Thursday, June 14, 2007

Jim Fox Testimony

Fox is chair of the Bar's grievance committee.

He just has reviewed Mike Nifong's Dec. 28 letter responding to the Bar. It contained multiple untrue statements:

1) Nifong didn't mention a March 30 oral briefing from the state lab on DNA.
2) Nifong described the DNA evidence as "non-inculpatory rather than exculpatory"--Fox says that this term is one with which he wasn't familiar.
3) Nifong falsely asserted that he hadn't met or spoken with Dr. Meehan before the Seligmann/Finnerty indictments.

Grievance Committee felt it didn't have "full and fair" response from Nifong. This makes a tremendous difference in evaluating Nifong's conduct.

Nothing in Nifong response to the Bar that suggested Meehan's statement on p. 5 of "non-probative evidence" really meant a lot of unidentified male DNA.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

3) Nifong falsely asserted that he hadn't met or spoken with Dr. Meehan before the Seligmann/Finnerty indictments.
-------------------

Good lord, he belongs in Stalin's Russia or a Kafka novel.

How did he think he could get away with this?????

Anonymous said...

Yikes - making false statements to
bar grievance committee is alone enough to sink Nifong - a cardinal sin. Everytime I think it could not get worse for Nifong, it does.

Anonymous said...

you should have seen the gallery's reaction when this came out. The camera cut to Seligman, Finnerty and others and they all just looked at each other and shook their heads.

Nifong has clearly now directly lied to the bar in writing.

Anonymous said...

The most bizarre thing is that at one point (I can't recall the exact date), when he dropped the rape charge, he could have salvaged his career and reputation by admitting he was "mistaken" and pursued the indictments out of whitehot outrage for the ostensible victime and dropped all the charges.

redcybra said...

"non-inculpatory rather than exculpatory" - did Nifong go to the Bill Clinton School of Law? It looks like he is NEVER going to realize that it's all up.

Anonymous said...

I just re-read his letter and his 'outrage' over this horrible accusations as well as his very detailed request to find out who complained to the bar and his logic basically of...after they found out other information existed...I gave it to them is REALLY rich.

I can't imagine what possessed him to lie about the April 10th meeting or to continue to represent that Meehan's report was the same as SBI's report.

Anonymous said...

5:24

While Nyfong seems to have destroyed his career, I'm sure there are other DAs--Republican, Democratic, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom Party, whatever, who have done the same. Why the crack at Clinton? What's your problem? Just plain stupid or what?

Anonymous said...

Makes sense to me! Right and wrong shouldn't depend on semantics.

Anonymous said...

I believe the crack at Clinton is due to his "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" defense. Nifong is using similar semantics by using a made up word like non-inculpatory.

Anonymous said...

You've got to love the head of the bar grievance committe, probably no slouch as a lawywer himself saying that he's never before heard the term 'non inculpatory'

I'm wondering how much smirking and laughing Nifong is doing today

Anonymous said...

What's the deal with Phase 1 and Phase 2?

Anonymous said...

I'll answer for 5:24 since I like to think of myself as not "plain stupid" but "attactively stupid." The crack at Clinton has nothing to do with his political views but with his [in]famous statement that "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."--or something to that effect. Clinton just has one of the more famous and recent statements dealing with semantics. And Nifong's response was full of semantics.

Really no need for the "plain stupid" comment.

COgirl said...

I didn't get the point of the cross examination. I wondered if he was trying to get Fox to say that the offenses were so egregious that they had to go forward. What was the point?

Anonymous said...

Nifong is completely cooked. He has said in writing to the state bar that he never spoke to Meehan before the indictments were handed down.

He has lied directly to the bar in writing. Jail is too good for him.

Anonymous said...

If you read a transcript of the question and Clinton's response, you will learn that he actually had a point to make. He just made it stupidly, resulting in the now-famous "meaning of is" quote.

Anonymous said...

non-inculpatory means that it does not tend to support either an inference of guilt or innocence. There appears to be a difference between that and exculpatory evidence which tends to support an inference of innocence.

I just googled it and came up with 131 entries for it. It looks like it isn't used much, but Fong didn't make it up.

HumboldtBlue said...

"did Nifong go to the Bill Clinton School of Law?"

No He probably took some law classes from Scooter Libby. You remember him dontcha? The guy the whole "law and order" Republican party says should be pardoned, because, well, umm, he's a good guy, a good friend, and that, umm, obstructing justice and committing perjury really aren't that bad when done by a Bushie.

Anonymous said...

Phase 1 - determintion of guilt
Phase 2 - penalty phase (that is where we will get testimony from player(s) and family

Anonymous said...

I think one point of the cross was going to be that Mehan testified, contrary to the allegation that there had been an "agreement" to withhold information. He therefore would have said, in light of that testimony that the Bar couldn't have met its burden. But he never got a chance to make his point because the guy was out of town and didn't get a chance to see Mehan's testimony.

Anonymous said...

Oh please. Libby is guilty of not remembering some esoteric detail that they tried him for Perjury over. It was established that was NOT the leak. Now... Sandy Berger, that's a different story.

Anonymous said...

5:46, thanks.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

Well I did not get to see all of the testimony today, but my impression was that from Brannon to Goodenow to Kelly to Fox, Nifong took a beating witness after witness. Remind me again, I thought he should and would resign Monday, what were the rationales for him going through this?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

"non-inculpatory means that it does not tend to support either an inference of guilt or innocence. There appears to be a difference between that and exculpatory evidence which tends to support an inference of innocence"

It appears the term "non-inculpatory" was used improperly. There are literally dozens of rape cases where lack of a DNA match freed a convicted prisoner. The lack of a DNA match is, by its very definition, exculpatory.

Ken
Dallas

Anonymous said...

Would all you politics junkies go somewhere else, please.

Anonymous said...

I just googled it and came up with 131 entries for it. It looks like it isn't used much, but Fong didn't make it up.

The question isn't whether the word exists but whether it has an established meaning in law and was used correctly in this instance.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, 5:50. Can't we all just get along?

Anonymous said...

However, the presence of multiple male DNA on a woman who claimed NO sex in the previous week and then only sex with her boyfriend 7+ days prior AND claimed 3 men raped her using no condoms AND ejaculating in her mouth makes it exculpatory.

It may not be 'proof' of innocence but any time your witness is shown to have lied, it hurts their credibility.

A rape victim who lies about how much sex she had is asking to have her case dismissed, most times, even if a woman WAS raped but lied for some possibly believable reason like having an affair, didn't want father to know, etc. it kills the case.

DNA from AT LEAST 4 men on a woman who claimed no sex/sex w/boyfriend shows that she is a HUGE liar.

Given the specifics of this case it is also fairly strong circumstantial evidence that she is a prositute...that's why we have sperm from her bf,and most of the rest are skin cells, likely from clients who did use condoms, though I seem to remember she had sperm in the anus as well...

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: 5:46

Thanks from me too. I was just hoping today that the length of the case would cause them not to put an ex-defendant on the stand. I fear Nifong would make his attorneys smear whichever one it was.

Maybe in the penalty phase that wont be as bad. I assure you though that Nifong's attorneys will harp on the fact that they have apologized for that the party, were drinking underage, and all fled from the party giving the DA cause to think something had happened. The more I think about it the more I think not putting any of the falsely accused on the stand would be a good idea. The parents can testify as to the harm done to the falsely accused and their families.

Anonymous said...

Let's not get into a Scooter Libby sidetrack, some of us obviously feel sorry for him and think that he has a bad memory and its no big deal anyway, others of us feel that he purposefully and repeatedly lied to law enforcement officers and was deservedly convicted of perjury.

Anonymous said...

5:54

Finnerty and Seligman did not 'flee' not sure about Dave Evans leaving the house.

I believe all the families and boys have said the party showed bad judgement.

All the boys have said use of racial epithets was wrong.

I believe they are putting only Seligman on the stand since he is totally pristine, wasn't there and could prove it easily, and hasn't been convicted of assault for throwing imaginary punches. Nifong's attorneys will not be able to touch him.

redcybra said...

Prosecutor said they have only one more witness. Reade Seligmann, or possibly someone else?

Anonymous said...

Non inculpatory or not....the Fong has lied to the grievance committe in writing....D O N E.

Anonymous said...

So, who is on Nifong's witness list?

Gottlieb
Wilson
Levicy

Triumvirate of liars, idiots and freaks.

Michael said...

Did you read the first paragraph of
Nifong's Dec. 28 Letter to the Bar?
Mister Big Ego/Huge Hot-Head wanted
to know who filed the grievance.

I am sure that he was raring
to initimidate and harass whoever
filed the complaint.

He was absolutely a rogue prosecutor
in every sense of the word. He is
a rogue human being.

mac said...

5:46
"Phase 2 - penalty phase(...testimony from player(s) and family.")

Hmmm.

That's possibly going to be even
more incriminating than this stuff,
hard to believe as that may be.

That's where the 88 and Brodhead
will shine. Not germane?
Well, the consequences of Mikey's
fateful prosecution will be
laid out...not exonerating them, but showing
how Mikey stoked the fires.

They've already laid out the
premise that Mikey stoked those
particular fires; now they'll
show how Mikey set them.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Well I sure will hate to see Nifong's attorney get a chance to drag him through the mud. I think the case is made. I don't see what he can add.

Anonymous said...

Michael:

"He was absolutely a rogue prosecutor
in every sense of the word. He is
a rogue human being"

I think the correct description is a sociopath.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: 6:01

I can not wait to hear Nifong's witness, although I am sure they will make me irate.

Anonymous said...

5:51, I'm not disagreeing with you that the evidence was, in fact, exculpatory. I was just telling people what it means. I also mentioned that Fong didn't make up the term because Fox said he wasn't familiar with it.

Anonymous said...

He lied to the bar in an ethics proceeding. That alone gets him suspended if not disbarred. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Anonymous said...

JLS,

It depends on how far into defaming the boys they go how irate they will make me.

Interesting that no ADA's from Durham have been called so far, I wonder if Mikey is calling any of his 'staff' to support him.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: 6:05

I agree I noticed too that no one from his staff seems to be on that witness list. I wonder who makes up the defense witness list in an ordinary bar hearing?

If he had an actual defense, I wonder what it would be? Editors and producers who had editted his quoted or broadcasted statements? Someone to testify he was not at the meeting as he told the bar? Memory experts claiming his forgetfulness about the DNA evidence and the finality of the DNA-Security report was natural and "honest." It is hard to imagine a defense. But it certainly would not include Levicy, Wilson and Gottlieb. How do they get him off the hook for his public statements? "They should have been condemmed" is not a defense to violating a cannon of ethics prohibiting that. those three witnesses can't excuse his failure to turn over evidence.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Nifong has no legal expert on his witness list, to counter the testimony of the Bar's expert (the lady prosecutor from Mecklenberg). Nifong couldn't find a single prosecutor in the entire state of N.C. to defend his actions? Sad.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: 6:30

It is pretty clear that testifying Nifong's actions were ok would be the kiss of death for any current prosecutor. It will be interesting if he can not find some retired prosecutor and some law school to rationalize on his behalf.

Anonymous said...

Grievance Committee felt it didn't have "full and fair" response from Nifong. This makes a tremendous difference in evaluating Nifong's conduct.


What does this mean? Is this pro/con Nifong?

wayne fontes said...

After reviewing that chart I have to say.....no comment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:57: This is definitely a problem for Nifong. The Bar grievance committee is entitled to full and fair responses from lawyers it's investigating. To fail to fully disclose facts relevant to an investigation is a big problem, almost as bad as lying outright (which Nifong also has been shown to have done).

Anonymous said...

I think the DNA evidence was obviously probative and exculpatory. Legally, evidence is probative if it "tends to prove something which is relative to the issues in a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution." (from an on-line Legal Dictionary) Claims that the DNA evidence was "non-inculpatory" and "non-probative" are based on fundamentally flawed understandings of the meanings of the words. The general, non-legal definition of "probative" includes the notion that "probative" information "tends to prove a particular proposition or to persuade you of the truth of the allegation." (from an on-line general dictionary) I feel sure the State Bar panel thoroughly grasps the legal definition along with the tremendous exculpatory nature of the evidence for the FORMER (Yes!) defendants.

The case continues to astonish. Thank-you, KC Johnson.

Observer

mac said...

Observer 8:37
Good points, good information.
I've been waiting to spring this
bit of nonsense all night...

Exculpatory vs. non-inculpatory:
when they make a musical about
this - (as they should) - they'll
call it "Noncalibur," as opposed to
Excalibur.

This time, it's a Guiness Extra
Stout.

"NoFang and Noncalibur: the Musical!"

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

"can one imagine nifong in congress"

How about someone like him as US Attorney General?
Go google Janet Reno, child abuse and daycare.