Friday, March 02, 2007

Addison Series #4 - "They call it 'squeezing'"

Readers Note: For general background on the Addison Series posts see “The Cpl. Addison Series.” Cpl. David Addison is a veteran Durham police officer whose regular assignment is Coordinator for Durham CrimeStoppers, described as an independent nonprofit organization.

To understand this current post readers should be familiar with the contents of “Addison Series #1" - "This horrific crime,” and "Addison Series #2" - "CrimeStoppers will pay cash,"and "Addison Series #3" - "Not my poster."


Those posts provide the data base for this post and the next and last in the series – “Sue who?” I’ve reversed the order of the last two posts because as I worked on them I realized this “Squeezing” post ought to come before "Sue who?”

John
_____________________________________

On Jan. 12 of this year the Raleigh N&O reported DA Mike Nifong’s office had again said the false accuser had changed her story of what happened the night of March 13/14:

Critics, such as Duke law professor James Coleman, said the new document was a blatant attempt to fix a flawed case and called for a criminal investigation of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and his staff.

"Who would believe that a witness, nine months later, suddenly recalls facts that coincidentally negate evidence produced by the defense?" said Coleman, who led a Duke committee that investigated the lacrosse team's culture and has criticized Nifong's handling of the case for months.
Coleman’s call for a criminal investigation of DA Nifong and his staff has so far received little attention. I think that’s because so much attention is being paid to State Bar action against Nifong which will likely lead to his disbarment. Also, the special prosecutors are reviewing the original “case” (really a frame-up) and the public is waiting on that review.

But I expect an outcome from both the Bar’s work and the special prosecutors’ work will be a push for a criminal investigation of Nifong and his staff, with staff broadly defined to include any who helped with the “the case” in any official way.

Very soon thereafter, others will become involved in the investigation; for example, reporters and medical personal who talked to Crystal Mangum and/or police.

The investigators – I’m going to call them Feds because so many of the actions committed against the players and others involve due process and civil rights issues – will have a list of people they want to talk to.

That list will grow and the order of names on it will change as the Feds develop new information and leads. But initially near the top of the list of people the Feds want to talk to you’ll find Durham Police Cpl. David Addison’s name.

That because when the Feds come on a case and they see that a police spokesperson repeatedly gave the public false information about what they’re investigating, the Feds always want to know why the officer did that.

“Let’s give him a little squeeze and see what he tells us.”

So Addison will be asked, for example, why he told the public the players weren’t cooperating with police when they were. Addison will be talking to people, almost all of whom have police and/or criminal investigative backgrounds. They know how exceptionally cooperative the players were compared to most suspects they’ve dealt with. They know Addison knows. He’s a veteran officer, after all.

And worst of all for Addison, he knows they know he knew.

That will set up a moment of truth or perjury for Addison, recently selected by Durham Jaycees as their Outstanding Young Public Servant of the Year (That information provided by Addison’s DPD supervisor, Maj. Lee Russ, during a 12/06 interview).

If Addison maintains he just decided on his own the players were uncooperative and it didn’t happen that way – someone else tells the Feds “how we told David his main job was to convince the public that the players were these horrible guys who were all covering up. We all knew that was false but we went over and over the stuff with David so he’d get it right when they interviewed him. And boy, he was good.” – Addison’s in big trouble.

And he’s only answered one question so far.

I’m sure all of you who’ve read the Addison Series can think of a dozen questions to ask Addison which he’ll have to answer either by incriminating himself, but telling the truth or by incriminating himself even more deeply by perjuring.

Addison has far more to tell the Feds than the public realizes. Most citizens can’t even recall his name from last March. Many of those who do recall his name dismiss him as a “mouthpiece” who got carried away with the case.

They’re wrong.

As I said before if Addison had ever gone off-message last March he would have been quickly corrected by someone involved in the case. That he wasn’t corrected as he talked of “this brutal rape” and “this horrific crime” tells you he was very much on-message.

The Feds will know that, so they'll ask questions like: “Tell us, David, which people gave you which messages? Was there a lot of revising of how you’d word the message? Who’d you practice with? What were you told to say if someone in the press learned DPD had talked to Kim Roberts?”

Think of Addison as an actor and some of the other conspirators as scriptwriters and directors. If all Addison was going to do was deliver the Gettysburg Address you don’t need scriptwriters and all the director need do is spend a little time helping Addison with his delivery.

But when you’re building a frame-up from next to nothing, it takes a lot of time and work. Addison’s role as the police spokesperson those first critical days was a key to the success of the frame-up.

So the conspirators spent a lot of time with Addison “going over the lines.” Addison was present at the creation. He has a lot to tell.

And what he has to tell concerns not just his spokesperson falsehoods, but his writing and distributing the infamous CrimeStoppers “Wanted” poster. Did Addison do that on his own or was he directed to do it?

What Addison has to tell will surely be of interest to the Feds in the first stage of their investigation. Later in the investigation, the Feds may have heard it all from others so what Addison says then won’t be worth much, especially to him.

Addison’s in a terrible tight spot right now. He authored and distributed the CrimeStoppers “Wanted” poster which DPD and Durham City both say they had nothing to do with. CS, according to Addison’s supervisor, Maj. Russ, gave Addison a blanket authority to issue CS posters at his discretion. CS board members can’t be found, at least by me.

The “Wanted” poster, in the opinion of every attorney I’ve spoken with, libeled 46 Duke students who played lacrosse for the school.

There will almost certainly be some civil action concerning the poster with Addison in the center of that action.

He’s not a wealthy man. He will have considerable difficulty paying for adequate legal representation during a Federal investigation. If a perjury charge were to come out of that investigation, Addison will be in an extraordinarily difficult situation with few friends and few resources.

For his sake and justice’s sake I hope Addison cooperates fully and promptly with the Feds. He may lose his badge and his job in the process; and he’ll be left with a lot of legal bills.

But the alternative for Addison of trying to “stonewall” the Feds will be much, much worse. I hope he has friends to tell him that.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

I speak with law enforcement PIOs almost daily. It is from their "official" press releases or press conferences we (media) learn the (initial) details of a crime having been committed.

If Addison sends out a press release, or conducts a press conference, he's speaking as the department's spokesman.

If it turns out later that the information was at best, misleading, or at worst, untrue or falsified, it is incumbent upon me to inform my readers/listeners/viewers and to say so.

Otherwise, my very conscientious boss/owner would ask me to find other work, it's that simple.

Integrity must be a constant -- from PIOs, to reporters, to commentators, to pundits -- otherwise it's a free-for-all (anyone with the stomach to read the Washington Times knows what I mean).

That's why every good news organization employs an ombudsman. That's why a healthy dose of skepticism is the best tool any news gatherer can have in their respective tool box.

That's why the work of the blogs has been, not only so important, but also so damning.

The record speaks for itself, and I would hazard the guess that every "official" who clamored to jump on this particular hoax bandwagon are now either engaged in a soul-cleansing introspection exercise (meaning, I aint gonna go down for him!) or entering that biting-of-the-nails stage as the walls close in.

The hoax supporters are right in one respect, taking on well-financed lawyers is tough, but it's particularly tough when your own statements and actions are going to lead directly to your downfall.

Also, this post reminds me to go back and re-read much more carefully your posts regarding Addison and his contributions to this mess.

Anonymous said...

John: Your presumption that the "feds" will become involved may be an empty hope. I don't see Gutless Gonzales doing anything in this mess. If he were even thinking of doing something, he would have telegraphed his intentions by now. No, I think the best hope is for the Duke 3 attorneys to bring civil action against Nifong, The State of North Carolina, the City and County of Durham, Duke University, the NAACP, and any other person or organization that participated in this lynching. Hit the scumbags where it hurts the most: in their wallets; make their lives a living hell, and make sure they remember until their dying day who they screwed with. Not that I'm vindictive, mind you.........

Anonymous said...

the feds would already be investigating if they were going to. Of course, we don't know for sure that they are not. But being the publicity hounds they are, it is unlikely since none of them are in front of a camera.

Anonymous said...

Plus, Gonzalez is too busy explaining how 8 of the best Fed prosecutors we had have been fired to make way for Bush appointees.

Anonymous said...

I would be interested in getting some background on Gottleib. I've read that he made a practice of intimidation. This case just gets more interesting by the day....

Anonymous said...

SA,

Is there a protocol for the Feds to get involved, or is it up to a specific jurisdiction/politician to ask the Feds to step in?

Anonymous said...

It's a North Carolina disgrace that this frame-up continues? Why, attorney general Cooper, do you continue this frame-up?

Ex-prosecutor said...

It is through Cpl. Addison that supervisory officers and the Durham police department can be reached, which is where the money is. The legal term is respondeat superior, which means the master is responsible for the misdeeds of the servant, and it is an issue in virtually every civil rights case against police departments. The interest of superior officers in all cases of this type is to claim that officers were acting on their own.

Here, the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the civil actions have avenues in addition to Addison to establish the liability of the police department. Mr Nifong has set up Gottlieb, etc. and the police department by claiming in his answer to the bar complaint that he was misled by the officers. To limit their exposure in the civil cases, the officers have a great incentive to dispute Nifong's claims, which make it appear that he did not depart from his role as prosecutor, for which he is protected by absolute immunity.

The danger of his dumping on the others in his response to the bar complaint is that he's given them inventive to gang up on him.

Anonymous said...

So Ex, where do the Feds come in, if at all?

Anonymous said...

Thank you as you continue to peal back the onion of corruption in Durham. Nifong has been exposed and he will be dealt with. But there are a lot of others who worked in concert to frame this hoax. Also, I, like you, continue to wait for Melanie to be held accountable.

Anonymous said...

Thanks John!

Great series!

“Tell us, David, which people gave you which messages?"

The "people" or person is the next step in determining who started this HOAX.

.

Anonymous said...

To 5:15: I was interested in what you had to say until you slammed the Washington Times. I have the stomach to read it, but not the WaPo nor the NYT.

If you really are a journalist, I would say you are the the prototypical leftwing hack many others and I have come to loathe, along with your leftwing hack rag papers.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 5:59: I agree. Gutless Gonzy is too busy nifonging border patrol agents to worry about very clear and very public civil rights violations. He's either too stupid, too disinterested in the big picture of his position as AG, or too careless to understand the effect this case is having on the public trust in the justice system.

Anonymous said...

To Humboldtblue:

If those were Hillary's people who got canned, that's the best news I've heard all day. When she became president, she packed Justice with all her vetted leftwing hacks. They should have been shown the door six years ago.

Anonymous said...

John:

You overlook the possibility that Addison was just stupid. In his limited cognitive capacity he could have just rushed to judgment and gone overboard. This would be one defense the city and police department would use to avoid respondent superior liability, and it might just be correct.

Ex-prosecutor said...

Response to Humboldt Blue:

Over the years, I have seen a lot of cases of prosecutorial misconduct. This is far worse than any other, for Mr Nifong, it appears, set out on a course to pull every dirty trick known, including some, such as the cooked lineup, that nobody had thought of before.

Here, the state bar is taking action against Mr. Nifong, surely will revoke his law license; and, in my opinion, he will be busted financialy after the civil cases are over.

I have never known, although it may have happened, of federal criminal charges to be filed against a prosecutor based upon the wrongful bringing of criminal charges against another person. A U.S. Attorney has complete discretion and, I expect (hoping that I am wrong) that if the U.S. Justice Department even responds to the requests for prosecution of Mr. Nifong, they will announce that they are declining to do so, because he has been disbarred and is defending federal civil rights lawsuits broughts by the true victims in this matter.

What I have not seen in any of the blogs or articles on this case is its being put into the context of other prosecutorial misconduct. Many of those cases have gone to the federal appellate courts, including the supreme court. Generally, the complained-of misconduct was in a single area, such as pre-trial statements to affect the pool or potential jurors or suppression of evidence of actual innocence, such as claiming a red stain on the defendant's clothing was blood, while the DA knew it was not. Mr. Nifong's deeds trump all other cases of misconduct because they take the worst of them, combine then in a single case and add some that nobody ever thought of before, such a "cooking" a lineup.

I was going to suggest for those who might be interested in other cases of prosecutorial misconduct to run a Google for those two words. However, I just did so, and the hits on the first page all are "Nifong."

August West said...

The Feds won't get involved for the same reason Brain Taylor is off limits. Olatoye. Opium. Airfields. Spooks. There are layers of this onion that must never be peeled.

You know, in the interest of national security, and all.

August West said...

...

Prostitution tacitly sanctioned, if not officially administered, by law enforcement. Cum get some. Civic officials living well beyond the means reasonably attainable from their civic paychecks. Money laundering through "Adult Entertainment" shell corporations...

Someone should swing by and check on them young'uns.

Who'da thunk Crystal's lies would ignite Durham's China Syndrome?

Anonymous said...

Good job, John. Indeed, if the feds do become involved, David Addison will be one of the people targeted in the early stages. The feds tend to "peel the onion" by going after lower-level people first, and then moving up the ladder.

The big "if," of course, is whether or not the feds become involved. My guess is that Bob Steel is trying to use his influence to keep the feds away, but there certainly was a lot of criminal conduct on behalf of the DA and the police. I have written on that subject elsewhere, but right now I am not sure the feds are interested, since there is not as much mileage for them given the racial connotations in this case.

I cannot understand why a Republican administration would want to cover for a bunch of Democrats -- and hardcore Durham Democrats at that -- but this particular administration has not demonstrated much of an interest lately in doing the right thing. The Bushies are lame duck anyway, so they should be willing to use the legal powers that they have. We shall see.

Anonymous said...

4:58 AM --

Amen to that. Everything came to a crash when I read the Wash Times crack.

And 5:15 PM's suggestion that ombudsmen provide any value is another indicator that s/he is in the majority of news people everywhere -- left of center. Ombudsmen were put in place so lefties could say there is a watchdog on the media's left wing slant so everyone should be comfortable that the system is balanced. Yet the ombudsmen of high profile newspapers such as the New York Times and the Minneapolis Star Tribune are a joke. Let's be serious, these ombudsmen are employees of the organizations they are supposed to keep in line. If they want to keep a paycheck rolling in, exactly how much opposition are they going / going to be allowed to produce?

Anonymous said...

"If those were Hillary's people who got canned, that's the best news I've heard all day. When she became president,"

(that got a good chuckle)

Actually, four of the eight were upstanding Republicans, they just happened to be the ones to put Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney in jail for their misdeeds.

As for the Washington Times, we all have our tastes. I'll admit my bias, for it's the one paper I generalize about. That's my personal take. It doesn't mean your comments about other rags are off the mark, I just have a big problem with Revernd Moon's rag.
(In fact, if you're a reader of the Times,be prepared for a shakeup in the managing editor's position, just a tip from me to you.)

And Scott, omsbudsmen are used throughout the whole of the media sphere, they serve a purpose, particularly when it comes to accuracy (insert Jason Blair comments here), which is what I originally commented upon.

In the end I'm responsible for what I write and broadcast, but if I'm getting patently false information from the get-go, it makes a difficult job that much harder.

4:58

"I would say you are the the prototypical leftwing hack "

I'm just a run of the mill hack, in fact, I would hazard a guess that you'd be a hearty supporter of the media outlet I work for.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and Ex, thanks once again for your insight, it's proven invaluable in trying to understand how a prosecutor can be so wrong, so crooked. as Bill A. has stated over and over again, he seems to be a sociopath.

Anonymous said...

I've emailed both U.S. Senators from North Carolina (Dole and Burr) asking them to get on board with us and light a fire under Alberto Gonzales' hindquarters. Republicans could have a field day with this Nifong mess, but they never were very smart. After every political battle, the Republicans go around bayonetting their wounded.