Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Complete "Super-Duper Cooper" episode now posted on Website

Part 4 of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" is now posted on the website : . It concludes the four part Episode I. On the final strip of the comic, there is a button that links to a complete analysis of the entire episode, which parses fact from fiction.

Work is half way completed on Episode II, titled "To Hell and Back: Travails of the Un-indicted Duke LAXers." It follows the absurd lawsuit filed by high-powered Washington (D.C.) attorneys on behalf of 38 party-going, fun-loving Duke lacrosse athletes who are trying to cash in on the financial windfall that the three indicted student-athletes enjoy. According to reliable sources, the three each received a settlement of seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00) from Duke University for reasons which still remain unknown to me. Duke University folded before the students' attorneys, giving them exorbitant compensation and rewarding them for taking part in a raucous party for which the lacrosse team was infamous. Anyway, Part 1 of Episode II should be posted on the justice4nifong web site within three or four weeks.


unbekannte said...

You do not understand why Duke settled with the Lacrosse players because you are a racist. You believe the innocent Lacrosse players should have been convicted and imprisoned simply because they were white.

You have yet to answer the question, has any other prosecutor ever attempted to cause such animosity to the accused as did "decent(?)", "honorable(??)" "minister of justice(???)" Nifong. In the Nifong manifesto, you acknowledge that Nifong made the comments. Your argument, de facto, is that he should have been given a pass.

Nor have you explained your assertion, that "decent(?)", "honorable(??)", "minister of justice(???)" Nifong's unethical, criminal withholding of exculpatory DNA evidence was a matter of little significance. You have simply stated your opinion, the finding of male DNA on CGM's person which did not match any Duke Lacrosse player was not exculpatory. I say again, although I know your racist ears will not listen, in a rape case, when DNA from a male other than the suspect is found on the victim, and none of the suspect's DNA is found, it means someone other than the suspect committed the crime. Your Nifongesque argument is, since the DNA exonerated the defendants, it should have been suppressed.

Keep up your blogging. You are only telling the world how biased you are.

unbekannte said...

You might like to know what James Coleman, Professor at Duke Law School, said about "decent(?)", "honorable(??)", "minister of justice(???)" Nifong and his illegal, unethical, unconstitutional prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse players:

“You don’t easily recover from something like this,” said James Coleman, a Duke University law professor and frequent Nifong critic. “That’s what’s so unfortunate about this. He had a career — a long career, a reputation of being an honest and fair prosecutor — and for some reason, his conduct in this case was inconsistent with that.”

Professor Coleman is African American.

unbekannte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unbekannte said...

These are excerpts from an Associated Press article published on December 29, 2006 on ESPN's College Sports web site:

"In a statement, the bar said it opened a case against Nifong on March 30, a little more than two weeks after a 28-year-old woman hired to perform as a dancer at a lacrosse team party said she was gang-raped.

The ethics allegations come as legal experts on both sides of the criminal bar have warned that the case against the three athletes is pitifully weak."

"The bar cited 41 quotations and eight paraphrased statements made to newspaper and TV reporters, saying many of them amounted to "improper commentary about the character, credibility and reputation of the accused" or their alleged unwillingness to cooperate. Most of the comments were in March and April."

Some of those comments:

"One would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong."
-- Mike Nifong" (people are entitled to representation by counsel, according to the US Constitution, and a prosecutor must not comment on a person's retaining counsel)

• Nifong referred to the accused men as "a bunch of hooligans."

• He declared: "I am convinced there was a rape, yes, sir."

• He told ESPN: "One would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong."

• He told The New York Times: "I'm disappointed that no one has been enough of a man to come forward. And if they would have spoken up at the time, this may never have happened."

Aagain, it seems the Justice for Nifong gang believes Nifong should have been given a pass on this. I base this on what I have read in the Nifong Manifesto.

"Nifong also was charged with breaking a rule against "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation." The bar said that when DNA testing failed to find any evidence a lacrosse player raped the accuser, Nifong told a reporter the players might have used a condom.

According to the bar, Nifong knew that assertion was misleading, because he had received a report from an emergency room nurse in which the accuser said her attackers did not use a condom."

"I don't see how any member of the public can have confidence in this case. I think it's making a mockery of our criminal justice system to permit this guy to keep fumbling along."
-- Duke University law professor James Coleman".

"The weaknesses in the case include the lack of DNA evidence; the accuser's ever-shifting story; one player's claim to have an alibi supported by receipts and time-stamped photos; and the defense's insistence that the photo lineup that was used to identify the defendants violated police procedures and was skewed against the men."

"Before the ethics charges were filed, Bob Brown, an attorney in private practice who once worked with Nifong in the prosecutor's office, predicted the case would be a "bloodbath" for the prosecution if it went to trial."

"Among other questions raised in recent weeks: Why did it take months for anyone from Nifong's office to interview the accuser? And why did Nifong initially withhold from the defense DNA test results that found genetic material from several men -- none of them Duke lacrosse players -- on the accuser's underwear and body?"

I point out again that the Attorney General's office did not take over the case until January of 2007. The case started in March of 2006. The Justice4Nifong gang says the Attorney General sprang into action immediately. The Attorney General took over the case at the request of Mike Nifong after the state bar filed ethics charges.

Early on in the case, it was obvious that the prosecution was questionable. So why did Nifong continue?

On December 31, 2006, Sher Zieve, a woman, published an article about the Lacrosse Hoax/Attempted Frameup. The web site is called Renew America. The author is Sher Zieve. This is an excerpt:

"The office of Durham County's district attorney is an elected one. In November, Nifong was running for election to his first full term as Durham's D.A. Nifong also represents a large and influential African-American community. Crystal Gail Mangum is black and the accused Duke Lacrosse team players are white. Even after it was revealed that Nifong no longer had a chance of proving the rape case against the young men, due to the accuser's statement that she "could no longer testify with certainty that it [rape] occurred" and Nifong's conscious withholding of exculpatory DNA evidence, Nifong's African-American constituents have urged the district attorney to proceed with a trial. Despite the lack of any DNA evidence linking the Duke Lacrosse team players to any crime, let alone rape or sexual offense, President of North Carolina's NAACP Rev. William J. Barber II insists that Nifong try the case in court. Barber commented: "Don't let it be decided by hearsay. Don't let it be decided by community speculation. Take it to the courts!" So — ever concerned about his increasingly tenuous position within the community — Nifong is now pursuing a case of 'sexual offense and kidnapping' against the Duke students. By the way, DNA evidence is not considered to be "hearsay."

Apparently, Nifong believes that no crime need be committed in order to prosecute a case. That is, if his personal and rather nebulous political career is placed in jeopardy by not pursuing said litigation. And it also appears that the advancement of Nifong's political aspirations is more important to him than the lives he seems bent upon destroying."

The racist leaders of the Durham African American community wanted the Lacrosse Players prosecuted simply because they were white. "Decent(?), "honorable(??)" "minister of justice(???)" Mike Nifong prosecuted them because he wanted those racist African American leaders like him. These were the only issues of race and class in the Duke Rape Hoax/Frameup.

The Justice4Nifong gang is committed to judging this sad miscarriage of justice on those same issues of race and class.

unbekannte said...

Another excerpt from a web site which does much to explain the race and class issues in the Duke Rape hoax/frameup:

"Let’s consider what Nifong did to earn his 24 hours behind bars: He created a rape case against three Duke University lacrosse players for the sake of political gain. He was aware that the accuser had offered several conflicting, drug-addled accounts of the alleged attack. He was aware that there was no physical evidence, and that there was credible evidence showing that one of the defendants was not even present at the time. Within a few weeks, DNA test results showed that the defendants did not have sexual contact with the accuser, and he with-held this information from the defense. Pandering to the black Durham voters he considered vital for his re-election, he publicly referred to the alleged attack (three white students accused of raping a black exotic dancer) as racially motivated."

From Mike Nifong, and Why the Justice System Is Going to the Dogs, by someone named Bill, posted at this url ;

Also, this is a comment posted on the web site,

Doug said:
Doug, I can't agree with you on a number of points. Injustice does not rule, because justice now has been done. Cooper did not have the legal authority to take over the case earlier; that's why he proposed a new law to allow earlier intervention in cases like this.
Posted on April 12, 2007 9:51 PM"

Are you reading, Justice4nifong. The AG's office in North Carolina had no authority to just intervene in a case. The AG had to be asked to intervene. This may be why the AG did not intervene in cases you have cited. It also shows your assertion, that the AG sprang into action right after the innocent Duke students were indicted.

Keep up the good work, i.e. showing the world what uninformed, malicious racists you are.