Nifong Closing Statement

Dudley Witt is delivering the statement.

Brocker's closing was tightly worded and very well organized; Witt is more rambling.

Witt seems to be laying out an argument that Nifong's behavior was negligent and perhaps knowing but not intentional.

On the media: had never dealt with the media before this time, even though he was a career prosecutor.

"Made some serious mistakes" in how he handled the pretrial statements, but not intentional.

Wm'son: "You're not saying because he was unschooled in media relations, that's a defense?"
And how to avoid an inference that there was a relationship between statements and the political motivations. Nifong's statements were "inherently incredible."

"Defies believe that there's not a connection" between how Nifong handled the case and the election.

Nifong is "a very truthful guy."

Wm'son to Witt: his explanation might be one, it's not a "logical" one.

Witt is now [preposterously] concluding that Nifong admitted that he knew the items weren't included in the report.

Wm'son: Nifong's behavior "consistent with somebody who's feigning ignorance."

Wm'son: The issue is Nifong knew that there was exculpatory evidence and didn't do anything about it. The issue isn't whether there was a conspiracy with Dr. Meehan. The purpose of this hearing isn't to try Dr. Meehan.

"How can you possibly explain away" Nifong's failure to look at the report between 9-22 and 12-15?

Wm'son: Nifong's statement "is just damning."

Witt: says that this is just like Gell case--unintentional negligence.

Witt is now blaming the Bar--says there wasn't sufficient guidance from the Bar.

Wm'son is openly skeptical in his questions--strongly implying that Nifong was being willfully negligent.

[This is one of the least effective closing arguments that I have ever encountered.]

Wm'son: could just as easily say that Nifong's approach to Meehan was: I'm going to hang you out to try.

Witt: Since Bar can't establish that there was an agreement between Nifong and Meehan to limit test results, the rest of the Bar's argument falls apart.

Witt: Since Nifong never directly told Meehan to conceal evidence, Nifong should be considered innocent of not disclosing evidence.

Witt: Meehan's fault that he didn't supply a complete report; didn't think about what was not contained in the DNA report.

Wm'son: seems throughout that all Nifong was looking for was evidence connecting lacrosse players to a crime, while ignoring all evidence that there was no connection.

Witt: Not so. Did take additional samples (the boyfriend, etc.)

Wm'son: What evidence is there that Nifong's attitude (only looking for evidence associated with lacrosse players) that this approach ever changed?
Witt: Concedes that Nifong's attitude probably never changed.

Wm'son: What good is an open-file policy if the information doesn't get into the file?