Wm'son: Have to assume that prosecutors have some ability to detect what is exculpatory evidence.
Witt's claim that Nifong is an "old-fashioned" guy--but throughout the claim has always been that Nifong opposed the "old-fashioned" approach and turned over discovery data.
Nifong made false statements, but he didn't know they were false. Why wasn't Nifong looking for all the evidence. "Because he wasn't."
Admits that Nifong made false statements to court--but claims they were unintentional.
Sharon Alexander (panelist): You can commit fraud by being silent.
Witt: Nifong was just talking about underlying data.
Witt: "Mr. Nifong is his own unique person. His mind is just his mind . . . This is a reasonable explanation of what happened."
Witt has now just conceded that Nifong made knowingly false statements--but not intentionally false statements.
Wm'son: the basic argument appears to be that Nifong is "in effect clueless"--"isn't that reason enough to say this man should not be doing what he's doing?"
Wm'son: this conduct was repeated several times over many months.
"There are certain things that are so fundamental"--lying, cheating, stealing
Don't get free pass on serious errors just because they hadn't done it before.
Wm'son: We don’t give anyone a free pass on appropriating funds because a lawyer has practiced for 30 years without stealing his client’s money
This was not an isolated lapse of judgment. This was conduct over an extended period in a very high profile case [with much scrutiny.] So that the conduct was repeated a number of times.
“It was an egregious mistake but it was not intentional conduct.”