Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Attorney General Roy Cooper's TV Ad

(Note: The "justice4nifong" website should be up and running no later than noon tomorrow, October 2, 2008. The address is: .)

Several times yesterday I managed to catch a glimpse of NC Attorney General Roy Cooper’s television campaign ad. My assessment of it is that it is a slick and professional piece of work that is accurate.. up to a point.

The ad begins with the words "The Duke Lacrosse Decision" plastered across the screen, which fades out to show a dapper Roy Cooper behind a podium as if addressing members of the press. He admonishes the state’s prosecutorial team for a "rush to judgment" in the Duke Lacrosse case, and then declares its three defendants innocent. The ad then goes on to babble about the state’s forensic lab, and finally ends with this incredulous statement (a paraphrase): "The Attorney General is dedicated not only to prosecuting defendants for guilt, but protecting those defendants who are innocent."

That statement is true when applied to defendants who are from a class and color that are privileged. The defendants who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color, regardless of their innocence and the weakness of the case against them, are ignored. They are invisible to the attorney general. On many occasions I have asked the Attorney General’s Office to comment or take action on other cases, such as those against James Arthur Johnson and Erick Daniels. The only response was deafening silence, inaction, and the dismissal of my concerns.
That Attorney General Roy Cooper follows a tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color" is evidenced by his disparate record. For example, when three Duke students (from families of wealth, status, and privilege) are accused of a crime, and charged by a state prosecutor, the attorney general springs into action. He asks the State Bar to investigate the prosecutor, he makes disparaging statements about the prosecutor prior to his hearing with the Bar, he tries to get the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the prosecutor for depriving the Duke defendants of their civil rights, and he goes before the public and proclaims the defendants "innocent."

Now contrast that with what happened in just two (of many other) examples: James Arthur Johnson languished in jail for 39 months before charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery were dropped. Roy Cooper was silent and inactive. Belinda Foster, who was forced by her boss D. A. Tom Keith, filed an "accessory after the fact" charge against James Johnson in order to protect Wilson Assistant D. A. Bill Wolfe from a prosecutorial misconduct complaint filed with the State Bar by the NAACP. Roy Cooper remains silent and inactive as the state wastes taxpayers’ money with the bogus investigation by private sector prosecutor David McFadyen.

Erick Daniels, as a 15 year old, was sentenced to ten to fourteen years for armed robbery despite the fact that he did not resemble the description of the perpetrator of the crime, and that there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. He was incarcerated for seven years before a judge ruled in his favor and released him from custody. Furthermore, he believed so much in the innocence of Erick Daniels, that he refused to allow the state to re-try him. Roy Cooper is silent and inactive.

The following are inmates who have been released from Death Row since 2004: Alan Gell, Jonathan Gregory Hoffman, Glen Chapman, and Levon "Bo" Jones. I do not recall any activity in any of those cases by the Attorney General’s Office, with the exception of one case. The case of Alan Gell. Mr. Gell’s conviction for capital murder was obtained only by prosecutors David Hoke and Debra Graves withholding exculpatory evidence that proved beyond doubt that Mr. Gell could not have possibly committed the crime. When the misconduct by the prosecution was uncovered (after Mr. Gell had spent nearly ten years in prison – half of it on death row), the conviction was thrown out. Yet, the Attorney General’s Office got involved and retried the case against Mr. Gell. Within an hour of receiving the case, the jury reached a verdict of "not guilty."

The Alan Gell case most accurately represents Attorney General Roy Cooper’s position when it comes to the state prosecutors and their role as "ministers of justice." Nonexistent.


unbekannte said...

Justice4Nifong, you would not give D--n about all these other cases you have cited had the Duke Lacrosse case not blown up in "decent honorable" Nifong's face.

I say again, the only class or race based issue in the Duke case was that "decent honorable" Nifong knowingly prosecuted three innocent men for a non-existent crime because they were white and perceived as rich and privileged. He wanted to curry favor with Durham's black electorate.

Your grudge with Roy Cooper is that he did not endorse Nifong's race and class based prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse players. He saw the case for what it was, an attempted legal lynching. He had the courage to tell Durham's black electorate, as well as the pot bangers, the gutless, spineless morally bankrupt Duke administration, that group of wanna be intellectuals known as the gang of 88, the North Carolina NAACP, the New Black Panther party he was not going to allow three innocent men to be sacrificed to them.

I ask you again, in any of those other cases in which you have so suddenly taken an interest, did the prosecutors whip up the kind of animosity against their defendants that "decent, honorable" Nifong whipped up against the Duke defendants? Nifong's gross, obvious violations of legal conduct made the attorney general's intervention necessary. If you want to blame someone for the AG's intervention, go look at your "decent, honorable" Nifong hero.

One thing Roy Cooper did, which Nifong did not do, was immediately talk to CGM. As is documented in the public record, CGM told many different contradictory stories of how she had been assaulted. Why did Nifong not interview CGM? Was it for a reason similar to why he did not want to listen to Reade Seligman's alibi evidence? If a defendant presents an solid alibi, the prosecutor should not proceed. If Nifong had interviewed CGM, he maybe would have seen first hand she was not a credible witness and would have been obligated not to proceed.

Nifong's violations of the law, of legal ethics, of the US Constitution were all there and were all very obvious to the public, not only in North Carolina but in the entire United States. None of those other cases which have so recently concerned you have any relevance to "decent, honorable" Nifong's violations. To say he was prosecuted and disbarred simply because he went after well off white males accused by a black female does not make sense, common or otherwise.

You should watch Judge Judy. A Judge Judy truism is, if it does not make sense, it is not true.

unbekannte said...

I say again, your grudge against the State Bar is that you, like the pot bangers, the gang of 88, the Duke administration, the North Carolina NAACP, and the New Black Panther Party, wanted the Duke defendants convicted, regardless of their obvious innocence. What you do not like is that the North Carolina State Bar condemned rather than endorsed "decent, honorable" Nifong's knowingly wrongful prosecution of three males because they were white.

Your animosity towards the State Bar and Roy Cooper is what is race and class based.

unbekannte said...

Justice4Nifong, are you aware that three of the lawyers who represented Alan Gell also helped bring down Mike Nifong. They represented innocent defendants whom Nifong, you, and a whole lot of other racists wanted to put in jail simply because they were white.

Any comment?

unbekannte said...

Justice4Nifong, I ask again why you have not mentioned Darryl Hunt, an African American male who was falsely accused of rape and murder and ultimately exonerated by DNA evidence.

DNA testing of semen found on the victim's body did not match Darryl Hunt's DNA. It matched the DNA of another man who ultimately confessed to the rape/murder.

The situation in the Duke case was this, as I have stated multiple previous times: DNA on CGM's person did not match the DNA of any Duke Lacrosse player but did match multiple other males. This is what you said ofthe Duke situation:

"However, the fact that unidentified DNA from other male sources was found in the rape kit exam of the accuser/victim has no benefit or value to the defense in clearing their clients. It is totally extraneous and irrelavent information with no probative value. The foundation for the case for disbarring Mr. Nifong is based on the accusation that he withheld this trivial bit of information."

This comes verbatim from your blog entry of Friday, August 29, 2008, "Non-exculpatory DNA evidence in the Duke LAX case".

It is "extraneous", "irrelevant" and of "no probative value" to the defendants in a rape case, a "trivial bit of information" that all the DNA recovered from the alleged victim, shortly after the alleged assault, matched none of the defendants but matched other males! Try telling that to Darryl Hunt.

This kind of thinking shows you are not at all out for justice for anyone. You are out for vengeance against the people and institutions which blocked the racist attempted Duke Rape Frame Up.

P.S. I love it when I get to how how warped and twisted your thinking is.

unbekannte said...

The PS in my last post should have read I love it when I get to SHOW how warped and twisted your thinking is.

unbekannte said...

Justice4Nifong, I ask you again, what about the case of African American Frankie Washington, wrongfully convicted of major crimes, burglary, robbery, sexual assault.

Frankie Washington was incarcerated for over 5 years awaiting trial. His identification as the perpetrator was flawed. DNA found at the crime scene did not match Mr. Washington's DNA. The material recovered from the crime scene was not sent to the state crime lab for over three years. Yet the Durham DA's office went to trial.

The Prosecutor was then ADA Tracy Cline.You have never asked why the State Bar never sanctioned Tracy Cline. Tracy Cline would have been Nifong's second chair had the phony Duke case gone to trial. Tracy Cline is African American.

In choosing what cases you cite to make your point, I say again, you are awfully SELECTIVE.

unbekannte said...

Let's get back to Darryl Hunt and Frankie Washington, wrongfully convicted African American Men. In each case, DNA found at the crime scene matched someone else, not the African American man charged with the crime.

I remind you what you said about DNA in the Duke Rape attempted frame up.

"However, the fact that unidentified DNA from other male sources was found in the rape kit exam of the accuser/victim has no benefit or value to the defense in clearing their clients. It is totally extraneous and irrelavent information with no probative value."

Are you saying, in the Washington case, in the Hunt case, if the prosecutors had evidence that DNA recovered at the scene matched men other than the Defendants, they would have had no obligation to make that known to the Defense?

We are waiting for your answer.

unbekannte said...

Justice4Nifong, you have misrepresented the Alan Gell case, have you not.

Are you saying Alan Gell was denied justice because of his race? Alan Gell is caucasian. Look at the pictures.

Roy Cooper was not Attorney General when Alan Gell was prosecuted. Mike Easley was. Most of the misconduct happened on Mike Easley's watch, not Roy Cooper's. Perhaps misconduct charges were not vigorously pursued because of Mike Easley and not Roy Cooper.

You say, after Mr. Gell's first conviction was overturned, "Yet, the Attorney General’s Office got involved and retried the case against Mr. Gell." The AG's office got involved in the original trial, in 1995, when Mr. Gell was first tried. Mr. Gell's original two lawyers had resigned from his case and had joined the prosecutor's office in the venue in which he was being tried. That created a conflict of interest which got the AG's office, under Mike Easley, not Roy Cooper, involved. When the NC Supreme Court overturned Mr. Gell's conviction in 2002, it ordered a new trial, requiring the AG's office to get involved.

After Mr. Gell's second trial and acquittal, Steve Ford of the News and Observer interviewed Roy Cooper. The interview was published on March 7, 2004. Roy Ford wrote:

"Cooper is sincere in wanting to prevent another abomination like the Gell case, which now reverts into the rueful category of an unsolved murder. But where's a full measure of justice for Alan Gell, who endured five years on death row? There needs to be yet another dimension of leadership, accountability and courage."

Alan Gell did file suit against his prosecutors.

Meanwhile, maybe Roy Cooper's intervention in the Duke Rape attempted frame up is a consequence of Alan Gell's wrongful conviction. Mr. Cooper saw the Duke Lacrosse case going the same way Mr. Gell's case had gone, an unscrupulous prosecutor using the power of the state to convict, but in this case not one but three innocent men. Mr. Cooper wished to prevent another, greater injustice.

One difference between the Gell case and the Duke Lacrosse case in this. As Mr. Ford said, the Gell case has now become a case of an unsolved murder. In the Duke Lacrosse Case, there was no crime to go unsolved.

What kind of virulent fanatic are you?

unbekannte said...

You talk about prosecutors withholding evidence from defense attorneys, evidence which would exonerate the defendants. Judging from the Alan Gell case the prosecutors justify their actions by defining the evidence as something short of exculpatory.

I say again, in the Duke rape case, DNA taken from the victim did not match that of any of the defendants but did match several other males. You are defining that evidence as non-exculpatory in your attempt to justify "decent, honorable" Nifong's concealment of that evidence, and that this action was not serious enough to be considered an ethics violation. But you say that prosecutors in other cases should be prosecuted for withholding evidence.

Do you realize how schizoid you are?

You are awfully SELECTIVE in what you call a serious violation.

unbekannte said...

Justice4Nifong, you object to the North Carolina Attorney General's intervention in the Duke case.

You say "three Duke students (from families of wealth, status, and privilege) are accused of a crime, and charged by a state prosecutor". You should have said "three Duke students (from families of wealth, status, and privilege) are accused of a crime, and charged by a state prosecutor" who had no evidence other than the word of a witness who told multiple, different conflicting stories of what happened to her, who could not initially identify any of her attackers, who had a history of falsely accusing men of raping her, who had a history of drug use, mental instability and criminal behavior. I say again, her 80-100% certain ID of the three men who were charged happened after Nifong set up a tainted, improperly conducted lineup.

How did Roy Cooper come to intervene in the Duke Lacrosse Case? Mike Nifong requested him to. Mike Nifong was facing charges of ethics violations from the State Bar. He had to recuse himself from the case.

The AG's office did not file the complaints. I imagine the defendants' attorneys were responsible for the ethics complaints. Three of those attorneys had defended Alan Gell at his second trial, Joseph Cheshire, Jim Cooney and Brad Bannon. I imagine those gentlemen were probably fed up with gross prosecutorial misconduct.

What are differences between the Duke case and the Erick Daniels case, the James Arthur Johnson case. For starters, in the Daniels case and in the Johnson case, crimes had been committed. I the Duke case, no crime had been committed.

I say again, in the Duke case, "decent, honorable" Nifong went public before any evidence was in, declared that a horrible crime had happened, that members of the Duke Lacrosse team were the perpetrators, all of which stirred up a great deal of hatred and animosity towards the Duke Lacrosse team. In the Daniels case, in the Johnson case, the prosecutors did not try to public with any opinions about the crimes, did not try to ignite any public hostility against the defendants.

In the Duke case, Nifong made public statements to the effect that if a Lacrosse player retained an attorney, he was probably guilty of something. He made statements to the effect that if a Lacrosse player elected not to give a statement, then that Lacrosse player was probably guilty of something. On top of violating constitutional rights to be presumed innocent, to be tried by a fair and impartial jury, Nifong violated constitutional guarantees to representation by counsel and to remain silent. In the Johnson case and in the Daniels case, the prosecutors did not so blatantly violate the defendants' constitutional rights.

Two witnesses gave statements that raised questions about the case, questions about Nifong's prosecution. Kim Roberts(Pittman) initially said that CGM's claim of a rape was "a crock". Moezeldin Elmostafa stated that defendant Reade Seligman had been a passenger in his cab at the time the alleged crime had taken place. Nifong tried to intimidate both these individuals into changing their statements. Ms. Roberts did. Mr. Moezeldin Elmostafa, to his credit, refused to do so. That is called witness intimidation. Neither in the Daniels case nor in the Johnson case did the prosecutor use witness intimidation. They may have cut deals to obtain testimony but did not physically threaten witnesses with legal action in order to coerce testimony in a certain direction.

In the MacFadyen email, Nifong obtained the email illegally. He threatened MacFadyen with release of the email unless MacFadyen gave incriminating testimony against other Lacrosse players. MacFadyen could not give such testimony because no crime had happened. Any incriminating testimony he gave would have been perjured testimony. I say again, "decent, honorable" Nifong tried to suborn perjury, a crime the last time I checked. When, in the Daniels case, in the Johnson case did the prosecutors try to suborn perjured testimony against the defendants?

Nifong made statements to the effect he would charge members of the Lacrosse team with aiding and abetting if they did not come forward with incriminating testimony. Since no crime had occurred, they could not have provided incriminating testimony against anyone, unless they perjured themselves. Nifong, I say again, was suborning perjured testimony of a crime. The prosecutors of Erick Daniels and James Arthur Johnson did not suborn perjured incriminating testimony against them.

In addition, Nifong had hard evidence which exonerated the defendants. He concealed the evidence from the defendants and lied to the court about it. In other cases, Justice4Nifong considers concealment of evidence a miscarriage of justice. In the Duke case, Justice4Nifong declared the exculpatory evidence to be "totally extraneous and irrelavent information with no probative value."

Lacrosse player Reade Seligman had documentation that he was not at the scene of the alleged crime at the time the alleged crime was supposed to have taken place. Nifong refused to meet with Mr. Seligman's attorney and review the evidence.

Nifong did not interview CGM until months into the case. The AG's office interviewed her shortly after it took over the case. That interview showed Mr. Cooper just how non credible CGM and her allegations were. I submit, NIfong did not interview her because he did not want to be confronted with the non credibility of his principal witness.

The Lacrosse players were innocent, for no reason other than a defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty on open court in a fair and impartial trial. Beyond that, in the first place, NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED, so there was no way anyone could have been found guilty. Yet, Nifong and a lot of vicious bigoted racists had publicly proclaimed the Lacrosse players to be guilty. Roy Cooper HAD to publicly declare the Lacrosse players innocent.

Via his public statements, his attempt to conceal evidence, his failure to interview CGM, his rigged lineup procedure, Nifong had made his misconduct public knowledge well before Roy Cooper's declaration of the Lacrosse players' innocence. In that context, whatever remarks Roy Cooper made about Nifong were of minimal impact. They were no where as vicious or as self serving as the public remarks Nifong made about the Lacrosse players.

Nifong did violate the defendants' civil rights, Let me repeat, what he tried to deprive them of are the right to be presumed innocent, the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, the right to counsel, the right to remain silent. In addition, a Supreme Court decision, the Maryland vs. Brady decision required Nifong to turn over the DNA evidence. His failure to do so was violation of their right to due process under the 14th amendment. Roy Cooper was justified in requesting a Federal Investigation.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper did not just spring into action in the Duke case. Nifong's violations were Nationally known, were embarrassing to the North Carolina legal system and cried out for the AG to get involved.

Justice4Nifong, you have really outdone yourself in distortion this time around.

unbekannte said...

It is obvious from your latest post, you believe the Lacrosse defendants should not have been proclaimed innocent.

What hard evidence do you have that they are guilty of anything. That Mike Nifong prosecuted them is not evidence of anything, other than that Nifong committed gross deliberate prosecutorial misconduct.

I repeat: you are out for justice for no one. You do not care a whit for people like Erick Daniels of James Arthur Johnson. You want vengeance against the people and institutions who refused to endorse Nifong's misconduct.

Casting aspersions on those people and institutions will not change anything.

unbekannte said...

How can the Alan Gell case represent the attitude of the Attorney General towards prosecutorial misconduct?

The Gell case happened before the Duke case, mostly on the watch of Mike Easley, not Roy Cooper. Roy Cooper is on record as wanting to prevent the misconduct that marked the Gell case. Had he not intervened in the Duke Case, it would have been the Gell case all over again, only with three men wrongfully incarcerated, not one.

In arguing that Roy Cooper should have let the Duke case go the way of the Gell case, how can you say you are for equal justice for all.

You are for the conviction of three innocent men for a crime that never happened, simply because the men were caucasian and the accuser black.

The Justice4Nifong gang of 2 is a gang of bigoted racists.

unbekannte said...

According to Justice4Nifong, after the Duke Lacrosse players were charged, the North Carolina "attorney general SPRINGS into action"(emphasis added) to clear the accused. Justice4Nifong implies that Roy Cooper's office took immediate action to block Nifong.

The alleged crime allegedly happened in March 2006. The LaCrosse players were charged and arrested in April of 2006. The Attorney General did not take over the case until January of 2007, and it was at the request of Mike Nifong, who had to recuse himself because he was facing ethics charges. The Attorney General's office was not responsible for the ethics charges.

That is hardly springing into action.

More distortion from the Justice4Nifong gang of 2. I say again, the racists who enabled Nifong's misconduct have never been concerned about truth or accuracy.

unbekannte said...

More about why the Duke Lacrosse players were "accused of a crime, and charged by a state prosecutor".

This comes from the News and Observer, an article on Mike Nifong authored by Benjamin Niolet published on Oct 01, 2006:

"On March 31, Nifong sat with the two main Durham police detectives on the case. The accuser was having trouble identifying her attackers. According to notes taken by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Nifong suggested that the officers have the accuser look at pictures of 46 team members to see whether she remembered seeing them at the party.
The lineup procedure Nifong suggested violated the police department's guidelines, which call for photo lineups to include at least five nonsuspects for every suspect. The guidelines also call for an independent administrator to conduct the lineup, not an investigator in the case.

It was during this lineup, criticized by a defense lawyer as a "multiple choice test," that the accuser picked out Evans, Finnerty, Seligmann and an unindicted fourth player as her attackers."

From Professor K C Johnson's blog, Durham in Wonderland, prior to that improperly conducted lineup, "According to Inv. B.W. Himan’s notes, Mangum described at least two of her attackers in ways didn’t remotely resemble any of the lacrosse players. No wonder, then, that she identified none of the suspects that police presented to her in photo line-ups on March 16 and March 21. On March 16, police presented four groups of six lacrosse players each. In each group was one suspect named Adam, Matt, or Brett (the police selected only 2 of the 3 Matts on the team as suspects) and five fillers (players not named Adam, Matt, or Brett). On March 21, police showed the accuser two more groups, with one suspect apiece (the other two residents of the house, Dave Evans and Dan Flannery) and five lacrosse players as fillers. In total, Mangum viewed 36 of the 46 white lacrosse players and identified no one as an attacker." This blog entry was published on October 11, 2007.

From the same blog entry: "Mangum, meanwhile, offered myriad, mutually contradictory versions of events. Sometimes she was raped by three people; sometimes, by five. Sometimes the second dancer was an accomplice; sometimes, a fellow victim. Mangum’s recollection that one attacker told her he was soon getting married suggested intent to deceive: this otherwise bizarre claim would have enhanced her credibility had she actually (as she believed) danced at a bachelor party."

And: "Medical evidence likewise failed to sustain the accuser’s claims. The SANE nurse’s medical report, which listed “diffuse edema of the vaginal walls” as the only significant item, provided little evidence for the accuser’s story of a brutal, sustained attack. Indeed, this swelling could have been a result of Mangum’s known activity in the hours and days before the party, which included several instances of consensual sex and a job that involved entertaining with a vibrator in a hotel room."

Further, Nifong was "[c]onfident that DNA would “show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) [were] in the alleged violent attack upon this victim,” but then "Nifong appear[ed] to have learned that, contrary to his assurances, the DNA results would be negative. But he refused to discard the case for lack of evidence, and instead instructed police to conduct another lineup. Only this time, he would ensure that the accuser identified someone."

I understand, in North Carolina, the word of a rape victim is sufficient for a suspect to be "charged by a state prosecutor". In this case the "state prosecutor", "decent, honorable" Nifong had the word of a not very credible witness who was unable to identify any Lacrosse player as her attacker. He had no hard evidence to corroborate her word. He proceeded to charge three Lacrosse players anyway. I say again, based on the lineup procedures, Nifong de facto picked three Lacrosse players at random to prosecute.

Why did this happen? On April 11, 2006, NCCU hosted a forum regarding the alleged rape. Mike Nifong attended that forum. Again, from KC Johnson's October 11, 2007 blog post: "The forum’s message [was]: Nifong would get the black vote he needed to win the primary only by securing indictments. In a chilling remark that captured sentiment in the auditorium, NCCU junior Chan Hall said that the Duke students should be prosecuted 'whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past.' "

The Justice4Nifong gang of 2 imply that Nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players was a legitimate prosecution. The facts in the case show it was anything but, and Roy Cooper's intervention was justified. It is obvious that Nifong's prosecution of this case was motivated by matters of race and class. The Justice4Nifong gang holds a grudge against Roy Cooper because Mr. Cooper blocked Nifong's wrongful prosecution of innocent defendants. That is hardly a characteristic of people who believe in equal justice for all.

I am aware that the Justice4Nifong gang probably do not put a lot of stock in Professor Johnson's blog. Like Mr. Roy Cooper, Professor Johnson objected to a wrongful prosecution. I am waiting for the Justice4Nifong gang to manifest their grudge against KC Johnson. Maybe they will not. KC Johnson is a formidable opponent.

unbekannte said...

Roy Cooper has gone on record that he wants to rein in prosecutorial misconduct. He has done something concrete, block Nifong's blatantly illegal, unethical prosecution of the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.

The Justice4Nifong gang of 2 has indicated in this blog they are not for reining in rogue prosecutors. The contrived reason is that 99% of the prosecutors in North Carolina are corrupt and reining them in would deplete their ranks. They want to nullify what was done to rein in Mike Nifong.

Then the Justie4Nifong gang of 2 then claims they do this because they want equal justice for all.

They want equal miscarriage of justice for all.

unbekannte said...

Justice4Nifong, why haven't you gotten Wendy Murphy involved?

I remember shortly after Roy Cooper declared the Lacrosse players innocent, she had an interview with Fox News' John Gibson. She said she would reserve her judgement on the case until the enyire case file was made public. She claimed Nifong probably had evidence in the case which he had not revealed to anyone, to the attorney general, to the court, to the state bar disciplinary committee, that he would reveal it all in a book he intended to publish.

So, where is Wendy Murphy now. This would be an ideal situation for her to come down here and defend Nifong pro bono. She could get all this evidence out, blow the case wide open. Instead, she has been deafeningly silent about the case for months. Shouldn't that be a hint to you. No one except you two, not even the more rabid erstwhile Nifong supporters, believe any longer in Nifong's decency or honor.

Maybe you have contacted Wendy Murphy and she has ignored you. Is that it?

Not even Nancy Grace will talk about Nifong any more.

unbekannte said...

The way you describe the attempted Duke Rape Frame Up is kind of like the devil quoting scripture for his own purpose. You pick out only certain elements of the case and present them as a comprehensive summary. That is easy to do. Both the Erick Daniels case and the James Arthur Jhnson case could accurately be summarized as, both individuals were "accused of a crime, and charged by a state prosecutor". In both cases it could be accurately said, as you said regarding the Duke case, the accused were identified by witnesses with almost absolute certainty.

You are acting like the prosecutors you call corrupt! Only the parts of the case which suggest the accused are guilty should be considered at all. Anything exonerating the accused is to be not ignored but concealed. I add, you show your race/class bias. Exculpatory evidence should be concealed only when the defendants are caucasians who you perceive are from a background of wealth and privilege.

Roy Cooper prevented sociopathic, narcissistic Nifong from doing that. So you are out for vengeance against Roy Cooper.

Incidentally, here is another example of how you have distorted the history of the Duke Case. Roy Cooper did not "[ask} the State Bar to investigate the prosecutor {Mike Nifong]". If you had really read the case narratives, you would know that the NC State Bar filed ethics charges against Nifong before Mr. Cooper's office ever got involved. The first round of charges was filed in December 2006. Roy Cooper's office took over the case in January of 2007, at the request of Mike Nifong, because he was already facing ethics charges.

One would think, if you had a case for reinstating Nifong, you would be presenting accurate rather than distorted accounts of the Duke case.

unbekannte said...

I submit, if Mike Nifong could prove that the dismissal of charges against the Duke defendants, the Ethics Charges, the Disbarment were racially motivated, he would have a valid, strong defense against the lawsuit filed against him. He is not trying to defend the suit. He is very pathetically and pitifully trying to avoid defending the lawsuit. The indicted Lacrosse players' Lawsuit, I remind you was filed in Federal Court, not the North Carolina State Court. It is beyond the reach of the NC Justice system.

Similarly, if you really had a case for race and class factors causing the outcome of the Duke case, and if you really were out for Justice for Mike Nifong, you would be helping him defend the suit.

One wonders why neither you nor Nifong are defending the suit.

unbekannte said...

The web page is up! hooray for super duper Cooper!

Have either of you ever seen "Blazing Saddles"? There is a scene, the building of a railroad. A white overseer tells a group of black workers to sing. They respond by singing "I Get a Kick out of Champagne". The overseer tells them to sing a n----r song. To illustrate, he starts singing "Camptown Races", kind of ironic since that was written by Caucasian Stephen Foster. Soon the overseer and all his men are singing "Camptown Races" and jumping around in a rather stupid dance.

They think they are heaping scorn and ridicule upon the black men. They are actually heaping scorn and ridicule upon themselves. As a character in the movie describes the white overseer and his gang, they are jumping around like a bunch of "Kansas City Faggots".

The Justice4Nifong gang of two are behaving like the racist white men of "Blazing Saddles". Via super duper Cooper, you believe you expose Roy Cooper to scorn and ridicule. You are really exposing yourselves as vicious, bigoted, vindictive racists. The truth about the attempted Duke Rape frame up is a matter of public historical record, as is Nifong's role in creating and promulgating it. Showing the world how twisted you are will not change anything.

So go on with super duper Cooper. I love to see the racist Justice4Nifong gang of two make fools of themselves.

justice58 said...

Expose Roy Cooper & give Nifong his license back!

Justice4Jack said...

The fact that anybody would protect Nifong simply boggles my mind, and yes, it angers me that you have used my brother's name, and churned it into the same man who upheld the lies to conceal his MURDER! So, it is Justice4Jack, NOT Nifong, and this is a point of many I want to make loud and clear!

To babble on about money of taxpayers, and race injustice is just more fodder in the mix. It doesn't! The STATE of NC is guilty in multiple areas of such abject corruption where almost EVERY individual in position of rank and authority in various offices have not just abused their rights, but have personal knowledge of the guilt and innocence of CITIZENS, and used them for their own AGENDAS?!

It is repulsive to compare the very lives of people, to a spit in our face "one day sentence?!" The man turned in his license chewed by his dog as if to make some sort of statement about how he valued his "profession." I found it quite fitting, and cries about his stupid guitars while we cry for the LIVES lost that will NEVER be regained, and to place a price of what our government SHOULD be doing, and are FAILING to do in the same category makes me want to vomit!

Educate yourself Ms Peterson, and the rest of you who read this to the FACT that Nifong was NOT the only "rogue" villain to this charade, the fact is there should have been numerous people prosecuted for serious crimes in office, and Nifong was served as a scapegoat for the coven!

Look into the corruption at every level, it is FAR more nefarious than what has been told, and all of the media have swept worse crimes under the rug, and are only cronies of the "system." IMO, the only TRUE journalism to exist these days is through the Internet, so that people like me can have the freedom of speech to voice our concerns and issues, and not paint a picture!

I AM going to the media here in Cleveland in the next week with the EVIDENCE that has taken me 4 hellish years to accumulate, to expose the entire State of NC with failure to adhere to any protocol, and to conspire to hide a murder, that was staged to look like a suicide of my dearest, beloved brother!

I have not only crime scene photos and video, I have reports from the sheriff, police, medical examiner, all of them full of misconduct, and 4 years and 4 DA's later, FINALLY have enough documentation to insure THIS time, many officials will be held accountable, and look forward to facing each and every one of them in the eye and pray the jury holds them to the highest penalty of law that they took oaths to protect, and not just abused, but used at the cost of LIVES of which no amount of money can replace!

JUSTICE?! I suggest you look at this link ( learn the meaning before you attach it to the likes of a wasted being such as Nifong! You are taking a stand for a man who used your race and people much like the slave owners of not too long ago did, and still do! Even you yourself cannot deny the facts you yourself have stated, yet you brush over each name caring more about the people behind their demise?! You have allowed yourself to be conned as a "sheeple" and Nifong is laughing to his colleagues and self, while comparing himself to be like Martin Luther King?!

To me, he is more like the Pied Piper Of Hamlin, only in this story the rats haven't gone anywhere, and instead rule the city! So, let me say that my next statements will be to the "mass" media, and cannot find proper words to express just how deep the corruption flows, it is a political quicksand of evils that have been avoided far too long!

There have been people who have followed me in my quest heckling my efforts to obtain "JUSTICE" every step of the way, and to you I say be prepared for a very gruesome awakening! My goal is to have laws changed, and lives saved, and you should be ashamed for turning against an innocent victim that truly cares for more than just her family, but for all of us who have not had the money to "buy" our "JUSTICE" for our loved ones?!

If you want to make a stand for somebody Ms Peterson, may I suggest you could better spend your time at PMRC, or MADD, than to join hands with the devil! Not that Nifong is anywhere near as brilliant at hiding his evil as Satan, more like a far lesser demon, with un-natural affiliation with "guitars!" HA!

Rhonda Fleming
Cleveland, Ohio
Sister Of Allen Jackson Croft Jr,
Murdered May 11, 2005 In Durham NC

myrak said...

unbekannte - Your lack of knowledge is exceeded only by your apparent seemingly intense racism.

Mike Nifong has a stellar career of almost 3 decades and he was disbarred. Roy T Cooper's favorite prosecutors who put innocent people on DEATH ROW and innocent children in prison WERE NOT DISBARRED. I don't believe for a minute Mike Nifong lay in wait for 30 years for his chance to curry favor with Durham's black - electorate. That is the most stupid inane comment evey made.

These despicable boys are guilty as sin of so many crimes - for one these elite boys seized/kidnapped her purse, shoe, car keys, MONEY, inside the house and locked her out. They even photograghed their crime so they could get a good laugh about it later. They held her property HOSTAGE and that is a CRIME. They called her the N word and that is a Hate Crime.


To quote many citizens I’ve overheard, “She’s just a Black Ho.”
I’m curious, what do North Carolinians call people who rent Black Ho’s?

Sue the Victim? Permission to let the elite racists sue their victim takes my breath away. That’s a new low, even for North Carolina. Will the WHITE Elite Duke Lacrosse players be allowed to sue their BLACK victim for lying! Can the dancer sue the Duke Lacrosse players for LYING about the number of guests they would be entertaining and for FRAUD for using ''fake names'' to hire them and for THEFT - seizing and holding hostage her money, refusing to let her retrieve her property? (Why was it okay for the Duke boys to steal, to seize and take possession of her private property, then lock her out of the house and deny her right to retrieve her purse, money, keys, etc.?) This was okay because ....... she’s just a rental? Shudder!

What NC Statue gives Roy T. Cooper, Attorney General, the right to perform as Judge, Jury, Prosecutor, DNA Expert, and Defense Attorney for the Duke Lacrosse players, and declare a verdict based on a televised public and media Kangaroo Conviction Ceremony? Now Roy wants to be a United States Senator. Surprise!

Roy T. Cooper, NC Attorney General, thinks it's okay to give total access to all the evidence to the accused Duke players while refusing to give the 'victim' access to the evidence so that she can judicially defend herself, IF that's possible in North Carolina. Congressman Walter Jones (R) NC interfered with State legal process making it a Federal Issue and demanded justice for the Duke Lacrosse Players. Off with the Ho’s Head - who does she think she is!! Isn’t Congressman Jones job to represent all the people in his district, not just the white ones? No wonder North Carolina cannot control their ‘bully’ population, it’s apparently a white-right!!

Diane Sawyer let Mrs. Evans (a Duke Elite Mommy) threaten Mike Nifong on National Television on Good Morning America. Isn’t “Communicating a Threat” a crime? Diane Sawyer went overboard to declare the Duke boys as America’s newest heroes. These heroes outnumbered the dancers 46 white to 2 black. Pass the Maalox!

DNA evidence, to be legally valid, isn’t it required to be sworn testimony, under oath, by a certified expert and documented as legal evidence in a trial?. This did not happen. The DNA evidence was never documented in a court of law, never testified to by an expert and it was never made public. We just have to take their word for it. NC Attorney General Roy T. Cooper refused to let the "victim" have access to the evidence used to publicly demean,shame and accuse her of crimes. She cannot have access to evidence so she can defend herself against the televised and published media accusations. Mr. Cooper apparently gave carte blanc access to the evidence to the Duke Players and their attorneys. The Scales of Justice tilt to the White!

Where‘s the BEEF? Where‘s the DNA? {Personally I think Mike Nifong was harassed, threatened, coerced and intimidated. He was LYNCHED.) Based on my observations of the misuse and abuse of the legal system in NC, it was wrong to allow the media and the Legal Power People to publicly harass, intimidate, defame, mistreat, and abuse the victim Have North Carolina DNA labs had major incorrect and bad problems in the past and been reported to have made many gross errors before? Of course they have. EVEN if we could presume the media DNA TV public reports were true, how did that justify ignoring all the other crimes alleged to have been committed by the Duke boys, not the least of which was the use of racial hate slurs, theft/seizing her belongings and refusing to let her have her property, harassment, verbal abuse, intimidation, underage drinking, threats to sodomize with a broom, FRAUD - using Fake Names to rent the girls, etc? Gasp

The first responders Diagnose the Victim: A Kroger Grocery Store Clerk visually diagnosed an out of control hysterical female and declared ain't no way she was raped, she is just drunk. Thus, no emergency or medical help requested for the victim. WOW! Kroger trains their clerks in the on-the-spot visual medical diagnosis of hysterical emotionally out of control females!! A law/security officer visually diagnosed her as just passed out drunk and chose not to request medical help for the victim. ~ Grocery Clerks and Security - Law Enforcement Officers are allowed to immediately visually diagnose hysterical emotionally impaired victim and deny her immediate medical care? Have to ask what training they had to make these diagnoses and decisions? There are many medical conditions that make one ‘’appear’’ drunk and one of them is being given a DATE RAPE DRUG. Dancer #2 reported on television that they were served drinks upon arriving at the party but she didn't drink hers while Dancer #1 did and immediately began exhibiting strange, abnormal and unusual behavior. However, these first responders diagnoses were reported as facts, so no medical care was considered and the time lost prevented a test to determine if she had been given Rohypnol, aka ''roofies'' (the ever popular campus date rape drug).

Back in 1997 a Duke grad student, David Coolidge, gave the ’date rape’ drug to a 13 year old boy and sexually assaulted the child in his "DUKE" Dorm room, so Rohypnol is not really a surprise or new thing for Duke.

In fact, every single symptom displayed by the dancer was 100% consistent with having been given the date rape drug, Rohypnol. Confusion, inability to recall what happened, memory loss, distortions, and changing stories -- all symptoms of the date rape drug. It is well documented that the date rape drug dissapates rapidly and thus the first thing to do in a suspected case is to get the victim tested. This wasn’t even ’’considered’’ by anyone during the entire process. How long did the police hold and interrogate the victim before letting her go to a rape unit for examination?


*The dancers were unaware they would be entertaining 46 all white males. they thought it was a small party..
*FRAUD: Duke Party Hosts used FAKE names to rent the black dancers.
*No one was home at the Duke Party House when the Police arrived -- all the Innocent Heroes fled.
*Duke Lacrosse Players used Racial slurs (reported by a neighbor who heard them)
*Duke Lacrosse Player heard yelling to the dancers "Thank your Grandpa for my nice cotton shirt." GASP!
*Dancer #2 said they used the “N“ word.
*Towel evidence ignored... Broom evidence.... disappeared? (No Problem)
*Underage drinking, again..
*Dave Evans passed a polygraph - BUT what was he asked? We don't know - it wasn't reported.
*Why didn't all 3 of the accused take a polygraph? We don't know; it wasn't reported.
*The only black Duke Lacrosse player was not at the party.
*THEFT: The Duke Lacrosse Players deliberately and illegally seized and held hostage her property: her purse, shoe, money, keys and then locked her out of the house and denied her the right to retrieve her belongings. The Duke Pukes even photographed her trying to get back in their home to retrieve her belongings. How entertaining was this for the boys? Isn‘t taking and seizing property of another and deliberately refusing to let them have their personal property a crime?

*Colin Finnerty was on probation after being arrested and convicted in Washington D C when he and some of his Lacrosse thug friends beat up a man because they "thought" he was gay. The man wasn't gay, but still Colin and his Lacrosse pals beat him up; even after he fell to the ground, they kept striking him. After North Carolina sainted Colin Finnerty, the Washington D C Judge apparently felt the need to expunge Finnerty's record. Colin Finnerty is North Carolina‘s Hero. (Words fail me.)

*The ‘’innocent email proof’’: Less than one hour after the party Duke Lacrosse Player #41 sent below e-mail: quote: "To whom it may concern tomorrow night, after tonights show, I've decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome. however there will be no nudity. I plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while ----------- in my duke issue spandex.. all in besides arch and tack please respond. 41 " end quote

WHY did he state there will be "no nudity?" - implies there had been previous nudity doesn't it?
This e-mail is what the media and defense lawyers call evidence/proof the Duke Lacrosse players are innocent. - - kill the bitches and cut their skin off while performing a sexual act in official Duke attire {SHUDDER}

*One of the 3 Duke players reported to say while sitting in a taxi ? -- "she's just a stripper she's just a stripper" - HE is a rich White elite popular Duke Lacrosse player and SHE is just an unacceptable Black stripper? This hurts my brain.

It this just some sort of a sick but acceptable southern ritual and rite of passage or what?

Don Imus was publicly shamed and lost his job for racial slur.
A Cary father was arrested, jailed, and convicted of racial slur hate crime.
President Brodhead issued a public apology for the racial slurs made by the Duke Lacrosse Athletes.

No worries - All's well at Duke. Protector Brodhead will now work diligently to see that you can legally drink at age 18.

Shortly after the Duke Lacrosse incident, another rape reportedly happened on Duke campus. The police reported finding drug paraphernalia and marijuana was being spewed into the air from a vaporizer in KEOHANE DORM so everyone could get high. -- GO DUKE !! -- The Duke party host reportedly walked a female to her dorm and she said reported she was raped. Another rape also reported at an off campus party, but these stories just disappear into a journalistic black hole while the Duke Image is whitewashed and the scales of justice tilted towards the wrong end.

Two people lives ruined (Nifong and Mangum) and there was no trial, no officially court of law documented evidence under oath, just a public and media Kangaroo Conviction Ceremony. Even if this was a error in judgment, Mike Nifong had a stellar career dating back 3 decades. Crystal Magnum served her country in the Navy; she was raising her children and going to college to better herself (and no way she could do that on minimum wage job). How can so many officials sacrifice two people to uphold despicable criminally irresponsible boys just because the boys are elite White Duke athletes?

The dancer, the defense attorneys and the prosecutor ALL agreed that none of the players were the father of the child she was pregnant with. A judge, IGNORING THE DANCER'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, without probable cause, ordered her to have a pregnancy DNA Test. Was he just curious?

Perhaps if these spoiled disgusting elite heroic White athletes bankrupt Duke and Durham - it will be poetic justice of a sort. The millions paid to Evans, Finnerty, and Seligman will not be spent in NC as these 'innocent heroes' departed North Carolina and fled to other schools/states. It was reported that Syracuse University refused to accept any of the Duke players. SO! who will foot the bill for the millions awarded to these ’’NC heroes?’’ I read in the news where Durham will let the taxpayers cover the cost of the Duke Lacrosse case. . Duke University’s Insurance company recently refused to cover the payments to the Duke Boys. DUKE will, of course, have to increase tuition. Every one pays except the Elite White Duke Lacrosse Heroes.

The awesome Power of the Media when misused, condones, encourages, and enables cruelty, hate, injustice, and abuse on so many levels, it makes my skin crawl. The lynching of Nifong and the Dancer was disgustingly un-American with egregious misuse of office and authority.

Having the awesome power to taint jury pools, sway voters, and mind control the masses should come with some measure of integrity and truthfulness, but it does not. .

Honesty is believing what you report is true and factual.
Truthfulness is making absolutely sure it is.

Trying to do what is ’’right, equal, just, and fair” in North Carolina is like trying to nail Jello to a tree. That is directly attributal to Roy T. Cooper.