On March 24 WRAL – TV’s first report of the Duke lacrosse case included a Durham police officer’s statement that a brutal rape had been committed:
"You are looking at one victim brutally raped. If that was someone else's daughter, child, I don't think 46 (tests) would be a large enough number to figure out exactly who did it," said [Cpl. David Addison of the Durham Police Department.]On March 25 the Raleigh News & Observer published its now discredited front-page, above the fold, five column wide ‘anonymous interview” story headlined:
Dancer gives details of ordealAddison is quoted in the story:
A woman hired to dance for the Duke lacrosse team describes a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence
[A]uthorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity.At the time most of the public believed what Addison said.
"We're asking someone from the lacrosse team to step forward," Durham police Cpl. David Addison said. "We will be relentless in finding out who committed this crime."
We now know the brutal rape never happened. The “wall of solidarity” was also a falsehood.
The lacrosse players had been cooperative with police which the N&O knew at the time but didn’t report.
Addison, too, certainly knew of the players’ cooperation. So why did he shill a falsehood?
Who is Addison anyway? Why was he giving press interviews on behalf of DPD? Why did he give out false information? Did DPD correct Addison’s false information? Who was supervising Addison on March 24? What did Addison do after his March 24 interviews? What’s he doing now?
In a series starting tomorrow, Feb. 12, I’m going to report on those questions and others relating to Addison’s involvement in the Duke Hoax.
The series is based on media reports, interviews with attorneys and Durham police officers (both on and off the record, including two on the record interviews with Addison's supervisor, Major Lee Russ, DPD documents relating to Addison's actions and other information.
For now, three matters:
1) Short answers to the above questions:
Addison’s primary DPD assignment last March and now is to serve as DPD’s liaison with Durham CrimeStoppers which both DPD and Durham City manager Patrick Baker say is an organization independent of DPD. Addison also occasionally serves as a DPD spokesperson.
Addison’s occasional service as a DPD spokesperson doesn’t explain why for a critical period (Mar 24 to 27) he served as DPD spokesperson instead of DPD’s full-time spokesperson, Ms. Kammie Michael. (Michael is a DPD civilian employee; not a sworn officer.)
The question of false information is tied to who was giving Addison information and reviewing what he was saying. Maj. Russ has told me he was Addison's supervisor, but in my most recent interview with him (email exchange) Russ begged the question of who provided Addison with information.
On March 24 DPD officers working on the case were directed to report to DA Nifong.
Did that mean Addison therefore had a “second supervisor” providing him “information” for public consumption?
I can’t answer that question with certainty, but in the series I give it a hard look and offer some thoughts.
In late March and April DPD did act to correct a major portion of the false information Addison disseminated but, in contrast to the blaring hype most media gave Addison’s initial false information, DPD’s corrections received scant media coverage.
One especially notorious piece of false information which DPD acted to correct in April was the CrimeStoppers “Wanted” poster, which Addison wrote and distributed starting on March 27. The posted included this:
The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.The series includes a good deal of information about the “Wanted” poster as well as the “Vigilante” poster (see below).
2) There’s much confusion concerning the “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters. Many people think they’re one and the same. Last Spring, I was one of those people.
But the posters are not the same. There are major differences between the two. Knowing those differences is important in understanding how the witch hunt began and played out.
Both posters are the subject of extensive reporting in the series because Addison was involved with them. As already mentioned, he authored the “Wanted” poster, but he did not author the “Vigilante” poster, although he’s quoted on it and his statements no doubt influenced the person(s) who did produce the “Vigilante” poster. (The person(s) who authored the “Vigilante” poster has not been identified.)
Tonight I’ll post on the differences between the two posters. Look for the post after 10 P.M. Eastern.
3) I promised to post the Addison series last December. I delayed for a number of reasons which I’ll discuss in another post tonight.
3 comments:
Did Addison commit libel with his wanted poster? Did the N&O commit libel by publishing the vigilante poster? And who originated the vigilante poster? Where are the lawyers who contribute to the blogs? Doesn't this call for an attorney stepping forward and volunteering to take up these important legal cases?
Trust me, if this case is closed, the lawyer's will be after Durham and the Durham PD like a pack of wild dogs. That's a good news, bad news, sort of thing.
Because unless they DO bring this case to trial and WIN, it'll cost Durham millions. That's a powerful incentive for the PD to do their best to railroad the trio, and for the political establishment to help them do it.....
A preview of coming attractions for Durham:
A Spokane County jury yesterday found the city of Wenatchee and Douglas County negligent in the now-discredited 1994-1995 Wenatchee child sex ring investigations, awarding $3 million to a couple who had been wrongly accused in the inquiry
In 1994 and 1995, Perez and Child Protective Services caseworkers initiated a series of investigations in Wenatchee that resulted in 43 people charged with 27,726 counts of child rape and molestation against 60 children.
Roberson came under investigation in 1995 after he began criticizing Perez's investigations and the arrests of two parishioners, Harold and Idella Everett, a poor, developmentally disabled couple. The Everetts, parents to the two foster children making accusations while living under in Perez's supervision, served five years in prison before they were released when their case was overturned in September 1998.
The investigation initiated by Perez and forwarded to Douglas County investigators, eventually named a wide range of people including a state social worker who once had questioned his methods.
In February 1998, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published "The Power to Harm," a series of articles exploring the conduct of police, lawyers, social workers and others involved in the investigations.
A month later, a special fact-finding judge appointed by the state court of appeals, Whitman County Superior Court Judge Wallis Friel, began hearing the first of several appeals. Perez's investigations began to unravel amid evidence of bungling by police and prosecutors, conflicts of interest involving a judge, and inept defense counsel.
At least 14 civil suits involving people who went to prison are pending.
The state Department of Social and Health Services, whose social workers joined in the investigations, previously settled with the Robersons and Honnah Sims in December 1999 for $850,000.
Last November, Roberson settled for an undisclosed sum with Chelan County after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal district judge erred in throwing out a $231,253 jury damage award, giving him instead $1.
Post a Comment