Almost every time Mike Nifong speaks publicly about the lacrosse case, he digs himself a deeper hole. Such is the fate, I suppose, of a prosecutor who built his case upon a tissue of procedural violations.
From today’s Herald-Sun: Friends of Durham spokesperson David Smith, whose group interviewed the two candidates for district attorney plus write-in spoiler Steve Monks, reported, “We asked Mike Nifong, and one of his comments was that he’s the only one that’s interviewed this [alleged] victim.” Of course, that remark doesn’t correspond to what Nifong affirmed to the court in September, when he claimed that at the only documented case-related meeting between the accuser and the D.A., the accuser was too “traumatized” to speak about the case.
So, the revised Nifong party line appears to be: he “interviewed” the accuser, but the interview didn’t in any way involve the facts of the case. That tale is fanciful even by Nifong’s advanced standards.
From today’s N&O article by Benjamin Niolet: “Nifong said all the facts of the case will be revealed only at the trial.”
There’s only one problem with that statement:
In the Niolet interview, Nifong also lashed out at Duke Students for an Ethical Durham—producing the remarkable event of a county’s “minister of justice” condemning a group whose sole purpose is to register voters.
According to its website, DSED has four guiding principles:
- All Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, have a fundamental right to due process.
- Principles of due process--and of basic fairness-- mean that Duke students should be treated according to the same city procedures that apply to all residents of
. Durham residents and Duke students alike deserve a district attorney who rigorously follows all provisions of the North Carolina State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct. Durham County
- Duke students can best advance these goals by registering to vote and actively participating in the local political process.
Hat tip: J.S.