Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Nifong Lashes Out

Almost every time Mike Nifong speaks publicly about the lacrosse case, he digs himself a deeper hole. Such is the fate, I suppose, of a prosecutor who built his case upon a tissue of procedural violations.

From today’s Herald-Sun: Friends of Durham spokesperson David Smith, whose group interviewed the two candidates for district attorney plus write-in spoiler Steve Monks, reported, “We asked Mike Nifong, and one of his comments was that he’s the only one that’s interviewed this [alleged] victim.” Of course, that remark doesn’t correspond to what Nifong affirmed to the court in September, when he claimed that at the only documented case-related meeting between the accuser and the D.A., the accuser was too “traumatized” to speak about the case.

So, the revised Nifong party line appears to be: he “interviewed” the accuser, but the interview didn’t in any way involve the facts of the case. That tale is fanciful even by Nifong’s advanced standards.

From today’s N&O article by Benjamin Niolet: “Nifong said all the facts of the case will be revealed only at the trial.”

There’s only one problem with that statement: North Carolina has an Open Discovery Law. Was the D.A. suggesting to Niolet that he possesses “facts” he will “reveal” only at the trial? If so, he’s in violation of the law.

In the Niolet interview, Nifong also lashed out at Duke Students for an Ethical Durham—producing the remarkable event of a county’s “minister of justice” condemning a group whose sole purpose is to register voters.

According to its website, DSED has four guiding principles:

  1. All Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, have a fundamental right to due process.
  2. Principles of due process--and of basic fairness-- mean that Duke students should be treated according to the same city procedures that apply to all residents of Durham.
  3. Durham County residents and Duke students alike deserve a district attorney who rigorously follows all provisions of the North Carolina State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct.
  4. Duke students can best advance these goals by registering to vote and actively participating in the local political process.
After the way he’s behaved over the last six months, no wonder Nifong doesn’t like the organization.

Hat tip: J.S.


Anonymous said...

Your articles on the Duke hoax are always right on the money. Thank you for all the work you've done and for the clarity with which you've exposed this travesty.
Texas Mom

Anonymous said...

Mike Nifong never ceases to amaze. His ability to lie is remarkable. Did he interview her or not? Either he lied to the court, or he lied to Friends of Durham.

In addition, his remarks regarding the Duke Students were childish and unprofessional, but typical of what I now expect from this man. If he were running for DA in any other county in the U.S., I would say no way could this man be elected. However, in the city of Durham, nothing would surprise me anymore.

Finally, his refusal to participate in the Herald-Sun forum shows what a little coward this man really is. He is the perfect example of someone who should NOT be trusted to hold the position of DA. In the beginning, I thought perhaps he just was not too bright and in over his head, now I believe he is incompetent but also mean-spirited. My heart goes out to these young men and their families.

Anonymous said...

The Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek should adopt the following ad byline "You too could be Nifonged". If I lived in Durham I would run to the polls to vote this evil man out of office.

Anonymous said...

Nifong says here that only he has "interviewed" the AV. In another time and place, he says that he has never "talked to her about the substance" of the case.
This is the language of someone who has a lot to hide. I suppose that a hyper-technical, full-bore Clintonian rendering of these two statements would keep them from colliding in a melt-down of contradiction but isn't a district attorney supposed to do better than that? Are not they supposed to care about what really happened?
Nifong reminds me of a defense attorney with a guilty-as-hell client who is desperate to confuse the jury.

Anonymous said...

Wishfully thinking, he follows suit of Rep Foley, resigns and enters rehab, and then faces trial and dies in prison.

Anonymous said...

On a secondary point, am I to believe that Lewis Cheek IS actively campaigning? Frankly, his decision to encourage people to gather signatures only to announce his UN-candidacy really ticked me off. If he didn't want to run, he shouldn't have let it get to the point where there is NO viable candidate. It was a betrayal. And now, to hear that he's going through the motions of seeking endorsements, I just don't know what to think anymore.

Anonymous said...

cheek is indeed campaigning now and there is an article last week in the herald about this. this is because the vote cheek campaign is finding out that you cannot run a campaign effectively with an unknown candidate. you need someone to answer questions and appear at forums, etc. cheek said in the article last week that he is deciding which events to go to. as to endorsements, this is a major setback for cheek and monks, but not nifong. this is a conservative predominately white pac and they generally endorse republicans or conservative democrats. wonder why on earth they did not endorse cheek as he has always had republican support or the actual republican, monks? btw, nifong was already endorsed by another pac, the peoples alliance. the other pac of note is the black community pac and they have not published their endorsement yet. they did not endorse nifong last time as they backed bishop.

on another note, the article confirms what i have postd on here, that most of you duke supporters are not local and this report on outside support for the vote cheek campaign confirms this.

Anonymous said...

skatemd here too. Oh where to go after destroying the ctv board?