Sunday, February 7, 2010

Prosecutors behaving badly: Wolfe and Ford

“Taylor gets his shot at release: 17-year convict could be freed,” is the headline of an outstanding article in today’s February 7, 2010 News & Observer newspaper written by Mandy Locke. More details are furnished in this news story that tells about early investigative actions to solve the Raleigh murder of Jacquetta Thomas in September 1991. Gregory Taylor, whose truck had gotten stuck in the mud near the murder site, and his passenger Johnny Beck, hitched hiked home late that evening with plans to retrieve the truck the following morning. Taylor and Beck became suspects solely because Taylor’s truck had been found about a football field’s length away from the body. Police attempted to have Gregory Taylor implicate Johnny Beck (an African American) by telling him the falsehood that Beck had fingered him (Taylor) for committing the murder. Mr. Taylor refused to lie and state that Beck was involved. The police suggested to Mr. Taylor that he could face the death penalty; still Mr. Taylor refused to lie on Mr. Beck. The police lied again, stating that the victim’s blood had been found in his truck. Mr. Taylor still refused to implicate Mr. Beck, and he requested to speak to an attorney. Greg Taylor asked four times for an attorney, but the police refused to acquiesce. Within twelve hours of finding the slain body of Jacquetta Thomas, police had charged Taylor and Beck with first-degree murder… despite lack of physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. Talk about a rush to judgment!!!

When the possibility of two or more suspects are considered as perpetrators of a crime, a commonly used tactic by the police, prosecutors, and investigators is to have one of the individuals implicate the others. For the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, the attempt was made by Prosecutor Tom Ford to get Taylor, who is white, to implicate Beck who is black. In another recent case, the murder of Wilson teen Brittany Willis, the police were successful in getting teen murderer Kenneth Meeks to finger an innocent friend, James Arthur Johnson. The investigators told Meeks that Johnson had “snitched” on him, which unlike the case against Greg Taylor, was the truth. Meeks had confided in Johnson that he had committed the murder of Ms. Willis, and days later, when Johnson told his father what Meeks had told him, his father took him to Wilson police to provide authorities with the information. Although James Arthur Johnson provided information that solved the murder of Ms. Willis, and that should have earned him the gratitude of the Willis family, as well as the $20,000.00 reward offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis, what he received was a murder charge and 39 months wrongfully incarcerated. The charge against Johnson was based solely on the testimony of Meeks, who fingered Johnson in retaliation for “snitching.” Years later, after the misplaced anger had subsided, Meeks recanted his statements about Johnson, leaving the prosecution without probable cause. That is when two eyewitnesses suddenly appeared, both with connections to the Wilson Police Department, to help provide a basis for taking the case to trial. However, increased media scrutiny and public outrage caused the prosecutor to re-think that approach… the eyewitnesses quietly disappeared.

In the case against Taylor, a good faith effort was not conducted into investigating the death of Jacquetta Thomas. Bringing charges against Taylor and Beck was a rush to judgment by Tom Ford in an attempt to close the murder case. In the Johnson case, police had in custody the killer (Kenneth Meeks, an African American) of Brittany Willis, but their outrage at the senseless crime against the white teenager spurred them to seek to punish as many young African American males as possible… their guilt or innocence being irrelevant.

Here are two cases where justice has been denied for James Arthur Johnson and Gregory Flint Taylor. Johnson was wrongfully incarcerated for 39 months, but eventually freed after charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery were dropped by a special prosecutor, and he ultimately made an Alford plea on a “misprision of felony” charge (a rarely used charge for citizens who do not report their knowledge of a crime). The case against Gregory Taylor should have an acceptable resolution after a three panel judge hears arguments seeking his release… the hearing beginning on Tuesday, February 9th. His freedom is the most important judgment that could be handed out by the judges, but it is certainly just a fraction of the restorative justice to which this innocent man, with an abundance of integrity, deserves.

76 comments:

Walt said...

"His freedom is the most important judgment that could be handed out by the judges,...."

What if the serial confessor is lying? You seem to be making Mike's mistake of deciding the outcome you want without looking at the evidence.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Did you forget that nifong tried to force Lacrosse players to incriminate other members of the team. nifong threatened to file charges of aiding and abetting against Lacrosse players who did not provide incriminating testimony.

At the time, nifong had not interviewed cgm and had forensic evidence which did not support his case. He had no probable cause, yet he was trying to coerce innocent men to perjure themelves so he could indict and convict other innocent men of a non existent crime.

Did anything like that happen in any of these other irrelevant cases you cite?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

You say Gregory Taylor asked for a lawyer.

Do you recall that nifong made statements before the indictments, that the suspects had rich daddies who could hire expensive lawyers who could get themselves off, that a suspect would not need a lawyer if the suspect was innocent and had not been charged with anything?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

You mention two eye witnesses who suddenly turned up to support the case against Greg Taylor.

No eyewitnesses ever turned up to support cgm's allegations. Witnesses did turn up to dispute cgm's allegations.

Kim Roberts initially called the rape allegation a crock. Then nifong pressured her over a violation of probation to change her story.

Moez Elmostafa provided an eye witness account which supported Reade Seligman's alibi. nifong had him arrested and charged on an old, baseless shoplifting warrant, had police ask him if he wanted to change his story, and had him tried when he refused to do so.

And, the Lacrosse team all denied the occurrence of a rape. Nifong named them suspects, tried to undermine their rights as suspects and threatened to file criminal charges against them if they did not come forward with incriminating testimony.

I am not surprised you are aware of attempts to suborn perjury from witnesses. nifong used it as a standard tactic in his baseless prosecution of three innocent men.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

There was no "misprision(sic) of felony" charges ever brought against the Lacrosse players, in spite of nifong's pre indictment posturing. That is a tacit admission they had not witnessed any rape at the party, that there was no rape at the party. So why did he try to intimidate them into testifying there was?

unbekannte said...

crazy deloded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

cgm's false allegations of rape resulted in rage on the part of the uninformed Durham citizenry, especially racist black leaders. nifong exploited that rage to get himself elected(he had previously been appointed to, not elected to his office, a fact some of you wackolytes are unaware). nifong wanteg to better his retirement benefits.

So, nifong tried to convict as many innocent men as he could.

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

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

You say nifong's statements early in the case were mild - you know, the statemenys he made in the 70 or so interviews he gave so he could get $1 million worth of free publicity for his election campaign.

Why don't you publish those statements on your blog and see what your readers think.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond didney harr de harr harr:

In my post of 7:33 AM, I should have said, nifong tried to convict as many innocent white men as he could.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

In spite of your reluctance to acknowledge the exculpatory DNA evidence, let's go over it again.

nifong did say the DNA evidence would exonerate the innocent. By that, did he mean that a failure to match DNA found in the rape kit to a suspect's DNA would show that individual was innocent? I think that is a valid assumption.

When the evidence did not match any Lacrosse player, he declared it exonerated no one. His words were that it meant only nothing was left.

Then, at his behest, DNASI did more sensitive testing. That turned up DNA from multiple males on cgm's person. None of that DNA matched any Lacrosse player. Did nifong turn over the report of the DNASI testing to the defense, as he was required to by law, by standards of Prosecutorial conduct, and the Supreme Court of the United States. No he did not. What he withheld from the Defense was information which, by his own definition, exonerated all of the suspects.

Are you trying to call this a good faith investigation?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

None of the Lacroees players ever caved in to nifong's coercion to falsely incriminate fellow team members. You call that an athletic no snitch code.

Would you also call that a good faith investigation?

Do you even know what good faith means?

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

I believe that the police should investigate the "serial confessor" Craig Taylor (no relation). Their position is, he falsely confessed to other crimes, so he couldn't have committed the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Instead, they are willing to keep an innocent man in jail (Greg Taylor), and release the man who confessed to the murder (Craig Taylor). Also, keep in mind that there was no physical evidence linking Greg Taylor to the crime. In other words, "No credible evidence!!" Only the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and a prostitute, both of whom received shortened sentences in exchange for their testimony (which had inaccuracies)was used to convict Greg Taylor. Mike Nifong looked at the evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case, and I looked at the evidence as reported in the newspaper about the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. The evidence points to Greg's innocence. If you find otherwise, and feel Greg is guilty, I would like to hear your reasoning.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

The only evidebce nifong had in the Duke case was evidence which neither indicated a crime nor implicated any Lacrosse player, evidence which, by his own definition, exonerated the Lacrosse team. Yet he tried to put away f0r 30 years three innocent members of the Lacrosse team.

It's a poser for you. If the evidence was not exculpatory, why did nifong say it would exonerate the innocent?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-torespond sidney harr de harr harr:

The only witness nifong had against the Lacrosse players was a woman who had a reputation as a prostitute. She also had a history of mental instability, drug use, and falsely accusing men of rape. She never told a consistent story of what to her. She could not reliably identify her supposed assailants. When, nine months into the case nifong interviewed her, she could not recall if she had actually been penetrated. nifong dropped the rape charge. So why would you designate her a credible witness?

You have claimed cgm has consistently maintained she was raped. So why did nifong drop the rape charge?

If cgm was such a credible witness, why did nifong try to intimidate defense witnesses into changing their story?

Why did nifong attempt to coerce Lacrosse team members to give false incriminating testimony against other team members>

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

When are you going to post a list of nifong's statements? Quote them, if you dare to do so.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid to respond sidney harr de harr:

As kc Johnson pointed out, nifong waited weeks before arresting any member of the Duke Lacrosse team.
he had previously characterized the alleged crime as vicious and the Lacrosse players as racist hooligans. Is this an indication of any way one expedites justice? For the anonymous irrelephant in the room, was this any way to protect poor helpless cgm?

nifong waited 9 months before personally interviewing cgm. Then he dropped the rape charges. Was that any way to expedite justice or to protect poor helpless cgm?

Of course, when nifong was running the DA's office, not much was done to protect the victims of michael jermaine burch.

Walt said...

"Mike Nifong looked at the evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case..."

Really? He ignored the DNA evidence. When confronted with her failure to pick anyone from a suggestive photo array, he authorized an additional array. If he looked at the unduly suggestive second array, he chose to ignore the law and the Durham Police Department's General Orders concerning eyewitness identification to proceed against three innocent men. He ignored alibi evidence presented by the defendants. He lied to the court about the existence of exculpatory DNA evidence that was known to him. He held press conferences that suggested he was quite familiar with how an attack happened when he had not even read the file. That does not look like he looked at the evidence. That looks like he ignored the evidence.

"I looked at the evidence as reported in the newspaper about the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. The evidence points to Greg's innocence."

Right now, there is a lot that points to reasonable doubt. The withholding of subsequent blood test results from the prosecution to name the most odious. But, does that mean he is innocent? Right now, I am leaning toward not guilty. But, I will need to hear the state's rebuttal before making up my mind.

Of course that's the difference between me and Nifong. I look at the evidence. I am not willing to buy into the tale told by a serial confessor with a history of confessing to crimes he could not have committed. Nor am I willing to buy into a flawed investigation. In fact, I am skeptical of the conclusions drawn from a flawed investigation. Nifong, conversely, directed an, at best, flawed investigation. Nifong ignored evidence. Nifong lied about exculpatory evidence in his possession.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

If nifong looked at all the evidence. it is kind of curious he dropped the rape charge after he finally interviewed cgmn.

nifong's track record in rape cases, more often than not dropping rape charges before disposing of such cases, indicates his not really knowing the evidence was common behavior.

Again, does this indicate nifong really cared for the poor and helpless?

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

Interesting. You want to hear the state's rebuttal in the Gregory Taylor case before deciding innocence or guilt, yet you have made up your mind without seeing Mike Nifong's case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Hypocritical... Double standard?

As far as Greg Taylor goes, what evidence did the prosecution have against him? Nothing but the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and a prostitute who gave testimony (which was inaccurate) in exchange for a reduced sentence... information that was withheld from the defense attorneys. Talk about "lack of credible evidence." Unlike the Duke Lacrosse defendants, Greg Taylor spent seventeen years incarcerated (of a life sentence) and did not get an out-of-court settlement worth seven million dollars.

Which is the greater injustice?

Walt said...

"Interesting. You want to hear the state's rebuttal in the Gregory Taylor case before deciding innocence or guilt, yet you have made up your mind without seeing Mike Nifong's case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Hypocritical... Double standard?"

No double standard. I saw Nifong's case, or should I say lack of a case. He had no eyewitness identification. He had no DNA identification, he had no physical evidence of a rape at all. Open file discovery showed that.

In the Taylor case, there is no open file discovery that is a part of the public record. As I said, there is now much that points to reasonable doubt. And what points to doubt is not the confession of a serial confessor, but blood evidence, or lack of blood evidence. But, because we have heard only part of the story, I want to hear the rest, if there is any. In the lacrosse case, we heard the state's case. Mostly from Nifong's innumerable pressers.

"Unlike the Duke Lacrosse defendants, Greg Taylor spent seventeen years incarcerated (of a life sentence) and did not get an out-of-court settlement worth seven million dollars.

Which is the greater injustice?"


The lacrosse defendants. They were denied their right to the presumption of innocence from the get go. They were subject to a frame by a prosecutor who wantonly disregarded the facts that were known to him. It appears from the testimony so far that the serial confessor did not emerge until years after the fact in the Taylor case. Further it appears from the testimony that the crime lab concealed the the exculpatory nature of the blood evidence from the DA. That means that Ford and Willoughby did not act with malice.

Conversely, Nifong not only concealed the DNASI report, but he lied about its existence. That is malicious, and thus the greater injustice.

Walt-in-Durham

JSwift said...

Sid,

We have seen substantially all of Mr. Nifong's case. It is public.

No DNA. No corroborating witnesses. No corroborating physical evidence. No injuries.

An accusing witness who changed her stories repeatedly. Fatally flawed identifications of four of her three attackers by a tainted witness.

DNA evidence that contradicts her. Witnesses who contradict her. "Crock." Physical evidence that contradicts her. Alibi evidence.

No bona fide DPD investigation. Let me repeat. Despite a weak case, there was no investigation.

Mr. Nifong summed it up quite well: there was "no credible evidence."

What is missing? Seeing Ms. Mangum perform on the witness stand? I don't need to see her. I read her statement and Inv. Himan's report.

She is not credible.

Mr. Nifong had nothing else.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

You yourself have admitted you are not familiar with the evidence in the case. So by what authority do you declare that nifong had a case against the Lacrosse players?

I read a comment on Liestoppers that describes what kind of case nifong had. Reade Seligman's attorney tried to present Mr. Seligman's alibi evidence to the authorities. The result was that one of his alibi witnesses(Moez Elmostafa) was arrested and pressure to change his story>

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

nifong did not even have the testimony of a jail house snitch. He only had the testimony of cgm whose history included drug use, promiscuity, mental instability, criminal behavior and making false accusations of rape

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Put it another way. You have not studied the evidence nifong had, but you are declaring the case had merit, the lacrosse players were guilty and that nifong was the victim of a conspiracy to get him off the case.

Nifong Supporter said...

To JSwift and Walt... and you, too, unbekannte:

Everyone is quick to say that Mike Nifong tried his case in the media. That is far from the truth. The defense attorneys for the Duke Lacrosse defendants are the ones who went to the media with results of tests, photos from camera-phones with alleged time stamps on them, statements by cab drivers, etc. Mr. Nifong never tried his case in court. We do not know what evidence he held, because he never got the chance to present it, and the Attorney General sealed it.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

When are you going to publish a list of nifong's pre indictment statements on your blog.

We do know what evidence nifong had on the Lacrosse players. It became public as a result of the disbarment trial.

If nifong and Durham would defend the lawsuits against them instead of trying to suppress them the evidence would be re introduced.

If cgm sued the Lacrosse players, the evidence would be re introduced to the public.

Why hasn't nifong sued the Lacrosse players? That would be a third venue by which the evidence would be re introduced to the public.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Can you show that the time stamped pictures were doctored?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

If Moez Elmostafa was bribed to give Reade Seligman an alibi, how come nifong never picked up on it? Why did have Mr. Elmostafa picked upon an old warrant, asked if he wanted to change his story, then prosecuted?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Publish a list of the statements nifong made about the case before the indictments were handed down. That might show whether or not nifong tried to try the case in the media.

Or are you applying nifong logic to those quotes. If the evidence damages my case, it is not relevant and must be suppressed

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr?

When nifong made his statement calling the Lacrosse players hooligans, before he had any evidence in the case, was he trying to keep the people from rushing to judgment? Or are you denying that he ever called them hooligans?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

nifong was obligated by law and by a decision of the Supreme Court to disclose ALL the evidence he had against the defendants. Are you saying nifong had evidence which he did not disclose? If so, you are admitting nifong was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.

With friends like you, nifong doesn't need overzealous detractors.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Why has nifong submitted to a decision to seal evidence which would exonerate him in the lawsuits filed against him? Why has nifong himself not released this evidence which was not presented in court?

You claim Martin Luther King would have supported your agenda. Martin Luther King and the other leaders of the Civil Rights movement would not have meekly submitted to a decision like that, a decision to suppress information which would show the merit of their cause.

Why has nifong submitted?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidnehy harr de harr harr:

Here are some of nifong's pre indictment statements:

"and whether the other people there knew what was going on at the time,
they do now and have not come forward. I’m disappointed that no one
has been enough of a man to come forward. And if they would have
spoken up at the time, this may never have happened.46

I would like to think that somebody who was not in the bathroom has the
human decency to call up and say, “What am I doing covering up for a
bunch of hooligans?” . . . I’d like to be able to think that there were some
people in that house that were not involved in this and were as horrified
by it as the rest of us are.47

I would like to think that somebody [not involved in the attack] has the
human decency to call up and say, “What am I doing covering up for a
bunch of hooligans?”48

[M]y guess is that some of this stonewall of silence that we have seen
may tend to crumble once charges start to come out.49
44.

[T]he thing that most of us found so abhorrent, and the reason I decided to
take it over myself, was the combination gang-like rape activity
accompanied by the racial slurs and general racial hostility.50
The reason that I took this case is because this case says something about
Durham that I’m not going to let be said . . . . I’m not going to let
Durham’s view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse
players from Duke raping a black girl in Durham.51

[T]he circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for
some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature
one of the most offensive and invasive even more so.52

[I]n this case, where you have the act of rape—essentially a gang rape—is
bad enough in and of itself, but when it’s made with racial epithets against
the victim, I mean, it’s just absolutely unconscionable . . . . [T]he
contempt that was shown for the victim, based on her race was totally
abhorrent."

This comes from an article in the FORDHAM LAW REVIEW, written by Robert P. Mosteller*, publication date 11/29/2007.

According to this article, nifong gave between 50 and 70 interviews in which he made statements like this. If he wasn't trying his case in the media what was he doing?

How many interviews did the defense attorneys give during that period?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr: what do you think of this quote:

"On Thursday, more than 16 months after beginning a disastrous prosecution of the former players, Nifong offered a complete and unqualified apology. After two rebuffed attempts to express remorse for his mishandling of the case, Nifong acknowledged there is "no credible evidence" to support allegations the men attacked an exotic dancer during a team party last year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2949847"

Please explain how nifong was protecting the poor and helpless when he was prosecuting three innocent men against whom there was "no credible evidence" they had harmed anyone.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

"Then the DNA analysis came back. Nifong had stressed the vital importance of this evidence, claiming "By next week, we'll know precisely who was involved."

None of the 46 DNA samples could be linked in any way to the alleged victim. Nifong then stressed that the lack of such evidence meant nothing even in a violent gang rape. He would rely, instead on medical evidence and the accuser's identifications."

The url is http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1708.

Why did nifong choose to go to prosecution without the DNA evidence? The DNA evidence was exculpatory. Is that why nifong wanted to ignore it.

I believe, according to legal ethics, a prosecutor who is aware of exculpatory evidence which absolutely exonerates a defendant is obligated not to prosecute

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

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Get a load of this:

"He said his decision not to charge her with making false accusations was also based on a review of sealed court files, which include records of the woman's mental health history."

from this url: http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N18/duke.html.

Are these the sealed records to which you refer?

How would cgm's psychiatric history have incriminated the Lacrosse players?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

In all the comments to this particular blog entry, before you posted your latest comment, no one said anything about nifong trying the case in the media. You are ignoring the issues the commenters have brought up.

JSwift said...

Everyone is quick to say that Mike Nifong tried his case in the media.

I merely said that much of the discovery file was public. It is.

The defense attorneys for the Duke Lacrosse defendants are the ones who went to the media with results of tests, photos from camera-phones with alleged time stamps on them, statements by cab drivers, etc.

They were permitted to do so after Mr. Nifong had made his dozens of earlier statements. Actually, the attorneys for one of the non-defendants released many of the camera phone photographs. In addition, some of the witnesses spoke to the media directly.

I note that the statements made by defense attorneys and the witnesses generally are consistent with the publicly available evidence. Many of Mr. Nifong’s statements are not.

Mr. Nifong never tried his case in court.

So what? Prosecutors drop charges or agree to plea bargains in other cases. They do not try those cases in court.

We do not know what evidence he held

We know most of the evidence he held. It is public.

Mr. Nifong has conceded that he had “no credible evidence” to support the charges.

, because he never got the chance to present it,

What does a prosecutor present when he has “no credible evidence” to support charges? He presents superfluous and irrelevant information in an attempt to provoke the jury. He did that with his public statements (see the pot banger rallies and the NCCU forum as examples of provoked Durhamites). See, he did try his case in public. He could not provide evidence in those statements because he had “no credible evidence” that supported his case. He provided emotion.

and the Attorney General sealed it.

The Attorney General did not “seal” it. He simply did not release the discovery file. The discovery file generally is not released in cases where charges are dropped or where pleas bargains are reached.

I repeat my earlier statement that most of the evidence was made available as exhibits to defense filings in the original criminal case, through media stories, and as exhibits in Mr. Nifong’s disbarment hearing. Further information was made available through the depositions or testimony in Mr. Nifong’s disbarment hearing.

I suggest that you re-read the “big binder” from Mr. Nifong’s disbarment hearing over this long weekend and report back to your readers what you have learned.

First, however, I ask that you respond (as you promised almost a month ago) to Ms. Mangum’s written statement:

ADAM EJACULATED IN MY MOUTH AND I SPIT IT OUT ONTO THE FLOOR, PART OF IT FELL ONTO THE FLOOR AFTER HE PULLED HIS PENIS OUT

With no DNA.

オテモヤン said...

オナニー
逆援助
SEX
フェラチオ
ソープ
逆援助
出張ホスト
手コキ
おっぱい
フェラチオ
中出し
セックス
デリヘル
包茎
逆援
性欲

Walt said...

"Mr. Nifong never tried his case in court. We do not know what evidence he held, because he never got the chance to present it, and the Attorney General sealed it."

You are right about one thing, Nifong never tried his case. He dismissed most of it and admitted he had no credible evidence to support any of the charges. That means the case should never have been tried. In fact once the DNASI results were made known to Nifong, he should have dismissed the whole thing. He did not.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

under nifong's leadership the Durham DA's office rarely took a rape case to court. Most of the cases were either dismissed or disposed of via plea bargain. In the bargain cases the accused pleaded guilty to charges other than rape.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

nifong admitted he gave hours and hours of interviews to the media early in the case. If he was not trying his case in the media via those interviews, then what was he doing?

You can answer that question definitively by publishing, word for word, the statements nifong made to the media.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Tell us: what do you think nifong meant when he declared the DNA evidence would exonerate the innocent?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid to respond sidney harr de harr harr:

When the DNA failed to incriminate any Lacrosse player, nifong said he would prosecute the case on the basis of the victim's word and the medical evidence.

The victim had credibility issues, The victim's word changed every time she gave it. The medical evidence of a rape was not there.

So how was nifong going to make his case?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar unable-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

The only thing sealed in the case was cgm's psychiatric history. AG Roy Cooper did not seal that. It was sealed by a court order and he was not at liberty to reveal that information.

How would cgm's psychiatric history, compiled mostly if not entirely before she claimed she was raped, have incriminated the Defendants?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar unable-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Here is one of nifong's statements, taken from the Amended State Bar Complaint:

Nifong stated to a representative of the news media ‘[t]here are three people who went into the bathroom with the young lady, and whether the other people there knew what was going on at the time, they do now and have not come forward. I’m disappointed that no one has been enough of a man to come forward. And if they would have spoken up at the time, this may never have happened.’ “

Isn't nifong publicly vouching for his case before he ever presented any evidence to any grand jury. Is this not unethical for a prosecutor?

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar unable-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

More from the amended bar complaint:

“Nifong stated to a representative of the news media that ‘[t]he lacrosse team, clearlty, has not been fully cooperative’ in the investigation and...”I think their silence is a result of advice with counsel’ “

“Nifong stated to [George Smith, a reporter for ESPN] ‘[a}nd one would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong’

“Nifong stated to a representative of the news media that he might bring aiding-and-abetting charges against some of the players who were not cooperating with Nifong’s investigation.

“Nifong stated to the news media ‘[t]hey don’t want to admit to the enormity of what they have done.’ “

nifong had vouched for his case and had accused members of the Lacrosse team of perpetrating it. He shows his awareness of the fifth and sixth amendments. Yet he indicates that their retaining counsel and remaining silent were indications of guilt.

Yet you and the anonymous irrelephant in the room say nifong did not violate anyone's constitutional rights.

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

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar unable-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:

More from the state bar complaint:

“Nifong stated to a representative of the news media ‘I would not be surprised if condoms were used. Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex’ “

“Nifong represented to a representative of the news media([a reporter from WRAL news]) that he had read the report of the emergency room nurse.’ “

“The sexual exam report...from the emergency room nurse reflected that the complaining witness stated the alleged attacker ‘did not use a condom.’ “

Let's go back to the DNA. nifong stated the DNA would indicate the guilty and exonerate the innocent. What else could exonerste the innocent but the failure of DNA from the victim to match the DNA of the innocent?

I say again, DNA FROM cgm CAME FROM A NUMBER OF MALES BUT DID NOT MATCH ANY LACROSSE PLAYER!!! nifong had evidence which exonerated the Lacrosse team. What did he do? He tried to discredit the evidence which had been obtained at his behest. He made statements which were patently false.

If he were an ethical prosecutor why would he try to discredit and conceal evidence which exonerated innocent men?

February 13, 2010 7:23 AM

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:

If you object to my getting information about nifong's statements from the state bar complaint, then why don't you publish on your blog word-for-word quotes of nifong's statements.

I think his statements show pretty clearly, he was not only trying the case in the media, he was lying about it.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:

So what if the Lacrosse defendants did not spend any time in jail. They were INNOCENT!!! Innocent men should not hav4e to spend any time in jail.

Judging from nifong's record, or lack thereof, of prosecuting rapists, many people who were actually guilty of rape served disproportionately lenient sentences. Where is the justice in that. How was nifong protecting the poor and helpless.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

DNASI results were not exculpatory and had no bearing on whether or not the sexual assault charges should have proceeded. When the accuser made statements to Mr. Nifong that indicated no sexual intercourse had taken place at the Duke lacrosse party, Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charges. That does not mean a sexual assault could not have occurred, and he was correct to leave them in place. His action in dismissing the rape charge attests to his character, integrity, and dedication to justice. There are many prosecutors, if not most, who refuse to drop charges when they should. For example, Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe refused to drop murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery charges against James Arthur Johnson after the confessed murderer told the prosecutor that he falsely implicated Johnson out of anger. Prosecutor David Hoke proceeded to re-try Alan Gell after exculpatory evidence which proved that he could not have committed the murder for which he was sent to death row. When this withheld evidence was placed before the jury at his re-trial, Gell was immediately found to be not guilty. Even today, prosecutor Tom Ford continues his efforts to keep an innocent man (Gregory Taylor) behind bars for life... even though Ford used misleading and false blood evidence and witnesses who were not credible to convict Taylor.

Mike Nifong acted justly and honorably in the Duke Lacrosse case. It is too bad that all prosecutors in the state do not emulate him.

unbekannte said...

crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:

If the DNA evidence was not material to the case, why did nifong obtain it? Why did he say the DNA would incriminate the guilty and exonerate the innocent? You lie when you say the evidence was not exculpatry, that it had no bearing on the case. nifong's statements about the DNA show that you lie.

DNA did not incriminate any of the Lacrosse players, which made it well nigh impossible for nifong to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. If anything, the DNA evidence indicated if there had been a rape, it happened before the night of the party and was perpetrated by someone other than a Lacrosse player.

Open discovery obligates a prosecutor to include any and all exculpatory evidence in his investigation. His primary job is to get to the truth. How did excluding the DNA evidence help nifong get to the truth?

If nifong had any integrity, he would not have waited until the case was nine months old to drop the rape charge. He would have dropped it in March of 2006 when the DNA evidence came in. He would not have continued with the sexual assault and kidnapping charges.

Nowhere in this case did nifong ever display honorable or just behavior. He perpetrated the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in NC history. You demonstrate you are just as dishnorable and indecent as nifong.

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

crazy deluded deceitful spite unable and afraid to respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Let's get back to statements nifong made to the media in March of 2006, statements which you say were mild, which were made only to get witnesses to come forward.

nifong made several statements to the effect that a rape had happened, that it was a racially motivated crime, and that Duke Lacrosse players were the perpetrators. If you say nifong made no such statements then publish a word for word list of his statements. The NC state bar complaint detailed when and to whom nifong made those statements

Answer yes or no: is a suspect supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Explain! How were nifong's statement compliant with the presumption of innocence?

Is a prosecutor who investigates a crime without complying with the presumption of innocence committing prosecutorial misconduct?

If he was not respecting the presumption of innocence, was he not perpetrating prosecutorial misconduct?

Walt said...

"DNASI results were not exculpatory and had no bearing on whether or not the sexual assault charges should have proceeded."

Actually they were exculpatory. We've been through this before, Rule 412(b)(2) of the NC Rules of Evidence provides:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior:
...
(2) Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant...."


That means the DNASI results were exculpatory because they tended to show that the acts charged were not committed by the defendants. It was clear to even the worst prepared lawyer in the case that the defense was they did not rape Crystal. That makes Rule 412(b)(2) the key issue of the case.

"When the accuser made statements to Mr. Nifong that indicated no sexual intercourse had taken place at the Duke lacrosse party, Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charges."

First, she did not make the statements to Nifong, she told the investigator.

Second, that was Crystal's fourth or fifth different version of events. She told a different version every time new information was given her, to conform her version of events to what the evidence was showing at the time. This is highly indicative of a witness that is not being fully truthful.

Third, once Nifong got the DNASI results, he had all the information needed to dismiss the rape charges. In fact, he no longer had probable cause for continuing the rape charges against the innocent defendants.

Finally, Nifong himself admitted in his April letter that there was no credible evidence to even support the sexual assault charges.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

"His action in dismissing the rape charge attests to his character, integrity, and dedication to justice."

Had Nifong dismissed after the April meeting with DNASI, I would agree with you. However, he did not. He lied to the court about the existence of the DNASI report, when he finally did produce it, he tried to cover up its meaning. That is hardly an example of integrity and dedication to justice. Although it is a perfect example of Nifong's lack of integrity and his dedication to Injustice.

"Mike Nifong acted justly and honorably in the Duke Lacrosse case. It is too bad that all prosecutors in the state do not emulate him."

Syd, you never cease to amaze me by defending Nifong's lack of honor and integrity and attacking other prosecutors who do the same. You can't have it both ways. Either prosecution while hiding exculpatory evidence is right or wrong. It doesn't depend on the name of the DA. If Hoke and Graves committed an injustice, then so did Nifong. If he did nothing wrong, then neither did Hoke and Graves. Don't blather on about how Gell was in prison for years and the innocent lacrosse players were not. Innocent people should not spend any time in jail. The system just barely worked for the innocent lacrosse players, it did not for Gell. But, Nifong was still trying to frame three innocent men in a case where even he admits there was no credible evidence of their guilt.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

some uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Another lie you tell is that nifong prosecuted the Lacrosse players without regard for race. He prosecuted the Lacrosse players who were caucasians accused of raping a black woman. Had cgm accused a black man, there would have been no prosecution.

Nifong wanted a case which would endear him to Durham's black voters and to Durham's racist black leaders. Prosecuting a black man would not have done that.

Before the phony rape case brought on by a false accuser, nifong faced an overwhelming defeat in the upcoming election. After he made an issue of a black false accuser accusing innocent white men, he won a narrow victory. nifong had the overwhelming majority of the black vote. Without that overwhelming majority, nifong would have lost that election.

Incidentally, you tell another lie when you claim nifong's championing false accuser cgm almost cost him the election.

unbekannte said...

more incivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to answer sidney harr de harr harr:

You mentioned nifong dropping the rape charges after cgm told him she could not remember engaging in intercourse.

Are you going to retract the statement you have made, that cgm had always maintained she was raped?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:

Let's look again at nifong's dropping the rape charge.

Do you now admit that on at least one occasion cgm did recant on her rape claim?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:

You have said that no physical evidence connected Gregory Taylor to the crime for which he was convicted.

I ask you again: what physical evidence connected the Duke Lacrosse players to any alleged assault on or any alleged rape of cgm.

One difference between the Duke case and the Gregory Taylor case is, and this is according to nifong himself, there was no "credible" evidence of a crime in the Duke case.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for sidney harr de harr harr(it's too much trouble to type every time what I think of crazy etc. sidney):

Under North Carolina law, these are the requirements for a non testimonial order:

§ 15A-273. Basis for order.
An order may issue only on an affidavit or affidavits sworn to before the judge and
establishing the following grounds for the order:
(1) That there is probable cause to believe that a felony offense, or a Class A1 or
Class 1 misdemeanor offense has been committed;
(2) That there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person named or
described in the affidavit committed the offense; and
(3) That the results of specific nontestimonial identification procedures will be
of material aid in determining whether the person named in the affidavit
committed the offense. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 1997-80, s. 14.)

nifong sought and got a Non Testimonial Order in March of 2006, roughly the same time nifong was making his "mild" statements. Those subjected to the NTO were the caucasian Duke Lacrosse Team members. Regardless of whether or not the NTO was proper, that order named those Duke Lacrosse players as suspects.

Suspects have certain rights under the Constitution, right to be presumed innocent, right to remain silent, right to be represented by counsel. The question for crazy etc sidney is, when nifong obtained that order, did he or did he not obligate himself to respect the rights of the caucasian Duke Lacrosse players?

More to come

unbekannte said...

more incivility for crazy etc. sidney:

More regarding the implications of the NTO

nifong made public statements to the effect that a rape had happened, that caucasian Lacrosse players had been the perpetrators. Do statements like that respect the right of suspects to be presumed innocent. Via that statement, how did nifong comply with his obligation to respect the rights of suspects?

nifong made a statement to the effect that whoever perpetrated the alleged rape had rich daddies who would hire expensive lawyers who would get them off. Did that statement comply with the suspects right to be presumed innocent? Did it comply with their right to be represented by counsel? Did nifong meet his obligation to respect the rights of suspects in making that statement?

nifong made statements to the effect that Lacrosse team players had knowledge of the alleged crime. nifong criticized members of the Lacrosse team for not coming forward with information incriminating other team members. He made a statement that remaining silent was good legal advice but not good moral advice. He thretened to charge members of the Lacrosse team with aiding and abetting if they did not come forward.

Don't those statements say that the Lacroees team was engaged in a criminal conspiracy? If so, isn't nifong naming the Lacrosse team as suspects in another crime. Isn't he again obligating himself to recognize and respect their rights as suspects?

How do those statements comply with the right to be presumed innocent, or the right to remain silent, or the right to be represented by counsel? Via those statements, how did nifong meet his obligation to comply with the rights of suspects?

More to follow

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:


More of the implications of the NTO::Look at section 3 of the Requirements for a non testimonial order under North Carolina Law:

(3) That the results of specific nontestimonial identification procedures will be
of material aid in determining whether the person named in the affidavit
committed the offense.

nifong obtained DNA sampthe Lacrosse team to identify which members of the team committed the alleged crime, did he not? Did the results of the DNA tests identify any Lacrosse player as a perpetrator? No they did not. Is ALL that information relevant to any and all individuals suspected of a crime? It most certainly is.

So, how was nifong justified in prosecuting any member of the Lacrosse team when the evidence he sought, evidence he himself defined as relevant and material to the case, did not identify any Lacrosse player as a perpetrator? How was nifong justified in withholding from the Lacrosse players the information about other males' DNA? How was he justified in withholding any of that evidence from any of the suspects?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

More of the implications of the NTO:

Here is another part of North Carolina Law regarding the NTO:

§ 15A-282. Copy of results to person involved.
A person who has been the subject of nontestimonial identification procedures or his
attorney must be provided with a copy of any reports of test results as soon as the reports are
available. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)

How did nifong comply with this part of the law in withholding part of the results of DNA testing?

Finally, in violating suspects' rights, in failing to provide suspects with all the results of the DNA testing, how was nifong conducting his prosecution in conformity with accepted practices?

If another prosecutor violated a suspect's rights, if another prosecutor withheld evidence obtained from that suspect via a non testimonial order, would you not condemn that prosecutor? Your blog entries say you would.

So why do you defend nifong?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

The previous four posts were supposed to be one post. It was too long for a single post.

Here is a summary: via the NTO the caucasian members of the Duke Lacrosse team became suspects. nifong became obligated by law, by legal ethics and by the Constitution of the United States to respect their rights as suspects. He did not do so.

Via the NTO nifong recognized ALL the DNA as evidence material and relevant to the suspects. He was again legally, ethically and Constitutionally obligated to reveal ALL that evidence to ALL the Suspects. He did not do so.

He obtained the suspects' DNA to identify the perpetrators of the alleged crime. The evidence did not identify any Lacrosse player as a perpetrator. At that point nifong was obligated legally ethically and Constitutionally not to prosecute. He prosecuted anyway.

Legally, ethically, Constitutionally nifong committed prosecutorial conduct. crazy etc. sidney, if you think that was not prosecutorial misconduct, please tell us why.

If you say nifong did not violate anything via his March public statements, then shoot me down. Publish verbatim each and every statement nifong made in March 2006.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I have to ask more questions. Again:

§ 15A-282. Copy of results to person involved.
A person who has been the subject of nontestimonial identification procedures or his
attorney must be provided with a copy of any reports of test results as soon as the reports are
available. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)

crazy etc. sidney:

Does § 15A-282 require ALL results of the testing of materials obtained by the NTO be turned over to the subjects of the NTO?

Weren't ALL the specimens of Lacrosse player DNA obtained via the NTO?

How was it determined that none of the DNA found on cgm did not match the DNA of any suspect Lacrosse player? Was it not because DNASI had access to all the Lacrosse player DNA samples obtained via the NTO?

Since the DNA id, which did not match the DNA of any suspect Lacrosse player, was the result of the NTO, nifong was legally obligated to release that result - the RESULT, not just the raw data which generated the result - to ALL the suspects.

Why do you deny that nifong was obligated to release the result?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Look again at § 15A-282 with some emphasis added:

§ 15A-282. Copy of results to person involved.
A person who has been the subject of nontestimonial identification procedures or his
attorney must be provided with a copy of any reports of test results AS SOON AS THE REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)

Did nifong provide the reports as soon as they were available? He did not provide the report of the crime lab testing for at least two weeks after it became available. Why?

Regarding the non matching male DNA found on cgm, he provided no report of that. Several months after he had the report he provided the Defense with the aw data. Defense obtained the results because one of their attorneys, Brad Bannon, learned how to get the result from the raw data. The results became public about 9 months into the result. brian meehan, who conducted the testing, confirmed that Brad Bannon had interpreted the data correctly.

So, did nifong comply with the legal requirement to release ALL the results from the NTO to all suspects subjected to the NTO? It is obvious he did not.

So go ahead an assert nifong did not withhold relevant evidence from the Defense. You are only confirming your own lack of knowledge and your own lack of credibility.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong learned of the rape case on March 22, 2006. He applied for the NTO on March 23, 2006.

I say, almost immediately, after nifong designated the lacrosse players as suspects, he began a public campaign to undermine their rights as suspects. He made his public statements in March of 2006 after he sought the NTO.

Is this the action of a fair, scrupulous, objective minister of justice trying to determine the truth?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I withdraw my challenge to you to list verbatim all of nifong's pre indictment statements. It may be impossible to do so. However, the original NC bar complaint lists a summary which gives the nature of nifong's remarks and to whom the remarks were made. There are some quotes. What is quoted show nifong was violating the rights of the defendants.

Can you publish anything that imwhat is in the bar complaint? Calling the state bar corrupt is not impeachment.

unbekannte said...

more for crazy etc. sidney

You have claimed that nifong did turn over all the DNA evidence to the defense. I say again, nifong turned over to the defense more than 1000 pages of raw data generated by DNASI. He did not turn that data until months after the report was available.

§ 15A-282 requires that reports of results of testing of material obtained as a result of an NTO be turned over to the subjects of that NTO or to their attorneys. § 15A-282 further requires that those reports be turned over as soon as they are available.

How is nifong's ha the report of the testing for DNA in compliance with § 15A-282? If he was not in compliance with § 15A-282 then he was comitting prosecutorial misconduct, was he not?

How do you justify nifong's failure to turn over the entire report of DNASI's tests?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. stdney:

Hypothetical situation:

A rape is committed. The DA suspects three men are the perpetrators. He gets an NTO requiring the men to give DNA samples. None of the DNA samples matches the male DNA found on the victim.

If the DA is a fair and honest, what does he do. Does he say, this evidence does not identify my suspects as the perps, It must be wrong, so I will discard it.

Or, does he say, I may have the wrong men. I can not prosecute anyone unless I have the real perps.

The DNA evidence obtained via the NTO did not identify the Lacrosse players. Did nifong ever think, these perp(s) may not have been Lacrosse players. The answer is obviously no.

In this case, nifong should have asked whether or not a rape actually happened. The exam of the rape kit showed no material which should have been there in a rape like the one cgm alleged.

Nifong was determined to convict members of the Duke lacrosse team, regardless of any other consideration. Was that the act of a decent, honorable minister of justice?

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sydney? said...

Walt: - First, she did not make the statements [changing her rape accusations] to Nifong, she told the investigator.

And, she just happened to do so less than a week after Meehan's DNA admissions destroyed what little was left of Nifong's case on Dec 15.


Sydney - Everyone is quick to say that Mike Nifong tried his case in the media. That is far from the truth.

Jesus, Sydney, you make Goebbels seem like a piker.