The Durham DA's office released to the Herald-Sun recently fired DA investigator Linwood Wilson's deposition to the State Bar. We now know why Nifong's attorneys were willing to call Tara Levicy as the DA's only non-character witness, while refraining (as had been expected) from calling Wilson.
In his May deposition, Wilson said that, after reflecting on his Dec. 21 interview with Crystal Mangum, "I was hearing stuff I had never heard before or read before . . . I was questioning whether or not she was telling me what really happened that night or if she was trying to fill in the blanks."
In an interview with the H-S, Wilson claims that shortly after the interview, he told Nifong, "You need to get rid of this piece of crap [the lacrosse case] as fast as you can. [Mangum] has told me an unbelievable story. She is not credible. She is volunteering for a polygraph, and we need to do it." In his Bar deposition, Wilson also claimed to have asked Nifong to give Mangum a lie detector test, but Nifong refused, remarking, "I don't polygraph victims, especially sexual assault victims . . . and make those victims think that I don't trust them or believe them."
Wilson's attorney, meanwhile, said "it's a travesty he was fired. He was only doing his job."
Wilson's claim to have been troubled by the Dec. 21 interview emerges at a convenient time for the former investigator. The alternative interpretation of events would suggest that the interview itself was a poorly structured frame executed by Wilson and Nifong--an interpretation, of course, that could expose Wilson to possible criminal charges down the road. Either way, however, Wilson's change of heart is more bad news for Nifong's hopes of avoiding a criminal inquiry into his own behavior.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
110 comments:
Keep it up KC!!!
happiness is discovering "who is linwood wilson"
Isn't it rich, isn't it queer
Losing my timing this late in my career
And where are the clowns
Quick send in the clowns
Don't bother, they're here.
"Get rid of this piece of crap".
I hope those words ring in the Fong's ears long after he begins staring at the walls of his jail cell.
The Fong would have given innocent men 30 years. Well then, 30 years is what the Fong deserves.
If true, his investigator tells him it is unbelievable, and he still keep charges against the players?
Criminal now seems very likely.
I wonder why the state did not call Wilson? Probably becuase he had to many vulnerabilities on cross.
but Nifong refused, remarking, "I don't polygraph victims, especially sexual assault victims . . . and make those victims think that I don't trust them or believe them."
Ah yes, when ideology trumps evidence. I wonder what feminist led VAWA workshop Mikey picked that up?
The big part of this story is the "Wall of silence" has broken! From Himan's "We're f*@#%ed" to Linwood's "Get rid of this piece of crap" the rats are pointing fingers at each other!
I don't trust any of them. I say let them figure it out at Butner Correctional in Group Therapy sessions.
There is one undeniable fact that makes this story by Wilson unbelievable.
Crystal Mangum isn't intelligent enough to put together a new story that covers the gaps between the facts and her previously told stories without some help. Wilson still strikes me as the logical person for Coach of the Year "honors".
Crystal Mangum isn't intelligent enough to put together a story? Pardon me, isn't she an honor student in college?
Wasn't Himan one of the cops in the photo behind the cab driver in his court case? And Wilson strikes me as the kind of overgrown gorilla that "does what he is told" for the boss. While everybody is turning the finger to Nifong, like an above poster, I don't trust any of them. They were all ready to push "this piece of cr*p" forward. I think this will be another year or more in cleanup and KC will have at least one more book about it I'm usre
That last word should be SURE
Sorry all
"Crystal Mangum isn't intelligent enough to put together a new story that covers the gaps between the facts and her previously told stories without some help."
Of course, her Dec. story didn't really cover those gaps. It's not exactly the product of an intelligent liar.
Then again, I wouldn't discount the possibility that Wilson was both a dutiful Nifong soldier and deeply skeptical of CGM's lies. Any rational person looking at the case would have grave doubts. Its not that implausible that a handful of people on Nifong's team might expressed those doubts privately, even as they worked dilligently to bring the hoax to trial.
I suggest Wilson may be painting the picture he wants a future prosecutor to see. Wilson makes a big thing of his being a gospel singer and, presumably, a fervent christian. If a christian understood last December that the case was without merit, that christian wouldn't continue working with the prosecutor's office. A real christian would have resigned and blown the whistle. But then Wilson is like so many christians these days--do as I say, not as I do. I wouldn't believe a word this slug says, especially if he swore on a stack of bibles.
This is all too cnvenient, so does he have any proof? All that he would need would be an email reminding Nifong of the tone of their discussion.
Of course, once the circular firing squad begins, it becomes almost impossible to figure out who did what, and that is also very convenient in a civil or criminal trial.
CGM's honor student status speak volumes about NCCU.
I concur with 7:43 poster. I think all the bad players in this must have their own attorneys by now. Reminds me of the comment> you don't need attorney if you are innocent!
It seems maybe everyone has learned something from the distruction by the press and the legal system to the 3 victims in this case. No attorneys are speaking out, and little biased reporting of the freshly minted accused in this case. They are being accorded their constitutional rights unlike what happened to the 3 guys. It's ironic, but it's a good thing. As an individual, I hope they all spend alot of time in jail and pay up big. There is no forgiveness for what they all wanted to happen to three innocent people.
It should be destruction> I'm counting on the defense team to continue their good work.
A political reminder: Only one member of the North Carolina congressional delegation in Washington, D.C., Congressman Walter Jones, has spoken out and demanded a Justice Department investigation of the frame-up. Our two so-called Republican U.S. Senators, Dole and Burr, have said nothing. I have corresponded with both of them and have gotten only the standard "Thank you for your letter, blah, blah, blah..." All NC residents reading this should put some pressure on those two spineless senators to stand up and do something to get the Justice Department off its bureaucratic butt. Write your congressman, too.
If Wilson thought he was interviewing a "piece of crap,"
he should have kept a personal
diary of some sort.
These guys call themselves "Investigators?"
Wonder what Mr. Elmostafa calls
Mr. Wilson?
Dole should go back to Kansas
or wherever she came from; she
certainly can't represent her
new state if she can't do more
than respond with a form letter.
Maybe her and "Fez" Gonzalez can
try a two-step in their retirement.
mac:
actually, dole is from salisbury, nc. she is also a duke grad. is this really a
"federal case"? perhaps legally, if the duke 3 can make out a civil rights violation in federal court; but politically, it is very much a state/local matter and should remain such. that said, dole received a hostile reception from the duke crowd during her initial run for the senate. i would love to hear her take a stab at duke; but, as is the case in all things political, she is likely taking the "less is more" approach.
"is this really a
"federal case"? perhaps legally, if the duke 3 can make out a civil rights violation in federal court; but politically, it is very much a state/local matter and should remain such. "
When civil rights are violated with the collusion or active participation of the local political forces, that's when the Feds are supposed to step in.
hi ralph.
no doubt that nifong, the durham police, and the city are "state actors" within the meaning of section 1983. however, there is an important distinction between the legal availability of a federal-based cause of action for the duke 3 and the political option of federal "step in" action. should the feds send down the national guard to take over the durham da's office? i think not.
Willsin: get a conscience, not a laywer and time to confess.
Everyone should have been asked how many times Nifong met w/ CGM and when -- he has a pattern of under reporting both the number of meetings and the contents, and also of taking steps to falsely shape testimony and evidence. He got caught on this in the DNA but I'd be quite suprised if this was the only instance of this type of behavior.
7:05
with CGM--with her "mental" problems she, too, needs to be in that counseling session
I am glad to see such outstanding investigative reporting from one of Nifong's biggest critics, the Durham Herald Sun!
Don't forget that Wilson strong-armed at least two people to sign false affidavits regarding Crystal's dancing right after she was so brutally raped. And he was up to his eyeballs in trying to strong-arm Moez Elmostafa to change his story, too.
In short, Linwood Wilson is in serious trouble, and it is not just from the infamous Dec. 21 "interview." He has many anxious and unhappy days ahead of him.
If it wasn't so serious it would be funny - oh hell it's funny no matter what. I keep seeing a picture of the 3 stooges standing in front of a kitchen full of smashed dishes, each one pointing at the other one.
And who didn't think Wilson would crack quickly? Thugs and bullies always go down like that, they're only tough as long as they think they're on the winning side. This is how almost every criminal conspiracy comes apart, every perp starts trying to cover his own ass and tossing his erstwhile pals under the bus.
Btw, as far as making it hard to find out who was actually responsible - I don't know about North Carolina, but I know about our conspiracy laws in Texas. And here, if you can show a conspiracy existed to break some law, then as long as one did it, they all did it and it doesn't matter which one. Seems harsh? Well too bad, don't conspire to break the law.
"ralph phelan said...
When civil rights are violated with the collusion or active participation of the local political forces, that's when the Feds are supposed to step in."
The problem is federal case law has what I call a no harm no foul approach to prosecutors who fail to provide discovery. Here, the defense was able to dig out the information from what Nifong did provide, even if in an untimely manner and in violation of state discovery rules. I think state law provides a much better option for civil and criminal remedies in this matter.
Walt in Durham
I find it easy to believe that Wilson told Nifong to drop this piece of crap as fast as you can. But when Nifong paused, I find it equally easy to believe, Wilson may have said something to the effect, I'll write my notes to help you the best I can boss.
"should the feds send down the national guard to take over the durham da's office? i think not. "
Only if it's the national guard from a different state - I wouldn't trust NC's.
It's starting to look like every single person in a position of authority in Durham County and quite a few judges were in on this, at least to the extent of knowing what was going on, having a duty to stop it, and not doing so. The state AG appears to have no interest in obvious criminal behavior in the DPD and Durham DAs office. The state governor has appointed a longtime crony of all the conspirators to be the interim DA.
I don't see how a fustercluck like this can be fixed short of massive outside intervention. Starting with sealing the DAs office to prevent destruction of evidence.
Hmmm, Wilson had grave doubts about Mangum's credibility but didn't ask one tough follow up question in the Dec. 21 interview. More to the point every question he asked was designed to fill some whole in the case.
Look, even Wilson was bright enough to know his patron was going to be immolated at the bar hearing. Saying "I told him so" is just a half-assed attempt at blame shifting.
At least G. Gordon Liddy had enough class to keep his mouth shut and just do his time.
This has long bothered me, or more specifically, that people don't seem disturbed by it.
When Nifong or Wilson claim to have no notes of this or that meeting or interview, is it true or is it a lie?
For my part I don't believe them. Lawyers ALWAYS have open legal pads in front of them. I've never seen one that didn't.
But even if it were true what could possibly be the reason for not taking notes? If you have not memorialized the meeting with notes or records you don't have an accurate accounting of the investigative trail. You cannot track down inconsistencies or follow leads.
There are only 3 reasons I can think of to fail to record meetings like this; 1) to prevent the information from becoming available to others, 2) to allow you to smooth over problems with the content in future meetings with your witness that might hurt your case, or 3) to provide yourself plausible deniability.
All are corrupt practices, and silly me, I doubt Wilson and Nifong are the first to have thought this up.
8:21
Sorry about my error.
At one time, I would've been a
Dole supporter, but her she can't
(apparently) even organize a tea party.
She does, after all, have a voice,
one that's strangely silent in all this.
And she wanted to be President?
As far as it being a State/Federal
matter: that might be a question of
interpretation. 8:27 pretty much
laid it out: there was an orgainized
effort to deny these young men
their civil rights. A conspiracy,
with multiple legal and extra-legal
collaborators. The students' Constitutional
rights were (apparently) violated,
as much by improper search and seizure,
attempts to subborn witnesses,
witness tampering, threats and
intimidation, allowing a courtroom
to be used as a podium to speak or
disseminate terroristic threats of
bodily harm against the defendants...
and this may or may not not be
remedied via local prosecution.
The terroristic threats made in
a courtroom by nonparticipants,
unquelled and unremedied by Judge
Stephens points to this as an attempt at
an old-fashioned lynching.
When a judge participates,
the locals have in effect
recused themselves, AG report or
not. Part of the Federal investigation
should include Judge Stephens'
inaction/participation.
Depends upon jurisprudence, you
think?
Maybe. But tell me that this
wouldn't be considered a Federal
matter if this was, say Mississippi
or Alabama, and the accused were
black? Even Senator Obama has
enough sense to know that this
is a Federal case - (not saying
that you lack sense, please take
note.)
7:32 AM --
You gotta put a /sarc tag on a comment like that. Otherwise, people might think you actually mean it.
Nifong did not wake up one day and start all these behaviors. He got away with bending the law for years. He just thought that the system would continue to protect him as BAU in Durham.
I tend to believe Wilson's story (at least, the part about the new "facts" at the Dec. 21 meeting coming from Mangum). I have never believed Crystal Mangum is the clueless fool that a lot of people have tried to make her out to be. Media reports said she was majoring in Policy Psychology at NCCU, and that she was taking her classes online. That means she probably had some basic understanding of police procedures, and that she is computer literate, to some degree. I have always suspected that she (like Nifong and Gottlieb) was reading the blogs about the case.
Linwood Wilson, on the other hand, is a former cop. His questionable ethics aside, his police experience would have given him enough basic knowledge about crimes and trial processes to know that the absurd Dec. 21 story was going to create more problems for the D.A. than it was going to solve.
The Dec. 21 story always sounded to me as if it had been constructed by someone who had some knowledge of the holes in the case, but had a very limited understanding of the law and the rules of evidence in court proceedings. A more knowledgeable person trying to "fix" the problems in the case would have known to stick as closely as possible to the original story, adding new incriminating details, but not changing the fundamental components. The ludicrousness of the Dec. 21 story (and the fact that Mangum later made up a new, even more ridiculous story for the SP's) suggests to me that it was more likely Mangum, and not Wilson or Nifong, who was responsible for the Dec. 21 changes.
Of course, none of that changes the fact that Nifong still insisted on going forward with felony charges against the three defendants, even though he knew that he had no probable cause.
Liestoppers board is reporting a rumor that the 'Fong is in the hospital. Mental and/or physical ailments??
No honor among thieves.
Likely an OD on sleep-aids.
Screw the Jusctice Department!! They're too busy putting border patrol agents in jail, and spying on consumers!!!
The state of NC is handling this Nifong affair just fine...
9:58
I'll agree with you when they begin
putting Judge Stephens on the barbie.
And many, many others.
Kilgore 6:57 said...
...but Nifong refused, remarking, "I don't polygraph victims, especially sexual assault victims . . . and make those victims think that I don't trust them or believe them."
...Ah yes, when ideology trumps evidence. I wonder what feminist led VAWA workshop Mikey picked that up?
AND
Anonymous 9:45 said...
I tend to believe Wilson's story (at least, the part about the new "facts" at the Dec. 21 meeting coming from Mangum). I have never believed Crystal Mangum is the clueless fool that a lot of people have tried to make her out to be.
...The Dec. 21 story always sounded to me as if it had been constructed by someone who had some knowledge of the holes in the case, but had a very limited understanding of the law and the rules of evidence in court proceedings.
::
Yes indeed. I agree. Mangum did make it into military service!
Nifong no doubt did attend those feminist or fairness workshops at the encouragement of CY and Tara and he must have been astonished to learn how little these people understand about the law.
But what could he say? Cy and Tara don't want to hear about the truth and Mangum must have wondered if these 'do gooders' have a clue about attack strategy need to take down part of Duke.
Nifong should have told all of these people that Barry Goldwater learned the hard way to be leery of extremists in any form.
I worry that Mangum is going to write a book.
::
GP
GP 10:10
That's why she needs to be sued.
And prosecuted.
7:32 --
"Crystal Mangum isn't intelligent enough to put together a story? Pardon me, isn't she an honor student in college?"
At some point or another, one of the newspapers may have claimed she was an honor student at NCCU. However, she was also claiming to be a full-time student at NCCU, and the last I heard, no one had been able to verify that full-time status, and that claim that she was a full-time student was also made IIRC in the same interview where she said tearfully that the party at 610 N. Buchanan was her first time dancing for money, which of course turned out to be a bloody lie. Without a credible source, I don't believe she's an honor student.
As for being "intelligent enough to put together a story" or not, why did you leave out the very important clause "that covers the gaps between the facts and her previously told stories"? Please remember that in Attorney General Cooper's investigation, the special prosecutors noted that she gave "the impression that she was improvising as the interviews progressed, even when she was faced with irrefutable evidence that what she was saying was not credible". Yes, she tried at that time to cover the gaps between the stories she had told and the facts that proved those stories false -- but she was doing so on her own, and she didn't do so very impressively. In fact, she seems to have introduced new and pointless inconsistencies in her statements to the special prosecutors. I think the suspicion remains reasonable that an uncoached and unfiltered account from Mangum on December 21st would have had far less credibility than the accounts which came through Wilson of that Dec. 21 interview.
You think Dec. 21 interview had credibility? Oh give me a break.
While the account might have tried to fill the holes in the story, it certainly wasn't impressive by any means, and time line didn't make much sense.
10:31
I don't think 1);24 meant to imply that the Dec. 21 interview was credible. (Just IMO.)
Jailfong.
mac, you're correct. In my 10:24 post, I did not mean to imply that the Dec. 21 interview (or more precisely, what Wilson reported as the results of the interview) was credible or impressive to a fair-minded person. If compared to the testimony Mangum gave without assistance to the special prosecutors, however, Mangum's testimony is clearly less credible, less impressive. Is this all accounted for by Mangum's prescription drug impairment during her interview with the special prosecutors? I honestly don't know. It seems obvious that it would be a factor, but I surely would not bet that coaching from Wilson ("when you say 'mustache', do you mean facial hair in general?") wasn't.
Is there a PDF of Linwood Wilson's deposition to the State Bar available anywhere online? I was hoping to find one in the H-S story, but no such luck.
GP at 10:10 AM said "I worry that Mangum is going to write a book."
Which is why she should be sued by the Duke 3 to make sure she doesn't profit from her notoriety.
The intellectual dihonesty of the left/radical leaft/marxists/progessives (whatever if the correct term) is egregious. There was an editorial in today's paper that said injustice was done but had to emphasize that the boys are not angels.
As has been stated, don't let the truth (that they were falsely accused of rape, not bad behavior, and that their college behavior does not lessen ONE IOTA the injustice) get in the way of the metanarrative (white males still constantly are to be denegrated because of who they are, not what they do).
It's like pulling back the linoleum and watching the roaches scatter.
Ed
Amazing, isn't it?
Did anyone claim they were angels, and why does it matter? When some poor shmuck is released from prison after 20 years because DNA tests prove his innocence, why don't those same newspapers write editorials saying "well, he was falsely convicted and spend 20 years in prison, but he was no angel, so his false conviction is no big deal."
JLS says....,
Wow!!
1. I tend to believe Wilson's quote of Nifong refusing to polygraph Mangum. From the start this case has smacked of both self-interest AND leftist PC attitudes run amuck.
2. I do not necesarrily believe Wilson's claim of when Nifong made this statement. As others have said, it is hard to believe Wilson did not tape the 21 December interview with Mangum unless Nifong had ordered him not to. This is a real danger here. We have a gallery of liars who are now lying in their own best interest. It very very hard to separate out the truth from a lie and as I did in point 1, there is incentive to believe what one already believes.
3. I can see it now. Nifong will have a breakdown, invoke the American's with disabilities act and get vested in the DAs pension fund yet.
4. Wilson cracking is hardly a surprise. Nifong has at least limited immunity. The police have other police to back themselves up and police deparment attorneys. Wilson has nothing and probably is least able to personally pay for an attorney.
5. And I don't mean anything in 4 to suggest sympathy for Wilson. They are just facts to me. And as Bill Anderson reminds us, Wilson participated in two false afidavits about Mangum behavior the days after the party, the cabbie frame up and the 21 December intereview UNRECORDED, so he has a lot to answer for.
Ed,
"Not angels," the paper said.
Maybe the paper (which one?)
was finding its soul, claiming
(truthfully) that "all have fallen
short." (A conversion experience,
perhaps?)
Yup. I've fallen short, too.
I admit it. I didn't try to put
3 young men in jail, though.
My trespasses are/were mostly
moral, not legal.
Trouble is, "fallen short" is a
spiritual term: what Nifong et al
did was punishable in the here-and-now.
Maybe the editors of the paper
want to go to jail for 30 years for
showing "un-angel-like" behavior?
Well, there's no question Wilson is a co-conspirator or at least a stand-by-and-watch-this-happen accessory to Nifong's attempt to jail three innocent men.
But to the degree that he's flipped to the side of truth and fact, I'll give him a golf clap. He could still be saying "something happened."
Where is Mr. Elmostafa these
days, anyway?
Mangum and Nifong will co-author a book entitled "Something Happened"
Yes, Wilson went to that interview with Mangum alone, and he didn't tape it.
Since Wilson claims now he tried to convince Nifong to get rid of the case, I can't help but wonder why Wilson did not took the steps like taping an interview (which could be easily done with at least a voice recorder) anyone can buy in radio shack.
Wilson's recent statements are self serving and hardly a surprise. He now claims that he told Nifong this was a bad idea and that CGM was not credible, yeah right...I am sure he was very thorough in trying to expose the case as a hoax. Gimme a break.
There was no reason for Wilson to even do the interview (it should have been Himan and a female officer) much less do it alone and unrecorded. It's obvious that he (and Nifong) were interested in making sure there was no record of the meeting aside from whatever they wanted to say.
Wilson had three weeks from the time he interviewed Mangum until Nifong asked the AG to appoint a special prosecutor. So, who else other than Nifong did he inform about his opinion? What proof can he offer that he felt she was lying and he wasn't trying to continue the frame? In essence Wilson is saying that from 12/21 on he did not believe the case was valid.
I am interested to know what he did as a result of his opinion. Let's not forget that the AG's office indicated that CGM was NEVER asked any questions about the contradictions in her story.
Apparently Wilson is a pretty poor interviewer. Any interrogator worth his salt would have taken her statement and pointed out all the reasons (and we know there were many) it was a lie. Had he done this, she would have likely begun her "Duke is paying off people and doctoring photographs" defense, and that would have been the end of it.
Wilson is dirty up to his eyeballs and deserves to do time in the cell right next to Nifong.
re: mac at 11:14-
FYI - Opinion piece was by Connie Shultz of the Cleveland Plain Dealer carried in my local paper today.
It's cshultz@plaind.com
She ended with a confusing (to me) statement.
"I never joined the bandwagon against the Duke players, and I part company with those deifying them now. They hired strippers for their party which hardly qualifies them for sainthood. But they didn't deserve what happened to them and they are willing to acknowledge what most of us don't even want to talk about:
Yes, money talks.
And when it comes to justice, money walks, too."
The problem is that they were screwed by the justice system, their own faculty and administration, and race mongers - and they handled that well. Not sainthood, but rather grace under fire. And the money comment???
Ed
Have they arrested CGM yet? What is she up to nowadays? I would hate to see her fade away. No news vans parked in front of her house, following her around, interviewing her, snapping pictures...? Where is she? Somebody should keep a blog accounting for her every move no matter how mundane.
HUMILIATE THE CRIMINAL.
Ed - the more you advertise for her, the more internet traffic to her website/email, thus, a better business case for more ad revenue. Doesn't matter what is said, just the buzz it generates. The point is to marginalize these idiots to the fringes of do-it-yourself, local journalism and run them OUT.
I feel guilty even pointing this out as it may bring attention to your post.
Mangum's book could be titled If They Had Done It.
I think she is trying to argue that had they been poor, they would have been convicted regardless.
Although I think that Wilson is utterly a piece of garbage, and although my immediate reaction to the Dec 21 interview was that Wilson had helped Precious to create a work-around to Nifong's legal woes, at this point I am prepared to believe (most of) Wilson's tale.
Mangum may have mental deficiencies, but she is also a crafty and vicious liar, and while she may be a moron by normal human/simian standards, it takes VERY little brains to read the newspaper and figure out when the bogus attack COULD NOT POSSIBLY have happened.
Note, meanwhile, that Mangum was too stupid to take her ownb cell-phone records into account when revising her lies, something which Linwood (a relatively intelligent criminal) would not have likely overlooked.
More troubling, when you get down to specifics, is Precious' (supposedly) revised claim that she didn't know whether or not she was penetrated by a big, bad, white-boy penis.
This particular permutation on Crystal's ever-mutating tale, served no purpose of her own (as a lying scumbag and pseudo-victim), BUT "just happened to" serve lawyer Nifong's TECHNICAL, LEGAL strategy of trying to prevent admission of evidence, re: the unlawfully withheld DNA.
("Hey, we're no longer making penetration or ejaculation part of the 'kidnapping and assault' case, so, your Honor, clearly the DNA of every other male in Durham not on the lacrosse team, in my client's rectum and underpants, is totally irrelevant!!!!!")
So, Linwood is telling the truth -- mostly. But, he belongs in prison for what he's lying about, which is his active participation, as Liefong's lap-dog, in an ongoing frame-up.
Best I can determine Crystal is a college drop-out who attended NCCU part-time, where she was a B student.
The fulltime honor student business is apparently another example of the MSM spinning politically correct victims to advance its vile agenda over truth.
You wrote, "Yes, Wilson went to that interview with Mangum alone, and he didn't tape it.
Since Wilson claims now he tried to convince Nifong to get rid of the case, I can't help but wonder why Wilson did not took the steps like taping an interview (which could be easily done with at least a voice recorder) anyone can buy in radio shack."
Your question has a simple one-word answer; deniability.
It's pretty obvious that Nifong and Wilson both knew that this interview was the biggest of their careers. Are you telling me that is never crossed anyone's mind that standard procedure should be followed and maybe the interview should be done with a female officer present and that it should be recorded?
The case was under major fire because the police failed to follow procedure during the line-up. It's inconceivable that these things did not cross the minds of a DA with 28 years experience and an investigator with more than 20.
I have never worked a day as a police officer or attorney and know little or nothing about these things, and I know you should have a female present during an interview with an alleged rape victim and that any interview should be recorded.
These guys wanted to be able to shape this interview into whatever served their purposes best. They wanted to be able to say whatever they wanted.
Anyone who thinks it was simple oversight that Wilson did this interview by himself in an undisclosed location and it wasn't recorded needs to have their head examined. This was done deliberately with much thought and consideration. Please also remember that Himan, the lead investigator in the case, wasn't even told about the interview until after it was done.
This was a calculated move to continue to frame innocent men for a crime they didn't commit. And because of it, Wilson needs to be held accountable.
One last side note- I know attorneys are hired to represent their clients, but for Wilson's attorney to claim he should not be fired because he was, "lust doing his job" is pure comedy and another only in Durham moment.
This investigator with all this experience in the biggest interview of his career just happens to violate procedure and not have another officer present and does not record the interview.
David Addison would be proud.
re: 11:40 (no name)-
I was not advertising (the same as with posts re: Nancy Grace, et. al.)
I was asked for a reference and gave it
Don't feel guilty - everything's gonna be okay.
Ed
11:56
My cat could go to NCCU part time and maintain a B average. You need only 1 qualification to get in and 1 to stay in. Hint: they're both the same.
Ed 11:37
I didn't see your answer to my question
as an endorsement, either.
Thanks for the reply.
I wonder about Shultz's comment
"money walks," too: is she
trying to re-ask the question
we've all heard as 4th graders:
"Money talks, BS walks?"
(Which is about as insightful
as "is a bear Catholic?")
Sure she's not from Durhh?
No wonder she's a local entity,
wherever she sprang from.
(Sorry that 11:40 was so sensitive:
a little Bactine might help.)
To Anon 7:43
"But then Wilson is like so many christians these day.."
It'd be better if you kept your intolerance and religious bigotry to yourself.
12:14
Your cat would probably be the head
of the class, and twice as attractive as Samples.
(Not that I have felinophilia.)
11:59 - you're absolutely right. You don't violate all procedure "accidentally" on an interview like this, you only do that if you need to make sure there will be no witnesses to what you're up to besides the people who are already part of the conspiracy.
Only possible explanation; of course they're still morons for not thinking that everyone else would see that right off. On the other hand, they figured correctly that their supporters would never see anything wrong with that kind of thing.
KC
So on Thu Hudson has a hearing for removing Nifong.
Does the other Judge also has a hearing to hold Nifong in contempt?
What time are things scheduled for thu?
Here's the link to the Cleveland Plain-Dealer column, which though a bit condescending, is actually pretty positive on the 3 guys and tells a story that I hadn't heard before.
Duke trio learned justice is not blind
re: Ed at 11:37
[They hired strippers for their party, which hardly qualifies them for sainthood.]
There's a pretty easy rebuttal for this and I'll work on writing it up.
I like most of the article and didn't know that the three accused attended that meeting. Kudos to them for attending.
Good thing that Nancy is off having twins so that she didn't have to cover something as sickening as the concept that people can be innocent.
Keep in mind Linwood got a huge raise from Nifong during this case. Linwood's salary more than doubled.
Mangum's book could be titled If They Had Done It.
Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Steven Horwitz,
Thanks for the link.
Shultz could've easily edited out
the last paragraph or so:
good writing (almost) always
involves good editing.
Aside from the new story and
the support of the students,
it would'a helped not to have
the "yeah, but" type comment.
hi mac,
re you 9:25 post...i'm not saying that this case cannot be a federal matter...it can be, legally...my point is that this fiasco is best addressed on the state/local level...lane williamson is far better situated to skewer nifong than the u.s. attorney general...williamson's slap down of nifong has the patina of authenticity because he knows the lay of the legal landscape in nc...likewise, orlando hudson's (as an afican-american durhamite) removal of nifong from office is far more influential than a federal inquiry/prosecution...and jim hardin's firing of linwood wilson likewise has "street cred" that federal action would not...i speak as a durham native/resident/duke grad...from ground zero...all that said, if the federal government should choose to conduct an inquiry, i would welcome it.
12:19 / 7:43:
This case and post is about injustice, not religion....So keep a lid on it til' church on Sunday.... Thanks...
Anyone know why KC closed comments section on yesterday's post in which Debrah provided a link to a Prager article (which made a convincing argument to sanction Crystal Gail Mangum)?
I wanted to comment, or did KC preempt me?--LOL
Polanski
I'm not anti-religion at ALL, but this case HAS been a reminder that a religious title means nothing unless the man/woman with the title lives up to it. All those lousy Durham (overweight) reverends, as well as Father Vetter from the Duke chapel, were flops. (And who was that silly reverend who had his church carry a toilet bowl painted red over to the Duke lacrosse house in the beginning of the case? As some kind of silly symbolism? Send in the clowns....they're already here, is so right!)
steve h:
good "get" on the "durham trio" article...i had not heard of the innocence project forum...perhaps they have redeemed themselves in light of nifong's innocence project "expert witness" testimony?
Richard from Durham
Philosphically - (jurisprudencially?) -
I agree with you. States rights
vs. Federalism and all that.
In cases where the locals can't seem
to find the right remedies -
(Constitutionally insupportable,
indefensible etc.) - the Feds
ought to step in. Cooper and
Williamson have done well,
I admit...
I would welcome Lane Williamson
doing a thorough examination of
Judge Stephens, but that won't
happen; it would be welcome to see
the assistant DA come under some
legal scrutiny, too, but is hasn't
yet; it would be nice if the AG
would have avoided making
his De facto nol pross statement,
but he did anyway.
(Perhaps Mr. Cooper was being strategic,
in a way I'm not discerning?)
Lots of things to be wished for,
some of them unrealistic unless
the local system is (metaphorically)
nuked.
There are too many local eggs in
the basket; too many foxes already
inside the henhouse - (and too
many worn-out cliches being used!)
mac,
love the worn-out cliche comment...kudos! and yes, there are too many local eggs in the basket, and you are correct to be suspicious of local "basketing"...but to believe that williamson, cooper, stephens, hudson, and hardin are all nc whores serving some paranoid self-interest has me laughing my ass off...if i were to buy into your construction of reality, i would then also have to believe that your truth and justice fed guys would quietly sneak into durham, scoop up the bad guys under the cover of darkness, spray the durham community with "truth serum", and leave unmasked without a congressional hearing or an international media tour...you mentioned kansas in one of your previous posts...u from oz???? speaking of baskets...didn't dorothy leave in one?..."there's no place like home...there's no place like home..."
"but to believe that williamson, cooper, stephens, hudson, and hardin are all nc whores serving some paranoid self-interest has me laughing my ass off"
Replace "paranoid" with "shameless" and you'd have a statement I would agree with.
Hardin who recommended Nifong to begin with, and has a lot of mutual friends.
Hudson and Stephens, who let obviously outrageous prosecutorial misconduct go on in their courtrooms for over a year.
And yes I include Williamson, who did the minimum required to keep the Feds out (remove Nifong) but promptly reassured all other sitting DAs that this case was an "abberation" and he wouldn't be sanctioning any other DAs any time soon....
Add to the mix the NCAG, who has the power and duty to investigate police corruption, but saw nothing of interest in this case, and the state Governor, who called Nifong his worst appointment ever, and when he need's a fill-in, chooses ... the well connected guy who recommended Nifong to him!
The entire state of NC's justice system stinks of corruption.
[Don't know how to create link]
Would someone please provide a link to a story that compares the Duke case with the Tennessee rape/murder. It's at fredoneverything.[net or com]. Title of article is "Diversity and Its Prospects: Rape in Tennessee."
Thanks,
Polanski
I wouldn't suggest that Williamson,
Cooper Hudson or Smith are all
part of a larger conspiracy:
Williamson might argue that
reigning in bad prosecutors hasn't
been...reliable. (He did point
out that there were differences
in this case and others.)
I've seen the Feds in action:
sometimes, they're piles of manure.
On the other hand, they're aggressive
in a way that someone needs to be
(in this case.)
Cooper, as I said, might have strategic
motives for his comments about
prosecution etc. That means
he might need to see the pins
set up properly before rolling
the ball (another cliche.)
That's where I find myself willing
to give him the benefit-of-the-
doubt.
I'm wondering who (from NC)
might be willing to take Stephens
apart? Any ideas?
Fitting you should reference the
land of Oz, considering the title
of this blog (Durham in Wonderland.)
Shultz is also ignoring the fact that Duke three became such an attractive targets for press and everyone else precisely because they were "privileged, white and rich." Maybe she hasn't heard comments about rich daddies? Haven't read the letters and articles that vilified them precisely because they were white and rich?
So, while money could be a blessing, it could also be a curse.
"I wouldn't suggest that Williamson,
Cooper Hudson or Smith are all
part of a larger conspiracy:"
I would ... the name of the criminal conspiracy being "the North Carolina Judicial System."
Prof. Horwitz,
Connie Shultz, the author of the Cleveland newspaper article, could qualify as an 88er -- certainly she's spinning this tale the way of the Hatey-Hate.
The first clue as to her mindset comes when she can't write the first sentence without defining the Lax 3 by race, age, class, and gender. Whenever a writer does that, your bullshit-radar should be sounding loud alarms.
Then, predictably, she recasts the "lesson" of the Hoax in exactly the way the 88 want it spun. Remember, at first this case was a micronarrative of the (false) metanarrative of "a long history of sexual violence of white men on black women." Now that the original micronarrative has proved as false as the original metanarrative, the Hoax is being re-spun by the 88ers, inside and outside of academia, as a micronarrative of the metanarrative that "innocent people are commonly convicted in the U.S. justice system and the main reason the Lax 3 didn't join them was because of their wealth."
I know you're an economics professor, so let me give you a brief lesson of the law. When lawyers say "wrongfully conducted" they do not mean "actually innocent". "Wrongfully convicted" is a term of art meaning "factually guilty". A person who is convicted and who is later shown to be innocent is never described by lawyers as "wrongfully convicted" -- ask the Lax 3, who were not described as "wrongfully indicted".
Shultz makes a big thing out of "203" convictions that have been overturned with the help of the (misnamed) "Innocence Project". Wow, 203 out of 3,000,000. If for every one of those 203 there are 14 more similarly-situated convicts, that would be about 3,000 out of 3 million, or about one in 1,000. In other words, not exactly the "crisis" that Shultz tries to make it out to be.
Shultz also tries to suggest that prosecutorial malfeasance is far greater than can be shown -- as, she claims, journalists and even defense attorneys "want to stay on the 'good side' of prosecutors and police". As someone who has been both a police-beat reporter and a defense attorney, I assure you this is nonsense. Ask the Lax 3's attorneys if they ever gave a damn about staying on Nifong's "good side".
One of the more recent IP "victories" was freeing Darryl Hunt, who spent 19 years in prison for the murder of a woman in North Carolina. On the IP's website it claims that DNA evidence "exonerated" Hunt. It did no such thing. The DNA evidence made it harder for the prosecution to win the case in a (second) retrial, but it did not exonerate Hunt. I think the prosecutors felt that 19 years was long enough to keep Hunt off the street and so chose not to retry him -- especially since he was a black ne'er-do-well and his victim was a productive citizen, resulting in the inverse media and academia biases from the Lax 3 case. Ironically, going to prison was probably the only reason Hunt was still alive 19 years later to be "exonerated".
So Shultz deserves no credit for her article which serves only to serve the new (false) metanarrative to which the 88ers want to attach this case.
In reality, the most important lesson this case teaches us is the falsity of the original Hatey-Hate metanarrative of white men as feral beasts lusting brutally after innocent maidens of color. Let's not let the 88's new metanarrative prevent us from seeing the falsity of their original one.
R.R. Hamilton
Polygraphs are not reliable, and are not admissable as evidence in federal trials. I don't know how each state views them, but they're rather easy to "beat" -- it helps if you believe what you're saying is true, which CGM seems to no matter how contradictory her statements became over time.
2:12
True, polys aren't 100% reliable--but they are helpful. Last I heard was that a good poly is about 85% accurate, which ain't bad. I understand some new technology will be hitting the market soon--retina scanning--something like that.
Polanski
Polygraphs work well on foolish and easily bullied people who believe in the machine, and the "expert" is usually simply a very good interrogator with a mostly useless mechanical prop next to him. A good interrogator can probably get to the truth all on his own about 85% of the time, so the machines don't add much except for the "aura" and fear of mysterious science that the target doesn't understand.
The big problem is that an overly subservient or timid person can be easily bullied into believing they did something they didn't actually do, while the real psychopaths and sociopaths who feel absolutely no remorse will pass the lie detector with flying colors. Example: I guarantee that Mike Nifong would pass a lie detector test if you asked him "did you lie and hide evidence?" and he answered "Absolutely Not!" Reason: Mike Nifong believes that to be the "Big Truth" even though it isn't! There is no scheme, no machine, no retina scan, no drug that can ever break through a mind like that. It would be oh so easy if we could find a shortcut to the truth, but there isn't one. It will always have to be done the Old Fashioned Way.
and btw, I'm in Texas, and Texas has banned the use of polygraphs in all legal proceedings due to their inherent unreliability. They're still around, but they're about as meaningful as Madame Zola's Tarot Card readings.
(don't forget that an experienced Madame Zola can probably get close to some kind of truth the majority of the time - most people are easy to read)
Interesting. May I offer two general observations?
First, polygraphs are indeed unreliable. They measure only a few physiologic responses to stress which are the interpreted by a polygraph examiner to indicate truth or falsity. Rather than indicating truthfulness or lies, polygraph exams can also be inconclusive. There is simply no machine that can determine and/or accurately measure abstract human concepts such as truth or falsehood.
All competent investigators know this and know that polygraphs are merely investigative tools that are used for two primary reasons: (1) to help trick suspects into confessing, and (2) to help salve an investigator's conscience, to reassure them that they are pursuing the right person or the right leads. Even though everyone knows polygraphs aren't reliable, they can at least say, "well, we polygraphed her, and it was clear she was lying, therefore I'm justified in recommending that the case be dropped." This is a very human response as the truth is that in any criminal investigation, there are often facts and situations about which we will never be absolutely certain, and when any ethical investigator is involved in putting people in prison, they want that certainty.
If we assume that Wilson was truthful in his deposition--and we know next to nothing about Wilson as a man and an investigator--then we can infer that he is a competent investigator who was doing his job. Any competent investigator, particularly in a rape case, would do their best to build the best possible case, but would always be wary of false accusations and any issue that would tend to be harmful to the victim's credibility as that is always a primary thrust of defense tactics. One would expect any competent investigator to tell a prosecutor that a victim might well be lying or would not be credible. Any competent investigator would also realize that even if the suspects might have done what they are charged with doing, a victim might be such a poor witness that it would not be possible to obtain a conviction.
That is clearly not the case here, but for the moment, judging only on the strength of Wilson's deposition, it seems that Mr. Wilson was indeed a competent investigator and that the primary fault remains with Mr. Nifong.
Definition of a "good poly"
Assume the person has a 152 IQ. This person can be examined successfully, provided:
1. no presence of antidrpressants or any psychotropic drugs
2. good test administrator will check for any cheek biting, or other ways subjects can manipulate the test
3. check for antiperspirants, or anything else that will interfere with moisture and temperature
I agree: a good investigator does not need a poly, but from what I've been told by friends in FBI, if you have a good test administrator, you have a good shot at getting some good information from your subject.
As I posted previously, the poly will probably become obsolete shortly, but for now it's a fair law-enforcement tool.
Polanski
Connie Shultz’s column in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (excerpts below in quotes) contains too many sharp elbows and snide remarks to let pass unanswered. Let a Fisking commence:
“The lives of three privileged young white men were almost destroyed by false testimony, a ruthless prosecutor and a rabid public fueled by the media.”
OK, for openers the three defendants are convicted by Schultz for the crime of being white and ‘privileged’. Shultz shares the shame of ‘privelege’ herself, as do all opinion columnists who own pulpits from which to talk down to the masses, but there’s no reason to lead off with that sentence unless she wishes to add significant mud to that slung by a rabid media at the Duke 3.
“For Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, justice prevailed.”
What does Shultz think ‘justice’ is? Yes, they narrowly escaped a judicial lynching. But justice didn’t prevail – they were subjected to an unjust fifteen months of media-amplified social opprobrium and anguish plus vast expenses. If she can’t distinguish between those de facto penalties and a DA who follows the rules, society would lose nothing if her privilege of writing columns were ended today.
“They know this means something is very wrong with our system of justice.”
‘Our’ system of justice? Schultz issues a blanket condemnation of ‘our’ justice system, as if it were entirely rotten? Spare us – she’s pulling the same exaggerated verbal lynching on all courts and police and prosecutors as the Group of 88 did on the Duke athletes. Extrapolating the characteristics of one aberration to blacken a whole population is the basis of racism and most other crimes of bigotry.
“I never joined the bandwagon against the Duke players,…”
Shultz climbed off the bandwagon a bit late – her opening sentence is evidence of her position in the class war, which was essential in maintaining the furor in the media.
“and I part company with those deifying them now.”
Deifying? Is Schultz projecting the meme of ‘sainted victimology’ onto the Duke 3 as the PC movement does its downtrodden minorities? Can she distinguish the relief any honest citizen would feel at the dropping of false charges, from an act of spiritual worship? This girl deals in wild exaggerations and overdramatizations as a stock in trade. Not recommended as a reliable purveyor of information.
“But they didn't deserve what happened to them, and they are willing to acknowledge what most of us don't even want to think about: Yes, money talks. And when it comes to justice, money walks, too.”
And in conclusion, she returns us to the class war, the evil possessors of money who can buy what she calls ‘justice’ as if it were an SUV. As one who contributed to the defense of the Duke 3 (motivated largely by the overwhelming power of the viciously biased MSM which employs Schultz), I reject her glib framing of this legal travesty. We might ask her to consider whether her made-for-soap-opera column is better or worse as motivation for citizens to act in a just manner, in comparison with a carefully written and exhaustively researched description of the daily events of the Duke LAX legal hoax such as was provided by Professor KC Johnson on his Durham-in-Wonderland blog.
Peckkerwood may be getting into the barbeque business. He has a video on YouTube.com that appears to be about a couple of guys barbecuing a billy goat.
"‘Our’ system of justice? Schultz issues a blanket condemnation of ‘our’ justice system, as if it were entirely rotten?"
Gerry Amirault is still in jail, and the woman who put him there continues to rise in Massachusetts politics.
Janet Reno, who participated in witness intimidation and hiding evidence to get convictions during the worst of the day-care/satanic-ritual-abuse hysteria become US AG for eight years.
Nancy Grace, who was caught hiding evidence multiple times during multiple reversals of her convictions, is at least not a prosecutor, but isn't in jail either - she's on TV as an "expert."
In Rhode Island, the attorney general just indicted a man for a rape he supposedly commited in 1975, based on the victims recently "recovered" memories. She hasn't fully recovered them, she doesn't remember if it was in May or November, but this lack of detail is no reason not to prosecute. And the AG has pulled a Nifongian trick - get an indictment from the Grand Jury *before* you indict, then have the guy arrested, so that you don't have to do a probable cause hearing in front of a judge who might throw your case out.
The US really does have a systemic problem with prosecutors. Just look how incredibly far Nifong had to go in order to draw enough attention to get reined in. SOmeone half as bad as Nifong will probably sneak under the radar, and half as bad as Nifong is still pretty bad.
And one of the reasons they get away with it is because they're usually smart enough not to frame anyone who can afford a good lawyer.
why does R. R. Hamilton's post give me deja vu? Oh, right, this might be why:
'"The Innocence Project" announced that the DNA testing had "exonerated" Hunt; in fact, it did not. It cast doubt on the DA's case (which included several eyewitnesses), but it did not "exonerate" Hunt. Nevertheless, the city of Winston-Salem ponied up $1.7 million to Hunt without even being asked. (Hunt likely didn't sue W-S because of the possibility that the city would prove that, despite the lack of DNA evidence, Hunt still likely did the crime.)'
Of course, whoever wrote that clearly didn't know much about the case -- either that, or, like Nifong, felt that exculpatory evidence should be suppressed when it doesn't fit one's metanarrative. The Sykes Administrative Review Committee Report not only makes it very clear that not only is there no credible evidence of Hunt being involved in the Sykes rape or murder, but that as early as late November of 1984 police knew that the sperm found in the victim's vagina could not have come from Darryl Hunt -- knew it, and failed to look for the individual whom it did come from. But it's absolutely jaw-dropping that "R. R. Hamilton" (if it is indeed he who wrote the 2:06 post, and not some impersonator) fails to mention the most exculpatory evidence of all -- Willard E. Brown's confession to the crime. Brown's DNA matched the samples found on the victim, unlike Hunt, who didn't even match the blood type. How is it that unidentified male DNA exonerates three white males who do not match the DNA, but identified male DNA from someone who confessed to the crime is insufficient to exonerate a black male who does not match the DNA? Whoever the 2:06 poster is, they are either grotesquely ignorant of the facts of the Darryl Hunt case, or they are as grotesquely determined to conceal and ignore the facts as any potbanger ever was.
Ralph --
Small correction: Gerry Amirault is not still in jail; he was released in May 2004. The reason it's only a small correction is that he was released because he had served enough of his sentence to be released on parole; he was not cleared of the phony charges as he should have been.
*finds and anonymous jaw on the ground ... tests it for DNA and connects it to the Hunt case*
First, anonymous, all I had previously read of the case was most of the case narrative published by the Winston-Salem newspaper. I'm sure you can find it online if you look.
First you say "The Sykes Administrative Review Committee Report not only makes it very clear that not only is there no credible evidence of Hunt being involved in the Sykes rape or murder". I've had a chance to glance at this Report. First, it doesn't say "no credible evidence", but "no evidence". Of course, that's just the Executive Summary. Once you read some of the report you find massive amounts of evidence. "Credibility" of evidence being in the eye of the beholder, it must be noted that twenty-four people at two different trials found the evidence credible beyond a reasonable doubt.
You next say that by "late November of 1984 police knew that the sperm found in the victim's vagina could not have come from Darryl Hunt". First, it is my understanding that in the police theory of the case, there were likely at least two perps involved in the rape-murder of Sykes, and therefore even if the sperm did not match Hunt, that would not mean that he did not participate in the murder. Second, if you look at page 22 of the Sykes Report you will find that the undisputed testimony of the SBI representative was that the sperm test did not exclude Hunt.
Finally, you say (and this is how you lost your jaw), that I failed "to mention the most exculpatory evidence of all -- Willard E. Brown's confession to the crime. Brown's DNA matched the samples found on the victim." First, this is the first time I have heard either (1) that there was a DNA match to Brown, or (2) that Brown confessed. I also could find nothing of this sort in the Sykes Report. In fact, according to the Sykes Report, it's not clear if Brown was not in prison at the time of the Sykes murder. As far as the "confession of Brown", I found it unmentioned. I would be curious to learn more about it.
R.R. Hamilton
So, then, it's the first of the two: grotesquely ignorant of the facts of the case, but more than willing to shoot your mouth off about it. Also, if you "could find nothing [about the confession of Willard E. Brown] in the Sykes Report" then I suggest you learn to use the search function in your browser; even if you didn't manage to make it all the way to page 7 of the report, searching on "confess" would have turned up for you the fact that Brown confessed in December 2003.
anonymous, you need a chill pill.
First, either my browser doesn't have a search function or I don't know how to use it.
I'm glad you don't dispute that the DNA did not exculpate Hunt from the crime. In fact, thanks for helping me help you find that the N.C. Supreme Court in 1994 agreed with exactly what I said: The DNA evidence -- even if read to exclude Hunt as the rapist -- did not invalidate his conviction for murder. (See page 7.)
That the N.C. Supreme Court agreed with exactly what I've been saying is said just a sentence or two before the strangest writing involving Brown's "confession". I hope no lawyer was involved in writing this gobbledygook (was it you??); if so he needs serious remedial study in logic and writing.
Fortunately, there is more on the confession to be found on page 31. Very interesting. Brown confessed (eventually and after what interviews with Hunt's high-powered legal team we are not told) to "stabbing" Sykes in a failed robbery attempt, but not to raping her. And this AFTER he was told of the "DNA match". Very interesting. Why wouldn't he confess to the rape but NOT the murder, since the police theory was that two men had done the deed?
Oh well, Brown did plead guilty and in his confession he claimed to have acted alone, again contradicting eyewitness reports.
So, we know that the DNA did not exonerate Hunt of the murder. The N.C. Supreme Court already ruled on that matter. Brown could have participated with Hunt in the murder of Sykes. But Brown said he acted alone. And that, and that alone "exonerates" Hunt. Very interesting. Again, I would really like to know more about this confession.
If you care to make another anonymous reply, please do so as a professional.
R.R. Hamilton
Post a Comment