Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Response to Walt-in-Durham

I would like to thank all those who comment for their insightful and intelligent statements, especially Walt-in-Durham. It is my intention to get a discussion board soon on the justice4nifong.com web site (it is currently undergoing complete renovation to make it more interesting, more interactive, more entertaining, and easier to navigate) so that these interesting comments can be more widely viewed and provoke more involvement.

There are several issues brought up by Walt with which I strongly disagree. Foremost, I believe that Mr. Nifong’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case was well within accepted standards practiced by prosecutors throughout the state, and I do not believe that anything that he said or did compromised their ability to get a fair trial. Furthermore, I believe that other prosecutors have conducted themselves far more egregiously. North Carolina prosecutors have destroyed key exculpatory evidence (Theodore Jerry Williams case), fabricated false confessions (Floyd Brown case), produced false eyewitnesses (James Arthur Johnson case), withheld crucial exculpatory evidence in obtaining a capital conviction (Alan Gell case), withheld key exculpatory evidence of possible murder weapon (Michael Peterson case), held people in jail for years on charges without probable cause (Gerardo Vilchez and Victor Hugo Lopez), and much more. Yet none of these prosecutors have been disciplined or disbarred. Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. And it is this selective and excessively harsh treatment against Mr. Nifong that is the crux of our objection to his disbarment. Discipline of state prosecutors should be equally applied by the State Bar, not selectively. And if all of the prosecutors were held to the standards used to disbar Mr. Nifong, then 95% of the prosecutors in North Carolina would be disbarred.

With regards to my ascertain that the prosecutors, police and media whipped up a frenzy against James Arthur Johnson, Walt-in-Durham attributes Mr. Nifong’s statements to the media about the Duke Lacrosse case to be equally as detrimental to the defendants. I disagree on several fronts because the cases are not that comparable. In the James Arthur Johnson case, it was Johnson who went to the Wilson Police department with information that solved the murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery of Wilson teen Brittany Willis. Johnson had no part in the crime, and the Wilson investigators knew it. However, when James Johnson mentioned that he had wiped fingerprints off the victim’s car, the prosecutors felt they had a charge they could fall back on, and set about to implicate him in the crime. They did this by telling the killer, Kenneth Meeks, that his friend had snitched on him. As they expected, the angry young lad, then implicated James Johnson to get even with him for going to the police. The police then used this statement from the confessed killer as the sole reason for charging Johnson as an accomplice in the crime. Why would they go after Johnson even though they knew he was innocent? The answer is “transference.” Kenneth Meeks and James Johnson are both African Americans, and because one African American lad commits a heinous crime, the urge on the part of police and prosecutors is to punish as many African American boys as possible, without regard to their innocence or guilt. The Wilson Police and prosecutors knew Johnson was innocent, but they tried to convict him and sentence him to death anyway. UNC School of Law Professor Rich Rosen speaks about this specifically in his article “Framing an innocent man: Prosecutor in Johnson case demonstrated racial discrimination.” Something similar happened in the Eve Carson murder. After two young African American boys were arrested and charged with the murder, Governor Mike Easley offered a $10,000.00 reward for anyone who may have had contact with them, using a charge of “accessory after the fact.” It was as if they were trawling for other young African Americans to punish in order to help quench their rage.

The Wilson Police and prosecutors, in arresting Johnson, knew that he was innocent, but persisted, even though he had helped solve the crime. Their reasoning is as follows: Johnson and Meeks kidnapped Brittany, Johnson kills Brittany, then after the family and friends offer a $20,000.00 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator Johnson goes to the police to turn in his accomplice for the crime so that he could collect the reward. Although there is no evidence linking Johnson to the crime, the police and prosecutors by their statements to the public and their actions lead the people of Wilson to believe Johnson was involved in the crime. The media does not question in their editorial or opinion pages why the police would arrest the young man who solved the crime, and they do not question why he did not receive the reward which he had earned.

Had the police, prosecutors and media acted responsibly, James Arthur Johnson would have been considered by the townspeople as being a hero for going against the “no snitch rule” of the streets, held out as a role model to other young black youth, and received the $20,000.00 reward from a grateful Willis family. Instead, he spent 39 months incarcerated, awaiting trial while the prosecutor tried to force him to accept a plea deal. The prosecutor knowing they couldn’t go to trial once Kenneth Meeks recanted his statements which implicated Johnson, then arranged for two eyewitnesses with links to the Wilson Police Department. When Reverend Barber got involved, they had to shelve that and move forward with Johnson’s act of wiping fingerprints off the car. So, they arranged for Belinda Foster to come in as a special prosecutor, drop the charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery (which they knew they couldn’t win), and charged him with “accessory after the fact.” After wasting a considerable amount of taxpayer money with a private sector special prosecutor, Johnson finally accepted an Alford plea to a charge of waiting three days before telling police about his knowledge of a crime. A great injustice caused by gross prosecutorial misconduct, but the Wilson prosecutors are protected by the attorney general, the State Bar, and the media.

The Duke Lacrosse case is much different because the defendants were all present at the party on that fateful evening in March 2006. The defendants were identified by the victim/accuser with 80-100% positive identification. The Duke lacrosse team, in particular, had been known for its raucous parties in the past, and the lacrosse coach had been warned beforehand to rein in his party-going team members. The raucous party of March 2006 was living up to its well-deserved reputation, with drugs, booze, under-aged drinking, and hired strippers when the alleged assault took place. When, the victim/accuser left the party, racial epithets were also alleged to have been hurled at the African American accuser.

Eyewitness identification alone is often grounds used by North Carolina prosecutors to bring sexual assault charges against an individual, even lacking the presence of any physical evidence. Ronald Cotton, an African American male who was picked up off the street and placed in a line up, was identified by a female rape victim as her assailant. After serving a decade or so in jail he was released when exonerated by DNA evidence. Dwayne Dail, was identified by a twelve year old sexual assault victim who believed that she recognized him in a supermarket. Without evidence tying him to the crime, he was convicted and spent nearly two decades in jail before being released by DNA evidence. In these two cases the accuser/victims with absolute certainty got the identification of the assailant wrong, however, the prosecutors prosecuting the cases were not hauled before the North Carolina State Bar, disciplined or disbarred. Nor were the prosecutors’ names dragged through the mud by the media. Finally, the prosecutors were not ostracized by the public. In relying on the victim/accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, Mr. Nifong was well within the prosecutorial standards of North Carolina prosecutors in charging the three defendants with crimes, as he did.

Now, some may say, as you, Walt, that nothing untoward took place that March evening in 2006... that the complaint lodged by the alleged victim/accuser was nothing more than a hoax. I presume this belief is based on the fact that the State Bureau of Investigation, under Attorney General Roy Cooper investigated and found that no crime had been committed. My response to that is, how can one have credence in anything the SBI says after it investigated the injuries sustained by inmate Timothy Helms while in solitary confinement, and can’t figure out how he sustained two skull fractures (leaving him a quadriplegic) and welts over his torso consistent with those made by billy clubs. No charges were filed against the correctional officers who had contact with Mr. Helms, however, Mr. Helms was charged with setting a fire and destroying state property.

The truth is that we will never know what happened that night in the house on Buchanan Street because the Attorney General took over the investigation, and essentially quashed it. Like others, especially those more familiar with the case than I am, I agree that some wrongdoing took place against the victim at the Duke lacrosse party. The exact nature of the crime(s) I am unsure. But what I am certain of is that Mr. Mike Nifong conducted himself with acceptable standards of prosecutors throughout the state, which makes his selective disbarment all the more outrageous.

I am not exactly certain why the media, locally, nationally, and worldwide, latched onto the Duke Lacrosse case. However, the media chose to zero in on the Duke Lacrosse case, and a slew of reporters were sent to the Bull City to cover it. Mr. Nifong was merely attempting to cooperate with the news media by giving interviews, from what I can tell. I do not recollect any statements he made which were so inflammatory that it would assure a conviction. In my opinion, a jury that is seated for a trial will base its verdict on the evidence that is presented, and not rely on statements made in a television interview. I have confidence in North Carolinians to be more responsible when placed in a position to decide the fate of a defendant. I believe pre-trial interviews by both defendants and prosecutors are far over-hyped in importance… especially in the Duke Lacrosse case. But whether in the Duke Lacrosse case, the James Johnson case, or any other case, once an individual is charged with a crime, he/she is automatically perceived by the public to be guilty, for why else would they be charged in the first place? So any pre-trial statements made by attorneys do not convey the weight of importance as is being suggested in the Duke Lacrosse case.

In summation, the willful charges and actions against James Johnson by prosecutors who knew of his innocence in crimes against Brittany Willis, along with unbalanced coverage by the media, were responsible for turning James Johnson from a hero to a villain, and dividing the town along racial lines. On the other hand, charges entered against the three defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case by Mr. Nifong, were made in good faith, and based, in part, upon statements made by the victim/accuser. It was the media, not Mr. Nifong, who stirred up the public, again, with its unbalanced reporting. If anything, Mr. Nifong can be sited for trying to cooperate with the media by responding straight forwardly and honestly to all of their questions. In the final analysis, the media whipped up a frenzy against defendant James Arthur Johnson, whereas they whipped up a frenzy against prosecutor Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse case. Selectively and unjustly in both instances.

46 comments:

sherwooa said...

Your counterargument to Walt is so erroneous that it is laughable.

Firstly, to argue that Nifong acted within the parameters of DA's in the state is to argue that he didn't commit misconduct because "everyone else does it too." This is flawed logic of the first order.

Secondly, one needn't place any credence at all in the SBI's conclusion to safely say that nothing "happened" (certainly not a crime) to Crystal Mangum that night. Most of the evidence became public record, including the negative DNA tests (and DNA tests that showed multiple matches for other males, none of whom was on the Duke lacrosse team), Mangum's many and conflicting accounts of what happened that night, the stacked police lineup from which Mangum could never correctly identify her alleged assailants (she positively ID'd ones who were not even at the party a few times), and the lack of any physical evidence of assault, rape, trauma, etc. All of this became public record before Cooper ever got involved and you should know it. If you don't, then shame on you for not better researching the case.

Nifong's misconduct, fraud and dishonesty have been painstakingly detailed in his disbarrment procedings. I suggest you read them to better understand the extend of his misdeeds.

sherwooa said...

And while I don't know any of the details of the cases, the prosecutors in the Cotton and Dail cases probably were not hauled before the NC State Bar because they didn't wilfully commit fraud and misconduct. They may have gone on nothing more than accuser testimony, but unless you can present evidence that shows that they comitted misconducted, the differene to the Nifong case is stark. The evidence showed, pretty conclusively, that Nifong KNEW that the Duke players were in fact innocent when he indicted them. Sure, he relied on the accuser to accuse, but he also deliberately ignored exculpatory evidence that contradicted the accuser's multiple accounts. That is misconduct, plain and simple, and deserves harsh penalty.

Justice58 said...

"The truth is that we will never know what happened that night in the house on Buchanan Street because the Attorney General took over the investigation, and essentially quashed it. Like others, especially those more familiar with the case than I am, I agree that some wrongdoing took place against the victim at the Duke lacrosse party. The exact nature of the crime(s) I am unsure. But what I am certain of is that Mr. Mike Nifong conducted himself with acceptable standards of prosecutors throughout the state, which makes his selective disbarment all the more outrageous".




Great Article, Sidney!


Speak truth to power!

MrOG37 said...

Wow. It's the blind leading the blind over here. I guess some people just can't bother to be burdened by facts!

Justice58 said...

"Wow. It's the blind leading the blind over here. I guess some people just can't bother to be burdened by facts"!





Not when your "facts" are ladened with lies & distortions.

MrOG37 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MrOG37 said...

Not when your "facts" are ladened with lies & distortions.

First of all, it's "laden", not "ladened." Secondly, that's a pretty weaksauce response. Do you have any actual evidence to support your theory that the facts are "ladened with lies and distortions"? What exactly have I distorted? Please enlighten me...LOL.

Justice58 said...

" Do you have any actual evidence to support your theory that the facts are "ladened with lies and distortions"?




For starters...look no further than the comments that whacked Bill Anderson writes and lets not leave out the lying liar KC Johnson...then get back to me! ;)

MrOG37 said...

For starters...look no further than the comments that whacked Bill Anderson writes and lets not leave out the lying liar KC Johnson...then get back to me! ;)


Don't refer me to other blogs; that's misdirection to take the focus off of the fact that your argument has no merit. Just refute the facts as I have discussed them above. Otherwise, I'll have no choice but to lump you into the "I have nothing of substance to add here, but I'll just bash others" crowd. Forget the blogs - do some research on the case, read the articles in the mainstream press, watch the video from Nifong's disbarment proceedings, and then get back to me. Otherwise, you're wasting my time. ;)

Justice58 said...

"Don't refer me to other blogs; that's misdirection to take the focus off of the fact that your argument has no merit. Just refute the facts as I have discussed them above. Otherwise, I'll have no choice but to lump you into the "I have nothing of substance to add here, but I'll just bash others" crowd. Forget the blogs - do some research on the case, read the articles in the mainstream press, watch the video from Nifong's disbarment proceedings, and then get back to me. Otherwise, you're wasting my time". ;)




rotflmao!

You came here asking questions....you dope!

MrOG37 said...

First of all, I posted facts first, which you haven't yet refuted with anything besides ad-hominem attacks and unsubstantiated remarks. Typical troll behavior.

Secondly, though I don't honestly expect someone at your level of (un)intelligence to really understand, I asked what is referred to as a "rhetorical" question (here you go sweetie: http://www.answers.com/topic/rhetorical-question). I asked a question that I knew you couldn't answer because your argument (that CGM was in some way harmed or criminally victimized in March of 2006 by the Duke Lacrosse team) has no basis in actual fact and you know it. I challenge you to show me one shred of evidence (not from a blog) that indicates that any member of the Duke lacrosse team did anything to CGM other than to hire her to dance.

Good night, troll.

Justice58 said...

LMAO!


Isn't that rich...A troll accusing me of being a troll?! GTFOH!

MrOG37 said...

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And the truth shall set you free!

MrOG37 said...

Here's a little educational reading for you folks:

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2007/7/12/NIFONGFINDINGS.pdf

"Nifong’s misconduct resulted in significant actual harm to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and their families...Nifong’s misconduct resulted in significant actual harm to the legal profession. Nifong’s conduct has created an impression among the public within and outside of North Carolina that lawyers in general and prosecutors in particular cannot be trusted and can be expected to lie to the court and to opposing counsel
...
Nifong’s misconduct resulted in significant actual harm to the justice system. Nifong has caused an impression among the public within and outside of North Carolina that there is a systemic problem in the North Carolina justice system and that a criminal defendant can only get justice if he or she can afford to hire an expensive lawyer with unlimited resources to figure out what is being withheld by the prosecutor
...
Nifong's misconduct is aggravated by the following factors:

a. dishonest or selfish motive;
b. a pattern of misconduct;
c. multiple offenses;
d. refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct in connection with his handling of the DNA evidence;
e. vulnerability of the victims, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans; and
f. substantial experience in the practice of law."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1509633/
"During the five-day ethics trial, Nifong acknowledged he knew there was no DNA evidence connecting lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty to the 28-year-old woman who accused them of attacking her when he indicted them on charges of rape, sexual offense and kidnapping a year ago. Nifong later charged player David Evans with the same crimes."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1636446/
"I agree with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76WfBZGr5sE&feature=PlayList&p=D06C8AC3497B3ABA&index=0

Williamson finds no evidence to support any of CGM's assertions, and Nifong failed to consider the facts and evidence before making an accusation.

Notice there's not a single reference to a blog in there? Let me guess: it's a vast white media conspiracy to whitewash the truth, right?

Now show me what you've got, Justice58. I expect just another dopey one-liner response, LOL.

Justice58 said...

"I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And the truth shall set you free!"



If someone smacked you around all day long, you still wouldn't recognize truth. Then again...maybe you like getting smacked around? :) LMAO!

MrOG37 said...

If someone smacked you around all day long, you still wouldn't recognize truth. Then again...maybe you like getting smacked around? :) LMAO!

Smack me with the truth, baby! As they said in Ghostbusters, "We're ready to believe you!"

I'm still waiting...LOL

Justice58 said...

Yikes!

Your quoting from the NewsObserver? Please!

Your speaking about a newspaper that 1. didn't question the North Carolina Bar intervening into the Duke Lacrosse case while there was an on-going investigation,2. A newspaper that was biased in reporting of the Duke lacrosse case? It's f^ckery!


Don't make me nauseous this morning!

MrOG37 said...

You're an idiot. The quotes aren't from the N&O. They are from the actual findings document from the disbarment hearing!

And how about Nifong's exact quotes in WRAL? And the NBC video? Were those "doctored" in some way? LOL.

Still waiting for your "evidence"...humdedum...

MrOG37 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MrOG37 said...

Looks like the N&O link to the disbarment findings got cut off. Here is a shorter version:

http://tinyurl.com/ntgqfl

Justice58 said...

They are from the actual findings document from the disbarment hearing!



Yes, but it's biased f^ckery and the newsobserver didn't do investigative reporting to find out why was the NC Bar intervening in the Duke lacrosse case when it hadn't before, when other prosecutors were accused of gross misconduct. (Ask Alan Gell)

MrOG37 said...

Yes, but it's biased f^ckery
and the newsobserver didn't do investigative reporting to find out why was the NC Bar intervening in the Duke lacrosse case when it hadn't before, when other prosecutors were accused of gross misconduct. (Ask Alan Gell)


What exactly is biased about the disbarment hearing? Please, do tell! And what's biased about the other quotes I posted, including the ones where Nifong admits to there being no evidence? Maybe he was under the influence of heavy drugs when he said that?

The reason the NC State Bar investigated Nifong was because it received numerous complaints on his unethical and fraudulent conduct from multiple sources, and because the national media jumped on this story, bringing bad publicity to the NC legal system. There was therefore no need for any paper to "do investigative reporting to find out why was the NC Bar intervening in the Duke lacrosse case when it hadn't before". And just because the NC Bar hadn't intervened before doesn't make it wrong that they did this time. Don't get me wrong, I understand why you are arguing for less intervention in this case (because the accuser was black and the alleged perpetrators were white), but by discouraging intervention, you actually set the stage for more innocent blacks to be railroaded through the justice system by rogue prosecutors. Be careful what you ask for.

Are you related to CGM or Nifong somehow? Only someone so clearly connected would be so blind or stupid. It's like arguing with a child who puts his hands up to his ears and screams "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" when he doesn't like what he hears. Oh well.

Justice58 said...

The reason the NC State Bar investigated Nifong was because it received numerous complaints on his unethical and fraudulent conduct from multiple sources




Gasp! Those sources wouldn't be rich relatives of the accused, huh?


And just because the NC Bar hadn't intervened before doesn't make it wrong that they did this time.

Yes it does! Why not intervene when a man's life is on the line? Is not a human life more important than rich spoil asses that use Durham as their sand box?

MrOG37 said...

Gasp! Those sources wouldn't be rich relatives of the accused, huh?


You mean like Congressman Walter Jones, Jr.? Was he related to the accused? Were the defense attorneys related? And what difference does it make how much money the accused have, or how much you think they have? Does that make them any less innocent? Pre-judging based on income level sounds pretty racist to me.

Yes it does! Why not intervene when a man's life is on the line? Is not a human life more important than rich spoil asses that use Durham as their sand box?

Maybe they should have intervened in those situations too, but are you actually arguing that a guy like Alan Gell, who has been convicted of rape, auto theft & cocaine possession is more worthy of intervention than three Duke students whose only crime in your eyes is that they are supposedly "rich", just because he happens to be a black Durham resident? Pardon me, but that sounds a wee bit...er...racist.

MrOG37 said...

Oh, and in case you were wondering about the source of the complaints, here you go:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1119292/

"The North Carolina Attorney General's Office has received more than 400 complaints about Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, according to an attorney general's representative.

Nifong, who critics say improperly withheld DNA evidence from defense attorneys in the Duke lacrosse investigation, has come under scrutiny recently from local and national state lawmakers, most recently state Rep. Stephen LaRoque, R-Wayne.

LaRoque on Tuesday called for the state to give the attorney general power to investigate how DAs handle cases.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy Cooper said Wednesday that he would "be glad to add this to his list of duties if the General Assembly sees fit to do so."

Third District Congressman Walter Jones has written twice to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to ask for a federal investigation of whether the civil rights of the three defendants in the case—David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann—were violated"

No investigation needed!

Justice58 said...

Were the defense attorneys related?


The defense was just whoring after money! Most have sold their soul to the devil already.



And what difference does it make how much money the accused have, or how much you think they have? Does that make them any less innocent? Pre-judging based on income level sounds pretty racist to me.


It makes a big difference if one use their money & connections to influence the outcome of a legal situation. That kind of conduct would result in significant harm to the justice system. Just saying...




Maybe they should have intervened in those situations too, but are you actually arguing that a guy like Alan Gell, who has been convicted of rape, auto theft & cocaine possession is more worthy of intervention than three Duke students


Hmmmm.... Are you saying class should make a difference when judging people? It doesn't matter what Alan Gell did or did not do. This is about equal justice.

Just because a person doesn't have mega bucks doesn't mean his life is meaningless!

Justice58 said...

"The North Carolina Attorney General's Office has received more than 400 complaints about Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, according to an attorney general's representative.




400 complaints from LS, DIW, no doubt! Duh!


A spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy Cooper said Wednesday that he would "be glad to add this to his list of duties if the General Assembly sees fit to do so."




Roy Cooper used the Duke Lacrosse case to advance his political career!

Why did he drop out of the Senate race? Inquiring minds want to know!

MrOG37 said...

It makes a big difference if one use their money & connections to influence the outcome of a legal situation. That kind of conduct would result in significant harm to the justice system. Just saying...

Why? In fact, it's just the opposite. The fact that it took as much money as it did to expose the level of fraud and corruption present by your elected leaders is the scary part. Nifong is the one who harmed the justice system, not the defendants or Cheshire, Bannon, etc. Did you condemn Joe Cheshire for defending Alan Gell as well? Had he already sold his soul to the devil when he was defending him?

Hmmmm.... Are you saying class should make a difference when judging people?

Not at all. I was arguing just the opposite, but it appears you are arguing that class makes a difference.

Just because a person doesn't have mega bucks doesn't mean his life is meaningless!

Exactly. And just because a person has mega bucks (or you believe he or she does) doesn't mean he should be presumed guilty because he can afford a top notch defense attorney.

Still waiting for your dazzling evidence of "crimes" against CGM, and "bias" against Nifong. I guess I'm going to be waiting for a long time, LOL.

MrOG37 said...

Roy Cooper used the Duke Lacrosse case to advance his political career!

Evidence, please. Oh wait, that's right...you don't actually have any factual basis for your claims. All you've got is:

"Bias!"
"Lies and distortions!"
"Damn blogs/bloggers!"
"Rich white boys!"

The vast right-wing/white/media/affluent conspiracy strikes again! LOL...

Justice58 said...

Did you condemn Joe Cheshire for defending Alan Gell as well? Had he already sold his soul to the devil when he was defending him?


I condemned the defense when they held dog & pony shows on the courthouse step to expose Ms Mangum's private sexual life. I condemned the defense when they used the media to garner support for the accused. I condemed the defense for filing meaningless motions and then accusing Mr. Nifong of stone-walling. Just f^uckery!



Hmmmm.... Are you saying class should make a difference when judging people?

Not at all. I was arguing just the opposite, but it appears you are arguing that class makes a difference.


No you weren't. Your words: but are you actually arguing that a guy like Alan Gell, who has been convicted of rape, auto theft & cocaine possession is more worthy of intervention than three Duke students


Your words sounds pretty convincing to me that class makes a difference to YOU.


Still waiting for your dazzling evidence of "crimes" against CGM, and "bias" against Nifong. I guess I'm going to be waiting for a long time, LOL.


We'll all know the truth when Roy Cooper release the full disclosure of the Duke Lacrosse rape case file, won't we sweetie? ;)

MrOG37 said...

I condemned the defense when they held dog & pony shows on the courthouse step to expose Ms Mangum's private sexual life. I condemned the defense when they used the media to garner support for the accused. I condemed the defense for filing meaningless motions and then accusing Mr. Nifong of stone-walling. Just f^uckery!

Then did you equally condemn Mike Nifong when he knowingly, without any actual evidence, went out on his media blitz, giving over 100 interviews (by his own account) essentially pronouncing the Duke players guilty, & referring to them as "hooligans" who were not cooperating with authorities? Gosh, I thought class was unimportant to you? Hmmm???

Your words sounds pretty convincing to me that class makes a difference to YOU.

Look, I realize you're not real bright, but let me type my words again SLOWLY, and then maybe you'll get it. Here's what I actually wrote:
"are you actually arguing that a guy like Alan Gell, who has been convicted of rape, auto theft & cocaine possession is more worthy of intervention than three Duke students whose only crime in your eyes is that they are supposedly "rich", just because he happens to be a black Durham resident?"

See the emphasis there, especially on the last point that you chose to edit out? You see, sweetie, I was pointing out the flaws in your logic; i.e. that you're willing to defend a known (black) criminal over 3 innocent (white) males just because he is black and a Durham resident, and because the others are supposedly rich and white.

My answer to my own question is that Gell, despite the fact that he is a convicted criminal, should have never been prosecuted for the murder, and the state bar should have intervened in the prosecutorial misconduct. But that makes all the more evident that the state bar should have intervened (and thankfully did) in the case of 3 innocent men with no criminal record. You seem to think it wasn't warranted just because they were "rich and white". That's racist, plain and simple.

We'll all know the truth when Roy Cooper release the full disclosure of the Duke Lacrosse rape case file, won't we sweetie? ;)

Yah...and I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you too, LOL.

You do know that Roy Cooper is one of the most beloved Democrats in the state, right? And that he was re-elected by a huge margin? Clearly most intelligent people feel he is doing a good job.

Justice58 said...

See the emphasis there, especially on the last point that you chose to edit out? You see, sweetie, I was pointing out the flaws in your logic; i.e. that you're willing to defend a known (black) criminal over 3 innocent (white) males just because he is black and a Durham resident, and because the others are supposedly rich and white.


Sorry sweetie, but I'm not responsible for things you imagine in your mind. I'm assuming it's from all the smacking around you've taken. Geez, that can't be healthy, regardless if it's pleasurable for you...weirdo! lol



Roy Cooper cares only about his political career and how he can advance it. Now it makes me wonder why he stepped away from the Senate race? What could have happened to cause that? I am curious to know if it's because of some dirt being exposed?

MrOG37 said...

Alright, pumpkin, I'm done here. If all you've got are baseless accusations and repeats of the same mantras, then I'm wasting my time.

I am reminded of two sayings:

"I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant."

"Don't argue with idiots, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Fare-thee-well, idiot!

Justice58 said...

Then did you equally condemn Mike Nifong when he knowingly, without any actual evidence, went out on his media blitz, giving over 100 interviews (by his own account) essentially pronouncing the Duke players guilty, & referring to them as "hooligans" who were not cooperating with authorities?




I'm going to let Sidney Harr answer your question:


Foremost, I believe that Mr. Nifong’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case was well within accepted standards practiced by prosecutors throughout the state, and I do not believe that anything that he said or did compromised their ability to get a fair trial.

On the other hand, charges entered against the three defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case by Mr. Nifong, were made in good faith, and based, in part, upon statements made by the victim/accuser. It was the media, not Mr. Nifong, who stirred up the public, again, with its unbalanced reporting. If anything, Mr. Nifong can be sited for trying to cooperate with the media by responding straight forwardly and honestly to all of their questions.



Well stated, Sidney! Thank You!

MrOG37 said...

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/02/nifong-conspiracy-theorists.html

"I largely have avoided commenting on the strange “Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong” organization, put together by a self-described “lay person,” Sidney Harr. The group, which demands restoration of Mike Nifong’s law license, portrays the disgraced ex-DA as a victim of a conspiracy involving Attorney General Roy Cooper, the North Carolina Bar, various defense attorneys, Judge Osmond Smith, Moezeldin Elmostafa, the North Carolina legislature (for enacting the law, which Nifong ignored, requiring prosecutors to turn over all test results from NTO’s), and (perhaps) other, unnamed co-conspirators in Durham, in North Carolina, in other states, and in other countries as well. Given the vastness of the conspiracy against him, it’s remarkable that Nifong was able to sustain his groundless prosecution for as long as he did.

The blog and accompanying website nonetheless make for an enlightening read, if only for a glimpse at the ill-concealed rage against the lacrosse players that fueled Nifong’s political base in Durham (and, for that matter, the Group of 88 at Duke). In recent weeks, Harr has put together a “comic strip”—all in “good, clean fun,” and “not malicious,” he claimed—that, among other things, purports to find humor in the experiences of the players’ parents. He also penned a post wildly alleging the bribery of Elmostafa, a theory so bizarre even Nifong never made it.

Harr’s blog and website are an appropriate tribute to Nifong, in terms of both tone and intellectual quality. And, to the extent that Harr sustains the character assault against the lacrosse players, he is, ironically, helping the players’ civil suits, by showing the continued damage to their reputations from the improper actions of Nifong and the Durham Police Department."

Well stated, KC! Thank you!

Justice58 said...

The blog and accompanying website nonetheless make for an enlightening read, if only for a glimpse at the ill-concealed rage against the lacrosse players that fueled Nifong’s political base in Durham (and, for that matter, the Group of 88 at Duke). In recent weeks, Harr has put together a “comic strip”—all in “good, clean fun,” and “not malicious,” he claimed—that, among other things, purports to find humor in the experiences of the players’ parents. He also penned a post wildly alleging the bribery of Elmostafa, a theory so bizarre even Nifong never made it.


Harr’s blog and website are an appropriate tribute to Nifong, in terms of both tone and intellectual quality. And, to the extent that Harr sustains the character assault against the lacrosse players, he is, ironically, helping the players’ civil suits, by showing the continued damage to their reputations from the improper actions of Nifong and the Durham Police Department."




Translation: Wow, Sidney Harr is really good at what he does and I'd better add more lies & distortions to my narrative because Sidney Harr is countering with so much truth! :)

MrOG37 said...

Translation: Wow, Sidney Harr is really good at what he does and I'd better add more lies & distortions to my narrative because Sidney Harr is countering with so much truth! :)

I think it's time to adjust your meds...good luck with that!

Reuven said...

No doubt Barack Obama will be under tremendous pressure from his constituents to pardon Eve Carson's murderers. I don't think they'll spend more than a few years in jail, unfortunately.

Justice58 said...

To All Dads:


Happy Father's Day!

Enjoy your family & Have a Wonderful Day!

Walt said...

Thank you Sydney, I appreciate the opportunity to post here.

”There are several issues brought up by Walt with which I strongly disagree. Foremost, I
believe that Mr. Nifong’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case was well within accepted standards
practiced by prosecutors throughout the state....”


I certainly hope Nifong’s conduct is not within accepted standards throughout the state.
Indeed, I know several prosecutors in North Carolina and pursuing charges against obviously
innocent people is not accepted by them.

”....Yet none of these prosecutors have been disciplined or disbarred. Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred....”

The two, three, four wrongs make a right argument still doesn’t work.

“The defendants were identified by the
victim/accuser with 80-100% positive identification.”


Crystal Gail Mangum had failed on two attempts at identifying the defendants. Her third
attempt was in violation of the Durham PD’s own rules on identification procedures. That
identification has to be considered suggestive at best.

“Eyewitness identification alone is often grounds used by North Carolina prosecutors to
bring sexual assault charges against an individual, even lacking the presence of any physical
evidence.”


Not without a valid identification. Further, with such a sketchy identification, Nifong knew, or should have known, he needed physical evidence to make his case. There simply was none. No DNA, no wounds, no nothing.

“Dwayne Dail, was identified by a twelve year old sexual assault victim who believed that she recognized him in a supermarket. Without
evidence tying him to the crime, he was convicted and spent nearly two decades in jail before
being released by DNA evidence.”


In the lacrosse case the DNA evidence was available pre-trial. No point in wrongfully convicting
some people just to release them later.

“Now, some may say, as you, Walt, that nothing untoward took place that March evening in
2006... that the complaint lodged by the alleged victim/accuser was nothing more than a hoax.”


Nifong also admitted nothing criminal happened.

“My response to that is, how can one have credence in anything the SBI says....”

Actually the SBI’s involvement with the lacrosse case was minimal. They ran the first DNA tests.
The Durham Police Department handled the end of the investigation under the direction of the special prosecutors, not the SBI.

“The truth is that we will never know what happened that night in the house on Buchanan
Street....”


There is a very complete record of what happened. From that evidence, we know that no rape by the three defendants took place. There are
five other suspects, but the Durham Police and Durham District Attorney decided not to pursue
those suspects. From the evidence, we know that Seligman wasn’t even present when the alleged
attack was taking place. From the measurements taken of the bathroom at 601 N. Buchannan, we
know it’s highly unlikely that the attack took place in the way Crystal Gail Mangum described it.
Unfortunately, the DPD and Durham DA came up with an identification process that was almost
guaranteed to provide an inadmissable identification. That meant the DPD and DA were setting
themselves up for a strictly circumstantial evidence case. When the SBI and DNASI reports came
back without any matches, there was no case left. That all took place before the special
prosecutors got involved.

The case went downhill from there. Crystal Gail Mangum, who was never very consistent in her
versions of events, began to make huge changes to her story with the special prosecutors. Those
story changes voided whatever credibility she had left as a witness. That you can lay at the feet of the special prosecutors. But they were just doing the job that Nifong should have done ab initio, ask her the tough who, what, when, where and how questions.

Walt-in-Durham

Justice4Jack said...

Let me sum up "This Incredible Case That Captivated The Country."
Nifong used RACE as a means to gain the political position of District Attorney, KNOWING the LAX3 were innocent, and USED this to further his own agenda! To say he was "terribly mistreated & lynched" is absolutely INSANE!
And the REASON Magnum has not been "heard" from is because she KNOWS there was NO rape, PERIOD! And as for Nifong, his quote of "We're Fucked" is more than enough to hear from him!
THIS is also WHY there has not been ANY outcry on ANY of the sides for TRUE JUSTICE!
The LAX team was paid off, as was Nifong, Duke, and the city of Durham by their silence! I truly understand what it is like to BEG for JUSTICE from the state of NC, because my family, friends, and I, have fought 4 years to have a Federal Investigation into my brother's MURDER, and I have been threatened, lied to, and ignored, which has only made me stronger, because we DESERVE answers to a REAL CRIME that HAS been committed, and COVERED UP!
This ONE case, the "LAX HOAX" has absorbed far too much time, attention, and money, and I am asking for the citizens, and media to HELP my family! I have written THOUSANDS of letters, along with family, and friends to NUMEROUS officials in NC, Washington, and my own officials here in Ohio, and have been passed around like a dog to chase it's own tail!
So, to ALL of you out there who want to find a podium to grandstand on, then put on your seat belts, and climb on board!
I can tell you ALL about Easley deleting hundreds of our requests, along with Roy Cooper, the Durham DA, & Sheriff's Office, the DOJ, FBI, Senators all over, and a lot more, then you tell me there isn't MASSIVE CORRUPTION in the NC Legislature?!
I promised my brother, our mother, and God that I would not be intimidated, and is why I have gone public on so many blogs over the years.
FORGET about the LAX3, and think of the MURDERS that remain unsolved, including Janet Araboa, and Michelle Young! Who cares to fight for the dead who have NO voices?!
My family, friends, and I do, and again, if anybody out here reading this does to, PLEASE contact me!
Rhonda Fleming
Cleveland, Ohio
Justice4Jack
Sister of Allen Jackson Croft Jr.
Murdered May 11, 2005 in Durham
Justice4all2005@yahoo.com
www.myspace.com/sinnderrella

gak said...

To MrOG37
I posted here once before, and all they could do (justice58 and others) was to insult and try to bully me. Its like trying to convince a stone wall to get up and walk.

gak

Justice58 said...

gak said...
To MrOG37
I posted here once before, and all they could do (justice58 and others) was to insult and try to bully me. Its like trying to convince a stone wall to get up and walk.




You lie like a rug! I called bullsh!t on your lies. Justice4Nifong is not the lying Liestoppers Forum where you get to spew lies about Ms Mangum & Mr. Nifong and not be called on it.

Justice4Jack said...

Well, I HAVE called Nifong out, and the state of NC, and what answers have we got? SILENCE! The "hypocrites" at Lieblobbers are just as misguided as this board, you are ALL on the wrong track!
Both sides harp on and on about whether the prostitute was "raped" and while all of this time is being wasted, the REAL issues are falling to the wayside!
The FACT of all of this is this, the state of NC is astoundingly corrupt, and the DOJ just watches and does NOTHING, WHY?!
There is a CONSPIRACY alright, and it runs from Law Enforcement, to all the way up the ladder!
Instead of beating this dead horse into dust, concentrate on the CORRUPTION, then DO SOMETHING! I know I am! They may have pushed my brother's murder under the rug, but I REFUSE to be intimidated by a bunch of redneck yahoos, and as God is my witness, I will not end my quest until we have accountability, answers, and PROSECUTIONS!
Not everybody can be bought off, and WHEN this DOES reach the courts, of which we are prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court, our silence will not be "paid" for!
PERIOD!

Rhonda Fleming
Justice4Jack
Cleveland, Ohio
Justice4all2005@yahoo.com

Justice58 said...

Rhonda,

I'm not going to ridicule you because I understand you're hurting about your brother. I know what it is to lose someone you love. I've been there.

Mr. Nifong deserves his law license back because I believe he was treated unfairly by having it taken from him. So I stand in solidarity with this blog in helping to get his license restored.

Justice4Jack said...

He should be horse whipped, along with a whole slew of slime who have ran the judicial system into the ground!
But as I have said, We WILL have our day in court, and will NOT be paid off, because I want the WORLD to know just how deep public corruption runs in this country, and how our DOJ, and government watch and do nothing!
Just read my blogs on my MySpace, the CIA, the Hague, and quite a few people are watching to see what I have to say!
The TRUTH will be told!
Rhonda Fleming
Justice4Jack
Justice4all2005@yahoo.com
www.myspace.com/sinnderrella