Friday, March 12, 2010

Thank goodness D.A. Willoughby ignored my pleas

After the unanimous September 2009 decision of the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission to recommend the case of Gregory F. Taylor be taken before a three judge panel for adjudication, Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby had the perfect opportunity to work to free the man who had spent 17 years wrongly incarcerated for a murder which the state failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, he chose to fight the release of Taylor by first requesting a lengthy delay in the hearing. The judge refused to acquiesce and the February 2010 date of the hearing remained firm.

Because Greg Taylor had already lost 17 years of his life behind bars, I felt that each day was especially precious, and I wrote two letters to the Wake district attorney imploring him to work to have Mr. Taylor released as soon as possible and forego the scheduled hearing before the three judge panel. D.A. Willoughby never responded to my correspondence and refused to do so. Instead, with the assistance of Tom Ford – the prosecutor responsible for Taylor’s initial conviction in 1993, Willoughby proceeded to argue before the three judge panel to have Greg Taylor remain imprisoned for the rest of his life.

There was never a question in my mind about the outcome of the three judge panel’s decision, as Tom Ford’s “rush to judgment without credible evidence” case in 1993 was fraught with problems: no forensic evidence linking the victim to Taylor or Taylor to the victim; prosecutor testimony of two witnesses who fingered Taylor in exchange for the promise of a reduced sentence; blood evidence on Taylor’s vehicle which the State SBI lab knew was not of human origin; and the motive for the murder did not hold water. The state’s case against Greg Taylor was so weak that I believe that first year Campbell University law students representing Taylor would have prevailed before the panel of jurists… despite the burden of proof being shifted to the defense.

Now, had Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby followed my advice and taken the initiative to release Mr. Taylor prior to the February hearing, then the testimony from prosecution witness Duane Deaver about SBI lab’s uneven reporting practices in 1993 might never have come to light. According to Mr. Deaver, protocol in place at that time prevented him from putting in his report the results of confirmatory tests which favored Taylor’s innocence and countered the presumptive test which tended to be damaging to Taylor. This revelation is of immense importance because other convictions won while this biased and flawed lab policy was in place could now possibly earn a second look. So even though Greg Taylor’s liberty was delayed for several weeks, in the big picture his sacrifice will enable many wrongly incarcerated innocents to have another shot at freedom.

I do not expect the state to welcome review of the cases and work hard to identify the wrongly accused. This was made apparent when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper first stated that an internal review would be conducted. He later succumbed to the intense prodding by defense attorney Joseph Cheshire V to permit an external review of the cases. As Joseph Cheshire stated… to paraphrase, the people do not trust the state to conduct a fair and objective audit of its own past practices. Nor should they.

This hearing is not the first time that prosecutorial egos and the desire to protect the misconduct of a prosecutor overtook common sense. Not long ago the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office decided to retry Alan Gell despite the presence of irrefutable exculpatory evidence of his innocence. This trial was undertaken for the purpose of mitigating David Hoke’s obvious misconduct in the initial Gell trial in which he won a death penalty conviction. However, with the exculpatory evidence in play at the re-trial, the jury was quick to find Alan Gell not guilty. In a more recent case, Forsyth County prosecutor Belinda Foster was forced by D.A. Tom Keith to file an “accessory after the fact” charge against James Arthur Johnson while she dropped charges of murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. Special prosecutor W. David McFadyen then stepped in to prosecute the case, which resulted in an Alford plea by Johnson to a charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime to authorities). Now, although James Arthur Johnson did report to the Wilson Police three days after his knowledge of the crime (which resulted in the case being solved), he evidently did not report it quick enough.

So, thanks to the hubris and desire of Willoughby to shield Tom Ford from criticism of his prosecution of the innocent Greg Taylor, he did not take my advice and instead proceeded with fighting against the release of a man wrongfully convicted. And, as a result, other innocents may hopefully find another avenue by which they can obtain a justice that has been denied.

53 comments:

unbekannte said...

Had nifong been more concerned with justice than with winning an election and saving his job, there would have been no Duke Rape case.

There was no evidence of a crime. There was no evidence linking any Duke Lacrosse player to the alleged victim. nifong manufactured a link via the rigged lineup of April 4, 2006, then indicted and charged three innocent men.

I say thank goodness that Attorney General Roy Cooper blocked the prosecution. Otherwise three innocent men would each have lost 30 years of their lives and possibly more.

Why do you say they were not harmed by the experience?

unbekannte said...

ore uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Had AG Cooper not taken a stand for justice as he did, nifong's miscomduct would have been more egregious. He would have succeeded in imprisoned three falsely accused innocent men for thirty years each. His most foul prosecutorial conduct would have been even fouler.

Why do you say that three falsely accused innocent men living for almost a year under the threat of a wrongful conviction are not harmed by the experience? Is it because you believe they should have been imprisoned simply because of their race?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You have said in your blog that you believe nifong's case had merit. Why? I ask again, what hard evidence was there of a crime, what evidence was there that any Lacrosse player was involved in any crime against cgm.

If you do believe cgm was raped, then tell us who did it.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

In a recent post you claimed the SBI crime lab was biased against defendants. Here you cite evidence generated by the SBI crime lab as proof of Gregory Taylor's innocence.

That same SBI crime lab reported to nifong that the rape kit done on cgm had yielded no evidence that any rape, as described by cgm, had happened. So why did nifong continue to push the case? Was it because the ABI crime lab result was biased against the Lacrosse players?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why do you think nifong could have convicted the Lacrosse defendants?

Nifong said he could make the case using the accuser's word and the medical record.

cgm's word immediately after the alleged crime was, no I wasn't, yes I was, no I wasn't, yes I was. When nifong finally had her interviewed, not immediately after the alleged assault but 9 months after, she could not recall anything of something nifong would have had to prove to make his case.

The medical exam, which he lied about reading, showed no trauma that would have been consistent with the assault cgm described.

The only evidence in the case was the medical record and the results of the testing of the rape case. None of the evidence proved rape.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Many prosecutors in North Carolina urged nifong to drop the case against the innocent, falsely accused Duke defendants. Why did he not heed their advice?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why is it such a shock to you that AG Roy Cooper would conclude from his review of the evidence that the Duke defendants were innocent? You did admit you are not knowledgeable about the evidence.

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

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why did nifong and meehan conspire to conceal evidence from the Duke defendants, the evidence that male DNA recovered from cgm did not match any Defendant, did not match any Duke Lacrosse player?

Why do you think it is not important for defendants in rape cases to know something like that?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why do you fail to report that the 911 call, made by Kim Pittman after the Lacrosse party, never mentioned rape. She claimed she and her girlfriend had walked by the house and were called n----r.

Why did you fail to report that Kim Pittman initially denied the occurrence of rape, then changed her story after offered a deal on a probation violation? Isn't that like an accused turning state's evidence and testifying for the prosecution in return for a deal?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You sure did not welcome AG Roy Cooper's review of the prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.

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

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why did nifong circumvent the procedure of a probable cause hearing, which had been used in just about every previous case in which a suspect was charged with rape?

In a probable cause hearing, the defense could have presented the exculpatory evidence which nifong was trying to avoid. The prosecution would not have gone forward. nifong would not have gotten the black vote. He would have lost the election.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why do you blog against the innocence of three falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players. You have no reason to believe them guilty.

That is why I personally believe you conduct this vendetta against them because of their race.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You have shown that nifong was not the only corrupt prosecutor in North Carolina. Why do you believe in selective protection of corrupt prosecutors? You believe every corrupt prosecutor except nifong should be prosecuted.

That is a singularly inappropriate idea considering nifong committed the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in North Carolina history.

Even if you do not believe this, it was bad enough that he tried to put three innocent men in prison, each for 30 years, just so he could win an election and pad his retirement benefits

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Isn't it great that the three innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players eventually found jutice, in spite of nifong's attempt to deny it to them.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Talking about first year law students, even a first year law student would have known it was wrong to prosecute a case in which there is no evidence of a crime. A first year law student would have known it was wrong to charge anyone with a crime when no evidence linked that person to the alleged crime.

How come nifong did not realize it?

How come you fail to realize that?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I will say, your desire to protect nifong from the consequences of his gross misconduct is not your motivation for this blog, even though that is what you are trying to do.

I say, because of the race of the three innocent, wrongfully accused Duke defendants,you are outraged that they were not convicted and imprisoned.
March 12, 2010 9:07 AM

Edited March 12, 2010 10:02 AM for claritu

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong had the perfect opportunity to dismiss the case and preserve his honor when the result of the rape kit testing showed no rape had occurred, no Lacrosse player could have perpetrated any rape against her. He failed to do so. Winning an election and padding his retirement benefits were more important than being an honorable, true minister of justice.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

The result of the election for Attorney General in 2008 should show you most people in North Carolina are decent and believe in the innocence of the Lacrosse players.

Please explain why you do not.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Getting back to first year law students, a first year law student would recognize what is exculpatory evidence. nifong did, but he withheld it. A first year law student would know that withholding of exculpatory evidence from the defense is illegal and unethical. So, why did nifong withhold evidence he knew was exculpatory? Why do you condemn other prosecutors who fail to release exculpatory evidence but defend nifong's failing to do so?

Your policy is selective protection of nifong. Every corrupt prosecutor should be prosecuted, except for nifong. Do you believe that way because nifong directed his wrongful prosecution against caucasians?

JSwift said...

Sidney,

The revelation that the NC SBI by policy excluded certain exculpatory evidence from its reports was startling. The State apparently had decided that it would routinely violate the constitutional rights of many suspects. I regret that those responsible for this decision likely will never face personal consequences. I agree that we are fortunate that Mr. Willoughby fought Mr. Taylor's release, resulting in this disclosure.

You have other reasons to be thankful that Cooper, Willoughby and Ford refused simply to ask the court to dismiss charges and instead insisted on a retrial or a hearing. Because you believe prosecutors do not have the right to declare a defendant to be innocent, subjecting Mr. Gell to a retrial and Mr. Taylor to a hearing was the only way that a court could pass judgment and make an official determination of innocence.

Your view of justice requires a prosecutor to take a case to trial in order to prove a defendant’s innocence. A decision to drop charges is insufficient. No prosecutor is permitted to justify that decision with a statement that the prosecutor believes the defendant to be innocent (unless, of course, you wish to argue explicitly that the Duke case requires different rules than all other cases).

I, like many of your readers, believe your view of justice to be cruel. The inability of a prosecutor to proclaim innocence may delay the defendant’s release until a court can rule. Moreover, the defendant remains subject to the uncertainties of the verdict of the court.

I call on you to thank Cooper, Willoughby and Ford for permitting Alan Gell and Greg Taylor to prove their innocence in a court of law—the only method you accept.

I also call on you to criticize Belinda Foster for her decision to drop the murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery charges against James Arthur Johnson after Meeks recanted his allegation. When she dropped charges because she had no evidence that implicated him, she prevented Johnson from proving his innocence in a court of law. A court and jury never decided his innocence, and we did not see all of the evidence. As a result, you should argue that none of us (including yourself) will ever know whether Mr. Johnson is innocent of those charges.

I find this conclusion despicable, but it is consistent with your statements on the need for a trial to establish innocence.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Even more about first year law students:

Even a first year law student would realize that a prosecutor must not make inflammatory pre trial statements about a defendant, especially statements which undermine a defendants basic constitutional rights. Why was nifong so ignorant of that?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I ask this again.

What if evidence surfaces which exonerates the defendants in the Eve Carson case. Should they still have to go too trial in order to prove their innocence.

JSwift said...

unbekannte asks:

What if evidence surfaces which exonerates the defendants in the Eve Carson case. Should they still have to go too trial in order to prove their innocence.

I believe that I can answer on behalf of Sidney.

Sidney has told us many times that only a court can establish innocence. While a prosecutor can choose to drop charges, no prosecutor has the right to declare defendants to be innocent. When a prosecutor simply drops charges, the defendant must bear the cloud of uncertainty that they were guilty of the charges.

So, clearly, Sidney believes the answer is YES. If evidence comes out that the defendants in the Eve Carson case were out of town that entire week, say in New York attending plays and the opera and visiting art museums, their innocence could only be established through a trial.

The Gell case provides the clearest example. When Cheshire and Gell's other attorneys for his appeal found the statements from 17 witnesses who had claimed to have seen the victim alive after Gell was in jail and the court ordered a new trial, Roy Cooper had two alternatives.

First, he could elect to drop charges and state that Gell was innocent because the witness statements proved that he could not have been the murderer. That is the alternative he chose in the Duke case. Sidney would have been forced to criticize Cooper's proclamation of innocence because, as he has told us many times, only a court has the right to declare a defendant innocent.

Second, he could choose to subject Gell to a new trial, permitting Gell to prove his innocence in court. In this way, a jury decided his innocence, and we were able to see all of the evidence (after all, it is possible that all 17 witnesses were either lying or mistaken about their claim).

Cooper chose the second alternative, and inexplicably Sidney has criticized him for it. As we know, this permitted Gell to prove his innocence in court. Sidney will accept nothing less.

I believe Sidney was simply acting emotionally. It seems cruel to subject a man you believe to be innocent to a trial. However, Sidney believes that only a trial can prove innocence.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Should you submit to a trial in Southern California so you can prove yourself innocent of tax evasion charges.

JSwift said...

unbekannte asks:

Should you submit to a trial in Southern California so you can prove yourself innocent of tax evasion charges.

Sidney recognizes that submitting to a trial is the only way that his innocence can be established. On the other hand, submitting to a trial bears some risk; he can be wrongfully convicted even if he is innocent. Obviously, there is a trade off.

He has one advantage. His alleged tax problems are not widely known. If fact, if he had not mentioned his tax issues, no one would have known that he was suspected of a crime. A formal determination of innocence in a court therefore may be relatively unimportant.

On the other hand, if the tax authorities begin to conduct an extensive media campaign, he may decide that establishing his innocence is more important.

Imagine the tax authorities giving dozens of interviews in which they complain about tax evading "hooligans" in NC who blog in support of disgraced prosecutors . Their failure to pay taxes puts a "choke hold" on the state's finances, which they demonstrate graphically.

These interviews are obviously not intended to try the case in the media, but only to convince the "hooligan" to cooperate with their investigation.

Now image that the media picks up on the State's campaign. They identify Sidney B. Harr as the "hooligan" and run dozens of articles about his college antics. They look into malpractice claims and interview disgruntled former patients. Newsweek even puts his photograph on its cover with the headline "Blogging Tax Cheat."

Sidney may decide that a formal declaration of innocence is important.

JSwift said...

A spokesman for the State of California demonstrates the "chokehold" on the State's finances at the link below.


http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/
nifongs-peculiar-motion.html

Brod Dickhead said...

Senile Sydney.....

I draw your attention to the following post from Durham in Wonderland:


http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2010/03/roethlisberger-case.html

The Roethlisberger Case

"One item from the case is especially notable. As far as I can tell, and despite the heavy media interest, the district attorney, Fred Bright, has made only one public comment. Here it is:

"The investigation is ongoing. It would be premature to make any announcement at this time. When the facts are in and a decision is made, we will let you know."


Contrast the tone and contents of that remark to Mike Nifong's pre-primary publicity crusade in 2006. Three days after taking over supervision of the police investigation, and minutes after receiving his first detailed briefing on the facts of the case from the police officers now working under his direction, Nifong was off and running.


He gave interview after interview to local, state, and national media--expressing his certainty that a crime had occurred (as he privately admitted, "We're fucked"), and making racially inflammatory remarks as he began his surge from third place to first among black primary voters. He discussed how he had read the report of SANE-nurse-in-training Tara Levicy--the report that mentioned false accuser Crystal Mangum had claimed her "attackers" hadn't used condoms. He even gave a demonstration--on live TV, no less--of how the false accuser had been "choked" in the commission of the "crime."


During that time, few prominent commentators or members of the media expressed any skepticism about the propriety of Nifong's remarks--TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt stands as a significant exception. That said, it's hard to think of a DA in a comparable case (much less a DA six weeks from a primary election that seemed certain to result not only in his defeat but in the new DA firing him) behaving anything like Nifong did.

Bright's comment provides a reminder of how "Minister of Justice" Nifong should have conducted himself in spring 2006".


Perhaps you could advise Mikey to read this Blog Entry. Mikey could also contact DA Fred Bright for some lessons in public decorum for DA's!

Brod Dickhead said...

Senile Sydney....

I draw your attention to the following post from Durham in Wonderland:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2010/03/williamson-appointed-to-judgeship.html


Williamson Appointed to Judgeship

Governor Beverly Perdue has appointed to a vacant Superior Court judgeship Lane Williamson, who presided over the hearing that resulted in Mike Nifong's conviction on multiple ethics charges and subsequent disbarment.


Based on Williamson's performance in the Nifong case, at least, it would be difficult to imagine a more appropriate choice, in terms of both intellect and judicial temperament. North Carolina is lucky to have him on the bench


Eat your heart out Mikey! I can't help but think that his calm professional performance at your disbarment hearing was inter alia at least partially responsible for this honor.

JSwift said...

Sidney,

I remind you once again that you promised on December 3 (100 days ago) to answer one of my questions and on January 13 (59 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 8 and 14 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.

Walt said...

Syd, your cries for justice ring hollow in light of your defense of Nifong's campaign of injustice.

Walt-in-Durham

Brod Dickhead said...

In case there are still readers out there, who believe MIkey was hardly done by:

With Thanks to Liestoppers!


Until Proven Innocent, Johnson and Taylor, pp. 224-225


That Monday morning, May 15, Nifong was seen storming out of his office, blowing past reporters gathered in the hallway, and rushing toward the judge's chambers. In the hallway he bumped into defense lawyer Kerry Sutton. She had been a friend and supporter of Nifong's election campaign

In front of a judge's elderly secretary, Nfiong lit into Sutton with a screaming succession of expletives, including liberal use of the familiar four-syllable insult that begins with "mother". He spewed spittle on her. He yelled something about what he would "ram up her" and something else abut how "I'm going to cut Joe Cheshire's dick off and shove it down his throat." His voice carried across the sixth floor of the courthouse, causing a stir.

Cheshire came on the scene at 9.15 AM, shortly after Nifong had stormed off. Sutton and the judge's secretary were shaken. . .

Cheshire strode down the hall to the DA's office to have a little talk with Nifong. But Nifong would not come out to face the man he had just been cursing behind his back. "He screamed, yelled, and cursed at a woman, but he won't face me.," Cheshire later recalled. "He's a bully and a coward."

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why do you think that AG Cooper should have pronounced the falsely accused innocent Lacrosse players guilty?

Nifong Supporter said...

To unbekannte and JSwift:

You seem to be terribly misinformed, which is not unusual. For instance, you talk about me being charged with tax evasion. Where do you get that? True, the California Franchise Tax board did send an invoice stating that I owed nearly a half million in back taxes (undoubtedly part of the carpetbagger jihad), but I explained to their satisfaction that they had erred. In other words, there's no credible evidence to support such a charge of tax evasion against me. End of story.

Nifong Supporter said...

To JSwift:

Thanks for attempting to answer, on my behalf, a question by unbekannte. However, your assessment of my views was not entirely correct.

First, I believe that the State Attorney General does not have the legal right to declare innocence, guilt, or non-guilt of any defendant. This view is not just mine but is shared by many attorneys, including Campbell Law School professor Anthony Baker.

In the Gregory Taylor case, I asked District Attorney Willoughby to drop the ridiculous case (with a lack of credible evidence) against Mr. Taylor to enable Mr. Taylor to gain his freedom earlier than if he had to await the outcome of the three judge panel. Also, I wanted to spare Mr. Taylor and his family from undergoing the stress of the hearing. Finally, although extremely unlikely, there was always the possibility that there might not be a unanimous decision reached to ensure Taylor's freedom.

Now, if charges in a case against a defendant are dropped, then "innocence" or "guilt" or "non-guilt" is moot. Therefore, taking the case to court is not warranted.

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

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Please specify where and when Attorney General Cooper declared the falsely accused Lacrosse players innocent. At that press conference, AG Cooper explained his decision to dismiss the charges against the Lacrosse plaers by saying "We(he and his investigators) believe these men are innocent".

Why should the Attorney General be forbidden from forming an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the Lacrosse players, or to express that opinion? He did review the evidence in the case. By your own admission, you did not. Yet you have formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence and you have expressed your opinion, even if you have not specifically said, They are guilty.

Why do you support nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players? I say again, there was no evidence of a crime, there was no evidence of any intimate contact between cgm and any Lacrosse player. nifong himself admitted he had no credible evidence against the Lacrosse players.

My opinion is, you are conducting a vendetta against the Lacrosse players because of their race.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Considering your defense of nifong's misconduct, your claim that nifong did not violate ethics regulations, did not try his case in the media, that nifong did not prosecute the Lacrosse players in order to win an election, your claim that a "carpetbagger jihad", something of which you have no evidence, it is no surprise to me that any DA would not listen to you. You have absolutely no credibility.

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

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

As to why you have no credibility let us not forget your claim that the Seligman Family bought off Moez Elmostafa. Not even nifong believed that. Not even the most vocal critics of the Lacrosse players, nancy disgrace or wicked wendy murphy for example, ever believed that

March 18, 2010 2:04 PM

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

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why did you not want to spare the families of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players the ordeal of a trial.

If nifong had gotten his way, that would have been a trial before a biased jury already determined to convict them.

March 18, 2010 2:10 PM

Edited March 18, 2010 2:11 PM
Delete

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Once again you get it wrong. I did not say you were charged with tax evasion. I asked if you think you should go to trial to prove yourself innocent of tax evasion. One repeated, quite inappropriate comment on your blog has been that the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players should have gone to trial to prove their innocence. I made an attempt to get you to realize the absurdity of that position.

I would say, judging from comments in your blog that you believe the Lacrosse players should have gone to trial. Why? There was absolutely no evidence that they had ever committed any crime.

March 18, 2010 1:46 PM

Edited March 18, 2010 2:12 PM

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

While we are on your lack of credibility, what about your ridiculous claim about why the families of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players were outraged about nifong prosecuting them just to further his political ambitions.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What about your claims that nifong's inflammatory, guilt presuming pre indictment statements were just "mild" attempts to get witnesses to come forth? Do you think this claim does anything for your credibility?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Again you get it wrong. When charges are dropped agaist the defendant, guilt or innocence is not moot. Are you aware of the presumption of innocence? Under the law, someone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until and unless he is proven guilty bryond a reasonable doubt.

If charges are dropped, there has been no proof of guilt, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is therefore, by law, innocent.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

How does your lack of knowledge about the Presumption of Innocence do anything for your credibility?

unbekannte said...

mre uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You did claim in your blog that nifong could make a case against the Lacrosse players even without credible evidence. Even if you deny it, you tacitly admit nifong indeed had no credible evidence.

Why do you say the lack of credible evidence against Gregory Taylor meant he should not have goe to trial.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidmey:

What does Campbell Law School professor Anthony Baker say about nifong withholding from the Lacrosse Defendants the report of the testing by dnasi, the report that the only male DNA recovered from cgm came from men othr than the Duke Lacrosse players.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You say there was no credible evidence of tax evasion against you.

There was no credible evidence against the three Duke Lacrosse players charged with raping cgm. So why should they have been prosecuted. Why did their story not end until the case had been taken over by the AG.

If you know of any credible evidence against the innocent Lacrosse players, what is it? Your claim that it is in the sealed case file is a cop out. In spite of your professed belief in the guilt of the Lacrosse players, you have no evidence. So you carry on a racially motivated vendetta against them.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

How do we know someone has sealed inculpatory evidence of tax evasion by you? You know - like the way AG Cooper has sealed the inculpatory evidence against the Lacrosse players.

JSwift said...

For instance, you talk about me being charged with tax evasion. Where do you get that? True, the California Franchise Tax board did send an invoice stating that I owed nearly a half million in back taxes (undoubtedly part of the carpetbagger jihad), but I explained to their satisfaction that they had erred.

Sidney,

I truly apologize for suggesting that you had been charged with tax evasion. unbekannte and I must have misunderstood your earlier post.

As it turns out, the correct version should have been you were only accused (an invoice is a form of accusation) of a failure to pay taxes (some might consider a failure to pay the same as evasion).

You note that you have satisfied the authorities that they made a mistake and the dropped the inquiry. Congratulations!

However, I note that while you may no longer be in legal danger, many of your readers will always question whether you are in fact "innocent" of tax evasion. We have not seen the evidence. We do not know whether you might have paid off the examiner (much like you suggested that Elmostafa was paid off). We will never know what evidence the authorities might have had against you without a trial.

You will forever be Dr. Sidney B. Harr, accused of a failure to pay taxes and never proven innocent. End of story.