Thursday, June 28, 2007

Nifong Deposition: Personal Issues

Beyond specific issues related to the case, the Nifong deposition contained a number of intriguing personal revelations about the former DA. At various points during his two days of questioning, Nifong revealed himself to be:

  • a prosecutor who was at best indifferent to gathering all the evidence or even doing the basic of his job;
  • a figure who appears to believe that once a crime is charged, it is basically impossible to prove innocence;
  • a candidate who was flexible with his personal and campaign finance matters; and
  • a person who held deep grudges that he couldn’t conceal even with his career on the line.

Nifong as Chief Prosecutor

As he would in the ethics trial itself, in the deposition Nifong expressed discomfort with the language of the March 23 NTO, which stated that the DNA tests would exonerate the innocent. Given the DA’s objection to this language, State Bar attorney Doug Brocker asked whether Nifong had ever raised this issue with his chief assistant, David Saacks, who had signed off on the NTO.

Nifong’s response? “Not specifically, primarily for the reason that he would not normally be somebody that would even be dealing with such an order. He doesn’t have a caseload in which this would normally come up. I probably need to have a meeting with my staff generally and talk about some of the issues that have arisen in this case, and this could be one of them. But I have not done that yet.”

Earlier in the deposition, Nifong denied that he ran for a full term for financial reasons; instead, said he, he had a “vision” for the office. Whatever that (never-revealed) vision was, it apparently didn’t involve hands-on management by him.

The Role of a Prosecutor

Under questioning from Brocker, Nifong conceded that he had an obligation to determine whether an allegation was credible, which he could fulfill “by looking at evidence that is inconsistent with that statement and making a determination.” What about, Brocker wondered, considering exculpatory evidence?

Confirming that he should never have been near a prosecutors’ position, Nifong proclaimed that he was “not sure that I would say that it’s my obligation” to look at such evidence if a defense attorney offered it before indictment. Indeed, reminisced Nifong, he never had done so in any case that he prosecuted.

Nifong’s Varying Memory Skills

The quality of Nifong’s memory appears to vary widely depending on the issue at hand. For instance, this exchange:

Brocker: In your response to the grievance in this case, you have talked fairly specifically about what was discussed at the April 21st and the May 12th meetings.

Nifong: I believe that—I believe that to be the case.

Brocker: Can you explain to me why you were able to recall those meetings with that specificity in responding to the grievance, but did not recall them during the hearings with the Court?

Nifong: Other than the fact that when I got that December the 13th motion, it refreshed my recollection, bang, about that. And it was just something that had not—I had not recalled. But yes, I mean once—once I saw that motion on December the 13th, there was no question that I remembered it.

Yet when asked about his December 21 interview with the New York Times—a much more recent event, after all—Nifong had a memory blackout.

Brocker: After this hearing, you did an interview with—the December 15th hearing—you did an interview with a New York Times reporter on December 21st?

Nifong: Yes, sir.

Brocker: Why did you decide to do that interview?

Nifong: I can’t give you a specific reason. I mean I don’t know. I don’t recall my thought process at the time.

Brocker: Generally you had not been granting interviews to reporters after—according to your testimony, generally after April 3rd?

Nifong: That is correct.

Brocker: Do you remember how long the interview with the New York Times reporter—it’s reported that it was a three-hour interview. Do you recall it being that long?

Nifong: No, sir. It was—I recall it being a relatively long interview, but I don’t recall—I can’t imagine what I would have talked about for three hours to anybody.

Nifong and Actual Innocence

In contrast to his disinterest in reading most case-related documents, Nifong admitted that he “did in fact read all of that [attorney general’s] report.” Previewing his “something happened” moment from the hearing, Nifong was then asked whether the still believed Mangum was sexually assaulted. He paused, said he was “considering how to phrase my answer,” paused again, and then asserted that he agreed “there was not sufficient credible evidence to take the case to trial.”

Brocker pressed: the report, after all, said the three players were actually innocent, not simply that there was insufficient evidence. Did Nifong agree with this conclusion?

The transcript indicated another pause, followed by this statement:

My personal understanding of actual innocence could be that that would be something that would be based on conclusive proof that either an event never happened or that a person other than the person who was accused, therefore who we’re considering the innocence of, had committed that.

An example would be where someone is convicted of a rape and then at some point later testing that was not available at the time of the initial trial reveals that the sexual intercourse was with someone other than the defendant, so the defendant could not be the person. And I think that is actual innocence.

Short of something like that, I am not sure that I could ever feel comfortable in any case saying that anybody is actually innocent. I was not there that night. I do not know what happened that night.

As Brocker noted, “effectively that would mean that the only situations as a district attorney in which you would be willing to say that a person was innocent of an alleged crime was if you had conclusive evidence that somebody else had committed that crime.” Perhaps so, mused Nifong, but in any case it’s not the job of a prosecutor to determine whether someone charged is innocent or not.

His Handling of the Case

In retrospect, Nifong admitted, he might have been better served by interviewing Crystal Mangum at some point in the process. But he couldn’t “say for sure that I would necessarily have come to the same conclusions that the attorney general’s staff came with respect to that because for instance on none of the four occasions when I saw her did I see any evidence whatsoever of any impairment.”

The major issue raised by both Attorney General Cooper and the report, however, was not Mangum’s impaired status. It was the fact that she never had been asked about the myriad discrepancies in her stories, and proved unable to resolve them when she was asked.

Paralleling the Baker/Chalmers report, the ex-DA contended that the behavior of defense attorneys lengthened the case. He singled out—of all groups—the Finnerty team for criticism. After hearing (accurate, as it turned out) “rumors” that Finnerty might have an alibi, Nifong asked one of Finnerty’s attorneys, Bill Cotter, “if he intended to put on an alibi defense.” Cotter’s response? “If I put on an alibi defense, you’ll get the notice of it at the time that the statute says I must give you notice.”

Could the fact that after Reade Seligmann made public his alibi the state arrested one of his alibi witnesses and then adjusted the timeline have encouraged the Finnerty attorneys to remain cautious? Nifong didn’t seem to consider this possibility.

Nifong’s Retirement

Under the North Carolina retirement system, local government employees become eligible for a pension—at any age—after having worked for 30 years in the system. But Nifong only had 28 years.

So, last fall, he bought back the three years for his time as a social worker in the 1970s. (He had lost the money for those years when he used the funds instead to pay for law school.) When, Brocker wondered, did Nifong decide to buy back the three years? “I believe it was sometime last year,” Nifong replied. He had decided he would do so, Nifong claimed, just after Jim Hardin left—but, when pressed, admitted that he hadn’t done so until late 2006.

In other words, as the ethics charges closed in, Nifong realized he might be out of a job and ineligible for an immediate pension. So he hurriedly bought back the years to ensure that he can start collecting tomorrow if Judge Hudson removes him from office today.

The Nifong Campaign

Nifong denied that the primary campaign had any bearing upon his handling of the lacrosse case. Indeed, he claimed, it had hurt him. How? He told Brocker, “I read a poll about two weeks before the election that—before the primary that showed me with, as I recall, a 16-point lead. Now, when that polling had actually been completed I don’t know. Of course the margin by which I actually won [the primary against Freda Black] was about 3 percent. So it is—it was obvious to me that at least in the time between when the poll came out and the time that the election or the primary was held that the Duke lacrosse case had hurt my position.”

Nifong said he couldn’t remember where this poll originated: “I just remember reading the poll in the paper. I was frankly surprised that anybody was polling for that kind of an election. But I do remember reading a poll, a scientifically conducted poll, that said that.” A few minutes later, he reiterated the point: “The only poll that I saw that I believed to be a scientifically conducted poll showed me with a fairly substantial lead a few weeks before the primary, and that lead more or less evaporated.”

Nifong, however, was referring to an N&O poll for the general election—not for the primary. In the primary, a Black poll showed the challenger ahead by 17 points on the very day that Nifong began his preprimary publicity barrage. And the only public poll, taken shortly before the primary, showed Black clinging to a one-point lead. In the end, Nifong won the primary by three points. And at the time, even he admitted that the case had helped his standing among African-Americans—while hurting it among conservative whites, most of whom couldn’t vote in the primary.

Brocker also explored with Nifong the nearly $30,000 in loans he floated to his campaign in the weeks before the primary, as his fundraising dried up. Nifong responded that he had loaned $5000 to his campaign. Brocker then showed the DA the campaign finance report, identifying him as the source of more than $28,000 in loans. Nifong’s reply: “I mean I was aware that my wife had loaned some money to the campaign, but I was not sure—I mean don’t know why it’s in my name, and I did not know the amount. And I don’t recall ever seeing this report before.” If he didn’t read court documents, I suppose, why should he read his campaign finance documents, either?

The surreal exchange continued:

Brocker: Do you see there that this is a repayment, which appears to be dated 6/30/06? And the repayment amount there is $20,357.03?

Nifong: Yes, sir, I see that.

Brocker: Were you aware of that?

Nifong: No, sir, I was not . . . I don’t even know what to say. I mean certainly with respect to the $5,000 that I loaned to the campaign, yes, sir, I can do that. With respect to the other, I’m going to have to talk to my wife and, you know, find out from her. I mean I can certainly tell her the question was raised. And I can’t---

Dudley Witt: (interposing) We’ll see what we can do about it.

Nifong: I mean this is all news to me.

By the time of Nifong’s ethics trial, Nifong’s campaign finance report had been modified—as Liestoppers revealed yesterday. On the stand, meanwhile, the DA argued that his wife, Cy Gurney, had charged more than $23,000 in campaign-related expenses on her credit card (without, apparently, his knowledge!), and that the funds were subsequently repaid to her. This didn’t constitute a loan, however.

How, exactly, a candidate’s wife using her personal funds to pay for the campaign and then getting paid back out of campaign funds later on doesn’t constitute a campaign loan Nifong didn’t explain. His asserted lack of knowledge, of course, allowed Nifong to maintain the fiction that financial motives played no role in his case-related decisions.

Nifong the Person

At a time when he needed to put his best foot forward, Nifong couldn’t resist lapses into the bullying persona everyone saw during the lacrosse case. He repeatedly insulted Jackie Brown during the course of the deposition. He could not conceal his contempt for Joe Cheshire: “My experience with Mr. Cheshire over the years has been that the amount of cordiality that he shows is directly proportional to whether you give him what he asks for.” And he ridiculed Bob Ekstrand, saying that he had assumed personal responsibility for all of Ekstrand’s cases not—as was widely rumored—to punish Ekstrand for the attorney’s outspoken opposition to Nifong’s abuses but because Ekstrand “was held in such low repute by my assistants that I was afraid that his defendants would not get fair treatment from our office.”

So Mike Nifong oriented his policies to ensure that Bob Ekstrand’s clients got fair treatment. How generous of him.


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

I know this is near-apostasy, but I feel pangs of sympathy for Nifong. Please don't everyone beat me up on this.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I am sure Mr. Nifong was very concerned that Ekstrand's clients got the justice the deserved.

I am sure his petty comments really hurt Joe Cheshire's feelings too. Cheshire got it right (as he did throughout the case) when he said that the defense attorneys gave Nifong every chance to weasel his way out and drop the charges, even after he had been elected.

Nifong just couldn't help himself. It's the worst self destruction I have ever witnessed.

Anonymous said...

It's only natural to feel sympathy for Nifong at this point. After all he has ruined his life and disgraced his name and family very publicly and irreparably.

I am sure most readers of this blog have had those feelings, after all we're people who have feelings and are concerned about others...yes even Mike Nifong.

But anytime I get those pangs I quickly remember that Mike Nifong is not like us, he's not like that. He doesn't care about people and their feelings. He cares about much that he was willing to end the lives of three innocent guys....for a little money and because he is who he is.

I think about the reason I became interested in this case.....because what happened to Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligman could have just as easily happened to me. I remember that it could just as easily have been any reader of this blog on the cover of Newsweek, our lives ruined, facing life in prison for a sham....for nothing. Once I remember these facts, my sympathy for him goes out the window.

Anonymous said...

But still Crystal Gail Mangum roams free.
Roy Cooper made the wrong decision on that one.

Anonymous said...

Feel sorry for Nifong? Not yet. To date the price that he has had to pay pales in contrast to what he tried to do.

It is difficult to understand Nifong’s motivation. Sure a few extra retirement bucks would be nice but not at the price of trying to convict innocent men?

Has Nifong always been an ass? Was he born that way? Does he have some unresolved trauma in his life?

Who knows?

Anonymous said...

This is too rich: An example would be where someone is convicted of a rape and then at some point later testing that was not available at the time of the initial trial reveals that the sexual intercourse was with someone other than the defendant, so the defendant could not be the person. And I think that is actual innocence.

So Nofing is saying that had he managed to convict one or more of the lads, while hiding the DNA evidence, and had it come out later, they would be innocent.
But they are not actually innocent as things stand?

Anonymous said...

I confess I have had some sympathy for Nifong, too, but then I remember him smirking in the courtroom and lying to the press when he had evidence in his possession that the boys were not guilty. All sympathy vanishes. Arrogant bastard!

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


While we usually avoid dragging other politics into this case... I would remind you to look at which letter was after Nifongs name when he was running for office, and which side of the idealogical divide that the group of 88 came from.

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

Could be a sleepless night at 615 November Dr. -- might be a first...

Anonymous said...

Now, even Nifong is Bush's fault...

Now that is some intellectual giantism...

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

rrhamilton: I'd never beat you up for feeling a twinge of sympathy for Nifong. God forbid we ever lose that capacity. I've almost felt it too (figuring how beyond miserable he must be now), but we have to keep a stiff upper lip and remember how he surely would have seen three innocent people go to prison and probably smirked about it.

Anonymous said...

It tells us a lot about how this case was handled after reading Nifong's deposition.

It appears that once he's made up his mind about something, there is almost nothing that can be done to change it.

Many of his actions now take on a whole new meaning in light of what we heard about his tirades early on and his effortless spin of no evidence into mountains of inculpatory facts.

Almost like Rumplestiltskin..(sp?)


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

Why did Paris get to go to jail and not Fongster???

Oh the insanity of it all.......

Cedarford said...

Amen to 2:05AM Anonymous remarks - why drag your sorryass hyperpartisan debates here? Go back to and the Electronic John Bircher Forum.


I am disappointed that Nifong gets his full pension by being cagey enough to buy back the 3 years he gave up to afford law school. Pension? Fat deal, with health benefits, and likely as untouchable as OJ's is from litigation, plus he had the brains to put all his assets in his wife's name years ago.

For what people say was a very smart man despite all his personal flaws and stupid behavior in the Lacrosse case - he proved he did have the smarts enough to do some stuff right for good 'ol Mikey..

Cy's fun and games as campaign manager along with Nifong's hysterically funny assertions that he was shocked, just shocked to learn what his wife was doing does seem to call for further investigation of campaign law violations.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, can we please stick to the topic at hand? If you have some intense need to air your political issues that have nothing to do with this case, do it on another blog.

I feel no sympathy for this man and agree with Joe Cheshire wholeheartedly. Nifong knew what he was doing and he had opportunity after opportunity to stop but he continues to insist on riding this sinking ship to the very bitter end. He is selfish and completely void of any kind of caring for anyone but himself. He deserves everything he gets. He is now the dead man walking...and he did it to himself.

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

Does anyone know if Nifong was ever asked if he met with the New Black Panthers Party?

Anonymous said...


That's a damn good question!!!

KC? Bill?

Anonymous said...

I think what a lot of people are missing in Nifong's actions are the fact that Cy is a big part of his clinging to "something happened". Her politics infuse everything he has done, and play a large part in why he bought the whole meta-narrative that she and her fellow travelers believe in.

Let us remember his and Cy's politics are definitely in line with the Group of 88 and that is where his "vision for the office" can be found.

Anonymous said...

i wonder what kind of pressure the NAACP/NBPP put on Fong??

Do you remember the 'we're watching you' threat directed at AG Roy?

Politics was the main reason this case had any life to begin with...... I hate panderers!!!!

Anonymous said...

What the hell does CY do for a living and what other radical groups is she associated with?

Anonymous said...

When asked by the lawyer " Did you meet with the NBBP." Nifong's answer was "absolutly Not." You can find this in one of the deposition transcripts.
Shaazz a liar 0 can it be??

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

It looks as if that woman Amanda M. that was fired, er ah, resigned from the Edwards campaign is posting.

Anonymous said...

Nifong may want to wait until July to retire, Monday, for paid vacation time.

Whats the deal with vacation time in NC for DAs?

Could be he gets paid for accured vacation time when he leaves.

Anonymous said...

I do not recall reading a question about the NBP meeting. However, in the future, I suspect that issue might come up. After all, Nifong was willing to meet with the NBP, but not defense counsel.

As I read this, I think I am beyond shocked. This man is an affront to all things decent, and to think he STILL has support in Durham. Unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Joe Cheshire made a very interesting and revealing comment after the bar trial. He said that he knew that David Evans (Cheshire's client) would be indicted (implying that it would be due to Cheshire's bad blood with Nifong). While there is probably no way to prove Cheshire's suggestion, it seems plausible given what is now known about Nifong's testimony (deposition and bar trial). Could it be that CM was "coached" b/4 the photo array?

Anonymous said...

When my daughter was in 6th grade she was being picked on. I asked her why do people do this, and she said, because they can.

The reason Nifong, the Police, Duke admin and G88 did this is that simple, IMHO. And the reason Dr. Johnson was denied tenure intitially, was because it had always worked before for the people who did this.

They are bullies and they saw weakness that they could exploit. The golden rule is "do unto others and you would have them do unto you." Bullies never follow that rule and we should have no sympathy for them.

Anonymous said...

Well, Durham in Wonderland is an interesting description of the situation in Durham, but somewhere it seems to have morphed into the Wizard of Oz with the Wicked Witch giving out apples of political poison dressed as political correctness and a whole cast of characters walking to the castle dragging their tales (not mispelled) behind them. Owwwwwwwweeeooooooooooo, Owwwwwwwweeeeeeeoooooooooo here we go. This whole thing was carried on political dogmatism of the worst sort. To paraphrase, "Facts? Facts? (Read evidence.) We don't need no stinking facts!" This is the country that helped win World War II? Durham, Katrina, World Trade Center . . . we aren't in Kansas anymore, Ms. Fong.

Anonymous said...

In rural Rockwall County, Texas, a reported gang-rape case has been dismissed after the alleged victim decided not to go through the ordeal of testifying against the alleged assailants.

After dismissal, the attorney for the alleged assailants said "this case was just like the Duke lacrosse case, in which a reckless prosecutor has attempted to try men for an alleged crime that never took place".

Of course, this current case is different than the Duke case, because, as is more typically the circumstance, the alleged assailants claimed consent, not the total lack of any physical contact, much less sex, as was claimed by the Duke lacrosse players.

That the Duke case is being referenced in a small community in rural Texas is just one other indication of the national scope of the Duke lacrosse incident.

Women's rights advocates across the country must be kicking themselves now, wondering why they had ever allowed their personal biases to cause them to be swept along into accepting unskeptically the claims of the disgraced Mike Nifong.

mac said...

Wondering if Cy broke campaign finance laws?


The parallel here would be in the
movie "Hombre," and Nifong would be
Dr. Alex Favor (Frederick March)
an Indian Agent who was running
off with funds that he and his
wife Audra Favor (Barbara Rush)
stole; the scene where she's
been captured by bandits, slowly
being dessicated in the hot sun
is the critical scene:

Dr. Favor is willing to let
her roast rather than give up
his stolen funds.

Anyone wanna bet that if Cy takes
a fall for some (alleged) improperly
loaned/recorded campaign financing,
Nifey plays Dr. Favor? With aplomb?

And takes a bow?

Anonymous said...

I don't see any evidence of quality lawyering going on at the Durham DAs office. Clearly, Saacks and Cline have not distinguished themselves in their roles in the Nifong Scandal Case.

If Nifong's statement about the ADAs' impressions of Bob Ekstrand isn't another of his bald-faced lies, then perhaps these assistants should look in mirror to find evidence of lawyers that should be held in low regard.

In any event, his comment about wanting to ensure Ekstrand's clients got "fair treatment" is a howler. Imagine, relying on Nifong to provide fair treatment in a legal case.

Anonymous said...

Confirming that he should never have been near a prosecutors’ position, Nifong proclaimed that he was “not sure that I would say that it’s my obligation” to look at such evidence if a defense attorney offered it before indictment. Indeed, reminisced Nifong, he never had done so in any case that he prosecuted.

This passage is incredible. This opens up Durham to 28 years of possible prosecutorial misconduct.

gak said...

KC's article says Nifong bought back 3 years of service to secure his pension. I wonder if he could loose it in this hearing today. Would be a real trick on him. Does anyone know when he was sworn in as DA. The date of his swearing in and the date he resigned may be what he needed to secure the higher pension. Lots of numbers games here with the pension questions

Anonymous said...

There is an importance difference between sympathy and pity.

I feel sympathy for the LAX players and their families for what they had to endure.

I do feel some pity (NOT sympathy) for Nifong because his downfall was a result of his own veniality and he continually made bad decisions, even when he had the opportunity to stop the train and get off. He should have read more of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot mysteries: if all the evidence and clues don't fit the theory, the theory is wrong. Refusing to consider the alibis was criminial negligence.

I also pity CGM. I still think that the rape accusation wasn't her original idea and that it was suggested to her. Of course, she ran with it, but I also think that pressure was exerted upon her.

As for Nurse Tara, didn't her official report claimed not that CGM ws raped but that her condiition was consistent with rape? Her other remarks revelaed her bias, but I don't think she truly abused her position. NOTE: I'm relying on her hearing testimony only for this opinion.


Anonymous said...

Cy inherited well. Not a great accomplishment, but it keeps them livin' large.

Anonymous said...

Check out Tony Soprano's thread on LS Discussion Board called "Where is Mikeyyyy" (or something close to that). On p. 3 of the discussion is a priceless photo shop cartoon that all will enjoy, especially, I expect, KC Johnson.


Anonymous said...

good Gaynor commentary

Elmondohummus said...

Slightly digressing from the thread, but sticking with Nifong:

Is it just me, or does this man appear to manifest signs of Narcisstic Personality Disorder? I'm no psychologist/psychiatrist, but from my layman's perspective, he seems to fit the bill.

I'm trying to be clinical and detached about this opinion here, not to pile on just because he's down. To me, it seems he was displaying signs of NPD soon after evidence started leaking that his case was going downhill.

Victoria Peterson definitely displays signs of that. So do certain vocal members of the Group of 88.

Anonymous said...

Mike Lee @ 12:29 AM --

Amen, brother!

For me, it is the description of Nifong smirking in court on the day the NBPP made death threats to Reade.

Nifong has a long, long way to go to come even close to paying his tab.

Anonymous said...

While some people have expressed sympathy for Nifong, remember that he will retire making over $5,000 a month in state pension. In a few years social security will kick in and he will get another $2,000+. And let's remember that Durham is still a relatively inexpensive city to live in (for a reason, of course).

There is no doubt that he has been publicly disgraced, but he has been a jerk until the end and so far he is still a free man. Let's recall that he was charging three innocent people with a crime that would have gotten them 30 years and jail and ruined their lives forever. The story is not over yet, but it seems to me that he has gotten off cheaply so far.

Anonymous said...

Wral is showing the hearing live. An audio person could be heard doing a sound check on his equipment, with the usual "1..2..3.., check, check", then added "GUILTY".


Anonymous said...

Rockwall, rape case dismissed

Thank you Mike Nifong, thank you Gang of 88, thank you AAAs and Gender studies, thank you Nancy Grace, thank you pot bangers, thank you Richard Brodhead, thank you Duke administration,...thank you enablers, one and all. The havoc you created continues. My what a job you've done for rape victims, minorities, women, and the academy.

"Rape case against 3 dismissed...
Rockwall County (Texas): Football players were accused by classmate..."

Did a rape occur? Did the victim drop the case due to the way the MSM handled the Duke hoax? Is this another rogue prosecution? Did the woman’s studies dogma have influence? These, then are your meta-narratives Duke hoax frauds and enablers. Will you teach them?
Note how the Duke hoax is mentioned and portrayed “denied the charges and case was eventually dropped.”

The big lie continues to grow.

This story is another reason why the families should sue some in the press and academia in order to etch in stone that they were declared innocent. Every time a case like this happens the Duke Three will be mentioned, the story will misrepresent that something happened (he said, she said), and their names will continue to be placed in the spot light with a shelf-life that doesn’t end.

Dallas Morning News 06-28-07
"Charges accusing three Rockwall High School football players of raping a 16-year-old schoolmate were dismissed Wednesday after the girl's family decided she would not testify…case boiled down to "he said, she said."…

"We had some evidence that she reported it that night to another individual," Mr. Sumrow said. "What else can you do? You have to believe the victim." …
…said that authorities mishandled the case…

"It kind of calls into question the integrity of the DA's office," Ms. Holland said. "It's no different than the Duke Lacrosse players."

In the Duke case, which made national headlines over the last year, three members of the Duke University lacrosse team were accused of a raping a stripper at a team party. The players denied the charges, and the case was eventually dropped – but not before it stirred controversies over race, class and athletics and prompted an ethics investigation that led to the removal and disbarment of District Attorney Mike Nifong.

…because the accuser is a white girl from a wealthy family and the three youths are black…
Mr. Sumrow (DA) said that in rape and sexual abuse cases across the country, there often is no physical evidence…”

Anonymous said...

Rape case against 3 dismissed

Rockwall County: Football players were accused by classmate

christoph said...

8:52 My pet theory on Nifong is psychopathy, which is currently diagnosed within narcissistic personality disorder. From Snakes in Suits by Babiak and Hare: a diagnosis of psychopathy is indicated when "the person is: superficial, grandiose, and deceitful; the person lacks remorse, lacks empathy, and doesn't accept responsibility; the person is impulsive, lacks realistic goals, and is irresponsible; the person has a history of poor behavioral controls, adolescent antisocial behavior, and adult antisocial behavior." See also The Psychopath Next Door.

christoph said...

Has Nifong shown up?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your work KC.

Enjoy your reduced blogging load, whenever that starts. You have done well, and I for one, am grateful that I am now watching the Nifong hearing rather than a show trial of the LAX players.

Anonymous said...

“Let us remember his [Mike Nifong’s] and Cy's politics are definitely in line with the Group of 88 and that is where his "vision for the office" can be found.”

Personally, I see great danger to our society from the extreme feminist groups. In the case of Mike Nifong and Cy Gurney, the ideology they were serving the most by pursing the lacrosse case was not left or right (or, democratic vs. republican). It was feminism. What made the lacrosse case so attractive for them was the fact that it involved a black female against a few white males. They loved it; it was a dream come true!

Unfortunately, this foolish and blind sympathy exists all around us and poses serious threats to many aspects of our lives. I would argue that the same sympathy was at play when Duke Democratic Student Union threw its support behind a republican candidate for the student government presidential elections earlier this year. It seems, these days, the gender of a candidate is far more important than the candidate’s political ideals and beliefs! So much so that a democratic student union was willing to support a republican female candidate. Is this scary or what?

Penny said...

Is it just me, or does this man appear to manifest signs of Narcisstic Personality Disorder?

From the DSM IV, Narcissistic Personality D/O: Behavior or a fantasy of grandiosity, a lack of empathy and a need to be admired by others. As indicated by at least five of the following:

Grandiose sense of self-importance.

Fantasies of and preoccupied with beauty, brilliance, ideal love, power, or unlimited success.

A belief of being special and unique and can only be understood or a need to associate with people of high status.

A need for excessive admiration.
An unreasonable expectation of being treated with favor or excepting an automatic compliance to her/his wishes.

Will use others to achieve her/his goals.

Lacks empathy.

Believes others are envious of her/him or is envious of others.
Contemptuous or haughty attitudes/behaviors.

Anonymous said...

9:54 has it spot-on: Hammer, nail - bam!

Good show.

Once I understood that Nifong had been a social worker before becoming an attorney, all the pieces fell into place vis-a-vis his extreme ideology and need to believe the "victim" at all costs, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

And for the person(s) who are curious as to what Cy Gurney does for a living, she's a career Guardian Ad Litem, a profession notorious for it's infestation with feminist ideologue social workers.

mac said...

Penny 10:33

Good post.
Unfortunately, Elmondohummus (8:52)
is right - that lots of people in
this case show signs of NPD.

And also, unfortunately, lots of
politicians have NPD - (both parties,
but it is especially
likely of Bill Clinton and John

Actors have NPD a lot - (as if
they didn't suffer enough from
other disorders, such as
Histrionic Personality Disorder etc.)...

Religious leaders (Jimmy Swaggert,
David Koresh, Ted Haggard) who
love attention, but live a lie...

One of the chief characteristics
of NPD is lying - (especially if
they lie even when it isn't
particularly "beneficial" to lie.)

We should all fear the spread of
the disorder: lying is becoming
such a common element that it's
hardly noticeable.

Notice that Nifong said he was
a lot of things, but he "wasn't
a liar." That, of course, is
a big fat lie.

Anonymous said...

"lots of politicians have NPD - (both parties,
but it is especially likely of Bill Clinton and John
Edwards)... "

How about John Kerry?

mac said...

Ralph Phelan:
Yup. John Kerry.
(And Senator McCain, too?)

Anonymous said...

One nice bit of poetic justice re: Kerry-

It's gotta really burn a narcissist to be know to history as "Oh ... what was his name ... that guy who couldn't beat Bush."

mac said...

Or Gore?

Ross Pee-Rot?

Citizen Robespierre?

Emperor Nero?



Back to Nifong?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know the specifics re Nifong's hatred of Joe Cheshire? Is there a specific cause or is it a case of culture/class envy?

mac said...


"Envy" is a word that keeps popping
up. Ask Grant Farred.

Anonymous said...

I have worked with many Nifong-types. They wake up in the morning with the goal of humiliating at least one person, just because they enjoy humiliation.

Anonymous said...

Some of you not familiar with the general mood of Durham NC might wish to go to the following informative website

Anonymous said...

I realize I'm very late to this party, but...

"...appears to believe that once a crime is charged, it is basically impossible to prove innocence."

Um...I believe that, legally, it is in fact impossible to prove innocence. The verdict is Guilty or Not Guilty, where Not Guilty does not equal Innocent.

I tried reading Until Proven Innocent, but I found it to be the other side of the same dreadful coin...Nifong for the Defense...and I finally couldn't take any more.

What was that old Star Trek with the black/white guy and white/black guy that hated each other because of the color of their skin? In the end they jettisoned them both out into space. Good idea.