tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post8176422896148937524..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Updateskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-82721123969577613312013-02-11T23:26:11.161-05:002013-02-11T23:26:11.161-05:00To the 12.26pm:
I did a long post over at MTC ana...To the 12.26pm:<br /><br />I did a long post over at MTC analyzing the document, and linked to it in my new post.<br /><br />I didn't notice any relevant "numerous mistakes and deficiencies" uncovered by the Paternos' attorneys, and can't imagine that the report will have any influence except among Paterno apologists. I did see a lot of wildly counter-intuitive interpretations of the evidence that Freeh uncovered, coupled with occasional bizarre assertions (the Paternos' hired expert on pedophilia instead hailing Paterno's character).kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-58790062201538477862013-02-10T12:26:30.454-05:002013-02-10T12:26:30.454-05:00KC:
Have you had a chance to read former Attorney...KC:<br /><br />Have you had a chance to read former Attorney Dick Thornburg's report identifying the numerous mistakes and deficiencies in the Freeh report? Mr. Thornburg's report can be found at http://www.paterno.com/Expert-Reports/Dick-Thornburgh.aspxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-62718728106170981622013-02-03T23:14:02.775-05:002013-02-03T23:14:02.775-05:00Oh wonderful, the plaintiffs don't care about ...Oh wonderful, the plaintiffs don't care about themselves. They just want justice for the people of Durham. How utterly stupid. The people of Durham were not wronged by this case. Specific people were. The fact that this case by it's own terms was intended to benefit other people was indicative of how stupid it was. Cases are meant to redress wrongs done to the plaintiffs. Cases brought to benefit the "persons of Durham" are looked upon unfavorably. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-69857587131007185352013-01-31T23:00:19.903-05:002013-01-31T23:00:19.903-05:00To Quasimodo at 11:33: you seem to be missing the ...To Quasimodo at 11:33: you seem to be missing the point. Courts only order relief such as that outlined when there is no redress available through the political process. If the " other persons in Durham" want the things that are specified in the request for remedies, there is nothing to stop them from electing a mayor and a city council to bring about these reforms. There is nothing in the laxers' case to indicate that the courts must fashion remedies because a class of people in Durham who are marginalized politically have been systematically discriminated against. I would also note that courts generally fashion remedies to compensate the plaintiffs; they don't generally like to provide relief for "other persons." This changes when the plaintiffs can show that a disfavored class of politically marginalized persons have suffered injury-- something obviously not the case with the laxers. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66998528508062458242013-01-27T23:33:43.973-05:002013-01-27T23:33:43.973-05:00"The types of relief requested in the quoted ...<i>"The types of relief requested in the quoted paragraphs in your post are the types of things that courts only consider when there is evidence of pervasive official misconduct against a disfavored class of people who, because of their status, are unable to use the political process to redress the wrongs that they have suffered.</i><br /><br />The lacrosse players aren't asking these things for themselves, but <b>"to prevent the substantial risk of irreparable injury to other persons in the City of Durham. "</b><br /><br />If the courts aren't interested in protecting <br />future accused persons in Durham, then<br />they can ignore these reforms. (The lacrosse players will not benefit in the least if they are enacted.)<br /><br /><i>"Contrast that paradigm with the facts of the laxers: white guys represented by the best lawyers in NC" </i><br /><br />See above. These reforms are not intended to benefit the lacrosse players. <br /><br /> <i>" Courts don't want to interfere in the normal local governmental process unless there is a reason to"</i><br /><br />If "a bunch of white guys" can be treated this way, how are the rest of the citizens of the city going to fare--those who can't afford good attorneys?<br /><br /><i>" Those changes are not going to be brought about by foolish litigation brought by the incompetent lawyers representing the laxers."</i><br /><br />How many reforms in civil rights have been brought about through court decisions, after suits were brought?Quasimodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760987825874301133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47677192677003616852013-01-27T22:37:46.464-05:002013-01-27T22:37:46.464-05:00To Quasimodo at 9:49: you mention that no other or...To Quasimodo at 9:49: you mention that no other organization helped . How have you done getting replacement help? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-22420916252668888912013-01-27T21:06:28.917-05:002013-01-27T21:06:28.917-05:00Just got back from NC Opera's Wagner Concert. ...Just got back from NC Opera's Wagner Concert. From the sublime to the ridiculous. I have decided to stick with the sublime. This thread is really bad-- why is Quasimodo bringing up the things the plaintiffs requested be done to change the Durham police practices when these cases have been dismissed and there is no likelihood that they will be reinstated? I thought these government practices requests for relief were really stupid requests at the time-- the passage of time has not helped at all. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-73150536598215384402013-01-27T20:48:32.217-05:002013-01-27T20:48:32.217-05:00To Quasimodo at 9:34: by quoting the prayer for re...To Quasimodo at 9:34: by quoting the prayer for relief as you have done, you have supported the numerous commentators at this and other threads who have pointed out that this request for relief is indicative of how utterly stupid these cases were. The types of relief requested in the quoted paragraphs in your post are the types of things that courts only consider when there is evidence of pervasive official misconduct against a disfavored class of people who, because of their status, are unable to use the political process to redress the wrongs that they have suffered. Contrast that paradigm with the facts of the laxers: white guys represented by the best lawyers in NC; no evidence of disenfranchisement; no material injury in the eyes of the law-- that is, not tried, not convicted and not uncompensated. By asking for the type of relief they did in the passages that you quoted, they actually hurt their case. Courts don't want to interfere in the normal local governmental process unless there is a reason to-- a bunch of white guys who were exonerated by the state's AG and who got a financial settlement are not the types of plaintiffs that the Federal courts sympathize with. Asking for this type of relief was a strategic error by the plaintiffs and is further evidence of how poor was the legal advice the plaintiffs received in connection with the bringing of these cases. <br /><br />From everything I can see, you are just not willing to recognize that these were very misguided cases. I really think you should simply realize that there will be no "legal" resolution of the laxers situation. Where we are now is where we will be ten years from now unless you and other concerned parties use the political process to achieve the changes that you want. Those changes are not going to be brought about by foolish litigation brought by the incompetent lawyers representing the laxers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-33820859127616640202013-01-27T09:49:59.001-05:002013-01-27T09:49:59.001-05:00"I repeat my comment that the issue for the l...<i>"I repeat my comment that the issue for the laxers was not the absence of a speedy trial requirement in NC."</i><br /><br />Had there been a requirement (as exists in most other states) that the trial begin within 60 days of arrest, then the trial would have begun in mid-June, and been over almost immediately.<br /><br />Instead, Nifong was able to prolong it for nearly a year--for a case with no evidence about a crime which never happened.<br /><br />The right to a "speedy trial" was therefore very relevant to his ability to try and force pleas.<br /><br />North Carolina desperately needs such a law to prevent future injustices (and there are instances of persons in NC being jailed for years before their cases come to trial).<br /><br />But oddly, none of the rights organizations, nor law school faculties, nor media, seem interested in such reforms.<br /><br />Quasimodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760987825874301133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11155743527622765892013-01-27T09:39:23.459-05:002013-01-27T09:39:23.459-05:00"I think it cheap to bring up the Scottsboro ...<i>"I think it cheap to bring up the Scottsboro boys in reference to the laxers."</i><br /><br />Of course the two cases are twins; in that they demonstrate how persons can be demonized by a public which believes in its stereotypes; and which will cling them so fervently that even though there is overwhelming evidence of innocence, they will insist on convictions anyway, rather than have those stereotypes (of the accused, and of themselves), questioned.<br /><br />(Human nature is all the same and hasn't changed any between 1931 and 2006.)Quasimodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760987825874301133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-35857430106334529432013-01-27T09:34:54.101-05:002013-01-27T09:34:54.101-05:00For information purposes, what the suits ask:
PRA...For information purposes, what the suits ask:<br /><br />PRAYER FOR RELIEF <br /><br />559. WHEREFORE, to redress the injuries proximately and directly caused by <br />Defendants’ conduct as stated in Paragraphs 1-558 above, <b>and to prevent the <br />substantial risk of irreparable injury to other persons in the City of Durham as a <br />result of the policies, customs, practices, and supervisory misconduct alleged <br />herein,</b> Plaintiffs hereby request the following relief: <br /><br />a. the issuance of an Order and Permanent Injunction (“Permanent <br />Injunction”) that: <br />i. appoints an independent monitor (the “Monitor”), to be determined by the Court, who shall oversee certain activities of the Durham Police Department for a period of ten (10) years...<br /><br />iv. establishes an independent citizen Police Review Committee. . . <br /><br />v. orders that all eyewitness identification arrays, lineups, and similar procedures conducted by the Durham Police Department, whether <br />formal or informal, and/or of suspects or “witnesses,” conform to the provisions of General Order No. 4077 and be recorded by videotape; <br /><br />vi. orders that any reports of DNA or other scientific testing requested by the Durham Police Department or District Attorney’s Office include the results of all testing, and all notes, charts, or raw data generated during such testing, and that a copy of each such report be provided to the Monitor to ensure compliance; <br /><br />vii. orders that the Durham Police Department provide proper training, <br />based on materials and plans approved by the Monitor, to all current and new personnel (the “Remedial Training”) on the following <br />matters: <br /><br />1. the appropriate chain of command in criminal investigations; <br /><br />2. the issuance of public statements relating to an open investigation; <br /><br />3. the conduct of eyewitness identification procedures; <br /><br />4. the service of outstanding warrants on witnesses in a criminal investigation or proceeding; <br /><br />5. prohibiting threats, inducements, or intimidation of witnesses; <br /><br />6. the standards for police reports, investigator’s notes, and other reports of investigations, including the timely and <br />truthful preparation of such documents; <br /><br />7. the supervision of private companies engaged to provide scientific testing or other services in connection with a police <br />investigation; and <br /><br />8. the standards for probable cause. . .<br /><br /><br />x. enjoins the Durham Police Department from serving any arrest warrants on a person known to be a witness in a criminal <br />investigation or criminal proceeding without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor; <br /><br />xi. enjoins the Durham Police Department from delegating any supervision over a Durham Police investigation to the District <br />Attorney’s Office; <br /><br />xii. orders the Durham Police Department to implement a policy requiring Durham Police personnel to present exculpatory evidence <br />when testifying before a grand jury. <br /><br />xiii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from targeting students of Duke University for selective enforcement of the criminal laws, and from refusing to protect the legal and constitutional rights of students of Duke University; <br /><br />xiv. requires the City of Durham to pay all costs relating to the Monitor, Police Review Committee, and Remedial Training for the duration of the Permanent Injunction. . .<br /><br /><br />Oddly, none of the Durham rights organizations seem to support these reforms. Neither apparently do any of the local law school faculties, nor any of Durham's local civic and religious leaders; nor the Durham media.<br /><br />One might get the impression they are less interested in the protection of future accused persons than they are in avoiding the embarrassment that would come from supporting the falsely-accused lacrosse players in these demands. (But that's MOO)Quasimodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760987825874301133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-73509897545484531942013-01-26T21:34:58.648-05:002013-01-26T21:34:58.648-05:00To Quasimodo at 10:02: I just got back from a trip...To Quasimodo at 10:02: I just got back from a trip and saw your post. I think it cheap to bring up the Scottsboro boys in reference to the laxers. I understand the similarities but the non similarities so out weigh the similarities as to make those who make the comparisons small and petty thinkers whose comparisons are really quite idiotic. I know that many through the history of this incident enjoy making comparisons to the Scottsboro boys, but the fact that it is a favorable comparison by the unlearned does not give it credible for those who can actually analyze the incident involving the laxers and that of the Scottsboro boys. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-72155935252251675432013-01-26T21:14:28.211-05:002013-01-26T21:14:28.211-05:00To Quasimodo: I have to agree with Anonymous at 8:...To Quasimodo: I have to agree with Anonymous at 8:52. You seem to have the tendency to get off track. As that commentator pointed out, the issue at bar was not a speedy trial. As another commentator pointed out in reaction to your post stating that the cops should be required to video interrogations, the laxers were never interrogated. As another commentator pointed out, these threads deal with the indicted and the non indicted laxers cases. As far as I know, none of the cases have been concerned with requiring that Durham police interrogations be videoed or that cases in Durham be subject to a speedy trial requirement. I applaud your wish that our justice system be improved, but, in fact, the issues you want addressed have very little-- perhaps nothing-- to do with the laxers. I actually think that you should prevail on all of your issues but the Duke lacrosse case has nothing to do with what you want. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-77673386150607924242013-01-26T20:58:57.514-05:002013-01-26T20:58:57.514-05:00To Quasimodo: I agree with anonymous at 4:10. The ...To Quasimodo: I agree with anonymous at 4:10. The reason a number of jurisdictions do not require a probable cause hearing after a grand jury indictment in contrast to an arrest is that such jurisdictions view the grand jury as the protection against a DA gone wild. Kind of idiotic and naive but that's the theory--the grand jury will be able to protect citizens against an evil Nifong perverting the course of justice!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88913367080983466872013-01-26T20:52:22.161-05:002013-01-26T20:52:22.161-05:00Quas: this was a discovery proceeding, not a reque...Quas: this was a discovery proceeding, not a request for an expedited trial. Sure, counsel mentioned that they wanted to get to trial quickly, but that was not what this hearing was about. I repeat my comment that the issue for the laxers was not the absence of a speedy trial requirement in NC. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-13677698193235487802013-01-25T19:56:00.207-05:002013-01-25T19:56:00.207-05:00"As to a speedy trial, I don't recall the...<i>"As to a speedy trial, I don't recall the laxers filing a motion to set a trial date-- did they?"<br /><br /></i>Transcript of May hearing<br /><br />OSBORN [defense attorney]: And then, your honor, I understand that it is custom at least in this county that we would be permitted to actually go over to the law enforcement officer's agency and actually go through their files, all their files, all their notes and so forth, personally. <br /><br />STEPHENS [judge]: Well I'm not aware of that custom. I believe perhaps maybe that's your take on the custom. I'm not aware of that custom. I mean you surely have the discovery process and you have what you're allowed by statute and then, frankly, whatever else the D.A. allows is his call.<br /><br />OSBORN: Yes, sir.<br /><br />STEPHENS: And so whatever he otherwise allows, voluntarily is his call. If you find something that you think that you need and that he's not allowing, then again, this court is the place to come to ask for that. No, sir, I'm not going to sign an order allowing you to go over and rummage through the law enforcement officer's files.<br /><br />OSBORN: Would you sign an order requiring the law enforcement officers to turn over all of their notes, memoranda, reports, documents, data compilations, tape recordings and so forth to the district attorney?<br /><br />STEPHENS: No, sir. I'll allow him to proceed as he normally does in the compilation of his information. And if thereafter for some reason you believe that you have not received everything, then we'll address that with the court order. Right now I'm not going to order things that I believe will be done voluntarily. There's no reason for me to believe as they always generally have been, they won't be done voluntarily.<br /><br />OSBORN: Yes, sir. This is a serious case.<br /><br />STEPHENS: I deal with serious cases every day, and frankly I respect the seriousness of this case. <i><b>But this case is not going to jump ahead of the line of all the other cases that we have here </b></i>or be handled in any other way. I surely respect everyone here and the seriousness of this. <br /><br />But frankly, it takes priority, <b>but we have other cases that take priority, too. And we're not going to stop what we're doing to make sure that we accommodate everybody inappropriately.</b><br /><br />OSBORN: Well we just want to make sure, your honor, that all of the things that have been generated be preserved and that we get a chance to see them pursuant to statute, we're entitled to look through all of the law enforcement files and we just want to make sure that nothing disappears. And I think you can assure that with your order that nothing be destroyed. And I will get an order to you in that regard.<br /><br />STEPHENS: All right. Anything else that you all need? Again, on the cell phone orders, you all need to either to talk about it or submit separate proposals to me and then do it as soon as you can. I will either accept one or the other or fashion my own.<br /><br />OSBORN: OK.<br /><br />STEPHENS: All right. OSBORN: Thank you, your honor.<br /><br />STEPHENS: All right, thank you very much. Then we'll -- we're going to leave it on the first setting since you have not had a chance to look at all of the discovery. And we'll also set it for June the 19th.<br /><br />OSBORN: Did we just move it for a second setting? Put it on for June 19th for a second setting?<br /><br />STEPHENS: Well we can do that. We have other cases that are on June 19th. Frankly, administratively, are you satisfied that you have all of the discovery? I don't normally move it to a second setting until all the discovery has been complied with because frankly if you get too far along in the settings where you're not in a position to be able to keep -- to move it on.<br /><br />OSBORN: We want to -- <b>I want a trial as fast as we can. This young kid wants to go to school in the fall.</b><br /><br />STEPHENS: OK.<br /><br />OSBORN: And he can't until this is resolved.Quasimodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760987825874301133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-77084146673332251692013-01-25T16:10:58.480-05:002013-01-25T16:10:58.480-05:00To Quasimodo: thanks for your thoughts. I had forg...To Quasimodo: thanks for your thoughts. I had forgotten the procedural trick of indicting before arrest. I would note that a number of jurisdictions do not provide for probable cause hearings after an indictment. As to the requirement of written transcripts, I agree that they should be required but do not think that the case would have turned out differently had they been required-- the bogus Mangum identifications would have been sufficient to obtain an indictment when paired with Levicy's statements to Gottlieb. As to a speedy trial, I don't recall the laxers filing a motion to set a trial date-- did they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-69719424404375885192013-01-24T21:47:31.725-05:002013-01-24T21:47:31.725-05:00"You mention that NC has no speedy trial law....<i>"You mention that NC has no speedy trial law. As far as I can recall, the falsely accused players never complained that they wanted a trial."</i> <br /><br />They wanted a trial immediately so that they could get the matter over with and be back in school for the fall semester. Nifong said he intended to put it off till the following spring.<br /><br /><i>"You also state that NC has no probable cause hearing requirement. Again, I have no recollection that the laxers ever wanted a probable cause hearing."</i><br /><br />Had they had a probable cause hearing, they would have immediately have provided proof of their innocence and the case would have been dismissed. To avoid that, Nifong didn't arrest them at once but instead waited until he could have a grand jury indict them. In that way, they lost the opportunity to get the case dropped, because in NC persons indicted by a grand jury lose the right to a probable cause hearing.<br /><br />That loophole ought to be shut, to prevent a repetition by another DA.<br /><br /><i>"You move on to the fact that NC does not require transcripts of grand jury testimony. I have some recollection that this was of relevance to some in connection with the case, but I can't remember why people thought it was material."</i><br /><br />There was no evidence of a rape, whatsoever; ergo, lying to the grand jury<br />about Mangum's supposed "injuries" constituted the only basis on which the jury could decide to indict them. (Without those lies, no indictment.)<br /><br /><i>" How would having written transcripts of the testimony have made a difference to the falsely accused players?"</i><br /><br />Without transcripts, prosecution witnesses can lie without limit, and get indictments even (as in this instance) against innocent persons. (And then they get no probable cause hearing.)<br /><br />Again, that loophole has to be closed.<br /><br /><i>"As to your comment about video taped police interrogations, I am completely lost as to how this concern relates to the laxers. They were never interogated by the police."</i><br /><br />It's a reform sought to safeguard future accused persons. <br /><br />None of these reforms will benefit the laxers in any way; but they will benefit all future NC defendants. Part of what they are doing is trying to prevent future innocent persons from being subject to similar false prosecutions.<br /><br />It is regrettable that none of the rights movements, nor the law schools, are backing the call for these reforms.Quasimodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760987825874301133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21000577156505835702013-01-24T21:05:08.805-05:002013-01-24T21:05:08.805-05:00To Quasimodo: I am puzzled by your 10:02 response....To Quasimodo: I am puzzled by your 10:02 response. You mention that NC has no speedy trial law. As far as I can recall, the falsely accused players never complained that they wanted a trial. You also state that NC has no probable cause hearing requirement. Again, I have no recollection that the laxers ever wanted a probable cause hearing. You move on to the fact thatNC does not require transcripts of grand jury testimony. I have some recollection that this was of relevance to some in connection with the case, but I can't remember why people thought it was material. If misleading testimony was given to the grand jury that indicted the laxers, okay but they weren't tried or convicted. How would having written transcripts of the testimony have made a difference to the falsely accused players? As to your comment about video taped police interrogations, I am completely lost as to how this concern relates to the laxers. They were never interogated by the police. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-77924875471966325782013-01-24T02:48:52.124-05:002013-01-24T02:48:52.124-05:00Nice blog, thanks for sharing the information. I w...Nice blog, thanks for sharing the information. I will come to look for update. Keep up the good work.<br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.collatoslaw.com/bankruptcy-lawyer-peabody-lynn-ma.html" rel="nofollow">bankruptcy attorney peabody ma</a></b>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03068871291649512674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-38543664330771066392013-01-23T23:47:29.907-05:002013-01-23T23:47:29.907-05:00To Quas: as to "what's changed", as ...To Quas: as to "what's changed", as far as I know, you have not been denied the right to vote or to organize in North Carolina. Perhaps you should spend less time whining on the Liestoppers Discussion Boards and try to lobby for the things that you believe should have resulted from the lacrosse incident. Frankly, your complaint that "nothing" has happened is a bit pathetic. Complaint on a blog has no influence on the real world. Get off your butt and engage if you want change. Your rants on Liestoppers are useless. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6361645745438849402013-01-23T22:02:06.314-05:002013-01-23T22:02:06.314-05:00" It has been years since the fateful night. ...<br /><i>" It has been years since the fateful night. "</i><br /><br />What's changed? Nothing. North Carolina still has no speedy trial law, no right for all criminal defendants to a probable cause hearing, no prompt bill of particulars, no transcripts of grand jury testimony, no guarantee of videotaped police interrogations--in short, there is nothing to prevent the next Duke lacrosse case.<br /><br />Oddly, none of the rights organizations in NC are supporting the reforms called for in the suits.<br /><br /><i>" So it should be okay to say that life goes on and we all should just go on."</i><br /><br />Should we forget Scottsboro, too? Those who don't remember history--or correct past errors--are bound to repeat them.Quasimodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760987825874301133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11087558240865245662013-01-23T21:11:22.622-05:002013-01-23T21:11:22.622-05:00I agree with Anonymous at 12:33. Let's recap w...I agree with Anonymous at 12:33. Let's recap what happened to the bad actors. Nifong: resigned, disbarred, bankrupt. Gottlieb: gone. Levicy: gone. Meehan: gone. Meehan's company: gone. Assistant DA Cline: gone. What happened to the good guys: not tried, not convicted, exonerated and paid off. It has been years since the fateful night. The ridiculous civil cases are over despite Quasimodo's never say die attitude. A horrible injustice did indeed occur to some very nice people but, in fact, the consequences to them were not ultimately horrible. They survived with dignity. Perhaps it is indeed time to "get a life" and put all this behind us. I know the diehards at Liestoppers will not, but, for the rest of us, I truly believe that we have all said enough on the subject and that to continue discussing this would really be self indulgent and pointless. We all know that, when a loved one dies, the advice is always the same-- life goes on. Well, despite how horribly the falsely accused were treated, no one died. So it should be okay to say that life goes on and we all should just go on. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-54550443667982855222013-01-23T12:33:50.226-05:002013-01-23T12:33:50.226-05:00This thread went from a discussion of the likeliho...This thread went from a discussion of the likelihood of a Supreme Court review of the 4th Circuit's decision to Quasimodo asking detailed questions about evidence of a conspiracy. I give up and will not comment further other than to say to Quas that if you really think that Addison was a voluntary participant in an unlawful plan, that is, that he was a conspirator, you really ought to stay off of the Liestoppers Discussion Board and try to get a life. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-24569298336478117182013-01-22T21:54:31.834-05:002013-01-22T21:54:31.834-05:00" My favorite has always been our star SANE T...<i>" My favorite has always been our star SANE Tara Levicy. . . Not because she was aware that an unlawful plan that is, a conspiracy) had been concocted to frame the guys and that she was voluntarily joining the illegal scheme to frame the laxers... but, for goodness sakes, there is no way that this incredibly Misdirected woman realized that the Fong was planning a frame of the laxers."</i><br /><br />Then why did she alter the medical reports later (which is a violation of procedure, because that is tampering with evidence)<br />to make them reflect the "towel" statement?<br /><br />Why did she continue to support Nifong's version even into Jan. 2007, trying to <br />alter Mangum's statement that no condoms were used?<br /><br />Gottlieb needed her testimony in order to get probable cause for the case; otherwise he had none. Why did he bypass normal hospital procedure and skip Dr. Manly and head straight for Levicy? Why didn't he simply ask Manly for the info--it was Manly who did the exam. Was he hunting for the<br />answer he needed? Why did Levicy provide it?<br /><br />And then keep changing her stories to suit the prosecution?<br /><br /><br />(MOO)Quasimodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760987825874301133noreply@blogger.com