INDEPENDENCE DAY TRIBUTE

Hat tips to Blackfive for the pictures.

NY Dems Won't Stand For Pledge: Who's Surprised

Hat tip: Drudge Report:

Pelosi & The Dems Have A Car For You

DPD & The Non-Lacrosse Students At The Party

Readers Note: On the thread of Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie there are six comments – three each from cks and skeptical – concerning the actions and inactions of DPD Duke lacrosse investigators in the first days and weeks of the hoax and frame attempt.

I’ve combined cks and sceptical’s three comments each on the thread into two comments each here on the main page.

Combining their comments that way sets up a Q&A which is very informative as to what DPD was and was not doing in Mar. and Apr. 2006 regarding the non-lacrosse students who were at the party.

The exchange between cks and skeptical will also no doubt lead many of you to ask probing questions which ought to have been asked in 2006 by media and answered then by DPD.

Keeping in mind the wise admonition: “Don’t get in the way of a good thing,” I’ll say nothing more in this post except "thank you" to cks and sceptical.

John

_____________________________________________

cks asks - - -

If, as the news reports indicated, there were both students and non-students in attendance at the party, why were only lacrosse members' (who of course had to be students at Duke)pictures shown to Crystal Mangum? I think that this also goes to the heart of the frame. . . .

sceptical responds - - -

There were at least 2 students at the party who were not members of the lacrosse team-- Brent Saeli and Blake Boehimler (see Himan's case notes).

That prompts cks to ask - - -

This raises the question as to why those two students pictures were not a part of the photo array shown to Crystal?

Who made the decision not to include them?

Would their inclusion (in the photo line-up)have made the frame more difficult to maintain?

sceptical answers - - -

cks asks why pictures of [the two students] who were not lacrosse players were not shown to Mangum.

The answer is that the police were not really sure of who was at the party, even among the lacrosse players. Duke Police gave them pictures of the lacrosse team which is what were used in the March 14 and 21 ID sessions with Mangum.

The April 4 session used the pictures taken pursuant to the NTO on March 23.

However, by then Himan had contacted and interviewed Brent and Blake.

From his notes:

** 3/28/06 1720hrs - Went to the apartment of William Blake Boehmler ---/---/---- /7/84, he agreed to come to the station to talk about what happened on 3/13/06. Mr. Boehmler signed a non-custodial form and was advised that the meeting was voluntarily and he was free to go at any time and that he was not in custody. He stated that he was invited by some of the lacrosse players to the party, he stated that he came over. The girls started to dance he stated that none of them looked impaired and that he stated that there was an argument and someone mentioned something about a pimp. Mr. Bohemler stated he got scared and decided to leave (due to him being on probation) and that he left with Brent Saili back to 1107 Urban Ave. He gave name of friend that he was with at the time of the party and who he was during the night Brent Saeli... **

So pictures of Brent and Blake could have and should have been used in the April 4 session-- they were not. . . .

Five News Stories Before Nifong’s Copier “Discovery”

On Apr. 14, 2007, three days after NC AG Roy Cooper declared three Duke students innocent of charges brought against them by then Durham DA Mike Nifong, Raleigh News & Observer investigative reporter Joe Neff told readers:

Mike Nifong found out about the case that now threatens his career March 23, 2006, when he stopped by the office copier and found a court order demanding DNA samples from 46 Duke lacrosse players. An escort service dancer told police that three men at a team party had dragged her into a bathroom and raped her anally, vaginally and orally for 30 minutes, according to the order.

The Durham district attorney's reaction, he later told lawyer Jim Cooney: "Holy crap, what is going on?"…

I've used a series of posts to tell readers why Neff’s copier "discovery" story is false. See for example - - Nifong Copier "Discovery" Story: A Fantastic Lie - - and the posts to which it links.

There are many reasons why we can be sure Neff’s story is false.

One is that before Nifong's alleged copier “discovey,” Neff’s own N&O published two stories on the alleged rapes, the Durham Herald Sun published one story and Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published two.

On the thread of Nifong Copier "Discovery" Story: A Fantastic Lie sceptical, who posts at Liestoppers Meeting posted part or all of four of those news stories.

I’ve included here some text sceptical snipped. I've also included here the full text of a Mar. 18 Durham Herald Sun story not included in sceptical’s comment.

But what follows is otherwise the result of sceptical’s care and effort for which we can all say, "Thanks."


SATURDAY MARCH 18: N&O and H-S publish first articles about the case:

The N&O's story ran with - - -

Woman reports sexual assault

Police were investigating a report of a rape on Buchanan Boulevard near the Duke University campus Friday. .. A young woman told police she visited 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. Monday and was assaulted by three men, according to police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb... Anyone with information is asked to call Investigator B.W. Himan at 560-4582, ext. 229

The Herald Sun's story ran with - - -

Woman says 3 men raped her

Police are investigating the rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan St. on Tuesday.

The woman told police that she arrived at the house for a party on Monday night and did not leave the house until after midnight Tuesday.

Police are asking any potential witnesses to call Investigator Himan at 560-4582 or CrimeStoppers at 683-1200.

CrimeStoppers pays cash rewards for tips leading to an arrest and callers do not have to identify themselves.

Compiled by staff writer BriAnne Dopart, bdopart@heraldsun.com; 419-6684.


SUNDAY MARCH 19: Second N&0 article on the case:

Alleged rape was at party, police said

Police offered more details Saturday in the investigation of a young woman's report she was raped by three men at a party Monday near the Duke University campus. The woman told police early Tuesday morning that she had gone to a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. the night before for a party, said Sgt. Mark Gottlieb. While at the party, she was raped by three men, she reported to police.

Gottlieb described the party as a mix of college students and non-students. In total, there were about 30 people there at the time, he said. "It was an act where alcohol was involved," Gottlieb said. (snip)

MONDAY MARCH 20: The Duke Chronicle publishes its first article on the case:

Off-East house site of reported rape

By: Staff Reports Issue date: 3/20/06 Section: News Last update: 3/20/06 at 6:23 AM EST

Durham Police Department is investigating an alleged rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. over Spring Break.

Duke recently purchased the rented residence from a local landlord.

The alleged assault was reported early in the morning of Tuesday, March 14.

The young woman arrived at the house for a party at around 11:30 p.m. Monday, March 13 and reportedly left after midnight, Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb of Durham Police District 2 Investigations wrote in an e-mail to a community listserv.

He encouraged individuals in the area at the time to report to DPD if they "saw or heard anything unusual."

Gottlieb could not be reached for comment.

The house at 610 N. Buchanan is one of 12 in the Trinity Park neighborhood that Duke purchased from Trinity Properties, a local real estate firm, in early March.

The University bought, in total, 15 properties near East Campus for approximately $3.7 million.

The purchased homes are mostly student-occupied, and many are the frequent subjects of noise, trash and partying complaints filed by Trinity Park residents.

Duke plans to turn the houses into single-occupancy residences.

TUESDAY,= MARCH 21: The Duke Chronicle publishes its second article on the case:

Suspects in alleged rape unidentified

One week after a young woman was allegedly raped at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., the Durham Police Department is still investigating the situation, saying "the suspects have not been clearly identified."

The house, which was recently purchased by University subsidiary Durham Realty, was the site of a party that involved both Duke students and non-students, said Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb of Durham Police District 2 Investigations.

Sue Wasiolek, assistant vice president for student affairs and dean of students, said the University will not take action until the police department's investigation is finished.

"From what I understand, the situation is under investigation by the Durham Police Department, and we will await that investigation," she said.

Larry Moneta, vice president for student affairs, added that the University would take appropriate measures, pending the police investigation.

Gottlieb said any man that attended the party March 13 would be a viable suspect but refused to go into further detail.

The residents of the house have been cooperative with DPD in locating any suspects, he added.

The residence was one of 15 properties-three lots and 12 houses-Duke bought from Trinity Properties, a local real estate firm, earlier this month. The University paid approximately $3.7 million in the deal.

The houses, located in the Trinity Park neighborhood near East Campus, have mostly been rented by students in the past, but Duke hopes to turn them into single-occupancy residences in the future.

Many local residents in the Trinity Park area have long complained about noise and litter associated with parties at several of the houses.

*** END OF SECOND CHRONICLE STORY *******

Sceptical ended the comment with - - -

It should be noted that none of the early newspaper reports stated that the 610 N. Buchanan tenants were lacrosse team members or that the accuser was black.

However, John is correct in inferring that Nifong, who regularly read the newspapers, is likely to have seen one of these articles between March 18 and 21.

This argument is in addition to the one that I have made that Nifong was likley involved in the March 22 deal between Kim (Roberts) Pittman and Durham PD officers Gottlieb and Himan for changes in her statement in exchange for staying out of jail for parole violations.

DPD Deputy Chief Hodge On Mar. 14, 2006 & Thereafter

Readers Note: If you're not familiar with the contents of:

Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-nifong-knew-on-mar-14.html

Sceptical’s Response To "Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14"

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/scepticals-response-to-why-nifong-knew.html

Sceptical Says Nifong Knew Before Mar. 23

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/sceptical-says-nifong-knew-before-mar.html

Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/nifong-copier-discovery-story-fantastic.html

I encourage you to read those posts before reading the one which follows below the star line because that post presumes you’re very familiar with the contents of the four posts I’ve just cited and linked to.

John

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

The entire thread of Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie is well worth reading.

In the coming days I’ll respond to part or all of each of the 15 comments presently there.

I’ll begin here with an interlinear response to part of one of sceptical’s thread comments.

Sceptical’s in italics; I’m in plain.

Sceptical said in part - - -

… I do not think to start with that there was an overall conspiracy (that happened later).

I agree although I think we should allow that one or more officials who were on the case very early (Mar. 14, 15 & 16) already had, at least in his/her or their minds, the idea/wish to “get something on these guys no matter.”

That said, in those first days it was right for officials to respond to Mangum’s charges with a full, fair investigation.

There’s no doubt that by Mar. 23 when Nifong’s chief ADA David Saacks agreed to “walk” the “mammothly unconstitutional” NTO “through the court” conspirators were already involved in a frame-up attempt.

But there's a great deal we don't know about the actions between Mar. 14 and 23 of power figures connected to the DL frame.

We'll have a much better understanding of how and why the frame was attempted when we know, for example, what DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge and some of the other key figures did between Mar. 14 and 23 as well as what they did after that timeframe.

I believe there was a convergence of interests, the combination of which was quite unlucky for the team.

You’re right about that.

1) A mentally-ill prostitute who did not want to be incarcerated, for whom a rape claim was the way out;

And whom, as she rested all snug in her bed,
Saw visions of $ $ $ $ dance in her head.

2) A Duke-hating cop who wanted revenge for being transferred;

Gottlieb’s a very complex guy whose role in the frame attempt and the ongoing cover-up has been largely misconstrued because of all the “Duke-hating cop” talk.

It’s a given Gottlieb’s a “Dukie hater;”

and he certainly had a central and odious role in the frame-up attempt;

and there’s no doubt he produced bogus “notes” to support both the frame-up attempt and the ongoing cover-up;

but with all of that,

if we want to understand how the frame developed we must acknowledge the truth of what a very wise person told me as the frame-up began to unravel:

“Gottlieb wouldn’t have been in there for a heartbeat unless the top commend wanted him there; the city, too.”

Gottlieb no doubt had his own internal motives for much of what he did.

But during Mar. 2006 Gottlieb wasn't some kind of off-the-range freelancer; he was the dutiful agent of DPD's top command.

3) A wannabe SANE rookie whose feminist ideology outweighed professional ethics;

Sceptical, the concision and truth in that sentence made me want to cheer.

It’s a sentence Churchill would’ve loved; and one Strunk and White would score “A” for its omitting “needless words” and making “every word tell.”

4) A cowardly university administration who wanted to teach the athletes a lesson and wanted to curry favor with the city;

Faced with the obvious lies of Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong, Duke was indeed “cowardly.” Dishonest, too.

5) A politically desperate prosecutor who needed a big case to ensure his salary and pension;

It’s not important to the injustices of the case; or to the struggle to discover as much of the truth as we can; or to hold to some account those responsible for the wrongs; or to acknowledge those who in tough circumstances did right;

but just for the record I’d like to say:

I’ve never bought in to the “ensure his salary and pension” explanation.

and

6) News media looking for a hot story with "Sex, lies and Duke."

That’s true as regards much of media that came on “the story” after Mar. 25, 2006 when the Raleigh N&O sent across the nation and the world a story its headlines told readers without any qualification suggesting doubt was about “a night” which ended in “sexual violence.”

You take away any of these 6 factors and there might not have been a "Duke Lacrosse Scandal."

Later on, there was a more organized conspiracy between Duke, the Durham police, and the Durham administration. See Ekstrand's civil suit.

But at the beginning it appears there was an unfortunate combination of circumstances leading to a disaster.

Sceptical, you’re doing here what few people following the DL case do: you’re looking forward from “the beginning” (Mar 13/14) and asking questions.

Let’s imagine we’re in Durham early on the morning of Mar.14, 2006. We’ve just heard about Mangum’s false charges made at Duke’s ER.

At that moment we know nothing else about what would become the DL case.

But we are safe in assuming that however flimsy the woman's charges, they’ll be some kind of police investigation which, when any rape charges are made, is the proper police response.

Given the explosive nature of the most serious crimes alleged - - a black woman accusing white Duke students of gang-raping and beating her - - we would reasonably think that police command will make sure the investigation is headed by a top investigator known for empathy, investigative skill and fairness.

But on Mar. 16 we learn Gottlieb’s been put in charge of the investigation.

Gotttlieb’s record suggested he wasn’t likely to lead a fair investigation; yet he was put in charge of it.

Looking forward from Mar. 14 we can say with certainty the decision to put Gottlieb in charge, made in the first days of the case, was made with knowing disregard of the need for an empathic, skilled and fair investigator leading such a sensitive and potentially explosive investigation.

What we knew by Mar. 16 gave us strong reason to doubt DPD top command wanted a fair and full investigation of Mangum's charges

Who put Gottlieb in charge of the investigation? And why?

I'd like to ask DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge those questions.

Recall that Hodge was in day-to-day charge of the department during most of the “investigation” while the since retired Chief, Steve Chalmers, was, we were told, taking care of his mother who was ill and residing in Durham.

In this post I provided a link to an April 12, 2006 MSNBC story which included this from Hodge:

"I don't think we would be here if it wasn't (a strong case)," Maj. Ron Hodge, the assistant (sic) chief of the Durham Police Department, said after the forum. (Hodge is deputy chief. The parenthetical "a strong case" is in the MSNBC story. – JinC )(bold added).

Nine months later in January 2007 when Nifong stepped aside and turned the case over to the NC Attorney General’s office, Hodge assured the Raleigh News & Observer DPD had collected evidence and that the case would go forward. I posted on the story here. The post contains a link to the N&O story which included:

Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge said Nifong's stepping aside won't change the substance of the evidence collected by the department's detectives that a sexual assault occurred. (bold added)

Hodge said he thinks that the case will still go forward and that the remaining charges will be prosecuted.

"I don't think it changes anything that we've done," Hodge said. "It just means that we'll have to deal with a different attorney."

Why did Hodge say in April, 2006 DPD had a strong case when, as we now know, it never had any credible evidence?

Hodge must have known that then.

Why did Hodge claim in January, 2007 that DPD had collected evidence which would enable a prosecutor to go forward with the case when, as the Attorney General said just three months later, there was no credible evidence any crime had been committed?

What was Hodge doing?

What has Hodge done in connection with the DL case starting on Mar. 14, 2006 and going forward from there?

The Duke lacrosse victims and their families deserve to know. So does the public.

An Essential Duke Frame Cover Story

Readers Note: If you haven’t read Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie posted this past Sunday and the posts to which it links, I strongly encourage you to read those posts.

The post which follows this note presumes you know their contents.

Therefore, it contains no introductory background information or citations of sources and explanations of inferential reasoning which can be found in Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie and the posts to which it links.

John

___________________________________

On the thread of Nifong Copier "Discovery" Story: A Fantastic Lie Jim in San Diego asks in part:

…[W]hy is it essential to any issue whether Nifong knew on Mar 14th, or March 22nd?

It is a prosecutor's continuing duty to indict and try only those who are guilty. Once N knew these boys were not guilty, whether the 14th, 22nd, or some much later date, he was still obligated to drop the case.

In response to Jim and others who no doubt agree with him, I offer the following:

Joe Neff’s Apr. 2007 copier “discovery” story – the same story Nifong testified to at his State Bar trial in June 2007 - has Nifong first learning of the DL case AFTER the “toxic” NTO was signed on Mar. 23.

If the Neff-Nifong story were true, it would mean Nifong knowingly had nothing to do with the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed.

That would be huge because the documentation presented to the court to justify its issuance of the NTO is indisputably a frame-up document.

That being the case, if we believed the copier "discovery" story, we’d have to agree the frame-up was well underway BEFORE Nifong was ever knowingly involved in it.

Think about the implications of that.

Who would have the authority and drive to knowingly push through the court a “manmouthly unconstitutional” NTO request based on documents attested to by police investigators which were laced with fraud?

Why would anyone in the DA’s office go along with the NTO request?

Especially why would anyone in the DA’s office go along with such a request without first “checking with the boss?”

The same people who pump the Neff-Nifong “discovery” story say the answer to those two questions is: because a Durham Police Sargeant and a rookie investigator asked the DA’s office to go along with it.

That's unbelievable!

Certainly others were involved in the frame-up attempt besides Nifong; and some of them may very well have engaged in framing activities before Nifong did.

But to claim as Neff and Nifong have that Nifong wasn't aware of the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed is an absurdity for the reasons I've cited in previous posts along with others I've no doubt overlooked or failed to mention.

On the other hand, if Nifong knew about the NTO at any time BEFORE it was signed, that’s huge for a number of reasons.

Here are two of them:

1) It means not only is Neff’s Apr. 2007 story bunk, but Nifong’s June 2007 testimony at his State Bar trial is false.


2) Since Neff cited Nifong's chief ADA David Saacks as a source for his copier “discovery” story;

and since Saacks has never as far as I know publicly disputed what Neff reported,

we have to ask whether Saacks in fact witnessed Nfiong’s “discovery” which Nifong may have staged to deceive Saacks as to his prior knowledge of the DL case;

or whether Saacks in fact told Neff a falsehood in order to cover-up the fact Nifong knew of the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed.

As I’ve said now in a number of posts, I have no doubt the copier “discovery” story is a cover story which at present is essential to helping sustain the ongoing cover-up of the frame-up attempt.

I'll soon post again on this very important aspect of DL case.

Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie

Readers Note: If you are not familiar with the contents of

Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-nifong-knew-on-mar-14.html

Sceptical’s Response To "Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14"

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/scepticals-response-to-why-nifong-knew.html

and

Sceptical Says Nifong Knew Before Mar. 23

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/sceptical-says-nifong-knew-before-mar.html

I encourage you to read those posts before reading the one below because it presumes readers are very familiar with the contents of the three posts I just cited and linked to.

John
________________________________________________

On June 15 Sceptical posted "WITNESS TAMPERING, KIM (ROBERTS) PITTMAN & MIKE NIFONG" at Liestoppers Meeting.

The essential element of that post was sceptical’s carefully reasoned conclusion Nifong knew about the Duke lacrosse (DL) case by Mar. 22, 2006.

Since skeptical posted, no one among the disparate group which posts at LM has questioned sceptical’s conclusion; while a number have put up posts based, at least in part, on sceptical’s conclusion Nifong knew on Mar. 22 of the DL case.

As regards my certainty Nifong first learned of what became the DL case on Mar. 14, the same day Crystal Mangum made her false charges, skeptical and others remain - well – skeptical to say the least since I’ve not offered “proof” for my certainty.

I’m confident that “proof” will emerge.

And there I’m content to leave the matter for now.

I appreciate the time and attention skeptical and others spent reading my posts.

I’ve profited from reading sceptical’s posts and those of others as well as the comments here at JinC.

And we’ve all now seen how the Nifong copier “discovery” story implodes under the weight of the evidence of its utter absurdity.

What intelligent person with a reasonable amount of knowledge of the many means by which information and misinformation about the DL case was widely and publicly disseminated throughout Durham between Mar. 14 and Mar. 23, 2006 ( for example, in 2 news stories in the N&O and 2 news stories in The Chronicle) believes - -

Mike Nifong, a DA who had reason to be informed of the case by virtue of his office and a need to be informed because he was locked in a tough primary election battle, went those entire 10 days without ever learning anything about the case until he “discovered” the signed NTO sitting on his office copier?

The Duke undergrads were all reading about the case on Mar. 20 in The Chronicle. But Nifong didn't know?

Back in May 2006 outside the Durham County Courthouse, David Evans warned us we’d all been told “some fantastic lies.” He was right then.

If Evans came back to the courthouse today and said, “You’re all still being told some fantastic lies,” he’d be right now, too.

Sceptical Says Nifong Knew Before Mar. 23

On Apr. 11, 2007 NC AG Roy Cooper declared innocent three young man indicted in the Duke lacrosse frame-up attempt led by rogue DA Mike Nifong.

On Apr. 14, 2007 Releigh News & Observer investigative reporter Joseph Neff told readers Nifong first learned of the case on Mar. 23, 2006 when he “discovered” a copy of an NTO sitting on his office copier.

Three months after Neff’s story appeared, Nifong told essentially the same copier “discovery” atory when testifying under oath in June at his State Bar trial which led to his disbarment.

You can read posts explaining why Neff's story and Nifong's testimony are false here, here, and here.

This post here explains why I’m certain Nifong knew of the Duke lacrosse case on Mar. 14.

Sceptical, who blogs at Liestoppers Meeting, agrees the copier “discovery” story is false but is not convinced Nifong knew on Mar. 14.

But skeptical has put up a very impressive, heavily documented post arguing Nifong knew of the case at least by Mar. 22.

I hope you give sceptical’s post “Witness Tampering, Kim Roberts, and Mike Nifong; The ‘Deal’ With Kim Occurred March 22” a look.

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.

Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14

(First posted on 6/13/09)

In Apr. 2007 a Raleigh N&O story by investigative reporter Joe Neff told readers it wasn’t until Mar. 24, 2006 that then Durham DA Mike Nifong learned about the Duke lacrosse (DL) case.

In June 2007 at the State Bar trial which led to his disbarment, Nifong testified to the same preposterous story the N&O had published a few months before.

Neff’s & Nifong’s stories have to be false. I’ve explained why in a number of posts. See, for examples, here and here.

If Nifong didn’t learn of the DL case until after his close friend, mentor and predecessor in the DA’s office Judge Ronald Stephens had already signed the “toxic” DL NTO that’s been described an “mammothly unconstitutional,” when did he learn of it?

I’m certain Nifong learned of it on Mar. 14, 2006, just hours after false accuser Crystal Mangum made a series of unbelievable, self-contradicting charges that she’d been robbed, beaten, strangled and gang raped at a party hosted by members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Here are some of the reasons why I’m certain:

As a matter of routine, the Durham Police Department (DPD) quite properly keeps the DA’s office current on cases that may make considerable demands on the time and expertise of the DA office and/or will garner heavy media attention.

The DL case was such a case.

It’s impossible to believe DPD didn’t on Mar. 14 directly inform Nifong and/or a member(s) of his office staff about the charges Mangum made in the early morning hours of that day at Duke Hospital’s ER.

It’s also impossible to believe any member of Nifong’s staff (it then consisted of about 20+ ADAs and 25+ other staffers) who knew about Mangum’s charges, would not have made sure “the boss” knew about them ASAP.

Any DA would want to be informed of such explosive charges that has already led to a police investigation, in response to which he might have to take certain immediate actions if arrests were made that day and about which he might have to respond at immediately if asked about the charges by a member of the press or by a citizen at a public event.

Would any Nifong staffer want “the boss” returning upset on Mar. 14 from a Kiwanis luncheon where he’d just spoken and had to tell the guy who asked during Q&A about “what they say happened last night at Duke Hospital” that he didn’t know what the guy was talking about?

For that matter, would anyone supporting Nifong in the tough primary election battle he was then fighting for the Democratic Party’s DA nomination, considered a sure lock on election in November, not want Nifnong to know ASAP about Mangum’s charges so he’d be prepared for questions?

No, they’d all want Nifong to be able to say to anyone something like:

“If you’re referring to charges a woman made about crimes she alleges happened at a party last night in Trinity Park, there’s obviously a lot I can’t tell you at this time. But I can say I spoke with the police this morning and they’re right now in the process of conducting a full investigation. My office is ready to provide the police any assistance they ask for.”

Given he was the DA, it was right and important that Nifong should learn about the DL case on Mar. 14. His campaign situation also made it essential he know then.

What I’ve just said about why Nifong knew about the DL case on Mar. 14 can be classified as some of “the formal reasons” why Nifong knew then.

I want to now lay out some of what can be classified as “informal reasons” why Nifong knew of the case on Mar. 14.

But first, there's a question many of you may be asking right now:

“Why are you so sure he learned of the case on the 14th? Maybe he was out of town then and didn’t learn about it until the 15th or thereafter.”

Nifong may have been out of town on the 14th. I don’t know.

But in our world of email, pagers and cells, he was connected.

DAs, like the rest of us, sometimes want to get away from the job. But they know the nature of their work means they can’t be completely out of touch.

And Nifong had added reason for being reachable on Mar. 14: his tough primary battle.

Now to some of the “informal reasons” why I’m sure Nifong knew about the case on Mar. 14.

By about 7 AM that morning at least a few hundred people in Durham already knew something about Mangum’s extraordinarily explosive charges, with most of them not knowing they were false.

Those people included, of course, the officers directly working the case and Duke ER personnel. They also included brother and sister police officers on duty who learned by various means something of the case as well as non-ER hospital personnel who, for example, would’ve entered the ER area for any of a number of reasons, such as to transport a patient up to a floor.

Around 7 AM shift changes were occurring at Duke Hospital and DPD. Hundreds more began learning from those they were relieving something of what Mangum had said. It was part of their jobs to know what had happened on the shifts they were relieving.

At 8:15 AM the doors of the Durham County Courthouse (pictured here) opened. The Durham Sheriff’s Department has administrative responsibility for the building, including security.

Most court sessions wouldn’t begin before 10 AM. But by 8:30 ADAs, attorneys, courthouse staffers such as bailiffs and secretaries, jurors and prospective jurors were already entering the courthouse.

It’s safe to say most prospective jurors were hoping they’d be in the building just a few hours and wouldn’t be picked for a jury.

It’s also safe to say that by 8:30 the “courthouse regulars” – ADAs, attorneys, DPD and Sheriff officers and others – had started that day’s “buzz.”

The “buzz” in Durham’s courthouse is like the “buzz” in most other county courthouse across America: some of it relates to bond hearings, trials, witness testimony, court calendar scheduling.

A lot of the buzz has to do with seeking and granting small favors: “Will you agree to a trial postponement. I’m just not ready?” and “Judge, can you be sure to hear my client’s bail bond reduction plea before lunchtime? I need to be in Charlotte by 5:30 for dinner and a Hornets game.”

And some of the “buzz” has to do with what’s happened at the Duke ER where many crime victims are taken and where most gunshot wound victims in Durham County are taken.

It’s by keeping up with what’s happened at Duke’s ER that ADAs and criminal defense attorneys often first learn of events involving someone they’ve prosecuted or defended; and whom they might soon be professionally involved with again.

Anything that happened in Duke’s ER involving Crystal Mangum would have gotten lots of “buzz” at the courthouse on Mar. 14.

If Tiger Woods drops in quietly to play a round at a county club near you or Coach K has dinner in a restaurant when a friend of your is eating there, the chances are very good you’re going to hear about both events.

That’s because Woods and Coach K have “star” status.

At the Durham County Courthouse Crystal Mangum’s had “star” status since June 2002.

That’s when she stole a car, drove at high speeds with the car lights off and sometimes in the oncoming lane into the next county to escape a Durham deputy pursuing her; and finally, after he’d cornered her, tried to run the deputy down, in the process damaging his vehicle.

You know the Durham Sheriff’s deputies and DPD officers deal with lots of criminals. But only a very few try to run any of them down.

Here are some things that would have added to the Mar. 14 courthouse “buzz” about Mangum:

The deputy she tried to run down, John Carroll, is still a Durham deputy. He’s sometimes assigned to security at the courthouse and is there at other times to testify.

So most regulars know Carroll as do a great many DPD officers; and among those groups, many also know Carroll as a friend and neighbor.

The attorney who represented Mangum in the car jacking and attempt to run down Carroll is Woody Vann.

Like his criminal defense attorney father Art Vann before him, Woody Vann is a courthouse regular who in Mar. 2006 was long-time friend of Mike Nifong’s. ( I don’t know anything about their current relationship)

But with all the buzzing about Mangum going on at the courthouse, none of it reached Nifong’s ears.

And what about Nifong’s wife Cy Gurney? She’s regional coordinator for NC’s Guardian Ad Litem program. Her office is right across the street from the courthouse. She’s often in the courthouse in connection with her job.

Most courthouse regulars know Cy Gurney. So do many Durham police officers and sheriff’s deputies.

But if we believe the stories Neff and Nifong have told about Nifong only learning of the DL case on Mar. 24 after the NTO had been signed, we have to believe that not only did Cy Gurney not learn about the case on Mar. 14; she didn’t learn about until after Nifong learned about it with his copier “discovery.”

It’s either that, or Gurney did know about the case before Nifong’s copier “discovery,” but somehow didn’t tell her DA husband.

Unbelievable!

Something else is unbelievable.

It’s that among all the literally hundreds of people including DPD members, his staff, his friends, campaign supporters and members of the courthouse crowd wanting to stay in good favor with him who should have told Nifong or would want to tell Nifong about the case on Mar. 14, not a single one did.

Folks, if we ever learn the full truth of what happened in Durham on Mar. 14, one of the things we’ll learn is that friends, campaign supporters, Trinity Park and Durham “activists” and others who called Nifong’s office on the afternoon of Mar. 14 to “let Mike know about this” were told something like:

“Yes, it is shocking. And he’s known about it since this morning. You know how Mr. Nifong keeps up with things. But I’ll be sure to tell him you called. I know he’ll appreciate it.

Note to skeptical: Thanks for posting about and linking at Liestoppers Meeting to my recent posts demonstrating the absurdity of the copier “discovery” story.

I’ll have another post up in a day or two explaining why the copier “discovery” falsehood was created.

I’ll bet you and many others can already guess what I’m going to say: you can’t sustain a complex cover-up involving many people without having lots of cover stories.

After that post I plan to post concerning others involved in the DL case you said I should have commented on before closing down JinC.

I hope you'll continue to comment.

Note to JinC readers: I’ll post again tomorrow afternoon.

The Duke Lax Frame: Like "The Mighty River"

(First posted 6/10/09)

Folks,

If you’re above New Orleans standing on a levee beside “the mighty river,” and you say you’re looking at the Mississippi, no one will dispute you.

But if you say, “Imagine all this water coming from one lake in Minnesota,” most people will dispute you.

Sure, the Mississippi’s source is Minnesota’s Lake Itasca, but the Ohio joins it at Cairo, Illinois and the Missouri at St. Louis.

They’re just two of the Mississippi’s many great tributary rivers whose waters all pass the levees above New Orleans and flow on to the Gulf of Mexico.

I offer the foregoing, folks, because the Mississippi and its tributaries can serve us as a very useful metaphor when we think about and discuss the motivations or driving force behind what we’ve come to call the Duke lacrosse case.

Some people say the motivation or driving force for the trashing, endangerment and lying about the lacrosse team and the attempt to frame three of its members came from Mike Nifong, a rogue DA who had help from two rogue cops, DPD officers Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Inv. Ben Himan.

That’s too simple.

Other people agree the motivation or driving force for the frame-up attempt – which required so much lying and violating of procedures and laws for which the framers knew they could be punished, as Nifong’s been somewhat - - came primarily from Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan.

But then they quickly add something like: “Of course, there were lots more helping them.”

Well, OK, but who? And when and why did they provide motivational force for the trashing and frame-up attempt?

For the most part I’m with those who say a great many contributed to the force for the trashing and frame-up attempt.

But just offering a list of names and saying, “Here, these,” doesn’t contribute much to our understanding of how and why certain individuals, acting for themselves, and in some circumstances acting on behalf of institutions of government, media and education, took part in a vicious trashing and frame-up attempt.

The metaphor of the Mississippi and its tributaries can help us avoid the overly simple “Nifong did it all” explanation and the overly broad “all of the above”

Think in your mind’s eye of the Mississippi River basin and consider where it’s many tributary rivers have their sources.

Examine where and how some of those rivers contribute to “the mighty river” which flows by the levees above New Orleans.

Then think about the Duke lacrosse case.

We know Nifong was a mighty contributor to it. But was he it’s source as Lake Itaska is the Mississippi’s?

Or did Nifong perhaps not begin making his contribution until the trashing and frame-up attempt were “down river?”

A “yes” answer to that question will tempt many people to think the source of the frame-up must then be DPD.

Perhaps it is; perhaps it’s not.

If you buy Joe Neff and the Raleigh N&O’s Apr. 2007 story that Nifong only learned of the lacrosse case on Mar. 23, 2006 after the NTO was signed;

and you agree that a reading of the NTO leaves no doubt a frame-up attempt was underway by Mar. 23– something I believe;

then you have to say Nifong isn’t the source of the frame-up attempt;

and that he is instead a very powerful tributary to it.

If not Nifong as the frame-up source, then who?

Here once more the Mississippi River metaphor is useful.

Waters that have their sources in both the Rockies and the Appalachians flow into the Mississippi.

Thinking about that helps me keep in mind that the force for the trashing and frame-up could have come simultaneously from different individuals and organizations.

I won’t say more because I’m confident the great majority of you see the usefulness of a metaphor like the Mississippi and its tributaries for considering how individuals and organizations came to engage in investigative travesties and, I believe, a good deal of criminal conduct in the Duke lacrosse case.

Hat tips to all the recent commenters whose informed and questioning commentaries were "the source" of my motivation for writing this post.

Best,

John

Background Re: Nifong Knew Before Mar. 24 Post

(First posted 6/10/09)

Folks,

If you’ve read Why Nifong Knew About The Case Before Mar. 24 and Nifong & Circumstantial Evidence & "He Knew. No Question" and both post’s threads (the threads are very worthwhile reads), you know I’ve promised a post explaining why I’m certain Mike Nifong learned about Crystal Mangum’s false charges the same day she made them: Mar. 14, 2006 and not on Mar. 24 as the Raeligh N&O reported and as Nifong subsequently testified at the State Bar trial which resulted in his disbarment.

I still plan to do that post but there’s been some very perceptive and probing commentary made on the threads I just mentioned.

I want to respond to to some of that commentary here on the main page tonight in two posts.

As a result, I’m delaying the post I promised.

The delay may be “all to the good” because I think the two posts I’m working on for tonight will be useful background for the post explaining why I’m certain Nifong knew on Mar. 14 of what became the Duke lacrosse case.

There are three other posts that will be useful to read as we consider a number of important questions surrounding the NTO directing 46 white Duke lacrosse players to provide DNA evidence and submit to police photographing of them.

I’ve pasted one of those three - - Durham ADA Changes NTO Story, published Feb. 2, 2008 - - here in this post. It links at its end to the two other posts.

I hope you’re back tonight.

John

___________________________

The Durham Herald Sun reports today Freda Black's announcement she'll be a candidate for DA in this year’s primary scheduled for May 6. Black was the disgraced Mike Nifong’s major opponent in the 2006 Democratic DA primary race.

A former Durham ADA, Black was dismissed by Nifong when he was appointed DA by the governor to fill the unexpired term of his predecessor who’d been made a judge. Black is now in private practice.

The H-S story also mentions current Durham ADA Tracey Cline who has told friends and supporters she’ll be a candidate in the May primary.

The story includes this:

Cline defended her role in getting a court order for DNA evidence from 46 lacrosse players "as a regular routine that any assistant district attorney or district attorney would give police advice to do everyday."

What the H-S reports today Cline is now saying represents a major change from what on Jan. 9 the H-S reported Cline said:

From the Jan. 9 Durham H-S - - -

[…] At the heart of the matter is material taken from the notes of lacrosse case lead detective Ben Himan, and notes and a deposition from Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

They referred to Cline's role in the creation of a non-testimonial order, or NTO, that allowed police to take photographs of and collect DNA evidence from 46 of the 47 members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Cline denied that she had any role in writing the order.

"The record will indicate that David Saacks did it," she said. Saacks is the interim district attorney but was an assistant DA at that time. "I didn't prepare any paperwork on that case. Nothing at all. I've never even seen or laid hands on a non-testimonial order."

She said, "I remember Gottlieb asked me about a non-testimonial order, and I told him I was not available."

But when asked by The Herald-Sun whether she'd asked police to draft the non-testimonial order, Cline responded, "I don't recall."

Himan's notes and Gottlieb's deposition indicate that police consulted Cline on March 22, 2006, after they learned players, on the advice of attorneys, wouldn't show up that day for a scheduled meeting with investigators.

How about that?

In less than a month Cline has gone from saying she was unable to “recall” whether she’d directed police to prepare the NTO to defending her role in getting the NTO as just “a regular routine that any assistant district attorney or district attorney would give police advice to do everyday."

Quite a change, isn’t it?

Did Cline have “a recovered memory” experience all by herself. Or did someone(s) remind her that she did have a role in securing the NTO?

If someone(s) did, who was that someone(s)? What was said to Cline that improved her memory?

Now that her memory’s improved, does Cline agree with what Gottlieb and Himan have been saying: that she directed them to prepare the NTO?

That question needs to be answered. We shouldn’t have to wait for discovery to get Cline’s answer. She should give it now.

Cline should also tell us on what basis she at least supported and perhaps ordered the preparation of an NTO request which was anything but routine. In fact, it’s been called "mammothly unconstitutional" and a "dragnet fishing expedition."

Readers following the case, especially those with questions concerning the who, why, when and how of the securing of the NTO, may be interested to read:

Who “Owns” that “Toxic” NTO? (1/13/08)

NTO Battle – Durham DA v. Police (1/17/08)

Today's entire H-S story is here.

Nifong & Circumstantial Evidence & "He Knew. No Question"

(First posted 6/8/09)

Sunday I posted Why Nifong Knew About The Case Before Mar. 23.

That post was the first of a two post response to Liestoppers Meeting blogger sceptical’s request that I explain why I’m certain Raleigh News & Observer investigative reporter Joe Neff’s Apr. 2007 Nifong copier “discovery” story reporting Mike Nifong didn’t learn about the Duke lacrosse (DL) case until the afternoon of Mar. 23, 2006 is false.

In the second post I’ll explain why I’m certain Nifong learned of the DL false accuser Crystal Mangum’s charges on Mar. 14, 2006, the same day she made them; and not on Mar. 23 as Neff and the N&O reported and as Nifong subsequently testified in June 2007 at his State Bar trial which led to his disbarment.

Before reading further, please read Why Nifong Knew About The Case Before Mar. 23 and the posts to which it links if you've not already done so.


Moving on - - -

Skeptical, commenting in response to the Nifong Knew post, correctly noted [excerpt]:

John, you make a strong case that Nifong knew about the lacrosse party incident before March 23, but your argument is largely circumstantial, based on what was in the papers and being discussed in Durham at the time.

I look forward to your second post in which I hope you will show specific information that Nifong knew about the incident before the copy machine story.

I want to respond to sceptical’s excerpted comment before publishing my second post explaining why I’m certain Nifong knew of the case on Mar. 14.

Sceptical's right; my first post relies heavily on circumstantial evidence and the conclusion we can reach from such evidence that Nifong knew about the case before Mar. 23.

The circumstantial evidence I relied on is indisputable.

For example, no one disputes the Raleigh N&O published two stories on the case before the 23rd and The Chronicle published one.

Circumstantial evidence is often viewed as less reliable than direct eyewitness statements and testimony under oath.

But eyewitness statements and even direct testimony under oath often turn out to be flat out false, something we've seen repeatedly in the DL case, while circumstantial evidence has often led us to the truth.

That's why in our justice system we're asked to weigh both circumstantial and direct evidence; and that's why in criminal cases circumstantial evidence can by itself be sufficient for conviction or a verdict of "not guilty."

I want to share with you two other items:

First, this Anon comment from the Nifong Knew thread -

During the late 1990's I was the Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor in a small county in Washington State.

Every morning upon arrival at work, I checked with the jail to see who had been booked in the last 24 hours and checked with my counterparts in law enforcement about active investigations. My boss, the Elected Prosecutor, was briefed on everything before noon.

Nifong knew about this investigation within two days of the allegations! I'd bet my house on it.

Moreover, considering he was running for office, he would have been even more involved in the day-to-day activities because of the danger of something politically harmful blowing up during the election. He knew. No question.

Second, this from The Chronicle's web site - - -

With a circulation of about 15,000 and distribution throughout the University, Health System and parts of Durham, The Chronicle has a print readership of about 30,000. The Chronicle Online, established in 1995, gets an average of more than 70,000 hits every day.

Folks, even if we allow that in March 2006 TC had a run of say 10,000 with circulation of 20,000 and say 40,000 hits a day online, don't you find it impossible to believe that with TC's story reporting the rape allegations and Dean Wasilick quoted and Sgt. Gottlieb referenced as reporting the residents in the house were cooperating - - -

and with everything else I mentioned in Nifong Knew plus more some of you could have mentioned - - -

that somehow Mike Nifong didn't know before Mar. 23 and if his wife, Cy Gurney knew, she didn't tell Mike?

Anon has it right: "He knew. No question."

Wishing CKS Well On Her Way To London

(First posted 6/7/09)

Most of you know in the last year or so cks has added to JinC with many thoughtful comments.

An educator from Ohio, she recently was awarded a highly competitive National Endowment for the Humanities teacher fellows grant for summer study in London and the Netherlands. You can read more about her NEH award program here and here.

I’ve posted a few times with “current tips” for cks about London which she'll be visiting this summer for the first time in 35 years.

In this post, I wish her well and add a few more tips.

I know she and I will both be happy for you to read along.

John

__________________________________________

Dear cks,

Thank you for your contributions to JinC which hasn’t quite shut down yet because there’s a need for me to explain some things to thoughtful, fair people.

I hope you keep looking in at JinC until I finally “turn off the lights;” and perhaps you’ll comment.

Good luck in London.

I see by your NEH itinerary you’ll travel down the Thames to Greenwich, where you'll have time to visit the Royal Observatory.

The Observatory’s strong, commanding beauty atop the hill always inspires me.

Something else there does too. Fittingly enough, it concerns time-keeping.

You’ll notice people from all over the world standing before the time-recording computer that flashes the official GMT to the second, and then further to the right flashes it in fractional seconds at a recording speed that’s blurred to the naked eye.

Standing in front of the hermetically sealed computer you’ll see people from all over the world who on impulse look down and begin resetting their watches to as close an approximation of GMT as they can manage.

I’m use to that scene now, but the first time I witnessed it my eyes misted.

There they were before the GMT-recording computer – people of every race, nation, and belief, some who in their own countries would actively support murderous actions against people standing just a few yards from them – and they were all agreed at least on the time.

It’s a start.

Back in London, I know you’ll visit Westminster Abbey, perhaps on a pre-arranged VIP tour for you and your colleagues.

You don’t need me to tell you such tours – even the regular tours – are never to be forgotten.

I hope you also have time to go back on your own to the Abbey for choral evensong.

Even in the busy summertime, if you get there 30 minutes before service, you’ll likely get a seat in the choir where you’ll be but a few feet behind the choiristers when the service begins.

It’s truly magisterial.

Every good wish,

John

Why Nifong Knew About The Case Before Mar. 23

(First posted 6/7/09)

ERROR ALERT: As first published this post incorrectly stated attorney Jim Cooney "is now part of the legal team defending Duke in a suit brought by unindicted players and family members."

The post has now been corrected.

I apologize for my error and thank the two readers who promptly called it to my attention. I'll also thank them on this post's thread for their "editor's" work.

John
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Readers Note: A few days ago sceptical, an astute Duke lacrosse case commenter who blogs at Liestoppers Meeting, asked me to explain something.

It's why I'm certain Mike Nifong did not first learn about the case on Mar. 23, 2006 as the Raleigh N&O reported in Apr. 2007 and as Nifong himself testified in June, 2007 at the State Bar trial which led to his disbarment; but instead learned about Crystal Mangum's false charges the same day she made them: Mar. 14, 2006.

I'm responding to sceptical in two posts.

Today's post is meant to leave sceptical and others reading it in no doubt that Nifong knew about the case well before Mar. 23.

A second post explains why I'm certain Nifong learned of the case on Mar. 14.

The first thing you'll read following this note is a post I published on Jan. 11, 2008: Nifong's Copier "Discovery" Is A False Story.

Following that, I make some further comments.

I'll be interested in your feedback.

John
___________________________________

I’d like you to read an extract from a Apr. 25, 2007 post, Nifong & The Copier Discovery. Be Careful. I’m very confident the incident recounted in that extract is false regarding a very important claim.

The claim is that then Durham DA Mike Nifong first learned about what became “the Duke lacrosse rape case” on Mar. 23, 2006 after his Chief Assistant DA, David Saacks, had made an unprecedented and very likely unconstitutional request that a judge issue a nontestimonial order directing all 46 white members of the 2006 Duke Men’s lacrosse team to submit to police DNA testing and face and torso photographing.

In this post I want to tell you why the claim is false and suggest at least one reason why it was created.

Let’s start with the Apr. 25 post extract. The post began:

On April 14, 2007, Raleigh News & Observer reporter Joseph Neff began a five part series on Nifong & the Duke Hoax case. Neff’s first series article begins:

Mike Nifong found out about the case that now threatens his career March 23, 2006, when he stopped by the office copier and found a court order demanding DNA samples from 46 Duke lacrosse players. An escort service dancer told police that three men at a team party had dragged her into a bathroom and raped her anally, vaginally and orally for 30 minutes, according to the order.

The Durham district attorney's reaction, he later told lawyer Jim Cooney: "Holy crap, what is going on?"

In his source notes, Neff cites two people as sources for his report Nifong only learned about the nontestimonial court order (NTO) on 3/23/06 when he discovered it at his office copier.

One is Jim Cooney, an attorney for Reade Seligmann. As Neff noted in another series article, Cooney first met Nifong in December, 2006, nine months after Nifong’s “copier discovery.”

Neff’s use of Cooney’s “Holy crap, what is going on?” account of Nifong’s reaction gives a seeming “You are there” dimension to the “discovery” story but, as Neff makes clear, what Cooney says is based not on Cooney’s observation of Nifong’s “discovery,” but on what Nifong told Cooney.

And we know about the reliability of what Nifong tells attorneys, judges, and all of us.

Neff’s only other source for his “copier discovery” report is David Saacks, Nifong’s chief assistant district attorney. It was Saacks who signed the NTO request.

Saacks certainly could have been standing right by the copier when Nifong made his “discovery.” Or he could have been down the hall in his office and heard Nifong exclaim, “Holy crap, what is going on?”

Maybe “the discovery” happened just the way Neff reports it.

But that means Saacks went ahead and got the NTO order without ever discussing it and the hugely troubled and hugely politically significant “Duke gang-rape” case with Nifong, who was then in a hotly contested primary race for the Democratic nomination for DA.

Did Saacks go ahead without saying anything to Nifong? Did Nifong really know nothing about the case until he made his “Holy crap” “copier discovery?"

Color me very skeptical of what Joe Neff reports. […]

END OF APR. 27, 2007 POST EXTRACT
******************************************************

In his testimony during the State Bar trial which resulted in his disbarment, Nifong testified he “discovered” the NTO just as Neff reported. Nifong estimated his Mar. 23 “discovery” occurred sometime around 4 pm.

But he had to know about the case before then.

Here’s why:

By the morning of Mar. 14 a lot of people in Trinity Park (TP) already knew police had been to the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. and that something "had happened" there.

"Did you see the two police cars there? Do you know what happened? Are you on the listserv?"

Trinity Park residents include Duke administrators, faculty, medical center personnel and other University staffers. It's home to a number of Raleigh N&O staffers, attorneys and others with regular business at the Durham County courthouse a mile or so away where the Durham DA and his staff also have offices.

So there was buzzing on Mar. 14 not only in TP but at Duke, the courthouse, other places and on the Net.

The buzz grew on Mar. 15 and got louder still on Mar. 16 when six or seven DPD cruisers were parked outside the house for hours and DPD Sgt. Mark Gottlieb subsequently emailed on a TP listserv seeking information from anyone who could help with the "investigation."

On Mar. 18 the N&O ran a story of a reported rape at the house; it ran a second story concerning it on the 19th.

Both stories ran in a part of the N&O's "B" section where local crimes are regularly reported. Many people involved in the criminal justice system routinely check that part of the paper.

I'd think a DA, especially one running for office, would check that part of the paper daily unless the DA wanted to be in a position where a citizen could ask about a reported crime in his or her neighborhood and the DA didn't mind having to say, "Gee, I don't know a thing about it. Why don't you give the police a call?"

On Mar. 19th adults at churches in TP were talking about the "horrible crimes" in their Sunday School classes.

A friend who teaches one of those classes later told me when his class met, it ignored the lesson for the day and "got right to talking about the case." My friend said there were "a few cool heads but most people were on fire."

With about five minutes of class time left, the class realized it should at least give the lesson a glance and did so. It then adjourned for coffee and to meet people from the other classes and those just arriving for the 11 o'clock service.

Do you know what my friend told me happened then?

He learned that in all the other adult classes folks had done just what they'd done in his class.

"Everyone" went to work on Monday, Mar. 20, at DU, DUMC, the courthouse, etc. and had lunch on 9th Street, Whole Foods, etc. Talk, talk, and more talk.

It had been a week since the party. During that week Nifong and his wife, Cy Gurney, had been campaigning for his nomination as the Democratic Party's DA candidate in the November election.

While we do newspaper ads and some TV spots and interest group endorsements count for a lot, campaigning in Durham still involves plenty of "retail" work: getting friends to host "deserts" and invite the neighbors in to meet you; getting out to service and fraternal club luncheons to be introduced and shake some hands afterward; asking people what's on their minds and do they have anything they want to ask you.

But with all of that, Nifong, if we believe the "Holy crap" copier discovery story, knew absolutely nothing about the case on Mar. 20.

With his office only a mile from the house; with many supporters in TP; and getting out and about in the TP neighborhood and nearby as part of his campaign and talking regularly to "the courthouse crowd" he'd known for almost 30 years, he had no idea there was anything going on that would later be called "the Duke lacrosse case."

And if his wife, Cy Gurney, well connected to many in TP, active in his campaign, a "partner" of many Durham activists and "victim’s advocacy" groups, and herself a courthouse regular by virtue of heading up the Guardian ad Litem regional program knew about the case, then we have to believe she didn't tell her husband Mike, the DA.

It's unbelievable, isn't it?

And folks, I've only taken the narrative up to Monday, Mar. 20.

If you believe the copier "discovery" story, you still have to get to about 4 o'clock on Thursday, Mar. 23, before Nifong learns anything about the case.

That's Mission Impossible.

On Tuesday, Mar. 21, The Chronicle published a story on the alleged crimes. It noted Duke was the owner of the house, quoted Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek as saying the University was awaiting the results of the police investigation. It mentioned Gottlieb had said the residents of the house had been cooperative. There was more to the story. Literally many thousands of people at Duke now knew something about the case.

Even Duke President Richard Brodhead has acknowledged he knew about the case by Mar. 21. (I'm not sure he didn't know before then, but that's for another post.)

Brodhead and thousands of others at Duke knew but Nifong didn't?

If you believe that, you must be a life member of MoveOn.Duke.

If you aren't convinced by now the copier "discovery" story is false, there's more I could say but I don't think I'd convince you.

Now to the question of why create the falsehood of Nifong only learning about the case on the afternoon of Mar. 23, after the NTO had been signed by his dear friend, mentor and predecessor as DA, Judge Ron Stephens?

This from my Apr. 25, 2007 Nifong & The Copier Discovery. Be Careful post:

There’s one thing we can all be sure about: It’s greatly to both Saacks' and Nifong’s advantage to be able to say they never spoke about the NTO before 3/23/06.

If they didn’t speak about it, there’s no need to ask sticky questions such as:

Before seeking an unprecedented NTO to obtain DNA and mug and torso photos from 46 citizens based solely on their race and membership on a sports team, what did Durham’s District Attorney and its Chief Assistant District Attorney say to each other about the accuser’s failure to ID any of the alleged rapists?

Did they say to each other anything about police officers’ and the second dancer’s statements that the accuser’s story was a “crock?”

What did they say about hospital records from Duke and the accuser's many conflicting stories?

Folks, there are other reasons why I think the falsehood was created.

In a few days I'll post concerning them.

Right now I'm interested to hear what you think.

And I'm sorry this post got long

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

Concluding comments made on June 7, 2009:

Folks,

The sentence "Did they say to each other anything about police officers’ and the second dancer’s statements that the accuser’s story was a 'crock?'" is awkward as it could reasonably be construed to mean I was saying both police officers and the second dancer said Mangum's story was a "crock."

The second dancer did say the story was a "crock;" but, while a number of officers, most notably DPD Sgt. (now Lt.) John Shelton, didn't believe Mangum's charges, I know of none who called them a "crock."

On the comment thread of the Jan. 11, 2006 post kbp, a fine Duke lacrosse commenter, notes correctly Nifong is the signatory on the request to DUMC for release of Mangum's medical records. That request was made before Mar. 23.

I did not mention the records release form in Nifong's Copier "Discovery" Is A False Story or in any other post in which I've challenged the veracity of Neff & Nifong's copier "discovery" stories because it's very possible Nifong did not actually sign the request form

In many offices what are viewed as routine request forms are signed by others on behalf of the person in whose name the request is made and who is not available at the time of the request.

Also, some officials who signatures are required on certain form requests and other documents sign blank copies in anticipation of the documents needing to be used in their absence.

Mind you, I'm not say Nifong didn't actually sign the request for Mangum's medical records. I'm just not sure he did.

But I am sure he knew about the Duke lacrosse case well before Mar. 23, 2006; and I hope you're sure too.

Thanks for reading.

Look for the second post in a day or two.

John