Saturday, March 6, 2010

NC media able to dish it out, but can’t take it

An interesting article by Anne Blythe appeared in the March 2, 2010 edition of the News & Observer titled, “Media protest call for reports on Carson case.” It states how media companies across the state of North Carolina are fighting attempts by federal defense attorneys to have media outlets in North Carolina hand over copies of everything published about the Eve Carson homicide case. The defense contends that media in the state have saturated the public with such adverse publicity against Carson’s accused killer, Demario Atwater, that it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial within the state. They are seeking to have the federal capital murder trial held in the neighboring state of Virginia.

Sixty news organizations have been subpoenaed by the defense to produce copies of all related newspaper articles, letters and editorials, and copies of TV and radio broadcasts. In response to the request, news organizations teamed up to quash the subpoena. Raleigh attorney Amanda Martin, representing the News & Observer argues that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to comply, despite the fact that a man is facing a death penalty if convicted. Obviously, the media’s convenience and bottom line are more important than whether or not a man, who is fighting for his life, has the benefit of a fair trial.

What makes this issue so pitifully hypocritical is the fact that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does the media respond when they are subpoenaed by the defense in a capital murder case? They whine about the inconvenience of a reduced staff and hardships in the current economic times… and they do so to stonewall Atwater’s defense team in the federal case. But, that is not the overriding reason. In my opinion, the media are trying to dispel any notion that their reporting on the Carson case was in any way, shape, or form, biased. But it was.

For example the media constantly showed images from the ATM camera depicting the defendants withdrawing cash, allegedly using Eve Carson’s bank card. Evidence against the defendants in the Carson case is repeatedly played across television screens throughout the state. This is a prime example of the prosecution trying a case in the media. Only this time, they’re being called on it by competent federal defenders. Although former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of trying the Duke Lacrosse case in the media, the fact is that he did not. To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media. Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants. It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients. However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team.

Of course, the media in North Carolina has been biased in its reporting on the Carson case, and a change of venue should be granted to assure that justice is served. A change of venue was not granted by Wilson Judge Milton Fitch in the case of James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson’s attorneys filed a motion to have the case moved from the city of Wilson (racially divided due to the irresponsible actions of the local law enforcement, prosecutors, and media), it was denied by Fitch without explanation. This unreasonable action by the judge was an obvious harbinger of things to come, and most likely prompted defendant Johnson to accept an Alford plea for the charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime… although he did, but his three day delay in doing so was not fast enough).

Nowhere is media bias more blatant than in the attacks against Mike Nifong, and they began in the early stages of the Duke Lacrosse case. WTVD ABC-11 News was instrumental in laying groundwork for a so-called motive for Mr. Nifong’s prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case… the ridiculous claim that he pursued the prosecution for political gain in order to win the election for Durham district attorney. The rigged poll they used stated that Nifong was in a virtual tie with Freda Black, and that a large black turnout favored Mr. Nifong. It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary. It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race. Yet, the media put it out there, and Mr. Nifong’s detractors used it.

One of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks played on the public by the media, however, has to do with their embracing the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” by Attorney General Roy Cooper. They universally used it as a basis to proclaim the three Duke defendants as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “wrongly accused,” “not guilty,” “exonerated,” “cleared of criminal charges,” etc. However, the use of these adjectives to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants is legally, technically, and factually wrong! The attorney general does not have the legal authority to make such pronouncements of “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence.” Gregory F. Taylor, who was found not guilty by a three judge panel referred by the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission, is, on the other hand, “innocent,” or “not guilty,” and terms such as “exonerated” and “cleared” are appropriate and applicable.

MSNBC’s senior legal analyst Susan Filan has fabricated a statement about Mr. Nifong, and CBS has written headlines that falsely put words in Mr. Nifong’s mouth. Just a few of the more egregious examples of biased reporting by North Carolina media.

At least Demario Atwater is getting what appears to be competent representation by his defense attorneys in his federal case. That cannot be said about the representation Mr. Nifong received before the North Carolina State Bar. Unfair media bias against Mr. Nifong should have been brought to the fore in his defense against the trumped up ethics charges. His attorneys (David Freedman and Dudley Witt from Winston-Salem) seemed more dedicated to appeasing the unregulated North Carolina State Bar and the media than presenting an aggressive no-holds-barred defense of their unjustly disparaged client.

53 comments:

JSwift said...

It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary.

I believe that you have provided data for all registered voters in Durham County. I do not believe that North Carolina has an open primary system. Republicans are not permitted to vote in a Democratic primary. Because blacks are registered disproportionately as Democrats and whites as Republicans, the overall statistics you cite overstate the percentage of whites and understate the percentage of blacks.

I have noted this discrepancy in comments on each of the last two threads.

Because I recognize that you may have missed my comments, I will repeat them in this thread.

I continue to believe that you are citing misleading statistics.

JSwift said...

This comment was posted on the 3/4/10 thread.


Sidney,



I thank you for your reply on the preceding thread. While I agree that the Durham County Board of Elections is a credible source, I believe they may have given you incorrect information.



As I noted earlier, my internet research shows that North Carolina does not have open primaries. Importantly, in a closed primary Republicans are not permitted to vote in a Democratic primary. I believe that the primaries are semi-closed; Democrats obviously are permitted to vote in a Democratic primary. I believe that independents (the NC term is "unaffiliated voters") are permitted to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. I ask any commenters who live in North Carolina to confirm this point.



The number you cite for the percentage of registered voters who are black of 38% appears to be for all voters, including Republicans. While the DCBoE website no longer posts the May 2006 numbers, the March 2010 numbers are available (link below). Durham County currently has 164,354 registered voters, including 86,655 (52.7%) whites, 64,282 (39.1%) blacks and 13,417 (8.2%) other or not specified. These numbers include all registered voters, including Democrats, Republicans, independents and Libertarians. I am sure that you agree that these numbers are misleading for our purpose if Republicans (and Libertarians) are not permitted to vote in a Democratic primary.



A disproportionate number of blacks are registered as Democrats. Durham County currently has 101,616 registered Democrats, including 39,262 (38.6%) whites, 56,007 (55.1%) blacks and 6,347 (6.2%) other. Durham County has 25,209 registered Republicans, including 22,919 (90.9%) whites, 1,127 (4.5%) blacks and 1,163 (4.6%) other. I believe Republicans and the 214 Libertarians cannot vote in a Democratic primary. Finally, Durham County has 37,315 independents, including 24,312 (65.1%) whites, 7,127 (19.1%) blacks and 5,876 (15.8%) other. I believe, but am not sure, that independents can vote in the Democratic primary. Again, I seek confirmation.



Overall, Durham County's electorate is 39% black, similar to the 38% you cite. This number is correct for purpose of this analysis only if the primary is open to all registered voters. This number is not relevant for an analysis of a closed or semi-closed Democratic primary as it includes voters not eligible. If both Democrats and independents are eligible, the eligible voters are 45.8% white and 45.4% black. Whites do not represent the "overwhelming majority" you suggest. If I am wrong about independents, then the eligible voters (all Democrats) are 39% white and 55% black. In either case, the percentage of eligible black voters is higher than the number you cite. It would be interesting to see the May 2006 data in this detail.



While I recognize that the electorate has changed in the past four years, these current statistics are consistent with the statistics KC Johnson posted in the post I referenced in an earlier comment. If primaries are not open, the Board of Elections provided you with irrelevant data. If Republicans cannot vote in a Democratic primary, they owe you an apology for their error.

JSwift said...

This comment was posted on the 3/4/10 thread.

Finally, the website does not provide demographic information about actual voters in any election. I am surprised that the Board provides information in a telephone call they do not post on their website.



As you know, a Vanderbilt professor published a paper in which he analyzed precinct level data to estimate the demographics of actual voters in the May 2006 DA primary. Had that data been available directly, it would have saved him a lot of work and increased his accuracy. In any event, based on the presumably misleading numbers they gave you for registered voters which included Republicans, the numbers for actual voters was probably also misleading.



If we confirm that my understanding of eligible voters in a primary is correct, you should revise your comments and earlier post if the percentages are misleading. Your analysis may be based on faulty information.



As I suggested in my earlier comment, you should also address the effect of the case on white feminists and white progressives, who are more likely to be registered as Democrats, and white conservatives, who are more likely to be registered as Republicans (and thus not eligible to vote in a closed primary). Sidney, for example, are the white members of your Committee better described as progressives or conservatives? I suggest that the case may not necessarily have been a negative factor for the white vote in a closed primary in May. I gave reasons earlier.



You should provide links to the polling data you cite for Mr. Nifong's sizable lead prior to the frame. I have seen several polls, all of which showed Ms. Black with a lead. I would have expected Mr. Nifong to have been less gleeful about his "million dollars of free publicity" if he had viewed the case as a political negative.



The suggestion that Mr. Nifong had a significant lead appears to be inconsistent with Mr. Nifong's difficulties in fundraising. As you recall, he had been forced to loan $30,000 to his campaign prior to the case. You may wish to address why Mr. Nifong had experienced financing difficulties with a significant lead and why those fundraising difficulties disappeared when that lead narrowed after the publicity from the lacrosse case. I cannot follow that reasoning. Your polling data is critical to your analysis.



Thank you again for your reply. I look forward to your links for additional data.



JSwift said...

This comment was posted on the 3/4/10 thread.

http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/
elec/Documents/Statistics/2010_March/
Monthly_Stats_Document.pdf

JSwift said...

This comment was posted on the 3/1/10 thread.

Sidney,



Unfortunately, you fail once again to provide your sources. I ask that you provide a link to the source of your data for voter registration and turnout. I request that you retract this comment and your earlier post unless you can provide your source.



KC Johnson discussed the subject of the demographics of voters in the primary in a May 19, 2006, post on Durham-in-Wonderland. He provides different data and, unlike you, provides links to the Durham County Board of Elections for his data (these links are now dead; the post is almost four years old). Johnson also provides several quotes (including one from Mr. Nifong himself) to provide some context for the importance of the black vote. In May 2006, Mr. Nifong apparently disagreed with your current assessment.



The link for the post is as follows:


http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/
05/nifong-and-black-vote.html



Johnson notes that North Carolina does not have an open primary system. In other words, only registered Democrats (and, I believe, independents) can vote in the Democratic primary. He provides data that the “county has 86,621 registered Democrats, 46,586 of whom are black.” Based on this data, 53.8% of registered Democrats are black. He does not provide data for independents. The percentage of eligible primary voters who are black is much higher than your data suggests. You appear mistakenly to have included all voters in your data.



Johnson notes further that the county has “27,070 registered Republicans, 24,566 of whom are white” and that conservative white voters have increasingly shifted to the Republicans. These voters, including many of Mr. Nifong's critics, could not vote in the Democratic primary.



As a result of this shift, many of the whites remaining in the Democratic Party and eligible to vote in the primary are more liberal than those who have become Republicans. One may ask whether black voters represented the only constituency to whom Mr. Nifong’s handing of the Duke case may have been an important positive factor. White feminists and other white progressives come immediately to mind. As suggested above, few of these liberal or leftist voters left the Democratic Party to become Republicans.



Feminist commentators in general strongly supported Mr. Nifong, motivated by the belief that women never lie about rape (Susan Estrich was a rare exception). Many, apparently a significant majority, of the demonstrators supporting “sister survivor” were white. Leftists viewed the case as supporting the meta-narrative popular in academia. The race/gender/class trilogy generates a significant volume of current academic research; many academics analyze problems almost exclusively through the prism of race, gender and class. Many of the Gang of 88 are white.



Unless your data excludes Republicans (and thus includes only those voters who were eligible to vote in the primary), I submit that you have provided misleading data. If you have included Republicans, I am sure that it was an inadvertent oversight on your part. I am confident that you did not intend to deliberately mislead your readers.



If you inadvertently used overall voter registration (and thus included Republicans in your statistics), I ask that you either correct your data or retract both your post and your subsequent comment. I ask also that you comment on support for Mr. Nifong among feminists and other progressives.



Because you have failed to provide a link to the source of your data, your readers are unable to determine whether your data is accurate or misleading. I ask that you provide a link.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong did not try the Duke case in the media?

What do you call the hours and hours of media events in which nifong pronounced a crime had occurred, that Duke Lacrosse players were the culprits, that it was racially motivated?

What do you call it when nifong states in the media that Lacrosse team players were withholding information that they witnessed the crime?

What do you call it when nifong publicly says that if a Lacrosse player were to retain an attorney after being named a suspect, it was an indication of guilt?

What do you call it when nifong publicly said that Lacrosse players' rich daddies would hire expensive lawyers who would get them off?

What do you call it when nifong publicly states that Lacrosse players' refusal to give up their right to silence is an indication of guilt?

What do you call it when nifong publicly states the medical record showed injuries consistent with rape when he never read the medical record?

What do you call it when nifong publicly displays an assault(the choke hold) which never happened?

If that is not what nifong said, then tell us what he really said when he made his public, pre indictment statements?

JSwift said...

the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants

This statement is false. I ask that you retract it.

As you know, Mr. Nifong conceded that there was no credible evidence to support the prosecution:

"I agree with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1636446/

If you fail to concede that your statement is false and retract it, then your readers must conclude that you believe Mr. Nifong's statement to be false. If so, your readers must conclude that you believe Mr. Nifong to be either an incompetent moron or a liar.

Sidney, I ask that you explain why you believe that the license to practice law should be restored to a man you believe to be either an incompetent moron or a liar.

Some might believe either quality should disqualify that individual.

unbekannte said...

More uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I will repeat what I put in a comment to an earlier blog.

nifong never had any appreciable support of any rich white voters. JSwift in saying North Carolina did not have open primaries. Most white voters in Durham had registered republican. They could not have supported nifong, even if they wanted to.

unbekannte said...

more uncvility for crazy etc. sidney:

What relevance does the Denario Atwater case have to the Duke phony rape case?

Regardless of Denario Atwater, nifong still committed the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in North Carolina history.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I ask you again to provide proof that a crime did occur in the Duke rape case.

JSwift said...

unbekannte,

Do you believe that the lacrosse frame hurt Mr. Nifong among white feminists and white progressives?

Sidney has not answered the question, so I must conclude that he either does not know the answer or the answer does not support his argument.

I ask that you consider, for example, the racial make-up of the demonstrators supporting "sister survivor" and the "castration" of the rapists. Consider also the racial make-up of the Gang of 88.

Do you believe that white feminists and white progressives are more likely to be Democrats or Republicans?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong's pre indictment statements would have prevented the falsely accused Lacrosse players from getting a fair trial in North Carolina. You lament that the case never went to trial. Do you believe they should have been tried in another state?

Would that not have made sense if, as you allege, the "carpet bagger jihad" was controlling things in North Carolina?

If the "carpet bagger jihad" was controlling things in NC, why did the NC NAACP object to a change in venue?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

If the public had no knowledge of what evidence nifong had against the Lacrosse players, it was because he had no evidence.

His lies about the choke hold, about reading the medical record, about what he did with the report from dnasi are all evidence he had no evidence.

His subjecting the Lacrosse players to a lineup from which he withheld all precautions against incorrect id of innocent individuals is an indication even his star witness, cgm, could not give credible evidence.

I have asked you to tell us what evidence there was that a crime happened. You have not replied, indicating you have no evidence.

You also, by your own admission, know none of the evidence that shows the innocence of the falsely accused Lacrosse players.

JSwift said...

Sidney,

I remind you once again that you promised on December 3 (93 days ago) to answer one of my questions and on January 13 (52 days ago) to respond at your "earliest convenience" to Ms. Mangum's written statement. You have failed to keep either of these promises.

As you know, I asked how the failure to find DNA that matched any of the players was not exculpatory in a case in which the accuser alleged that one or more of her attackers had ejaculated and did not use condoms. As you know, Ms. Mangum claimed in her April 6 written statement that:

"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.

In several earlier posts, I provided six questions that may help you in formulating your answers. I will reprint them here.

1. Why was “Adam’s” DNA not found in Ms. Mangum’s mouth?

2. What does the failure to find “Adam’s” DNA in Ms. Mangum’s mouth suggest about the accuracy of Ms. Mangum’s allegation that “Adam” had “ejaculated in [her] mouth and [she] spit it out?”

3. What does that failure say about Ms. Mangum’s credibility with respect to her ability to remember what happened?

4. If Ms. Mangum is shown not to be a credible witness with respect to her ability to remember what happened, why are her identifications in a tainted procedure credible?

5. If Ms. Mangum’s identifications are not credible, what evidence remains to support the prosecution?

6. Why is the failure to find “Adam’s” DNA in Ms. Mangum’s mouth not exculpatory?

You now have failed to keep your promises for more than 7 and 13 weeks, While I know that you are preoccupied with your valiant fight against the Carpetbagger Jihad®, I believe that you should provide an explanation for your inexplicable delay.

I urge you not to make promises that you do not intend to keep. Some of your readers may conclude that you are dishonest.

In your response, please address Ms. Mangum’s specific allegation:

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.

You must explain the lack of DNA remaining after Ms. Mangum “spit it out onto the floor” without damaging Ms. Mangum’s credibility.

Keep your promises. No more delays.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong's neglect of the complaining witness for 9 months, 9 months in which her recollection of the events would become less clear, establishes nifong as a sloppy, negligent, incompetent attorney>

Along with JSwift I ask, why do you want to return someone who is sloppy, negligent and incompetent to the practice of law?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Do you have any facts to support "that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation."?

Or is this another example of your powers of logic and common sense?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

The Eve Carson case is fundamentally different so far as the ATM picture. And again, you have inflicted a sith mind trick upon yourself and have gotten it wrong.

First, there was a crime. Eve Carson's body was found. Autopsy showed she had been shot multiple times. There was no evidence of any crime in the Duke case.

The ATM picture was published after the crime was established. At that time no suspects had been named. The picture was published in hope someone would identify the individual in the picture. Why shouldn't Law enforcement authorities try to to id suspects in a brutal murder? Again, in the Duke case, nifong did not establish the occurrence of any crime.

The picture was not a picture of "the suspects". It was a picture of one man, Laurence Alvin Lovette Jr.
Lovette made a transaction. The PIN number was recorded. It was Eve Carson's card. Lovette was driving an SUV which looked like Eve Carson's SUV. Eve Carson's car was a mile from her body. That was a picture of Lovette driving a murdered girl's car using this murdered girl's ATM card to make a transaction. There was nothing alleged about what it showed.

Only a fool would not realize that ATM transactions are recorded, photographically and electronically. Only a fool would not realize that Law Enforcement Authorities can review those records. If Lovette did not realize he was consenting to being photographed while driving a murdered girl's car and using her ATM card, he was a fool. The 5th Amendment does not protect fools from inadvertantly voluntarily leaving incriminating evidence about themselves. Did any one coerce Lovette to drive Eve Carson's car through the ATM lane or to use her ATM card? In the Duke case, nifong tried to coerce defense witnesses into changing their stories. In the Lacrosse case, nifong tried to coerce team members to say they had witnessed a crime when there was no crime to witness.

The questions a prosecutor would ask are: why was Lovette driving a murdered girl's car; how did he get the keys to the car(he couldn't use the car without keys); how did he get the murdered girl's ATM card; how did he learn the ATM number, without which he could not have made a transaction. No matter where the trial would be held, those questions would be asked. In and of themselves, those questions do not raise a possibility of an unfair trial. In the Duke case, a fair prosecutor would ask if exculpatory evidence would exonerate anyone. nifong did not. Instead, nifong tried to suppress exculpatory evidence.

Further, Lovette himself, de facto, created the evidence and made it available for public consumption. How does that justify a change in venue? What nifong made available for public consumption were unsupported allegations of a crime and presumption of guilt of members of the Lacrosse team. Black leaders have argued that should not have led to a change in venue.

Incidentally, wasn't it good that Reade Seligman knew ATM transactions were recorded.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Let's get back to the election which you claim nifong almost lost. I agree he almost lost the election, but not because of the Duke phony rape case.

Before the rape case, nifong was not receiving financial support from anyone. It is a fact he took out personal loans of almost $30,000 to keep his campaign going. How does this show he had support from anyone before the rape case? Why was there a surge of support for him, black and white, after the rape case?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Calling someone a hooligan is not convicting them in the media. However nifong did not simply call the Lacrosse team hooligans.

His one statement said, in effect, he was asking himself why doesn't someone on the Lacrosse team ask, what am I doing covering for a bunch of hooligans. That statement pre supposes a crime had taken place and that witnesses to the crime were not reporting it.

In another statement, in effect, nifong said that the entire team saw three of their number enter the bathroom with cgm, that if they did not know then what happened, they knew later, and he was disappointed that no one was man enough to come forward to provide incriminating evidence. That statement also presumed a crime, presumed guilt, and presumed there were witnesses who were covering up a crime.

If nifong did not say that, tell us what he said.

If this was not not only trying the situation in the media but also convicting in the media, then what was it?

Let's have a sensible, believable answer, if you please.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What would nifong have done if Lacrosse players came forth and told him no crime had happened.

nifong had threatened he would file charges of aiding and abetting against Lacrosse team members who would not come forward with incriminating evidence.

nifong had Moez Elmostafa arrested and then attempted to intimidate him into changing his story.

nifong pressured Kim Roberts into changing her statement, the rape charge was a crock, over what was either a parole or probation violation.

If nifong did not do this, tell us exactly what was it he did.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why does nifong not sue his attorneys for legal malpractice. That he does not suggests he can not make a case against him.

If they deliberately misrepresented him in his ethics trial, was that not a violation of his constitutional right to due process? Why has nifong not brought federal civil rights charges against his attorneys? Is it because he does not want the Duke case in the media again. Is because another public hashing of the Duke case would confirm his misconduct?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Isn't it fortunate that the Duke defendants had competent counsel who, for example, could uncover nifong's attempt to conceal exculpatory evidence?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Attorney General Cooper did not make any proclamation of innocence. He and his investigators reviewed all the evidence(something which you, by your own admission, are not familiar), concluded the Duke defendants were innocent, then announced that all charges would be dismissed and that there would be no further prosecution. Then he announced, "We BELIEVE these men are innocent." Where have you heard him proclaim anything.

Innocence does not derive from any judicial proclamation. It derives from a demonstrable fact that the accused did not commit any crime. In the Duke case there was no evidence of any crime in the first place. So how could the defendants be anything but innocent?

Walt said...

Syd, you are really showing your lack of familiarity with the evidence. "To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media."

In fact, Nifong did a lot more than call innocent people names. He made over 60 appearances where he described events in detail. Events that actually did not take place and descriptions that were pure works of fiction. Never the less, he did it.

"Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media,"

That is exactly what he did. That is exactly what he was grieved for. That is exactly what he was convicted of by the DHC and those are the findings with which Nifong does not dispute.

"... a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants."

I am always the first to say that Nifong was the lease well prepared lawyer involved in the hoax. But, let's not forget that Nifong himself admitted that he had no credible evidence that any crime took place. The Attorney General's Special Prosecutors thoroughly investigated the allegations and not only determined that there was no credible evidence, but they also determined that in fact Reade Seligman, David Evans and Colin Finnerty were innocent. There was never any evidence to present to a trial. All we have is Nifong's fictional accounts of something that did not happen.

"It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients."

"However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team."

In this instance, the media is correct. Nifong did attempt to try his case in the media. He did it because had no credible evidence to present to a court. As lawyers are fond of saying, "when you have the evidence, you pound on the evidence, when you have the law, you pound on the law and when you have neither, you pound on the table." Nifong started pounding on the table early and often.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

nore uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Do you object to the Defense showing pictures of Reade Seligman withdrawing money from an ATM at the time of the alleged rape. If so, why would you object, since the pictures were exculpatory evidence which showed Reade Seligman had not been at the alleged crime scene?

If Reade Seligman had such evidence, why was nifong justified in not questioning the reliability of cgm's 100% id of Mr. Seligman?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

The public is aware of what evidence nifong had against the innocent Lacrosse players. It is obvious nifong had no evidence. nifong himself eventually admitted he had no credible evidence against them.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Since, by your own admission, you are not knowledgeable about the evidence Mr. Cooper reviewed, why do you claim he is covering up evidence of the Lacrosse players' guilt.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You claim that incriminating evidence about the men accused of murdering Eve Carson has been made widely available for public consumption. Interesting. How did that happen? In view of that, how did AG Cooper cover up the evidence of guilt of the Lacrosse players before nifong asked him to assume responsibility for the case.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why does nifong not make public the evidence of the Lacrosse players' guilt. What does he have to fear? If accused of something wouldn't that be an opportunity for nifong to exonerate himself? If the state were to charge him with something, would that not force them to open the file on the Lacrosse case?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong conducted the improper April 4 2006 at which Reade Seligman was id'd even though he was not at the scene of the alleged crime.

Moez Elmostafa provided a statement that Mr. Seligman had been riding in his cab at the time of the alleged crime.

At nifong's behest Mr. Elmostafa was arrested on an old misdemeanor warrant which nifong, had he been a competent lawyer, knew Mr. Elmostafa could beat. Mr. Elmostafa was presented with a choice, change his statement or be tried.

How is that the act of a true minister of justice?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Provide us with evidence that nifong would have won the election in a land slide if he had not pushed the Duke case.

The figures you quote are irrelevant. How much support did nifong have before the Duke case broke? How much did he have after the case broke? What accounted for the difference?

Analysis of the election result, comparing it with a pre election, pre Duke case poll shows clearly nifong, not Freda Black, had a surge in voter support both white and black after the Duke case broke.

How do you suppose that happened?

JSwift said...

It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race.

Sidney,

I agree with you completely on this statement. For once, you make a statement that makes perfect sense.

Mr. Nifong did not prosecute a case that he believed was extremely unpopular. Rather, he prosecuted a case that was extremely popular, at least in March, April and early May 2006, with several voter groups that were eligible to vote in the Democratic primary.

As you know, Mr. Nifong gave dozens of interviews and became a media sensation. He stated that his media coverage was worth a "million dollars in free publicity." He would not have given dozens of interviews on a "case that was extremely unpopular." Certainly, he would not have considered interviews on a "case that was extremely unpopular" to have been worth a "million dollars in free publicity."

You have dismissed as inaccurate the polls that showed Ms. Black with a significant lead over Mr. Nifong and Mr. Bishop before news of the lacrosse case broke, and Mr. Nifong became a media sensation.

You have provided no polls to support your claims. I am not aware of any polls that support your view.

In addition, your suggestion that Mr. Nifong had a significant lead appears to be inconsistent with Mr. Nifong's difficulties in fundraising. As you recall, he had been forced to loan $30,000 to his campaign.

Your claim requires that one believe that Mr. Nifong experienced financing difficulties only when he had a significant lead in the polls. In other words, potential campaign donors (largely local attorneys who wanted a good relationship with the DA) had no interest in supporting Mr. Nifong when he was a likely winner. Those same donors suddenly began to support Mr. Nifong only when his lead evaporated and his victory was no longer assured.

Your claim "defies credulity."

Polling data to support your claim that Mr. Nifong had a large lead is critical to support your claim.

Without it, you insult your readers' intelligence.

I ask that you retract all posts and comments that contain this claim unless you are able to provide links to specific polling information that supports your theory.

If you do not provide polling data and repeat this ridiculous claim, I will consider that repetition evidence that you seek to deliberately deceive your readers.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What did nifong publicize about the Lacrosse players. No evidence. The only evidence in the case was exculpatory. nifong tried to keep exculpatory evidence out of the case. Would a true minister of justice deny a defendant the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence? nifong did.

Thanks to nifong's million dollars worth of free publicity, the media published his lies, his guilt presuming statements, his attempts to intimidate witnesses.

Have any of the attorneys prosecuting Atwater and Lovette done anything like that?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I ask again, why did Freda Black not make an issue of the Duke phony rape case. If that case was eroding nifong's support, wouldn't his opponent try to use that against him?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. nifong:

Why was it so difficult for nifong to hand over to the Defense the complete report on what dnasi found on the rape kit. He was required by law to turn over the REPORT as soon as he had it. Months after he had the report, he turned over only raw data, believing the Defense would never decipher it.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

How did nifong respond to Defense requests for his discovery file. He lied.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why do you have no hesitation describing the case against Atwater and Lovette as an alleged crime? Until recently, you were reluctant to use that word to describe cgm's false accusation of rape against three innocent Lacrosse players.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Two men have been charged in the murder of Eve Carson, Atwater and Levette. Get your facts straight.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Fortunately, for the three innocent Duke Lacrosse players falsely accused of rape, they had families who were willing to call out nifong for his attempted malicious prosecution of their sons.

They also had competent attorneys who were willing to challenge nifong's unethical, illegal behavior in the case.

They were instrumental in helping nifong earn his one and only distinction as an attorney - he was the only prosecutor in North Carolina history to earn disbarment, so gross was his misconduct.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why were the Defense attorneys inappropriate in presenting favorable information about their clients.

nifong was especially active in presenting adverse information about them.

The difference between them was this: the defense attorneys presented true information. nifong presented a lot of lies.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

When durham crimestoppers presented their wanted poster to the public, they did not describe cgm as the alleged victim. They called her the victim. Isn't that presumption of guilt? Why would a true minister of justice tolerating a quasi official agency ignoring the presumption of innocence? Did nifong do it because he himself was publicly presuming guilt?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why are you so upset that the innocent, falsely accused Duke defendants could afford competent representation? Do you agree with nifong, that retaining an attorney by someone named as a suspect in a crime is indicative of guilt?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You ARE using the word "alleged to describe the false crime of which three innocent men were charged by nifong. Are you now admitting there was no evidence of a crime? If there was no evidence of a crime, why did nifong charge three innocent men with committing it?

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

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I did not completely understand the Atwater/Lovette situation. Lovette was underage when the crime happened(it was not an alleged crime - it was established before anyone was arrested that Eve Carson had been murdered). He would not be subjected to the death penalty. Only Atwater is charged with Federal Capital crimes.

Still, crazy sidney, you are inappropriate to criticize the circulation of the ATM pictures. There had been a crime. Authorities had surveillance pictures of two men. They had probable cause to believe each man had used Eve Carson's ATM card to access her account. Use of Eve Carson's ATM card raised questions, how did they get the ATM card, how did they get the pin. That was probable cause to believe they had some involvement with the crime. The pictures were circulated so police could question these men. The pictures were not the only thing that led to their arrest. The authorities had gotten many tips from the community.

In the Duke case, there was never established that a crime had happened(even crazy sidney now calls it an alleged crime). Yet Durham crimestoppers(police connection david addison) released a poster with pictures of 43 caucasian Duke Lacrosse players. The poster stated that the crime had happened and that members of the Duke Lacrosse team had committed the crime.

When no one came forward with any tips or any incriminating information, a true minister of justice would have questioned the alleged crime. nifong went public and declared a crime had happened. He said witnesses to the crime were covering up the crime. When someone came forward to provide exculpatory evidence for one suspect, nifong had him arrested.

People have said it is routine to check the background of all potential witnesses. KC Johnson pointed out this discrepancy. While nifong was checking the background of a defense witness, he was not checking the background of his complaining witness.

If anything, comparing the Duke case to the Atwater/Lovette case only emphasizes nifong's performance as a rogue prosecutor.

March 7, 2010 7:49 AM

Edited March 7 2010 7:51 AM to correct typos

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why do you say the phony Duke rape case was unpopular?

If it was so unpopular, why did the media give him all those hours to spout off about it? Why were there all those demonstrations condemning the Lacrosse players?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Please explain how items on MSNBC and CBS are examples of bias in North Carolina media.

Michael said...

"Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants."

We know that both Dan Abrams and the New York Times purported to have full access to the DA's files. How much more PUBLIC could the disclosure of the DA's evidence have been? (Wendy Murphy's suggestion that there was "sealed evidence"? The accuser's medical records; hardly helpful to the prosecution.)

Very polite, very patient people have asked you now several times to explain your theory of how the finding of multiple donors' non-LAX DNA (including in oral swabs) was not exculpatory given the accuser's statement that one of the players ejaculated in her mouth. [His DNA wasn't there but previous men's DNA was there? Violates known properties of space and time.]

Now, very polite, very patient people are asking you to divulge what evidence the prosecution would have brought at trial that has not heretofore been disclosed.

It's time to answer these two questions. If you can't, then all you're doing is hiding behind stereotypes and innuendo. It didn't work for Mike Nifong, and it won't work for you.

Michael said...

Still waiting.....

Michael said...

Still waiting...

Come on. You've invested all this time in this matter, are we really to believe that you need days and days to formulate an answer to two of the most simple questions of the case:

1. What would we have seen at trial that "open discovery" did not already produce?

2. How could the accuser have male DNA from a previous encounter in he mouth but no male DNA from a subsequent encounter involving ejaculation and expectoration? (And, not incidentally, where was the accuser's DNA in what was expectorated?)

Michael said...

Still waiting....

Was today's posting seriously more important than answering the two questions?

Michael said...

Still waiting....

Today's post says your mind is on other things because you can't face answering the two questions.

Prove me wrong. Answer.

Michael said...

Guess you just won't, will you?