Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Montgomery-Blinn and NC "Innocence"

Today’s N&O has an excellent Niolet/Neff article examining those other than Mike Nifong whose reputation rose and fell as a result of last week’s hearings. Among those whose reputation fell: Kendra Montgomery-Blinn, a former Durham ADA who is the first director of the just-established North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission. Incredibly, given her current position, Montgomery-Blinn not only testified for Nifong, but provided a stronger endorsement of him than offered even by Nifong’s lawyers. She suggested to the N&O that her testimony didn’t involve Nifong’s handling of the lacrosse case: you be the judge, based on the clip below (which has a few editorial items in it as well, not added by me).

Neff and Niolet reported that Montgomery-Blinn’s “testimony brought sharp criticism from criminal defense lawyers. Said Joe Cheshire: “It is very troubling for anyone’s faith in the innocence commission when its director testified for a man who tried to put demonstrably innocent people in prison. It’s going to take a lot of work to give anyone any comfort that she can properly screen claims of innocence.”


Anonymous said...

Like interviewing the Grandma of a serial killer ... "he was always such a nice boy ..."

She should've taken care to qualify her assessment of her former Boss, measuring her words, or perhaps offering some justification for the need for her Innocence effort (noting that prosecutors who seem reliable, of high moral character, etc. still make mistakes).

Anonymous said...

That this woman was ever a prosecutor is worrying, too.

At best, she is extrememly naive.


Teach1975 said...

During her testimony she claimed not to have read the AG's report. A person living in NC, who knows Nifong personally, works for an orgainization that attempts to demonstrate actual innocence and we are expected to believe she didn't read the AG's report. This is the example of the Nifong defense... I just didn't read it. Just sad!

Anonymous said...


I completely agree! What kind of innocence advocate is she when she doesn't read a document the declares three young men innocent?

She's either dishonest or stupid, or worse, both.


Anonymous said...


Is anything left to be said about this system?

This woman is the leader of the INNOCENCE PROJECT in NC!

For heaven's sake. This system needs to be cleaned out root and branch.

Bella said...

I hope she knows what a joke she made of the NCIIC. I'm still dumbfounded by her testimony.

On another note...Nancy Grace is leaving CourtTV???? I just heard this...and did a little dance in celebration. If CNN actually fired her, well, that would just make my week.

Ralph Phelan said...

>She's either dishonest or stupid, or worse, both.

Well, that's NC "Justice" for you.

Anonymous said...

I think it's completely ironic that she starts her testimony recounting a conversation she had with Nifong about the Michael Peterson case. Not only was it a big case (that he was not assigned) while he was on traffic duty (read: right field), but it brought fame to Freda Black.

The moment of Nifong's demise came well before the Duke case. His end came when he fired Freda Black. Every action he's done since then has been the wrong one.

I kinda feel bad for him....HAHA, on second thought...

Anonymous said...

God what an annoying video! She has diarrhea of the mouth, and the video edits make it worse.

I need a drink.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree more. In the state of N.C.'s (and the nation's) most highly-publicized case of malicious prosecution, the director of N.C.'s innocence commission can't be bothered to read the State A.G.'s report on the case, a report that declares that the three defendants were completely INNOCENT of the multiple serious felonies with which they were charged? She can't be bothered to read the report, even though the "rogue" prosecutor who brought the charges against the three demonstrably INNOCENT defendants was the woman's own former boss? A man whom she had been asked to testify for at his bar ethics hearing?

Kendra Montgomery-Blinn is either a liar, or she is incredibly lazy and irresponsible. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the future of N.C.'s innocence commission.

Anonymous said...

Hey, this woman's testimony is so outrageous it's very difficult to watch. The "editorial items" helped make it watchable without having some sort of spasm.

Jungle Jim said...

Kendra is a ditzy dingbat. Not the kind of person you want as a prosecuting attorney, unless you are the defense lawyer.

Michael said...

With the combination of nodrop and Nifong still believing that "something happened", by his policy, he would be looking to indict other players for "something".

I wish that there was more attention pointed at the concept of nodrop - a full employment plan for lawyers.

lm said...

She didn't read the AG report....Nifong has certainly trained his staff well in the methods by which a prosecutor can dissemble, obfuscate and manipulate his or her way around the truth. Again - whoever does step in to replace him needs to clean house. I have seen a list of ADA names somewhere...hopefully anyone hiring one of these people will carefully ascertain their level of understanding when it comes to prosecutorial ethics. Otherwise, a risky hire.

Anonymous said...

Can they read in NC? Does anyone in NC seek out information on anything?? Goodness gracious, the whole state is an embarrassment...almost like some 3rd world justice system. I'm surprised Idi Amin wasn't nominated to head the NC Innocence Commission.

miramar said...

Is it me, or does this woman seem to be some kind of perky, 14-year old cheerleader? With apologies to the perky, 14-year old cheerleaders in the audience.

Gyan said...

And according to this:

looks like she is fresh from Duke ... even worked with Prof Coleman.!!!

Anonymous said...

How can anyone talk so much and say so little?

This person actually graduated from law school, passed the bar, became a prosecutor, and is now heading up the innocence commission?

Oh man! The bar better raise its standards. In NC and across the country.

Anonymous said...

This woman was an Assistant DA, yet she didn't seem to know what kind of statements were allowable and what weren't. But I guess that if you were such a weak attorney that you had to work in the Durham DA's office, that confusion should come as no surprise.

Anonymous said...

Guess who is going to work for the Innocence Commission (as some kind of advocate or legal researcher) to prove, in 5 years, to be reinstated because he "reformed" and can view the law wholly, without prejudice.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Innocence Projects... did Barry Scheck ever make a single damn statement about the attempted railroad job nearly perpetrated against the LAX3? I think I know the answer...HELL NO!

Anonymous said...

Damn, at the end of the video she admits that she went out and lost a bunch of cases just so that the accusers would have their day in court! What is this called in legal circles, the Titanic prosecution strategy?

Anonymous said...

What kind of a world are we living in where somebody will stick up for a friends just because their own experience suggests the friend was honorable. Especially when the friend is down and unlikely to be able to ever return the gesture, and standing up could subject one to riducule?

Is that the kind of world we want to raise our kids in?

Anonymous said...

The two great miscarriages of justice are 1) the innocent being wrongly convcited and 2) the guilty getting off. The first is worse.

However, many who are guilty claim to be innocent. It takes skill to discern what cased merit investigation, especially with limited resouces.

It's too important to relay solely on someone's word.


Michael said...

re: 4:16

[How can anyone talk so much and say so little?]

Better not say that around Meehan.

I understand why he gave it up in December. He just can't stop talking.

Anonymous said...

"What kind of a world are we living in where somebody will stick up for a friends just because their own experience suggests the friend was honorable. Especially when the friend is down and unlikely to be able to ever return the gesture, and standing up could subject one to riducule? "

I hope when that "friend" is persecuted for something MORAL and ETHICAL and LEGAL, one would be able to withstand the ridicule. Jesus Christ is a great example. Nifong is no Son of God, just a sonofabitch.

Anonymous said...

4:25> what kind of world do we live in where a narcissistic sociopath with absolute power can possibly lie, cheat, obstruct and decieve for personal gain and at the expense of 3 innocent people facing 30 years in prison for being at a party.
This friend you are talking about could have been kind in private, but had a duty to tell the truth in the proceedings. She either doesn't know the truth about her friend or decided it wasn't important in this venue. She has real responsibility that has nothing to do with friendship. She could have respectfully declined to jeopardize her own career.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Joe Cheshire: "It is very troubling for anyone’s faith in the innocence commission when its director testified for a man who tried to put demonstrably innocent people in prison. It’s going to take a lot of work to give anyone any comfort that she can properly screen claims of innocence."

Joe - if the Innocence Commission has any brains, they will do a 'lot of work' to kick her butt out of there.

Anonymous said...

Montgomery-Blinn is Duke Law '03, and just like Nifong, she went right from law school to a slot working for Nifong. Barely three years later - and right about teh time Nifong took over the LAX case - she was hired for this new position.

From an H-S 3/28/06 article: The Legislature established the Raleigh-based commission last year to investigate claims of actual innocence by inmates convicted of crimes....A graduate of Purdue University with a law degree from Duke, Montgomery-Blinn has been with the Durham District Attorney's Office for three years, most recently specializing in domestic violence cases....Montgomery-Blinn said Wednesday she was excited about her new position, but also sad to leave her current job. She added that she has "great respect" for District Attorney Mike Nifong and was "absolutely not" departing because of turmoil surrounding the Duke lacrosse sex-offense case..."Prosecutors are very concerned about justice," she said. "As a prosecutor, my biggest nightmare would be to convict an innocent person. Nothing has changed. I'll just be going at things from a different direction."

I am getting the feeling Kendra's volubility on the stand may have been a textbook example of protesting too much.

Anonymous said...

I was once a character witness for a student of mine who was involved in an armed robbery and murder.

All I could do was testify to his charcter up to the day of the incident. He truly was a nice kid in class.

I also simply answered the questions asked. The prosecutor asked me, "Were you surprised to hear of the defendent's arrest?" I anwered, "Yes" and left it at that.

The truth must be the first loyalty.


Anonymous said...

She's clearly just a hack, at best. (Yet another "dropping" from Duke onto society.) If she is what stands between the innocent and harm, may God have mercy on the innocent in NC.

Anonymous said...

Seems odd that someone would abruptly switch from prosecuting domestic violence and sexual predator cases to leading an organization devoted to reversing wrongful convictions.

Anonymous said...

If you play it backwards, she says nifong is dead.

Anonymous said...

Kinda hard to hear what the moron was saying over the music and the bubbles. But, who cares what she said? It obviously carried little weight with Lane Williamson. She obviously understudied Nifong, admitting she hadn't bothered to read the AGs report clearing the LAX3. I don't believe the legal community, particularly criminal defense attorneys, will consider her to be a credible spokesman for the Innocence Project. But, as I have said on other threads, Montgomery-Blinn may be guaranteeing her employment by keeping people like Nifong in power--she has a guaranteed clientelle:>

09 Parent said...

Please..somebody make her stop talking!! OH MY.
When I was 23 and representing a noble volunteer program, someone who was much older said to me, "You are naive honey-bunny." I realized two things.

That was a sexist, offensive remark.

He was absolutely correct. I had a lot of growing up to do and I was woefully naive.

But this woman is a an insult to bunnies.

Good God. Someone on the Innocence Project Board needs to ask her to move on. Oh yeah. The Innocence Project as staffed in Durham supports malfeasance in prosecutors. My bad.

Anonymous said...

You'd think that, in her position, she'd at least have had a passing interest in, you know, the biggest case ever in Durham County. That she didn't even follow the case is pretty bizarre.

Anonymous said...

She said we had a "no drop policy" in our office, which meant we would go to trial, knowing we couldn't win over the judge or jury on the case, just to get the day in court. Isn't that exactly where Nifong was headed, come hell or high water? Well, he got his day in court, yes he did.

Anonymous said...

For the perfect ending to this farce, wouldn't it be something if Montgomery-Blinn hired Nifong as her assistant at the NCIIC?!?

Anonymous said...

The last laugh will be on her.
She was hoping for fame and fortune riding the "SS Nifing", but it's sinking fast and the lifeboats are gone. All left aboard are going down with the captain.

Anonymous said...

She "personally took cases to trial" where she knew there was no chance of winning but she was convinced of the person's guilt?? So, she's convinced of guilt, but "knows" she can't win - does that mean that a DA's personal amazing superhero abilities to ascertain guilt even though there is not enough evidence to win a conviction with legal facts and evidence is worth pursuing to the bitter end because there is an "office policy"? And this policy is specific to alleged DV or sexual assault cases? Jeez - I'd hate to be a male in North Carolina.

Anonymous said...

Unwatchable. Untenable.

Anonymous said...

What's particularly amusing is all the self righteous, chest thumping know it alls, who, having been on the laxers' side, now feel a personal sense of vindication. As if they are actually more connected to this case other than by mere cyber space. As if they actually had something to do with the outcome. As Nifong was characterized as "self-delusional" so to the posters, who think their little pearls of wisdom are anything more than an outlet for their own over inflated sense of importance to the world.

Keep it up folks, nothing like knowing the answer to everything.

mb said...

For the love of God, would this woman pleas stop talking! The more she says the dumber she appears to be.

Holy camoley, this woman is a licensed attorney? The bar is setting the bar mighty down there in N.C.

Anonymous said...


It did hate being a male in NC. I got the special Nifong treatment where despite remaining silent, the police made up statements to infuriate my accuser. The prosecutor testified to bizarre statements that I had supposedly made to him. When I recommended he cross examine his witness(to verify story) he said it wasn't his job. He did dismiss charges during the prosecution case since he could no longer rely on the candor of the witness (one lie too many). I wish they would federalize I-95 so I could avoid NC.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 5:26 quips, "Keep it up folks, nothing like knowing the answer to everything. "

Especially when reason violated and truth raped smacks you in the face every day for the last 14 months.

09 Parent said...

Pressured speech? Manic thinking? Flight of ideas...needs lithium?

Not kidding here!

Married to an excellent attorney folks, someone who has been a Public Defender and successful in private practice and I would love to be impressed by a Duke law grad since I have a son at Duke. Campbell Law School however produced a man of great talent and reason in Brannon.

aaaharrrhaaaghhh!!!! She and Victoria Peterson have been attending the same wine and cheese parties for that pillar of justice, Nifong. What is in their kool aide??

just when I thought it was safe to come out in Durham again..so many truly scary people. I would rather spend the evening with Jakki/Clyde.

Anonymous said...

It's the water.

Anonymous said...

Her testimony was simply that Mr. Nifong was a good guy when she worked for him, she could not imagine that the man she knew had pursued the LAX case in order to win the election, and the DA's office followed established policy when (1) the head DA chose to prosecute high profile cases of great interest to the community and (2) the DA's office prosecuted cases in which the evidence was weak (NOTE she did not say entirely exculpatory), but the prosecutor believed the defendant(s) guilty. She based this testimony on her knowledge of Mr. Nifong's character during the rather brief period of time she knew him and the policies of the office--not on the facts of the LAX case at all. Lane Williamson himself indicated that good character sometimes seems to depend on the circumstances, and Mr. Nifong, who enjoyed a good reputation before this case, committed an ethical breach/crime of opportunity. This breach occured after the witness changed jobs. She obviously has no knowledge of the case. Mr. Nifong is entitled to due process, and in his ethics hearing he is entitled to present character witnesses. I have no issue with this woman attesting to his good character pre-Duke LAX based on her experience. I believe she is telling the truth. That's really all we ask, isn't it?


Anonymous said...


I think the relationship between the Innocence Commission and Nifong raises an interesting question for you as an individual, as well as all the other people involved in shedding sunlight on this case (JinC, Liestoppers, etc).

As Mr. Seligmann noted in his letter to the blogging community, this case is "just one small link on an entire chain of injustices that take place in our country everyday." We should be able to trust checks like an innocence commission to temper the desires of zealous elected prosecutors to eschew the truth in an attempt not to seem "soft on crime".

If we can't trust (due to their conflicts of interest or otherwise) institutions like the innocence commission to defend persons subjected to false and abusive prosecution, we are left to private alternatives. We all know that those private alternatives (specifically, you, KC) deserve credit for the successful defense of the three young men in this case.

As citizens, we all hope that as this case wraps up, you will shift your focus from the continuing pursuit of the villainous DA to other cases where harm to innocent people might still be avoided. Therefore, my question: what such plans do you have? Have you begun investigations into any other suspect prosecutions around the country? What have these investigations yielded?

Anonymous said...

Let's Not Minimize Nifong's Culpability
By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
I believe the culpability of "rogue" prosecutor and bully-extraordinaire Mike Nifong in the Duke LaCross "fiasco" has been grossly understated. His premeditated actions and apparently unrepentant heart merit a special ranking on the outrage meter and it should be a very long time before we apply to this case the adage that time heals all wounds.

Even in his mostly condemnatory statement explaining the North Carolina Disciplinary Commission's decision to disbar Nifong, commission chairman F. Lane Williamson seemed to bend over backward to give Nifong the benefit of the doubt -- a benefit the wrongfully accused Duke Lacrosse defendants never received.

Williamson said that Nifong's action appeared to the commission "to be out of self-interest and self deception, not necessarily out of an evil motive, but that his judgment was so clouded by his own self-interest that he lost sight of it and wandered off the path of justice and had to be put back on course again by extraordinary means."

I respectfully disagree with the evil motive part. It's as if the commission is suggesting that Nifong's consuming quest for selfish political benefit somehow lessens his culpability, when it clearly aggravates it.

This is a bit like saying that a bank robber's criminal act is less criminal because he possessed a dizzying desire to enrich himself. Perhaps if the robber had committed the crime sacrificially to save starving people in Ethiopia, his actions could be viewed in a more favorable light, but that's hardly the situation here.

Nifong was running for office in a heavily black jurisdiction and deliberately pursued apparently well-to-do white defendants for the express purpose of exploiting racial tensions to improve his prospects for re-election.

Nifong didn't just press forward with a marginal case. Based on no credible incriminating evidence, and plenty of exculpatory evidence, Nifong brought the charges before even interviewing the accuser, Crystal Mangum, whose story repeatedly changed. He intentionally tainted the jury pool by making improper, misleading and damning public statements against the accused, withheld DNA evidence exonerating the defendants, refused to meet with defense counsel, scoffed at defendant Seligmann's powerful alibi, and flagrantly lied to the court.

Williamson said, "We had a prosecutor who was faced with a very unusual situation in which the confluence of his self-interest collided with a volatile mix of race, sex and class."

Sorry to differ again, but Nifong's self-interest didn't just fortuitously "collide" with race, sex and class. He was the active agent who caused the collision and who exploited these factors just as an arsonist pours accelerant on his deliberately sparked flame.

Nor do I agree with Williamson that Nifong was "politically naive," or that, even if he were, this would be a mitigating factor. Nifong was the opposite of politically naive. He was politically astute: His gambit worked to advance his political ambitions, which is precisely what he intended. He implemented it not through naiveté but a malicious and depraved heart, which resulted in untold, permanent damage to the wrongfully accused and their families and to race relations in North Carolina and elsewhere.

Long before you start feeling sympathy for Nifong, remember that during his disbarment hearing he steadfastly maintained, in the spirit of a true narcissistic sociopath, that "something happened," and that Mangum, even if not sexually assaulted, may have been "intimidated," whatever that means.

Nifong's insistence that he didn't intend to make improper public statements on the case or to withhold electrifyingly critical DNA evidence -- that these were somehow oversights or a product of mere negligence -- does more than strain credulity. It insults anyone with a capacity for reasoning and moral discrimination.

As University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor Joe Kennedy said, "It almost doesn't get any worse than lying to the judge in terms of ethical violations, but lying to the judge about information that suggests the defendant is innocent is even worse."

Few things are more unjust than to be wrongfully accused. Few things are more terrifying than to be wrongfully pursued criminally by a prosecutor who, backed by the awesome power and resources of the state, is motivated by self-aggrandizement rather than justice.

Despite the multiple checks and safeguards against abuse built into our criminal justice system, in the end, the system is only as strong as the decency and honor of the people running it. We should never forget that in retrospect, little stood in the way of very different and life-changing results in this case.

Thankfully, the defendants didn't quit fighting in this case and the North Carolina State Bar and Disciplinary Commission ultimately exerted the courage to approach it with an open mind and an eye toward justice.

David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.

No justice, no peace said...


A man walked into a very high-tech restaurant in a fancy hotel.

As he waited to be seated, he noticed that the Maitre D' was a robot.

The robot clicked to attention and said, "Sir, there is a one hour wait. And I am programmed to converse with you until a table is ready, If you please."

Intrigued, the man said, "OK."

The robot clicked a couple more times and then asked, Sir, what is your IQ?"

The man answered, "Oh, about 164."

The robot then proceeded to discuss the theory of relativity, Interstellar space travel, the latest
medical breakthroughs, etc.

The man was most impressed. The next day he returned, but thought he would try a different tack.

The robot again asked, "What is your IQ, sir?" This time the man answered, "Oh, about 100".

So the robot started discussing NASCAR racing, the latest basketball Scores, and what to expect the Red Sox to do this weekend.

The guy had to try it one more time. So the next day he returned.

Again the robot asked the question, "What is your IQ?"

This time the man drawled out, “Uh.....'bout 50."

The robot clicked, then leaned close and very slowly said,

"S-o-m-e-t-h-i-n-g …

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha

Anonymous said...

5:26--Well, perhaps you are a bit self-delusional also, since you apparently thought this point was important enough to post on two different threads . . . .

Gary said...

Come on, she obviously wants Nifong in office so that she'll have more innocents in jail that she can free later. Drumming up future business so to speak.

Betty Crocker said...

Apparently, some of the people here have been living under a rock.

I'm tempted to write a book: "Prosecuting For Dummies; How To Frame Almost Anyone"

Chapter 2: "Lifetime Employment For Lousy Lawyers; How To Become A Prosecutor"

Chapter 3: "How To Indict Your Own Mother"

Chapter 4: "When All Else Fails, Try North Carolina"


Anonymous said...

Montgomery-Blinn would be out of a job if not for the likes of Mike Nifong. No wonder she's his biggest fan.

Anonymous said...

Observer says she commented on her knowledge of Mr. Nifong's character during the rather brief period of time she knew him and the policies of the office--not on the facts of the LAX case at all.

How is that relevant out of context to this case? Why wouldnt she read the AG's report and link his behavior of several years ago with the current situation? And if you feel she just did what was asked of her and that it was reasonable, why not just bring Mikey's 1st grade teacher in so she can discuss how proficient he was with crayons and how good he was at not going potty in his drawers ?

Anonymous said...

what other news is this distracting the masses from? Maybe Paris Hilton? Global warming? White House emails?

Mike Nifong is an agent, disguised as a bleeding heart liberal, of the right wing propaganda machine designed to redirect and deflect attention from the most important, newsworthy topics of the day...for example, what did Paris Hilton eat last night? How many single-cell-sea-slugs are dying because the ice shelfs are melting? What did Karl Rove's 12,783rd email, entitled "How to Out Valerie Plame - Strategic Revenge" really mean?

Mike Nifong will reemerge in 12 years creating additional controversy when a powerful member of the Illuminati is elected as Speaker of the House and reforms social security.

Anonymous said...


Assuming that the last point is in fact true. LOL!

Anonymous said...


You also must know that Paris Hilton and Precious will be named as his 'special' assistants.


Anonymous said...

did she attend duke law ?


Anonymous said...

Is the Commission naming itself "Innocence" similar in motivation to naming CGM naming herself "Precious"?

Anonymous said...

LOL @ 5:26

It's funny watching all of the sour sports like Anon 5:26, trying to get SOME satisfaction online by blasting those who saw the hoax for what it was.

Anonymous said...

"I'm tempted to write a book: "Prosecuting For Dummies; How To Frame Almost Anyone"

Don't laugh.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: michael

I agree with Michael the nodrop policy is very concerning and as I remember at odds with the NC Bar cannons of ethics. A DA is not allowed to take a case to trial that he does not believe he has a substantial chance of winning.

Another way to put this is the DA does not get to play judge and jury and punish you for a crime the DA thinks, but does not have evidence you committed. Trials are not to punish someone but to determine guilt.

If a DA forces someone to a trial they know they can not win, the DA is using the trial to punish someone monetarily and emotionally for a crime the DA knows he can not prove in a court of law. This is exactly why taking a case to trial that a DA knows he can not win is an ethics violation.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re anon 4:39

She was appointed to her current position well after this hoax was clearly hoax, late last summer or last fall as I remember. I remember being shocked at the time that ANYONE from Nifong's office would be given such a job under the circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Teach1975 said...

I agree:
-Head of Innocent project
-Knew Nifong

-And never read the AG decision in the case...

She testified not to character but to how Mikey did his job in the past.

Still, she is in the wrong job.

Anonymous said...

That entire video of this screwed up woman is linked on a previous page. I'm glad KC edited it. The other one is longer and I can't take this woman for long.
Does Kendra Blinn ever stop talking? Cheshire is right. i wouldn't trust her for one minute.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully the legislature will soon disband the "innocence" project as a total fraud.

At the very least, terminate everyone currently associated with it (starting at the top) and start from scratch.

GS said...

I like the title of the ABC story

Humiliation Continues: Nifong Stripped of Badge

Mikey is trying very hard never to be forgotten. He will be a chapter in ethics in many Law Schools.

Does he not care what his family thinks?

Anonymous said...

"A man's character is his fate."
— Heraclitus, Greek philosopher (c. 540-c. 475 B.C.)

Anonymous said...

To many MIKES and not enough Mr Nifongs in her diatribe!

Did she sleep with him or what relationship did they have?


mb said...

5:42PM wrote:"As citizens, we all hope that as this case wraps up, you will shift your focus from the continuing pursuit of the villainous DA to other cases where harm to innocent people might still be avoided. Therefore, my question: what such plans do you have? Have you begun investigations into any other suspect prosecutions around the country? What have these investigations yielded?"

I would bet good money that you'd find a high concentration of suspect prosecutions among prosecutors with a history of 1) women's studies, 2) feminist 'training' and 3) no drop policies.

As I've mentioned before, I think feminist 'training' in law enforcement and the judiciary should be outlawed, and IMO a record of attending women's studies programs should disqualify Bar applicants. "Feminist jurisprudence" is front and center in this fiasco and the time has come to expose it for the malignancy that it is.

Anonymous said...

Wot a mouth, wot a mouth, wot a North and South, MOUTH

Anonymous said...

She must think that talking a lot, cramming a lot of words into a short time, makes you sound smart. It doesn't. Lady, no more coffee for you!

scott said...

I think Jim Hardin's no-drop policy stinks and Nifong's replacement should make its disappearance his first order of business.

Kendra kept going on about how worthy it was to make sure the accuser got their day in court (hmmmm, I seem to recall our ol' buddy Cash Michaels and several members of the G88 arguing the same thing for Crystal) even though she knew her case couldn't be won on the facts. She needs to go back review the job description of a DA / ADA. They're there to seek justice on behalf of the people at large, not to give an accuser a forum.

How many people are out there, knowing about such a no-drop policy, who would be willing to bring an accusation, not even caring about winning or losing, but merely as a vendetta against someone else? Winning would be icing on the cake. No one should be given the opportunity.

I don't know from shinola about Hardin's bona fides, but judging from his no-drop idea, he wasn't a good candidate to have been the DA and has completely Peter-principled as a judge.

Durham, the gift that keeps on giving.

Anonymous said...

So you charge someone with a crime, and then find out he was having dinner with the president of france in paris at the time. It was video taped, but you have a no drop policy so keep the case going?

Anonymous said...

Nifong sandbagged her to some degree, but...

The most troubling thing, is that after hearing about the FA change in story she though Nifong did the right thing just dropping the rape charges.
At that point she knew:
-About the DNA
-The Bar investigating Nifong
-The DA association asking Nifong to get off the case
-She know about the alibi for one player

She is the wrong person for the Innocent Committee.

Anonymous said...

This 'no drop' policy is despicable. Never heard of it before. Any jurisdiction that has such a policy should be investigated.

Anonymous said...

I cannot help but think about how much Rae Evans must be enjoying this whole debacle.

Looks like she was more on target with her statements in all of this than anyone else. Enjoy Mrs. Evans.......Nifong is paying and will continue for the rest of his life!!!

Michael said...

re: 6:43

I should send an email to our legislator to see if they do this sort of thing in our state.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: michael

Maybe we should both ask our state bar associations. They make and enforce these ethics rules in most states.

bill anderson said...


You have to remember that Durham is Wonderland, and innocence anywhere else is guilt in Durham. So, Kendra then would consider the innocent people to be guilty and vice versa. So, why are we surprised by her testimony?

Anonymous said...

How would I determine if the state in which I live (NY) has a 'no drop' policy and, if so, why? Sounds like the sort of thing that a totalitarian government would run.

mac said...

The least she coulda done was to
take a quick-study of DIW.
That would have brought her up-to-
speed. Reading the AG's report
would have been a good cheat-sheet.

Failure to do even that - on the
eve of her testimony - is willful

She ought to consider being CGM's
for that, she might be qualified.

Anonymous said...

5:26 writes about ...all the self righteous, chest thumping know it alls, who, having been on the laxers' side, now feel a personal sense of vindication.

Damn straight. And what of all the righteous breast-beating know-it-alls who took CGM's side? What do they feel? Stupid? Bigoted? Exposed for the frauds they are? They should. Instead they hide, hoping desperately that everyone will just "move on".

5:26 ends by saying
Keep it up folks, nothing like knowing the answer to everything.

Actually, there's nothing like observing an outrageous attempt at injustice, seeing hordes of agendists stream out like a wave of squeaking rats, then watching them have to scurry back to their holes, leaving some of their fellows behind. Not enough of them, yet - but there's time.

That is quite satisfying.

Anonymous said...

Another horrible thing about "no drop" is the toll it must take on real victims. Imagine having to face the man who raped you and watch him walk out of court because the DA didn't have enough evidence.

It's wrong on all counts.


Anonymous said...

"So you charge someone with a crime, and then find out he was having dinner with the president of france in paris at the time. It was video taped, but you have a no drop policy so keep the case going?"

Yes, exactly. Because, in the politics of the criminal justice system, any number of things can still go wrong for the defense (bad police, bad judge, bad jury) and you just might...might get a conviction!

What really happens, in the 95% of cases that do not go to trial, is that the wrongfully accused is held over the fire and threatened with all kinds of awful things, including public humiliation, bankruptcy and loss of employment. The offer of a plea-bargain, otherwise known as 'extortion' to us civilian citizens, results in 'rough justice' for the criminal justice system, and 'justice' to the MSM.

No harm, no foul.

Michael said...

There's a rather interesting paper on mandatory arrest and no drop policies at MANDATORY ARREST AND NO-DROP POLICIES: VICTIM EMPOWERMENT IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

It's a rather interesting read on an attempt at dealing with domestic issues through policies and procedures. Of course there is no discussion of a false accuser or the presence of the law being used offensively.

mac said...

Interesting that KC's observations
and posts pretty well matched
both the AG's comments and
Williamsons'. Guess you think
KC is over-rated, too?

Since you can't get away with
that, you have to piss on the
people who've paid attention,
helping justice even as
somewhat-active bystanders.

You really didn't want people to
pay attention, did you? It didn't
serve your perverted sense of justice.
You wanted to be the only voice.

You must be an 88 - (except for
the observation that you write too well.)

So here we are: we've hear people
like you saying:

"No way the AG's gonna use the word

"No way the Bar is gonna disbar

"No way Duke's gonna settle."

How about these (new) predictions,
since you were wrong before?

Durham is gonna fire the City Manager,
fire a good number of the DPD,
and DUMC is gonna clean house,
too; Brodhead will silently
leave, as soon as the smoke leaves
the battlefield; the 88 will only
be able to comment - (anonymously,
of course, like you) - because
to continue to rip on the students
will violate their agreements
with Duke and the young men.

Now that your voice has been
silenced, you have to micturate
on those who can still afford to
speak openly.

oh, how it must grate on the nerves!

Michael said...

re: 9:24

I would have a hard time doing a quick study on DIW. I've been reading for quite a while and I still run into stuff that I didn't know. Going back through 700+ posts here would not be quick!

mac said...

You're right: but DIW the sidebar
would be a help; even hitting
the high points would have

And then, as stated: there's always
the AG's report, which is a good

Anonymous said...

There were a few comments that Chairman Williamson made that I thought were a little odd. When I read D Limbaugh it crystalized some of my thoughts.

I don't know (we cannot read minds) why Williamson would interject nice comments during his closing remarks. If he felt he had to say something nice,I would have preferred if he had just told Nifong he had a nice tie.

At one point he asked defense counsel "why?" No one had an answer why he would do such a thing and risk everything. Then practically in the next breath, he say that Nifong did not act out of "evil." He doesn't know. How can he do what he did, and not be evil? The 3 were begging for their lives, and he kept it up. He got a 400K bail. Why? Evil. He laughed in court while Reade was being threatened inside the court. Evil. (We all saw that none of the 3 families laughed when he lost.)

Let's not put lipstick on this pig.

mac said...

One might suspect - had Nifong
not agreed to not seek an appeal -
that Williamson was trying to
block an appeal that might arise
because of some perception of

"Lipstick on a pig"
is certainly appropriate, but
it's what you might have to do
in order not to have to take
the same date to the ball a second

Anonymous said...


These stupid racists have been unmasked. Let's kick them out of Duke so that they can go where they belong: the local KFC.


Michael said...

An opinion on no-drop from http://www.askthelawguy.info/dissent/2003.07.01_arch.html

Interesting observation in NC:

As I sat in "love court" the other day and watched the stories unfold, I saw this happen: Defendant is charged with "communicating a threat" to his live-in girlfriend. Allegedly he told her "I'll kill you." By the time of trial they had reconciled and the victim did not want to go forward with the case. The ADA in court that day denied her request following the no-drop policy. I don't know this, but I suspect the victim told the ADA that she no longer recalled a threat. Police officer testifies that she heard the defendant say "I'll kill you." Victim testifies saying that she does not recall a threat. The case is then dismissed because a communicating threats charge requires proof that the target of the threat heard the threat and believed it. The ADA then asks the judge to find that the prosecution was frivolous and malicious and require the victim to pay the costs. Isn't the state essentially saying "Judge, this case I just prosecuted was frivolous and malicious, please punish the woman, who minutes ago asked me not to go ahead with the case." If as I suspect, the ADA prosecuted the case knowing the evidence was fatally defective, isn't the state more responsible than the victim for the malicious prosecution?

Anonymous said...

How did Mikey spend his paid leave today? Perhaps, he met with Crystal and Victoria for lunch and then went to church with them.

Michael said...

This article in Slate is a really good read on this case and its ramifications that the whole system is corrupt.

(found this on ls)

[If Mike Nifong's conduct is commonplace, then the whole system is corrupt. If other DAs do what he did, then we have to face up to how widespread and corrosive prosecutorial misconduct really is—a discussion Marquis and Murphy and other prosecutors would strongly prefer to avoid.]

Gary Packwood said...

Michael 10:00 said...

...If as I suspect, the ADA prosecuted the case knowing the evidence was fatally defective, isn't the state more responsible than the victim for the malicious prosecution?
Give the rule a little time to spread across the good citizens of North Carolina.

Over here in Texas we have a EMT rules for kids who call 911 and demand an ambulance just so they can see the red lights and siren from the EMT vehicle and the Police vehicle and many times ...the Supervisor's vehicle.

Lots of excitement.

The rule is ...Transport the kid to the hospital ER.


And then, charge the parents.

That truth got around to the good residents of Texas in very short order.

You don't hear much about kids making prank call to 911.

Just give the rule a little time to trickle up and down and around.

Honey West said...

The "editorial items" in this clip are pure genius.

Anonymous said...

So after watching this I now understand the conspiracy. All I could think of was this song during her mind boggling statements.

One School makes you larger
And one degree makes you dumb,
And the ones that Duke law school gives you
Don't do anything at all.
Go ask Kendra
When she's sittin in the stall.
And if you go chasing nifongs
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell 'em a hookah smoking Lacrosse player
Has given you the call.
Call Kendra
When she was just as dull.
When the DPD on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of nifong
And your mind is moving low.
Go ask Kendra
I think she'll know.
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead,
And the Meehan is talking backwards
And the Nifongs "off with LAX’ers head!"
Remember what the Johnson said:
"Feed your head. Feed your head. Feed your head"

So here is the real conspiracy This is all just made up on the internet to help sell books by KC Johnson. Youse all This cannot really be true it is really just Durham in Wonderland.

Smkin caterpillar- over and out hopefully for Good, I will fix my shiny hat tomorrow

Tom E.

Michael said...

re: 10:52

That was written back in 2003.

I think that women, in the heat of emotions don't bother thinking about the consequences. Judgement is required and the law appears to preclude judgement.

But it does appear to add to the desire to increase employment in the prosecutor's office.

The Boston College paper on no drop is more interesting as it isn't clear as to whether or not no drop is a benefit and it may actually hurt the people that it was intended to help. And, of course, it doesn't deal with the problem of false accusers.

Anonymous said...

I looked at the video again. It's a little difficult to hear, but Ms. Montgomery-Blinn offered some very weak substantive testimony regarding Mr. Nifong's intent in pursuing the case--not just testimony regarding his character as I erroneously stated in my earlier comment. Apparently, Ms. Montgomery-Blinn campaigned some for Mr. Nifong, became concerned about the pre-trial publicity in the LAX case, and initiated a conversation with him about the case, stating her views that he would never pursue a case to win an election. He agreed with her, and they had a bit of a laugh thinking about the foolish people who were suggesting otherwise. Not surprisingly, this was not very persuasive testimony to the panel.

Her testimony regarding the "no-drop" policy seems a bit inappropriate in Mr. Nifong's ethics hearing. I do not believe the policy is intended to be used to excuse a prosecutor's pursuit of a case in which (1) the complainant has no credibility, (2) there is no corroborating evidence, and (3) there is a lot of exculpatory evidence.

Mr. Nifong surely hoped to redeem himself a little in the eyes of the panel by associating himself with Ms. Montgomery-Blinn, especially in light of her new position. Like everything else he tried in this hearing, that strategy fell completely flat. I do not, however, begrudge the indefensible Mr. Nifong his right to put on the best defense he could arrange. Nor will I hold the ineffective testimony from Ms. Montgomery-Blinn--at least not the testimony available on the video-- very much against her....

But if I had hired her, I would brief her thoroughly on the facts of this case and closely question her thinking on (1) the "no-drop" policy and whether she believed it applied somehow to this case and (2) Mr. Cooper's exoneration of the former defendants, Mr. Nifong's handling of the case, and whether she accepted both the AG's declaration of innocence for the three innocent former defendants and the judgment of the State Bar Ethics Panel that Mr. Nifong behaved unethically and deserved to be disbarred. Satisfactory answers would be essential for ensuring her competence in performing her job.


Michael said...

re: 11:37

[Apparently, Ms. Montgomery-Blinn campaigned some for Mr. Nifong, became concerned about the pre-trial publicity in the LAX case, and initiated a conversation with him about the case, stating her views that he would never pursue a case to win an election. He agreed with her, and they had a bit of a laugh thinking about the foolish people who were suggesting otherwise. Not surprisingly, this was not very persuasive testimony to the panel.]

Apparently Mike Nifong forgot this:

1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

His friend Mr. Linwood Wilson should have reminded Mr. Nifong of this given his other job.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Speaking of Innocence Projects... did Barry Scheck ever make a single damn statement about the attempted railroad job nearly perpetrated against the LAX3? I think I know the answer...HELL NO!

Jun 19, 2007 4:21:00 PM

1. Actually his co director said some anti defendent statements early in the case.

2. I look at the Innocence Project like the ACLU--too ideological really be as useful as it should be. And heading further leftward any day.

3. Mr Scheck is the key guy who helped spring OJ--never forget that. Remember, he twisted the DNA evidence to the jury.

4. I, for one, having seen how the DNA was manipulated in this case have great doubts that all 200+ people sprung by Scheck's group were truly innocent. I hope somebody is watching these guys closely.

5. Between Nifong and Scheck you can see the spectrum of whats wrong with US law/justice.

Clarencedarrow said...

I listened to the live testimony. One of the first things, you are taught in an examination is to answer the question succinctly and don't offer any new info or opinions. It's like throwing chum into the sea. This woman is clearly a pathetic excuse for a trial lawyer. She just wouldn't shut up and eventually she said something that killed Nifong - the part about pursuing a case on feelings rather than on evidence. The Durham legal infrastructure is an incestuous cesspool - it needs to be completely cleaned out.

Anonymous said...


That same thing jumped out at me - my lawyer always told me "a good witness volunteers nothing". That is good advice. She might try it next time she is on national television. What a piece of work!

mac said...

Strange that she didn't know anything about the case,
and didn't seem to want to know:
perhaps she kept herself intentionally ignorant
because she wanted to be on a jury?

mac said...

Her voice is strikingly similar to
Sean Young's: she played
Lt. Lois Einhorn/Ray Finkel
in "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective."
(She looks a bit like
Lt. Einhorn, too.)

Beyond that, I won't further
the comparison.

Anonymous said...

A pox upon the people of North Carolina.
If Montgomery-Blinn is any indication of the type of integrity in an Innocence Commission, heaven help us.
Taxpayers of NC will soon be paying for the commission to represent that poor Mike Liefong.
Kendra, go to Urgent Care quickly, Your prescription has expired. I'm sure they will recognize in short order that they need to refill your reality pills!

Anonymous said...

hey 6:19
let me guess--you've been living under a rock and tried to climb out
the rock fell
landed on your head
and that comment driveled out

give us your number
(from 1 to 88, of course)

Anonymous said...

Montgomery-Blinn, director of the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission testifying for Nifong? Scary. Suddenly it's becoming alot more clear as to why NC appears to have so many innocent people in prison and even on death row. I'm beginning to think I'd rather face trial in Iran than NC. I think the Iranians would give me a fairer shake.

Anonymous said...

Observer (or may I call you Kendra?)

You said:"the DA's office prosecuted cases in which the evidence was weak (NOTE she did not say entirely exculpatory), but the prosecutor believed the defendant(s) guilty".

Um, she actually said she took cases forward where she was "convinced" a defendant was guilty but "knew..[I]..could never persuade a jury". I ask again - who would be a male in NC when DAs and ADAs have the superhuman power to divine a defendants guilt in the absence of compelling, legal standard evidence and take them to jury trial?

Anonymous said...

To 4:58,

You may call me anything you like. I read the very informative article linked by Michael at 9:39 above, and it confirmed my understanding that the no-drop policy has been used typically for domestic violence cases in which the primary (and critical) witness, most often the female partner/wife, refuses to go forward with a case despite the obvious beating she has taken. I would have to study the issue more to have a strong opinion about that use of the policy in that sort of situation. I do not believe the policy was designed for (or should be used for) other kinds of cases in which the evidence is not persuasive. I do not know why Ms. Montgomery-Blinn brought up the subject at all, unless it was (1) to have something to talk about in an uncomfortalbe situation or (2) to suggest the LAX case was a case that just should be brought to trial no matter what. If you have been commenting on this board for any length of time you would know that I would think the latter position totally absurd. As far as I am concerned the evidence in this case (because Ms. Mangum was the furthest almost anyone could be from a credible witness) was all exculpatory, and the defendants could and did PROVE their innocence (a ridiculous reversal of how the justice system is supposed to work) and in so doing they PROVED the absence of probable cause--another ethics violation with which Mr. Nifong should have been charged.

Do you feel better now?