A glance through the precinct-by-precinct statistics for Tuesday’s election demonstrates the success of D.A Mike Nifong’s race-baiting campaign strategy—for his political well-being, at least, if not for his requirement to serve as “minister of justice.” African-American precincts featured a wholly racialized voting pattern, in which Nifong appears to have received upwards of 95 percent of the black vote.
In eight precincts, African-Americans are more than 90 percent of the electorate. Nifong carried all eight, receiving between 91.2 percent and 96.0 percent. The full figures are below:
| Precinct | % black voters | % voted Nifong |
| 42 | 97.0 | 96.0 |
| 12 | 96.2 | 95.0 |
| 13 | 95.7 | 93.3 |
| 11 | 95.7 | 93.7 |
| 41 | 95.7 | 92.7 |
| 47 | 94.7 | 93.6 |
| 49 | 93.5 | 91.7 |
| 10 | 93.4 | 91.2 |
Precinct 49, the polling station located on the NCCU campus, experienced by far the lowest vote turnout of any precinct—only 8.9 percent of registered voters cast ballots, according to preliminary figures. Apparently, the campaign failed to energize those who attended school with the accuser.
A slight dropoff in percentage of black voters didn’t affect the nearly one-for-one correlation between the African-American and Nifong totals. The “minister of justice” carried the precincts with the next seven highest totals of African-American voters, with percentages closely tracking the number of black voters in the precinct. The full figures are below:
| Precinct | % black voters | % voted Nifong |
| 17 | 89.0 | 90.2 |
| 18 | 83.9 | 85.9 |
| 15 | 82.6 | 81.0 |
| 22 | 78.5 | 80.2 |
| 14 | 77.4 | 76.9 |
| 52 | 77.0 | 76.8 |
| 23 | 67.2 | 70.1 |
The statistics speak for themselves: in the 15 precincts where African-Americans provided two-thirds or more of registered voters, Nifong’s total vote deviated from the percentage of African-Americans registered by an average of a scant 1.65 percent per precinct.
Black voters clearly responded to Nifong’s message that “
At one time, Johnson’s statement might have been deemed the evening’s Chan Hall-like comment. But with Nifong himself so frequently resorting to race-baiting rhetoric, such remarks increasingly seem like the norm rather than the exception in the “minister of justice's”
Five other
| Precinct | % black voters | % voted Nifong |
| 34 | 65.8 | 73.1 |
| 8 | 62.8 | 80.8 |
| 19 | 59.8 | 66.7 |
| 55 | 58.1 | 66.3 |
| 46 | 40.9 | 49.0 |
As Nifong swept the black precincts with percentages far above his 49 percent plurality, it’s little surprise that he struggled in precincts without significant numbers of black voters. The totals for the 11 precincts with the lowest percentages of black voters are below:
| Precinct | % black voters | % voted Nifong |
| 4 | 5.0 | 52.5 |
| 43 | 6.2 | 31.4 |
| 56 | 7.3 | 40.5 |
| 27 | 7.4 | 39.0 |
| 3 | 7.5 | 52.4 |
| 37 | 9.9 | 21.6 |
| 25 | 10.7 | 23.0 |
| 28 | 12.3 | 23.0 |
| 50 | 15.8 | 34.9 |
| 44 | 15.8 | 30.3 |
| 45 | 16.5 | 32.0 |
Two of these precincts (3 and 4, in italics above) are considered strongholds of the People’s
In the other nine precincts, Nifong averaged a mere 30.6 percent of the vote. Indeed, he was swamped in his own precinct (45), where he could manage only 32 percent of the vote. It seems as if Nifong’s closest neighbors joined a majority of those who cast ballots on Tuesday in their repulsion at his behavior.
[edit, 11.00am:
A few people commented that, as
All told, 14,208 people cast a straight-line Democratic vote. Nifong received a total of 26,116 votes, so approximately 54.4 percent of Nifong’s votes came from straight-line tickets. Voters could cast a straight-line Democratic ticket and still vote for Cheek, but it seems unlikely that any more than a handful did so.
I took a look at Nifong’s eight strongest precincts, each of which had at least 90% of voters who were African-Americans, and his eight weakest precincts, each of which had less than 16.5% of voters who were African-Americans.
The figures are below, but the basic conclusion: the percentage of Nifong voters who cast straight-party ballots was actually higher in the most anti-Nifong, predominantly white, precincts than in the most pro-Nifong, predominantly African-American, precincts.
Strong Nifong Precincts
| Precinct | % voted for Nifong | % Nifong vote straight-party lever |
| 42 | 96.0 | 50.2 |
| 12 | 95.0 | 56.5 |
| 13 | 93.3 | 59.7 |
| 11 | 93.7 | 51.0 |
| 41 | 92.7 | 56.8 |
| 47 | 93.6 | 49.3 |
| 49 | 91.7 | 60.0 |
| 10 | 91.2 | 63.2 |
Average straight-ticket vote as percentage of Nifong vote: 55.8 percent
Weak Nifong Precincts
| Precinct | % voted for Nifong | % Nifong vote straight-party lever |
| 37 | 21.6 | 57.0 |
| 25 | 23.0 | 63.9 |
| 28 | 23.0 | 57.5 |
| 44 | 30.3 | 52.6 |
| 43 | 31.4 | 58.7 |
| 45 | 32.0 | 51.8 |
| 50 | 34.9 | 47.8 |
| 27 | 39.0 | 61.6 |
Average straight-ticket vote as percentage of Nifong vote: 56.4 percent
One other item: factoring in the straight-ticket option, only 281 voters (of a total of 1823 who cast ballots) in Mike Nifong’s home precinct took the time to fill in the oval next to his name.]
To my knowledge, no local media outlet conducted a complete exit poll on the race. But the figures above suggest that the “minister of justice” prevailed with around 95 percent of the African-American vote and between 20 and 25 percent of the white vote.
Over the past seven months, Nifong has repeatedly claimed that he is a “prosecutor,” not a “politician.” The reverse is closer to the truth: in the campaign he abandoned any pretense of serving as a “prosecutor,” and instead revealed himself a “politician” whose willingness to engage in race- and class-baiting demagoguery rivals anyone I’ve seen in contemporary American politics.
46 comments:
These stats alone are reason why this trial must be moved out of Durham.
The thirst for revenge is simply too high among Durham blacks.
The statistics would include that greater than 9 out of 10 black jurors in Durham would convict regardless of the facts of the case.
To those who are not worried about (the high probability) of jury nullification, I would simply say....read the numbers.
It is my opinion that the Black vote in Durham is driven by the Democratic Party machine. I think they are instructed to pull the "straight Democrat" lever so they do it. They trust the party leaders that are telling them what to do.
Face it, there are a lot of people that don't pay any attention to politics. If there is someone available whom they trust to tell them how to vote, it's a heck of a lot easier than trying to wade through the ballot alone.
There may be some that genuinely want payback from the "rich white boys" but I'll bet that most of them just pulled the D lever as coached.
Brilliant analysis. It shows that those who seek justice in the hoax case need to step up their efforts. Send polite letters detailing the facts of the case to the U.S. Attorney General and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If you believe Durham is corrupt to the core, write now. List the evidence.
Just because people voted for Nifong does not mean they would blindly convict. They may be led to believe that if they vote to oust Nifong that they would never see the case come to trial, something they feel is needed closure. All the facts of this case may not come out (to the general public) unless this is brought to trial.
Keep in mind that many of these people voting for Nifong do not read this blog, ignored the 60 minutes story, and if anything, read the Herald-Sun - or someone else under Nifong's thumb. There sources of information (or lack there of) may lead them to believe that going to trial will help bring out the truth, whatever that may be.
Think about the alternative. The governor appoints another white DA. He reviews the facts and dismisses the case. Because of certain procedural issues (for the sake of the accuser), he is forbidden from releasing the details. Then close to half of Durham is still outraged and pissed off at the Duke community.
Now that I have said that, let me say:
* I, of course, voted for Cheek.
* I don't think this case should go to trial.
* The facts I am referring to which have not reached the public are the truth about how the police investigated, what Nifong does with his time, what the accuser was thinking, etc.
* I don't think a jury could convict with an effective defense team (which I am confident is the case).
* But I do think that a trial will force the truth out to the public. I can't imagine how the Herald-Sun could avoid reporting such blatant, transparent facts.
But maybe I lack imagination and I am naive. I hope not.
What a dopey place. No wonder Durham County has the highest crime rate in N.C. (And, yes, the trial must be held outside of that place).
Thanks KC
1:03 - "They trust the party leaders that are telling them what to do."
Looks like hope tipped the scales in an effort to balance the record of justice in Durham.
I'd bet someone's BOSS is happy.
I hope KC will address the second comment above about party line voting.
In the black precincts that Nifong carried so heavily, what evidence is there that the voters split their ticket on any election contest?
I believe that many people still vote a straight party ticket. They place one mark on the ballot, for the Democratic ticket in this case, and walk out of the booth. They don't know or care who's on the ticket.
In an area as heavily Democratic as Durham, I suspect party line voting was an enormous advantage for Nifong and am not sure the vote proves much about the Duke case.
Are there any studies on the prevalence of party line voting among blacks versus whites?
This is the crux of the issue. Well done KC.
To the commenter above who still believes that "just because" Blacks monolithically voted for Nifong despite all the evidence against this case and against him, it won't stop them from being impartial in a trial. I say YOU are living in wonderland.
To Anon 6:34 am,
White split their votes 50:50 between conservative:liberal on the national and regional levels. I remember reading (though may be wrong) that there are 20% of whites on both ends that vote straight liberal or conservative. The remaining 60% vote on issues and not party lines.
Blacks vote over 90% liberal.
I do not have a link for you though the numbers are available through Google.
It's not a symmetric situation. If somebody voted for Cheek or Monks it is highly likely they would vote to convict. If somebody voted for Nifong, it's hard to predict what they would do.
The results in the Black precincts in Durham may be highly influenced by machine politics. Based on my experience, I think there's a good chance this is correct.
I concur that a trial would NOT be beneficial, or at least change anything. First, the Durham blacks already have said that ANY attempt to discredit the accuser's charges is an act of racism. When the witness is under cross-examination, you can bet that the black jururs (and liberal whites) on the jury would see it only as a racially-motivated attack and become even more hardened in their position.
Second, we already have seen how the blacks in Durham have dealt with contrary evidence: they simply dismiss it with a conspiracy theory. Victoria Peterson claimed that the DNA did not show rape because people at Duke University Hospital "tampered" with the samples. The claims that the accuser was on the job at the strip club right after the "rape" were "bought" by wealthy, white people from Duke, and so on.
In other words, we have to understand that the blacks in Durham already have decided that the three are guilty of rape and nothing, NOTHING, will change their minds. Does anyone think that just because they are sitting in a jury box, that they will have this transformation that will make them into champions of justice?
The response of white Duke faculty members also is distressing, if one reads John Stevenson's article today (Thursday, November 9). They are as culpable as the black leadership, and even more so because they are saying that it is OK for the DA to railroad Duke students with false charges AS LONG AS THE STUDENTS FIT INTO A CERTAIN POLITICAL CATEGORY.
So, I do not think a trial will solve anything, and probably make things worse. People already are hardened in their stands and blacks and liberal whites in Durham already have declared that they do not wish to be confused by facts. If the facts are inconvenient, then they explain them away with conspiracy theories, and on they go.
Yes, at a trial, the defense will conclusively establish that (1) the accuser was not raped, and (2) the lacrosse players are not guilty. But that will mean NOTHING to a large number of jurors. We have to let that sink in. It will mean NOTHING.
I guarantee you the defense knows this, which is why they will do everything they can either to have the charges dismissed or have the trial moved to another county.
William L. Anderson
many of the black people did vote the straight ticket. Exit polls were not done so ? the percentage. the straight vote has always been the case in durham but nifong definitely had a lot of support, though.
The reason for this is simple: black people here want a trial, but not necessarily a conviction.
they will not convict if there is no evidence but many feel the whole truth will come out only in court as the state's case has not all come out. they know only what the defense has leaked and held a press conference on and they do not buy that as the only version of events and quite frankly the 60 minutes story and Kim and the bouncer laid an egg in the black community. many saw this as an attempt to use a high priced pr campaign to defeat nifong and get the case dumped and the challengers were actually saying this("i will dump the case if elected") off the record around town to drum up support.
do not intrepret the election to mean the black community wants to lynch the duke 3, they just want a trial and the only person who wants a trial is nifong so they supported him.
nifong also did some things the other candidates did not do in the home stretch. he came to the well attended nccu homecoming parade this weekend and was working the crowd there. many people actually were hugging him and shaking his hand and thanking him for what he has been trying to do, which is fight for justice in their opinion. nifong even mentioned going to the parade in his letter to his supporters. nifong also had plenty of nccu student recruits who were helping older black voters get to the polls even if their classmates did not vote in great numbers. contrast that to no outreach from cheek's campaign or monks asking black men at the polls "how about those Eagles(the undefeated nccu football team)?" as an icebreaker. there is no comparison and nifong has been to some nccu events in the past as well.
Great analysis, KC--we were all pretty sure it would turn out this way. I have to wonder, though, if the stats pertaining to the NCCU precinct really reflect that school's student vote. I think most of NCCU's students are commuters, and thus would vote in another precinct. Still the turnout in that precinct was extremely low when you consider that there are also some residential students.
7:41
According to your theory, I can accuse you of rape and even thought there is no evidence, then you should be forced to give up a couple years of your life and spend a fortune on legal fees, because the community demands a trial. This is about justice, not about what the community wants. Do you honestly believe that every accusation deserves a trial? It is absurd.
Even if you were to discount 70-80% of all the evidence presented because of some wild conspiracy theory, there STILL would be reasonable doubt. That is all it takes. Listen to legal scholars across the country. They are outraged about the lack of evidence in this case. What many supporters of these boys have witnessed is that no matter how much evidence of innocence has surfaced, the supporters of this woman either call it a conspiracy, twist the information, or simply ignore it because it doesn't fit their agenda. A trial will not change that. Everyone knows the best the boys can hope for is a hung jury and that is simply not fair.
The fact that Nifong used the NCCU student body in his race baiting scheme is even more disgusting. This man only looks out for one person - himself and uses those around him. He is dishonest and selfish to the core.
why is ok for cheek to have lots of duke students helping his effort but not ok for nifong to have some of the nccu students helping his effort? duke students for an ethical durham had cheek barbecues and their parents,mostly from out of town, gave money and some even helped campaign for cheek at the polls.
oh i see. it is ok with you because the duke students are white and they can do things the nccu students can't, according to you.
it is hypocritical and racist thinking like yours that started the racial tensions to start with in durham. nifong did not create anything that was not already there. the nccu students always help out the democratic voting efforts and they have been doing this for decades, unlike the really selfish-i-dont-give-a-damn-about-durham duke students.
If Nifong's supporters want a trial so badly, why haven't they pressed him to have it, like, yesterday?
Why delay?
To the 8.35:
It is unclear to whom you refer in your comment. The only thing the post says about NCCU students is that the precinct on campus featured by far the lowest voter turnout of any in the city.
"the truth will come out only in court..."
Ha. Is it reasonable to expect that 2 people (the accuser and Roberts)who live their entire lives ABOVE the law will suddenly respect the law enough at trial to tell the truth?
As for the most recent post, all I can say is that if the Duke students were demanding a false conviction of innocent people and were voting for that to happen, I would condemn that, too.
I have written many articles, both popular press and academic, regarding the state of injustice in the American "justice" system. Most of the people I have condemned are white; many of the people wronged -- whom I highlighted -- were black. So, do not accuse me of racism when I criticize the NCCU students. They have declared the lacrosse players to be guilty, and they have explained away all exculpatory evidence with conspiracy theories.
Let me ask you this question: If black men were in the dock, would you want the prosecutor to be acting as has Nifong? He is doing precisely what the prosecutor in the infamous Scottsboro Boys trial was doing. That prosecutor railed on about "Jew money" for the defense; Nifong rails on about "Duke money" for the defense.
Earlier this year, I wrote in defense of six black male football players at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga who were accused of gang-raping a white student. In that case, there was a preliminary hearing, and the judge ruled that there was no way to rule out consensual sexual relations, and so he dismissed the charges -- as was his duty.
What I am asking the NCCU students to do is to look at the case according to the facts, not as they wish it to be. And do not call me a racist because I say those students are wrong. That is a lie.
William L. Anderson
In response to the question about party-line voting:
The NC ballot allows for a straight party voting lever. But voters can also override for a single ballot.
For the election as a whole, 14,208 voters cast the "straight party voting" option for Democrats. The overwhelming majority of those votes probably wound up with Nifong. But there's no way of telling, because any of these voters could still have selected Cheek but nonetheless been recorded as casting a "straight party" option.
[As an aside, this is a very odd system: in most states with straight party options, voters cannot override on a single race.]
It doesn't matter what the community wants, what Durham blacks want, how a trial will be closure for them, etc. The ONLY thing that matters are Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans being treated FAIRLY...is this a legitimate case? NO, it is not...end of question, case closed...it needs to be dismissed, pronto, and I'm so sorry, but if Durham blacks, or Duke professors, or anyone else has a problem with that, well, they'd best deal with it...they'd best do some soul-searching (if they have souls) and ask themselves WHY they feel so strongly that this bogus, outrageous persecution should lead to a trial.
I have just come to an interesting development about myself, I AM A RACIST, I believe these young men are not guilty of anything but having poor judgement about hiring a stripper. However stupid my relevation about be a racist is, it does not compare to be labeled one on several different pro-victim blogs (sorry for not linking them but too many to link) for the reason that I bring up evidence they cannot explain away. When I say they cannot explain away; that doesn't mean they have not tried, oh how they have tried. The best retort (sarcasm intentional) they can come up with is "She is a beatiful black woman and I believe her cause women don't lie bout rape"
As for the election results I hope for the sake of irony that one of Nifungus's most devout supporters' son or daughter enters the Durham I don't care about evidence system where they can be held without bond (how many of the Nihilist supporters could have afforded the $400,000 bond or assuming the bail bondsmen in durham are the same as here $40,000 ) for a crime that did not happen.
7:41am anonymous wrote:
black people here want a trial, but not necessarily a conviction. they will not convict if there is no evidence but many feel the whole truth will come out only in court as the state's case has not all come out. they know only what the defense has leaked and held a press conference on and they do not buy that as the only version of events... do not intrepret the election to mean the black community wants to lynch the duke 3, they just want a trial and the only person who wants a trial is nifong so they supported him.
8:35am anonymous wrote:
it is hypocritical and racist thinking like yours that started the racial tensions to start with in durham. nifong did not create anything that was not already there. the nccu students always help out the democratic voting efforts and they have been doing this for decades, unlike the really selfish-i-dont-give-a-damn-about-durham duke students.
Thanks to (both of?) you for writing. What you say and what you don't say are both very illuminating as far as the motives and mind-set of the pro-Nifong, pro-trial crowd.
I've never been to Durham, but from afar, it's been possible to follow this case closely, by three means:
1. through reading online editions of the N&O, H-S, Duke Chronicle, NYT, and by watching '60 Minutes.'
2. by reading blogs and online essays, notably by KC Johnson, John-in-Carolina, Liestoppers, William Anderson, and Cash Michaels.
3. by examining case documents and informed commentary at TalkLeft.
This entire episode is about three men charged by D.A. Nifong with felonies on the night of 3/13/06: assault, kidnapping, and rape.
From the three sources listed above, what is the credible evidence that the crimes might have plausibly occurred? There is none.
If--amazingly--the rape happened: what's the credible evidence that the three accused men are the culprits? There is none.
What's the evidence of repeated and outrageous prosecutorial and police misconduct? It is overwhelming.
The astonishing fact is this: those who root for DA Nifong and cry "try those men!" have offered no rebuttals to the positions offered immediately above (no evidence of a crime, no suggestion of guilt of the accused, massive misconduct). The tales told on the pages of the H-S and NYT wither when exposed to sunlight.
7:41am and 8:35am, you are not interested in criminal justice. You skip over the facts of the case. It's Social Justice you care about. Nothing new there (Who? Whom?). In that, you ably, if disgracefully, present the point of view that carried Durham's most important election on Tuesday.
As a white man, I again find it neccesary to thank God this morning that I no longer live in Durham.
KC,
i was referring to the 8:22 am poster's post in which he said it was disgusting for nifong to use the Nccu students. that is why i am saying that it is hypocritical as the duke students were heavily involved with the cheek effort.
9:44 am poster, you say there was no evidence of a crime. well tell that to the grand jury that indicted all three. the only ones who want special treatment are the duke 3 who do not want to stand trial.
9:44, you'll have to come up with a better excuse than the grand jury indicting...if that's the best you can do, well, it's pretty pathetic...just like this POS case...
To 10:22 are you really going to say that the grand jury is your reason to beleive a crime actually took place. The grnad jury indicted these men on the word of a fungus and a flawed line-up. All Nifong had to do is get-up and say we have a "victim" that has identified these three men. There you go you have now gotten an indictment.
To the attroneies/law professors on this blog I have a legal question for you. Can Nifing be held accountable for the flawed line-up, in that matter is that not lying to the grand jury to say she identified her attackers when she took a multiple choice test with no wrong asnwers.
just realized I directed my post to the wrong poster...it was for the 10:22 poster...
10:22am anonymous, I am the 9:44am poster.
As far as "tell it to the grand jury": your naivete as far as indicted sandwiches is touching.
Within your reach are dozens of fully-sourced articles showing how the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case has been conducted for reasons of personal gain and electoral demagoguery, and how the prosecution is supported for reasons of personal gain, demagoguery, and Social Justice--but not Criminal Justice.
I could link to these articles, but why bother--they are the posts at this very blog!
10:22am anonymous, here is a simple challenge. Provide a link to one--one--reputable article, dealing in facts and supported by links to its claimed source material that presents a credible case:
(1) That the crimes of rape, kidnapping, or assault were committed the night of March 13th;
and if so, that
(2) Evidence exists that implicates the three accused men in these crimes.
(If you want to (3) rebut the evidence of massive prosecutorial and police misconduct, then so much the better.)
If you won't meet this simple request (and you can't, of course), then I don't know why you wrote in to disagree with me.
Recall, my claim is that folks like you view this case subjectively as a Question of Social Justice, and not as a Criminal Justice matter where the facts of the case would be paramount.
"It is my opinion that the Black vote in Durham is driven by the Democratic Party machine. I think they are instructed to pull the "straight Democrat" lever so they do it. They trust the party leaders that are telling them what to do."
Party leaders? Like this guy?:
"This goes to show that justice can't be bought by a bunch of rich white boys from New York," said Harris Johnson, a former state Democratic party official and Durham resident for 56 years.
"Duke has a habit of sweeping things under the carpet. I guess this goes to show that no matter how much money you have, Durham is owned by its citizens," he added.
Will they be instructed to pull the “guilty” lever as well?
To the 10.48:
Voter turnout in black precincts (with the exception of the NCCU precinct) was slightly lower than in predominantly white precincts, but there wasn't a major difference.
if i understand your argument in this posting, it seems you have made an error of ecological inference; that is to say, you moved from population-level data (the racial make-up of a precinct) to an assumption about individual behavior. The numbers you present should be examined with a proper statistical model before you can make the conclusions you have made. See G.King, 1997 "A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem."
http://gking.harvard.edu/eicamera/kinroot.html
Dont these blacks know that Duke is the largest employer of them in Durham?
Sadly, it has just been reported that Ed Bradley died today, at age 65. He had leukemia, but still chose to do the interviews with Reade, Collin, David and Kim. What a great guy!
Thank you Ed Bradley, for all you did for Colin, David, and Reade. I will miss you on 60 Minutes.
No matter what state you are in, write your letters to your senators, congressmen and assemblymen, write to the Department of Justice, let your voices be heard by your government that is supposed to protect the Constitutional rights of each citizen. This case goes beyond corruption of its lowest form, it goes beyond politics, the humanity of it has reached out to 80 countries throughout the world all looking at U.S. and wondering why the Federal Government is not stopping this terrorist. Speak out against this injustice. Lets get answers to why the NC Bar is ignoring Nifongs prosecutorial misconduct, why sexual harrassmentis allowed in his office, apparantly Nifong is extorting favors from many people in Durham.
Ed Bradley was a great man, a hero in many people's eyes. God Bless you Ed Bradley.
I really am surprised that the poster made the comment that an indictment was "proof" that a rape was committed and, most likely, by Finnerty, Seligmann, and Evans.
Most people do not understand the modern grand jury process. It no longer stands as a hurdle for prosecutors, as prosecutors generally control grand juries. In North Carolina, it is very, very rare that prosecutors are rebuffed by grand juries. I doubt that Liefong brought in any "experts" other than "police officers," and we already know the reliability of his main investigator at the time, Gottlieb.
So, I suppose the poster says that we should not even have trials, just move directly from indictment to sentencing. Think how many black men have been railroaded by this very process, and for someone to endorse it for racial reasons really smacks either of outright ignorance of how the justice system (sic) really works, or of a desire to do away with any decency and fairness that might be left in this God-forsaken system.
William L. Anderson
No recording of the GJ hearing, only Gottlieb and Himan were witnesses. Exculpatory evidence not required.
Easy to guess what was not presented... nothing about the 2 previous photo ID attempts, or the fact that the physical descriptions didn't match the accused, nothing about the lack of DNA, nothing about the lack of medical evidence, nothing about her changing stories, nothing about Kim's "crock" statement, nothing about Kim being involved in the attack...
NC's GJ system screams for reform.
I'm writing this at 8pm on 11/10/06, nearly 24 hours after the previous comment.
Here and at a number of other threads at Prof. Johnson's blog, folks sometimes write in to say things like, "if the three alleged rapists are as innocent as you claim, they can be proven innocent at trial."
Examples here are at anonymous at 7:41am and anonymous at 10:22am.
At 10:55am, I asked (politely, I hope) for a link to an article that makes a reasonable, supported case:
(1) That a rape, kidnapping, or assault was committed the night of March 13th;
and if so,
(2) That evidence exists that implicates the three accused men in these crimes.
I don't know of such an article. I assume KC Johnson doesn't either, as I suspect he would have linked to it a long time ago. By their silence, anonymous 7:41am and anonymous 10:22am seem to suggest that they, also can't put their finger on such an essay.
The case could fairly be characterized as going to trial in the absence of a single indication that suggests that a felony occured or that the accused men were perpetrators.
Yet some people support D.A. Nifong as he continues exalting his perverse concept of Social Justice, in a parody of the practices and procedures of the Criminal Justice system.
Amazing, and disheartening.
All I can say with regard to Grant Farrad's writing is: Huh?
How do professors who write like that actually teach? Do they just end up spouting incomprehensible gobbledygook to a roomful of sleeping kids?
Jerri
Great article! Thanks.
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Post a Comment