Tuesday, December 26, 2006

The Meehan Transcript

Today’s post begins with a multiple choice quiz.

Mike Nifong waited until December 21 to have a representative from his office speak to the accuser about her recollections of March 13-14 because:

a.) Using his skills as an amateur psychologist, Nifong determined that it would take no fewer than 281 days for the accuser to overcome her “traumatized” mindset about the evening’s events.

b.) Nifong feared that acting anytime sooner could be interpreted as questioning the report of Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, whose ability to recall months-before conversations verbatim is legendary.

c.) Based on his experience as an investigator, Nifong needed multiple conversations with the accuser about her children to determine whether she was credible enough to speak about the night in question.

d.) Nifong was panicked by the December 15 in-court revelation of his conspiracy to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence, and dispatched Linwood Wilson to order the accuser to come up with a version of events that would minimize the significance of the DNA results.

Those who answered (a), (b), or (c): I hear that positions (as unpaid interns, due to resource limitations) are available at the Herald-Sun. Bob Ashley is always looking for new talent.

The transcript of Dr. Meehan’s stunning testimony at the December 15 hearing is now available. Below are some quotes that I suspect we will encounter again before this case ends. Undoubtedly all of these quotes were on Nifong’s mind as he decided to manipulate the evidence again, dropping the rape charges but keeping the others.

---------

Nifong offers the first of what would become three explanations as to his role in concealing the DNA test results.

MR. NIFONG. The first that I heard of this particular situation was when I was served with these reports—this motion on Wednesday of this week . . . The nature of the subject matter contained in this motion is obviously very important. I contacted Dr. Meehan. First, I faxed him a copy of the motion for him to read and then I contacted him the next morning, which would have been yesterday morning, and told him that because of the nature of the items that were raised, I did feel it was appropriate to address these right away. (pp. 14-15)

---------

MR. NIFONG. The state agrees that these are matters of importance to the case. They are items of importance because it’s crucial that everybody have access to all of the evidence in this case. (p. 16)

---------

Nifong, of course, has since retracted these statements—made in open court—and claimed first that privacy concerns and then the distraction from overwork explained why he entered into an agreement to conceal evidence.

Dr. Meehan, meanwhile, opened his testimony by challenging the defense interpretations of the DNA data. If there weren’t, in fact, multiple male DNA samples, there could be no conspiracy to conceal. Unfortunately, the doctor quickly discovered that Brad Bannon had mastered the data, and had to “modify” his initial denial that the testing revealed several males other than lacrosse players and the accuser’s three acknowledged sexual partners.

DR. MEEHAN. Unless I’m reading [the defense motion] incorrectly, it says that DNA from multiple male sources was discovered on the rectal swabs, panties in the rape kit. And if that’s read to mean that each one of those specimens had DNA from multiple males, it would be incorrect. (p. 20)

---------

MR. BANNON. And those male characteristics—if I’m not correct, please tell me if I’m not—indicate that there’s more than one male’s DNA there; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And all of those DNA characteristics were compared to all of the reference suspects’ swabs in this case; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That is also correct.

MR. BANNON. And there was not a match to anyone; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes, that is correct.

MR. BANNON. Including the defendants?

DR. MEEHAN. Right, that’s correct. Didn’t match anyone. (p. 35)

---------

Dr. Meehan’s most novel claim came in his assertion that he failed to report the exculpatory evidence because of privacy concerns. He repeatedly struggled to explain the relationship, however, between the concealment of evidence and privacy matters. This stance would form Nifong’s second justification for withholding the DNA results, but even the district attorney eventually would abandon it to cite overwork as his justification.

MR. BANNON. Let me ask you, whose privacy would it have violated if you had simply reported the male DNA characteristics found on multiple rape kit items from multiple different males who you didn’t have reference swabs for? Whose privacy would it violate?

DR. MEEHAN. That, that wouldn’t have violated anybody’s privacy. (p. 61)

---------

MR. COONEY. I want to make sure I’m understanding this. You were concerned that if you put a sentence in your report saying that Reade Seligmann is excluded from all DNA analyzed under these items as a sentence in your report, that would have violated his privacy rights? . . .

DR. MEEHAN. I can’t answer with a yes or no . . . A typical report, and this was not a typical report, but a standard report will reflect all the DNA profiles of that, all the DNA data from that information, from that person . . . So could we have said that? Could we have done that? Yes, perhaps we could have.

---------

Dr. Meehan offered what could be termed unusual definitions of what constituted a final report; and what should be considered exculpatory evidence.

MR. BANNON: The final report of your work in this case?

DR. MEEHAN. It’s the report we issued on May 12.

MR. BANNON. Well, have you issued any other report in this case?

DR. MEEHAN. No.

WITNESS: Could I get a drink of water, Mike?

MR. NIFONG: Yes, sir. [pp. 22-23]

---------

MR. BANNON. Do you know what exculpatory evidence is?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes.

MR. BANNON. What is exculpatory evidence?

DR. MEEHAN. It’s evidence that would provide information that would release a person as a suspect, so to speak in lay terms. Evidence to indicate that you were not party to that.

MR. BANNON. So it’s evidence that tends to negate the guilt of a person charged with a crime; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. You understood this case to be a rape case, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. You understood it to be a case where the allegation was that a person had been raped by multiple males?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And that those males had not been wearing condoms?

DR. MEEHAN. I don’t remember if I knew that or not.

MR. BANNON. Of course, why—the point being you were testing for the presence of DNA from males, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. Right, right. But it could have been one person wearing a condom and one person not.

MR. BANNON. Okay. But you knew, you were testing for the presence of male DNA because a rape allegation had been made?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. Correct?

DR. MEEHAN. Correct.

MR. BANNON. And you found male DNA from multiple different sources on those rape kit items, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. Wouldn’t that tend to negate the guilt of the person who is charged with raping someone?

DR. MEEHAN. You know what? We—no. (pp. 62-63)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. We were asked to determine if any of the evidence items match any of the reference specimens or really, can we exclude any of these reference? Who can we exclude in this reference group? That’s what we do. We exclude suspects. (p. 37)

---------

MR. COONEY. I’ve just got a couple more questions, Dr. Meehan. Is that one notebook in front of you or two notebooks?

DR. MEEHAN. This is one.

MR. COONEY. About how high is that? Six inches? Five inches?

DR. MEEHAN. Yeah, five or six inches.

MR. COONEY. Five or six inches. And those represent the underlying data that was produced by you on October 27, 2006?

DR. MEEHAN. As well as chain of custody documentation and stuff, yes.

MR. COONEY. And in order for Reade Seligmann or Collin Finnerty or Dave Evans to have found the results of the tests that excluded them, they needed to go through those six inches of paper to find them; isn’t that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That is correct.

MR. COONEY. Because you hadn’t put them in the report; is that fair?

DR. MEEHAN. That is fair. (pp. 85-86)

---------

Privacy, exculpatory evidence, what constitutes a “final report”—these proved to be side issues in the hearing. The central tale: a packed courtroom watched as the conspiracy unraveled and was publicly revealed.

DR. MEEHAN. It is true that we did not release the full profiles of all the players in this case. And I did that after discussions with Mike Nifong because of concerns about getting those profiles out into the public media. (p. 23)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. Now, had the client himself, Mr. Nifong, or through him, you, would request that additional information, we would gladly supply it. (p. 24)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. But if it were a full profile and did not match any of the evidentiary—any of the reference specimens, our client, Mr. Nifong, specifically wanted us to, he wanted to know does any, do any of the reference specimens match any of the evidence. And that’s the report that we gave him. (p. 30)

---------

MR. BANNON. So you find in a rape case where male DNA is found on multiple items from a rape kit not probative evidence?

MR. NIFONG. Objection, argumentative. He’s explained.

THE COURT. Overruled.

DR. MEEHAN. No, that’s not a general rule, okay. This report was a specific report at the request and in discussions with Mr. Nifong that we would report only specimens that matched evidence items. (pp. 59-60)

---------

MR. BANNON. But of course, you discussed [with Mr. Nifong] all the results of your tests?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes.

MR. BANNON. Correct?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes.

MR. BANNON. But you only wrote a report about some of those pieces of evidence, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And is that because Mr. Nifong told you to write the report that way?

DR. MEEHAN. I don’t think he told me specifically to write it that way. I think we were in agreement that the alternative would have been, as I said earlier, to produce names and profiles of everybody in the case. (p. 60)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. Mr. Nifong agreed with me that it was okay to do this. (p. 61)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. Mr. Nifong agreed that it was okay to report the evidence items and reference items that matched.

MR. BANNON. But at the same time, he knew that there were male DNA characteristics on some of those rape kit items that didn’t match reference swabs, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. I would have to assume that he did know that, right. (p. 61)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. We limited the scope of this report to only that evidence that, in my words, in my terms, was probative. All right. That being the evidence, as it says on the report, that matches suspects to evidence. (pp. 64-65)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. We would be glad to provide a more thorough report, a report of every single profile upon the request of our client as was indicated on this report. Explicitly says this information was retained pending notification of the client. So, and Mr. Nifong is our client and had he said, “Listen, I want a report on everything,” that’s what we would produce. (p. 65)

---------

MR. BANNON. You didn’t include the results for each DNA test in your report dated May 12; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. So you violated this protocol of your own lab?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And you violated this protocol of your own lab because the district attorney told you to; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. No. It’s not just because the district attorney told me to. [emphasis added] (p. 66)

--------

DR. MEEHAN. We agreed with Mr. Nifong that we would report just the stuff that matched so that it would, so the report was limited in its scope. However, it’s not a – and by the letter of the law, by the letter of the wording of the standard, you’re [Brad Bannon] absolutely correct. It diverges from the letter of that standard, okay. (p. 66)

--------

MR. COONEY. And as of the date you wrote your report, were representatives of the State of North Carolina aware that none of the DNA you had found matched Reade Seligmann?

DR. MEEHAN. I believe so. (pp. 83-84)

---------

MR. COONEY. [Was Nifong] aware that all the testing that you had done excluded Reade Seligmann with a hundred percent scientific certainty as of the date you wrote your report?

DR. MEEHAN. I believe so. (p. 84)

---------

MR. COONEY. If you had been requested by representatives of the State of North Carolina at any time after May 12 to prepare a report reporting on the results of all of your tests and examinations, would you have done so?

DR. MEEHAN. Certainly. (p. 86)

---------

MR. COONEY. Did your report set forth the results of all of the tests and examinations that you conducted in this case?

DR. MEEHAN. No. It was limited to only some results.

MR. COONEY. Okay. And that was an intentional limitation arrived at between you and representatives of the State of North Carolina not to report on the results of all examinations and tests that you did in this case?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes. (p. 85)

---------

Mike Nifong maintains that the exchanges above had nothing to do with his abrupt decision to depart from his eight-month precedent and send Linwood Wilson to interview the accuser; and then to use that interview to drop the rape charges. It’s all a coincidence, suggests the district attorney.

He must hope that the court is as gullible as Dr. Meehan.

[The full transcript of the December 15 hearing is here.]

57 comments:

bill anderson said...

What we read is what the ancients once called criminal conspiracy. My guess is that Nifong figured he never would be caught, or one of the judges would cover for him.

I simply do not believe Judge Smith is going to be gullible. Now, he might not pronounce summary judgment on Nifong, with him to be sent directly to the gallows (oh, we do wish....), but I think he will do something that will put this case out of its misery and put Nifong into more misery.

I am of the belief that if Nifong actually were to get this thing into a court of law, the evidence he would put up (if one can call it evidence) would be so sloppy, so pathetic, and so unconvincing that he actually would face more condemnation that he will face if he simply punts now. There really is no more rolling of the dice here. There are no more weapons in the arsenal.

Anonymous said...

Bill: What has Judge Smith done for you to have faith in him?

Anonymous said...

If Nifong get a pass from the US Attorney on this clear conspiracy, won't it be ironic Bill Anderson given the abusive way US attorneys sometime use conspiracy charges against other targets?

JLS

Anonymous said...

WOW KC - The conspiracy is obvious when reading the transcript. I doubt that Stephens or Titus would have overuled Nifongs objections.
Putting things over on Bannon and Cooley not as easy as traffic pleas. I have more faith in Smith.

Chris said...

Excellent write-up as always, continuing to expose this "case" for what it is, a hoax.

Anonymous said...

KC,

I have been following this case since the beginning. We've known these boys were being railroaded. We knew it was bad. But this is unbelievable!! It's utterly outrageous and horribly frightening! What is going on in Durham!?!!

And yet, there is no pot banging, no candlelight vigils, no rallies. There are murmurs, rumblings but little outrage with the exception of the bloggers. Why aren't people demanding to know how many others have been railroaded by the North Carolina justice system?

Though we live in a different state, one of my children is being recruited by UNC. I think we will stay far away from North Carolina.

Thank you again KC. You, liestoppers, JiNC and the others are combating this evil and your relentless quest for justice is working!

Anonymous said...

KC

Is the transcript available online, KC?

Gotta love this!!:

MR. COONEY. Because you hadn’t put them in the report; is that fair?

DR. MEEHAN. That is fair. (pp. 85-86)


Meehan seems to disagree with Ashley's Cliffnotes comment...

roper said...

Mike Nifong is an outrageous liar.

And Bob Ashley is a hopeless dunce, unable to see the truth immediately before his face.

Duke president Richard Brodhead must swing the entire weight of Duke University behind the active, ongoing, insistent DEMAND that Nifong withdraw in favor of an independent prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

There is not very much point to quoting a transcript or page numbers from there if you do not provide a way or method for others to verify that your quotations are correct, are not out of context, and are not refuted or clarified by other parts of the transcript. Thus, either point to the full transcript, or don't quote excerpts in a way that suggests they are probative.

Anonymous said...

It evinces poor professional and academic standards for a self-proclaimed "historian" to quote from a supposed "transcript" without giving any indicia whatsoever of where he saw this "transcript"; of how it can be checked; of its provenance; of who created it; and so on.

The more this Duke case plays out, the more incompetent and duplicitous academics come across.

Anonymous said...

KC has not once misquoted a line of anything about this case--give me a break and admit that this case is a HOAX and a railroading job by Nifong and his Durham buddies.

Anonymous said...

I don't have any faith in Judge Smith. It appears corruption is a prerequisite for becoming a judge in NC.
What I do have faith in, is Judge Smith's desire to save his own behind.
Smith knows that this case is likely to be investigated by various people and agencies and Nifong is beyond saving.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer: based on what we know about Nifong's attempt to hide exculpatory DNA evidence, what other exculpatory evidence might have been covered up by Nifong and his cronies?

E said...

KC has done more than enough to earn my trust that this transcript it accurately portrayed. Claiming otherwise seems like swinging in the wind.

Anon at 3:34 said:
"Why aren't people demanding to know how many others have been railroaded by the North Carolina justice system?"

Precisely my question also.

I think that Nifong is a dangerous character who seems to feel above the law. KC has rooted out numerous examples of Nifong's incompetance/hatred. Take your pick which one or both.

My larger concern and question is "What is it that allows Nifong to do what he has been doing, get the support of the Judiciary, the media, Brodhead and the faculty of Duke and many others?" Yes Nifong is a dangerous man but what is the fuel that allows this? My guess is that it is the invisible yet all pervading cultural misandry that permeates the air we breathe. Most are unable to see it but anyone viewing the history of this case should be able to see how the "powers that be" have a markedly diminished concern for the rights and well being of men than they have for the rights and well being of women. This is not some commie plot. This has been developing in our evolution for a long time and in some ways has been tied to our survival as a species. In a nutshell women are biologically and socially "encouraged" to care for families and the children while men are "encouraged" to provide and protect the women and children. (Note that there is not a third gender to care for the men) This has left both men and women in very rigid sex roles for centuries. We have started to release women from their sex role strait jackets but have done nothing similar for men.

My apologies for the thread drift. It is a great concern to me that we identify the underlying dynamics that have driven this atrocity. If we don't then we are doomed to see the same thing pop up again and again.

Legalizing Misandry

AMac said...

anonymous 7:57am and "anonymous" 8:00am --

You both point out--anon 8:00am with "scare quotes"--that KC Johnson hasn't linked the transcript.

There is an obvious, innocent explanation: that it isn't online, yet.

You, however, imply that Johnson is spinning or distorting with his quotes.

Johnson's record to this point: one of consistency in quoting accurately and in providing proper context (reasonable commenters have taken issue with his interpretations, which is another matter entirely).

Your record: anonymous smears without substantiation.

Got Milk?

Richard said...

Anonymous 7:57/8:00

I've heard of grasping at straws, but this is ridiculous. No matter what is in the rest of the transcript there is no way to spin what was said by Dr. Meehan as being anything but proof they he and Mr. Nifong engaged in a criminal conspiracy to hide exculpatory evidence.

Anonymous said...

The transcript is a public record, referenced by the known date of the hearing. If it is misquoted, evervybody will know. The transcript is not a stone with Mayan writing that you have to take KC's word about. Come on, that is stupid beyond belief.

Additionally, knucklehead, that is how transcripts are cited in legal documents, by the date of the heaing. KC left out thep age numbers but is that really your issue.

Anonymous said...

Actually, KC did use page numbers, so he cited precisely as he should and knucklehead can go look it up as soon as the transcript is on line.

bill anderson said...

I guess the 7:57 and 8:00 poster (likely the same person) had not had his coffee yet.

I have read some shots taken against K.C. on this page, but this one really wins the door prize for Fong-enabling. Yeah, yeah, K.C. created the transcript out of whole cloth, which was a pretty amazing fete, since it seems to correspond with what I read a while back of Meehan's testimony.

Anyone who is willing to read three hours of back-and-forth dialog (and does not receive the lawyer's fee) is pretty brave. There was NOTHING wrong in what K.C. did, but there was plenty wrong in that nonsensical set of comments.

Also, my "faith" in Smith is not based on anything but the fact that the evidence is quite clear that Nifong has engaged in a conspiracy to hide evidence, and then has tried to cover up his actions.

Now, I realize he has not told as many accounts of his actions as Crystal has told. Nifong on has given three mutually-exclusive stories, while Crystal is in double figures, so The Fong has a way to go before he catches up with his dubious client. However, one cannot fault him on effort.

Judges tend to defer to prosecutors, which is a disease in our body politic. (But most average citizens also defer to prosecutors, which is one reason they get away with crime after crime.) In most circumstances, judges go on the assumption that prosecutors are telling the truth; it is like the judges in prelminary hearings almost always believing that whatever the police offer says is true.

However, Nifong has so blown his cover that no one else, save Wendy Murphy and the NAACP, wants to try to climb back in bed with him, and both afore-mentioned entities are not so much pro-Fong as they are desperate to have these young men convicted. Murphy hates men (and most women, too, for that matter) and the NAACP hates whites.

But Nifong's recent actions are so bad that many of his former supporters are running for cover, so the network that usually would give him the CYA coverage he desperately needs, is gone. This is one of those rare occasions in which a judge will not be paying a political price for bringing the hammer down on a corrupt prosecutor.

Judge Horton of Scottsboro Boys fame was voted out of office for standing up to the prosecutor. He paid a real price, although Horton went to his grave with absolutely no regrets. Smith does not even have to face angry voters if he shows the Fong the door. In fact, if he were to keep this pathetic set of charges on life support, it is likely he would face a serious electoral challenge, since Durham is not in his voting coverage area.

That is why I am optimistic. The "old boy" network that covered Fong's posterior these past nine months has kicked this guy out of the "Old Boys Club."

Thus, I am optimistic not because I think Smith is the Second Coming of Judge Horton, but rather because it will be politically useful for him to Stand Up for Justice. That is a rare occasion in American Jurisprudence, so I think Smith will take advantage of his good fortune.

Anonymous said...

Nifong and his crew have received a presumption of innocence from the media and the original judges for all the suspicious activities--

The arrest of the cabdriver, just a coincidence

The Gottlieb notes


The evidence presented to the grand jury

The failure to interview the fa (alleged failure)

The destruction of the tapes


the delay in turning over discovery material


the refusal to talk to the defense counsel


the multiple false statements, including the now openly false statement that there is "medical evidence" of a rape (the dismissal motion retracted that statement)


The decision to violate line-up procedures and the assumption that the transcript and video completely covered the false line-up


Once the presumption of innocence is gone, all of this looks like what it really is, an ongoing conspiracy to violate civil rights.

KC Johnson said...

To the 7.57/8.00:

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the workings of the court system, so allow me to explain.

In most criminal proceedings, a court reporter produces an official transcript. That transcript usually appears several days after the session itself, and can be obtained as part of the court file. It is a public document.

I hope this answers any questions you might have regarding the document's provenance.

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

Another thing to keep in mind regarding Nifong dropping charges is that he did it while Duke Students were on Christmas break, effectively eliminating the chance of a protest of sorts to encourage him to drop the rest of the charges. All the kids were out of town.

The Dude said...

OH! the shame of finding out you were played for a fool!

Nifong sat at the Pros. table reading papers while Meehan was testifying. What could possibly been so important? Maybe he was prepping the Quad murder case. Busy guy.

Nifong and his imbecilic Investigators who could find their own ass when the toilet paper breaks. Has anyone in Durham ever heard the phrase "time is of the essence!" Maybe we can question the Victim AFTER the trial. What a bunch of idiots. KC has them pegged the whole time. Now the apologists are trying a spin dance that defies logic.
I am glad the three accussed are given some encouragement but don't put anything past the Good Ole Boy system. There is a lot at stake. I see the same excuse everyday in the NJ court system. They were sloopy! They are too busy. Bullshit. Nifong sits on his ass and does nothing. What active role would a Pros. have in a Quad Murder? Even the best would be "on site" acquiring knowledge. Nifong probably hasn't reviewed the file yet. Please keep up this case Mr. Nifong. Every time you speak, the accused obtain more information of your guilt in the systematic civil rights violations in this case. KC and the entire gang have exposed you and your ilk. Now you can stop having family members write as ANON or THE MAN.

KC Johnson said...

The full transcript of the 12-15 hearing is now posted, in the documents section of the sidebar; or at the end of the original post above.

Anonymous said...

How could aomeone in their right mind think he would not get caught? this case is making me THIRSTY !!!! May i have a drink of water Bill?

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer: As I took my extended morning walk today, I couldn't help but think about KC's posting today. In the past, I have thought that Nifong ought to step aside and let a special prosecutor take over the case. But that is not enough now. If Nifong has a scintila of integrity, he needs to resign as DA. Imagine how Nifong's finger prints in other pending cases will undermine these pending cases. Nifong in the NYT's rant mentioned the murder case where he is prosecuting. Having Nifong's name identified with this murder very well give the defendent(s) a get out of jail card. The best defense in any criminal case in Nifong's jurisdiction will be just attack Nifong. Almost any defendent will have more credibility than Nifong does at this point. So Mr. Nifong do the right thing, resign immediately as DA.

bill anderson said...

My sense is that Nifong has been cutting corners for years, as I don't think that he suddenly developed a dishonest character overnight. I would guess that he believed he was covered by all of the "right" political groups in Durham, and none of them seemed to mind that he was being dishonest.

By having a national figure like Nancy Grace covering for him on the tube, and the head of the national association for prosecutors backing him, I think that Nifong believed he was invincible.

As I have said before, Nifong was so sloppy in putting this farce of a case together that I believe there will be much more to come. No, I don't have a pipeline to Joe Cheshire's office, but since this entire case was built on a foundation of sand, Fong had to be stuffing something into the cracks to create the facade of a criminal case. My educated guess is that the rest of that "stuffing" also has a pretty rancid smell to it, and Fong cannot hide it forever.

Anonymous said...

It surely sounds like criminal conspiracy to this reader, also. I agree, too, with Bill how unlikely it is Nutfong just turned bad during the course of the Hoax. No doubt he's always operated this way, and you can imagine the layers of corruption in the Durham justice system that enable such a rat to continue in this mode day after day, month after month, year after year. Durham is a special place, and when the rat Brodhead is driven from Duke, perhaps he and Ashley can get a little place together and just stay on in the Bull---- City since Durham is their's forever now. Thank you, K.C. sic semper tyrannis

Anonymous said...

To Bill,

One other reason Nifong is ony recently exposed is that most criminal cases involve fairly obviously guilty defendants and, those that don't, involve people that very few people care about. As for the "easy" cases, there was not much for Nifong to do wrong that anybody could notice (although reports show obvious mistakes on easy cases) because he had both a guilty defendant and obvious crime. As for the other cases, given that the people involved were of "bad character" as that is defined by society nobody cared. Because crime in Durham is rampant, and most criminals are stupid, Nifong could have many succeses and build up a lot of good will.


As an aside on the criminals are stupid idea, that is usually the last desperate defense of a guilty defendant. Could I have been so stupid as to to leave my wallet at the scene of the crime and so forth. Based on the posters that are still defending Nifong and the few remaining enablers, they appear to be providing Nifong with the classic hopless defense, could he really have been so stupid and arrogant to have tried to get away with this? Yes he could. Like many criminals, the could he have been so stupid defense is a total failure.


to all those remaining enablers, whose numbers are shrinking every day, consider this. Is it really impossible to believe that at least one District Attorney in the country would enagage in a criminal conspiracy to boost his career.

Victim in Massachusetts said...

KC thank you for posting the Dec. 15th hearing. Now that I can see how badly this case has been handled from Nifong's side, I hope he gets everything he has coming to him. That also includes Crystal Gail Mangum.

The two of them will for ever go down in history as the two that destroyed all women that want to come forward.

Now I can see why we are all fighing as hard as we are for true justice.

bill anderson said...

I think that 11:35 makes a very good point. Nifong IS a CRIMINAL. Yes, let me say that word again: CRIMINAL.

Criminals commit crimes, and they generally follow certain patterns of lies, deceit, and contempt for the law.

In that sense, Nifong is no different than many of the "guilty" people he has prosecution. My fervent hope is that the law will deal with him in the way that the law has dealt with other criminals.

Huey Long in a blistering attack on a Ku Klux Klan leader, declared: "When I call him a son-of-a-bitch, I am not using profanity, but rather I am referring to the circumstances of his birth."

Likewise, when I say Nifong is a "criminal," I am not using hyperbole, but rather am referring to the circumstances of his lawbreaking.

Anonymous said...

Let the sun shine .....

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:57/8:00
Your comment calling KC "a self-proclaimed "historian""

What would you "proclaim" a Harvard trained Professor of History?
A Plumber?

Anonymous said...

The Meehan Transcript page 91 shows the following question from Nifong and answer by Meehan:

Q.
Did anybody ever tell you who you were supposed to come up with results of? Who we wanted you to pick?
A.
No. No. That's . . . Yeah.

Yeah means YES! This is a clear, direct answer from Meehan that someone did tell him who he was supposed to come up with results of, who Nifong wanted him to pick out. Why did the defense not jump all over this?

Anonymous said...

what's gonzales's phone # at DOJ?

jc

Anonymous said...

has anyone noticed that the euphemism for stupid, tenured blacks at duke is "leftist"?

i feel sorry for the intelligent leftists

jc

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson really screwed up in his FrontPage interview:

Glazov asked him about rape laws, and he spouted the same old BS.

KC, y didn't u mention changing the laws to accommodate the "needs" of predators like Precious? i gave u all the arguments--r u turning into a manly man?--jeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

major Fup, buddy

jc

Anonymous said...

I read the FP article, and I agree that Professor Johnson gives the impression that there is nothing wrong with the rape laws. I was also bothered by his reference to Susan Estrich, because Estrich would never want to put CGM in prison.

KC Johnson is best at regurgitating facts, not creative analysis.

bill anderson said...

Gotta defend K.C., although he does a good enough job himself. The "rape shield" laws were used because the standard defense in any rape case was "she was asking for it," no matter what the situation.

Unfortunately, rape shield laws often have been used to eliminate real live exculpatory evidence. Fong was hoping to do the same here, and no doubt he would have tried to throw out the fact that she had DNA traces of a number of men in her underwear and, well, elsewhere. And I have no doubt that Wendy Murphy would have supported that.

The real legal issue is whether or not rape is a crime against an individual or a crime against WOMEN. In the first instance, it is a crime as has been historically understood in U.S. law. The second instance makes it a political crime.

Estrich is caught somewhere between the two. K.C. holds it to be the former, and Wendy Murphy has gone whole hog to the latter, as did the Gang of 88.

The Dude said...

12:45 and 1:00
Get a handle on yourself. KC is what he is! it seems to most of us that he is Very Good at what he has been doing with Durham in Wonderland. Singlehandedly taking down nifong for the twit he is.

Nifong relies on Precious. Which one has less brain cells, if any?
Prescious was raped by three people who did not wear condoms. At least one ejaculated in her mouth. Now she can't recall if the object that ejaculated was a Penis or a foreign object(ala wrestling).
Who is "less smart"? The mother of two, with 5 men's DNA on her who doesn't know what a Penis looks like OR the moron DA who believes her.

Anonymous said...

KC~thanks for the link to the court transcript. It was not quite as good as actually being there to see Dr. Meehan and Nifong squirm must have been, but almost.

It seems that Nifong continued his jabs at the defense attorneys when trying to set a date for the next hearing. He rude comment about finding a date for the large number of defense attorneys meant that he might not be alive by the time they could all agree on a common one--that was just so typical of his unprofessional courtroom behavior in this case!

I did enjoy reading his pathetic attempts to object to some of the questioning--the judge overruled him almost every time! I have some hope for this judge!

duke2009mom

Anonymous said...

BA,

have a meeting

i'll get back to u re precious--this is most troubling

jc

Anonymous said...

JC brought a legitimate complaint against Mr Johnson. Why do other posters feel the need to "defend" him? The issues this case addresses--prosecutorial misconduct; incompetent university management; society's failure to protect men from vicious liars; no academic standards for black professors--are far more important than this case itself.

I applaud JC for his courage, even though he's a bit of an ass.

Anonymous said...

Thers a picture of precious on the liestopper dicussion board. She looks like cousin Jackie.

Anonymous said...

have a link for pictures?

can't find them

Anonymous said...

yawwwwzaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

she hot

dark and ugly--and chubby

i gettin a chubby thinkin bout her

she UGLAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Anonymous said...

she's probably a lot fatter now

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting the transcript. I did not mean to suggest that the excerpts were misquoted, and I apologize for the hectoring tone of my post. I only meant that it is a bit frustrating to see people quoting from a transcript which is not reasonably available to others. Your hard work is appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Let's have a Socratic dialogue.

What's the proximate (ie, legal) cause for Precious's lie?

Let's subtitle this: How KC Johnson screwed up his FP interview

jc

Anonymous said...

The proximate cause is that CGM had no reason to fear any kind of punishment from society. Telling those lies to get out of going to jail is a no-brainer, especially one with no values.

Am I right, JC?

the duder

Anonymous said...

Have to agree with the Duder--a big gap in KC's coverage of case is the legal fault line that encourages underclass individuals to "cry rape."

It's definitely one of the most important aspects of case that has not been addressed.

Thanks, Duder.

Dukie '08

emmy said...

"DR. MEEHAN. I can’t answer with a yes or no . . . A typical report, and this was not a typical report, but a standard report will reflect all the DNA profiles of that, all the DNA data from that information, from that person . . . So could we have said that? Could we have done that? Yes, perhaps we could have."

Way to play with innocent young men's lives, Meehan...justifying why you left out the fact that none of the DNA in and on the false accuser matched any of the indicted Lacrosse players. Privacy issues? What a CROCK! Do you sleep well at night? What a disgrace you are...do you always do what "the client" tells you to, even if it can crucify INNOCENT people? Boy, you would have fit right in in Nazi Germany, with that professional philosophy ("just following orders", after all, was their mantra)...

Anonymous said...

emmy, meehan and nifong r coconspirators, a k a, thugs

it's not complicated

speaking of thugs, suggest u visit liestoppers to view CGM's interesting portrait--i'd like to photograph all these thugs: they are all incredibly photogenic

did u read my post on Socratic dialogue?

jc

Anonymous said...

I think this is a pretty funny thread--Meehan, Johnson, Nifong--all troublemakers.

As an historian, Johnson should definitely have examined the reasons women make false accusations--from the legal standpoint.

Long live James Brow.

Dukie

Anonymous said...

hey dukie,

u know, u can apply the same principle to Brodhead:

Why did u fire the coach, Dickie?

What are you afraid of?

Why are you afraid of the 88 crotches?

Let's get down--like Mr Brown--and dig what taboos we're dealing with here.

hey, KC, taboos are part of the historical record, aren't they?

What is Dickie afraid of--what is it?

jc

Anonymous said...

re the duker's comment

I agree that this case would never have existed if Crystal Mangum knew her lies would result in Class 1 felony charges

Sad to say, but society cares more about women--or pretends to

I'm not sure which

Anonymous said...

Is KC Johnson gay? He looks so cute in his bowtie, and his writing is like freebase for the soul.

I think I'm in love.

The Hershey Warrior

PS Do you like candy?