Saturday, February 14, 2009

Responses to blog responders

We would like to thank those individuals who took the time and made the effort to comment on our blogs. Regarding comments made by "tenvax", you have amplified and augmented alleged charges against Mr. Nifong. Assertions that he manufactured evidence and intimidated witnesses is totally unfounded. Furthermore, the withholding of DNA information was irrelevant, insignificant, and of no use to the defense attorneys of the Duke Lacrosse players.

We certainly appreciate the comments of JSwift, and his suggestion that Mr. Nifong pursue a civil suit to address damages he has suffered. Of course we do not speak on his behalf but we will see that your suggestion is presented to him. Personally, I do not feel that he would want to even see the inside of a court room because of the brutal and unfair treatment he received from the media and the courts. Thank you again, for your support. Please visit our web site: to keep abreast of our effort to persuade the State Bar to reinstate Mr. Nifong's license.

Finally, unbekannte, I appreciate your input regarding remarks made by Mr. Scott Huminski. When it comes to prosecutorial misconduct, he is on the far extreme. I respect his views, but totally disagree with them when it comes to Mr. Nifong. If North Carolina prosecutors were held to the same standards used to disbar Mr. Nifong, then upwards of 95% of the state prosecutors would be disbarred and more than 95% would be criminally prosecuted. That would include prosecutors such as David Hoke, Ken Honeycutt, Scott Brewer, Debra Graves, Freda Black, Tom Keith, Michael D. Parker, Jim Hardin, Bill Wolfe, and others. For Mr. Nifong to be the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the State Bar since its inception when the other aforementioned prosecutors have acted far more egregiously, is an outrage. I don't hear others, including Mr. Huminski, calling for criminal charges being brought against them. The targeting of Mr. Nifong is driven by the media working in conjunction with the Attorney General's Office. We believe in judging actions based on their merits and context... not in absolutes.


tenvax3d0c said...

Mr. Harr:

If the DNA evidence was insignificant and of no use to the defendants, then why did Mike Nifonfg conceal it? Why did he lie to the Court about concealing it? Those actions would indicate that Mike Nifong did consider the evidence important.

Why was Mr. Elmostafa picked up and asked if he would change his testimony supporting Reade Seligman? Why was he tried on a weak two year old warrant when he refused to change his testimony. Why did Mike Nifong threaten to charge unindicted Lacrosse players with aiding and abetting if they did not come forth with incriminating testimony?

Why did Carl Gottlieb produce a set of typewritten notes, several months into the case, based on his memory of his interview with Crystal Gail Mangum months earlier, which notes contradicted previous accounts given of what happened? Mr. Gottlieb came up with those typed notes from memory after problems with Mr. Nifong's case became apparent.

With regard to the DNA evidence, it is a moot question whether or not it was of value to the defendants. They requested that all DNA findings, including of any DNA which did not come from the Lacrosse players, be turned over to them. Mr. Nifong failed to do so, although he was obligated by law to comply with the defendants' request. He not only broke the law by refusing to do so, he tried to cover up by lying to the court.

kilgo said...

These lacrosse people are so funny.
After three years now, they can't keep
their lies straight anymore.

How's the frame coming JSwift?

Take a hint from the biology professor.

If the data don't fit the hypothesis,
then change the hypothesis or get some
new data.

Or ask Ubes about that DNA stuff.
Afterall, he did pass high school biology.

unbekannte said...

Hey, Kilzy

Yeah, I did pass high school biology and more. Would you like to start lecturing me on "inculpatory DNA"?



JSwift said...

kilgo: "If the data don't fit the hypothesis,
then change the hypothesis or get some
new data."

I agree. The data do fit my hypothesis.