Thursday, February 08, 2007

Wilson's Ethical Lapses

Michael Biesecker and Joseph Neff have a troubling article in today’s N&O about Linwood Wilson—who, it turns out, allowed his P.I.’s license to expire after he was reprimanded by a state licensing commission. Wilson told the N&O reporters that he had no recollection(!) of the 1997 reprimand.

It gets worse. In a 16-year career as a P.I., Biesecker and Neff report, Wilson faced “repeated complaints and at least seven formal inquiries into his conduct.” He also had another reprimand, in 1988.

This is the same Linwood Wilson who—the day after Nifong received a letter from the state bar stating that he would be brought up on ethics charges related to his failure to turn over exculpatory DNA evidence—interviewed the accuser without witnesses present, and produced a report that had the accuser altering virtually every element of her story, in a way that conveniently fit much of the exculpatory evidence that was in the public domain.

And this is the same Linwood Wilson who told the N&O two weeks ago, “My integrity stands for itself. I’ve never had anybody question my integrity.”

(Of course, this is also the same Linwood Wilson who works for Mike Nifong, who wrote—in one of the campaign’s most preposterous lines—“Under my leadership, the District Attorney’s office is an institution of unquestioned integrity.”)

The person who filed the complaint that led to Wilson’s reprimand and “retirement” offered a pithy summary of the chief investigator’s character: “He is rotten to the core.”

Did Nifong know about his chief investigator’s troubling ethics history? The D.A. refused to comment. Can Nifong explain how Wilson—in the words of Biesecker and Neff—“quickly became a key confidant of the Durham district attorney, despite an apparent lack of experience investigating criminal cases”? The D.A. refused to comment.

Wilson, by the way, is still on the public payroll.


Anonymous said...

Within a year of being appointed DA, Nifong hires Wilson to handle bad checks. Of all the problems Durham faces, bad checks doesn't immediately jump out. I want to know:
* What procedure was used to create this position
* If a full search was made for a qualified candidate
* If Nifong, who is a music enthusiast, know Wilson who is a gospel singer
* If Wilson is the only investigator on the DA staff because I haven't heard of others
I just wonder if these two losers knew each other before Wilson was hired and if that's why Nifong can trust him to do all the dirty work. If I was an investigator on this case, I would NEVER interview this accuser alone....NEVER. I would insist that someone else be there and that it be recorded. I also noted that for an interview that lasted a couple of hours, Wilson produced about 1.5 pages of typed notes. This relationship smells bad.

Anonymous said...

How ironic would it be if Ms. Mangum, when facing the inevitable prospect of being charged with filing a false complaint, avers that she never made any of the statements Mr. Wilson claims that she made in an interview on December 21st? How could you be so silly so as not to interview this accuser without a witness and without a recording? This could be the first step in the waltz down witness tampering lane.

M. Simon said...

If this goes to trial Wilson is dead meat.

The special prosecutor has to drop this case. Unless they want all the dirty laundry to come out.

Tough call.

Anonymous said...

Is there something in the water down there? Even by the corrupt local standards I am familiar with, Durham takes the prize as the worst run, most incompetent and crooked local jurisdiction I have ever seen.

This is shocking. Shocking that a local DA would simply hire an investigator without any thought whatsoever of his background, and whether he has the qualifications to act honestly in performing his duties. Obviously, no background check was conducted here, and Wilson's "interview" is now seriously in doubt. Was it tape recorded? Was video taken? Did the witness verify that the facts alleged were in fact true as she stated them?

This place needs DOJ monitoring in the worst possible way. They lack any policies and/or procedures that protect the public, even background qualifications for investigators. This has to stop.

Are the residents of Durham so blinded they can't see that in the end this system works against, rather than for, their best interest? Honesty and integrity should be expected, it must be a matter of demand by the public for both law enforcement and the DA's office and its agents.

Wake up Durham.


Anonymous said...

Wilson should be investigated.

I absolutely believe that he wrote the script for the AV's supposed "fill-in-the-holes" statement of December 21.

It is absolutely imperitive that the corruption within Nifong's office be exposed completely, so that people understand the danger faced by the Duke students of being framed for crimes they did not commit.

AMac said...

At this point, it might be more straightforward to restrict consideration to aspects of the Rape Case that have not collapsed. Here is a (nearly) complete listing:

- The Lacrosse Team did hold a boozy party.
- They did engage two 'exotic dancers'.
- Kim Roberts and the false accuser did show up.
- They did start their act, then left the house after a few minutes, returned, then went outside again.
- The dancers' and some players' feelings did get feelings hurt, and one dancer and some players did make trashy remarks.
- The dancers did drive off.

That about covers it. Now it's time to hit the law books, and match these crimes to the North Carolina Criminal Code. New indictments to follow shortly.

Anonymous said...

"Is there something in the water down there?"

Yes, there is lead in the water, and lots of it. It'd be funny if it weren't true and there weren't lots of people including kids that drink Durham water.

Just another of the many ways the Durham government has "served" its constituency (and lied to cover it up).

- Jim Curry

Anonymous said...

"If I was an investigator on this case, I would NEVER interview this accuser alone....NEVER."


If I was a man, I would never be alone in a room with that woman for any reason whatsoever. You'd be at her mercy for a sexual harrassment charge. Or worse.

Anonymous said...

Here's an idea for KC's next column, another piece trying to defend Nifong by a law professor:

Some things that don't strike me as quite right:

"Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence that the alleged victim had sexual relations with persons other than the lacrosse players; but, after examining the rule, I doubt that those exceptions would apply in this case."

I'm not sure why Professor Everett so readily dismisses the four exceptions (or even give us the benefit of mentioning them) but it seems to me that Rule 412(b)(2) could apply which provides for "evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant." The presence of semen of other males would indicate instances of sexual behavior (if the issue is specificity, then we need to address the constitutionality of this law in general).

But at any rate, Professor Everett wonders "whether the district attorney violated any constitutional or statutory requirement if he had the laboratory delete from its "reports of test results" those results that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser's character."

Well, does the good professor believe that Nifong has carte blanche to determine what's admissible or not? It would seem to me that the admissibility would be the decision of the judge, not Nifong. If the prosecution can unilaterally withhold evidence that may or may not be admissible, how in the hell is the defense supposed to know about it?

Are there any competent professors at Duke?

Anonymous said...

How's this for speculation: the next bombshell? A tape of Linwood's interview with CGM, which he says he didn't tape.

I'd place a hefty bet he did record the session, but since the audio wouldn't back the fiction he was typing up, he personally supressed it.

Only Linwood and CGM would know, but, as sloppy as he is, maybe someone should check his recorder to see if he left it in there.

Anonymous said...

Durham takes the prize as the worst run, most incompetent and crooked local jurisdiction I have ever seen.

Obviously, you haven't been in any other area controlled by the democratic party. In Brooklyn NY, democratic party sold judicial positions for $50,000. So basically every judge in Brooklyn is a democratic party activist who paid $50k to become a judge. I would guess this is standard operating prosecure in Durham and other dem controlled cities. So don't expect any honesty from judges.
Anyway, nice to notice that G88 has sent their assistants (or ACLU/Black Panther people) to defend them in this blog. The same left-wing wacko has been active in the last few days defending mainstream media, G88, ACLU and democratic party in general. This is the standard worldview in those circles. I know there are some honest and truthful people in the democratic party (KC being a prime example), but unfortunately, they are hated by the mainstream democratic party (Salon/Edwards campaign/Dailykos refers KC as a right-winger - apparently anybody who reveals the truth is a right-winger or swift-boater).

Anonymous said...

The title of part 2 of this farce shall be: "The Keystone Kops conspire to suborn perjury and conduct an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity."

Anonymous said...

Durham takes the prize as the worst run, most incompetent and crooked local jurisdiction I have ever seen.

Oh, so you haven't ever been to Detroit?

Michael said...

re: 11:02

Did you see the picture of CGM hugging Nifong? Wonder what Cy said to him that night. Go take a shower for an hour!

Anonymous said...

I could see CGM on the stand or at the SP interview breaking down and saying he told me to say that. Really, I wouldn't lie.

How could he interview her without witnesses or video? Nifong setting him up?

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:02, re: the Op-Ed piece by Prof Everett, you hit the nail on the head when you observed that, as far as Everett's piece shows, he would allow any DA full discretion to decide for himself, with the full powers of a presiding and appellate Judge, what is admissible and what isn't, before complying with the disclosure statutes.

How absurd. Everett completely ignores this huge flaw in his argument.

In any event, in my opinion, the evidence concealed by Nifong is clearly admissible, and has nothing to do with the rape shield laws. No defendant is claiming there was consensual sex. Such DNA-soup evidence is not being offered to show she is a slut; nobody cares how many men she had sex with last month, or since she was 12; the analysis has to be fact-sensitive, based on why the evidence is offered and why it is compelling, to wit:

1) Nifong hoped to argue the sole, puny, meaningless physical finding at the rape exam -- "diffuse vaginal swelling" -- as evidence of this horrible, prolonged, half-hour, all-orifice gang-bang.

Forgetting for the moment that this "diffuse swelling" by itself is in no way consistent with the horror tale concocted by the false accuser, Nifong's argument (or this argument if offered by his more mentally stable successor) clearly opens the door to allow the defense to offer alternate evidence of why that "diffuse swelling" existed.

Such proofs will include

(a) the "escort service" chauffeur's testimony of taking her to 4 "appointments" in hotel rooms during the preceding 2 days, plus the chauffeur having sex with her himself by his own account (the false accuser denies it); and

(b) the presence of all these multiple flavors of DNA in and around her crotch, totally consistent with what the chauffeur said in his statement.

(2) The whole DNA goulash is material and relevant to the full forensic significance of the fact that no lacrosse player's DNA was found. The jury needs this evidence in order to be fair. Nifong already signalled that he planned to argue (as his less deranged successor surely would) that "the lack of DNA doesn't prove anything." Well, the lack of lacrosse DNA means a whole lot more in light of the presence of DNA from every other male she met that week-end. It shows how sensitive the test is, and how utterly impossible it would be for all of this other DNA to show up, when the defendants' does not.

In my opinion, under these circumstances, any judge who rules this "stranger DNA" inadmissible, is just sucking around for a reversal and re-trial, in the unlikely event of a conviction.

Anonymous said...

As a former judge with a very impressive CV, Everett is the kind of defender Nifong would die for, and now we see he chose to weigh into the case for the first time over this narrowly defined "412" mattter, when it would have been much easier simply to keep his silence.

In legal circles Everett's comments undoubtedly will cause a stir, not because he's said anything earthshattering about the law, but because he's come out to defend Nifong.

In the high level quiet corners where people like Everett and Easley (and Rae Evans, for that matter) operate, and real information is relayed and options discussed, track is being laid. The game's afoot.


Anonymous said...

Oh, and, responding to my last post, I forgot to include the third reason why the "unidentified DNA" evidence is admissible:

(3) it impeaches the so-called credibility of the accuser, who told police she last has consensual sex a week earlier, with her boyfriend (whose DNA is in addition to the "multiple" unidentified Y-chromosomes in her criotch).

Anonymous said...

The so-called rape shield laws were written ostensibly to keep irrelevant information from clouding a rape trial. However, from what we can see here, the rape shield laws apparently are used to exclude out-and-out exculpatory evidence.

My guess is that Nifong was hoping to exclude all of the other sexual exculpatory evidence and just turn the entire thing into Crystal accusing and the young men denying. A Durham jury, he hoped, would believe Crystal and convict.

The problem is that there are people in the system, including judges and prosecutors, who knowingly use rape shield laws to withhold exculpatory evidence and thus turn a trial into a railroading. It would be interesting to know how many wrongful convictions of rape have occurred because of these rape shield laws.

Anonymous said...

And when one places dishonest and unethical people like Nifong and Wilson in the mix, we see what happens.

Anonymous said...

I'm with big of a buffoon as Linwood appears to be, I'd bet that he openly or surrepticiously taped the interview (if it happened). Did he really claim that he didn't tape it and only took handwritten notes?


Anonymous said...

After all that's been revealed about what happened in the DA office over the past year (who knows, probably more to come out) I am surprised at how disfunctional the place seems to be. The missteps seem so obvious and clumsy. Isn't there anyone of talent and modest integrity who wants the job and could get elected? There must be something a little off about Freda Black that she couldn't beat this clod Nifong. I guess I am looking back at it with 20/20 hindsight, since his clumsiness wasn't revealed until after the primary. Is the rank incompetence and corruption of Durham public governance a product of its collapsing economy and therefore collapsing tax base?

Anonymous said...

i know for a fact that all the investigators on Law and Order, Closer and Without a Trace are some kind of law enforcement officers. How does Nifong get away with having an ivestigator who was a PI?
Any news on Amanda?

Anonymous said...

Wilson's Dec. 21st interview of the AV without any video, audio, or third-party record is evidence of his supreme arrogance and/or ignorance of proper investigative procedure.

When I first learned that a one-on-one interview in such a highly charged case had occurred I was naturally suspect of any of the information forthcoming. Obviously something improper took place or any legit investigator would have wanted an official record of the exchange.

Linwood Wilson is suspect and I'm curious to learn how Nifong came to hire him?

Anonymous said...

Rape shield laws are an example of unexpected consequences of legislation. I don't know the particular history of rape shield laws, but my impression is that they grew out of a concern that real rapists were winning cases by trotting out the victim's entire sexual history, or a concern that real victims were not coming forward because they didn't want their entire sexual history coming out in court. (Note that I used the word "concern" rather than reality, since it is likely that no quantitative studies were done.) So a set of laws are enacted making an accuser's sexual history irrelevant, particularly with prior lovers, irrelevant in a prosecution. JUst because Janie liked to do the dirty with Jimmy doesn't necessarily mean she wanted to with Johnny.The problem with legislating evidentiary rules is that most judges do feel constrained to follow them, even if in a given case they don't make much sense. So then even a conscientious legislature (!) would have to go back and tinker with the statute to eliminate the problem. Meanwhile, some defendants get screwed without much remedy except maybe in sentencing.

Anonymous said...

Is there ANYBODY in Durham that is competant in any way?

The DNA evidence would come in despite the rape shield laws on the basis of two things 1) credibility, she obviously lied about when she last had sex and with how many people and 2)motive to lie, if the defense can show evidence she's a prostitute [illegal] and she lied and said she was raped to prevent a potential arrest for prostitution. It could also be admitted on the basis of explaining the genital swelling.

What Mike Nigong SHOULD have done was turn over all the test results and then file a motion to exclude it under the rape shield law. At least he would have been following the law.

You can't hide information, break the law and then say, well it does't matter becuase it wouldnt' have been admissable anyway.

That is up for the judge to decide.
I've never seen so many clowns in one case and all on the government payroll.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Yep, Gottlieb, Himan and Wilson each need to be worrying about personal civil and criminal liability. I would expect at least one to turn on Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Rape shield laws were enacted because before they existed victims were asked on the stand if they were taking birth control pills, if they had ever had abortions and how many lovers they had had in the past and if they had ever done it X way.

Rape shield laws are very narrowly drawn in order to protect defendants. The victims who really get screwed are the ones that happened to have had recent consensual sex, since they can then be asked about their last sexual act with their boyfriend or husband, how 'rough' it was, etc. in order to 'explain' away any potential injuries that are alleged to have occured in the rape.

Anonymous said...

I expect the two DPD that went with Nifong to see Meehan to turn first.

Meehan will implicate them and Nifong.

Anonymous said...

I'm feeling worried about the AG though, it does seem like its taking too long for them to drop the case. That, coupled with the judge threatening the grand juror members.....feels like Durham isn't ready to give up yet.

I can't rationally imagine any evidence that could exist to support a rape charge or that any lawyer who didn't come out of traffic court would think this woman could stand up to a cross, but it's been a month now and still no dismissal.

Anonymous said...

Meehan has ALREADY implicated Nifong. He's already said that he told Nifong of the full DNA test results and that they AGREED to keep them out of the report. He has already said that this agreement VIOLATED his own company's procedures. This means that unless he pleads alzheimer's disease, Mike Nifong was LYING when he said he was not aware of any other DNA results not turned over to the defense or any other exculpatory material not turned over since Meehan has said the two of them agreed to withhold exactly that evidence.

I don't see how he can get out of it, but in North Carolina, anything is possible.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have the means to check if Linwood has ever been arrested or convicted in North Carolina?

According to what I found on a basic public records search, there are over 30 instances of a "Linwood E. Wilson" being arrested in North Carolina, dating back to 1983, including multiple counts of alleged code 2606 violations. Code 2606 falls in the same domain as forgery and uttering.

The free portion of the site does NOT offer conviction records, just arrests. It also does NOT indicate which "Linwood E. Wilson" was arrested. Could very well be someone else with the same name. (?).

If anyone has access to these criminal records- like an enterprising N&O reporter- they might be worth a look.

Anonymous said...

My point is that Nifong was prepared to argue that all of Crystal's recent sexcapades, including the vibrator use that day, were irrelevant to the case and should be excluded. Thus, the jury would be told that the only way that Crystal could have had an "effuse edima" would have been because the three young men raped her.

Now, I do not know if a judge would have allowed such exclusions, but that is precisely how Nifong believed he could win the case. Given the proclivities of NC judges, or at least the ones I have seen in action in this case, it is entirely possible that Nifong could have had his way.

Yes, by lying to police, Crystal made the previous sexual encounters relevant, but who knows what a judge would have ruled? Also, Wendy Murphy was saying the same thing, so at least we have a sense of Nifong's strategy. And who is to say it would not work?

And, judging from the emails I have received from the feminists, there are plenty of "women's advocates" out there who did not care one way or another if a rape actually did occur. They just wanted a conviction for political reasons.

Put unethical and dishonest people like Nifong and Linwood Wilson in that mix, and you can see just how perilous this thing really has been.

Gayle Miller said...

Dear Lord - the depth and extent of the rot is nearly impossible to fathom! I'm sure glad I don't live in North Carolina!

Anonymous said...

“He is rotten to the core.”

This is evil. Evil. A lot of people are content to sit back and let this kind of evil progress.

Anonymous said...

Except that is NOT WHAT HE DID. He did not file a motion to exclude the evidence of prior sexual activity, he lied about it instead.

Therefore, the impression is not that he planned to argue that it was irrelevant under the rape shield law, since he never did it, but he intended to HIDE it from the defense because he's too freaking incompetant to put together a rape shield motion.

It is theoretically possible that a judge would have ruled it all inadmissable, but it's doubtful given the rest of the woman's credibility problems. Usually when you lie, even as a victim, it is considered relevant to your credibilty.

The simple fact that she had sex with 3 or 4 men in that week doesn't mean she wasn't raped. The fact that she appears to be a prostitute doesn't mean she wasn't raped.

What does mean she wasn't raped is that lacrosse player DNA is not "magic" it can't be there and then disappear when other DNA from earlier encounters stays there and she has reason to lie to hide her likely criminal enterprise of prosituttion.

It is very unlikely that even a NC judge would have allowed Nifong to proceed as if she hadn't had sex with anyone in a week. Remember, Nifong ALSO lied to the judge about this. Why? Because he knows he would never have won the motion.

Anonymous said...

This is truly a freak show though. What kind of idiot DA uses a PI who has been previously acccused of LYING ON THE STAND and conducting illegal wiretaps????

Did he think Joe Cheshire wouldn't find this out? Prior warnings or incidents of poor behavior is about the only way in existance to get juries to question the credibility of police or PIs.

So, in a case already full of moon sized holes, he picks this dumbf**k as his lynchpin investigator?

kcjohnson9 said...

I, too, am puzzled by the Robinson Everett op-ed.

To begin with, the DNA evidence was clearly exculpatory, because it suggested that the accuser had lied to police about her prior immediate past prior sexual activity, which could in turn offer an explanation for the "diffuse edema of the vaginal walls" symptom.

More to the point, the Open Discovery statute is quite clear: prosecutors must turn over all files related to the case. This is the statute the state bar accused Nifong of violating.

Anonymous said...

It's bizarre this guy is a law professor since he seems to be arguing that it is okay to withhold evidence from the defense because you believe the judge will exclude it.

Now that may be how it works in Durham, but that isn't how the statutes are written. You have to give over the exculpatory evidence and then litigate it's admissability. You can't say in the mirror "this information is excluded under the rape shield statute" and then go on about your business as if it was the judge had already ruled on it.

I was waiting for Mike Nifong to file a rape shield motion and to file a motion asking that motions be filed under seal if they contained sensitive information about the woman's sexual or mental health history. But he never did.

Anonymous said...

I'm also pretty sure the defense has already investigated BunnyHole and most likely can prove that the complainant was working as a prositute.

This would surely be admissable, especially since she has ALSO said she never had sex with any of her clients except once.

Anonymous said...

One reason Everett might have written what he did was to influence the judge's decisions provided a trial actually took place. After all, the Evil and Satanic Wendy Murphy was trying to argue that Crystal's other sexual activities were irrelevant and would not have been permitted to be made known during a trial, under rape shield laws.

Granted, all of us know that Murphy's legal knowledge is a bit lacking, but I cannot help but wonder if Everett simply was trying to make sure that the exculpatory evidence could have been excluded. Just my guess, but since the state was trying to railroad these young men, I would not put anything past the prosecutors and their enablers.

Anonymous said...

Its hard to interpret Wilson's record of complaints without comparing it to the average PI who has been in business for a similar time period? Do they all get admonished eventually? Or is he substandard. Lets get a true measure of ground truth...then hang him.

Anonymous said...

"Could have been" doesn't cut it, though. Yes, it "could have been" excluded under the rape shield law.

But, Mike Nifong is not the judge and it is not his decision. Under the law he has to turn over all exculpatory information AND the results of all tests. So, under two different sets of rules he had to turn over the full DNA results.

If Mike Nifong was a halfway decent attorney, he "would have" done that, and that would have changed the tenor of the discussion becuase it would have been about the relevance of consensual sexual activity in ALL rape trials, and not about DA's breaking the law.

The penultimate example of his total incompetance is that even in his false excuses he failed to talk about the complainant's privacy as an alleged rape victim, instead he talked nonsense about the privacy of the players and/or the unknown DNA donors.

Anonymous said...

11:08 AM wrote: "I know there are some honest and truthful people in the democratic party (KC being a prime example), but unfortunately, they are hated by the mainstream democratic party (Salon/Edwards campaign/Dailykos refers KC as a right-winger - apparently anybody who reveals the truth is a right-winger or swift-boater)."

I am sad to admit that there is much truth in this assessment. The hard left is terrified that genuine liberals in the Democratic are finally being to realize that they have allied themselves with illiberal, leftist radicals. They will, as always, try to keep them within the fold by portraying all critics as "right-wingers." To resist this insideous tactic, can we KC fans agree to treat each other -- whether Democrats, Republicans, or independents -- with as much respect as possible? We have far more in common with each other than we do with extremists of any stripe -- a fact that much of the political and media establishment evidently finds disturbing.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

Old Judge Everett seem to be well into his 80s. I think I might pass on him if I were looking for a criminal lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Prof Everett should have asked his co-worker Prof Coleman for a review before submitting the oped.

Notice the oped of course, was sent to the Durham Sun. Who else would believe it?

Did you not say you had no sex for a week with anyone but you boyfriend?

Did Prof Everett read about this case before peenning a oped?

Anonymous said...

Re: the Dec. 21 statement.

It looks like the goal was to tie the towel with Dave Evans DNA on it to the oral sex...that's why she changed it from Reade to Dave. I guess the jury was supposed to overlook the fact that her DNA wasn't found on the towel either. But it would have theoretically dove tailed with spitting it out on a towel.

What I can't understand is how or why they let her change the time which looks to conflict with her own phone records, Kim's testimony, her driver's testimony and Bissey's testimony.

Even if they thought they could get a jury to disregard the time stamped photos, what explanation were they going to give for the extra HOUR that she was at the house?

I honestly don't know which story is less believable, the first story or the Dec. 21 story.

It makes you wonder if anyone in Durham law enforcement can even tie their own shoes.

Anonymous said...

One thing I find fascinating about the Duke case is that a number of people who ordinarily snipe at each other actually have come together for this one. I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian who is joining forces with conservatives, liberals, and, yes, leftists to push this case.

Granted, we cannot agree on everything, but I am glad to see some common ground here -- and common ground for something good, too. It is too bad that someone like Amanda Marcotte is decided to look at people solely through her little meta-narratives, and we can say the same for others, too.

The good thing here is that people of all ideologies and political stripes have taken the time and effort to look at a real case in real time and are wanting the right thing to be done. That is something I always will remember about it.

Anonymous said...

The saddest part of this case so far is the near total absence of caring for due process and search for truth from all corners of the judicial system (local, state and federal.) The lack of caring is a problem in the system overall, which seems to be reduced to jobs, agendas and politics.

I don't think that we need new constitutional protection - I was hoping for simply less tolerance of corruption. Something tells me that tolerance for corruption is a corruption itself.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely believe that he wrote the script for the AV's supposed "fill-in-the-holes" statement of December 21.

Heh, well the AV certainly knew about "fill-in-the-holes", eh.

Anonymous said...

you may remember at one of the hearing, Nifon said "the state was not interested in her phone calls or records". At the time, he also said "What does the defense think they are entitled to about the calls?" The South's greatest lawyer strikes again.

Anonymous said...

It's bizarre this guy is a law professor since he seems to be arguing that it is okay to withhold evidence from the defense because you believe the judge will exclude it.

Most law professors are hard core leftists and marxists who do not care or understand justice. They want living constitution so they can rewrite it and enforce their left-wing ideology (they tried that through elections first..and failed everytime).

Anonymous said...

you may remember at one of the hearing, Nifon said "the state was not interested in her phone calls or records".

LOL, I had forgotten about that. I mean, yeah, why in the world would the defense want any hard, irefutable evidence like phone records that tied the complainant into a specific act at a specific time??

Basically, Nifong knew from at least April if not earlier that he had no case. That's why he didn't check her phone records, didnt' return calls from the strip club correcting the record and didn't interview most witnesses more than once and at all costs avoided talking to the woman about her allegations.

It's disgusting.

Anonymous said...

PS...but he really, really, really needed the Duke swipe card records and addresses from all 46 players.

That was really, really relevant.

What a boob this guy is.

Anonymous said...

***Most law professors are hard core leftists and marxists who do not care or understand justice. They want living constitution so they can rewrite it and enforce their left-wing ideology (they tried that through elections first..and failed everytime).***

Where did you get your JD, 1:10? If you don't have one, your opinion is useless.

Anonymous said...

Glen Reynolds on Instapundit is reporting that Edwards isn't firing Amanda Marcotte and the other one.

Anonymous said...

The only motion I can remember Nifong filing was about the poll. Anyone on know if he lifed motions in the past or was it all verbal?

Anonymous said...

It is a good sign when people with different views can come together on an issue. It cements my belief that when we move out of abstract concepts, political ideologies, and win/lose endgame thinking and onto specific events, proposals, research, etc. that common ground will almost always be found on the right way forward.

As a libertarian myself, I do get tired of the 'lib' bashing on this board.

Anonymous said...

"When Linwood was a PI and I was working my way through school at a Durham grocery store, Linwood would often retrieve his "bounced" checks from the store office. Imagine my hilarity when I heard he was heading up the worthless check program for der fong. I can still see the sherlock holmes magnifying glass emblem at the top corner of the check."

LS Forum

Anonymous said...

PS...but he really, really, really needed the Duke swipe card records and addresses from all 46 players.

That was really, really relevant.

What a boob this guy is.

1:14 PM

From what I can tell, Nifong's strategy here was to make all of the players witnesses for the prosecution so that they could not testify for the defense, or if they did, to be "hostile witnesses."

You have to understand that Nifong was trying to get a conviction by totally gaming the system. By using rape shield laws to exclude the exculpatory evidence to claiming that the time-stamps were doctored (without presenting any evidence that they were) to his attempt to tie up the other players, Nifong was trying to eliminate any evidence that would help Reade, Collin, and David.

If this sounds like dishonesty and just plain evil, that is because it is dishonest and evil. But that is what Nifong was trying to do, and there are people out there willing to support him.

Anonymous said...

No, what I think he wanted to do was find out the exact location of all the players, when they went home, who was and wasn't at the party so he could retailor the testimony to fit the timeline.

I don't think he would have called any of these guys except maybe McFadden to the stand so he could be grilled about his email and whomever made the racist comments.

He's not going to want to put 46 clean cut college guys on the stand who all say the same thing: nothing happened, strippers didn't perform, got mad, went into the bathroom, we gave them money to leave, one passed out....

Anonymous said...

My point was not that he would put them on the stand, but rather make it difficult for the defense to put them on the stand. You have to remember that Nifong was not looking for new information, but rather was trying to repress the information that already was out there, and that would be exculpatory.

Had he been successful, then a Durham jury would have said that since the defense had not "proven innocence," they would convict.

Anonymous said...

The SPs are reading about Wilson today.
Can you imagine having to ask "so only you were the only witness to the Dec 21 meeting, and not tapes were made", who's idea was that? Yours or Nifong's?

Just when you think the case can not get any more weaker.

Anonymous said...

Esq. - "Are the residents of Durham so blinded they can't see that in the end this system works against, rather than for, their best interest?


Anonymous said...

Many people presume that those in authority will want to get to the bottom of things. My presumption is that they are motivated to put an end to this, without inflaming various constituencies or exposing allies -- to do damage control. This suggests to me that they will not be inclined to delve deeply at all.

However, it will look bad if it later comes out in civil suits that there is further corruption that was willfully overlooked. In this "case", any news is bad news for all those it reflects on and so they will keep things quiet until they figure out just how the end of the criminal case is to play out. Just letting some time pass will tend to calm things down a bit. What they really want is to manage things so that there are no civil cases, but that seems unlikely.

We have to hope that the civil attorneys have managed to get the goods on a number of people already and are holding these cards closely and watching for the many clumsy mistakes. There was plenty of opportunity and motive to bury evidence here. Does anyone thing that Nofing et. al. would have hesitated at all to do virtually anything to cover their tracks? The trouble is that many others have interests that are aligned with this, and are in positions of power.

AMac said...

Anti-Leftist Liberal wrote @ 12:51pm --

> Can we KC fans agree to treat each other -- whether Democrats, Republicans, or independents -- with as much respect as possible? We have far more in common with each other than we do with extremists of any stripe...

Fair enough, A-LL, but remember this comment board is open. Malevolent people can and will post foolish, inflammatory material designed to start "flame wars" to make this "community" look intolerant and bigoted.

It helps readers if commenters pick pseudonyms. And we should all remember the old Usenet adage, "Please Don't Feed the Trolls." Dumb comments wither without attention, and KC will eventually cull the worst of them.

Anonymous said...

I agree, but between the closed mouth meeting yesterday and the judge's threat to the GJ members, I'm questioning my judgement that they will dismiss all charges w/prejudice.

How long are they going to take before they do this?

Anonymous said...

AG's office wants to prove foundation for charges says LongTabber

Thank you ( this Arizona project has virtually eliminated my blogging time) and you guys will just have to trust me on this because the information would reveal the source on this one so here is an abstract but it comes from raleigh with CLOSE ties to the NCAG and this SP unit. Here is the abstract:

The state has already concluded this case is without merit BUT "some" have been instructed to look at the BIG picture to save the state literally MILLIONS and it has to do with culpability of all actions out of the DA's office there as well as NC proper.

Forget the Duke case specifically and broaden the thought process to almost EVERY case tried in NC where a suspect was found guilty with "questionable" evidence.

There are only 2 options here

1) Mike nifong "had" REASONABLE grounds to bring the charges

2) this was a deliberate FRAME from the beginning

( theres no 3rd answer)

so, this "review" ( and oncoming actions) directly bear on the answer to this scenario.

If it is "proven" that this case was without just merit ( violation of civil rights as well as judicial procedure) which is what they will be saying if the charges are dropped- then they just opened the floodgate for EVERY case tried in Durham ( thats questionable) to have a review, appeal, possible new trial etc- that can also spread NC wide.

Forget 'lawsuits"- just compute the dollars to appeal, reopen, reinvestigate cases already adjudicated ( add the lawsuits as the cherry on the cake for those who show the state acted illegally)- then add political reputations etc- THATS why the state is dragging their feet.

They are trying to find any possible loophole to justify the charge of criminal sexual misconduct- because if they cant- they have no leg to stand on to defend the state.

Here are some things made clear to me in a several hour conversation.

1) there will be NO "reinvestigation" of this case ( not meaning they wont interview people that should have been interviewed) but i am talking starting back at ground zero- reason is a catch 22- if they did and find "nothing" they just proved the above- if they found 'something" they just proved the state ( Nifong) and company did an improper investigation and had improper foundation to initially bring the charges.

2) the only person on earth who thinks there is a "robbery" is Cash- we wont waste cyberspace on that one

3) kidnapping- without the rape, the charge of "kidnapping" cannot be sustained since it was "originally" included in the "rape"

So, it goes back to the CSM charge- they already know they cant win ( we all know the state knows no evidence, no witness, no medical etc) but the "goal" here is NOT to bring and "win" this case but to provide LEGAL justification to have BROUGHT the charges in the first place- the goal here has shifted to protecting the state in what could be the largest repercussions in US history.

If you ever want to know why the state is doing what they are doing- thats why

The "comparison" I was given by this lawyer was the OJ case

In that case- there was NO question a crime was committed ( there were dead bodies)- it was a matter of "whodunnit"- thats why a civil suit against OJ was possible- there was a double murder

In THIS case- the very foundation for the case is questionable

THATS what the goal here is- just proving FOUNDATION ( that meets legal criteria) to have even brought charges.

The reason is simple- this unique group of people have the money, politics and 'state of mind" to beat NC and bring all the 'dirty laundry" to the surface for the entire world to see ( and they will) WHEN they do this- they will have set a precedent as well as opened "Pandora's box" and its "open season" on the NC legal system- even those following cases that fail ( and not all of them will) it will cost the state MILLIONS of dollars just in the various processes as well as have an effect on any future case.

you guys heard it here first

Anonymous said...

Duff Wilson also found " a body of evidence to support the charges". Of course, he never outlined that evidence.

Anonymous said...

The state can always fall back on even bipolar, criminals with bad memories who tell lies can be raped. Isn't that all the foundation they need legally?

I can't see the state trying to amend the charges down to sexual battery or simple assault or something like that...ANY trial opens up the complainant to asnwer for all of her statements.

It looks like Nifong's decision to drop the rape charges so he wouldn't have to explain the lack of DNA was a tactical and a stratigic error. She would still have to explain how, when, what caused her to change her mind, still answer for all of previous statements about rape.

The GJ statements that dropping the rape charge undercuts the whole case is the view the public will take.

Anonymous said...

Just read that kEdwards is keeping those foul mouthed women. The MYDD blog writer threatened outright threatened Edwards with a left wing avalance if he fired them. What would Edwards do with the Arabs,who threaten us on a daily basis? Full disclosure - I am for Rudy G,

Anonymous said...

That last post is important. However, because the governor has openly cut off Nifong, I cannot help but wonder if the state is going to try to say that the charges were brought by "bad apples." Granted, that is risky, given how it opens up the state, and, as all of us know, the state never is wrong.

There is one other thing. While enablers are saying "something happened," there is no "something" in the law books. The state still would have to bring specific charges, and given the timelines and other non-DNA exculpatory evidence, the state will have a most difficult time doing that.

Furthermore, there is the problem of the video of Crystal at the ID session, which is the basis for the charges against thre three. The state is going to have to say that she picked the right people, but is not telling the truth about what they did.

Granted, we are dealing with North Carolina, and so if it is dishonest and evil enough, the "justice" system there will swallow it.

Anonymous said...

Might it not be better from a civil standpoint if the state and the city of Durham argued that whatever laws Mike Nifong broke he did himself and because he broke the law and guidelines that the city/state isn't culpable? That he was acting as a rogue DA without the knowledge/support of any other gov. officers?

Anonymous said...

North Carolina public records of arrest, "Linwood Wilson", "Linwood E. Wilson"(name/date and file #/violation code):

Charges: 3544
Charges: 3543
Charges: 3541
Charges: 9968
Charges: 5441
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
Charges: 2606
WILSON,LINWOOD,EARL 82CR 021720 Charges: 8599
WILSON,LINWOOD,EARL 83CR 004296 Charges: 8599

You are viewing 25 out of 37 records

There are two "Linwood E. Wilson"'s currently residing in North Carolina. One in Vanceboro and one in Bahama.

Anonymous said...

Isn't that how cities get out of paying damages for police officers who commit rape or theft?

They say Officer X is a criminal, he broke the law, we didn't know what he was up to, as soon as it came to light we fired/centured/arrested him or whatever.

It would seem to a non Durhamite that this is the best course of action for NC...throw him to the wolves and say the city isn't liable for his criminal actions.

Anonymous said...

Lets say just as a intellectual exercise that DA Nifong knew the students were not guilty, and chose to try them anyhow to support his political career.

Given the above assumption, what method or statute or whatever would the players have to air their grievances against DA Nifong?

If such as outlined above was substantiated, what would the outcome be in terms of a civil case? Would large sums be involved? Who would be the defendants? Nifong personally? Or the State as well?

Thanks for your time.

Anonymous said...

12:16 PM
"I'm sure glad I don't live in North Carolina!"

Can somebody medivac me out of here to Cook Country, where there's some integrity in the system?

Anonymous said...

So NC Due Process will have one of two outcomes:

A) Doing the right thing, sparing NC's reputation but hurting many people who benefit from corruption (directly or indirectly).

B) Covering of asses from the top down, sparing reputations and not airing any dirty laundry.

All my money is on B.

Anonymous said...

I really wonder if the idea of a successful civil suit against the City of Durham is as realistic as some have thought.

If Durham does cut Nifong loose, and paints him as a rogue DA who went against established, written procedures and broke the law in several culpable is the city?

I would think to win they would have to prove that Nifong had a known history of this kind of behaivor [maybe/maybe not] and that other city employees aided and abetted his criminal behavior. It's as pretty tall order, isn't it?

The city might settle just to keep what I suspect is HUGE lawbreaking by Durham PD secret.

Anonymous said...

again, NONE of this matters if one just looks at the facts. Post-conviction DNA testing is being done to exonerate those that are wrongly convicted. It is frequently done in cases where identity was a problem but conviction occured anyway.(including cases where there were even confessions of guilt!) How do they exonerate with DNA when identity was a problem? They find that the accused DNA was not found and someone else's was! Sound familiar?

Michael said...

After reading this thread, I was thinking that the special prosecutors are taking so long as they have to go through all of KC's archives. If you really want to be complete, I don't see how you couldn't go through them. Other thing is who has the time to go through them back to last spring?

Anonymous said...

People have argued that judges in NC should be appointed rather than elected. This is the counterargument (upthread):

"In Brooklyn NY, democratic party sold judicial positions for $50,000. So basically every judge in Brooklyn is a democratic party activist who paid $50k to become a judge."
Does anyone else remember when Cheshire was doing a TV interview saying that CGM had changed her story multiple times and Wilson started shouting at Cheshire claiming that CGM had never changed her story. So it's ironic that Wilson should come back with a report that she's changed her story.

Anonymous said...

Jim 1:49

Since Wilson was a PI in 1989 and on, I would submit that the criminal charges are for another Wilson.

They do criminal back ground checks for PI in NC.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else remember when Cheshire was doing a TV interview saying that CGM had changed her story multiple times and Wilson started shouting at Cheshire claiming that CGM had never changed her story.

Yeah, and didn't Chesire release the next day police records of her statement PROVING she had changed her story.

This is what kills me in this case, the lies are so blatant and easy to uncover.

Maybe no one in Durham can afford a decent lawyer so they get away with this stuff typically?

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

Re: 12:02

That professor as you say has taken the lead of Wendy Murphy and "decided" that only admissible evidence must be turned over in discovery. Since discovery is pre-trial and admissibility is decided at trial, this is a first year law student mistake. It is a silly argument on the face of it and I am not a lawyer and can see through this.

Anonymous said...

2:05 Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Post 1:36 - Awesome!

Anonymous said...

"I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word," Edwards said."

Looks like John got his investigative training at the same place as Mike and Linwood.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re my last post that should have been 11:02 not 12:02 as I typed.

re 11:29

You seem to miss the most basic admissibility issue of that DNA. Mangum claimed in one of her early statements to police that she had not had sex for a week prior to being sexually assaulted at the lacrosse party. Thus the fact that she had that DNA on her is relevant to her credibility as a witness.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: 11:33

Sorry had I read two posts down, I would have seen you add what I wanted to your list of reasons for admissibility.

Anonymous said...

Beckett's 11:32 post re Everett nails it. Something else is happening here. There is no way that a guy who teaches criminal law would write that article unless he is advancing an unarticulated agenda.

Does Everett really believe that DNA is not exculpatory?

one example

Anonymous said...

In a letter dated July 15, 1997, Wilson complained to the board that the reprimand could make it difficult for him to testify at trials.

"When a letter is placed in my permanent file it is open to the public and therefore could be damaging to my creditability in court," Wilson wrote.

He will make a great witness

Anonymous said...

DNA from someone other than the accused is not by itself exculpatory in a rape trial.

If in this case there was DNA from just the boyfriend and the complainant had disclosed truthfully when she last had sex then the boyfriend's DNA would really be exculpatory though the defense would argue that it was.

These DNA exonerations from the past when DNA wasn't able to determine an individual's identity have nothing to do with the relevance of DNA in this case.

Anonymous said...

Electing judges is a lot more useless than you might think. What happens in New York is this:

*People have no clue who the judges are or what they stand for;
*People know which candidate they want to vote for, usually on party lines;
*People vote for the judges who are running on the same party line as the executive branch candidates they are electing.


Anonymous said...

I'd much rather be an "SP" than a Christian Conservative "CC".

Religion looks to fill in holes in knowledge with faith. Secular/Progressives don't have that fall-back. There really is no harm in saying "You know what, I can't really explain everything about this world, and in lieu of just saying 'God made it', I just say 'I don't know'".

CC's do things like, well, starting wars and saying that God spoke to George Bush... well apparently God has it in for GW and the USA and played a fast one on him. We are paying the price for his lack of intellect and his reliance on faith.

DesertBunny said...

Birds of a feather flock together

Anonymous said...

2:41, you are kidding?

The false accuser says the rapists were not wearing condoms, which is one of the few facts that she has not yet changed. DNA not belonging to any of the accused was found in and around her vagina.

How is this not exculpatory?

Anonymous said...

2:41 "These DNA exonerations from the past when DNA wasn't able to determine an individual's identity have nothing to do with the relevance of DNA in this case."
I think you are wrong. It is extremely important to this case. This FA didn't have a solid identification of her attackers,her description didn't match those she picked from a flawed photo line up. The accused have alibis. The DNA can not identify these boys as the attackers either, that's strong support for misidentification.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Durham takes the prize as the worst run, most incompetent and crooked local jurisdiction I have ever seen."

Folks have mentioned Brooklyn and Detroit as giving Durham a run for this prize, but I am sure New Orleans has got to be in the running for this distinction. The sad thing is that Nagin truly is more competent and more honest than his predecessors. Many of the judges in New Orleans are very corrupt. And do we even have to mention Bill "Cold Cash" Jefferson, the Congressman from New Orleans?

Durham has its troubles, but there is more trouble to get into in our larger cities. Kinda reminds me of a chapter in "Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek, a chapter titled "Why the Worst Get on Top." The more corrupt have more to gain by getting into a position of power, and will "outbid" their competitors in terms of the lows to which they will stoop.

Anonymous said...

You think Durham and New Orleans are bad, the Bush administration ha lost over 18 BILLION dollars of untraced money in Iraq, much of which found its way into the hands of the people killing civilians and US soldiers.

So while Durham and New Orleans seem very corrupt, this is a systematic problem that goes right up to the top... let us not forget the SECRET ENERGY TASK FORCE... I know these types of things don't really bother you, and that Dick Cheney is an honest, trustworthy man and all... but that is insane!

Anonymous said...

DNA, it's presence or it's absence, per se, is not exculpatory or inculpatory in a rape case, which is what some of you seem to be arguing. The relevance in each case is subjective.

In THIS CASE the story+no Duke DNA+DNA from others clearly IS exculpatory.

If you had sex with your girlfriend or wife who then claimed she was raped and suffered genital tearing and bruising, I doubt if you would find the presence of your DNA to be exculpatory. However, the defendants' lawyer would argue that any injuries received by your wife or girlfriend occured when you had sex with hter, and might further argue it showed your girlfriend or wife had a propensity for 'rough' sex, just like he gave her.

Each case and the relevance of DNA must stand on its own.

Anonymous said...

2:56 PM
"I'd much rather be an "SP" than a Christian Conservative "CC"."

Thanks for your thoughts Amanda. Please tell John hey!

Gary Packwood said...

Professor (Judge) Robinson O. Everett on rape evidence

Would not the acceptance of DNA as evidence in a court of law of non-Lacrosse players semen on the person of the 'victim' be seen as a legal precedent for Federal and NC Rule of Evidence 412?

DNA testing is relatively new in the grand scheme of things and results in objective rather than subjective testimony . Evidence Rule 412 is apparently trying to get at the problem of subjective testimony used to punish the victim.

If such objective DNA evidence is allowed in this case that we are all following, would it be reasonable to assume that defense attorneys across North Carolina and the nation will petition the courts for new trials for their clients who have been found guilty of the crime of rape?

If so, the entire fabric of the far political left including especially the Anger Studies people will take a severe rip as they depend on their existence of men raping women as the justification for at least part of their existence. The whole issue of women needing 'support' is wrapped around this issue of rape and sexual assault.

What other types of objective evidence might be introduced in a court of law during a rape trial?

Democrat candidates for elected office including the Governor of North Carolina who court the radial left may wake up to find that the 'sucking sound' they hear is the sound of all those Anger Studies people scampering to find shelters at Safe Havens across the country ...similar to the Safe Haven located on the Campus of Duke.

If we are going to change evidentiary rules in rape cases across the country, please someone tell the Governor here in Texas. We are getting ready to build more prisons for bad boys. We need those dollars for better projects.

M. Simon said...

12:57 PM,

Re: spitting.

Did you know that your mouth is full of your DNA?

Anonymous said...

The (second) DNA test that was used is very sensitive. It is actually something of a wonder that they didn't pick up DNA from at least one player just from her being in the bathroom or in the same house -- there is DNA in housedust.

Not to get too graphic, but the DNA swabs included a pubic-hair combing, among the other sites. There is no way that any of the players were anywhere near CGM and the tests came out negative, condom or not.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

At one point in time I gave Nifong the benefit of the doubt and guessed he was a weak person that went bad on this case to win his first election for ego and pension.

But the new information that he:

1. lied to Easley about running.

2. hired someone as dirty as Wilson.

both of which have nothing to do with the case at hand indicates to me that he was probably dirty from day one.

That is he is just a corrupt DA and every case he ever handled should be reexamined. If I were Durham I might start by scrubbing every traffic case he was involved with. Since any points someone has are suspect and this is a minor thing, the cheap way is just to void all convictions and guilty pleas. That eliminates any issues in the recent past. Then I examine every major conviction or plea he was associated with. Minor cases like misdemeanor assault I would not worry with but anything major needs to be reexamined.

Anonymous said...

If this has already been explored and I missed it, I apologize for paying too much attention to my life and my job, but:

Would a judgment against Nifong in the bar proceeding create findings that could be used against him (or the state) in subsequent civil rights actions under Section 1983?

If so, maybe the Everett piece is an effort to create some sort of qualified-immunity cover, in the form of an argument that the law on the scope of test-result disclosure was somehow unsettled, which means Nifong wouldn't be liable for the nondisclosure even if he was wrong to do it.

It would be interesting to know what the standard practice on this has been in NC, whether there are any court rulings or bar opinions, etc.

It seems pretty straightforward to me that, as repeatedly noted here, the right thing to do is to disclose everything and let the court decide what's admissible, but maybe that's the argument they're trying for.

If Nifong wins the state bar proceeding, that shouldn't help him defend a 1983 claim, but if he loses, they might be worried about creating issue preclusion problems for subsequent civil cases.

Dave in CA

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

When I read the N&O article, I realized a Durham judge awarded money to Linwood Wilson for surveilling a building at a time when the building DIDN'T EXIST!?

Durham courts scare me.

M. Simon said...


It looks to me like merely delaying the inevitable.

If that is the case it opens them to serious Federal charges.

Anonymous said...

3:05 is correct although I would state it much stronger: the DNA in this case actually exonerates the accused.

Assuming that a rape actually occurred (the FA alleged this on numerous occassions), the question is who raped her. We know it could not have been the Duke 3 due to the accuser's statements (no condoms) and the DNA test results.

The DA and other law enforcement, which had accepted her statement that a rape occurred, had an obligation to immediately drop the rape charges against the 3 accused. They also had a law enforcement obligation to determine the source of the male DNA. These are the only males who could have raped the accuser.

Not only did the DA and LE abdicate this obligation, they failed to turn over this evidence to allow the defense to conduct their own investigation.

All of this, of course, is a fantasy because no rape occurred. Nifong knew it. The cops knew it. Meehan knew it. They continued to railroad these boys even knowing they could not have committed the rape of which they accused them.

Thought experiment: Assume some time in the past, say 18 years ago, and Nifong obtains a conviction of the Duke 3. The DNA only comes to light today. Would the Duke 3 be exonerated?

Anonymous said...

JLS says .....

re: 1:36

Certainly the special prosecutors have a duty to not hang the state out to dry if there were any basis for a charge, but there was not and thus in the end they will drop the charges.

That these people have the will and the means to make NC pay cuts both ways. The special prosecutors will be witnesses in civil actions no matter what they do. They can decide to be merely witnesses or they can decide to be witness defendants.

M. Simon said...

Anon 2:56PM,

I think the Maker may have let GWB in on the A.Q. Kahn Libya Saddam nuclear weapon connection.

Or maybe it was some one in intel and GWB just said the Maker to make every one think - what a rube - while keeing his sources secret.

Bush is devious like that. The dumbest evil genius to ever be President.

M. Simon said...


Read Catch 22 to get an idea of what it was like in WW2. An exageration to be sure. However, it has the flavor correct. The movie isn't bad either.

There is always a black marked in stolen or "lost" government property.

Both sides try to take advantage.

War is a series of catastrophes and blunders leading to victory or defeat.

Anonymous said...

anon 3:52 Of course they would be exonerated! That's what Barry Scheck and his whole Innocence Project is all conviction DNA evidence! And what do they look for? Weak identification on the part of the accuser + no presence of DNA from the accused + DNA from someone else= exoneration!

Anonymous said...

Did the creator of the universe also tell Bush that sending 300 TONS of cash to Iraq was a good start for democracy building or is that more of his 'evil genius' at work?

Anonymous said...

How far away from Zimbabwe and Mugabe are we in Durham? When artificial criteria are used to choose leaders and redressing old grievances is the operative political mode then how far away is tyranny?
Sorry folks, I have to call it like I see it. You describe it in your won words.

Anonymous said...

11:08 - I live in Maryland. Yes, it's a one-party system, controlled by two counties/Baltimore City and as crooked as a ram's horn on the local level.

But even Maryland pales in comparison to Durham.


Anonymous said...

Linwood Wilson is a complete whimp, I don't know if he got a pay raise with his promotion to "Chief Investigator" with one part time investigator under him. What a joke. Plus I sent an e-mail to Linwood Wilson, which I think he received but did not respond, the very next day I sent another e-mail to him and got a message that the e-mail address did not exist. Here is the address I sent the e-mail to.

Anonymous said...

Say what you will about George W, but he has restored a way of life back to the Marsh Arabs. Huessin had destroyed their lives and habitat - the Americans are restoring.

Anonymous said...

As Lyndon Johnson said "When you buy a politican, they are supposed to stay bought." This is simple -We now have a miracle called DNA - very useful in determining who was here. Innocent Project is using new technology to exonerate or reinforce guilt where old DNA exists. The key habing the DNA. The trick is going to the hospital while your body is still a crime scene. If you shower and don't go for a few days, there may be no DNA left ( Or signs of condom use which has its own marking). Almost any reasonable person would say today? where is the DNA?" If none, why not?

Anonymous said...

There is no end to the number of Duke Professors who want to make fools of themselves. If it is true, Everett is in his 80s, I think he wanted to have a good chat. Please direct him to this blog and he can chat online and have some fun,

Anonymous said...

I had lunch today with my lawyer, an African-American who does a lot of criminal defense work here in Columbus, Ohio (he's also a staunch liberal Democrat). I asked him for his opinion of the Duke case.

He replied "that prosecutor is a horrible, horrible man. He should lose his job and have his law license revoked." He added he should face criminal prosecution on contempt charges.

He did have one criticism of the lacrosse players: he thought they should never have talked to the police without having lawyers present. "The police are there to get you."

Anonymous said...

Forget about Nifong; he's already road kill. And Durham's now the bad- check capital of the New South. You wanna see a real railroading? Turn your attention to Texas and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's legalized mayhem on a couple of low-level boarder guards.

M. Simon said...


It seems to have jump started the Iraqi economy.

Which grew at a 4% rate last year.

Not bad for a war zone.

BTW I like Bush. I liked Clinton. Neither of them put my shorts in a knot.

Anonymous said...

I thought Clinton squandered his talent and the massive political capital he had when he was elected, could have been a great president, mediocre. His wife is a first class shrill ultra liberal hypocrite masquerading as a centrist.

I think Bush lacks the talent, insight or work ethic to be even a mediocre president, his presidency in my opinion will go down as the most destructive in our history.

Anonymous said...

Here's an interest history story on Durham. Harvey Gant, Black mayor of Charlotte ran against Jesse Helms, Helms was kicking his ass on election day, so the dem's got a Black Fed Judge in G'boro, Durham is in that district, to order the polls to stay open 3 extra hours. Gant and the dems rode around the Durham projects actually looking for voters to drag to the polls. Now they have early voting and track them down weeks early.

Anonymous said...

Durham operates on the
Liberian model of governance.

I always wondered if Nifong
handled Crystal's taxi caper