Nifong Timeline: Statements

Between March 27 and April 4, involved with the media and with the investigation--if asked a question from a reporter, went to the investigators and asked.

His false statement on Kim Roberts 911 call is such an instance--he just didn't know.

[His official story is that he never saw the Roberts statement in March.]

DPD, not the Durham DA, was in charge of the investigation.

Ekstrand meeting March 28: claims that he never said that he would only hear guilty pleas, just tells Ekstrand to go to the police.

[Ekstrand has a very very different recollection of this conversation.]

Does speak with media--wanted to let the public know that the case was a case that was being looked at very carefully by the "elected district attorney." Wanted people to come forward.

"One of the things that struck us about this case as very different than any other Duke party" was that the party had ended when the police arrived.

"Very unusual" that residents of the house not there. His belief was that people were told to "evacuate the house immediately." Hoping that some of the people who were at the party who didn't commit the rape would come forward to tell them what they knew--perhaps to clear their names. Had no reason to suspect that most people at the party had any involvement with what happened.

[If true, then how, possibly, could all 46 of them have been subject to an NTO, which presumed some involvement.]

Says that he didn't think through his statements "as much as I should have"--wasn't intending to make improper statements. But concedes that they violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

At that point, had no suspects and no one had been identified, therefore wasn't concerned with harming trial. Didn't see any of these broadcasts--was concentrating on a political campaign.

"Maybe if I had seen some of the clips, I would have shut up sooner." But his intention was to make someone feel a sense of duty to come forward.

Statements about alleged racial motives: made because of nature of allegation, however. "Almost immediately two outcries from the community." People were saying that someone needed to be put in jail; on other side, had sentiment of argument that strippers can't be raped.

Concedes that his statement about Durham's image in the eyes of the world "crossed the line." Excuse: he never got to see the broadcasts, so didn't know their effects.

"Fervent desire" was to keep lacrosse case from affecting Durham politics or from being affected by politics.

"Aiders and abettors" comment came in response to a reporter, he wasn't the one who initiated this comment. Just gave "textbook definition" that took 5-6 minutes, reporter quoted selectively.

"Stonewall of silence" comment was referring just to people who would be arrested.

Condom analogy made just because he was responding to a hypothetical question, but in any case unprotected sex not likely on these circumstances. Victims are not always sure that condoms were used.

Had never been involved with a case which dealt with national media attention.

98 percent of his contacts with media came between March 27 and April 3--tried to limit his comments to the public record, but sometimes got "confused" about what was in public record or got "carried away."

Media attention would have been tremendous anyway, but "certainly possible" that if he hadn't spoken out, the media might not have paid less attention. But his only intention was to get the case resolved quickly.

Acknowledges that the panel will find him guilty on the media statements front.