Thanks, I missed it ... I would have remembered reading it.
This is the brother-in-law?
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:xpeC7nSpYhoJ:www.newsobserver.com/122/story/429338.html+%22diamond+girls%22+durham+owner&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a
The episode started at the Diamond Girls club on Angier Avenue in Durham. According to Larry W. Jones, the owner of Diamond Girls, the woman appeared at the club that night and "tried out," giving lap dances to a few men.
My apologies. I'm getting my information mixed up. George Williams is the ARCHITECT of the proposed place, Jones is the owner, and City Councilan Howard is the brother-in-law of Williams. Still a connection to city/county government, and still an unethical conflict of interest.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1647375/posts?page=650#636
In reference to City MGR's Baker's brother in law.
Read the court transcript from the first setting. You have very serious crimes and the handling of that case and the Judge spends most of the time discussing the privacy regarding the phone! It doesn't look. There is an inordinate amount of concern for the privacy of the phone owner or others that called or were called from those phones.
STEPHENS: All right. I'll hear you, then, on -- have you at least had a chance to look at his request? As far as his notice, whatever his notice.....
NIFONG: I have, your honor.
OSBORN: On May 2nd, I delivered to Mr. Nifong a proposed order regarding the seized cellular telephone that is property of the complainant in this case. It's important to get experts access to that phone immediately, and HOPEFULLY THE PHONE HAS NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH. But if we don't get an expert to it who knows what he's doing, the evidence in that phone can be lost. And it's important to do it immediately.
There's an affidavit from our expert attached to our motion setting forth why it is necessary to get to that phone. We certainly would be willing to have our expert and an expert from the state meet and do that together or --- but anyway, it needs to be done. The phone needs to be charged. We need to get the phone number, we need to find the service provider.
And all of the other information is in the phone itself. And that was carried by the complainant that night. It was canceled, the service provider was canceled the next day. So we need to get the number, if we can get access to the call detail sheets of the service provider. And that would enable us to see who she was talking with that day.
(snip)
NIFONG: I would wonder what evidence he thinks that he's entitled to would be on that telephone.
(snip)
****MY COMMENTS: Earlier it sure sounds like Stephens has no knowledge of evidence. It's the first setting, why would he? Nifong doesn't. Police experts don't. BUT, read on:
STEPHENS: Well, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING that this may be a phone that actually was a third party's phone or could -- or was it -- do you know whether or not it was her cell phone or ...
NIFONG: I do not know right off hand.
****MY COMMENTS: We are supposed to believe that in the biggest case of Nifong's life, he doesn't know fundmental information about critical evidence in the case? Remember, Nifong filed an order, a critical request with the NC SBI to get the DNA testing placed ahead of all other testing in the entire State. It was granted. But, his own people don't take the time to find out if it's the Victim's phone or
a Pimp's that was drug running in Nifong's Durham. Or he didn't wonder if she had called another
group (post rape time) and verified that she would be there for a 3:00 am bachelor party and that all that would come out and bite him in the National Media?
Read on - Stephens already KNOWS about the phone; remember Nifong says HE DOESN'T KNOW
STEPHENS: So we may have third, or fourth parties who have some privacy interest in this themselves.
NIFONG: Conceivably.
STEPHENS: Whatever comes from this, the court would like to review that in chambers to make sure that, frankly, something that should not -- has no reason to be made public unless there's some need for it or some legitimate reason for it to protect the interests, privacy interests of others who are not involved in this.
(snip)
STEPHENS: But they'll be -- I want a protective order in regards to that information that would protect the contents of it, as far as being released in any way other than to the court.
(snip)
STEPHENS: Right, but based on my comments today, I want to make sure that you, again, there's a -- it includes protective order for ...
****MY COMMENTS: You can read it, but it seems like an inordinate concern for the Privacy of the phone data when such serious crimes are before the court.
One final quote near the end, and I think this is unusual in official court proceedings:
OSBORN: Well we just want to make sure, your honor, that all of the things that have been generated be preserved and that we get a chance to see them pursuant to statute, we're entitled to look through all of the law enforcement files and we just WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING DISAPPEARS.
And I think you can assure that with your order that nothing be destroyed.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/18/lol.03.html