Sunday, March 28, 2010

Why Prosecutor Tom Ford is among the worst of the worse

On the morning of September 26, 1991, Raleigh police officers come upon the body of Jacquetta Thomas, a 26 year old African American, in a cul de sac at the end of Blount Street. The murder victim, who worked as a prostitute, had been severely beaten and her body partially exposed. Near by, but out of sight, is an SUV belonging to Gregory Flint Taylor, which had been abandoned earlier that morning after it became bogged down off-road in marshy land.

When Greg Taylor returns to the scene to see about extricating his vehicle, he identifies himself to the police at the crime scene as the owner of the vehicle and cooperates with their questioning in the homicide investigation. He does so freely and without legal consultation, and even goes to the police station to submit to further interrogation.

During his interviews, Greg Taylor gives consistent statements to the investigators. He he tells that he did not know the victim Jacquetta Thomas, never met her, and that she never was inside of his SUV. He states that his only passenger that night was Johnny Beck (an African American man), that they were riding around seeking and using drugs, and that while driving off road, his car got stuck in the moist terrain during the wee hours of the morning. He tells detectives that unable to remove it from its quagmire, the two decided to leave the vehicle to walk and try to hitch a ride home. On exiting the cul de sac, they noticed for the first time what appeared to be a body, but did not get close or examine it; planning instead to call authorities later in the morning if it had not been discovered by then.

Within twelve hours of the police’s discovery of Jacquetta Thomas’s body, Greg Taylor is charged with the murder. He is charged without forensic evidence linking him to the victim or vice versa, and without evidence confirming the victim’s presence in his vehicle. The unsubstantiated motive for the murder, according to Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford is that Jacquetta Thomas, a prostitute, refused to engage in sex with Taylor, which resulted in Taylor becoming so enraged that he severely beat her to death. As was pointed out during the February 2010 hearing before the three judge panel, Gregory Taylor has never had a history or reputation of violence, either before the murder or afterwards during his 17 years of incarceration (during time spent in prison, he was not charged with any violations or misconduct… a rare accomplishment).

Prosecutor Tom Ford, I strongly believe, does not care whether or not the killer of Ms. Thomas is apprehended and faces judgment because he has absolutely no compassion for the victim… an African American and a prostitute. His only priority is closing the case, and not solving the crime. So, he rushes to judgment in charging Greg Taylor with the murder of Jacquetta Thomas without reasonable cause or due diligence. Tom Ford heeds the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color” when he charges Taylor, who is white but admitted to drug use and did not come from a family of material wealth and privilege, with the murder of Ms. Thomas.

Now, this is where Tom Ford’s actions become really sinister and despicable. His plan is to entice Greg Taylor, the white owner of the SUV, to falsely implicate his black passenger and fellow drug user Johnny Beck for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. If Taylor refuses, Ford threatens to convict Taylor and have him spend the rest of his life in jail. By doing so, Ford could accomplish two objectives… close the case on a murder, and take a black man off the Raleigh streets (innocent or not). Ford initially believes that wrapping up this case would be relatively easy, thinking that Taylor would jump at the chance to avoid a conviction for murder and a lifetime in prison by simply implicating a black man for the commission of the crime, even though Taylor knew Beck to be innocent. However, Tom Ford does not count on Greg Taylor being a man of such integrity that it far exceeds what little that Ford, himself, possesses. Gregory Flint Taylor, at the repeated urgings and threats by Prosecutor Ford, refuses to give false testimony implicating Johnny Beck, a man he knew to be innocent.

Because Greg Taylor refuses to perjure himself by giving false testimony at the behest of Prosecutor Ford for the purpose of implicating another innocent man, Tom Ford makes good on his threat to convict Taylor of the murder. Ford achieves this goal by making deals with two other incarcerated individuals (a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch), who are facing long stretches behind bars, and like him, are lacking morals and integrity. They provide false testimony against Taylor in exchange for the promise of a reduction in their sentences. What is particularly egregious about this action is that Taylor’s defense team is not made aware by the prosecution of this backroom deal between Ford and the perjurers. In addition to the false testimony, false forensic blood test results, as well as the falsely misinterpreted actions of a scent hound, are used by Prosecutor Ford to win a conviction against Taylor in 1993 for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Greg Taylor is sentenced to life in prison.

Facing a life sentence for a murder he did not commit, Prosecutor Ford continues to offer Greg Taylor incentives for a reduced sentence and a chance at freedom in exchange for the false testimony needed to convict Johnny Beck, the black man against whom Ford was forced to drop charges because Taylor would not provide the false and necessary testimony to needed to convict. Despite the prospect of spending the rest of his life and dying within the dreary confines of a small prison cell, Greg’s ethics and integrity remain strong. Ford is unable to break him.

After sixteen years in prison, the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission takes up Greg Taylor’s case and presents it to the Innocence Inquiry Commission. After a thorough review of the case, the eight member board unanimously recommends that Greg Taylor’s case be brought before the three judge panel to determine whether or not he should be proclaimed innocent and freed, or remain in jail… the burden of this hearing being placed on the defense.
Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford, with full knowledge of the sleazy backroom deals made with the jailhouse snitch and the prostitute, and full knowledge that the SBI lab test results were not confirmatory for the presence of blood on Greg Taylor’s SUV, nonetheless decides to work with Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby to fight and try to keep an innocent man in jail for the remainder of his life. Tom Ford is definitely no “minister of justice.”

In February 2010, the truth, as cogently and orderly presented by Attorneys representing Greg Taylor (Mumma, Klinkosum, and Cheshire), combined with the pathetically convoluted, disjointed, and irrelevant presentation by the state assures a pronouncement of “innocent” by the judicial body at the hearing. Gregory Taylor, at long last, is unfettered by shackles and bars, and tastes freedom for the first time in nearly two decades. Seventeen years of his life are lost because of the actions of a prosecutor who, is angered by Taylor’s refusal to work with him to wrongfully convict an innocent black man in the Thomas murder. This anger is what led Ford to punish Taylor by convicting him of the Thomas murder.

Clearly, actions by Ford in the Greg Taylor case, warrant Tom Ford the dubious distinction of being hailed as among the “worst of the worse prosecutors in the Tar Heel state. Other deserving North Carolina prosecutors include David Hoke, who withheld from the defense attorney of Alan Gell exculpatory testimony of seventeen independent eyewitnesses which absolutely refuted Gell’s guilt in a murder for which he was sentenced to death and served a decade wrongfully behind bars. Wilson County Prosecutor Bill Wolfe deserves mention as one of North Carolina’s worst prosecutors for charging James Arthur Johnson for the murder of Wilson teen Brittany Willis, a crime that Wolfe knew Johnson did not commit… a charge based on the statement of Kenneth Meeks, a black teenager and the true killer of the victim. Meeks made the statement implicating Johnson (who is also African American) in the murder of the Wilson teen after police informed the killer that Johnson snitched on him. When Meeks, more than a year later, recanted his statement and admitted that he made it out of anger, Prosecutor Wolfe had no case against Johnson because there was no forensic evidence tying Johnson to the crime. Therefore, Wolfe shortly thereafter manufactured two eyewitnesses, both related to the Wilson Police Department (one being a retired police officer) to implicate Johnson in the crime. The use of these two false witnesses was quickly jettisoned by the prosecution after Dr. Reverend William Barber, President of the NC NAACP became involved; because with his involvement came closer media scrutiny… scrutiny that the false testimony of Wolfe’s two eyewitnesses could not withstand.

As horrendous as these overt acts of prosecutorial misconduct are, and the terrible injustice for which they are responsible, only one of the prosecutors, David Hoke, was taken before the unregulated North Carolina State Bar’s Disciplinary panel. He was merely given a mild reprimand by the group. However, professionally Hoke did not suffer as he was promoted to the position of Assistant Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. Rev. Barber filed a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct with the North Carolina State Bar against Bill Wolfe, which the Bar proceeded to ignore. Likewise, the North Carolina State Bar refused to act on my complaint against Tom Ford (for his actions in the Gregory Taylor case) which was filed in August 2009. As things now stand, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong remains the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933.

And why was Mike Nifong disbarred? He was disbarred because, as Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) so insightfully put it during an interview on “60 Minutes,” he “picked on the wrong families.” In other words, Mr. Nifong did not automatically stop the investigation and he did not refrain from pressing charges in the alleged sexual assault against the Duke University student-athlete partygoers who came from families of wealth, status, and privilege, as was expected from a Durham district attorney. Instead Mr. Nifong pursued the investigation and prosecution as he would in any other case, without Class or Color entering the equation. To express the displeasure by the state, Mike Nifong was singularly persecuted to an extent never before seen… and it was done in order to set an example for other North Carolina prosecutors who might consider not complying with the unwritten state tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color. In addition to disbarment, Mr. Nifong was convicted on a trumped up contempt of court charge and sentenced to jail; the U.S. Department of Justice was asked to launch a criminal investigation into Mr. Nifong for depriving the Duke Lacrosse defendants of their civil rights; Mr. Nifong was denied immunity to which he was entitled as a state employee carrying out his duties; the Attorney General’s Office refused to represent him at his hearing before the North Carolina State Bar; the North Carolina State Board of Elections chose to harass Mr. Nifong by singularly auditing his campaign without cause; and he was blatantly bashed by the biased mainstream media.

The unregulated and self-serving North Carolina State Bar was so hard pressed to come up with a complaint carrying enough substance against Mr. Nifong to appear legit that it was forced to amend the complaint initially filed… a rare action indeed and not supported by law. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong withheld evidence… which he did not. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong lied to the court… which he did not. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong made prejudicial and inflammatory statements against the defendants… which he did not (most, if not all, of the statements for which Mr. Nifong was accused of making took place prior to any indictments being handed down). It is the position of the Committee of Justice for Mike Nifong that Mr. Nifong acted within the acceptable standards of the state’s prosecuting attorneys.

F. Lane Williamson, the chair of the Bar’s grievance panel, used his divine powers of mind reading to reach the conclusion that Mike Nifong prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case solely for political gain (to retain his post as Durham district attorney). A rigged poll by SurveyUSA conducted for WTVD – ABC 11 News helped fertilize the idea that the May 2, 2006 primary for Durham district attorney was close and that wooing black voters would assure Nifong of victory. In actuality nothing could be further from the truth, as black voter registration was low, and black voter turnout was even lower. Using common sense and logic, the best route to a victory would have been for Mr. Nifong not to have brought charges against the Duke lacrosse player or to dismissed them. Instead, his pursuit of the prosecution turned a landslide May 2006 primary victory into a narrow one, and enabled another campaigner (who ran on a platform of solely beating Nifong and promising to give up his position to enable an appointment to the Durham D.A. position by Governor Mike Easley) to garner a whopping 39% of the fall election vote. The only person to use the Duke Lacrosse case for his/her own political gain was Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose main television campaign ad begain with a screen showing in big letters: “The Duke Lacrosse Decision.”

It should be noted that Mr. Nifong acted as a “minister of justice” as evidenced by the fact that he dropped the rape charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants after the alleged victim could not give assurances in later testimony, to his satisfaction, that a rape had taken place. Mr. Nifong’s actions in this respect are in stark contrast to those of Tom Ford, who continues to press for Greg Taylor to remain in jail for the rest of his life in spite of the fact that his contention that blood evidence used to convict Taylor was false, as was the interpretation of actions by a scent hound in the initial trial. Also, the Attorney General’s Office continued to fight for Alan Gell to remain locked up after it came to light that 17 eyewitness statements that proved Gell could not possibly have committed the crime for which he was sentenced to death.

Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford is no minister of justice, but as a prosecutor he most definitely is among the worst of the worse. Yet, the state does not go after him professionally or personally. The biased mainstream media follows the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy and shields his identity from the public whenever possible when discussing the Taylor case. Even Greg Taylor’s attorney, Joseph B. Cheshire V, has not a disparaging word to say about Tom Ford, the prosecutor responsible for his client losing 17 productive years of his life due to Ford’s malicious vendetta. Yet, Cheshire, the most powerful attorney in North Carolina, is quick to chastise and criticize Mr. Nifong for his actions in the Duke Lacrosse case (well within standards practiced by other prosecutors), even though Cheshire’s client (one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants) does not spend one day in jail, and receives a $7 million out-of-court settlement with Duke University.

What I find most disheartening, however, is the response, or lack thereof, by the leadership of the African American communities in Durham and throughout the state of North Carolina. To my knowledge, Dr. Reverend William Barber (president of the NC NAACP) and other leaders have not been critical of Prosecutor Tom Ford and his actions in the Gregory Taylor case. To my knowledge, leaders of the black communities have also been silent about the barbaric treatment of Mike Nifong by the state and the media for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case in which he adhered to the principle of “equal justice for all.” And now that fallout from the Carpetbagger Jihad against Mike Nifong etal. has engulfed Crystal Mangum (charged with attempted first degree murder for allegedly scratching her boyfriend and held in jail on a million dollar bond), the black leadership continues to follow its course of timidity, and remains silent about this injustice. This is disgraceful.

Don’t believe the hype fostered by the Carpetbagger Jihad Juggernaut and dutifully disseminated by the biased mainstream media that Mike Nifong is the worst prosector in North Carolina history and the only one deserving of disbarment. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Mr. Nifong’s nearly thirty years of service to the state has been exemplary and exemplified by the principle of “equal justice for all.” The truly worst of the worst designation, without doubt, goes to Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford, although compelling arguments could be made for prosecutors Bill Wolfe (in the James Arthur Johnson case) and David Hoke (the Alan Gell case.)


69 comments:

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You continue to promulgate lies about the Duke rape case.

When nifong got the case, unlike any honest prosecutor, he got into the media, declared a crime had happened, declared it had been racially motivated, and that the perpetrators were members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

When the forensic evidence clearly established the crime had never happened, nifong declared he would prosecute anyway relying on the victim's word and the msedical evidence. There was no medical evidence to make the case. nifong ignored the complaining witness for 9 months. nifong threatened to file criminal charges against members of the Lacrosse team who would not incriminate fellow team members.

nifong was badly losing the election for Durham county DA, an election he desperately wanted to win. He decided to prosecute Lacrosse players who were relatively well off caucasians. He hoped, successfully it turned out, that would endear him to Durham's black electorate and get him the overwhelming black vote which did win him the election.

Without any evidence to establish any connection between cgm and any Lacrosse players, nifong manufactured one, a lineup which contained only suspects, no fillers, which was conducted by a police officer, mark gottlieb, who was involved in the case and who had a known bias against Lacrosse players. In that lineup, the complaining witness identified two Lacrosse players who had not been at the scene of the alleged crime at the time of the alleged crime as her assailants. The complaining witness said her third assailant had a mustache at the time of the alleged crime, but identified a man who had been clean shaven at the time of the alleged crime as her third assailant.

At the time, the way a rape case was handled was that the DA's office sought warrants, which would allow the accused to be heard at a probable cause hearing. nifong bypassed the arrest warrant and probable cause hearing to go to the grand jury for indictments. One of the indicted Lacrosse players, Reade Seligman, had unimpeachable alibi evidence. nifong had one of his alibi witnesses arrested and intimidated over his story.

Only after nifong had her innocent, falsely accused son arrested without probable cause did Mrs. Rae Evans make her statement about nifong, that nifong could not expect impunity. Actually, crazy sidney has admitted that nifong's disbarment was not a result of Mrs. Evans' statement. According to crazy etc. sidney, the reason for nifong's disbarment was the accusation that he withheld exculpatory evidence.

Forensic testing revealed the only male DNA found on the complaining witness came from multiple males none of whom were members of the Lacrosse team, old DNA, not fresh DNA. It indicated, if there had been a rape, it happened before March 13-14 and had to have been perpetrated by someone other than a Duke Lacrosse players. nifong conspired with dnasi's brian meehan to withhold that evidence from the Lacrosse players.

crazy etc, sidney calls the evidence non exculpatory. His version is that it did not rule out a rape(in this case it definitely did rule out a rape) and did not exonerate the Lacrosse players. crazy etc. sidney will not answer questions, whether or not the evidence proved the occurrence of a rape or incriminated any Duke Lacrosse player.

nifong was disbarred for prosecuting without probable cause, for making inflammatory public statements about the case, for withholding exculpatory evidence, for lying to the court about the evidence, for a number of reasons.

crazy etc, sidney says nifong handled the case the way he would have handled any such case. Tell us, crazy sidney, did nifong prosecute all his cases without evidence or without probable cause??

It is a matter of public record that nifong committed the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in North Carolina history. Nothing crazy sidney writes about any other case will change that.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

As recorded on the medical record, cgm described an attack in which multiple males who did not use condoms penetrated her and ejaculated upon her. In that kind of a rape, there should have been material found on the rape kit. No such material was found on cgm's rape kit.

How does this finding not rule out the occurrence of a rape?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong declared he would rely on the word of the accusing witness to make his case. Then, for 9 months, he made no attempt to find out what her word was. As KC Johnson has pointed out, he was more concerned about what word Moez Elmostafa would give to exonerate one of the innocent, falsely accused men against whom he had gotten an indictment.

A true minister of justice in a rape case does not ignore the complaining witness for 9 months. If he does, he risks her memory of the event becoming less reliable. nifong demonstrated he had the integrity of a corrupt, self serving individual.

Why don't you ask why nifong proceeded with the case. It was obvious from the forensic evidence, which he had before he ever interviewed cgm, that no crime had happened.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Did nifong's office treat Michael Jermaine Burch, black man accused with probable cause of raping a white woman, the same as he treated the Duke defendants, accused without probable cause? If so, please show the similarities.

Walt said...

Syd, everything you accuse Ford of doing, Nifong did and then some. Thus, if Ford is the worst of the worse, Nifong is worse than Ford by far. Let us review:

Nifong lied to the court.

Nifong lied to counsel.

Nifong went to the media and lied about the facts of the allegation.

Nifong prosecuted a case in which even he admits there was no credible evidence.

Nifong withheld evidence.

Nifong is the worst of the worst. He was correctly disbarred and convicted of contempt. He needs a lengthy incarceration in the Department of Corrections so that he might be rehabilitated.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"Using common sense and logic, the best route to a victory would have been for...[n]ifong not to have brought charges against the Duke lacrosse player or to dismissed them."

It is neither common sense nor logic to dismiss actual historic events in favor of a fantasy.

The historic truth is, before he took on the phony Duke Rape case, nifong had little to no chance to win the election. The historic facts are, he was trailing badly in the polls, no one was contributing to his campaign. By his own admission, after the phony Duke rape case became news, nifong used it to publicize himself(remember - his talk of a million dollars of free advertising).

Before the election he had caught up in the polls. In the election, the results showed a surge in support for nifong among black and white voters. nifong won a narrow victory. nifong got the largest portion of the black vote, without which he would have lost.

Tell us, crazy sidney, where did you get the power to negate actual history with your reason and common sense?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"The unregulated and self-serving North Carolina State Bar was so hard pressed to come up with a complaint carrying enough substance against Mr. Nifong to appear legit that it was forced to amend the complaint initially filed… a rare action indeed and not supported by law."

For starters, you can cite the section of the law which says that the State Bar can not file an amended complaint when it learns of charges not covered by the original complaint.

The amended complaint was filed when the State Bar learned nifong had obtained exculpatory evidence and had concealed it from the defendants.

Why do you say it is not exculpatory to the defendants in a rape case to know the DNA found on the alleged victim did not match their DNA?

How would the defendants have learned when nifong was trying to conceal it from them?

nifong turned over to them only raw data, no report, and hardly in a timely fashion. He was obligated by law to turn over the report as soon as he had it. nifong did not do so.

Tell us again how your powers of reason and logic trump actual historical happenings.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"...former Durham District Attorney ...[n]ifong remains the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933".

And look at all he did to well merit that distinction!

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

It really sticks in your craw that you can't work any of your sith mind tricks on anyone but yourself.

I have told you on multiple occasions that such mind tricks work only on the weak minded.

Anonymous said...

Macbeth, act 5, scene 5, lines 25-30

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

Mike Nifong never lied to the court and he never lied to counsel. He always told the truth as he knew it to be. When he stated that all evidence had been handed over, that is what he believed to be the fact. If it were to turn out that some information had, in fact, not been included, then his previous statement would have been incorrect, but not a lie. For example, Governor Bev Perdue stated that all information about her campaign flights had been reported. She believes that to be true. Then associates uncover additional flights and report them. Perdue's initial statement is therefore incorrect, but that does not mean that she lied about it.

Furthermore, with regards to Tom Ford, he tried to get Greg Taylor, against whom he had no credible evidence, to perjure himself and implicate another innocent man. You can't get much lower than that.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter -- Incessantly repeating something -- "Nifong never lied" does not make it true.

Remove your bias, look at the information that has been made available to you from educated resources like Robert Mosteller, Jonna Spilbor and Nader Baydoun, then come to an INFORMED opinion.

Michael said...

Sydney:

JSwift posted a fine response (on your behalf) in the last thread to my incredulity over your last post on the "famous two questions" issue (i.e. 1. how CGM spit ejaculate on the floor without leaving DNA; and 2. what evidence would have come out at a trial that already is not available to the public). Basically, he said that you feel free to ignore CGM's witness statements and presume facts other than the facts she outlined in those statements. I think he's right.

Any response?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Explain what justified nifong withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense and then lying to the court about it.

brian meehan testified under oath that nifong knew about the exculpatory evidence(the non Lacrosse player DNA) and that he and nifong conspired to withhold that evidence from the defense>

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What justified nifong prosecuting three falsely accused, innocent men. The complaining witness, early on, vacillated about being raped. ?the forensic evidence, part of which nifong illegally withheld from the defense, definitively ruled out a crime. The witness identified as her attackers three men who could not have been involved in the alleged crime.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What is so admirable about nifong's failure to interview cgm until 9 months into the case?

Immediately after the night of 13-14 March, 2006, cgm was not able to clearly state whether or not she had been raped. Her story was first, no I wasn't, then, Yes I was, then again, no I wasn't, then finally, yes I was. nifong did not have to wait 9 months to learn cgm could not tell a coherent story.

Why did nifong drop the rape charges? Not because of personal integrity which he obviously lacked.

nifong had interviewed cgm after it was exposed that he had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. He dropped the rape charges because, to paraphrase Benjamin Himaong quote, he knew he was f---ed.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong had no credible evidence that anyone had raped cgm. Yet he indicted and charged three innocent men with rape.

Early in the case, when he knew he had no case, nifong resorted to intimidation to force members of the Lacrosse team to falsely incriminate them.

How was that within acceptable standards of behavior for a prosecutor.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why does it stick in your craw that the redoubtable Mrs. Rae Evans stood up to nifong.

She did not declare jihad. She stood up to a corrupt bully who had indicted her son without any evidence that her son was involved in any crime.

Indicting and prosecuting an innocent man without probable cause is prosecutorial misconduct. The law provides for remedies against prosecutors who violate ethics and the law. Why shouldn't Mrs. Evans and the rest of the Lacrosse families not avail themselves of those remedies?

Why do you conduct a vendetta against three innocent men who were obviously falsely accused and then unjustly prosecuted.

If nifong was such a distinguished prosecutor, why did he need to prosecute three innocent, falsely accused men to get publicity for his election campaign?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You have tried to promulgate so many obvious lies. How does that qualify you to tell whether or not nifong was lying? You have demonstrated quite adequately you do not know what truth is.

Nifong Supporter said...

To unbekannte:

You talk about the absence of DNA on Crystal Mangum's rape kit exam, but that does not rule out a sexual assault, which is was the boys were charged with. When the accuser could not give statements to Mike Nifong's satisfaction that a rape occurred, he was quick to drop that charge. He did so as a true minister of justice.

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

This just in from a 'reliable source';

Crystal the lying prostitute is still in jail.

41 days down, 6 more to go until her next hearing, although there is no guarantee that she will be released at that time.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

This is what you have failed to explain:

The description of the rape in cgm's medical record was that multiple males not using condoms penetrated on her and ejaculated on her. That kind of rape would have left material behind, including the DNA of the assailants. Why did forensic examination of the rape kit reveal no material which should have been left behind, semen, blood, saliva? Why was the only DNA found on cgm from males other than Lacrosse team members?

I say again, your so called powers of reason and common sense do not negate reality. The reality from which you have divorced yourself is, the forensic evidence definitively ruled out any sex crime by any Lacrosse player against false accuser cgm.

I ask again, where is the probable cause when a prosecutor decides a crime can not be ruled out? In a crime, the prosecutor's job is to rule in a crime. What ruled in a crime?

nifong never should have brought rape charges against the Lacrosse players in the first place. He had no probable cause in the first place. That he dropped bogus charges 9 months into the case shows only a 9 month lack of integrity on nifong's part.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:


In your blog you have tried to promulgate many rather egregious lies:

cgm always maintained she was raped.

nifong did not prosecute the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players for political advantage.

The lack of forensic evidence was not exculpatory.

nifong did not conceal exculpatory evidence from the defense.

cgm's id of her assailants was reliable.

nifong's ignoring his accusing witness for 9 months showed his integrity.

With all thes lies you have embraced, why should anyone take you seriously when you claim nifong did not lie to the court?

Brod Dickhead said...

The famous philosopher Descartes said:

"cogito ergo sum"

Pathological liars Sidney Harr and Mike Nifong have corrupted this to:

"cogito ergo est"

Unfortunately things like facts keep getting in the way.

Walt said...

Now Syd, you wrote: "To Walt:

Mike Nifong never lied to the court and he never lied to counsel. He always told the truth as he knew it to be."


Yet, we know he did. In fact, the DHC made the following findings of fact:

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline

The representations contained in Nifong's May 18 written discovery responses were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false statements of material fact to opposing counsel and to the Court...

Nifong's response to Judge Stephens' question was a misrepresentation and a false statement of material fact...

Nifong's representations to Judge Stephens at the June 22 hearing were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false statements of material fact to the Court and to opposing counsel...

Nifong did not comply with Judge Stephens' June 22 Order...

Nifong's statements and responses to Judge Smith at the September 22 hearing were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false statements of material fact to the Court and to opposing counsel...

Nifong's representations that he was unaware of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and/or that he was unaware of the exclusion of such evidence from DSI's written report, were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false statements of material fact to the Court and to opposing counsel...


Let's count the lies just to bench and bar.

1. Nifong's May 18 written discovery responses.

2. Nifong's response to Judge Stephens question during the June 22 hearing.

3. Nifong's representations to the Court during the June 22 hearing.

4. Nifong's failure to comply with the June 22 order.

5. Nifong's statements and responses to Judge Smith at the September 22 hearing.

6. Nifong's representations that he was unaware of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and/or that he was unaware of the exclusion of such evidence from DSI's written report. (Remember Syd, Nifong was present at all the DNASI meetings, so he cannot claim he didn't know what was in the file.)

Now Syd, that does not count the numerous pressers where Nifong told complete lies and total fabrications. Where he said he had read reports that were not yet reduced to writing. Nope, those are just his lies to bench and bar. Bad enough to make him worse than the worst.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

I was going to let the unknown one respond to "You talk about the absence of DNA on Crystal Mangum's rape kit exam, but that does not rule out a sexual assault,...."

But, I cannot let this opportunity pass. I find it difficult to believe that you do not understand that the lack of DNA combined with the unduly suggestive lineup means that Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and David Evans committed no crime with relation to Crystal.

"...which is was the boys were charged with." No, they were indicted for rape. Nifong persisted in describing the crime as a rape for months, he prosecuted the crime as a rape for months. He only dismissed the rape charges when Crystal changed her story yet again.

"When the accuser could not give statements to Mike Nifong's satisfaction that a rape occurred, he was quick to drop that charge."

Apparently Crystal could never give a satisfactory statement. She was always changing her version of events. But, the other witnesses all gave consistent statements from the very beginning. Those statements can be summed up as, Nothing Happened.

"He did so as a true minister of justice."

That would be a minister of injustice. One who lies to the court, lies to opposing counsel, withholds evidence, lies to the media and the public and prosecutes cases with which even he admits he has no probable cause.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Why Sydney, I do believe you are as big a bigot as Liestoppers' Joan Foster

Michael said...

"You talk about the absence of DNA on Crystal Mangum's rape kit exam, but that does not rule out a sexual assault, which is was the boys were charged with. When the accuser could not give statements to Mike Nifong's satisfaction that a rape occurred, he was quick to drop that charge. He did so as a true minister of justice."

So, the mutation of the accuser's story in December (that she was unsure she had been penetrated by a penis or penises - presumably in the two orifices she can't easily see) trumps her earlier statement that a penis ejaculated in her mouth (an orifice she CAN see), huh? Why did Nifong choose to believe her changed testimony in December, but not the earlier testimony? (Remember, her initial statement in the SANE exam was that penises were used and condoms were not - a statement consistent with having a penis ejaculate on one's mouth and spitting the ejaculate on the floor.)

Your hero Nifong can't have it both ways. Either the accuser was lying about a penis ejaculating in her mouth OR she was lying about being unsure whether she was penetrated by a penis (because if a penis is in someone's mouth, that person can SEE it's not a broomstick).

And yes, the absence of DNA from any lacrosse player in her mouth (and the presence of other men's DNA in that orifice from encounters that predated the lacrosse party) is ABSOLUTELY PROBATIVE that an oral rape did not occur at the lacrosse party in the manner described by the accuser (oral ejaculation and expectoration of semen). Period. NO WAY OUT.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

De facto, you admit there was no evidence in the case either to establish that the alleged rape had occurred or that any innocent Lacrosse player had perpetrated the alleged crime. The best you can do is, a rape might have occurred even though there was no evidence.

I remind you, if a prosecutor undertakes to prosecute anyone for a crime, he takes on the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had occurred and that the people charged with the crime had perpetrated the crime.

If the best a prosecutor can do is, a crime may have occurred even though there is no evidence to prove it, how can he prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

If the evidence he has does not link the accused to a crime, how can he prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

If he can not prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, why is it proper to prosecute the accused?

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

First of all, the DHC (Disciplinary Hearing Commission) that disbarred Mike Nifong was nothing more than a kangaroo court masquerading as a disciplinary panel. As I have stated previously, the head of that panel, F. Lane Williamson, is no mind reader, and is no more able to determine intent of Mr. Nifong than you or I. I take Mr. Nifong at his word, which makes common sense and is logical. Mr. Williamson prefers to interpret Mr. Nifong's intentions in a way that bests props up the views of the Carpetbagger Jihadists.

Anonymous said...

Sid -- From the DHC:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/
video/1507052/

Nifong (through his lawyer, David Freeman) states that "In light of the finding of fact...he believes this has been a fair and full hearing of the facts...he believes disbarment is the appropriate punishment in this case.."

So, there is Mike Nifong's word (through his lawyer). Are you saying that Mike Nifong DID NOT tell his lawyer these things? Did Mike Nifong tell you he did not tell his own lawyer these things?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

From crazy etc. sidney: "I take Mr. Nifong at his word, which makes common sense and is logical."

How did nifong's description of the non existent choke hold make common sense or show any logic?

How did nifong's speculation about condom use by cgm's alleged assailants make any logical sense when the medical record noted that condoms had not been used?

Why do you not take nifong at his word when he has admitted he had no credible evidence to justify his prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players?

Was it logical, did it make sense that nifong would threaten to charge members of the Lacrosse team with aiding and abetting if they did not come forward to incriminate other team members?

Was it logical, did it make sense for nifong to accept cgm's identification of her alleged assailants. Two of the men she identified were not at the crime scene at the time of the alleged crime. cgm said her third assailant had a mustache at the time of the alleged crime but she id'd someone who had been clean shaven at the time of the alleged crime.

Was it logical, did it make sense for nifong to proclaim a crime had happened at a time he had no evidence a crime had happened(he never had any evidence that a crime had happened)?

Maybe we know now where you derived your so called powers of logic and common sense which allow you to negate reality.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Where did you learn what you put forth as details of the case, specifically the "sexual assault" with which the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players were charged?

In the hours of pre indictment interviews, nifong proclaimed a rape had happened.

When the forensic evidence came back definitively ruling out a rape or any involvement of any Lacrosse player in the alleged crime, nifong said he would prove rape the old fashioned way, using the victim's word and the medical evidence. Incidentally, why did nifong ignore the complaining victim when he was so dependent upon her word to make his case. Was that a manifestation of his logic and common sense?

Why did nifong make a statement that the absence of forensic evidence did not rule out a rape?

Why did nifong request from the grand jury indictments for rape?

nifong was going for a rape conviction, nothing less. Then he realized 9 months later he could not make a case for rape.

So don't try another sith mind trick, telling us the nifong did not charge the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players with rape.

Walt said...

Aww Syd, surely you jest! "To Walt:

First of all, the DHC (Disciplinary Hearing Commission) that disbarred Mike Nifong was nothing more than a kangaroo court masquerading as a disciplinary panel."


Each of those findings was fully supported by more than ample factual testimony. Indeed, Nifong was present at the meetings where DNASI's findings were presented. He cannot claim that he didn't know about them. Nor can you.

Nifong was present in court on each occasion when he lied and his lies were recorded in the transcripts.

Nifong signed the discovery responses, so he cannot very well claim that he didn't know what was in them. Surely you are not suggesting that Nifong's word is worthless? If his word is worthless, then he's worse than I thought.

Further more, are you suggesting that somehow Nifong did not have a chance to defend himself. (The kangaroo court remark.) He had time to prepare. He was able to subpoena witnesses. He was even allowed to testify on his own behalf. (In addition to proving that he was a rotten lawyer, he also proved to be the worst witness against himself.)

No, Nifong was done in by his own lies, his own hubris and frankly his own poor lawyering. It had nothing to do with the nature of the court, it had nothing to do with outside forces. Nifong's demise was all because he lied to the bench he lied to counsel, he lied to you and me through the media and he chose to prosecute a case against people whom he knew he had no credible evidence.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What carpet bagger jihadists?

You, yourself, have admitted you have no evidence of a carpet bagger jihad.

You have also admitted you are not familiar ith the evidence in the case which shows the falsely accused Lacrosse playvers were innocent.

If you are not claiming powers to read minds, what are you claiming?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazyetc. sidney:

Did nifong ever interview any of his suspects before he charged them. Why not? Was it because he knew his suspects could give him unimpeachable evidence of their innocence? Could he have had them indicted or charged if he had first hand knowledge of their innocence?

A true minister of justice would not have sought indictments against suspects of whom he had knowledge of innocence.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

By your own admission you are not knowledgeable about the evidence reviewed by AG Roy Cooper before he acknowledged that the falsely accused Lacrosse players were innocent. You say you do not have the power to read minds. Yet you claim the case file reviewed by Mr.Cooper includes evidence which incriminates the Lacrosse players.

How then did you learn of incriminating evidence in the case file? Why don't you share with us that evidence? Are you afraid your readers might compare that with the evidence which is part of the public record? Are you afraid such a comparison would confirm the falsely accused Lacrosse players were innocent?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Bring us up to date on cgm. What are your justice4nifong gangsters doing to man up to this alleged "carpetbagger jihad" and get cgm out of jail?

Nifong Supporter said...

To Anonymous:

The Statement quoted in wral.com: Nifong (through his lawyer, David Freeman) states that "In light of the finding of fact...he believes this has been a fair and full hearing of the facts...he believes disbarment is the appropriate punishment in this case.."

If you haven't read Episode IV of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" then I suggest that you do so. You will see that the role of Attorney David B. Freedman is portrayed by Judas Iscariot. There is a reason for that. His partner in representing Mr. Nifong at his disciplinary hearing, Dudley Witt, was portrayed in the comic strip by Benedict Arnold. Need I say more?

I do not trust anything either of those lawyers have to say about what Mr. Nifong allegedly said. Period.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

According to WRAL(http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1120129/), the North Carolina State Bar began investigating nifong on March 30, 2006. The 60 Minutes episode in which Mrs. Evans stood up to would be bully nifong, aired on October 15, 2006.

So, how can it be that mrs. Evans initiated any jihad against nifong?

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

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

How did the forensic evidence in the case show that a crime had happened or that any Duke Lacrosse player was linked to the alleged crime? Saying that a crime could have happened in the absence of evidence is legally meaningless. The proses to show that a crime DID happen.

How did nifong, acting as the prosecutor of an alleged rape case, show any integrity by ignoring his accusing witness for nine months.

Why should nifong have taken cgm's identification of her attackers at face value when there were serious questions about how the lineup was conducted, when there were serious questions as to how reliable the id's were?

Why do you consider it inappropriate that a parent would be outraged at a DA prosecuting her innocent son for a bogus crime with no probable cause?

Why hasn't the justice4nifong gang done anything about getting cgm out of jail?

Why do you tell so many lies about the case?

Why do you think it was not exculpatory in a rape case that the only male DNA found on the victim did not match the DNA of any suspect? Again, to say that the DNA evidence did not rule out a crime is legally meaningless. The prosecutor's responsibility is to prove the crime DID happen.

Why do you believe in a "carpetbagger jihad", of which you have no evidence?

Why do you call nifong's multiple, guilt presuming pre indictment statements mild attempts to get witnesses to come forward?

Why did nifong withhold exculpatory ecidence from the Defense?

Why did nifong lie to the court about exculpatory evidence.

Yes you do need to say a lot more.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why has nifong not filed suit against his Ethics Trial lawyers. What you allege is legal malpractice.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Did the Prosecutors in the nifong ethics trial ever try to intimidate witnesses out of testifying for nifong? When Moez Elmostafa signed a statement upholding Reade Seligman's alibi, nifong had him arrested.

Did the Prosecutors in the ethics trial ever withhold evidence from nifong, the way nifong attempted to withhold evidence from the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.

Look at how nifong tried to prosecute the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players. That will give you an idea of how a prosecutor tries to conduct a kangaroo court.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

The individual who refers to David B. Freedman as Judas Iscariot and to Dudly Witt as Benedict Arnold is the same individual who refers to nifong as an honorable attorney. This is the same nifong who prosecuted three falsely accused innocent young men for a crime that never happened, a crime which forensic definitively ruled out. This individual also called it a sign of nifong's integrity that he ignored his accusing witness for 9 months.

With all due respect, crazy sidney would have condemned Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus Christ would never have supported crazy sidney's vendetta against the innocent Lacrosse players. Nor would He have endorsed all the lies crazy sidney has told about the case.

March 31, 2010 2:32 PM

Edited April 1, 2010, 4:04 AM

Anonymous said...

Sid -- Your characterization of Freedman and Witt aside -- we have Nifong's words (through Freedman) standing in direct contradiction to yours. Are you saying Nifong is a liar, Sid?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy betc. sidney:

According to you, "And why was Mike Nifong disbarred? He was disbarred because, as Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) so insightfully put it during an interview on “60 Minutes,” he “picked on the wrong families.”

I say again wrong.

Mrs Evans made her statement on October 15, 2006. The NC state bar began its investigation of nifong on March 30, 2006, probably because of nifong's multiple, inflammatory, guilt presuming statements about the case.

The socio economic status of the Lacrosse players was irrelevant. The forensic evidence absolutely, definitively ruled out any rape of cgm by any Duke Lacrosse player. nifong had no cause in the first place to initiate a case against them.

That he dropped the rape charges 9 months later was neither a sign of his integrity nor of his commitment to justice. It was his attempt to continue the prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players in spite of having no case against them.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Have you ever watched the AB
C nightline video about the dismissal of the charges filed against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players. The initial 911 call did not say anything about a rape, let alone a rape inside the house on Buchanan Avenue on the night of 13-14 March of 2006. Kim Pittman, who initiated the exchange of racial slurs bay calling a Lacrosse player a limp dicked white boy, reported she and her black girlfriend were walking by the house and someone in the house called them n----r.

How does this statement indicate that something criminal happened insife the house? It doesn't

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

One of your pro nifong anonymous posters(the anonymous irrelephant in the room) claimed nifong prosecuted the case out of compassion for cgm. I ask again, where was his compassion while he was ignoring her for 9 months?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for c. sidney:

Why do you think it was not sinister or evil that nifong wanted to indict three innocent, falsely accused men for a non existent crime just to curry favor with Duke's black electorate and win an election he was badly losing?

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

To anonymous at April 1, 2010 6:11 AM:

nifong is a liar. That was proven beyond reasonable doubt at his criminal contempt trial.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Another lie you trell is that "[nifong] pursued the investigation and prosecution as he would in any other case".

nifong was DA when black man michael jermaine burch allegedly raped a white Duke coed in a bathroom at a frat party. Did nifong make public statements presuming burch's guilt? Did nifong take direct control of the police investigation into burch's alleged crime? Did nifong withhold exculpatory evidence from burch? Did nifong ask for an exorbitant bail for burch?

Whatever, I say again that under nifong, in a rape case, the way it was handled was that arrest warrants were sought and then a probable cause hearing was held. The subject of the warrant got an opportunity to present exculpatory evidence. In the phony Duke rape case, nifong circumventsd the probable cause hearing by going to the Grand Jury for indictments. Why. The most probable reason is that the Defendants would have presented strong exculpatory evidence. nifong did not want exculpatory evidence to get in the way of his prosecution.

That much is evident. nifong withheld exculpatory evidence from the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players and then lied to the court about it.

April 1, 2010 8:21 AM

edited April 1, 2010 8:27 AM

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What evidence indicated that a sex crime had happened on the night of 13-14 March of 2006 and that members of the Lacrosse team either witnessed or perpetrated the crime. nifong made that claim via the numerous public inflammatory, guilt presuming statements about the Lacrosse team, when he tried to convict them in the media.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong made threats to file aiding and abetting charges against Lacrosse team members who did not incriminate other team members. How could they when no crime happened for them to witness.

Wasn't nifong threatening to wreak vengeance upon them if they did not help him make his phony case? Would a true minister try to force witnesses to perjure themselves to support a phony case?

Anonymous said...

unbekannte --

Sid has backed himself into a corner...Either he admits that Nifong is lying, or he admits that he himself is lying.
There's no way for him to weasel out - a statement that David Freedman is the liar here also means Nifong is lying, as Freedman was directly quoting Nifong -- "he said....".
My bet is that, as with other situations where his logic has failed, Sid will simply chose to ignore the comment altogether.

Nifong Supporter said...

To unbekannte:

You bring up a very interesting point: According to WRAL(http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1120129/), the North Carolina State Bar began investigating nifong on March 30, 2006.

Why in the world would the State Bar begin investigating Mr. Nifong within three weeks of the crime and before any grand jury indictments were handed down? Answer: It was a pre-emptive strike with the State Bar being in cahoots with the defense attorneys for the lacrosse team. Have you ever heard of such? The Bar did not initiate a complaint against Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford for his reprehensible actions against an innocent man, Greg Taylor. It is unwise for you or anyone to use the actions of the North Carolina State Bar as a barometer of fairness, integrity, or honor.

As far as the date on which Rae Evans made her appearance on CBS's "60 Minutes," you can bet that she did not twiddle her thumbs after her son was indicted. More likely than not, she started making contacts with the media as soon as the accusations against the Duke Lacrosse team were known to her. That is what an intelligent person who wants to protect her son under any circumstances would do. And Ms. Evans is a very smart lady.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Anonymous:

With regards to Attorney David Freedman, let me make this as clear as possible. I do not believe that Mr. Freedman, in representing Mr. Nifong at his State Bar hearing, worked in his client's best interests. In fact, I believe that he worked to his client's detriment. I do not trust or believe anything that Mr. Freedman says, especially anything that he allegedly "quotes" Mr. Nifong as saying.

I hope that clears up any confusion about this issue.

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

Sydney - Why in the world would the State Bar begin investigating Mr. Nifong within three weeks of the crime and before any grand jury indictments were handed down?

That's an easy one, Sydney. By March 30, 2006, Nifong was well into his 4th day of seemingly non-stop interviews, wherein he continually made inappropriate, prejudicial, extra-judicial statements that violated the NC RPC.

Walt said...

"With regards to Attorney David Freedman, let me make this as clear as possible. I do not believe that Mr. Freedman, in representing Mr. Nifong at his State Bar hearing, worked in his client's best interests."

Syd, nice attempt to sidestep the issue. But the fact is, Freedman was directly quoting Nifong. So, either Nifong was lying then about the DHC being fair, or he really does believe he got a fair hearing.

"In fact, I believe that he worked to his client's detriment."

Well, we do agree to a limited extent. Allowing Nifong to testify was clearly to his detriment. But, Nifong is over 18, so there's not much any lawyer can do when a client is dedicated to self-destructing on the witness stand. If I had been representing Nifong, the only thing I would have done different was I would have alerted the DHC and opposing counsel that I had no reason to believe Nifong was going to testify truthfully. Hopefully that would have made his cross-examination a little easier and it might have made the DHC give his testimony less weight. But, insanity is not a defense before the DHC. Nor is poor preparation for a case. Those are reasons for disbarment. Unfortunately for you, Nifong, by his own testimony, proved that he was dilatory in preparing his cases.

"I do not trust or believe anything that Mr. Freedman says, especially anything that he allegedly "quotes" Mr. Nifong as saying."

Unfortunately you are stuck with those quotes unless Nifong comes out and disavows them. Much like the findings of the DHC which are fully supported by the evidence, you are stuck with. That's the whole problem with the premise of your blog, you disregard the evidence that contradicts you and fully support supposition.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

There you have it -- Sid believes Nifong is a liar....Congratulations, Sid, getting past your denial is the first step on your path to recovery.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Between March 22, 2006, when nifong took over the case, and March 30, 2006, when the Bar began its investigation, nifong got into the media and made many inflammatory, guilt presuming statements about the situation, comments no honest prosecutor would have made. That was the stimulus for the state bar to look into nifong's conduct in the case.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Your so called powers of logic and common sense are non existent. Even if you were capable of logic and common sense, those faculties do not negate reality.

The reality was nifong had no case. Yet he sought to put three innocent, falsely accused men in prison. He did it to win the black vote in the Democratic primary and, thereby, insure he would win the election for durham county da.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What relevance do Tom Ford and Greg Taylor to the phony Duke rape case? Regardless of Tom Ford and Greg Taylor nifong is the most corrupt DA in North Carolina history. Any misdeeds on the part of Tom Ford have no exculpatory value for nigong.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"Why in the world would the State Bar begin investigating Mr. Nifong within three weeks of the crime and before any grand jury indictments were handed down? Answer: It was a pre-emptive strike with the State Bar being in cahoots with the defense attorneys for the lacrosse team."

How could anyone be in cahoots with a non existent jihad. You yourself have admitted you have no evidence of any jihad.

On the other hand, you have provided abundant evidence of your vendetta against three innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

Just because David Freedman claims to quote Mr. Nifong, does not mean that that is what he is doing. I do not believe Freedman's alleged "quotes" that he attributes to Mr. Nifong.

guiowen said...

It could be that Tom Ford is among the worst of the worse, but I think Nifong is definitely the worst of the worst.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"Just because David Freedman claims to quote Mr. Nifong, does not mean that that is what he is doing."

And just because you believe you can, via your powers of logic and common sense, determine what actually happened in this phony rape case does not make it true.

I have noticed, when you are challenged about what nifong said pre indictment, you have opted out of telling us what nifong said. Your opinion to the contrary, nifong did try to convict the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse Players in the media. That is why you refuse to include any quotes of nifong's infalmmatory, guilt presuming, right denying statements in any of your opinions.

Anonymous said...

Sid - Just ask Nifong to post here whether or not the quotes are accurate.