Gag order sought in lacrosse case (NAACP Wants Gag Order)

You are on fire tonight, girlfiend!

That article deserves it's own thread. Someone also needs to email it to Dan Abrams and Greta.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

From your link:

"[Roberts] said that she did not know if the female was drunk or high and she was afraid of what the white males might do to the woman," Shelton wrote.

He then walked over to the car and saw the alleged victim.

"She was wearing a see-through red outfit, with no undergarments and one high-heel shoe," Shelton wrote. "She was unconscious."

Shelton says he got an ammonia capsule from his patrol car.

"When I used it, the female began mouth-breathing, which is a sign that she was not really unconscious," he wrote. "My experience is that unconscious people wake up rather quickly when exposed to ammonia capsules.

"I grabbed the female and attempted to pull her from the vehicle. She grabbed the emergency brake with her left hand and would not come out of the car. At this point, I applied a bent wrist come-along [maneuver] to her right-hand arm? once she was out of the car, I released the pressure and she collapsed to the ground."

Shelton says the woman would not speak with police officers, so they decided to take her for involuntary commitment at the Durham Access Center. A short time later, Shelton got a call from another officer that made him go back at talk to the alleged victim again.

"He called me and stated the female stated she had been raped...Once at Duke [Hospital], I spoke to the female, who was now cooperative," Shelton wrote. "She said some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one forced her to have sex."

Then, Shelton says the alleged victim's story changed again.

"Within a few minutes, I was told that she told the [doctor] that she had been raped? I returned? and asked her if she had or had not been raped. She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bedroom."

The report also shows inconsistencies with the story from the second dancer, Kim Roberts. The alleged victim called her "Nikki" that night. According to the report, neither woman told police that Roberts also performed at the lacrosse team's party.

One of the drivers is named: Jarriel Johnson
Three line ups.

So the police officer is forcibly removing her from the vehicle?

Between the tumble down the stairs and the forcible removal from the vehicle, I can see many opportunities for bruising and scratching, no?

".....and she collapsed to the ground......."

He really means that rough asphalt or concrete surface of the parking lot, wearing a very skimpy "see thru" outfit w/bare legs and arms.

Geez, I hope she didn't sustain any abrasions, cuts, or bruises from the "collapse" or while getting yanked out of the car....

BUMP!

From your link:

For the March 21 lineup, Durham police used official photos of the lacrosse players, identical to those posted on GoDuke.com, the official Web site of Duke athletics. The police arranged the photos in groups labeled A through F.

Evans' photo was labeled F-5. There was a Post-It note referring to group F that said "Did not pick any".

"Eight days after the alleged assault, and two weeks before the April 4 identification procedures in which she selected (Evans) with 90 percent certainty if he had a mustache, the complainant viewed a picture of (Evans) in this case and did not identify him as one of her alleged assailants," wrote Evans' lawyers, Joseph B. Cheshire V and Brad Bannon of Raleigh. "Incredibly, though, there is no narrative report ... about these photo identification procedures."

The March 21 photo lineup could violate the Durham Police Department's policy on photographic lineups:

-- The policy calls for "filler" photographs of people who are not suspects in the case. The March 21 lineup apparently included only Duke lacrosse players;
-- The officer running the lineup should document the procedures, results, number of photos viewed. Evans' lawyers said they received no report.

Be sure and read the actual motion Cheshire filed, found on that same link. I was laughing out loud.

This needs its own thread

From Cheshire's motion:

"Nor does the discovery contain any records of the complainant's moments spent at Durham Access Center, where she apparently made the initial accusation before later recanting at Duke ER and recanting her recantation."

LOL http://www.wral.com/news/9282720/detail.html

According to Sgt. Shelton when they got the accuser out of the car, she collapsed on the ground. They then decided to "involuntarily commit" her to Durham Access Center.

I wonder what the consequences of that would have been? Certainly enough to lie about rape to avoid staying there and facing a mandatory tox screen.

Did you notice it was "Angels Escort Service"?

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane420?view=Forum

looking for female "sex workers/strippers/hookers" working around duke university...?
By: DirtyBlues
4/26/2006 10:04:46 PM

AAA Angels
Durham, NC 27713
(919) 206-4255
http://www.angelsfloristandgifts.net

No, what was? I don't want to read all 21 pp. again.

The first ID won't be allowed in most likely, if the second one doesn't get in, then what the hell does Nifong have. He doesn't even have probable cause, in my opinion. And you need all that up front to START.

Shelton referred to AV as being "hired by Angels Escort Service"

bottom of page 20.

His is the only version I tend to trust.

Here's a (very rough) OCR rendering of the pdf file.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF DURHAM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
V.
DAVID FORKER EVANS, Defendant.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION t FILE NO. 06 CRS 5581-5583
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO COMPEL
UEST
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-903 and -501; the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Sections 19 and 23 of Article I of the North Carolina Constitution, the Defendant, who stands charged with first-degree rape, first degree sex offense, and first-degree' kidnapping In the above-captioned matter, hereby formally requests that the state comply voluntarily with this request to provide the Defendant with the following:
a. Production of and access to everything in the complete, un-redacted files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation of the charged crime and prosecution of the Defendant, including but not limited to;
i. Ail statements, written and oral, of the Defendant, any codefendant(s), and ail witnesses, living or deceased;
ii. All notes from all investigating officers about ail of their activities related to the investigation;
III. Results of all tests and examinations;
iv. The ability to inspect, examine, and test any physical evidence or sample contained therein;
v. All materials in the possession or control of the prosecutorial and law
enforcement agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution of this matter which are also required to be disclosed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), and Rule 3.8(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, including but not limited to evidence tending to negate the Defendant's guilt and affect the credibility of any prosecuting witness(es) in this case, examples of such material to include:
A. Names of all persons known by the State to have information regarding the above-captioned matter and/or all persons interviewed regarding the above-captioned matter;
B. Prior inconsistent statements of any witness to be called to testify in the above-captioned matter or whose statement(s) the State may seek to introduce into evidence even if that witness is unavailable to testify;
C. Any evidence, physical or otherwise, which would tend to negate any witness' description of the commission of the alleged crime;
D. Any notes taken or reports made by investigating officers which would tend to exculpate the Defendant or otherwise contradict other evidence to be presented by the State; and
All other information or evidence obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the Defendant; and Regarding all information requested herein-including but not limited to information contained in law enforcement reports about witness contact information and interviews-Defendant respectfully requests
that all such information be complete and un-redacted, absent a motion and showing of good cause to do so, as required by § 15A-908; b. Regarding expert witnesses and expert witness testimony:
i. Notice of any expert(s) the State reasonably expects to call at trial;
ii. A report of the results of any examinations or tests conducted by the expert(s);
iii. The curriculum vitae, opinion, and underlying basis for the opinion of the expert(s); and
iv. Such notice, report(s), and materials to be disclosed in a reasonable time prior to trial, as specified by the Court and as necessary for the Defendant to receive effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to confront witnesses against him as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
c. Disclosure of the facts and circumstances surrounding any search and seizure and/or statements made by the Defendant, including but not limited to dates, times, particular places, items seized and circumstances of the search and seizure and/or statements, sufficient to allow the Defendant to determine whether there are grounds to proceed under § 15A-977;
d. To immediately order all law enforcement agencies, private agencies and individuals connected with this case to preserve, without altering, any and all information and evidence requested above and to furnish those items to the prosecuting attorneys so they may comply with their duties under the laws of North Carolina and the United States and any court orders as to materials and information which are required to be disclosed to the Defendant;
-. To disclose all information of the type herein requested that comes to the
attention of the prosecuting attorney(s) after initial compliance with this request, or which, by the exercise of due diligence, should have become known to the prosecuting attorney(s);
f. At the beginning of jury selection, a written list of the names of all other witnesses whom the State reasonably expects to call during the trial; and
g. Any other disclosure the State wishes to make in the interest of justice.
MOTION TO COMPEL
On Monday, May 15, 2006, the Defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury in the abovereferenced matters based on an allegation by the complaining witness in this case, ,
that the Defendant was one of three members of the Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team who physically and sexually assaulted her at his home at 610 N. Buchanan Boulevard in Durham, North Carolina, on or about the night of Monday, March 13, 2006.
On Thursday, May 18; 2006, Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong provided the Defendant and his previously indicted co-defendants, Mr. Reade Seiigmann and Mr. Collln Finnerty, with approximately 1300 pages of documentary discovery materials, as well as other discovery in the form of VHS video tapes and digital files (text, HTML, and photographic).
As the Court is aware, in 2004, as a result of the reversal of a number of criminal convictions in North Carolina based on the failure of the prosecution to provide discoverable materials to the defendants in those cases, our legislature amended Article 23 ("Police Processing and Duties Upon Arrest Generally") and Article 48 ("Discovery in Superior Court") of Chapter 15A to create what is now commonly referred to as the open file discovery law. Pursuant to amended § 15A-501 (emphasis added), all law enforcement officers and agencies in all felony investigations must now
make available to the State on a timely basis all materials and information acquired in the course of all felony investigations. This responsibility is a continuing affirmative duty.
Pursuant to amended § 1SA-903(a)(1) (emphasis added), the State of North Carolina
in all felony prosecutions must now
make available to the defendant the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant. The term "file" includes the defendant's statements, the codefendants' statements, witness statements, investigating officers' notes, results of tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the defendant. Oral statements shall be in written or recorded form. The defendant shall have the right to inspect and copy or photograph any materials contained therein and, under appropriate safeguards, to inspect, examine, and test any physical evidence or sample contained therein.
With the discovery materials provided to the Defendant in this case on May 18, 2006, Mr. Nifong included a copy of a filed pleading signed by him on behalf of the State of North Carolina and entitled "Response To Defendant's Request for Voluntary Discovery, Statutory Notices, and Reciprocal Motions." In that pleading, Mr. Nifong stated that "a copy of the State's entire file regarding this case, as received and compiled by this office as of this date, is being provided to the Defendant" (emphasis added).
Also on May 18, 2006, the Honorable Ronald Stephens, Durham County Resident Superior Court Judge, conducted a first administrative setting in the related case of State v. Reade Seligmann, Durham County Superior Court Files 06 CRS 4334-4336. Mr. Seligmann was represented by his attorneys, Kirk Osborn and Ernest "Buddy" Corner, and the State was represented by Mr. Nifong. During the course of that hearing, pursuant to North Carolina's recently adopted open file discovery law and certain state and federal constitutional provisions, Mr. Seligmann's attorneys sought an order from the court permitting them access to the entire file of the law enforcement investigation into these cases. Judge Stephens indicated that the Court would not enter such an order unless and until such time as he had cause to believe that the Defendant's statutory and constitutional rights were not being satisfied in the ordinary course of the voluntary discovery process.
Because a review of the discovery characterized by the State as the "entire file" in this case shows that it is missing significant information required by law to be disclosed, undersigned counsel submit that the Court now has such cause and should order the relief sought by Mr. Seligmann's attorneys on May 18 and by undersigned counsel below on behalf of David Evans.
Photo Array Procedures on March 16 and 21, 2006
The Defendant's indictment in this case was reportedly based largely on photo identification procedures conducted with the complainant by the Durham Police Department on April 4, 2006, over three weeks after the night she claimed to have been assaulted. Those procedures were videotaped. When the complainant saw the Defendant's picture (taken pursuant to a non-testimonial identification procedure), she looked at the picture for 43 seconds before saying the first words, and those words were, "He looks like one of the guys who assaulted me sort of." Asked to elaborate, she said that she would be 90% of her identification if the Defendant had a mustache. Discovery contains a videotape and formal report with a transcript of the procedures.
Discovery also contains documents related to what appears to be previously undisclosed photo identification procedures conducted by the Durham Police Department with the complainant in this case on March 16 and 21, 2006 (three and eight days after the night she claimed to have been assaulted, respectively). When considered together, those documents clearly seem to show that photo arrays of the members of the Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team were assembled by law enforcement officers and shown to the complainant on those dates in groups labeled A through F, with each individual player's photo in the lettered arrays being given a separate number (e.g., for the fifth picture in the F group photo array).
The complainant was apparently presented with those lettered arrays by Investigator
R.D. Clayton of the Durham Police Department. Before the presentation of each lettered array, Inv. Clayton presented the complainant with a separate one-page form entitled "Durham Police Department Sequential Photographic Identification Verbal Instructions and Certification." He put the letter of each array group on its respective Instructions and Certification form. Discovery contains some of the numbered pictures and forms from those procedures. Specifically regarding the forms, some appear twice in the discovery: the first copy being the completed form, and the second copy being the completed form with what is obviously a Post-It note later attached to the form with a handwritten notation by Inv. Clayton regarding the results of the array procedure for that lettered group.
As the discovery documents at Attachment i show, the Defendant in this case was included in the F group photo array, and the accuser "did not pick any" of the persons in the F group photo array when she reviewed it at 6'.13 p.m. on March 21, 2006. Thus, eight days after the alleged assault, and two weeks before the April 4 identification procedures in, which she selected the Defendant with 90% certainty if he had a mustache, the complainant viewed a picture of the Defendant in this case and did not identify him as one of her alleged assailants.
Incredibly, there is no narrative report in discovery, by Inv. Clayton or anyone else, about these photo identification procedures. Other than the Instructions and Certification forms signed and dated by the complainant and Inv. Clayton, the only reference to law enforcement interaction with the complainant on March 21, 2006, appears in a 49-page written investigation narrative summary by Durham Police Department Detective Benjamin Himan toward the end of discovery. At an entry for his activities on March 21, 2006, Det. Himan noted that the complainant came to the police station at 6:10 p.m. that night with her "driver," Jarriel Johnson, to inquire about "getting her property back." Det. Himan reported the sum total of any identification procedures with the complainant on that night as follows: "I asked her questions trying to follow up on a better description of the suspects,
she was unable to remember anything further about the suspects."
Thus, in a case where the Defendant faces decades of incarceration based largely on a photo identification procedure on April 4, 2006, in which he was only partially identified if he had an additional distinctive physical characteristic (which he did not, in fact, have), there is no contemporaneous law enforcement report about the preceding photo identification procedure in which the same complainant, much closer in time to the date of the alleged offense, "did not pick" him.
No Report of Circumstances Surrounding Initial Disclosure of Raue Alienation Discovery also contains a report of law enforcement's initial interaction with the complainant during the early morning hours of March 14, 2006. That report, filed by Sgt. J.C. Shelton and dated April 9, 2006, can be found at Attachm nt
As the report shows, law enforcement initially encountered the complainant that night when she refused to leave the passenger area of a vehicle outside a Kroger store in Durham. After law enforcement successfully removed her from the vehicle, Sgt. Shelton and other officers at the scene, Officers Barfield and Stewart, discussed what could be done with the complainant, given her appearance and demeanor and lack of cooperation with their questions regarding her name and address. They ultimately decided that she "met the criteria for involuntary commitment" and should be taken to the Durham Access Center. Sgt. Shelton's report reflects that he "cleared from the call" while Officer Barfield transported the complainant to the Durham Access Center, with Officer Stewart following along "to assist him if needed."
"After a while," according to Sgt. Shelton's report, Officer Barfield called him from the Durham Access Center to tell him that the complainant had reported being raped at 610 N. Buchanan Boulevard earlier that night. Sgt. Shelton directed Officer Barfield to take the complainant to the Duke Emergency Room, where Sgt. Shelton met them. Sgt. Shelton
described the complainant as "now cooperative" when he interviewed her at the hospital. She claimed that she was pulled from a car and "groped" outside the house, but "that no one forced her to have sex." Sgt. Shelton then went outside the hospital to report her recantation by phone to his Watch Commander, but he was approached during that call by someone from inside the hospital who told him that the complainant had told a doctor that she had been raped. When Sgt. Shelton re-entered the hospital to ask her follow-up questions about the recanted recantation, she refused to talk to him further.
Incredibly, given that course of events and the nature of these charges, discovery contains no report by Officer Barfield or Officer Stewart regarding their activities that night.' Nor does discovery contain any records of the complainant's moments spent at the Durham Access Center, where she apparently made the initial accusation before later recanting at Duke ER and then recanting her recantation.
Sexual Assualt Exam Report Form Is Incomplete
Discovery also contains what appears to be an incomplete Sexual Assault Exam Report completed by Tara Levicy, an in-training Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Forensic Nurse Examiner (S.A.N.E./F.N.E.). The Report apparently has at least 17 sections, or "Steps," but discovery only contains documents related to Steps 1, 2, 10, 11, and 17.
Multiple Investigative Activities Not Reported As Required
Discovery contains references to multiple investigative activities that are not reported as required by the open file discovery laws found at § 15A-501 and -903. Those laws require (1) a written report of all activities by all law enforcement officers in all felony investigations and (2) disclosure of all such reports by the State of North Carolina to defendants involved in
' A police"Event Report" provided in discovery reflects that nearly an hour passed while the complainant was in Of- Barfleld's custody hetweeo Kroger, Durham Access Center (site of Initial accusation), and arrival at Duke ER.
prosecutions related to those investigations.
Det. Himan's previously mentioned 49-page investigation narrative mentions a number of law enforcement activities that do not appear to be reported in any detail in any of the discovery materials, including but not limited to:
• On March 24, 2006, Det. Himan retrieved "four cell phones recovered at 610 North Buchanan" and took them to Ryan Johnson, who "did tests on three of the phones" and "made a profile of each phone that he was able to look at with the cities programs." However, the inventory for the search of 610 North Buchanan reflects the seizure of only two cellular phones: a "Verizon cell phone 406KSYV0099602" and "Verizon cell phone-VX9900." Moreover, discovery contains spreadsheet data exports for only two cellular phones, which are apparently not the two listed on the 610 North Buchanan search inventory: a model LG-VX7000 and a Motorola model V265. Finally, discovery contains no report by Ryan Johnson of any of his work with any cellular phone.
• On April 10, 2006, Det. Himan, Sgt. Gottlieb,, and District Attorney Mike Nifong "met with Brian Meehan, director of DNA Securities." There is no substantive report about the content of this meeting in discovery.
• On April 11, 2006, Det. Himan, Sgt. Gottlieb, and District Attorney Mike Nifong met with complainantQ ~. There is no substantive report about the content of this meeting or the complainant's statements that day in discovery.
• While there is no report in discovery filed by Investigator R.D. Clayton, there are several references in Det. Himan's narrative to activities performed in the case by Inv, Clayton (in addition to the previously mentioned photo array procedures on March 16 and 21, 2006), including:
o On May 3, 2006, Oct. Himan completed a PowerPoint photo lineup presentation and "had Inv. Soucie and Inv. Clayton look at the
10
presentation."
o On May 8, 2006, Det. Human spoke with Mr. Nifong and "with Ofc. Clayton about his advice on which way he wanted to pursue this investigation."
o On May 10, 2006, Inv. Clayton participated in the arrest of cab driver Moezeldin Elmostafa, who had previously provided evidence to police to support the alibi of co-defendant Reade Seligmann.
Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
The foregoing are merely representative examples of a fact that is overwhelmingly apparent upon review of the discovery provided by the State on May 18, 2006, and characterized as the "entire file" of the case; multiple law enforcement officers who participated in investigative activities in this case did not record their activities as required by law, or they did not turn those records over to the Durham County District Attorney's Office as required by law, or the District Attorney's Office did not turn them over to the Defendant as required by law.
Whatever the explanation, the referenced deficiencies in discovery should now satisfy the Court that there is just cause to enter the following:
1. an ORDER directing all law enforcement officers who have participated in any activity in the case to reduce those activities to writing;
2. an ORDER requiring the lead law enforcement investigator in this case to certify that all law enforcement officers involved in the investigation of this case have reported their activities in writing, and that those reports have been provided to the Durham County District Attorney's Office;
3. an ORDER permitting counsel for the Defendant to personally review the complete and entire file of the Durham Police Department; and
4. an ORDER requiring the prosecution to provide all discoverable materials to
the Defendant and to affirmatively declare, by affidavit or representation to the Court on the record, that:
a. The prosecution has personally read all of the documents in the prosecution files;
b. The prosecution has personally contacted each law enforcement agency involved in the investigation of this case-including but not limited to the Durham Police Department and North Carolina Statue Bureau of Investigation-and requested that the prosecution be allowed to review all notes, reports, documents, computer-generated records, electronic data, tape recordings, videotape recordings, digital recordings, photographs, all physical or tangible evidence and any and all evidence related to the investigation of this case, and that said law enforcement agencies have allowed the prosecution to review such evidence; and
_. All discoverable material has been provided to the Defendant.
Respectfully submitted and requested, this the 26th day of May, 2006.
For the Defendant:
Joseph B. Cheshire V State Bar Number 5543
12
CHESHIRE PARKER SCHNEIDER BRYAN & VITALE
133 Fayetteville Street Mall Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Telephone: 919-833-3114 Facsimile: 919-832-0739
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the foregoing Reauestfor Discoveryanand o ion To Compel was duly served upon the State of North Carolina by hand-delivering a copy of same to Mr, Michael Nifong, Durham County District Attorney, Durham County Courthouse, Sixth Floor, Durham, North Carolina.
THIS the 26th day of May, 2006.
Bradley Ban o
13
IR# 06
DURHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION Verbal Instructions and Certification
In a moment, I am going to show you a series cf photos. The person who committed the trine may or may not be included. I do not know whether the person being investigated is included. Even if you identify someone during this procedure, I will continue to show you all photos in the series,
Keep iu:-ind that things like 1-fair styles, beards, ~Id mustaches can be easily changed and that complexion colors may look slightly different in photographs. You should not feel like you have to make an identification. This procedure is important to the investigation whether or not you identify someone. The photos wilt be shown to you one at a time and arc not in any particular order.
Take as much time as you need to I ck at each one After each photo I, will ask you "is this tire person you saw -,4g
(insnrt~nmehcvc)
Please answer "Yes" or "No" for each picture you are shown. Take your time answering the question,
Hecausc you are- involved in an ongoing investigation, in order to pzcvent damaging flat investigation, you should avoid discussing this identification procedure or its results. Do you understand the way the identification procedure will be conducted and the other instructions I have given you?
you understand these instuctions, please read the following and sign below.
°7 3uzue read these zrestructiorvs, and /- or they have been read to me. I understand these ir~.strctcfians. I am, prepared to review the photographs -ohtiah will be presented to me, arzd I w,,7 foTiow the instru',ctzons provzdut orz this for-rz
General Orde: 4077 Attachmenr 1 (\Tew =006)
1,;4 06-%31°
DURHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION Verbal Instructions and Certification
In a moment, I am going to show you a series of photos. The person uho committed the crime inay or may not be included. I do not know whether the person }being iuvcstigmed is included. Fvcn if you idenfiry someone during this procedure, I will continue to show you all photos in the series.
Keep in m:hd that things like hair styles, beards, and mustaches can be easily cha~tge.d and that complexion colors may look slightly different in photographs. You should not feel like you have to make an identification. This procedure is important 'o the iuvestigation whether or not you identify someone. The photos will be sb I your one at a time and are not in any particular order.
Take a -~u. need to 1 'ok at each one. After each hoto I will ask
-aw t I U. tLy
(-- cnxnehue)
--ture you arc sho-ixm.. Take your time
g investigation, in ordcr to prevent d avoid discussing this identification mderstand the way the identif.cafion -they instructions I have given you?
s, please read the following and sign below:
and / or they hzve been read to me. I under,. I am prepared to review the photographs which uriLl be press„ uill joll1lw tFte instractio7YS prorsded orz this form..
,low 'i AssNa~ne
WOW - -
Genezl Oc-4077 9~ chment 1 Clieyr 021-006)

Another example of the "Perfect Storm" scenario. Apparently, the players simply called the first escort agency in the phone book, which further leads me to believe strippers as entertainment was not a unsual occurrence at Buchanan.

I hope someone can edit that into shape. It's a lot easier to reference than the pdf.

Holy smokes! Nifong is a crook -- those documents show that Nifong had actual knowledge before the indictments that Crystal had serious credibility problems and unable to identify anyone, let alone do it with certainty, that the police that her story was, as they say, crappola, and on and on and on. Add to the number of things she will get destroyed with on cross a police officer saying she was faking it when he put ammonia under her nose -- right out of the Tawana Brawley playbook. THe ironic part of the police report is that it was 3 weeks after the incident and after the case began to fall apart publicly, so you know the police officer was forced to write somoething favorable to the DA, and THAT was the best he could come up. Cheshire references a third photo lineup but doesn't discuss it, so who knows what faults are there in that lineup. At this point, there is NO witness that Nifong can present without needing to discredit all or part of their testimony. Some of the cable nuts say that Nifong has to hang the cop out to dry, but at this point he needs to hang out half the population of Durham.

I found it interesting that he referenced a 2004 NC case that dismissed a number of convictions for DAs failing to disclose material information. Perhaps Nifong believes himself to be above the law. Is a prosecutor entitled in NC to be willfully ignorant? The whole discovery shows that the DA buried any effort to ascertain the truth, and we know he didn't want to hear exculpatory evidence from the defense.

My goodness, what the heck is going on there????