Thursday, May 27, 2010

The Nifongs are a class act… the same can’t be said for “Newsday”

According to the May 24, 2010 posted article by writers Joseph Mallia and Melanie Lefkowitz of Newsday titled “Collin Finnerty, once falsely accused, graduates college,” Cy Gurney (wife of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong) when she was told Newsday was calling about Collin Finnerty's graduation and homecoming, said, "I think that's wonderful. I can't speak for my husband, and I wasn't involved in the case, but I think that sounds like a great story. I believe that people should go forward.” This statement is typical and representative of the class, grace and style that the Nifongs have displayed throughout the horrific assault against them by the state of North Carolina and the biased mainstream media. Mike Nifong’s refusal to speak with meida is understandable when one takes into consideration the media assassination of him by media journalists and tv news producers. The launch of oppressive and spiteful attacks against Mr. Nifong was borne from Rae Evans’s (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) Carpetbagger Jihad call for action during a CBS “60 Minutes” television interview. Ms. Evans, in lashing out against the prosecutor who dared to bring charges against her son and two other Dukies, promised that Mr. Nifong would “pay, every day, for the rest of his life.”

Ms. Evans, who worked for more than a decade as an executive for CBS News (a fact which CBS has chosen not to disclose), is now founder and owner of a thriving Washington, D.C. consulting firm, and consequently she has the political and media connections to propel the unwarranted onslaught against a man who merely had the courage to do what was right. That man, Mike Nifong, did what he felt was the right thing to do when the alleged victim of a Duke lacrosse Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party accused three Duke players of sexually assaulting her in March 2006. Mr. Nifong’s decision to move forward with the prosecution flew in the face of the wishes of Duke University, the North Carolina attorney general, and Governor Mike Easley. And, contrary to the rigged May 1, 2006 primary poll by SurveyUSA which was sponsored by WTVD ABC-11 News, Nifong’s pursuit of the Duke defendants severely compromised his chances of being elected to his incumbent position of Durham district attorney.

Make no mistake about it, the media is no friend of Mr. Nifong… it’s his worst nightmare. It has persistently played a Jedi mind-trick on the public with its false and misleading representations, such as the following: (1) stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “exonerated”; (2) headlines falsely stating that Mr. Nifong “admitted that nothing happened”; and (3) fabricating statements, a specific example being an article by MSNBC Senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan which fictionalizes a conversation wherein Mr. Nifong asks his son to attend his disciplinary hearing.

The biased media was successful in its underhanded undertaking to destroy Mr. Nifong’s image and reputation nationwide, heaping scorn upon him and turning him into a virtual pariah. The majority of people who are aware of his unjust persecution are unwilling to show him any support for fear of being targeted themselves… the one exception being members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. This grass roots organization of supporters, formed in June 2008,has been largely ignored by the media which aims to minimize any show of support for the former embattled district attorney. Because of the anti-Nifong propaganda spewed forth by the media, many sppon-fed media subscribers have developed a visceral hatred for this honorable, gentle, decent man of integrity… Mike Nifong. So it should not come as any surprise that Mr. Nifong now refuses to talk to the media.

What I find truly disturbing is that Newsday would have the audacity to phone Mr. Nifong in order to get his opinion about Duke Lacrosse defendant Collin Finnerty’s graduation from college. Was the Newsday attempt to interview Mr. Nifong done intentionally to provoke, embarrass, rub in, flaunt, inflict emotional distress, taunt, or all of the above? I do not know what the motivation was for Newsday calling Mr. Nifong, but I know that it was uncalled for, insensitive, malicious, and demonstrated that Newsday has no class.

If Newsday wants to conduct an interview on a topic related to the Duke Lacrosse case, I would be more than happy to oblige. Instead of talking about the graduation of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, I would suggest the subject of Crystal Mangum’s recent incarceration on trumped up charges and her excessive $1 million bail. Newsday doesn’t want to tackle the outrageousness of this fiasco, however. Trumped up charges against Ms. Mangum included: (1) felony attempted first degree murder; (2) assault and battery; and (3) felony identity theft. These charges were included at arrest for the purpose of helping to justify the ridiculously high bail of $1 million, but they were not sought on the grand jury indictment because prosecutors knew these charges were frivolous and totally lacking in merit. The charges upon which Crystal Mangum was indicted by the grand jury were just as phony: (1) felony first degree arson (initially five counts reduced to one count at indictment) in a case where Ms. Mangum obviously executed a controlled burn and there was no flame damage or intention to damage her apartment building by fire. This charge is bogus because first degree arson by definition requires the deliberate burning of an occupied building or structure; (2) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile are dependent on the first degree arson charge being valid, which it isn’t… therefore these three counts are baseless, as well; (3) injury to personal property – there was no proof that the few clothes burned in the bathtub had a value of $200 or more, and the claims of vandalism to the car of the ex-boyfriend brings the credibility of the Durham police reports into question; and (4) obstructing the investigation of a public officer by claiming Ms. Mangum’s giving a false name to police officers is ludicrous because they knew Ms. Mangum’s true identity before asking her.

The overriding issue is that Ms. Mangum, like Mike Nifong, DNA lab director Brian Meehan, two chief investigators of the Durham Police Department, the Durham City Manager, Nifong supporters as myself, and others considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the “wrong end” of the Duke Lacrosse case, have been victimized by the Carpetbagger Jihadist movement. Unfortunately the media has served as a pivotal cog in the ‘Bagger’s machinery of destructive retaliation against anything pro-Nifong. By so doing, the media serves the interests of the few, well-heeled privileged at the expense of the vast majority of common folk who seek from the media honest, unbiased, and objective reporting.

The article about Duke defendant Finnerty’s graduation may be accurate in its account, but the actions by its authors to secure an interview with Mike Nifong clearly shows that Newsday is no class act.


Shame on Newsday said...

That is seriously creepy on the part of Newsday. What are they going to do, call Mr. Nifong every time a player graduates, gets married, has a kid, or buys a yacht.

Hey Mr. Nifong, have you seen the pictures of that new yacht yet? You are correct Nifong supporter, Newsday has no class.

Mediabasher said...

I agree. This was classless. It wasn't like the media staked out the defendants' homes at the beginning of the case or Newsweek had a cover implying the defendants' guilt.

Anonymous said...

"Hey Mr. Nifong, have you seen the pictures of that new yacht yet?"

I don't care who you are -- that is funny!

Michael said...


C'mon already.

Nifongismyhero said...

Nifong has always been a class act.

Mike replied with: "My name is Mike Nifong and I'm the Chief Asshole of the Durham County District Attorney's office."

Double Helix said...

Why all these questions about DNA? Evans DNA on the fake fingernail can possibly be explained and there was no more DNA found that matched one of the players.

Nifongismyhero said...

Double Helix,

Dr. Harr promised to explain Crystal's written statement is consistent with the negative DNA tests. Crystal alleged that one of the players ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. It seems that Crystal either lied or was confused. If so, she loses her credibility.

Perhaps you can help to explain. Dr. Harr hasn't been able to do so for several months.

Double Helix said...

Well if she spit it out and then drank a bunch of alcohol, I don't see what the problem is with that one. And even though finding these other unknown DNA traces does not prove that the players did not assault Crystal, it does show she was sexually active, which doesn't rally prove anything either. Does that help?

Nifongismyhero said...

No, but thanks for trying.

Drinking a lot of alcohol wouldn't get rid of the DNA. Besides, Crystal's DNA wasn't found on the bathroom floor.

It still sounds like Crystal was lying or was confused.

Why do you think Dr. Harr thinks that is not important? Or do you think he is lying?

Double Helix said...

The alcohol precipitates the DNA making in more likely it would be swallowed down with the alcohol. They didn't find the DNA so what is the issue? Crystal was obviously in the bathroom because her false nails were found there, so not finding her DNA on the floor is probably a result of poor collection of samples. If I recall, the players cleaned up that bathroom as well before investigators arrived. Matt had put the false nails in the trash can by that point.

Nifongismyhero said...

The nails were in the trashcan, but I understand the rest of the bathroom was still a mess. For example, there was semen on the floor, but none of Crystal's DNA was found in it. They certainly didn't clean up very well.

I still find it odd that there was no DNA in Crystal's mouth that matched the players. (As I recall, there was some non-player DNA in her mouth, which weakens your alcohol theory.)

No player DNA in Crystal's mouth and none of Crystal's DNA on the floor. I just don't believe that one of the players ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. It certainly seems that Crystal was either lying or was confused. That is a more logical explanation than the DPD did a bad job of collecting samples.

If Crystal was lying or was confused, what other evidence did they have that supported her? I don't remember anything.

Double Helix said...

Semen on the floor? That would support her claim but it was not a match to one of the players she picked out. I don't remember the DNA from her oral swab showing conclusively that there was male DNA, I thought it was the panties and rectal swab, but I may just not be remembering correctly. In any case there was no DNA other than Evans on one fingernail that tied any of the players to Ms. Mangum. I understand there was some lab contamination with Meehan's DNA showing up in some of the tests (was it the oral swab one?), but that does not automatically discount the other test results, so unless one of the results tied one of the players to Crystal, I still don't see why all the excitement about the DNA tests now.

Even before the results showing the DNA of these other males were released it was pretty much common knowledge well before the December 15 hearing.

Nifongismyhero said...

No. There was female DNA in the semen from a woman other than Crystal. It doesn't support Crystal's claim.

I still think she was either lying or was confused.

If so, I don't see how Nifong could pick and choose which of Crystal's allegations to ignore or how he could simply invent new allegations.

Dr. Harr won't answer. Perhaps you can explain.

Double Helix said...

Well, I remember when the news of the December 15th hearing came out, I was watching the coverage and I was thinking "WTF, they are slamming Nifong for hiding something everybody has known for months". I just didn't get it then nor do I fully understand it today. Mr. Gaynor had several renewamerica articles where he mentioned the multiple male DNA found back that summer and I remember he said that he was even sending each of his articles to a team family member and other parties as well. For the months leading up to that hearing they kept asking Nifong if that was all he had and kept asking for more. Then right before that last motion of 12/13 when they got more specific on what they wanted, they dropped the motion that still was not ruled on to have Mr. Nifong removed as prosecutor of this case.

It seems to me that Mr. Nifong had no idea what they were talking about or he would not have called Dr. Meehan to the stand. It also seemed strange that if the defense thought Mr. Nifong was hiding something important, why would they withdraw their motion to have him taken off as prosecutor of this case. It also seems strange that the defense did not know about this missing information that they kept asking for up until just before that dramatic courtroom moment. Honestly after listening to Dr. Meehan, I don't doubt that Mr. Nifong would have had a hard time understanding him about all the DNA details. I am not sure it would take Mr. Meehan less than 2 hours to explain how he tied his shoes that morning.

As I said previously the multiple male DNA unfortunately does not prove that the players did not assault Ms. Mangum but does show that she was sexually active more recently that she had indicated in her statement. Even without the missing DNA information, I have little doubt that the defense had already discovered that through old fashioned detective work and probably didn't even need this information to show it.

I do think the questions you asked about the oral swab tests are good ones and would have probably been brought up by the defense team if it ever went to trial. I see from your latest post that perhaps you were asking this Dr. Harr these questions as well. Perhaps he will be more knowledgeable about those DNA results regarding this particular case.

FriedChicken&Watermelon said...

Oh please Sidney!!

In the Lacrosse Frame perpetrated by Mike Nifong,he courted the press; he lived by the Press, he garnered "$1 million of free publicity" for his election campaign from the press, he attempted to try his case in the press, and ultimately he will die in the press.

I think sending Mike a picture of the new yacht etc by the Families is and excellent idea. Mikey could reciprocate and send pictures of:

Mikey having to sell his house to pay his legal fees.

Mikey trotting off to Federal Prison when he is at last convicted.

Mkey hustling for quarters playing his guitar on street corners

Mikey destitute, living in a cardboard box in Duke Forest

and finally Mikey's paupers funeral with only the CoJfMN in attendance.

The Law of Unintended Consequences is playing out nicely.

Karma is a bitch!

guiowen said...

As a matter of fact, Gaynor wrote many columns about the lacrosse case. He did mention dns from CGMN's boy friend.It was not however, until after December 15, that he wrote about the DNA from at least four other men.
Of course double helix may have some information I don't. Can you give us a citation?

Anonymous said...

It looks like he talked about this on three separate occasions prior to 15 December. All are cited in this column:

Interesting. It seems as there is some dispute with Bannon regarding what they knew and when they knew about it.

Nifongismyhero said...

Double Helix and Anonymous @5/31 44:48, you are focusing on the wrong DNA.

While the decision to withhold the unmatched male DNA from the DNASI report may have resulted in Nifong's disbarment, it is not the critical evidence. It merely demonstrated Nifong's win at any cost mentality.

The critical DNA evidence was the negative SBI test. There was no semen and no match to any player. That negative test demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Crystal's specific allegation was false.

Without a DNA match, it was not possible that a player had ejaculated in Crystal's mouth and she spit it out. That allegation was demonstrably false.

Crystal was either lying or she was confused. In either case, her credibility was highly suspect.

The case was built on an accusation and "identifications" by an accuser known to have been lying or to have been confused.

We all recognize that the fact that Crystal was either lying or was confused does not alone prove that there was no assault. That is not necessary.

However, an accusation and identification by an accuser known to have been lying to to have been confused is not enough to constitute probable cause and pursue a prosecution.

If Nifong and the DPD really believe that "something happened" that Crystal did not remember, they would have conducted an extensive investigation. They did almost nothing.

I conclude that they did not believe her. They did not believe a sexual assault had even occurred. I can only call that a deliberate frame.

Anonymous said...

I don't remember Nifong getting into any trouble over hiding something from the SBI reports? Do you have a link to that information?

Nifongismyhero said...

He didn't get into trouble for hiding anything from the SBI tests. I didn't say that and you know that.

We know that Crystal was either lying or was confused. Nifong knew that.

Anonymous said...

I am glad to hear it. It is clear that Nifong got in trouble because of the second round of DNA tests that Dr. Meehan testified to (not over the SBI tests). That is the focus of this blog and my previous post. You can focus on the SBI tests if it floats your yacht.

Nifongismyhero said...

He also got into trouble for his dozens of interviews worth a "million dollars of free publicity." Prosecutors are not supposed to make those sorts of comments, particularly when there is "no credible evidence" to support charges.

Ultimately, he got into trouble because he ignored the SBI tests. Nifong knew that Crystal was either lying or was confused, and he ignored that. Prosecutors are not supposed to frame defendants for crimes they don't believe occurred.

That is the focus of this blog. You can float your own yacht.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Hill did not have an opportunity to respond to gisenhill's hypothetical.

gisenghill said...
Thank you, Dr Harr.

I'm trying to understand.

Now let's say you and I get on an elevator today with 40 plus other people. (big elevator) As the doors open, I scream that you raped me and beat me viciously. None of the other people on the elevator collaborate my story. The woman who is with me says it was "a crock." There is no DNA evidence to link you to any crime against me.

But as I understand your reasoning, YOU would feel a moral obligation to be indicted anyway...because this is how you wish our justice system to proceed.

On an allegation and no evidence, you would stand by your words on this Blog and demand the two of us proceed to trial. You would happily fund an expensive legal representation for yourself, because , in your moral code, if I accuse you of rape, you DEMAND I have the opportunity to face you in court. You would not expect the District Attorney to interview me to ascertain my credibility before you were indicted....oh, no! You would deem it just fine, if my friend was given a sweet deal by the D.A. and subsequently changed her story to endanger you. You would smile with pride in our system, as a Nifong-esque D.A. had a man who stepped forward to defend you...brought to trial on bogus charges. Even knowing you were completely INNOCENT, you would happily submit yourself to months of legal bills, media harassment, character assassination, to take your chances in the courtroom....up against that "richest Daddy of them all"...The State. You would embrace the risk that my lie about what happened in the elevator might just be believed by a local jury, because , YOU, Sidney Harr, approve of Nifong-esque prosecutors who subject men to that risk....on an allegation and no evidence ALONE.

In brief, as the target of my imaginary rape accusation, EVERY tactic Nifong would desire used toward you? Correct?

Because surely, Dr. Harr, you would not ask for a different "opportunity" for yourself than Nifong provided for the Lacrosse players , would you?

If I am to believe you are a man of principle, I have to believe you would want YOURSELF or your son or some young man you be treated just like Nifong treated the Lacrosse players. Please don't dodge and point to this other case, or that other prosecutor. I'm talking here about your embrace of Nifong-esque justice in this particular case. And what that says about Sidney Harr's philosophy about justice FOR ALL PEOPLE as evidenced by your comments on this Blog

If a False Accuser points at YOU someday...if you suddenly find yourself up against "the Richest Daddy of them all."....The State...are you praying you yourself will be treated..JUST EXACTLY as Nifong treated the Lacrosse players?

Because, surely you realize, reasonable people will not allow you to have it both ways. You cannot just applaud Nifong's actions in the isolation of this one case. You must apply them to defendants that might be more sympathetic to you. Or to yourself. In fact, if you like Nifong's tactics, how can you complain about similar tactics in any other case?

Therefore reasonable people must conclude that , in ALL circumstances, Sidney Harr is cheering for rigged line-ups in police departments. In ALL cases, Sidney Harr is fist=pumping for witness intimidation a la Mr. Elmostafa. In ALL cases, Sidney Harr is high fiving sweet deals to get witnesses like Kim to change their stories. And in ALL cases, Sidney Harr, is a rigorous supporter of hiding crucial DNA evidence from the defense in a report that the Lab Director admitted under oath...DID NOT FOLLOW the Lab protocol!

You, Sidney Harr are sanctioning in this Blog....Nifong's every move, every tactic, every decision as the way you DEMAND other District Attorneys treat other men, Black, white and yellow in all trials going forward.

March 20, 2010 9:27 AM

kenhyderal said...

Excuse my lack of knowledge on the minutiae of the case but were all there present, at this house party, members of the LAX Team and were all there present tested for their DNA? Were there any invited non-team members or party-crashers present?

Michael said...

Duke Lacrosse wins the national title with character and determination.

Time to face the DNA demon Sidney. Show some character.

Anonymous said...


You are being unfair. Sid has shown his character: he is disingenuous, deceitful, dishonest...

"I do not believe that the terms" disingenuous, deceitful or dishonest "is the same as name-calling. [Each] is a descriptive term that accurately describes" Dr. Sidney B. Harr.

He will never fulfill his promise. He knows that the lack of DNA proves Crystal was either lying or confused.

Michael said...

The sock puppet poster called charmingly "Double Helix" confuses the facts in an attempt to avoid having Sidney answer the question. The record shows that there WAS male DNA found in each of the three orifice swabs, just from other males. Thus, the strange alcohol theory is just that, strange. Or is it "magic alcohol," like the "magic towel" that removes certain DNA but preserves other DNA? As far as the semen found on the bathroom floor, there was NO CGM DNA mixed with it.

Anonymous said...


you're a fucking troll.

Go Away

Double Helix said...

Here was the question I was asked:
"Nifongismyhero said...

Double Helix,

Dr. Harr promised to explain Crystal's written statement is consistent with the negative DNA tests. Crystal alleged that one of the players ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. It seems that Crystal either lied or was confused. If so, she loses her credibility.

Perhaps you can help to explain."

I was assuming the "negative DNA tests" was taken as a given by that question. I took it as a real question asking why there was no DNA of these multiple males found on the oral swab. If there was DNA found on the oral swabs of these multiple males then I apologize for the confusion. I will say a quick review of some articles this morning like the link to follow mentions finding these other male DNA results on the panties and rectal swabs but does not indicate the same with the oral swab.

""On April 8, 9, and 10, 2006, DNA Security analyzed the DNA profiles extracted from the cheek scrapings, oral swabs, vaginal swabs, rectal swabs, and panties from the rape kit items taken from the accuser at Duke Hospital in the early morning hours of March 14. While DNA Security's final report would not reflect the findings from that analysis, underlying documents provided to the Defendants on October 27, 2006, reflect that DNA from multiple male Sources was discovered on the rectal swabs and panties from the rape kit It was all compared to the known reference samples from the lacrosse players; and none of it matched any of the players."

This is not a very friendly place judging by the comments. I am not surprised this DNA expert, Dr. Haar, is not responding to your questions.

Michael said...

"Double Helix":

1. get a real name.

2. review attached link with YouTube video of Brad Bannon's testimony before the state bar.

Be sure to run the video to the end, where Bannon testifies on the (at least two, separate) male DNA extractions found on the oral swabs.

Your apology is accepted.

Anonymous said...

....Or ESPN's Steve Weissman and Dana O'Neil.

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
"Dr. Hill did not have an opportunity to respond to gisenhill's hypothetical.

gisenghill said...
Thank you, Dr Harr.

I'm trying to understand.

Now let's say you and I get on an elevator today with 40 plus other people. (big elevator) As the doors open, I scream that you raped me and beat me viciously. None of the other people on the elevator collaborate my story. The woman who is with me says it was 'a crock.' There is no DNA evidence to link you to any crime against me."

This hypothetical is flawed because 40 people in an elevator would most likely be strangers with one another. The 40 plus partygoers were teammates, a group wherein the "no-snitch" rule is strongest. The other woman dancer at the Duke Lacrosse beer-guzzling stripper party was not with Ms. Mangum... in fact, they met for the first time that night. And, finally, the lack of DNA evidence does not rule out that a sexual assault occurred.

Michael said...

"And, finally, the lack of DNA evidence does not rule out that a sexual assault occurred."

Sidney, please EXCUSE ME! HOW, HOW, HOW?

We have a DNA test. That DNA test shows that at least two prior sexual partners of CGM left sperm cells in her mouth. CGM testifies that she had sperm in her mouth from a LAX player, but that sperm is not there, and the sperm of earlier "depositors" is.

Now, if the DNA test found NO sperm cells, epithelial or other cells at all, you MIGHT be able to argue that:

1. the test was flawed or not sufficiently sensitive to detect the LAX DNA that should have been there;

2. CGM possessed "magic saliva" such that when she spit out the ejaculate it completely and utterly cleansed her mouth of all DNA traces, current or prior; or (as has been suggested elsewhere in this comment section);

3. that something CGM ingested between the time of the "attack" and the time she was swabbed for DNA completely and utterly cleansed her mouth of all DNA traces, current or prior.

The absolute and utter EVIDENTIARY VALUE of the Meehan finding (and why it was SO VERY VERY significant) is it demonstrated that no human male of any kind whatsoever ejaculated in CGM's mouth subsequently to the two males who had made "deposits" prior to the party at 610 N Buchanan. [CGM's whereabouts having been tightly controlled and accounted for between the time of the party and the time the oral swab had been taken.]

We are not talking about broomsticks, fingers, condom-covered penises or sneaking up behind somebody and putting something where it can't be seen.

We are talking about someone's mouth, which is below her nose and more importantly her eyes - eyes that can't help but see whether what's going in her mouth is a human penis, not a broomstick, dildo or candelabra, for goodness sake! Even if CGM's eyes were closed, when that human penis released semen she could feel it in her mouth, and when she felt the semen in her mouth SHE SAYS she spit it out.

If this story is true, then in addition to the two prior depositors' sperm fractions, there would be a large sample of sperm DNA from the more recent deposit made by the LAX "attacker." No sperm from a LAX player means the story is an outright lie.

Here, DNA testing has proven conclusively that the accuser is a lier. [Simply put, no one can possibly be confused or mistaken about whether a penis has ejaculated in one's mouth - particularly not a seasoned prostitute.] Rather, CGM lied. Once you prove the accuser lies, you end a criminal case. Period. Game over.

Now, Sidney, please present your counter-analysis.

The ball is in your court. Back up your statement that the DNA is not exculpatory.

Anonymous said...

More sophistry from Sid. He knows he wouldn't want to receive the same treatment Nifong gave to the Duke LAX accused. No one would.
So he ignores the questions altogether and states that the hypothetical situation is "flawed". He knows that Nifong's actions are indefensible, so he relies on Ad hominem attacks on the media and the Duke LAX families in an attempt to garner sympathy for Nifong.

EvansNewYacht said...

Sid, Sid, Sid...There was no "lack of DNA evidence"! In fact, there was a preponderance of DNA evidence. I've lost count of the number of different men (4-5?)that left traces of DNA evidence with CGM. There was a lack of DNA evidence from the Duke LAX accused...Now how is it possible that so much DNA evidence could be found, yet none identifying any of the accused? Here's a guideline -- use Toulmin's proposed layout for your argument. I'll accept an answer that contains the first three elements (which, Toulmin states, are considered essential components of practical arguments)