Friday, December 15, 2006

What To Watch For

Given the bombshell motions of the past two days, I suppose anything is possible in today's hearing, although the ostensible subject matter is actually quite limited.

One item that's definitely scheduled to be resolved: the extent of defense access to the accuser's medical records. Defense attorneys hinted at the records' significance in yesterday's motion, noting that the motion could be amended if the judge turns over records that reveal more about the accuser's mental condition.

As I've noted previously, at least some of these early records (the 2005 hospitalization; anything to suggest why UNC doctors considered the accuser at risk for addiction to drugs) would seem relevant.

It's unclear to what extent (if at all) the issue of DNA Security and Brian Meehan will come up, and whether we will have any more light shed on Mike Nifong's two mysterious trips to the Burlington lab. As of 12.01am this morning, however, the DNA Security website was down. Perhaps the case won't be the boon for business Meehan clearly desired.

Meanwhile, the Herald-Sun spin machine is going full blast. From the article on the DNA motion: "The documents show that the firm conducted more tests than it noted in a May 12 report that said analysts found Evans' DNA on a fake fingernail belonging to the accuser that police discovered in a trash basket at the scene of the alleged crime, a bathroom in 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. . . . Save for the positives reported on May 12 for Evans, Murchison and Coleman, none of the DNA tested has matched that taken from the accuser, defense lawyers said."

Bob Ashley might want to believe the statements in the above paragraph are true, but these statements certainly didn't appear in the defense motion. Nowhere in the motion does the defense state that the tests confirmed Evans' DNA--the tests only showed that Evans' DNA couldn't be ruled out. And equating a finding of Murchison's semen DNA with a possible finding of Evans' DNA on a fake fingernail in a trashcan, as the closing sentence does, is why the H-S is bringing daily journalism to a new low in the paper's coverage of the case.

Finally, it will be interesting to see if Nifong attempts to garner sympathy for the accuser by noting the recent birth of her third child. This development, like so much else in the case, contradicts Nifong's theories: the accuser, supposedly "too trauamatized" to speak about the case on April 11, was pole dancing in a limber fashion and engaging in sexual intercourse well before the supposedly trauamtic conference.
I'll be posting on any significant new motions, or other hearing-related material, throughout the day.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a day. I frankly don't expect much to happen tomorrow. The judge may not be happy about all the publicity. He may want to flex his muscles and unfortunately, there is nothing that anyone can do to prod him.

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes: Thanks for all the good work KC. See you in the morning.

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

I should note, see...err hear you on here in the morning. I won't be in Durham.

Anonymous said...

What time is the hearing on Friday?

Anonymous said...

Court TV will have ongoing coverage, all day I guess, of the proceedings.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the avalanche of events these past few days are not more connected than we think. Perhaps Walter Jones was quietly told that the defense would have good things coming out late this week, prompting him to be the first major politician to publicly press the DOJ to intervene. With the Jones letter to DOJ, the judge in the case has to consider the possibility of a looming federal probe checking out his decisions. This seems likely to lean the judge towards releasing more information on the accuser, reprimanding Nifong on the DNA tests that were withheld, and, if it comes up, looking real hard at tossing the lineup. If the lineup gets tossed, the case almost certainly gets dismissed, as Nifong would have nothing admissable that would identify which of the partygoers were the alleged assailants.

Whether coordinated or not, I like the cascade these past few days. Here's to the chance that these families can have a Merry Christmas by having the case dismissed tomorrow!

Anonymous said...

Caution is called for. Many have known for a long time that this is the Nifong hoax case. Still, the case goes on. And how can you depend on a North Carolina judge to do the right thing? Durham and Nifong have made the state a national laughingstock.

Anonymous said...

The DNA 'Lab' may think that they 'removed' their site from the internet (it is really just firewalled hence the directory listing error) but it is CACHED and ACCESSIBLE.

I am not certain but I think the lab is so technically inept that they chose to deny 'directory listing' (which is why you can't go to their site directly) but IS allowing direct files to be accessed (if you know the file name, like say dnatesting.htm as a fake example).


Here's the site:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-Hde7rmRGBkJ:www.dnasi.com/+www.dnasi.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Anonymous said...

Yes, the lab is so incredibly inept that they only disabled directory listing not actual access to the server's files.

As such you can let them know how you feel about their participation in this case (selling their souls to Nifong who then tried to pass the cost onto the defence for a report that should have been provided at no cost -remember that courtroom argument?).

http://www.dnasi.com/contactus.htm

Interestingly the guy that runs the 'quality control' of the lab (and the lab in general) who is NOT the man mentioned in the articles is supposedly a God in Mississippi and contacted for his godly advice on all things DNA.

Anonymous said...

If the judge is an elected judge, he will play the same game as Nifong with the constituency.

Anonymous said...

America has become a great nation by the actions of men and women who have, on critical occasions, put the collective interest of the people ahead of their own narrow electoral interests. We should hope that Judge Smith is such a man.

Anonymous said...

How does the blog work?

bill anderson said...

I have no idea what Smith will do today, although I have no confidence whatsoever in state employees working in the court and "justice" system to do what is right. Yes, we may hear crap like "respecting the prosecution," "needing to carry out all procedures," and blah, blah, blah, but as we look at this hoax, we find that not one person in the system -- not one -- has done anything that even remotely smacks of integrity.

From Nifong's friends, "judges" Stephens and Titus, to Nifong and other lying North Carolina police and prosecutors, all we have seen from that system is that it is set up to promote lies. Remember, this is the system that has David Hoke, the prosecutor who deliberately lied and got a man sent wrongfully to death row, as one of the top administrators in the state's court system.

I guess what I am saying is that until we see someone in that system doing what is right, I will expect all of the tax-financed resources of the State of North Carolina to continue to promote lies, lies, and more lies, and spin the entire thing as "justice." For many years, blacks and poor whites have experienced the dishonesty and dishonor firsthand.

Unfortunately, the blacks in North Carolina now wish to make the system even more dishonest. I hope that people understand that by enabling people like Nifong, the blacks are making sure that in the future there will be even more wrongful charges and convictions.

I also would make an appeal to the Bar Association of North Carolina. To you lawyers in that state, you let David Hoke and Debra Graves off with a wrist slap, even after they dishonored all of you. They made all of you out to be liars, yet you did nothing. Nancy Lamb still practices law in your state, despite what she did in the Little Rascals case to promote the Big Lie.

Thus, I would urge someone in that system who has a conscience, and who has honor and integrity to step out and do what is right. Right now, all of you are meeting my expectations. I would respectfully ask you to show me that I am wrong.

GPrestonian said...

LOL, I love this:

Or you may purchase the EASY ANSWERS DNA KIT alone, without pre-payment of DNA Laboratory Testing, for only $34.95. (DNA Laboratory testing can then be purchased at the time DNA specimens are submitted to our lab for an additional $285.)

http://www.dnasi.com/familystudies/

Some say that there are no easy answers, but I disagree.

"Hey Brian, howdya like to mislead the Court, the defense, and the nation, thereby helping me keep my job as DA? Allya have to do is doctor up a few DNA summaries for us.

There's an easy answer for that, and Meehan failed the test in Apr & May, 2006...

Anonymous said...

"When good men cease to serve, then Democracy shall fail."

I agree, but that's why the Jones letter to DOJ matters. Self-interest of the judge may compel him to do the right thing, as a pending DOJ investigation means any decisions on motions in this case suddenly have a high likelihood to be reviewed by federal authorities. So there's hope for the day, even if slim.

Anonymous said...

So now she's 9 months pregnant. Whose DNA, in the stew of DNA in the accuser's panties, gets to claim fatherhood? I'll bet my life it's not any of the defendants.

Anonymous said...

It's important to remember, as noted in another thread, that the judge is unlikely to rule today on motions that were just filed within the last couple of days--and in ordinary circumstances we would appreciate a judge's unwillingness to rule on motions before he has had time to review them and fully consider the relevant law and issues. So if the judge doesn't throw out the lineup, or even compel the additional production from the DNA lab, at today's hearing, that doesn't necessarily mean he is failing to perform his job in a fair and unbiased manner. He may simply need time to consider the motions and any response the DA wants to provide.

Anonymous said...

I HEAR YA 8.30....It us foolish taxpayer that are going to burdened with this sad unfortuante babies upbringing.....how could you locate a father from the Durham soup of desire in this eveil woman underwear?

sceptical said...

Failure to disclose the pregnancy of the accuser is another example of Nifong's violation of NC discovery rules.

bill anderson said...

The judge has had months and months to learn about this case. If the guy is such a sycophant of the state injustice system that he cannot tell a hoax from a real crime, then he is not fit to be in his position.

In a case where the government employees from the start have ignored procedures, and done whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, we then are supposed to assume that the system now will become a bastion of fairness? I will be watching Smith, but I have no confidence in him to do what is right.

Furthermore, it is obvious that Nifong lied to him in September. Is Smith now supposed to bow down to Nifong and accept those lies? If he does bow and scrape -- as he and all the other judges have done so far -- then we know which way the wind is blowing.

Again, my appeal is to those lawyers in North Carolina who still might have a shred of decency in them to put a stop to this madness. Please quit talking about the need to "preserve the system." The only system that you have is a system that promotes lies and is little more than a conviction machine. If that is the best that you can do in that state, then God help you.

Anonymous said...

Is there a real-time blog out there? Help.

Anonymous said...

8:41, have to 2d BA on this 1:

it's a no-brainer dismissal

anyone notice how prejudiced and stupid the black-female attorney commentator on Court TV is?

get thee to Wal-Mart--lol

if this case is not dismissed today, the judge is a feckless bitch--adumbrating a 100% political prosecution

jc

Anonymous said...

She didn't know the accuser was going to be locked up for being drunk. probably never read the id motion either.

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

I too am looking for some type of streaming coverage from KC or other. Bill or anyone else, does he just post as he learns on the main page or how does the live coverage work?

thanks in advance to all for helping and to KC for traveling there.

Victim in Massachusetts said...

9:41 KC will post whne there is something to tell us about he does a very great job doing this. The last hearing he covered.

KC was in and out of the courtroom all day the judge will not allow any recording devices and stuff in the courtroom so KC will break away when he can.

We will have a lot to read today count on it.

I also agree that the lawyer that is on court tv is a moron she has no idea of what she is talking about just like Ted Williams on the Greta show last night.

GPrestonian said...

I'm looking forward to descriptions of Nifong's demeanor - surely he's not going to be his usual smirky, snarky, arrogant self in Court today?

Anonymous said...

Just want to point out that the jc currently posting is not the same jc that was posting for a while on TalkLeft, here, and the n&o editor blog until the last couple weeks (which was me). I've taken to just reading these threads and not posting.

Just wanted to clarify. Carry on, new jc.

- old jc.

Anonymous said...

to "law is complicated" posters:

took me 10 minutes to read dna motion--didn't c lineup motion--let's say that takes 30 min--and u're trying to argue that the judge needs more time?

there is no probable cause here, and the accuser has been proven to be a liar--there is nothing else except feminist and racialist politics

jc

Guy in Durham said...

Anybody want to lay odds on the crack whore's baby presenting with fetal alcohol syndrome?

Of course, said infant's future is to be a burden on the productive members of society. Just like Nifong. I mean, 27 years in the same government job. What else would you calll it?

panda said...

What happened to the 10:05 post with links to Greta and Greta2 (I was able to link / view).
How weird - the post disappeared

Anonymous said...

Liestoppers will also be keeping everyone updated on its Discussion Board. They said that the courtroom is packed, the entire Lax team is there with the new coach, Danowski, and, of course the Evans, Finnertys, Seligmanns. Last report is that all the attorneys were meeting with the judge in his chambers. Would love to be the fly on the wall in there!! My hope is that the judge is furious with Nifong for wasting his time with this Hoax. Maybe they'll come out and announce that everyone can go home--Happy Hanukkah!! Merry Christmas and the Happiest of New Years for the young men!!

I can hope--it's the season of hope!!

duke2009mom

Anonymous said...

Where do we have any confirmation of this birth? I can not find anything anywhere except here? Judges in NC are rotated around the state to prevent the very thought that the judge would answer only to his district.
KC, I am so sorry you had to sleep in Chapel Hill, the smell must have kept you up all night, next time stay at the Washington Duke.
Kemper

Anonymous said...

Food for thought: This false accuser knew she was toast not long after the lies commenced and her stories changed like the wind direction.

She must have been on the pill or something to be able to perform her filthy job and not become pregnant. So.....she gets herself pregant asap to unknown male(s)to avoid what will be inevitable ....time in the slammer for false accusations ....soo.. the court will be soft in sentencing a mother of 3???

Anonymous said...

Fox news .Meehan is on the stand under oath and Nifong informed judge he only found out about DNA revalations on Wednesday!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Change of venue request!

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1107841/

Anonymous said...

10:55

"time in the slammer for false accusations"?

u've gotta b kidding me? vous-vous moquez moi, vous?

there is no statute in the US to describe what our precious predators do to the like of reade, collin, and dave--therefore, the law doesn't recognize the harm done to these men

very rarely does a prosecutor INVESTIGATE a false accuser, never mind prosecute her

this case highlights a rotten hole in our legal system

write your representatives and senators to get them to introduce legislation

let's cal it the "femate predator statute"

jc

Anonymous said...

If anyone has sirius radio Fox news is live on channel 131, Clinton News Network is 132. Court TV is 110. Court TV has got nothing.

Anonymous said...

recent news doesn't sound good:

sealing her military and medical records (thanks "rape" shield laws):

if i were the attys, i wouldn't like this, because the best way to impugn her credibility is to tie her sleaziness to her mental illness--this is NOT GOOD

re change of venue: don't think judge's buying ("this case has lots of publicity, why should i let another judge hv all the fun?")

people say this is an intelligent judge, but does he hv courage?

looks like it's back to the feds

hope i'm wrong

jc

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
recent news doesn't sound good:

sealing her military and medical records (thanks "rape" shield laws):


I read this as an intermediate step. He sealed the files, but gave the defense access to them under court control.

Meaning, they can read all they want, but can't reveal/leak/talk about anything yet.

IF they find something they think is relevant, they go back to the4 judge and get him to release it for the trial.

WJD said...

JC 9:38, I noticed, she is on as an expert and doesn't even know the case, what a joke. Plus she can't be a very good lawyer, if she has the time to go on Court TV.

Anonymous said...

What I have been reading on the Free Republic thread is that even if there is a change in venue, the prosecuting atty and judge remain the same. It would be fairly simple to demonstrate to the judge the bias of Durham jurors.
Also, a change of venue motion is immediately appeal able (as opposed to having to wait until the trial was concluded). It was stated that the judge would not want his authority weakened right away with a challenge or loss in the change of venue appeal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1753040/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

WRAL has an article up on what went down so far. I can't wait to hear from KC though.

Anonymous said...

12:08 re venue change

if ur correct, then we've pinpointed another problem with the legal system: how can there be a change of "venue" if u still hv a politicially (and personally) motivated prosecutor? the only upside re venue change is avoiding blacks on the jury, but do u really think nifong's gonna let that happen?

isn't the concept of "change of venue" to take politics out of the case?

jc

Anonymous said...

the change in venue is designed to provide a fair pool of unbiased jurors. In this case anywhere in the world, other than Durham, would be good!!

Anonymous said...

it's a racial case, so venue change is a minor good, imo

i'm not a lawyer--but u remember OJ?

jc

Anonymous said...

attorneys:

what about judicial misconduct?

this case should b dismissed

jc

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that the false accuser was raped but by the people whos dna (I read up to 5 different people) was found on her.

If i was a investagator I would obtain the names of these people and see if they know each other or were they ever together at the same time with the false accuser.

Anonymous said...

don't bother watching Court Tv, unless you're a fan of oprah

jc

Anonymous said...

To 12:56 As a retired p/o, most woman like the AV don't ask names while working. It is a don't ask don't tell business.

Anonymous said...

this just in from AP:

Crystal "Precious" Mangum has entered into a production deal with MTV Networks.It's called "Inside My Busy Butt"

The show will feature celebrity interviews, cooking tips, wine tastings--but it will focus on getting even with whitey.

God bless you Precious, and God bless America.

Anonymous said...

fox news press conference right now defense attorney speaking

Anonymous said...

To 1:05 I understand its a dont ask dont tell business but can the 5 or more people be traced to their dna?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
To 1:05 I understand its a dont ask dont tell business but can the 5 or more people be traced to their dna?


short answer: NO

You can match a sample from a rape to a sample from a suspect. that is all.

well almost all. absent the suspect, you can get a good idea by matching to family. I don't know the exact purmutations of that.

that was what was done in matching the decendant of Sally Hemmings, one of Jefferson's slaves to male relatives of Jefferson to build a case that he fathered the child. all it points at really is that one of them did, absent Jefferson's own DNA for a tighter comparison

Anonymous said...

to KC Johnson:

OK, so we have to wait for the lineup motion. That sums up what happened in court today.

Don't you agree that we should assume that the judge will find a way to get around that motion?

IMO, we should pool this forum's resources and procure more respected individuals to write to DOJ. Please respond to this request.

Duke Parent New to DIW

AMac said...

Duke Parent New to D-i-W 1:33pm --

Prof. Johnson is an academic historian. As this blog shows, he has extensively documented many neglected and unknown aspects of the case. He has, sadly, been one of the few consistent voices calling for accountability.

Today, he is in Durham and has not posted on this blog.

It may be that Prof. Johnson won't want to take a role as a participant in this case, so you might want to visit one of the blogs with a more activist stance with your request. See the right sidebar on D-i-W's home page for links.

AMac said...

On the WRAL website, an article by Julia Lewis, Paternity Test OK'd in Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

Excerpt follows:

Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security, said his lab didn't try to withhold information. He said he and Nifong chose not to release the full report to protect the privacy of lacrosse players who weren't implicated in the case. But he acknowledged that the decision violated the lab's policies.

Cheshire criticized the DNA report, saying the partial report denied the players a chance to prove their innocence.

"They decided they would only report what was a match and wouldn't report what wasn't a match," he said. "We are extremely troubled by that."

Anonymous said...

Testing