Saturday, September 01, 2007

Disgrace and Redemption

Over the last two days, Mike Nifong disgraced not only himself but the Durham attorneys who, supposedly, represent the “people.”

Nifong’s disgrace was obvious.

Four times on the stand he referred to Crystal Mangum as the “victim.” He made it clear that—unequivocal apologies notwithstanding—he still believes her story/stories, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

How, his attorney asked, could he explain the lack of DNA evidence from the SBI? “It was evident to me that this had been a non-ejaculatory event.” There would have been DNA, he suggested later, “had there been ejaculation and had there not been something to prevent the ejaculate from getting on Ms. Mangum.” His implication? An attack actually occurred, with condoms or objects? (I guess he didn’t believe Mangum on these points.)

With benefit of hindsight, would he concede that Dr. Meehan’s finding of DNA from multiple unidentified males on Mangum’s rape kit be considered exculpatory? Astonishingly, Nifong continued to say no—and repeated his denial over and over again during cross-examination.

The same person who absurdly rationalized a case where the “victim” described at least one and (depending on the version) multiple ejaculations as “a non-ejaculatory event” dismissed the rape kit DNA. The N&O’s Joe Neff and Anne Blythe tartly summarized:

Nifong also offered a unique theory about whose DNA it could have been.

"It could have come from anybody," Nifong said. "She had a son, a very young son."

Beyond a person unethical to the core, the proceedings revealed a former prosecutor who was almost unbelievably lazy. He justified his open-file discovery policy on the grounds that it was more efficient in obtaining guilty pleas, and spared him the trouble of reading reports. Indeed, based on the insinuations in his testimony, he regularly brought indictments without reading the basic documents or reports upon which those indictments were based. And when did he read the documents? Perhaps never, if the defendant entered a plea. Otherwise, on the eve of trial.

How convenient, then: under the theory of justice Nifong outlined yesterday, a prosecutor could lie to the court at will. Since prosecutors don’t have to read any of the documents in their files, they can simply guess on what those documents contain. Since they don’t know what is in the documents, they can’t knowingly lie. As he told the court yesterday, he considers his 9-22 statement that he and Dr. Meehan never discussed the facts of the case beyond what was contained in Meehan’s report to be “basically true.” Why? Because “I’m not even sure that I even thought of the unidentified DNA as a ‘fact of this case.’”

In this case, of course, this behavior manifested itself as part of an effort to send three demonstrably innocent people to jail for 30 years—for a crime that never occurred. The Durham prosecutorial establishment, however, appeared not to care.

Judge Ron Stephens has a reputation as a tough-on-criminals judge. It appears, however, that he holds his friends to a different standard. This sitting judge—the same man who signed the fraudulent NTO that launched this case into the media stratosphere—appeared as a character witness for the convicted Nifong. He suggested that professional jealousy explained the dislike for Nifong: lots of defense lawyers, Stephens asserted, didn’t want to go up against Nifong because he would win close cases. Nifong, he added, was the “appropriate choice” to be DA as of spring 2005.

Stephens also hailed Nifong as a mentor to the next generation of Durham ADA’s. Perhaps he had in mind Judge Marcia Morey, who testified on Nifong’s behalf and then returned to the courtroom to offer solace to Nifong’s family as the verdict was rendered. In her willingness to defend Nifong, Morey disgraced her own office. Neff and Blythe summarized:

An unusual moment came before Nifong's testimony, when a judge testified that she expected lawyers to be more honest during trial than during pretrial hearings.

A prosecutor asked the judge, Marcia Morey, whether a lawyer would be following his duty to be candid if he assured a judge that a report was complete when the lawyer knew it to be incomplete.

It depended on whether the case had reached trial, Morey said.

"I do think it makes a difference," Morey said. "Are you are at a trial stage, are you at a pretrial conference."

Sitting alongside Morey was current ADA Jan Paul. Paul vigorously nodded as Nifong attorney Jim Glover insisted in his closing argument that not only did Nifong not lie, but he couldn’t really see any errors his client had made. Paul then visibly wept as the guilty verdict was rendered. Remember, this is someone whose job it is to uphold justice for the people.

The appearances of Paul, Morey, and Stephens brought to mind the equally troubling testimony of Innocence Commission executive director Kendra Montgomery-Blinn, another former Durham ADA and someone who saw no problem with Mike Nifong’s conduct.

How confident could any defendant be appearing before Judge Stephens? Or Judge Morey? Or going up against ADA Paul? The trio’s endorsement of Nifong suggested a conception of justice so warped as to defy description.

---------

In this atmosphere of disgrace not merely for Nifong but for the contingent of the Durham legal establishment that’s supposed to represent the people, two attorneys from outside Durham redeemed the national image of North Carolina justice. Special prosecutor Charles Davis admitted that he didn’t really want to take this case, but considered it his duty, as an officer of the court, to do so.

He delivered elegant, dignified, and powerful closing arguments in both the trial and the sentencing phases of the proceedings.

As Stephens, Paul, and Morey defended a figure who wanted to use the power of his office to abuse the law and send innocent people to jail, Davis understood that Nifong needed to be punished: “When you start saying things to the court that aren’t true, you are taking a jackhammer and trying to tear at the very foundation, the rock on which our court system is built.” If you can’t rely on officers of court, he continued, and DA’s and ADA’s aren’t honest and truthful, then “our court system is gone.”

Davis is from Wake County. Another figure from outside Durham—Judge W. Osmond Smith—reminded the state and the country that while Mike Nifong may represent Durham’s current and former prosecutors, his legal enablers extend no further. Smith presided over the affair with a quiet dignity, and ended the trial with an emotional tribute to the sanctity of the law.

It is a lesson that too few Durham prosecutors, current and former, appear to have learned.

152 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nifong's entire office of assistants should be investigated by the bar association, at least. Where are Easley and Cooper? Why hasn't North Carolina started a criminal investigation of Durham police and Nifong and his cronies?

William Jockusch said...

OK, so Nifong is just crazy. Anybody who still thinks that CGM was a victim . . .

But in this country, being stone plumb crazy will not get you off the hook for just about any crime . . . you have to pass the McNaughton Rule, which Nifong clearly does not.

And, as for the system, it's good that a prosecutor who has gone off the deep end gets taken out of office. But it took far too long.

Carolyn said...

What?

"Smith...ended the trial with an emotional tribute to the sanctity of the law."

Wrong! Smith ended it by MOCKING the sanctity of the law in imposing a ridiculous one day 'sentence' on Nifong.

catercorner said...

The guilty verdict was appropriate and appreciated. The one day sentence, however, gives the impression (at least to a layman) that there is still no hope for real justice in North Carolina.

No Longer Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Johnson,

I, as well as others on this blog, am perplexed by your refusal to document the whys and wherefores of the State of North Carolina's refusal to prosecute Crystal Gail Mangum.

I realize that the banned commenter liked to skewer you with that accusation--but isn't there some "there" there?

So, Professor, let me ask you a straightforward question:

If Crystal Mangum is considered sane by children's services (it has not challenged her custody of her children), then why aren't you pursuing historically accurate explanations as to why she has not been prosecuted? Furthermore, why haven't you investigated Roy Cooper's failure to take MORAL, legal action against the fiend otherwise known as Crystal Gail Mangum?

I thank you for your consideration, and I am quite interested in your response.

Anonymous said...

The one-day sentence only shows that the legal profession is incapable of self-regulation. As most legislators are lawyers, there simply aren't laws or penalties for lawyers who harm society. Even when there are, professional courtesy dictates that people will look the other way or cover for each other. Unfortunately, many legislators and lawyers are in positions from where they have the opportunity to do profound harm. Sometimes the harm comes in the form of inaction or of misdirection.


Yes, Nofing was disbarred -- but barely. There is no proportion here; Nofing tried to frame three people he knew to be innocent for crimes he knew did not occur, crimes that would have carried major jail time, permanent sex offender status, and on top of this, he did everything he could to maximize the damage and stigma that would accrue by going to the press and making incendiary statements that he knew were total fabrications. Yet the maximum penalty he faced was 30 days -- this is far too little for his willful and repeated actions. He could have easily sparked violence that led to loss of life. He set back many seemingly right causes by showing that things aren't always what they seem and made fools of so very many (most of these eagerly abetted their own outings). He has repeatedly mooned everyone and everything that is right and good or at least ought to stand for this, yet there are still those who choose to stand with Nofing and against the truth.

Remember, this was someone who set things up so the lads thought they were coming in to post bail without a perp walk, but found the door locked and the press alerted so that they had to do exactly this, big time. Nofing was going to get everything he could out of this and he was at all out war with these noble students, using the power of his office to heap as much abuse as he could – expecting that he would bully his way though without regard for truth. This is someone who made up a chokehold on TV, someone who can’t keep his fantastic lies straight – yet still someone who retains a following. Does anyone really think that he would somehow have put on the breaks short of total destruction of those who stood in his way? Had this been a death-penalty case and had he managed to obtain fraudulent convictions, does anyone see any evidence that he would have stopped short of murder? Has he not caused more harm, in aggregate, than occur in many crimes of violence?

The deal is that we as a society accept certain inefficiencies inherent in the rule of law, so that we don't have to live under the law of the jungle. Instead of tribalism, we are supposed to have a system designed to retard destructive behavior were the people empower the government to carry out the fearful task of running a system that gets things right -- that punishes the guilty while leaving the innocent free of interference. The only way for such a complex system to function is with feedback and checks and balances. Such a system either perpetuates itself by retaining the confidence of those who live within it or by fear of the consequences of fighting the system. If it is all fear and no confidence, it becomes only a matter of time until there is an unpleasant correction.


Look again at this case. Nofing's law license was worthless -- he saw to that himself. He never admitted wrongdoing, showed any contrition, or stopped throwing fuel on his arson. No one would ever again have engaged his services or hired him and there is simply no way he could have retained his position as DA. So he had a self-inflicted loss of his license. Again, he acted to such an extreme that the bar really had no choice -- and still it barely managed to revoke his license.

Nofing lied to the judge and he did conspire to frame innocents. Yet everyone chooses not to acknowledge this, to remain in willful ignorance. This case cries out for a federal investigation. Durham has shown every sign that it is incapable of self-correction and if this case is allowed to end with no further criminal proceedings, it vividly shows that there are no consequences for the most egregious acts of abuse, corruption, and conspiracy. Nothing for Goatleeb, Will-sin, Addison, Chalmers, Cline, Sacks, or Peterson. No clear showing of just how wrong so many were when they chose sides based on identity politics and flagrant prejudices. No advantage taken of the opportunity to prevent this from happening again.


Durham is a fairly large city. My kid attends Duke, along with the kids of many other parents. Crime is a problem in Durham and the jobs of the DA and the Police are enormously important. Failing to fix this by deeply exposing just how bad things were and are, as not all that much has been changed, is irresponsible negligence and risks further catastrophe. Our society has many problems. Ignoring one so serious, flagrant, and in such a critical system because there is no mechanism for self-correction sends some very bad signals and suggests that future train-wrecks are inescapable.

Anonymous said...

its about time nifong was convicted

sadly the abuse of the students was aggravated by broadrot who BOUGHT his freedom paying off the coach and three players...

justice is when the average man knows those behind the harassment and WHO TOLERATED HARRASMENT get the same punishment

Anonymous said...

Could Nifong even have contemplated this outcome when he started down this road?

Bring on the lawsuits. Let's see justice done.

Anonymous said...

There must be a house-cleaning of this nest of vipers in Durham.

Bring on the civil litigations.

And bring on the Feds.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I'm amazed of how deep the rot extends in the Durham courthouse. Having appeared there in the past, i always got the sense that it was a closed shop and something wasnt quite on the up and up, a certain incestuousness among bar, prosecution and bench. Yesterday's events just reinforced that.

Marcia Morey is a disgrace and should be removed. Who can have any confidence she will treat them fairly and impartially after watching her disgrace her office yesterday?

Anonymous said...

Time now to start going over all of the cases that Nifong prosecuted over the years to see how many of them resulted in wrongful convictions.

M. Simon said...

So you have to wonder.

Does this go on elsewhere?

We know the justice system was severely strained by alcohol prohibition. Why aer we surprised that the same strains show up with drug prohibition.

"Smoke and Mirrors" by Mike Gray shows what assembly line justice is like.

Jailfong was just practicing assembly line justice as it is done nearly every where in America.

His mistake was not folding early with a bad hand.

mac said...

Charles Davis might well have said, without any words modifying it:

"Our court system is gone."

That is, when sitting judges and an assistant DA will mourn and weep as if Old Yeller was being put down, that's when you know that it's too far gone: the system is broken. No matter that the defendant is found guilty; the punishment is a slap to the face of the formerly accused.

Seems judge Smith forgot that the lies Nifong uttered weren't intended to do anything but thwart justice, to send innocent men to jail. This is the ultimate contempt of court.

AF said...

Another figure from outside Durham—Judge W. Osmond Smith—reminded the state and the country that while Mike Nifong may represent Durham’s current and former prosecutors, his legal enablers extend no further.

I can only hope that Smith is correct. Trust in him and in the system is not granted without serious consideration.

The appropriate punishment still would have been one day for each day each of the three falsely accused LAX players was under indictment until AG Cooper declared their innocence.

No wonder Mikey was so arrogant, he seems to have been the Pied Piper of Durm. The other rats in the DA's office and court system seem to have been willing to follow his lead blindly. Is justice really blind everywhere? Or just in Durm?

Orange is a good color for Mikey. Hope they plaster his picture in the MSM like they did with Paris and Lindsay. Paris' sentence really does seem excessive now, compared to Mikey's.

Anonymous said...

One of the many interesting things about this horrid happening is the discovery of the many groups of people, herds really, roaming past one another in lock step without much thought in the matter of justice that is free of bias and blame and predjudice most of which had little to do with the facts of the case. It is a miracle that any thing remotely resembling justice prevailed in the case. Politics and group solidarity has seemed more important to many of the participants who appeared more interested in their own well being or the points of view of their group than they did in justice for all. Is society so fragmented and corrupted that only an accident of wrongful idntification of a person with the resources to defend themselves can receive justice . . justice . . . and Durham has the problems of many cities . . . New Orleans is so corrupt it cannot begin to rebuild itself and the DukeGroup88 are as "worthless as tits on a boar hog" except to be exposed as the corrupted academics they are . . . that aside, this case has meandered to the beginning of the end, and there is enough egg on the faces of a lot of folks, so many assumedly decent people as to make one think Durham populated by something impolite to be called . . . you don't want to put your finger in it. The civil citizens of all of us deserved better, but this is what we got . . . "We have met the enemy and it is us." Pogo

Anonymous said...

I thought the special prosecutor should should have asked Judge Stephens his view of Michael Nifong TODAY. Judge Stephens prefaced his remarks by saying that he would talk about the "pre-lacrosse-case" Nifong. Judge Stephens did a disservice to the profession.

During the sentencing phase, there was an feeling that "we hate what he did but we don't really want to punish him" If Mr. Nifong's lie only damaged the system enough to require one day's punishment, then I think the whole excercise of the hearing was harmful to the system. Mr. Nifong should have received the full punishment prescribed by law, and then, to show compassion and mercy, perhaps could have been suspended upon payment of fines and community service.

Anonymous said...

Because of his continued LIES and disgraceful characterizations of the three young men, I hope they sue him the durham police and the legal system back to the stone ages... Someone needs to pay these young men a lot of money... NIFONG IS a frickin joke....

bill anderson said...

Yours was a very eloquent post, and I think we saw the corrupt nature of Durham and Durham politics in full flower this past week. For people like Nifong and his cohorts, it is all about "winning," even as they mouth the words about justice.

When judges testify (under oath) that lying really isn't so bad, and that liars are "thumbs up" people, then we understand what is happening. People have tried to say it is a "Democrat scandal," and, indeed, we have seen Democrats at work and it is ugly.

Yet, I have a friend sitting in federal prison who went through a trial pushed by a conservative, "Religious-right" Republican and we also saw things like subornation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, and outright lying on behalf of the prosecution. This is what got me into the fray of writing extensively on federal criminal law.

Thus, we see Democrats and Republicans at work to tag-team the destruction of justice. It is not a party issue; it is a people issue, and ultimately it goes to the heart of people and what they are.

We saw the very worst of people in official places, from Nifong to others in his office, to judges, to police officers, to elected officials. We saw the worst of people in academe, where things like "justice" and "fairness" and "truth" have become a sick joke at one of the most elite higher education institutions in the world.

So, I think all of us have received an education this year. Yet, I also can rejoice because I saw people like K.C. Johnson, who gives a damn about right and wrong and who lives his convictions. I saw some Duke professors standing up to the slime that was oozing out everywhere else.

And I have seen people from all walks of life who said that while they cannot rectify all injustice, they would do what they can at least in one incident. People like K.C. and many others went to the mat to help people they did not know and whom they never had met. That tells me something about the basic decency of some people, and I applaud all of you who have taken part in this endeavor.

no justice, no peace said...

Dartmout has become the most visible elite school with alumni attempting to make changes. The following article details Mr. Rodgers exerience(s). A must read...

"...Now the college's establishment is working to ensure that the likes of T.J. Rodgers never again intrude where they're not welcome. What follows is a cautionary tale about what happens when the business world crosses over into the alternative academic one..."

"This is not a conservative-liberal conflict. This is a libertarian-totalitarian conflict."

"...It is one of a few schools in the U.S. that allow alumni to elect leaders directly. Eight of the 18 members of Dartmouth's governing Board of Trustees are chosen by the popular vote of some 66,500 graduates..."

'...At Dartmouth, he remarks, he has produced dozens of long, systematic papers on the issues. His first priority was to improve its "very poor record of freedom of speech."...'

"..."They attack things that don't matter because they can't attack you for what you stand for--quality of education. . . . The attacks become ad hominem. . . . We get called the problem. The fact is that we're a response to the problem."

"...Now, Mr. Rodgers says, the argument has come to its endgame. "This is not a conservative-liberal conflict. This is a libertarian-totalitarian conflict."

Anonymous said...

If the reports are true, the US Justice Department is at least making inquiries into the potential federal violations that Nifong and his enablers committed. The tragic fact is that the Durham area justice officials appear to be completely unfazed at the events that are unfolding. When sitting judges make statements that call their integrity into question, then the people have absolutely no reason to respect that system of justice. My state has become a laughing stock and I am ashamed to be a North Carolinian.

Anonymous said...

Aug 31 is the feast day for Saint Raymond Nonnatus -- the Patron Saint of the Falsely Accused.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12671b.htm

Duke Alum said...

I wonder if any Group of 88ers will attend your Sept 11 address. They, like Nifong, still think something happened on Buchanan Blvd.

miramar said...

Nifong's testimony indicates that since it was his case from the beginning, he really didn't need to rely on Mangum's multiple statements, except as a starting point for his own versions of events. So if she said they ejaculated but no DNA was available, then it became a non-ejaculatory event. If she said that she had no sex for a week (strange for a known prostitute) then the multiple DNA evidence might have come from her son (gross!). We know that Kim Roberts had contradicted Mangum's statements, as had the first police officers on the scene, so they were conveniently forgotten. When it became obvious that it would have been impossible for a half-hour attack to take place, Nifong blithely announced that he would present his own five-to-ten-minute time line. When she couldn't identify her supposed attackers, Nifong told her to pick three, any three. And when Reade "Seeligman" came up with a bulletproof alibi, then Nifong conveniently changed the time of the non-attack. Obviously there are many other examples, but all point to a truly frightening conclusion: Nifong never bothered himself with the facts in this case (and probably many others) because it's far simpler and probably more effective to make things up as you go along. I guess that's small town justice, so it's little wonder that there are judges and ADAs Durham who truly don't understand what the fuss is about. After all, they have always done things that way, and I am sure they will continue to do so.

Anonymous said...

Given everything that this hoax has so clearly revealed, I have a question. To what extent is our system of justice poisoned with the mindset displayed by many from this sad cast of characters? How many self-serving, deceitful Nifongs, how many corrupt PD's, and how many self-absorbed judges are out there hammering down the civil rights of whomever they please?

Anonymous said...

If I were black I would be pretty unhappy that the white DA got a Beverly Hills celebrity sentence.

Anonymous said...

The "country club" atmosphere that prevails in Durham between prosecutors and the judiciary is a disgrace and probably not isolated to this county. The Department of Justice needs to get involved and make sure that a Chinese Wall exists between these two parts of the CJ system nationwide. Otherwise its all to easy for what has been exposed here to be sweep under the rug, with little reform, slaps on the wrist and a return to business as usual.

joe sweet said...

Sentenced to ONE day in jail?

Of course, any minute now there will be a firestorm of outrage across the nation that will dwarf the outcries against Paris Hilton, since Nifong's conduct was so much worse.

Here it comes, three, two, one....

Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

I don't know whether to be grateful for the guilty verdict against Nifong or to worry about who the next Nifong will be in Durham, and worry about if the next victim of such a rogue will be able to defend themselves. Actually, I do know. Nifong's done. Put a fork in him. It's the next one and his clones around the nation I worry about.

Anonymous said...

Looks like 30 years of corruption will continue un-checked in Durm County, NC. The statements of Marcia Morey should be enough to bring the feds in to investigate. While they are there it wouldn't hurt to open the books at Duke and see what's going on with the students' privacy rights.

The feds should rent long term accommodations. It's going to take some time to clean up the open cesspool known as Durm.

A Citizen of Raleigh

Anonymous said...

"How confident could any defendant be appearing before Judge Stephens? Or Judge Morey? Or going up against ADA Paul? The trio’s endorsement of Nifong suggested a conception of justice so warped as to defy description".

Of all the writing about this case, this post clearly and sadly shows why the US Attorneys may now come to Durham. It's the warping of justice by too many players in Durham, including the DPD.

John J. Kaiser said...

"Are you are at a trial stage, are you at a pretrial conference."

The more rational distinction would seem to be:

Are you in a court room? If so, then you can't lie to the judge and defense counsel.

Anonymous said...

The statements of Judge Morey would seem to be grounds for appeal of just about every case she has ever been involved in.

Anonymous said...

Judge Stephens may be tough on crime, but there is not much evidence in Durham to prove it. He looked like some slick criminal yesterday while trying to convince the court that Nifong really was a good guy once. Stephens should be investigated and deposed for signing the NTO. What can you say about Smith other than the process was a sham. One day for Nifong is about 29 years and 364 days too short. Only God knows what would have happened to the boys if Smith and Nifong had been allowed to preside. If the families are reading these posts, I hope they realize that there is overriding support for an all out cleansing of Durham, the DPD, the judiciary and foremost Mike Nifong. Let the games begin.

Anonymous said...

Nifong's sentence, I am sorry to say, was a non-ejaculatory event.

Anonymous said...

I too struggle with the one day sentence. However, even though we had to suffer through 2 days of monotone offerings from these attorneys and listen to Durham's sitting judges embarrass Durham, North Carolina, and the law profession once more, Mikey was being tried for one thing...lying once. He wasn't being tried for all the other lies, the collusion that we know but can't prove, waisting our tax money, pursuing false charges, or for simply being a piece of shit. This contempt charge was very specific. He was rightly found guilty. His sentence light but I don't see this as the end of Mike Nifong as a defendant.

Anonymous said...

The college ranking people should get a heads up on this hearing and include this in their report on Duke. I do not think parents in their search, know the kinds of communiities they are sending their childdren to. This alone would take Duke off my list forever. Things are not going to change in Durham. What happened to three innocent college kids,could happen again at any moment in Durham. Don't forget, Crystal Magnum is still at large.
The families hopefully will pursue any and all legal paths for renumeration from Durham, the police, NIfong, even the judges involved. No future book deals fill the pockets of these unethical, debased people in charge.
Forget the feds, Gonzales is still there, nothing will happen.

Anonymous said...

I had your book on order from Amazon. After reading this morning's tribute to Judge Smith, I cancelled the order.

Anonymous said...

As a Durham resident, I would gladly have my taxes doubled if it assured we would never have to worry about the Gottliebs, Himans, Bakers, Bells, Nifongs, Saackses, Clines, Stephenses, Moreys, Addisons, etc. of this town again. To the families (all 46, not just 3), sue and do not settle.

Anonymous said...

anon 3:26> Thanks for your insights.
KC thanks for the excellent coverage as usual.
It's obvious to me that the entire legal system in Durham does not think Nifong did much wrong and to get even what has transpired to free the wrongly accused, it was necessary to go out of Durham.
All students at Duke should be alarmed and careful, most everyone on Nifong's side is still there ready for the next misstep of a college student. The media is getting tired, they won't be there to inflame and garner attention which can hurt you and maybe help you. Alot of people in Durham still believe what they thought in the beginning, no facts have changed their minds.

Anonymous said...

Not being a lawyer I have not idea if this is feasible, but could a class action suit by the team members against Duke Durham be effective?
I'm sure not all of the families can afford to hire lawyers and that is what Duke and Durham are counting on.
KC you have been great, but I must agree that your soft position on Judge Smith's decision to go easy on Nifong is a disappointment. The disgusting behaviour of Nifong up to yesterday proves he has no remorse at all and would keep going after them if he hadn't lost his license. I could see him turning around and suing the families back for loss of work! The maximum allowed should have been applied at the least. They couldn't do it to one of their own. They would have easily if it was a Duke student!

Anonymous said...

This is not just a "Durm" problem... don't sit back believing that this couldn't happen in any city, anywhere in the US. You'll be sadly mistaken. Prof Coleman has said on several occasions "this type of thing happens [not frequently, not all the time] everyday.

[my words]

Coming next to a city near you....

Anonymous said...

Items not yet shipped:

Delivery estimate: September 7, 2007 - September 10, 2007

2 of: Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case
Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC

sigh....

Debrah said...

I was impressed with the comments made by the older guy, Charles Davis, who was tapped as Special Prosecutor.

He laid out the fundamental reason everyone was there in the first place.

Ron Stephens' performance was embarrassing.

I missed the part when Morey was on the stand except for a few minutes. How she can be trusted to dole out justice after her performance is a mystery.

She'd better stay in Durham. They welcome her brand of justice as we have seen.

Marcia Morey is like the girl you went to school with who couldn't make the cheerleading squad and was too spastic to make the basketball team so she spent her time polishing the apples of her teachers.

I believe in loyalty. It's an important feature in all healthy relationships; however, her openly expressed loyalty to Nifong after all that has been proven he did is alarming.

I am not pleased with Judge Smith, but this is the best we can expect from attorneys policing their own....just as we've seen in the academy, most twist into a pretzel when forced to call out a wrong.

Will a place like Durham clean itself?

Do the residents there even understand what went down?...or care enough to be ashamed?

Anonymous said...

6:04: His mistake was not folding early with a bad hand.

You know, I have to disagree with this a little, only because if he had, there would be a LOT more people still saying "something happened" and that money got the lax players off.

I think this full-fledged disgrade of Mike Nifong was the only way some people would realize what really happened--or better, DIDN'T happen, at 610 Buchanan.

Let's turn our attention now to writing Dan Blue who's got the great job of evaluating Brodhead's tenuure to date at Duke.

Debrah said...

TO 9:40AM--

LOL!

It can be said that, thankfully, Nifong's indictment of innocents Reade, Collin, and David was a non-ejaculatory event.

Anonymous said...

Do you ever sit back and just wonder how stupid Nifong must be to think he'd get away with this? I mean come on. What an idiot.

BobC

Anonymous said...

Where are the federal prosecutors? Where is the Justice Department?

Anonymous said...

The class-action suits sound like a good idea. The unindicted lacrosse players, we can presume, have had no settlement from Duke. Therefore, they could bring a class-action suit against Duke and Durham. The framed players should pursue all-out legal war against Durham and the corrupt police. Bring on the lawsuits and encourage the lethargic feds to open criminal investigations.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 10:33: ummm, my Amazon account says "Delivery estimate: September 17, 2007 - September 21, 2007".

I'm canceling and heading to Barnes & Noble on Tuesday.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

1. For all of you decrying the sentence, you just did NOT listen to Judge Smith. Nifong was sanctioned for lying to the Court. The maximum sentence of 30 days is because he was NOT under oath. It was not perjury. It was not a sanction for prosecuting 3 people he knew or should have known were innocent making the potential 30 years sentences irrelevant. I think 7 days might have been better, but Judge Smith weighed the lie, with the turning over of the underlying evidence and of course Judge Smith has the best idea of all of us what might have been the outcome of the February suppression hearing.

2. Of course all the posters here and particularly on another board where that is all there is who can not distinguish those who committed crimes, Mangum, Nifong, Gottlieb, Wilson and that is about it from other are really NO BETTER THAN NIFONG,you are just on the other side of this issue. You see crimes on the part of people you know or should know are innocent.

3. m. simon makes an excellent point about how prohibition stresses ones legal system. In addition it corrupts the system and has undermined our individual rights.

4. I don't know if Bill Anderson can document what happened to his friend, but I know that Earl, Reno and Nifong are all Democrats. Fitzpatrick was carrying the water in a Democrat partisian dispute if he was not one and he knew the leaker his first day there. I am not sure about the 1990s era day care posecutions, but maybe Bill Anderson can tell us of one or more who were Republicans? Possibly the small town case in Washington state? My view is some of the reason for this is the old media bowing down to the Democrat PC view of the world. Republicans are far better served by an advisorial press than Democrats are by a fawning press.

Debrah said...

Both the N&O and the H-S had no editorials today on Mikey's jail time. Most newspapers have already prepared their weekend editorial pages well before closing time on Fridays...which is not how things should be run.

No doubt the Sunday editions will have the obligatory "too bad Mikey did wrong....we just didn't see it in time!" GIS!

The editorial editors of the N&O really should step up this time for an in-depth comment on all this.

Since Mikey's disbarment, they have remained "above the fray". That way they won't have to admit how all three of them helped Nifong along his avenue of criminality just as much as any of his enablers.

Thank heavens for Joe Neff!

Debrah said...

To 10:53AM--

Might as well hang that up.

Most helpful now will be the books written on the Hoax.

KC should have a few more in him.

Keeping what happened in Durham in the minds of the public and illuminating what the Gang of 88 did on a university campus are both high drama...not to be forgotten.

Anonymous said...

"I, as well as others on this blog, am perplexed by your refusal to document the whys and wherefores of the State of North Carolina's refusal to prosecute Crystal Gail Mangum."

If I may presume a response: Because there are bigger fish to fry.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

LEGAL FICTION

The legal thriller A Few Good Men has always been one of my favorite movies. Until the Duke case it was how I naively believed the legal system work.

Tom Cruise as the military prosecutor goes up against Jack Nicholson the powerful old school Colonel. For Cruise there are enormous risks to falsely accusing Nicholson on the stand - court martial. A system of checks and balances.

That's Hollywood for you! Compare it to the almost total lack of accountability in the Duke case.

In the Old Testament Book of Daniel Chapter 13 is the story of Susanna a woman who was falsely accused of adultery back in the day when the penalty was death by stoning. Tables got turned in that story too but the false accusers faced the penalty they had tried to impose on Susanna and were stoned to death themselves.

Maybe we've moved beyond an eye for an eye as a society but 1 day in jail compared to 30 years of time ain't what I'd call balanced scales of justice. And nothing for Crystal, come on!

Medical doctors are highly paid professional who are paid handsomely for the risks they take on but also are held to high practice standards and the potential for medical malpractice lawsuits. Why the heck don't we demand the same for lawyers? With the power and perks that come with the job of lawyers we need to be able to have some way of ensuring transparency and responsilibility.

Anonymous said...

I found it hard to take when lawyers who have been involved in death penalty cases said the hardest thing they had to do was be involved in slapping another lawyers wrist.

This is why there needs to be some sort of external quality control.

Anonymous said...

Addison and Hudson prove the success of the national American project to integrate society. Dirtbag cops and judges now come in all colors.

And, now, this woman judge can't be bothered to pretend that truthfulness has any place at all in the court.

Law And Order
Support The Police
Don't Handcuff the Police
Reverse The Warren Court
Get Tough on Crime

Another successful longterm American political project. The Law And Order Project.

Gary Packwood said...

Strange comments today from the locals

The Finnerty's told us yesterday that the decision brought closure for their family.

That is good enough for me.

The Feds need to determine if Durham and Duke have a communicable disease of some sort that needs an intervention before the rest of the country is infected.

If not, the good people in Durham and Duke need to clean up their own backyard and listen closely to Duke students who are telling everyone to sign up and...VOTE.

Until then, I suggest that those associated with The Research Triangle Park temporary evict Durham as a member since the Minds of The World ...most certainly do not meet in Durham.

With respect to Duke, the students are learning that they should trust strangers. In their life, it's the people they know on campus who let them down.

The blathering about Race/Gender/Privilege that oozes out from Duke has not helped Duke or Durham and such faux scholarship is just embarrassing for everyone in The Research Triangle Park of North Carolina

Vote!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Another problem is that many of those in postitions to expose wrongdoing here or to do something about it are involved to one extent or another. The only solution is an external investigation.

scott said...

A comment by Judge Stephens in his character witness testimony:

"Lots of people didn’t want to try against Nifong because he would win close cases. But did it the right way."

That seems to be along the same line as the comment by Nifong himself -- if he were a defense attorney he would be afraid to go up aginst him (Nifong) in court.

Yet throughout the past year and a half we have been presented with a consistent picture of an attorney who was consistently illogical (multiple reasons for his handling of the DNA evidence), lazy (didn't read reports; didn't take notes), and poorly prepared (handed Meehan to Bannon / Cooney on 12/15 -- the final act in getting his house of cards to topple) in the performance of his job. Did Nifong simply become that way in March 2006 or is it more likely that he has been that way for much, if not all, of his career?

Let's look closely at Stephens' comment about winning the close ones. Knowing what we know about the stench that permeates the LE (police and legal) community in Durham, is it possible that Nifong had some help along the way to enhance his ability to "win close cases?"

The adversarial system of jurisprudence in the US is somewhat analogous to a sporting event contested by 2 teams. While the prosecution is supposed to be pursuing a nebulous concept of "justice" and they should be seen as having done their job competently regardless of the verdict if it can be shown that "justice" was done, that is not always the case in the real world. In reality to the participants on both sides, it is a competition; both teams want to win. There are rules that both sides understand will be upheld to keep the competition "honest."

An official in a sporting event can change 1 or 2 calls a game and completely change the outcome of a close game. It can't be too obvious or the thousands of spectators (millions if you count TV) will catch on. It becomes more difficult because all of the action is taking place in front of an audience, many of whom are very familiar with the rules of the game, indeed have played the game on some level themselves.

In a trial and in the process leading up to a trial, much of the action doesn't take place in front of an audience, and even that which does is so arcane that most people can't detect a rigged game even when it occurs.

I'm going to state it as plainly as I can: Durham is a rigged town; rigged in favor of people like Stephens, Nifong, and Gottlieb. Did Nifong win cases the right way as Stephens said? Given his ability, work ethic, and temperment, I'd say bloody unlikely. Nifong is the anti-Brad Bannon. Put Nifong up against a top tier attorney and keep the process within the bounds of the established rules and he would lose every time.

It's my theory that Nifong won a lot of the close ones on the calls made by the rigged system in the rigged town of Durham. Further, given that people like Stephens, Morey, and Paul still remain in place in that rigged system there is no chance that it will change anytime soon.

We can logically suspect that this type of system exists elsewhere in the country, but we can be sure it exists in Durham. Cleaning it up will take a lot of work -- I'd rank it right up there with any of the labors of Hercules.

And a one-day jail sentence for Nifong doesn't get the clean-up effort off to a good start either.

Debrah said...

We should all be grateful for the sparse physical justice (being jailed for a day) that Nifong received yesterday.

As anyone with even a semblance of pride can imagine, the shame of being stripped of everything that gave his life definition as well as the financial expenses now, and those to come, are quite devastating.

However, given what he did and was wholly ready and able to do to innocent people, one is still left with the aching feeling after his punishment yesterday that it's not enough.

Anonymous said...

john j kaiser @ 9:21 AM --

Are we to infer from your comment that you believe it would be acceptable for lawyers to lie to each other in a telephone conversation or at an office conference, etc.

The more rational distinction would seem to be:

Are you discussing any aspect of the case at any time -- pretrial, trial or post trial -- with another party that has a role in the case? If so, then you can't lie ... period, end of statement.

Bob H. said...

Ok, so now we know - Durham stinks and Duke rots. Keep away from both and you will be better off. But, really, blog til eye balls dry up - there is nothing anyone here can do about either.

Anonymous said...

BobC

No, I believe yesterday reinforced the frightening reality of how close Nifong and Co. came to a successful prosecution.

Anonymous said...

Regarding 3:26's "The one-day sentence only shows that the legal profession is incapable of self-regulation."

I'm a lawyer, and I'm going to do some post-game analysis here.

Why did Judge Smith go so out of his way to say that he was dealing only with the narrow issue of one instance of misrepresention, and then give Nifong only one day in jail? One reason, in my opinion, is he didn't want to give Nifong grounds to later claim, if he ever is charged with crminal civil rights violations, etc., that double jeopardy (the Constitutional prohibition against being tried twice for the same crime or crimes) precludes subsequent prosecution -- He didn't want to award the bank robber with ammunition to argue that the speeding ticket he got on the way home from the bank prevents him from being tried for the robbery itself.

Had Smith said, "Mr. Nifong, what you did to these young men was horrible, and I'm going to use this contempt proceeding to punish you as severely as I can for that," Nifong might have had reason to argue that he shouldn't be charged with anything else regarding the lacrosse cases, especially in state court.

I know that other lawyers are going to write in that federal crimes can be prosecuted even if the person has been tried for similar or related state crimes, etc., etc. But, I still think Smith's disposition of the contempt charge was crafted to minimize the remote possibility that Nifong could successfully make the double jeopardy argument. I think Smith is still worthy of admiration and respect.

Anonymous said...

Regarding 10:46's "Marcia Morey is like the girl you went to school with who ... was too spastic to make the basketball team...."

She might not have made the basketball team, but she did make it onto the US Olympic team. She was a swimmer -- I believe it was the 1976 or 1980 games.

Anonymous said...

just out of curiosity, can anyone come up with any ideas on what Nifong could have done to warrant more than one day in jail?

i understand that maybe if he actually shot the players there might be a chance, but really, what else could he have possibly done that was worse than what he actually did?

how that sentence serves as a deterrent is beyond me. all it would tell me, as a rogue prosecutor, is that i can do anything illegal and immoral that i want, and that in the one-in-a-gazillion chance the Bar does something about it, my maximum penalty is one day in jail and loss of license.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 10:33 AM writes:

Delivery estimate: September 7, 2007 - September 10, 2007

2 of: Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case
Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC


There is good news in that ... it usually means that there are far more orders for the book than they can immediately fill. Amazon, with their cut-rate prices, are often on the bottom of the delivery food chain.

See if you can run down to your local bookstore and buy 2 copies at retail price, which is better for the economy.

Then, cancel your order with Amazon and enjoy reading!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

I have to chuckle at all of the calls for the feds to step in and clean up Durham. What makes you think the Federal bureaucrats are any less corrupt than the Durham County bureaucrats?

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Well, it certainly appears that the judges of Durham (Ron Stephens, Marcia Morey) exercise a large degree of collegiality, and that it may have extended to Judge Smith as well. He appeared to accept their testimonials to the fine character of Mike Nifong, despite the history of the Duke LAX case, and his one-day in-and-out jail sentence for Nifong on the trivial matter of criminal contempt was swayed by it. One wonders if the weeping ADA Jan Paul participates in said collegiality as well.

Collegiality, or a good ol' boys & girls association? I shall exert all possible efforts to forestall ever being put on trial in Durham - there's just a little too much collegiality between its judges and prosecutors to suit me.

Anonymous said...

“It was evident to me that this had been a non-ejaculatory event.”

What an amazing way to say nothing. We spend ~100% of our lives experiencing "non-ejaculatory events". Last time I checked: eating lunch, reading the newspaper, hailing a cab - all "non-ejaculatory events" ;-)

P. Rich said...

"Stephens also hailed Nifong as a mentor to the next generation of Durham ADA’s."

That, from a sitting judge, is a frightening example of the state of the legal system in Durham.

Anonymous said...

3:26 AM

This posting is one of the most astute to be published here. It should be required reading in the classes of the DukeGroup88 as well as read by more general readers.

Debrah said...

It looks as though I'm going to have to cancel my Amazon order for my book...along with the others I ordered as gifts.

My delivery date is September 17th, which is too far away. Everyone else will have theirs and I won't! LIS!

The positive news in all this, however, is that the book is selling so fast those with multiple orders have to wait for them to get more in.

Very good!

I still don't think I can wait for the delivery, though.

Anonymous said...

anon 12:30 nails the issue. you add to it that someone like nifong couldn't make a dime in the competitive world of private criminal law practice and this makes clear that his bet on the duke lax case was a good one. now it is clear that he had no reason not to railroad the boys. if he lost the election that was as good as losing his career. he would have starved in private practice.

so, it was much better to roll the dice with this flimsy case. the blacks reelected him. and the bar was most likely to do nothing.

while the bar did take his license it did no more to him than what would have been done to him had he lost. and clearly judge smith's sentence was not threatening.

the only thing that will make nifong's bet a bad one is if the feds step in and really give him some time.

one can only hope.

WINDBAG

wine country dude said...

@ Anon 12:37

Funny. I hope a new meaningless phrase has entered our cultural discourse--the "non-ejaculatory event". Sure beats "fo'shizzle". And you'll excuse me: I have a lot of non-ejaculatory events planned today that I need to get to.

Debrah said...

She might not have made the basketball team, but she did make it onto the US Olympic team. She was a swimmer -- I believe it was the 1976 or 1980 games.

Too bad Morey cannot stay afloat in her chosen profession.

james conrad said...

RE: 12.13 i agree, judge smith wasnt trying nifong for all the crimes he commited, just the lies he told in smiths court. judge smith is to be commended for the way he handled this case.

Anonymous said...

Some misunderstood ...

Smith ended it by MOCKING the sanctity of the law in imposing a ridiculous one day 'sentence' on Nifong.

The one day sentence, however, gives the impression (at least to a layman) that there is still no hope for real justice in North Carolina.

The one-day sentence only shows that the legal profession is incapable of self-regulation.... There is no proportion here; Nofing tried to frame three people he knew to be innocent.... Yet the maximum penalty he faced was 30 days -- this is far too little for his willful and repeated actions.

No matter that the defendant is found guilty; the punishment is a slap to the face of the formerly accused.

The appropriate punishment still would have been one day for each day each of the three falsely accused LAX players was under indictment

If I were black I would be pretty unhappy that the white DA got a Beverly Hills celebrity sentence.

Sentenced to ONE day in jail?

What can you say about Smith other than the process was a sham. One day for Nifong is about 29 years and 364 days too short.

Nifong's sentence, I am sorry to say, was a non-ejaculatory event.

I had [KC's] book on order from Amazon. After reading this morning's tribute to Judge Smith, I cancelled the order.

The disgusting behaviour of Nifong up to yesterday proves he has no remorse at all.... The maximum allowed should have been applied at the least.

And some understood...

JLS says....,


1. For all of you decrying the sentence, you just did NOT listen to Judge Smith. Nifong was sanctioned for lying to the Court. The maximum sentence of 30 days is because he was NOT under oath. It was not perjury. It was not a sanction for prosecuting 3 people he knew or should have known were innocent....

11:10 AM

Anonymous said...
I too struggle with the one day sentence. However, even though we had to suffer through 2 days of monotone offerings from these attorneys and listen to Durham's sitting judges embarrass Durham, North Carolina, and the law profession once more, Mikey was being tried for one thing...lying once. He wasn't being tried for all the other lies, the collusion that we know but can't prove, waisting our tax money, pursuing false charges, or for simply being a piece of shit. This contempt charge was very specific. He was rightly found guilty. His sentence light but I don't see this as the end of Mike Nifong as a defendant.

and, Anonymous lawyer at 12:13 PM said...

Why did Judge Smith go so out of his way to say that he was dealing only with the narrow issue of one instance of misrepresention, and then give Nifong only one day in jail?.... Had Smith said, "Mr. Nifong, what you did to these young men was horrible, and I'm going to use this contempt proceeding to punish you as severely as I can for that," Nifong might have had reason to argue that he shouldn't be charged with anything else regarding the lacrosse cases, especially in state court.... Smith's disposition of the contempt charge was crafted to minimize the remote possibility that Nifong could successfully make the double jeopardy argument. I think Smith is still worthy of admiration and respect.


R.R.Hamilton

No Longer Anonymous said...

TO: Duke Prof

re bigger fish to fry

Do you think Crystal Mangum would have concocted her story if she had known that she would be charged with a felony if it were discovered she was lying?

What message does Cooper's fecklessness send to other female predators like Crystal Mangum?

Do you think punishing Nifong is more important than punishing predators like Mangum? Remember, Nifong is a rare case (contrary to what some conspiracy theorists on this blog think). Mangum is a harsh, commonplace reality in society. See the FBI statistics on false reporters.

Is it your position that society should not protect innocents like the falsely accused young men from female predators? Is that your larger fish to fry reference?

In conclusion, what could possibly be more important than punishing the auteur of the hoax, Crystal Gail Mangum?

You, dear Professor, are hopelessly naive if you are arguing that the distinct message Cooper was sending to future Crystal Mangums was not: "We understand. We won't ever pursue you criminally."

Duke Prof: Are you an 88er?

Debrah said...

About the book:

Seriously, for all of us who have made Wonderland a necessary part of our day for the past year, we owe it to our friends--no matter how large or small the circle--to give the book as a holiday gift this year.

Not only to enlighten them on the justice system and academia in the state and the country, but to allow them to understand why you have been tethered to your computer like a torrid lover for so long.

LOL!!!

For me, it has been like an addiction that just slowly seeped in and took over. Even my UPS man and some neighbors have been asking about me.

They are used to seeing me do my power-walking and out and about, etc.....the usual Diva-fare.....

....but I have just been lost inside the intoxicating madness of Wonderland.

Only an imaginative and dedicated creator and writer like KC could have concocted such a place and then drew us like magnets.

But unlike some envious onlookers and kibitzers have tried to portray, those in Wonderland have yet to pack the magnet.

There is still SO much left to do.

Yesterday afternoon my neighbor who is a fabulous cook--gourmet-to-the-hilt--brought me plastic containers of some delicacies she made and wanted me to try.

Now I don't even have to cook!

She also asked me when I was coming up for air.

LOL!!!

Most of all, she really deserves a copy of the book.

jamil hussein said...

ok, here is an idea. I can contribute to it if anybody is willing to take the lead.

Full-page ad on Chronicle:

"This is what social disaster look like:"

(pictures of Nifong and main Duke Gang88ers, such as Lubiano, Peter Wood etc).

"Wall of Silence".

Perhaps a brief summary of their actions: rush to judgment, not following Faculty handbook, supporting racist hate groups, supporting violence, using classroom authority as an indoctrination and propaganda tool, advocating race and gender based prejudice and hatred..

Debrah said...

TO GP @ (11:45AM)--

Good post!

You have no idea how some have wished for them to be extracted from the Triangle.

Anonymous said...

If you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law. If you don't have the law on your side, argue the facts.

If you don't have the facts or the law on your side, make sure the judge is your friend.

Debrah said...

"Medical doctors are highly paid professional who are paid handsomely for the risks they take on but also are held to high practice standards and the potential for medical malpractice lawsuits. Why the heck don't we demand the same for lawyers? With the power and perks that come with the job of lawyers we need to be able to have some way of ensuring transparency and responsilibility."

Yes, it's a shame that people like lawyer John-boy Edwards can live handsomely off millions gotten from destroying the careers of doctors.....

.....yet not demand the same high standards from his own profession.

Anonymous said...

Understandably, some here will think that a day in jail is, in this case, the proverbial "slap on the wrist". It is not.

First, note that Smith prefaced his sentence with a reminder of its narrow scope: In the words of (believe it or not) the Herald-Sun, Smith "made it clear [that] his decision was not about unwarranted prosecution of three young men in the lacrosse case, politics, Nifong's 2006 election campaign, Nifong's statements to the media, the state's dropping of charges against the Duke trio, Nifong's disbarment or even Nifong himself."

This was not an occasion to punish Nifong for the entire, despicable history of his misdeeds.


This was solely about Nifong's lies on Sept 22, NOT about his overall and repulsive campaign to defraud the Court and to defeat justice. And the sentence reflects this narrow scope.

Second, Smith stated (and it's hard to disagree with this, except very technically) that the Bar's action, in stripping Nifong of his law license, had already provided at least some, previous punishment. So, to some extent, whatever Judge Smith did would supplement punishment already imposed.

Third, I respect Joe Cheshire's opinion enough to raise it again in this context, when (as I will paraphrase it) he said after the sentencing that the imposition of prison time was monumentally significant, while the specific length of time in prison was not -- that a huge, historical victory had been achieved, by the imposition of even one day's imprisonment on a crooked district attorney.

Amen. I would have preferred to see Nifong get 7, or 10, or 30 days in the can, but still....Amen.

Will a day come when Nifong has to pay for his entire evil campaign of injustice, for the whole chain of lies that he told, and the horrendous results of what he attempted, and of what he accomplished? I don't know -- I hope so. But I agree with Joe Cheshire, that yesterday was a great, great day for justice.

Anonymous said...

To 11:28--
"Medical doctors are highly paid professional who are paid handsomely for the risks they take on but also are held to high practice standards and the potential for medical malpractice lawsuits. Why the heck don't we demand the same for lawyers? With the power and perks that come with the job of lawyers we need to be able to have some way of ensuring transparency and responsilibility."

As a lawyer, I am unaware of power and perks that come with the job. Lawyers have been subject to ridicule on this board--some of it justified. I am not proud that Mr. Nifong (or several others) shares my profession. I suspect the same is true in most professions...university professors come to mind. The North Carolina Bar did its job. Lawyers in private practice are held to high standards and are subject to legal malpractice suits and last I checked no one was calling for tort reform for legal malpractice suits. In my opinion, the issue is not lawyers holding their own accountable but prosecutors and judges.

Michael said...

As many are saying, we need to give a lot of credit
to Judge Smith for the guilty verdict yesterday.
Think of the tremendous pressure he was getting.

Professor Johnson (KC) reported a while back about
a number of op-ed pieces written by local "legal
eagles" who suggested that Judge Smith should not
be allowed to try Nifong for contempt: their argument:
because it happened in his courtroom, he's biased.

Then you got "judges" like Stephens and Morey
defending him.

I know people are upset about the sentence, but
the guily verdict is extremely significant. Also,
Professor Johnson put it very well:

"Judge W. Osmond Smith—reminded the state and
the country that while Mike Nifong may represent
Durham’s current and former prosecutors, his
legal enablers extend no further. Smith presided
over the affair with a quiet dignity, and ended the
trial with an emotional tribute to the sanctity of
the law."

Anonymous said...

2:00: Agree. If we go after Nifong, partially for the deterrent aspects, then we go after Crystal for the same reasons--to warn otners that this is not acceptable and will be punished.

And if she's got mental problems that preclude her from being punished by a prison term, then she goes to a mental hospital and gets the help she needs. That's what our society does. And gets her kids into a stable environment so we don't have deja vu in another generation.

Ignoring this problem is NOT going to make it go away.

uncivil liberties said...

Where the heck are the feds, the DOJ, the FBI investigation into the conduct of Mr. Nifong. And not just Mr. Nifong, but his supporters within the Durham DA and sitting Judges who support his apathy toward justice? Maybe the DOJ won't involve itself with one rogue prosecutor, but it should recognize the support he receives from fellow "ministers of misjustice". His supporters clearly represent advocates of unjust policies and laws and should be investigated further. No doubt any investigation will uncover some embarrassing facts about the State and state of North Carloina, but is it wise to allow the problem to continually permeate every branch of justice and civil rights vs. taking one big blow to the chin and fixing it permanently? The DOJ is accountable for its abscence from this case. We speak mechanically of a spreading democracy, free society and human rights, but it means nothing when we cant fix whats broken in our own backyard. It took a lot of money and smart lawyers to penetrate the system of lies.

Anonymous said...

Crystal Gail Mangum is above the law. Her qualifications?...support from the racial majority of the local economy and system politick of North Carolina.

Anonymous said...

To 11:52...
I thought the same thing when Stephens said that, i.e that Nifong wins the close ones. The very first thing that pooped into my head was that he wins them becasue you (Stephens) help him !!
If I were ever before any judge in Durham, I would be pleading for a venue change based on the actions and statmnents of Judges in tht city...

BDay

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, one more thing, Crytal Magnum should be charged with a crime and put through the system. If she is crazy, let a court decide that. What she did was wrong, illegal, immoral and she needs to be punished. I hope she is sued in civil court, I would hate to think she also can make money on a "something happened book." Not that she is smart enough to do that, but there seem to be no shortage of racists in Durham who would be happy to help her and further their agenda....

BDay

Anonymous said...

I appreciate the comments by the lawyer who speculated that the one-day sentence maximizes the possibility of further consequences. I only hope that it is so... and on some level, I know is will only be so if done from outside -- and doubt that this is in the cards.


Not going after CGM was a political calculation. That this is so is a major problem. That there are enough people who would act out over any sort of consequence to raise the likelyhood of political retribution is an even larger problem. In a way, we get what we (collectively) deserve. We seem to be pulled down by the lowest, rather than raised by the highest. In other words, there is a readily apparent paucity of courage and character in public service -- which has become mostly about self-service.

This is where failures of the press and of the social sciences professors really hurt -- they are supposed to be a source of insight, anaylsis, alternatives, ideas, and criticisms. Instead, they are activists in promoting destructive causes. Most often, they act like paid political hacks, only free from the laws we have that regulate political advertising. In my view, their aim is to distort social constructs to their own ends and to the detriment of most by mainipulating whatever yields to their efforts and fooling the foolish. The have become quite proficient and act almost as a mafia, reinforcing each other and operating beneath a carefully maintained smoke-screen in order to siphon resources from society.

hman said...

I am more glad about yesterdays events than most of you.
First of all, it was the guilty verdict that mattered. Even the max sentence available of 30 days was still only a gesture, in the overall scheme of what needs to happen. The civil payback as well as possible Federal Action were both brought closer by the verdict. Besides, keeping a former DA in custody for any length of time in a local jail is pretty sketchy. It would have to be in a special area for his protection. Making him into a martyr-by-shank knife would not be good.
Second, the stupidity and rot in Durham has always been there only now it was on view on live TV. I personally thought it was great for those buffoons to describe in honest words just how they did their ordinary business. That they thought it was OK was surely appalling but at least they were brought to a place where they admitted, right out in the open, that only a fool would trust them with anything.
Yesterday was a good day because it was a very bad day for the Durham establishment. They would rather it not happened at all.

Anonymous said...

After listening to those two judges who believe Nifong is so honest and admirable, I become more and more alarmed. If that's the norm for judges in Durham, it's time to clean the judiciary system. How are things going to improve if judges come from the ranks of the DA's office, where they have been trained on the "ethics" of law?

The governor should no longer appoint, nor should the citizens elect, any judge who has been employed by the office of district attorney in Durham. It appears to be an incestuous, cesspool of corruption.

There are probably judges in the state who are honest and determined to uphold the law but those from Durham need to be replaced. It's not just Nifong! He was trained in the DA's office by some of these "outstanding" judges. It isn't going to end until they are all replaced.

Anonymous said...

anon 1:59 and 2:33 I rest easier knowing there is more to it than I was seeing.
KC, thanks again for keeping up with this. It's been an education I won't forget.
If the families are still reading> I hope all is well and you continue to go after NIfong and anyone else you can. It will be money well spent

Anonymous said...

[re: the failure of the social sciences]

Of course, the stinging irony here is that the academic diversity crowd has managed to largely kill off any real diversity of thought. This runs exactly counter to major arguments for diversity -- that it helps to produce a population of theories, ideas, and critiques that is more likely to include valid ideas or expound from perspectives that enrich the thoughts of others.

It also makes a mockery of the notion that it is important to have role models who those coming up can identfy with because "they look/are like me" by ensuring that there are few academics who "think like me", at least for most rational students with an objective sense of reality.

Identity is not a personal matter -- it is something encoded in those few genes that code for skin color or an X/Y coin flip, right? How we look is how we are, and this trumps how we think, what we accomplish, or anything else. This is one of the major lessons I've learned from the G88.

I only hope they manage to learn something from the events of the past year and a half...

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12:36 said...
...I have to chuckle at all of the calls for the feds to step in and clean up Durham. What makes you think the Federal bureaucrats are any less corrupt than the Durham County bureaucrats?
::
Perhaps we can loan you the Texas Rangers.

When some cesspool of a town over here in Texas dermites itself...the Texas Rangers swoop down; grabs the town by the ankles and shakes hard until the keys to the city fall out; the rift-raff take a hike; people with a brain take over; order is restored and the population of the local hoosegow runneth over.

You think Victoria would fare well with the Texas Rangers snooping around the Sistars?

The Texas Rangers think Race/Gender/Privilege means those who are privileged to win, whether they be men or women, are ready to move on to the next race.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Crystal Gail Mangum told a story that was so full of holes that anyone with any analytical ability could see through it almost immediately. Her appearance, the size of the bathroom, the alibis, and the negative presumptive tests ect. Therefore to say that she started it is both true in a literal fashion but also false in that others ran with her story knowing it was false to further there own addenda.

Therefore I would have been inclined to arrest her for giving a false report but have probably gone light on her in sentencing.

As far as Smith goes I don’t think 30 days would be enough time to erase the damage that Nifong did. However by having a guilty sentence in the record this will make it easier for both civil cases and federal cases to go forth.

Debrah said...

There is still something troubling for me about the one-day sentence.

Many previous posters have outlned with much detail why this can be viewed as an appropriate decision.

We know that this hearing was focused only on the fact that Mikey lied to the judge. Of course, it's only natural to think of everything else he has done and automatically transpose it all into the one package of jail time doled out yesterday.

IMO, even for this one lie to a judge, there should have been multiple days behind bars.

That lie enhanced the building Hoax at the time.

And lying to any judge, no matter who you are, should have brought a stiffer punishment.

I really think that some in the legal community have actually begun to feel sorry for Mikey...given all the other troubles he has.

I'm glad to know that Joe Cheshire doesn't.

It also might be that they are concerned Mikey would be physically harmed in the slammer.

Think how badly three innocent young and attractive men would have been harmed during a 30-year prison term......over and over.

Nifong got off too easy on this one, and on some level, it's disturbing.

Anonymous said...

Judge Stephens gave Nifong the very least he thought he could get away with. It is a disgrace. Now it appears that you are saying Happy Happy Joy Joy Guilty Guilty, and Mr. Nifong is just smirking behind your back. He had the opportunity to slander the Duke players a few more times, Nifong, Meehan, and Himan got to perjure themselves some more without a word of reproach. And an ADA and a couple of judges got to make a laughingstock of NC justice.

Who won this round? I am not sure if you can claim a victory on this one.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: anon 12:30

just out of curiosity, can anyone come up with any ideas on what Nifong could have done to warrant more than one day in jail?

i understand that maybe if he actually shot the players there might be a chance,


Actually your comment shows in fact YOU DONT UNDERSTAND the issue here. Had Nifong shot the players out of court the he would not have be liable for another day in jail for contempt and the judge likely would not have even sentenced him to one day in jail. Had he shot them in court he would not have been liable for more than the 30 days in jail for contempt and the judge likely would not even sentenced him to that one day.

Again you are essentially no better than Nifong. You want him punished outside the law. The criminal contempt statute applies to what he does IN COURT. You get that IN COURT.

There are other laws to take care of what he has did out of court. Shooting the players out of court would have been subject to a criminal prosecution NOT CONTEMPT OF COURT. I guess one could call shooting them in court criminal contempt of court, but the judge very likely would have given way to the criminal prosecution of Nifong.

So quit behaving like Nifong and wishing for punishment outside the law. The law has taken care of Nifong's position as DA, his law license and now has punish him for his criminal contempt. It may be tougher to prove his false prosecution, but it is correctly prosecuted under criminal statutes IF IT CAN BE PROVEN. And that latter may yet happen.

M. Simon said...

Many here don't seem to get it.

Durhamites are telling the truth about how the system operates. That is the only thing unusual.

The defenders of Nifong gave you a vision not just on Durham but most of America.

What is happening now with Federales coming in (if they do), is an effort to put a fig leaf on a system that is obviously broken. Like the O.J. trial was a wake up call for the LAPD this is a wake up call about justice in America.

Two to one says it will be ignored.

Anonymous said...

I have fallen hopelessly in love with Nifong. I would leave my husband and children for him in a second.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps we can loan you the Texas Rangers"

You'd better keep 'em. There are many tens of thousands of Texans who can't afford attorneys who still need to be executed.

No Longer Anonymous said...

The Sin of Mike Nifong

SPIRITUAL MURDER

He should be doing the same time the young men would have done--with treble damages.

That's 90 years. No parole. Emotional murder is a federal crime.

The fact that there is no statute on the books to describe what Nifong attempted to do to the falsely accused--proves that the American legal system is populated by mediocrities. Take a good look at your US senator--see any geniuses?

rrhamilton said...

Another way to think about Judge Smith's decision and sentence of Nifong:

Imagine Nifong has to run a gauntlet. Everyone has a club, but some have bigger clubs than others. The DA has swung a club, the State Bar has swung a (BIG) club, and now Judge Smith has swung a club.

Judge Smith's club was pretty small: up to a $500 fine and up to 30 days in the hoosegow (which with time off for good behavior, overcrowding, etc etc, would've probably been less than 10 days).

There are still potential clubs to be swung in this gauntlet. Some of them are very large and could yte produce a lot of pain for our favorite former DA.

Anonymous said...

Regarding "(K)eeping a former DA in custody for any length of time in a local jail is pretty sketchy. It would have to be in a special area for his protection. Making him into a martyr-by-shank knife would not be good."


Hopefully, the Sheriff will keep Nifong in his own cell, under constant guard, the even the short time he's there.

Anonymous said...

12:13 --

I really would like to believe your analysis. But even with it firmly in mind that this trial was narrowly tailored to address one particular misdeed, I find it hard to believe that that misdeed could be worth only one day in jail. I mean, that was evidence the defense specifically asked for and the judge specifically asked whether Nifong had turned over all evidence of that kind that he possessed. Presumably Smith did not actually believe that Nifong's failure to provide the information was inadvertant. I just don't see any explanation, even if it's for just that one act, why he should get what must surely be the minimum sentence for an act of that kind! Honestly, what could Nifong have done that would have pushed it up to a maximum, or even a medium, sentence?

Debrah said...

Perhaps some bread crumbs should be left for the Wonderland crew.

When KC leaves for Israel, the only way you can get back inside the Wonderland gates is to make the long journey through the land where the skies are always Caribbean blue.

But travel at night.

Otherwise, too many trolls will be able to interrupt the proceedings.

Anonymous said...

Debrah said...

"Medical doctors are highly paid professional who are paid handsomely for the risks they take on but also are held to high practice standards and the potential for medical malpractice lawsuits. Why the heck don't we demand the same for lawyers? With the power and perks that come with the job of lawyers we need to be able to have some way of ensuring transparency and responsilibility.[sic]"

---------

Debrah, Your off-topic, frequent and demented rants on this subject are not appreciated. John Edwards has more ethics in any of his over-coiffed, over-publicized hairs than do, collectively, all of the medical industry's tremendously powerful lobbyists, or their wholly-owned insurance industry, or any of their wholly-owned politicians, not to mention their dim-bulb, arrogant, self-satisfied dupes like you.

You seem to assume that because doctors are "highly paid professionals," they must be assumed honest and competent; yet you brainlessly assume the opposite about lawyers.

You are wrong.

The "highly paid professional" MDs sued by John Edwards are the equivalents of Tara Levicy, Judge Stephens, and Brian Meehan -- any one of whom would completely endorse your views about attorneys. The irony obviously escapes you.

Tara, Mikey, and Brian are, just like Edwards' defendants, mere hacks who care little about professionalism, and who -- just occasionally -- get caught, through the diligence and intelligence of, yes, a good lawyer. Like Joe Cheshire, Brad Bannon, or, yes, John Edwards.

You clearly don't know shit-all about the facts of Edwards' cases, beyond what you've read on pinhead right-wing blogs. And I'm a little tired of you polluting this intelligent, thoughtful blog with your made-up bullshit about John Edwards.

And I'm not sanctifying Edwards, or defending everything he does -- I'm just saying that you, Debrah, are full of crap in your comments about him.

And you can't stand it, can you, Debrah, that he won any of his cases? Because sometimes, if only rarely, it actually comes to light that incompetent, arrogant, drunken, drug-addicted, lying Republican doctors maim, cripple, orphan, and murder people represented by Democrat lawyers.

Some few of these doctors might even be forced to compensate their victms (mostly through their equally despicable and dishonest insurance companies), for some small part of the damage that they caused! Well, ain't that a friggin' shame.

But when justice is done, it is by lawyers like Edwards, not by preening, armchair apologists like you, who fail to see the glaring inconsistencies in your carefully chosen bigotries.









YT

Bob H. said...

Hey, JLS,

Why are you so pissed off? So, you have a forum to spout off about how much you think you know about the law, and you took the time to frame your remarks hoping someone, beside yourself, considers your opinion of value. Do you need to be pushy and confrontational, as well?

Anonymous said...

Here's the contact information for the U.S. Attorney for those who wish to write suggesting a federal investigation:

Anna Mills S. Wagoner
U.S. Atty. for the Middle District of North Carolina
P.O. Box 1858
Greensboro, NC 27402

(336)333-5351
FAX(336)333-5438

Anonymous said...

No, the fact that he was not given the maximum 30 day sentence brings ridicule upon the court. It trivializes what Nifong did -the court acted like those in Germany in the 30's and 40's. Look it up. Learn a little history.

Anonymous said...

can someone explain the legal system where Scooter Libby is sentenced to years and Nifong gets a few hours. what is going on in this country? a lot of the good that the AG of NC did for the State's judicial reputation was damaged by this judge.

Debrah said...

To 5:56PM--

Not much escapes me on that particular issue; however, I wish I could say the same for your diatribe.

In your rush to slam me, you have mistakenly quoted someone else.

The very spine of your attack is faulty.

Better get a grip and go for the poster you feverishly quoted....with your little misspelling nod of (sic). LOL!!

Happy hunting!

Legal Eagle said...

Nothing new here about the court system, please move along.

Except that the wrong people too often wind up in jail.

A "one day" sentence, I mean, Nifong didn't "kill" anybody.

As for Judge Smith, he's no more atypical than at least half the judges out here. It's a club, of crooks, liars, and cheats.

As for the ADA's, what do you expect, "justice"?

Debrah said...

Let me help you out, "YT" @ (5:56PM)--

The poster you want to speak with is 11:28AM...from this morning.

I did enjoy the rant, though.

:>)

Anonymous said...

NC reputation for Justice? (LOL)
Judge Morey believes that it matters when in the process you lie to the court!

Only in Durham.

inman said...

YT @ 5:56

Your defense of John Edwards is noted.

But you seem to protest a bit too much. And since when did political affiliation affect either medical, surgical or judicial skill, knowledge or ability?

There are some logical inconsistencies in your argument that you should either reconsider or abandon or buttress with additional facts.

Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

Upon reflection, I wish Judge Smith had taken a page out of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's playbook. Specifically, I wish his sentence had been 30 days and a $500 fine, with the 30 days suspended pending completion of 720 hours of community service. During those 720 hours, he should have been forced to tell various civic groups, law schools, and other interested parties in North Carolina, with a special focus on the Durham area, about the gross injustice he perpetrated and the consequences of his actions, both to his career and to the lives of the entire Duke lacrosse team. Perhaps if more criminal rogues of all professions were required to be like Coleridge's "Ancient Mariner", confessing their sins to all who passed, we might end up with a better nation.

Just my tuppence.

inman said...

I've been thinking about recent events.

It occurs to me that Nifong's refusal to acknowledge reality was probably a consequence of his potential civil liability. He may have been advised by counsel that any acknowledgement of culpability or failure to atone for wrongdoing would likely provide subsequent plaintiffs substantial incriminating evidence. He may be advised to continue to assert the 'something happened' narrative...for that may be his best protection against civil liability.

If that is true, the record needs to be evaluated and parsed to mitigate that defense. The finding of contempt is a start, for that established that Nifong has lied to the Court. Now, the record needs to be evaluated for other times that he "shaded" the truth.

Nifong is a despicable person who deserves punishment for each and every day of his life.

I know that Christians value the notion of forgiveness. So I forgive our judicial system for its failure to identify and eliminate the evil of Mike Nifong prior to the effect that he singularly caused. I pray that Nifong's mind is redirected to atone for his evil. I also pray that all others who have been found guilty, when innocent, by tactics of Mike Nifong will be released of judicial error.

Anonymous said...

Kevin Finnerty said he was satisfied, and that the verdict brought his family closure. That is good enough for me. I was honored to meet him at the trial. I found him to be very gracious.

The fact is that a prosecutor told a lie in court and will go to jail. That may be unprecedented in North Carolina. At least Judge Smith had the courage to go that far. I doubt Morey would have.--Buddy

af said...

The "highly paid professional" MDs sued by John Edwards are the equivalents of Tara Levicy, Judge Stephens, and Brian Meehan -- any one of whom would completely endorse your views about attorneys. The irony obviously escapes you.

Tara, Mikey, and Brian are, just like Edwards' defendants, mere hacks who care little about professionalism, and who -- just occasionally -- get caught, through the diligence and intelligence of, yes, a good lawyer. Like Joe Cheshire, Brad Bannon,


And Johnny Boy Edwards is just like Mikey. One mold. Wonder what Mikey could do with a $900 haircut????

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: bob h

I am a happy contented guy. The guy I was responding to was just not paying attention. Several people had pointed out what I pointed out. I pointed it out more directly to see if the point might get through.

Hard for me to understand why you would jump in persuming to help Prof. Johnson with his moderating. BTW, you have my permission not to read my posts if you don't like them.

Anonymous said...

257am.

You ask the question we all want to know the answer to which is THAT SHE IS BLACK!!

You can analyze it anyway you want to but she does not get charged with a crime because she is black.

She needs to be sued civilly because if there is a lawyer, and as Plaintiffs lawyer Im ashamed to say it, but if there is a lawyer who will sue Imus on behalf of a Rutgers ballplayer who was never specifically insulted, then there is a lawyer who will help CGM try to profit from this whole episode.

Ive said it may times in previous posts..ROY COOPER IS NO HERO AND IS JUST A COWARD WHO WANT PROSECUTE SOMEONE FOR FEAR OF LOSING VOTES.

Debrah said...

Given that KC has touched on the Vick case previously and some in the public and even the media have desperately tried to provide an out for him by clumsily trying to draw comparisons to the lacrosse case (insanity!!!)....

....I was heartened to read this from the N&O's Barry Saunders:

Mr. Vick pimps his crime

Anonymous said...

YT at 556pm. Well said about what Edwards has done for his victims, but what I dont understand is that for all his skills as a lawyer, he is just another Hilary Clinton power seeking politician who is the epitome of hypocrisy and disingenuous behavior. He will never be President.

Debrah said...

Wiki has added this paragraph to its Nifong page:

Jail time

A judge has sentenced disgraced prosecutor Mike Nifong to one day in jail for lying to a judge while pursuing the Duke lacrosse rape case.
Nifong was held in criminal contempt of court Friday for lying to a judge when pursuing rape charges against three falsely accused Duke University lacrosse players.
Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III immediately moved to consider a punishment for Nifong, who has already been stripped of his law license and has resigned from office. He faces as many as 30 days in jail and a fine as high as $500.
Reading his decision from the bench minutes after the conclusion of two days of testimony, Smith said Nifong "willfully made false statements" to the court in September when he insisted he had given defense attorneys all results from a critical DNA test.
In fact, Smith found, Nifong had provided the defense with a report on the DNA testing that he knew to be incomplete. The omitted data contained test results showing that DNA of multiple men, none of whom were lacrosse players, was on a woman who said she was attacked at a March 2006 party thrown by Duke's lacrosse team.
"I now understand that some things that I thought were in the report were in fact not in the report," Nifong said. "So the statements were not factually true to the extent that I said all the information had been provided."


("Discuss among yourselves.....like butta")

Anonymous said...

Debrah,

Regarding your comment that, "Yes, it's a shame that people like lawyer John-boy Edwards can live handsomely off millions gotten from destroying the careers of doctors.....

.....yet not demand the same high standards from his own profession."


----------

Which medical malpractice claims should John Edwards not have pursued? Did the injured patients not deserve compensation? Were the doctors or hospitals offering to fairly compensate the injured patients before Edwards got involved?

Upon what do you base your comment that John Edwards doesn't demand the same high standards from his own profession? Here's one anecdote to the contrary: Several years ago I attended a continuing legal education seminar offered by Lawyer's Mutual Liability Insurance Company (LMLIC), a major North Carolina legal malpractice insurer. The speaker, an official of LMLIC, said to be careful about taking cases in areas in which you are not familiar, such as medical malpractice. He said that John Edwards had won several legal malpractice claims against LMLIC-insured lawyers who had screwed up their clients' medical malpractice claims.

Ken Duke

Debrah said...

Let me say this about the ex-NC senator--who, btw, was MIA related to his duties during his tenure--John Edwards.

He owed it to his constituency in this state and to his very profession to step up and be heard with regard to the long travesty of justice endured by three young men who attended school in his state.

He said and did nothing.

The reason this is so significant is because of the patina of the halo his supporters want to put over his pointy, hairsprayed, weasel head.

Even Barack Obama spoke out against what was going on and suggested an inquiry.

Looks bad for Justice-boy Edwards.

Oh!....he and his wife Elizabeth did hire Amanda Marcotte, however.

Good show!

Debrah said...

Someone definitely needs to go into the Durham district attorney's office and clean house....including Jim Hardin!

Anonymous said...

Dear Debrah,
Edwards MIA equates to more than Dole IA.

Anonymous said...

9:09 comment
Attorneys do only what a judge allows. Stephens opened himself yesterday to a major Fed investigation!

Debrah said...

To Ken Duke--

Thank you for your comments and questions.

I hesitate to make this thread so much about John-boy, but given the fact that most of the justice to be served in the lacrosse case has been dealt...except for inevitable civil suits.....I suppose that it's appropriate to discuss some influential people like Edwards who were no-shows.

Can you imagine the positive impact for justice a nod and a wink...or a call for scrutiny.....there would have been if a presidential candidate from the state of NC would just have offered any call for an inquiry?

John Edwards is/was a goddamned presidential candidate....and he and his loud dowdy wife sat back in their farmhouse on the outskirts of Chapel Hill and did NOTHING!!!

It takes a real prick for that to happen.

About his successful lawsuits.....I went into some depth on a previous thread, but it's not appropriate to go to such lengths again here.

Let me say that in every profession, there are positive players and there are negative ones.

There are good doctors. There are bad ones.

There are good lawyers. There are bad ones.

My older--and my only--brother is a lawyer. His only son just graduated from law school.

I have nothing against lawyers in general. I adore Joe Cheshire and men like him.

John Edwards is no Joe Cheshire.

He's a phony, self-serving opportunist. The record is clear.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

debrah When I was young, liberal Democrats were generally on the side of those suffering an injustice. I am not quite this old, but heck when liberal Democrats started standing up for blacks suffering discrimmination and under Jim Crow laws, blacks mainly voted GOP. Sure the Democrat coalition included racist southern Democrats, racists union democrats etc as it still does but liberal Democrats were different.

Sometime during my lifetime, even most liberal Democrats became no different than other racists interest group Democrats. They too only became for those sufferring injustice if they were the right type of victims. The support of victims seems to be based on percentage of the victims group that votes Democrat. That is why the PC pecking order seems to be black, homosexual, women, hispanics, etc.

Gary Packwood said...

I would like to request some discussion, please.

Our DIW community of people should be around 8 thousand people this weekend and most read what is said but do not comment.

It would be helpful for me to see what everyone thinks about the title of this particular posting from KC.

Disgrace and Redemption.

For me, disgrace is a word that is worn out, frayed at the edges and not used in ordinary conversation except for those of us who are in college or who have graduated from college.

For example, the auto mechanic that works on my auto or the A/C mechanic does use the word disgrace or ...redemption for that matter.

Would member of the community here prefer to see a different title for today's posting? Would a different title have helped with the focus of the discussion today?

Perhaps a title such as just .....Convicted.

Or, perhaps ....Conviction, Denial, and Redemption.

Perhaps Disgrace does it for you. That is OK. I would be interesting in learning about various opinions for the community here.
::
GP

Debrah said...

This was added in June. You can see how much weight Mikey has shed in the last year by comparing how he looked yesterday.

Fongamana

A new weight loss strategy for the market:

Get disbarred and nationally disgraced.

Anonymous said...

Is anyone else curious about what kind of recenption KC will get at Duke? As an alum and fan of his writing/work, I wish I could be there to meet him, listen to his thoughts first-hand, and possible provide physical security (lol).

Of course, I would not mind chatting up some of the local DIW folks like Deb either...

Deb, if you attend, please do post and let us know what you think. Anyone else here who manages to see the lecture (and no, NOT interested in KLAN of 88 whining)should post as well if possible.

ES Duke 1990

inman said...

GP...

Interesting observation about the weight of words in modern discourse.

How about ... "Truth, Lies and Jail" ... or "Nifong Jailed!" ... Or "Crystal, Nifong, Lies ...No More" ....

j.nc said...

.
The Durham Scientific Method

Fact #1. So Nifbong said it was a non-ejaculatory event... so no DNA from players could be found as a result of the "event".

Fact #2. But Nifbong says DNA can be easily picked up from car seats or even being around her infant son - which explains all the other male DNA dripping off of the gal like tinsel on the loaded tree in the Macy's holiday display window.

Theory: If so #2, then one would expect this DNA magnet of an "exotic dancer" would have Hoovered up a bunch of male lacrosse player DNA just by walking up the sidewalk of the party house and during the supposed "event" if such were the case proposed by Nifbong in #2 above. Right?

Result: DNA representing (or approximating) the number of members of an Olympic bobsled team or starting lineup of a basketball team were found on (or in) her body from the various car seats she came into contact with. Yet, inexplicitly, none of the DNA was shaped like a lacrosse stick.

Conclusion: Only in Durham Wonderland could #1 and #2 both be true at the same time.

rrhamilton said...

Let's lay off John Edwards, now that he's thrown Amanda under the bus, for two reasons:

First and generally, let's keep this blog as free from partisan politics as possible. I said, "as possible" -- I know it can't be completely free; after all, the 88 who started this blog did what they did for political reasons.

Second and more specifically, just because Edwards ran for VP doesn't mean that his pre-politics history is familiar to many of us whose heels are free of tar.

Anonymous said...

Inman, I think you should make a haiku from that. :) RRH

Debrah said...

To 10:06PM--

I'm beginning to give labels of any kind much less value.

The pendulum swings back and forth, as they say, every few decades; however, this case really highlighted the hypocrisy of so many.

The predictable, easy-riding victims have lost their cachet.

Which is a good thing.

The founder of the very liberal News & Observer, Josephus Daniels, was a Democrat from bygone days, vehemently against integraton.

Sometimes politics really bores me.

:>)

Debrah said...

TO 11:41PM--

I will try to attend, now that I know it's open to the public.

I hope everyone in the Triangle who can, does.

Michael said...

Way back when, I asked the Edwards campaign his thoughts on the case. I was signed up for their campaign and received nothing on the Lacrosse case. Of course then I read about the Marcotte affair here at DIW.

Edwards campaign invited me to a town meeting with him two weeks ago. I received invitations for events for Clinton and Obama as well. I was tempted to go to Edwards' meeting to ask him about the Lacrosse case but I've been busy preparing one child for college this fall.

My general feelings on Edwards are negative and I'd guess that most here wouldn't have much trouble in understanding why.

Ralph Phelan said...

"two attorneys from outside Durham redeemed the national image of North Carolina justice."

Redeemed? From F to D- maybe, from nonexistent to merely pathetic.

1 day?

Gary Packwood said...

inman 11:53 said...
...GP...
...Interesting observation about the weight of words in modern discourse.
How about ... "Truth, Lies and Jail" ... or "Nifong Jailed!" ... Or "Crystal, Nifong, Lies ...No More" ....
::
I think they are great. Good suggestions.

Nifong Jailed gets to the point for me.
::
GP

no justice, no peace said...

One must have grace to be disgraced. One must show contrition on the road to redemption.

Nifong does not qualify under either measure.

Anonymous said...

The grace disgrace title appears to have originated from Gene Upshaw’s comments on KC’s book.

I was very impressed by Upshaw’s comments and the people who disgraced themselves are the ones who had the intellectual horsepower to see this case as a fraud but chose not to for ideological/personal reasons.

I would also be very interested in KC’s reception at Duke. Perhaps he will put it on his blog also anyone who attends please comment on his reception both positive and negative.

mac said...

It's profoundly interesting that Levicy supporters and others have maintained that DNA wouldn't neccessarily have been found if a rape had occured, but CGM's child, or the seat of a Dee Pee Dee car could have somehow transmitted stuff to her private areas?

Perhaps the DNA in question just levitated its way into the accuser.

Anonymous said...

Would someone provide the information where the lawyers side with Nifong got their law degrees ? They seem believing firmly in what they were taught in their schools and have learned in their practice in Durham.

Nifong's 1-day jail sentence startled them, they've never put someone like Nifong to the other side of the bars; and relieved them too, the rest of them will not end up in jail if the worst got only 1 day.