Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Decline of the Nifong Enablers

This morning's H-S features one of the most unusual defenses of Nifong to yet appear, from a member of the Durham defense bar, Fred Battaglia. He said:
The issue is whether he can prosecute the lacrosse case and also defend himself. I don't see a problem. I think a person could do both, at least in a theoretical sense . . .

If you match things up, it seems the same complaint could be made against each defense lawyer. I think they should all be quiet. Either we're going to treat everyone equally or not. I personally take a dim view of what's being done to the prosecutor. The timing of it is suspect in my book.
Battaglia could use a refresher course on the state bar's ethics code. Rule 3.8 is entitled "special responsibilities of a prosecutor," and discusses in some detail the more rigorous ethics requirements that apply to prosecutors. Rule 3.8(f) holds, "Except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused."

Meanwhile, the bar complaint specifically cited Nifong not just for making comments, but for making comments characterized by "fraud." Battaglia supplies no example of such comments by defense attorneys.

Finally, in his criticism of defense attorneys, Battaglia seems unfamiliar with Rule 3.6(c), which states, "A lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client." Given that defense attorneys had to counter dozens of Nifong statements that even the Bar has deemed prejudicial, it would seem that 3.6(c) fully justifies their comments.

Maybe one outcome of this affair would be to require a refresher course in the ethics rules for all members of the Durham defense bar?


Michael said...

Just another example of the media digging out of the bottom of the barrel for someone to support Nifong. I think that they had to turn the barrel upside-down and whack it several times to get someone so clueless to fall out.

I haven't heard a peep out of Nancy or Wendy lately. Did they go into hiding or are they chasing easier stories these days?

Anonymous said...

State bar associations typically require attorneys to take a prescribed number of continuing legal education courses in ethics if their licenses are to remain active.

Judging by the comments of some Durham attorneys, and the actions of D.A. Nifong, North Carolina attorneys are not learning much in their courses. Or maybe that they are learning too much: that the NC bar will not enforce rules of ethics unless it is driven to by bloggers, the press, and public outcry.

Anonymous said...

Once again, we see John Stevenson and the Herald-Sun trying to save this fraud of a case. I never have seen a newspaper try so hard to push a case that obviously is a hoax. The H-S stands alone, and in this situation, that is not a good thing.

Anonymous said...

why quote this clown--for local color

Anonymous said...

Freddie-boy is clearly an idiot. A major Nifong ass-kisser. How does he not see the conflict. It is already clear with the fact that Nifong has not dropped the other charges--he can't afford to do that. He needs this to go to trial and do his best to further lie and cheat to get some possible conviction...not for justice to be served--but only to save his own well-fed butt.

Honestly, this case has lots of people throughout the US second-guessing the integrity of prosectutors. This case ought to be a bonus for defense attorneys who can now point to a DA's 'games' to raise the reasonable doubt hurdle which in turn will help get truly guilty people off the hook.

Nifong and the State of NC have done lots of damage to the entire US judicial system. If this goes to trial the damage may be irreversible.

Anonymous said...

Another NCCU Law Grad putting one up for the team.

Anonymous said...

The Nifong Effect:
Already in Wisconsin there is a major kidnapping/murder case where the evidence appeared to be convincing. The defense is now making a strong point that the police with help from DA's office likely planted evidence. The accused had a $1 million lawsuit against the county and DA for wrongful conviction at the time the murder took place.

Before this case I would have laughed at the defense. Now I'm not so sure. Neither is the judge: apparetnly the trial will be delayed to do more investigation on this.

Michael said...

re: 11:29

In some ways, I think that this case will benefit CJ in the US in taking a hard look
at the power of prosecutors
and police and the relatively
weak position of defendents,
even if they can afford good

We have a lot of crime shows
out there where the cop or the prosecutor wins. Sometimes with dirty tricks.

Why can't one network bring back Perry Mason for a little balance?

Anonymous said...

This case has damaged prosecutors around the country. They will find much more skeptical jurors. I am one of those people who also would have scoffed at charges of planted evidence, prosecutorial misconduct etc. Now I would put much more credence in them.

The tragedy of this case is that it is likely to assist in making real rapists and other violent criminals much more difficult to prosecute.

Anonymous said...

Exactly...but perhaps the judge, on Feb 5th, can mitigate some of this by ending this haox.

Anonymous said...

As I have written elsewhere, this case definitely tells prosecutors that they are on notice. Furthermore, prosecutors know that if this were to go to trial, the amount of "evidence" that Nifong would put on the stand would be pitiful and thoroughly contrived.

The other prosecutors in NC know this, and when combined with the Gell, Hunt, and Little Rascals cases, people in that state will be even more skeptical. Ordinarily, prosecutors do not want to throw their own overboard, but they know that Nifong is dragging all of them down. Think of the story of Jonah, except that in this case "Jonah" Nifong is not rescued by a whale.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Yeah, even the Durham paper can not find a reasonable local to defend him any more.

Anonymous said...

Maybe he is angling for a high-profile case - being Nifong's defense attorney before the State Bar and any other civil or criminal liability that Nifong might face.

Anonymous said...

11:37 said...

"We have a lot of crime shows
out there where the cop or the prosecutor wins. Sometimes with dirty tricks.

Why can't one network bring back Perry Mason for a little balance?"

I agree 100%! I get tired of watching shows like "Shark" that show questionable actions by the DA or LE but the end always justifies the means.

Anonymous said...

An attorney is also duty-bound to represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law. The defense attorneys have been doing just that.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Enablers

I spoke this morning to a respected Durham attorney. He said that one of the most disturbing aspects of this case is that many members of the Durham AA establishment (people more substantial than gadflys such as V. Peterson) appear to have bought into a "grand conspiracy" theory in which "powerful interests" have suppressed evidence and are now seeking to remove Nifong as a means of covering up a crime that actually took place. And many of these AA leaders are among those who in the past have been the most critical of the Durham PD and other aspects of the local justice system.

This is disappointing, but expect to see additional organized efforts by certain members of the local community to continue to prop-up Nifong, and to demand that this case go to trial... in Durham.

A sad state of affairs for North Carolina.

Anonymous said...

What does it say about the elite of the AA community if they can not see past the color of the defendants skin, and apparently feel no empathy for wrongly accused and victims of prosecutorial misconduct? If their crys of prosecutorial conduct abuse in the future are ignored, whose fault might that be?

But this is one person's second hand account, and I am going to assume that it is erroneous, because as I point out above, the implications are not at all encouraging.

Anonymous said...

Man, the internet is great. Hiding paper trails and rewriting history has gotten significantly harder. Some interesting items to put Mr. Battaglia's comments in context.

As noted earlier, an NCCU grad:

An interesting case, indeed:

Kissing another judge's butt:

Sorry for the google cache. If it doesn't work, it was from a Durham News article on the retirement of Judge Chaney this year, and read, in part:

He is an independent-minded judge who is a student of the law, said Fred Battaglia, a local attorney.

"He's the kind of guy, if he wasn't a jurist, you wouldn't mind hanging out with," he said.

Anonymous said...

My prediction for how Nifong tries to keep control of the case, knowing that the judge is likely to ask him to show good reason at the Feb. 5th hearing why he shouldn't be removed for actual conflict of interest:

Nifong will send one of his ADAs in his stead to the hearing. The ADA will announce to the judge that he has taken over the case from Nifong, and that Nifong has recused himself from further involvement or supervision of the case.

This move, if successful, would allow Nifong to keep sub rosa control over the case and, most importantly, prevent the case file from being turned over to a new prosecutor from a jurisdiction not under his control (the AG's office or another DA's office). I highly doubt that the judge will accept this maneuver as resolving the conflict, given that Nifong would continue to be the ADA's employer. But look for Nifong to try it, as it is the only card he has left to play in his effort to keep himself from being disqualified by the court.

Anonymous said...

I don't think this case has made it harder for ethical prosecutors. All they need to do is "follow the rules"

Anonymous said...

To 12:50 PM

It depends on what the prosecutor is after. If it truly is justice, then the prosecutor is ethical and the rules are there precisely for that reason. So, as you say, this case will not make their work harder. I would think this case would make the pursuit of justice easier, if not more clear.

Anonymous said...

If the defense lawyers have conspired to bury evidence and if they have lied to the court, they should be disciplined as well. Defense lawyer behavior will not constitute a defense to or justify the unethical agreement by the prosecutor and his expert to hide or keep secret information that must be disclosed pursuant to law. I also don’t know how defense counsel comments could be relevant to Nifong’s lie to the judge in open court.

As unethical as Nifong’s comments have been, his violations involving conspiracies and lies present a greater problem for him. Fred Battaglia didn’t address those issues.

Battaglia’s comments about equal treatment ring hollow.

"The issue is whether he can prosecute the lacrosse case and also defend himself," said Battaglia. "I don't see a problem. I think a person could do both, at least in a theoretical sense."

Battaglia is simply wrong. Nifong can’t even (or shouldn’t) act as prosecutor at the next hearing. He is a legitimate witness to the facts of the conspiracy to hide evidence in the same way that the DNA lab head is. I would subpoena Nifong to appear as a witness and let him make a motion to quash. I don’t think it would be granted. Of course, I would not have thought it possible for Nifong to find a judge who would swear him into a public office in secret.

Anonymous said...

The NC DAs say "Nifong should remove himself from the case". Nifong is up on ethics charges before the state bar over the case. The Meehan DNA issue is still out there.

At this point, only a fool would say this is not a problem for Nifong. To pretend that their is no conflict of interest is just foolish.

Anonymous said...

"What does it say about the elite of the AA community if they can not see past the color of the defendants skin, and apparently feel no empathy for wrongly accused and victims of prosecutorial misconduct?"

If true, what a painful irony?

Anonymous said...

It appears to some people that the "Due Process" consists solely of a criminal trial, when it pleases them. This is malicious abuse of the law. The "Process" incorporates necessary safeguards to protect the innocent from malicious accusation and false charges. Let it all come out in a trial? Seriously, that is the extent of our Due Process? When the shoe is on the other foot, I will insist on the FULL due process of the law for anyone.

Anonymous said...

I certainly no longer trust prosecutors. In most states the DA's are elected and it is pretty clear that fabricating evidence is not beyond the morality of some of them.

Anonymous said...

Raw deal? Battaglia shows himself the town idiot. The holder of a "Cracker Jack" law degree from the school of Nifonglaw.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, Battaglia is a prime example of so much of the population in Durham. As I have previously opined, there is a kind of disease that exists there that is sleazy and which defies basic rules observed by normal people.

This case also brings to mind the Michael Peterson murder trial from 2003. Peterson and his attorney David Rudolf accused the DPD and others of misdeeds......especially with respect to their methods of gathering evidence.

Nifong was a player in the DA's office at the time. Heaven knows what could have taken place in order to nail Michael Peterson whose newspaper columns made fun of the inept police department and city leaders.

This case has been a catalyst for change in many areas and will produce warranted paranoia for years to come.


Michael said...

Cathy Davidson has issued a response at LS.

Davidson Letter

Anonymous said...


Wow. Why do you feel the need to do a hatchet job on some lawyer in training?

Sadly, you seemed to have moved from providing solid fact based analysis to being a mouthpiece for the defense. If this is true, you are no better than the New York Times.

Anonymous said...

I have been extra busy the last few days and have just now come upon a post on "Brodhead's Apologia" thread to which I must reply here......as I know that this same troll will soon be making another appearance.

There is a troll or two who stalks and who always posts as "Anonymous" attempting to leave their droppings of discord.

IMO, everyone who wishes to attack someone should be forced to post their names in order for the post to remain.

On that thread there is a cowardly post at (4:21PM) who used my name and who personally attacked me.....knowing that I was not on the website.

The issue of race has always been an important one.....even as many of us have tried to transcend it on a daily basis with the way we live our lives.

Very early......since childhood......I have always lived my life in such a way not to be encumbered by things like race and background when choosing friends.......which is why those of us who are authentic in our beliefs continue to witness what has transpired in Durham with shock.....then anger. As a result, we will not continue to make allowances for those in the black community who choose openly and forcefully to deny the same rights to others because of race that they spend so much time demanding for themselves.

So if an unrealistic and disgruntled Liberal Democrat.....or a troublemaking troll.....or a sleazy and very racist newspaper editor......or whatever......wishes to project onto the sincere and lovely Debrah a pathology that is not mine.....but is theirs alone......I will say............

Eff Off !!!

This thread isn't long enough to list the very substantial ways I have helped others.....specifically because they were black.....but now this peculiar kind of racism coming from those same people is something I will not stand by and watch without stating reality.

Now....if the troll "JC".....or the cowardly "Mike from AZ" .....or any other stalking troll....wishes to make vengeful and gratuitous attacks using my name in my absence.....

.....just know that you will continue to be exposed and leveled by facts.....not mindless logorrhea which is supposed to pose as "comments".

There are countless racist remarks left on this website and they are almost all deposited by cowards who use "Anonymous".

That way of posting is rather like an uncivilized urchin who breaks wind around other people silently---as the putrid odor suffocates unsuspecting victims---expecting to have the stench ignored.


Anonymous said...

I just sent a letter to the N&O this morning in response to the Brodhead article in which Dicky calls for everyone to have "manners". (LOL!!! You can't make this stuff up).

We'll see what happens with that.


Anonymous said...

With respect to Davidson's latest missive, I find this:

I appreciate the concerns you raise. Unfortunately, what is lost in the horror of the case itself, whose improprieties are unconscionable, is that the students also (the whole house, not these three) were violating academic policies and school rules. It is impossible to contemplate how to address those issues after all that has transpired but the administration has gone on record for wanting a thorough investigation of those improprieties once the legal proceedings are behind us.

It is interesting to me that she focusses only on the lacrosse players resident in that house. What about all the other students who drank alcohol and brought in strippers to watch. Seems like certain academics are rather narrowly focussed.

Secondly, it seems like they really had it in for those students. They were going to add university-based charges on top of the justice system charges once the justice system had extracted its pound of flesh, eh.

These people seemingly don't know when enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

Below is a letter I sent to the NY Times in response to their (2) 'Front Page Above the Fold' articles on this story. To date NO RESPONSES have been published...hmmm...

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036-3959

Re: DNA Witness Jolted Dynamic of Duke Case
(NY Times 12-24-06. p.A1)

To The Editor:

Every day brings new information that sheds light on the apparent prosecutorial misconduct of Durham, N.C., District Attorney Mike Nifong. It is becoming clear that he has used and pushed all of our social flashpoint buttons in his personal quest for election, to the complete detriment of our legal system and the rights of all Americans; not to mention the lives of three young men that will, regardless of the legal outcome, bear heavy burdens in the future. (Thank you 60 Minutes and the late Ed Bradley for mitigating some of this damage!)

What should be of real concern to all is Mr. Nifong’s “Boss Hogg” sense of duty and justice to whomever passes through his jurisdiction without the accessibility of expert and potentially very expensive Legal Representation or the media attention to scrutinize, analyze and publicize his actions or the proceedings of the accused.

As a New Yorker, I have witnessed the truly egregious case of State Comptroller Alan Hevesi. Hevesi has had absolutely no compunction about repeatedly lying to all New Yorkers in his successful re-election campaign, only to agree, 55 days later, under threat of a serious criminal prosecution to reveal his misdeeds and lies under oath, plead guilty to one felony count and resign his office. Read NY Times 12-23-06 B1.

The parallels in these two cases are significant because they both represent a complete abuse of the public trust in the name of personal power and vainglory. (Think corporate scandals of the 1990s and the resulting stain on corporate America and the costly prison terms, etc.). The U.S. Department of Justice and the State of North Carolina should immediately become involved in reviewing this case and take whatever action is necessary to restore the public trust and our confidence in the legal system.

Regardless, at the termination of this case I hope defendant’s counsel will then feel the burden to protect all Americans from this type of “public servant” and pursue the district attorney for abuse of his office. The “alleged victim” should also be held accountable for false accusations that caused immeasurable damage to the Durham and Duke community and to all women across our nation whose real assaults and subsequent prosecutions have been trivialized and endangered by her apparent gross fabrications and lies.

Finally, the Duke University alumni community should demand the resignation of President Richard Broadhead for his complete and disgraceful lack of leadership of a great institution during a very difficult time. His statement this week is too little too late. It is clear, when in difficulty you do not want Mr. Broadhead, with his equivocations and pandering predilections, on your team or in your “foxhole.”

Without the removal of Nifong and Broadhead and the subsequent cleansing effect, those in the Durham and Duke communities will not be able to close this regrettable incident and continue to focus on the role as a great American center of learning and ideals.

Anonymous said...

"I appreciate the concerns you raise. Unfortunately, what is lost in the horror of the case itself, whose improprieties are unconscionable, is that the students also (the whole house, not these three) were violating academic policies and school rules.

Again, "the horror of" 3 men currently being railroaded into prison for 30 years because of a corrupt DA and his base of support VS "violating academic policies and school rules".


Anonymous said...

Heh, Debrah, what racist remarks? I read about all theses post as does KC, could you point some posts out that you consider racist? Just a thought, for us ignorant non PC folks, who may not see racism in every statement about Blacks.

Anonymous said...

Fred Battaglia, handles traffic case and DWI cases, along with other cases. That is probably where he knows Nifong from. I wonder how many time he accepted plea bargains from Nifong? He probably is supporting Nifong, in hopes of getting any future clients a deal from Nifong.

Anonymous said...

I dont want to hear any more of this perry little whining about "ooo I got racist and hurtful email".

Guess what- thats part of being on the internet. People probably tried to sell you perscription drugs too- its just not relevant.

And the fact that you may have got a racist email, that is never produced, in no way makes you a virtous person nor does it butress your arguments.

[PS: I have just received a racist anonymous email! Therefor none may oppose me!!!]

Anonymous said...

I have been re reading the old posts, it seems the trolls are hell bent on trying to make us out as racist. When we ask for examples of racist email we are met by no response. But why not? these folks know how to gin up fake anonymous emails. Well, actually they probably don't and that is why they haven't tried, because they would be caught.

Here's a question for the trolls. If all this racist email has existed for months, WHY haven't the receivers of this mail made it public and cried "Victim"?

They have never been shy about victim hood before, when did they start?

Anonymous said...


You misunderstood. I was replying to an attack on me by some cowardly troll over on the thread mentioned.

On that thread, some silly and spastic-ridden apologists were talking about some posts that were "race-baiting". Some cowardly "Anonymous" attacker mentioned "Debrah" in a libelous and gratuitous way.

Simply because I have listed many facts about the black community in Durham, there are a few trolls who come out with this BS as a way to divert attention from the truth.

I was alluding to posts written to purposefully use epithets.....IMO, to try to taint KC's work.

Probably by some faculty member or some black bigot from Durham to make it look as though the lacrosse supporters posted it.

There are several trolls in our midst.



Anonymous said...

On the LS discussion, I find Bill Anderson's comments of praise for CD bordering on delusional.

Cathy Davidson is not an old-time liberal, she is a leftist loon.

Who lies to cover her tracks.

The criticisms of the G88 did not begin in June, as part of a conspiracy.

My first email to Ms Davidson herself (after giving the G88 a month to clean up their act) was on 5/2/06.

Almost every other statement she made based on her "research" is also incorrect.

If that's Bill Anderson's idea of an "old-time" liberal values, he must be thinking of Ted Kennedy.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Battaglia.... Joseph Goebbles also stated that he personally took a dim view of whats being done and said about Adolf Hitler.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 3:27PM sez:

My first email to Ms Davidson herself (after giving the G88 a month to clean up their act) was on 5/2/06.

Well, show us your email and the response so we can judge for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

3:49P If you want to see all my emails to the G88 it would keep you busy for many, many months

(although I assure you it would be quite entertaining. They are anything but form letters).

But then again, I don't bother justifying myself to my fellow Blog Holligans, I just increase the pain for the G88.

Cathy Davidson only responds to well-behaved fellow academics from Frostburg who sing her praises.


Anonymous said...

The Duke Gang of 88.....along with the nervous and tentative Richard Brodhead.....are an interminable group of unproductive blowhards........yet staggeringly pompous.

They must now try any way they can to justify their words and actions since March by subtlely, with each utterance, reinventing and revising the true series of events.

What one experiences from their emissions is mere spasms of intellectual.dishonesty......among other things......

.....like lack of intellect.


Anonymous said...

Has anyone considered that Battaglia may be talking to Nifong and his message only indicates that Nifong is delusional and planning to stick it out until the final act, so to speak? I love reading this blog, KC. I am a devoted lurker....

Anonymous said...

Any reporters tailing the Fong man these days? What's he doing?

Anonymous said...

Is "Debrah" mentally ill?

I can see her going through 3 keyboards a week in some asylum.

What a loser!

When Brodhead says "racist," I think he's really referring to the honest posters who referred to the AA "professors" as stupid.

Anonymous said...



To 4:40PM---My, my......are we witnessing a Mikey Nifong meltdown?

Or has big Wahneema entered the room?

Perhaps you'd like to grunt for us a while longer. The trolls down at the Durham courthouse haven't heard you yet.

I really think that poor manic "JC" just can't stay off the booze..

Tragic, that.


Anonymous said...

4:40 you got spanked good by Debrah. Did you like it?

We'll know the answer to that question if you come back for more. Better luck next time...chump.

Anonymous said...

To 4:40...aka "JC"...aka "Roman Polanski"...aka "RP"...aka "Jim Clyne".....

My, you sure use a lot of names....when you're not hiding behind "Anonymous".

You're the troll who has been taking on multiple personas and attacking others like a nut.

You are, indeed, the culprit who attacked me unprovoked on the "Brodhead's Apologia" thread at (4:21PM).

You have continually posted trash on this website and if you continue I am going to complain to KC about your antics.

Vile and repulsive.......you must be one tedious and idle wad.


Anonymous said...

Guess I can't post anymore. I'm delusional, you know.

(I don't agree with Cathy Davidson per se. We have had some nice back and forth and I'm not ready to put her into the same class with Houston Baker. Now, I am not delusional about him....)

Anonymous said...

You know what the Duke of 88 are probably the only ones that are right about this whole case. They know that DA Nifong will send these perps to prison for a long time. This poor female had to break free and run for her life to the back door, where another pervert took her pic. She probably fell, because of all the effort she had to do, just to get away from these three.

Anonymous said...

Debrah's semi-literate posts bring down the level of discussion on this board.


Anonymous said...

theman: you really need to wipe your with your napkin after you talk. i mean, at least make an attempt to wipe away the bullshit on your lips.

Anonymous said...

The kidnapping charge will stick, they will go to jail for that

Anonymous said...

A letter to the G88 and Duke's Vice Provost entitled:

"The lies of Cathy Davidson: the blogs are conspiring against me!!

(or why delusional blame-shifiting is a ubiqitous character flaw of the loony left)

Cathy Davidson's response yesterday to a member of the blog holligan community (reprinted below) is yet another lame attempt by the G88 to justify your vigilante acts.

As expected, the response was a tissue of lies and self-justification. Displaying, in oh-so-measured tones, the conspiracy mindset that thrives among the loony left. Who will do ANYTHING to avoid self-reflection.

Some aspects of Davidson's letter even call into question her basic honesty and suggests that her academic and administrative work for Duke might be similarly unreliable.

CD Lie #1. Based on her extensive "research", Davidson claims the first criticisms of the G88 were in June, 2006:


In fact, my first post to you vigilantes (including Prof Davidson, reprinted below) was in early May after I had given y'all a month to clean up your act.

KC Johnson's first posts about the G88 (indeed the whole reason for his starting his blog initially) were in mid-April only a few weeks after the vigilange ad appeared.


Others, particularly journalist Stuart Taylor, had published withering indictments of the G88 in May.

CD Lie #2. The criticisms of her and her fellow vigilantes was an orchestrated (read right-wing) conspiracy. With people sending her abusive "form letters" apparently duplicated in some secret right-wing fortress:


Only a leftist loon could imagine that the hundreds (now thousands) of Duke-educated alumni and cantakerous and fiercely independent blog people who think your conduct (and that of the other 87 faculty vigilantes)was frightening are a big conspiracy.

No, Prof Davidson, I think all those people may _honestly_ believe that you are a malicious agenda-driven hack who wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

The reason why the letters sound the same to you is because they are criticizing your actual actions (and quoting your actual words).

In a wide array of styles and tones.

But then again we all know about the tendency of the G88 to read and grade words based on their political filter instead of the actual content.

CD Lie #3. Davidson did it all for the poor, frightened black students of Duke:

In the closing of Davidson's letter, the Trinity Park rich white leftist brand of race-baiting is in full flower.

This time playing the race card hoping to appear more sympathetic to your audience. Whereas before you played it in the service of demonizing a segment of the Duke student body.

It appears I need to remind you, Prof Davidson, that you are rich white tenured academic.

And that anything you do of this nature automatically carries with it the flavor of racial paternalism.

Less self-justification, more self-reflection. That face in the mirror is the face of a vigilante hack.

Anonymous said...

Is there any chance Nifong is hoping to get this no-case in front of a jury for a "reverse OJ" verdict? Any trial lawyer will tell you there is always risk when presenting a case to a jury. If this witness stands up to the heat of what will be a brutal cross examination especially after all this pre-trial publicity won't that risk exists? Nifong maybe strategizing for that exact outcome. If the boys are found innocent at least he can claim he was good on his word to his black constituency.

Anonymous said...

Hey "Daft" .....aka "JC" aka...etc........etc.....

You come across as quite "deep" when you do "the man".

Say, "JC".....are you Sybill's cousin?

She's doing Boniva commercials now, you know?



Anonymous said...

I just want to respond to theman by saying thejlskadkfqrqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

Oh sorry, I fell asleep at the keyboard. Theman's postings have been so ordinary lately that it's hard to stay awake while reading them.

Anonymous said...

"disappeared into humiliation and rage as the lacrosse players were being elevated to the status of martyrs, innocent victims of reverse racism."

This part from the Davidson piece in the N&O nicely sums up what is going on at Duke. She describes this as what was felt on campus nine months ago but could just as easily apply today for the 88.

The lacrosse situation presented some chroncially angry Leftist "scholars" with the perfect crime and the perfect perpetrators. They invested heavily in seeing these guys go down because they needed this to feed their world view.

Unfortunately, things did not work out as they had hoped. That is were the "humiliation and rage" come from -- these moral narcissists were robbed of their source of righteous indignation.

To add insult to injury, the hated lacrosse players are "elevated to the status of martyrs." What could be more galling than seeing rich, white, male athletes turn out to be the real victims in all of this when victimhood is such a prized commodity for the groovy postmodernist. Unfair!!!

Even as the sordid legal business unfolds and the rape case crumbles, Duke Leftists still see this as a war with the lacrosse players. If the lacrosse players are innocent, then the 88 must be the losers so Davidson cannot resist throwing still more dirt on these guys. On top of that, there are threats of what will happen to lacrosse players after their legal issues are resolved. I guess that Nancy Grace parody on SNL was not really a parody after all.

Perhaps the Duke administration believes it can dig in and this will blow over. Problem is . . . there is going to be a book or books -- a non-fiction "Bonfire of the Vanities." Books stay around for a long time and some get turned into movies. When the story is about some guys getting railroaded and having the powers that be arrayed against them, it is pretty clear who the readers/audience root for. A key thing to remember, is that the story is not over and Duke can shape how the story ends. I doubt that Duke will look good, but they can still do damage control. However, the recent Brodhead and Davidson gymnastics only add to the damage.


Anonymous said...

Can someone please give Debrah a napkin.

She's drooling.

Is she on welfare, or is Daddy rich?

Anonymous said...

I knew and despised Mike Nifong long before that fateful lacrosse party. As long as I have known Mike, he has been a mean-spirited, self-centered, unethical, pompous lout. The only thing that has surprised me about his behavior has been that he has continued to get away with it for so long.

I also know Fred Battaglia. I wouldn't say he's a bad guy, really - short tempered, but alright. So, all I can think is that he's doing what so many Durham defense attorneys before him have done. He's praising Mike, because if Mike falls, saying nice things about Mike isn't going to hurt Fred, but if Mike doesn't fall, saying nice things about Mike sure as hell will help Fred (and his clients).

What's more interesting in this article is Mark Edwards. He has no dog in this fight, and he's calling for Mike to step aside. That's brave of him, because Mike will now tell his ADAs to make Mark's life hard. Some will listen, some won't. Now, until Mike's gone, Mark's going to have to shop around for fair ADAs. Of course, when I think about it, Mark probably wasn't doing a lot of negotiating with the ADAs that would listen to Mike anyway, as he undoubtedly knew better.

Anonymous said...

To 5:44PM--

Interesting post.


Anonymous said...

Thanks, Debrah. I try. Cheers!

Anonymous said...

brilliant, savant.

Guaunyu: Who are the ADAs that operate as Nifong's enforcers?

Strikes me they must be very corrupt and capricious like Mike himself given the level of fear and obediency exhibited by the Durham defense bar.

Also will Destine ever be allowed to handle a case?

Anonymous said...

"guaunyu"-- :>)


Guaunyu said...

Debrah raises an interesting concern about the use of anonymous posts. I'm now using a Google account to post here. So, while "Guaunyu" is clearly not my real name, in the future at least y'all will know whether the posts that say "Guaunyu" are really from the same person.

Anonymous said...

Where is Bob Wilson when you need another good dose of "Only In Durham"?


Anonymous said...

Guaunyu (I'm glad copy and paste works):

Thanks for your post. At times the charitable part of me thought that it was just Mike's political ambition that drove him and he was caught up in the whirlwind without knowing how to get out.

But you nicely point out that the crap he's been doing fits in quite well with his personality and history.

I practice civil litigation (with its own collection of princes and toads) so I don't have personal knowledge of prosecutors. I did have lunch the other day with an old friend who has been a criminal defense attorney for over twenty years. She's followed the case too, and isn't surprised at all. My little pollyanna voice tells me this is significantly worse than most prosecutors.

Guaunyu said...


Mike doesn't really have any "enforcers." He's got loyalists, though. People who care more about their jobs than they do about justice. He's also, thankfully, got a number of folks in his office who continue to do the right thing in spite of him. Lemme think about whether or not I want to, as McCarthy would put it, name names. It's almost dinner time. I'll post later.

Anonymous said...

"guaunyu"--Like democracy, with freedom there is always the sludge.

I agree with KC that allowing everyone to use "Anonymous" assures a free flow of candor and ideas....however.....

.....it also allows an idle poster or two to play out their inner "Sybill".....taking roles and posting from "both sides".......just to get off on creating discord.

Initially, it can be amusing.....until the poster turns into Norman Bates.



Anonymous said...

Why are you all picking on the Durham County District Attorney. He is smart and not an evil person he is just looking for justice in this case. Why can't you just look at this African-American woman, a Navy veteran, a mother of 3, attempting to complete college and agree, that something happened to her?

Anonymous said...

Michael Gaynor has posted an interesting essay:

Duke case: Big time boomerangs

Anonymous said...

"mother of three"??

Is she trying to butress her case?

Anonymous said...

5:44: Since you have known Nifong a long time, and say he has always been mean spirited, what would you say caused this?

Did he get rejected from Duke Law School, is that why he dislikes Duke?

Or would you just say that he is overly hungry to hang onto the only job he has ever had to try to get his pension? Many would agree that before the Duke Rape hoax, his bid for DA wasn't really on track. Freda was going to beat him. And most likely return the favor that he extended to her, that be, put him out of a job.

Just the way he carrys himself smacks of a man having an inferiority complex. That alone explains why he tears other people down with degrading language, a feeble attempt to build himself up.

Thoughts anyone?

Anonymous said...


Not a good idea to “name names”. If you list the “bad” guys then you jeopardize the “good” guys by leaving them off the list or visa versa. You would want to retain the good ADAs after Nifong is gone.

Anonymous said...

6:11 exclaimed: "Why can't you just look at this African-American woman, a Navy veteran, a mother of 3, attempting to complete college and agree, that something happened to her?"

You are right, something did happen to her. The evidence and lack of evidence supports that. She had DNA on her "areas" from at least 5 different people. This DNA was "deposited" on a date preceding the alledged incident at 610 Buchanan. Yet no LAX DNA was found on her.

Yup, something happened to her. It just wasn't done by Duke LAXers.

Anonymous said...


Should we now expect a new and improved transgendered "JC"?

Mikey amd CY.

"JC" is peaking now.. Total transgendered mania.


Anonymous said...

6:11 CY:

Whatever happened to Crystal didn't happen on 602 Buchanan St on Mar 13-14. Otherwise, there would be evidence, and we've seen none.

But something did happen to her, and her panties & and 'nether orifices' (shall we say :) tell the tale - 5+ guys had their way with her (shall we say :), and she forgot to pack a change of undies or 2 or 3 or 4...

Anonymous said...

Great suggestion on requiring a refresher course on ethics. Maybe Duke's lawyers could come too.

Anonymous said...

Somtthing did happen to her. But don't worry, Mike Nifong is a truth seeker and he'll get to the bottom of it. After all, he said it best, his job is justice. He's probably working on it right now. The real perps, if the sex wasn't consensual no doubt are quacking in their boots.

Yeah, right.

Serious mode on: Does anybody know if Nifong was compensated for his 3 hour interview with NY Times? And if so, is it allowable for a public official to receive compensation? No one has asked this question before, no doubt there is an interesting angle here. Hey, Mike Nifong told us he is a very busy man, so he wouldn't just give 3 hours of his time away for free, would he???

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

To 6:38 PM

Nifong was most assuredly NOT compensated by the NY Times. Exactly zero percent of large news organizations pay for interviews. It is considered a giant no-no and is rigorously enforced

Anonymous said...

"Now she has ruined the lives of three people...."

Well, probably six, counting her own children, and perhaps more, depending on how badly some others take the ruining of their own careers.

Anonymous said...

6:42 The most telling observation made about Precious was the horrible smell emanating from her panties. Several lacrosse players commented on this. She's repulsive.

Will she be arrested? Anyone want to guess?

Anonymous said...

The above racist ("sorry black b!tch") reminds me of the time Ike had to send home a load mouth brigadier general for defaming a British brigadier as a "no good limey son of a b___h".

So in like fashion, be gone #1 6:42 troll. Racists can't remedy racism

Anonymous said...

6:42 - while I feel strongly about the conduct and lack of accountability of some elements of the African American community regarding the "hoax", your statements attempting to draw a nexus between the alleged "victim's" conduct and the incidence of AIDS in the black community undermines the force and effect of what I believe to be principled and inviolate arguments that the Duke 3 have been wrought a great injustice, aided and abetted by radical racial extortionists that care little about the people they purport to represent.

AIDS (and some of the less than desirable behaviors you point out) is not restricted to the black community. While it has a greater incidence in the black community, and it would be irresponsible to deny that and not talk fairly an openly as to how to address it, AIDS is a complex public health problem. Ms. Mangum's behavior is what it is - it is reprehensible and ought to be called just that - but to bring AIDS into the equation with a racial conclusion to boot seems irresponsible. Any fair criticism of Ms. Mangum would not be lacking in blunt conclusions about her behavior - the AIDS statement is inapposite.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

From Fox News:
In Duke Rape Case, Accused Fight Back

" The 88 linked their political outrage and condemnation to a specific criminal accusation; thus, the ad virtually convicted the Duke 3 of rape. It congratulated students on their anger "regardless of the results of the police investigation" and, so, sanctioned the posters then being tacked up on campus with photos of Lacrosse players over the word "rapist." "

Anonymous said...

I give credit to Cathy Davidson for at least being willing to face her critics, so to speak.

It would be worth trying to reason with her, to see if she can't be made to see why people are so upset with the G88. At worst, it won't work; at best, she may come to see and perhaps even to apologize. I do believe an apology would really be helpful, particularly if it were signed by a large fraction of the original signers. I admit this is an unlikely outcome, for a number of reasons.

Speaking only for myself, I was always of the opinion that nothing had happened and that the DA was using the case for political gain. My opinion hasn't changed, but my degree of shock and yes, anger has gone up very considerably as I have become more aware. It took more than it should have for someone of my age to come to accept how truly evil Nofing is and how it was that he was aided in doing the tremendous amount of damage that he has done.

While I always thought he had the most impure of motives, I really did not come to realize that the entire case had been fabricated out of whole cloth and that his own investigation very clearly exonerated the players from before the point he brought charges, until I read the Defense motions and saw how the dates and the available evidence -- from the prosecution's own discovery material -- fit together. I am still staggered by how things were done with no concern for anyone catching on, let alone for the monumental amount of damage being done. In my opinion, Nofing is nearly as stupid as he is evil -- but this is mixed with some other pathologies that made him particularly dangerous.

I haven't sent e-mail to anyone, but I might easily have done so and can see why others have sent messages. In a population of motivated people, the responses are going to range widely -- but there will be insights and comments that are exactly on, if you select them out from the others. As with other things in life, you have to do a little work. I suspect the motives do not range as widely as the comments. If the comments are similar, it probably reflects similar reading material.

One major reason I didn't become more informed earlier is that the DA managed to hide things for a long time. It took three judges, multiple motions compelling full disclosure and a hearing where an outright conspiracy to hide evidence emerged. FWIW, I hold the opinion that the accuser was coerced into making the false identifications, although this doesn't absolve her and I don’t know if this will come out. It was only after the hearing that I read the motions. I had read the “listening” piece previously and it struck me the same way it does to this day. I think it was an attack – it was not balanced and did judge the players and the wider community. Consider that the author has labeled it as an attack.

The difference is that it is now so plain that a terrible injustice has been done – to the players. There is no way to blame them any longer and using them for cover is really hard to take at this point. I can believe others were quicker than I and that they may have started to become aware in June.

Seeing the boys facing a corrupt DA and DPD, the organized protestors, and most of all, seeing that no one was willing to admit they were wrong really hit me as a deep and abiding injustice. Some of the signers of the “listening” piece have made more recent comments that show that they held and continue to hold beliefs that are very clearly part of the problem and make them hypocrites of the first order. You are judged, in part, by the company you keep. If you don’t like this, you have a choice to make, to part company with the more extreme individuals, to try to bring about change, or to live with it. Rationalizing and being selecting only certain facts does not get it done.

The G88 attack was particularly hurtful because it was like being stabbed by members of your family. It was an abuse of power. The message was that less restraint was needed, not more. It offered support and encouragement to those who were making trouble and made no attempt to limit this to certain types of protest. It was at least a tacit message to the DA that he would not be opposed by Duke, that Duke would not stand up for its own.

Anonymous said...

To 7:03 PM

Ever hear of the word “idiot”?

You epitomize that word.

Please, go back to your 6 pack and drown your sorrows.

Anonymous said...

To 7:03 PM

(per 6:53 PM)

"Racists can't remedy racism"

Anonymous said...

7:03 is so clearly a Nifong enabler, hoping to plant racists post here in order to deflect the illegal and racist actions of Nifong, the DPD, and Duke's G88. From grade retailation to blaming the victims to encouraging lynch mobs and attacks by the NBPP, the G88 stood out as the most crass and hypocritical of all then enablers. Only one them (or their grad assistants) could believe that such a posting here would be accepted as a genuine "Duke 3 supporter."

Anonymous said...

Who's trying to remedy anything?
It will take another century for blacks in this country to understand that relying on other people will have no useful purpose.
You may not like my words but behind all the bullshiite here that's the way it is and has been.
We have bred a whole culture of bums since the mid-twentieth century and the blacks will partake of the free ride by using any means necessary until we just stand up and say "Get off your duffs, bums!"
Don't try to say that Crystal Mangum's whole life isn't the result of this attitude of entitlement.
Just look at her family and look at how she has lied and harmed other decent people just to get another free ride.
Anyone can see that blacks as a whole, not all, are supporting this bum. Does that tell you anything you idiot patsies?
All this will end one day soon and blacks will be forced to work for what they have. Even maybe learn to speak English so that they can be understood.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting Wendy McElroy's column. It will be very handy for the newest piece I am writing for Lew Rockwell's page. Indeed, the best defense for these students is a very good offense.

Anonymous said...

To 7:20 PM

All men are created equal. You may endeavor to join us.

Anonymous said...

the truth hurts huh. 703 speaks the truth

Anonymous said...

'men' as in mankind. sorry all,

Anonymous said...

6:53pm Anon:

"...lo[u]d mouth brigadier general for defaming a British brigadier as a "no good limey son of a b___h"."

Yeah, but Patton was right. About Monty. And about Palermo...

BTW, Patton was a Lt Gen by the time of the Sicily invasion.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

It just shows how frigging predictable you pseudo enlightened thugs are.
A six pack? I don't drink beer. Only wine and Jack Daniels. Good for the heart.
Some of you knee jerk off duds are no better educated than Crystral Mangum's crew. Otherwise you wouldn't work so hard to over compensate.
You're insecure duds talking about something you can't even be honest about.
Would any of you go down on a dirty woman like Crystal Mangum? Would ya? Or do you just want to spout platitudes like scared whiteys who are being had by the seasoned black cons?
Remember, blacks are experts at deception. That's how the race con game is played.

Anonymous said...

You are right, my apologies.

I have BAD news. Many of you know I have been talking with a Bar heavy weight. I was lead to believe after a beverage or 6 that something would happen this week.

Tonight we again discussed the case, NOTHING will happen this week, or until the Jan 16th Bar meeting. Nifungu is not even on the agenda, but he will be brought up and the charges against him will be amended to include more damning stuff.

I am really disappointed that something would not happen this week, and I am getting nervous about the Bar's resolve.

All this is not good for a quick end, but it will end soon enough.

Let's hope on the 5th the case is dismissed and on the 7th the BB team wears innocence wristbands and beats the hell out of the tar poots.


Oh, one more thing, don't feed the trolls, they will die by themselves.

Anonymous said...

7:25pm--Ooops baby. Correct yourself.
Don't forget to be PC. You're just a little scared pussy aren't you?


Anonymous said...

Dear KC,
As the trolls keep trolling may i suggest that you start using the method that Ace at the Ace of Spades HQ Blog uses. He lets anyone call themselves anything, BUT when you post the ip code from your post shows up on the post. So trolls who publish under different names always show the same IP and are exposed for the trolls they are. Birkel caught Dukie professor trolling for herself, she was so upset she gave it up. Just an idea, and SO MUCH FUN. Give the Ace a look, it is a little wild wild west, but they take no prisoners.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

These trolls must be of the gang of 88, or their student acolytes, or Dr. Deb Frisch is running amok again.

Anonymous said...


Don't let the Bar go wobbly on us. Nifong deserves much more than even the Bar can give him, since justice only will be served when his address is the crowbar motel.

Of course, I'm delusional, you know, but I will still stick up for Cathy Davidson. Believe me, she is not the feminine side of Houston Baker. So, even if we can disagree, I have had enough contact with her to know that she will be quite happy when the charges are gone. Furthermore, she is not a Follower of the Fong. So, one may disagree with her politics, etc., but I will stick up for her.

As for the rest of us, we must continue to beat the drums until the charges are deep-sixed. Then, we hope that Nifong gets at least something that is coming to him. Again, I don't rest until his address is in the crowbar motel, but for now I focus on short-term goals!

Anonymous said...

Kemp: If your Bar buddies replaced their drinking hours with investigation hours, this thing would be a done deal by now.

Their words are what make you nervous about their resolve to take action. Can you say disconnect?

Whenever actions disagree with words, trust the actions, for they seldom misindicate. With all due respect to the Bar, with respect to the Bar, it has been a lot of sizzle and no steak. I hope they are reading this RIGHT NOW. Reminds me of the UN...yeah, let's pass a resolution, that will scare them into getting back on track. Bull excrement.

I hope I'm wrong, but feel the Bar will do the bare bones minimum, enough to reach some sort of threshold to demonstrate that they "did something". The Bar might have good intentions (at best) but the cancer has spread too far for them to be the cure. Meanwhile, NC taxpayers pay Mikey's retirement. Nice.

No wonder you drink, I'd drink too if all I heard was words and there was never action to go along with it.

At least your heart is in the right place. Good luck to you and tell your Bar buddies to prove me wrong, nothing would be finer.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you know how pissed off I am. I really don't get the attitude. One day its the gallows the next day it we have a process. It is VERY frustrating, BUT having said that, Nifungu WILL NOT escape. They all know how much he has cheapened their license, and for that reason alone he must PAY.


Anonymous said...

To Bill at 804 from "a non-lawyer/retired professor": I would take her more seriously if she just endorsed the statement of the economists (without amendments). Is this asking too much?

Anonymous said...

You obviously do not know many lawyers, drinking is an intellectual investigation, or at least a consultation. The most important thing is not to drink so much that you don't remember your investigation, cause you can not bill what you can't remember. That hasn't happen yet. Ha Ha!

Anonymous said...

Lacrosse player innocence means 88 guilt.

The lacrosse players aren't angels, but for most practical purposes, they'll do.

Anonymous said...

Mr Anderson: you know a person by the company he keeps, so I am not understanding why you are looking for a nugget of gold in an Everest of slag.

Put it in this way: 88 cathy Davidsons, or 88 Duke academics of the same moral state as Cathy Davidson would have done those lads the same cruel outrage.

Anonymous said...

You p r o m i s e d! Jan 9.

Do something!

Anonymous said...

re: 7:06

The author was from ifeminists.com.
Pretty amazing mea culpa and analysis coming from them.

Anonymous said...

Kemp: I know plenty of lawyers. The good ones know how to connect action to words.

Tell your drinking buds to grow some stones and prove me wrong.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know the real reason Brodhead is protecting the 88?

Anyone hear any stories about the 88 returning to class?


Anonymous said...

8:29 asked: "Anyone know the real reason Brodhead is protecting the 88?"

Is this a for real question? Birds of a feather flock together. There's your answer.

More directly, he's a pedantic wimp.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks Kemps has his "BARS" confused.

Bob said...

Kinda off-topic, but "Nifong" has made it into the dictionary!

Guaunyu said...

6:17 PM

I'd say that what ultimately "caused this" was Mike's unwillingness to be handily spanked in the primary by Freda Black. Like Boss Tweed, Mike "seen his opportunities and [he] took 'em." That's what these unfortunate defendants were to him - opportunities. It was more Mike's self-centeredness than his mean-spiritedness that fueld him at first.

6:20 PM

Great point. Discretion is called for for the sake of the good ADAs. Suffice it to say that there ARE still several good ADAs in that office. I can scarcely imagine how hard it must be for them.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I find this interesting: a letter from the President of Duke this week complains about racist email from "outsiders", Cathy Davidson complains about racist, threatening email and "blog hooligans", and then...I see more racist posts on this blog today than I've seen in quite some time.

Sad to say, I trust no one who has participated in this Hoax and just have to wonder if some of these racist remarks are being planted to shore up the complaints of "racist, outside" agitation. Which of course leads to, "For the good of Duke and the community, we must all put this behind us an move on."

I wonder how the three accused feel about this attitude of "just put it behind you and move on". How can anyone be talking about moving on when the three still face charges of sexual assault and kidnapping?? Nifong is a dangerous man and I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see this actually go before a jury. And frankly, given the attitude of the black leaders, nationally as well as locally, far-left loonies who could possibly be in the jury pool, and some of the Durham community, I'm not so sure they wouldn't be convicted. Sacrificed for agendas. How very frightening and how very sad.

Anonymous said...

I am more pissed than you are. That is why I posted to everyone as soon as I heard the latest.

Wait there are two Bars? oh, no I thought the Bar was like a Bar.

I've been had, and no DNA either.


Anonymous said...

A couple of replies:


Cathy Davidson only responds to well-behaved fellow academics from Frostburg who sing her praises.

Had you read the first email I sent to her, you would not be staying that, believe me. She has been very civil in her emails, which is more than I can say for some of the other G88ers. I am not saying she is correct, but rather am saying that I appreciate the fact that I can have a civil conversation with her.

As for ifeminists, Wendy McElroy was on this from the start. She was the one who got me to jump into it, so there is no mea culpa to be made on her part. She was kicking Fong's butt from day one.

The only process needed for the Fong is the one in which he is led to the pot of boiling oil, or to the crowbar motel.

Michael said...

re: 9:20

Thanks for the note on ifeminists. I
think I did wander by that site some
time ago and didn't exactly remember
their position.

Anonymous said...

With the discredited DNA test results no longer an issue, the upcoming trial will now be contested on the more traditional, "He Said, She Said" basis.

On one side is a patriot who proudly served her country in the Navy, a devoted mother of three children who aspires to better herself not only by working full-time but also by attending one of the nation's finest Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

On the other side is a spoiled, lazy, pampered pack of self-important "student-athletes" who collectively have never militarily defended our great country, raised children or worked a 40-hour/week job.

If it comes down to her word against theirs and if she testfies that she was kidanpped and sexually assaulted - even if they just grabbed her tits - I know at least one juror who will vote Guilty with a clear and untroubled conscience.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who have used Fred as a lawyer? He represented me when I had to go to traffic court as a graduate student (the only ticket I got in my life). The DA dropped the charge. I wonder which ADA he was dealing with. It would have been too weird if Nifong actually dropped my charge.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone settle a debate between my husband and I: Can the judge pull Nifong off the case? Or can the judge only accomplish that by dismissing the case?

Anonymous said...

9:50pm Anon:

LOL, dude, good one!! ;>)

- "a patriot who proudly served her country in the Navy" (and left the Navy after 8 mos w/ a less-than-honorable discharge...)

- "a devoted mother of three children (all of whom were born out of wedlock; do we know who has custody of the kids?)

- "not only by working full-time " (yes, but as a prostitute / stripper / exotic dancer [insert all other distinctions-without-a-difference here])

- "attending one of the nation's finest Historically Black Colleges" (got transcript?)

You forgot one:

- "and did all of the above while under the influence of alcohol and prescription drug abuse"

Anonymous said...

A motion was filed with the court to remove Nifong from the case. The judge has not ruled on it. He may decide to do so on Feb 5.

Judges rarely remove DAs. But in this case, the Meehan incident in his court, the Ethics bar charges and the NC DAs open leeter may give the judge the policical cover to do so. It is very rare for it to happen.

The judge could also throw out the line up and the case could be dismissed.

Anonymous said...

This has been posted before, but I just viewed it now. Provost Peter Lange deserves an award

Anonymous said...

Except had they grabbed any part of the body of this wonderful patriotic All-American mother of three (and counting), there would have been DNA. Nice try.

Anonymous said...

On the issue of the accuser's hygiene, her driver claimed in his statement to the police that she showered at his home and he helped pick out her clothes for the evening before he dropped her off on Buchanan Street. DNA apparently sticks around a long time in many locations and situations. It even survives laundering, I hear.


Guaunyu said...


I am not gullible enough to believe you are doing anything other than playing the devil's advocate (and in this case, truer words were ne'er spoke). However, in the interest of fairness, any juror who actually started to buy what you claim to be selling would eventually vote not guilty for several reasons:

(1) You suggest that the DNA evidence is no longer an issue. Quite the contrary. It raises reasonable doubt. Mangum had DNA in her vagina - but it didn't belong to those she accused. Yet she claimed that she had not had other sexual activity. Reasonable doubt.

(2) Mangum's statements are fatal to the prosecution. For example, here's a bit of how the cross-examination of Mangum might go:

Q. Ms. Mangum, you recently told a Durham investigator that you do not know if a penis was used to penetrate you?

A. Yes.

Q. And a very short time after you made your allegations against my client, you told a nurse that no objects other than a penis were used to penetrate you?

A. Yes.

Reasonable doubt. In closing as to the sexual assault charge the defense simply states: "Ladies and gentlemen, Crystal Mangum got up on the stand and told you herself that shortly after she made her initial accusations, she told a nurse that she was certain that nothing other than a penis was used to penetrate her. The nurse confirmed that on the stand for you. Crystal Mangum also told you on the stand that she cannot be sure that a penis was used to penetrate her. Ladies and gentlemen, she herself was certain that nothing other than a penis was used, and now she cannot even say with certainty that a penis was used. Crystal Mangum herself has reasonable doubts about this case, how can you not have them also?

(3) Meehan's testimony about conspiring with Nifong to hide evidence comes in and destroys the credibility of the State. Even if the complaining witness is Mother Theresa, if the lawyer for whom she testifies is made to smell like three-day-old road kill, some of that stink is gonna rub off on her (and Mother Theresa she ain't).

I could go on, but you get the point. Plus, since you're just playing devil's advocate, I've already indulged you too long.


Anonymous said...

9:50 forgot to point out that she has been 'respectfully' convicted of a number of crimes.

Guaunyu said...


What are Mangum's convictions for? Are they admissible offenses (i.e. felonies or crimes involving dishonesty/fraud/false statement)?

Michael said...

There's the little problem of Reade not being around when it supposedly happened. I've read that Collin has an alibi as well but Reade's is better documented.

From Wikipedia:

She was convicted of stealing a car and sentenced to 3 weekends in detention. (In 2002, she stole a taxi from a man to whom she was giving a lap dance. A high speed chase then ensued, and when the deputy chasing her approached the stolen taxi on foot, she tried to run over him. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and driving while impaired.)

Michael said...

KC, how about adding your site to the Wikipedia entries for this case?

Hey said...


Thank you Defendant Nifong. Personally I would be focusing on dealing with my disbarment hearing, the state felony investigation, Federal Civil Rights investigation, and the monstrous civil suits I was facing, but I'm glad that you are so assured of your future that you have time to post here!

Newyorkstateofmind said...

Re comments by 10:01, as 10:14 noted, yes the judge in this case could simply have Nifong removed, appointing another DA to take over. He could do so solely given the conflict of interest Nifong now faces: defending ethics charges in connection with the very case he is trying to prosecute. It doesn't look like this is going to happen though. It should have happened already. When 2/5 finally comes around, it is hard to imagine that any judge would not throw out the victim/witness i.d. in this case. In almost any case save a sex crimes one, given the virtual absence of evidence pointing to the defendants in this case, a dismissal would then be motioned by defense, and granted by the judge. Rape reform law over the last several decades now has created a situation where now the complaining victim's testimony can be considered enough to have the case go forward. But here, even Nifong has completely undercut Magnum's credibility by exposing her as a liar re the rape charge that he dropped from the case.

From a strictly legal point of view, it is hard to imagine this case NOT being dismissed on 2/5. If Nifong can make it to that hearing, theoretically he can simply slink away from the case. The only evidence he has to present is inadmissible, so he can act as though a judicial dismissal at that point ties his hands from continuing to press the matter, not even go through the charade to see about refiling charges later, and pretend that he can just move onto to another case...any other case I'm sure, from his point of view.

Naturally I hope he will not be so fortunate, and that the State Bar will ream him soon and thoroughly. I certainly would not bet on that though. And a 2/5 dismissal of the charges may leave Nifong claiming to the Bar that his indefensible conduct is no longer relevant, as the case will then no longer exist. Technically, the Bar could still disbar him for his conduct in this affair. Again though, don't bet on it. And a federal civil rights action against him looks mighty tenuous as well (not because of the substance of his outrageousness, but the spinelessness of the Feds in addressing PC issues), even though many of us posting to this blog know such an investigation should have pulled Nifong off the case months ago.

That this blog has played a solid role in at least exposing his outrageous conduct: at least that is something for the books; something that history will memorialize in the words laid down here.

Anonymous said...

To Professor Johnson:

If you have not done so yet, I suggest getting the trollers' IP addresses from the server log files, and running them through e.g. Melissa

Anonymous said...

Just what did the FA mean when she said "there's more money to be made?" Was she going to clean the house?
She was there for sex...is this all retaliation because nobody wanted to pay for sex with her?