Sunday, December 17, 2006

Sunday Hearing Round-Up

For those curious about how the forensics community reacted to Brian Meehan’s appearance at Friday’s hearing, Kathleen Eckelt at Forensics Talk has the answer. Brent Turvey heads Forensic Solutions LLC and has authored several forensics books and articles; he also has conducted lectures on forensic practices in China, Australia, dozens of state and university conferences in the United States.

Turvey strongly doubted that an innocent explanation existed for Meehan’s conduct, and he demanded an investigation of Meehan’s lab by its certifying agency. He ridiculed Meehan’s claim that the DNA Security director didn’t understand the workings of the “legal arena.” “State prosecutorial agencies, and those in their employ,” Turvey correctly noted, “have a duty to disclose ALL potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense, per Brady v. Maryland. What Dr. Meehan has admitted to, under oath, is that he personally conspired with prosecutors to conceal actual exculpatory findings from the defense. He has further testified that this is a violation of his own lab’s policies - policies that he would have written. There is no good reason for such conduct, and there can be no excuses for such conduct. Moreover, Dr. Meehan has admitted to contaminating suspect samples with his own DNA. In other words, his house is not in order from a scientific perspective.”

Turvey believes that his day in court effectively ended Meehan’s future usefulness to law enforcement. “Dr. Meehan’s conduct in this case has single-handedly demonstrated that privately funded and operated forensic labs are just as easily influenced by zealous prosecutors as their government lab counterparts. And to the question ‘Have you ever willfully conspired with the prosecution to conceal evidence that you to be exculpatory?’ - he must forever answer yes, while under oath in future cases. For many in the forensic science community, this would be a career headshot.”

I first became involved in this case because the actions of the Group of 88 represented an embarrassment to my profession. Turvey responded similarly to Meehan’s behavior. “Those in the forensics field,” he told Eckelt, “don’t appreciate having a profession they take pride in being placed in an unfair light or subjected to scorn and ridicule because a small number choose to forget what professionalism is all about.”


Yesterday’s N&O, under the joint bylines of Joseph Neff, Ben Niolet, and Anne Blythe, offered the best summary of the high points of Meehan’s testimony, while also providing two significant out-of-court items.

The first came from Duke law professor Jim Coleman, Nifong’s most eloquent and influential critic. “I tell you,” said Coleman, “the more you hear about [Nifong’s] missteps, the more you have to question whether it’s purely a matter of incompetence or worse.”

The second came from Nifong himself. In court, in a direct statement to Judge Osmond Smith, Nifong affirmed, “The first I had heard of this particular situation [Meehan’s non-reporting of exculpatory evidence] was when I was served with this particular motion” on Wednesday.

Meehan’s testimony directly contradicted Nifong’s assertion, and the district attorney thereafter backtracked. After the court session, Nifong admitted that he had known about the DNA results, but claimed that he and Meehan simply wanted to protect the privacy of the lacrosse players (or, as Nifong termed them on another occasion, the “hooligans”). Stated Nifong, “We were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud.”

If it took months for this material to come to public light, continued Nifong, the defense was to blame: Meehan’s “report made it clear that all the information was available if they wanted it and they have every word of it.”

On November 1, Creative Loafing’s Tara Servatius noted an “epic legal battle” that most in the media were ignoring—“over basic information about what happened the night of the alleged rape, evidence a 2004 open-file discovery law says the defense has a right to and should have received months ago. At the moment,” she observed, “Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong is making an utter mockery of that law, and a game of legal ‘chicken’ is quietly unfolding in which those in the know hold their breath, waiting to see if someone, anyone, will—or can—rein him in.”

Friday’s hearing made Servatius’ highlighting Nifong’s flouting of the Open Discovery Law appear prophetic.


By this point, we’ve become accustomed to impressive journalism from the N&O. National newspapers, however, have performed poorly. Perhaps fortunately, neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times sent reporters to Friday’s hearing, and instead relied on the AP for coverage. The L.A. Times, however, produced a strong article by David Zucchino.

Critically—given his non-local audience—he provided background:

Black community leaders, backed by some Duke professors, seized on the case as a symbol of enduring white privilege and racism at an elite Southern university. Nifong joined in, publicly condemning the lacrosse players as “a bunch of hooligans” who had victimized a struggling young black woman. He said the alleged rape indicated a “deep racial motivation,” with the players showing “contempt for the victim, based on her race.”

Zucchino obtained commentary from a major law professor, NYU’s Stephen Gillers, who heretofore hadn’t spoken out about the case. Gillers noted that Nifong “seemed to rush to indict” while ignoring offers from defense attorneys to consider exculpatory evidence. “That’s simply incomprehensible,” he said. “They might persuade you and save you a lot of grief.”

Zucchino’s article captured both the tone—desperate—and the content—devastating—of Meehan’s testimony. And he painted a brilliant picture of the reaction between witness and procecutor: “Asked by a defense attorney how lab results clearing all 46 players would violate their privacy, Meehan fumbled for an answer as Nifong sat with his head lowered, staring at documents.”

The New York Times should take notice: national papers can cover the case according to high journalistic standards, provided they’re willing to do so.


The fireworks associated with the Meehan testimony overshadowed three other items of considerable relevance.

1.) Brad Bannon asked Meehan to discuss the concept of “transference.” Meehan feigned ignorance, so Bannon explained how the transference of one or two cells—from, say, intermingling in a trashcan, or through a spec of dandruff—can lead to finding a partial match of someone’s DNA on an item.

The example he cited: Meehan’s own DNA, which was found on one of the items in the rape kit. Meehan conceded that this discovery (which he didn’t include in his initial “report”) undermined his lab’s credibility. And, of course, the theory offers the likely explanation for the partial match to Dave Evans’ DNA, on a fingernail that was in a trashcan in Evans’ bathroom.

2.) Nifong wasn’t the only Durham employee present at the April 10 Burlington meeting, when Meehan stated that while no DNA matches existed to those the D.A. would seek to indict two days later, DNA from multiple males was discovered in the rape kit.

Sgt. Mark Gottlieb attended as well. So Gottlieb as well as Nifong has opened himself up to civil suits under Sections 1983 and 1985 of the U.S. Civil Code.

3.) Finnerty attorney Doug Kingsbery asked only a few questions at the end of Meehan’s testimony, but elicited one significant response. Meehan admitted that in addition to Nifong’s three personal visits to the Burlington lab, he spoke to Nifong an unspecified number of times on the telephone. It’s my understanding that no record of these phone calls previously had existed. Meehan couldn’t say how many times he and Nifong spoke by phone, because his lab—incredibly—keeps no communications logs. He did add that no e-mail correspondence (which would, of course, have been documented) occurred between the two.

Meehan’s admission raises an intriguing question: if Nifong and Meehan felt comfortable discussing case-related matters over the phone, what motivated Nifong to make so many personal journeys to Burlington?


The contrast between the professionalism of the two courtroom tables was striking. The defense table was all business: on two or three occasions, Bannon stopped questioning Meehan to confer with his co-counsel. The binders containing Meehan’s underlying data were spread out on the table, and regularly consulted by Bannon during his examination.

The prosecution table, on the other hand, looked like amateur hour. Nifong sat stonefaced through most of the hearing, occasionally yawning, rubbing his temples, or shuffling a few documents in front of him. He took few, if any, notes, and rarely objected to Bannon’s questioning. Next to him, Inv. B.W. Himan appeared not to move for nearly two hours. Remarkably, the case’s new “lead investigator” took no notes during Meehan’s testimony, and didn’t appear to consult once with Nifong.

To Himan’s left was Nifong’s chief investigator, Linwood Wilson, who arrived late to the hearing. A rotund man, Wilson spent the hearing with his chair pushed back from the table, his legs spread out on the side. Like Himan, he took no notes. Behind this trio sat Nifong citizens’ committee co-chair Victoria Peterson, the woman who previously had explained away the DNA results that Meehan discussed as “tampered with” by Duke University hospital. Though Peterson lacks legal training, she chatted with Nifong before the hearing and during the break. She also ignored court rules by bringing in a bag of Lays’ potato chips and a soda.

Finally, at the side of Nifong’s table was his administrative assistant (and a campaign contributor) Candy Clark. I make no claim to being a fashion expert. But given that Nifong’s prosecution has been attacked as amateurish, did Clark showing up for court in a leopard-spot sweater with matching leopard-spot shoes send the right message?


The head of a private lab admitted to having conspired with the prosecutor not to report exculpatory evidence. What did Herald-Sun readers see as Bob Ashley’s Saturday op-ed? “Double Dose of Good News for Durham,” in which Ashley stated that “for a community that often worries about its image, Durham had a double-barrelled [sic] good week last week.” I’d hate to see what would constitute a bad week for Durham.

John Stevenson, meanwhile, offered his own unique brand of coverage of the Meehan hearing. Meehan, according to Stevenson’s summary, “denied a deliberate cover-up was involved.” Actually, Meehan repeatedly stated that he and Nifong had “agreed” that his report would exclude exculpatory evidence—even as Nifong denounced as a “witch-hunt” defense attempts to obtain the underlying data that exposed this agreement. Most people would consider that record a “cover-up.”

[Update, 8.43am: In the Sunday paper, Stevenson lays out the pro-Nifong spin on the venue change motion, under a headline of "venue change requests are rare." Stevenson notes that the change-of-venue motion cited Nifong's myriad inflammatory statements. "But," he adds, "Nifong soon clammed up, admitting he had made a mistake and saying he would avoid the national media if he could begin the case over again." Apparently the fact that Nifong allegedly admitted "he made a mistake" means that his procedurally improper statements should be ignored.]

For some good background on the dilapidated state of the Herald-Sun, see this article from the National Press Photographers Association. With a cost-cutting approach to journalism, the H-S looks to guarantee copy by reflecting the party line. It has become the Pravda of what Ruth Sheehan has termed the People’s Republic of Durham.


At a press conference after the hearing, attorney Joseph Cheshire praised the support shown for the players targeted by Nifong. At least six current members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team came to the hearing. So did current coach John Danowski. So did one of the genuine heroes of this affair, women’s lacrosse coach Kerstin Kimel—the first Duke employee to publicly defend the character of the men’s team—and her two assistant coaches.

Former coach Mike Pressler and his wife Sue also attended. After the hearing, Pressler said, “It’s all about support. It’s all about being there for them, and that's where we’re going with it.”


This hearing provided the first real opportunity to evaluate the fairness of Judge Osmond Smith. He passed with flying colors.

First, he opened the session by announcing that he had turned over at least some of the accuser’s medical file to the defense. This was the correct decision, of course, but it’s hard to imagine a pro-Nifong judge such as Ronald Stephens making it.

Second, Smith gave the defense sufficient leeway to examine Meehan, a critical point as Meehan wasn’t the most forthcoming witness. This decision, too, proved justified. After Bannon laid the foundation, Jim Cooney extracted from Meehan unequivocal admissions that he and Nifong had intentionally acted not to report exculpatory evidence; and that he had specifically decided to exclude from his report any notation that DNA evidence did not link either Reade Seligmann or Collin Finnerty to any crime.

In a pre-election article in the New York Times, Stephens gushed about Nifong. (The article, reflecting the Times’ biases, never mentioned that Stephens presided over the initial actions in the lacrosse case.) Smith, on the other hand, appears to be loyal to the law, not to either side in the case. That approach is just what this case needs.


Anonymous said...

In the second to last paragraph:

"...and that [Meehan] had specifically decided not to exclude from his report any notation that DNA evidence did not link either Reade Seligmann or Collin Finnerty to any crime."

Should that be "...had specifically decided to exclude..."?

The Drill SGT said...

Would you discuss or expand on three points, I'm curious about?

1. In my experience, when an expert takes the stand, unless both counsel's stipulate to the background and credentials of said expert, there is a period of questioning regarding degrees, experience, prior court appearances, etc. was any of that done with Meehan?

2. Was there any exploration by defense counsel of Meehan's statements that "Nifong was the client". pointing out that the client was the State or the People or the taxpayers of NC and that they were owed an accurate, complete, unbiased report as required by his SOP, the standard setting body, and the state law?

3. You said: Meehan got off to a bad start. Less than 10 questions into a session with Bannon, he challenged a defense assertion that the underlying DNA test results—the results that he and Nifong had mutually agreed would be excluded from his report to the D.A.—showed DNA from multiple men on the material from the accuser’s rape kit.

what was the bone of contention in the first 10 questions?

a. the number was not 5?
b. that the methodology didn't establish that reliably?
c. he wasn't familiar with the contents of the report he'd signed and was here to testify about?
d. something else?

Anonymous said...

"I make no claim to being a fashion expert. But given that Nifong’s prosecution has been attacked as amateurish, did Clark showing up for court in a leopard-spot sweater with matching leopard-spot shoes send the right message?"

Maybe we could get some input from your fellow New Yorkers Stacey London and Clinton Kelly....

Anonymous said...

K.C.: Amother excellent analysis. Would you explain what a recent poster meant by referring to your fellow New Yorkers?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone talked to the U.S. Senators from North Carolina? Are they getting involved in this Nifong hoax case?

Anonymous said...

A Superb analysis. So, thank you.
As for Nifong; it is very simple. : Get his head in a vise and start cranking the handle. There will be some screaming, for a while, but so what.
When we are doing the most righteous work there is, it does not matter how long it takes to finish the job.

Anonymous said...

I wish someone would post a copy of the News and Observer's Change of Venue that the defense compiled.

I am unable to access it from their website.

Anonymous said...

Love your description of the prosecution
table- best yet. The Durham Judicial
Building was constructed around 1971
with sub-standard mafia concrete, and
began falling apart as soon as it opened.

It's always a zoo down there, one of the
best shows in town. Now about that nice
Federal courtroom a few blocks away....

Jeff D said...

Coach Pressler is probably the one man hurt most by these accusations. He's lost a great job, one which he excelled at based on the team's record.

I hope he's able to land on his feet after this case disappears.

Anonymous said...

Look on the left side of the page and click it on. It will take some time for it to load: PDF document. Be patient.

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

Excellent analysis KC. It is quite funny the way you described Nifong's side of the table. I think it is comical that Victoria Peterson brought in the chips and soda. That sounds just like her, their were rules, but she had her own agenda.

Anonymous said...

hcm--I'm using a little imac at home. Don't think it is equipped to download this document, but I don't know why.

JorgXMcKie said...

Saturday Night Live just (about 30 minutes ago) *ripped* the case by having 'Nancy Grace' re-iterate her 'support' for the 'non-rape' victim. It was viciously funny for anyone who knew what was going on.

It went on and on about how hard it was for a 'non-rape' victim to have to make up a story as compared to how a real rape victim has facts to use.

Also, at the end 'Nancy Grace' threatened to 'hunt down' the lax guys 'even though you're not guilty' and rip out their hearts while they watched.

Wonder who they were aiming at.

Anonymous said...

12:56 -- you can get the venue motion at

Anonymous said...

I'm glad to hear your assessment of Judge Smith. I hope you're right because he has alot of power. I have yet to see a decent judge in NC except for the judge who acquitted Dan F. of making too much noise and in doing so suggested that the DA's office make better use of court time.

P.S. Wearing a leopard print sweater and leopard print shoes is definitely a fashion gaffe. You should only wear one animal print piece at a time. You shouldn't wear either to court anyway. It's not appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Meehan's qualifications for courtroom testimony from his website. Yet he plays dumb about the legal arena...

1. DNA Security, Inc. - Forensic Casework, CODIS, Parentage & Family Studies
Published on: 7/9/2006 Last Visited: 7/9/2006

Dr. Brian W. Meehan Laboratory Director Prior to founding DNA Security, Inc., Dr. Meehan served at the Director level of three major corporations in the field of DNA Identity Testing. He developed one of the first integrated laboratory robotics and Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for Chemiluminescent Detection of DNA fragments and PCR technology. At DSI, Dr. Meehan has applied his past experience and expertise to create a state of the art forensic laboratory accredited by ASCLD/LAB. He has qualified as an expert witness for courtroom testimony in six different states/jurisdictions including North Carolina, Michigan, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Pennsylvania.

Anonymous said...

KC - I have not read "impressive journalism" from the N$O. Jeff Neff pieces try to be fair. I am pleased that you felt a rsy of hope with OZ. Obviously Nifong and Peterson think they are SPECIAL and make their own rules of behavior. 11 months into this
and no closer to a trial or even motions being heard.

Anonymous said...

Could you please elaborate on the judge's reaction, if any, to the following:

1) in the case of the determination of the trial date, Nifong's comments in response to one of the defense attorney's need to push back the next court date due to a previously scheduled trial date to the effect that "By the time the people at that table [the defense table] come up with a time when they don't have a conflict, I may no longer be breathing?"

2) Nifong's laughable comment to the judge that he's been trying from the beginning to move this case along; and

3) the discussion concerning the FA's pregnancy and the discussion of paternity tests, including any discussion of the fact that should Nifong need to adjourn the next hearing because she has given birth(contrary to all the reporting on Fox News that her own family had confirmed the birth of this child that's apparently not even due for 2 months yet) he will have one opportunity to postpone producing her to contest the suppression of the ID, after which if he tries to avoid producing her again the ID will simply be thrown out?

Thank you for a great job reporting this.

Anonymous said...

Oops! I spilled my DNA. I dare say if this travesty ever does come to trial I think this expert witness will have to explain as the Lab Director why was he handling the samples?

Sounds more like a garage.

Anonymous said...

Notice the timeline - Feb 5 is the new court date, where Nifong claims he will produce the accuser and put her on the stand. The accuser is due the first week of February. So when it comes time to have another day in court, well, Mike did all he could! But she's a new Mom and couldn't be here...

Anonymous said...

Up to 2100+ words of fresh information. Baffling.

Anonymous said...

Governor Easley should be concerned about the effect this case will have on the economic well-being of North Carolina. He appointed Nifong and continues to remain silent in the face of overwhleming evidence against Nifong.

Anonymous said...

1:10 AM

Download Adobe Acrobat reader - the reader opens pdf documents:
It's free. Opening the document takes several minutes.

Anonymous said...


You Devil! (Pun intended).

Your evidence of massive subversion of justice in this case may be all very well, but your attack on the fashion sense of the leopard spot bearing female prosecution help is going too far!

Anonymous said...

To the poster who asked about New Yorkers Stacey London and Clinton Kelly: they are "fashion experts" who host a cable t.v. show called "What Not to Wear." Doubtless they would have been horrified at Nifong's leopard-spotted assistant, and suggested instead that she choose something tailored in black or navy for her next court appearance.

Anonymous said...

I love how Nifong tries to rationalize away his illegal conduct by claiming that since the underlying (exculpatory) data was "available" to the defense all along, he really wasn't concealing anything. Right, all the defense had to do to get this "available" evidence was go to court, overcome Meehan's objections to producing it (objections undoubtedly scripted by Nifong), and get a court order for its production. Meanwhile, Nifong's screaming to the press the whole time about how the defense is conducting a witch hunt because they want to see the underlying data. What a sorry excuse for a human being this Nifong is. I truly hope the NC Bar is not going to let him get away with all these patently obvious lies. He needs to have his license pulled, and NOW!

Anonymous said...

I am an attorney and first became interested in this case when the initial batch of discovery documents was made public. In reviewing those documents, it was apparent that there was something very, very wrong about this case. Watching the case unfold, I've been astonished at Mr. Nifong's behavior. He has engaged, on multiple occasions, in conduct that should result in the removal of his law license. I just hope that others who are following this case understand that most attorneys are not like Mr. Nifong. The decent people in our profession are disgusted by Mr. Nifong's behavior. Attorneys who act like Mr. Nifong bring disgrace and dishonor to all of us. The North Carolina bar needs to take strong action, and I hope they do it soon.

Anonymous said...

The attorney's points are spot on, and they are seconded by a local prosecutor here (who is my daughter's karate teacher). He and I talk about the case, and he said that at very least Nifong should lose his license.

While the prosecutor would like to see Nifong prosecuted in criminal court, he has his doubts, given the powers of the office, the chumminess of prosecutors across the state with each other, and reluctance of juries to convict these "public servants."

Still, I think it is important that at least some prosecutors not only are jumping from the Bad Ship Nifong, but also want it to sink in shark-infested waters. This would not apply to Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy, both of whom represent the very worst the profession has to offer.

K.C. is not magically spinning scattered bits of information when he says that the Meehan-Nifong agreement possibly was a criminal act. Thousands of people in this country have gone to prison for much less than what was witnessed in the Durham courthouse Friday.

Believe me when I say that there really is a basis for prosecution here. The issue at hand is NOT whether there is a hook for state or federal prosecutors to hang a criminal case, but whether or not they will be willing to pursue such action against a prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

Did Nifong hand over any more "evidence" at the hearing?

Anonymous said...


Thanks for defending Judge Smith's actions. IMO, I think Judge Smith has been a vast improvement for the defense over the Durham duo of Stephens and Titus. I doubt either would have allowed access to the medical records or Friday's questioning of Dr. Meehan.

IMO, I think some people have an unrealistic expectation of how the trial and pre-trial process works. I think some people expect immediate rulings from the bench ala Law & Order when that is rarely the case.

Anonymous said...

Much of the early defense of Nifong rested on two central points--he "believed the victim" and he was a good man taking a difficult case forward. After we learned that he had never talked with the false accuser about the case, his enablers were left with the "good man" argument, that in thirty years, blah blah blah. Has a single person defended this latest debacle. I have heard one local attorney (and theHS) deny that anything was intentionally withheld, even though that was the testimony, but has a single commentator said yes, it is just fine that the lab reports were withheld.

Anonymous said...

I think that Nifong had been counting on Stephens, his former boss and apparently a friend and supporter, to railroad the three young men to a conviction, knowing that almost certainly the misconduct would have resulted in the convictions being over turned.

However, because justice grinds rather slowly in North Carolina, the young men would have served time in prison, and then Nifong could have claimed they were "guilty" but had "gotten off on technicalities." That pretty much was what happened in the Little Rascals case, in which innocent people were railroaded into life sentences, and spent many years in prison before their convictions were overturned.

Nifong hoped for a similar result here, and Stephens would have been the vehicle through which he could have done it. I am not sure why Stephens handed off the case to someone else, but I am glad he did. I can assure you that had Stephens been left in that position, we would not have known about the misconduct of Meehan and Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Judge Smith must be going nuts about now. It's not every day that you receive testimony in open court that your prosecuter conspired to conceal material evidence he was obligated to disclose. While the testimony is from Meehan and not an admission from Nifong--who essentially denied then attemped to minimize the significance of his actions--I would think it sufficiently credible that the Judge must take some action in regard to the prosecuter's conduct. I don't see how the Judge continues the case without some further action regarding this misconduct.

Anonymous said...

K.C.'s mention of Gottlieb reminds me that the man has some explaining to do about that "report" he wrote last summer that clearly is bogus. (The report was then leaked to the NY Times in violation of the law, and we can be sure that it was the prosecution or police -- one and the same, here -- that did the leaking.)

The more I look at what the prosecution and police have done, the more I realize that we really are seeing a criminal case in action. While the prosecution seems to believe that immunity protects everyone, I have my doubts. If a U.S. attorney wishes to make a case, I guarantee you that some serious heat can be put on these people.

Furthermore, because of the nature of federal criminal law, the feds can start near the bottom of the food chain, and work their way up, getting pleas and testimony against people like Nifong and Gottlieb and others.

Now, I doubt the feds will investigate, simply because of the politics of the case. However, if there is a case to be made, it needs to be done soon, as it is very likely that a Democrat president will be elected in 2008, and no Democrat is going to take action against another Democrat, especially in a racially-charged case like this.

Who knows what will happen, but I have seen people go down for much less than what has happened in Durham.

Anonymous said...

K C please think about this. If this investigation had been handled a little more professionally, we would not be at this point. Imagine if a real prosecutor found 5 unknown men's DNA on the AV. Now imagine Mike Nifong finding 5 unknown men's DNA on the AV. If the team had not submitted to the DNA testing early, Mike would be dragging the team up 5 at a time testing them for a match, keeping the Hoax alive forever!! He would have been able to bankrupt all 46 families!! The MSM would still be supporting his efforts too. Frightening.

Mr X

Anonymous said...

Well, I see you got your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat
Yes, I see you got your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat
Well, you must tell me, baby
How your head feels under somethin' like that
Under your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat

Well, you look so pretty in it
Honey, can I jump on it sometime?
Yes, I just wanna see
If it's really that expensive kind
You know it balances on your head
Just like a mattress balances
On a bottle of wine
Your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat

Well, if you wanna see the sun rise
Honey, I know where
We'll go out and see it sometime
We'll both just sit there and stare
Me with my belt
Wrapped around my head
And you just sittin' there
In your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat

Well, I asked the doctor if I could see you
It's bad for your health, he said
Yes, I disobeyed his orders
I came to see you
But I found him there instead
You know, I don't mind him cheatin' on me
But I sure wish he'd take that off his head
Your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat

Well, I see you got a new boyfriend
You know, I never seen him before
Well, I saw him
Makin' love to you
You forgot to close the garage door
You might think he loves you for your money
But I know what he really loves you for
It's your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat

-Robert Zimmerman

Anonymous said...

Per KC in this post:

"...and that he had specifically decided to exclude from his report any notation that DNA evidence did not link either Reade Seligmann or Collin Finnerty to any crime."

OK, so I see the answer to the q's that someone posted on LieStoppers:

"What exculpatory evidence was left out of the DSI report

-the fact that other men's DNA was found ?, or..

-the fact that the DNA didn't match ANY of the DukeLAX players, or...

-the fact that no DNA from Collin, Reade, and Dave was found?"

So, is this the summary report that was presumably shown to or at least mentioned to the GJ?

Does anyone have a copy of that report?

Anonymous said...

KC from what I can make of this Nifong wasn't so cocky on Friday.

I loved your term amateur hour,to me sounds more like (Bitch slapped) to me. Keep up the great work.

Anonymous said...

Great job KC. I have a couple of questions re: investigators.
Since Gottlieb and Hinman attended the two meetings with Meehan, should there be notes regarding the meetings in their investigation notes?
Why did they schedule the next court hearing for the very time the false accuser is due to deliver a baby?
Who is left defending Nifong in the media - Goslee and Grace? Anyone else?
Finally, Bannon must be one hell of a lawyer. When it was reported that Evan's dna could not be excluded from the dna found on the nail in the bath, Nifong supporters jumped on this as the smoking gun. What a great point Bannon made about Meehan's dna (possible just one cell) being found. Proves without a doubt how easy it is to transfer dna. I'll be the false accuser's supporters will now start saying. If there wasn't a rape, there WOULD BE dna. They must have sanitized her.

Anonymous said...

I was going to leave one of my usual quick quips, but this blog/article is too good. Very well written. Very informative.

Anonymous said...

KC! I had a vantage point where I could see that Candy was also "chomping" on gum~very professional. Wonder if we would find it stuck under the table where she sat?

Thank you coming to Durham and continuing your great work. You are gifted and we need you.

Anonymous said...

"Finally, Bannon must be one hell of a lawyer. When it was reported that Evan's dna could not be excluded from the dna found on the nail in the bath, Nifong supporters jumped on this as the smoking gun. What a great point Bannon made about Meehan's dna (possible just one cell) being found. Proves without a doubt how easy it is to transfer dna."

Good point. More, it sounds like Meehan's dna was a 'match;' I don't think I heard anything re: 'partial.'

It begs the question: if a professional with a sterile laboratory found a way to become a DEFINITIVE part of the mix, do we really want to call it 'evidence' when the owner of a garbage can that had some contact with the accuser was a PARTIAL match?

On a side note, how does everyone - KC, included - feel about the accuser? I say this because at this point, considerring how attrocious this whole situation has become from the DA's end, I almost think that she's never really been in a position to fix this thing. It's like "The Bonfire of the Vanities;" this thing got so big, so quickly, that by the time the smoke cleared, she was in too deep to get out.

Please don't view this as a victimizing of this girl; bottom line - she made accusations that will forever taint 3 lives. But at the same time, she's never been spoken to by the DA, the only statements she's ever given were when she was intoxicated, AND, I believe she was on probation at the time. All of these things go to how much of a sham this whole situation is, and I blame Nifong for 100% of it.

Really a corrollary issue, but I can't help but think that if this girl ever had the CHANCE to recant - in a sober state - she likely would have. But Nifong has refused to speak to her, and the ramifications of her saying, "Look, I was worried about a prob. violation, I was on some stuff, etc.," at this point are exponentially greater (in a punitive sense) than they would've been if this was addressed timely.

Anonymous said...

You have to admit these North Carolina hearings are like a circus ... Cold pop here get your peanuts, hot dogs, lays potato chips one dollar.Can we the people vote North Carolina out of the union?

Anonymous said...

One of the talking heads on cable news (the person taking the pro-Nifong position) asked:

"If the defense had as much ammunition as they lead us to believe, then why havent they filed a 'motion to dismiss' with the judge? Maybe there is a lot more to this case".

Any ideas why a 'motion to dismiss' all charges hasn't been filed yet?

Mr. Underhill

Anonymous said...

Anyone see Congr. Jones on Fox? Bet his colleagues wish they would have spoken up....he is looking like a champion for justice...

Anonymous said...

Mr. Underhill 10:52 am

I'm looking for Bagginssssss

Anonymous said...

KC, I find your comparison of the Defense table to the Prosecution table at the hearing to be very amusing. This in light of the previous statement by Nut Nifong that the Defense lawyers might not want to face him in court. I said at the time that there are probably some things in life that Joe Cheshire might be afraid of, but Nut Nifong is not one of them. I liked what Joe said about questioning the false accuser. Like a five year old at Christmas.

One last thing, I bet she doesn't show up for the February hearing.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Underhill:
I believe that, at least at this stage of the game, the only burden that the State has been forced to satisfy to keep this going was Indictment. Sure, there are certain circumstances that the Defense could move the Court to dismiss in other matters, but Probable Cause was somehow established for the Grand Jury to true bill this thing.

Also, in NC, Grand Jury minutes typically aren't kept. This is odd, as even at the Magistrate level (for misdemeanors), written findings of fact are supposed to be present when finding Probable Cause. Not for the felonies, which is ironic, considerring that these are the charges that change lives.

If the photo ID is kept out, in addition to the accuser's foreseen in court identification, the Defense then would likely have a ground to move based on the element of Identification.

And if anyone needed an indication as to how the Grand Jury works in NC, the officers involved don't even have to show. In fact, it's common practice for one officer to give another his notes, have him report to the Grand Jury, and allow it to be rubber stamped.

Anonymous said...

The FA stated she had no sex one week prior to the party. Multiple dna was found on her panties so the day of the party she was very busy or she doesn't change her underwear.Just thinking about that makes me want to take a shower.

Unknown said...

My main question is this: What is the North Carolina Governor doing? In Florida the Governor would have stepped in long ago to put an end to fiasco. And probably would have had the state invesigative agency investigating both the police and State Attorney. To put a stop to the national political damage if nothing else

Anonymous said...

Bill in Brooklyn after watching the SNL skit notes:

It was funny and also kind of sad. But folks, this is wonderful. For SNL to do this kind of skit, shows that it is all all over. It is now accepted beyond those of us that have been following this case horrified, that there is no case and that LAX 3 are innocent.

Nifong has become a national joke and that is a good thing. But what also needs to happen is for the entire Duke administration and the Group of 88 to be jokes. Because their actions and continued non-action is despicable. They failed the courage test and now they fail the awareness test. The SNL skit demonstrates that from a PR basis they are behind the curve and are way behind on damage control.

Anonymous said...

I am sure Nifong talked to the accuser. He told her how it was going to be. She should be held as accountable for this travesty as Nifong. Basically he has been holding her hostage, to get this to trial. He knows if she gets in the press she will slip up and make mistakes, accidently tell the truth. Her family didn't even know she was expecting. Since she hasn't been dancing for a few months, who is supporting her, who are her "handelers" as cousing Jackiee stated in her interview with Greta. Why does her family have to go through Nifong to speak to her? Where does he have her hiding? What hold does he have over her....I know...He told her if I go down, I'm taking you with me so you better stick to your lie... or I'll take your kids and put you in jail. I bet he is even supplying her with her favorite drug of choice to keep her silent. Do the good people of NC know they are supporting this false accuser. Do they know who is paying for her pre-natal care.. they are. It must be standard practice for all DA's in NC to support the accusers, pay for their bills, and extra expenses, take the time to contact them regularly to see how they are doing. NC taxes must be high for the state to support all those accusers.

Gottleib, Haim and Nifong lied to the grand jury. There has to be repercussions for that.

Anonymous said...

"Also, in NC, Grand Jury minutes typically aren't kept."

Judge Stephens was there! Is there some process whereby he can be questioned as to what was presented?

Anonymous said...

KC's report of the Victoria Peterson shenanigans was a comical sidebar.

That woman is just a fruitcake.

Here's an interesting tidbit: In years past when she tried to run for office in Durham, she made it very clear that she was a bigot and an ultra-homophobe by her open comments.

This goofy bigot and her shabby entourage now would attempt to slander the lacrosse players with lies.......while discussing the alleged homophobia of Collin Finnerty--whose Washington, DC case was a sham leveled against him by a little disgruntled man outside a Georgetown bar.

More silliness resulting in false charges as less than honest people move to get revenge.

For some of these "activists" in Durham to slam the Duke athletes is an assualt on decency and reason.....given their own record as adults.

If this joke of a trial does proceed and is not dismissed as it should be, there must be a change of venue.

Durham is a bigoted and intellectually bankrupt cancer on society.

Also, the judge should have kicked Victoria Peterson out on her big broad azz for bringing food or drink inside the courtroom. Don't know why he didn't.


Anonymous said...

re 10:42's comment about the accuser not having a chance to recant: can everyone following this case please agree to stop saying Nifong never talked to her about the case?

Nifong claims he never talked to her, and the public outrage generated by that "admission" is appropriate. but its irresponsible to mitigate the blame the accuser deserves because you're taking Nifong's absurd claim at his word. of course he freakin' talked to her about the facts of the case. Nifong met with the accuser on 4/11 - on 4/10 Nifong and Gottlieb drove to DNA Security and got the results of the testing (which showed five other dudes in every orifice on her).

Nifong's claim that he never talked to her about the facts of the case is pure damage control, likely to minimize (at the time) the odds of disbarment or civil liability. and on that note, look at the one topic he admits to talking to her about -- he asked her whether she took ecstasy, and that's it. What the ???

remember, Nifong only "remembered" that conversation because he slipped up in a motion and said the accuser told him she wasn't on ecstasy (liars got to have good memories, buddy), and the defense called him out on his claim to have never talked about the case with.

Anonymous said...

To Mr. Underhill:

The "talking head" is not someone you would want representing you if you needed a good lawyer (or a lawyer at all). The defense must have a "hook" by which to call for a dismissal of charges, and that "hook" would consist of the following two things:

1. The illegal ID process by which CGM named her alleged assailants;
2. The collusion between Nifong and Meehan to exclude exculpatory evidence.

One might also add the refusal of Nifong to meet with Kirk Osborn to let him show that Reade Seligmann was not at the party when the alleged "rape" occurred, although that would be a secondary issue and not strong enough on its own for dismissal of charges.

However, when one adds the refusal of the DA to consider ANY exculpatory evidence, and the fact that he tried to hide evidence favorable to the defense, we begin to see a serious pattern.

While all readers of this blog know that I have been pessimistic about this whole thing, I will go out on a limb and predict that all the charges will be dropped.

First, the strength of the defense's evidence -- and the fact that Nifong would not even look at it before seeking indictments -- tells the court that the DA was trying to get an indictment -- any indictment -- for the wrong purposes.

Second, the prosecution's collusion with Meehan to hide evidence presents us with the real possibility of criminal behavior by the prosecution. As K.C. has pointed out elsewhere, in most cases we find such criminal behavior AFTER the trial and conviction. In this situation, however, we are seeing it even before the case goes to trial.

I do not think that a judge (except for a hack like Stephens) is going to want to have a trial knowing that the press and everyone else is going to be examining possible criminal behavior by the prosecution. It so undercuts Nifong's case as to be the kind of distraction that no self-respecting judge would want.

I believe that Judge Smith is going to be looking for a way to end this farce and not let it go to trial. Now, I have been wrong before, but I think I understand the law well enough to believe that this case truly is toast.

Again, keep in mind that the defense is the enity with the guns AND the ammunition. Nifong ran out of blanks a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

"Judge Stephens was there! Is there some process whereby he can be questioned as to what was presented?"

The scope of what the Grand Jury heard was that a woman acting traumatized accused 3 men of raping her, and that she identified the 3 who attacked her. That's it. That's all necessary to establish Probable Cause.

I agree: it's ridiculous and it's frustrating. But the Grand Jury didn't hear about whether a line-up was tainted, whether there were issues re: discovery, and whether the DA was a criminal. And at this point, IN THEORY, these things haven't been established.

The notion of the Grand Jury is riddled with delusions of grandeur; in reality, that same Grand Jury likely heard facts on 30 other cases THAT DAY. Dollars to donuts, it rubber stamped every one of them, too...

Anonymous said...

This may be off topic but I would like to ask John Edwards why we would elect a person from North Carolina as our President?

Anonymous said...

Gov. Easley is missing in action and apparently has decided to not run for future office, having thrown away his chances. Easley appointed Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Re: anonymous at 11:38

I agree that she must be held accountable, and I knew my comment would come off as somehow lessening her culpability. I don't want to do that.

At the same time, as someone who in his youth probably told some drunken lies to stay out of trouble, I can't help but think that if anyone let this girl catch her breath for a couple days, we wouldn't be where we are.

Instead, she runs her mouth in a desperate attempt to avoid her probation being violated, etc. while she's plasterred and whoring, and the next thing she knows, Nifong's got her on his campaign posters...

She will need to be punished criminally; not to judge, but from what the media's had to say, she'll be judgment-proof on the civil side. Hopefully her statements were sworn, a State attorney will pop her for perjury, her probationary sentence will be activated on whatever she was convicted of before, and whatever other punishment the State sees fit is imposed.

But as is the case with most onlookers, I'm most sickenned by this District Attorney. He's not judgment proof, nor is the State and County, and they'll all have to pay the piper. And as to Nifong's criminal culpability, it remains to be seen. I used to be cynical that the system would have the balls to jump on a guy in this position, but every day, it seems more likely, and I'll be thrilled if it does...

Anonymous said...

Two comments:

First, racism is racism. It doesn't matter if it is white on black or black on white. Most would agree that blacks have been victims of racism far longer than whites. Having said that, it's disappointing to observe blacks now participating in racism against whites, especially with regard to this case. Doesn't that somehow cheapen the many years of blacks complaining about racism?

Second, about this case, here's a list from MOST offensive to least offensive:
1. Mike Nifong - there are so many examples where he has abused his power. Improper photo line up, withholding of exculpatory evidence, refusing to view exculpatory evidence, placing politics in front of justice, profanity/cursing, etc.
2. Anyone having first hand knowledge that Mike Nifong is doing something terribly wrong, yet remain silent about it. That might include assistant DAs, Durham PD, etc.
3. NC Bar, David Price, NC Senators, Mike Easley, US DOJ - What additional evidence could you possibly be waiting for? When will you wake up and say "this is bad enough, the time to act is NOW"? The longer you wait, the more you demonstrate that you are willing to tolerate the intolerable.
4. The false accuser - she surely must know that she has put her individual gain (staying out of jail and perhaps $$$) in front of the truth. But maybe not, for if she truly has bipolar disorder, perhaps she can not tell the difference between right and wrong? Cleary, this woman needs help. But, not the kind of "help" she is getting from Mike Nifong, for he is using her in the worst kind of way.
5. Some Duke faculty - Who the hell do you think you are trumping "innocent until proven guilty"? Get off your pathetic self appointed bully pulpit and do your job (teaching).
6. Playahs - It doesn't matter if you are a party boy Duke LAX player, basketball, football, or any other sport or if you even play sports. It doesn't matter what college you go to. It doesn't matter if you don't go to college. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, brown, or yellow. What matters at the end of the day is right and wrong and being mature enough to know the difference, and mature enough to choose right over wrong (and correcting the situation when you didn't choose right). Anything less, just makes you a PUNK!!!

Each in the above list are disgusting, only in different ways and differing magnitude. Sleep tight!

Anonymous said...

Fox News is saying they have or are going to interview Gonzales about Duke/Nifong. Didn't catch timing.

Anonymous said...

To 11:44--

John Edwards thinks he should be elected president because his "daddy was a millworker".....

....and that's all you need to know!

BTW, I saw his wife at the market a few weeks ago and wow, that woman is so strange looking--(very overweight, out of shape, and goes around dressed like she cares nothing about how she looks).

Very commendable on a certain level that she thinks her looks don't matter; however, when you have a little husband who is trying to run for president, her standards will have to be elevated somewhat for public consumption.

The make-up artists and wardrobe people who work on her for her occasional TV appearances should be commended.....because she usually looks ok......but lighting and the fact that she is always sitting down for an interview conceals the fact that this woman is really out of it.

But liberals are into the malformed Birkenstock look, I suppose.

And don't forget......Edwards "daddy was a millworker!"



Anonymous said...

11:38 said:

"[C]an everyone following this case please agree to stop saying Nifong never talked to her about the case?

"Nifong claims he never talked to her, and the public outrage generated by that "admission" is appropriate. but its irresponsible to mitigate the blame the accuser deserves because you're taking Nifong's absurd claim at his word. of course he freakin' talked to her about the facts of the case."

Nifong has sworn in open court that he didn't ask the accuser any substantive questions on April 11.

Think it through! Which is worse for Nifong? He lied to the court? Or he didn't?

Given what he learned about the DNA evidence on April 10, under what circumstances would he NOT question her the next day? Is there a pretty answer to that question?

If Nifong ask questions on April 11, then he was still proceeding in good faith. If he didn't ask questions, he knew it was a hoax and had decided to indict anyway for political reasons. He says he didn't ask. I believe him.

The clock was ticking. He needed indictments at the April 17 grand jury meeting if he was going to affect the election.

Anonymous said...

to BA 9:44:

Great observation, but I'm not as optimistic about what transpired in court.

I think the judge will find some way around the lineup, issue--most likely letting the defense addrecc it at trial.

The limited access to Precious' medical records spells trouble.

The change of venue means nothing : black jurors in Alaska think the same as Durham blacks.

Sad to say, but Nifong may come out of this a winner.

I hope not.


Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson and KC - I would love to hear your opinions concerning what is happening with the decline of newspapers and blog reporting. Are we witnessings a revoulation? Thank again for all your help.

Anonymous said...

Go to the Liestoppers discussion board and read A Cold-Blooded Frame. This is definitely a criminal case and Nifong, among others, should be prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

To Bill Anderson

I also think Liefong will eventually request the charges be dropped before trial. How do you feel this will effect the State Bar and Feds decision in prosecuting him for misconduct. Do you think they will simply say its over, forget about it. Remember Lifong has already indicted another person, in strange fashion, on quadruple murder charges and stated he will be seeking the death penalty. He has lied so much in this case how on earth could he be trusted in trying a potential death penalty case?

AMac said...

Re: anon 12:47pm --
Link to "A Cold-Blooded Frame" at the Liestoppers Discussion Board.

Anonymous said...

to 12:27 PM, i'm agreeing with you, but that wasn't the point of my post. i think Nifong is screwed (via the bar or civil liability) whether he admits he talked to her or not.

my point is that everyone needs to stop treating his claim as if its actually true. especially if, as the commenter i responded to suggested, you're going to use that statement to mitigate the accuser's failure to recant.

Anonymous said...

Gonzales, interviewed on Fox, confirmed that he got letter, and was looking into it. He said he was not in a position to comment. He did confirm that if civil rights were violated, feds have jurisdiction.

Don't know how much to read into a few sound bites.

Anonymous said...

I am not quite sure why the NC ethics panel is held in much regard here. That is even though they are waiting for a conclusion of the case (which they should not) there seems to be a good deal of faith that Nifong will be disbarred. That could occur but is not likely given past decisions of the board. Actually the most egregious case of prosecutorial misconduct that was heard not long ago was struck down TWICE by the appeals panel after a finding against the prosecutor by the actual panel.

The case involved a man sent to death row and two prosecutors that covered up exculpatory evidence (that the man who was killed was actually alive at the time the defendent could have killed him).

One of the prosecutors remains a judge.

In NC our professional self-regulatory boards that have a legislative mandate are fairly weak. There is the case of the surgeon who was blind in one eye and color blind in the other whose 'punishment' was revoking his right to practice medicine. Several people did die and the medical profession took the 'threat' posed by the publicity seriously (N&O ran many articles on other doctors who either received a 'slap on the wrist' or who submitted false paperwork to obtain a NC license).

And yes a physician friend views the board as offering a 'slap on the wrist' to offenders (decisions are available quarterly and range from sleeping with a patient to prescription fraud to operating while impaired etc).

Anonymous said...

feds should handle this: collin, dave and reade's rights were violated

a mere durham acquittal or dismissal almost means nothing, knowing the extent of the misconduct

Duke Aunt

Anonymous said...

"i think Nifong is screwed (via the bar or civil liability) whether he admits he talked to her or not. "

Bad prosecutors are generally protected by the establishment...I do not see a real prospect of a civil judgement against him unless the Feds open an investigation and find that he acted illegally/denied them their civil rights. That would be my second point - the public tends to put far too much faith in prosecutors (and police). In a civil trial you only need a few jurors that are inclined to support a prosecutor, bad or not, to 'vindicate' Nifong.

Note: I think Nifong is a miserable excuse for a human being. He has permanently damaged the reputations of the three players in that they will have to explain on job applications (or other things that require background checks etc) that they were arrested for rape but the charges were dismissed etc. A prospective employer would not have the time to review the Duke case and make an informed judgment - and as a result would likely not wish to have an employee that had been charged with a sexual offense (legal liability in the future).

Of course there is also the 80k/month legal bill for each of the three. Nifong is probably consoling himself that they will be in debt - although I would imagine they will be able to get 'help' after a dismissal etc from the public (Duke alums that contribute to their defense fund instead of Duke...)

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson,

As an historian, what do you think of the fact that Crystal Gail Mangum may go unpunished?

Does society let scum like this get away with evil because of gender?

Would appreciate feedback from those knowledgable.

Duke Aunt (and sister-in-law)

Anonymous said...


I wish that you would explore the future challenges that the three will face such as finding a job (employers may not be interested in why a charge was dismissed just that it was brought), being a scoutmaster, church leader, etc. They have some serious reputational damage and it would be nice to 'hear' about people who have had similar 'things' happen to them and how their life unfolded after dismissal/aquittal.

Anonymous said...

the charges will be sealed--don't think they'll have to divulge anything

on the upside, these guys are celebs: i'd hire them out of spite for the likes of nifungus

Anonymous said...

"As an historian, what do you think of the fact that Crystal Gail Mangum may go unpunished?

Does society let scum like this get away with evil because of gender?"

I think society will let her go unpunished not because of gender but because there is a belief that such prosecutions lead 'real' sexual assault victims from filing charges, etc. If you happen to subscribe to that viewpoint then you would view the damage done by a prosecution as more 'costly' than the benefits (conviction, a real exoneration for the three players, etc).

I suppose you need a 'standard' that you must reach before a prosecution is launched as well to prevent uncertainty (eg for an accuser and a prosecutor abusing his/her authority...). That would require legislation that is quite clear on that matter.

There is also a major issue to resolve in this case: Nifong. Magnum may have filed a false report but in this case Nifong is 'running' with it all the way. As such future prosecutors may not be willing to expose the 'bad acts' of both Nifong and the police force as well as inaction by various local, state, and federal agencies etc.

I don't see charges in the future. It is unfortunate but at the same time hopefully potential jurors have become willing to question an accuser's charges rather than blindly accepting them.

In the early months of this case the attitude of the public and the 'talking heads' aligned with the prosecutors appeared to be that you must 'trust the accuser' in that if a rape is said to occur it happened. Denying that imperils all women. (essentially what was happening on cable)

Anonymous said...

Loved reading your comment. This case will, I believe, assume historic significance, and the NC Bar and DOJ cannot allow to slip this opportunity to highlight for the country, and especially its prosecutors, Mr. Nifong's stunning transgressions. The country and LE badly need reminding of their civic, ethical, and constitutional obligations. I am very sorry Mr. Nifong has chosen to take all of us, especially the defendants, on this strange journey, but we all have an obligation to ensure that our citizens understand this journey IS strange and very probably criminal. It is an extremely important moment of moral definition for the country, and if the Bar and the DOJ do not know it yet, I believe they will soon. Surely, KC is correct that this case will catalyse major reform for NC criminal procedure.
I would love to hear more views on whether the behaviour of President Brodhead and the Group of 88 would be expected on other specified campuses. I am hearing from a lot of sources that PC thinking has eclipsed reason and facts at almost all selective schools.


Anonymous said...

great argument 1:33, but I would argue that the matter of dissuading true victims is beside the point, mutually exclusive if you will

yes, nifong is to blame--but without the undeclass Mangum's vicious accusation, Nifong would never have been involved

Agree, the legislature has to pass legislation that punishes the Mangums of the world

IMO, there is probable cause for the prostitute's arrest for filing a false police report


Anonymous said...

As a new mother with the support of the AA community, I think she skates.

However, when the AA community turns on Nifong (she was used by him, he held her hostage such that she couldn't see her family, etc), hello feds and bye-bye Nifong. Her dad seems to already be heading in the anti-Nifong direction and its just a matter of time before the AA community follows.

Anonymous said...

Observer keeps filing the best observations, eg, "Important moment of moral definition."

I think he was pointing to center field at Yankee Stadium when he wrote that. In other words, there is a lot more to this case than the players.

Is O British (eg, "analySe" and "behavioUr)?

re Brodhead and 88: not in academia, so I can't answer that. But I do correspond with the chancellor of Vanderbilt, Gordon Gee, and he's giddy over his Houston Baker acquisition (at least publicly giddy--lol)

Your underlying message re them is crucial: there should be professional ethics at universities.



Anonymous said...


All excellent points. This case will certainly go down as an historic one when all is said and done.

IMO though, all of us at every opportunity should type, utter, and otherwise use the name of this vicious and totally immoral accuser. Out in the open for all to remember.

Her name should be dragged through the mud. This case is not the normal one. Too much evidence----certainty-----that the Duke 3 are innocent.

I believe the women of this country can withstand the slight possibility that other women might not come forward in the future.

The way the media work, and the way the PC crowd frames everything these days, no way women will suffer in the future if justice---in whatever form available---is doled out to CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM for what she has done to so many.

Then proceed to jail Mike Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mike Nifong,

I was wondering if you would consider writing a book for my publishing company. I suggest titling it, "I'm Gonna Get Those Damn Lacrosse Players, Especially That Vicious Gay-Basher Irishman, Collin Finnerty."

Chapter 1: Mike Nifong, legal genius and protector of the underclass (especially preceding elections)

Chapter 2: I Loves Persecutin' Privileged Lacrosse Players

Ch. 3: What's DNA (between friends)?

4. Love Dat Meehan (is he a "hooligan)?

5. Say what? My adorable Precious a whore? Or: "The sleazy victim problem"

6. When to change your phone #: Eluding the Feds with your dignity intact

7. there is no ch 7: Mike Nifong fled the Us

bye-bye, Mikey


Anonymous said...

Disbarring Nifong is not enough.

If simply disbarred, the 'good people of Durham' will likely elect him to the US Congress and he'll end up appointed to the Judiciary Committee.

Of course, he would then bunk up in a Georgetown condo with Reps. Hastings (FL) and Jefferson (LA).

No - this schmuck belongs in jail !

Anonymous said...

Someone in the know about Durham trivia might be able to answer this question.

Isn't Mikey Nifong's flea-bitten wife CY (which is her attempt to make just plain old Cynthia seem trendy I guess) a member of the Elkin family who own a big car dealership in downtown Durham?

Boy, Mikey likes those used car salesmen, I bet.

Mikey operates like one his own self!


Anonymous said...

Hell, old Slick Wille Clinton was disbarred.

Don't mean nothin' among skanks and criminals.

Mikey be goin' to the slammer!

Anonymous said...

In regards to the question asked by 12:43, I refer readers to a piece I wrote last August on this very subject:


Now, the piece is a bit dated, as K.C. had not yet created Durham-in-Wonderland, but the gist of the story is correct. Also, I make a point that we are dealing with institutional issues.

A clear case involves the New York Times, which has elected to stick with the government sources to the very end. For example, the paper made a big deal out of Gottlieb's leaked report last summer, a document that the Times obtained because someone (probably Nifong, but maybe someone in the police) broke the law.

I have a piece co-authored with Jacquellyne McClellan in the November 2006 issue of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology in which we examine the connection between government agents and the mainstream press, the "Statist Quo." I also wrote a large portion of my doctoral dissertation, completed in 1999, on the subject of the press and government.

The article I have linked also has a link to a speech I gave on the subject last March. I have not watched it myself, as I stupidly put my notes in 12-point type, and then could not read them when I was on the podium. Thus, I had to go by the seat of my pants. So, if the speech is awful, blame it on the fact that my reading glasses were too weak!

I must admit that when I wrote my dissertation, I did not recognize the potential power of the blogs. At the time, there were only a few websites that could replace the MSM, especially in coverage of one story.

The Internet coverage of the Duke case has been unprecedented, in my book, and it does demonstrate the power of the blogs. As I write in my story, I do not think that we would be in the position of seeing Nifong thoroughly exposed as a liar had it not been for K.C., Johnsville News, Liestoppers and Crystalmess.

For example, no MSM reporter even thought to examine Nifong's contribution or the $30,000 he loaned to his campaign. No MSM reporter would have thought to deal with the Gang of 88's statement and follow-up as has K.C. done.

Anyway, I realize this post is too long. Read my article and let me know what you think.

Anonymous said...

Dear JC,

Thank you for your polite but poorly written inquiry (u hv no idea what a burden it is to be smarter and more moral than average people like yourself)

I really liked "Sin City": did you see it? I see myself as the Mickey Rourke character Marv, avenging all the women on the planet that have been victimized by men.

To be honest, I'm really a latter-day civil rights leader, akin to Mussolini.

Could we get Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller to direct it? I guess I'll have to bulk up and lose my disgusting gut (I can't even see my small penis in the shower)

Titles are difficult.

How about "The Convenient Genius"?

Yours sincerely,

Mikey Nifong

Anonymous said...


You're a real nut!

Albeit a very humorous one.



Anonymous said...

My money says Liefong turns on CGM aka Precious before this is all over. Saying it was her lies that led him to do what he has done. When in fact, I hope its proven that she wanted to drop the accusations she initially made and Liefong would not let her, threatening her with being arrested for filing false police report,prostitution and who knows what else.

Anonymous said...

Change of Venue, no way. I can't believe that you could not find an impartial jury in Durham. The where the crimes took place so we in Durham should be deciding guilt or innocence.

Anonymous said...

Now Now Clyde

Anonymous said...


No way? Your way or the highway? You potbangers must be getting worried. By the way, do you really think the streetwalker is going to show up on Feb 5th for the ID hearing? My guess is.. no way!

Anonymous said...

Just FYI: Here's the SNL video. Pretty funny...

Anonymous said...

I think the SNL video is the beginning of the end of this case. Nifong and company now know they are national laughing stock.

One thing I've missed, though I'm sure it's been reported. How did the Defense know about the DNA results, when Nifong and Mehan were supressing them? I know there was something they got from Nifong's office that lead to the facts, but I haven't hear what it was. Did a sympathetic employee slip it in? Or was it a mistake? Or was Nifong trying to include it but hope it wasn't noticed in the piles of paper?

Anonymous said...

5:16p.m. go back and remember that on a Friday afternoon at 5 O'clock the defense was sent the first round of DNA that said NO match, by fax.

Nifong did this in order to be able to get out of his office. He didn't realize that Mr. Cheshire would call the press that evening and foxnews broke in and showed the entire press conference. Wade Smisth was sitting on Mr. Cheshire's right and three other attorney's stand behind both of them.

Nifong needed that time to get out of his office, to go and hide, and find a way to frame three innocent young men named Collin, David and Reade.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about my spelling typing way to fast

Anonymous said...


The last. It was yet another round of discovery, which up to and including this event was an exercise in duplicity. However, buried at the bottom was this corrollary, unimportant information...

Anonymous said...

Re: "You potbangers must be getting worried."

Isn't it about time someone put together a "wanted poster" with pics of the pot bangers and Group-of-88 on it. Let them see what pre-justice feels like; albeit, unlike the lacrosse players, in this case the pot bangers aren't being judged *before* the facts...

Anonymous said...

Holding someone against their will is kidnapping, so the rape charge is the worse, remember all that the Judge could throw our the rape charges and continue the case with the other 2. Which require no DNA. Why so hot on the DNA, for kidnapping.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

My question to Gottlieb.. Why didnt you investigate when you found out that the FA was infested with DNA ? Did you think that it might lead you to the true rapists? We know you know, please dont hide behind the blue wall of silence.

Anonymous said...

here,here Clyde

Anonymous said...

In regards to the article Bill refers to at 2:53PM = great read. Appreciate you answering my question.

Anonymous said...


There's no more evidence for kidnapping & assault than there is for rape (none, iow). If it goes to trial, the jury in the new venue will see that easily.

Anonymous said...


Re Item #6 under your Second Point:

Speaking as a one-time college student and the mother of two successful professional school grads, I find your preaching a bit over-the-top.

Anyone who denies widespread underage drinking at the college level is a fool. Most of us did it and managed to go on to fruitful and rewarding lives without having to join AA. It has been around since the inception of advanced education and will remain despite the sniffs of some. I am unable to condemn any member of the Lacrosse Team for engaging in "normal" behavior.

To my knowledge stripping is not illegal in the state of North Carolina. If the Lacrosse Team was engaged in a legal business transaction, is your judgmental attitude based in religious beliefs, a puritanical bent, or a general intolerance for viewpoints differing from your own?

An important developmental aspect of being young is to attempt what is considered out-of-bounds. I would have had great concerns had my two children gone through their college years sticking to the straight and narrow road. It would have denoted a fear of life to me.

Anonymous said...

The only evidence of a kidnapping would be the testimony of Precious, a known liar.

Anonymous said...

You know, hindsight is 20/20. Everyone should have known that this case was bogus when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson failed to show up to bang their own pots and pans.

My hunch is that they got word from the black leadership that this was crap. Durham's black leadership advised Sharpton (already tarnished in the eyes of many of Tawana Brawley) and Jackson not to sully their hands with this. The local chapter of the NAACP would push this as far as it could go.

And here we are. The claims have all but been proven false. Note that its the rare case that you can prove a negative, but I think its been proven that no rape occured. But on a higher level, the "civil rights" groups and their supporters at duke (eg the administration and the group of 88) have shown their colors and their agenda.

The agenda is power. They want to seize power and use it to abuse white people for past wrongs or simply because they can. This is the real story and the one that all white people (and probably other non-victim minority groups such as asians and jews) should pay close attention to. This is truely frieghtening.


Anonymous said...

How can anyone say Precious is a liar. She is a Navy veteran, a caring mother of 2 and an honor student. She is barely eking out a living and you just want to label her a liar. Didn't anyone here Jakki, her cousin, say she believes her.

Anonymous said...

Now Now Clyde you are repeating yourself

Anonymous said...

The Durham chapter of the NAACP,
is distinct from the State chapter, also conveniently now located in Durham.

Anonymous said...

Liefong probe possible according to US Attorney General! He is toast.

Anonymous said...

NC State Bar would be wise to reprimand and disbar Nifong before the Fed's bring charges, just to save face. Former NC senator and 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards are you paying attenton, afterall Nifong is a product of your own law school.

Anonymous said...

Will the fool Nifong have to give up his personalised number plate-DA 14 ?????????

I cannot understand why he would now want to draw attention to himself around North Carolina?

Maybe they could attach it to his cell door?

Anonymous said...

Dear 6.49 theman

Where did you get the Ba*** to say that ????

Anonymous said...

Dear Cedarford,
When have you ever posted anything newsworthy that would merit notoriety? Anonymous is more popular than Cedarford, as I prefer reading lawyers and other educated opines who choose to post and use anonymous option.

Anonymous said...

8:35p.m. I was the one who posted about the man being a troll. I didn't want to use my name because he and I have gotten into it before on another board.

Anonymous said...

Whither the New York Times and the Washington Post on the Duke Lacrosse Scandal? NYT is now leaving it to the AP. The WP has issued a single, hollow article on page 20. A US Congressman has formally complained to the Department of Justice about possible civil rights violations against the defendants, but this is not newsworthy to the NYT or the WP because the potential victims are white. Just as the Durham DA has apparently engaged in the willful suppression of exculpatory evidence, the NYT specifically is now suppressing these same new findings revealed at the 16 December hearing because they flatly contradict the NYT's well-spun FRONT PAGE version of the truth in its earlier stories. The hypocrisy of the agenda of the NYT and WP is lost on no one, but apparently tolerated by much of their readership. They used this story when it worked to their benefit, i.e., to engage in the kind of race-gender-class baiting that sells papers and passes for journalism in their copy. You nailed it JC.

Anonymous said...

VIM don't apologize to Cedaford. Seems he (or she) can't recognize bullshit from facts

Anonymous said...

To 6:24

"To my knowledge stripping is not illegal in the state of North Carolina. If the Lacrosse Team was engaged in a legal business transaction, is your judgmental attitude based in religious beliefs, a puritanical bent, or a general intolerance for viewpoints differing from your own?"

I have no idea what went on that night at 610 Buchanon, but feel fairly confident that rape wasn't on the list of what happened. If there was rape as alledged(no condoms and ejaculation), there would have to be fresh DNA. The other two charges, I don't see how they could stick. Beyond that, who knows what happened. You don't what happened either, unless you were there that night.

To answer your question, my judgement isn't based on any of the things you included, for your list isn't all inclusive. Specifically, my judgment isn't based on: religious beliefs, a puritanical bent, or a general intolerance for viewpoints differing from my own. Let's just say that my judgement is based on being a parent who wants the best for her/his children. I hope we have at least that much in common.

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned righting a wrong. If someone has the maturity to right a wrong, they aren't a punk. We all make mistakes, what we do about them speaks volumes about our character.

Anonymous said...

No one needs lectures from "Cedarford."

Anonymous said...


baby, ub mah heeroooo!

it b Pressioouuussss, honnnney

u can cum in my faaassseee

it b $10

Anonymous said...

Nifong is a great DA and I think it would serve Durham well to keep him there, not dismiss him. I am sure the Governor of NC would agree with this.

DaveO said...

I think it's the *women* in this country who should be the most angry at Crystal Gail Mangum. If they're raped(for real) in the future, people are much less likely to believe them. They'll say "ohh it's just another Crystal Gail Mangum thing all over again."

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...


For sure this trial will be moved, no doubt about it. Either Greensboro or Fayetteville, I would guess. I would prefer Greensboro, myself. How about you?

Anonymous said...

daveo: you are right CGM has killed the system for us true victim's. I work with other girls of all races and now they will not come forward. They rather live in silence and shame.

Anonymous said...

How can anyone still say "I dont know what happened " when the evidence has been out there for months. Even us non lawyers understand what discovery is now. We do know what happened with pictures no less.

Anonymous said...

Durham deserves Mike Nifong. Most of us do not live in NC let alone Durham. I do not anticipate ever going to NC or Durham even though my sister lives in NC. She will have to suffer and come to Vegas.

Anonymous said...

[At least six current members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team came to the hearing. So did current coach John Danowski. So did one of the genuine heroes of this affair, women’s lacrosse coach Kerstin Kimel—the first Duke employee to publicly defend the character of the men’s team—and her two assistant coaches.

Former coach Mike Pressler and his wife Sue also attended. After the hearing, Pressler said, “It’s all about support. It’s all about being there for them, and that's where we’re going with it.”]

That's character folks!!

Having a personal code of ethics that withstands the onslaught of the mediocre is something to be recognized and emulated.


Anonymous said...

The drama of Friday's hearing was well captured by this poster on the FreeRepublic site:

As a practicing trial lawyer (civil, not criminal) I found two things remarkable about this. First, the defense lawyers's skill in cross examaning Meehan when it was apparently a bit of a surprise Nifong brought him. (Maybe Judge Smith told Nifong to bring him, but I haven't seen a good report of that.)

The second remarkable thing was how well attuned most of the audience was to what defense lawyers were trying to prove: that Nifong embarked on a conscious effort to hide the "multiple males" lab results and conspired with Meehan to hide or at least delay the release of the information. So when the great question was asked about whether the concealment was an agreement between Nifong and Meehan and Meehan affirmed that it was, everybody there knew the proof was made. There was applause and he judge had to call for order.

But of course, this was only a battle and the war continues.

The defense may have to wait for a ruling on the supression hearing on 2/5 before they can file a comprehensive motion to dismiss on prosecutorial misconduct and the prohibited identifications (photo and in-court). If CGM doesn't withdraw before the hearing, we're probably not going to have a decision until mid-February, at best.

M. Simon said...

I could be wrong but isn't the Nancy Grace bit satire?

Anonymous said...

def of "satire":

a literary work that attacks human vice or folly through irony, derision, or wit"

--American Heritage Dictionary

satire is quite serious, as was the great Jonathan Swift


M. Simon said...

theman is not a troll.

He is a satirist.

Possibly also a saytrist.

The Nancy Grace for this page.

He makes me laugh. That will be a 2 drink minimum and a cover charge please.


BTW I can understand wild youth. Perhaps a strip club would be safer though. Or no stripper without a bodyguard and video cameras. Lots of video cameras.

Anonymous said...

Did Nifong say the accuser would be in court on Feb. 5? How can she be in court when she's due to have a baby around then?

Anonymous said...

Don't complain about leopard-spotted attire. It could have been cut-offs, appropriate attire for the speed-trap justice system of Boss Hoggs and Sheriff Coltrane.
Duke U and Hazard, NC [Georgia] deserve each other.