Defense attorneys are now calling into question the tactics and experience of a lead investigator in the Duke lacrosse case.
Linwood Wilson, the only current full-time investigator for Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, has drawn criticism from lawyers who challenge Wilson's investigative methods and his pivotal interview with the alleged victim.
Joe Cheshire-defense attorney for indicted men's lacrosse player David Evans, Trinity '06-said the information Wilson retrieved from interviews with witnesses has a pattern of contradicting the information provided in previous statements.
Several defense lawyers said new information obtained by Wilson in interviews often paralleled the direction sought by Nifong in the case.
"All investigators are supposed to provide objective information to the lawyers that they're working with, and if you have an investigator that does not do that then justice is not served," Cheshire said. "In this case it seems that the boss did not want objective information."
In December, Wilson conducted the interview in which the alleged victim changed the timeline of the alleged attack and her account of the incident.
Nifong's decision to drop rape charges against the three indicted players emanated from a 19-word side comment in the handwritten notes of Wilson from the interview in which the alleged victim said a penis was not involved in the alleged attack, defense attorneys said.
In recent weeks, lawyers have also questioned the arrest of the taxicab driver on an old warrant that Wilson found.
"I think we've made it pretty clear what we think about the work that Mr. Wilson has done to this point," Cheshire said. "If we have to litigate it, we will."
Wilson's background, hiring
Wilson had been retired eight years when Nifong hired him in December 2004 to investigate fraudulent checks as the "worthless check program coordinator."
Wilson began his career as an investigator for the Durham Police Department in 1971. He moved to private investigation in 1979, and remained there until he retired 19 years later.
According to his file, as a private investigator Wilson was investigated under suspicion of an illegal wiretap and provided false information on the witness stand 20 years ago. In addition, several complaints and formal inquiries were filed against Wilson during his time as an investigator for the DPD and in private practice.
Wilson was charged with the violation of a regulation when he did not disclose information to a client.
"I don't have to explain it," Wilson told The Chronicle, referring to the suspicions against him. "They found no violation."
Howard Newman, assistant district attorney in Greensboro, N.C., said a history like Wilson's would not necessarily deter a candidate from being hired. Newman said, however, that he would be skeptical about the candidate's credentials.
Nifong was unable to be reached after repeated attempts for comment on the content of this article. He did not comment on why he decided to hire Wilson.
Wilson's experience on the job
During his first four months in Nifong's office, Wilson fully investigated one capital murder charge, said Candy Clark, administrative assistant to Nifong.
Wilson began looking into the Duke lacrosse case in coordination with DPD in April while another employee held the position of Nifong's full-time investigator.
Wilson told The Chronicle the Duke lacrosse case was, at most, the fifth rape case in his entire career.
Wilson's first major involvement included his discovery of a three-year-old warrant for the arrest of Moezeldin Elmostafa, the cab driver who drove indicted player Reade Seligmann March 13, the night of the alleged assault.
"I think the arrest of the cab driver, well, I would put the word 'interesting' on that, and you can read into that what you want," Cheshire said.
Robert Ekstrand, a lawyer who represented 35 lacrosse players last spring, said he believes there is a possibility the arrest was used as a scare tactic.
"It would put a reasonable person in his shoes in fear," Ekstrand said. "That person would be more afraid and certainly would feel it was because he told his story."
The role of DAs' investigators
Nifong promoted Wilson to a full-time investigator Oct. 1, according to public records. Wilson's new position included an increase of salary and involvement in investigations for Nifong's office.
"Nifong said in October that Wilson was basically one of the lead investigators," said Jim Cooney, defense attorney for Seligmann. "He was certainly one of the primary investigators in the case since mid-summer."
The lead investigator for the lacrosse case, Benjamin Himan, employed by DPD, confirmed that he and Wilson collaborated. Himan would not comment, however, on the work either he or Wilson completed for the case.
Clark said Wilson assists the district attorneys, finds victims and witnesses and goes to murder scenes to "observe and take notes."
Wilson was unavailable to comment on specific aspects related to his work practices.
Defense lawyers said the tasks Wilson completed go further than the roles other district attorneys' investigators usually do.
Investigators for district attorneys normally are charged with locating witnesses and victims and bringing them to court, several districts attorneys said.
"Police are trying to investigate crimes much more generally," said Richard Myers, assistant professor of law at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law. "DAs' investigators often have more specific tasks."
Each office can, however, use its investigators in different capacities, said Howard Newman, assistant district attorney in Greensboro, N.C.
"They don't actually for the most part investigate, but they're called investigators," Newman said. "We don't send them out to reinvestigate."
Nifong's choice for investigator
At an Oct. 27 hearing for the lacrosse case Nifong disclosed DNA evidence, which could not prove physical contact between the alleged assailants and the alleged victim.
Nifong said at the time that neither he nor his office planned on speaking with the alleged victim until they were near the trial date.
"I have not had any conversations at all with her about the facts of the night, because I don't need to do that right now," Nifong said at the October hearing. "I am not preparing to try this case next week."
Wilson, however, had a follow-up interview with the alleged victim Dec. 21, at which point a trial date had not been set-premature for a usual timeline of a trial, Ekstrand said.
"When the district attorney wanted somebody to go take [the alleged victim's] account again or revisit it again, he did not ask the lead investigator, Ben Himan, who was the lead investigator from the beginning and is still on the case," Ekstrand said. "Given the radical departures from the original statement, it sure would have been useful to have the lead investigator who took that first statement... conduct that follow-up interview."
Compared to Wilson's self-admitted, minimal experience with rape cases, Himan said he has specific training for his position and a speciality in violent crimes.
The pivotal interview
Wilson's handwritten and typed notes are the sole account of the Dec. 21 interview with the alleged victim.
Within the conversation, the woman recanted her story, altered the description of her alleged assailants and used their real names, according to Wilson's notes.
The side comment in the handwritten notes discussed the uncertainty about what was allegedly inserted into the alleged victim.
"Not 100% sure penis was object in her, but felt sharp pain," Wilson wrote in his notes. Another offshoot to that comment added, "Felt like she believes it was a penis."
In Wilson's typed statement of the interview, there are details not present in his handwritten notes. The typed notes indicate that the alleged victim was bent over and had an obstructed view of her alleged assailants during the alleged attack-an account not present in Wilson's handwritten statement.
Had Wilson recorded the interview, many uncertainties, including the side note, would have been eliminated, Ekstrand said.
"[Audio-recording] resolves so many questions," Ekstrand said. "Consider just for a moment the multitude of questions we have about what transpired in the conversation between Mr. Wilson and the accuser that produced his written report."
He added that the interview provided explanations for aspects of the case that had, until Dec. 21, been unexplained.
"Look at what the product [of the interview] was-the product wasn't a statement," Ekstrand said. "It seemed more of a hodgepodge of facts that was basically kind of an unconnected set of assertions that seemed to be trying to address enormous holes in the case."
Iza Wojciechowska contributed to this article.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.