Thursday, September 16, 2010

N & O on Tim Helms’s death: An open case

Nearly a half century ago, Timothy Helms was born with severe retardation. Compounding his tragic life was the fact that he had been plagued with mental illness throughout his years. In 1994, he was accused of driving a vehicle which took the lives of three individuals, and later convicted and sentenced to three life sentences. While incarcerated, he racked up many “infractions,” including one for hoarding postage stamps. His retardation and mental illness made Timothy Helms a difficult prisoner to manage, and prior to his 2008 head trauma incident, he complained of abusive treatment he received and pleaded to be released from solitary confinement (euphemistically referred to as “administrative segregation” by authorities, while referred to as “The Hole” by those who have spent time there). Because of the great potential for psychological damage, solitary confinement is restricted to no more than 60 consecutive days. Helms had been in solitary for more than nine times that long (more than a year and a half) when he set his mattress on fire which resulted in his head being used as a battering ram on the concrete walls. Although setting the fire helped effect his release from solitary, it unfortunately resulted in head trauma that left him a quadriplegic who could barely speak. The SBI did its perfunctory investigation and to no one’s surprise could find no wrongdoing on behalf of the guards in solitary… they were stumped as to how Mr. Helms received his injuries (which in addition to two skull fractures and bleeding in the brain, included a fractured nose and welts all over his body consistent with those made by a baton). Department of Corrections Secretary Alvin Keller suggested that Mr. Helms might have sustained those injuries by falling and striking his head on the concrete floor. Paralyzed and unable to feed or take care of himself, Keller considered Helms too serious a threat to society to release from custody, so taxpayers continued to foot the bill for his lodgings and care until his recent, merciful death.

Now, The News & Observer wanting to toot its own horn about its four-part investigative report critical of the SBI lab, wrote an editorial in its September 8, 2010 paper titled “An open case: Recent revelations about the SBI’s work add to questions remaining in the case of Timothy Helms.” As usual, the editorial section in The News & Observer is a Johnny-come-lately… always making comments and observations long after they should have been made. To begin with, the newspaper editorial writers should have questioned the prosecution and conviction of the mentally ill and severely retarded man. Mr. Helms denied driving the car that took three lives, and to my knowledge there was no credible evidence that he did (the man Helms alleged to have been driving died from injuries in the crash). Furthermore, I do not believe that it had been established that Mr. Helms had been drinking or was drunk at the scene of the fatal accident.

Although Mr. Helms passed away some time ago, and the Department of Corrections and the SBI have closed their cases on the death of Mr. Helms, I agree with The News & Observer that the case of Timothy Helms should be opened and seriously investigated. It is obvious that, as Mr. Helms stated, after the brutal assault against him his head was repeatedly bashed into the concrete cell wall. The state, of course does not want to revisit this case anymore than it does other cases which the state closed with full knowledge that their resolution was far from just. In particular is the disbarment of former Durham Prosecutor Mike Nifong by the North Carolina State Bar. The Bar is an unregulated organization without accountability. It has a long-standing history of protecting prosecutors regardless of the magnitude of injustice they mete out. Since its inception in 1933, Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by this organization. What’s worse, is that the was disbarred on trumped up trifle. Other prosecutors, such as David Hoke, Bill Wolfe, Tom Ford, Michael Parker, and Freda Black, have withheld exculpatory evidence, tried to force plea deals, won convictions on perjured testimony obtained in exchange for promises of reduced sentences, fabricated evidence and confessions… the list of unethical and dastardly prosecutorial practices by these state attorneys goes on. But these prosecutors are all protected not only by the state, but by the media which has embraced the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy.

What did Mr. Nifong do to deserve to be disbarred? Well, according to The News & Observer he was guilty of 20 ethics violations. The only problem is that nobody, especially media types, knows what they were. Media has gone out of its way to mislead the public by inferring that Mr. Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence. Truth of the matter is that Mr. Nifong did not withhold any discovery, and that the DNA lab evidence he has been accused of withholding is not exculpatory. Mr. Nifong has also been accused of lying to the court, which is, itself, a lie. But that is not important to the State Bar’s F. Lane Williamson… death of the truth was considered acceptable collateral damage in the state’s efforts to remove Mr. Nifong from the Duke Lacrosse case. In the Carpetbagger Jihad against Mr. Nifong et al., the truth, facts, morals, and justice are expendable concepts and contrary to their goals of destroying Mike Nifong and anyone and everyone who even had the most peripheral connection with the prosecution in the case.

Open the case regarding the death of inmate Timothy Helms… I agree. But I believe that The News & Observer editorial page should also call for opening the investigation into the trumped up disbarment of Mike Nifong.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

NC State Bar v/ Mike Nifong (hereafter identified as "Defendant":


"Did Defendant by representing to the Court that he had provided all potentially exculpatory evidence,
a, make false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1)?" The answer is yes.
b, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" The answer is yes.

Anonymous said...

" Embattled prosecutor Mike Nifong said Saturday afternoon that he should be disbarred for his handling of the Duke lacrosse case for breaking 27 of 32 rules of professional conduct."

Watch the video:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1507052/#/vid1507052

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
" 'Embattled prosecutor Mike Nifong said Saturday afternoon that he should be disbarred for his handling of the Duke lacrosse case for breaking 27 of 32 rules of professional conduct.'"


I watch the video you referenced, and I never saw or heard Mr. Nifong say anything. His attorney, Freedman, like so many attorneys, sold his client down the river. As you may know, in Episode IV of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" I had Freedman portrayed by Judas Iscariot. The media consistently misstated Mr. Nifong as making the statement. The fact is that he did not. His scoundrel attorney undermined him with those statements.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"NC State Bar v/ Mike Nifong (hereafter identified as 'Defendant':


'Did Defendant by representing to the Court that he had provided all potentially exculpatory evidence,
a, make false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1)?" The answer is yes.
b, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?' The answer is yes."


Actually, the answer is no. The irrelevant DNA evidence which the defense seized upon with which to try and bring down Mr. Nifong was not exculpatory in any way. Also, Mr. Nifong believed that all evidence had been turned in when he addressed the court. (...And I'm not sure that it wasn't.)
It is not an uncommon occurence at all for prosecutors to turn over discovery to defense and omit pieces of evidence, especially when large files of big cases are involved. Mr. Nifong personally did not collect all of the documents himself and make three sets of copies for the defense attorneys. Others put the folders together, and he could only assure to the best of his ability that everything was included. He certainly didn't go through each and every document to see that it was included, nor should he have. Prosecutor Gregory Butler was also taken before the State Bar on a ludicrous complaint that he failed to hand over all documents prior to trial. The Bar took no action against him (for he acted in good faith just like Mr. Nifong) nor should it have.

Anonymous said...

No, actually the answer is "yes" as per the document. Wishing it weren't so doesn't make it so.

Anonymous said...

Were you in the courtroom beside Mikey during his ethics trial?

Did you overhear any discussions between Mikey and his attorney David Freedman during the ethics trial?

Has Mikey at any time stated to you that the comments by David Freedman (as evidenced by the video clip) are false?

If not, then you need to publicly admit that your are lying, retract your statements, and apologize to Mr. Freedman.

If any of the answers are "yes", please provide proof.

Otherwise, you are a liar.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Were you in the courtroom beside Mikey during his ethics trial?

Did you overhear any discussions between Mikey and his attorney David Freedman during the ethics trial?

Has Mikey at any time stated to you that the comments by David Freedman (as evidenced by the video clip) are false?

If not, then you need to publicly admit that your are lying, retract your statements, and apologize to Mr. Freedman.

If any of the answers are 'yes', please provide proof.

Otherwise, you are a liar."


The statement which you referred to stated that Mr. Nifong, not his attorney, stated that he should be disbarred. The video, which supposedly supported this false statement, did not show Mr. Nifong making any such statement, or any statement, period.

Furthermore, I never stated that I attended Mr. Nifong's kangaroo hearing before the State Bar. Nor did I ever state that I discussed Mr. Freedman with Mr. Nifong.

I owe Mr. Freedman no apology. He is the one who owes Mr. Nifong an apology for selling him out. And, unfortunately, that is not an uncommon occurence.

Anonymous said...

You can't handle the truth.

Nifong Supporter said...


As you know, we're approaching the third anniversary of when HBO bought rights from novelist K C Johnson and Stuart Taylor to make a tv movie about the Duke Lacrosse case. The following blog and link will give an update on the progress, or lack thereof.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

The only things trumped up in the Nifong case were the charges Mr. Nifong filed against the innocent members of the Duke Lacrosse Team.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

All you have to do to learn what Mike Nifong is guilty of is read the transcript of the ethics trial, something you are too cowardly to do.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

What weight, legal or otherwise, do your opinions have?

Anonymous said...

Nice try SId - The question I asked was "Has Mikey at any time stated to you that the comments by David Freedman (as evidenced by the video clip) are false?"

You did NOT answer this question. Clearly because he has not stated to you (or anyone else) that the comments by Mr. Freedman are false. Why? Because the comments by Mr. Freedman are TRUE. Deny them (and continue to demonize Mr. Freedman) all you want, you can't change it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Harr

What, if anything, did Mr. Nifong ever do to exonerate any wrongfully convicted defendant?

Anonymous said...

"Furthermore, I never stated that I attended Mr. Nifong's kangaroo hearing before the State Bar."

Not surprising you were too much of a coward to attend that hearing, considering your attitude towards reading the transcript of the hearing.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'Furthermore, I never stated that I attended Mr. Nifong's kangaroo hearing before the State Bar.'

Not surprising you were too much of a coward to attend that hearing, considering your attitude towards reading the transcript of the hearing."


Actually, I never got involved or interested about the injustice towards Mike Nifong until long after he was disbarred. It was when I learned that he was the ONLY prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933 that I became an advocate for justice for him.