Carolina newspapers done so little to investigate the investigators and Nifong in light of the overwhelming indication that justice is not being served?
And one more: Has Sills ever explained why her newspaper referred to the accuser as the "victim" numerous times?
It should be Sill, not Sills.
Post a Comment