tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post5856667497844742800..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Linwood Bails on Nifongkcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86172403057797396732007-06-27T23:53:00.000-04:002007-06-27T23:53:00.000-04:00anonymous, you need a chill pill. First, either m...anonymous, you need a chill pill. <BR/><BR/>First, either my browser doesn't have a search function or I don't know how to use it. <BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Oh well, Brown did plead guilty and in his confession he claimed to have acted alone, again contradicting eyewitness reports. <BR/><BR/>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 <B>alone</B> "exonerates" Hunt. Very interesting. Again, I would really like to know more about this confession. <BR/><BR/>If you care to make another anonymous reply, please do so as a professional.<BR/><BR/>R.R. HamiltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-83847540347406729002007-06-27T19:48:00.000-04:002007-06-27T19:48:00.000-04:00So, then, it's the first of the two: grotesquely ...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-36949626115740858362007-06-27T18:14:00.000-04:002007-06-27T18:14:00.000-04:00*finds and anonymous jaw on the ground ... tests i...*finds and anonymous jaw on the ground ... tests it for DNA and connects it to the Hunt case*<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 <B>credible</B> evidence", but "<B>no</B> 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 <B>twenty-four</B> people at two different trials found the evidence <B>credible beyond a reasonable doubt</B>.<BR/><BR/>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 <B>if</B> 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 <B>undisputed testimony</B> of the SBI representative was that the sperm test <B>did not</B> exclude Hunt.<BR/><BR/>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 <B>in prison</B> 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.<BR/><BR/>R.R. HamiltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-34697047512149226662007-06-27T17:07:00.000-04:002007-06-27T17:07:00.000-04:00Ralph --Small correction: Gerry Amirault is not s...Ralph --<BR/><BR/>Small correction: Gerry Amirault is <I>not</I> 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-22719763443598314762007-06-27T16:49:00.000-04:002007-06-27T16:49:00.000-04:00why does R. R. Hamilton's post give me deja vu? O...why does R. R. Hamilton's post give me <I>deja vu</I>? Oh, right, <A HREF="http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/05/chalmers-revising-history.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> might be why:<BR/><BR/>'"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.)'<BR/><BR/>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. <A HREF="http://media.gatewaync.com/wsj/photos/2007/02/20/sykesreport_feb2007_www.pdf" REL="nofollow">The Sykes Administrative Review Committee Report</A> 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 <I>knew</I> that the sperm found in the victim's vagina <I>could not have</I> come from Darryl Hunt -- knew it, and failed to look for the individual whom it <I>did</I> 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 -- <I>Willard E. Brown's confession to the crime</I>. 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 <I>identified</I> male DNA from someone who <I>confessed</I> 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9886077694515778302007-06-27T16:10:00.000-04:002007-06-27T16:10:00.000-04:00"‘Our’ system of justice? Schultz issues a blanket..."‘Our’ system of justice? Schultz issues a blanket condemnation of ‘our’ justice system, as if it were entirely rotten?"<BR/><BR/>Gerry Amirault is still in jail, and the woman who put him there continues to rise in Massachusetts politics.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9665570777649115742007-06-27T16:06:00.000-04:002007-06-27T16:06:00.000-04:00Peckkerwood may be getting into the barbeque busin...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-49797706615797039472007-06-27T15:49:00.000-04:002007-06-27T15:49:00.000-04:00Connie Shultz’s column in the Cleveland Plain Deal...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:<BR/><BR/>“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.”<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>“For Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, justice prevailed.”<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>“They know this means something is very wrong with our system of justice.”<BR/><BR/>‘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.<BR/><BR/>“I never joined the bandwagon against the Duke players,…”<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>“and I part company with those deifying them now.”<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>“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.” <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-83880862778317842732007-06-27T15:32:00.000-04:002007-06-27T15:32:00.000-04:00Definition of a "good poly"Assume the person has a...Definition of a "good poly"<BR/><BR/>Assume the person has a 152 IQ. This person can be examined successfully, provided:<BR/><BR/>1. no presence of antidrpressants or any psychotropic drugs<BR/>2. good test administrator will check for any cheek biting, or other ways subjects can manipulate the test<BR/>3. check for antiperspirants, or anything else that will interfere with moisture and temperature<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>As I posted previously, the poly will probably become obsolete shortly, but for now it's a fair law-enforcement tool.<BR/><BR/>PolanskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11930822796349483082007-06-27T15:21:00.000-04:002007-06-27T15:21:00.000-04:00Interesting. May I offer two general observations...Interesting. May I offer two general observations?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/> 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71189831918832474532007-06-27T15:17:00.000-04:002007-06-27T15:17:00.000-04:00Polygraphs work well on foolish and easily bullied...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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>(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)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-26311894620863643282007-06-27T14:19:00.000-04:002007-06-27T14:19:00.000-04:002:12True, polys aren't 100% reliable--but they are...2:12<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>PolanskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47085335942875586482007-06-27T14:12:00.000-04:002007-06-27T14:12:00.000-04:00Polygraphs are not reliable, and are not admissabl...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-24851464799305171562007-06-27T14:06:00.000-04:002007-06-27T14:06:00.000-04:00Prof. Horwitz,Connie Shultz, the author of the Cle...Prof. Horwitz,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The first clue as to her mindset comes when she can't write the <B>first</B> 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.<BR/><BR/>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." <B>Now</B> that the <B>original</B> 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."<BR/><BR/>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 <B>not</B> 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 <B>never</B> described by lawyers as "wrongfully convicted" -- ask the Lax 3, who were <B>not</B> described as "wrongfully indicted".<BR/><BR/>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 <B>more</B> 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.<BR/><BR/>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 <B>both</B> a police-beat reporter <B>and</B> 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". <BR/><BR/>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 <B>not</B> 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".<BR/><BR/>So Shultz deserves <B>no</B> credit for her article which serves only to serve the <B>new</B> (false) metanarrative to which the 88ers want to attach this case.<BR/><BR/>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 <B>new</B> metanarrative prevent us from seeing the falsity of their <B>original</B> one.<BR/><BR/>R.R. HamiltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19861474154798984662007-06-27T14:00:00.000-04:002007-06-27T14:00:00.000-04:00"I wouldn't suggest that Williamson,Cooper Hudson ..."I wouldn't suggest that Williamson,<BR/>Cooper Hudson or Smith are all <BR/>part of a larger conspiracy:"<BR/><BR/>I would ... the name of the criminal conspiracy being "the North Carolina Judicial System."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-44327529327671713622007-06-27T13:58:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:58:00.000-04:00Shultz is also ignoring the fact that Duke three b...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?<BR/>So, while money could be a blessing, it could also be a curse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-40447101905458300852007-06-27T13:40:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:40:00.000-04:00I wouldn't suggest that Williamson,Cooper Hudson o...I wouldn't suggest that Williamson,<BR/>Cooper Hudson or Smith are all <BR/>part of a larger conspiracy:<BR/>Williamson might argue that <BR/>reigning in bad prosecutors hasn't <BR/>been...reliable. (He did point<BR/>out that there were differences<BR/>in this case and others.)<BR/><BR/>I've seen the Feds in action:<BR/>sometimes, they're piles of manure.<BR/>On the other hand, they're aggressive<BR/>in a way that someone needs to be<BR/>(in this case.)<BR/><BR/>Cooper, as I said, might have strategic<BR/>motives for his comments about <BR/>prosecution etc. That means<BR/>he might need to see the pins<BR/>set up properly before rolling <BR/>the ball (another cliche.) <BR/>That's where I find myself willing<BR/>to give him the benefit-of-the-<BR/>doubt.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering who (from NC) <BR/>might be willing to take Stephens<BR/>apart? Any ideas?<BR/><BR/>Fitting you should reference the<BR/>land of Oz, considering the title<BR/>of this blog (Durham in Wonderland.)machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27250100101052570072007-06-27T13:37:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:37:00.000-04:00[Don't know how to create link]Would someone pleas...[Don't know how to create link]<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>PolanskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-33514073787056777852007-06-27T13:35:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:35:00.000-04:00"but to believe that williamson, cooper, stephens,..."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"<BR/><BR/>Replace "paranoid" with "shameless" and you'd have a statement I would agree with.<BR/><BR/>Hardin who recommended Nifong to begin with, and has a lot of mutual friends.<BR/><BR/>Hudson and Stephens, who let obviously outrageous prosecutorial misconduct go on in their courtrooms for over a year.<BR/><BR/>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....<BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/>The entire state of NC's justice system stinks of corruption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-79956605685841068032007-06-27T13:27:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:27:00.000-04:00mac,love the worn-out cliche comment...kudos! and ...mac,<BR/>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..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-998554095566384912007-06-27T13:10:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:10:00.000-04:00Philosphically - (jurisprudencially?) - I agree wi...Philosphically - (jurisprudencially?) - <BR/>I agree with you. States rights <BR/>vs. Federalism and all that. <BR/><BR/>In cases where the locals can't seem <BR/>to find the right remedies -<BR/>(Constitutionally insupportable,<BR/>indefensible etc.) - the Feds <BR/>ought to step in. Cooper and<BR/>Williamson have done well,<BR/>I admit...<BR/><BR/>I would welcome Lane Williamson<BR/>doing a thorough examination of<BR/>Judge Stephens, but that won't<BR/>happen; it would be welcome to see<BR/>the assistant DA come under some<BR/>legal scrutiny, too, but is hasn't <BR/>yet; it would be nice if the AG<BR/>would have avoided making<BR/>his De facto nol pross statement,<BR/>but he did anyway. <BR/>(Perhaps Mr. Cooper was being strategic, <BR/>in a way I'm not discerning?)<BR/>Lots of things to be wished for,<BR/>some of them unrealistic unless<BR/>the local system is (metaphorically)<BR/>nuked.<BR/><BR/>There are too many local eggs in<BR/>the basket; too many foxes already<BR/>inside the henhouse - (and too <BR/>many worn-out cliches being used!)machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-17522065999289574422007-06-27T13:03:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:03:00.000-04:00steve h:good "get" on the "durham trio" article......steve h:<BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Richard from DurhamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-68649776805803107512007-06-27T13:02:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:02:00.000-04:00I'm not anti-religion at ALL, but this case HAS be...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!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-24050276011112297972007-06-27T12:57:00.000-04:002007-06-27T12:57:00.000-04:00Anyone know why KC closed comments section on yest...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)?<BR/><BR/>I wanted to comment, or did KC preempt me?--LOL<BR/><BR/>PolanskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53739942929727606282007-06-27T12:56:00.000-04:002007-06-27T12:56:00.000-04:0012:19 / 7:43:This case and post is about injustice...12:19 / 7:43:<BR/><BR/>This case and post is about injustice, not religion....So keep a lid on it til' church on Sunday.... Thanks...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com