Posted on 05/25/2006 5:04:51 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM -- A lawyer with the state NAACP said the civil rights organization intends to seek a gag order in the Duke lacrosse case, and a journalist who participated in a forum with him on Wednesday said media coverage of the alleged rape may deprive the alleged victim of her legal rights to a fair trial.
Al McSurely, an attorney who chairs the Legal Redress Committee for the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he generally respects the defense attorneys in the case as colleagues. But they are violating the State Bar's rules of professional conduct that discourage comments outside court that are likely to prejudice a case, he said.
The NAACP will try to intervene in the case to file a "quiet zone/let's let justice work" motion. That is otherwise known as a gag order, he acknowledged, although he said he doesn't like that term.
McSurely's comments came amid the first-ever Durham Conference on the Moral Challenges of our Culture at First Presbyterian Church downtown. The session gave the approximately 150 people who attended a chance to hear a series of talks and discuss among themselves sexual and domestic violence, racism, class distinctions and the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at herald-sun.com ...
In his report, officer Shelton gives the impression that if CGM had simply given her name and address, then he may have simply driven her home. He also claims that none of the officers knew her.
At 1:33, Shelton attempts to awaken CGM.
At 2:12, we know from the radio transmissions that Shelton requested someone stop by Charles Street and check on the youngun's.
At 2:37, he tells the dispatcher that CGM was on her way to Duke Medical.
So apparently by 2:12, she was already being cooperative enough to give out her address and tell someone (Barfield?) that she had children at home.
Clearly, the defense is correct that since CGM was in officer Barfield's custody for up to an hour and since he is apparently the first person whom she told about the rape, then the discovery should include a written statement from him.
I don't think you're allowed to lie to the court (judge) with impunity. Nifong has done that twice: 1) he told the first judge ordering team DNAing "will immediately rule out innocent persons". Except that it didn't. 2) he lied to Stephens about turning over everything and about his lack of knowledge about the cell phone.
If you think about it, think about the suspicions of the Nifong and the investigators. These 46 guys are standing as a block, some as young as 18, they've played tricks on them (telling them player A implicated you, and the e-mail sent from a player's account) and no one caved. They were told how their careers would be over and so on, no one caved.
Who would be able to keep these young guys in line like that? Who would engender such loyalty?
I'm sure that is another reason why 23 year David Evans that was voted unamimously as Team Captain was a strong suspect.
And there are valid reasons why Lineups are supposed to be administered by someone totally outside the investigation that truly doesn't know fillers from suspects. Fillers - that's another violation entirely.
That is the nut of hte "Nifong lied" issue. At this point, we know Nifong was lying like nobody's business to the press in the early phases, and at best he was dissembling. Lying to the Court is another thing entirely. These defense attorneys are pretty sharp, and this may come up in Seligman's motion to recuse Nifong, as in :Judge, he not only dissembles and decives the public, he has engaged in a scheme or artifice to defraud the court," and then laundry list his prevarications.
And most galling of all, dingbat Brodhead and Duke University crawled into bed with Nifong and his crew, abandoning 46 of their own students
One thing I am certain of: there will be more facts coming out that will show even more decisively that this whole thing was a "crock." There are strong rumors that Finnerty's alibi is far more powerful than Seligmans. And Finnerty's lawyers are just waiting for the dingbat DA to commit to a timeline before dropping that bomb.
I have a friend that is following this case closely also.
He told me that he heard Alan Colmes on the Radio (must have been yesterday or tonight) and Colmes said that if you thought this case was bad, it just got much worse.
He thought that maybe Colmes had finally saw the light and then after the commercial break, Colmes said that if you thought the accuser was getting trashed before, it really gotten disgusting. He said he went into how distasteful it was to have a young African American victim being treated like this. He said this case illustrates how minorities get revictimized in our justice system.
What would it take for this guy to figure this out?
Of course, it never occurred to the dingbat DA that the reason no lacrosse came forward to report anything is because there was nothing to come forward with.
THe ironic part of using dirtball tactics like that (lying to the players, using false e-mail accounts, showing up to interrogate outside the presence of counsel) is that if it is unsuccesful, a judge and jury gets to hear it. It makes the DA and the police look like the minor league Mafia.
The Herald-Sun article that mentions City Manager Patrick Baker's comments on Shelton is no longer online. Damn it!
(re Colmes) "What would it take for this guy to figure this out?"
a good sissification cult deprogrammer?
That is actually a good sign. Folks who want to believe and support the FA know full well that they have no facts or evidence, the case is falling appart like a cheap suit, so they are left with statements like that. It's just a whiny way of crying uncle. I love to hear the Colmes and Nancy Grace's carry on about the poor, poor creature because they know that the FA is being exposed in the court of public opinion, they have nothing to counter with other than lashing out, and are just whining about it.
As an aside, it also highlights why the dingbat DA should have kept his big yap shut and let the police do their job. By the time we would have found out about it, there would have been a full investigation, the evidence would have been vetted in a measured manner and all this would have been avoided. So I have little sympathy -- actions have consequences and while they were beating up these white boys based on crappola they did not seem to have a problem with it. That includes Crystal doing media interviews early on in which she gave interviews only if they published the parts of her story that are consistent with the DA narrative. (Reports stated that they withheld portions of her story that did not match the DA narrative and also withheld other negativ einformation they learned about the FA). They made their bed, now sleep in it.
the cache is still there:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:p1QdEbCYJiMJ:www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-733339.html+durham+rape+baker+shelton&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Duke based initial gang-rape reactions on campus officer who eavesdropped on call
By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun
gronberg@heraldsun.com
May 9, 2006 : 10:53 pm ET
DURHAM -- A March 14 Duke Police Department report that downplayed gang-rape allegations against the school's lacrosse team stemmed from what a Duke officer overheard while listening to a Durham Police Department sergeant's cell phone conversation, City Manager Patrick Baker said Tuesday.
The Duke officer, Christopher Day, never actually spoke to the sergeant or conducted any follow-up inquiry before telling his superiors that the woman at the center of the case had changed her story several times, and that her allegations were unlikely to produce serious charges, Baker said.
Day and the sergeant were at a loading dock outside Duke Hospital, where Durham police had taken the woman for treatment. The sergeant made a call, and Day overheard him "say something to the effect of the witness had changed her story and he didn't think there were going to be anything other than misdemeanor charges filed," Baker said.
Baker added that he believes no one in the Durham Police Department's hierarchy formally relayed such an assessment to Duke police, and that Day's eavesdropping occurred while Durham officers still were trying to figure out exactly what they were dealing with.
Day's report to his supervisor, Lt. J.O. Best, apparently helped persuade Duke officials that the rape case would blow over, according to two former university leaders Duke President Richard Brodhead asked to review his school's handling of the matter.
Duke officials "seriously underestimated the seriousness of the allegations" because they thought Durham police doubted the accuser's credibility, former Princeton University President William Bowen and former N.C. Central University Chancellor Julius Chambers said in a report to Brodhead released by Duke on Monday.
But Baker said it should have been apparent to Brodhead's staff that Durham police were taking the woman's charges seriously.
"There's no doubt that by the time the sun rose on Tuesday morning, [March 14,] the Durham Police Department was treating this as a sexual-assault investigation," Baker said.
Baker said he began looking into the matter soon after the Bowen-Chambers report surfaced, pledging to find out what Durham police told their counterparts at Duke.
Duke officials released a copy of Day's March 14 "operations report" on Tuesday, reversing a position they took Monday. They also conceded that their information about the Durham Police Department's initial take on the incident might have been something they overheard rather than something that came to them through formal channels.
"The Durham police were the primary agency," said Aaron Graves, associate vice president for campus safety and security. "We just happened to be there. What [Duke officers] heard and what they thought they heard was what they were reporting. In some cases, that may not have been direct information."
Baker said he's still looking into the matter and has not yet identified or spoken to the sergeant. Much of his information, most notably the key point that Day overheard the sergeant talking on the phone, came to him Tuesday from Duke officials.
Day's operations report didn't mention that he'd merely listened to the sergeant's phone conversation. He said only, "The victim changed her story several times, and eventually Durham police stated that charges would not exceed misdemeanor assault against the occupants of 610 North Buchanan" Blvd., a house leased by three captains of the lacrosse team.
Day also said the woman "was claiming that she was raped by approximately 20 white males," a fact the Bowen-Chambers report mentioned prominently and that prompted lawyers representing members of the lacrosse team to launch a fresh round of attacks on the accuser's credibility.
Baker, however, said he didn't know where Day had gotten that information.
"I'm not aware of that at all," Baker said when asked if the woman had told Durham police she'd been attacked by 20 men. "I've met with just about everybody involved in the case, and it hasn't been brought to my attention. I don't know where that's coming from."
The sergeant Day overheard at the hospital loading dock supervises patrol officers in District 2, the Durham Police Department operations zone that covers the Duke campus. He was not one of the investigators assigned to the case, Baker said.
Durham police radio logs record the movements of three officers and a sergeant who helped with the case early on March 14. The sergeant was John Shelton. Baker wasn't sure if Shelton was the sergeant Day overheard, but the manager said he did think, "He was one of the officers out there who reported that he thought the woman may have been intoxicated."
The logs show that Shelton was dispatched to the Hillsborough Road Kroger supermarket -- where police first encountered the woman -- at 1:32 a.m. He left there at 1:49 a.m. The logs have no mention of Shelton's going to Duke Hospital.
The other three Durham Police Department personnel mentioned in the radio logs -- Willie Barfield, Gwendolyn Sutton and Joseph Stewart -- hold the rank of officer and have worked for the department for less than three years, Human Resources Director Alethea Bell said.
The logs only refer to radio traffic. Durham police -- especially those in the command ranks -- frequently use cell phones for official communication.
Baker reiterated earlier comments that police had trouble getting a statement from the woman.
"I understand the alleged victim was very upset, and crying, and emotional," he said.
But sometime between 3 and 4 a.m., police decided they needed to bring in an investigator to talk to the woman. A female officer who happened to be on duty was sent to the hospital, Baker said. The two detectives who've led the subsequent investigation, Benjamin Himan and Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, joined the case the afternoon of March 14.
Police didn't get a statement from the woman until the morning of March 16, Baker said. They secured a search warrant for 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. that afternoon and served it later in the evening. Baker said two Duke police officers accompanied Durham police to the search.
Investigators began questioning three lacrosse captains who lived there during the search, moving with them later to the District 2 substation. The questioning lasted for eight hours, and the participation of the captains was voluntary, Baker said.
"When we have Duke police officers with us executing a search warrant and talking to students, I'm at a loss for anyone thinking we're not taking the case seriously or thinking it's going to blow over," Baker said.
The Bowen-Chambers report said Brodhead first learned of the incident on March 20, the same day Baker said Durham police were making arrangements with Duke athletic officials to "interview the entire team."
Someone in the Duke administration was monitoring events, because Mayor Bill Bell or a member of the City Council did field a complaint from that quarter about the questioning of the lacrosse captains. The complaint centered on a mistaken belief that "we interrogated somebody [on the team] for 24 hours," Baker said -- adding that his response set the record straight and pointed out the captains weren't in custody and had been free to go at any time.
Bowen and Chambers compiled their report without talking to anyone from the Durham Police Department, a deliberate choice.
"Our mandate was to investigate Duke's handling of the matter, not the city's handling of the matter, so we didn't think it appropriate to deal with the Durham police or the district attorney. They were sort of out-of-bounds for us," Bowen said.
But, he added, "The report we received of the downplaying of the incident came to us from so many people within Duke that there is simply no question that this is what the Duke people believed. Is it possible that Duke people got it wrong? I suppose it is, but on the face of it, it seems unlikely."
Staff writer Paul Bonner contributed to this report
What were his comments on Shelton? THat supplemental report is so odd -- three weeks after the incident and after it became apparent that the case was falling apart. He obviously prepared it under intense pressure from his bosses to help the DA, and that was most favorable he could give them.
Baker's role in htis is still mysterious but it looks like he may have been very involved in the politicization of the case.
only the cache of this one remains, roo:
Duke officials back city on report source
BY PAUL BONNER : The Herald-Sun
pbonner@heraldsun.com; 419-6621
May 10, 2006 : 11:27 pm ET
DURHAM -- Duke University Police Department officials agreed Wednesday with Durham City Manager Patrick Baker that a Duke police report's doubts about the credibility of the alleged victim in the lacrosse rape case were based on remarks overheard from a Durham patrol officer.
Robert Dean, director of the Duke Police Department, told reporters in a press conference that the Duke officer who wrote the report didn't speak directly with the Durham officer he overheard saying on a cell phone that the victim changed her story several times, and that any charges arising from the incident would be only misdemeanors, he said.
The Duke officer, Christopher Day, didn't indicate in the report a source for the alleged victim's changing her story and attributed the comment about misdemeanors only generally to "Durham police."
The Durham officer was a sergeant who supervises front-line patrol officers in the area of the city that includes Duke, Baker said. Neither Day nor other Duke officers spoke with the victim of the alleged rape, Dean said Wednesday.
The report's contents figured strongly, however, in the university's initial reaction to the scandal. Dean relayed them to top university officials within hours after the lacrosse team party on March 13-14. A resulting skepticism about the alleged victim's account slowed Duke's reaction until nearly a week later, when lacrosse team members were ordered to submit DNA samples, according to a study that Duke released Monday of the university's response. The probe was conducted by two former university presidents at Duke President Richard Brodhead's request.
As a result, Duke officials initially underestimated the seriousness of the situation, concluded Julius Chambers, former chancellor of N.C. Central University, and William G. Bowen, who has headed Princeton University. Duke officials on Tuesday released the police report, which was alluded to in the Bowen-Chambers study. They distinguished it, however, from a police incident report, some information from which is public record under North Carolina law. In the lacrosse rape case, an incident report was filed by the Durham Police Department.
Even a strictly internal record like Day's operations report, however, should indicate its sources of information, said Aaron Graves, vice president of campus security and safety at Duke, who accompanied Dean in the press conference. Neither Dean nor Graves, however, would say Day erred in not including attribution, and they indicated they consider the report an otherwise an accurate account of what Day heard.
Baker said he plans to report on his findings Monday night to the City Council, after he has a chance to speak to Sgt. John Shelton, the District 2 patrol supervisor whose cell phone conversation Day overheard.
Baker also said he tried Wednesday to pin down what officers said and did at the Kroger store on Hillsborough Road where they found the woman, and at Duke Hospital, where the overheard phone conversation took place.
From what he's heard from department higher-ups, Baker said, the initial contacts Durham police had with the woman triggered "a pretty fast-moving situation where it appears they're thinking one thing and trying to clarify it."
Day heard one side of the conversation, pulled it out of context and had "drawn his own conclusions from it," Baker said.
Baker added that he's decided a report to the council is in order because police need time to answer his questions, and because he has to finish work this week on a fiscal 2006-07 budget proposal that's due to reach the council on Monday.
Staff writer Ray Gronberg contributed to this article.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:JlTyoWtJRJMJ:www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-733473.html+durham+rape+baker+shelton&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
Thanks. So, apparently Day overheard Shelton speaking to his watch commander and for some reason Day just pulled the number 20 out of the air. As Kim would say, what a croc!
I think it's clear that Duke was doing what they thought was politically expedient. Remember when the lacrosse coach resigned, we heard so many in the media say, AHA - see he resigned because he was guilty. The resigning was an admission. Duke pressured the guy into resigning. It made it look like Duke was taking action.
That same political expediency maybe what Mark Simeon or W. Gary and others are depending on with Duke. How Much would DUke pay to make it all go away.
I was reading the case of a family that claimed their daughter was molested at a Synagogue by a construction worker at the synagogue. The report I read said that the family used the laws to shield the child's identity and prevent the Defense lawyers from finding out other similar claims they had made. To make a long story short the family acutally OWNS the synagogue after the settlement.
Only after settlement, it was discovered that the family had made other similar claims and lawsuits.
Perhaps it is getting too late, but I did not see any references to the 20 men allegations in Shelton's report. Who did she make that allegation to? The SANE nurse? The Duke doctor? Does Nifong now need to attack the credibility of the medical staff?
While I believe that the players are innocent, I have some doubts about this story.
First, this verson has her being dragged into the bedroom instead of the bathroom...did she change her story, or did the DA change it to fit the only DNA he could find?
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.
Maybe it's just poor reporting or a typo, but this article claims Kim didn't dance and other's say Crystal didn't.
I really think we'll find out Baker has some alterior motive in this whole thing. We can't find his fingerprints or involvement in other Durham criminal cases. One just mentioned yesterday in the media was the cross burnings, strangely, that investigation is being run by the Police Chief.
The Police Chief is noticeably absent in this case and Baker is hip-deep in it.
I saw the characterizations in Baker's Media interviews: Words like Eavesdropping were used. Another time a reference was made to the low rank of the officer on the phone. It was apparent what he was trying to do.
You are working on something in an office and someone that is in the same job position as you (does your same function)
is not available and a Superior or Customer asks you something regarding that other account that the other individual handles, if you pass on what you heard about it and say, I can't be sure, but I heard something about Thursday afternoon for the presentation; you'll have to check with him.
How many of us have done that? Is that eavesdropping? Eavesdropping is how it was purposefully portrayed, but that is not what is was. Eavesdropping has connotations of not being your business or someone doing it for their own benefit. The individual was a policemen and policemen constantly communicate informally. The work 24 hours shifts for God sakes.
I see a lot of spin coming out of that Durham PD, why though?
There is no mention of 20 men in the report. In the motion it says that Shelton was on the phone with the watch commander telling him about CGM recanting her accusation when someone interrupted Shelton and said that the she had recanted her racantation. That may have been the conversation Day overheard.
Is it normal for an article on their site to be unavailable after a couple of weeks, or does it look like they singled out these articles?
At the end of the report, Shelton writes that CGM mentioned that she was dragged into the bathroom. I didn't read anything about the bedroom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.