Friday, March 02, 2007

The Mysterious April 10 Non-Meeting

Great article by Anne Blythe in this morning's N&O, analyzing Mike Nifong's sudden "memory loss" regarding the April 10 meeting. Gottlieb says Nifong was there. Himan says Nifong was there. Meehan says Nifong was there--and he said it in court, in front of Nifong, who didn't challenge him.

Blythe's article reveals that, in fact, Nifong says Nifong was there. In a January 16 letter to the bar, Nifong wrote, "I can only report that I have no recollection of that meeting and that I have no documentation or other evidence that I ever attended such a meeting."

But in that same letter, according to Blythe's article, Nifong commented about a May meeting with Meehan, explaining, "He also discussed with us the results of the tests he had performed since our April 10, 2006, meeting." (emphasis added)

It's no surprise that Nifong can't keep his stories straight: but to tell two different stories in the same letter?


Anonymous said...

BUSTED! This guy proves the adage that you shouldn't lie since you can never keep your stories straight. Lies are so much harder to remember than facts.

Anonymous said...

Even if he was not there (ha, ha), both Gottlieb and Himan were there, and did receive the information about the "adverse" DNA traces. Since Gottlieb was presenting evidence to the Grand Jury, I find it inconceivable that he would not have discussed this development with the DA beforehand. This presages a very interesting confrontation between Nifong and Gottlieb.

Anonymous said...

What a difference the N&O makes in our lives. Of course the Herald Sun has an editorial about the NC State Bar, and seems to lend sympathy to Nifong. (surprise) So sorry he made a mistake, so maybe a slap on the wrist will do???? Certainly they didn't note that it wasn't just witholding evidence, but continually lying about it throughout the process. He has told so many, that he can't keep it straight. He's got to go!

Anonymous said...

Nifong stated he didn't see the DNA results as positive for the Defendants, because it didn't prove an assault took place.
Is he insane?

Anonymous said...

Where is the Jan 16th letter? Obviously the N & O has it, why hasn't it been released. If it has where?

Anonymous said...

Re: Anon 8:37

Actually, I think today's H-S editorial is the first decent one that I can recall them writing on the case. We are, in fact, waiting with baited breath to see what the State Bar will do. Assuming that the State Bar follows the principal of stare decisis (the following of its on precedents), then Nifong has a pretty strong argument that they should not punish him any more severely then Hoke, Gell, et al. In effect, the State Bar is going to have to officially disavow its previous decisions on prosecutorial misconduct. That's a hard thing for adjuciative bodies to to. I hope they will be willing to do that.

Anonymous said...

The Hurled-Scum editorial is another scurrilous attempt to whitewash Nifong's crimes -- and they are crimes. The theme of the editorial is this: The bar did not severely punish the other prosecutors, so Nifong should only get a slap on the wrist, since there was no trial.

This is most interesting. The Hurled-Scum has been beating the drums for months demanding that this piece of crap actually go to trial. But, now they say that because it HAS NOT gone to trial, that Nifong really did not do any harm.

Is the Hurled-Scum then saying that a trial would be a farce, or if there were a trial, only then would Nifong be in serious trouble? In other words, like Nifong, the Hurled-Scum contradicts itself. What a bunch of asses!!

Anonymous said...

Just remember, if Nifong could have planted physical evidence, he would have.

Anonymous said...

Here is the text of the letter I sent this morning to the Hurled-Scum:

In your March 2 editorial, 'N.C. Bar Also Faces Scrutiny," the Herald-Sun once again defends Michael Nifong as though his actions simply were "mistakes," something akin to putting down the wrong answer on a math quiz. But, then, you have the following statement:

"Nifong certainly made mistakes, as he concedes, but no one has been wrongly convicted, and no trial has been held."

Throughout this ordeal, the H-S has been DEMANDING that the case go to trial, and for the most part, you all but have demanded a conviction. Now you tell us that there has been no "wrongful conviction." True, but are you saying that if a jury actually were to convict the three young men, that it would be "wrongful"? Are you saying now that there should be no trial?

No harm? What about the millions of dollars the families have had to spend to defend their sons, with the charges being transparently false? What about the damage to the reputations of individuals and to Duke University?

Furthermore, we are dealing with highly prejudicial statements that Nifong made, and the illegal withholding of exculpatory evidence, something that the H-S apparently thinks to be of no consequence. Now Nifong tells the N.C. Bar in a letter that (1) he did not attend any April 10 meeting, and (2) in the same letter mentions the April 10 meeting. Does the H-S see no problem there?

No, once again the H-S simply enables Michael Nifong and continues to try to sweep the dirt under the rug. You should be ashamed.

William L. Anderson
Cumberland, Maryland

Anonymous said...

Re: Correction of my post at 9:06 a.m.:

...Hoke, GRAVES, et al....

Anonymous said...

I presume the significance of the April 10 meeting is that Nifong was (probably) told there was no physical evidence and (probably) exculpatory evidence from other men.

He then indicts them a few days later.

I think the vultures will be circling.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the N&O point out the letter's inconsistency more clearly? The first time I read the article, I didn't notice it.

Anonymous said...

I was reminded of my parenting skills used in raising my child after reading the H-S editorial. "Just because they got by with it doesn't make it right", "Just because you didn't kill yourself this time doesn't make what you did any less dangerous". I don't think I need to go on. I can't decide if I want to cancell my subscription because of the biased reporting/editorials or the lousy home delivery. I just know I would miss having a Sunday morning paper with my coffee.

Anonymous said...

I'll say it again: Those of you who are so incensed over this morning's H-S editorial are missing the whole point of the editorial: That if Hoke, Graves and the other prosecutors, whose improper conduct put men in prison for years, got only taps on the wrist, then the State Bar is going to have to make a major sea change in this case, and everyone will be watching to see if they do.

The point of the editorial, IMO, was NOT that no harm has been done to these three lacrosse players, but rather that other prosecutors who not only charged innocent men, but put them away in jail for years, got none or next-to-no punishment.

Anonymous said...

10:25 You give the H-S too much credit. Recall their past reporting and editorial stance.

Anonymous said...

Nifong is like those twin charachters in Alice in Wonderland. One says one thing and the other says the opposite. Yet Nifong seems to be both of them.....hmmmm possible case of split personalities.

Anonymous said...

The importance of the April 10th meeting is that Nifong abosolutely knew without a doubt that no DNA whatsoever of any of the lacrosse players, (specifically the 3 he planned to bring to the grand jury and indict) was on, in or around Crystal. This means he purposefully conspired with the DPD to lie to the Grand Jury to get false indictments. He had to indict someone before the primary. That is as corrupt as it can get. The key word is "knowingly" (he knew in advance they were inncent, yet he went forward with the indictments).

Anonymous said...

Let's see, when the Durham police felt that their usual tactics were not stopping Duke off-campus students from partying late and loudly, they decided to ramp up their enforcement efforts to the level of thuggery.

I guess Nifong has his fingers crossed that the state Bar will not ramp up its enforcement efforts (in his case) in reaction to the public outcry over the Bar's ineffective efforts in the past.

A lot of wishful thinking on Nifong's part there.

Anonymous said...

Nifong tells the bar that although he believed:
1. A rape took place
2. DNA evidence would show who did or did not do it
3. DNA evidence WAS found on the accuser
4. The DNA evidence did NOT match any lacrosse player

And somehow, also:
5. The exculpatory DNA evidence did NOT indicate the players were innocent of the rape charge.

Again, he's either a liar or a moron -- or both. And this is the man that so many people say was, prior to this case, a paragon of honesty and justice?

GS said...

At this point the other players should realize that Nifong's statements to the bar can be used against them in a civil lawsuit and possible civil rights case.

Usually the first one to run to the Feds gets to walk. I have to believe that Meehan lawyer is telling him to make a deal.

Oh, and the SPs must love Nifong's letter. He just said he was not the lead investigator, and the police say he did take over the case. I could just see the keystone cops moment.

Who was leading the investigation? Everyone will have a different answer. Go to court with that one.

Michael said...

I received a letter from Senator Gregg today:

I understand your concerns about Mr. Nifong's actions. As you may be aware, any criminal charges against the Duke students (or, likewise, ethics charges against Mr. Nifong) would be brought under North Carolina state law, not federal law. I do believe, however, that all public officials should be held accountable if they break the law and cause harm to innocent persons. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor the criminal processdings against the three Duke students, as well as the North Carolina State Bar Association's actions against Mr. Nifong, and will keep your views in mind.


Senator Gregg has been good at responding to correspondance though this one took a while to arrive. At least he is aware of the situation.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer / retired professor: Regarding Nifong's January 16th letter, I would assume it was vetted by his lawyers. As many have already pointed out, it seems likely that this April 10 meeting can be documented. Since Nifong in one account has no recollection of it, won't it be near impossible for his lawyers to challenge other accounts of the meeting?

Anonymous said...

If I am not mistaken (perhaps someone will correct me), the Hoke & Graves transgressions occurred BEFORE the current statutes came into effect which mandate full, pro-active disclosure by the prosecution. I believe the H-S knows this full well, and is being disingenuous (to say the least) in pretending that the Hoke/Graves wrist-slap is legitimate precedent.

Hoke & Graves were wrong, in the opinion of any fair-minded person -- but it could be claimed that there was room for disagreement re: whether they violated any law then existing. Nifong, on the other hand, is a criminal who violated clear, comprehensive new discovery rules, and lied about it.

Anonymous said...

Today's article in N&O states that Nifong didn't think the DNA test results were favorable to the defense. Nifong said (about the DNA tests)"They neither suggested that no assault took place nor that the assault was committed by someone else,"

The first part of his statement is actually true,(surprisingly), the DNA wouldn't show that an assault didn't take place, but the findings of DNA evidence from 5-7 other men and NONE from the Lacrosse players SCREAMS of a VERY STRONG SUGGESTION that IF there actually was a crime it COULD have been committed by any of the 5-7 men whose DNA happened to find a home inside the FA's vagina.

Nifong's error of ommission was not because he is a poor prosecutor, it's because he needed to find the Lacrosse players guilty for his own political gains. When the DNA didn't support the guilt of the boys Nifong wanted convicted of this alleged rape, he put another nail in their coffin with his condom lie. He may have played the race card but he can't trump the truth!

Anonymous said...

10:25 says..the State Bar is going to have to make a major sea change in this case

Not in my view. Even in the Gell case, the State arguably had a "credible" witness and a crime actually did take place. Contrast that with this case in which the State had an (in)credible witness and no evidence of a crime of any sort. If the Bar hadn't stepped in, this thing would have gone to trial (or at least pre-trial hearing)

From a political point of view, this whole thing also unfolded in public, and Nifong was strongly advised , in writing, very early on (by Cheshire) againt behaving improperly in this case.

So, this is obviously the more egregious misconduct, regardles of the fact that no one was incarcerated. I find the latter fact secondary to the issue at hand; prosecutorial misconduct.

Anonymous said...

I am only a simple caveman and I do not understand all of your complex laws, but can Knifong's cell phone records (billing statement) be perused (he is an elected official, after all) to ascertain who he was talking to at various times. Also, going a little deeper, cell phone towers utilized during calls can help determine one's geography while on those calls. And, finally, his phone probably has a gps component. All this combined might help jog his memory. Of course, I am just a caveman and I could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

To ex-prosecutors re the April 10/17 sequence:

Assuming a DA receives a police report that X has been raped by Y and Z, and also assuming he receives evidence that DNA from OTHER men was found on or in X, does a duty (ethical or legal) arise to conduct further interviews with X BEFORE signing any charge against Y or Z?

Anonymous said...

Added significance of the April 10, 2006 meeting is that the players and their parents will sue his ass over indictments obtained by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation. If Nifong hopefully suffers the worst, can his state pension be affected? Just think, Nifong can spend his days on the golf course with O.J. looking for killers and rapists.

Anonymous said...

Mar 2, 2007 11:24:00 AM

Add that X has stated that she only had sex with her boyfriend in the week before the alledge attack.

So the DA knoes that she lied on at least part of her statement to police.

Anonymous said...

Re: 11:35
Maybe she said that she only MADE LOVE to her boyfriend, but inadvertantly forgot to mention that she professionally fucked a bunch of other Johns. None of whom play lacrosse for Duke University, BTW.

GS said...

The April 10 meeting is a diaster for Nifong.

He knows that the DNA shows, the "accuser" lied or even at best picked the wrong people. He still went out 2 days later to indict the players.

He had a duty to have the "Accuser" re-interview her and they did not.

He is also covering his ass by stateing that he did not take over the investigation. Hence it was up to the police (the lead investigators) to follow up on this new evidence. The police testified to the grand jury, not Nifong. He is leaving the police out to hang.

When will the judge at the grand jury realize that the police hid information from the grand jury?

The police investigators are being set up for a massive lawsuit thanks to Nifong's statements.

Anonymous said...

"Today's article in N&O states that Nifong didn't think the DNA test results were favorable to the defense. Nifong said (about the DNA tests)"They neither suggested that no assault took place nor that the assault was committed by someone else,"
The first part of his statement is actually true,(surprisingly), the DNA wouldn't show that an assault didn't take place....."

Stating the first part of the statement is true, ignores the other evidence in the case. The statement by the accuser.
If her statement was true, then she identified the wrong guys.
If her statement is false then there is no evidence against the Duke 3.

GS said...

Also a problem for the police is that the after the DNA results were known, they (who testified to the grand jury) knew she had lied to them about her sexual history.

Did the police tell the grand jury she lied to them?

Did the police tell the grand jury she is a credible witness?

Did the police mention the DNA evidence of the other men that was found?

Where is the judge of that grand jury?

I suspect the judge will just let the police get away with lying and withholding evidence from the grand jury.

Anonymous said...

Has Nifong doctored his own logs and records? What do his records show about his activities on April 10? Has evidence disappeared?

These are fair questions, one would think.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the April 10 meeting looks like a disaster for Nifong. The fact that he "has no recollection" of it to me indicates that he understands just how bad it looks for him to have pressed forward with indictments after learning what was disclosed there. Couple this with the incredible blunder of a Jan 16 reference to "our" April 10 meeting, and it's hard to see how this can be read as anything other than a desperate lie offered to try to escape the consequences of a damning piece of evidence.

It's getting harder and harder to come up with any explanation for Nifong's conduct other than a deliberate, calculated scheme to frame people he knew were innocent for a "crime" that he never believed had been committed.

I can't see how the Bar can regard what he's sent them with anything but contempt. My (admittedly shaken) belief in our criminal justice system says he must now be a very strong candidate for disbarment and prison time.

Anonymous said...

Question for those who speculate that Nifong will only get a slap on the wrist from the NC Bar: Despite what previous prosecutors have done, did they lie--in writing--to the NC Bar?

GS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

from the N+O article: "The lacrosse case arose 'during the last few weeks of a hotly-contested Democratic Party primary in which I was seeking to retain my office," he said. "I was not always able to give the case my full attention.'"

is it ethical for Nifong to put the election ahead of his prosecution of the Duke lax case? if it is not, what would the penalty be (assuming that this is his only ethical lapse)?

GS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GS said...

I'm amazed that Nifong did not just resign. Think about what he is doing now:

He has a whole list of video tape comments out there over the last 11 months.

He has answers documented in court records arguing against releasing DNA info. He may be in trouble with the judge over DNA comments to the court.

The police records of the April 10 meeting and other events.

He is documenting his response to the bar.

He will almost certainly have to appear in court over "remove Nifong" petition filed.

He will almost certainly be sued.

He could have civil rights criminal charges filed against him.

So rather than shut up and resign, give up the law license, he keeps documenting conflicting answers and reasons for his actions.

Bloggers, lawyers and legal experts are studying every statement he makes, and he keeps documenting more conflicts.

He is going to lose it all.

Anonymous said...

With Nifong now on record as stating that he never directed the investigation, look for the defense team to add to its motion to surpress the lineup. They will make the argument that the lineup process was additionally flawed in that it was designed by no responsible party, as neither the police nor Nifong acknowledge having been in charge. Moreover, with both the police and DA disavowing responsibility, I can't see how the state SP can argue in favor of the lineup being admitted. At this point, their long awaited (written) response to the lineup surpression motion pretty much has to either actively support surpression, or at least not object to it.

Anonymous said...


Do you work for GEICO? Ha Ha


The Drill SGT said...

Did you catch the sympathy plea of "Rich white boys with Yankee carpetbagger lawyers butting into the way we conduct the justuce system in our great state of NC"

in this:

He said he had never before encountered such determined pretrial resistance. "A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals -- most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina, have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial."

GS said...

I'm stuck on the "Who is the lead investigator" and the DNA issue.

The police detectives and the DA were at the April 10 meeting. They know about the DNA form no Lax players, but 5 other guys. And they took no action on this new information? And two days later the DA sent them into a grand jury. No one questions the "accuser", no one looked for more suspects?

I think the moment of the conspiracy crime has been highlighted. The DA sen the case to the grand jury knowing about the DNA conflict. The police testified in the grand jury and probably (no documentation of GJ) did not tell the grand jury about the DNA. The police did not fellow up with the "accuser" after they learned about the DNA.

Active participation in a criminal conspiracy. They may never face criminal charges, but they will be sued.

Anonymous said...

Nifong has to know that his attendance or non-attendance at the April 10 meeting has a large role determination in the eventual amount of guilt he will have to take on. Therefore, it seems very odd to me that his best effort at distancing himself from that meeting is merely to say,"I cannot recall being there." Presumably a DAs normal daily activities generate a pretty good running work-diary of his location, at least as near as which city he is in. So, how hard would it be for Nifong to prove or document he was somewhere else during the time of the Meehan meeting?
Considering the stakes for him in this matter, the absence of such documentation leaves a giant hole in the middle of his credibilty.

Anonymous said...

To Cedarford:
Is it possible that Nifong expected from the beginning that even if he could not get the Duke 3 to take a plea (as he had in the vast % of all his other cases), the lineup ID would be tossed? The exculpatory DNA evidence would then never become public, and he could duck the blame.

Anonymous said...

Watch Nifong now claim he can not take over the case from the DPD as "lead investigator". It doesn't work that way. Just look at the recent rape in the frat house.

The DPD decided on their own to change the lineup. The DPD broke their own rules. And they gave false and bad info to Nifong. It's all their fault. The DPD did not follow up on the DNA.

See Nifong's not guilty.

Anonymous said...


Mar 2, 2007 2:22:00 PM

Maybe Nifong has done this before. Most people would not have the leagl resources to dig out the DNA info.

But Nifong also did not know about the alibis (at the time) or the resources the players would have access to fight the bogus charges.

He also did not understand the power of the internet. All of his statements are eaisly googled.

Anonymous said...

Nifong is obviously no strategist. He keeps further checkmating himself with these stupefyingly incredulous claims that are cascading out of his mouth. It is like my pre-school nephew INSISTING that he saw a squirrel swallow an elephant during his kindergarten recess.

In a very real sense, I am concerned about the mental state of someone who would behave like this. Is it possible that his prostate cancer has metastisized to his brain? Any oncologists lurking here.

Tall T

Anonymous said...

Perhaps this is not quite on topic, but I would really love to hear some legal opinions about the use of DNA in general. When the Dallas Morning News ran its 2nd front page story about a man freed after the Innocence Project reviewed his case, I wrote a letter that included 3 quotes from P. Nuefeld that seemed to cast substantial doubt on DNA as a tool for exoneration. A few day later there was an editorial admonishing the public to the effect "better a few criminals go free than an innocent be jailed", followed by a couple more stories detailing the careful case review that takes place. While it was great to see more details on the process, there was no mention of DNA and its strengths/weaknesses as evidence. Why is this? It is science. I would trust it over the word of just about anyone any day. I understand the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but at what point are the experts going to come out and stand behind DNA and state for the record that it is impossible for a gang rape, even using condoms, to not leave behind traces of SOMETHING on the victim? Especially when the rape kit is administered within hours of the "incident" and there is no evidence the victim showered, hosed off, went through car wash with top down, etc. When are experts going to state for the record that if lots of DNA is found and none of it belongs to the accused, the authorities have the wrong man (men)? Because if experts are not going to back the science - I certainly do not want to hear about any more jail doors being opened by the IP because "DNA belonged to someone else". Is Nifong setting a precedent here that will allow DNA from other men to be used in convicting the police or DA's "favorite" suspect? Can anyone explain why an increasingly precise science is so malleable as evidence?

GS said...

Easley again criticizes Nifong

Anonymous said...

With the release of Nifong's Jan letter and his recent response to the Bar charges, the rats are jumping ship.

A blind person could see that Nifong is done. The only question is who is dumb enough to going down with him.

Anonymous said...

I, for one, am not surprised by Nifong's inability to locate any record of his attendance at the April 10 meeting. Afterall, this is the man who, after looking back at his calendar, could only recall giving 10-15 interviews during his media blitz.

Maybe he could have one of his incompetent, photo-copying paralegals keep his schedule, but then again, given the way he's thrown them under the bus, they might, ummm, memorialize his daily actions in an unfavorable light.

I know, someone give this man a lesson on using Outlook!

GS said...

Excellent point about the timing of Evans being charged. Nifong did not think that out to well. So Evans is exclude DNA wise, but is a possible 90% match is he had ever had a mistach.

He can not explain the missing DNA of the lax players.

His statement about condoms is a joke also. The "accuser" went into great detail about oral sex and spitting out the results.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 12:01
When talking about DNA evidence, and only the DNA evidence, the first part of Nifong's statement would still be true. Lack of DNA does not mean a rape did not occur. Yes, adding all of the other stuff to it tells the WHOLE story, but Nifong was only referring to the reason why he didn't tell the defense attorneys that DNA evidence from other males was found.

IM 2:32 Great post! So true!

Anonymous said...

God, this guy is in some serious denial. So there is no DNA from the defendants yet there is DNA present that doesn't match any of the lacrosse players...and that's not beneficial to the defense? Regardless of DNA evidence or no DNA, the woman did not have injuries indicative of a rape. End of story. Disbar!!

Anonymous said...

Notice, Nifong is now claiming he never took the case over from the DPD as lead investigator.

Nifong is trying to pass the buck to the DPD.

Anonymous said...

Tall T said, In a very real sense, I am concerned about the mental state of someone who would behave like this. Is it possible that his prostate cancer has metastisized to his brain? Any oncologists lurking here.

Prostate cancer can metastasize to the brain, but the tumors would probably grow quickly. Highly unlikely that this process could account for Nifong's (mis)behavior.

What is far more likely to have metastasized is Nifong's narcissism. No workplace in Durham appears to have any checks and balances on these things.

--Oncology professional (not MD)
Durham, NC

Anonymous said...

12:55am police arrive at Duke house and find no one there

27 MINUTES LATER at 1:22am, the FA arrives at a Kroger at 3457 Hillsborough Road a 4 MINUTE DRIVE from the Duke Lacrosse house

Instead of Nifong wondering what might have occured during those 27 MINUTES, he instead speculates that the alleged "30 minute rape" "...probably took about five minutes, 10 minutes at the outside.” Nifong said this to poke holes in the Lacrosse player's alibis. He framed these boys!

IF (and that's a big if!)a rape occured and included all of the sex acts the FA stated occured, there's no way it took only five minutes.

Anonymous said...

A blind person could see that Nifong is done. The only question is who is dumb enough to going down with him.

1: Citizens committee (Petersen et al)
2: Gang88
3: Marcotte, dailykos and other far left moonbats suffering from BDS
5: Durham "community"
6: New Black Panthers
7: MSM (NY al-Times, al-AP, al-H-S)

Anonymous said...

Question for a lawyer, is Nifong now trying to hang the police officers in this case out to take the heat for him?

GS said...


Did Nifong admit in court he was the lead investigator?

Around Oct 27 Bradley Bannon, a lawyer for Dave Evans, said that beginning March 24, a police official ordered the detectives in the case to report directly to Nifong, making him the lead investigator.

DA: I haven't heard accuser's account

KC Post
Stretching Credulity

Anonymous said...

When John Maynard Keynes was accused of inconsistency, he liked to say: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" In a similar vein, one wants to say to some Duke faculty members: Do you even notice that the facts have changed? Has your mind changed at all as a result? It is not inconsistency to change your mind when the facts change; indeed, it's a working definity of honesty.

GS said...

So in Oct he had indicted 3 players.

1 - Knew about the DNA.

2 - Knew the "accuser" lied about her sexual history or had indetified the wrong parties.

3 - Knew about the time stamped photos and it not matching the "accuser" syory..

4 - Knew about Seligmann's alibi.

And still does not re-interview the "Accuser" or the other dancer?
Doesn't get around to it till after Meehan spills the beans on Dec 13?

Nifong must be nuts. You think the people around him would tell him to give it up.

Anonymous said...

Nifong is disgusting.

But I think people are misinterpreting the relevance of the DNA of non-Duke men found in the accuser and on her clothes.

It is not a defense to rape to say that the raped woman was sexually lax or even a prostitute. So I think Nifong's claim that he did not think the presence of others' DNA was exculpatory has a superficial plausibility. The problem with that claim is that the accuser had testified that she had not recently had sexual contact with anyone other than the accused. So the presence of DNA impeached her credibility and, THUS, was exculpatory.

I can see why Nifong's attorneys gave the argument a try; it is about all they have. But I find it hard to believe that those prosecuting him will be distracted by that red herring.


Anonymous said...

I agree about her lying, but

The DNA of 5 guys foud and non from the players found?

She went into detail of who did what. No condoms, she even claims being forced to give oral sex, so she should know. So she should have had DNA from the attackers on or in her.

So the absence of DNA so soon after the alledge attack speeaks volumes about her story.

Anonymous said...

@anon 7:12

That is my point. It was relevant evidence because it was inconsistent with her story and so impeached her. So you and I agree on the fundamentals.

But there have been some posts here that I have interpreted, perhaps incorrectly, as implying that the presence of DNA from others was exculpatory in and of itself. That is wrong, in my opinion. It was only exculpatory BECAUSE it was inconsistent with her testimony.

Nifong's attorneys are trying to focus on the principle that the DNA from others is irrelevant to whether or not a rape occurred. That principle is correct. But that principle has nothing to do with evidence that the accuser repeatedly lied through her teeth.


Anonymous said...

The presence of DNA from others was exculpatory in and of itself.

It is, because the fact that DNA was recovered from so many sources form so many places on and in the "accuser" but not from the "recent rape" without condoms by the Lax players. She did not take a bath or shower but was rape kit within hours of the attack.

Anonymous said...

The presence of DNA from others was exculpatory in and of itself.

And the lack of Lax players DNA.

No one buys the magical white towel wiped away only the Lax players DNA, but left all the other men's DNA behind.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Nifong didn't just trap himself in his letter which specifically recalled the April 10 meeting he "can't recall" in his pleading - he trapped himself somewhere else.

The moment Nifong indicted Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty for 'sexual offense' (after he dropped rape charges), he proved he not only knew what sexual offense was, but that it required arrest and subsequent trial. Therefore Nifong destroyed his defense (of ignorance) for refusing to indict at least 5 other (non-Lacrosse) men whose DNA were found on the accuser. He can't say 'Hell, I didn't know what constituted sexual offense'. By indicting 3 innocent Lacrosse players, Nifong proved he DID know.

Nifong is further trapped by the accuser's own words. She specifically said (and he endlessly repeated) she had had consensual sex with only one male - her boyfriend. Therefore, any other male DNA on her body can only be interpreted as non-consensual - i.e., 'sexual offense'.

(Of course, what I find sexually offensive is a woman with the DNA of 3 men in her rectum. Yuck!)

Anonymous said...

First, the absence of DNA from the team members is of course exculpatory, but Nifong disclosed that.

Second, please explain how the presence of others' DNA is relevant, let alone exculpatory, in and of itself WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE ACCUSER'S TESTIMONY.


Anonymous said...

Second, please explain how the presence of others' DNA is relevant, let alone exculpatory, in and of itself WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE ACCUSER'S TESTIMONY.

If older DNA is present then the fresh placed DNA should be discoverale. Remember the tests can identify a single cell. Three guys in a small bathroom raping someone for 10-30 minutes would leave at least a few cells or hairs behind.

The presence of the older DNA shows that the "accuser" did not have the newer DNA because maybe she showered or bathe. In some rapes woman take showers or baths and then report the case the next day. I
n this case the rape kit was collected within hours.

The presence of the older DNA proves that no new DNA was deposited. 3 guys can not rape a person and not leave DNA behind. If you shake hands with someone you leave DNA behind.

Anonymous said...


Your on a jury, two satements:

1 - No DNA was found on or in the accused other than her boyfriend.

2 - 5 guys DNA was found but not the lax players.

Most juries might think it was because the nurse doing the sane kit (rape kit) made a mistake or the woman had cleaned her self off.

But the presence of the 5 guys shows:
1 - That she did not clean herself up, and anyone who raped her should have left DNA.

2 - The SANE kit was collect correctly or we would not have the 5 guys DNA.

The 5 DNA samples verify the SANE kit being collected correctly.

GS said...

If I was on the jury I would wonder how 5 or 6 guys DNA could be present and not the accused rapists?

I think the DA would have to come up with a story (like Mikey), like they used condoms, even if the woman saids they did not use condoms.

The "accuser" must watch TV or read blogs, she changed her story. The "accuser" said in the Dec statement, that the players wiped her with a white towel. Have to wonder how the towel wipes only the 3 Lax players DNA away.

Why did the DA and the "accuser" make up new stories? Because the presence of the other DNA with the lack of Lax players DNA is a show stopper.

Anonymous said...

Early on Nifong said "When charges start coming out..." He expected the team to race each other to the police station to cop a plea. Geraldo expected the same thing. Now are Meeham, Gottleiv and Hinam going to be racing to the SP? They should. Like Anna Nicole's judge in Florida, Nifong thought he could bring the team and attorneys to their knees.

Anonymous said...

I am afraid that it is difficult to respond because everyone is anon so I do not know whether I am conversing with one person or six.

Please try to read what I say. The absence of DNA from the accused is exculpatory. The presence of DNA from others is not exculpatory EXCEPT with reference to impeaching the story given by the accuser.

"Three guys in a small bathroom raping someone for 10-30 minutes would leave at least a few cells or hairs behind." PRECISELY. So the ABSENCE of DNA from the accused was dispositive. Whether or not there was DNA present from others cannot affect the lack of DNA from the accused. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?


Anonymous said...

Because if it the DNA of the rapist was not founnd, it could be because:

1 - the woman wash it off, took a bath.

2 - The SANE kit was not collected properly.

3 - The lab made a mistake.

But because some many small samples was able to be identified (DNA wise), any reason other than the defendents did not rape her is eliminated.


GS said...

Lets say the "accuser" was raped.

The defense can argue that the 5 or 6 unidentified DNA belongs to the "real rapists".

Hence it could be exculpatory.

Anonymous said...

Jeff M
"So the ABSENCE of DNA from the accused was dispositive. Whether or not there was DNA present from others cannot affect the lack of DNA from the accused. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?"

The presence of DNA from others ABSOLUTELY affects the lack of DNA from the accused! The DNA of 5-7 men found it's way inside the FA that night and NONE of that DNA belonged to the Lacrosse players! Those two facts TOGETHER make a stonger statement than the lack of DNA alone.

What if you were arrested for strangling your next door neighbor, and the evidence shows that there were fingerprints on your next door neighbors neck from 5-7 different men,but NO fingerprints were found that belonged to you, NOT ONE! Now, the DA knows this but doesn't tell your lawyers and instead hides it within 1800 pages of documents hoping your lawyers will never find it! That's exculpatory!
Knowing that the presence of 5-7 other men's fingerprints existed while your fingerprints were not found ANYWHERE is CRUCIAL to proving your innocence and for a DA to keep that information from you and your lawyer is exculpatory!

Anonymous said...


your slow so

DNA is like fingerprints

You are chearged with murder.

The cops find the murder weapon. And test it for fingerprints.

Three possible out comes:

1 - Your fingerprints are on the waepon. (just so Jeffm knows "not goood")

2 - No fingerprints are found (just so jeffm knows "not bad but not great").

3 - Other people fingerprints are founf (jeffm "this is good").

If you do nopt understand, do not read this blog again.

Anonymous said...

I think there are two separate letters from Nifong to the bar rather than one about the meeting according to the Blythe article, one on January 16 and one on December 28.
Thanks for your blog, it helps me to retain my sanity about this hoax.
A Friend in Durham

Anonymous said...

@ gs

I shall reply to you since you are courteous enough to give a name and to avoid ad hominem arguments.

The accuser did not say that she had been raped by assailants that she was unable to identify. She had specifically identified the alleged assailants. The absence of their DNA was dispositive. If she had been unable to identify her alleged assailants and if there had been any evidence of rape other than her allegations, both counter-factual assumptions, then the presence of DNA from others than the accused would have raised a reasonable doubt that the accused were the rapists. BUT the accuser specifically identified the accused as the rapists. The presence of semen from others is irrelevant to whether any sexual contact with the accused was consensual. The absence of DNA of any kind from the accused is all that is necessary to prove that the accused had not raped her.

Now I am not saying that the presence of DNA from others was not exculpatory; it rebutted numerous elements of the accuser's story, and impeachment evidence is always relevant. I am saying that the presence of DNA from others was exculpatory only in reference to the specific testimony (and so to the credibility) of the accuser. If you look at my original post, you will see that I said Nifong's claim that he did not think the presence of others' DNA was exculpatory is SUPERFICIALLY plausible; it would be a good argument if you ignored the accuser's testimony. But of course it fails as an argument if you consider the accuser's testimony.

In the abstract, a whore can be be chock full of DNA from any number of men; that does not preclude her from being raped by some specific man or men. So, the presence of DNA from others is not by itself relevant to a prosecution for rape. That is what Nifong is hanging his hat on. But it does not work in this case because the DNA from others is not isolated from other relevant facts.


Newyorkstateofmind said...

anon 10:25 am said...

"The point of the editorial, IMO, was NOT that no harm has been done to these three lacrosse players, but rather that other prosecutors who not only charged innocent men, but put them away in jail for years, got none or next-to-no punishment."

That's neither the relevant point of comparison used by the HS in their continuing apologias for Nifong, nor in the original cases of false convictions.

That defendants of various sorts for various reasons are falsely convicted by overzealous prosecutors is a given in any judicial venue in this country.

Yet that a prosecutor acted as not just irresponsibly, but as maliciously and self-interestedly and obtusely as Nifong here...the apposite analogies of similar cases are difficult indeed to find. Google the Wade case, under the crucifying misdeeds of ex-DA Miller (San Diego, CA) to find anything close to the level of misfeasance in this prosecution.

There was also no conviction in the Wade witch hunt; yet after mulitple trials, and conclusive proof of Wade's innocence, DA Miller resisted to the end a final court hearing arranged by his defense to issue a finding of Wade's true innocence.

The California State Bar was of course useless in addressing this great outrage. The good citizens of San Diego...usually sleepwalking through massive fraud and graft by public officials here...booted Miller from office...his decades-long sinecure-like hold on the office finally broken.

Anonymous said...

Jeff M
"In the abstract, a whore can be be chock full of DNA from any number of men; that does not preclude her from being raped by some specific man or men. So, the presence of DNA from others is not by itself relevant to a prosecution for rape. That is what Nifong is hanging his hat on. But it does not work in this case because the DNA from others is not isolated from other relevant facts."

Exactly! That's what makes it exculpatory! This is not a textbook prosecution for rape, the prosecutor must have the knowledge and ability to APPLY the law to each individual case and ALL OTHER EVIDENCE plays a very important part in this case.

The FA was UNABLE to identify the accused until the 3rd time and she also stated she had not had sex with any other men...therefore the fact that there was other DNA present should raise a red flag!

GS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GS said...

If I was on trial for rape, I would like other men's DNA found. Lets say the "accusr" was raped in a real case.
The lead Investigator on the stand:

Did you find my client's DNA on or in the victim? NO

Did you find other Men's DNA on or in the victim? yes

Did the victim say she had sex with no one but her husband in the month before the rape? yes, that's correct

So the unidentified DNA must belong to the real rapist? yes
If no other DNA ws found, then it becomes, they used condoms etc.
Anyway all the lawyers use the phase "potentially exculpatory" let the jury decide if it is exculpatory.