Tuesday, March 3, 2009

State’s tradition of protecting its prosecutors remains strong

Attorney General Roy Cooper, in tandem with the media, continues its commitment to protect its prosecutors who abide by the North Carolina justice system tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” In a Saturday, February 28, 2009 News & Observer article titled, “Cooper urges no new trial for Peterson,” staff writer Anne Blythe makes an attempt to explain the state’s flimsy reasoning for objecting to a new trial for novelist Michael Peterson, who was convicted for the 2001 killing of his wife.

Peterson’s attorneys are appealing the conviction and requesting a new trial based allegedly on the fact that prosecutors Jim Hardin and Freda Black withheld valuable exculpatory evidence from the defense attorneys. According to their motion, a citizen contacted investigators and reported finding a tire iron near the scene of the crime shortly after its commission. The prosecutors, whose theory of the murder is that the victim succumbed because of head trauma with a fireplace poker, retrieved the tire iron and conducted forensics tests on it. They, however, did not notify the defense team of its existence, nor divulge to them the test results of their examinations on it. This is a point that was not disputed by Attorney General Cooper in Ms. Blythe’s article.

From our perspective (Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong), withholding from the defense team the existence of a tire iron, when a fireplace poker is considered to be the murder weapon, is far more egregious than withholding the existence of extraneous unidentified male DNA that had no relevance and no value for defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case. Yet, it is Duke Lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong who Attorney General Cooper persecutes and prosecutes, while going above and beyond the call of duty in protecting prosecutors Hardin and Black who obtained a life sentence conviction based on courtroom cheating and chicanery.

Cooper’s involvement in this case is not surprising, for it is his modus operandi. Consider the state’s case against Theodore Jerry Williams which was thrown out of court by the trial judge because prosecutors admitted that they had destroyed material exculpatory evidence against a defendant after he had requested it for his defense. Attorney General Cooper appealed this ruling, in an attempt to pursue charges, which he knew were trumped up, against a defendant who, in addition, was viciously assaulted by sheriff deputies.

Right in lockstep with the Attorney General’s Office, N & O staff writer Blythe did not mention the names of the prosecutors (Jim Hardin and Freda Black) responsible for withholding the evidence from Peterson defense attorneys, but she did, through some circuitously convoluted means, manage to gratuitously mention the name of Mike Nifong, who had absolutely nothing to do with the state’s case against Peterson. And although Ms. Blythe mentioned that Mr. Nifong had been disbarred, she, again, refused to mention that he is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. The media has consistently used Mr. Nifong as its sacrificial lamb when there is any question of wrongdoing, misconduct, or impropriety by a North Carolina state prosecutor(s).

Because of the magnitude of the prosecution’s misdeeds in winning a conviction in the Peterson case, and the irreparable damage caused by withholding the tire iron evidence from defense attorneys, the murder charge against Mr. Peterson should be dismissed, the conviction struck from his record, and he should be freed from custody. That is what Lady Justice would demand. At the minimum, Mike Peterson should be afforded a new trial.

The media is doing a grave disservice to its subscribers, the public, and justice itself when its biased coverage is used as a means of spinning public opinion in a view that is favorable to the Attorney General’s Office and the state. For an objective, fair, and balanced look at justice within the state, I recommend that you visit the home page of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong’s web site:
www.justice4nifong.com.

86 comments:

unbekannte said...

Hey, Harr de Harr Harr

I just finished reading something from your friend Kilzy about people having their heads up their asses. It kind of sounds like to me you really have stuck your head up your butt and pushed it half way around your colon, considering your self enforced blindness to the DNA evidence.

Kilzy claimed he could tell me all about DNA, if I met certain criteria. I have met and exceeded those criteria. He has not followed through on his promise to tell me all about DNA. If you are getting your info from him, well, that is kind of like getting lessons in racism and tolerance from the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Regards,

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey Harr de Harr Harr

Ever read about Michael Peterson in the Wikipedia? Here is a quote from the entry:

"The trial drew media attention, as the details of Michael's life emerged. Prosecutors (among them future District Attorney Mike Nifong) attacked Peterson's credibility, focusing on his alleged misreporting of his military service and what they described as a gay life he led and kept secret. The prosecution contended that the Petersons' marriage was far from happy, suggesting that Kathleen had discovered Michael's alleged secret gay life and wanted to end their marriage. This scenario was offered as the probable motive for Kathleen's alleged murder. The defense argued that Kathleen knew about and accepted Michael's bisexuality and that the marriage was very happy."

Get that? Your hero, "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong was involved in prosecuting Michael Peterson. How come you never mentioned that?

Justice58 said...

If you are getting your info from him, well, that is kind of like getting lessons in racism and tolerance from the Grand Wizard of the KKK.



Is your hood comfy enough?

unbekannte said...

Hey Injustice58

When I got my Doctorate in Medicine, my academic hood fitted very comfortably.

The KKK wouldn't have me. I did not believe in lynching innocent men because their skin was what they defined as the wrong color.

The KKK used methods similar to "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong. Prosecute innocent men because it was politically correct to do so, fabricate evidence when evidence does not exist, hide evidence which damages your case. Organizations like the NCNAACP supported "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong, just like you do. I do not believe in stuff like that.

Their is also the Josef Goebbels angle, tell a lie often enough hoping the public will buy it.

You know, you are even worse than Kilzy when it comes to calling people names when they get the better of you.

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey, Harr de Harr Harr

You must be doing this at the behest of "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong. I believe one of Mike Nifong's defenses was, the finding of DNA from other men was of no exculpatory value to the Defense.

I think that determination as to exculpatory value is made by the Law, not by corrupt prosecutors or their supporters. You either have not heard or are deliberately ignorant of the North Carolina Open Discovery Law, that a prosecutor is required to turn over EVERYTHING he has to the defense.

Your head is stuck farther up your colon than I had thought.

I am expecting Kilzy to now offer to explain open discovery to me.

Regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justice58 said...

The KKK wouldn't have me. I did not believe in lynching innocent men because their skin was what they defined as the wrong color.


The lacrosse players weren't lynched because of their skin color. Crystal Mangum was tried in the media because she dared to bring charges against the spoiled rich white guys. Michael Nifong was only doing his job as a prosecutor that he was elected to do. He was seeking justice for a black woman but he must have forgotten it was the Old South. No way he should have lost his license! He deserves the license back.


The defense used a tactic of getting the Media's attention off the players and on to Mike Nifong. How do they sleep at night?


Lastly,how can you accuse someone of name calling? Will you look at your own writing? You're the one calling names because you can't handle the truth about the spoiled rich.

unbekannte said...

hey injustice58

The point is, people like you who live in glass houses should not think they can throw stones with impunity.

You seem to be of the Wendy Murphy school of jurisprudence - according to Wicked Wendy, the only meaningful, significant evidence in a rape case is the word of the accuser. Are you familiar with Timothy Cole? He was convicted of rape primarily on the testimony of the victim. It turned out she had mistakenly identified Timothy Cole did not benefit. He died in prison before he was exonerated.

Whether you deny it or not, the truth is cgm did have a history of sexual promiscuity, mental instability, drug use, and of FALSELY ACCUSING MEN OF RAPE. She could not initially identify any Lacrosse players as her attackers. She could not give a consistent account of the attack.

On the basis of this unreliable woman's word, in the face of no evidence of a rape, no medical evidence, no DNA evidence, you believe the Lacrosse players are guilty. You seem to subscribe to the belief that white men desire black women, even though FBI statistics show that inter racial rape is almost exclusively perpetrated by black men against white women. You can not give any hard evidence that a rape happened.

The bottom line was, "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong had no case. Go to the Justice 4 Nifong web site. In the Documents, read the Document on Prosecutorial Ethics. At the top of the list it says a Prosecutor must not proceed with a case if he has no case, not the exact words but that is the gist of it.

"Decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong needed an issue which would win him the support of the racist leaders of Durham's black electorate. That issue was the false accusation of rape against the Lacrosse players. Prosecuting someone like Michael Jermaine Greer would not have gotten that support. The Lacrosse players were prosecuted because they were perceived as white and well off. That is the racist element in the case. Only a racist would be unable to see that.

You advocate the legal lynching of innocent men based only on racist criteria, not on any idea of justice. That is why I call you injustice58.

Regards,

Ubes

Justice58 said...

You seem to subscribe to the belief that white men desire black women, even though FBI statistics show that inter racial rape is almost exclusively perpetrated by black men against white women. You can not give any hard evidence that a rape happened.


How f-ing dare you! Rape is not about desire, you dumb #uck up. Rape is not about sex. Rape is an act of violence. It's about controlling the victim & having power over the victim. I won't write on this blog what I think about you. But I will say, you're a disgusting human being. You shouldn't be in the company of decent people because you're rotten filty scum to have that attitude about rape victims. Your f-ing ignorance is astounding when it comes to rape & sex. Educate your stupid ass!


I listen very carefully to Crystal Mangum during her press conference. I know what she stated for all to hear. I believe every word she spoke. She will not go away and sit in a corner. She was very brave to go public and tell her story. I'm proud of her.

You advocate the legal lynching of innocent men based only on racist criteria, not on any idea of justice.


You are a blatant liar! Race has nothing to do with seeking justice for a wrong done. No one is above the law whether you're rich, poor, black, or white.

The Law IS The Law!

unbekannte said...

Hey Biased Prejudiced Racist Injustice58

The law said the Duke defendants were innocent, based on the evidence in the case, not the color of their skin or the race of the accuser, something you choose to ignore, just like "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong chose to ignore.

Your attitude towards me seems to be the same as your attitude towards anyone who defended the innocent Lacrosse players, the same as your attitude towards overwhelmingly reelected Attorney General Roy Cooper. In that you honor me.

I agree Rape is a crime of violence, not desire. So why do you and most apologists for "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong say white men's desire for black women is a factor in inter racial rape? Since rape is a crime of violence, FBI statistics say, therefore, inter racial rape is overwhelmingly cases of black men exerting violent power over white women, like Michael Jermaine Greer attempted to do. Why no comment from you on Michael Jermaine Greer? Why no comment on Tomothy Cole? It seems, just like "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong, you conceal evidence you do not like.

Your admiration of cgm is irrelevant. The public record, the evidence in the case say she falsely accused three innocent men of raping her, the second time in her life she did so. At one time in history, millions of people admired Adolph Hitler. If cgm was raped, why is cgm so reluctant to address the evidence? Why does she not file a civil suit against the Lacrosse Players? That would have been more effective than this "memoir" of hers. The last time I looked, her book was apout number 1,050,000 in sales. It would seem decent people don't even want to associate with cgm's book let alone with cgm herself.

Call me all the names you want. That is only more evidence of your biased, prejudiced racist attitudes. The Duke Rape hoax was a racially motivated prosecution of three innocent men.

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey Biased Prejudiced Racist Injustice58

Here are some statistics for you:

From url http://www.solargeneral.com/mirrors/Flawless%20Logic%20Library/library.flawlesslogic.com/rape.htm

"Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it. Dr. William Wilbanks, a criminologist at Florida International University, had to sift carefully through the data to find that in 1988 there were 9,406 cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than ten cases of white-on-black rape. [320] Another researcher concludes that in 1989, blacks were three or four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and that black men raped white women thirty times as often as white men raped black women. [321]

Interracial crime figures are even worse than they sound. Since there are more than six times as many whites as blacks in America, it means that any given black person is vastly more likely to commit a crime against a white than vice versa."

From url http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm

"In the United States, when it comes to race relations, much is said about white racism, which gives the illusion of Euro-american as a violent and threatening community. Yet this is a deceiving and prejudiced picture. A simple glance at the interracial figures show that European Americans are often targeted for interracial crimes while they seldom practice it.

Based on the victimization survey of the US Bureau of Justice, it is possible to make an fairly accurate estimate of the magnitude of interracial crime by converting into numbers the percentages given on two statistical tables: table 42 -Distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender and table 48: Distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime, race of victims and perceived race of offender. We can also use some figures from the FBI UCR Crime reports.Doing this shows that in 2002 while there was, according to the FBI UCR report, about 1 700 White on Black hate crimes, there were nearly 2 million Black on White crimes. Yet, while the statistics for hate crimes receive extensive media coverage, the statistics for interracial crimes are rarely mentionned. this is what leads to a mistaken and stereotyped vision of Euro-Americans and the way they relate to people of other races."

And:

"If one look at interracial crime as a whole, Black on White interracial crime largely outnumber White on Black interracial crime. Oddly, while "white racism", about 1700 crimes, is often used to justify Black people resentment and agressivity toward Whites, White people are not suppose to feel a thing or the slightest resentment for the ceaseless racial violence of which they are the target."

From url http://whytnblak.wordpress.com/interracial-rape-statistics/

"When whites do violence — rape, murder, assault — how often do they choose black victims? Shouldn’t a nation of bigots target blacks most of the time? At least half of the time? Of course, it does not. When whites commit violence, they to it to blacks 2.4 percent of the time. Blacks, on the other hand, choose white victims more than half the time. [317]"

And:

"The contrasts are even more stark in the case of interracial rape. Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape. [319]"

I could go on and on and on and on and on...

Any comments. Or would you like to call me more names?

Regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

One more note. You said:

"Race has nothing to do with seeking justice for a wrong done. No one is above the law whether you're rich, poor, black, or white.

The Law IS The Law!"

I agree with all that. So why do you support a District Attorney who so egregiously violated not only the law but also legal ethics and the Constitution of the United States? Why do you insist your impression of cgm trumps all findings in the case that no crime happened? Why do you presume the Lacrosse players are guilty based solely on the color of their skin? That does not show you really believe "The Law IS The Law!"

Go ahead. Tell me what you think of me. Have you ever read about the Battle of Khafji in the first Gulf War? Norman Schwarzkopf described its effect as a mosquito bite on an elephant.

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

You're still associating rape & desire, and trying to tie the two together, unbekannte. Get f-ing real. If you think those stats are accurate, you're more delusional than I orginally thought. Those numbers doesn't mean squat. How many crimes go unreported? How many crimes never see the light of day, just like Crystal Mangum's didn't? Because we know black women are unrapeable? (Major f-ing eyeroll) Do you honestly expect anyone with common sense to believe that crap. I laugh in your face because you're so f-ing stupid. GMAFB!

If the Attorney General declared the players innocent, why do you have the need to continue to defend them 3 years after the declaration. It doesn't make sense.

You cannot take away a person's opinion. People believe whatever they want. You can't make a person a decent human being either, I don't care how many inaccurate stats you throw up. The players behavior was run amuck. It was out of control. It can't be fixed. It has been 3 years and counting but it is what it is!

"In the United States, when it comes to race relations, much is said about white racism, which gives the illusion of Euro-american as a violent and threatening community. Yet this is a deceiving and prejudiced picture. A simple glance at the interracial figures show that European Americans are often targeted for interracial crimes while they seldom practice it.


Puhleeze! You wasted precious time posting that bunch of pure bullshit. SMGDH!




I agree with all that. So why do you support a District Attorney who so egregiously violated not only the law but also legal ethics and the Constitution of the United States? Why do you insist your impression of cgm trumps all findings in the case that no crime happened? Why do you presume the Lacrosse players are guilty based solely on the color of their skin? That does not show you really believe "The Law IS The Law!"



No he didn't. That was made-up bs on Mike Nifong. I never stated the lacrosse were guilty based on the color of their skin. You made that up! I will state that No one should be above the law. The law was not made for certain people. There should be EQUAL justice for all. Crystal wasn't given a chance for equal justice. She wasn't allowed to tell her story in a court of law.

You are a pathetic piece of racist scum who has no desire except to hinder justice being done.

Justice58 said...

http://www.alternet.org/rights/129646


Horrific! Only a sick deranged animal walking in human form would do this!

unbekannte said...

Hey, Biased Prejudiced Racist Injustice58

My research of interracial rape statistics was not a waste of time. You reacted to it the way I thought you would. You were confronted with facts which you did not like but which you could not refute. You responded by spewing out invective, profanity, obscenity, vulgarity just like a spitting cobra. You are so saturated with racially motivated hatred against caucasians, you are predictable. You got your chain pulled.

Are you aware that psychiatrists use the People in Glass Houses adage to evaluate people for mental disease, specifically schizophrenia. Your attitude on the law is schizoid, and yes I have had some formal education in psychiatry. You say no one is above the law, that the law is the law. It was a decision of a legal process that "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong was guilty of rather egregious misconduct. It was the decision of an investigation by a legal agency that no crime had occurred, that the Lacrosse players were innocent. You do not like the decisions so you try via extra legal means to nullify the decision. That is more characteristic of a lynch mobber or a KKKer than of an advocate for justice. The very fact that you believe the decisions should be nullified on the sole basis of your beliefs shows you believe yourself to be above the law.

Keep up the invective, the profanity, the obscenity, the vulgarity. It doesn't hurt anyone but yourself. You just show the world how biased, how prejudiced, how racist you are.

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards,

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustie58

Quote:

"If the Attorney General declared the players innocent, why do you have the need to continue to defend them 3 years after the declaration. It doesn't make sense."

I am not defending anyone. I am ATTACKING you and the other vicious racists who post on this blog. You, on the other hand, in spite of the decisions of the law on this attempted frame up continue to declare the Lacrosse players guilty. Are people not supposed to defend themselves against false allegations? Stop your lying false accusations and no one would have to defend anything.

Another quote:

"Crystal wasn't given a chance for equal justice. She wasn't allowed to tell her story in a court of law."

I remind you again of your statements, the law is the law, no one is above the law. No accuser has any right to have his/her accusation go to court without probable cause. There was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed as determined by the law. cgm made her accusations but the evidence was against her.

You are not advocating equal justice. cgm, like all accusers, had no right to be heard in court. If you believe she was so entitled, you believe the law does not apply to her. You believe she is above the law.

If you are so certain that a crime was committed, that the Lacrosse players were the perpetrators, how about you present some evidence, some hard data to support you. My guess is you can not. You will reply to my posts with more invective, profanity, obscenity and vulgarity.

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards,

Ubes

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

Hey, Biased Prejudiced Racist Injustice58

More on your statements, the law is the law, no one is above the law:

cgm, if she filed a civil suit, would be entitled to present her case in court. To prevail, however, she would have to present more than her allegations. She would have to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. For the simple minded, that means she would have to present evidence which outweighs all the evidence that she was not raped.

You apparently believe the only evidence which should be presented is cgm's word, and her word should be accepted at face value. That is not the law. In saying cgm should be taken at her word without corroborating evidence is saying cgm is above the law.

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey, Biased Prejudiced Racist Injustice58

Still more on your statements, the law is the law, no one is above the law.

If the suit against Nifong goes to trial, if, after hearing all the evidence in the case, the court finds for the plaintiffs and awards them damages, then Nifong would have to pay. If necessary, the plaintiffs could take his new guitar to satisfy the judgment. That is the law.

You call that scenario seizure of Nifong's property by force. That again says you believe Nifong is above the law.

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

Yet more regarding your comments, no one is above the law, the law is the law. However, this is more for Harr de Harr Harr.

Harr de Harr Harr has repeatedly said the DNA evidence from DNA Security, that cgm had DNA from multiple unidentified males was of no exculpatory value to the defense. I vehemently disagree with that, but say for argument's sake it were true. It would also be irrelevant.

North Carolina's Open Discovery law requires a DA to turn over to the Defense any and all evidence he has against the Defendant. The Lacrosse players requested ALL the evidence "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong had from DNA Security. The law is the law, as you have said, and no one is above the law. Nifong was required by law to turn over ALL evidence from DNA security. Instead he withheld evidence and then lied about it in court.

Your support of Nifong and of cgm is based de facto on the premise that Nifong and cgm were above the law. I call your support for the law not only schizoid but also hypocritical.

Your turn. Lets have some denial, name calling, profanity, obscenity, vulgarity and what ever you can deliver.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey, biased prejudiced, racist injustice58

Your support of "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong, based on the premise that is he is above the law, is more consistent with a lynch mobber or a KKKer.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

My research of interracial rape statistics was not a waste of time. You reacted to it the way I thought you would. You were confronted with facts which you did not like but which you could not refute. You responded by spewing out invective, profanity, obscenity, vulgarity just like a spitting cobra. You are so saturated with racially motivated hatred against caucasians, you are predictable. You got your chain pulled.



You wasted precious time posting inaccurate information. But then again, you probably have a lot of time to waste. If it makes you feel good ...help yourself. I promise you, I can't care any less. It only matters to you.

You are so saturated with racially motivated hatred against caucasians, you are predictable.


It is a waste of my time to argue with a fool. Clearly, you're a fool.

I have no hatred against whites. It's as ridiculous as your pathetic statistics. It's clear that you're a racist bigot.However, that's your choice. But when a person starts injecting that bigotry into the justice system. It's time to push back against it.

You reacted to it the way I thought you would. You were confronted with facts which you did not like but which you could not refute.


Are you kidding me? You don't know me. Now that is just dumb. I mean really. It's clear that you're a bigot but it doesn't mean all white men are. According to your own posts, you don't believe white men are sexually attractive to black women. Well, black women aren't particularly attractive to little weenies either. Nuh uh! Oh well! However, it's their little preference! I mean, what can I say!

cgm, if she filed a civil suit, would be entitled to present her case in court. To prevail, however, she would have to present more than her allegations. She would have to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence.


Civil suit my ass! Crystal Mangum should have been allowed to seek justice in a court of law not court of public opinion. After this case, I believe with everything in me that black women will never get equal justice in this country.


Krddurham---Pray tell, who is more nuttier than you! Twisted mofo!

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

You do not disappoint me. I offer you an opportunity to make a fool of yourself and you take full advantage of it.

You need to go to Harr de Harr Harr's Justice4Nifgong web site. Read the document posted there, rules of legal ethics for prosecutors. In case you haven't heard, legal ethics regulations are part of the law, which you say is the law and you say applies to everyone.

The first rule of prosecutorial ethics is that a prosecutor is ethically barred from taking a case to trial without probable cause. This means there must be more than an allegation of a crime. There must be a reasonable belief that a crime has taken place. This means there must be evidence that a crime has taken place.

That someone may have made a criminal accusation is not probable cause. In other words, no one has any right under the law to subject another individual to a criminal trial just because she made a criminal accusation against that other individual.

You run from the evidence in the Duke case the way the Devil runs from the truth. You believe obviously that the Duke case should have gone to trial simply because cgm did make a criminal allegation and "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong treated it as true. You believe no evidence should have been presented in the case other than cgm's allegation and that her allegation should have been taken at face value. You therefore believe neither cgm nor Nifong should have been held to the law. You de facto believe "with everything in [you]" cgm and Nifong are above the law. What a bloody hypocrite you are.

Where do you get the idea that a civil court is not a court of law. Why do you object to trying the case in a civil court? Is it because you believe cgm should have been taken at face value? Even though the standard for prevailing in a civil trial is less stringent than that of a criminal trial, there is still a requirement for evidence. The plaintiff has to do more than make an accusation. The evidence in this case are facts which you can not refute. You do not even try to refute the facts. I say again, when confronted with the facts you first deny then spew out a combination of profanity, vulgarity and obscenity. Your bottom line, I say again, is that cgm is above the law and should not be held to conformity with the law.

You really ought to see a psychiatrist if, for no other reason, a psychiatrist would have a grand time sorting out all your psychopathology. Not only is your thinking on the law schizoid. You have real delusions of grandeur, a real god complex. You believe by saying the word, you can change the law, condemn people to hell, and do who knows what. I say again, your record as a prognosticator shows you are far from god material. You are just about as far from being a champion of justice.

Who ever said white men are not attracted to black women. Not me. I agreed with you that rape was a crime of violence and power. I merely pointed out to you that interracial rape is overwhelmingly inflicted by black men against white women, another fact which you can not refute and which you refuse to confront.

Nor did I ever say black women were not rape-able. I pointed out that black women are raped. What I pointed out, which you feared to confront, is that the people raping black women are overwhelmingly black men.

If white men, as you claim, are so poorly endowed, how can they be capable of raping anyone?

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

I expect another round of profanity, obscenity and vulgarity from you. I am not looking forward to it. You have been spouting the same profanity, obscenity and vulgarity for a few years now. There is no originality in you, just venom and hatred for white people.

Harr de Harr Harr

unbekannte said...

This is a correction.

In a couple of posts I referred to someone as Michael Jermaine Greer. That was an error on my part. The individual to whom I should have referred was Michael Jermaine Burch, who is accused of raping a caucasian Duke coed in February of 2007. He is also accused of raping another woman while out on bail from the first charge.

I wonder if Harr de Harr Harr or Biased Prejudiced Racist Injustice58 feel that Burch's victims' complaints should be accepted at face value?

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

This means there must be more than an allegation of a crime. There must be a reasonable belief that a crime has taken place. This means there must be evidence that a crime has taken place.



Wasn't there DNA on/under her fingernails that was linked to one of the players? How did it get there? Don't give me Cheshire's answer about the f-ing Q-Tips in the trash either. Didn't Crystal pick the guy out of a line up? Wasn't Crystal in a room in that house and told of penises that were drawn on a wall? I'm just asking?


I believe the case should have went to trial to determine guilt or not guilty. This is why we have a justice system. Cases shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion and verdict announced by the freaking Media.

Where do you get the idea that a civil court is not a court of law. Why do you object to trying the case in a civil court?


I never said civil court is not a court of law. Don't twist my words. The case should have been tried in criminal court first and then on to Civil court.

You believe no evidence should have been presented in the case other than cgm's allegation and that her allegation should have been taken at face value.


No, not true. If Crystal's case would have gone to trial, we would have heard all the evidence. If there was absolutely no evidence... Why not go to trial and get a chance to clear your name if one is sooo innocent? It beats continuing trying to prove it on a blog 3 years later!

Who ever said white men are not attracted to black women. Not me.

You implied it! If that's not your preference...so what! Like I stated before, black women aren't attracted to little weenies either. I can't be mad or disagree about it. But that doesn't mean it applies to all white men cuz it would be a lie.

If white men, as you claim, are so poorly endowed, how can they be capable of raping anyone?


I didn't say that. You drew your own conclusion. Puhleeze! Do you honestly think one has to be "endowed" in order to rape? Men with little weenies rape also. It is not about sex, you MORON! It is an act of VIOLENCE. Stop trying to make rape about sex!


I merely pointed out to you that interracial rape is overwhelmingly inflicted by black men against white women

Since you so believe in that stat, pray tell, don't you think that would frighten white women sh##less? I mean, it would frighten me! But yet white women keep running to black men. Imagine that? I mean really, someone better warn Missy of the black boogey man.

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

You said you were no longer going to argue with me. Why are you arguing with me. Is "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong holding a gun to your head?

The DNA evidence on the fingernail did not implicate David Evans. What was reported was that the DNA evidence could not exclude David Evans along with 2% of the males in the world. Liar Liar Pants on Fire.

What about the towel. People claimed cgm was wiped down with a towel after the rape. A towel did have the DNA of a Lacrosse player who lived at 610 North Buchanan. It had no DNA from cgm. How do you explain that?

Once again I ask you to address the issue of DNA found on cgm's person. cgm reported to medical personnel she had been penetrated by her attackers who did not use condoms and who ejaculated on her. Why did the rape kit, taken before the case ever became controversial, show no evidence of blood, semen or saliva, materials which would have been left in the circumstances cgm described? The DNA testing done by DNA security found DNA from multiple unidentified males on her person but no DNA from any Lacrosse player. How would that happen in the kind of scenario cgm described? If she was wiped down, how was all the DNA from the Lacrosse players removed but the DNA from the anonymous males left behind. Personally, I think if the scenario cgm described really happened, even DNA security would have had problems detecting DNA from non Lacrosse players.

Another point about going to trial. A defendant in a criminal case is not required to clear his name. The state is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair and unbiased trial. If a pre trial procedure shows no evidence to corroborate the charges, the situation in the cgm case, the prosecutor is legally and ethically obligated not to go to trial. You again show how hypocritical on the issue of law you are. You believe that Nifong and cgm were above the law and the innocent Lacrosse players should have been condemned via extra legal means.

If you want all the evidence to come out, why do you oppose a civil suit? Is it because you know all the evidence would show the innocence of the Lacrosse players. I say again, what a hypocrite you are on the issue of the law.

If white women really want black men, why do so many black men violently force themselves on white women?

That is your cue. Time for more denial, more profanity, obscenity, and vulgarity.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

You allege that "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong was tried in the media.

Nifong admitted he had given multiple interviews to the media. He proclaimed to the media that a crime had occurred, that it had been racially motivated, that Lacrosse players had been the perpetrators. He said that innocent people would not need lawyers, an attempt to undermine the accused's constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel. He called the players decision not to give information to the authorities, an attempt to undermine their constitutionally guaranteed right not to testify against themselves. He called the Lacrosse team a group of hooligans. He declared that the medical report showed evidence of a rape before he ever had access to the medical report. Who can forget the widely published picture of Nifong demonstrating the choke hold put on cgm, something that never happened.

Prosecutorial ethics, which have the force of law, say a prosecutor should not make extrajudicial comments which inflame the public against the defendants. Nifong not only made public, extrajudicial inflammatory comments, he broke the law. He showed he believed he was above the law, beyond the law. In supporting him, you say he was above the law, more hypocrisy on your part.

I do not know if you are familiar with the Charles Manson trial. During the trial, President Nixon made a public statement that Manson was guilty. The court vainly tried to prevent the jury from viewing the comment. Manson, himself, got hold of a newspaper and flashed the headline, Nixon says Manson Guilty, to the jury. Well, Manson could not argue for jury bias on that basis. He himself gave the prejudicial information to the jury.

That seems similar to your attitude on Nifong. You decry the media trying Mike Nifong. Nifong himself made the cgm case a media circus. His inflammatory comments were proven false, by valid legal procedures. If Nifong did not want that to happen, he should not have violated the law and legal ethics by taking the case to the media.

You were again in denial.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey Harr de Harr Harr

Please note my most recent post to biased prejudiced rascist injustice58.

You lament the public comments made by overwhelmingly reelected Attorney General Roy Cooper and by former Governor Mike Easley(sp?) about "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong.

It is a matter of public record, a matter of res ipsa loquitur, that Nifong took the cgm case to the public. Nifong made the case a media circus.

He hardly has any right, legal or otherwise, if that resulted in unfavorable comments being made about him in the media.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards,

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

More about cgm and a civil suit. This again deals with principles you enunciated, no one is above the law, the law is the law.

If cgm wants redress for whatever grievance she might have, if she wants the evidence to come out, and she wants the law to give her that, her only recourse is to file a civil suit against the Lacrosse players. An advantage she would have in a civil suit would be the Lacrosse players could not refuse to testify.

If she had a case, she could get representation. Trial lawyers handle these cases on a contingency basis. They get a percentage of whatever judgment a plaintiff receives, usually 30%. You know the line in myriad lawyer commercials - we don't get paid if you don't collect. If a trial lawyer really believed cgm had a chance to recover, he would represent her.

That cgm is not filing a civil suit, it suggests she can not get representation. If she can not get representation, it means whatever trial lawyer(s) she approached believe she has no case. Any evidence that would come out would raise doubt about her allegations.

You, as well as cgm, are trying to cause condemnation of the Lacrosse players not by any legal means. Both you and cgm believe you are above the law.

Again, what hypocrisy on the part of someone who has proclaimed, the law is the law, no one is above the law.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

Yes cgm did pick the innocent lacrosse players out of a line up. The lineup was not conducted in accord with the law, which you say applies to everyone. She was shown a photo array of everyone the police considered suspects. There were no fillers which is required by the law to make a proper lineup. The lineup is supposed to be conducted by someone not involved in the case. That did not happen in the cgm lineup.

She picked out two people who had air tight alibis. She picked out the third by claiming he had a mustache at the time of the party at 610 Buchanan Avenue. That individual had never had a mustache. In two previous photo arrays, she was unable to identify anyone as an assailant. True, she was not shown a picture of Colin Finnerty. But then, Colin Finnerty is tall and thin and she described all of her attackers as short and chunky. She did identify as being at the party two lacrosse players who could present irrefutable evidence they were not even in Durham the night of the party.

This lineup is more evidence that cgm, "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong and the Durham police did not conduct the lineup in accord with the principles, the law is the law, no one is above the law.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

JSwift said...

Justice58: “I listen very carefully to Crystal Mangum during her press conference. I know what she stated for all to hear. I believe every word she spoke.

At her press conference, Crystal insisted that she has always told the same story and that no one was willing to listen. This requires belief in a far greater conspiracy than many have thought possible.

The public record shows that Crystal’s story was not consistent. Much of Nifong’s discovery file is available through defense filings in the criminal case, news stories and exhibits in Nifong’s disbarment hearing and criminal contempt trial. Further information is available through the depositions and/or testimony of Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb, Himan, Ripberger, Meehan, and Levicy, the AG’s report and the initial presentation to the Whichard commission.

She provided numerous inconsistent renditions of her story on March 14 at DUMC to numerous medical providers, DUPD officers and DPD officers. She provided another version of her story on March 15 at UNC Hospital. She provided different versions to the DPD in interviews and identification sessions on March 16 and March 21, during the fatally flawed identification session on April 4 and in her written statement on April 6. The N&O published an interview with Crystal on March 25. She met or spoke with Nifong and/or DPD officers on March 28 and April 11, but the prosecution provided no record of those meetings or conversations.

Crystal had at least nine opportunities before the indictments to present her accusation, and the record documents her inconsistent statements on several of those occasions.

Crystal claims that she provided a single consistent version of her accusation of a sexual assault in all of these meetings. As a result, one must conclude that she insists that the record is false. Not only did Nifong and the DPD ignore her consistent statements, but they also fabricated DPD reports of the incident and pressured DUPD officers and medical personnel at DUMC and UNC Hospital to falsify their own reports.

Moreover, Crystal must claim (as the AG’s report indicates) that the other evidence included in the record—DNA results, medical evidence, physical evidence, witness testimony, time-stamped photographs—was all falsified. Thus, she must believe that Nifong, the DPD and others destroyed or hid the actual evidence of a real crime.

Crystal is on videotape for the April 4 identification session in which she identified four of her three attackers. She picked the indicted players and thus cannot claim that the DPD intentionally chose the wrong suspects without her knowledge. Any suggestion that her statements and choices were not her own implies that the DPD instructed her to select specific individuals as her alleged attackers and that she was forced to comply with those demands.

In other words, Crystal implies that Nifong and the DPD obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, committed and suborned perjury, and destroyed, hid and fabricated evidence in a deliberate attempt to alter the record.

To what end did Nifong and the DPD commit these crimes?

As we know, Nifong and the DPD did not disregard Crystal’s accusation simply to ignore her.

Nifong obtained and maintained three indictments for almost a year based solely on what he described as Crystal’s accusation and identifications. The record shows that he had no other evidence of any kind—no DNA, no medical evidence, no physical evidence, no corroborating testimony—to support the accusation. Indeed, he refused to consider significant evidence that supported the claim of innocence. In spite of a weak case, the DPD failed to undertake a credible investigation; they failed prior to the initial indictments to interview many relevant witnesses or obtain evidence of which they had been made aware. In his disbarment hearing and criminal contempt trial, Nifong never disputed this lack of corroborating evidence.

Crystal in essence alleges that Nifong and the DPD ignored a real crime and invented one. The prosecution invented the many versions of the accusation they attributed to her, even at the risk of discrediting her testimony on which they would rely at trial. They hid or destroyed the evidence that supported her claims, but failed to fabricate evidence to replace it.

Crystal claims that the wildly inconsistent accusations in the public record—the accusations on which Nifong based his indictments—are not her statements. She never had the opportunity to tell her story. Nifong thus obtained indictments based on accusations he and the DPD had fabricated. He and the DPD invented the crime and framed three young men with that fiction.

Why did Nifong and the DPD invent a fictitious crime and distract attention from the real one? Who was the architect? Who were the actual perpetrators who are being protected? The public record does not answer these questions.

The architect of the frame must have great power and influence. He had no fear of the consequences of being caught, but actively sought out national publicity with inflammatory and false statements from Nifong and the DPD even as he and his conspirators committed their wrongdoing. He demanded and obtained submission to the execution and cover-up of the frame from a wide-ranging group of conspirators that extended far beyond Durham and Duke to include state and national leaders who failed to investigate the allegations of misconduct and the local and national media who pushed the crime that Nifong and the DPD had invented and ignored the real one. Nifong has been set up as the scapegoat, and he appears willing to accept that role.

Justice58: “She was very brave to go public and tell her story. I'm proud of her.

She is indeed very brave. At great risk to herself, she has confronted this vast conspiracy. We may only hope that her deposition and testimony in the civil suits will at long last bring answers to these and many other questions.

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

Here is a quote from one of your posts:

"Civil suit my ass! Crystal Mangum should have been allowed to seek justice in a court of law not court of public opinion."

So why does cgm try to seek vindication in the court of public opinion instead of justice in a court of law, via a civil suit against the Lacrosse players?

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

Here is another quote:

"But when a person starts injecting that bigotry into the justice system. It's time to push back against it."

How true. "Decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong prosecuted the cgm case by stirring up racial animosity against the Defendants, as did the New Black Panther Party, the North Carolina NAACP, and the Duke Faculty gang of 88 pseudo intellectuals(which included farm animal Houston Baker).
That was pure evil racist bigotry.

It is another indication, at least to me, of your deranged thinking on this case. You condemn the Lacrosse players for pushing back against racial bigotry.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

The DNA evidence on the fingernail did not implicate David Evans.

Really? Okay. Whatever!!!!!!!!

According to Matt Zash's statement, it was he who threw the nails that he found in the bathroom into the trash, and not Evans. Was Evans DNA found on any other items that were thrown in the trash? How did Evans DNA get under that fingernail? Did Crystal scratch him? So many unanswered questions!


It's my opinion that something happened in that house and Roy Cooper couldn't prove it. The AG don't know they are innocent, only the people involved know the real truth. The declaration of "innocence" is just PR. Why are you still trying to convince people 3 years after Roy Cooper declared innocence?


My opinion of the press conference of Roy Cooper is that it sounded much like a political speech. It sounded just like we had heard from the defense and the media. Hmmmmmmm.....

Crystal Mangum wanted to go forward with the case. According to Roy Cooper's words, Crystal cooperated. But yet she wasn't allowed for her case to be heard in a court of law. A trial would have determined guilt or not guilty. Therefore, we will never know what really happened in that bathroom.

Justice58 said...

So why does cgm try to seek vindication in the court of public opinion instead of justice in a court of law, via a civil suit against the Lacrosse players?




Because she wasn't allowed the chance for her case to be heard in criminal court. Why shouldn't Crystal be allowed the chance to seek vindication in the court of public opinion....the players did?


Is it acceptable for the players to do so & not Crystal?

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58:

In the Tawana Brawley hoax, Brawley was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. She declined to present evidence to support her allegations of abduction and gang rape. Her handlers, which included Pseudo Reverend Al Sharptongue said she would not testify unless those she accused were summarily arrested and convicted, something her handlers knew would never happen. I call it a ploy to save Brawley from testifying. Perhaps the handlers, who enabled perpetration of the hoax, knew she had no evidence to present.

You swear by your posterior that cgm should not have to go to civil court, that she should be heard in a criminal court. You know that now cgm will never get into criminal court, except maybe to defend herself against criminal charges of filing a false police report. You are advocating a Brawley maneuver - present demands of the justice system which will never be met, which are totally inconsistent with the law, so your heroine can avoid the justice system while accusing it of bias. We have more indication on your hypocrisy towards the law.

Say, why doesn't cgm submit to a trial for filing a false police report. She would be able to get into criminal court, present all her evidence and, most importantly, clear her name.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

Here's another quote:

"How f-ing dare you!"

I don't "f-ing dare" anything. Black men who rape white women "f-ing dare". So do Black men who rape black women. So do white men who rape white women and the miniscule number of white men who rape black women.

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

Why would cgm not want an opportunity to clear her name?

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

Mike Nifong prosecuted the cgm case by stirring up racial animosity against the Defendants



No he didn't. Mr. Nifong told the New Black Panther Party not to come to Durham. They came on their own. Mr. Nifong did not meet with them but you dukie supporters wouldn't accept that because you had an agenda and the truth be damned.

The Lacrosse player injected racism into the case when he stated..."Hey bitch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt". The player injected racism into the case when he called the dancers ...."niggers".Is Mr. Nifong responsible for that players words? I think not.


As for as Houston Baker's statement...They did act like farm animals. Weren't they peeing off the porch in front of total strangers? Who in their right mind whips out the d*** in front of strangers to pee? Is that acceptable behavior? Weren't they playing loud music disturbing the neighbors? The behavior was deplorable!!!!!!!!!!!

Justice58 said...

Say, why doesn't cgm submit to a trial for filing a false police report. She would be able to get into criminal court, present all her evidence and, most importantly, clear her name.



That's just laughable! Crystal wasn't charged with a crime. She has NO reason to clear her name. Are you out of your mind?

Justice58 said...

You know that now cgm will never get into criminal court


Never say never!

kilgo said...

"The architect of the frame must have great power and influence."

So now JSwift is inventing an imaginary architect to make all his voluminous data fit his theory?

Ah, yes, the unknown X factor.

Useful for making any theory work.

JSwift- take some advice from someone
who knows more about this case than all
your LS pals put together.

Come up with a new theory.

unbekannte said...

Hey biased, prejudiced, racist bigot injustice 58

Here's another quote(boy I am getting a lot of material from you today):

"I believe the case should have went to trial to determine guilt or not guilty. This is why we have a justice system. Cases shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion and verdict announced by the freaking Media."

We have a justice system to determine the truth, not to have trials. The law holds that if the evidence indicates that the truth is, no crime happened, the DA is required NOT to go to trial. The DA is also required not to try the case in the media. "Decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong did take the cgm case before the media long before the truth ever came out. How do you justify that? cgm is trying the case in the media, attempting to cause public condemnation of the innocent lacrosse players.

You say also "Why not go to trial and get a chance to clear your name if one is sooo innocent? It beats continuing trying to prove it on a blog 3 years later!" According to you, a criminal court can return one of two verdicts, guilty or not guilty. Only a declaration of innocence would have cleared their names. According to you, a criminal court would not have cleared their names. So what was the point of going to court?

Perhaps this is your answer: Because she wasn't allowed the chance for her case to be heard in criminal court. Why shouldn't Crystal be allowed the chance to seek vindication in the court of public opinion....the players did?" I remind you again, cgm had no right under the law to have her case heard in criminal court. You remember the law, don't you - the law is the law, no one is above the law. It was "Decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong who took the cgm case into the media, the court of public opinion, not the Lacrosse players, and "Decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong did violate legal ethics when he did so. As you say, if one party attempts to try a case in the media, then the other party has a right to respond in the media.

Try to get this through your head. A civil court is a court of law. cgm has a venue in which she is choosing to have her story heard. She instead is sticking to the media in an attempt to justify herself. That indicates she has no story to tell, at least one that would show guilt of any Lacrosse player.

Your thinking in this case is really wacko and schizoid.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

According to Matt Zash's statement, it was he who threw the nails that he found in the bathroom into the trash, and not Evans. Was Evans DNA found on any other items that were thrown in the trash? How did Evans DNA get under that fingernail? Did Crystal scratch him? So many unanswered questions!


Waiting....

unbekannte said...

Hey kilzy

Show us you do know more about the case than "all [the] LS pals put together".

You claimed you could demonstrate extensive knowledge of and could teach me about inculpatory DNA. Since then you are deafeningly silent.

You talk a loud talk but don't even try to walk.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

This reminds me of a scene in Shakespeare, in Henry IV Part I. Owen Glendower, trying to impress Harry Percy aka Hotspur, says he can summon spirits. Percy replies, so can I, but that doesn't mean they will respond.

Harr de Harr Harr

JSwift said...

kilgo obviously does not know how to read and understand.

In my post, I was taking Crystal's statements from her press conference that she had told a single consistent story, a claim that is refuted by information in the public record, and raising a question: If the reports did not reflect the truth, then who changed them?

Crystal claimed to the special prosecutors that she never made the statements attributed to her in medical and police reports. She claimed to the special prosectors that someone had tampered with the evidence.

Crystal's claims that someone had falsified the reports and evidence suggest that Crystal must believe there was some sort of conspiracy against her. I merely suggested (for Crystal) that the "someone" had a leader.

My post was in jest. I trying (unsuccessfully I suppose) to write some satire (hint: look at the pseudonym).

I was merely noting that for one to believe Crystal's claims requires that one reject all of the public evidence. The easiest way to do that is to speculate on a conspiracy led by an "architect."

I don't believe that you really believed that the post represented my actual theory of the case. I think you simply enjoy criticizing others while adding nothing of value to the conversation.

Justice58 said...

The Lacrosse player injected racism into the case when he stated..."Hey bitch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt". The player injected racism into the case when he called the dancers ...."niggers".Is Mr. Nifong responsible for that players words? I think not.


Your Thoughts, Unbekannte?


As for as Houston Baker's statement...They did act like farm animals. Weren't they peeing off the porch in front of total strangers? Who in their right mind whips out the d*** in front of strangers to pee? Is that acceptable behavior? Weren't they playing loud music disturbing the neighbors? The behavior was deplorable!!!!!!!!!!!


Wanna discuss the farm animal behavior?

gak said...

The Lacrosse player injected racism into the case when he stated..."Hey bitch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt".

It would appear that somebody has a selective memory. Kim Pitman started that little issue with her comment about white boys and the cotton shirt remark was a reply. It would appear that Justice4Nifong cant get anything straight.

As far as the boys redirecting the media to Nifong, I don't think ANYBODY in the NC justice system (if you want to call it that) was so blatent in their disregard for the rules as Nifong was. He openly called them hooligans and admitted he was trying to put pressure on them through the media to get the imaginary wall of silence to break. Sadly, whomever wrote this uses all the facts selectivly to come to the wrong conclusion.

gak

Justice58 said...

It would appear that somebody has a selective memory. Kim Pitman started that little issue with her comment about white boys and the cotton shirt remark was a reply.


Nuh uh. Don't go there!

Kim called a player a little d***ed white boy that couldn't get it on his own, he had to pay for it. Where is the racism? Unless you would consider the word "white" racist?

BTW...Why would Kim accuse the player of having to pay for it? Were the players looking to buy sex? I mean, they paid $400 for the women to take their clothes off and dance nekked! ;)


Nice try gak, but you can't slip in your selective crap. I see you!

kilgo said...

JSwift- if you ever get warm...

we will let you know.

JSwift said...

kilgo: JSwift- if you ever get warm...

we will let you know.


JSwift: I think you simply enjoy criticizing others while adding nothing of value to the conversation.

Thank you for confirming my characterization of you so quickly.

JSwift said...

I do not know whether or not the tire iron has any bona fide connection to the Peterson case. ADA Saacks claims that forensic tests ruled it out as a murder weapon.

I am a proponent of the open discovery law which requires that prosecutors give ALL evidence to the defense. This law was passed in NC in August 2005 and thus was not applicable to the 2003 Peterson case. Nifong, however, was subject to its requirements for the lacrosse case. This law does not permit prosecutors to decide what evidence is important.

At the very least, the defense motion suggests that the Durham Police Department is at best utterly incompetent.

An 11/13/08 N&O story explains that it took the DPD 1 1/2 YEARS to collect the tire iron after having been called by the neighbor. This delay is inexcusable.

A neighbor found a tire iron in his front yard several days later, according to the court documents filed Wednesday by the Richmond lawyers. He called police several weeks later after hearing about the investigation into Kathleen Peterson's death.

Investigators told the neighbor they "did not think" the tire iron was the murder weapon but said they would come to his home and take a look, according to notes uncovered in one of the 30 boxes of case evidence stored on the Durham County courthouse top floor.

More than a year and a half passed, though, before a Durham police officer made the trip, the Richmond lawyers claim in their motion.

In August 2003, when the trial was coming to a close and no murder weapon had been found, investigators went to the neighbor's home and collected the tire iron, according to the motion.

Justice58 said...

Victoria,

I am still waiting for Unbekannte to answer some questions about the DNA. It looks as if hell will freeze over before the expert Unbekannte answers! Can you think of a reason why Unbekannte is not willing to answer...

1.Was Evans DNA found on any other items that were thrown in the trash?

2.How did Evans DNA get under that fingernail? We know he didn't throw the nails in the trash...Matt Zash did, according to his statement!

3.Did Crystal scratch him?

gak said...

Kim called a player a little d***ed white boy that couldn't get it on his own, he had to pay for it. Where is the racism? Unless you would consider the word "white" racist?

Acutally, yes I would call that a racist slur when you look at the context of the situation. It was meant to be an insult and insult id did. I don't actually recall the n word being used though so your quote is actually inaccurate

GAK

Justice58 said...

http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/901


The undersigned, Jason Alexander Bissey, after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. This affidavit is my account of the events of the evening of March 13, 2006 and the early morning hours of March 14, 2006 at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd, Durham, NC. I live next door at 608 N. Buchanan Blvd, Durham, NC.


2. At the approximate hour of 2 p.m. on Monday, March 13,2006, I had noticed that a group of young men were playing a game of "washers" and drinking beer in the back yard of 610 Buchanan as I left the house on foot. I remember in particular one young man wearing a sort of suspenders-like harness that would hold two cans or bottles of beer. My roommate, Derek Anderson, also recalls seeing this back-yard game occurring on this day.


3. I returned to my residence at approximately 11:30 p.m. on Monday. After getting a bottle of beer from my kitchen, I proceeded to my porch to smoke a cigarette. It was at this point that I noticed that the party from earlier in the day was still in effect next door at 610 Buchanan. I noted that some men were still lingering in the back yard of 610.


4. At approximately 11:50 p.m., I saw from my porch that a car had been stopped directly in front of 610, and noted that two young women, both appearing to be African-American, were walking from the direction of the car and proceeded to the back-yard entrance of 610. One of the two was dressed in an extremely short tan skirt and was wearing high heels. Her hair was pinned up above her ears. The other woman was more conservatively dressed in pants and a sweater or blouse of some sort, and her hair was shoulder-length and curly. The two women briefly spoke with one of the men who was in the back yard. I remember hearing that he lived "at the other house," which in retrospect I assume to be the house on Urban Ave. that also was rented to Duke lacrosse team members. This man then left in the direction of Watts St., apparently to the residence to which he had just referred. Another young man spoke briefly with the two women just outside the back door of 610, and then proceeded indoors. At this point no one was outside of 610 besides the two young women.


5. A very brief conversation between the two women ensued, which I observed by switching to another chair on my porch. The more conservatively dressed woman noticed me at least once, when we made eye contact. She was speaking to the more proactively-dressed woman in a tone that I deduced through body language to be a sort of coaching, as if she was preparing her for something that she herself was comfortable with, but needed to talk the woman with the short skirt though it. I did not overhear any specific words at that time. Twice that I noticed during this conversation, a man or two different men opened the back door of 610 and spoke to the women, and the more conservatively dressed woman responded both times something to the effect that they would "be right there," or "just give us a minute."


6. I saw the women enter 610 together. After a moment, I remember quite specifically that it was Midnight. The reason I know it was Midnight is because I looked at my cell phone and noted the time. At approximately 12:05 a.m. on Tuesday, I re-entered my house and took a shower. As I was getting re-dressed in my bedroom, which is on the opposite side of the building from 610, I heard loud voices from outside. I had left my front door open, and the voices were carrying from in front of my residence, as well as open windows along the alley between 608 and 610.


7. At this point, anywhere from 12:20 a.m. to 12:30 a.m., I observed 20 to 30 young men in the alley between my residence and 610 Buchanan, and on the sidewalk in front of my building. From the front living room of my house, I heard these men yelling amongst themselves about money. Specifically, I heard one man call sarcastically at one of his peers that it was "only $100 bucks" that he had apparently spent. It is not clear to me exactly when I noticed that one of the men was leaning into the driver's side window of the car that was parked directly in front of 610, but it appeared that he was having a conversation with whomever was in the vehicle at the time.


8. Because of the agitated nature of the men in the alley and in front of my residence, I kept a close watch on the situation. I was weary of revealing my presence to the group of men for fear of some kind of reaction or retaliation, as the tenor of their dialogue seemed quite heated at that point. Through the windows of my house I monitored the situation, debating with myself whether notifying the police would be a prudent course of action. Eventually, the situation seemed to have subsided, with some of the men calling to each other "guys, let's go" repeatedly in an effort to disperse the party, and the conversation between the women who were apparently in the car and the young man at the driver's window seeming to be calm.


9. I noted that the skimpily dressed woman had exited the car, saying something to the effect that she would go back into 610 to retrieve her shoe. She seemed agitated, but not hysterical. I left the front door open so that I could hear if the situation flared up again. I would estimate that the young woman left the car at around 12:30am.


10. At this point, I believe that I was in my bedroom checking email and reading the news. At some point, I heard a renewed commotion outside. I estimate that another 15-20 minutes had elapsed, making the time approximately 1 :00 a.m. As I opened the screen door to my residence and stepped onto my porch, the car that I had seen parked in front of 610 was driving north on Buchanan towards Markham, and young men were beginning to disperse from the house. Most of the men were walking towards Duke's East Campus, but some proceed to the west towards Watts St. Before the car that was parked in front of 610 sped off, I distinctly heard one young man's voice who was walking towards East Campus. He yelled at the car that was driving off, "Hey bitch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt."


11. Within five minutes, the situation was total silence. It appeared that the party had dispersed completely, and no cars were left in the vicinity. Shortly, a few Durham police officers arrived in the alley/driveway and asked me if I saw where any of the young men had left to. I told the officer that most of them seemed to have gone eastwardly, towards Duke's east campus. The officer thanked me and I proceeded to bed.


12. The above-stated paragraphs are in substance what I prepared in typed form on Friday, March 31, 2006.


This is the 26th day of April, 2006.

Justice58 said...

http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/753


I, Kim Pittman, was called by Melissa to do a Bachelor Party at 610 Buchanan St at 11 p.m. at night. I went to Priscilla's to purchase an outfit for the evening and proceded (sic) to get ready for the night. I left 1602 Albany Street and headed toward Buchanan where I arrived at about 11 p.m. I spoke to Dan F. and was told that this was not a bachelor party but a get together amongst friends. They told me that they were on a sports team and were all Grad Students at Duke.

I walked to the back of the house with Dan and Dave and entered the house thru a back door. There I received my $400.00 payment ($200/hr for 2 hours) from Dan and waited for the second girl to arrive. As we waited, I met a few of the fellas in the house and chit chatted for several minutes. The guys were anxious and asked me to call Melissa and check on the second girl. We were told that she was soon on her way. At about 11:30 Precious arrived and came to the back where we met for the first time. I waited outside and she went inside to collect her money. She showed me her payment ($400.00) and we went straight the bathroom where my outfit was to change clothes. Precious came w/ her dancing gear on and did not need to change.

We conversed about our plan for the dance. There was a knock on the door and we were handed two drinks of equal amounts. We did sip the drinks, but Precious' cup fell into the sink. We finished getting dressed and proceeded to the living room, led by Dan, to do our show. There were about 20-25 young guys there who were all sitting down. Precious and I began our show which, in my opinion, seemed to be going well. Precious began showing signs of intoxication at this point. We continued w/ the performance until one of the boys brought out a broomstick and after asking if we had any toys, said he would use the broomstick on us.

That statement made me uncomfortable and I felt like I wanted to leave. I raised my voice to the boys and said the show was over. The commotion riled Precious up and caused her to get irate. I went to the bathroom with Precious and I told her I wanted to leave. Precious felt we could get more money and that we shouldn't leave yet. She was uncontrollable at this point and was yelling at the boys who were knocking on the door to leave us alone. I finally decided to leave the house. I left the bathroom, grabbed my bag and exited the house w/ my dancing gear on. I went to my car, wanting to leave, but not wanting to leave the girl in the house alone. I changed my clothes in the car where some of the boys were coming to my window asking me to talk to them. I was told by one of the guys that Precious was passed out in the back and could I please do something with her. By this point, it seemed that the fellas may have been ready for the evening to be over. I told them that if they could get her to my car, I would get her out of their hair. Within minutes, she was being helped out of the back yard and into my car. At this point, she did not have the bag that I saw her come with and I asked her if she had the most important thing, her money. She told me yes but she did not seem coherent. She then told me that we should go back to the house because there was more money to be made there. I asked her again where her things were and she said "Here," "It's here". But I did not see her things so in my opinion, she was talking crazy. I made an attempt to get her things. I took my belongings, locked her in my car, and went back up to the house to try and retrieve her bag. I looked around with Dan and we didn't see anything so I said I've done all I could and went back to my car. I finally began leaving and the boys began yelling "Nigger" to us. I called the police to report racial slurs.

While in the car, I repeatedly asked Precious if she had her money. At this point, she was basically out of it. I tried to ask her where she lived but she would not tell me. I tried calling Melissa to get a hold of the driver that dropped her off but received no assistance from her. I decided go to the 24 hr. grocery store and seek the help of an off duty police officer. Only a security guard was there, so we proceeded to call 911. A couple of cars came out and they dragged her from my car after trying to wake her up with smelling salts. They tried to talk to her and ask questions but the only thing she would mutter was no. She obviously did not want to leave my car. The police said they would look out for her, take care of her, and that she was in no trouble at all. I then drove back to 1602 Albany Street where my night was over.

- forgot to mention that the first time Precious came to the car, she left because she felt there was more money to be made. It was after then, that the boys helped her to the car. They carried her by throwing her arms over their shoulders and assisting her walking to the car - I can't remember if only one boy helped or 2.

Kim M. Pittman 3/22/06 2:15 p.m.

The point in time where I went to get Precious' things from the house, I walked to the back of the house thru the side of the house outside. I entered the house from the outside from a back door. I looked in the bathroom to retrieve her things but could not find them. I exited the house the same way I came in, along the side of the house to my car without finding any of her items.

Kim M. Pittman 3/22/06 4:00 p.m.

Justice58 said...

http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/672


VANITY FAIR: Kim Roberts, Other Dancer in Duke Rape Case, Talks to Vanity Fair

NEW YORK, N.Y.Kim Roberts, the exotic dancer who performed for Duke lacrosse players the night of the alleged rape of her fellow dancer, tells Vanity Fair contributing editor Buzz Bissinger that she was originally told that she would be performing at a bachelor party, where she assumed the men would be close to 30 or a little older. (The July issue of Vanity Fair hits newsstands in New York and Los Angeles on June 7 and nationally June 13.) "To me, when a man is more mature he understands that you might not get what you think you're gonna get, so they're more apt to be O.K. with that."

When she arrived and saw how young the men were she initially kept driving, Roberts says. "At first I didn't want to stay, because I saw all these young guys."

After driving around the block, Roberts tells Bissinger, she was met at her car by a young man [Dan Flannery] who was "very respectful," but she was still uncertain about staying. She was initially told that the boys inside were members of the Duke track and baseball teamsshe later learned that they played lacrosse.

Roberts waited for approximately 30 minutes for the other dancer to arrive and during that time she observed some of the young men relieving themselves outside. "There was plenty of pissing off the porch," she says.

Roberts tells Bissinger she could sense the hesitation in the young men milling about when the second dancer, who is black, arrived. The person who had told her that a white dancer had been requested "expressed in some way that they might not be happy" with the second dancer, says Roberts. "I can't remember how he put it or what way he said it, but I said to him, 'Well, they're going to have to make a decision and make it now.'"

The young men decided to go ahead with the performance, and Roberts spoke to them, saying, "'O.K., you guys seem very respectful. If everybody acts as you are acting, I'm sure we'll have a fun time. I'm sure we'll have a good time.' They completely assured me that everybody in there were good guys'Everybody in there is respectful, and you will be fine and safe.' [I was] completely assured of that," Roberts tells Bissinger.

According to Roberts, she asked the men to go inside so that she could get to know the other dancer. Although statements were attributed to Roberts publicly, claiming that she said she had found the other woman "loopy" from the outset, Roberts tells Bissinger that characterization is incorrect, and that when she was outside with the other woman she was "absolutely fine." The two women chatted for a bit behind the house and had "a regular, normal conversation, nothing that set off any alarm bells in my head. We talked. We joked a little bit," Roberts says. "I told her I was new to this and didn't really know what I was doing. [She] told me that she danced at a club and was a little more experienced. She told me about her kids."

Roberts tells Bissinger that once the performance began she felt overwhelmed and intimidated. "You have to think of two little girls among how many big boys? That in and of itself is intimidating if they are not being respectful of my feelings, my space. How is someone supposed to perform a show if they're wondering, O.K., what's this guy talking about over here? Am I going to have to worry about my safety? Things were said that made me concerned for my safety."

According to Roberts, the players "definitely were drunk and drinking," and "as soon as we showed ourselves in our costumes, it was on. They were ready to see whatever they were going to see, and so it got loud from there and there was no time. There was no time. There was no wait. It was just a go from there." In hindsight Roberts tells Bissinger that she thinks there was an expectation that she and the other dancer would fully degrade each other during the performance.

The dancers stopped the performance abruptly after one of the young men made a crude comment about a broomstick. Later in the evening, after the alleged rape, as the women were preparing to leave, the boys were angry, Roberts tells Bissinger, which she found hard to fathom. According to defense attorneys and media accounts, the players felt cheated because they had paid $800 for a performance that lasted only several minutes. "Any human should understand they were acting idiotically," Roberts tells Bissinger. "There was only one person who said to me, 'I understand that you might feel intimidated.' He at least made it seem like he understood where I was coming from, why I stopped [dancing]."


Excerpts from the July 2006 hard copy version

It was when she was in the car with the other dancer getting ready to drive off, she said that she heard one of the boys in the field yell the word, "nigger," followed by several other boys shouting the racial epithet.
Roberts was not the only person who heard a racist comment. Jason Bissey, the next door neighbor, said in an interview he heard one of the players say, "Hey, b*tch, thank your grandpa for your nice cotton shirt!" as the Honda was driving off.


"They just hollered it out,'Nigger,' 'Nigger,' 'Nigger,'" said Roberts. "They were hollering it for all to hear. They didn't care who heard it."

Justice58 said...

http://www.hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/598


Here's how Cooper's report puts it:
Quote:
----------------------------------
The dancers had a conversation at the car. Then they both re-entered the house through the back door. Once inside the house, other attendees apologized to the dancers for the earlier commnets. The individual who earlier held up the broomstick then approached the dancers which caused "Nikki" to become angry again, and the dancers went back into the bathroom alone together and refused to come out.

...

The dancers opened the bathroom door and left 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. for the second time through the back door sometime before 12:30 a.m. "Nikki" and Flannery together walked to her car parked on the street in front of the house. The accusing witness remained behind outside the house.

-----------------------------------


Kim Roberts 4/21/06:
Quote:

-----------------------------------
I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred - and I never will.
-----------------------------------

Quote:
-----------------------------------
I was there from the beginning to the end. The only thing I did not see was the rape, because I was not in the bathroom at that particular moment. Everything leading up to it, I was there. Everything leaving from it, I was there. And, mind you, I believe I was the only sober person in the place.

-----------------------------------

Comment: According the Dan, he and Kim left the accuser back in the bathroom by herself changing back into her clothes (when did she ever have them off?) The next time they saw her she was passed out on the back stoop.

Linwood Wilson's conversation with Roberts:


Quote:
-----------------------------------
"I need to tell you guys that I have thought about the time frame that night," Roberts said, according to Wilson's account. "I had originally said I wasn't away from her [Mangum] for more than 5 minutes but after thinking about it and what all I did it was more like 15 minutes or maybe a little more.

"...When I got inside I went into the master bedroom where some guys were watching TV and I could hear her [Crystal] in the bathroom with some guys, you know the door was open slightly I started to go in but one of the guys stepped in front of me. I told her I was leaving you know, through the door, and I turned around and went back to my car."

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

Here is another quote:

"According to Matt Zash's statement, it was he who threw the nails that he found in the bathroom into the trash, and not Evans. Was Evans DNA found on any other items that were thrown in the trash? How did Evans DNA get under that fingernail? Did Crystal scratch him? So many unanswered questions!"

Here is a quote from the News Observer regarding David Evans DNA. This was published on Wed, Aug. 02, 2006 12:00AM.

"The DNA is in addition to an inconclusive sample taken from a fake fingernail found in the bathroom where a woman hired to dance at the party said she was raped. Genetic material taken from that fingernail, which was in a trash can, could not exclude but was NOT A MATCH to Dave Evans, who lived at the house and has been indicted."(emphasis added).

Here is something I found on the web which makes an interesting point:

"DNA matching is however, constantly under question when used as evidence in court, as contamination of a sample is possible, even though strict precautions are put in place to prevent contamination. For example - a stain containing DNA was found at a crime scene in a country that has a population of 10 million people, and the crime scene DNA sample is accurate enough to match 1% of the population. A suspect is arrested and that person's DNA sample matches perfectly with the one found at the crime scene. The prosecutor argues that because only 1% of the population shares the same DNA profile, there is only a 1 in 100 chance that the person is innocent. The defence however, then argues that if 1% of the population share the same DNA, then there could be 99 999 (1% of 10 million minus 1) other individuals who could have possibly been at the scene of the crime. Presuming innocence, the odds of the suspect being guilty are actually 1 in 100 000."

The url is http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_pti_dna_matching.htm.

According to Wikipedia the population of the Raleigh area is 1,635,974. If half are males that would be 817,987. Say the DNA recovered on the fingernail matched 2% of the male population. 2% of 871,987 is 16360. In this scenario, the chance of the DNA belonging to David Evans would be 1 in 16360, a probability of .00006 0r .006%.

I admit I do not know what makes a positive DNA match. I have read of DNA testing establishing probabilities of 99.99%, the chance of the tested DNA being the suspect's DNA is 9999 out of 10,000. For the DNA on the fingernails to be a match to David Evans, the probability has to be more than 0.0006, six ten thousanths per cent.

That is not the only issue. DNA analysis turned up no evidence of any Lacrosse player's DNA on cgm's person and did turn up DNA which matched a number of other men, non Lacrosse players. How did that happen when cgm told DUMC personnel that she was penetrated by her assailants who did not use condoms and who ejaculated on her. The answer is it could not have happened the way cgm described. If it did, the perpetrators would have left DNA which matched them with more probability than the fingernail DNA matched David Evans.

Injustice58 is arguing that exculpatory evidence should have been excluded from the trial, that only inculpatory evidence should have been presented. The law does not work that way.

So injustice58, the question is, why is the fingernail DNA significant, the lack of DNA on cgm's person insignificant?

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

"...When I got inside I went into the master bedroom where some guys were watching TV and I could hear her [Crystal] in the bathroom with some guys, you know the door was open slightly I started to go in but one of the guys stepped in front of me. I told her I was leaving you know, through the door, and I turned around and went back to my car."



So........According to Kim Pittman's statemnt to Linwood Wilson, Crystal was alone in that bathroom with someone but who?

unbekannte said...

More from biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58:

"That's just laughable! Crystal wasn't charged with a crime. She has NO reason to clear her name. Are you out of your mind?"

If there is no reason for cgm to clear her name, there is no justification for a court trial. The evidence indicates she did falsely accuse the Lacrosse players of raping her. It was not the first time she accused men of gang raping her.

How do you get she had a right to a day in court because of her false allegations? I say again, falsely accusing an individual of a crime does not merit an accuser any right to have the accused prosecuted.

Again you show you do not really believe that the law is the law, that no one is above the law.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

If there is no reason for cgm to clear her name, there is no justification for a court trial. The evidence indicates she did falsely accuse the Lacrosse players of raping her. It was not the first time she accused men of gang raping her.



Did Roy Cooper say Crystal made a false accusation? Did he prove Crystal was lying?


Hell To The Naw

He gave his opinion and that's like a nose....everyone has one!

Justice58 said...

How do you get she had a right to a day in court



What I believe is, if you're a poor black woman standing alone against Mega bucks, you don't! Never again will I ever believe a black woman can get equal justice in America.

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

You got the Kim Roberts story wrong. The exchange of epithets began with Kim Roberts calling one of the lacrosser players a limp dick white boy, sorry for the profanity. The thank your granddaddy for the shirt was in response to that. So, you believe black people can use racial epithets and white people can not.

The only time when the N word was used was when Kim Roberts used 911 to report being called the N word.

Kim Roberts initial story was that the rape never happened. She was a convicted felon, on probation for embezzlement I believe. There are reports that "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong then called her in and threatened her with loss of probation if she did not change her story. Can we say witness intimidation, boys and girls.

No lacrosse player ever acted that night the way you described. Farm Animal Houston Baker's remark came weeks after that after the mother of an unindicted lacrosse player emailed him and asked him to reconsider his opinion after evidence of innocence came out. Farm Animal Baker responded by calling the woman a liar and calling her son a farm animal. It seems Farm Animal Baker, like you, is afraid to confront the truth.

Finally, you are wrong about the declaration of innocence. The evidence, which you like to conceal and distort, just like your hero "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) mike nifong. Why don't you address the issue of the DNA evidence. I asked you once before and you told me to go ask cgm. cgm is just as terrified as you about confronting the truth.

Harr de Harr Harr

I am having a real good time

Regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

"Did Roy Cooper say Crystal made a false accusation? Did he prove Crystal was lying?"

If you really saw the overwhelmingly reelected NCAG Roy Cooper's news conference, you would have heard that Roy Cooper did believe cgm had lied. He did not prosecute her because he felt she was mentally derangned, that prosecuting her would not serve the interests of justice(a word with which you are totally unfamiliar).

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

The exchange of epithets began with Kim Roberts calling one of the lacrosser players a limp dick white boy, sorry for the profanity.



How is it racist to call a person a "limp dick white boy"? If the dick was limp...It is, what it is!

You left out the part where Kim stated he had to "buy" it because he couldn't get it on his own! But the question is...How did she know it was limp? She had to see it and if so, what was the guy doing with it out LOL!

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

"Crystal Mangum wanted to go forward with the case. According to Roy Cooper's words, Crystal cooperated. But yet she wasn't allowed for her case to be heard in a court of law. A trial would have determined guilt or not guilty. Therefore, we will never know what really happened in that bathroom."

Whether or not cgm wanted to go ahead with the case is irrelevant. She had no right to a day in a criminal court. The evidence which you try to obfuscate and conceal and obscure indicated she had no case. There was no evidence that a crime had been committed. Your attempts to point out what you think are evidence are really attempts to obscure the real evidence. The law(the law is the law, no one is above the law) forbids a prosecutor from going to trial in a case where the evidence shows no crime.

The evidence actually did exonerate the defendants, it did prove their innocence. Under those circumstances why should they have been required to stand trial?

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

"You left out the part where Kim stated he had to "buy" it because he couldn't get it on his own! But the question is...How did she know it was limp? She had to see it and if so, what was the guy doing with it out LOL!"

Maybe you should explain where and how you acquired your knowledge of white men's phalluses.

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

If you really saw the overwhelmingly reelected NCAG Roy Cooper's news conference, you would have heard that Roy Cooper did believe cgm had lied. He did not prosecute her because he felt she was mentally derangned, that prosecuting her would not serve the interests of justice(a word with which you are totally unfamiliar).




Puhleeeeeeze! He didn't because he didn't/couldn't prove Crystal was lying! He stated himself that Crystal believed she was assaulted and wanted to continue to trial.

Save the BS Unbekannte!

Justice58 said...

Maybe you should explain where and how you acquired your knowledge of white men's phalluses





I'll never tell...lol

unbekannte said...

Hey biased bigoted racist bigot injustice58

Sorry to disillusion you again, but your hero "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) mike nifong did inject race into the cgm case, when he went public and declared that a rape had happened, that it was racially motivated and that lacrosse players were the perpetrators.

With the NBPP, who entered the courtroom armed when Colin Finnerty was arraigned, who threatened and tried to intimidate him, did your hero nifong try to stop them. Did he try to stop the NBPP members who entered Duke Univesity and loudly demanded that the Lacrosse players be found guilty? He had an obligation under the law(the law is the law, no one is above the law) to protect a defendant from such activity. He failed to do so.

Or are you saying the NBPP was justified in what they did. You have shown that you do believe people of a certain skin color are above the law.

Harr de Harr Harr

Regards,

Ubes

Justice58 said...

Whether or not cgm wanted to go ahead with the case is irrelevant. She had no right to a day in a criminal court.



Hmmmm...

So her complaint against the spoiled rich should be ignored because she's black, poor and "just a stripper"?

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist injustice58

"Puhleeeeeeze! He didn't because he didn't/couldn't prove Crystal was lying! He stated himself that Crystal believed she was assaulted and wanted to continue to trial."

No he didn't. He said he believed cgm really believed her delusions and it was not in the interest to prosecute someone so delusional.

You really did not watch the news conference, did you.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased racist prejudiced injustice58

"So her complaint against the spoiled rich should be ignored because she's black, poor and "just a stripper"?"

No, her complaint was dismissed because none of the evidence in the case supported her allegations. She was not a credible accuser.

Witnesses, under the law, are expected to be credible. You are saying cgm should have been exempt from that expectation. You do believe cgm was above the law

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

ubes

Justice58 said...

With the NBPP, who entered the courtroom armed when Colin Finnerty was arraigned, who threatened and tried to intimidate him, did your hero nifong try to stop them. Did he try to stop the NBPP members who entered Duke Univesity and loudly demanded that the Lacrosse players be found guilty? He had an obligation under the law(the law is the law, no one is above the law) to protect a defendant from such activity. He failed to do so.

Or are you saying the NBPP was justified in what they did. You have shown that you do believe people of a certain skin color are above the law.





Mr. Nifong didn't know what took place outside nor inside of the courtrooom with the NBPP. He can't stop something he did not hear nor see! You know very well the NBPP wasn't allowed on Duke University. Stop making things up. And for your info...I don't approve/condone the NBPP. But I will say people have a right to protest and march. The Klan is even allowed that. But you already know that.

unbekannte said...

Hey biased racist prejudiced bigot injustice58

"So her complaint against the spoiled rich should be ignored because she's black, poor and "just a stripper"?"

If you really believed that the law is the law, that no one is above the law, you would know that even "just a stripper" is not exempt from having to make her case. Since when does being "just a stripper" confer upon and individual the right to accuse and then not corroborate?

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

No, her complaint was dismissed because none of the evidence in the case supported her allegations. She was not a credible accuser.


Said Roy Cooper? LOL

Puhleeze!!!!!!!!!!!!

Justice58 said...

If you really believed that the law is the law, that no one is above the law, you would know that even "just a stripper" is not exempt from having to make her case. Since when does being "just a stripper" confer upon and individual the right to accuse and then not corroborate?


No. Lets not play games. One of the players used the words "she's just a stripper" as if it didn't matter about her because of what she did for money. Strippers are included in equal protection under the law.

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

"What I believe is, if you're a poor black woman standing alone against Mega bucks, you don't! Never again will I ever believe a black woman can get equal justice in America."

It brings us back to a civil suit. If cgm had a case, a reasonable chance of recovery of a large amount of money, she could have an advocate prosecute a case for her. As the lawyer ads say, you don't pay unless you collect. So why hasn't cgm filed a civil suit. Why has she not gotten offers to represent her from people like Wendy Murphy or Nancy Grace, both at one time fervent supporters of cgm. I understand Willy Gary, a prominent trial lawyer famous for recovering large awards for his clients, once conferred with cgm. What ever became of Willy Gary.

It would seem the opinion of the legal profession is that cgm does not have a case.

You have a distorted sense of justice if you believe innocent men should be convicted and imprisoned solely on the word of an non credible witness like cgm.

Roy Cooper did say that her accounts all varied wildly, even after he got involved in the case. That does not say credibility.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

Justice58 said...

You swear by your posterior that cgm should not have to go to civil court, that she should be heard in a criminal court. You know that now cgm will never get into criminal court




Hmmmmm...

Wonder will Eric Holder feel the same way?

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

"No. Lets not play games. One of the players used the words "she's just a stripper" as if it didn't matter about her because of what she did for money. Strippers are included in equal protection under the law."

Everyone is entitled to the protection under the law, especially those who are falsely accused.

Are you saying that a stripper who falsely accuses innocent men of a heinous crime deserves to be protected from the consequences? That would be true only if the stripper were above the law. Your precepts are that the law is the law, that no one is above the law.

Are you also saying the Lacrosse players were not entitled to the protection of the law? You seem to think that cgm was the only one with rights in this case.

Harr de Harr Harr

regards

Ubes

unbekannte said...

Hey biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58

"You swear by your posterior that cgm should not have to go to civil court, that she should be heard in a criminal court. You know that now cgm will never get into criminal court




Hmmmmm...

Wonder will Eric Holder feel the same way?"

Probably not. However, how could he prosecute the lacrosse players? What could he charge them with? I don't think he would dare to conceal evidence and lie about it. Without those maneuvers, he would have no case against the Lacrosse players.

Justice58 said...

Eric Holder is NO Alberto Gonzales!

Justice58 said...

I don't think he would dare to conceal evidence and lie about it.

Why would he? Eric Holder is NOT that way, Unbekannte!



Without those maneuvers, he would have no case against the Lacrosse players.


Let you tell it!

ChickyGirl said...

unbekannet posted:

Get that? Your hero, "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong was involved in prosecuting Michael Peterson. How come you never mentioned that?


Because he wasn't dumb shit. Harden (DA at the time) and Freda Black prosecuted that case. Besides Peterson was guilty as sin.
He killed two women by beating them and pushing them down staircases.
I didn't know he graduated from Duke. LOL

krddurham said...

When Mike Nifong farts, Victoria Peterson sniffs in delight.

Thankfully, most people in Durham see Vicky P. as the nut job she is. Her obsession with defending guilty, white guys (The Fong and Michael Peterson) is strange...and hilarious. Thanks for all the laughs over the years, Vicky!