Duke lacrosse: Police investigation questions (Post 2)

Readers’ Note: If you are not familiar with “Police investigation questions (Post 1)," I encourage you to read it before continuing. Thank you. John
______________________________________________________

Folks,

Post 1 drew a comment from J who self-described as having a background in police investigative work. J critiqued Post 1; and offered details and questions he thought I should consider. His comment impressed me as did a follow up comment he made.

I responded to J on the thread. I said I’d ask him some clarifying questions about his comments, and then build a post based on them.

What you’ll read below are J’s comments and, interlinear in italics, my clarifying questions.

J said he’ll respond to them. Once he’s done that, I’ll get to work on the post.

Meanwhile, in the shared spirit of the blogosphere, no one “owns” J’s comments or my questions. As long as you link to this post and make clear that J and I are in a drafting process, I have no objection.

J can speak for himself but my guess is he won’t object either, as long as you observe what I’ve just said about identification.

That said, we all recognize that anyone can take anything in the blogosphere and do as they will. It’s sort of like what happens in mainstream newsrooms only in the blogosphere we admit what can happen and warn readers.

Now to J’s comments and my questions, J begins:

John

I doubt ( as a matter of policy as well as a result of the scrutiny they are under) that the DPD will comment on anything but good luck in asking ( most departments will give a verbal miranda and then get the suspect to sign a statement- I dont know what DPD's policy is.

[ J, Do different PD’s have Miranda policies that are significantly different as regards the right to be informed? I was under the impression Miranda rights are governed by US Supreme Court decisions which dictate one set of rights for all.

Am I off base to think that matters of when, how and whether the Duke lacrosse captains were read their Miranda rights are relevant? Also, I was under the impression that a reading of Miranda rights would apply to the 43 other Duke students required to submit to DNA testing and strip naked to the waist for Durham police photos.

But I can’t find any mention in the media of Miranda happening to the 43. Am I right or wrong about Miranda and the Duke captains? Or is that question best left to attorneys? What about the 43? ]

A person becomes a 'suspect" when there is EVIDENCE suggesting he MIGHT be involved ( as opposed to a "person of interest"- who MIGHT know something about it or MIGHT be involved)

As to the investigation- this has gone BACKWARDS almost from day one- here are some questions you SHOULD ask

1) WHY did it take so long to get a search warrant ( reality is, the accuser statement alone combined with the VISUAL finding of diffuse edema is MORE THAN ENOUGH to get a search warrant) The normal process is to send a unit to secure the scene- CALL a judge( wake him up if needed) get a VERBAL and start searching ( I have done this in LESS than 30 minutes)

[ J, You’re bang on. I’ve seen search warrants done in a short time too. They’re even sometimes done in emergency rooms, after which the PDs go find the magistrate and they’re on their way.
Am I right that obtaining a warrant in the first stages of an investigation is a police matter and not something the DA decides? ]

2)WHY was Kim ( who was NAMED as an assailant) NOT arrested? [Great question for the Raleigh News & Observer. ]

3) why were the SUSPECTS not arrested or FORMALLY questioned ( as to alibis etc)

[ J, I think this is a major question that’s been ignored. Can you help me ask it with some specificity regarding prior similar allegations of equally horrific crimes.
If the police, DA Nifong and Nifong’s friend and mentor, Judge Ron Stephens, ascribed any real credibility to the accusers allegations, why were the students allowed to walk free among us for weeks? ]

4)WHY was a sketch artist NOT called ( she gave names and descriptions) and those SKETCHES distributed and a HUMAN line up NOT conducted ( DPD CANNOT say they didnt know who the players were and none of them seem to match HER descriptions)

[I’m planning to break what you aask here into two seperatge questions: One about computer generated suspect likenessnesses; and the other about line ups. ]

5)WHY does the DPD have HER computer? ( since she didnt know Kim or ever had meetings with the Duke people- I see it as IMPOSSIBLE she would have information about them PLUS even if she DID- she is the AV- NOT a SUSPECT- why do they have it?)

[On this question, so important, I plan to refer readers to Sill’s blog. So many of the questions on her most recent Duke lacrosse post thread bear on this question.]

6)WHY was this "mystery" fourth person just "ignored" ( from the line up)

7) WHY so MANY line ups?

[ Would you accept as an answer something like: “Now, Accuser, you’ll see only photos of Duke lacrosse players. You need to pick three of them and tell us they raped, beat and strangled you. If you can’t do that the first time, we’ll keep working at it until you do.

J and others, Do you all remember Professor Coleman’s objection to the line up process? There were “no wrong answers.”]

8) WHY didnt the DPD get a FULL list of attendees of the party and FORMALLY question them?

[ Terrific question. All I plan to do is provide a little context for it.]

9) WHY does Nifong want the personal information of UNINDICTED players?

[Same response as 8]

10 WHAT was the cabbie arrested for ( was he charged in that other incident? was it a bench warrant? ) and WHY were INVESTIGATORS doing the arresting ( thats normally a DEPUTY'S job)

[ Are you sure it’s a Deputy’s job and not usually a Deps job? Also, do you have any knowledge of who told the investigators to go arrest the cabbie? ]

This is really a very simple case ( the AV is known, the suspects are, witnesses are, all forensic evidence has been collected etc) yet the DPD has violated almost every generally accepted procedure used in every jurisdiction in the US

That ought to get you started

[It has J. Thank you.]

J
J said...
John,

Since you will do your post this weekend, here is a little more "thought fodder' for you

1)WHERE is this Gottleib's report and WHY doesnt Nifong have it? ( heres reality- when a DA wants an officers report for court[ complete or not- there is such a thing as an interim report] its a SIMPLE matter to stop what one is doing and type it.( believe me- thats a HIGH priority when asked for) I can only GUESS but I believe there is something in that report that MAY "criminally" implicate Nifong. I say that because of this. ( contrary to what may be done in Durham) the police do NOT work for and are NOT 'subject to" a DA or his office ( they report to the Chief, County Sheriff or whoever- and that position generally reports to the Mayor or County manager etc) So, with that said, it has been reported that Nifong "took charge" of the investigation or "directed" it- the REAL question is WHO gave him that AUTHORITY? and WHY?

[We could build a series of post on the questions you ask here. In a few days I’ll try to build a “Calling Sgt. Gottlieb” post out of them.]

2) the "wanted poster"- we need a copy of the charter and mission statement to see exactly how much influence the DPD has over them ( for those who dont know how this works, these organizations usually operate as an ancillary function to LE but are "official" representatives to LE- the reason they have a separate identity is because they PAY for information and it could be argued ( and has)that "money" has "influenced" testimony ( the civilians pay so it doesnt look like the police "purchased' evidence or testimony)

[Great background info at least for me. I plan to sit down in Alex Charns office this week and go through the portion of his file that deal with “public” CrimeStoppers correspondence he’s had back and forth with public agents or agencies. ]

3)WHY was there such a "fuss" over the DPD investigation and the DUKE pd investigation and WHY did the City manager get involved ( remember, they said in the beginning that the AV was unreliable and that was a point of contention)- we NOW KNOW she in fact DID give several versions and was viewed as unreliable ( that almost smells like a conspiracy)

These things just dont add up

[No, they don’t, J. I look forward to your response. And thanks again. ]

J