Posted on 09/09/2006 2:39:24 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM - If three Duke University lacrosse players face a jury this spring, defense attorneys likely will take aim at Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, the Durham police officer who supervised the investigation into the March 13 party at which an escort service dancer says she was raped.
The 43-year-old detective could be the prosecution's most important witness aside from the dancer herself.
In recent weeks, an attorney for one of the lacrosse players questioned the plausibility of Gottlieb's case notes, provided to the defense as evidence. Attorneys also have criticized Gottlieb for not following the Durham Police Department's guidelines in a photo lineup that he showed the accuser.
Members of the defense team are now closely examining the arrests Gottlieb made before the rape case. Records show that the sergeant arrested a disproportionate number of Duke students, all on misdemeanor violations such as carrying an open beer on a public sidewalk or violating the city's noise ordinance.
Such charges usually earn an offender a pink ticket such as those issued for speeding. But court records show Gottlieb often arrested Duke students on such charges, taking them to jail in handcuffs.
Reached by telephone, Gottlieb declined to be interviewed for this story. A department spokesman said this week the sergeant is on leave, though what kind was not disclosed.
Some residents of neighborhoods where Gottlieb worked and victims' advocates say that the sergeant is a dedicated and fair officer.
A native of Ohio, Gottlieb is married and the father of young twins. The couple is expecting another child soon. Over the past 18 years, Gottlieb has worked as a paramedic in Wake and Durham counties, as well as a Durham police officer.
A barrel-chested man, Gottlieb tends to walk with his shoulders back and chin up. Among his colleagues, he is known as outspoken and sometimes headstrong. In a 2005 court affidavit that noted his qualifications, Gottlieb listed several community colleges he has attended and professional certifications. The affidavit did not mention an academic degree beyond high school.
Students go to jail
Gottlieb got the lacrosse case weeks after serving 10 months as a patrol shift supervisor in police District 2, which includes about a quarter of the city. The district has neighborhoods as disparate as the crime-ridden Oxford Manor public housing complex and Trinity Park -- the blocks of historic homes across from a low stone wall rimming Duke's East Campus.
From May 2005 to February 2006, the period during which Gottlieb was a patrol supervisor in the district, court and police records examined by The News & Observer show that Gottlieb arrested 28 people. Twenty were Duke students, including a quarterback of the football team and the sister of a men's lacrosse player. At least 15 of the Duke students were taken to jail.
In comparison, the three other squad supervisors working in District 2 during the same 10 months -- Sgts. Dale Gunter, John Shelton and Paul Daye -- tallied a combined 64 arrests. Two were Duke students. Both were taken to jail.
Gottlieb often treated Duke students and nonstudents differently. For example, Gottlieb in 2004 wrote a young man a citation for illegally carrying a concealed .45-caliber handgun and possessing less than a half-ounce of marijuana, but records indicate he wasn't taken to jail. He was not a Duke student.
Get-tough tactics
Trinity Park residents have long complained to university and city officials about the boisterous parties thrown by the students who live there. That spurred Duke in February to buy a dozen rental properties in the neighborhood, including the house where the lacrosse team threw its spring break bash two weeks later.
The Durham police officers who responded to 911 calls about the parties were sometimes on the receiving end of defiance and disrespectful taunts. Trinity Park resident Ellen Dagenhart praised Gottlieb's get-tough tactics as a direct response to community concerns about disruptive, drunken behavior.
"There were a lot of homeowners and taxpayers who were calling the cops saying, 'Please come and make yourself seen,' " said Dagenhart, who has known Gottlieb for years. "Anyone who's seen kids passed out in a puddle of vomit is certainly happy to see the police show up. You can't blame Mark Gottlieb for that."
Durham City Manager Patrick Baker said that cracking down on Trinity Park partying was a priority for police last year.
The police department's official policy gives officers discretion in whether to transport someone to the lockup downtown. Factors other than just the "elements of the crime" can be considered, such as whether the suspect is belligerent.
"Our general order, it basically gives the officer room to use his or her own judgment," said Cpl. David Addison, a police spokesman.
But a standing order encourages officers to use alternatives to arrests for misdemeanors, including the use of written citations because of "jail overcrowding, crowded court dockets, staffing problems and the intrusiveness involved in a physical arrest."
Party house
On Oct. 8, Gottlieb and officers he supervised responded to a call about a rowdy student at a duplex at 203 Watts St. -- a Trinity Park address familiar to the police as a party house.
In an affidavit, Gottlieb wrote that officers arrived about 6:30 p.m. and told partygoers to be quiet. After the police left, party-goers urinated on neighbor Lee Coggins' home and threw a beer bottle in her direction that shattered on the sidewalk, Gottlieb wrote.
Police obtained a search warrant, and Gottlieb's squad entered the duplex at 3:19 a.m. They seized three beer kegs -- one empty -- and "beer bong tubing." On the wall was what Gottlieb described as a "stolen Duke flag." A Duke flag had been reported stolen from an administrative building on campus the previous spring.
Five students there were arrested by Gottlieb for violating the city's noise ordinance and alcohol-related misdemeanors. Another housemate, Mike Kenney, was arrested the next day.
Kenney, then 21, was charged with a noise ordinance violation and possession of an open container of alcohol on public property and taken to jail. Two days later, records show, Kenney was arrested a second time and taken to jail on charges of possession of stolen property. The flag had been in his room.
When the case went to trial in January, Gottlieb testified that in the wake of rowdy parties in Trinity Park, the department's policy was to take alcohol-related violations seriously. But the judge threw out the charges against Kenney, citing a lack of evidence.
Glen Bachman, Kenney's attorney, successfully argued that Gottlieb couldn't prove the college senior was home during the party or that the flag in his room was the same flag that had been stolen.
Coggins, the woman who called police about the party at the duplex, said Gottlieb's actions seemed responsive and professional. He doesn't have a vendetta against Duke students, she said.
"It's not like he's hanging out at their house waiting for them to do something," Coggins said.
Kathy Summerlee, Kenney's mother and a lawyer in Minnesota, called the arrest and prosecution of her son "frivolous."
Though the charges were thrown out, Kenney could have faced suspension if convicted. He graduated from Duke in May and now is looking for a job, she said.
"It was clear to all of us that the police were feeling a lot of pressure to make a difference in the behavior in that neighborhood," Summerlee said this week. "I think there was a lot of damage done in this process. It cost us money. It cost us a lot of worry. It rearranged Mike's life."
Still, some in Trinity Park cite Gottlieb as a dedicated officer. He prides himself on being a victim's advocate, often recounting stories from his years as a domestic violence investigator.
Dagenhart said she remembers seeing him at a vigil for domestic violence victims.
"This was not something he had to do as a part of his job," she said. "It's something he did as someone who cared. I know he cares about Durham. It's not just a job for him."
(News researchers David Raynor and Denise Jones contributed to this report.) Staff writer Michael Biesecker can be reached at 956-2421 or mbieseck@newsobserver.com. News researchers David Raynor and Denise Jones contributed to this report.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
Durham Police Investigator Searches For Evidence of Racial Slurs
In another example of fine detective work and superior investigative skills, the Durham Police Department has failed, according to Chief Steve Chalmers, to uncover evidence of the use of racial slurs in the great Blinco's caper.
Chalmers said today that department investigators had not been able to determine that any racial slurs were exchanged.
As some of the officers were leaving a parking area behind the bar about 11:30 p.m., they encountered Rene Dennis Thomas, a 29-year-old line cook who was taking a cigarette break. Thomas said shortly after the incident that after a truck carrying some of the men peeled out of the parking lot he shouted "woo-hoo." Thomas said that a man in the truck shouted a racial slur at him and he replied with one. Thomas said the fight occurred after that.
[snip #2-#13]
A white passenger of the vehicle looked out the window and yelled back, "F- you, n****r!" During a press conference Monday, Durham Police Deputy Chief Ron Hodge, an African-American, told reporters he was certainly concerned about one of his officers using the n-word while allegedly assaulting someone. Use of the racial slur is against department policy.
"These two were involved in what I would describe as northing less than a public brawl with a perfect stranger," Chalmers said. "It really failed to rise to the level of what we expect from our officers."
It failed to rise to the level???? What exactly did he want those officers to do to that cook? (OK, I know what he meant..but that's NOT what he said! - that is, if the quote is correct.
Duke most definitely pushed the party scene off campus, and the result was predictable and inevitable. That happened a long time ago (not long after the drinking age was raised to 21). What the recent press reports suggest is that Durham finally got sick of dealing with what it considered to be Duke's problem. At the same time, Duke built these dormitories that were at less than capacity. In other words, Duke cowardly foisted the party problems on Durham instead of dealing with it itself, and when those problems got out of control off campus, turned a blind eye as Durham cracked down and made life miserable for Duke students. Duke and Durham PD played this little game because it was in both their interests for the last few years (as evidence by the threatening letter to students living off-campus, Gottlieb's arrest records, etc.). What changed was Nifong.
I find Duke unusual in that it requires students to live on campus through their junior year. Were seniors living on campus when you were there? My student lives on campus as a senior because it is convenient. And I was surprised to find that many in the circle of friends, also seniors, were staying on campus also. I do recall the room next to student's was empty in her soph year. The resident had to pay for the room because s/he wasn't a senior; but actually lived in an apt. off-campus. I know that Duke is unusual in that it requires residency for 3 years; but is it unusual in trying to control drinking on campus?
My recollection is that seniors who could get single rooms stayed on campus, and those that could not lived off campus. It was so much more convenient to live on campus, and the homes the seniors rented off campus were pretty dumpy, just like 610 N. Buchanan. The drinking age was 18 for beer and wine (we came in just under the wire!) so there was not much effort to curb on campus drinking. That changed greatly when the drinking age increased to 21 -- the university has much greater liability for underage drinking and so has to crack down. I know Georgetown is also frequently cracking down on its campus partying, and the tensions between Georgetown seniors living in the neighborhood and local residents is legendary. So, Duke is not unusual.
By the way, the 3 year residency requirement is a cash cow for the university. Your student's experience is consistent with other anecdotes I have heard about empty dorm rooms because the campus is now so boring that social life has by and large relocated off campus. That means that the University is losing a source of money and one of the reasons I believe Duke turned a blind eye to Durham's policy of harassing off campus students.
Interesting reasoning on Duke "turning a blind eye." Could very well be the case.
My student is not a partyer - matter of fact, there is still too much of that on campus as far as the student is concerned! LOL. Engineers! If it doesn't involve x's and n's it can't possibly have any redeemable value ;) [You are the exception, LB :)]
I forgot. Yes, I do believe the "liability factor" plays a giant factor in what the University does and does not do.
As far as the "cash cow" is concerned.... with all the electronic gear power-stripped and surge-protected into that dorm room, I'm not so sure who is coming out ahead!!
Sort of the reverse of the old "sticks and stones" thing.
Some Stats
Interesting case figures:
12 of 25: As revealed by Liestoppers, the number of rape cases dismissed "without leave"--i.e., by the prosecutor--by D.A. Mike Nifong between July 2005 and June 2006.
It's rather difficult to reconcile that figure with Nifong's (false) claim during the primary season, at NCCU, that "anytime you have a victim who can identify her assailant, then what you have is a case that must go to the jury, which means, in this situation, a jury will get to evaluate the evidence."
They are not letting Gottlieb or Melanie off the hook.
At 6:14 PM, September 14, 2006, Cash Michaels said... -excerpt- FODU site.
"I remembered conversations I had back in April with various ministers, attorneys and activists about how strangers were going over to the AV’s family home, offering everything under the sun. But they never really gave me details.
But in June, after I happened to share the AV’s cousin’s claim with someone who actually called me on another matter, that’s when I was made aware that some of that activity involved people –some with known connections to Duke – who were “floating” ideas of ways that the controversy could be dealt with quickly, with the result being beneficial to whomever stepped forward to get involved."
FODU site: http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/05/general-topics-open.html
At 9:31 AM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous said...
From those who wonder what Durham officials get for backing Nifong ......immunity from prosecution for theft in office might be one BIG reason.
After all, there is big $$$$ at stake
Take Mayor Bill Bell....
Mayor Bill steals $186,107 from Durham…and leaves the room.
The Durham City Council is set to hand over 45% of all its entire grant money budget for the last 2 years (a whopping $186,107) to Mayor Bill Bell himself so he can line his pockets
(the Mayor has already looted a whopping $780,000 in government money over the last 10 years).
Bell’s sham development company UDI Community Development Corp appears to be a mechanism to pay him salary so that he can say in office and securing more graft from the city in a cycle of corruption.
Essentially a shell game to cover overt theft in public office.
Aside from Ed Stewart, Bell is the only employee of his shell development corporation which subsists entirely on government funds.
Bell even uses contract services to hide his corp's actual operation from the IRS.
(we do know from a change in IRS rules that Bell uses some of the government cash to enrich personal friends such as Vivian Wan)
The Herald-Sun approvingly celebrates Bell’s theft of city funds then notes in passing that previous grants (including other grafts directly to Bell’s shadow corporation) were largely wasted.
City Councill Set to Act on Developmental Grants
(note the deliberately obfuscatory headline Ashley headline)
This is old-style theft in office by Bill Bell.
A direct transfer of cash from government to a public official.
Bill Bell take in the last years
2000 $75,000
2001 $75,000
2002 $75,000
2003 $75,000
2004 $60,000
2005 $80,000
Courtesy of the FODU site.
Posted on 08/04/2006 5:20:02 PM EDT by abb
From post #177
"[If] any charges of racial comments or violent arrests have any merit, they need to be investigated," said City Councilman Mike Woodard, who's also a Duke employee. "But if it's just Duke students whining because they were arrested for violating the law, these were all cases of Gottlieb doing his job. There's really nothing for these students to stand on if that's all there is."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1698282/posts?page=177#177
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1698282/posts?page=184#184
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1698282/posts?page=188#188
Duke officials urge caution after off-campus attack
By BriAnne Dopart : The Herald-Sun, Sep 14, 2006 : 10:22 pm ET
DURHAM -- Duke University is cautioning students to lock their doors, travel in pairs and be well aware of their surroundings in the wake of a Monday night attack on a 21-year-old Duke student living in the off-campus apartment complex The Belmont.
The warning came in an e-mail from Vice President of Student Affairs Larry Moneta, and was addressed to all students. Students' safety and well-being is a priority of the university, Moneta wrote.
According to police, the student attacked at The Belmont reported that a man walked through an unlocked door and into her apartment off LaSalle Street at about 11 p.m. Monday. The student was in her bathroom changing clothes when she said the man entered and placed a piece of cloth around her neck.
The attacker pulled the student out of the bathroom and climbed on top of her, police spokeswoman Kammie Michael wrote in an e-mail. The student offered the attacker jewelry and money to leave the apartment. After a struggle, she was able to get away and call 911, Michael said. - snip-
Despite the fact news of the incident reached Duke's Web site and its student-run newspaper, The Chronicle, by Wednesday, Durham Police had not issued an official news release about the attack as of late Thursday. Durham Police Chief Steve Chalmers said the reason the department had not informed the community about the incident was because spokeswoman Michael didn't know the attack had occurred until Wednesday evening.
"It depends on what comes to our attention," Chalmers said, "A lot of times we don't get the information. If we do, we respond."
" the university is encouraging students to heighten awareness of their surroundings and suggests students who feel so inclined should sign up for self-defense courses."
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-769865.html
* second sex assault of a Duke student in two months.
This is from one of the defense attorneys describing an email discovered:
It's a copy of an e-mail sent by [Durham police Investigator] Richard Clayton to [Detective] Mark Gottlieb on 6-25-06 about your article in The Carolinian, which was apparently picked up by NBC 17 [television news website], regarding Jakki's claim of a hush money payment offer to [her cousin]."
Bannon continued, "You will see handwritten notes on the copy. That's Gottlieb's handwriting. It memorializes a conversation he had with [lead Duke rape case Investigator] Ben Himan on 6-30-06 in which Himan told him (Gottlieb) that he (Himan) had spoken to [the alleged victim] about Jakki's claim, and [the alleged victim] denied that she had ever received such an offer.
[The alleged victim] went on to tell Himan that Jakki "is out of the loop," and she (the alleged victim)) "doesn't know where cousin is getting it from."
1. If these were Duke people connected to the defense in any way, it seems to me Nifong and Gottlieb would want that publicized.
2. Am I mistaken, or is this one of the only instances where Gottlieb made handwritten notes? See:
That's Gottlieb's handwriting. It memorializes a conversation he had with Ben Himan on 6-30-06 in which Himan told him (Gottlieb) that he (Himann) had spoken to CGM about Jakki's claim, and CGM denied that she had ever received such an offer.
3. Was the intent of this handwritten note to suppress the story? If so, why?
The document copy Bannon attached of Investigator Clayton's June 25 typewritten memo to Sgt. Gottlieb, and Gottlieb's handwritten response actually shows a lot more.
Next to the subject line, Clayton apparently typed "$$$." He titled the memo "THIS IS PRETTY INTRESTING!!!! FROM NBC17.COM," misspelling "interesting."
Clayton copied two lines from the NBC17.com report:
Although all three players have proclaimed their innocence, a cousin of the accuser has told The Carolinian newspaper that Duke alumni have offered the woman as much as $2 million to halt the prosecution. She told me they wanted her to make the case go away, the woman's cousin is quoted as saying.
Under those lines Clayton typed in caps, "JUST 10-14," ending his memo to his boss, Gottlieb.
It is further down that Sgt. Gottlieb, who is the supervisor of investigators in the Duke rape case, apparently handwrote "6/30/06 @ 1155…Spoke to Himan. She (the alleged victim) denies same. States cousin is out of loop & doesn't know where cousin is getting it from."
Gottlieb's handwritten answer ends there.
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.