Sceptical's Response To “Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14”

Readers Note: If you haven’t read Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14 and Liestoppers Meeting posts here and here, I encourage you to take a look at them before reading further.

Tomorrow, with one exception, I’ll post on the main page responding to parts of all comments made on the Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14 thread except for sceptical’s comment.

As most of you know, the Nifong Knew on Mar 14 post was addressed to skeptical.

That’s the reason I’m responding to sceptical’s comment in full, before I respond to any other comment.

You’ll see following this note sceptical’s comment in full in plain text.

After it, you’ll see a double star line.

Below that you’ll again see sceptical’s comment.

But this time it will be in italics with my responses interspersed in plain text.

I’m posting sceptical’s comment first and without any response by me so you’ll all have a chance to read sceptical’s comment as written and without interruption.

John

________________________________________

Sceptical responded - - -

John,

Your contention that courthouse buzz insured that Nifong would have known about Mangum's charges is logical but not entirely persuasive.

In the first few days of the incident there was a lot of confusion about who lived at 610 N. Buchanan, whether they were Duke students, what Duke sports team was involved, etc. In retrospect everything is clear, but at the time there was the law enforcement equivalent of the "fog of battle."

Furthermore, B. Jones and John Shelton of the Durham Police, Chris Day of the Duke Police, and others at the scene had concluded that there was no evidence to proceed on Mangum's charges. Jones had planned to close the file.

At the Duke ER, Mangum was left to lie on a gurney for hours until the day shift arrived-- no one there took her seriously (seven nurses and physicians) until ultra-feminist Tara Levicy R.N. got involved.

Now remember I am just talking about the first two to three days after the party. Once Sgt. Mark Gottlieb became engaged with the case on March 16, the situation changed.

But before then, I doubt there was much "buzz" because of the skepticism concerning Mangum's claims by Duke ER staff and by the Durham and Duke Police who responded. There was also the initial confusion as to who held the party and whether they had a connection to Duke, let alone represented a Duke sports team.

Your information about the Durham courthouse crowd is important and interesting. But the incestuous connections between police, prosecutors, and attorneys do not prove that Mangum's charges were a topic of conversation early on.

The first mention of the case in the press was the brief notice in the N&O on March 18. There is no mention of any connection between the incident and Duke students other than to say it happened near the campus.

The N&O's second report on March 19 quotes Gottlieb and says it happened at a party involving both Duke students and non-students. Again the explosive racial connotation and athlete connection were not mentioned.

Even the Trinity Park listserv sent out by Gottlieb would not necessarily raise eyebrows:

"Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:15 am

"The Durham Police District 2 Criminal Investigations Violent Crimes Unit is conducting an investigation concerning a rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan that was reported on 3/14/06 in the early morning hours."

In retrospect, the Mangum's charges were a big deal, but just after the incident Mangum's claims were not unlike dozens of other claims of sexual assault the police deal with all the time.

So, while your conjectures concerning courthouse buzz and Cy's connection are plausible, I still do not think they PROVE that Nifong knew about the case before March 23 (when he claims he saw the NTIO application) and March 24 (when he talked to Capt. Lamb about taking it over).

Teaser: I am working on a post that will show he knew about the case at least by March 22-- stay tuned.

sceptical

*******************************************************
*******************************************************

Dear sceptical:

Thank you for your detailed response which adds to the “conversation” here.

Thanks also for initiating a post and thread at Liestoppers Meeting which gives more people a chance to contribute to a consideration of when Nifong first learned of the Duke lacrosse (DL)case.

Before going further I want to make two things clear I should have made clear the first time you commented on the bogus Mar. 24 copier “discovery” story:

1) - - The times when Nifong first learned of the DL case and when he first started framing activities don’t have to be simultaneous.

He could have learned of the case, thought to himself something like “I should be able to at least use this in my campaign,” but done nothing initially that was part of a frame-up attempt.

Even if he said to DPD something like “I hope you do whatever it takes to fully investigate her charges,” that’s just what any DA learning of the case on Mar. 14 would say.

No one should think that because I’m certain Nifong learned of the DL case on Mar. 14, I believe that’s when he began framing activities.

I don’t know when he started them or even whether he was the first one to start DL framing activities.

2) - - We all look at the DL case now with 20-20 hindsight. That can usually be helpful.

But there are times when it’s better to put what we know now aside; and instead look at things as they appeared to the participants in the case on Mar. 14, 15, 16, etc.

With hindsight we now see important reasons why Nifong and others would want to concoct the copier “discovery” story.

It clears Nifong of any connection with the development and approval by his office of the “mammothly unconstitutional” “toxic” NTO.

It’s a cover story that’s a critical part of the ongoing Duke/Durham frame cover-up.

But on Mar. 14, 2006 did Nifong have any reason for not wanting to know about the charges false accuser Crystal Mangum made early that morning at Duke Hospital’s ER?

Of course not!

As I reported in Nifong Knew on Mar. 14 there were many legitimate and important reasons why Nifong should have known on Mar. 14 of Mangum’s charges and many important reasons why he’d have wanted to know and been very upset if he didn’t.

Only later when the frame-up was unraveling did it become necessary for Nifong and others involved in it to concoct the bogus copier “discovery” story.

Now skeptical, to your comments in italics and my responses in plain

Your contention that courthouse buzz insured that Nifong would have known about Mangum's charges is logical but not entirely persuasive.

I cite courthouse buzz as one of a number of factors which taken together leave no doubt Nifong knew on Mar. 14. Those factors include, to cite just one example, the fact DPD routinely lets the DA and his office know of criminal allegations likely to generate strong media and public interest.

In the first few days of the incident there was a lot of confusion about who lived at 610 N. Buchanan, whether they were Duke students, what Duke sports team was involved, etc. In retrospect everything is clear, but at the time there was the law enforcement equivalent of the "fog of battle."

There was certainly some fog, but the police reports make clear charges of robbery, beating and gang rape had been made by an alleged victim who said her victimizes were Duke students.

Sgt. Shelton had been to the N. Buchanan house in response to the “first 911 call” and he responded to the second 911 call from Kroger.

By 2 AM Shelton knew Kim Roberts, the second dancer, had made “the first 911 call.” He knew she and Mangum had been performing at a party hosted by Duke students; and I can’t believe that among all those officers involved in the case that morning at Duke’s ER there was not a single one who knew the house was owned by Duke. On the contrary, it was pertinent information police officers routinely share with each other.

The officers knew Mangum was black and that she'd said her attackers were white.

I was impressed by Chatham’s post at LM. It contains many factual and reasoned statements that cut through a lot of the “fog.”

Furthermore, B. Jones and John Shelton of the Durham Police, Chris Day of the Duke Police, and others at the scene had concluded that there was no evidence to proceed on Mangum's charges. Jones had planned to close the file.

When Shelton told his watch commander “I don’t believe her,” the watch commander said “investigate” which on Mar. 14 DPD was doing.

The Cooper complaint filing does speak of DPD Inv. Jones’ intent to close the case but it doesn’t say she did.

I’m not sure there was ever a time in Mar. 2006 when DPD actually closed the case on all of Mangum’s charges and then reopened it.

It’s certainly reasonable to think every officer and commander in DPD who heard of Mangum’s charges would know they were mostly or entirely bunk.

But that’s not the same as believing they would have or should have treated them as such on Mar.14.

Any Durham cop would know how explosive Mangum’s charges were in this PC culture of ours.

They’d also know that even if they’d given Mangum’s charges a full, fair investigation and then closed the case, they’d still be subject to criticism for “not believing the woman.”

On Mar. 14 DPD had sound reasons for undertaking a fair, thorough investigation of everything Mangum said, despite her statements being for the most part wildly improbable and on their face false.

The outcome of such an investigation would have allowed DPD to say “case closed” and left it in the best possible position to answer those who, then as now, would insist “something happened there” and claim race, class and gender had played a role in DPD’s case closing.

Of course, no fair, thorough investigation of the type needed happened, which leaves us to reasonably infer that there were one or some in DPD on Mar. 14 who wanted the department to conduct something other then a fair and thorough investigation.

To sum up: I can agree that on Mar. 14 no one in DPD believed most or all of Mangum’s charges.

But that’s not the same as agreeing DPD didn’t see the need to conduct a fair, thorough investigation.

Or that it didn’t let Nifong and his office know of such an explosive case with, among other things, enormous implications for the primary election he was then fighting.

At the Duke ER, Mangum was left to lie on a gurney for hours until the day shift arrived-- no one there took her seriously (seven nurses and physicians) until ultra-feminist Tara Levicy R.N. got involved.

Now remember I am just talking about the first two to three days after the party. Once Sgt. Mark Gottlieb became engaged with the case on March 16, the situation changed.

But before then, I doubt there was much "buzz" because of the skepticism concerning Mangum's claims by Duke ER staff and by the Durham and Duke Police who responded. There was also the initial confusion as to who held the party and whether they had a connection to Duke, let alone represented a Duke sports team.

I think what I’ve already said responds to this part of your comment.

Your information about the Durham courthouse crowd is important and interesting. But the incestuous connections between police, prosecutors, and attorneys do not prove that Mangum's charges were a topic of conversation early on.

The Ex-prosector said those charges would have moved through any courthouse “like wildfire.” I agree.

The first mention of the case in the press was the brief notice in the N&O on March 18. There is no mention of any connection between the incident and Duke students other than to say it happened near the campus.

You’re right, sceptical. But that doesn’t negate anything I said about all those people and what they knew or thought they knew on Mar. 14.

The N&O's second report on March 19 quotes Gottlieb and say it happened at a party involving both Duke students and non-students. Again the explosive racial connotation and athlete connection were not mentioned.

True enough as far as the N&O story on the 19th goes.

But I posted on why Nifong had to know on Mar. 14.

Even the Trinity Park listserv sent out by Gottlieb would not necessarily raise eyebrows:

"Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:15 am

"The Durham Police District 2 Criminal Investigations Violent Crimes Unit is conducting an investigation concerning a rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan that was reported on 3/14/06 in the early morning hours."

Gottlieb’s email might not have raised the eyebrows of those who already knew something of the case on the 17th.

Now, skeptical, I’ve had an opportunity to respond to your comment.

So I’ll close with another expression of thanks for your willingness to consider what I’ve been saying and for what you’ve contributed to “the conversation.”

It seems only right to give you the last word. I’m looking forward to reading your post about when Nifong learned of the DL case.

In retrospect, the Mangum's charges were a big deal, but just after the incident Mangum's claims were not unlike dozens of other claims of sexual assault the police deal with all the time.

So, while your conjectures concerning courthouse buzz and Cy's connection are plausible, I still do not think they PROVE that Nifong knew about the case before March 23 (when he claims he saw the NTIO application) and March 24 (when he talked to Capt. Lamb about taking it over).

Teaser: I am working on a post that will show he knew about the case at least by March 22-- stay tuned.