Sunday, January 3, 2010

Herald-Sun writer Neil Offen misleads public

In a December 30, 2009 Herald-Sun article titled “Top 10 Stories of the Decade,” writer Neil Offen writes about the Duke Lacrosse case, which the newspaper staff evidently selected as the top story of the decade. The article is a minefield of misleading and false statements about the case; not unlike typically biased writings which have characterized the media’s approach to the topic. One line which particularly stands out is: “The lacrosse players were declared innocent.” This is the complete statement. I believe that Mr. Offen was referring to the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” made by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper. To my knowledge, he is the only one to make such a statement, and as most people who have taken high school Civics 101 know, such a proclamation made by a member of the executive branch of government carries no legal weight. The reasons Mr. Offen did not mention in his article that Mr. Cooper made the declaration of “innocent” are twofold. First and foremost he wanted to mislead the public into assuming that a judicial body had made the innocent declaration, and secondly, he was too embarrassed to actually make such a silly statement.

Another statement which I find objectionable is: “…the public downfall of District Attorney Mike Nifong, toppled by his attempt to prosecute the lacrosse players on charges for which there was no evidence.” The truth of the matter is that there are many instances in which prosecutors pursue charges in which there is no evidence. Many of those cases, like the Duke Lacrosse case, are eyewitness cases. For example, prosecutors brought rape charges against Dwayne Dail based on eyewitness identification of a twelve year old girl alleged victim. There was no evidence linking him to that crime for which he spent nearly two decades in jail. Then, there’s the case of Ronald Cotton, who was convicted by eyewitness identification only, without evidence tying him to the crime. He served a decade in prison for a crime with which he was innocent. The armed robbery case against 14 year old Erick Daniels was also based on eyewitness testimony (the shape of his eyebrows in a middle school yearbook) in a case where there was no evidence linking him to the crime. He was wrongfully incarcerated for seven years. A fourth case, Alan Gell was incarcerated at the time of the commission a murder for which he was prosecuted, and prosecutors withheld this information from his defense attorneys in order to win a death penalty conviction. He was sentenced to death and served half of his time served on death row before he was granted a new trial. There was no evidence linking Mr. Gell to the crime. His conviction was based on the testimony of a teenage girl who made contradictory statements, and was even recorded on a wiretapped conversation saying that she was forced to make statements that benefited the prosecutor’s case. Finally, there’s the case of Gregory Taylor, who was sentenced to life on a murder charge in which there was no evidence tying him to the crime. He was convicted on the testimony of a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch (both of whom received deals in exchange for their testimony – a fact which was not relayed to the defendant’s attorney). The prosecutors of these five aforementioned cases were not hauled before the North Carolina State Bar and subjected to disciplinary hearings. However, Mr. Offen would like the media consumer to believe that all cases prosecuted by the state are backed up by forensic evidence. This is misleading and far from the truth.

The reason that Mr. Nifong was charged by the North Carolina State Bar with ethics violations was to get him off the case. After the Bar filed the charges against him, Mr. Nifong had no alternative than to recuse himself from the Duke Lacrosse case.

Mr. Offen states that Mr. Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt (a trumped up charge for which he was sentenced to 24 hours in jail). This is only part of the punishment for which Mr. Nifong was subjected because of his decision to proceed with prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case instead of dropping it initially. Because of his independence from the state in his decision to proceed with prosecution, Mr. Nifong suffered a similar fate as Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett who defied England’s King Henry II. The fact is that Mr. Nifong did not lie to the court as the State Bar and media would like the public to believe.

In his article, Mr. Offen also states that Mr. Nifong was disbarred for misconduct, but I bet that he, like the average person on the street, cannot explain what that alleged misconduct is. Mr. Nifong certainly did not withhold evidence, as all DNA evidence was submitted to the defense team no later than October 27, 2006. There was plenty of time for the Duke Lacrosse defense team to utilize the information in preparing for a defense as a trial date had not even been set at that time. Furthermore, the alleged DNA evidence that Mr. Nifong withheld was not exculpatory, as the media has suggested often in the past. This is in stark contrast to Prosecutor David Hoke who withheld 17 "exculpatory" eyewitness statements from Alan Gell’s defense attorneys (evidence which immediately led to a “not guilty” verdict in a retrial).

As far as criminal cases, Alan Gell’s case is far more important and compelling than the Duke Lacrosse case when viewed through an objective lens. Whereas Mr. Nifong acted within acceptable standards in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case, Mr. Hoke withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense team in winning a death penalty conviction. The Duke Lacrosse defendants served no jail time, and they each received $7 million from Duke University for reasons which are unknown to me. Alan Gell is now serving jail time on vendetta charges that the Johnston County District Attorney cannot even coherently explain. Meanwhile, the Duke Lacrosse boys have all been allowed to proceed with their lives and are benefiting from their celebrity (books have been published presenting them in a favorable light, a movie for HBO is in production, and Collin Finnerty has had an assault charge expunged from his record). And currently they are seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Mr. Gell, on the other hand, has reached an out-of-court settlement against the state of North Carolina in which he was awarded four million dollars.

Even the case of James Arthur Johnson is more compelling because his actions in solving the murder case of Wilson teen Brittany Willis resulted in him being charged in the crime. The charge against Johnson was based solely on the testimony of the murderer, who implicated Johnson only after police told him that Johnson had “snitched” on him. Johnson served 39 months in jail without a trial, and charges of murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery were dropped the day the trial was to begin (long after the murder recanted testimony upon which charges were based). Again, no evidence linked Johnson to the crimes against Brittany Willis. Eventually, with the threat of additional wrongful incarceration, Johnson agreed to an Alford plea with a special prosecutor desperate for a face-saving resolution. Although James Arthur Johnson solved the crime and earned the $20,000.00 reward offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis, it was never forthcoming. And the fact that the reward was not presented was never addressed by the media. It is doubtful whether the crime would have been solved had it not been for Mr. Johnson coming forward to the Wilson Police Department.

On its merits, the Duke Lacrosse case should not have been made the top story of the decade, but that is what happens when the media panders to the well-heeled, and becomes a bully pulpit for them. Instead of spreading propaganda to support the interests and agenda of the wealthy, powerful, and privileged, the media should concentrate on providing the media consumer with objective and unbiased reporting. The article by Mr. Offen left a lot to be desired as far as this is concerned.

I gladly offer Mr. Offen the opportunity to answer this blog, by providing him with a blog page in which I will post, in full and without editing or a direct rebuttal, his response.

52 comments:

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidnet Harr de Harr Harr:

The Lacrosse case became big news because decent(HA) honorable(HA HA) distinguished(HA HA HA)exemplary(HA HA HA HA) minister of[he doesn't know the meaning of]justice(HA HA HA HA HA) nigong gove 70 interviews to the media in which, without evidence, that a crime had occurred, that it had been perpetrated by members of the Lacrosse team(violation of the presumption of innocence), and that it had been racially motivated.

Whatever opinion you might have about the Lacrosse case is invalid, as you, by your own admission, are not knowledgeable about the case.

Why have you never blogged about nifong's violation of the presumption to which any defendants, including the lacrosse defendants, were entitled.

You really need therapy.

Walt said...

Syd, you keep repeating the same lines:

1. Nifong did not withhold evidence,
2. Everybody else was doing it so it was OK, and
3. There was plenty of evidence to support the charges.

Wrong on all counts.

Nifong did withhold evidence. He was asked about the DNASI report and he said there was none. In fact he had been present when DNASI made its oral presentation of what would later become a report.

Second, Nifong was but one in a sorry line of Prosecutors in NC who violated the rules. The fact that he was in that line doesn't make what he did right. It was just as wrong when the Little Washington preschool prosecutors did it. But, that does not justify Nifong's misconduct.

Third, there was no evidence to support the charges. Crystal couldn't pick anyone out of a lineup that even came close to being admissable. She couldn't keep her story straight, and she started changing her story whenever the police dredged up some new information. It's a wonder that she wasn't charged with making a false police report.

Walt-in-Durham

Saingtse said...

Why don't you provide links to the articles you reference, Sidney?

kierstu said...

Wrong on all counts.

Well said, Walt.

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

You say AG Roy Cooper had no authority to pronounce the Lacrosse players innocent. By what authority do you pronounce them guilty. You yourself have admitted you are not familiar with the evidence available to AG Cooper. What evidence are you familiar with that incriminates them? I dare you to answer that question.

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

Do you also reject the authority of the legal system to presume a defendant in a criminal case is innocent until and unless he/she is provrn guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair, unbiased, objective criminal trial?

I again dare you to present any evidence which with you are familiar that incriminates the Lacrosse players beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Saingtse:

Here is the link to the article: "http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story_news_durham/push?article-TOP+10+STORIES+OF+THE+DECADE"

Here is the part of the article to which I was referring:
"TOP 10 STORIES OF THE DECADE
12.30.09 - 07:48 pm
By Neil Offen

noffen@heraldsun.com; 419-6646

DURHAM -- It was a decade of extremes -- extreme weather, extreme violence, extreme reactions, extreme change.

Here's our look at the 10 local stories that defined this extreme decade, the most important, compelling stories of the aughts.

1. The Duke lacrosse case

It began with a party off Duke University's East Campus. It ended on national television and front pages across America.

The Duke lacrosse case started in March 2006 when an exotic dancer falsely accused three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team of raping her at a party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

Three young men's lives were altered by one young woman's lie. The story involved sex, race (the accuser was black and the lacrosse players white), violence, class, politics and official misconduct.

The case led to the suspension of the 2006 lacrosse season, the forced resignation of the lacrosse coach and the public downfall of District Attorney Mike Nifong, toppled by his attempt to prosecute the lacrosse players on charges for which there was no evidence.

Nifong, denounced as a "rogue prosecutor" by the state attorney general, ended up being stripped of his law license for misconduct, resigning as Durham's district attorney and being found guilty of criminal contempt.

The lacrosse players were declared innocent.

The players and former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler have filed lawsuits. Those being sued include Nifong, the city, a private DNA laboratory, Duke University and its former spokesman, John Burness."

It is not unreasonable to request links, and I will try and provide them with blogs in the future.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

You stated that Mr. Nifong said that there was no DNASI report. Where do you get that information? Could you give me a source or link?

Also, what a person says does not relate to what he does.
I am not talking about what Mr. Nifong said (which is more often than not taken out of context and wrong - such as the wral.com article which headline stated: "Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened"), but rather what he did.
My position is that Mr. Nifong submitted all DNA evidence to the defense team no later than October 27, 2006.
Regardless of what he said, if Mr. Nifong turns in the DNASI report to the defense team, then he did not withhold it! Right?

Nifong Supporter said...

To unbekannte:

With regards to your comment about Roy Cooper, I have never pronounced the Duke Lacrosse defendants to be guilty. Can you point out in any of my writings where I did? The point is that the attorney general has no right or legal legitimacy to make such a statement, and it is a shame that the media went along with it instead of challenging it.

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

You have said in your blog that you believe nifong's case had merit. You have accused the Seligman's of paying off Moez Elmostafa to provide Reade Seligman an alibi. You have rehashed the utterly false story of the Lacrosse team stonewalling the police. If that all doesn't mean you think the Lacrosse players are guilty, then I do not know what it means. If you are objecting to AG Cooper's pronouncement of innocence, it means you think the Lacrosse players are guilty. You have said in your blog that Nifong was justified in prosecuting the Lacrosse players, which indicates you believe the Lacrosse players are guilty.

I say again, you, by your own admission, you are not knowledgeable about the evidence reviewed by AG Cooper. So, why do you, in your blog, declare the Lacrosse players guilty?

I ask you again, do you reject the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty of a criminal defendant which is guaranteed to each and every criminal defendant? I dare you, a third time, to provide any evidence you have which proves the Lacrosse players guilty.

Unless a prosecutor has evidence that proves a defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, that prosecutor is obligated by ethical standards not to prosecute. I will dare you again, what evidence was there that incriminated the Lacrosse defendants?

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

"(Rule 3.8)

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;..."

This quote was taken from a post by Walt in Durham

If the prosecutor does not have evidence which incriminates an individual charged with a crime, he is obligated by Rules of Ethics not to prosecute. How can he have probable cause if he has no incriminating evidence?

I dare you yet again, tell us what evidence did decent(HA) honorable(HA HA) distinguished(HA HA HA) exemplary(HA HA HA HA) minister of [he doesn't know the meaning of]justice(HA HA HA HA HA) nifong have that incriminated the Lacrosse players.

Don't bring up cgm's word. The Lscrosse players' word was that they raped no one, that there was no rape. The evidence you want to dismiss rather loudly supported the Lacrosse players, not cgm.

One more time, I dare you to provide evidence which incriminated the Lacrosse players.

unbekannte said...

Although other posters have commented, let's go over cgm's id of the three Lacrosse players.

cgm gave the police descriptions of three alleged assailants. None of those descriptions matched Colin Finnerty. cgm told the police the names used by the assailants were not David, Reade or Colin.

In two views of pictures of Lacrosse players, cgm could identify neither David Evans nor Reade Seligman. She did say she recognized Brad Ross, who was not even in Durham the noght of the party.

The third lineup was conducted by Mark Gottleib, who was involved in the investigation. It included only suspects, no fillers. Durham police rules required the lineup include 7 fillers for each suspect and that it be conducted by someone not involved in the case, someone not knowledgeable about the case.

It was at this improper lineup that cgm identified David Evans, Reade Seligman, and Colin Finnerty. Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty each had strong alibis. cgm claimed David Evans had a mustache. No one has been able to show any picture, any evidence that Dave Evans ever had a mustache.

So much for cgm's word.

Again, nifong never tried to find out what cgm's word was until 9 months into the case. He prosecuted the case for 9 months without having talked to the complaining witness. So much more for cgm's word.

I dare you one more time to tell us what evidence did nifong have which incriminated the defendants?

DeHall said...

Dr. Harr -- The amended ethics complaint details the comments made by Mike Nifong in regards to the DSI report.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs
/docs/duke/ncbnifong12407cmp.html


At the May 18 2006 hearing, Mr Nifong stated "I've turned over everything I have".


So yes, If Nifong had the complete SDI report on May 18 2006 and did not deliver it to the defense, he withheld evidence.

Also, he did not deliver a complete report on October 27, nor did he provide a memorialization of Dr. Meehan's oral statements. Both are violations of NC Gen. Stat. 15A-903(a)(1).

Nifong Supporter said...

To DeHall:

It is my understanding that on May 17, 2006, the defense entered a discovery motion for the prosecution. On May 18, 2006, the following day, the prosecution turned over 1,276 pages of photocopied documents, a cassette, and a disc or two, to each of the three defendant's attorneys. The evidence turned over was not supervised by Mr. Nifong, and there were several individuals involved in making the photocopies. He was under the belief that all of the information was included when he stated at the May 18th hearing that he turned over everything he had. If, for some reason, there was an ommission, that does not mean that he was aware of it. As soon as he became aware that there was something missing, he supplied it to the defense.

I went to the disciplinary hearing of Prosecutor Gregory C. Butler, and there was plenty of testimony by district attorneys that they often came across evidence just prior to trial that had not been turned over to the defense. Fortunately, the State Bar acted appropriately in dismissing the case against Mr. Butler (which was flimsy to begin with).

The fact is that in the Duke Lacrosse case the defense team had all evidence prior to a trial date even being set. He did not withhold evidence! Prosecutor David Hoke withheld evidence when he did not give Alan Gell's defense attorneys the 17 exculpatory witness statements prior to trial. It wasn't until more than nine years after he had been in prison (half of the time on death row) that the existence of the evidence became known to the defense. With this evidence in the re-trial, Mr. Gell was found innocent. This is an example of WITHHOLDING evidence.

As far as not providing a report, I'm sure that the defense would've liked a report so they could criticize it by pointing out ommissions and errors in it. They had all of the data they needed evaluate it for themselves.

Nifong Supporter said...

To unbekannte:

You stated: " If you are objecting to AG Cooper's pronouncement of innocence, it means you think the Lacrosse players are guilty."

The premise is not valid. I object to the pronouncement of innocence because the attorney general is not a judge, but is in the executive branch of government. His pronouncements of "innocence" or "guilt" carry no legal weight. No more than a pronouncement by you or me. Finding fault with Cooper's pronouncement in no way has any relationship to my personal feelings of innocence or guilt of the lacrosse players.

Once again, I challenge you to point out, in writing, where I stated (in my blog or in any document that I have written) that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were guilty.

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

I challenge you again to reveal what, if any, evidence you have that incriminates the Lacrosse players. As you have admitted, you are not knowledgeble about what evidence Roy Cooper had access to. You so far declined to reveal any evidence that incriminates the Lacrosse players. Your blog de facto declares the Lacrosse players guilty. You are nothing more than a narcicistic manifestation of racist hatred.

DeHall said...

Dr Harr --
"From at least May 12, 2006 through January 12, 2007, when he recused himself from the prosecution of the criminal cases, Nifong never provided a complete report setting forth the results of all examinations and tests conducted by Dr. Meehan, Mr. Scales, or others at DSI". (amended ethics complaint, page 27, complaint #275). I would consider this an example of withholding evidence.

Further, it's not a matter of the defense "liking" a final report -- Mike Nifong was required to deliver one. Failure to provide this means he knowingly violated the rules for professional conduct, as well as the US Constitution.

Walt said...

"You stated that Mr. Nifong said that there was no DNASI report. Where do you get that information? Could you give me a source or link?"

Sydney, it's called a transcript. You should read one. Specifically in the September hearing Nifong said he had given the defense all the DNASI evidence. In October, he coughed up the DNASI report. That sealed the violations of the rules of professional conduct.

"Also, what a person says does not relate to what he does."

In this case it does. Because the rules of professional conduct require candor to the court and counsel. When one lies, when one conceals evidence, those are the violations of the rules.

"Regardless of what he said, if Mr. Nifong turns in the DNASI report to the defense team, then he did not withhold it! Right?"

Wrong. He withheld it when he was ordered to produce it. He withheld it when directly asked by the court if he had further evidence. He withheld it when asked by counsel.

The fact that he produced the evidence later would have been a defense to the charge if he could have claimed to lack knowledge of the report or its contents through his own inadvertence. However, Nifong commissioned the DNASI report. Nifong attended the meetings where DNASI's lab director made an oral presentation of his findings. In that situation Nifong could not claim ignorance or even that he had just discovered the evidence. He knew about it from the moment he attended the first meeting with DNASI.

Under North Carolina's open file discovery rule, Nifong was obligated, at the latest, to turn over the report when he received it from DNASI. Under the rules of professional conduct, he should have dismissed the case upon receipt of the report as his case lacked probable cause from that point forward.

Walt-in-Durham

DeHall said...

Dr Harr -- You state in one instance that "Mr. Nifong certainly did not withhold evidence." and 2 sentences later in the same paragraph state, "the alleged DNA evidence that Mr. Nifong withheld was not exculpatory".

Do you proofread your posts? Do you see the inconsistency here?

Finally, greater legal minds than either yours or mine have agreed that the DNA evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case was exculpatory. Are you aware of ANY lawyer (other than Mr. Nifong, of course) who has stated otherwise? If so, could you please name them?

Nifong Supporter said...

To DeHall:

My statement that Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence stands. I was referring to the DNA evidence that he was "alleged to have withheld" when I made the statement to which you refer. There is no contradiction, but maybe the wording could have been better.

As far as exculpatory, the DNA evidence was definitely not exculpatory. Which objective and unbiased legal minds state that it is?

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

What legal mind gave you your idea of what is or is not exculpatory? When a DA decides to prosecute a defendant, what is his obligation? Who has the burden of proof? What standard of proof must the DA meet?

There is no obligation on the defendants to rule out a crime or to exonerate themselves. Therefore, to be exculpatory, evidence DOES NOT have to exonerate the defendants or rule out a crime. The evidence, if it does not incriminate the defendants, then the evidence is exculpatory.

DNA recovered from an alleged rape victim which does not match the DNA of the accused DOES NOT incriminate a defendant. This is especially true when the alleged victim has said the accused ejaculated on her. It definitely exculpatory.

If it is exculpatory, then the Prosecutor, by law, by the Brady vs. Maryland Supreme Court decision, is obligated to make that known to the defendant, which nifong did not do.

Further, when a prosecutor has no evidence which incriminates a defendant, that prosecutor is obligated not to prosecute.

So once more I dare you to tell the world, what evidence did nifong have which incriminated any of the Lacrosse defendants.

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

Tell us.Do you think the Lacrosse players were guilty?

JSwift said...

Sidney,

I followed up your discussion of the Wayne Dail case. Your discussion was highly misleading.

You claimed there was no evidence. This claim is factually incorrect.

The prosecutor had evidence that a crime had been committed, an identification from the complaining witness in a procedure that met existing standards (albeit one that was inconsistent with an earlier description), and microscopic hair evidence that was “consistent” with Mr. Dail. Mr. Dail acknowledges that he was in the neighborhood at the time of the crime. In addition, the alleged victim’s mother claimed that Mr. Dail had acted suspiciously, staring at their house in the days after the attack.

Sophisticated DNA technology did not exist at the time of the investigation and trial. The articles I found did not suggest prosecutorial misconduct, only weak forensic evidence and a mistaken identification from a witness thought at the time to be credible. See the Innocence Project discussion at the link below.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/832.php

I searched for more information on a Pardon of Innocence in North Carolina.

I discovered that your insistence that the executive branch does not have the authority to declare a defendant to be “innocent” is factually incorrect.

North Carolina law allows an individual to petition the Governor for a “declaration of innocence” when the individual has been erroneously convicted and imprisoned and later determined to be innocent. A Pardon of Innocence permits the wrongly convicted to seek compensation from the state. See the following link.

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/clemency/glossary.htm

Your view that AG Cooper does not have the authority to declare defendants to be “innocent” demonstrates a perverted sense of justice.

You insist that a prosecutor who concludes based on his review of the evidence that defendants are “innocent” has no authority to make that declaration. Moreover, you imply that a prosecutor must prosecute whenever the complaining witness has made identifications and wants to proceed.

Innocent defendants can seek a “declaration of innocence” only if the prosecutor takes the case to trial (as you imply he must), and they are convicted despite evidence of their innocence (a fate suffered by too many). Your view of justice provides little consolation to the wrongly accused.

Nifong Supporter said...

To JSwift:

I am unaware of Attorney General Cooper petitioning the Governor for a "declaration of innocence."
Furthermore, the Duke Lacrosse players were never convicted, merely charged. You are the one doing the misleading.

Does the information on the "Pardon of Innocence" mention anything about the Attorney General being able to proclaim innocence on his own, as Mr. Cooper did in his "Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007"? I don't think so.

Nifong Supporter said...

To unbekannte:

In response to your question about whether I think the Duke Lacrosse defendants are guilty: I do not know. My mind is open to the possibility that they might be guilty or innocent. I do not have access to the evidence, I have not had the opportunity to interview the accuser, or the accused. I believe that the "no snitch" code among athletes is as strong if not stronger than that of the streets. I believe that something criminal in the way of a criminal assault did occur the night of the party.

DeHall said...

Dr Harr -- I will accept that your comment ""the alleged DNA evidence that Mr. Nifong withheld was not exculpatory" was mis-phrased, and you meant "the DNA evidence that Mr. Nifong allegedly withheld was not exculpatory". Perhaps you can update the post for those who do not read the comments?

A quick google search identified articles from Professor Robert Mosteller and Professor Joseph Kennedy (both law professors -- UNC and UNC-Chapel Hill, respectively). Lawyers Stuart Taylor and Nader Baydoun have both written books about the case ("Until Proven Innocent", "Rush to Injustice"). All have stated that the DNA evidence was exculpatory. I await your list of lawyers who have publicly stated otherwise. Nancy Grace does not count....

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

Where is the evidence that a criminal sexual assault was perpetrated that night at the party? Where is the evidence that it was perpetrated by Lacrosse players? Where is the evidence it was perpetrated against cgm?

To say that a Criminal sexual assault was not ruled out is invalid. For a prosecution to be justified, there must be evidence that rules in the crime. To justify charging ab individual with a crime, there must be evidence incriminating that individual. Do you deny all that?

If you are unfamiliar with the evidence upon which AG Cooper declared the Lacrosse players innocent, if you do not know whether or not the Lacrosse defendants are guilty, why do you publish a blog that clearly condemns them?

Answer, if you dare.

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

If you do not know whether the Lacrosse defendants were innocent or guilty, why do you object to AG Cooper stating that the defendants were innocent? The only possible reason would be that you believe them guilty.

Do you reject the presumption of innocence, a fundamental part of the judicial system? A defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As you admit the Lacrosse defendants were never convicted. Our legal system regards them as innocent. So why is it so outlandish for AG Cooper to endorse
what the law recognizes?

There is no requirement for a case to go to trial. If the prosecutor has no evidence which incriminates the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, then the prosecutor is ethically obligated not to prosecute.

I ask you again, what evidence did nifong have that incriminated the defendants?

Nifong Supporter said...

To DeHALL:

Thanks for the references regarding exculpatory evidence. I will follow up with the law professors.

Why does Nancy Grace's opinion not count? Because it doesn't agree with yours?

Walt said...

Sydney, you mention the Eric Daniels case in your main blog post: "The armed robbery case against 14 year old Erick Daniels was also based on eyewitness testimony (the shape of his eyebrows in a middle school yearbook) in a case where there was no evidence linking him to the crime."

For that very reason alone, you should be loudly supporting the wrongfully accused and innocent lacrosse players lawsuit against Durham.

Walt-in-Durham

DeHall said...

Dr Harr --
The "Nancy Grace" comment was a throw-away line -- a joke. Her feelings regarding the Duke Lacrosse case (especially early on) are widely documented. As is her silence regarding the case after it ended.
But your comment intrigued me -- What has Nancy Grace stated regarding the DNA evidence? I couldn't find anything...

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

John Stewart commented on Nancy Grace at the end of the Prosecution of the Lacrosse defendants.

A guest commentator stated he believed there was reasonable doubt about the guilt of the Lacrosse players. Nancy Grace's response was to shout, why don' we all move to nazi germany where they didn't have due process.

Regarding DNA, Nancy Grace initially said the DNA would reveal who had committed the rape. No DNA from any Lacrosse player was found. Nacy Grace then said the DNA evidence meaningless, that it did not exclude the possibility of a rape. Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr, that is pretty much what you are saying. You are really repeating her. You are obviously no expert on Exculpatory evidence. Why should anyone accept Nancy Grace's opinion?

Are you going to lawyers other than people like mike nifong or vincent clark or Wendy Murphy?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Exculpatory evidence is the evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt.[1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt."

Remember, if you will, the standard of guilt is Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If evidence raises doubt as to a defendant's guilt, is it not exculpatory? Does it not tend to clear a defendant of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt?

This is a definition of reasonable doubt from wikipedia:

"Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty."

From the Criminal Law Lawyer Source:

"In criminal cases, this burden of proof requires that the prosecution demonstrate the defendant’s guilt for each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is considered synonymous to “a moral certainty.” Through fair and thorough consideration of the admissible facts in a case, the judge or jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of each element of the crime in order to convict the defendant."

To sum up the DNA Evidence, DNA found on cgm's person matched multiple other males but did not match any Lacrosse player. Are you saying a reasonable person would not doubt the Lacrosse players' guilt in the face of this evidence, or that a prosecutor would have been able to meet his burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of this evidence?

Here is a summary of the Brady versus Maryland Decision, from Wikipedia:

"The [Supreme] court held that withholding evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"

Are you saying the DNA evidence, DNA matches multiple males but not any suspect or potential suspect, was not of material value to the Defendants?

Why don't you ask a number of law professors and give all their answers. Better yet, why don't you hire someone independent to poll a number of Law Professors.

unbekannte said...

At the url http://crooksandliars.com/2007/04/14/the-daily-show-will-nancy-grace-apologize-to-duke-lacrosse-players/ one can download and view the video of Jon Stewart skewering Nancy disGrace. It is the video which contains Ms. disGrace's remarks about the DNA evidence. Maybe you ought to view it, Crazy Sidney

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

Here is something else regarding Exculpatory evidence:

"Exculpatory Evidence in Criminal Cases

In order to facilitate fairness, the laws provide that prosecutors provide the defense with any evidence that may potentially benefit defendants as well during the discovery period. This exculpatory evidence may help establish a defendant’s innocence, and if not turned over, can result in the overturning of any conviction upon appeal. Typically, any information that may present any doubt concerning the guilt of a defendant, according to a reasonable juror, is deemed exculpatory evidence in most cases. To force the turnover of this information, defense attorneys usually make their requests from the onset, as well as interviewing other parties that might be aware of the existence of exculpatory evidence, such as directly interviewing police officers, other attorneys, and witnesses in the case both before and after a trial."

From Lawfirms.com

I again ask you, did the DNA evidence incriminate the Lacrosse Defendants or di it create doubt about their alleged guilt?

JSwift said...

Sidney,

I raised the Pardon of Innocence to rebut your general argument that you learned in “civics class” that a “declaration of innocence” by a member of the “executive branch” carries no legal weight. As I demonstrated, your general objection is factually incorrect (as you know, the Governor is part of the executive branch). I ask that you not repeat that general statement.

I did not intend to imply that AG Cooper’s declaration was covered by the Pardon of Innocence. I noted in my post what circumstances were required for a Pardon, namely that a person incorrectly convicted can petition the Governor. Mr. Cooper’s statement clearly does not conform to those circumstances. I believe that most readers understand that Attorney General Roy Cooper is not the Governor and that the Duke defendants were not convicted.

I would be interested in knowing whether other readers also found my comment misleading or whether you, Sidney, were the only one. I apologize if I was not sufficiently clear.

You may also wish to comment on recent reports that Erick Daniels is considering a lawsuit against the City of Durham for $25 million. Many of your readers believe that significant damages in a lawsuit are required to cause the DPD to act professionally and do not share your concerns for the "cash strapped" City of Durham. I hope that Mr. Daniels succeeds.

See http://www.indyweekblogs.com
/triangulator/2010/01/06/
daniels-seeking-25-million-from-durham-for-negligent-
investigation-and-emotional-distress/

unbekannte said...

Go Erick Daniels!!!

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

What is your opinion of that?

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

When are you going to start your blog for Justice for the Erick Daniels prosecutors?

Walt said...

"When are you going to start your blog for Justice for the Erick Daniels prosecutors?"

Exactly!

Ubekannte, has perfectly highlighted the problem in Durham. The police and the DA think they can frame someone, anyone for a crime and get away with it. How many people have they gotten away with framing? That is exactly why Nifong had to be stopped.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt and unbekannte:

I have no intention of starting an organization or blog in support of the prosecutors of Erick Daniels or anyone other than Mike Nifong. If you have read my blogs and website, you will know that I have been critical of the prosecution of Erick Daniels. Mr. Daniels' interests are being handled by attorneys, I believe.

The problem in Durham is no different than the problems in Wake County, Anson County or other counties. The poor and disenfranchised are often treated unjustly. Gregory Taylor is a case in point. Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford tried to force Mr. Taylor to falsely implicate an innocent man (Johnny Beck) in a murder. When he refused, Taylor was sentenced to life in prison, even though he was innocent. Yet Wake D.A. Colon Willoughby has gone out of his way to protect Mr. Ford, as has the media.

With regards to the Duke Lacrosse case, the accuser identified two of the defendants with 100% certainty, and a third with 90% certainty. When DNA from the false fingernail of the accuser included the third defendant, it was only then that he was indicted. These young men were not framed.

Nifong Supporter said...

To JSwift:

Can the Attorney General pardon someone? Are you aware of an attorney general of any state pardoning anyone? I'm not aware of it. From my civics lessons, the Attorney General's proclamation of "innocent" carries no legal weight!

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr

The DNA evidence in the Lacrosse case was, the DN recovered from cgm's person was from multiple males, but none of it matched any Lacrosse player, none of it matched any of the accused. Did that result incriminate any of the accused or did it create doubt about their guilt. Remember, cgm said one or more of her assailants penetrated her and ejaculated on her.

JSwift said...

Sidney,

I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

I did not state or suggest that the Attorney General has the power to "pardon" anyone. You know that I have never made this claim. I ask that you cease making straw man arguments; I find that tactic to be intellectually dishonest.

As has been noted, the AG, in his role as prosecutor, has the legal right to decide to drop charges. In fact, he, like any prosecutor, has the responsibility to drop charges when he finds that there is not probable cause to proceed.

The AG made that determination and dropped charges. As was demonstrated, the form required to drop charges requires an explanation.

Based on his in investigation, the AG not only determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, he found there was no evidence to proceed.

As you know. he found there was "no credible evidence to support the allegation that the crimes [for which the defendants had been indicted] occurred." Based on this lack of evidence, he concluded that the alleged crime did not occur and the defendants were "innocent."

I would agree that this conclusion, like almost all legal conclusions, represents opinion. Because AG Cooper and the special prosecutors had the benefit of the entire discovery file, theirs represents informed opinion.

Patrick Baker and Mike Nifong have agreed that there was "no credible evidence" to support the charges. Baker endorsed the declaration of "innocence" as well. Ben Himan concluded that Ms. Mangum was not telling the truth about anything.

You, on the other hand, concede that you have not seen the evidence. An uninformed opinion is irrelevant.

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

Hypothetical situation:

cgm files a civil suit against the Lacrosse defendants. AG Cooper testifies he had reviewed the evidence and declared the defendants guilty. Could cgm prevail in the face of such testimony. Could a judge exclude AG Cooper's testimony by saying it had no legal weight?

Of course, cgm has not filed any suit, indicating she would not prevail.

unbekannte said...

Crazy Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

If cgm did file a civil suit, could she prevail in the face of the DNA evidence?

JSwift said...

Sidney,

Would it have been accurate to say the following?

With respect to the Erick Daniels case, Daniels was identified by the alleged victim and his alibi evidence was not credible. He was not framed.

Or do you believe that the statement omits so much information (e.g., identification of eyebrows only, no forensic evidence, didn't match prior description) that it is at best misleading and at worst dishonest?

unbekannte said...

Crazy Deceitful Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:

Again you say that cgm identified her assailants. So address these issues.

In her initial descriptions of her assailants, none of those descriptions matched Colin Finnerty.

She said her assailants used names other than David, Reade or Colin.

In two previous reviews of Lacrosse team member photos, cgm was unable to identify either Reade Seligman or David Evans. She did say she saw Brad Ross at the party. Brad Ross wasn't even in Durham that night.

Reade Seligman had evidence he was not at the party at the time cgm alleged she was raped.

Colin Finnerty had evidence he was not at the party at the time cgm said she was raped.

The lineup at which she supposedly identified her victims was not conducted in accord with proper procedure for a lineup, no fillers and it was conducted by an officer involved in the case.

She alleged David Evans had a mustache at the time of the alleged rape. David Evans never wore a mustache.

You are nifonging with evidence, Crazy Deceitful Sidney. You are trying to exclude evidence which casts serious doubt on the guilt of those accused.

I say again, nifong(indecent, dishonorabl, doesn't know the meaning of justice, distinguishd and exemplary only by attempting to perpetrete the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in NC's history) picked 3 Lacrosse team members to prosecute. He wanted an issue which would endear himself to Durham's black electorate and their racist leaders.

Walt said...

"The problem in Durham is no different than the problems in Wake County, Anson County or other counties. The poor and disenfranchised are often treated unjustly."

Sydney, an injustice is an injustice, is an injustice. The fact that the middle class were on the receiving end of the injustice does not excuse the injustice.

"With regards to the Duke Lacrosse case, the accuser identified two of the defendants with 100% certainty, and a third with 90% certainty."

Her identifications were made after she failed to identify the same people, or anyone else, from the same photos. Having failed the first array, Crystal was given a second even more suggestive array to pick from. She got to see the same photos as the first array, but in the second, the DPD deliberately disregarded their own rules as well as those set down by our courts for legal photo arrays. Then, and only then was she able to make what we now know were false identifications.

"When DNA from the false fingernail of the accuser included the third defendant, it was only then that he was indicted."

You keep misrepresenting the DNA evidence. I know you are smart enough to understand DNA, what I don't understand is why you continue to misrepresent the quality of the evidence.

"These young men were not framed."

That is exactly what happened. Inadmissable and unreliable eyewitness identification was used to trump up charges which were completely false against three young men who did not commit a rape or sexual assault. Then evidence Nifong knew was exulpatory was withheld. Nifong continued the prosecution knowing he had a faulty eyewitness who constantly changed her story. He continued the prosecution knowing that one witness had an iron clad alibi. That's a frame if I ever saw one.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

crazy deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:

DNA on a false fingernail which is consistent with but NOT identical to a suspect's DNA is hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Explain why, despite the fingernail DNA, there was no DNA from any Lacrosse player on cgm's person after the alleged rape.

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

crazy deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:

Let me explain again what open discovery and Brady versus Maryland mean. They mean that All evidence in a case is relevant, not just inculpatory evidence.

So again I dare you to explain why the fingernail DNA was relevant, why the lack of Lacrosse player DNA on cgm's person was not, why the presence of male DNA not from any Lacrosse Players on her person was not.

In nifong's mind, the DNA from cgm's person was not relevant because it cast doubt on his case. You are acting the same way.

Your de facto belief, that exculpatory evidence is not relevant, means you do believe the Lacrosse players were guilty. You yourself have admitted you are not familiar with the evidence which exonerated them.

unbekannte said...

Correction to previous comment which read:

Hypothetical situation:

cgm files a civil suit against the Lacrosse defendants. AG Cooper testifies he had reviewed the evidence and declared the defendants GUILTY. Could cgm prevail in the face of such testimony. Could a judge exclude AG Cooper's testimony by saying it had no legal weight?

Of course, cgm has not filed any suit, indicating she would not prevail.

It should have read:

Hypothetical situation:

cgm files a civil suit against the Lacrosse defendants. AG Cooper testifies he had reviewed the evidence and declared the defendants INNOCENT. Could cgm prevail in the face of such testimony. Could a judge exclude AG Cooper's testimony by saying it had no legal weight?

Of course, cgm has not filed any suit, indicating she would not prevail.

My apologies for the error