Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The Finnerty Timeline

In a June interview with Dan Abrams, Collin Finnerty’s parents made clear that their son had a strong alibi. Their attorney, Wade Smith, chose not to reveal the alibi for understandable legal reasons—a fear that Mike Nifong would try to manipulate the facts around the alibi. Indeed, this is exactly what Nifong tried to do regarding Reade Seligmann’s alibi.

With the case concluded, however, the Finnerty record on the night of the party is now public. What it reveals: Finnerty had an alibi of comparable strength to that of Reade Seligmann—and Seligmann’s alibi, it’s worth remembering, was unimpeachable in demonstrably proving his innocence.

The timestamped photos from the party showed the Roberts/Mangum dance running from midnight until 12.04am. That timeline was further corroborated by a statement from the neighbor, Jason Bissey. That Mangum (despite Nifong’s later claims) didn’t arrive at the party until around 11.40pm was conclusively proved by an 11.44pm receipt from her “driver,” Brian Taylor, who stopped off at a gas/convenience store nearby the lacrosse house just after he dropped Mangum off.

12.10am-12.20am: As Kim Roberts and Crystal Mangum went to the back of the house, Finnerty and several other members of the team milled around for a brief period in the living room. At no point during this period was Collin ever alone; several members of the team recalled seeing him leave through the front door.

12.22am: In the first of a series of eight cell phone calls, Finnerty called another member of the team asking whether he wanted to get something to eat.

12.24am: As a reminder, Reade Seligmann has unimpeachable electronic evidence that he wasn’t at 610 N. Buchanan at this time, in the form of an ATM photo from Wachovia Bank; two minutes later, Mangum placed a call from her cellphone to another escort service.

12.27am: Finnerty received a call from a different member of the team; they talked about where and what to eat. By this point, Collin had gone to a house around the corner rented by two other senior lacrosse players—he had to pick up his Playstation, which he had left at the other house. Finnerty’s legal team had all his calls triangulated, and, therefore, could prove how his eight calls were made “on the move” and in different zones away from Buchanan house.

In short, as of 12.27am, Finnerty had unimpeachable electronic evidence that he was not at 610 N. Buchanan.

12.30am: Finnerty placed a call to Domino’s to order a pizza.

12.31am: Mangum was photographed, smiling, outside the back door at 610 N. Buchanan.

12.33am: Finnerty and his friends decided to pick up food at Cosmic Cantina instead of pizza; he called Domino’s to cancel his order.

12.33am-12.56am: Collin and three team members (a freshman, a sophomore, and a senior) left the other lacrosse house and headed across East Campus to a Mexican restaurant, Cosmic Cantina, to get something to eat. At 12.56am, a credit card receipt showed the time at which one of the team members with Collin paid Cosmic Cantina. Finnerty then took a cab back to his dorm.

1.04am: Finnerty used his key card to gain entrance to his dorm, and then used his card to buy water in a vending machine.

1.16am: Finnerty made a 15-minute cell-phone call to his girlfriend.

The Finnerty record contained three other vital items:

1.) In May, Finnerty was administered a lie detector test, run by the instructor for the polygraph course at the North Carolina SBI. Collin passed the test unequivocally; afterwards, the tester told Wade Smith, “This boy is telling the truth and is innocent.”

2.) The Finnerty team fingerprinted—from top to bottom—the bathroom in which Mangum claimed she was attacked. No prints from Collin were in that bathroom. That result came as no surprise: Finnerty never set foot in that bathroom—either on March 13-14 or at any other occasion in his life.

3.) On November 15, Finnerty attorney Doug Kingsbery interviewed SANE nurse Tara Levicy—expected to be one of Nifong’s star witnesses if a trial ever occurred. Levicy left no doubt that she believed Mangum—but she wasn’t exactly the most discerning examiner, either. She told Kingsbery that she had never encountered a woman who lied about claiming to have been raped.

In their interview, Levicy told Kingsbery that on several occasions on the morning of March 14, she asked Mangum to slow down, so she could get all of Mangum’s details in her report. In the course of Kingsbery’s questioning of Levicy, it became clear that the SANE nurse had omitted a critical item from her report.

Did Mangum say when the alleged attack occurred?, Kingsbery queried. Yes, conceded Levicy. “About” 1.00am.

So at the time when Tara Levicy—whose zeal for conviction appears to have been almost equal to Nifong’s—had Mangum saying the attack occurred, Collin Finnerty was eating at a restaurant more than a mile away from the captains’ house.

For those who still fail to understand why this case has caused so much outrage, a recapitulation:

1.) Mike Nifong obtained indictments despite having—in the words of Attorney General Roy Cooper—“no credible evidence” that a crime even occurred.

2.) The first two people against whom Nifong obtained indictments—Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty—had a combination of witness testimony and unimpeachable electronic and forensic evidence to prove that they were innocent.

One final word, in the case of Finnerty: the indictment led to an extraordinary wave of character assassination against him in the media, beyond what Seligmann endured. Not only were these portrayals inaccurate, but they were almost 180 degrees incorrect—and described a person that no one who has spent 15 minutes with Collin would even recognize.

This record explains why it is—to use Cooper’s adjective—“tragic” when prosecutors (and their allies in the media and the academy) close their eyes to the evidence and use their enormous powers for harm rather than good.

157 comments:

Gary Packwood said...

God only knows how many other Duke students have been snared and set up by the legal system in Durham over the years...in order to force a settlement of some kind from their parents.
GP

Deklan Singh said...

Prison...Nifong needs to go to prison. Prison

The SANE nurse should never be involved in any medical profession ever again.

This is even more ridiculous than we knew.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

I read some place after the charges were dropped that Finnerty called his sister. Was that 15 minute call to his girlfriend the call in question or is there another call in his alibi?

Anonymous said...

Wow - how do defense lawyers ger these receipts? Nurse Tara confirms Collins alibi - I am disappointed IF she said those things to Kingsbury, but she is still a bit player. CAn we get confirmation from Kingsbury?

Anonymous said...

This is why the Justice Department and FBI must launch an investigation into the deep corruption in this case. If Nifong's motive was to get re-elected, how did Mangum pick these three guys? Who advised her and why did pick these three particular players — all from expensive zip codes? What exactly was Gottlieb's role in Mangum's selections? A full-scale federal investigation is required. And Attorney General Cooper should simultaneously launch a full-scale investigation by North Carolina authorities. This is outrageous. This cannot stand.

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.24:

Collin made eight calls between 12.22 and 12.39, including one to his sister; I only detailed two of them in the post.

JWM said...

A terrific post, KC.

I agree with the commenter above. There's a need for federal and state investigations.

There's no way this frame-up could have gone as far as it did without a lot of people involved.

Nifong didn't act alone.

John in Carolina

Anonymous said...

KC,

Whether you realize it or not, you are actually exonerating Nifong when you inculpate the Nurse in Training.

She, NOT Nifong, is the one who consistently stated that her medicaly examination was consistent with rape allegations.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Sickening.

Collin's alibi forces me to confront something that makes me almost physically ill. That by the time Nifong sat in the court that day and looked across at the three young men he'd just indicted for rape, he already had proof they were completely innocent.

And he sneered at them.

Anonymous said...

THE very best legal defense is to SET A TRAP for the likes of the DUKE88, the nifongs, the MSM, and the liberal ILK ...

this case is the trap

Anonymous said...

Buddy says

12:48--this evidence hardly exonerates Nifong. While it shows that Levicy was instrumental in pushing the hoax, Nifong is the one who conspired to suppress the exculpatory DNA tests. At least from that time on the hoax belongs to Nifong

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.48:

As should be clear from several of my posts in recent weeks, I have grave concerns about Tara Levicy's behavior in this case.

That said, Levicy did not have anything to do in Nifong choosing to make procedurally improper statements; or ordering the police to violate their own procedures; or withholding exculpatory DNA evidence.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

1. Thanks for answering my phone call question Prof. Johnson.

2. re 12:48 Whatever the SANE did, she did not acting under color of law seek indictments of people she knew were innocent. That was Nifong. So no, complaints about the SANE do not necessarily get Nifong off the hook.

Anonymous said...

"Whether you realize it or not, you are actually exonerating Nifong when you inculpate the Nurse in Training".

This sounds like a gross overstatement. "Exonerating Nifong"? Of what? Suppressing exculpatory evidence? Impugning the accused in the press?

Anonymous said...

Incredible! Was Nifong simply clueless about key evidence, or did he believe he could get away with a false prosecution?

If clueless, he didn't deserve to have his former job, let alone his current one. And if he believed he could get away with it (get a conviction or a plea bargain from one or all three of the players), what does that say about "justice" in Durham?

If Nifong believed he could get away with a false prosecution, why? Is false prosecution of wealthy, out-of-state, white Duke students routine in Durham County? Or did Nifong believe he could pick a jury in Durham that would ignore the "technical" evidence (cell phone records, DNA, etc.) in this particular case?

Terrible either way if that's what Nifong was banking on, and as others have recommended, the Feds need to investigate to try to find out the real story.

G in Texas

Anonymous said...

Trust me...I'm with you guys....but to say that Collin Finnerty's alibi is unimpeahable, is a weak statement. His cell phone records and triangulation evidence only shows where his cell phone was at any given time, not where he was. Further his entry to the dorms using his i.d. card was roughly 45 minutes after the "alleged" violation, and the destination is probably 1/4 of a mile from the Buchanan St. address...plenty of time, and we have no corraborating evidence that it was in fact Finnerty that used that card to gain access to the building. It wasn't Finnerty's card that paid for the food at the restaraunt, but that of a friend, and no indication if the food was purchased to dine in, or take out (timing is important here).

I believe seligman has supported his story much better, and agree this casts doubt on the prosecution...but Finnerty's story needs work. It is not "proof positive"!!!! I'd be just a little apprehensive about using it as a defense in court, there are just too many questions that could be asked. Perhaps this is why his attorney wanted to wait to disclose it.

I'd much rather be walkng in Seligman's shoes.

In this particular case, everything that the defense says, can and will be used against it....I'm glad that they didn't say this. Nifong would have used the reasonable doubt rule to determine that Finnerty couldn't prove his innocense. Case closed....

I wish I didn't live in Durham

Anonymous said...

KC,

What, if anything, can you say about Manly? Is she also a hoaxtress, or was Levicy completely off the reservation acting outside of her depth without Manly's knowledge or consent?

Newport

KC Johnson said...

At no point during his investigation did Nifong, any representative from his office, or any Durham Police officer ever interview Dr. Manly.

Unlike Levicy, Manly appears to have been open to new facts as more information about the case emerged.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 1:34pm says:


In this particular case, everything that the defense says, can and will be used against it....I'm glad that they didn't say this. Nifong would have used the reasonable doubt rule to determine that Finnerty couldn't prove his innocense. Case closed....


Sigh, so many people are ignorant.

The defendant does not have to prove he is innocent (except, perhaps in a Durham court).

The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

Joe T. said...

It's actually very entertaining to read the newly released timeline evidence (now that we don't have to wory about it falling into Nifong and Co's clutches).

Anonymous said...

Collin had a good alibi, but it's not as tight as Reade's. It had more value held back as an unknown quantity for Mangum, Nifong, Gottlieb & Wilson to stew about in terms of the timeline than it would had it been made known. As strong as Reade's was, a suspicion that Collin's was even better must have been maddening to these rogues, lol!

Jez

Anonymous said...

His cell phone records and triangulation evidence only shows where his cell phone was at any given time, not where he was.

OK, but those he spoke with could confirm they had those conversations.

we have no corraborating evidence that it was in fact Finnerty that used that card to gain access to the building.

Maybe; there might be witnesses (roomate?) to his return. We would also have to postulate WHO had his card and used it in place of Finnerty; and how Finnerty himself got back into the dorm. (Lots of 'suppositions' here for the prosecution to have to fill in--in fact, to prove. )

It wasn't Finnerty's card that paid for the food at the restaraunt, but that of a friend, and no indication if the food was purchased to dine in, or take out (timing is important here).

Again, there would likely be witnesses who were with him in the restaurant.

(IOW, it's not as bleak as it sounds; but pictures would be better, of course.)

Of course, some cases are too important for the defendants to be allowed to be innocent... (Ask Dreyfus).

Anonymous said...

So at the time when Tara Levicy—whose zeal for conviction appears to have been almost equal to Nifong’s—

A bit melodramatic, Professor. I know you really want to nail this one. A 35K a year nurse who has to work weekends and holidays on top of everything else.

At the risk of being a skunk at the picnic, you seem to be accusing a licensed registered nurse of - a crime? What exactly are we rushing to judgment about this time?

She told Kingsbery that she had never encountered a woman who lied about claiming to have been raped.

Was Kingsbery asking Nurse Tara this based on her experience as a SANE in training who had been out of nursing school 8 months and had participated in X number of sexual assault examinations? Was this in the context of Nurse Tara's entire life experience? Was this a political discussion?

Has anyone reported these - what - alleged crimes - the the NC Board of Nursing?

I am confused about this, as you can tell. So there is a legal document, the medical record. And there is a physician who examined the patient. And, there is a SANE in training, 8 months out of nursing school, and the entire case hinges on the nurse? The DA and the police ignore the chart and the doctor and run with the nurse?

My own sister who lives in Magnolia, Texas heard about the case on the news and said 'they are rich, they are white, they did it.' Maybe we can get all worked up about that too.

Anonymous said...

Imagine for just a moment that this case was on the up and up. Now think about the fact that Dr. Manly was never interviewed by ANYBODY on the prosecution side.

That is stunningly gross incompetence.

Kc, if you know, when was the first time the defense spoke to Manly? How did anyone reach the idea that she seemed more open to new facts as more information emerged? Does that mean that she, too, believed a rape had occurred but eventually concluded based, not on her examination, but other facts in the case that a rape had not occurred? Just because she eventually got to the right conclusion or at least an open mind does not mean she wasn't instrumental in shaping Levicy's statements and actions in the first month. Since nobody interviewed her during that time, she escapes fault in a way that Levicy can't. I wonder how much Manly is responsible for Levicy's representations. If Manly had no input, then Levicy was way, way out there in her statements, both factually and in terms of her limited role as a nurse. It sounds to me from what you're saying that Manly may have around to the truth, happily or not, and left stuck-on-stupid Levicy holding the bag, which shouldn't exonerate Manly if she actually provided the medical opinions that formed Levicy's statement to the cops. She may have just gotten lucky that nobody interviewed her until after the tide had changed because the cops had the statements they wanted for their indictments. Why upset the apple cart? Why run the risk of getting a statement that doesn't fit the bill?

Jez

Anonymous said...

KC,

How many SANE exams had Tara Levicy conducted prior to the one where she assisted Manly with Mangum?

How many SANE exams had Tara Levicy even observed prior to exam of Mangum?

Was Manly certified to perform the SANE protocol?

Why did Manly sign the SANE exam as having "assisted" Levicy, when Manly, in fact, performed the pelvic exam and collected much of the evidence?

If you can shed any light on Levicy's level of clinical experience it would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Newport

Anonymous said...

KC,

One more question you may be able to answer.

What can you say about DUMC's role in this? Did DUMC forbid defense access to the Nurse and doctor until October and November?

If not, why did the defense wait so long to interview these two critical witnesses?

Was Levicy Nifong's "secret evidence" that he implied he had when he made statements to the defense attorneys to the effect that he knew more about the case than they ever would?

Did Levicy talk to Duff Wilson to confirm the statements from Gottlieb's notes about "blunt force trauma?"

Was the special colposcope (sp?) used during the Mangum examination to confirm the "blunt force trauma" that Levicy agreed existed? Teresa Arico in a Herald Scum article referenced this device as being capable of seeing injury to confirm "blunt force trauma."

Thanks again,

Newport

Anonymous said...

Don't forget Crystal's 12:26 phone call to Centerfold and her smiling back porch photos at 12:30, folks.

Collin was gone already.

Collin's alibi is quite strong.

Bella said...

Wow...while I'm undeniably happy for the guys that the charges were dropped before trial and Cooper used the "I" word, I can't help but imagine how fun it would have been to watch Nifong try to actually prosecute this case with the whole nation watching. Against the best defense lawyers I have ever seen. Pure entertainment.

Anonymous said...

G in Texas, why wouldn't Nifong think he could get away with a false prosecution? His predecessor Jim Hardin and Tracey Cline did. Coman got away with in the Gell case. And people all across the US have been tried for stuff they didn't do and what happens to the prosecutors? Nothing. For months and months you could hear the talking heads say Nifong had immunity for what he did. That he couldn't be held liable for what he did as a DA. They would go on and on about how these laws where there so prosecutors wouldn't be afraid to try a hard case, never thinking one of them would try a false case.

Bakerman said...

RE: "This is why the Justice Department and FBI must launch an investigation..." - 12:26am

With everything that's out there, they shouldn't need additional prodding from us.

There's something else, too; they're as corrupt as anyone in the Nifong industry, even more so.

And while the FBI in particular builds bureaucratic careers on equally bogus cases, come the "200":

"Jerry Miller was exonerated yesterday in Chicago after serving 24 years in prison. He becomes the 200th person to be exonerated by DNA evidence. To recognize this landmark, the Innocence Project launched a month-long national campaign to prevent this injustice from happening to more people." - (innocenceproject.org)

One small law school, 200 wrongful convictions, 200 exonerations, 200 lives stolen by Nifong's industry of liars and thieves.

So, please don't ask the FBI to investigate anything, least of all themselves.

Anonymous said...

KC, many of us at LS have been discussing the entire Levicy-Manly-Gottlieb-Himan-Wilson conundrum for quite some time and dissected the entire matter as best we can with what little we've had to work with. Newport has boiled the issues down to some essential questions that many of us hope to get answers to so the controversy can be settled, so as much detail as you feel comfortable in relating to us in response to those questions, to the extent you are able and have time to answer, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Jez

Anonymous said...

For Bakerman at 3:53am,

The Innocence Project that has used and touted DNA as a means of freeing the innocent snubbed this case. That doesn't diminish the good work they've done but it does call into question their agenda.

Jez

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

Tara Levicy is a Womens' Studies grad and former producer of the Vagina Monologues, ostensibly an anti-rape stage production which refers to rape BY a woman as a "good rape". She is a feminist idealogue.

Like the G88 she desperately wanted CGM's story to be true. Like many others she must believe the accuser else she incur the wrath of her fellow idealogues.

There is absolutely no way Tara Levicy did NOT allow her ideology to get in the way. Her comments to police about condoms and "never having met a woman who lied about rape" were irrelevant at best and prejudicial at worst.

No man is safe in the west while women are permitted to lie without consequence. This is particularly the case when feminist bigots are permitted to involve themselves in professions where their ideology can interfere with justice and the search for truth as has been the case here.

Bakerman said...

RE: The Innocence Project... snubbed this [Duke] case. - Jez -- 5:06:00 AM

Jez, I've heard this complaint here before. Without knowing the particulars, I'd suggest their mission is to come in after the fact - which they've been doing quite successfully at a rate of at least one exoneration per month.

Also, as I mentioned previously, the Innocence Project has limited resources, and the lacrosse players were and are well represented - to an extent exceeding the relatively narrow scope of the Innocence Project.

Meanwhile, we should be profoundly alarmed that our system of routine, summary justice framed so many innocent men, 14 of whom were counting their days sitting on death row.

In this regard, I'm hoping the Duke case represents a seminal event, that justice will be truly served in cases less heralded.

Yet, I'm a simple realist still watching Mr. Nifong operate above and apart from my simple concept of law.

Anonymous said...

It's truly sad to read so many posts about how the feds MUST go to Durham. Get over it. The DOJ isn't about to lift a collective finger to investigate civil rights violations against three white men PERIOD.

Anonymous said...

Considering how brutal this rape was supposed to be, it is hard to understand how Levicy could be convinced there was a rape when one did not actually occur. Either Levicy is incompetent or the guidelines on how rape exams are performed and what evidence constitutes "consistent with rape" needs a thorough reworking.

My guess is the feminists have had too much influence in establishing SANE procedures. Honestly, if they missed this one then the whole SANE process means nothing in regards to whether a rape actually occurred or not.

Scott66

rod allison, detroit said...

It wasn't just the accuser, Gottleib, Nifong, and the press who gave cover.

It is now clear that Levicy was another key component in the railroading.

Anonymous said...

I can only wonder if this case would still be going on if Mangum had randomly picked several of the players who were at the house the whole time minding their own business rather than two players who had left the house and had good alibis. Nifong would still probably be moving along with his merry crusade of injustice.

bill anderson said...

My own sister who lives in Magnolia, Texas heard about the case on the news and said 'they are rich, they are white, they did it.' Maybe we can get all worked up about that too.

Apr 25, 2007 2:31:00 AM


That is a most interesting syllogism:

Major Premise: They are rich;
Minor Premise: They are white;
Conclusion: Therefore, they did it.

That definitely is NOT how Aristotle constructed a syllogism!

I am glad I will not have to have any dealings with that person, although by working at a state university, I am sure there are plenty of colleagues who most likely would believe the same thing.

As for Levicy, I suspect she fell into the same logical stream. Hers went like this:

Major Premise: All women who claim rape are telling the truth;
Minor Premise: Crystal says she was raped;
Conclusion: Therefore, Crystal was raped.

What also is interesting is that Levicy apparently was willing to manipulate the facts to push her conclusion. This truly is frightening because we see just how far this prosecution went. As far as I am concerned, while she is not as guilty as Nifong, she bears some responsibility, as she permitted her ideology to drive her conclusions.

When we realize that the woods are full of Tara Levicys in the medical field who are anxious to use their so-called expertise in order to frame people, all of us should be frightened. What does this say about the state of justice in this country? I think we know.

bill anderson said...

K.C.,

Let me add that this is one of your best posts in a while, for it uncovers the facts of why this hoax even got legs. Even semi-competent people in the DUMC ER that night could have put an end to it.

Instead, we get a doctor who apparently does not care and an ideological nurse who is hellbent on calling every man a rapist.

Anonymous said...

Jez @ 2:35 a.m.


The fact that Manly rethought her original conclusion that the discharge she observed was a yeast infection and not sperm as she first thought indicates she is open to new information.

bill anderson said...

If Tara Levicy is able to turn what now appears to be a yeast infection (which is very common) into "proof" of rape, then surely other SANE nurses are doing the same thing. After all, a specialty like this would likely attract the hard-core feminists like her who want to "help rape victims."

One wonders how many other men have been railroaded into prison of false rape charges because of the Tara Levicys of the ER. It is frightening.

Keep in mind that the hard-core feminists like Levicy really do not care whether a rape occurred or not; they just want to be able to accuse men of a crime and have them sent to prison.

Anonymous said...

12:48 am said:

Whether you realize it or not, you are actually exonerating Nifong when you inculpate the Nurse in Training.

I've always thought Nifong may have believed at first that an attack occurred. Otherwise, some of his early statements about DNA are inexplicable.

On April 10, however, he met with Dr. Meehan and learned that the accuser was crawling with DNA from unidentified men. If he believed a rape happened, it would surely have occurred to him that the unidentified DNA pointed to the rapists.

But a week later he indicted Finnerty and Seligmann without bothering to identify the mystery DNA. At this point, the case became a deliberate, cold-blooded frame.

Levicy may deserve to be sued, but Nifong deserves to go to prison.

Teach1975 said...

Levicy's ommission of the 1:00 pm rape statement and the early N&O interview (where CM stated Kim was also assaulted- that was only reported after the AG innocent statement) are two examples of people willing to disregard information (even if it results in the conviction of innocent men) to support their cause. Is it too much to ask to report the facts?

Nifong's hat trick said...

Kim Robert's first call to police was at 12:53am to report racial slurs (not rape). Rape is not something you forget to tell the police while you have them on the phone.

Since there was no mention of rape during the first call, wouldn't it seem logical that the only REAL window for rape was after the first call and before the police arrived at the house? (2 minutes)

The police arrived to an empty house at 12:55am. By this time, Colin was well on his way to digesting his Cosmic Cantina.

Anonymous said...

KC,

For me the most obscure part of this hoax has always been from March 14 to about March 23.

As the Bowen-Chambers report makes clear, the police who investigated on March 14 did not believe the rape claim. Yet, somehow, the investigation went forward. A post on this subject would be most welcome.

Also, what is your take on the Neff claim that Nifong first learned of the case on March 23? Was Nifong really that late to the game?

gak said...

Bella said... Apr 25, 2007 3:19:00 AM

....I can't help but imagine how fun it would have been to watch Nifong try to actually prosecute this case with the whole nation watching.Apr 25, 2007 3:19:00 AM


I read in an article online that Nifong was known to drop a case just before going into the courtroom. Sounds to me like that would have happened here in a simple game of bluff. The day of trial, Nifong would have dropped the charges and said it was because of his wittness's ability to testify

gak

scott said...

12:48 AM --

There is NOTHING -- I repeat NOTHING -- that could exonerate Nifong.

He didn't act alone, that's for sure. Several people either willingly co-operated, remained silent in the face of the hoax, or were driven by a PC agenda to provide information that was false or misleading.

But Nifong was the guy who had the power to indict or not indict and he ignored his responsibility as a prosecutor to exercise judgment in determining if there was a case. It has now been proven that there was no case and Nifong knew it before he ever indicted the LAX 3. For that Nifong is the grand marshall of the sorry parade of people who marched in condemnation of 3 innocent men. He deserves to be ruined.

Anonymous said...

KC, I'm pleased we've received this new information. But why hasn't AG Cooper delivered the report with additional exculpatory evidence as promised? I believe it was due to be available last week...

Anonymous said...

To anon at 7:08 who said this: "The fact that Manly rethought her original conclusion that the discharge she observed was a yeast infection and not sperm as she first thought indicates she is open to new information."

She may have been open to new information because it was October, the tides had turned in the case in favor of the defense, she had a new medical practice to protect, and probably a lawyer telling her to open her mind to "new ideas" about Mangum's true condition that night.

Jez

Anonymous said...

Since CGM was a "working" girl and had been with multiple customers in the previous 24 hours - what the SANE nurse witnessed appears to have been the results of her work that day.

Question: Are SANE nurses trained to differentiate between aggressive sex with multiple partners and rape? When someone comes in claiming rape, who would expect they had instead had multiple consentual partners? The evidence CGM presented probably tied with her story. Out of compassion the SANE nurse was drawn into the trap.

Anonymous said...

KC,
Thanks for this article. During the past year, I thought Reade was able to gain support when his alibi was released. While I understood Collin's attorney being fearful of releasing his alibi, I think Collin ended up paying a high price. The negative press had to be agonizing for his entire family.
I felt a special empathy for the Finnerty family. They were the only family I directed contacted to express my support. While Dave, with his powerful courthouse speech, and Reade, with his public alibi, seemed like they were effectively dealing with the situation, I worried the most about Collin. Of the three, he reminds me the most of my own son, so perhaps that added to my empathy.
Anyway, I am so happy for all three young men that the charges are dropped and the Finnerty's alibi is now public.
Unfortunately, the more I learn about this case, the more absurd it becomes that arrests were ever even considered. Every single day information surfaces that shows an absolutely corrupt justice system in Durham. Can't wait for my daughter to graduate and get out of Durham - would NEVER send my son there.

Jamil Hussein said...

I'm surprised that VaWa Act has not yet been mentioned in this blog. I think it is one of the major reasons why this hoax could happen and worth a separate thread.

Basically, VaWa (Violence against Women) Act is the product of feminazis and people like Levicy ("women never lie about rape"). VaWa states that under no circumstances, women cannot be put through lie detector if they make rape claims (after all, they never lie). VaWa says that men are guilty under proven innocent. Vawa offers women who make rape claims unlimited amount of money for legal costs. Men who are accused of rape are naturally not offered that. "Her word against his word is always enough".
Under VaWa, men do not have constitutional rights. ACLU and Democratic party are fine with this: They are far more concerned about Al-Qaida terrorists constitutional rights than mens constitutional rights.

As I have been saying, gang88 is winning this war.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:34,

I think you got my point but mistook my sarcasm for ignorance. Has Nifong not all along tried to use the standard of proof that the innocent must fight for the right to prove thier innocense?

When a case is tried in the media, obviously there is no obligation on the part of the prosecutor, to support his allegations with proof.

Anon from 1:34

miramar said...

While the three players are fortunate that their families could afford to hire outstanding lawyers, I have always thought that even Joe Cheshire and company would have a hard time without the impact of technology in this case. This post adds to that proof. Just think of all the evidence that established a time line and indicated very early on that no rape occurred. That is, of course, if the prosecutor had bothered to consider it:

1) the neighbor saw the stippers enter the house and looked at his cell phone for the time at 12:00.
2) Mangum's cell phone calls to her service, which contradicted one of her latest versions.
3) the driver's gas receipt after leaving her off.
4) time stamped cell phone photos, which established the time Mangum and Roberts were dancing and showed that Mangum's fingernails were broken off while dancing (not while fighting off an attack). Plus they demonstrated that the players were not wearing jackets that would not leave DNA under her fingernails, as Nifong claimed to Larry Abrams.
5) cell phone records from Finnerty and Seligman, which showed they were on the phone during the supposed rape.
6) the new triangulation evidence on Finnerty's cell phone, which shows he was moving rather than at the house.
7) the ATM photo, which shows Seligman was away from the house at the time.
8) the time records from the taxi driver's phone, which establishes when Seligman left the party.
9) the records on food purchases, which shows they were away from the house.
10) the dormitory key card swipes, which shows when they went home.
11) the DNA evidence, which contradicts everything that Nifong and Mangum have said.
12) the information available on the internet, especially on this site, which put enormous pressure on the State Bar to intervene, which in turn forced Nifong to surrender the case.

If this were 1987 or even 1997, this case would be going to trial and the Bar would simply be monitoring the case. In the end the family would spend even more money, the three young men would suffer even more, and while their lawyers would have gotten them off eventually, no one would have ever declared them innocent. The three players would have little grounds for lawsuits, and Mike Nifong would have remained DA until the day he retired.

I think that's what Mike Nifong was thinking when he told the NCCU audience that he would be trying the case the old fashioned way. He thought he could get away with things like in the old days, but while he was old fashioned, the attorneys were up to date.

Anonymous said...

He probably wasn't planning to get arrested for a crime that never happened so not surprising alibi is not perfect.
Would yours be?

P. Rich said...

Anon 7:52

"Is it too much to ask to report the facts?"

For most 'newspapers' and other left-leaning media outlets today, the answewr is, "Yes, because ideology trumps fact and reason."

Anonymous said...

For those who don't know it, Cosmic Cantina advertises itself as "the best Mexican food on the planet." It is in the 9th Street area of Durham (which borders Duke's East Campus).

C. Thomas Kunz

Anonymous said...

Maybe Tara levicy was trying to help a sista.

Anonymous said...

Levicy, who seems to have been either misguided or grossly incompetent, or both, is no excuse for Nifong's conduct. As a SANE, Levicy's job was to collect evidence (swabs, fingernail scrapings, etc.) and record observations. Levicy was not qualified to make any medical diagnoses, and she certainly was not qualified to make any legal conclusions (such as "yes, this woman was raped"). Levicy was a naive, inexperienced nurse who allowed herself to be completely conned by a drug-addled, street-wise hooker. That is unfortunate (for Levicy), but it should have played no part in Nifong's decision to go forward with the prosecution. Regardless of Levicy's (inadmissible) opinions about whether or not Mangum was raped, the actual findings from the physical examination should have been a huge red flag to Nifong. Mangum was claiming a violent, multiple-orifice rape by three large, fit men. She was also claiming that she had forcefully resisted the assault. She was also claiming (at least in some versions) that she'd been punched, kicked and strangled during the rape. Yet there was not a single medical finding that supported her claims: no swelling, bruising, tearing, etc., in or near her anus or labia; no swelling or marks on her neck or face; no defensive wounds on her hands, etc. Only a gullible fool would have believed Mangum's story. We now know that Levicy is such a gullible fool. But that does not excuse Nifong, a man with 3 decades' experience in criminal law. He was the one who had the duty to prove the case, and he was the one who had the duty to investigate the facts before indicting any defendants. Levicy's opinion about whether a rape occurred may have been interesting to Nifong, but it was not proof of anything.

Anonymous said...

I think "No Credible Evidence" is a more powerful title for a book than "Until Proven Innocent."


JMHO.

Gary Packwood said...

Bella 3:19 said...
...I can't help but imagine how fun it would have been to watch Nifong try to actually prosecute this case with the whole nation watching.
::
Why do you think that anyone wanted to prosecute this case in the first place?
This case is all about changing the 'campus culture' at Duke and then humbling Duke in the eyes of Durham citizens.
The goal was to bring down one group of white boys. Period!
Even Dean Sue said it would all blow over ...eventually.
The parents were supposed to show up, work with Precious, bless her heart, pay her off; plead guilty to lesser charges and then go back to Yankee country.
The group of white boys would be 'disgraced' and booted off campus, the Anger Studies professors could say 'I told you so' while basking in their new power and prestige and the Durham community would reap the benefits of a humbled Duke.
The sloppy work at Duke's Hospital, the flawed line up, the keystone cops raid on the dorm and the firing of the coach was all orchestrated to produce a plea agreement...and certainly not a trial.
The three guys were just throwaways!
The lawsuits, corrective action and future studies should focus on those who see students as throwaways.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

How the H*** does Nifong continue to practice law in Durham after all of this?

The man is devoid of any credability!

What is wrong with him being stood down until he has had his State Bar trial? Anything this devious individual touches now will be soiled!

Once again, where are the federal investigators?

Anonymous said...

Ms. Levicy definitely contributed to the Nifong démarche toward a hoax and she should be held accountable.

The timeline and proof of Collin's innocence and his clear lack of proximity to the house on Buchanan Blvd. possessed by Wade Smith all this time is stunning.

I regret that the media and all the frenzied race-baiters made such a big deal and actually lied about the little incident outside the Georgetown Inn in D.C. Collin was also given a bad rap in that case simply because someone had a "gay agenda". Collin didn't touch that guy.

It amazes me how easy it is to walk into a magistrate's office with a hyped-up story and obtain a warrant against someone....especially in NC.

Months ago, when discussing the lacrosse case with a well-known Chapel Hill defense attorney, he told me that in NC it's even easier than in most other states to get someone arrested just on the word of a disgruntled drone who wants revenge for some reason.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

You can tell just by listening to Collin and viewing his demeanor for a few minutes that he is an easy-going and rather shy person.

He's the sweetest little thing. I could just kiss his cheek off!

Debrah

Michael said...

I suspect that there's more Finnerty alibi stuff that we haven't seen. If nothing else, the details of the remaining six phone calls.

And then there's the problem of the fingerprints in the bathroom.

I still would like to know what the dimensions of that bathroom are. I guess that they'd have to be big enough to allow for levitation.

Michael said...

Levicy seems to me the kind of person that doesn't understand the impact of the job that she has on other people.

It would be like an engineer that made a serious mistake on a piece of software or in building something that wasn't caught in a review and made it through into a finished product and caused catastrophic results.

Georgia Girl said...

7:22 says "...One wonders how many other men have been railroaded into prison of false rape charges ...".

That number is probably much less than the number of true rapists who have managed to beat the system (or were not even charged with rape) and are free to walk the streets.

bill anderson said...

In reading K.C.'s post, let me emphasize that Kethra has been correct in her posts. That she has taken a pounding on the boards does not take away from the fact that she was right all along, and her critics were mistaken.

dukelaw05 said...

To Jez:

Here is a blurb from the Duke Law website describing the Innocence Project:
"The North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence is an independent, non-profit organization that offers investigative help to PRISON INMATES who claim they did not commit the crime or crimes of which they were convicted." (emphasis added)

The Innocence Project's mission is to help people already in prison, not everyone accused of a crime.

When I was at Duke the professor responsible for supervising and advising the program was James Coleman, who undeniably stuck to his principles and was a voice of reason throughout this saga.

I wonder why you feel a need to single out the Innocence Project here. I could as easily ask you why you weren't involved in helping all the innocent people they helped.

Anonymous said...

A few comments:
1)From day one in nursing school, you are taught to document facts, not "I think the patient feels sick".Tracy Levicy is a disgrace to the nursing profession. (This leads to another subject.. there is such a nation wide nursing shortage incompetence is now widely accepted. In many states you need years of experience as an RN, not a women's study major to train to become a SANE).
I hope the NC Board of Nursing looks into this matter and prvokes her license.
2)Has anyone looked into "why" Crystals cell phone log has not been made public?Have any members of the DPD or DA's office received services from Crystal or her co-workers? IT appears there is a big cover - perhaps some members of the DA's office were her customers or , were members of the DPD hired to "overlook" some prostitutes work related meetings?
3)I'd love to know how Nifong can look his son in the face every morning.

Anonymous said...

There's a provocative letter-to-the-editor in the H-S today submitted by a man from Durham.

In reply to some who think that Crystal Mangum should be charged with a crime, he says no.

His take on the hoax is that Kim Roberts is the real instigator. This might be worth some thought, IMO.

Mangum was drunk or drugged out of her mind.....milling about in the night with the dried semen of 5 or 6 different men on her body and undergarments.....yet ready to "dance" for some more customers for money far exceeding the value of anything she might offer. And that's an understatement.

But there is no indication that she was out to create a hoax by calling the cops.

All of this might not have even occurred if not for Kim Roberts calling 911 and planting the "racism" seed and prompting the arrival of the cops.

Kim Roberts called the cops again while in the Kroger parking lot with Mangum passed out in the car. If the cops had not been called to a scene that was, no doubt, business as usual for Mangum.....then the lies would not have been told to the cop so Mangum could avoid lock-up that night.

The letter writer says that because Kim Roberts attempted to play up the events and extort some money by making a race incident out of the whole thing, that she is the one who should be prosecuted for being the catalyst to the hoax for her own gain.....although her efforts failed.

She wasn't able to make the big bucks she had hoped.

Interesting.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Further his entry to the dorms using his i.d. card was roughly 45 minutes after the "alleged" violation, and the destination is probably 1/4 of a mile from the Buchanan St. address...plenty of time

This distance is off. East Campus dorms house freshmen only, so his dorm would have been on West Campus, considerably further than this.

jamil hussein said...

How the H*** does Nifong continue to practice law in Durham after all of this?

Lawyers are not easily disbarred. Consider this..Maybe Nifong will get disbarred in 2025.


NEW YORK, (AP) -- A civil rights lawyer convicted of helping an imprisoned terrorist sheik communicate with his disciples was disbarred Tuesday.

The New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division denied Lynne Stewart's request to voluntarily resign from the practice of law.

Stewart was convicted in 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She had released a statement issued by one of her clients, Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison for plotting to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.

The appellate panel said Stewart became subject to losing her law license immediately upon being convicted of a felony.

Her request to resign was in a letter dated Nov. 14, 2006, after she was convicted, and therefore could not be accepted,

Anonymous said...

While Roberts certainly was no "choirboy," she should not be accused of being the instigator of the hoax. She did not make the accusation of rape. Roberts' actions may have set up the circumstances for the eventual hoax to have been realized, her actions did not make the accusation inevitable or even likely. Unless one's actions provokes certain (or near certain) results, such actions are peripheral. This is also why those who use the party to blame the LAX team for the hoax are wrong, since hiring strippers does not necessarily lead to the accusation of rape.

Lastly, Roberts did not make the call to the police in the Kroger parking lot -- the security guard did when the hoaxstress refused to leave the car.

Anonymous said...

I am not the least bit surprised that this SANE nurse is in the conviction industry. I am sure there are plenty of preofessional SANEs out there, but this lady sounded like a real gem.

She has "never" met a person lying about rate? Somehow, instant and immutable credibility of the accuser doesn't seem like the standard we should be bringing indictments on these days.

The apologists for this lying skank are enablers, and they should feel just as guilty, and be held to account just as much, as the Fong. I had a hard enough time believing the "well rape victims often given inconsistent accounts" line BEFORE this incident, but when people like this SANE essentially admit that they take all accusations at face value, and then the SANE's report and a faulty line-up can get you indicted OVER a provable alibi and a passed poly, OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BROKEN.

What, then, will the consequences of this sad affair be (to someone other than the falsely accused and their families)? How will the system reform itself? How with the Left pay its pennance? What ACTION will be taken? Where are the TASK FORCES? Where are the Campus Action Committess to really right this injustice?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:32

As far as the phone records of C.M.'s cell phone....

There was some question in an evidentiary hearing very early in the process, whether her cell phone actually belonged to her or was borrowed. There may have been some privacy issues relating to the actual owner of the phone. This was a brief topic of discussion in the hearing and I don't know what the outcome was, but maybe that could explain the absence of info on that topic.

Durham Dweller

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:44,

The campus action commitees have been formed. They are loaded down with well known names from the group of 88. Thier reccomendations for improving the undergraduate experience include increasing diversity in the faculty, maintaining higher admission standards in general, but tweeking admission standards for the purpose of racial and socio-economic diversity (in other words, lower academic standards would be required if you are socially challenged, or Black, or if you are black, or if you fail to meet those criteria, if you are black). Those standards could be considerably lower if an applicant were a black feminist woman's studies major. I think the goal of thier reccomendations was to graduate large numbers of qualified S.A.N.E.s

whaddya think?

retiredLEO said...

No doubt about it, Nifong was trying to get a plea deal. When he over charged Dave, Collin and Reade, lots of prosecutors do that. Nifong never figured on the accused, getting excellent lawyers, he is used to dealing with public defenders. How sorry it is for the poor in Durham,if they get charged with a crime like this, they won't be able to afford a good defense, when they are framed by Nifong.

hman said...

It is highly revealing of bias that Lavicy would tell anyone, much less a defense attorney, that she had never seen a false rape accusation.
The fact is, there is often no way for a SANE nurse to know, in the ER, who is telling the truth about "rape". In most cases, the matter of consent is crucial and there is no blood test or physical exam for that.
So when Lavicy announces that she never saw a false accusation she is simply admitting to an absolute bias in favor of the woman.
Did she actually tell LE guys something in the hallway different than what went into the formal report? It has been pointed out that Durham cops lie. They do indeed. But she has had lots of time to set the record straight. And why wouldn't she want to do that, if the truth was that she did not violate basic SANE procedures? Her career has always been at stake over that exact question - as well it should be.

Anonymous said...

2:31 Agree with you - what is going on here? If Kingsbury says that he interviewed Nurse Tara in November - I believe that. She said "she believed Crystal" okay
"She never met a false rape claim" okay - "Crystal said the event happened at 1:00AM" okay -
Where is the criminal intent???
Where is the criminal behavior???
Was her opinion wrong? Looks that way. Was she responsible for the hoax - nope - Thousands of words have been written to crucify this nurse who is a nobody in this event. But the beat to "kill her" goes on. We can all rest easy that the two Ks were more concerned with beating up on this nurse than than the appropriate collection of DNA material.

Anonymous said...

For it to be fraud - what is the nurse's financial Gain? A hoax by defination is not fraud.

hman said...

To 12:23
Assuming you are a guy, how would you feel if a woman accused you of rape and the ER exam fell into the hands of a T. Lavicy? I mean, she has never doubted the womans account and apparently feels justified in cheering on the forces of the prosecution with statements like " Yep, it was consistent with her story." - when the result of every exam is consistent with non-consent.

Anonymous said...

All I want is for the swabs, cloths, and slides to be collected properly - which was done in this case and analyzed by two labs. Also showed no DNA of the boys. I don't care about a comment that has no standing in court. Why go after this nurse who assisted the Doctor?

Anonymous said...

Slightly off-topic, but the Chronicle is reporting that the Center for Academic Integrity is leaving Duke for a new home at Clemson.

They are supposed to teach faculty and administration how to act ethically, but it looks like there was no raw material to work with at Duke.

jamil hussein said...

Sources confirm that Mangum has legal counsel, lending to speculation that she may file a civil suit in the matter.

I'm pretty sure Magnum files a civil suit against Duke3. "Something happened" and Durham jury will indeed get to decide this. In civil suits there is no need to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". Instead, "May have happened" is enough, at least in Durham.
Besides, VaWa Act (thanks, Joe Biden) covers her legal fees.

This hoax is not over until Magnum is behind bars.

Anonymous said...

I guess Nurse Tara can never again say she never heard a false rape claim.

Anonymous said...

Nifong, didn't you realize that with the development of DNA technology combined with digital timestamping that occurs with our every move and transaction, it would be impossible to hang three innocent men? Their attorneys tried to help you make a better decision, but you would have none of it! And that the parents of the LAXers had means and connections and would not allow you to sacrifice their sons' lives in order for you to be re-elected just so you could receive an extra $15K per year pension? What a miscalculation. You are truly a wretched man. The families of the boys now live to see you ruined. Like defeating the Third Reich in WW II, or seeing Saddam Hussein fall through a hole in the floor, it is glorious to observe Good defeating Evil, and now, that is why we are all tuned in.

Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to the report the the NC Attorey General was suppose to release last week? Has anyone seen it?

Anonymous said...

I would have thought that there is no way CGM would dare go through a civil trial with the accusatory evidence against her....but the latest racist antics in Durham prove ( beyopnd reasonable doubt) that black Durham will convict innocents just because they are white. As a race, all this hatred of themselves must be projected on those who can and do succeed in life. Pitiful, scary.

Anonymous said...

Actually, there might be a problem with filing suit against the LAX 3 in Durham: none of them is a resident of NC. Federal Courts, here we come.

Anonymous said...

Ask a lawyer: Since there was no "not guilty" verdict, just specifically an "innocent....there is no evidence of a crime at all,' can CGM still file a civil suit? And specificlly what charges against whom? There is no DNA for sexual assault, two have insurmountable alibis, no evidence of any beating....what does she even have to file charges with?

Anonymous said...

Georgia girl says:


7:22 says "...One wonders how many other men have been railroaded into prison of false rape charges ...".

That number is probably much less than the number of true rapists who have managed to beat the system (or were not even charged with rape) and are free to walk the streets.


So, one type of injustice justifies the other?

No justice, no peace said...

"the best Mexican food on the planet."

Another Durham lie...

No justice, no peace said...

"I'd love to know how Nifong can look his son in the face every morning."

The larger issue is how his son can look his father in the face ever again...

No justice, no peace said...

12:15 I don't like the idea of..

"The campus action commitees have been formed. They are loaded down with well known names from the group of 88. Thier reccomendations for improving the undergraduate experience include increasing diversity in the faculty, maintaining higher admission standards in general, but tweeking admission standards for the purpose of racial and socio-economic diversity (in other words, lower academic standards would be required if you are socially challenged, or Black, or if you are black, or if you fail to meet those criteria, if you are black). Those standards could be considerably lower if an applicant were a black feminist woman's studies major. I think the goal of thier reccomendations was to graduate large numbers of qualified S.A.N.E.s"

...one bit. We pay for this insanity, and mediocrity, through Federally subsidized grants and student loans.

a Duke Dad said...

Anonymous 1:46:00 PM asked..
" Since there was no "not guilty" verdict, just specifically an "innocent....there is no evidence of a crime at all,' can CGM still file a civil suit? And specificlly [sic] what charges against whom? "

There is no requirement of a criminal conviction (or even a criminal charge) to file a civil suit. Since criminal conviction is compelling proof in a civil case, the civil case usually follows.

An example: The parents of Ron Goldman sued O J Simpson in civil court and won something like $33 million; Simpson is judgement proof - his assets (Florida mansion, pension) cannot be seized. In this case, there is a 'moral victory', and presumably book or movie royalties would not escape seizure.

rod allison, detroit said...

In one of Nifong's early TV interviews - I think it was the one with Fox - he said he believed a rape occured for two reasons:

1. The medical exam

2. The accuser's demeanor


And that was it.

It looks like he got both of these tidbits, perhaps second-hand, from Ms. Levicy.

I don't think this hoax could have happened without Levicy, who looks for all the world like a zealot with no conscience who would lie, slander, or do anything in furtherance of her cause.

Anonymous said...

A Duke Dad:
Thanks. I understand the Goldman suit because Ron was killed. But what exactly will CGM say was the crime? "Something happened" but I can't recall? Would she try to single Dave out because he has no irrefutable alibi and say he "just my feelings?" I guess I'm not thinking like a criminal or civil lawyer.....

Anonymous said...

Actually, what Nifong said was "My reading of the Nurses'report .." which of course, we know was a lie because the report (Doctor and nurse signatures) was not published or picked up for a couple of days after the statement. The Nurse's opinions mean nothing in this drama. Gotta give her credit for not changing her story with Kingsbury,

William Jockusch said...

My biggest concern with the whole case is that Nifong will become the fall guy for the entire thing. Don't get me wrong -- he was definitely the most culpable and needs to be punished. But there really was a large conspiracy to obstruct justice here, and all of the culprits need to be held accountable, or they will do this again. And others in law enforcement will continue to feel they can do it with impunity.

Anyone who doubts this can google "Pamela Fish", who has not been charged with a crime for railroading several innocent people.

Anonymous said...

jamil hussein:
There is next to no chance that she will file a civil suit. In order to do so, she will need to retain a lawyer (I am assuming that even she has the mental capacity to recognize that she could not do it pro se). She does not have the funds to pay for one so she will have to hire a lawyer willing to work on a contincy fee basis. No lawyer in his or her right mind would take this gog of a case on contingency. No lawyer would want to go out of pocket for expenses etc. on this case .
C. Thomas Kunz

John said...

I'm sure that dismissing the charges was the right thing to do here, but I want to point out one thing that folks have been using as "proof", that isn't proof at all.

The timestamps on the photos are probably accurate, but not certainly so. The timestamp is only as accurate as the original setting of the time in that camera and the accuracy of the internal clock after that.

I'm not suggesting that someone would have intentionally set an incorrect time, but it would be easy to make an error of a few minutes in the setting. Drift over several months could account for a few minutes more.

If there are images from multiple cameras that agree, then the timestamps are much more likely to be accurate.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, CTK. That's what I wanted to hear. What lawyer in their right mind would pursue this?
They'd be creamed....although the jury pool (and the gene pool) in Durham could OJ any white people, I suppose. Still.....do you think Rev Al or Jesse would rather spend their money on an attorney for her or tuition?

jamil hussein said...

kunz:
In order to do so, she will need to retain a lawyer

Violence against Women Act (VoWa) gives unlimited amount of money to "rape victims" for legal fees. This money may still be available for her, since I doubt there is any provision to end this money flow.
Also, black supremacy groups (NAACP, ACLU, Black Panthers, Jesse's rainbow coalition, Sharptons Action Network, Durham City) or various feminazi groups may very well be interested in covering her legal fees.

If the verdict is up to Durham jury, the outcome is quite promising for her.

Terminating Violence against Women Act would be one positive outcome of this hoax. It has inherent bias (all men are rapist so no need for constitutional rights for them). This hoax has once again shown what will happen under VoWa.
wikipedia: VoWa
"[5]Critics of VAWA contend that the law relies on a stereotype of women as victims and men as perpetrators, rather than targeting alcoholism and other troubles that cause violence against women. However, this point is problematic, given that the definitions used in the VAWA are gender neutral.[6] (Such critics claim that this reflects the influence of radical feminists and pro-feminist men on the federal government, a claim that has yet to be advanced outside of op-ed pieces.)"

Unfortunately, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are now in charge so this Act will remain in place. They are too busy about the bias against terrorists.

Anonymous said...

John said "The timestamps on the photos are probably accurate, but not certainly so. The timestamp is only as accurate as the original setting of the time in that camera and the accuracy of the internal clock after that. "

I believe most of the photos were done in cell phones, and I believe the time stamp there is almost impossible to fudge. Also, if video tapes show a wall clock or wrist watch or some other time known event (phone call, etc.), then the accuracy of the time stamp would be confirmed.

Bill Alexander

Anonymous said...

If you read the documents (Cheshire's I believe) you will see that is exactly what happened. Defense investigators were able to get multiple closeup wristwatch photos and other documents to certify the timestamps. Sorry to disappoint you, but they had this covered seven ways from Sunday.

Anonymous said...

If you want a great laugh, read Nifong's Wikipedia entry NOW! Too bad his son has to live with what his Dad is.

Anonymous said...

There was some question in an evidentiary hearing very early in the process, whether her cell phone actually belonged to her or was borrowed. There may have been some privacy issues relating to the actual owner of the phone.

Anyone have more on this? Is this another instance of hiding evidence that was favorable to the defendants -- or perhaps, that would have led to something else that was deliberately avoided?

Bella said...

GP,

I was in no way saying that this case should have gone forward. I'm in the group that was very skeptical from the start. My point was that, considering this new information as well as everything we knew before, Nifong would have absolutely been destroyed in the courtroom, which would have been an entertaining sight to see. That's all I was saying. I am in no way part of the group that believes this case should have gone to trial. Charges should have never been filed. I'm just puzzled about what it was Nifong would have used during trial, considering most of his "evidence" is so easily refuted.

Anonymous said...

All this trouble, expense and bad blood over two black whores in Durham.
What a waste.

Anonymous said...

SANE - for the Sexual Assault
Nurse Examiner should be
modified in this case to
INSANE nurse:

Indolent
Numbskull
Sexual
Assault
Nurse Examiner.


Maybe the AG will consider
her too out-of-touch-with-reality
to be prosecuted - like CGM
(or to lose her credentials?)

It's a shame.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 3:28

Sorry to say, but this truly didn't look like part of a cover-up. The judge (I think it was stephens....couldn't be sure) asked Nifong if the phone belonged to somebody else, and that would present privacy issues...Nifong said he wasn't aware of that status. Nifong did not use that as an excuse.

I will see if I can find the video of that hearing for you. From what I remember of that hearing, it seemed like a legitimate privacy matter.

Please don't paint me to be a Nifong defender....but fair is fair.I really don't think this one is Nifongese

another.anon said...

"She told Kingsbery that she had never encountered a woman who lied about claiming to have been raped.
"

OK, maybe I've gotten cynical, or I parse things too much, but this doesn't say she's never seen a woman who lied about being raped.

It says that she had never encountered a woman who *lied* about *claiming* to have been raped.

I have no idea what that boils down to. Deliberately fuzzy phrasing? Maybe.

Dukex4 said...

Never say never, but I highly doubt any lawyer, even in Durham, would file a suit of behalf of CGM against Dave, Collin and Reade. They would surely answer with a counterclaim, and we know whose side all the indisputable facts are on...Right now the only thing keeping her from being sued by them is probably the fact that she has no assets to speak of, but all bets would be off if she sued them.

Anonymous said...

4:26
Oh, God get over it. She isn't that smart.

Anonymous said...

anon @ 3:28

This was addressed at Collin Finnerty's first court appearance.

After viewing it a second time, I feel like the judge ( I'm still not sure if his name is stephens) seemed to have a pre-disposition on his decision. He seemed to be protecting the state. The attached video does not tell of the outcome of the decision made in chambers (not in public).

You can find the video of the hearing as follows

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1091718/

Anonymous said...

oops my bad....it was the first appearance of Reid Seligman....not Collin Finnerty

I screwed up,
I wish everybody could admit thier mistakes so easily

Anonymous said...

Did you know that Knifong's son is a varsity lacrosse player? Not that it adds anything to the discussion. hehe. If his incendiary article is any indication, Solomon Burnette should change his name from Solomon because he's definitely not a wise man. Given Tara Levicy's unprofessional conduct, Dook could be liable for damages. If I were Dick (Brod)head, I would convince the Board of Co-conspirators to pay for the Duke 3's legal fees. Should CGM decide to pursue a civil suit, the Duke 3 should file a countersuit. If you still believe that "something did happen," why don't you push the DA's office to ID CGM's sperm donors before her levitation? Sounds like an Exorcist sequel. Hehe.

Anonymous said...

KC-

I offer for your book title:

"A Confederacy of Dunces"

(well, okay, it's already taken, but it would be perfect!)

Anonymous said...

Okay, KC -

How about "A Conspiracy of Dunces"?

That's it!!! (you have my permission to use it) :)

Anonymous said...

Nifong is the GUY - Meeham entered into a conspiracy with Nifong and directly aided in continuing this hoax. Is the DNA lab closed? Has his license to practice been revoked? Has he been sued yet? Is he in jail? Pick on someone your own size and nota lowly staff Nurse. Get a grip.

Anonymous said...

anon @4:56

Thanks!


FWIW, I count Stephens as an enabler and would not rule out some sort of apriori arrangement to help get rid of troublesome item A, while items B and C were just not going to come up...

Anonymous said...

Here's the problem for Crystal Mangum and any lawyer dumb enough to try and file a civil lawsuit on her behalf: even if Crystal could find a sufficient number of racist jurors to find in her favor, that verdict would be overturned on appeal, as being against the weight of the evidence. Remember, the only "evidence" that supports Crystal's claim is her own testimony -- and she has given multiple, mutually contradictory accounts (including one to the SP's which apparently had her floating in the air while being raped). As has been pointed out elsewhere, the case would be tried in federal court (because of diversity jurisdiction--none of the defendants live in NC). No federal appeals court would ever uphold a verdict based on such absurd and incredible (literally) "evidence."

rrhamilton said...

Miramar at 9:16 AM:

Wow, one of the most insightful comments I've yet seen anywhere on this subject.

Anonymous said...

Oops, I think I may haved just thrown away my spouse's letter from Duke regarding the annual fund.

Mike Nifong made me do it.

Anonymous said...

The Innocence Project's mission is to help people already in prison, not everyone accused of a crime.

Sorry, but I'm still not excusing them. The only one to comment directly on this case from any Innocence Project was Peter Neufeld, and he felt called to disparage the defense case. But this was not just about the guilt of the Duke Three, but about the entire issue of whether or not DNA is a reliable tool for determining innocence.

The next time three men are accused of gang-raping a woman in a tiny space, and none of their DNA is found, which prosecutor isn't going to refer back to Neufeld's negative words? After all, he was a founder of the Innocence Project; he should know.

He (and all the rest of those involved with the use of DNA as an exculpatory tool) had an obligation to his science to at least defend its basic premise. He also had an obligation to justice, if he knows there is a railroading of three men whom he of all people must have known could not have been guilty.

Not a single DNA expert ventured out to speak up on behalf of DNA testing in this matter. They couldn't find their tongues. For the effect this will have, see above.

Anonymous said...

7:13 Right on - See bar chair Williamson comment on the DNA in this case - paraphrasing "With finding DNA of others ane of the team, lack of team DNA showed innocence." Neufeld has done a diservice to his science and I also think it will come back to haunt him. Also, Lawyer Cornacchi does not name Nurse Tara in his request for investigation of the bad actors. Is he not that impressed with her enabling the hoax?

Anonymous said...

Has any disciplinary action been taken against the SANE nurse?

Richard Aubrey said...

Interesting, if dismaying, that Finnerty's lawyer felt he had to hold the evidence close to avoid Nifong's probable efforts to rejigger his so-called evidence.
I talked to a couple of lawyers about this some time ago. Apparently, if you don't disclose this sort of thing to the prosecutor, you can't use it. Sort of a reverse discovery rule. But I guess you can hold it until the prosecution's case is sufficiently fixed that it can't be undone and redone.
Too bad defense attorneys have to think like that.

Anonymous said...

8:21 No and there will not be any -her opinions are her own and she successfully assisted in collecting materials that cleared the Lax team and defendents. those who cuss this nurse are well aware of their audience and stories.

Anonymous said...

You can defeat diversity by suing Duke, or the property owner, or any of the lacrosse players who reside in NC. If she sues, it won't be removed - not a chance. And, there are plenty of NAACP backed lawyers who would take the case. The only issue for them is Rule 11 which would require the attorneys to have a good faith basis for a suit. They could find themselves on the receiving end of significant sanctions.

Anonymous said...

Crystal can be sued by the players. There have been cases where men accused of rape sued their accusers and won. Of course if she has no money even if there is a judgement against her they couldn't collect. Still, they could sue her in case she makes any profit from this. Frankly I don't know how she can sue players. This is different from Ron Goldman's, because OJ was found not guilty, not declared innocent. Not the same thing at all.

Anonymous said...

DUKE'S ACADEMIC THUG RULE

In New York City, which is 24% black, blacks commit 68% of all murders, rapes, assaults, and robberies (see Heather Mac Donald's current article in City Journal, the magazine of the Manhattan Institute).

One of the best ways of protecting yourself from thugs is to identify them, and then prosecute them, if possible. Tenure used to work in a university populated by faculty that weren't thugs. Affirmative action has changed all that. At Duke University, for example, black thugs tried to railroad innocent students.

TIME TO END TENURE, AND CREATE SPECIFIC PUNISHMENTS FOR THE ACADEMIC THUGS THAT ARE POISONING UNIVERSITIES ACROSS AMERICA

Affirmative action has made tenure obsolete. Fire the G88, destroy black studies. Let the mediocrities go back to the community colleges.

Polanski

Walter Cronanty said...

O/T - K.C. - If you want to see why many of us stopped watching the MSM years ago, read:"The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict" By Marvin Kalb
Working Paper Number:RWP07-012 at
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-012. Then, go back and research Walter Cronkite's newscasts concerning the Tet Offensive of 1968, and compare with General Giap's [Commander-in-Chief of the People's Army of (North) Vietnam], who described it as a costly military defeat. From then to now, the MSM has consistently bent its coverage to anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-traditional values. The MSM's coverage of the Duke LAX non-rape case is merely one of a long and continuing line of these "anti" meta-narratives [this one fitting in nicely as a cross between anti-American values and anti-Traditional values in that it is: anti-white, anti-male, anti-people who have worked hard and accomplished something with their lives]. The MSM "journalists" and the Group of 88 are merely the more ostentatious members of the horde that missed the last bus out of the 60's, or those who were taught by them.

rdubose said...

T. Levicys opinions are her own? Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
For example; while working on a case of an alleged sexual assault in the ER at DUMC within the protocols of that institution - no - her opinions are not hers to desperse according to her whims.
There are lots of ways that "expressing an opinion" out of turn can get medical folks in a great deal of trouble.

Anonymous said...

THE MURTHA GROUP OF 88

some time ago, rep murtha(PA)allegedly accused the hadita marines of criminal offenses on national TV and was given the TUBE to do it...JUST LIKE the DUKE group of 88 accused the three lax players

NOW comes news that will shock you
-----------------------------------

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=lh

Bombshell Cripples Case Against Haditha Marines
Philip V. Brennan
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Convincing evidence that corroborates NewsMax.com's accounts of the Haditha
insurgent ambush has compelled the prosecution to take extraordinary steps
to bolster their crumbling case.

The stunning announcement that all charges are being dropped against Sgt.
Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident
where 24 Iraqis were killed during an insurgent ambush against the Marines,
is indication that the prosecutors have a very weak case against all the
defendants, lawyers for the some of the accused say.

Crumbling Case



"Dela Cruz provided several sworn statements to the government," Mark Zaid
said. Zaid is one of the attorneys representing defendant Sgt. Frank
Wuterich adding that as part of its obligations the government turned over
statements to Wuterich's defense team.

"Unless there's something new that he is suddenly going to come forward with,
it's not entirely clear that it's damaging to my client at all," Mark Zaid,
one of the attorney's representing Sgt. defendant Frank Wuterich, told
NewsMax.com

"Those statements were available for the government to use, and we found that
there are numerous conflicting statements within his own statements."

The announcement of the deal with Dela Cruz is further evidence that the
cases against the Kilo Company Marines and several of their superior
officers are in deep trouble. It comes on the heels of postponements of
Article 32 hearings slated for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion
commander and two of the enlisted men charged with murdering civilians in
Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.

Baseless Charges

Although the prosecutors said they needed more time to prepare their cases,
there is much more to the story than that NewsMax.com has learned, and it
paints a shocking picture of a prosecution that should never have been
pursued.

In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped a
bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he revealed the
existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been obtained by the
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from the
prosecutors.

This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the best
and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine Corps, was in
possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the
entire day's action — material which he had amassed while monitoring the
day's action in his capacity as the battalion's intelligence officer. That
material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS.

Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the
entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses.
Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action
between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the
Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo
Company troops were videotaping the action — the same video that after
editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time
magazine.

When asked by the prosecution team to give his copies of the evidence to the
prosecution, he told NewsMax.com that he was reluctant to do so, fearing it
would again be suppressed or misused, but later relented when ordered by his
commanding general to do so.

Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources tell
NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha Marines are
baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the Article 31 against Lt.
Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an attempt to regroup.

By granting immunity to the officer on the scene of the house-clearing
effort, the prosecution, lawyers say, has further weakened its case.

Because the intelligence officer was slated to return to Iraq for another
tour of duty, arrangements were made prior to his departure to videotape his
testimony for use in the hearings which would take place after his
departure.

Those familiar with his testimony, which included masses of classified
material, insist that the narratives of the day's events disclosed by
NewsMax.com in a long series of stories about Haditha were accurate
presentations of the true facts and a total repudiation of all the
slanderous material leaked by the Pentagon to the media.

Thanks to this officer's testimony, the defense team was able to present over
one hundred classified exhibits, including video.

Lawyers for some of the accused told NewsMax that the officer's eight
hour-long deposition will be made available to the defense in all the cases
for use at the various Article 32 hearings which begin with Lt. Col.
Chessani in May. Because most of it remains classified, it will be reviewed
in private by the hearing officers and not revealed in the open hearings.

NewsMax, however, can reveal that the facts of what happened early that
November morning clearly show that the incident was part of a planned ambush
by insurgent forces, that the civilians tragically killed in the were used
as human shields by the insurgents, and that despite claims by Rep. John
Murtha, there was indeed an ongoing firefight between the Marines and the
enemy.

In short, what the intelligence officer provided, was a fully backed up
account that puts the listener at the scene of the action and takes him
though the entire day's action. All of this information was made available
to senior officers up the command ladder including the Battalion commander
Lt. Col. Chessani.

It was so complete it eliminated any need for further investigation.


Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who questioned the officer,
told NewsMax in a statement, "The intelligence officer is a crucial witness
in this case. During his testimony, he effectively described the enemy
situation prior to, during, and after the November 19 terrorist attack,
providing the necessary context for the decisions that were made as a
result. His testimony shows the complexity of the attack this day, the
callousness of the terrorists toward the local civilians, whom they use to
their advantage, and the error of viewing this incident in a vacuum.

"The officer also showed how the insurgents used allegations of wrongdoing by
Marines as propaganda to support their cause. In fact, another witness, who
was the assistant intelligence officer during the attack and is now the
current intelligence officer for the battalion, testified that since the
Haditha incident received so much negative attention, terrorist propaganda
alleging law of war violations against American servicemen in Iraq has
'ballooned.'"

Addressing this point, Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel of
the Thomas More Law Center said, "The government's politicized quest to find
wrongdoing in this case will ultimately harm the war effort, and it has
already resulted in an incredible expenditure of time, money, and scarce
resources, which could be better used fighting the terrorists.


"Our job is to allow the facts of November 19, 2005 and beyond to be
presented to the investigating officer rather than the scurrilous and
unfounded accusations from anti-war politicians and media who rely on
insurgent sources for their stories about our decent and hard fighting men
in uniform."


In the past few days, as an apparent part of the prosecution's damage control
effort, some Pentagon officials leaked the once classified 130-page report,
by Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell of the Army, to the New York Times and The
Washington Post. That report, however, failed to conclude that any officers
covered up evidence or committed a crime — the basis of the charges against
Lt. Col. Chessani and the other officers charged.

In previous attempt to stir up animosity to the defendants, some people in
the Pentagon leaked information allegedly compiled by the NCIS to the
Washington Post.

As NewsMax demonstrated, that information was false.

Biased Media Weighs In

A shocking example of the sort of slanderous material being leaked to the
media was this story broadcast by WKRN in Nashville, Tenn., which reported
that military prosecutors said marines went on "a killing rampage in
November 2005 in Haditha, Iraq, after their Humvee was destroyed by a
roadside bomb killing one marine and injuring two others."

According to the WKRN report, "The surviving marines went on a killing spree
shooting two dozen Iraqi civilians including unarmed men in the street and
men, women, and children in their homes."

They went on to quote one Gen. Jack Keane, rescribed as an ABC News
consultant, who said that "at that point, there was a fundamental . . .
breakdown in the chain of command. They became more like a gang than a
military unit. The order and the discipline fundamentally broke down and
they were seeking revenge."

The Pentagon report, WKRN admitted, "did not find specific evidence of a
cover-up but concludes that nobody was interested in investigating the
allegations."

The facts show that these reports are blatantly false, and typical of the
shamefully distorted media coverage of the Haditha killings.

On April 3, the prosecution granted immunity to talk to prosecutors to Lt.
Max Frank, who arrived at the scene after the IED blast of the explosion.
The grant was made as part of an order to "cooperate and truthfully answer
all questions posed by investigators."

He has not been charged in the case.

According to Muise and Brian Rooney of the Thomas Moore Law Center both
former Marine officers now representing Lt. Col. Chessani, Frank, who
personally witnessed the scene of the attack shortly after the fighting and
assisted with removing the civilian bodies from the insurgent-occupied
homes, insisted that there was no evidence of "executions" and that he saw
no evidence of misconduct.

Muise observed that Frank was testifying under a grant of immunity by the
government, which he said added further credibility to his testimony.

Lt. Col. Shelburne, the military defense counsel for Chessani who questioned
Kallop, noted, "This officer's testimony is significant. He was on the scene
shortly after the attack. He saw the location of the bodies. He personally
observed the damage caused by the attack. And yet, he saw nothing that
caused him to suspect any wrongdoing on the part of the Marines. Moreover,
this officer was given immunity by the government, so the only way he can
get in trouble is if he testifies untruthfully

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/04/24/bombshell-in-haditha-case/


Bombshell In Haditha Case
Newsmax is reporting that an intelligence officer provided substantial
exculpatory evidence in the Haditha case, evidence he says the NCIS
sat on, evidence that supports the defendants' version of the facts,
and evidence which indicates the entire incident was an ambush which
was being videotaped by our enemies who edited it and handed it over
to anti-war activists to present the case in the worst possible way to
our troops. If this is so, it would substantiate the belief of Steve
Gilbert who early on was sceptical of the claims underlying this case.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/haditha_is_mcgirk_the_new_mary.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=lh[quote]
In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped
a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he
revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have
been obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and
withheld from the prosecutors.
This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the
best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine
Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute
narrative of the entire day's action — material which he had amassed
while monitoring the day's action in his capacity as the battalion's
intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of
the NCIS.
Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of
the entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe
houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the
ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion
headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the
insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were
videotaping the action — the same video that after editing ended up in
the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine.
When asked by the prosecution team to give his copies of the evidence
to the prosecution, he told NewsMax.com that he was reluctant to do
so, fearing it would again be suppressed or misused, but later
relented when ordered by his commanding general to do so.
Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources
tell NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha
Marines are baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the
Article 32 against Lt. Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an
attempt to regroup.

Nifong's hat tricks said...

walter cronanty
Great comments! It's scarey to think what it says about our society when the anti-white, anti-male agenda (as displayed in the Duke case), is spearheaded by white males!

What happened to our men? Have feminist liberal educators succeeded in making white males hate their own whiteness and their own maleness?

Where are the brave men who will push to have white male empowerment programs become the new wave within our Universities?

Colin? Reade? Dave?

Anonymous said...

Re:

No justice, no peace said...
"the best Mexican food on the planet."

Another Durham lie...

Apr 25, 2007 2:06:00 PM

*******************

Actually, it's pretty darn good.

-- Durham Lawyer

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson,

Don't you think it's about time to deconstruct what the G88 really is?

Do you think affirmative action is a virus or a bacteria?

Polanski

Anonymous said...

erratum

meant bacterium

P

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous (Debra) 10:42 said...
...There's a provocative letter-to-the-editor in the H-S today submitted by a man from Durham.

...In reply to some who think that Crystal Mangum should be charged with a crime, he says no.

...His take on the hoax is that Kim Roberts is the real instigator. This might be worth some thought, IMO.
::
I agree but we hear so little about her.
Is she tied in with the Office of Student Affairs at either University?
::
GP

Bakerman said...

RE: ...The only one to comment directly on this case from any Innocence Project was Peter Neufeld, and he felt called to disparage the defense case. But this was not just about the guilt of the Duke Three, but about the entire issue of whether or not DNA is a reliable tool for determining innocence. 7:13:00 PM

This assertion lacks citation and context, kindly provide a link.

...Not a single DNA expert ventured out to speak up on behalf of DNA testing in this matter.

The DNA results in this case were not called into question. What the state (Nifong et al) did with those results, that became the singular question.

Anonymous said...

bakerman - clearly everyone is not capable of critical thinking

Anonymous said...

To bakerman:

This is from a Dahlia Lithwick article in Slate, April 22 last year.

"And what about all this "physical evidence?" That unambiguous, objective scientific evidence? Supporters of the Duke students say the lack of a DNA match exonerates them. Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project says, "There's an old saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." Nurses say the injuries are consistent with rape. The boys say someone else raped her. Time-stamped photos suggest the alleged victim was already injured before she arrived at the party. Other time-stamped photos suggest new injuries occurred while she was there. Lost fake fingernails in the bathroom suggest a fight. The lack of any DNA material under those nails suggest she never fought back. Photos say she was intoxicated upon arrival. The second stripper implies she was drugged at the party."

Anonymous said...

7:13 Excellent. well thought out and well presented post.

Anonymous said...

11:43: I can't find any information that says that Kim Roberts was or is associated with any university.

I also see no evidence that Kim instigated the rape allegations. The allegations of racism, yes, but not rape.

KT said...

Richard Aubrey @ 8:23:00 PM said...

Interesting, if dismaying, that Finnerty's lawyer felt he had to hold the evidence close to avoid Nifong's probable efforts to rejigger his so-called evidence.
I talked to a couple of lawyers about this some time ago. Apparently, if you don't disclose this sort of thing to the prosecutor, you can't use it. Sort of a reverse discovery rule. But I guess you can hold it until the prosecution's case is sufficiently fixed that it can't be undone and redone.
Too bad defense attorneys have to think like that.


That may normally hold true, but remember that Nifong refused to even look at Reade's alibi evidence. I can't imagine that it would be held against the defense if it was offered and refused. Don't DAs usually ask to see evidence of someone's innocence before proceeding? Nifong wouldn't have accepted Collin's evidence just like he wouldn't accept Reade's. He needed to win that primary in order to have a chance to keep his pension intact.

Anonymous said...

Bakerman said, " RE: ...The only one to comment directly on this case from any Innocence Project was Peter Neufeld, and he felt called to disparage the defense case. But this was not just about the guilt of the Duke Three, but about the entire issue of whether or not DNA is a reliable tool for determining innocence. 7:13:00 PM

This assertion lacks citation and context, kindly provide a link.

...Not a single DNA expert ventured out to speak up on behalf of DNA testing in this matter.

The DNA results in this case were not called into question. What the state (Nifong et al) did with those results, that became the singular question.

Apr 26, 2007 12:56:00 AM"

Not even a good try at a straw man argument there, Bakerman. The point, which you artlessly attempted to evade, is that Neufeld, who has utilized and touted DNA evidence as exonerating some 200 people in this country from rape and murder convictions, back-pedaled on its value to do exactly what he does with it when exactly the same reasoning was applied to the Duke boys. Furthermore, you forget that Nifong himself touted DNA as being definitive in this case (and used that as the basis for getting the NTO on all the lacrosse players) - until he got the results. Note that Neufeld's response was AFTER the results came back.

If DNA isn't exonerative before conviction, it isn't exonerative AFTER conviction. Neufeld can't have it both ways, and he's done his own cause a great disservice because of his bias against these boys.

Anonymous said...

To anon at 1:33 who said, "bakerman - clearly everyone is not capable of critical thinking."

You need to include yourself in the crowd. And by the way, that should be, "Clearly not everyone is capable of critical thinking" instead of what you wrote if you want the statement to make sense, unless you think not one person on the face of the earth is capable of critical thinking, which would then make your statement a paradox since you are, presumably, a person.

Anonymous said...

To anon at 9:37pm regarding Murtha group of 88 - thank you so much for posting that. I am outraged beyond speech at our media and our government.

Has there been anything published about these revelations in the same media that blasted these charges against these good men all the way around the world? How about the original reporter?

tom said...

has anyone commented on the fact that the DC court chose to reconvict Collin before a trial in Durham and revoke his probation and punish him for violating probation because of the "accusations" in Durham?

Anonymous said...

Please stop these Haditha nuts from hijacking.

Anonymous said...

7:09 Yeah - Yeah - Yeah -Yeah!!!!!!

Bakerman said...

RE: 1:34:00am

It appears Dahlia Lithwick (SLATE) was issuing an indictment against Peter Neufeld, but based on what, a single Neufeld quotation?: “There’s an old saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.”

I don't see how this lone reference turned the Innocence Project into the Guilty Project, or how it undermines the use of DNA to undo wrongful convictions. It's a clever quip with an obvious element of truth - not a verdict.

In the context offered, however, it casts a negative light on Neufeld's opinion regarding the absence of DNA evidence that would have supported Nifong's case.

Nonetheless, the context is severely limited, unless that's all there is(?).

halides1 said...

Bill Anderson has a good post on the innocence Project at his site. He gently chides Neufeld for inadvertantly muddying the waters with his comments. I, for one, am reluctant to infer that Neufeld set out to harm the Duke 3's case. However, an implicit point here, that this case should have brought together a coalition of old-school civil libertarians and neo-civil libertarians, is an interesting one, and one that should be discussed further.

Chris