Durham Police Begin Probe Of Alleged Assault At Raleigh Bar (Investigators under investigation)

WRAL.com ^ | July 22, 2006 | WRAL .com

[TommyDale]

DURHAM, N.C. -- Officials say they are investigating an alleged assault involving Durham police officers outside a Raleigh bar.

[Jezebelle]

They should be emailed to the tabloids.

[Jezebelle]

Absolutely. They had the highest percentage of correct info during OJ than any other publication of any kind.

[Jezebelle]

Defense attorneys sgould ask Gottlieb on the stand (if this gets that far) if he was drinking when he carried out various aspects of the investigation, including the line-ups. He should be asked about his proclivities for flinging racial epithets: "Det. Gottlieb, have you, yourself, ever flung a racial epithet in anger?"

[GAgal]

That poster is almost perfect:

http://ww1.pureupload.com/public/pview/16050/Web%20Wanted%20Poster%20low%20version.jpg

Has anyone seen a picture of Himan or Clayton?

[abb]

Plausible Nifong strategy here:
http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=9ad5d1460385732eb72977b69aa2d253&topic=34.msg1395#msg1395

Re: If you were the prosecutor...
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2006, 08:43:13 PM »

The most crucial phase of the trial will be jury-selection. Though I will have the help of a sympathetic judge, who will allow all sorts of disqualifications "for cause", there's a limit to how much I can ask him to do for me. So I'll have to use some peremptory challenges. If I'm lucky, I'll have me an all-black jury; if I have to allow some whites, I can at least see to it that they are all native 10th generation Durhamites.

It will be important to make a strong opening statement. Nothing I say in an opening statement about what the evidence will show has to be true, so I can really let myself go. With an all-black jury the structure of the statement should be essentially "see how white they are", a factoid, "see how white they are", a factoid, and so on. With a mixed jury, I'll have to throw in an occasional "they're yankees --- as you'll be able to hear for yourselves if any of them opens his mouth".

I will have to put Precious on the stand. She's an excellent actress, almost fooled me the first time we met, with her "I haven't had sex in a week" and so on. (Of course, if I'd done my homework and read the witness statements, maybe she wouldn't have.) She should be told to let herself go, to the point of hysteria if necessary, but better avoid that on examination-in-chief, because we'll have to use it to get a court recess whenever an embarrassing line of questioning gets going on cross. Of course, my friend on the bench will exclude a lot of evidence that would impreach her, so the main worry will be her contradicting herself on the stand. Also, better keep her locked up away from alcohol and flexeril --- not to mention anything stronger --- for a couple of days before she appears. Don't want her so blotto she forgets that her "attackers" are the ones sitting at the table with the defense attorneys. Luckily none of the lawyers on that side is so young she might get him mixed up with one of the players.

I'm going to need a couple more expert witness than I've listed so far. The judge will let me stall on giving the list, but only for so long, so I'd better get cracking --- or get one of my staff cracking.
Baker and Chalmers are leaning on the first-responder cops to deny that Precious ever changed her story, and say they just misunderstood her. But we don't have the same leverage over the medical personal.
A SANE nurse has presumably had a lot of ideological indoctrination, but there's a danger she may have some professional ethics. Better check if there are any warrants out on her. I think in the end I can't rely just on Livecy to give the "rape trauma syndrome explains away all contradictions in Precious's statements, both with each other and with the results of the medical exam" line. I'll need another "expert" feminist.
Also, of course, someone who'll say the photos are doctored. There are lots of PI's who'll be willing to say it without much of an expert-witness fee. Better get Linwood to line one up for me.

My highest priority in the next months will be to lean on Nikki to take back that "I didn't see a rape and will never say I saw a rape" remark. If she'll go all the way backing Precious, fine (except for the danger that Precious doesn't testify as rehearsed and Nikki testifies agreeing what Precious was supposed to say and not what she did say). If she'll only go part way (only as far as she has done so far, hinting around about a time window and a date-rape drug), I'll need to give a lot of thought to the pros and cons before deciding wether to put her on.

So much for my case. In cross-examing the defense witnesses, I have to use a combination of constant sliming over the use of racial epithets, the real cotton shirt and the fictious n-word --- parenthetically, that means I'll have to rely on Himan rather than Gottlieb in my own case --- with quibbling over details and definitions of words. There are some posters on one of those pesky blogs who are very good at this. I don't know if I can hire them as consultants off the books, but they seem eager enough to see these boys get a shiv in the ribs that they'll probably do it for free if I ask, and be honored by my request.

My strong point, of course, is that I don't really need to have a case of my own, and don't really need to answer the defense case. NC law says the case has to go to the jury if there's an accuser and an identification. The jurors don't have to agree when, where, why, and how the rape took place. They just have to believe --- or pretend to believe --- that it did. (And for that it's enough if Precious is in good form on the stand, and I don't let the jurors forget what rich white yankees the accused are, which I certainly won't.) I'll have to hammer this home in my closing statement, and get the judge to hammer it some more in his charge to the jury.

If the Father of Lies rewards my constant service to Him, I should get at least 10 jurors on my side, enough to cow the others. A year from now I'll should have three dead ex-lax-players after a racial gang-fight in the supermax, and a promotion to a judgeship. If not, I'll get a hung jury and have to try again. But that's not so bad, after all. It will give me something to do other than attend to the boring administrative tasks of my job, and keep my name before the public. Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2006, 09:16:25 PM by Photios »

[FlowJo]

Found this over at Friends of Duke - The new wanted poster!

I have provided the link, because I don't know how to paste and cut. I tried and it doesn't work. If anyone knows how, feel free to provide this little gem to all the freepers.

http://ww1.pureupload.com/public/pview/16050/Web%20Wanted%20Poster%20low%20version.jpg

[CondorFlight]

FBI hate crime?

Listen, there's a lynching going on in Durham. And the FBI
knows about it. And it won't do a thing because the guys
are white.

Isn't that disriminatory? Doesn't that make them accessories to a hate crime?

Write your congressman. Force the FBI and the rest of the federal government to enforce the principle of equal rights for all. Since when did you stop being citizens whose civil rights were protected by federal agencies, just because you were the unpopular color of the month?


"E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.

E-mails will be forwarded to the responsible Department of Justice component for appropriate handling."

Criminal section of the Justice Dept. Civil Rights Division
(an email sent to the Justice Dept., directed ATTN: to one of the following, might get a better response.

Assist. Atty General Wan Kim

Chief
Mark Kappelhoff

Principal Deputy Chief
David Allred

Deputy Chiefs

Bobbi Bernstein
Kenneth Gibson
Robert Moossy

Special Legal Counsel

Barry F. Kowalski

Start rocking the boat. Make all the officials in Washington aware that the public has an issue it wants dealt with.

[TommyDale]

Now everyone can just do a right click and save it:

[maggief]

From the N & O:

Jason Scully-Clemmons, an assistant district attorney before entering private practice last year, said an obvious key difference between the lacrosse case and the famous California trial is that the races of the accused and the alleged victim are reversed, blunting any accusation the white police officers were prejudiced against those they were investigating. However, media reports may influence potential jurors to be skeptical of the professionalism of the detectives at the center of the prosecution's case, he said.

True, the races are reversed but the police officers prejudice may also include a hatred of Yankees. The racial slurs hurled at the line cook tarnish the PO's badges but their are other aspects to their behavior; drunkenness, anger, intimidation, aggressiveness, bullying, etc. This will not play well given the appearance of witness intimidation but the LAX investigators.

[maggief]

LOL

Indentify all Durham Police Officers partying at Blinco's!

[CondorFlight]

Dean of the Duke University Law School
(Is this why they are all so silent??)

bartlett@law.duke.edu

Katharine T. Bartlett, A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law, became Dean of the Law School on January 1, 2000. She teaches family law, gender and law, and contracts. She has written and lectured extensively on topics in family law, including child custody and non-traditional families. Her article on non-exclusive parenthood published in the Virginia Law Review in 1984 is a classic on issues of parenthood when the law's premise of the nuclear family has failed.

(SNIP)

Dean Bartlett is also an expert in the law as it relates to women and has published articles in gender theory, employment law, theories of social change, and legal education. Her article on feminist legal methods, published in the Harvard Law Review in 1990, is one of the most often cited law review articles on any subject. She is the author of Gender and Law: Theory, Doctrine, Commentary (Aspen, 4th ed. 2006) (with Deborah Rhode), and a reader, Feminist Legal Theory: Readings in Law and Gender (Westview 1991) (with Rosanne Kennedy).

[maggief]

but=by

[JLS]

One article said that there was ANOTHER group of Durham Police officers at the Bar that did NOT know this other group was there.

Yeah I saw it too and agree this is not creditable or a poor useage of the pronoun/anticedent relationship. I guess there could be in the parking lot todo rather than the bar as normal reader of English would take it to be.

You could be in the bar and not about the altercation going on out side in the parking lot. It is hard to believe that unless you and a fellow officer were there hiding in a corner say to avoid your spouses knowing you were meeting that one group of DPD would not know the other way in a bar. And it suggest poor police skills. You would think that people who look out for and investigate crime for a living would be MORE aware of their surroundings than others.

[TommyDale]

"Durham TV station WTVD reported late Monday that Raleigh police were questioning two other Durham police officers in connection with the case. One of them was said to have been put on administrative duty and the other reportedly was in the process of leaving the department before the incident occurred."

Last paragraph: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-755378.html

[maggief]

We need names, dammit! ;)

[TommyDale]

Well, you know how these reporters are here! They use such descriptive words as "A" and "The". LOL!

[maggief]

http://www.wral.com/news/9569318/detail.html


Duke AD's Son Charged In Boating Accident To Appear In Court
J.D. Alleva Charged With OWI; Joe Alleva Injured In Accident

POSTED: 5:00 am EDT July 25, 2006
UPDATED: 7:16 am EDT July 25, 2006

[Carolinamom]

Heat Puts MySpace Down Part of Weekend

[maggief]

Heat?

From the C. Destine Couch's towel image? (see tagline)

[Carolinamom]

LOL! I thought the same thing.