Thursday, January 11, 2007

Motion

The full supplementary motion is here. For those who have the time, it's worth reading in its entirety--the motion is beautifully written and elegantly crafted. Motions like this one remind us of the best in the legal profession, just as Nifong's behavior has illustrated the worst.

And from WRAL: " An assistant for Nifong told WRAL for Nifong was not taking phone calls today."

114 comments:

Anonymous said...

The accuser is now stating Seligman didnt assault her in any way? What a shock. He is the one with the alibi.

If white people, liberals especially, werent so afraid of the NAACP, then this girl would have been charged with a crime for lying.

Suing a broke ass welfare mother means nothing as you can still live off society while bankrupt, but when she is threatened with losing her kids and jailtime, people will learn that you just dont make false accusations because you think you dont have to face penalties because you are black broke and cry rape.

Anonymous said...

Can you imagine having to write this this motion and actually try to "analyze" her stories enough to compare them. And try to figure out how many people Dave Evans was supposed to be and how many names he had. Just reading through her different stories causes me mental vertigo.

I'm sure the word "wonderland" passed through the writer's mind.

Anonymous said...

Thank God the boys have these great lawyers.
Kemp

Anonymous said...

This lasted motion really shows why DAs typically investigate before indicting.

Anonymous said...

All of a sudden, the Duke "rape -- no, make that Sexual Assault" hoaxer has remembered, changed, and switched-around some "new" details, each one AMAZINGLY tailored to squirm and sleaze around the mounting arsenal of incontrovertible alibi evidence, physical impossibilities, and hideous forensic contradictions in Nifong's case, all in one desperate final grab to render Mike Nifong's "case" anything but what it is -- a compelling reason to disbar Mike Nifong, and put him in prison for life, for violating the defendants' civil rights, for his own perjury, and for witness tampering.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/531253.html

Crystal Gail Mangum continues her unbroken record of never yet telling the same story twice -- but now, with some insane new twists on her same old baloney.

It's all a bad, bad joke. Ten months after her first pile of lies, Crystal is persuaded to "remember" things, with the help of Nifong's "chief investigator", that Nifong hopes will somehow "fit" all of the objective defense FACTS that he cannot escape. Long story short: He will learn, to his ruination, that he is wrong.

Nifong's chief "investigator", i.e. perjury-facilitator, seriously needs to be put in handcuffs and arrested for subornation of perjury, one moment after the accuser testifies, under oath, to the reeking pile of bullshit
that Nifong has invented in his attempt to save his own foul hide, career, pension, and freedom from incarceration.

I could be wrong, but my guess is that Crystal will never testify under oath to this Nifong-invented bullshit, nor even to her own hastily improvised fairy tales. I'll be shocked if she even shows up for the hearing on Ferbruary 5. And if she does show up, Mike Nifong better pray to the Satan
who inspires him, that Crystal will not blurt out the true circumstances of how she was manipulated and induced to change her story for no reason but to
suit Mike Nifong's desperate needs.

Apparently Nifong (a real mental case) was truly shocked when Mr. Meehan recently told the truth under oath -- something Nifong himself is incapable of. Nifong will be in for a rude shock if the Feb 5 hearing further reveals his crude, moronic, transparent attempts at witness tampering.

GPrestonian said...

KC:

"..the best in the legal profession..."

I remarked to someone on TL that it was too bad that Cheshire, et al didn't write the NC State Bar complaint. While effective, it was boring and pedestrian.

Defence counsel could have done much better - I wonder why the Bar didn't just copy the defence's draft as provided? :) Sadly, some on TL are implying that the Bar complaint is a defence plot.

Anonymous said...

Judge and courts not needed to end this one--its all in the math!:

The accuser started out with 20 attackers. Then 5. Then 3. Now its 2. If we apply regression analysis to this trend, we find that on approximately Mar 27th, the number of attackers will be 0.

Anonymous said...

If any of the Grand Jurors are reading this - they could make some good appearance $ by being the first to tell all. In a few days that info won't be worth much.

Anonymous said...

Can someone clear up what rights a grand juror has in the event they feel that they have been lied to. another poster has stated that because the grand jury procedures are 'secret' that a grand juror who came forward with the truth would be prosecuted.

does anyone have the actual facts on this?

westernblot said...

I was in East Berlin in the old communist days.

It is a real tragedy that few Americans saw what it was like.

If people like Nifong have their way we will get what we deserve.

Anonymous said...

According to Wikipedia:
Alice in Wonderland Syndrome (AIWS), is a disorienting neurological condition which affects human visual perception. Generally, the object perceived appears far away or extremely close at the same time.

Somebody please submit a new term:

Durham in Wonderland Syndrome (DIWS), is a disorienting neurological condition which affects human psychological perception. Generally, the truth appears very clearly to some, or is completely disregarded by others whom have the intention of furthering agendas and preconceived notions, or just to make up for things that happened in the past.

See also:
Nifong
Brodhead
Group Haty Hate
Potbanger
New Black Panthers
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
NY times
(see more)

Complete DisgrAce

Anonymous said...

TO anonymous 2:07

I felt the same way. And KC is right, it's an expertly crafted motion. The Judge should be able to grant the motion, as a matter of law, one would hope.

Anonymous said...

On Fox News a few moments ago Hemmer remarked that the 'real' victims of this hoax are the women who may have genuine rape claims that are likely to be less readily believed.

No, the ONLY real victims are the three falsely accused men who still have serious charges pending against them.

Also among those with serious, but self-inflicted wounds, are the North Carolina Bar Association, the judiciary, and the criminal justice system, all of which seem to have been put together in a Third World country in a state of governmental collapse. To those among the self-inflicted wounded, of course, are Duke and the Group of 88 racist morons.

Anonymous said...

watching Nifong squirm in court will be hilarious.

How is he supposed to answer this?

WJD said...

No doubt that Linwood Wilson, is spinning for Nifong. The whole time frame now changes. What about the neighbor that watched the two strippers from 11:50PM until midnight, when they entered the house. This looks like another case of someone being in 2 places at the same time. Crystal was standing outside the house at 11:50pm and inside the house being kidnapped and assaulted at the same time, while Reade was telling his girlfriend what they were doing, in the bathroom or on the front lawn. This is further proof that Linwood Wilson is an incompetent investigator, who hasn't read any of the evidence in the case. Now I see why no "bill of particulars" because Dave Evens was 3 and possibly 4 different people in the bathroom from 11:40 to midnight with the spirit of Crystal Mangum, who was seen on the front lawn at 11:50, by a neighbor. Or is that the other way around, the ghost of Crystal was on the front lawn. Maybe Nifong can indict Pres. Broadhead, where was he at midnight Mar 13/14, 2006? He may not have been there physically, but spritually, he may have been in that bathroom.

Anonymous said...

2:38;
Hemmer is partially correct on future 'real' victims... but that is what Nifong has done to these people. His actions will impact many innocent people. He has not just messed up the boys lives, but he has just made it very hard to prosecute real rapists!

Anonymous said...

I am telling you - check Nifong's DNA.

Anonymous said...

So, On December 21st, the accuser recants the portion of her testimony having to do with Reade Seligmann, saying he "did not commit any sex act with her".

Yet, the very next day, Nifong reaffirms the sexual offense charge against Seligmann.

How can a woman be sexually offended by someone who "did not commit any sex act with her"?

gs said...

Wendy Murphy is going to have to work hard to keep up with all these new absolutely true woman victim "facts".

How dare you doubt her.

Academic said...

I suggest that Duke give Mike Nifong honorary BS, MS, and PhD degrees for his body of work in the past year.

Bull Shit.

More of the Same.

Piled Higher and Deeper.

Anonymous said...

Up until this point, I have felt that the false accuser is stupid, mentally ill, and has durg/alcohol problems. For these reasons, I thought that Nifong was manipulating her and she got herself into something that her stupidity hindered her from getting out of. After reading the types notes of Inv. Wilson (really gross stuff), I have to hold her fully accountable for continuing this flase accusation. How a woman can say such harmful lies fully knowing the consequences of those lies tells me that she is stupid, mentally ill, addicted, and morally corrupt. This woman should be locked up. Infuriating!

Anonymous said...

2:43

Seligmann is still accused of helping shove her into the bathroom.

drowning in crap said...

Why does Mike Nifong remind me of the story of the 3rd world resident who drowned trying to retrieve his cell phone from a cesspool?

GPrestonian said...

2:40pm WJD:

"..This looks like another case of someone being in 2 places at the same time. Crystal was standing outside the house at 11:50pm and inside the house being kidnapped and assaulted at the same time..."

Reminds me of that old Firesign Theater refrain:

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at aaaaaaalllllll?

Anonymous said...

2:55...pushing someone is not a sexual assault.

Hey said...

Reade's charged for being in the same (very small) room while the "attack" occurred. He supposedly aided and abetted the "crime" since he would have been an implied threat of force and a further impediment to escape, if CGM had ever been telling the truth in any of her versions.

The theory is a very sound one, and applies in many states that any accessory to a crime is just as culpable as the one who actually commits it. It has a biblical history, as previously mentioned by Bill A, and is widely applied.

There's a difference to being an attendant at a party or a witness in an open area and being one of 4 people in a room big enough for 1-2. That's about the only solid theory or fact in the whole process so far.

None of this theory helps the fact that this supposed event never ocurred, that CGM has lied every time she spoke to the Police or any other authority, and that it is a crude frame to get Defendant Nifong his pension.

Anonymous said...

And we're supposed to believe Nifong reviewed her 12/21 statement and concluded he had to drop the rape charges but keep the other charges, especially against Reade? If he's so reasonable to recognize that the rape charges didn't stand up, how could he keep the sexual assault charges against Reade who "just watched"? Clearly he had some say in the statement of 12/21 or directed Wilson in how to coach her.

Anonymous said...

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 - Conspiracy to Make False Statements to a Government Agency;
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 2 - Aiding and Abetting False Statements to a Government Agency


“The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of government.”

Anonymous said...

KC, please, please, please keep an eye on cable TV today and get us some choice spin from Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy. This should be hilarious.

Tom from California said...

No, Nifong didn't craft this piece of farce, "the victim" did. Either Nifong or his investigator could and would have done a much better job had they been the authors of this new story. Neither could possibly think that this new story will help the prosecution at the February 5th hearing or at the (increasing unlikely) trial.

This new story is, however, consistent with the accuser's prior tellings in one respect only: the complete lack of consistency with each of the prior tellings. No, this can only be the work of someone who has no idea that consistency is an essential requirement for being believed. Believe what you want about employees of the district attorney, but they cannot possibly be that stupid.

gs said...

The accuser was on the phone, they really should have looked at her phone records before coming up with a new story.

Jason Bissey, the neighbor across the street saw both woman enter the house at midnight. Which is supported by pictures at 12:00 - 12:04 of the women dancing in the living room.

Why let known facts get in the way of Mike's pension. Frame 3 kids and get a full 30 pension package.

Anonymous said...

I wonder where they got the magical towel from?

Wipes away their DNA and leaves other mens DNA behind.

Tom from California said...

Where can one find a copy of the typed notes? A reference was made in one of the comments to having read them, but so far all I can find is the body of the motion itself.

Anonymous said...

http://wral.com/news/local/story/1133573/

Related links on the wral link in KC post

Anonymous said...

I'm with tom from CA...has anyone compared her new statements to Gotlieb's typed notes?

Desperately seeking Crystal said...

"Believe what you want about employees of the district attorney, but they cannot possibly be that stupid."

Tom from California


Desperation makes fools of even the smartest among us. So what does it do to someone like Mike Nifong, who is not all that bright to begin with?

The latest version of the "facts" is NOT something that Miss Mangum came up with on her own. It is merely the latest "coached" version of her story.

Anonymous said...

And from WRAL: " An assistant for Nifong told WRAL for Nifong was not taking phone calls today."

He's too busy beating his head against the wall.

Anonymous said...

Tomorrow is Friday,Monday is a holiday, and state offices are closed. Any predictions on what Liefong comes up with late Friday so that he does not have to face the media until Tuesday. This has been is MO to date.

Kevin said...

Can we please officially refer to this affair as a "traveshamockery"?

Also, to 3:14 PM, I'm currently Tivo-ing the Nancy Grace show sans the first 20 minutes, so I hope I didn't miss her coverage of the latest developments. Right now, they're discussing the Brian Nichols quad-homicide case and she just dropped a doozie of a non-sequitur about "how much money we're spending in Iraq, so we can bring everybody home in a bodybag?" Nice, Nancy...

Anonymous said...

3:35 - you are probably exactly right.

Does anyone know what the time stamp is on the photo that's mentioned in Wilson's typed report? The one that she says shows her putting her money away. I thought I remembered the time stamps were consistant with the neighbor's timeline which would make her being raped before midnight impossible because she hadn't arrived until then. Plus of course, she's dancing at 12:03 after being raped??

Anonymous said...

Today's filing is superbly written.

The lawyers are first-rate.

Attorney in NYC

Anonymous said...

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not trying to be argumentative, just looking for answers:

"Aiding and abetting" can be considered a mitigating factor to a "reportable conviction" under NC's sexual offender registry:

"'Reportable conviction' means a final conviction for an offense against a minor, a sexually violent offense, or an attempt to commit any of those offenses unless the conviction is for aiding and abetting..." which is left to the discretion of the sentencing judge to determine whether a registration is required.

As such, how sure are we that "aiding and abetting" is not a separate charge from first degree sexual offense?

And if it is a separate charge, why did Nifong pursue that charge against Seligmann, a day after finding out that it didn't apply?

Any help would be appreciated!

Anonymous said...

I hope Crystal loses custody of her children in the end. (Assuming she has some maternal instincts and would actually give a damn)Hell, knowing what kind of person she is she might be thrilled about not having to support them. However she feels though it would be better for the children to be away from her.

Michael said...

Anyone have the dimensions of the bathrooms or maybe a picture of it. It would be a hoot to bring in a full-scale model of the bathroom with fixtures if it is as small as some claim.

Tom from California said...

Desperation makes fools of even the smartest among us. So what does it do to someone like Mike Nifong, who is not all that bright to begin with?

But, being desperate, doesn't that make it that more important to come up with the best story possible under the circumstances? Desperation might explain why one might try to come up with a story that fills in (as best as possible) the holes in the prior story, even at the risk of criminal prosecution for doing so, it does not explain why the DA would come up with such a transparently ludicrous story. "Precious's" December 21st retelling is a total coup for the defense. Even the "we should let a jury decide" crowd should now be convinced. (I am not saying that they will -- only that this the December 21st retelling hardly helps the prosecution.)

Anonymous said...

3 39
Good point - she was dancing after being raped and strangeled?!

Anonymous said...

Tom in California:

“I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” in answer to getting tagged for perjury in a deposition.

Even the smartest people make big goofs when cornered and they get caught.

Anonymous said...

I was prosecutor for 12 years and have tried many criminal cases. The defense recap of the complainant's various statements illustrates perfectly why any prosecutor, especially in a case of wide public interest, will obtain as soon as possible detailed statements from important witnesses. It later can be used to refresh the fading memory of a witness.

The only reason I can figure why the police and DA did not take such a statement in this case is that they concluded the complainant's original story was so full of holes that they didn't want her to later be tied to it. Such a strategy can have only short-term success, however, and can result in a disaster at trial. A trial in this case would be a bloodbath.

I am curious whether Mr. Nifong has experience trying cases against lawyers of the caliber of those representing these defendants. Most prosecutor in such a situation would expect that every state action would be challenged and would proceed with caution. That does not appear to have occurred in this case.

Law school professors like to teach using hypothetical situations. This case combines issues in criminal law, procedure, prosecutorial ethics and civil liability for prosecutors that nobody could have thought up and likely will have a long life in law school classes and ethics seminars for prosecutors.

It both fascinates and repels me.

Anonymous said...

I just realized, "Playboy" hasn't asked her to pose yet. I wonder why.

Anonymous said...

4:34 "I am curious whether Mr. Nifong has experience trying cases against lawyers of the caliber of those representing these defendants."

I think KC has posted in the past that the answer is a resounding NO!

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight as I'm a bit confused...

Adam, Matt, and Brett are really Dave now, Matt and Adam are Ryan, Colin is Mr. Noname, Kim is Marsha and/or Cindy, Precious is Jan, Peter is Bobby, Greg is Bobby and Mike, and Jerry Mathers is...the Beaver.

Hmm, if I had time, I'd work in a Parker Bros. Clue reference.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't there a Monty Python sketch where everyone was named just named Bruce?

Anonymous said...

Mr Plum stuck his thumb in the pie in the bathroom with the broomstick

Anonymous said...

If the Feb. 5 hearing actually comes off, we could be treated to Nofing trying to destroy the credibility of CGM, so when she testifies that he not only coached her but coerced her into making the initial identifications, he can defend himself by saying she's not credible (and he didn't catch on to this until just now).

In fact, it is possible that this is one reason why the latest version of things is so incredible (unless you think he had to go this far to top the earlier versions or that he is pathologically stupid). This gives him cover to dismiss the case without her testifying so she might not have to testify until she is a prosecution witness -- at the civil suit against Nofing, the DPD, and Durham.

Anonymous said...

At 4 names per person, we now have the Group of 352.

GPrestonian said...

OT to this thread, but...

Article in the Duke Chronicle today has sparked some great comments:

Reinstatement sparks fiery faculty response

Get this, they quote Rom Coles:

"Rom Coles, associate professor of political science and member of the so-called Group of 88, said he had two concerns with the professors' letter. First, he said it did not address the veracity of accusations made about the original ad, and second, he said there was a "possible insinuation" that the signatories to the ad did not support and welcome members of the lacrosse team-a suggestion for which Coles said there was "absolutely no evidence." "

and

"Coles said he supports a healthy and constructive dialogue, but added the letter did not fit his definition.

"I don't want to countenance it as a good intervention, because what it does is feed an engine of hate-maybe not directly-a wheel of hatred that's bound up with the blogs," he said. "What we were doing was raising larger questions, as opposed to insinuating the guilt. What you don't see is 'Those conservatives in the economics department don't care enough about racism and sexism.'""


No mention that he's married to Kim Curtis...

Anonymous said...

This is like one of those logic puzzles. There were 4 persons who participated in a sexual act. There were 4 sexual acts. Some of the sexual offenders used false names. Name the rapist, the acts they performed, the false names they used, and the order that the acts took place. I can see it on the next LSAT.

Anonymous said...

5 02
Just looked him up on Duke website. That explains alot.

Anonymous said...

If you're really into deep rabbit holes, this could be seen as part of an exit stategy of some sort.

Here are a few possibilities:

1) an exchange: "end this in a way that makes it very clear that nothing ever happened (to help with healing, etc.) and you get to stay out of jail"

2) (further) discredit someone who could expose the depth of the corruption here, out of self-interest

3) pin everything on CGM, hoping to escape any consequences

Who's going to break the wall of silence at the DA's office and DPD?
No one there seems to think much is going to change...

Anonymous said...

Nice get your husband to defend you. And get the school paper not to mention you are married to him.

The Duke Chronicle needs to learn what full disclosure means.

Anonymous said...

At this point if I was in the DPD and helped in this case, I be seeing my lawyer.

The two DPD guys who went to see Meehan with Nifong, twice, can easily be drawn into that case.

Meehan has already shown that he will not lie under oath for Nifong. In most cases the one who talks first gets to go free.

Even the DPD have to know that Nifong is done for, and they helped with reports made from memeory, rigged lineups, and the Meehan meetings.

When the state or Fed investigates, who knows what they will find?

After Feb 5, when the case is thrown out, they can no longer say they are speaking up to prevent a wrong. It would be better to get ahead of the problem.

Anonymous said...

There was just a well spoken AA female atty on Fox. She indicated disgust with Nifong. I think he will be dumped in hours.

duke09parent said...

4:49,

Yours is as plausible explanation of his conduct as any. Maybe the newest version is so preposterous that Nifong expects Smith to dismiss it without CGM testifying.

Anonymous said...

Holy shit!

for the most part the commenters on this blog are rational folks who can parse through the hyperbole manufactured by this hoax.

There is a profound sense here the clarity of the facts as we know them will prevail on February 5. But what if CGM's latest recollection is allowed to be presented to a jury? there is still a chance the jury would hear and believe the AV.

From my limited experience as an expert witness I know a trial
turns on the evidence allowed into court. I'm not convinced our optimism for a dismissal is warranted.

WJD said...

I got this from the Executive director of the NC Bar today, in response to an e-mail I sent:


Thank you for your comments concerning the Duke lacrosse case and its prosecution by Mr. Nifong. This is matter in which the State Bar is very interested as evidenced by the disciplinary complaint we have recently filed against Mr. Nifong in regard to certain of his public statements that we believe violated our Rules of Professional Conduct. A trial of the disciplinary action initiated by the State Bar has been scheduled for May 11, 2007. I have no doubt that the progress of our case will be widely reported in the media. In the meantime, you can find out more about the North Carolina State Bar and our procedures in disciplinary cases by visiting our website at www.ncbar.gov.

L. Thomas Lunsford II
Executive Director

bill anderson said...

5:30 is right. If Judge Smith is willing to accept this new batch of lies, then we could see it go to trial. My hope is that he actually cares about the truth, and not about covering the posterior of another government employee.

Anonymous said...

Even if it went to trial the judge could not leave Nifong on the case. A ethics hearing is scheduled for his comments on this case.

Not a hard call to cite a conflict of intrest for Nifong. Feb 5 Nifong is off the case.

Realize that if Nifong is replaced, a new DA would have to interview the accuser again. This would produce new versions of the lies.

Anonymous said...

Is AG Gonzales by his absence supporting DA Nifong in this frame up and could he be held repsonsible?

Maybe AG Gonzales will find himself under the cloud of a lawsuit for his support of the false accuser by his possible inaction.

We cannot rely on any of the elected fools in North Carolina to stop this farce.

Come on Alberto.....PLEASE put the fishing rod down come back from vacation and do your job.

There is much corruption afoot in Durham and it requires your offices urgent attention..NOW!

Anonymous said...

The Feds and the state will do nothing. They are hoping the judge on Feb 5 will resolve this mess. Once the case is over, the state will investigate so as to save face and stop the Feds from coming in. If the state fails, then and only then will the feds come in.

Also as soon as Nifong is off the case, expect more charges from the state bar.

Nifong will be disbarred, the bar does not want to keep having hearings against the same person. They know about the Meehan issue and no judge is going to give Nifong his license back (Nifong could appeal to).

Anonymous said...

This quote sums up why I think Wilson dictated Crystal's statement to her. There is no way she could have come up with this scenario:

So let me get this straight as I'm a bit confused...

Adam, Matt, and Brett are really Dave now, Matt and Adam are Ryan, Colin is Mr. Noname, Kim is Marsha and/or Cindy, Precious is Jan, Peter is Bobby, Greg is Bobby and Mike, and Jerry Mathers is...the Beaver.
_______________________

I suppose it attempts to make sense of her prior accounts - I just think she's aware enough to know she's not smart enough to attempt it. Wilson on the other hand is a dumb enought hick to think he could back in her story to the evidence.

Anonymous said...

Nifong has immunity after a person is charged(or indentified) (hence the DA office has a case), not before. The hiding of DNA evidence and the rigging of the lineup may not be covered by immunity.

Anonymous said...

4:45 -- Yes, it's the Hollywood Bowl appearance (possibly duplicated elsewhere) with a bunch of Australian philosophy professors.

bill anderson said...

I found Linwood Wilson's Gospel Singing group website and told them in an email that St. Paul said that liars would not "inherit the Kingdom of Heaven." If Wilson is interested in "saving souls," he might begin with how own. Any person who will lie the way he does has no soul.

Anonymous said...

I felt like I was taking the Games Section on the LSAT again. LOL. I have read each motion and after this one I'm even more furious that the legal system is still allowing this frame-up to continue.

The only criminals in this case are the accuser, the DA and the police. I don't think I'll ever return to Duke or NC for that matter.

Newyorkstateofmind said...

The former prosecutor 4:34 provides a lot of good perspective on why Nifong did not do what the vast majority of prosecutors do when getting a victim or witness statement. Normally, prosecutors seek to get a formal account of the events at hand as close to the events as possible, to shore up the inevitable cross examination which often among other things addresses the question of how the victim/witness knows for sure that what they are relaying in court on a given day is really how things went down X days ago.

For Nifong to leave the gathering of victim statements until almost 9 months after the events would doubtless in the civil law arena subject him to charges of malpractice. 4:34 rightly indicates that Nifong's gross delay in this area was motivated by avoiding having to formally account for any established scenario of what went down at the stripper party, until the absurd scenario floated back in December (he had to present some scenario before 2/5 to fight a potential motion to dismiss).

In the event, the story he fed to CGM--as to whether this latest version of what happened that night is fed by Nifong or somehow birthed by CGM--suffice to say that it is highly unlikely that CGM is taking anything other than a passive role in this latest concoction. Of course the timeline and the explanation of events is as absurd as always, even more absurd in many ways...nevertheless, it is Nifong in his desperation who is driving this car, however recklessly. He has the only leverage to keep this case going forward, and he will use that to the max, including using it, if necessary, to keep CGM in alignment with his latest pathetic ploy to keep this case afloat.

No judge will get to hear CGM's fantasies, planted by Nifong as they are at this point, unless this case goes to trial. Since the chances of this case going to trial are virtually nill--unless the judge is literally in some sort of conspiracy with Nifong, or at least an old golfing buddy, or an inveterate media hound (wouldn't be the first time; remember Judge Ito from the Simpson case)...then Nifong will present his bogus ID evidence at the 2/5 hearing, the case will be imploded by the judge, and Nifong will then dismiss the case, having no real evidence to take the case forward. So the judge, and the court, will likely not have the spectacle of CGM destructing on the witness stand, to the extent where she may even blame it all on Nifong, telling the courtroom and doubtless at this point the world that he coached her what to say--which is patently illegal of course, and is one of the few things Nifong has done in this case that might actually get him brought up on some sort of criminal judges.

Unfortunately, however outrageous his behavior, Nifong gives Stalinist show trials a bad name; if he can simply dump the case after 2/5 (likely), he may escape all criminal liability for all his outrages. Even in terms of potential civil actions, his prosecutorial misconduct may well be covered by sovereign immunity statutes related to the prosecution of criminal cases. Put another way, it will be covered; anyone with insight on whether these set of facts--his transparently fraudalent conduct for instance--will pierce that immunity--open question.

CGM's providing a juicy expose to Inside Edition--or some such--even the MSM would interview her in an "exclusive" in a heartbeat--about how Nifong manipulated her from early on, and outright coached her from December on (and possibly the entire time)--now that provides a great opening for civil action against Nifong--and mabye even criminal charges.

balding.lawyer said...

2 comments:

As prosecutor of 12 years and later sometime defense lawyer, my experience is that many prosecutors who started their legal careers with the DA, have reached and are passing middle age, feel inferior to those in private practice and sometimes become very hard to deal with as a result. Attitudes which never would be tolerated in private practice are the hallmark of some prosecutors. That, plus the fact that some prosecutors also develop a them vs. us mentality can result in some exceptionally difficult people in the office of a district attorney.

According to the NC bar website, NC attorneys must have 12 hours of continuing legal education each year, at least 2 of which must be in ethics. Typically, a state prosecutor's association will arrange the courses for its members to insure the lectures will be appropriate to their jobs. I have lectured at many such conferences and will be astonished if those attended my Mr. Nifong have not included discussions of pre-trial and precharging statements to the press.

His conduct as to the lineup and the DNA report likely will have been covered during lectures on civil liability for prosecutors. Mr Nifong can expect to see again the handouts for the lectures he attended. This time, however, they will be marked "Exhibit A" and shown to him in a federal court room.

Anonymous said...

Nifong also assumed the role of "Lead Investigator". His actions prior to charging a defendent may not be covered by his DA job. Giving press statements are not part of his job. Telling police how to do a line up also is not covered. He also held back the DNA evidence (with Meehan) before anyone was charged with a crime.

Anyway, I doubt he will make the three years to full retirement.

Anonymous said...

A glimpse at Nifong’s future via 60 Minutes:

In a snippet release from CBS on upcoming 60 Minutes interview with the 3 mothers:

"When asked what they would say to Nifong if he were in the room, Rae Evans, the mother of indicted player David Evans, says, "I would say with a smile on my face, 'Mr. Nifong, you've picked on the wrong families … and you will pay every day for the rest of your life.”

Anonymous said...

For a moment, please put aside the fraud/obstruction of just angle, and let's be the bigger people and afford Nifong a presumption of innocence (as hard as it is to do, he is white after all).

The stupifying thing is that there is a popularly elected district attorney who has staked his reputation to the veracity of the name game that is in that motion. That nonsense is HIS side of the story, and he has pinned his career to it.

Cedarford said...

Can someone clear up what rights a grand juror has in the event they feel that they have been lied to. another poster has stated that because the grand jury procedures are 'secret' that a grand juror who came forward with the truth would be prosecuted.
does anyone have the actual facts on this?

2:34 PM


Great question. I had an employee stuck on Federal Grand Jury duty for 6 months and it was one of the biggest headaches and drags on work covering his erratic absences. Good guy.
He said the jurors were pretty well indoctrinated that such secrecy was a cornerstone of law and American civilization and anyone who violated it was led to believe it was akin to hating cherry pie, torturing puppies for fun. How secrecy is supposed to be a check on the power of government despots going back to Ye Olde Merry England...so jurors wouldn't fear being hanged or having their heads chopped off if an indictment displeased the King or some powerful nobleman. So serious criminal penalties affix to violating secrecy because theoretically, in law tradition, violating secrecy "invades" the privacy of the accused and endangers fellow jurors with the Kings soldiers coming to get them and kill them.
In our state, my employee of course noted how ludicrous that was....the DA was an insanely ambitious politican on the make, swayed by various powers he later used to "move on" into the Bush Administration then K-Street riches as a regulator turned schmoozer. The secrecy was meaningless when you effectively had a major power player of a political party running the show, with a pack of lawyers surrounding him all similarly hoping for government advancement as a career or as entree to a highly renumerating private sector job.

But complaints and dissent could go to the judge if jurors felt they were lied to. And he said that transcripts and recordings of some testimony existed to aid jurors in complex cases when they had a case that went on for months (mostly corporate investigations) or for courts to look at later...

In the strange State of North Carolina, of course, no transcripts or recordings are kept and a mindset exists that a state grand jury exists just to be a procedural check on a checklist - with the "real proceeding" of course being the trial.

I imagine that some jurors do believe their indoctrination, others are into pack loyalty as black people to the black "victim". Perhaps a few jurors have complained to the judge (a Nifong crony) but no one knows.
I do know that if I was on such a jury and felt I was lied to, that the jury was suborned I would be dropping an anonymous dime to the likes of the defense lawyers, the media, or a guy like KC Johnson saying that with the passage of time it was clear the jury was lied to and manipulated. And that an independent court should investigate for perjury and suborning criminal or unethical attorney actions.

Without giving the particulars that would breech secrecy.


KC, please, please, please keep an eye on cable TV today and get us some choice spin from Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy. This should be hilarious.

3:04 PM


I doubt Prof Johnson sees his role spending evenings looking for "legal expert's" pithy snippets and serving as your entertainer. If you want hilarious pronouncements from the two, by all means make it a point to monitor Cable TV yourself.

He assembled the Wendy Murphy file to illustrate just how unprofessional and unethical the "noted Professor from the New England School of Law" is from transcripts and no doubt has a special place planned in his writings for the Head Cheerleader not just for Nifong but the Fells Acres and similar child molestation witchcraft trials.
But I don't believe he feels a need to be the official Wendy Murphy/Nancy Grace Watch.

*******************
I agree with KC Johnson. Really good lawyers place a high premium on logic, analytical ability, and precise language. That was one fine piece of work Cheshire & Co did, and that the Duke 3 paid for. (for now at least until the upcoming lawsuits are resolved.)

Anonymous said...

O/T: one of my favorite poison-pen writers in this case has been Lester Munson of SI.com.

Munson, at least as of December 22nd, is still convinced the LAX players are holding back.

In an interview posted that date on SI.com, Munson opines:

"There is little doubt that something unsavory happened at the party on March 13. After the dismissal of the rape charges, it will be easier for the accused players to attempt to settle everything with a guilty plea on lesser charges."

Less Les is certainly more, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Cedarford:

You write very well.

Sam Dash

balding.lawyer said...

Response to Cedarford:

If is not uncommon for there to be no transcript for state grand jury proceedings. As for lying or presenting highly or one-sided evidence to a grand jury, that is a charge sometimes made but seldom, as far as I know, litigated. This case presents that issue, as well as a number of other which, in my opinion, make it stand alone. Take every other prosecutorial misconduct case, add them together, and they don't come close to this one. As a former prosecutor, and often ethics speaker, this takes my breath away.

Anonymous said...

There was other news today--a statement from Provost Lange that focuses on the negative, sometimes racist, blogging about Duke faculty.

KC Johnson: Will you, or have you, addressed these comments?

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/01/lange.html

bill anderson said...

Lester Munson perhaps is the worst journalist in this whole story. Even Duff Wilson has turned around his views, but Munson to the very end is insisting that "something happened," and that the players are "guilty of something."

Here is someone who refuses to look at evidence and remains slavishly loyal to Nifong to the end. Even John Stevenson is more skeptical than is Munson.

Anonymous said...

I'm not an attorney, so these questions are not meant to be rhetorical:

How many times can an accuser change their story? Can the accuser develop present a plausible reason for replacing her previous narratives - the changing descriptions, the changing timelines, etc?

Can the DA successfully exclude her previous statements from a line of questioning – meaning the defense would not be allowed to challenge her on the witness stand?

Is there ANY evidence left other than the accuser's (current) version of the story?

The bottom line is: are the LAX-3 still in danger of being convicted if the DA does a good job with jury selection?

MP

balding.lawyer said...

All of her previous statements may be used to cross-examination her, as well as her cell-phone records, etc.
The challenge for defense lawyers will be to avoid beating her up up much that some jurors may feel sympathy when she starts to cry, as I expect will be the case.

Anonymous said...

One hopes that CGM realizes that after the trial is dismissed she becomes a liability to certain people.

Anonymous said...

I bet that when CGM breaks down and admit she lied, Nifong will indict her on a bunch of charges.

It was all her fault.

Does she thinks Nifong won't throw her under the bus to save himself?

Michael said...

re: 7:32

A lot of words that indicate that he
doesn't understand the modern digital
world.

He doesn't specifically mention which
blogs he's reading so I don't know if
KC needs to respond. But there aren't
that many big blogs on this case.

If he wanted to, he could contact the
owners with just a few phone calls. It's not like the media where there are a gazillion outlets.

There are lots of professors that blog or debate on message boards where the discussion can be rough and tumble and where you do have to justify what you write and from what I can see, a lot of Duke professors don't like that environment.

I personally do try to justify my arguments internally and expect someone to correct me if I'm wrong. I would think that university professors would have the same internal motivations. But clearly some at Duke don't.

Take a guy like KC who clearly is savvy on blogs and message boards. Why isn't this skill common in universities that should be at the forefront in using technology. I note that Professor Davidson participates heavily on a website related to digital learning and has tried out violent video games to get a feel for them.

Teenagers and younger children have no problems dealing with others in online forums and message boards. They seem to pick it up pretty early these days. I recall one time when I was using a computer at a library that an elementary student came to use the computer next to mine to use AOL instant messaging to chat with a few people. I was amazed at how comfortable he was with the technology.

I got the feeling that many of the 88 are reading this blog. They are free to post here and I'd personally love to hear their thoughts. If we've misunderstood them, then they are free to correct us. Just don't take us for fools.

Anonymous said...

Wow. If you want to see anger from Mrs. Evans, check this out.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/11/60minutes/main2352512.shtml

Nifong, you have created some powerful enemies. To make that family this vengeful because of a calculated act took some doing. Pretty placid people usually, and highly successful at the same time, but not anymore.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

gs said...

I use to think this case was about a woman trying not to get locked up for being drunk, and a DA who used her for political reasons.

Now, with this latest statement, she has fully committed to framing innocent people.

She should go to jail, send a single that framing people carrys jail time.

Cedarford said...

As the case unravels, there are people who should be not forgotten that played important actions now known to the public or may have been key leaders behind the scenes giving Nifong the full "Green Light" to go on.

Besides the hope that a grand juror pissed off that they were used a dupe may drop a dime, there are other "players" who should be motivated to drop a dime not from conscience, but to save their asses.

1. Who signed off on Nifong violating Durham PD ID procedures, trying to search Duke dowms without warrant, arresting witnesses? Who surrendered Durham PD authority to Nifong? That seems to be above Gottlieb's pay grade.

2. Who signed off on Nifongs huge investigative costs when previously murder victim families were told DNA testing was 6-8 months delayed, no witness protection housing and support funds were available, inadequate investigative resources were a fact of life - due to budget constraints? Who backed Nifong in a "cost is no object" approach? Who paid for the accuser's housing, expenses, "handlers", possibly rehab center fees? Who signed off on town, PD expenses and what priorities were sacrificed for "Nifong's Big Case"?

3. Why has the public in Durham not been given an accounting of the Duke Rape costs? What was removed from town, PD budget expenses to pay for it. Why hasn't the media investigated?

4. Before Nifong took over, a low level police spokesman flunky was making substantial pronouncements on the case. Who gave him his marching orders?

5. Who talked to Duke Administration and police to acquiesce to Durham police going on campus and doing searches and queries of students without their attornies present? Again, above Gottlieb's pay grade.

6. What authorities sanctioned the quasi-official activities of Victoria Peterson.

7. What ass't DAs put loyalty to Nifong above their duties as officers of the court and members of the Bar in remaining silent or saluting and rushing out to do things they knew were facilitating misconduct.

Keep in mind the following names:

Linwood Wilson, Mark Gottlieb, PD Chief Steve Chalmers, Judge Ronald Stephens, ADA David Saacks, Inv. Ben Himan, City Manager Patrick Baker, Mayor William Bell, Cpl. David Addison, Inv. Richard Clayton, "activist" Victoria Peterson, Trinity Park business interests and investors, Joyner and local leaders of the NAACP, leaders of the marxist Citizen's Watchdog Group.

They may suddenly become more prominent if AG Alberto Gonzales grows a spine and scrotum and realized his job goes beyond pleasing Bush and focusing 100% on "terrorist evildoers".

Plenty of domestic evildoers and injustices out there....AL. That didn't "all change" on 9/11.

Anonymous said...

Cedarford

Don't forget two DPD officers went with Nifong to see Meehan (Twice). And Meehan is talking. Police do not have immunity.

Anonymous said...

To 7:32 PM

This whole issue of blaming the "Blogs" is the same tactic people use to create a non-existent enemy. Often seen in inventing racial sterotypes in wartime, it generalizes an entire population as evil. It creates a common enemy where there was none. All that is left is to create an evil mythology to go along with the name.

Blogs? Sounds evil already.
Hooligans? Need anyone say more?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know who is funding the defense team? Are there any "white knights" who are assisting with the cost?

Anonymous said...

From the provost's statement:


The cumulative damage of the months of attacks on some of our faculty and the distress of those who sympathize with them is exceeding the limits of prudence about provoking external reactions.


What the fuck does that mean?

Anonymous said...

Is she saying she also doesn't know what Finnerty did to her?

Anonymous said...

Who's on first?

Anonymous said...

A white man's nightmare:

Being forced to perform cunnilingus on our adorable, malodorous Preshious.

Thank you, sir, can I have another?

Richard Brodhead

Anonymous said...

From what the FA claims about this alleged rape, the DNA from the newly appointed number of rapists (2)should have been found EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE (face, towel, anus, vagina, you name it, they touched it!)
Since no DNA was found (including her own!), then her statement= LIE

Anonymous said...

KC
I think this is about to end, hope you continue to follow the LAX players lawsuits against Duke, Nifong and the FA!

Cedarford said...

Don't forget two DPD officers went with Nifong to see Meehan (Twice). And Meehan is talking. Police do not have immunity.

8:22 PM


That would be Ben Himan and mark Gottlieb. They are on my 8:14PM list.

Anonymous said...

Provost Lange that focuses on the negative, sometimes racist, blogging about Duke faculty.

Yes, bring in the race card! you see, the bad guys are really the white people (with their superpowers) blogging! The far-left Jimmy Carter loving femanazis who treat people differently because of their race and gender are the real heroes!

Unfortunately, I agree with some comments here: Gang88 and their liberal pseudo-science wacko profs have zero consequences. Their liberal race-obsessed femanazi students will admire them even more. Every able bodied feminist+marxist+racist student in this country will flock to Duke Pseudo-science schools.

Brodhead continues as usual. Maybe he is invited to be Harvard President (far-left pseudo-science profs control the process) where he can railroad another "whitey", just like at Yale and Duke. I'm sure he finds next Nifong easily.

Dave said...

Duff Wilson and the NY Times just posted a long article for tomorrow's paper on the defense motion. They've suddenly discovered contradictions in the accuser's story. It's pretty solid until the end. Duff just can't resist quoting Joyner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/us/12duke.html?hp&ex=1168578000&en=8783a048ee7c7e51&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Anonymous said...

So, let me understand, when the FA gave the description of her attackers,none of her descriptions matched Finnerty...yet, by the 3rd lineup she identified him 100% as one of the rapists? Now she says, Finnerty also had no name, which means he wasn't Matt, Brett, Adam or Dave, of whose sexual attacks she gave in depth details. So,if Finnerty had no name,(hence was not Matt, Brett or Adam) it could't have been his sexual assault actions she was describing and since she has now said that Reade didn't committ any sexual acts with her, then doesn't that leave Dave as the only lax player (using 4 names)who sexually assaulted her? (of course after he donned his rapist disguise; a phony moustache)(Perhaps Nifong has more exculpatory evidence, maybe they found a phony moustache in her vagina with Dave's DNA all over it!)

M. Simon said...

CGM is in serious physical danger from some kind of "accident".

Anonymous said...

Latest release:

Mikey has hired his own attorney for his May trial. He's hired a Winston Salem attorney to represent him before the Bar trial.

If he's innocent why does he need an attorney?

BB

Anonymous said...

JLS says.....

Some of the problem people are having here is thinking about this frame up thought up by Nifong and his faux Christian investigator is something Mangum thought up.

This was just clearly a narrative to try to fit a story any story around the known facts in the case. And there is no way Mangum came up with it alone. As Professor Johnson said this is an attempted frame up now.

Anonymous said...

Dave: I saw the NYTimes article. I posted on their question of whether the readers think the charges should be dropped or not.

Just for you guys:

"What is this, story number 382? Glad to see the prosecution finally decided to interview the witness. Stellar prosecution tactic, I must say.

Do I think the charges should be dropped? What, is the Times suffering from some sort of collective mental condition to ask such an obvious question? YES!!!!

How in the world can any reasonably competent litigator take this action to Trial in good faith? No physical evidence, an accuser who has come up with numerous stories, each one contradicting the next, and adding new facts, who has a history of mental issues, criminal activity and a past dropped rape case. Further, the prosecutor has hidden Brady Materials in concert with his own DNA expert. That’s called Obstruction of Justice. Luckily it looks like he did not use a telephone, or he would be up for a RICO violation.

You don’t just drop this case if you’re Nifong, you nol pros the charges, and run away screaming into the night. This case never should have been brought in the first place."

Think they'll publish it? We'll see.

RogerA said...

Just a short note to say that although I have often made jokes about the legal profession, it is clear to me that majority of those in it are genuinely concerned with the impartial application of law and preservation of defendants rights. That larger point will probably go unnoticed by many, but I, for one, would like to salute KC Johnson's work on this blog, as well as the numerous commenters who have reaffirmed my faith in the legal system in this country--well done

Anonymous said...

The 3 families have several theories under both state and Federal law under which they could seek to hold Mr. Nifong personally liable for his actions. Two spring immediately to my mind. First, Federal civil rights law provides:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, ... " [42 USC 1983]

Second, many states (I haven't specifically checked NC) recognize a tort of malicious prosecution. Malicious prosecution is summaried as follows:

"An action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without probable cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice.

"An action for malicious prosecution is the remedy for baseless and malicious litigation. It is not limited to criminal prosecutions, but may be brought in response to any baseless and malicious litigation or prosecution, whether criminal or civil. The criminal defendant or civil respondent in a baseless and malicious case may later file this claim in civil court against the parties who took an active role in initiating or encouraging the original case. The defendant in the initial case becomes the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution suit, and the plaintiff or prosecutor in the original case becomes the defendant. In most states the claim must be filed within a year after the end of the original case.

"A claim of malicious prosecution is a tort action. A tort action is filed in civil court to recover money damages for certain harm suffered. The plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit seeks to win money from the respondent as recompense for the various costs associated with having to defend against the baseless and vexatious case.

"The public policy that supports the action for malicious prosecution is the discouragement of vexatious litigation. This policy must compete against one that favors the freedom of law enforcement officers, judicial officers, and private citizens to participate and assist in the administration of justice.

* * *

"Elements of Proof

To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case, (3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and (4) that the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. ..."

[http://www.answers.com/topic/malicious-prosecution]

The upshot of this is that, not only is Mr. Nifong's law license at risk, so are his personal assets.

Anonymous said...

Is the FA saying that at the time of this whole fiasco, all they kept doing was calling each others names? What would they have been calling each other for if they were busy raping her?

Anonymous said...

Nifong has been smart enough to put all his personal assets in his wifes name. The lawyers would have to weigh in, but I don't think they can be touched.