Employee kept notes of interaction with accuser (Nifong Caught Lying Again)

DURHAM - One of three people who saw the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case at the crisis center where she first reported being sexually assaulted kept notes of her observations, defense lawyers said in a motion filed in court today.

In the early hours of March 14, the accuser was taken to Durham Access Center because she reportedly met the criteria for involuntary commitment, defense lawyer Brad Bannon wrote in the motion filed in Durham County Court today.

While there for 40 minutes, the accuser interacted with three women on the center's staff, the motion says.

Gerri Lomuriel Wilkes, who was working at the center the morning the accuser came in, took hand-written notes of her observations, according to the motion.

Kirk Osborn, the lawyer representing Reade Seligmann, one of three lacrosse players accused in the case, found out about the notes while interviewing Wilkes, the motion says.

District Attorney Mike Nifong has told defense lawyers during discovery hearings that no notes were made at the center, that only a log existed from there.

In previous documents handed over to defense lawyers, there is no evidence that police tried to contact Wilkes about that morning.

Also, defense lawyers are asking the state for a bill of particulars in which they hope to get a more precise timeline of the alleged offenses and find out which bathroom at 610 N. Buchanan the gang-rape allegedly occurred.

They also are asking the state to specify which "sexual act" each defendant is accused of committing. Staff writer Anne Blythe can be reached at 932-8741 or ablythe@newsobserver.com.

DA asks judge to stop questioning tied to Duke lacrosse case

By SAMUEL SPIES, Associated Press Writer
September 20, 2006 7:39 pm

DURHAM, N.C. -- The district attorney prosecuting three Duke lacrosse players accused of rape asked a judge Wednesday to put a stop to defense polling of Durham residents about the case.

District Attorney Mike Nifong made the request in a motion filed in Durham Superior Court, saying the polling could damage the chances of a fair trial in the case and should stop immediately.

Lawyers for the three players responded by saying that the polling, which the defense conducted jointly, was legitimate and necessary in light of prejudicial public comments made about the case by Nifong.

"(The) polling was necessary to determine the extent and nature of that prejudice and other issues related to the defendants' jury trial rights," defense lawyers wrote in a response released to reporters within an hour of Nifong's filing. "The polling was scientifically conducted, limited to 300 interviews and terminated thereafter."

Lawyers on both sides in high-profile cases frequently use surveys, focus groups and consultants to fine-tune courtroom strategies and jury selection.

The Duke case stems from a March 13 incident at an off-campus house in which a woman told police she was sexually assaulted by three men in a bathroom after being hired to perform as a stripper at a lacrosse team party. A grand jury later indicted three players with rape, kidnapping and sexual offense; defense attorneys have strongly proclaimed their clients' innocence.

Nifong's motion included an affidavit by the district attorney's wife, Cy Gurney, who said she received a call on the evening of Sept. 11 in which a surveyor asked about attitudes in the community and the lacrosse case.

In her affidavit, Gurney said the person who questioned her about the case asked how likely she would be to believe a stripper who said she was raped and whether she believed Durham investigators conducted an unfair lineup of suspects in the case.

"My overall impression was that the purpose of the survey was not to assess community attitudes about this case, but rather to bias or influence potential jurors toward a pro-defendant/anti-prosecution point of view," the affidavit said.

The defense's response noted that the players' lawyers had previously told the court and Nifong that they intended to conduct polling on the case and that similar polling by defense lawyers has been approved by the state Supreme Court in the past.

Nifong's motion said the survey was conducted by Central Research Services Inc., a research firm with offices in New York. The company did not immediately respond to a telephone call Wednesday seeking comment.

A second motion filed Wednesday by Nifong asks the court to pay for a toxicology test for the drug Ecstasy that was done on a hair sample from the accuser.

In the motion, Nifong said he was told in April by a defense attorney representing an unindicted player that the accuser was on Ecstasy the night of the party, but that the accuser has said she never knowingly took the drug, also known as MDMA.

The motion did not disclose the results of the tests, which were conducted July 24 and faxed to Durham investigators two days later.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-771569.html

Dear Alumni:

As part of the university's response to the lacrosse incident, the Campus Culture Initiative (CCI) was launched in April, and Bob Thompson, dean of Trinity College, vice provost for undergraduate education, and a professor in the psychology department, was named its chair. Dean Thompson recently sent an update to the campus community on the work the committee conducted this summer and invited comments on its "two broad objectives. . . to find specific and constructive ways to promote respect and responsibility and to lessen campus divides." His letter appears below.

With Dean Thompson's help, the Duke Alumni Association has expanded this outreach to include alumni input. We value your voice and are glad to provide the means to include your comments and suggestions. Your message will be shared with members of the CCI Steering Committee and its subcommittees. The committee and the DAA may not respond to your submissions directly, but they will be compiled and submitted, as appropriate. To submit your suggestions, click here.

We thank you for your continuing concern and involvement as the university undergoes an extensive self-examination. We trust this learning opportunity will strengthen our goal of a more inclusive community, for students and alumni.

Forever Duke,

Thomas C. Clark ' 69 President, Duke Alumni Association

Campus Culture Initiative: Update # 1 from Bob Thompson As we begin a new academic year, I write to update the Duke community about the work of the Campus Culture Initiative Steering Committee. The president's charge to the Steering Committee is challenging and multifaceted. We have been asked to take the measure of our campus culture and see where it could be improved. We aim toward a culture where all community members take responsibility for their behavior and respect the rights of others. We strive not only to articulate a vision of what Duke can be, but also to analyze existing practices and bring forward initiatives needed to realize the vision.

The timeline for our work is also challenging. The Steering Committee was asked to provide the president with an interim report no later than December 1, 2006, and a final report no later than May 1, 2007.

The Steering Committee held its first meeting on April 25 and our work has progressed in phases. The first phase was devoted to framing our approach to the charge and organizing the work of the committee. We met four times in the weeks before Commencement. Initial discussions focused on both the events of last March and the responses of our community and led to a shared awareness that Duke is more characterized by divides and separations than we had fully understood or acknowledged. These "campus divides" relate not only to long-standing issues of race and gender but also separations with respect to social privilege, athletics, and campus-community relations. Two broad objectives were clearly identified. We seek to find specific and constructive ways to promote respect and responsibility and to lessen campus divides. Our shared goal is a stronger and more inclusive community.

The committee has adopted the approach of connecting with relevant initiatives, committees, projects, and reports, including the Women's Initiative, the Campus Life and Learning Project, and the Council on Civic Engagement. We also are committed to seek input from the Duke community throughout each phase of our work. The committee recognizes its role as advisory and not policy-setting and that our recommendations will be one point of advice among others. We seek to articulate a vision of campus culture and highlight choices along the pathway. We understand that our recommendations will need to be subsequently implemented through appropriate committees and administrative units.

The second phase of our work comprised the summer months. Given the difficulty of functioning as a 25-member committee during the summer, our approach was to form subgroups to address key issues, identify opportunities for improvement, and consider possible approaches. Four subgroups were formed and convened by members of the Steering Committee: Race (Professor Karla Holloway); Alcohol (Professor Phil Cook); Gender/Sexuality (Professors Anne Allison and Suzanne Shanahan); and Athletics (Professor Peter Wood). Forming subgroups also enabled the inclusion of other faculty, students, and staff as members or invited participants. Forming subgroups was a way to gather and analyze information for consideration by the entire Steering Committee in the fall. Each subgroup met four to six times during the summer. In addition, the Steering Committee met six times during the summer.

With the beginning of the fall term, we are entering the third phase of our work. The Steering Committee will meet weekly and for a half-day retreat in September. We will focus on integrating information from the subgroups, formulating questions and ideas, and soliciting input from the larger campus community. This is an intensive period of work for the committee in preparation for the meeting with the President's Council in November and submission of our interim report by December 1.

We look forward to having this community dialogue in the weeks ahead.

Bob Thompson Chair, Campus Culture Initiative

At 10:23 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous said... -excerpt from FODU site.

"The real issues here are:

1) a troubled woman with a difficult past who couldn't face the increasingly swift downward trajectory her life was taking and chose to accuse three innocent people of a heinous crime rather than looking at her own drinking, drug use and unfortunate choice of sexual lifestyle as the real crisis in her life;

2) institutional irresponsibility on the part of Duke University, in particular by its colossally unimpressive current president, Richard Brodhead, for ignoring discontent within the Durham community caused by its pushing 25% of its students off-campus to fend for themselves with local law enforcement; and, last but certainly not least,

3) local political corruption on a spectacular, theatrical scale unmatched by anything I can recall seeing in the last 40 years. This is truly the big story to come out of this whole debacle, and will be the fodder of debate, articles, books and movies for years to come. The actions of DA Nifong, of certain members of the judiciary in their failure to hold the DA and his investigators and their own court staff accountable to the rule of law, of certain members of the Durham Police Department, like Gottlieb, Chalmers and company, who utterly failed to comply with recognized police procedures in a criminal investigation, but instead affirmatively obstructed them, and of local government officials like Messrs. Bell and Baker, to name a few, who have been complicit in the police misconduct in this case, all under the watchful eye of a local media that seems not to have a clear idea of their mandate to provide a consistent, objective account of what has been going on in the case, taken together represent for me, an attorney of 25 years' standing, a pathetic low in the annals of American jurisprudence."

http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/05/general-topics-open.html

* Nice summation of the affair courtesy of the FODU site. Durhamites have wallowed in the cesspool for so long, they have lost the smell of Right. The stench now permeates the Gothic walls of Duke. The city should be declared an environmental disaster area.

At 11:21 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous said... more from FODU- very pertinant-

Today's H-S Editorial Meeting.

I also filed a complaint with the Attorney General about Nifong's use of public resources to conduct his investigations of emailers.

It's illegal of course.

* * *
Taking a page from the Bob Ashley playbook, Mike Nifong and his wife have apparently been conducting background investigations of anyone who sends Mr. Nifong email that is critical of his job performance.

It is of course a replay for Nifong when he investigated all of the signers of the Check petition several months ago.

Only problem is that Mr Nifong and his wife Cy Gurney, also a state employee, have apparently been using state resources, databases, computers and time on the job to assemble their enemies list.

At least when Bob Ashley does his google searches, he is just a non-government weasel doing the bidding of the town's elite.

The Nifong's illegal behavior follows close on Mayor Bill Bell's use of cease-and-desist letters from his lawyers in an attempt to quash criticism of his real estate double-dealing.

We are now seeing the ossified Durham elites cracking under the strain of public scrutiny.

It is clear that the Durham power structure (and the Herald-Sun) had hoped to use race-baiting and class envy in the Duke case to gain political cover for their corrupt and incompetent leadership

That has failed.

And as the dump burns and murderers roam the streets, Bill Bell, Patrick Baker, Mike Nifong and the city council have been revealed for what they are.

Petty, corrupt, and incompetant tyrants who abuse their public offices for their own self-preservation.

http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/05/general-topics-open.html

* Thanks to FODU site.

Only problem is that Mr Nifong and his wife Cy Gurney, also a state employee, have apparently been using state resources, databases, computers and time on the job to assemble their enemies list.

That squares with KC Johnson's account--

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/cracking-up.html

Yesterday, a New Jersey retiree sent Nifong an email saying that he was considering moving to Durham so he could vote for the Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek option. The writer didn't say where he was from. Nifong responded,

"Gee, Bill. Does this mean you are moving down here from NJ just to vote against me? I am flattered. Bad news, though. You'll be stuck with me at least until the end of December."

The emailer sent me a copy of the email to confirm its legitimacy. [end excerpt]

In the replies, KC also said...

"The Nifong email was sent at 12.49pm on 9-19."

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.