Thursday, January 11, 2007

Anatomy of a Frame

The defense motion filed this morning with the court, quite beyond the stunning new facts, lays out the case for the utter farce that it has become.

The motion explains the latest twist in this remarkable case: the accuser’s December 21 “statement.” The attempt to frame is so transparent that it almost seems as if Mike Nifong is deliberately mocking the judicial system.

One critical point to remember: in dropping the rape charges but retaining those for sexual assault and kidnapping, Nifong treated the accuser's latest version of events, laid out in this motion, as wholly credible.
---------

Dr. Brian Meehan’s revelation that he and Nifong entered into an agreement to intentionally withhold exculpatory evidence set into motion this current chain of events. Even Nifong appears to have realized that this testimony could expose him to serious legal problems.

Suddenly, after more than 250 days of not speaking to the accuser about the facts of the case, he dispatched his chief “investigator,” Linwood Wilson (who in his spare time “believes that his ministry through gospel music is where God wants him to be and has been blessed for the past 38 years of seeing many souls won to Christ as a result of this ministry”) to interrogate the accuser.

The accuser—coincidentally, of course—produced a story that suggested the DNA evidence wasn’t so important after all, and maybe a sexual assault, and not a rape, had occurred. As the defense motion reveals, her story also seemed stitched together to patch up other holes exposed by defense motions of December 13 and 14.

The lesson: if you’re going to frame innocent suspects, at least read your whole case file before doing so. For in their actions, Nifong and Wilson only seemed to be pleading for the Department of Justice to intervene.

Here’s a summary of the motion.

---------
Item 1

The Problem: The Pseudonyms Failed to Match Up

1.) The defense lineup-suppression motion showed how the accuser’s assertion of Reade Seligmann was “Adam” is impossible, since Seligmann was in a cab, on his way back to his dorm after stopping off at an ATM machine, when the accuser claimed “Adam” was carrying her to Kim Roberts’ car.

2.) The March 16 descriptions the accuser gave of Brett, Matt, and Adam bore no resemblance at all to Collin Finnerty, by even the most extreme stretch of the imagination.

3.) In her now-repudiated April 6 statement, the accuser mentioned a fourth attacker, “Dan,” who Nifong never investigated.

The Frame: New Uses of Psuedonyms

In the new version of events, Seligmann is still Adam—but now the claim is that sometimes he was Matt, too. Dave Evans is still Matt—but now the claim is that sometimes he was Adam, and Brett, and Dan(!), too. And Collin Finnerty was none of the three.

Under the new tale, therefore, the “Adam” that carried the accuser to the car can be Evans, not Seligmann. The March 16 descriptions don’t match Finnerty because Finnerty was neither Brett, nor Matt, nor Adam. The mystery of “Dan” has been solved, because Dave Evans is now Dan (and Brett and Matt and Adam—and, of course, Dave).

The Mockery

It goes without saying that the accuser has never previously claimed that her attackers used either multiple pseudonyms (Evans and Seligmann) or no pseudonyms at all (Finnerty); all previous stories suggested that each attacker used one pseudonym.

Putting the December 21 version together with the accuser’s other version brings us into the theater of the absurd, as the motion explains:

While the accuser now claims that “Adam” and “Matt” were both of the names used by Reade Seligmann, she provided vastly different descriptions for “Matt” and “Adam” on March 16: “Matt was heavy set with short hair and weighs 260lbs to 270lbs while “Adam” was “short, red cheeks, fluffy hair, stubby face with brown hair. Significantly, she also described “Brett” as “chubby” and claims that she saw a picture of him in the house. Similarly she now claims that Dave Evans is “Adam” and “Brett,” even though she gave two different descriptions for Adam and Brett on March 16. In short, the accuser has provided three different descriptions for what she now claims are only two men. Of course, if the SANE interview was truthful, then Dave Evans (as “Dan” who is really “Matt”) is “Matt,” “Adam,” and “Brett,” which means that the accuser has given three different descriptions for the same person . . . [and] if the accuser’s December 21 statement is to be believed, then “Dan” and “Brett” are the same person; yet in her written statement of April 6, she claimed that she was beaten by both Dan and Brett, and never informed police that it was the same person.

Item 2

The Problem: Reade Seligmann’s Unimpeachable Alibi

This issue has been a problem for Nifong almost from the start of the case. The combination of the time-stamped photos, the neighbor’s testimony, and Seligmann’s various electronic records made it clear long ago to everyone except Nifong and the Group of 88 that he was demonstrably innocent.

And if he was demonstrably innocent, the process through which he was chosen was equally fraudulent for Finnerty and Evans.

The Frame: “My Timeline” Is Revealed

Many months ago, Nifong boasted that the case would revolve around what he called “my timeline.” The accuser’s new version of events lays it out. In none of her previous versions of events did she ever mention specific times. Now, more than 10 months after the alleged attack, she suddenly remembers the time of the “rape.” And—coincidentally—it was 11.40pm, or before Seligmann’s alibi seemed to kick in. It’s unclear how the accuser miraculously remembered the time of the attack these many months later.

The Mockery

This frame doesn’t fit, alas. Nifong’s office appears to have forgotten about the accuser’s cellphone records—which haven’t played much of a role in the case for several months.

Also, and equally important, Nifong appears not to have calculated that Seligmann held something back. But he did: a 90-second call with his girlfriend, at 11.50pm, confirmed by her cellphone records.

Putting the December 21 version together with the accuser’s other version brings us into the theater of the absurd, as the motion explains:

According to the accuser’s most recent telling, she apparently spoke with someone at her father’s home for 7 minutes during the time that she was planning her nude dance routine, during the time that she was dancing, and then as she was fleeing to the car. In addition, the accuser was apparently talking with someone on her cell phone at the time that she was walking back into the house and being “kidnapped” into the bathroom. She finished her last conversation at the time the rape was beginning. None of these facts has ever been mentioned in any statement that the accuser has given to date in this case . . . [while] at the height of the sexual attack now claimed by the accuser, Reade Seligmann was having a telephone conversation.

Item 3

The Problem: The Party Photos

The cause of justice can be grateful that one of the players took photos during the affair. These photos not only helped establish the timeline, but also showed the accuser passed out on the back steps that she didn’t mention in any previous version of events. In addition, they fit well with the captains’ claims that the accuser was banging on the door at one point, around 12.30am.

The Frame

Now, 10 months after the alleged attack, the accuser suddenly tells a version of events that conforms to the photographs. She says that she was banging on the door because of her fury at being attacked. And wasn’t passed out on the steps—she now claims that she was dragged out of the house and dropped on the steps.

The Mockery

Putting the December 21 version together with the accuser’s other version brings us into the theater of the absurd, as the motion explains:

Before December 21, 2006, one of the few arguable consistencies in the accuser’s many contradictory statements was that she was carried (or dragged) to Nikki’s car. The statement made by her on December 21 now changes this portion of the story significantly and in a way that both contradicts her statements on March 14 and March 16, but also her own handwritten claim on April 6 (two days after her “identification”) that her “legs would not move.”

Item 4

The Problem: Dave Evans’ “Mustache”

This, like the Seligmann alibi, has been a big problem from the start. The accuser was unequivocal in the April 4 lineup session: she said that Evans had a mustache. Evans’ attorneys offered to show Nifong photos to prove he didn’t have a mustache; Nifong refused to look. The lineup motion showed the photos to the world.

The Frame: A Mustache Isn’t a Mustache

Almost as if Nifong and Linwood Wilson had been reading the TalkLeft message board, where two posters have anticipated this move for months, the accuser on December 21 claimed that when she uses “mustache” and “5 o’clock shadow” interchangeably. And when she said that the person showed to her looked just like Evans with a “mustache,” she meant that the person looked just like Evans with a 5 o’clock shadow.

The Mockery

Nifong and Wilson didn’t look at their own evidence. In the photo shown to the accuser on April 4, Evans had a 5 o’clock shadow.

Putting the December 21 version together with the accuser’s other version brings us into the theater of the absurd, as the motion explains:

Since Dave Evans had a “5 o’clock shadow” in the picture the accuser was shown on April 4, and since her response was that he “looks like him without the mustache,” her claim now that a “mustache” is not a “mustache” indicates that her statement on April 4 is, again, no longer reliable.

Item 5

The Problem: The DNA

Even people who don’t understand DNA know that it seems transparently absurd for the attack that the accuser described to have left no DNA from her “attackers.” And it’s positively fantastic to suggest that the attack could have occurred as she described and left the DNA of other men behind.

The Frame: The Towel

In this case, it appears as if Nifong and Linwood Wilson were thinking back to the good old days, when the Herald-Sun could be counted upon to bail them out when necessary. John Stevenson’s borderline fraudulent article on DNA and the case from back in August previewed the new tale.

It is: the accuser now recalls Dave Evans wiping her off with a heretofore unmentioned “white” towel (and the police just happened to have taken a white towel from Evans’ room, which had the DNA of Evans and someone wholly unconnected with the case, not the accuser). The towel also was used to clean up the “crime scene,” another item previously unmentioned.

The Mockery

Putting the December 21 version together with the accuser’s other version brings us into the theater of the absurd, as the motion explains:

To believe the accuser’s present claim that her vagina was wiped with this towel, that her face was wiped with this towel, that Dave Evans was wiped with this towel, and that the floor was wiped with this towel, would require the belief that this towel could wipe away all DNA from her attackers on the accuser’s body, but leave the DNA of other, unknown males. It further requires the belief that the accuser’s face and vagina could be wiped with this towel, but leave no trace of her DNA on the towel. Further, it requires the belief that the floor could be wiped with this towel, but that it would only wipe Dave Evans’ DNA, leaving Matt Zash’s DNA behind on the floor. Finally, the towel, while apparently obliterating any DNA left behind by the alleged attackers on the accuser’s body, somehow contained only one of her attackers’ DNA, despite her multiple claims that two of her attackers penetrated her rectum and vagina with their penises.

Summary

The motion concludes with three critical points:

1.) “If the accuser is now claiming that her statements during the course of the PowerPoint Identification are no longer reliable, then the identification itself cannot be reliable.”

In his desperation to get a new story on the record that would explain away his handling of the DNA evidence, Nifong overlooked the danger of having the accuser contradict the central elements of her April 4 story—since it’s only through that story that he could target the three people he did.

2.) “Since, at this point in time, Dave Evans can be one, two, three or even four different attackers, Reade Seligman can be one or two different attackers—and Collin Finnerty is an unidentified attacker—the accuser is now free to say that any of the Defendants did any act or all of the acts that she claims happened without regard to her previous statements or interviews. In short, by claiming that any one of the Defendants could be any or all of her attackers, the accuser has now created the equivalent of a “do over” in an attempt to try to make sense of her prior conflicting statements.”

It appears, in short, as if Nifong is attempting to construct a rationale in which the only evidence that should matter is whatever version of events the accuser happens to offer on the day in question, and that all other evidence in the case is irrelevant.

3.) “Rather than attempt to identify her attackers as Matt, Brett and Adam, the accuser used the names of the Defendants in her most recent telling of her story. Specifically, the investigator noted that ‘Inv. Wilson asked [the accuser] to tell him whose names the guys were using on March 13, 2006 since she knows their real names.’ The State has repeatedly represented to this Court that no substantive discussions of this case took place with the accuser from April 6, 2006 until this last interview. The fact that the accuser now “knows their real names” indicates that she has learned their names from the extensive publicity that this case has received, publicity that has necessarily included the Defendants’ faces as well as their names. It cannot be known at this time with any reliability what else she has learned from this publicity. This, in turn, means that the accuser’s present recollection of who allegedly attacked her and how, has been irreparably tainted by this publicity and weighs strongly against any in-court identification by her of the Defendants.”

If AG Gonzales doesn’t intervene now, it’s hard to imagine what more he could need.

122 comments:

Anonymous said...

What guidelines does the Federal Government follow in a case like this?

Anonymous said...

Just jaw dropping stuff.

Nifong, Gottleib, Himan and Wilson really should be seeing jail time. Disbarment is a slap on the wrist at this point.

Brilliant work KC.

Anonymous said...

i am speechless

Anonymous said...

Can you post a link to the motion?

bill anderson said...

So, we see that in reponse to being caught in telling a lie, Nifong and his people now decided to construct further lies in order to try to mitigate the original set of lies. What will Judge W. Osmond Smith III do in response to this latest outrage? My sense is that he will continue the enabling of Nifong. Heck, everyone else is doing it, why not him?

This also creates an interesting situation for the Bar hearing. Does the Bar now realize that Nifong is laughing in everyone's face, including their's? He just goes along, making up new stories to try to fit his accusations, and the system lets him go on doing it.

If the Bar association fails to act, given this new set of lies, then we know that the leaders of the legal profession in North Carolina are really the leaders of a Liars Profession. We shall see, but I will say that I am getting more cynical by the moment.

And, no, 10:57, none of these guys will see any jail time. Heck, given the ilk of the judges and juries in North Carolina, they might be able to squeeze a conviction out of this pack of lies.

KC Johnson said...

My post came from the paper version filed this a.m.; will post link to full motion as soon I see one.

Anonymous said...

I am also sure we will have people saying, I told you so, her version does make sense, let it go to trial.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure that the AG even interferes with a local DA when they dont show prosecutorial discretion.

It would be logical to sent in a couple of guys to mentor him on the case and help him get it together. On the other hand Easly could have done this long ago.

westernblot said...

KC
I hope the book and movie are, indeed, titled "Durham in Wonderland"

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the analysis of the motion. You would think after all of the lies that have come out of Durham during the last 10 months, that nothing would surprise me. Yet, I read this and still find myself astounded by the gall of this DA. Does he think we are all idiots? This "new" statement is simply absurd!! Honestly, has he lost his mind? It would be laughable if it didn't involve these three men's lives and make a mockery out of the entire American justice system.

OMG, please SOMEBODY STOP this insanity!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the analysis of the motion. You would think after all of the lies that have come out of Durham during the last 10 months, that nothing would surprise me. Yet, I read this and still find myself astounded by the gall of this DA. Does he think we are all idiots? This "new" statement is simply absurd!! Honestly, has he lost his mind? It would be laughable if it didn't involve these three men's lives and make a mockery out of the entire American justice system.

OMG, please SOMEBODY STOP this insanity!

Horrified said...

Is this one last attempt for Nifong to portray himself as the public servant who is duty bound to serve oppressed minorities? In the event that the defense wins, he may then claim that the collapse is the fault of the accuser's self-contradictions and/or the "army of high priced laywers" that people allude to, even here. If the motion is not granted, then he can point to the judge as giving credence to the new and improved version.

I agree with Bill Anderson. He may very well dodge this yet.

We should start the betting pool on when Nifong complains that the accuser misled him!

Anonymous said...

I think the damages owed to the players just went up by a few million.

Keep it going and they will be the wealthiest people in the South.

Horrified said...

'high priced lawyers'. I can't afford a high priced speller.

Sorry about that.

Anonymous said...

The Accuser was witnessed entering Sesame Street at approximately 11:40 where (according to her testimony) she was immediately raped by Mr. Cookie Monster, Mr. Snuffleupagus and Mr. The Grouch.

In later statments the Accuser changed her statements and named Mr. von Count, Mr. Elmo and Mr. Bert(no last name given) to reflect the fact that no one can see Mr. Snuffleupagus, the lack of cookie evidence on the scene and the obvious preference of rectal intrusion by one of the defendants.

Anonymous said...

What a riot!

Are Nifong and his cronies for real?

No: they are in Durham in Wonderland!

westernblot said...

I think Webster's will have to re-define "hooligan" as badge of honor.

Michael said...

re: 11:09

He clearly thinks we are all idiots. He clearly has had a lot of idiots supporting him for quite some time. Fortunately for him, there's always a ready supply of them waiting to be used.

Anonymous said...

Is the false accuser wearing a watch in any of the photos?

Michael said...

KC,

Does Kim Roberts' statement
and comments help the defense in the new timeline?

She indicate five minutes and
had a better perspective of
time as she wasn't flat out
high and drunk at the time.

Anonymous said...

Yes KC, Durham in Wonderland should be the title of the book.

THis is EVIL and INSANITY

Anonymous said...

My guess is that Nifong will go on 60 minutes (probably already recorded) with his new new new story. Of course by Sunday evening it will be exposed as yet another fraud.

He does not need that pension. Where he is going the food is free.

Anonymous said...

KC now says that the towel was found in Evans' room. I thought it was found in a hallway?

Anonymous said...

The cynicism is stunning. Simply stunning. This is so transparent as to defy belief.

The problem for Nifong is that the accuser will have to testify at the Feb. 5 hearing And no one can keep all those stories straight. She will get pissed and sell Nifong down the river.

Howard said...

AG intervene? If the Feds didn't intervene in the even more disgraceful Amerault Case (the clearly false conviction of the nursery school operator in MA), the Justice Department will never touch this one. Precident, yuh know.

M. Simon said...

At this point if I was a defence lawer I would do what they have done. Make the motions required to protect my clients.

And hope and pray that the farce continues.

Because as one commenter has already noted: the damages are escalating and the proof of a frame is mounting.

Up till now "errors were made" might have helped Jailfong's defence. Now the proof of a frame is so self evident that the case against Jailfong ought to be a slam dunk.

Anonymous said...

My bet is that Lifong is merely allowing Crystal to hang herself so that in the end he can hang her out to dry. Her story is so ridiculous he cant possibly believe it, but if he allows it to be dismissed, rather than dismissing it himself, he can argue that as he said all along he was merely going to let justice run its course.

Anonymous said...

11:49
Someone on lie-stoppers suggested this new time line will prove to the judge that Crystal is incompetent and unable to testify. he'll order her to be physco ward to be tested, and dismiss the case. Poor Mikey had NO idea the woman was mentally ill. That his story, wait.

Kemp

duke09parent said...

Heaven help me, I actually laughed out loud when I read the pseudonym section and the towel section.

I swear if the 2/5 motion hearing goes forward and Judge Smith allows CGM to testify before dismissing the thing, I want a copy of the transcript of her direct and cross examinations. (If she's called on the motion to suppress, it might be a direct exam by the defense, with leading questions permitted to an adverse witness.)

Someone on liestoppers reminded me the NC game at Cameron is 2/7. Wouldn't it be sweet for the three guys to walk in together, the case having been dismissed? Can you imagine the ovation?

Anonymous said...

WOW!! This shoud be over by the end of the day. Game over. If this does not show everyone in the state of NC what a total frame-up this is. If the judge lets this one go on, then NC has some serious, serious ethical judicial problems.

As for the Feds...with the Dems in charge, don't expect any action from them...

dl said...

As a non-lawyer it is mystifying to me why this case has not been dismissed by the judge.

Can someone explain what the legal rationale is behind the judge allowing this case to continue?

Anonymous said...

How utterly stupid is Nfong???

This would have been the perfect 'out' for him: "The accuser is simply too confused about the facts for the State to try this case."

He can blame it on her so he takes less of a hit; she's a poor confused minority, so we can't really prosecute her.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that no one in authority is providing adult supervision. The judge in the case is not, the AG isn't, the NC Bar did the equivalent of yelling "quite down back there!" with no follow-up, the no one in the State government is doing anything useful, Broadhead is making only the most tepid attempts to correct his previous gross mistakes...

Essentially, the people who accepted positions of responsibility are shirking it, probably because they don't see any consequences for not doing anything, and the notion of "duty" is dead, cold and buried among them.

Anonymous said...

11:58:

I don't know the legal reason he is allowing the case to continue but his personal reason is clearly...cowardice.

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson, thanks for another well-written essay:

"Literally, every safeguard that the law supposedly has against wrongful prosecution was obliterated, and only because the players could afford expert legal help, and because an army of bloggers and writers were able to take Nifong’s case apart and not suffer legal sanctions for it have we been able to move to where we are today."

duke09parent said...

Re dl's question

"As a non-lawyer it is mystifying to me why this case has not been dismissed by the judge."

It's an adversarial system. A judge cannot act (or at least shouldn't) just based on information or motion provided from one side. The other side should be provided with the opportunity to present whatever counter argument or evidence it has. Plus if there is any oral testimony to present, that has to wait for a court hearing.

From what I can tell, Nifong doesn't file written oppositions, he just shows up in court on the hearing dates. So, the next opportunity for Smith to act will be on 2/5, unless the prosecution presents its own motion to dismiss before then.

bill anderson said...

Keep in mind that the legal profession is a cartel, and members of a cartel protect their own. That is especially true about lawyers who work in government employment, prosecutors and judges. They always protect each other, and we are seeing it in this, too.

Add the politics of race, and we can see why the Bar association ultimately will back down and do nothing. No one wants to be seen as a racist, or being "soft" on sexual assault.

Yet, the case is a hoax, but North Carolina courts long ago agreed to accept hoaxes and false convictions, and to give praise and honor to those who promote the hoaxes. Leopards really cannot change their spots.

Anonymous said...

re 12:11 PM
Sorry, Bill's essay is here

Anonymous said...

Turn out the lights, the party's over. No rational person will buy this. I don't think you can find even one anymore, not even in Durm

Anonymous said...

I could barely keep up with the section describing the pseudonyms--I was laughing too hard. Nifong is an idiot, clearly attempting to delay his own legal trouble--which in the end will only put him in bigger trouble!!

I keep thinking that this goes so far beyond the quote "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"--this is a web like the one in "Arachniphobia". Absolutely unbelievable!!!!!!!

duke2009mom

Anonymous said...

To dl: The judge hasn't dismissed the case because, I think, there is no motion to dismiss by the defendants currently pending. Judges don't generally dismiss cases unless someone asks them to. Expect such a motion to follow immediately if the lineup evidence is thrown out on Feb. 5.
To 11:56 AM, I don't think the "dems" being in charge has all that much to do with whether or not the Justice Dept. will act, since it is still part of the Republican administration and still controlled by a Republican Attorney General. My guess would be that the AG will, at a minimum, wait to see what the judge does with the case before deciding whether to act--if the case falls apart because the judge throws out the lineup, the AG can argue that federal intervention (a pretty extreme remedy) isn't needed.

to 11:49 AM--you may well be right that Nifong is "allowing Crystal to hang herself"--but even worse is the possibility that he is encouraging her to hang herself by having his investigator lead her in the production of this statement. It's possible that, having followed the coverage all along, she is sophisticated enough to have come up with all of these convenient "corrections" to her story by herself, but I don't think it's all that likely. In particular, the sudden lack of conviction about whether she was penetrated with a penis suggests a highly sophisticated understanding of NC rape law and of the nature and admissibility of DNA evidence. How would she know this on her own?

Anonymous said...

"Leopards really cannot change their spots."

I think you really meant: "You can't make chicken salad out of chickens--t."

Anonymous said...

I'm 12:17--I need to amend my comment to say that I don't think the defense had filed a motion to dismiss before today.

GPrestonian said...

It is interesting that the prosecution hasn't made use of this new story yet. GOT to get that Bill of Particulars ASAP!

KC:

As good as your are, you failed to credit one of your helpers on this post - there is no way that you could have put this all together without help from John Madden doing the X's & O's for you on a whiteboard as you feverishly typed! lol ;>)

Anonymous said...

12:17...I have friends and relatives that work in federal government in DC...folks are sitting tight right now, waiting to see how the Dems will operate.

My guess is the AG will not needlessly cause trouble for himself as well.

Anonymous said...

MSNBC just said that Seligman just watched.

Chicago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

My heart is pounding 150 beats a minute here at work as I think about the injustice outlined in this latest motion.

There is no way this false accuser could have come up with this new tale to try to match the evidence. Wilson must have dictated the statement to her. I can barely follow it as I read it, I'm sure she wasn't smart enough to come up with these lies on her own.

Anonymous said...

unbelievable..... I am dumbfounded.. I am amazed at the temerity of this D.A.

Will he stop at nothing to save his unsavable career?

Can this get any more bizzare?

Chicago said...

I figured it all out!!!

Nifong is telling the truth and has had it right all along.
;)

KC, Bill and everyone else on here is just jealous they can not dance as well as Linwood Wilson does. Check out these moves he has at the "Gospel Chickenhouse."

http://tinyurl.com/y66nqm

I say we take this case to "Dancing with the Stars" and let America decide. KC will be partnered with Kim Roberts and Nifong/Linwood will dance with Precious. We all know how limber Precious is, so KC is up against it right away.


*If anyone finds the above parody truthful, you should be on Nifong's jury. I figured I would try to lighten everyone up a bit this morning. However, those pictures of Linwood dancing are "precious"..I mean priceless. I still can't figure out how to properly link them. If anyone can link them correctly please do so. The world needs to see what a Christian man Linwood is.

Anonymous said...

I cant decide if this is tragedy turned to farce, or if its really a farce that has now gone on to tragedy. Any hope that logic is going to finally win out seems to be very sadly misguided. The article by Ms. Rabinowitz in the WSJ carries with it the explicit warning that this kind of outrageous prosecutor behavior has happened before and convictions for this are at least possible.

Given LA gave a hall pass to OJ, why do you think the good citizens of Durham will do anything different? Its frightening to me, I tend to believe that Police and Prosecutors dont deliberately pursue innocents. My faith is shaken daily by this.

Anonymous said...

Just remember, CGM will be examined by the defense . . . .

It will be impossible for her to deal with cross--simply impossible

Anonymous said...

OK so here's my prediction for the next version of events that we hear ......

See they were really aliens and they used a special machine that froze time and it's all being directed by Richard Nixon who's really not dead but living in the mother ship floating over Roswell and they can change their shapes and appearances at will and CGM actually gave birth to a baby ET but they stole it at the hospital and replaced it with an android and Kim Roberts is really Dick Chaney in disguise and it's all about oil & Halliburton and 12 bankers who are in a basement ruling the world and ......
.....Well if you don't believe that then would you believe......

Anonymous said...

Per MSNBC...if Seligmann just watched...as the accuser claims...why is he still indicted for sexaul assault and kidnapping???

Nifong's only witness has just exhonerated Seligmann, but Nifong still intends to convict him??

What the H--- is going on in NC???

bill anderson said...

The more I read this, the angrier I become. Because Michael Nifong represents the State of North Carolina, this latest version of the Official Version of the State of North Carolina.

As for Linwood Wilson, I guess he conveniently forgets the passage in Old Testament Law in which false accusers are supposed to receive the punishment that would have been meted out to the person falsely accused.

In the New Testament, St. Paul writes that "liars" will "not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven." Linwood Wilson is a liar. That is right. A liar. You draw your own conclusions.

Anonymous said...

You can lead a hore to water but you can't make them drink.

You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think....

What the #$%^& were they thinking.

This should really result in jail time for the FA, the investigator and the D.A.

Anonymous said...

Poor Crystal is not smart enough to make this story up. Who is she suppossed to have told this to? Judge Smith - Its time to end this frame.

Anonymous said...

This is all so fascinating (except for the tragedy being visited upon the three young men and Duke University writ large). Thanks to KC's work, we are getting a play by play of crimes being committed by public officials. I can understand (but at the same time abhor) the banal reasons Nifong is continuing with the case, but cannot understand why he cannot comprehend he is literally digging he and his staff into a hole from which they will not return. The Governor can't possibly continue to sustain Durham (and to some degree the rest of the state) as a laughingstock for all reasoned people to avoid. He has got to step in.

GPrestonian said...

Here's the Motion:

First Suplament Motion to Supress "Identification" of the Defendants by the Accuser

Anonymous said...

Can the lacrosse players sue Nifong or does he have immunity?

AMac said...

On the Early Date thread, Kemp posted a link to the names, addresses, and fax numbers of the N.C. Bar councilors.

A copy of my (polite) letter to three of them is at 11:01am on the same thread.

Per Kemp, reciept of (polite) faxes and letters by Councilors of the N.C. Bar might help them see the Hoax in a clearer light, in time to influence the pace of disciplinary proceedings.

bill anderson said...

To 12:29 PM:

It is much worse than you can imagine. Nifong is only the surface. The U.S. system wrongfully convicts people on a regular basis, and those in charge simply do not care.

The federal system is even worse because federal prosecutors can take acts that are legal and bundle them into what Candice E. Jackson and I call "derivative crimes" such as "securities fraud," and "racketeering." You might want to look up some things we wrote, including a piece last year on Rudy Giuliani's Wall Street prosecutions of the 1980s.

When this case ever ends -- if it does -- people will crow, "The system works." No, it does NOT work. The system is trying to gain a wrongful conviction; the attorneys and bloggers have stood in the way.

Just think how many people out there either have incompetent representation and NO bloggers to bang pots for them. This case will make you sick, but if you ever have looked into the entire system as I have, you would get even sicker. There have been many times I have thought about leaving this country altogether, although I doubt justice is any better elsewhere. The human condition, no doubt.

GPrestonian said...

12:36pm GPrestonian:

You can't type (or is it see :) for shiite!

Anonymous said...

Just wondering...If the accusations against the three accused students are "true", I am surprised that one or two of the students have not stepped forward and "plea bargained" with D.A. Nifong in order to find at least one of the students guilty.

If the students were lying about what happened on the night of the alleged attack, it amazes me that the prosecution is not able to get at least one of the accused to plea bargain in order to convict the other accused.

Anonymous said...

Bill or KC or the blog lawyers;

If the MSNBC report is accurate about the accuser stating the Seligmann just watched, what crime could Nifong still claim Seligmann would be guilty of?

Anonymous said...

If Seligmann jsut watched that must be one of those video conference ATM's he was using...

Tim said...

If Nifong is really letting this poor defenseless black woman out to dry. Who in a position of privlege and power (using a Gang of 88 term) is at fault here?

Damn scared said...

If someone doesn't step in immediately I fear for these defendants. If local, state and federal authorities don't see the obvious flaws and the need to intercede how can we expect a local jury of her peers to do it?

Anonymous said...

A question that arises is why the defense lawyers have made so much of their exculpatory evidence public. It seems that Nifong has taken all of it and has put together an ever changing tale that somehow rescues his case from logical impossibility.

No matter how implausible his story line and no matter how many contradictions he comes up with, the one thing he is seeking is not a likely scenario, but one that is not logically impossible.

It is the "little man in the watch" theory. That is the theory that the reason a watch works is because there is a little man inside who turns the hands of the watch but when you open the watch to observe him, he disappears.

Nifong and his supporters are saying that no matter how strongly the evidence points to a fabricated frame-up, the case needs to move forward because it can't be completely disproven.

No DNA: "That doesn't disprove the accusation".

No evidence of penetration: The accused changes her story.

Seligman at an ATM machine at the time of the attack: Change the time of the attack.

Finnerty doesn't fit the physical description: the accused changes her story.

Evans didn't have a mustache: It was five o'clock shadow.

Kim Roberts doesn't support her version: Roberts wasn't there.

Any of these twists and changes in the DA's fairy tale is highly unlikely. That they could all be true is hundreds of times less likely.

One question that comes up is why has the defense publicized his evidence. These public disclosures have made it easier for the Nifong enablers to keep changing their story to meet the evidentiary disclosures.

I think the answer is that the penalty to the players and their family for letting the accusations go unchallenged would have been enormous, particular when there was initially so much adverse publicity. Within the first few days they had been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, branded racists and rapists, and they were forced to combat the hysteria about the case and defend their reputations.

This is where the university faculty and administration's behavior came in. They essentially went along with the story, suspending the students and branding them as offenders without any evaluation of the evidence.

Now one of the group of 88, Cathy Davidson seeks to exonerate herself from this witch hunt by claiming that they were just responding to student's concerns over their own racial and gender vulnerability.

What evidence does she produce to support such vulnerability? Has Duke University had a lot of rapes lately? How many cases have there been of white male Duke students raping black female victims during the last five years? Have there been any? My suspicion is that the only evidence of a threatening privileged white male racial and sexual assault culture is the fictitious accusations against the lacrosse players.

But a lot of people in the Duke community have an interest in perpetuating such myths. Bureaucracies perpetuate myths to justify their existence and expansion. Every department in the university has an explanation why they should get more money. Math departments claim that everyone needs more math to carry out their daily life even though we almost never use any of it unless we are in scientific professions or in some areas of business and finance.

Language departments claim that we need to learn foreign languages in order to fit into the global order.

The diversity industry has become one of the largest on college campuses. Offices of institutional diversity, legal staffs, sexual harassment officers, various departments and centers are devoted to promoting various minority interests. For every employee there is an argument why they are needed. And the argument that trumps all others in the support and growth of the diversity industry is the notion that campuses are bastions of unmitigated prejudice and menace. Without all the machinery to protect them, the black, Hispanic and female students would be driven off by a culture of white privilege always on the verge of committing some atrocity against them.

The Duke lacrosse accusations were just too good an opportunity to let pass by. Now that it seems certain that there is no truth to the accuser's claim of assault, faculty members like Davidson who fed this witch hunt, are falling back on the tale that even if the accusations are false, the story of pervasive racial and sexual oppression at Duke was true anyway and what a wonderful opportunity it was to point this out to everybody.

The unfortunate Duke lacrosse players happened to fall into this myth and the diversity bureaucrats and academic counterparts jumped on the bandwagon. The Hysteria was so great that the player's attorney's were forced to continually display their defense strategy in order to protect their clients from the punishment of slanderous attacks.

There is nothing noble about the group of 88. They are about perpetuating myths to feather their own nests. They are not in the long run helping minorities who will suffer because fiascoes like this case will tend to discredit minority issues that are legitimate.

Duke is not alone in having this problem. Most campuses spend millions of dollars into diversity in the hope of buying some kind of immunity against outrageous accusations such as occurred at Duke. One can only hope that the exposure and condemnation of people like Cathy Davidson and Kim Curtis will give others the courage to speak out against similar outrages.

Anonymous said...

I give KC credit not only for his incredible coverage of this case, but also for naming his blog Durham in Wonderland way back in March. KC knew from the start that this would be one of the most well known fairytales ever told.

Nifong is a DisgrAce.

where's group haty hate?

Anonymous said...

Nifong needed to hide Meehan's DNA evidence clearing ALL the LAX players because it would allow the Nifong/DPD/Liar/Court conspiracy to claim:

"We mistakenly pointed at the wrong 3...no harm, no foul...it must have been a different 3..or 4...Let's start over."

The number of possible combinations and permutations the courts could entertain over the years is mind-boggling.

This would allow the protracted witch-hunt to drag on with corrupted legitimacy for a long, long time.

The "Justice" System appears to be a game. The emperor has no clothes.

Anonymous said...

12:17 again--although the media reported this as a motion to dismiss, it doesn't appear from the copy posted on the web that it is. Instead, it's a supplement to the motion to suppress the lineup.

As for Reade, Nifong could probably argue that he can still be charged with the kidnapping count, or perhaps as an accessory to the sexual assault count, because he was alleged to be present and didn't intervene in any way. It seems absurd, but no more absurd than anything else that has been claimed or done by the prosecution in this case.

Anonymous said...

CNN also has the story about"Seligmann Just Watched."

Why is he still indicted?

Anonymous said...

How do the Lawyers decide who gets to cross examine her first? Don't defense lawyers sort of live for a set up like this?
Paul

Anonymous said...

To 12:22: The defense has still not filed a motion to dismiss. Today's motion is a supplement to the motion to suppress.

The grounds for pre-trial dismissal in NC are very specific and very narrow.

bill anderson said...

To 12:45 PM:

You just gave me the inspiration for a new article.

Prosecutors have a saying about ridiculous charges: "Charges are like spaghetti. Throw them against the wall and see what sticks."

That is what we are seeing here. Nifong and Wilson are just throwing stuff out there and hope that something, SOMETHING sticks. Yes, the charges are contradictory; yes Nifong conspired to hide evidence; yes, Nifong is lying.

So, what's the problem,? ask Nifong and his enablers. I'm dead serious. Nifong no longer cares. He is just throwing out the stuff to see if Smith will buy it the way that Stephens and Titus and the New York Times did.

GPrestonian said...

12:45 Anon:

"If the MSNBC report is accurate about the accuser stating the Seligmann just watched, what crime could Nifong still claim Seligmann would be guilty of?"

Kidnapping.

Anonymous said...

Click on the FoxNews headline for this story and who's picture pops up? Hint: Pop goes the weasel!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243063,00.html

Its about time the media is recognizing everybody at fault in this DisgrAce.

Anonymous said...

K.C.,
Excellent post/analysis. One real minor quibble: Reade Seligmann didn't "hold anything back". The record of the 3/13 11:50pm phone call appears in the 5/1 Motion for Recusal. It's right there on the 15th page of that document (pg 3 of 5 of the Verizon attachment).

Anonymous said...

I guess we know why the interview took a week. The criminals spent a week thinking up what she should say. I am absolutely sickened. This is a big up yours to the whole world that we can fabricate anything and everthing and nobody can stop us.

Question: why didn't she write this new version out? She can read and write, she is an honors student.

Anonymous said...

amc
Thanks for contacting them.
The squeaky wheel gets oiled.
They need to hear from us all. My Bar friend made it clear they are feeling the heat and are embarrassed about the exposure of their slap on the wrist of the last two rogue DA's.

The lights make the cockroaches run. Let's light'em up!

Kemp

Anonymous said...

To 12:53 PM
"...the case needs to move forward because it can't be completely disproven."

There is a popular game masquerading as logic that says "If it's possible, then it must be true!" It is played everywhere you see ignorance or agenda.

Our laws were meant to protect innocent people from these kinds of games. Unfortunately, proper protection relies on enough individuals in the criminal justice system having uncommon integrity. Hence, this sorry state.

Anonymous said...

The Feds have no business in this case. Please read on. North Carolina, like every other state, is just as good/bad at administering justice as the Feds, and there are plenty of capable legal authorities within this State to handle this matter. I think it is dangerous to desire federal "adult" supervision of the State's duties to its own people. It lets the State off the hook: they should have the opportunity to act and be held accountable for action/omission.

The State Bar should disbar Nifong on the Court house steps, ten minutes before his case is called. Criminal conspiracy charges should follow against him, the lab and the liar.

More importantly, there are several mechanisms within the judicial process to remedy this problem, and a full trial on the merits (with the safeguards I will shortly describe) is the only way to reach a final verdict on this case.

There is a strong argument for this case to go to Court [not just so certain Dook professors can help square this case with the parrallelism that exists in their own mind]. I think a Durham jury voting to acquit on all counts is the only way to obtain exoneration and true closure for these boys and the citizens of Durham. Do you honestly think that the hysterical left (and certain, irresponsible elements of self-appointed "leadership" within the black community) will stand for any form of pretrial dismissal (to say nothing of external intervention)?
The right thing is to let the guys who drafted that motion loose on her on cross examination. There is no feeling she claims to have suffered that is going to be as punishing as what Joe Chesire and Wade Smith are going to do to her on the stand. They will ACTUALLY have to carry her off the witness stand when those guys are through with her.
Frankly, I am surprised the defense has not a female face up front in this case. Appearances matter, and I think that a Durham jury may try to stick up for CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM THE LYING STRIPPER-* when a rich, white, privileged, male lawyer just beats her out of her misery on cross. She may appear so pathetic as to be sympathetic, but at the same time, I trust even the biggest racist in the world to want to sleep at night. The jury should have the chance to do the right thing: it is the American way.

All that nonwithstanding, the true adult supervision can come from the bench. It has been a while since I have dropped any time into NC crim pro, but I know there is a civil law mechanism for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and I am all but certain (willing to bet the farm) that there is a criminal law equivalent at the trial level, that would permit the judge to disregard a verdict manifestly unsupported by the facts. I think you have to work from the inside out on this onion, and a) this is a state case, b) post-indictment, and c) unless there is no admissible evidence to support the bill of indictment (i.e., suppression of the i.d.s would work this, IMHO), or an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, this case belongs to a North Carolina jury, supervised by a North Carolina trial and appellate judges.

They are the true check on rogue prosecutors, immoral scientists, and lying strippers. They should be given their chance to do their jobs, and if they do not, then and only then does the need/basis for a resort to Federal intervention arise.

*-P.S., Are you all so scared of feminist concocted guilt that you all insist on using code to disguise her identity, in a country with public trials and a right to confront your accusers? I think forebearance is wise and appropriate in the case of an actual victim, or even someone who at least has a chance of not lying, but her story is so laughable at this point that even her staunchest defenders can't claim she is mistaken: she is a lying stripper with an actual name who has maliciously ruined four lives and is trying her best to bring down your University, and since the revisionist historians are trying to immunize her from this and hang it all on Nifong, allow me to lead. Yes, what she is done clearly ruined four lives and no, no one in the leftist establishment is willing to hold her accountable for it, nor are they willing to admit that she has harmed every actual victim by crying wolf. If she is going to do harm to all of these people, why do you all insist on letting her do it anonymously? I am open to debate on this, but bring it in abundance because I think I am right.

Anonymous said...

Here is a good legal question, I am a lawyer, civil, but dont no the answer. An indictment has to bear some relationship with the trial. here, people were indicted for one crime and now are going to trial for another. Why is that lawful? Dont they need a new indictment. I understand that details may change but if Reade Seligman was indicted for forcing oral sex, and Dave Evans was indicted for vaginal rape, why can they be tried on a different crime.



And as for Nifong, I know I am wasting my time, but he said early on he could only ehtically prosecute if he personally believed they were guilty. He thus personally believed, if he is truthful, that Reade Seligmann forced oral sex. Now, he must personally believe something else. Or....he is simply a worthless criminal.

Anonymous said...

The new account reminded me of a post by KC Jan 4th:

Iowa State University professor Gary Wells, noted, “Memory doesn’t get better with time. That’s one of the things we know..."

Anonymous said...

I just read the motion. One thing that stood out for me is the real possibility that she was coached. The motion made the point that in none of her previous statements did she describe a white towel. After the investigators found a white towel with Dave Evans DNA on it now she describes a white towel.

Anonymous said...

"Nifong overlooked the danger of having the accuser contradict the central elements of her April 4 story—since it’s only through that story that he could target the three people he did."

He's not as dumb as one would think - if the case unravels due to her "credibility", then Nifong and the DPD have improved their liability positions - not to suggest they are without PROBLEMS.

Also - CGM's blithering descent into complete fairytale probably improves her 'lot' too - based on her unstable medical history she can "lay" claim to her fragile mental health as a defense in both the courts of public opinion and law.

Anonymous said...

This case never passed the smell test from the very beginning.

The current reek will linger over the NC Bar for a long time.

A stink cloud is forming that threatens the entire U.S. justice system.

I hope Nifong can somehow drag this out a little longer.

B.S.

Anonymous said...

OT - anybody know where I can get a "DUKE Hooligan" hat or T-shirt ?

Thanks

GPrestonian said...

1:02pm Anon:

"How do the Lawyers decide who gets to cross examine her first?

Crystal will be a prosecution witness, of course, so the prosecution gets her first on direct.

Anonymous said...

Last March, the sainted liberal and leftist academics on Duke's campus couldn't believe their good fortune. It seemed they'd have a golden opportunity to preen before a national audience, displaying their superior moral sensitivity for all. Hattie Carroll still lived! She was bowed but not killed by a flying cane, and in their midst stood not just one, but three William Zanzingers, callous and privileged, scoffing and sneering at justice. What a chance to bring the whole corrupt and vile Zanzinger clan down!

But then, after the saints had already staked out their territory, things started to change. It turned out the accused weren't like William Zanztinger (Dylan dropped the "t" in the song) at all, but were admired and accomplished young men with a great deal of courage and sensitivity of their own. And, more ominously for our heroes in the Gang of 88, it began to become evident that the real Hattie Carroll of 1963, a hard working, decent, and humble woman who "never sat once at the head of the table," had nothing in common with her reverse, and perverse, doppelganger of 2006, who danced on tables naked to amuse both the William Zantzingers and the O.J. Simpsons of the world.

Right about now I suspect the Sainted 88 would have preferred a silent victim, much like Hattie Carroll was after her tragic death. The live one they've got, with something like 12 or 13 versions of her trauma, has proven to be unworthy of their angst and heartbreak, and has turned their quest to preen before the nation, "to show that all's equal and the courts are on the level...and even the nobles get properly handled," into a risible demonstration of their own imbecility and lack of judgement about human nature and its perversities.

bill anderson said...

To 1:25 PM:

Grand jury proceedings in North Carolina are secret, and no record is taken. Thus, Nifong can claim that he brought the Newest and Most Improved Version of Lies to the Durham Country Grand Jury and no one can legally challenge him. If a grand jury were to say that Nifong is lying, then that juror would be subject to the full penalty of the law.

Anonymous said...

At least she didnn't change Matt/Adam/Brett's name to Chauncey - lol

james conrad said...

if i am not mistaken, the superior court judge has the power to remove the DA. my guess here is the defence isnt filing a motion to remove because they have nifong right where they want him, under the gun with the world watching.

Anonymous said...

"If the MSNBC report is accurate about the accuser stating the Seligmann just watched, what crime could Nifong still claim Seligmann would be guilty of?"

Just watching is not a crime. But taking even the slightest action to help or encourage another person commit a crime is makes on criminally liable to the same degree as the person who committed the unlawful act.

Anonymous said...

Everything cited in the motion by KC reeks of coaching.

I don’t think that anyone believes that CGM is a budding Rhodes scholar. She wuld nat have been smart enough to make all the new statements that, conveniently, fit the prosecution case.

It sure looks like someone helped her along here. The question, at a later date, might be Who?

Anonymous said...

1:59:
It does not report that he was helping or encouraging...she says he did not touch her and in fact refused to do so. Also I have wonder how he could have 'helped' kidnap her as well, if he did not touch her.

Nifong, et al have really screwed up this claim. They did a very poor job of coaching her here.

Anonymous said...

I guess the logic is Reade only watched because he was busy talking on his cell.

The cupidity of this bastard DA is just unrivaled.

Horrified said...

"How do the Lawyers decide who gets to cross examine her first?

Crystal will be a prosecution witness, of course, so the prosecution gets her first on direct.


I forgot that. Perhaps Nifong is waiting for some external action to literally take it out of his hands. If not, then he shoots her down before the defense even gets the to conduct the cross examination. Then he gets to move for a dismissal.

The earlier post about resentment toward outside intervention is houghtful. Look at how many people are still buying onto the notion that the ballot mess in Florida in 2000 was 'stolen' by the Supreme Court, even after the NYT helped to finish the recount and came up with the same results.

Anonymous said...

It will be very disappointing if Nifong gets less than 10 years.

Anonymous said...

1:54...
Are you sure a grand juror can't come forward if they believed they were seriously lied to? For them to be prosecuted smacks of something right out of the Soviet Union.

Anonymous said...

I'm no rocket scientist but I think I could have done without the analysis section! Not your fault KC, but I think we've reach a point where the case speaks for itself. If someone still needs convincing by at this point, his or her mind will never be changed.

I am aware that this has not gone to trial therefore some might say that I cannot declare for sure that they are innocent... To those who think this case belongs in a trial, all I could say is this: the 3 accused are not ham sandwiches and should never have been indicted by a grand jury.

gs said...

Kim are these pictures you and the accuser dancing in the living room between 12:00 & 12:04.

Yes

Nifong was phote evidence that shows her story is a lie and he keeps going on.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how many other states also do not require their Grand Jury proceedings to be recorded? It seems that NC is way out of line here. We have unfortunately seen how unrecorded GJ proceedings give unchecked power to the prosecutor. I am a Durham resident and would like to write my state legislators about changing this.

Anonymous said...

Liefong and his goons better thank heaven that they picked upper class
well educated NE kids/families for this bs. If he had picked out some good 'ol NC rednecks there would already have been or would soon be some dead bodies around Dumbass,NC.
Full scale wars have been fought over less than this crap.

Michael said...

I think that what would be quite helpful is:

1) A graphical timeline of what did happen according to witnesses and the defense exculpatory evidence that has been presented to date.

2) A YouTube video of the same thing making it very easy for anyone to understand what actually happened and what the prosecution is claiming.

The MSM can't be trusted to do this as they certainly have the resources to do so but haven't for whatever reason. I would guess that there is more than enough talent in the people on the main blogs to do this.

KC Johnson said...

quick response on the NC grand jury statute:

My reading of the statute is that grand jurors are actually forbidden from coming forward, unless they are approached by a law enforcement official. So anyone on the grand jury that indicted the three players would be risking contempt charges if they spoke out now.

Just amazing.

Newyorkstateofmind said...

So much to respond to here: while I've never practiced criminal law, (do transactional stuff like estate planning), I did take a trial advocacy course in law school.

Bill Anderson and some other attorney bloggers have provided a lot of cogent input on the various legal issues presented in today's posts here. Below are some thoughts to try to aid in the clarifications.

On the question of why the judge has not removed Nifong: Generally speaking, a judge would remove a prosecutor only given a set of narrow conditions, and only on the motion of defendant's attorney. I recall there was a defense motion for removal at one time--anyone got the dope on that one. Still...even without a defendant's motion, the judge could remove and replace the prosecutor under "extraordinary circumstances," which hypothetically could be as little as a conflict of interest--clearly present here with Nifong vis a vis his bar indictment being related to the facts of the case he is presenting.

I don't know of any scenario where the judge could dismiss this case, absent a defense motion (or of course the prosecutor dropping the case--clearly not happening here unless Nifong is "Nifonged.") And as another attorney here has noted, NC statutes on this question are apparently very narrow even on the motion of defendant's attorney, and may not even address the sorts of issues this absurd case raises.

Another question I saw raised above: Why hasn't there been Federal intervention? Lots of the reasons for this have been covered, but one highly relevant one, both practically and legally, is that the Duke Three are white males, i.e., there is not Federal legislation or precedent-established interpretations of Constitutional law to serve as a convenient and legitimate hook to justify Federal intervention. If the Duke Three were black, a similar charade would have very likely brought Federal intervention some time ago. There is generally a lot of deference paid by the Feds toward states in matters related to state criminal codes and particularly re garden variety non-drug crimes like rape and robbery, commonlaw crimes such as these having been long-considered to be the first and proper province of states themselves.

On the question of shifting indictments, the rape indictment was simply dropped by Nifong (mid-December), leaving still standing the kidnapping and more generic "sex crimes" charges. Not having read the NC statute in question, I can still say that generic sex crimes statutes are often framed to capture a number of perp. methods of penetration, from orally to the use of foreign objects. And states often use what are called model penal and civil codes crafted by legal organizations; thus many states have virtually identical statutes on basic crimes such as sex crimes.

A la Bill Anderson and some other commentators, it is absolutely true that horrific wrongs are committed against at least technically innocent, and sometimes completely innocent, people all the time. As BA noted, at the Federal level especially there has been a growth industry for decades now of catch-all "conspiracy" statutes to enable the Feds to criminalize behavior that formerly would have been legal; another favorite Fed activity involves the updating of centuries-old laws re asset forfeiture, enabling these statutes to go where Feds rarely went before: to taking property from the subject of a criminal inquiry without even formally charging the subject of the confiscation--by way of asset forfeiture laws, which are also a growth industry in large states like New York and California, and maybe elsewhere besides.

The McMartin preschool trial in the 80's may be one of the legal atrocities Rabinowitz mentions in her WSJ article KC references. Haven't read it yet. That case well demonstrates that defendants can rot in jail for years without any practical remedy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
McMartin_preschool_trial

Just above is a good link (just cut and paste) to the facts of the McMartin case.

Anonymous said...

to 12:44

Are you just tuning in....no one came foward because NOTHING HAPPENED. The 'bad boy' behavior...exaggerated by Duke...assault, rape, racial slurs...LIES by the FA, DA, DPD.
Cannot even believe your post this late in the "HOAX"!! PLEASE take the time to read KC's posts and the Coleman Report...will help you to understand this case...
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Duke Lax Mom AND SO VERY PROUD OF IT!!!

Anonymous said...

The name confusion comes reminds me of Abbott & Costello's, who's on first? It would be funny if three very real people weren't being terribly maligned over the past 8 months.

Mike said...

I quote:

"Suddenly, after more than 250 days of not speaking to the accuser about the facts of the case, he dispatched his chief “investigator,” Linwood Wilson (who in his spare time “believes that his ministry through gospel music is where God wants him to be and has been blessed for the past 38 years of seeing many souls won to Christ as a result of this ministry”) to interrogate the accuser."

For Prof. K. C. Johnson

If you're going to denounce the politically correct bigotry that underlies this sad tale, you'd do well not to indulge in that same bigotry yourself. The all-too-obvious implication of your remark is that those who sing gospel music belong to some not-to-be-trusted class of people. There's no other reason for including this otherwise gratuitous remark.

If this Linwood Wilson "in his spare time" played chess or collected stamps, would you have told us? No, bigotry against chess players isn't a part of PC dogma. Bigotry against those who sing gospel music is, despite the fact that it's widely sung in both black and white churches from one end of the country to the other.

Mahalia Jackson's marvelous gospel music helped her to escape from the racial ghetto created by the the real champion of racial segregation in this country, the Democratic party. Labeling someone a Democrat, with the implication that means bigot, has ample historical justification. Labeling them a gospel singer doesn't. What kind of history do you teach at CUNY?

Prof. Johnson, your remarks suggest bigotry of the worst sort, the kind that's the most dangerous because it's fashionable at this moment in powerful, well-connected progressive circles. Perhaps you're not as different from the infamous Duke 88 as you might think. And llke them, perhaps you need to examine your attitudes.

--Mike Perry, a descendant of Hopwell Hallmark, murdered by the Ku Klux Klan in 1894 Alabama.

wayne fontes said...

To Mike Perry:

Prof Johnson was pointing the hypocrisy of someone who so openly promotes their Christianity participating in a frame up. Don't forget that Wilson also tried to intimidate the cab driver Elmo.

Hypocrisy like that is always open game. Kind of like Jesse Jackson advising Clinton on his marital infidelity in the oval office with his pregnant mistress in attendance.

Anonymous said...

The quotation from Linwood Wilson's website was interesting as background color, and relevant.

The evidence suggests that Wilson may be a party to a conspiracy to frame the Duke Three by concocting a new story and timeline for Precious which avoid the problems that the defense, KC and others have pointed to. If he's done that, while publicly proclaiming his faith in Jesus Christ, then he's not just corrupt but also a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robbie said...

The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior - who wrote a new version from memory of what happened in the hospital? - Gottlieb! If Nifong isn't coaching her to act looney (and get her more hospital treatment where she can ply for drugs and still have no responsibility for her children)then you had better look to the person with a history of fabrication. I hope someone has been tailing Gottlieb so any contact he had with her can be documented.

luke said...

How does this new timeline gel with Brian Taylor's statements. The N&O reported: "According to a copy of the accuser's phone bill reviewed by The N&O, she received short calls at 11:11 p.m. and 11:22 p.m., and then called her father at 11:25, a call that lasted 7 minutes. She received two more calls, at 11:33 and 11:36. This last call lasted three minutes, indicating she did not arrive at the party until 11:39 p.m. at the earliest. Brian Taylor, a friend who drove her to the party, told The N&O in May she was late and he had difficulty finding the house."On our way there, she got two calls on her cell phone saying if you don't come soon, it's going to get canceled," Taylor said in an interview in May"

plymouthrock said...

Is it possible for the falsely accused to bring criminal accusations against Nifong, Mangum, et al.?

Anonymous said...

good work , 1:42 , and a few others !

There are few on this or any other blog that I have been reading over the course of these many months who have demonstrated an ability to think strategically . And this is because most just take sides and react .

Nifong knows exactly what he is doing and has from the jump . * For his purposes * , he is winning this game and will eventually be the only winner . Everyone else is playing catch -up .

KC is defacto fronting for Brodhead it has become clear . KC will be destroyed in the Academy unless he plays it thus . In this drama it is Brodhead and the Duke Board of Directors who are truly evil in regards justice for the Three . Had this been the basketball tream we would have seen an entirely different approach .

Anonymous said...

two publicity seeking assholes, hiding behind a public office,acting in concert to profit from this farcical fiction while destroying the reputations of the accused students seems like business as usual to me....the moral fabric of our society is showing alot of wear these days. If Nifong was working at any other profession, and acted the way he has in this case, he would have been driven out by his peers enmass. Why does our legal system have to tolerate this obvious lie to profit scheme, why havent lawyers called for his forcible removal?

Anonymous said...

1112 HA HA HA What are you smoking and/or drinking? TKhanx for a good laugh.

Bahama James said...

Just for curiosity I looked up the word "wanker" in an American dictionary and for some reason there was a picture of Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Gives a whole new meaning to "Bull" Durham, doesn't it? NC seceded on its own last time; maybe this time they should be asked to.