Saturday, March 03, 2007

One of Eleven

Continuing its shameless defense of Mike Nifong’s behavior, the Herald-Sun ran an editorial yesterday all but begging the state bar to give Nifong a slap on the wrist. Maybe he withheld evidence, and maybe he gave improper statements to the media, suggests the H-S. But “Nifong says the defense now has the evidence, so no harm was done,” and “he has said, in retrospect, he should not have talked so much,” so he is contrite. If these improper statements were critical to his winning election . . . well, that’s how the cookie crumbles.

Looking at the Gell and Honeycutt cases, the H-S reasons, “In both cases, prosecutorial misconduct robbed defendants of years of their lives. For their misdeed the prosecutors were punished by taps on the wrist—or nothing at all. Nifong certainly made mistakes, as he concedes, but no one has been wrongly convicted, and no trial has been held.”

In other words: Nifong’s misconduct was exposed at an earlier stage than in the other trials, so he, too, should receive a minimal punishment.

The H-S editorial reflects Nifong’s new talking points on the DNA: he handed over the evidence as he was supposed to do, and the only reason the defense even knew about the incomplete Meehan report (which contained no mention of the many other unidentified male DNA in the rape kit) was because Nifong supplied the evidence. As Nifong bizarrely, and inarticulately, explained in his December 28 letter to the bar, the defense “complaint can be summed up as, ‘We know they did not give it to us because they gave it to us.’”

This argument forms one of the eleven separate, and often mutually contradictory, explanations that Nifong has given for his failure to turn over the DNA evidence. It rests on a basic assumption: that even if Nifong were not compelled to turn over a complete report under the law (an incorrect assumption), he willingly turned over to the defense the underlying data regarding Meehan’s tests, and so the defense could have discovered Meehan’s withheld results by spending sufficient time studying the “clearly understood” data.

To address the merits of this claim, it’s worth going back to the September 22 hearing. Far from revealing a district attorney eager to provide the underlying DNA data to the defense, the hearing transcript suggests the reverse. Nifong’s response to the defense request for the data:

First, I have to note the irony . . . of the defense attorneys seeking information that is what we call the witch-hunt list for DNA testing, all of the ways that you can attack DNA testing to show that it’s unreliable or was done poorly in this instance. Because on every occasion where rhe results of these tests were provided to the defense attorneys, they called press conferences and told everybody who would listen that the DNA absolutely exonerated every person involved in this case.

So it’s interesting now that they are trying to get the information to dispute those results.

After suggesting an improper defense motive for requesting the data, Nifong addressed the request for the data from Meehan’s lab. He read a letter from Meehan discussing the need to “protect the privacy of these [unindicted] individuals in a very high-profile case.”

Nifong concluded by offering a third objection to the defense request: cost. “These are attorneys,” he fumed, “who are already on record as saying these tests cleared their clients. And now they want to spend an additional $4035 of the state’s money to investigate further.”

Bannon responded by noting that the 6th amendment did not have a cost limitation; Judge Osmond Smith ordered Nifong to produce the DNA data by October 20. The D.A., for reasons that remain unclear, failed to turn over the material until the October 27 hearing.

Despite Nifong’s recent claims—echoed by the H-S—the September 22 transcript suggests that the D.A. did everything he could to avoid turning over the underlying DNA data to the defense.

The transcript of the September 22 hearing contains one other interesting item. Here’s a quote from Brad Bannon, asking for a memorialization of Nifong’s discussions with Brian Meehan:

We received a report of the SBI’s testing on April 10 in this case. And actually that same day, on April 10, Mr. Nifong and Inv. Himan and Sgt. Gottlieb all went to the DNA Security, Inc. lab in Burlington, which was the private lab they had retained to do testing in the case.

Nifong’s reply?

We discussed with [Meehan] why we wanted [YSTR testing] done in this case and he assured us he could do it . . . They [defense lawyers] apparently think that everybody I speal to about, I talk about the facts of the case. And that’s just, that would be counterproductive. It did not happen here. We told [Meehan] why we wanted the YSTR testing done. He gave us the report at a later date. We told him how we intended to use it at trial.

Bannon pressed, wanting to be sure that “Mr. Nifong is representing that the facts of the case weren’t discussed in those meetings.” Nifong: “That is correct. The facts of the case, other than the fact that we were seeking the male fraction DNA,” were not discussed.

So, on September 22, Nifong appeared not only to remember the April 10 meeting, but to recall what was and was not discussed in that meeting. What could account for his sudden memory loss between then and his December response to the bar?


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

To paraphrase Nigel Tufnel "the explanations go to eleven".

Anonymous said...

It's now apparent that Nifong's recent claim that he doesn't remember the April 10 meeting is a transparent lie. Does the Bar have any choice but to come down on him like a ton of bricks for such a contemptible performance?

Seriously, can anyone give some perspective on what the Bar is likely to do in response to this?

Anonymous said...

I wonder who will have told more truth challenged stories Nifong or CGM? It’s difficult to determine what Nifong’s strategy is at this time. I suspect Nifong’s memory will be getting worse when the civil actions start. Perhaps pleading short-term memory loss is his way of taking the not testifying on the ground of self-incrimination route.

Anonymous said...

I understand that Nifong has not turned over ANY notes from ANY meetings with Meehan. At one of the three meetings, he had to discuss the facts of the case because Meehan told him the DNA did not match any of the players. Isn't Nifong required to memorialize that. I want his notes stating when he was given that information. Of course, he could use the Gottlieb technique and write it now...from memory.
The April 10 meeting is quickly becoming one of the most damaging pieces of evidence against Nifong.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Wow, Nifong's lawyers are not doing a very good job at all, are they? Surely they should have read up what their client had said on the record, before allowing him to make more false statement to the NC Bar.

I would not be surprised to see the NC Bar ammend the complaint again or open up an entirely new case. Even if they plan to disbar him on the charges already pending at some point they might want to establish perjury for an NC prosecutor to go after Nifong. They have to be getting angerier every time about this transparent lying.

Anonymous said...

Nifong is so f'd--so f'd. He's on record talking about what happened on the 4/10 meeting, and now he says that he didn't recall the meeting. He will have to answer that one. Man, oh man, that bar hearing is going to be ugly. They will simply eat him alive. How can his lawyers let him get anywhere near that hearing?

Does anyone ever get the feeling that Nifong has a ton of cognitive dissonance here? Usually, prosecutors can file a dogshit case and everything comes out in the wash, and if charges are dismissed, hey, no harm, no foul. Nifong seems exasperated with all of this--like he wants to say, "Jesus Christ, when there's a dogshit case that got filed, as long as it eventually gets dismissed, who cares? Cut me some slack."

The problem for Nifong is that he knew it was a dogshit case and he's dealing with good lawyers. Mix that in with some dishonesty, and he's got a mess on his hands.

Wait until the bar hearing--the 'Fong is gonna plead the Fifth.

Anonymous said...

What is left to discuss here? The prostitute lied, the DA and the hooker were belied, the pundits and bigots were denied! The pundits and bigots tried to indicate otherwise.

3 good people tried to rebuild their lives.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: 1:23

Let's see:

1. Nifong failed DA 101. You dont go after people of means with a weak case. You also don't go after someone with no prior involvement with the system with a weak case. They won't cop a plea but will fight you, because they want exoneration.

2. After what I have read today, I don't see how Nifong can go to the hearing? He has to cop a plea. Heck as someone said earlier, why doesn't he just resign? His attorneys are surely telling him that. He will of course delay until the end, but he can not go to the hearing given his statements about that 10 April meeting.

Anonymous said...

1:23am Anon

"Wait until the bar hearing--the 'Fong is gonna plead the Fifth."

I don't believe he has that choice in an NC State Bar hearing.

Anonymous said...

"'Wait until the bar hearing--the 'Fong is gonna plead the Fifth.'

I don't believe he has that choice in an NC State Bar hearing."


I suspect he has the option of simply not appearing at the hearing. In my jurisdiction (New York) that happens all the time. Lawyers who know they are hosed decide they would prefer not to face the humiliation of a disciplinary hearing, they don't show up, and they get disbarred.

It doesn't seem like this is Nifong's style though. I think he will show up and shamelessly spin obvious lie after obvious lie. Isn't that what he's been doing all along?

Anonymous said...

KC read carefully his answer and you will see a 12th reason not to turn over the evidence. When Nifong refers to the exculpatory evidence as "trace dna". He is basically saying What evidence? There is a vociverous defender on a N and O story comment thread that is obviously tied to Nifong.

He is spending paragraph describing why this "trace" matierial is so trace is not even positive its male (except one sample ..i.e. boyfriend) and its not any evidence that shows anything of the kind the defense is arguing. All to the point its so trace it could be random.

Watch his try to argue why what Meehan excluded from the report was so insignificant its not evidence at all.

Anonymous said...

the 12th reason..(from N and 0 blog thread..a Nifong defender..sounds like Nifong himself)

"It was Meehan not Nifong that was worried about including the results of the tests from the lacrosse players if there were no matches. For some reasn Meehan was worried about their DNA markers being made public in this very high profile case .. so Nifong said okay then just give me the matches and since there weren't any matches with the lacrosse players and only 1 DNA Profile Marker found ... that being the single male source on 3 specimens ... and this was reported in the report, was not withheld or tampered with or excluded ... but plainly stated in the report. That is the one that Joe Cheshire and some news media reported as belonging to a boyfriend but the source of that was her "mother" who wouldn't have a clue to whom this belongs. The other "findings" are incomplete pieces of possible male DNA ... so incomplete they can't tell for sure whether it's male or female, what type of genetic material it is, or to whom it belongs. It's junk ... probably contamination of degenerated DNA stuff from who knows where but probably the air of the lab like Mr. Meehan's "dander". It's not exculpatory ... how could it be? They aren't DNA Profiles, they aren't DNA Markers, they aren't Strings ... in fact they are such little pieces of DNA they can't even tell what it is let alone to whom it might belong. But they aren't from semen, blood or saliva because the SBI Lab ran special tests for that and there wasn't any on her rape kit ... from anyone.
Most criminal cases have 1 suspect and you run 1 DNA test. Here there are 43 plus 2 others I think so 45 DNA tests. No matches. No semen. No blood. No saliva. I unidentified male source on 3 specimens ... some type of airborn material perhaps from the handling of her specimens ... AND ... this was just a 10 page summary of tests that in full and complete printed form amounted to over 1900 pages of "data".
I can understand fully why Nifong said AFTEr Meehan is whining about cost, whining about privacy, whining about time ...said okay, that's fine then just give me the results of matches on the lacrosse players.
The rest is just junk. Maybe there is something "exculpatory" about this junk that I don't understand .... but based upon what Meehan testified about in his hearing .... junk data is not exculpatory data.
And in the initial 10 page report, the lab said to both recipients, defense and Nifong, is you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. There was no intent to hide this junk data. It was a matter of judgment as to waiting the additional time for it to be printed and paying the additional cost for its production and the privacy issues of putting the players DNA markers in the report that could get into the public domain.
The defense had every possible alert they needed to proceed to request it and they did. The Judge considered their request and decided they should have the additional 1822 pages produced plus there were another 50 which the lab failed to put in the second group for a total of 1872 page plus the 10 page summary for a total of 1822 pages that says the same thing the 10 pages said ... no matches; 1 string on 2 specimens; then junk data.
» login or register to post comments"

GS said...

The April 10 meeting is quickly becoming one of the most damaging pieces of evidence against Nifong.

As someone on this blog pointed out to me ( I think it was Cedarford ):

Nifong knew before he indicted Evans that there was problems with the case. Evans was indicted on May 16 after the second meeting with Meehan (May 12 meehan meeting).

1 - The "Accuser" had a lot of unmatching DNA on or in her. The DA knew she was mistaken in picking players or was lying about her sexual history before indicting Evan.

2 - The photos with the time stamps did not match the "accusers" story.

3 - Sieglman had a documented alibi.

4 - Evan was only a 90% match if he had ever had a mustache, he never had one or matching DNA.

So with all these issues Nifong decided to re-interview the "Accuser" Dec 21, after the Dec 13 hearing where Meehan spolled his guts.

The bar, The DAs, the SPs, and the Judges in NC all know what Nifong did.

It is well documented. He is history. He can continue to run up legal bills, but it will not matter.

GS said...

I posted this yesterday but I am still amazed..

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...

Why doesn't Nifong resign ? He has financial reasons for not doing so. I've read elsewhere his pension, which he'll be eligible for in say 2 years ?, is based partly but significantly on the 'high 5' years of compensation. He's at his highest level of compensation now, and the longer he can keep it, the more he'll collect over time later. The more time he can ride the job, the better for him. It also provides another reason for him to want the whole process delayed as much as possible.

Anonymous said...

K.C., you have pointed out something extremely important, and that is that in court in speaking to a judge, Nifong says he was at the April 10 meeting. Now, he claims he knew nothing about it.

Thus, we now have Nifong lying to the Bar in response to the Bar charging he lied in response to the Bar charging that he lied. As I wrote in a recent article, the man (I use that term very loosely) is a sociopath. Normal -- and honest -- people do not lie with impunity and do not tell two more lies to cover for another set of lies.

At the Maryland-Duke game last night, a number of parents wore the "Fantastic Lies" button. Now, this button, which came from what David Evans said a his press conference last May, was referring to what Crystal claimed.

However, I can say that Nifong's lies have been just as fantastic. There is a difference; Crystal is a "sex worker," and that is a "profession" where lying is a way of life. Michael B. Nifong is an officer of the court and the Minister of Justice in Durham County, and the very requirements of his job include being truthful.

Instead, Nifong chooses to lie, lie, lie, and as this saga continues, Nifong's lies become even more fantastic than anything Crystal could have dreamed of saying.

And, as I have said before, Nifong must be channeling the Jakes Blues character when he is confronted in the sewer tunnel by his jilted lover, played by Carrie Fisher. Indeed, Michael B. Nifong is the Jake Blues of prosecutors.

Anonymous said...

First he fought like hell not to provide then evidence. Now he wants you to think he is a good person because, in the end, he was forced to provide it.

Would like to see H-S justify that disgusting behavior - but then, again, I have stopped reading H-S.

Anonymous said...

If no harm was done why are the boys still under indictment. Nifong could have vacated those before turning case over to state.

This HS stuff is Newspeak at its best.

Anonymous said...

Nifong's DNA defense is like a DA claiming he had given the defense the name of an exculpatory witness by handing them a NYC phone book.

Yup... that name's right in there some place!

Anonymous said...

If the DNA test is so sensitive that it picked up "trace DNA" from Meehan and from multiple males not on the LAX team, then why was there no DNA after a "sexual assault?"

Anonymous said...

If the DNA on the accuser is just "trace" and therefore insignificant, then the less than trace DNA that cannot exclude Evans is certainly no evidence and should not have been used to indict Evans.

Anonymous said...

Nifong's responses to the bar remind me of Judd Nelson as Bender in 'The Breakfast Club' in this famous exchange with Pricipal Vernon,

Richard Vernon: You're not fooling anyone Bender. The next screw that falls out will be you.
Bender: Eat my shorts.
Richard Vernon: What was that?
Bender: Eat... My... Shorts.
Richard Vernon: You just bought yourself another Saturday.
Bender: Ooh I'm crushed.
Richard Vernon: You just bought one more.
Bender: Well I'm free the Saturday after that. Beyond that, I'm going to have to check my calendar.
Richard Vernon: Good, cause it's going to be filled. We'll keep going. You want another one? Just say the word say it. Instead of going to prison you'll come here. Are you through?
Bender: No

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson is right. Nifong lying in a reply about his lies is about the worse thing he could have done. You want to piss off the Bar, keep lying to them.

Another note, Bar Buddy said the hearing will take at least a month. The Bar will go over EVERY single charge and EVERY TV spot Nifungu was on will be shown at the hearing.

It's going to be a LONG summer for Mikey!

Anonymous said...

Nifong's sudden memory loss about the April 10 meeting is no mystery. We know what accounts for Nifong's sudden lack of recall: the April 10 meeting is proof that he went forward with indictments even though he knew there was no probable cause. Why is that important? Because that is one of the key elements of the tort of malicious prosecution.

Probable cause means a reasonable belief that a crime was committed, and that the person being indicted committed it. You have to look at all the available evidence in order to make the determination that there is (or is not) probable cause. By April 10, Nifong had the allegation of rape by the stipper. In some cases, that allegation would have been enough to establish probable cause (for example, in cases where the accuser was credible, and there was no significant evidence contradicting her account). However, in this case, as of 4/10, the stripper had given multiple, mutually-contradictory accounts of the alleged rape, including at least one recantation. Also, every partygoer the police had interviewed had contradicted her account. The second stripper said the alleged rape could not have happened, because she was with the accuser at the party for all but a period of less than 5 minutes. The other partygoers said the accuser appeared to be impaired, and there were photographs of her falling onto the second stripper during the dance. The accuser herself admitted to ER docs within a day or two of the alleged rape that she had been very drunk at the party. The strippers had argued with the LAXers over money, and had left the party angry (giving the accuser at least one motive to lie). The accuser had not made the rape allegation until she was facing involuntary commitment (suggesting yet another motive to lie). The findings of the medical exam, conducted within hours of the allegedly brutal multiple-orifice rape and beating, were inconsistent with the accuser's story. She claimed (in some versions) to have been punched, kicked, and choked; she said she fought back so fiercely that her fake fingernails were torn off. Yet doctors found no bruising, swelling, redness, or any other sign of injury on her hands, arms, face, neck, torso, etc. The accuser also claimed that she was forcibly penetrated orally, anally, and vaginally. Yet there was no sign of any swelling or abrasion or any other injury to her anus, mouth, or vagina. All that was found was some swelling inside her vagina -- a finding that could be consistent with rape (albeit a very gentle rape, as most forcible rapes that cause injury leave signs of injury on both the outside and inside of the vagina); however, the finding was also consistent with many other things, such as consensual sex, pregnancy, use of certain medications, etc. The topper, however, was the DNA evidence. The accuser claimed that her attackers did not wear condoms, and that one ejaculated in her mouth. Swabs taken within hours of the alleged rape turned up no DNA from any of the alleged rapists. After 4/10, no reasonable person looking at the available evidence could have concluded that there was probable cause to believe that the accuser had been raped. Yet on 4/17, Nifong secured his first 2 indictments in the case.

How do you prove malice in a suit for malicious prosecution? There are two ways it can be done: (1) show that there was a lack of probable cause (and then malice can be inferred); or (2) show that the prosecutor had some improper motive (some collateral purpose or some private interest to advance) for initiating the prosecution. In this case, we know what that motive was. Nifong's primary was coming up and the AA community was screaming for arrests to be made. Nifong knew that if he didn't get some LAXers arrested or indicted before the primary, he would likely lose to Freda Black. Nifong knew he had no probable cause, but he went forward anyway, because he had an election to win. He can claim to "forget" the 4/10 meeting with Meehan til the cows come home, but he's screwed either way. This is one of the strongest cases of malicious prosecution imaginable. The taxpayers of NC are going to be paying big $$$ for Nifong's misconduct, and his convenient memory lapses are not going to help his defense. The timeline, and his reasons for acting as he did, are painfully clear.

Anonymous said...

As an attorney who had the misfortune of having to negotiate routine district court matters with this sociopath for many years, I'm eagerly awaiting his demise, and i can tell you with certainty that most other criminal court lawyers who practice in Durham feel as I do. It can't come fast enough.

Since voluntarily ending practice in durham in 03 precisely because of Nifong's behavior, which was obvious to any and all as the behavior of someone clearly mentally unbalance, I've wondered how such a person could remain in his position of authority, and frankly, I was STUNNED when Easley appointed him the DA.

In my mind, Easley is as much at fault for his lack of due diligence appointing Nifong as Nifong is in his maliciousness, and I think Easley's transparent attempts to wash his hands of Nifong are as duplicitous as nifong's continued misconduct.

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

How does the bar handles this? 3 person committee?

Doesn't Gov Easley get to appoint at least one non-lawyer to the committee? Given Easley's track record in appointments, this is hardly assuring.

Anonymous said...

It is beyond outrageous that Cooper and Easley allow Coman to continue this frame against the three lacrosse players. One can only hope that the families collect millions in the civil suits and that Nifong stands trial for malicious prosecution. Let the lawsuits begin.

james conrad said...

RE: 10.20 agreed, i have never bought easley's excuses in this matter nor the way he continues to argue that because nifong promised not to run for DA it was OK for easley to appoint him. the flip side of that argument long as one stays out of politics, its OK for the gov. to appoint morons

Anonymous said...

"Nifong says the defense now has the evidence, so no harm was done"

No harm was done?

What's the difference between the emotional harm (because there was no physical harm),caused to the FA by an alleged sexual assault and the emotional harm caused to the 3 LAX players by Nifong's horrendous prosecutorial assault?
Is one type of emotional harm more important than the other? Why?

In my opinion, Nifong has done more harm to those 3 boys than the harm done to the FA had she really been sexually assaulted. She's in a business where she accepts payment from people to sexually assault her on a daily basis. At worst, IF an assault took place that night, the crime committed would have been equivalent to shoplifting.
Why do people continue to pretend that the FA's profession has nothing to do with this? It would be like a boxer claiming assault and battery because someone beat the crap out of him in the ring.

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

Is it a surprise that the aper supports Nifong? Look, Dems support Dems. If Nifong were a Republican...he would have been ripped to shreds by the paper...Sorry to be political - that's just the way it is.

Anonymous said...

f Nifong were a Republican...he would have been ripped to shreds

Exactly. New York Times, CBS "News" and ACLU would be all over the place doing their "investigations" and congressional hearings would have started already. What I have found shocking and unbelievable in this case, is that otherwise smart people (even KJ) tought of so highly of New York Times. Maybe people are happy with propaganda and outright lies as long as it supports their view.

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no doubt about it. The Herald-Sun has been in close contact with Mikey Nifong throughout this hoax.

You can read between the lines of every editorial and also in the coverage of Stevenson that they are speaking from the emotional viewpoint of Nifong.

No reputable newspaper operates this way. Ashley and the Dennis Kucinich-like elf Ron Landfried printed many long and scathing diatribes from members of the Gang of 88 right from the beginning.

A nutty black activist named Earl Holt from Baltimore wrote a very lengthy column tearing into the women's lacrosse team for their support of Reade, Collin, and David.....along with a shocking rant about Duke athletics in general. The H-S was all too happy to give this nut a prominent forum.

It's clear that the editorial staff at the H-S really got off on this whole thing and were salivating for a trial for the black whore whose penchant for lying is eclipsed only by her talents as a semen magnet.

I would love to know what the athletics department of Duke has ever done to the three stooges on the H-S editorial staff.

Each was no doubt athletically-challenged as young men and harbor much envy and animosity toward men who excel in that area.


Anonymous said...

A prediction...the charges will be dropped...Nifong will get a "slap" on the will go on...sadly

Anonymous said...

So Mikey's excuse is "I might have done it, but don't hold me accountable". Can we say "passive-agressive"?

Common signs of passive-aggressive personality disorder
There are certain behaviors that help identify passive-aggressive behavior. [2]
• Ambiguity
• Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness
• Blaming others
• Chronic lateness and forgetfulness
• Complaining
• Fosters chaos
• Intentional inefficiency
• Making excuses and lying
• Obstructionism
• Procrastination
• Resentment
• Resists suggestions from others
• Sarcasm
• Sullenness
A passive-aggressive may not have all of these behaviors, and may have other non-passive-aggressive traits.

Anonymous said...

In all the reading I've done, I seem to have missed the trigger/clue/whatever that told the defense atorney(s) that the DNA report was incomplete or inaccurate. Could somebody fill me in or point me in the direction of writings that explain this.

Many Thanks

Anonymous said...

Has it been confirmed through police record or otherwise that CGM was in fact a prostitute?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Interesting rationale "If we didnt hammer the other guilty prosecutors, we shouldnt hammer Nifong." Makes about as much sense as would letting those three who dragged the black man to death in Texas off the hook and saying "Hey, there's been lynching for years an it's never been a problem before..."

Anonymous said...

JLS says.....

re:12:49 The police statement of the driver confirms that Mangum is not only a hooker but at times a street walking hooker.

re: gak The defense had to hire their own experts to go through the underlying data after a court ordered it given to them after Nifong fought this accusing the defense of being on a "witch hunt."

re: 9:55 Very nice summary of a possible tort action against Nifong. It made sense to this nonlawyer. Thanks for posting it.

re: 5:01 am I agree. I think Nifong strings this out as long as he can and then resigns and gives up his license the day prior to the hearing.

re: 5:20 The Nifong defender's rationale you posted is too calm to actually be Nifong. That defense might have flown a bit without the other contradictory claims and Meehan's testimony that this was withheld at Nifong's [the client's] request. Heck they might have gotten away with consistently saying they did it to protect Mangum's privacy. Of course that this DNA was on AND IN her hurts that argument. And the bottom [excuse the pun] line is that she had traces of some many others on her, but none that could be linked to a party goer is both a minor miracle and what makes this exculpatory.

Anonymous said...

From KC's link to his earlier post on the 11, here's # 8 ---

"(8) People are out to get him: “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. (And if this seems like paranoid delusion to you, perhaps you should check out websites such as former Duke Law School graduate and current Maryland attorney Jason Trumpbour’s, which has not only called for me to be investigated, removed from this case, and disbarred, but has also provided instructions on how to request such actions and to whom those requests should be sent.)” (December 28, Nifong letter to bar)."

When will Nifong begin talking about the strawberries caper while massaging 3 little steel balls in his right hand?

Mike, dude, pass the bong. You ARE starting to look delusional. Not a good profile for a DA, so let's all agree you shouldn't be one.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer / retired professor: I am almost reluctant to mention this, but I would not be surprised if the the H-S sponsored a Nifong defense fund. Also there may be more than 11 defenses offered by Nifong. I don't believe that we have yet seen the January 16 letter to the bar mentioned in KC's posting titled "The Mysterious April 10 Non-Meeting". (Correct me if the January 16 is publicly available).

Anonymous said...

It's an extremely sad situation that the press can't come out and say that it appears that Nifong lied. No wonder subscriptions to all papers are declining. Who runs the press zoo? Nifong has lied. CGM is an inveterate liar.

Thankfully, blogging software was around so that people with an ability to review the case objectively can make their viewpoints heard. I read on DBR earlier today the response of the Duke alum and Maryland attorney who Nifong cited in his response as being behind the movement to throw out the case and remove him from office. He stated that his reason was to reach a broader audience since the Duke administration refused to listen to his appeals for sanity. If there's any media writer that reads this blog, I'd like to appeal to you to run an article with the word "liar" in it.

Still Incredulous about Nifong's lies

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a lawyer or legal expert of some kind could weigh in please.

1) I've read much about civil suits coming and criminal charges that Nifong will face, when can a defendent press for failure to provide a speedy trial. I would think that 10 months is a bit long to put together a simple rape case.

2) I've read commentary from others "in the know" that ALL the players have been slandered and harrassed. Does anybody know if civil suits are coming from any of them.

3) Is anybody currently trying to find the source of the (what i've read were)fictious email(s), and will there be criminal/civil suits as regards their effects.

Thanks to all and to JLS for earlier answers.


Anonymous said...

Interesting ...”junk data”. I was starting to worry that Nifong’s approach made practical sense after reading this. You have a very good point, but the reason I thought the other DNA was important as exculpatory evidence has to do with the improbability that old and fragmentary DNA could be picked up, but no recently deposited DNA from a 30 (or 10) minute gang rape. A rape kit done within a couple of hours should have picked up traces of sweat, lubricant, saliva, hair, etc from the “attack” that night.....but there is nothing. Nothing but old mementos of Crystal’s busy life - minute details picked up by the testing. Does DNA testing precision have an inverse relationship with the age of the sample tested? The older the better? Fresh samples harder to identify? Or is it more likely that as we have known all along - there is no “fresh” DNA from the lacrosse team because, other than the guy who helped her to the car, there was no physical contact between her and any team member.
Mar 3, 2007 11:53:00 AM
“Maybe people are happy with propaganda and outright lies as long as it supports their view.”
Never underestimate the dedication of potbangers. They have no qualms about lying when reality disappoints them by not providing suitable fodder. Note that reports of the “incidents” were many, reports of the fraud exposure, few.
Alleged Gay Hate Crime Sparks Rally in Ada
Purported Hate Crime Was Faked

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: Cedarford I asked a similar question on this or some other forum and was told that bar hearing have the authority of the state behind them and that in most states the Bar is now a state agency not a private one as most of us would think.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: gak

1. NC does not have a speedy trial law. The US Constitution is vague on this issue and I have read on message boards that if you get a trial within a year, the Federal Court don't seem to object.

2. One law suit has been filed by a lacrosse player over grade discrimination. I have also seen this question asked in terms of statute of limitations. In many states the statute of limitations for torts is one year, so if that is the case in NC, the time is drawing near when we will see a flurry of filings. Whether it is a year in NC was not answered that I have seen around here.

3. The courts have held that the police can lie to suspects. So in general I think nothing will come of that e-mail. Others think differently and certainly a case for wire fraud etc could be made.

Anonymous said...

I asked the "Bar Buddy" the same question. State Bar has subpoena powers. Anyone they call MUST appear or be in contempt. They'll send the sheriff out for you!


Anonymous said...

It looks to me like the Herald's editorial staff was selected affirmatively.

Anonymous said...

Somehow I started to think of Enron.

Anybody has an original copy of Code of Ethics, Durham DA's office ?

I remember EBay was selling similar Enron document for a lot of money.
(foreword by Nifong would naturally triple the market value)

Anonymous said...

Re anon 12;12 am

I'm a lacrosse parent -- one whose son was recruited by Duke but is at a different lacrosse power (top 5). The feeling among the parents on the sidelines is that Duke is gonna win it all this year ... we'll be playing them on Memorial Day and we are all cheering them on except when Duke is playing our sons' teams.

Anonymous said...

Who is the lawyer John Fitzpatrick who is trying to defend Nifong's latest litany of lies?

Fitzpatrick actually tried to come up with a scenario that would support why Mikey didn't fully understand the impact his countless statements to the media would have on the case.

This guy is yet another reason why people are disgusted with lawyers in general.

I was surprised that the H-S's Stevenson actually reported objectively in his Saturday coverage.



Anonymous said...

"We've never cared about prosecutor misconduct before. Why start now?"

The Herald-Sun. Dodging the facts since 1853...

Dave in CA

Gary Packwood said...

Someone asked about the North Carolina Judicial Code of Conduct.

Here is the reference.

North Carolina

Anonymous said...

I suppose that when all is said and done, what looses me is this:

CGM used the rape allegation to get out of (as I understand it) 72 hours of required detox.

Nifong used the case to get elected. Once elected, why didn't he drop all charges when CGM gave him that out? I mean, if he had dropped the charges, his situation would be far less of a problem at this point, wouldn't it?

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

In November Nifong should have just said that after reviewing the case evidence, tha alibi, and talking to the "accuser" he feels he could not get a conviction and dropped the case.

He was already elected for 4 years. He would get his full pension. So let the AA community be pissed. It would have been over and Nifong could say he did the right thing. It would be hard to accuse him of anything, because he dropped the case.

Instead he kept the hoax going.

Anonymous said...

ref gs
He actually won in May and was un-opposed in November. He could have dropped this hoax he created in May. But ole ego and his Duke rejection as an undergrad applicant got in the way.

GS said...

Nifong ran in Nov against 2 opponents, one a write in the other on the ballot. Nifong got 49% of the votes, the two other guys had the rest. Nifong would have lost without the AA vote.

Anonymous said...

the 2 opponents in Nov would not have emerged had Nifong dropped the HOAX after he won the un-opposed primary he won in May!

GS said...

He ran against 2 people in the Dem primary, including Freta Black. As to Nov who knows if people would have opposed him, he was already being heavily attacked.

Anonymous said...

Guess you assume the AA vote would abandon him

Anonymous said...

I understand his lawyers are excellent. Shows how little, they have to work with on his defense.

GS said...

yes , the AA communtiy woukd drop him if he dropped the charges.

GS said...

yes, they would have.