Saturday, September 13, 2008

Commitment with an identity

It seems as though some people want to attribute others as being responsible for authoring this blog. I believe that it is hard for a person to sincerely be an advocate for a position if he/she is unwilling to reveal their identity. Blogger "Unbekannte" wishes to remain anonymous, so I have no desire to know his/her identity. But people who really believe in fighting for a cause and are committed to it, usually have the courage to identify themselves. (By no way, however, do I mean to insinuate that those who contribute to blogs using an alias lack courage.)

As I have consistently stated, my focus is solely on the injustice of the State of North Carolina to Mike Nifong. I have no animus, nor ill will towards the Duke LAXers, and I do not know how Unbekannte reached his conclusion.

I believe that Mr. Nifong is an honorable, decent person, and if I were to be prosecuted, hypothetically, I would want Mr. Nifong to be the prosecutor. I would want him to be the prosecutor because he followed the principle of "equal justice for all," rather than the tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color." For example, I would not want to be prosecuted by Anson County District Attorney Michael Parker, who held Floyd Brown on a murder charge for fourteen years without a trial. Mr. Brown, who is an African American and does not come from a family of wealth, status, and privilege, was charged based on an obviously fraudulent confession that was manufactured by the prosecution. Nor would I want to be prosecuted by David McFadyen, a prosecutor from the private sector who is taking his time and trying to find a way to prosecute James Arthur Johnson for "accessory after the fact" charges (because he removed fingerprints from a car). This is all done for the purpose of protecting Wilson Assistant District Attorney Bill Wolfe from a prosecutorial misconduct complaint with the State Bar filed by the NAACP. I could give many other examples of prosecutors who I would not want to prosecute me, but Mr. Nifong is not one of them.

For a final reference, this blog is the official blog site of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, and I am its Lay advocate and author of this blog. Sidney B. Harr.


unbekannte said...

Why would an "honorable, decent" DA knowingly prosecute innocent men. Nifong knew these men were innocent. He knew these men were innocent because he knew no crime had been committed.

Where was the injustice in holding him accountable? Your argument, that other corrupt prosecutors are not held accountable, is invalid. If OJ did in fact get away with murder because he had the means to assemble the dream team, does that mean all murderers should get away their crimes?

Stop with the ridiculous, false assertion that Nifong prosecuted the case without regard for class or race. Nifong prosecuted the Lacrosse players because they were white and from well off families. There would have been no prosecution if CGM had accused poor black males of raping her. Nifong needed an issue which would make him known and popular with Durham's black electorate. Prosecuting rich white boys accomplished that. Prosecuting poor black men would not have done that.

If you are caucasian, if you were prosecuted by Nifong, based on Nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players, this is what you would get.

First, there would not have to be any crime in the first place. Nifong would just go public, declare that a crime had happened and that you were probably the perpetrator. If he wanted probable cause, he would manufacture something like an ID by a victim CGM style (CGM's 80-100% certain ID of the Lacrosse players came from a lineup in which she was shown pictures of only caucasian Lacrosse players and then told to pick out the three who had attacked her. That lineup happened after DNA evidence indicated no lacrosse player had attacked her.) If you refused to talk to authorities, He would publicly declare that an indication of guilt. If you retained a lawyer, he would publicly declare that an indication of guilt. Any witness who could provide testimony as to your innocence would be intimidated not to. Witnesses would be intimidated to provide perjured testimony which would incriminate you. Any hard evidence of your innocence would be withheld from you and concealed from you. If you would wish to be prosecuted by Nifong, be careful. As the old proverb says, you might get your wish.

Are you African American? One thing that was obvious in the Duke Lacrosse attempted frame up was that Nifong would never try to Nifong one of Durham's African American population. Is that why you consider Nifong decent and honorable?

Whatever the situation, Nifong's disbarment was a rogue prosecutor being held accountable, and it had a somewhat chilling effect on other prosecutors. Maybe it was the first step in bringing rogue prosecutors to heal. And you want to undo it.

Well, you are not advocating any kind of effective reform of the prosecutorial reform in NC. De facto, you are shilling for all the rogue prosecutors in NC, discouraging the State Bar from holding any of them accountable. How that is going to get justice for poor defendants of the wrong race and color, please explain.

unbekannte said...

One difference between the Duke Rape Frame up and the Brittany Willis case, the case in which James Arthur Johnson spent three years in jail, was that there was a real crime in the Brittany Willis case, the carjacking, rape and murder of Brittany Willis.

The fact that the North Carolina NAACP filed a complaint against Wilson ADA Bill Wolfe does not impress me. THe North Carolina NAACP was one of the major enablers of Mike Nifong in Nifong's attempt to convict the innocent Lacrosse players of a non existent crime. The North Carolina NAACP posted on its web site a list of more than 80 crimes and torts of which it judged the Lacrosse players guilty, most of those torts and crimes actually being false accusations.

The Dec. 20, 2007, article in the Raleigh News and Observer about murder charges being dropped against James Arthur Johnson suggests the successful prosecution of Nifong for misconduct was a factor in the murder charges being dropped.

It seems to me kind of inappropriate that someone who purports to be a supporter of James Arthur Johnson would want the verdict of the Nifong ethics trial overturned.

unbekannte said...

If Nifong had prosecuted African American defendants the way he prosecuted the innocent Duke Lacrosse players, would you still consider him an "honorable decent" DA. I think not.

Go to the Liestoppers blog site. Go to the Liestoppers Meeting Forum and read why the prosecution proceeded. Nifong had stirred up racial animosities to such an extent that Durham city officials and Duke University officials feared race riots would ensue it the lacrosse players were not prosecuted.

Please do not persist in the untenable assertion that "decent honorable" Mike Nifong did not consider race or class when he attempted to frame the Duke lacrosse players

unbekannte said...

Are you saying it is decent and honorable to prosecute innocent rich white boys just because they are white and rich? If that isn't prosecuting a certain class of people just on the base of race and class, then tell me what it is.

Again, don't repeat the CGM 80-100% identification excuse. CGM's identification was tainted.