Friday, June 22, 2007

The Sanctions Motion

A summary of the sanctions motion, in which the defendants request that Mike Nifong be held in criminal contempt:

The defense contends that in his mishandling of the DNA evidence, Nifong “personally engaged in a pattern of official prosecutorial misconduct which violated at least a dozen laws, rules, and court orders designed to protect due process and the pursuit of truth in the above-captioned criminal investigation and prosecution.” The motion recounts the sordid tale of Nifong’s attempt to hide the exculpatory DNA evidence, which the defense properly reasons “shocks the conscience and defies any notion of accident or negligence.”

The basic storyline:

Mr. Nifong engaged in a pattern of official misconduct that continued to conceal the existence of that exculpatory evidence from the Defendants. The pattern included multiple material misrepresentations to multiple courts on multiple occasions, and it represented a continuing and ongoing violation of the multiple Constitutional, statutory, ethical, and court-ordered duties imposed on Mr. Nifong in this case regarding that evidence.

When the Defendants finally discovered the withheld exculpatory evidence in December of 2006, Mr. Nifong then told multiple different stories about what he knew, when he knew it, and why the evidence was withheld.

Tracing Nifong’s career, the defense recalls that he by and large avoided felony cases after 1999—but not entirely. The Leroy Samuels Trinity Park rape case (2000) was one such matter handled by Nifong. The then-assistant district attorney requested DNA analysis done on the rape kit; when it came back matching someone other than Samuels, Nifong dismissed the charges, writing, “Results of DNA testing exclude defendant as perpetrator of this crime.”

And, the motion observes, Nifong repeatedly claimed he had an open file policy, turning over anything and everything that the state possessed.

Judged solely by his own standards, then, Nifong’s performance in this case was worthy of sanction.

Even in this case, as the motion explains, Nifong was initially not attracted to the “old-fashioned way” of trying rape cases by ignoring all forensic evidence. Using his own words against him, the defense points out that on March 27 and March 28, 2006, Nifong repeatedly, and publicly, stated that he would not act until the DNA results came back. Then, of course, he changed course 180 degrees, downplaying DNA’s importance and speculating about condom use, even though the SANE nurse report that he admitted having read explicitly said that Crystal Mangum denied her “attackers” used condoms.

As Nifong was denying DNA’s importance publicly, on April 5, he secured a court order from the always-pliant Judge Ron Stephens to conduct more DNA testing, through Brian Meehan’s lab. In his testimony last week, the DNA lab director excused his failure to report all test results on the wording of the order, which he claimed was confined to a request for positive matches. The motion gives the lie to this claim, by quoting the order itself: “any male cells found among the victim’s swabs from the rape kit can be evidence of an assault and may lead to the identification of the perpetrator.”

While Nifong heard privately from Meehan on April 10 about the unidentified male DNA, he publicly—at the NCCU forum of the next day—and misleadingly implied that no DNA evidence at all had been recovered. But while downplaying this aspect of Meehan’s tests, the disgraced DA simultaneously suggested, in an April 17, 2006 press release, that DNA would be vital to the indictment of a third suspect (ultimately Dave Evans). Moreover, a May 11, 2006 leak to the Nifong-friendly Herald-Sun suggested that the Meehan tests would be helpful to the state.

Why did the withheld DNA evidence matter so much? The motion explains:

"The presence of DNA characteristics of at least four men across multiple rape kit items that did not match the Defendants tends to negate their guilt in this particular case, under these particular allegations, on a number of different levels. For example:

a. It shows that there was not an “absence of evidence” or “nothing left behind” in this case which precluded DNA comparison for inclusion or exclusion purposes. Rather, there was an abundance of DNA evidence—far beyond the sole reported characteristics of Matthew Murchison on the vaginal swab—that completely excluded the Defendants and Mr. Murchison.

b. It shows that DNA Security testing was so sensitive in this case that it detected male DNA characteristics from at least four people other than Matthew Murchison on the rape kit items which completely excluded the Defendants, in a case where the accuser alleged that at least two of them put their penises in her vagina and rectum, with at least one and possibly both of them ejaculating.

c. It tends to impeach the credibility of the accuser’s claims, in response to questions from both hospital personnel and law enforcement, that the last consensual sexual encounter she had before March 13 was a week before, with Matthew Murchison.

d. In the event that the State might allege that “diffuse edema of the vaginal walls” is evidence of non-consensual sexual contact, the presence of multiple male DNA characteristics on the rape kit items tends to establish extensive consensual sexual activity which would readily explain that finding.

One day after the Herald-Sun article, Nifong accepted an intentionally limited report from Meehan. The motion notes, “By definition, application of that limited reporting formula—which was the product of an intentional agreement with Mr. Nifong—concealed the complete results of “any examinations or tests conducted by” DNA Security, and it specifically concealed the existence of the obviously exculpatory evidence discussed above.

The motion raises Meehan’s “privacy” argument only to rebuff it completely, and then runs through the litany of false statements that Nifong gave to at least two judges and numerous defense lawyers that he had turned over all exculpatory evidence. It also asks Judge Smith to recall that Nifong gave what he himself termed “slightly different” treatment of the request for DNA Security’s underlying data—mocking the defense request, and then raising cost and privacy concerns.

Once the conspiracy unraveled—through the December 13 defense motion and the December 15 hearing—Nifong “told three diametrically opposed stories about his knowledge of the exculpatory DNA test results, which can accurately be paraphrased as follows:

First Story: Ignorance Defense

I did not know about the potentially exculpatory results or that the Defendants had not been provided with the results until December 13, 2006, when I received their Motion, and I immediately took steps to clear it up by having Dr. Meehan here to testify.

Second Story: Knowing/Privacy Defense + No Harm/No Foul

I knew about the potentially exculpatory results all along, and I knew the Defendants did not have those results, because I agreed with Dr. Meehan to produce a report that would exclude those results under a theory that it protected the privacy of the players; regardless, the Defendants have the results now.

Third Story: Knowing/Negligence Defense + No Harm/No Foul

I knew about the potentially exculpatory results all along, but I did not realize that I had failed to disclose them to the Defendants; regardless, the Defendants have the results now.

The fact that those stories are so diametrically opposed demonstrates that Mr. Nifong was simply continuing a pattern of deception about the DNA evidence in this case that he began nearly nine months earlier, on March 29, 2006, when he first began to suggest to the public that the failure to find a DNA link between the lacrosse players and the accuser’s rape kit items was because condoms were used (when he knew the accuser said they were not) or because there was no DNA on those items sufficient for comparison purposes (when he knew DNA Security had found DNA on items that did not match the players). That pattern continued through the spring, summer, and fall, when he engaged in the repeated misrepresentations and violations detailed in this Motion."

The motion also notes, correctly, that “at no point in Mr. Nifong’s questioning of Dr. Meehan or his remarks to the Court on December 15, 2006, did he challenge Dr. Meehan’s repeated sworn representations that he and Mr. Nifong agreed to a limited reporting formula that would, and did, do just that: hide exculpatory evidence. Quite the contrary, Mr. Nifong adopted Dr. Meehan’s explanation and testimony in public comments after the hearing.” That Nifong never—to this day—has attempted to correct the false statements he made to the court only makes him appear more guilty, and, indeed, represents another ethical violation.

Given this behavior, the motion argues, some action must be taken against Nifong: “As the only person who knew about both the exculpatory results and the Defendants’ unquestionable entitlement to those results under multiple laws and rules in May of 2006, Mr. Nifong knowingly took steps, over and over again, that would conceal them—steps that did, in fact, conceal them. He knowingly made misrepresentations of material fact on the subject to multiple judges, including this Honorable Court on September 22, 2006, and December 15, 2006, and he knowingly made misrepresentations of material fact on the subject to undersigned counsel.”

The request:

a. Enter an Order holding Mr. Nifong in criminal contempt of court;

b. Enter an Order directing Mr. Nifong to pay for reasonable costs incurred by the Defendants to pursue and identify the exculpatory results of DNA Security’s testing in this case; and

c. Take any other action against Mr. Nifong, including those afforded by this Court’s criminal contempt powers, which the Court finds appropriate.

Given the Bar’s findings, it’s hard to see how this request could be denied.


james conrad said...

ohhhhhhhhhhh boyyyyyyyyyyyy, and awayyyyyy we gooooooooo

Anonymous said...

I know it was smarter for defense counsel to stop short of doing so, but I would have loved to read their flat-out request that Mike NIfong be arrested and imnprisoned immediately, and held for the maximum sentence under criminal contempt statutes -- pending additional criminal charges of obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury, together with malicious mopery, marrying a horse, and deliberately depriving persons of their civil rights under color of law.

Anonymous said...

Things are finally beginning to get interesting for the Fongster. I hope they make him do a perp walk in cuffs.

Anonymous said...

just when I start feeling sorry for him I remember that he wanted to have the students arrested while they were in class!

Anonymous said...

Had the horse attained the age of consent?

Anonymous said...

Why did the defense lawyer teach himself DNA science? Why not just pay a DNA specialist? Was the the lawyer doing it cheaper than having a specialist? Hope you'll touch on that in the book. Thanks

bill anderson said...

Great post, K.C.! We need to keep the pressure on, as the Durham/North Carolina political establishment will sweep everything under the rug.

Nifong needs to pay, but so do the others who engaged in criminal conduct throughout this sorry affair. Take 'em down!!

Anonymous said...

why cant the team which got no money cant sue broatrot and the group of that the confidentiality has been broken...slime socialists like the 88 need to lose more than their rable rousing voice

Anonymous said...

Barry Scheck learned DNA science too ... my guess is to understand how to use DNA as a defense tool you need to learn how to interpret the results. With so many bad actors, and so much incompetence, would YOU want to rely on the lab for an opinion?

Anonymous said...

I admit to feeling sorry for Mr. Nifong and would let him go, disbarred and disgraced----except, he made that comment in court, that he still believes something happened that night. He doesn't intend to stop the defamation, probably ever. For this reason, I hope they send him to the pokey.

These 3 solid, wonderful young men are stuck now with having their pics on a book at Barnes & Noble. They will likely go on to lead meaningful, productive lives, but and their families are stuck with this forever---though I am trusting that most Americans know that 20 year-olds from solid families do occasional dumb things and will support and not judge them for hiring strippers.

Anonymous said...

In my view Nifong could not have gotten away with this without the complicity of others in his office.

Anonymous said...

I think I remember Bannon going to another firm to check his results, and I didn't understand why he didn't do that first off.

Anonymous said...

Euphemism Alert...s a n c t i o n s

Let's see what the dictionary has to say.

Speak, dictionary: a penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.

Isn't it great that this thug is a lawyer and a prosecutor? He commits 1 of the most despicable crimes imaginable--torturing and threatening to railroad innocent young men, and society only can resort to "sanctions."

This is it, sports fans. There are 2 major gaps in the law this case has unearthed:

1. the law does not protect men from felale thug/sociopaths, and will not punish said thugs

2. there needs to be a law named for what Nifong did--call it felonious persecution in the 1st degree. Minimum sentence: 30 years, no parole. But his JD condom allows him to be s a n c t i o n e d

Isn't that s p e c i a l


Anonymous said...

Re: Why didn't Bannon just go to another DNA lab? After what the defense had already experienced with corrupt officials and their cohorts, wouldn't you be suspicious of everything? I don't think they trusted ANYONE else at that point. Corroboration after the fact would be terrific, but I believe they trusted only themselves by then.

Anonymous said...

has the motion been put on line anywhere?

Anonymous said...

4:21 - you are spot on. Nifong's idiotic statement as to something happening brought all of this on him. His lack of judgment astounds me.

Anonymous said...

Pull up a chair and start popping the popcorn! This is going to get interesting....

Anonymous said...

those boys need to shut up and let it all go...they hired a minority woman from a lesser social class than them to take her clothes off for money while they oogled and jeered and laughed at her....boorish behavior to say the least not excused by their youth or the boys will be boys defense...they got screwed by the DA but they brought the whole thing on themselves by engaging in such poor judgment...

Anonymous said...

Please ignor the comments at 4:33 #2. We have been down this path too many times.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:33: please...(a) the minority woman from a "lesser social class" (this isn't england--we don't have "lesser" classes here) sought employment from them--would you be happier if they had rejected her for being different? (b) shall we now arrest all boors--inlcuding housewives at Chippendales oogling naked men? (c) are you really that dumb--we should wrongfully arrest and prosecute people for doig legal things you don't like?

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

to 4:33:

Do you say the same thing about women who are raped? "She brought it on herself by wearing those clothes" for example? I bet you don't.

Yes, the party might have been ill-advised for a variety of reasons, but that does NOT make them in ANY way responsible for their own victimhood.

Anonymous said...

4:33 says ...they got screwed by the DA but they brought the whole thing on themselves by engaging in such poor judgment...

I dont know who you are, but I suspect you and your "causes" will be worst off if Nifong, the ADA's, Broadhead, the DPD and various sundry characters get nailed for criminal conspiracy, slander, and so on. I suggest you shut your gender/class/race baiting mouth and sit back and enjoy the show. You aint seen nothin yet.

Anonymous said...

I have been confused, for some time, regarding Nifong withholding DNA evidence and I was hoping someone on this blog might be able to help.

Did the report(s) actually omit the fact the DNA was found or was the information buried in the report -- difficult to find and understand?

A New York Times article last week said it was in, I believe, an addendum, to the report.

If anyone can clarify this, I would be grateful.

Anonymous said...

This just in. Duke University rescinds policy of allowing Depts. of AAAS, Womens Studies, and History from claiming anonymous trolling of D-i-W as satisfying scholarly activity requirement for promotion, tenure and merit raises.

Anonymous said...

The motion is on

Anonymous said...

4:33 Get back under the bridge, troll!

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

Given the Bar’s findings, it’s hard to see how this request could be denied.

We'll see. I have very little faith in this system.

I'm wondering why - when the judge has to already know what happened, that Nifong has been disbarred and found to have lied to the court - why then has the judge not already had Nifong standing tall answering these charges?

I suppose judges have to wait for the other atty to make a motion. To say the least that is a weak form of enforcement rife with possibility of abuse.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Given the Bar’s findings, it’s hard to see how this request could be denied."

Well, there's always the fact that this is North Carolina.

Anonymous said...

See today's op-ed in Wall St Journal ( by Dorothy Rabinowicz on Nifong & Fitzgerald (the spec. pros. of Scooter Libby). Sorry link didn't set up.

The lack of DNA-type evidence, of a Meehan, and of a Brad Brannon would seem to be the key differences between the two cases.

Tom ex Carolina

miramar said...

Memo to Mike: There is a big differnce between being disbarred and being behind bars. So save you money and don't hire Witt as one of your attorneys. If you do you might as well show up in court wearing an orange jumpsuit.

Anonymous said...

I wish I could be the cop, after you've been robbed and on the sidewalk with a bullet through your liver,explaining to you it was Your Fault, you shouldn't have been on this sidewalk, you shouldn't have gone to that chi-chi party in the gentrifying neighborhood, you should've known, It is all your fault, and your arrogant white male stupidity merits your bleeding out before the EMTs arrive.

Anonymous said...

Whats the worst punishment he could get? Im sure whatever jail sentence is imposed will be suspended and he will be seeing a probation officer. That should keep him from fleeing for awhile, but he wont be going to jail for any length of time.

Anonymous said...


On count 1: was the behavior boorish? yes
On count 2: was she a lesser class? since YOU say so, she must be
On count 3: engaging in poor judgement? Yes
On count 4: screwed by the DA? Yes
On count 5: was their activity illegal? No
On count 6: did she decide to sell her body? Yes
On count 7: did you come off sounding like a bitter, 88er or member of the ADA staff? Yes

should we keep going?????

Get a grip. You are solidly in wonderland with your slanted vision. Poor girl had to resort to stripping to make a buck. You want to make a moral judgement, start with her.

Anonymous said...

I never cease to be amazed at the incredibly shallow and self-serving attitudes displayed by some people. Do us all a favor and think about this: hiring a stripper and underage drinking are not even remotely comparable to framing three people and making them liable to a thirty year sentence in a state prison. THIRTY YEARS, do you hear that simpleton??? Why don't you just crawl back in you slimy hole and leave real people alone??

Gary Packwood said...

Tom ex Carolina 5:02

Here is the Wall Street Journal Article

The Wall Street Journal
A Tale of Two Prosecutors
June 22, 2007; Page A11

The story about the Duke athletes and District Attorney Nifong was not simply a riveting drama. It was in its searing way an educational event, not just about prosecutorial ambition run amok, but about a university world -- reflective of many others -- where faculty ideologues pursued their agendas unchecked and unabashed. Here was a nearly successful legal lynching, applauded by a significant chunk of the Duke faculty, proud to display their indifference to questions of guilt or innocence.

Duke President Richard Brodhead was doubtless disturbed by the charges and the plight of the accused athletes. But that didn't prevent him from firing the lacrosse coach, in deference to the reigning hysteria -- or treating the team members as though they merited shunning. For the most part, he kept his head down while the fires raged around him. His was, it should be said, not unusual behavior. The great consuming career goal of our college and university presidents -- with the exception of oddities like Harvard's Larry Summers -- has for more than two decades been the same: to avoid any word or deed that might incur the wrath of their gender- and race-obsessed faculties and allied campus activists. University presidents once had higher ambitions.

Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal's editorial board, won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary on prosecutorial abuse.
Gender- and race-obsessed faculties and allied campus activists?


Just look at what Broadhead inherited when he came to Duke!

Duke University Women's Initiative

There does seem to be an annual report since 2005. I wonder why?

Gary Packwood said...

5:51 should read...

There does NOT seem to be an annual report since 2005. I wonder why?

Anonymous said...

I hope they require Nifong to pay 400K bail.

Anonymous said...

4:33: This has all been argued before and to be direct, you lose!

This is just so clearly wrong on so many levels. It really is too bad that natural selection has stopped working in the human population. Clearly, we are looking at a case of mentally unfit to survive.

Anonymous said...

4:33:00 PM - you are dumber than a rock. And the boor.

The kids hired a stripper, not a drug addled sociopath prostitute. Big difference. They had no idea what her color was until she showed up. Done on campuses, birthday, retirement and batchelor parties all over the world. Your virtucratic comments are stupid.

Anonymous said...

4:45 The problem was the conclusions about other male DNA was NOT in Meehan's report, but that conclusion COULD be found within hundreds of pages of data, but only IF you knew how to interpret the data.

As for the NY Times getting it wrong, what can I say? They are part of the enablers and seldom wrote an accurate article. To this day, they can't write an accurate article.

Anonymous said...

4:33 you are such a moron.

Did you mean that all black women who are stripers are liars and if you hire them they will most certainly falsly accuse you of rape? You are really racist.

Anonymous said...

I have to come back to Brad Bannon's statement outside the hearing room on Saturday after it was all over. He said that were it not for the DNA mix with the fingernail, they would not have scrutinized the DNA report in the first place and would thus not have found the evidence of all the other unidentified males.
He pointed out that the boys could well have been convicted in court and sentenced to 30 yrs in prison. At that time they would have, of course, appealed but there is no open discovery in appeals cases so the DNA evidence would have remained undiscovered while the boys sat in prison for a crime they did not commit.
Scary beyond belief!

Anonymous said...

Also, the DNA evidence had to be drawn out, bit by bit. It is more than just what form things were in -- it was when things were handed over. A number of things were never handed over: missing 11/22 of the raw data sets (look what was found in just half of the data!), no summary in any form (unless you count oral lies in court) of conversations, etc.

After several motions, lots of lying, etc. they dumped 1800+ pages in which the raw data was buried. Before this, Nofing had provided doctored reports and lied in court. There was a hearing a few weeks after the raw data was dumped and this is when/where it really hit the fan, so to speak...

Anonymous said...

Multiple lies on multiple occasions to multiple courts violating multiple laws, rules, and orders. I think I can see Nifong's next campaign slogan:

"Vote Nifong! He's not just duplicitous...He's MULTIplicitous!"

That outta be enough for him to win the Chief Douchebag election.

- Jim Curry

Anonymous said...

The 30 years is scary but what is really scary is how many enablers there are and how far they went.

The people who 4:33 represents, the Gang of 88, the many corrupt officers and oficials. This has exposed some very ugly realities.

The reason this is more scary is because it is so widespread and unobserved and operates in so many contexts. As bad as this affair has been, it very nearly remained hidden by the efforts of many -- some of whom still deny. Of course, those who have a little sense shut up long ago, knowing things will move on and drawing additional attention is no longer in their self-interest.

Dan said...

In all of this I keep wondering how anybody could be so stupid as to tell conflicting lies with the court reporter right there in front of him.

Seriously, is he dim witted? Is he taking anti-depressants? Has he been like this his entire career? I really think there is a piece of the story we aren't hearing.

jamil hussein said...

I think I can see Nifong's next campaign slogan:

The sad part is that as a democratic party candidate for congress in Durham, he would win easily. See Alcee Hastings (corrupt judge, removed from office by congress, now leading democratic lawmaker in congress), and now indicted Jefferson.

I think we'll congressman Nifong in 2010, if not in 2008.

Seriously, this is the only avenue left for him (in addition of NCCU AA or TransGender Studies professor).

He may run from jail, but he will win. He is still admired by marxists whites and AA community. They are just angry that he got caught.

Legal Eagle said...

Finally, a legal cattle prod applied to Judge Smith.

And what of Judge Hudson; Nifong, though suspended, still on the payroll.

Enter ol' club member Hardin. Let's try a motion on him, say, calling the 88 before the Bar.

No cause? Don't be foolish.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 4:45 said...

...This just in. Duke University rescinds policy of allowing Depts. of AAAS, Womens Studies, and History from claiming anonymous trolling of D-i-W as satisfying scholarly activity requirement for promotion, tenure and merit raises.
So Funny.

You think that applies to their undergraduate and graduate Anger Studies students also?

Anonymous said...

Note to Nifong. Run. Take everything you have left and catch the first plane to any of the following countries:
Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Union of the Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, or Zimbabwe.

There's no extradition treaty with the US in these places and with the money you have left you can still retire and live like a king in a few of these countries. Don't want to retire. How about a fresh start as the Minister of Injustice in a despotic third world dictatorship. I bet some of these countries would jump at your expertise.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Still not convinced this was Mike's "first time" at evidence manipulation or proof manufacturing. What about the other cases in which he was involved?
Is any one ever going to look into his past cases?
I do not think anti-depressants would rescue him from his little nonsensical private world. A Haldol breakfast might be what he needs in the morning instead of coffee. Still feel he needs a thorough psych eval.
Watching him testify was like watching a B rated horror flick where you could see the zippers on the costumes. Did he take testimony lessons from Crystal? The al scenario was/is bizarre and almost silly, if it had not been for the 3 young men sitting in the courtroom.

Anonymous said...

Has Nifong been like this his entire career? There have certainly been indications for a long time that this man was seriously troubled (to be kind), and that his professionalism and legal judgment were questionable (at best). A few years ago, Nifong prosecuted (and lost) a rape case where the evidence against the accused was extremely weak. And of course, we've heard many stories from the other lawyers who had the misfortune of dealing with Nifong when he was the potentate of traffic court. His screaming fits and his sneering, unprofessional behavior there were the stuff of legend. Nifong even proudly referred to himself as the "chief asshole of Durham" or something along those lines, when he was abusing his power in traffic court. Nifong's behavior in the LAX case was no abberration, IMO. This guy was a disaster waiting to happen.

Anonymous said...

Fried man told WRAL that he has not spoken with the Fong since June 16 and has not been retained for any further proceedings. Guess Super Fong can handle things himself.

Anonymous said...

One would think just as a matter of concern and professional consideration Freedman would have had contact with Mr. Nifong during this stressful week.

Anonymous said...

If not for the fingernail the lawyers would not have pursued the DNA evidence? I don't believe it.

These lawyers have had PI's dovering Durham like a blanket. They knew within 24 hours that Crystal was doing 5 tricks a day.

The story plays well in the media though.

Anonymous said...

I'll bet Nofing is loving it when his doorbell rings these days -- will it be a registered letter, or a Sheriff serving some legal notice?

This fool probably still doesn't realize how exposed he is.

I suppose he's got time to think about it these days...

Anonymous said...

The AG comments, the Bar ruling, and now this -- there are going to be some slam dunks in the civil suits!

Anonymous said...

The Fongman will not be elected to congress from Durham unless David Price is disposed of first. Er, deposed. Due to the incumbent protection act, thanks for nothing McCain, he can remain on the golden throne until he decides he doesn't wish to be there any longer.

I would usually insert some snarky comment here about how these players might misbehave, but I shall be prudent this evening.

Duke1965 said...

Just finished reading the entire motion and supporting memorandum. It's excellent..... as I was reading it, I kept thinking, "Hey, maybe Nifong's got a point. After all, when he said he turned over everything, that's just a conclusion, maybe he just made a mistake." But as I kept reading, he'd turn right around and contradict himself: "I knew about it, but I didn't think it was important." Then he'd say, "I knew it was important." Good Lord, KC had it right, this truly is Wonderland. Truth is what I say it is, nothing more and nothing less.... amazing. He's giving congenital liars a bad name.

Anonymous said...

To 6:31 and 6:32,

Thanks for clearing up how the DNA information was delivered. 4:45

Anonymous said...

Meehan referred to some "non-probative" items in his report. "Non-probative" means that it is something that does not tend to prove that a rape happened or that a rape did not happen.

An example of non-probative items might be DNA from the false accuser's children or DNA from the false accuser herself.

Nobody would suspect that any thinking person would describe DNA from 4 or male unidentified males found inside the "nasty bits" of an alleged rape victim to be anything but "probative." I.e. proving either a rape occurred or did not occur.

Even in the December hearing, Meehan attempted to say that "non-probative" related to only the actual profiles of the Duke students. He tried to hide his hiding of the evidence even in December, even in front of the Judge.

As for Bannon boning up on DNA evidence: (a) Thank God he did!, (b) Lawyers have to be "experts" on a number of issues because they have to question experts on those issues, (c) I wouldn't trust anyone else either, and (d) Based on the illegal use of the word "non-probative," Bannon probably thought there was nothing there.

Keep going, K.C., don't let up your chokehold! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Oh, I also wanted to mention that although Judge Smith has more than enough evidence and cause to "summarily" sanction Nifong for contempt, he probably cannot under the North Carolina Criminal Contempt statute.

To take "summary" action, the bad conduct has to have occurred in the very recent past. In this case, Nifong's conduct occurred from April to December 2006. Thus, Judge Smith probably must afford Nifong a hearing.

An example of a situation in which "summary" action occurs is when a person calls a Judge a bad name in open court, or, in open court, refuses to obey a court order.

Too bad, but Nifong is getting more constitutional protections than he afforded the Duke boys. I can live with that -- as long as the hanging commences immediately after the hearing! Gregory

Jim said...

This is a copy of an email I sent to "Dr." Watkins:

Dear Dr. Watkins,

I would like to know where you received your under-graduate and post-graduate degrees. Though I graduated from high school 32 years ago with a 2.8 GPA, my several attempts at earning a BS have so far been unsuccessful. Work and family obligations have deferred my dream of someday earning a college degree. Since reading your recent article regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, and noting the "Dr." after your name I am now hopeful that I can earn not only an under-graduate degree but, dare I dream, a Doctorate degree also.

I appears to me that there is somewhere an institution that grants degrees with little or no scholarship requirements. I have common sense, intellectual curiosity, and respect for the truth. Those qualities alone put me head and shoulders above the scholarship displayed in your article about the Duke Lacrosse team. I would not publicly comment about an issue I know nothing about much less write an article for publication so full of ignorance about the subject. If I had a significant other with some expertise and knowledge about the subject I would certainly request they review it before I attempted to publish it. Since your article displays none of the attributes of scholarship that I thought were necessary to receive a BS, much less a PhD, could you forward the names of the institutions who awarded you these honors? On second thought never mind, I guess a BS and PhD from those institutions wouldn't qualify me to do anything I am not already doing that takes some amount of intellect. By the way, I am a garbage man.

PS. Yes this is an adhomien attack. In the time it would take to point out your all your inaccuracies, false logic, twisted conclusions and ridiculous comparisons, I could either learn as much about physics as Steven Hawking or live to be 105 years old. I now know enough to never bother reading anything written by you or in the publication that published your article. That will have to be enough for my educational pursuits today. Garbage is piling up and it is getting hot outside. I am going out to do something useful.