Click the link below to access the flog.http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog3redo.html
The Independent Weekly, a Triangle area arts and entertainment tabloid out of Durham, has made it clear to me, for reasons which are not, that it doesn't want anything to do with me. I believe its hostility towards me is due to the fact that I am a supporter of Mike Nifong. Despite that, however, I would be remiss to miss an opportunity to look at the publication every chance I get because it does tackle important criminal and social justice issues that other mainstream media avoid like the plague. In fact, I credit its articles about the unjust incarceration of Erick Daniels to be instrumental in public awareness about his plight, and to be responsible for his subsequent release from prison after serving seven of a ten to fourteen year sentence for an armed robbery conviction... a crime he did not commit.
What is particularly tragic about the Daniels case is that he never should have been arrested for the September 21, 2000 armed robbery, let alone convicted and allowed to serve time. Compounding the tragedy is that Erick Daniels was taken into custody at the age of fourteen... hand-cuffed and led away from his middle school class room like a hardened criminal. That the case against him was flawed was evident from the very beginning, but his defense attorney seriously compromised his case by putting the young boy on the witness stand.
Licking her chops, the Durham Prosecutor Freda Black tore into her prey, convincing a pliable jury that Daniels was a threat to society... that he had gang affiliations, etc. She was unable to present credible evidence linking Daniels to the armed robbery, as he differed from the victim's initial description of the perpetrator in hair style and complexion.
The victim’s description of the armed robber was an African American male of light complexion with his hair braided in cornrows. Erick Daniels has a dark complexion and his hair is short cropped.
Fingerprints at the crime scene did not match Daniels's and there was no other forensic evidence to implicate him either. Discrepancies in the lead investigator's records and missing police reports further raised doubts about the legitimacy of the state's case against Daniels. The prosecuting attorney even failed to interview a young man who was later incarcerated who fit the suspect's profile and admitted to committing the robbery.
Perhaps what is most disturbing is that the reason Erick Daniels was deemed to be the most likely suspect was due to the fact that he was picked out of a middle school yearbook based upon the shape of his eyebrows. Daniels appeared before Judge Osmond Smith III, the same judge who sentenced Mike Nifong to 24 hours in jail on a trumped up contempt of court charge. The honorable Judge Smith sentenced Daniels to a sentence of ten to fourteen years. So Daniels languished in jail, year after year, with the state having stolen his youth.
While incarcerated, appeals were filed on his behalf, but all were for naught.
In 2003, after spending several years in jail, Erick Daniels passed a polygraph test which supported his contention that he was not involved in the crime for which he was convicted. It wasn't until the following year that Attorney Carlos Mahoney took over Daniels's case and filed an appeal with Durham Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson which eventually led to Daniels’s release from prison. In releasing Daniels, the judge dismissed all of the charges against him, and as he is legally empowered to do, declared that Erick Daniels was "innocent."
The News & Observer, a Johnny-come-lately in the travails of Erick Daniels, published a front page article in its Sunday, February 1, 2009, issue titled "After injustice, Durham man's eyes are on the future." However, the article by Anne Blythe was quick to turn its attention and sympathies to the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. Defendants who served no time in jail, who through their avaricious lawyers shook down Duke University for $20 million each, and who are attempting to pry another $10 mil each from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Per mainstream media custom, the Duke three are described as "exonerated” and “declared innocent..." However, writer Blythe failed to mention in the article that they were declared "innocent" by an attorney general... a proclamation which she very well knew carried no legal weight and which was meant to mislead the public.
Comparing the Duke Lacrosse defendants to Erick Daniels is like comparing apples and eggplant... as Daniels was declared "innocent" by a judge, not an attorney general. In addition, the Duke Lacrosse defendants were never convicted of a felony, as was Daniels. Daniels’s record is stained by the unjust felony charge and conviction, whereas the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ record is spotless.
Despite a case in which Daniels did not have a forensic print, had ineffective legal representation, had a confession from another man with a criminal past who fit the description, and had been declared "innocent" by a judge, he has been unsuccessful in receiving a pardon. Under state law, without the pardon he is not eligible to receive compensation that the state legislature has designated to go to the wrongfully incarcerated.
With his current attorney Gladys Harris, Daniels had been in the pursuit of a pardon for years through the North Carolina Office of Executive Clemency, which is charged with granting pardons and commuting sentences. A Pardon of Innocence is granted when an individual has been convicted and criminal charges are subsequently dismissed, as has occurred in Daniels's case. Although, like Gregory Taylor, Erick Daniels has been legally determined to be "innocent," a petition to the Governor for a declaration of innocence to enable him to seek compensation from the State for being erroneously convicted and imprisoned by it has not been granted.
There is no doubt among fair-minded people of good conscientious that Erick Daniels is innocent of the charge of armed robbery for which he was convicted, sentenced, and suffered seven years of incarceration. Neither is their doubt that Daniels deserves to be made whole by all measures at the State's disposal, such as expungement of the crime from his record and financial compensation to which he is rightfully entitled by state law.
In the Gregory Taylor case, Governor Bev Perdue had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing in giving Taylor a pardon for his seventeen years of wrongful incarceration and enabling him to receive the compensation to which he was entitled. For reasons which have no logical answer, the Governor and her Executive Office of Clemency are bracing themselves to deny justice for Erick Daniels.
According to the Independent Weekly, the Clemency Office denied Daniels's pardon in February 2011, and Daniels's attorney Harris stated that she had not received notification from the state office. Harris went on to state that the office informed her that the denial was issued because "those granting pardons from the state do not disturb jury verdicts." Whoever the mysterious people are in the Clemency Office must believe that Attorney Harris is an idiot. If I am not mistaken, practically all innocent people are wrongfully convicted by a jury. Gregory Taylor was convicted by a jury... yet he was pardoned by the Governor's office. Their explanation for refusing to pardon Daniels makes no sense and they know it. That is why the Governor's office and the secretive Office of Clemency rebuffed the Independent Weekly's efforts to contact them. This is the kind of insanity that makes North Carolina the laughing stock of the country.
One reason that the governor and her Executive Office of Clemency believe that they can get away with this egregious and amoral mistreatment of Erick Daniels is because Daniels’s political representatives U.S. Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall keep at arms length when it comes to defending their constituents caught in a system that dispenses selective justice based on Class and Color.
The injustice suffered by Daniels is not a problem restricted to the Durham area, rather it is an issue which plagues the entire state of North Carolina. Representatives, senators, and all politicians who value the concept of “equal justice for all” should not just feel shock and abhorrence at the mistreatment of Erick Daniels, but they should do something about it.
The NAACP’s state organization under its president, Reverend Doctor William Barber, as well as the Durham chapter of the NAACP, has remained silent as dormice. By so doing, this civil rights organization is nothing more than an enabler to the unacceptable and discriminatory status quo and it does a disservice to all people of color who’s civil and constitutional rights it professes to protect.
It is time for Governor Bev Perdue, her administration, and other state officials to start assuring that “equal justice for all” is being dispensed by the state’s criminal justice system instead of bad jokes. Erick Daniels certainly deserves better... and so do all Tar Heelians.
337 comments:
1 – 200 of 337 Newer› Newest»My latest flog has just been posted, however, I will have to move the link to the beginning of the flog, prior to the script.
"My latest flog has just been posted, however, I will have to move the link to the beginning of the flog, prior to the script."
And what a piece of lacrosse player hating vitriol it is.
"The Independent Weekly, a Triangle area arts and entertainment tabloid out of Durham, has made it clear to me, for reasons which are not, that it doesn't want anything to do with me. I believe its hostility towards me is due to the fact that I am a supporter of Mike Nifong."
Sidney, it is because you publish lies and unsupported allegations as truths.
"What is particularly tragic about the Daniels case is that he never should have been arrested for the September 21, 2000 armed robbery".
What is particularly tragic about the Duke Lacrosse case is that the innocent Lacrosse players should never have been arrested for rape.
"That the case against him was flawed was evident from the very beginning, but his defense attorney seriously compromised his case by putting the young boy on the witness stand."
That the case against the innocent lacrosse players was flawed was evident from the very beginning. There was no evidence that the crime with which they were charged had ever happened.
Sidney has been repeatedly questioned about the lack of evidence of rape. The only lame reply he has come up with is that a crime which did not leave evidence could have happened.
Maybe it is absurd statements like that which make responsible publications shun Sidney.
"Fingerprints at the crime scene did not match Daniels's and there was no other forensic evidence to implicate him [Erick Dabniels] either."
There was no forensic evidence which implicated any Lacrosse player in the alleged crime.
"She [Freda Black] was unable to present credible evidence linking Daniels to the armed robbery".
Mike Nifong had no credible evidence to present which either established the occurrence of the alleged crime or which implicated any Lacrosse player in said crime. Yet Sidney said that Mr. Nifong acted within acceptable behavioral standards for a prosecutor in prosecuting the Lacrosse players.
"The victim’s description of the armed robber was an African American male of light complexion with his hair braided in cornrows. Erick Daniels has a dark complexion and his hair is short cropped."
Crystal Mangum identified two men as her assailants who could prove with 100% certainty they were not at the scene of the alleged crime when said crime allegedly took place. David Evans, who never had a mustache, was indicted for the alleged crime even though Crystal identified a man with a mustache as her third assailant.
Sidney has blogged repeatedly that those identifications were probable cause for charging three innocent men with the non existent crime. Go figure.
"Perhaps what is most disturbing is that the reason Erick Daniels was deemed to be the most likely suspect was due to the fact that he was picked out of a middle school yearbook based upon the shape of his eyebrows."
The innocent Lacrosse players were identified as assailants in a tainted lineup which, by Mr. Nifong's order, was not conducted in compliance with standards of how a lineup procedure should be conducted.
Sidney argues Crystal's identifications of the Lacrosse players were valid. Go figure.
"Discrepancies in the lead investigator's records and missing police reports further raised doubts about the legitimacy of the state's case against Daniels."
Crystal's stories, after she falsely accused innocent Lacrosse players of raping her, varied considerably. Mark Gottlieb, who was investigating the case, did not keep hard copies of what he had learned early in the case. Then months later, he produced a memo from memory which contradicted all the other investigators' notes and explained away all the gaping holes in Mr. Nifong's case against the Lacrosse players.
Sidney said Mr. Nifong acted in a proper ethical manner.
There was evidence in the lacrosse case. It proved to be unconvincing evidence. It was circumstantial evidence. But that evidence was enough to convince a grand jury to indict.
You may not agree with the jury. Nifong was not present at the grand jury procedure. The police presented the evidence. You may not agree that there was enough evidence to indict the 3 lacrosse players. But no one can say that there was no evidence. That is an inaccurate statement.
"Fingerprints at the crime scene did not match Daniels's and there was no other forensic evidence to implicate him either."
Here is what might be called an oldie but a goodie.
The crime alleged was a rape in which the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving evidence, including their DNA. Forensic evidence of a rape was not found on the rape kit. The only DNA found on the rape kit did not match the DNA of any Lacrosse player. Yet Sidney says Mr. Nifong was justified in prosecuting three innocent Lacrosse players.
I say again, the best Sidney can come up with is, the evidence did not prove that a crime which left no evidence did not happen.
Yet Sidney says he has tremendous powers of logic and deduction.
"Daniels appeared before Judge Osmond Smith III, the same judge who sentenced Mike Nifong to 24 hours in jail on a trumped up contempt of court charge."
Mr. Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence from the Defense and lied to the court about it.
Sidney says, he believes Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence and that the evidence was not exculpatory.
In Sidney's mind, that makes the charges against Mr. Nifong trumped up.
Why does he say the evidence was not exculpatory? It did not prove the Lacrosse players did not commit rape.
I say, Sidney has no legal eagle representing him in his suit against Duke. He has a legal CUCKOO.
"In 2003, after spending several years in jail, Erick Daniels passed a polygraph test which supported his contention that he was not involved in the crime for which he was convicted."
The Duke Lacrosse captains all offered to take lie detector tests for the Durham police. The police declined to conduct lie detector tests on them. All three indicted Lacrosse players subsequently passed lie detector tests.
There was evidence of a sexual assault on Crystal Mangum. Again, you can assert in a vernacular way that there was "no evidence". But there was evidence. You may not agree with the evidence, or disparage the evidence or discredit the sources of evidence. But there was evidence. It may not be convincing evidence. You may not agree with the DA that evidence was strong enough to bring indictments or carry the case forward. But there was evidence of sexual assault. You cannot say there was legally no evidence.
"Licking her chops, the Durham Prosecutor Freda Black tore into her prey, convincing a pliable jury that Daniels was a threat to society..."
Eager to ingratiate himself with Durham's black electorate, without whose support he would lose the primary election, Mr. Nifong made public statements that a crime had happened, that the perpetrators had been members of the Duke Lacrosse team, and that the crime had been racially motivated. This happened before the alleged crime had been investigated.
Mr. Nifong also made public statements to the effect that retaining legal counsel by any Lacrosse player was an indication of guilt.
Mr. Nifong also made public statements that any Lacrosse player availing himself of the right to remain silent was indicating his guilt.
Sidney claims Mr. Nifong acted like a decent honorable ethical minister of justice throughout the case.
Sidney, have you ever studied the Constitution of the United States, especially the Bill of Rights?
Sidney, do you understand the presumption of innocence?
I think not.
"[The Duke] Defendants...served no time in jail".
Sidney, why should the Duke Defendants have had to serve time in jail? You obviously think Erick Daniels should not have had to serve time in jail because he did not commit the crime with which he was charged. The Duke Defendants did not commit the crime with which they were charged.
Nifong did not intentionally withhold evidence from the defense. The State Bar never proved intentional withholding. Nifong in fact provided all evidence within evidence collecting standards and before a court date was set.
The contempt hearing as well did not prove intentional lying to the court. Only that his statement was untrue that all evidence was presented at that point in time. The contempt judgement was not that he lied to the court. That he intentionally gave that misstatement. He was under the understanding that all evidence had gone to the defense at that point in time.
There was NO evidence of rape. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. She flat out lied and you know it. Name, specifically, ONE shred of such evidence, Sid. ONE tiny little shred!
"[The Duke Defendants] through their avaricious lawyers shook down Duke University for $20 million each".
I asked Sidney why Duke would settle with the Defendants if they could have prevailed in court. Sidney's reply was that Duke was afraid of the Defendants' attorneys and they believed that their(Duke's) insurer would pay the amount.
Sidney, I wish I had a chance to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. You are dumb enough to think I could actually do so.
"Blythe failed to mention in the article that they [the Duke defendants] were declared "innocent" by an attorney general... a proclamation which she very well knew carried no legal weight and which was meant to mislead the public."
What Mr. Cooper actually said at his press conference, and this is not a word for word quote, was that he and his office had reviewed the evidence in the case and from that review they believe the defendants were innocent.
Sidney, himself, has admitted in his blog he is not familiar with the evidence in the case.
It is a matter of FACT, not opinion or proclamation, the Lacrosse defendants did not commit the crime with which they were charged. Therefore, it is hardly misleading for Mr. Cooper to tell the public he believed the Lacrosse players are innocent.
Sidney has been dared on multiple occasions to tell why he believes the Lacrosse players are guilty. He says he has not said anything about whether or not the Lacrosse players are innocent or guilty. His whole blog would not be happening unless he did believe the Lacrosse players are guilty.
He has been challenged repeatedly to explain the lack of evidence of their guilt in the case. Again, the best he can come up with is, they have not proven they did not commit a crime which left no evidence.
Anonymous @ May 31, 2011 8:02 AM
You say, "There was evidence of a sexual assault on Crystal Mangum.'
What was that evidence?
There was no forensic evidence.
The only abnormality on the physical exam was diffuse vaginal edema, which is not evidence of rape.
Crystal's word was not credible.
Her identifications of her assailants were not credible and were the result of a tainted ID procedure.
There was no evidence of a sexual assault on Crystal Mangum, much as you would like to believe there was.
Anonymous @ May 31, 2011 8:09 AM:
"The State Bar never proved intentional withholding."
Oh yes it did.
"Nifong in fact provided all evidence within evidence collecting standards and before a court date was set."
Oh no he didn't. The fact that a court date was never set is irrelevant. The evidence was obtained via a Non Testimonial Order. Under North Carolina Law, the subjects of a NTO must be provided with a REPORT of what the NTO yielded in a timely fashion. Mr. Nifong provided the Defense only with pages of raw data, not a report, and he did that only months after the report had been obtained. That does not meet any legal definition of timely.
Anonymous at May 31, 2011, 8:09 AM:
"The contempt hearing as well did not prove intentional lying to the court. Only that his statement was untrue that all evidence was presented at that point in time. The contempt judgement was not that he lied to the court. That he intentionally gave that misstatement."
What is the difference between what you claim Mr. Nifong said and lying?
Anonymous at 8:02 AM:
"But there was evidence of sexual assault. You cannot say there was legally no evidence."
Oh yes I can.
I dare you again to specify what evidence there was?
How does it nullify the FACTS that 1)there was no forensic evidence of rape 2)Crystal Mangum COULD NOT reliably identify any Lacrosse player as her assailant and 3)Crystal's allegations which were highly inconsistent and not credible.
Deal with this issue, which Sidney has ducked on many occasions:
When Kim Roberts called police early in the morning of 3/14/2006 she said that people in the house at 610 Buchanan had called her and her girlfriend n----r. She did not say that her girlfriend had been raped. She then drove to a Kroger Supermarket instead of to a police station which was nearer. At the Kroger, she had the police called to come and get Crystal out of her car. That is not what happens after a woman is raped>
"[The Duke Defeendants] are attempting to pry another $10 mil each from the cash-strapped city of Durham."
Sidney, why is the city of Durham so desperately trying to avoid discovery. If they can defend the case, they would go to discovery.
Maybe they are afraid to have Attorney General Cooper testify as to why he believes the Duke Defendants are innocent.
"The NAACP’s state organization under its president, Reverend Doctor William Barber, as well as the Durham chapter of the NAACP, has remained silent as dormice. By so doing, this civil rights organization is nothing more than an enabler to the unacceptable and discriminatory status quo and it does a disservice to all people of color who’s civil and constitutional rights it professes to protect."
Sidney, what did the NC NCAAP do to protect the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse defendants. Nothing. They tried to facilitate Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution. So why are you so surprised that they would not intervene in another wrongful prosecution?
Sideny, you would not have put all the references to the Innocent Duke Lacrosse defendants in this post unless you believed they were not guilty.
That you included those references in this post is, I say, res ipsa loquitur evidence of your hatred of them.
Sidney, you claim you are Christ like.
I do not believe that Jesus Christ would countenance the condemnation of innocent men on the basis of the unsupported allegations and lies you have published.
The Devil, aka Satan, is the father of lies.
Your blog is more satanic than Christian.
Sidney, why have you never excoriated the NC NAACP for not objecting to African-American Tracey Cline's wrongful prosecution of Leon Brown?
"But that evidence was enough to convince a grand jury to indict."
What was that circumstantial evidence?
The Grand Jury in North Carolina heard only what Mr. Nifong wanted it to hear. It did not hear that there was no forensic evidence of a rape, that the identifications were unreliable and tainted. Members of that Grand Jury have stated they were not informed of all the evidence in the case, that they would not have voted to indict if they had heard all the evidence.
Why did Mr. Nifong want to avoid a probable cause hearing. Under his regime, most rape cases were handled in a way that allowed a probable cause hearing.
Why did Mr. Nifong refuse to hear exculpatory evidence from Reade Seligman. Sidney has talked about reciprocal discovery. In a criminal case, under NC regulations of reciprocal discovery, Mr. Nifong should have looked at the alibi evidence.
Why did Mr. Nifong have Mr. Moez Elmostafa prosecuted on a shaky charge of abetting a shoplifter. He could have determined before he had Mr. Elmostafa arrested that he had not abetted the shoplifter. The shoplifter in the case could have told him so. Mr. Nifong had Mr. Elmostafa prosecuted when he would not change his statement, which supported Reade Seligman's alibi.
There was NO evidence, either that a crime had happened or that any Lacrosse player had perpetrated the alleged crime.
Anonymous at 8:02 AM:
"There was evidence of a sexual assault on Crystal Mangum. Again, you can assert in a vernacular way that there was "no evidence". But there was evidence."
Why don't you tell us in a non vernacular way what that evidence was. Or are you going to pull a kilgo and duck the issue?
"But no one can say that there was no evidence. That is an inaccurate statement."
It is an accurate statement. There was no evidence that a rape had ever happened.
Suppose you tell us what the evidence was.
Either that or go and duck like silly quacky chicken killy.
Anonymous at 7:53 AM:
What you miss is that going straight to a grand jury was not the usual way a rape case was handled by the Durham DA's office. What usually happened is that a warrant for an arrest was requested. That would trigger a probable cause hearing. At a probable cause hearing the Defendant can present exculpatory evidence.
At a Grand Jury in NC, what is presented is only what the DA wants presented.
Mr. Nifong's actions in concealing exculpatory evidence, in refusing to consider alibi evidence, all say that he wanted to exclude exculpatory evidence from the case.
I might add that Mr. Nifong threatened to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for aiding and abetting if they did not come forth with evidence which would incriminate other members of that team. As there was no evidence, they could not come forth. Mr. Nifong was hoping to bully them into providing perjured evidence. Why would he seek perjured rvidence if he had a real case?
Sidney, in the Tracey Cline/Leon Brown case, the victim said a caucasian was her assailant. Mr. Brown is African American.
In view of what you have said about how Erick Daniels was identified, why have you never taken Tracey Cline to task for prosecuting Leon Brown.
I say you are interested in justice for no one. Your blog is just a vehicle for you to publish your hatred of the Lacrosse players.
"There was evidence of a sexual assault on Crystal Mangum. Again, you can assert in a vernacular way that there was "no evidence". But there was evidence. You may not agree with the evidence, or disparage the evidence or discredit the sources of evidence. But there was evidence."
If whatever evidence you say was there could have been discredited, then it was, by definition, not enough to go forward with a prosecution.
It raises the question, why did Mr. Nifong duck a probable cause hearing? I say it was because he knew the Defendants could discredit whatever evidence he had?
Sidney waxes and wanes on the NC NAACP, depending on the pseudo-point he happens to be yelling about at the moment. The NAACP was all up in arms about poor Sister Survivor, too, when they thought they had another black victim to rattle in the evil white oppressor's face. When Sister kinda messed up her story a bit, then got herself in the jailhouse again, and again, it kinda made things messy for Rev. B. to continue his "she's a victim" squealing. Funny how the 88's, Victoria "Im wonderful" P, and Jackie W., and Rev. B. are quiet about Sister these days. You'd think that at least one of them would come forward with some money to take care of Sister's kids. Sid', how's your fund raising campaign for poor victim Sister going?
Sid, the facts in the Daniels case read all to much like the facts in the hoax. No forensic evidence, an identification that does not match the "victim's" description, no investigation of any suspects other than the defendant. All the same. And, the same result, a frame. The only difference being the lacrosse defendants had the economic where withall fight the state's claims, pretrial. Daniels, unfortunately, had only the under funded public defender's office.
The miscarriage of justice was the same in both cases. Unfortunately, Daniels was wrongly imprisoned. Your incorrect analysis of the two cases however, does bring you to the correct conclusion that Daniels should recieve a pardon. It is to Perdue's everlasting discredit that she has not pardoned Erick Daniels.
The pardon office is wrong when it says that it wants to respect the verdict of the jury. Here, the verdict of the jury was inherently flawed by a dishonest prosecution and a dishonest police investigation. (Exactly the same as happened in the lacrosse hoax.) There is no disrespect to the jury when the jury was deceived. In fact correcting the deception is an honor to the jury. Thus, I find it difficult to understand your opposition to the lacrosse civil litigation. If successful, the Durham Police will be brought under the watchful eye of an outside monitor who will make further Daniels type frames more difficult
Walt-in-Durham
"...the Duke Lacrosse defendants were never convicted of a felony, as was Daniels."
What is improper about that, Sidney?
What happened to Erick Daniels is a true disgrace and shame within our state. He deserves a full pardon and compensation......which, of course, will never make up for what he has gone through. Sidney tries to make false points through flawed analysis.....but, on the question of pardon for Daniels, I believe we ALL agree it needs to happen now.
"That you included those references in this post is, I say, res ipsa loquitur evidence of your hatred of them."
Please enlighten us. How is a principle of negligence law relevant to Sid's statements?
For the anonymous unenlightened:
res ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself. It is self evident.
I say, it is self evident that Sidney would not be devoting so much time to attacking the innocent Lacrosse players if he did not hate them.
In spite of the title of his blog, Sidney spends more time purveying lies and unproven allegations about the Lacrosse players than he does to Mr. Nifong.
Ergo, it is res ipsa loquitur that Sidney hates the Lacrosse players.
Now that I have explained, maybe you will understand this:
It should be res ipsa loquitur why I use the term res ipsa loquitur.
Erik Daniels was the victim of a wrongful prosecution just like the lacrosse players but Sidney defends him because he is black and hated the lacrosse players because they are white.
It is res ipsa loquitur that the poster's usage of the phrase res ipsa loquitur is incorrect.
"It is res ipsa loquitur that the poster's usage of the phrase res ipsa loquitur is incorrect."
No it's not
Hey, res-ipsa-loquitur-is-incorrect:
How about commenting on something substantive such as, why does Sidney insist it is misleading to call the Lacrosse players innocent even though the evidence in the case shows unequivocally that the crime with which they were charged never happened.
This whole site is a bleeping waste of time. Who gives a flying frito what Sid, the manufacturer of sources and pure ractist hater of whites and excuser of blacks, thinks? I sure do NOT. Character counts, NOT color, Sid. There are men and women of good will, of ALL races, trying their best to live by this absolute truth. Why don't YOU practice what YOU preach!! You live by and practice the racist code of "If it's black, it's a victim; if it's white, it's an oppressor". (except Nifong who is your "token white"). Stupid, Sid. Wrong. Hurtful. and, frankly, a disgraceful way to characterize innocent black men and women who do NOT need your brand of racism to affirm their absolute worth and value and human beings. Shame on you, sir.
Daniels deserves full justice, which includes full pardon and compensation.....NOT because he was a wrongfully prosecuted and convicted BLACK man.....but because he was a wrongfully prosecuted and convicted HUMAN BEING. Get it right, for once, Sid.
Anon on May 31 at 2:38 PM wrote: "Erik Daniels was the victim of a wrongful prosecution just like the lacrosse players but Sidney defends him because he is black and hated the lacrosse players because they are white."
I am reluctant to accuse Sid of such outright bigotry. He has written in the Defense of Allen Gell and Dwayne Dial who are white. I think his attitude toward the lacrosse players is wrong, but I don't think it is the product of outright bigotry.
Walt-in-Durham
I think Sidney would not care a whit about Alan Gell or Dwayne Dial or any other victim of wrongful prosecution had he not been so spitefully angry that the Lacrosse players were and are innocent.
He has yet to say anything about Leon Brown, wrongfully prosecuted by Nifong cohort Tracey Cline.
What happened to Dwayne Dail was frighteningly similar to what almost happened to the Duke Lacrosse players. That Sidney can not see that is evidence, I think, of Sidney's hatred for the Lacrosse players.
With respect, I think Sidney is indeed bigoted in his views. The examples of this world view are far too numerous, on this site, to name. Just my opinion, as a person who is not white, that this man cannot see past his own racist attitudes to accept the truth of what has happened in NC.....which is that men and women, of ALL races, have been wrongfully accused, charged, prosecuted and convicted, because of incompetent and/or negligent, criminal behavior of police officers, attorneys, judges and others in our state. My issue with Sidney is that he (a)cares nothing about Nifong, or Daye, or Mangum or Daniels,or any of the other characters in his play, (b)uses this web site to SELF inflate, (c)makes up story after story, source after source, (d)refuses to provide evidence, answer direct questions, and (e) spreads lies. He can do all the blathering he wants. And I will continue to believe and say he is a certified card carrying racist who wants nothing more than to gain personal attention through endless false ranting and self promotion.
Anonymous @ June 1, 2011 10:44 AM:
Amen to that.
Anonymous said...
"'[The Duke Defendants] through their avaricious lawyers shook down Duke University for $20 million each'.
I asked Sidney why Duke would settle with the Defendants if they could have prevailed in court. Sidney's reply was that Duke was afraid of the Defendants' attorneys and they believed that their(Duke's) insurer would pay the amount.
Sidney, I wish I had a chance to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. You are dumb enough to think I could actually do so."
First of all, why, other than the fact that Duke University has deep pockets, would the three Duke Lacrosse defendants file a lawsuit against the university? What damages did the three Duke Lacrosse defendants suffer at the hands of Duke University? And was the damage the three lads suffered worth $20 million each?
I don't think so.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous @ May 31, 2011 8:09 AM:
'The State Bar never proved intentional withholding.'
Oh yes it did.
'Nifong in fact provided all evidence within evidence collecting standards and before a court date was set.'
Oh no he didn't. The fact that a court date was never set is irrelevant. The evidence was obtained via a Non Testimonial Order. Under North Carolina Law, the subjects of a NTO must be provided with a REPORT of what the NTO yielded in a timely fashion. Mr. Nifong provided the Defense only with pages of raw data, not a report, and he did that only months after the report had been obtained. That does not meet any legal definition of timely."
Mr. Nifong provided the Defense with all raw data, as you admit. Therefore, he did not withhold any evidence. It seems your complaint is that he did not furnish a report. I do not know whether a report was furnished or not, but I am sure that if he had, the Defense would have been critical of it.
I disagree with you about the relevance of timeliness of providing discovery. Providing discovery well in advance of a trial date gives the opposing side time to prepare. In the Alan Gell case, exculpatory evidence was withheld after the defendant had been convicted, sentenced to death, and spent a decade behind bars.
Finally, Mr. Nifong made a good faith effort to provide discovery to the defense... which is more than can be said about the defense attorneys. When Mr. Nifong requested reciprocal discovery from the Defense attorneys, they ignored the requests.
Anonymous said...
"I think Sidney would not care a whit about Alan Gell or Dwayne Dial or any other victim of wrongful prosecution had he not been so spitefully angry that the Lacrosse players were and are innocent.
He has yet to say anything about Leon Brown, wrongfully prosecuted by Nifong cohort Tracey Cline."
I will reiterate... I hate no one, not even the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Whether or not they are guilty or innocent of assaulting Crystal Mangum I do not know... and pursuing that avenue is not my interest. My objective is to see that Mike Nifong receives the justice he deserves... which is to have his law license unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated by the NC State Bar. I am also interested in advocating for the rights of others who are mistreated by the justice system.
With regards to Leon Brown, I am unfamiliar with his case. My writings center around the cases about which I am knowledgeable. I realize that there are many innocent people who have been unjustly confined to jail... such as Erick Daniels and others whose names I do not know.
Sid is Nifong's worst enemy, don't you think? He keeps pointing out Nifong's negligent and, dare I say, criminal behavior, over and over! What a nut job! Keep it up, Sid. You are hilarious.
Anonymous said...
"What happened to Erick Daniels is a true disgrace and shame within our state. He deserves a full pardon and compensation......which, of course, will never make up for what he has gone through. Sidney tries to make false points through flawed analysis.....but, on the question of pardon for Daniels, I believe we ALL agree it needs to happen now."
Although I don't agree with the part about "false points through flawed analysis", I agree with your overall conclusion and feels it bears repeating.
Don't you know old bathrobe boy reads this site every so often and just about wets his britches! I can hear the phone call now:
Bathrobe: "Sid, shut the XXXX up!"
Sid: "Aw, Skippy, don't be that way....you get so tense when you're mad"..
Bathrobe: "Stop it, balloon head, my boss won't let me be a Greeter if you keep this up."
Sid: "Gosh, maybe you could help draw pictures for my comics an all"
Mikey: "Don't tease me....you mean I might could be your helper, an all??
Sid: Yep, if you're good and do all your homework and clean your room.....
Bathrobe: "Oh, boy, my dream job! Sid, you're my pal, fer sure, dude!
"With regards to Leon Brown, I am unfamiliar with his case. My writings center around the cases about which I am knowledgeable."
That you know nothing about the Leon Brown case is self evident,or, in other words, res ipsa loquitur.
The point is, why don't you know about this case, if you are against prosecutorial misconduct? I learned about this case without having to put out much effort.
I say again, the perpetrator of this case was Tracey Cline, African American friend of Mike Nifong, Tracey Cline who would havr been second chair if the Lacrosse case had gone to trial. Mike Nifong was a guest at Tracy Cline's swearing in as Durham DA.
I suspect you do not want to know about such cases.
"It seems your complaint is that he did not furnish a report. I do not know whether a report was furnished or not, but I am sure that if he had, the Defense would have been critical of it."
You have gotten something right. NC regulations concerning NTO's requires that the subjects of an NTO be furnished the report of all results in a timely fashion. Mr. Nifong did not do that and, ergo, he violated the law.
What the report would have revealed was that the only male DNA recovered from Crystal Mangum did not match the DNA of any of the accused. Why would the Defense attorneys have criticized that?
"My objective is to see that Mike Nifong receives the justice he deserves... which is to have his law license unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated by the NC State Bar."
So why do you devote so much of your blog to condemning the Lacrosse players and so little to Mr. Nifong?
"I will reiterate... I hate no one, not even the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Whether or not they are guilty or innocent of assaulting Crystal Mangum I do not know... and pursuing that avenue is not my interest."
I ask again why do you devote so much of your blog to attacking them, to publishing lies about them?
Why do you devote so much of your blog to saying it is false and misleading to call them innocent and exonerated?
Why do you say it was misleading to call Crystal Mangum a false accuser.
I say again, you would not do such things unless you believed the Lacrosse players were guilty, unless you did hate them.
"I am also interested in advocating for the rights of others who are mistreated by the justice system."
I call that not credible.
What did you do for the wrongfully accused before the Duke False Rape case became news?
"Finally, Mr. Nifong made a good faith effort to provide discovery to the defense... which is more than can be said about the defense attorneys. When Mr. Nifong requested reciprocal discovery from the Defense attorneys, they ignored the requests."
No Mr. Nifong did not.
Again, reciprocal discovery is not universally applicable in a criminal case in NC. Ask your friend Professor Coleman if you do not believe me.
One scenario in which it is applicable is when the Defense offers an Alibi defense. Mr. Seligman's attorney offered to show Mr. Nifong the evidence of Mr. Seligman's alibi. Mr. Nifong refused to look at it.
It was Mr. Nifong who blocked mutual discovery.
The only evidence Mr. Nifong tried to get from any Lacrosse player was incriminating evidence. He tried to get that evidence by threatening to charge anyone who did not provide such evidence with aiding and abetting. How is that consistent with Reciprocal Discovery.
"I disagree with you about the relevance of timeliness of providing discovery. Providing discovery well in advance of a trial date gives the opposing side time to prepare."
Mr. Nifong was required by law to provide the defendants with a REPORT of the information yielded by the NTO he signed off on. He did not. He broke the law.
That he provided the defendants with thousands of pages of raw data months after he had a report was not compliance with the law.
That he committed his violations before a trial date is what is meaningless.
What does your friend Professor Coleman say about this.
"
First of all, why, other than the fact that Duke University has deep pockets, would the three Duke Lacrosse defendants file a lawsuit against the university? What damages did the three Duke Lacrosse defendants suffer at the hands of Duke University? And was the damage the three lads suffered worth $20 million each?
I don't think so."
Sidney, what you think is of no consequence at all.
Whether or not I can demonstrate why Duke settled with them is irrelevant.
The common sense truth is, Duke would never have settled with the defendants if they could have defended the suit.
You have as good as admitted you have filed suit against Duke hoping to access their "deep pockets".
You included this statement in a comment you posted to your May 9 blog:
"I, on the other hand, was truly victimized by Duke University. If anyone deserves $20 mil, it is me."
"Mr. Nifong provided the Defense with all raw data, as you admit. Therefore, he did not withhold any evidence. It seems your complaint is that he did not furnish a report. I do not know whether a report was furnished or not, but I am sure that if he had, the Defense would have been critical of it."
Sidney, in one of your past blogs, you claimed that the Defense attorneys probably had received a report then destroyed it so they could accuse Mr. Nifong of withholding evidence.
"In the Alan Gell case, exculpatory evidence was withheld after the defendant had been convicted, sentenced to death, and spent a decade behind bars."
In the Duke phony rape case, exculpatory evidence was withheld from the accused by a DA who hoped he could put them behind bars for 30 years each, even though they were innocent.
They were innocent of the crime which they were charged. Forensic exam of the rape kit revealed unequivocally the crime had not happened.
"Sidney tries to make false points through flawed analysis".
For example, Sidney says that logic and reason shows that a carpetbagger jihad was behind the dismissal of all charges against the innocent lacrosse defendants.
"Sidney tries to make false points through flawed analysis".
A long time ago, Sidney claimed to have found evidence that the Seligman family paid off Moez Elmostafa, even though even Mike Nifong never made that claim.
"Sidney tries to make false points through flawed analysis".
Sidney claims probable cause existed because it could not be disproven that a crime had happened without leaving evidence.
"Sidney tries to make false points through flawed analysis".
Sidney claims he is the only source of the truth even though he offers only obvious lies and unsupported allegations in his blog.
"Sidney tries to make false points through flawed analysis".
Sidney says that whart happened in the Lacrosse case was the result of a statement mRs. Rae Evans made to 60 Minutes. Mrs. Evans made that statement after the objections to Mr. Nifong's misconduct became public.
Sidney, You fail to see that, in the case of Crystal Mangum and Reginald Daye, acta exteriora iudicant interiora secreta.
When considering Crystal's actions, we should remember that crescente malitia crescere debet et poena.
When will Crystal's supporters learn that impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat?
"And was the damage the three [Duke defendants] suffered worth $20 million each?
I don't think so."
So what. Duke thought they did.
Nifong did provide a report. That was not in question. At the top of the report the lab stated that there was other data available (meaning raw data) if requested. When the defense requested that data, the DAs office spent 5K to provide the raw data.
The question was about the lab (Meehan) not putting in the original report a description of the unidentified DNA found on Mangum. DNA of men placed before the night in question. (Therefore of no inculpatory value, meaning it did not help the prosecution). Meehan made this decision, according to Meehan & Nifong's testimony, without Nifong's knowledge.
So when Nifong said in court the defense had everything, he thought they did. However, when this was discovered in court that Meehan had left out the description of the unidentified DNA, Nifong corrected it immediately. And the defense got everything during the discovery phase of the court procedures.
There was forensic evidence of rape in the rape nurse's report. You may not feel the evidence is strong enough. You may discredit the rape nurse. She was also certified, unlike what many say, though she was just certified and her certification certificate had not been received by her at that date. She was new. That does not mean that there was technically no evidence. This forensic evidence was put before the grand jury and they indicted the 3 players. Later some in the grand jury, not all, felt embarrassed that this evidence did not prove to be convincing. An indictment is not a conviction. It is a process that allows the police & prosecution to further investigate.
The difference between a lie and a misstatement is that with a lie the person knows what the truth is and knowingly presents contradictory information. A misstatement can be simply not a factual statement that the person thinks is true. The difference is intent. Nifong has testified that he made a misstatement to the court but unknowingly. The contempt hearing did not judge whether it was knowing or unknowing. They cited him for contempt for making a misstatement. They did not deal with intent. Nifong admitted that he had made a misstatement since the Dec. 15th court hearing when it was brought to his attention that Meehan had not included the unidentified DNA in the original report. Nifong always stated that the defense should have had that information. And immediately gave the data to the defense correcting Meehan's error. Well within the discovery phase.
"I will reiterate... I hate no one, not even the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Whether or not they are guilty or innocent of assaulting Crystal Mangum I do not know... and pursuing that avenue is not my interest."
This is a very revealing statement. First, note the word "even"...wonder why Sid felt the need to use this word here, in this context??? think about it, folks. then, the word "defendants".... and, of course, wonderful "assaulting...I do not know" line. Sid, the wise sage. Sid, your racism is showing.....best pull down the blinds since you are living in the glass house, bud.
Nifong did not simply refuse to look at evidence. What the DA did is tell the defense, if they had evidence, give it to the police who were running the investigation. The defense refused to give alibi evidence to the police or any other evidence. The defense refused to cooperate with the police. Which is their right. And a legitimate defense strategy. Once the players got lawyers, no players or their lawyers cooperated with police. Nifong disagreed with this action. He thought if the players came in and spoke, they could get to the bottom of this. But the defense took an extreme defensive position which encouraged the police and the DA to assume they were covering something. In order to force the players to tell the police what happened that night, Nifong refused to look at evidence directly from defense attorneys until the police looked at it first. Nifong also did not want to appear to look like he was going to cut a deal with defense lawyers when the town of Durham was exploding in rage over these accusations.
The purpose of defense attorneys going directly to the DA and circumventing the police is to convince the DA to drop the charges, cut a deal or/and to call of the police investigation. Which is what the defense was trying to do. With this highly explosive case that had hit the national media before Nifong even knew this case existed, he was not going to place the DA's office in a questionable position. Especially in Durham where there is a history of previous administrations cutting backroom deals with lawyers in racially sensitive cases. Part of what Nifong wanted to do when he took over as DA was to eradicate this past inequality when it came to white people getting better treatment than black people in the court system. So he told the defense attorneys to give any evidence to the police. He was cutting no deals.
wow, the last two posts are a real piece of work. Not only was the post author THERE when all this went down, he was actually INSIDE the head of Nifong, able to read Nifong's mind, apparently having a discussion with Nifong about Nifong's motives, and....whoa, folks, able to predict the future! Boy, I wish you were my broker!
All that was posted is on the record in testimony, interviews and police and hospital records.
Cy Gurney's back! Hey Cy,-- Tell Mike we all say "hi!".
Hi Cy, you're still working on proving Nifong was both a liar and incompetent, I see. "The question was about the lab (Meehan) not putting in the original report a description of the unidentified DNA found on Mangum. DNA of men placed before the night in question. (Therefore of no inculpatory value, meaning it did not help the prosecution)."
The problem is the statute requires the state to turn over all evidence gathered by the NIO to the subject of the NIO. There is no question that Nifong lied to the court when he said he had done so. He never, not even to the last day of his practice of law turned over the results of the NIO to the vast majority of those subjected to the NIO.
"Meehan made this decision, according to Meehan & Nifong's testimony, without Nifong's knowledge."
Incompetence is not a defense. Nifong was responsible for Meehan's testing.
"So when Nifong said in court the defense had everything, he thought they did."
Nifong's incompetence is not an excuse for lying to the court. In fact, Nifong was responsible for the DNASI testing. He was responsible for making sure the terms of the NIO statute were followed. He was the lawyer.
"However, when this was discovered in court that Meehan had left out the description of the unidentified DNA, Nifong corrected it immediately."
Immediately does not mean months after the fact.
"There was forensic evidence of rape in the rape nurse's report."
No, none of the injuries observed were consistent with rape. That assertion only entered the report later. Late changes to the story were a hallmark of this malicious prosecution though.
Walt-in-Durham
"Nifong did provide a report. That was not in question."
No he did not. Brian Meehan admitted in court he and Mr. Nifong conspired to withhold evidence.
"When the defense requested that data, the DAs office spent 5K to provide the raw data."
Under North Carolina Law regarding Non Testimonial Orders, the DA was obligated to provide a report to the Defense in a timely manner. Providing raw data to the defense months after the report was available does not satisfy that obligation.
"DNA of men placed before the night in question. (Therefore of no inculpatory value, meaning it did not help the prosecution)."
Whoever you are, you ignore a fundamental aspect of the DA's job, that the DA's obligation to determine the truth takes precedence over his duty to convict. He has to search for exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence.
If Mr. Nifong had told Brian Meehan only to give him evidence which would incriminate Lacrosse players, he violated this obligation.
"There was forensic evidence of rape in the rape nurse's report."
Said rape nurse had just completed SANE training, had not yet received her certificate, and in spite of her training did not have a lot of experience doing SANE exams. She in fact was not credentialed to function as a SANE.
Said rape nurse did not do the physical examination. An OB-GYN resident did the exam. The only finding was diffuse vaginal edema which is not pathognomonic of rape(ask Sidney what that means, if you do not know, although, in spite of his MD Sidney himself might not know). If view of Crystal's documented sexual activity prior to the Lacrosse party, there were explanations of that finding other than rape.
"And the defense got everything during the discovery phase of the court procedures."
The Defense did not get everything in a timely fashion, especially the REPORT that the only male DNA found on Crystal Mangum's person did not match the DNA of any Lacrosse player.
That was exculpatory evidence.
"This forensic evidence was put before the grand jury and they indicted the 3 players."
No one really knows, other than the police officers, what was put before the Grand Jury. NC Grand Jury proceedings are secret and no record is kept. Refutation of the evidence is not allowed.
The members of the Grand Jury who spoke to Good Morning America specifically stated that they had not been presented with all the evidence, that had they been presented with all the evidence they would not have voted to indict.
Why did Mr. Nifong not handle this case in the way his office usually handled rape cases, allow a probable cause hearing. At a probable cause hearing, the accused would have been able to refute anything Mr. Nifong presented.
Considering your statement about evidence which was not inculpatory, you acknowledge that Mr. Nifong wanted to keep exculpatory evidence out of the case. That was a violation of prosecutorial ethics.
Anonymous said...
"'With regards to Leon Brown, I am unfamiliar with his case. My writings center around the cases about which I am knowledgeable.'
That you know nothing about the Leon Brown case is self evident,or, in other words, res ipsa loquitur.
The point is, why don't you know about this case, if you are against prosecutorial misconduct? I learned about this case without having to put out much effort.
I say again, the perpetrator of this case was Tracey Cline, African American friend of Mike Nifong, Tracey Cline who would havr been second chair if the Lacrosse case had gone to trial. Mike Nifong was a guest at Tracy Cline's swearing in as Durham DA.
I suspect you do not want to know about such cases."
I subscribe to The News & Observer, the Raleigh edition. I have tried to subscribe to the Durham addition, but cannot do so without a Durham address. The reason I do not know about the Leon Brown case is that it must not have been covered here in Raleigh. Television news media does not often cover cases in Durham, so that is why I know less about the case than people who reside in Durham.
Furthermore, I am not just against prosecutorial misconduct, I am against all misconduct within the justice system.
Finally, I don't know what Tracy Cline's relationship with Mike Nifong has to do with anything.
"Later some in the grand jury, not all, felt embarrassed that this evidence did not prove to be convincing."
Not all members of the Grand Jury were interviewed, so that is not a meaningful statement.
If the the whole case had been presented and not only the parts which Mr. Nifong wanted presented, the evidence would not have been convincing. Therefore, there should have been no indictments.
Anonymous said...
"When will Crystal's supporters learn that impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat?"
I love the Latin. Keep it coming... but could you throw in some interpretation along with it?Thanks.
"It is a process that allows the police & prosecution to further investigate."
The question is why Mr. Nifong took the case to the Grand Jury.
There had been an investigation. That investigation did not reveal any evidence that a rape had occurred.
The only thing Mr. Nifong had was Crystal's identifications of her assailants. Those identifications were the fruit of a poison tree and should not have been admissable.
The identification procedure, conducted at the order of Mr. Nifong, were the product of an improperly conducted lineup, a lineup which was tainted in that it was conducted by Mark Gottlieb who was an officer investigating the alleged crime.
It strongly suggests that what Mr. Nifong presented to the Grand Jury was manufactured evidence.
To my last comment I add, what would further investigation following the indictments have proven?
Are you suggesting that without the Grand Jury, there could have been no further investigation?
"That does not mean that there was technically no evidence [of rape]."
There is nothing technical about this. There was no forensic evidence of the rape which was alleged.
To my last comment I add:
If there were indeed forensic evidence of rape, why did Mr. Nifong attempt to intimidate members of the Lacrosse team into testifying against other members?
"Nifong has testified that he made a misstatement to the court but unknowingly."
He did that after Brian Meehan had testified, quite unexpectedly to Mr. Nifong, that he and Mr. Nifong conspired to withhold evidence from the Defense. Mr. Nifong's subsequent testimony is not credible.
Anonymous said...
"'...the Duke Lacrosse defendants were never convicted of a felony, as was Daniels.'
What is improper about that, Sidney?"
I did not say it was improper for the Duke Lacrosse defendants not to be convicted. If you will read carefully, I was making a comparison of the differences between the two cases.
"The defense refused to give alibi evidence to the police or any other evidence."
That is a lie.
Reade Seligman's attorneys offered to show Mr. Nifong Mr. Seligman's alibi evidence. Mr. Nifong refused to consider the evidence.
Also, Mr. Moez Elmostafa gave a statement which supported Mr. Seligman's alibi. Mr. Nifong had him arrested on an outstanding warrant, a warrant that alleged he had aided and abetted a shop lifter.
Mr. Elmostafa was asked if he wanted to change his statement about Mr. Seligman. Mr. Elmostafa said no. He was then taken to trial.
The thing about this case is that the police had access to the shoplifter. They wanted her to testify at Mr. Elmostafa's trial that Mr. Elmostafa had been her accomplice. She refused.
Before Mr. Elmostafa was ever arrested, the Police could have questioned her and determined there was no real case against Mr. Elmostafa. They did not.
That says a lot about the receptivity of the Police to hearing alibi or any other exculpatory evidence.
I say again, contrary to prosecutorial ethics, Mr. Nifong tried to exclude exculpatory evidence from the trial.
"Nifong admitted that he had made a misstatement since the Dec. 15th court hearing when it was brought to his attention that Meehan had not included the unidentified DNA in the original report."
Nifong made whatever admission he made after it came out in court that he and Brian Meehan conspired to withhold evidence from the defense.
Mr. Nifong's admission is not credible.
Anonymous said...
"Erik Daniels was the victim of a wrongful prosecution just like the lacrosse players but Sidney defends him because he is black and hated the lacrosse players because they are white."
As I have stated before, I do not have internet at home (too expensive). I therefore access the net at the public library where it's free. Unfortunately there are time constraints with using the library's computers so I will not waste time commenting on baseless blanket statements about racism as the one presented above.
Time limits on the computer also prevents me from responding to all of the comments which I consider worthy and to which I would love to reply.
"With this highly explosive case that had hit the national media before Nifong even knew this case existed, he was not going to place the DA's office in a questionable position."
Pardon my French but French is appropriate here:
BULLSHIT!!!!
This case became an explosive case because Mr. Nifong went to the media before the case was even investigated and made inflammatory guilt presuming statements to the media.
"Once the players got lawyers, no players or their lawyers cooperated with police. Nifong disagreed with this action."
Nifong's public statements about the players getting lawyers were:
That the anyone who was not guilty and had not been charged did not need a lawyer.
That the perpetrators had rich daddies who would hire expensive lawyers to get them off.
That the players were not talking to the police on the advice of their lawyers, which might be good legal advice but not good moral advice.
Mr. Nifong was telling the public that hiring lawyers was an indication of guilt, that remaining silent was an indication of guilt.
Retention of Counsel, remaining silent are rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Just check with Sidney's friend, Professor Coleman.
What next. Is someone going to say Mr. Nifong was not familiar with the Constitution and that excused his attempt to ignore these fundamental rights?
"Especially in Durham where there is a history of previous administrations cutting backroom deals with lawyers in racially sensitive cases."
Under Mr. Nifong's leadership, the usual way the DA's office handled rape cases was to either dismiss the charges or allow the accused to plead to a lesser charge. There were a lot of backroom deals going on under the Nifong DA's office.
Can we say HYPOCRISY, boys and girls?
All that was posted is on the record in testimony, interviews and police and hospital records.
Incorrect, false. Not true. You are asserting, once again, an OPINION, not a FACT.
"The purpose of defense attorneys going directly to the DA and circumventing the police is to convince the DA to drop the charges, cut a deal or/and to call of the police investigation."
How would that negate the fact that an accused has an air tight alibi?
Mr. Nifong's attempt to have Mr. Elmostafa is a backhanded acknowledgement that Reade Seligman had an unshakeable alibi.
I refer you to Sidney's comments on reciprocal discovery. If a Defense Lawyer intends to offer an alibi defense, he is obligated under North Carolina law to reveal the alibi evidence to the Prosecution.
Are you going to say Mr. Nifong was unaware of this part of NC law and that excused his refusal to look at Mr. Seligman's alibi evidence.
No matter how you try to rationalize it, Mr. Nifong did not want to look at alibi evidence because he wanted to exclude exculpatory evidence from the case.
"The purpose of defense attorneys going directly to the DA and circumventing the police is to convince the DA to drop the charges, cut a deal or/and to call of the police investigation."
The Lacrosse players had no intention of cutting any deal with Mr. Nifong's office. That is res ipsa loquitur from the measures they took to defend themselves.
Are you going to question the right of an accused to defend himself.
You have already agreed with Mr. Nifong's attempts to undermine their right to counsel, their right to remain silent.
"Nifong also did not want to appear to look like he was going to cut a deal with defense lawyers when the town of Durham was exploding in rage over these accusations."
To resort to French again:
BULLSHIT!!!!!
The town was exploding in rage because Mr. Nifong made multiple inflammatory guilt presuming statement to the media.
If anyone wanted a deal, it would have been Mr. Nifong. When the truth came out, that truth was he did not have a case. He, in my opinion, wanted to keep the pressure on and force the defendants to take a plea deal. Unfortunately for unethical bully Mike Nifong, the defendants had no intention of making a deal.
Let's face it. Nifong WAS and IS the worst kind of corrupt, amoral sleeze that has hit the Durham justice scene in a long time. and, friends, that is saying a bunch! No amount of Sidney posturing and self-inflation is going to change my mind or anybody else's mind who has even one brain cell left to think. If Nifong wants to practice law again, I hope he enjoys the climate in Cuba.....apparently you don't have to be ethical, or even competent to chase ambulances in Cuba.
We all know the real purpose of this web site. It is simply to give Sid a forum to prop up his sagging ego. It has zero to do with anything else.
"Nifong always stated that the defense should have had that information. And immediately gave the data to the defense correcting Meehan's error. Well within the discovery phase."
Nevertheless, he did withhold a REPORT from them. He violated North Carolina law in doing so.
This is another statement Mr. Nifong made after it came out in court that he conspired with Mr. Meehan to withhold evidence from the defendants.
"Anonymous said...
'Erik Daniels was the victim of a wrongful prosecution just like the lacrosse players but Sidney defends him because he is black and hated the lacrosse players because they are white.'"
Sidney, I am a different anonymous. I say you do not care about Erick Daniels. To you, he is an excuse to attack the innocent Lacrosse players.
"I did not say it was improper for the Duke Lacrosse defendants not to be convicted. If you will read carefully, I was making a comparison of the differences between the two cases."
Saying that implies that no harm resulted because they were not convicted. That simply is not true.
Evidence of that is that Duke settled with them rather than defend any lawsuit they might have filed.
Further evidence are the attempts of Durham and Mr. Nifong to have all the pending suits dismissed before discovery can take place.
Sidney, why don't Crystal's friends or your J$N gang members try to facilitate your internet access?
"I did not say it was improper for the Duke Lacrosse defendants not to be convicted. If you will read carefully, I was making a comparison of the differences between the two cases."
Sidney, what I asked you was, what was improper about the Duke defendants not being convicted of any crime.
You have declined to answer that question.
"I love the Latin. Keep it coming... but could you throw in some interpretation along with it?Thanks."
Sidney, here is more Latin for you:
Reductio ad absurdum. It is the technique of refuting an argument by showing the argument is absurd. For Example:
Mr. Nifong was disbarred because of a carpetbagger jihad which was initiated by Mrs. Rae Evans statement to 60 Minutes.
Mrs. Evans made her statement to 60 Minutes in January of 2007, AFTER Mr. Nifong's misconduct had resulted in the complaints to the NC Bar.
Or:
It is false and misleading to call the Lacrosse players innocent and exonerated.
The forensic evidence showed unequivocally that the crime with which they were charged never happened. Therefore they could not have committed said crime, they are innocent of the charge as a matter of FACT and were exonerated.
How about:
Crystal identified her assailants with 90%-100% certainty. That justified Mr. Nifong seeking indictments.
Crystal identified two men with 100% certainty who could prove with 100% certainty they were not at the scene of the alleged crime at the time of said crime. She identified her third assailant as a man with a mustache: the man indicted never had a mustache
This absurdity of this particular argument you have made is res ipsa loquitur:
Probable cause existed to indict the Lacrosse players because it could not be proven that a crimre which left no evidence had not happened.
"Furthermore, I am not just against prosecutorial misconduct, I am against all misconduct within the justice system."
So why do you support Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution of the innocent Lacrosse defendants?
"The reason I do not know about the Leon Brown case is that it must not have been covered here in Raleigh."
Sidney, I was able to access information about Tracy Cline and Leon Brown in less than 30 seconds via Google.
Surely you have time in the library to conduct such a search.
"Television news media does not often cover cases in Durham, so that is why I know less about the case than people who reside in Durham."
Sidney, KC Johnson does not live in Durham and he knows about it.
I live at least 1000 miles from Durham and know about it.
"Finally, I don't know what Tracy Cline's relationship with Mike Nifong has to do with anything."
Well here it is.
Tracey Cline was an ADA in under Mr. Nifong.
Tracey Cline would have sat second chair to Mr. Nifong had the Lacrosse case gone to trial.
Ms. Cline was involved in prosecuting the innocent Duke defendants.
You seem awfully reluctant to admit that anyone who prosecuted the Duke defendants was an unethical prosecutor.
Sidney, here is one more of your allegations, the absurdity of which is res ipsa loquitur:
Duke settled with the Lacrosse players for $20 million each because the Lacrosse players had greedy attorneys and Duke believed its insurance carrier would pay out all those millions even though the case could have been successfully defended.
Tell you what, let's all ask Sid to contact Nifong. Sid should invite Nifong to come on this web site and write, for all of us, HIS detailed specific point-by-point verifiable reason(s) why he should get his license back. How bout that?? Call him up, Sid. I double dog dare you....
"So he [Mr. Nifong} told the defense attorneys to give any evidence to the police."
I say again, under North Carolina law regarding reciprocal discovery in a criminal case, defense attorneys were required to turn over to the Prosecution alibi evidence.
Why did Mr. Nifong not want to view the alibi evidence?
"The defense refused to give alibi evidence to the police or any other evidence."
What law requires the Defense to turn over anything to the Police. According to the Constitution of the United States, specifically the 5th Amendment, a defendant is not required to provide any information to the Police.
I say again, NC law regarding reciprocal discovery in a criminal case obligates a defense attorney to share alibi evidence with the prosecution.
Was Mr. Nifong trying to violate the defendants' rights again. It sure seems so.
Who is your legal advisor - the same legal cuckoo who is representing Sidney in his suit against Duke?
Meehan and Nifong did not admit to conspire on Dec 15th to withhold evidence. That is an inaccurate statement.
Meehan & Nifong repeatedly told the court that they did not conspire to withhold evidence.
What they agreed on, from completely Meehan's idea and request, was not to list the actual DNA of non-matching lacrosse players. The intention of this according to Meehan was to protect that DNA from the press.
This admission has been mythologized into a statement that Meehan and/or Nifong admitted to agree to withhold evidence. They asserted the complete opposite under repeated questioning.
When Nifong realized that Meehan had not included the unidentified DNA, incorrectly, Nifong corrected it immediately. Not months later.
This is not a defense of Nifong. It's a fact of record.
"Once the players got lawyers, no players or their lawyers cooperated with police. Nifong disagreed with this action."
According to Amendment 5 of the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Nifong was forbidden to make an issue of this.
You admit Mr. Nifong had no regard for the Defendants Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
One reason Defendants have such rights is to prevent wrongful conviction of innocent defendants.
"But the defense took an extreme defensive position which encouraged the police and the DA to assume they were covering something"
Constitutionally, the DA and the police were forbidden from making such an assumption.
You have again highlighted misconduct on the part of the police and Mr. Nifong.
It's also not a requirement of any DIstrict Attorney ever to meet with a defense attorney and a client before indictment.
I'm not defending the police. The police made mistakes.
It's a matter of record, once the defense canceled a meeting with police (way before Nifong knew about this case) the police thought the players were hiding something.
If that was wrong of them then it was wrong of them. That's a judgement. The fact is that's what they thought.
"He [Mr. Nifong] thought if the players came in and spoke, they could get to the bottom of this."
What "HE" did was threaten to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team with aiding and abetting if they did not come forward with incriminating evidence. That is a matter of record.
Mr. Nifong did not eant to get to the bottom of anything. He wanted to indict and convict members of the Lacrosse team for raping Ms. Mangum, even though he had ample evidence the crime never happened.
He was, Sidney's protestations to the contrary, trying to manufacture evidence.
"Meehan & Nifong repeatedly told the court that they did not conspire to withhold evidence."
So what.They lied
"What they agreed on, from completely Meehan's idea and request, was not to list the actual DNA of non-matching lacrosse players. The intention of this according to Meehan was to protect that DNA from the press."
Time for more French:
BULLSHIT!!!!!
The only thing the press would have learned is that none of the DNA found on Ms. Mangum matched the DNA of any of the accused. That would have undermined the credibility of Mr. Nifong's case, not that it had been severely undermined already.
"It's a matter of record, once the defense canceled a meeting with police (way before Nifong knew about this case) the police thought the players were hiding something."
The meeting was cancelled because the police wanted to question them without any attorneys present.
Maybe it was not technically illegal. It was certainly not the way an ethical police investigation would have happened.
"It's also not a requirement of any DIstrict Attorney ever to meet with a defense attorney and a client before indictment."
North Carolina law regarding reciprocal discovery in a criminal case would say the DA has an obligation to meet with a Defense Attorney who wants to show him alibi evidence.
In any event, it is improper for a DA to tell a Defense attorney to show that evidence to the police.
You're confusing things.
The non-matching lacrosse players DNA is not the unidentified DNA.
The press would have known the players actual DNA data. Meehan did not want the press to have that information.
"This admission has been mythologized into a statement that Meehan and/or Nifong admitted to agree to withhold evidence. They asserted the complete opposite under repeated questioning."
Why did Mr. Meehan admit to Brad Bannon under oath that he and Mr. Nifong agreed to withhold evidence from the defense.
Any subsequent testimony that they did not is not credible testimony. It is more of two people guilty of inappropriate actions trying to avoid accountability for those actions.
You made the statement that they admitted conspiracy.
Therefore they are guilty. Now that the record shows they did not admit conspiracy, you say they lied.
There remains to this day no proof or evidence that Nifong intentionally withheld evidence from the defense or anyone else.
"The press would have known the players actual DNA data. Meehan did not want the press to have that information."
How would the press have gotten that information via the action of giving the information of the non matching DNA to the Defense? Do not try to tell me the Defense attorneys would have released any information about the unindicted players.
Through court release papers to the press.
But Meehan's motivations or concerns are irrelevant to charges toward Nifong. Nifong did not care if the non-matching lacrosse players DNA was released or not. He went along with Meehan's protocol.
"You made the statement that they admitted conspiracy.
Therefore they are guilty. Now that the record shows they did not admit conspiracy, you say they lied."
WRONG!
After Mr. Meehan testified under oath that he and Mr. Nifong agreed to withhold evidence, which was exculpatory, then Mr. Meehan and Mr. Nifong tried to duck accountability.
I am aware defendants have confessed to crimes, then recanted, and have been exonerated. Recanting alone is not enough for exoneration.
All Mr. Nifong and Mr. Meehan did really was to recant after being caught.
"But Meehan's motivations or concerns are irrelevant to charges toward Nifong. Nifong did not care if the non-matching lacrosse players DNA was released or not. He went along with Meehan's protocol."
Oh yes he did care about the non matching DNA. It was exculpatory evidence. Mr. Nifong had shown, via his refusal to look at alibi evidence, by his treatment of Moez Elmostafa, via his threats to the Lacrosse team, he did not want to hear anything exculpatory.
You admit Mr. Nifong was negligent. He was obligated to consider all evidence, not just inculpatory evidence. He was obligated to get exculpatory evidence to the defense. He failed to do so.
In any event, we have NC law regarding Non Testimonial Orders. Mr Nifong was obligated to inform each and every Lacrosse player subjected to the NTO that non-Lacrosse player DNA had been found on Ms. Mangum. He was obligated by law to give them that information long before Mr. Meehan's admission, long before Brad Bannon learned of it.
"There remains to this day no proof or evidence that Nifong intentionally withheld evidence from the defense or anyone else."
Yes there is. Otherwise, Mr. Nifong would have appealed his convictions.
"He [Mr. Nifong] went along with Meehan's protocol."
If he did he was negligent.
Meehan admitted to Brad Bannon under oath that he withheld the non-matching lacrosse players DNA.
And that Nifong agreed to his request to withhold that for fear of the press.
Nifong was never convicted for withholding evidence only for making a misstatement to the court.
On the contrary, Joe Cheshire stated to the media that they would sue Nifong for withholding evidence. That has not happened.
There has been no hard evidence for him withhoding evidence to date.
You're confusing things again. This is why this case is so difficult for people to understand and how easy it is for people to manipulate the facts.
Nifong approved Meehan withholding the raw DNA of lacrosse players who did not match. That DNA has nothing to do with the case. They were players who never matched.
"Meehan admitted to Brad Bannon under oath that he withheld the non-matching lacrosse players DNA."
Meehan admitted under oath that he and Mr. Nifong agreed to withhold test results, the finding of non-lacrosse player DNA/
"Nifong approved Meehan withholding the raw DNA of lacrosse players who did not match. That DNA has nothing to do with the case. They were players who never matched."
Nifong and Meehan, according to Meehan's sworn testimony, conspired to withhold results showing non-lacrosse player DNA.
And even if there was no conspiracy, Mr.Nifong had an obligation under law to seek and know all the results of the testing which followed the NTO.
"...Nifong agreed to [Meehan's] request to withhold that for fear of the press.
Specify, why Nifong would be afraid of the press finding out about no Lacrosse player's DNA matched that found on Ms. Mangum.
The only thing Mr. Nifong would not want the press to know is that he did not have a case. The non-lacrosse player would have told the press.
"Nifong was never convicted for withholding evidence only for making a misstatement to the court."
"Nifong" was convicted of lying to the court.
I believe the State Bar found "Nifong" did improperly withheld evidence from the defense.
The substance of the second complaint againstr Mr. Nifong was that he improperly withheld evidence.
"There has been no hard evidence for [Mr. Nifong] withhoding(sic) evidence to date."
The court found him guilty of lying to the court, specifically lying when he said he had turned over all evidence to the Defense.
The State Bar did find he had withheld evidence.
"Nifong was never convicted for withholding evidence only for making a misstatement to the court.".....
The June 26 2007 hearing of the NC State Bar v. Michael Nifong says differently. I'm sure you have a copy, Cy.
"Nifong approved Meehan withholding the raw DNA of lacrosse players who did not match. That DNA has nothing to do with the case. They were players who never matched."
Why did Mr. Nifong sign off on the NTO which required them to give samples for DNA analysis.
Why did he nt inform them in a timely fashion that male DNA not matching their DNA had been found on Ms. Mangum.
He was required by law to do so.
"The June 26 2007 hearing of the NC State Bar v. Michael Nifong says differently. I'm sure you have a copy, Cy."
Cut them some slack -- maybe their copy was eaten by the same puppy that got to Mikey's law license.
From the verdict of the State Bar panel which tried Mr. Nifong on ethics charges:
"Eight: 'Did Defendant by not providing to the Duke defendants after November 16, 2006, a complete report setting forth the results of all tests or examinations conducted by DSI, including the potentially
exculpatory DNA test results in evidence,
a, fail after a reasonably diligent inquiry to make timely disclosure to the Defense of all evidence or information required to be disclosed by applicable law, rules of procedure or court opinions, including all evidence or information known to him that tended to negate the guilt of the accused in violation of current Rule 3.8(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" The answer is YES(emphasis added).
B, failed to disclose evidence or information that he knew or
reasonably should have known was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of
procedure or evidence or court opinions in violation of current Rule 3.4(d)(3) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" The
answer is YES(emphasis added)."
To my previous comment, I add:
Yes the state bar did say POTENTIALLY exculpatory evidence.
That word, potentially, does not absolve the DA of any obligation to give that evidence to the Defense.
Nor does it give authority to the DA to decide the evidence was not exculpatory.
Mr. Nifong improperly withheld evidence.
Again. Nifong did not withhold the unidentified DNA from the defense. Meehan withheld that without Nifong's approval.
Yes, Nifong approved withholding the non-matching lacrosse players DNA after Meehan requested him to. No defense attorney or court or State Bar ever complained about this withholding because it is irrelevant to the case.
Should Meehan and Nifong have delivered the unidentified DNA found on Mangum? Yes. Absolutely yes. Nifong admitted this as soon as he found out that it was not delivered to the court. Was this a mistake? Yes. Should he, in retrospect, have read the whole original report to see if that information (unidentified DNA) was not described by Meehan in the report? Yes.
DId he lie to the court? No. He gave inaccurate information, according to testimony. He did not know in September that the unidentified DNA was withheld by Meehan. He did not know until Dec. 15th. When he corrected it and gave everything to the defense which was still in discovery.
Was he convicted of lying? No.
The State Bar was not a court. Nor was it a trial. The procedures are not that of a trial. Especially when it comes to defense. The State Bar is a lawyer association. The board that ran the hearing was made up of two defense lawyers and a schoolteacher. Not a judge.
No one has ever taken Nifong to court on any charge except a misstatement previous to Dec 15th. Which Nifong admitted to immediately. He was not convicted of lying. He was convicted of a false statement. He testified consistently that he gave a false statement unknowingly. He did not know that Meehan, without his knowledge, withheld the unidentified DNA.
Another inaccuracy. Nifong did not sign off on the NTO. An ADA signed the report. Teh report came from the DA's office. Nifong had no knowledge of the NTO until it was already served. He had nothing to do whatsoever with the wording of the NTO.
He did not list the entire lacrosse team. His ADA did.
The first he heard of the lacrosse case was when he found a copy of the NTO in a copier machine.
He has gone on record that he would not have worded the NTO in the way it was.
Many defense lawyers have threatened to take Nifong to court for numerous reasons.
Lying, withholding evidence, etc. None have. It would be very difficult in an actual court of law with more stringent procedures and more protections for the accused to prove their case.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1767142/#/vid1767142
This is a video of Judge W. Osmond Smith rendering the verdict in Mike Nifong's criminal contempt trial.
Among other things, Judge Smith found that Mr. Nifong made "false statements of material fact to the court" In other words, Judge Smith found he lied to the court.
Judge Smith also found Mr. Nifong withheld exculpatory material from the defense.
"Was he convicted of lying?" Yes he was.
"No one has ever taken Nifong to court on any charge except a misstatement previous to Dec 15th."
That is untrue. One issue before the court was that he had withheld evidence from the defense.
Review the video if you dare.
Judge Smith also ruled that Mr. Nifong did know the material he had withheld was exculpatory.
"Another inaccuracy. Nifong did not sign off on the NTO."
Yes he did.
"Again. Nifong did not withhold the unidentified DNA from the defense. Meehan withheld that without Nifong's approval."
Yes he did. Both the State Bar ethics panel and the Court found that Mr. Nifong did willfully withhold that material from the defense.
"The State Bar is a lawyer association."
Not true. The State Bar Association is the lawyer association.
"The North Carolina State Bar is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of law in North Carolina." That comes from the State Bar Web Site.
It is a regulatory agency which is empowered to hear complaints of misconduct by lawyers, including District Attorneys. It was empowered to conduct a procedure and to determine whether or not Mr. Nifong was guilty of ethics violations.
"No one has ever taken Nifong to court on any charge except a misstatement previous to Dec 15th. Which Nifong admitted to immediately. He was not convicted of lying."
This is a summary from CNN of Judge Smith's findings in the Criminal Contempt Trial:
"The judge said Nifong's withholding of DNA evidence from defense attorneys was an affront to the integrity of the judicial system.
The evidence potentially would have cleared the three lacrosse players of sexual assault charges months before North Carolina's attorney general dropped them in April.
The players initially were accused of raping an exotic dancer during a party last year.
The specific evidence Nifong was accused of withholding was that DNA profiles found on the alleged rape victim were from unidentified males, but did not match any of the 46 lacrosse team members.
He also was accused of telling the court in a September 22 hearing that a lab report contained complete information on DNA test results, when it omitted that information."
If you view the WRAL video, you would see Mr. Nifong was convicted of lying to the court.
"Again. Nifong did not withhold the unidentified DNA from the defense. Meehan withheld that without Nifong's approval."
I should have said
Yes Mr. Nifong did withhold evidence. Both the State Bar ethics panel and the Court found that Mr. Nifong did willfully withhold that material from the defense.
"He [Nifong] did not list the entire lacrosse team. His ADA did."
But Mr. Nifong did sign off on it.
"He did not list the entire lacrosse team. His ADA did."
So why did he not drop or quash or stop the NTO? According to NC law, to obtain an NTO, the DA or whoever has to have probable cause to believe the subject is the perpetrator of a crime. Crystal Mangum never said she was raped by each and every member of the Duke Lacrosse team. Therefore, there was no legal justification to subject all Caucasian members of the team to the NTO.
I ask again, why did Mr. Nifong not stop and obviously illegal NTO.
"Lying, withholding evidence, etc. None have. It would be very difficult in an actual court of law with more stringent procedures and more protections for the accused to prove their case."
You seem unaware both the defendants and unindicted Lacrosse players are suing Mr. Nifong. Mr. Nifong is trying desperately and so far unsuccessfully to have the cases dismissed before discovery takes place.
Why does he fear what might be revealed on discovery?
"He did not know until Dec. 15th. When he corrected it and gave everything to the defense which was still in discovery."
According to Mr. Meehan's admission to Brad Bannon, Mr. Nifong did know before December 15.
That is what the Ethics panel determined from examination of the evidence.
That is what Judge Smith ruled in the Criminal Contempt trial.
"No one has ever taken Nifong to court on any charge except a misstatement previous to Dec 15th."
Read the verdict of the State Bar ethics panel. Watch the video of Judge Smith's verdict in the contempt trial.
The matter of Nifong's ethical misbehavior, lying to the court, withholding evidence, etc. is a CLOSED matter. Nifong never has and never will successfully "appeal" for reinstatement, because he knows he is guilty of every charge brought against him, and, in my humble opinion, of many more misdeeds about which we may never know. (Sid, that's an opinion, not a fact....I am clearly stating the difference here....)
Stick a fork in him; he is done. The questions that remain, now, pertain to the suits that the defendants do NOT want to go to discovery. Let the games begin, boys.
Cy -- This one's for you:
Sometimes its hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times
And he'll have good times
Doing things that you don't understand
But if you love him you'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh be proud of him
'Cause after all he's just a man
Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Cy or whoever you are, you are not helping Sidney at all.
you claim the defense attorneys sought out Mr. Nifong to present their evidence. You say Mr. Nifong directed them to go to the police.
Sidney claims that Mr.Nifong requested the defense attorneys to share what they had and they refused.
You pro Nifongers should at least try to coordinate your stories.
Cy, or whoever you are, The State Bar does have the authority to discipline attorneys, including DA's, for ethics violations.
Now I bet Sidney is going to repeat that the only DA disbarred by the State Bar was Mike Nifong.
So what.
"He [Mr. Nifong] has gone on record that he would not have worded the NTO in the way it was."
S why did he allow the NTO to go forward?
"Nifong has testified that he made a misstatement to the court but unknowingly."
The court found otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Nifong was found to have lied to the court.
The Nifong defender emphasizes that Nifong’s response was influenced by the concern that the “the town of Durham was exploding in rage over these accusations.” That defense suggests that the parties who triggered that rage are the primary culprits in the frame.
· Addison started the national media frenzy with his March 24 statement. This statement violated several DPD guidelines. Who authorized that statement? Was he instructed to violate DPD policy?
· Samiha Khanna’s interview with Mangum on March 25 recast the accusation as a racially motivated attack. That interview set off the firestorm. Understanding the background for that interview is critical to understanding the frame. Who set up that interview? What ground rules were imposed?
· Nifong’s “million dollars of free publicity” began immediately after his briefing with Gottlieb and Himan on March 27. The finding that these statements violated ethics standards makes it difficult to claim that they were in his role as prosecutor. Was he pressured into a public role or did he see the case as an opportunity?
"The contempt hearing did not judge whether it was knowing or unknowing. They cited him for contempt for making a misstatement."
WRONG!!!
The court found Mr. Nifong knowingly misrepresented material facts to the court. He lied.
View theWRAL Video of Judge Smith delivering the verdict.
"Many defense lawyers have threatened to take Nifong to court for numerous reasons."
The Defense lawyers were successful in having Mr. Nifong brought to trial for criminal contempt, the main issues being:
Nifong had evidence which was exculpatory, which he was obligated by law to turn over to the defense.
Nifong knowingly withheld the evidence.
Nifong lied to the court.
The court found Nifong had done all the above and did find him guilty.
"He testified consistently that he gave a false statement unknowingly."
Mr. Nifong said nothing about the exculpatory evidence until Brian Meehan admitted in court that he and Mr. Nifong agreed to withhold the evidence.
I say that shows intent on the part of Mr. Nifong to conceal the evidence.
It appears we have a poster on this board who has an orgasm whenever he or she types the words "res ipsa loquitur."
It appears we have an ignorant racist ego-maniac on this site who wants nothing more than to continually pretend he cares about Nifong, Mangum, Daniels and others.....while all he really wants to do is pump himself up and posture as yet another pseudo victim of an evil white oppressor. (translated: Duke administration) How's the lawsuit coming along, Sid?
To Cy or whoever you are:
You noted, with some disdain, that the Ethics panel which tried Mr. Nifong included a lay person.
Are you saying involvement of a lay person in a judicial proceeding somehow invalidates the proceeding?
Does that mean a trial by jury is not valid because it involves lay people?
Mr. Nifong tried to be tried by a jury for criminal contempt.
"It appears we have a poster on this board who has an orgasm whenever he or she types the words 'res ipsa loquitur.'"
It is res ipsa loquitur to see if Cy or whoever it is will continue to post lies in order to defend Mr. Nifong.
Anonymous said...
"'I will reiterate... I hate no one, not even the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Whether or not they are guilty or innocent of assaulting Crystal Mangum I do not know... and pursuing that avenue is not my interest.'
I ask again why do you devote so much of your blog to attacking them, to publishing lies about them?
Why do you devote so much of your blog to saying it is false and misleading to call them innocent and exonerated?
Why do you say it was misleading to call Crystal Mangum a false accuser.
I say again, you would not do such things unless you believed the Lacrosse players were guilty, unless you did hate them."
I have never attacked the Duke Lacrosse defendants. I have stated that they attended a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party in which a racial epithet was bandied about. That is just the truth. Remember too that Duke Lacrosse had an extremely horrendous reputation, to the extent that the President of the university warned the Lacrosse coach to rein in his players. Not only that, but Collin Finnerty had a conviction for assaulting two men whom he believed to be gay; Dave Evans had a charge for an open alcoholic container in a car he was driving; and Reade Seligmann did not pay taxes on the $20 mil windfall orchestrated by their avaricious team of barristers. That is merely fact.
For the media to refer to the Duke Lacrosse defendants as "innocent" and "exonerated" is false and misleading. An attorney general cannot confer "innocence" or "guilt" on a defendant no more than me or you... unless you are a judge. It will be appropriate for the media to refer to Gregory Taylor or Erick Daniels as "innocent" or "exonerated" because they have been determined to be so by a judge... not an attorney general.
By bringing up the issue, I am trying to enlighten you and others and prevent you from being victims of the media's Jedi mind-tricks.
With regards to Crystal Mangum, she still maintains an assault occurred, and since the case did not go to trial, it is presumptuous to say that her allegation were either "true" or "false."
Anonymous said...
"It appears we have an ignorant racist ego-maniac on this site who wants nothing more than to continually pretend he cares about Nifong, Mangum, Daniels and others.....while all he really wants to do is pump himself up and posture as yet another pseudo victim of an evil white oppressor. (translated: Duke administration) How's the lawsuit coming along, Sid?"
As you may know, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, my lawsuit. On May 6, 2011, I filed my response to the Motion. Since then the Defense has filed a Reply to my Response.
At present, I am awaiting a recommendation from the Magistrate to the Judge. So we're in a holding pattern it seems.
Anonymous said...
"The matter of Nifong's ethical misbehavior, lying to the court, withholding evidence, etc. is a CLOSED matter. Nifong never has and never will successfully 'appeal' for reinstatement, because he knows he is guilty of every charge brought against him, and, in my humble opinion, of many more misdeeds about which we may never know. (Sid, that's an opinion, not a fact....I am clearly stating the difference here....)
Stick a fork in him; he is done. The questions that remain, now, pertain to the suits that the defendants do NOT want to go to discovery. Let the games begin, boys."
To clarify, Mr. Nifong is not, has not, and does not intend in the future to appeal to the NC State Bar for his reinstatement. The "Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong" is leading the charge to rectify the injustice that took place when the Bar took Mr. Nifong's license without cause. The issue of reinstatement of Mr. Nifong's law license is far from being settled... it's just moved into extra innings. Justice, I believe, will ultimately prevail with the unilateral and unconditional reinstatement of Mr. Nifong's license by the NC State Bar.
Sid, you amaze me with your inability to reason when it comes to this case. You wrote: "By bringing up the issue, I am trying to enlighten you and others and prevent you from being victims of the media's Jedi mind-tricks."
No fantasy here. The state, which always had the burden of proof, after a full and fair investigation admitted they could not prove guilt. That affirms the innocence of the wrongfully accused. But, the state went farther, as was right and just to do. The state admitted that it had no proof at all of guilt.
"With regards to Crystal Mangum, she still maintains an assault occurred, and since the case did not go to trial, it is presumptuous to say that her allegation were either "true" or "false.""
She is lying about an assault. There is no way it could have happened as she describes. One of the alleged assailants was no where near the scene. The other two alleged assailants and Crystal could not fit in the place where she alleged it happened. And none of the alleged assailants, nor anyone else remotely close to the scene left any evidence of ever touching her. In short, the story is a lie. That Nifong chose to believe such an obvious lie is understandable. He is both incompetent as a lawyer and a race baiting charlatan.
Walt-in-durham
Anonymous said...
"http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1767142/#/vid1767142
This is a video of Judge W. Osmond Smith rendering the verdict in Mike Nifong's criminal contempt trial.
Among other things, Judge Smith found that Mr. Nifong made 'false statements of material fact to the court' In other words, Judge Smith found he lied to the court.
Judge Smith also found Mr. Nifong withheld exculpatory material from the defense.
'Was he convicted of lying?' Yes he was.
'No one has ever taken Nifong to court on any charge except a misstatement previous to Dec 15th.'
That is untrue. One issue before the court was that he had withheld evidence from the defense.
Review the video if you dare."
Just because Judge Smith makes a statement does not make it so. Each of us should take the time to analyze what Judge Smith to determine whether or not it makes sense.
In 2008, with essentially the same set of facts available before both judges, Judge Osmond Smith sentenced Erick Daniels to a ten to fourteen year sentence, whereas Judge Orlando Hudson dismissed the conviction and declared Daniels "innocent."
I seriously question Smith's conclusions and findings in the Daniels case and I also find them suspect in the trumped up case against Mike Nifong.
Sid -- By your own logic,Crystal Mangum is not innocent of the current charges against her until declared so by a judge or jury. Would you agree?
"I have never attacked the Duke Lacrosse defendants."
Oh yes you have.
"I have stated that they attended a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party in which a racial epithet was bandied about. That is just the truth."
That is a lie.
"Remember too that Duke Lacrosse had an extremely horrendous reputation, to the extent that the President of the university warned the Lacrosse coach to rein in his players."
That is yet another lie.
"Not only that, but Collin Finnerty had a conviction for assaulting two men whom he believed to be gay".
Colin Finnerty assaulted no one. If you read the story, you would have known that.
Colin Finnerty's conviction was suspended. It was reinstated because Mr. Nifong had him wrongfully indicted for a crime he did not commit.
"Dave Evans had a charge for an open alcoholic container in a car he was driving;"
So why would that justify indicting him for a rape which never happened and therefore he did not commit?
"For the media to refer to the Duke Lacrosse defendants as "innocent" and "exonerated" is false and misleading. An attorney general cannot confer "innocence" or "guilt" on a defendant no more than me or you... unless you are a judge."
Another argument which can be refuted by reductio ad absurdum.
Since the Lacrosse players could not have committed the crime with which they were charged(the crime never happened) why should is it false and misleading to call them innocent?
You would not keep spewing out this absurd argument if you did not believe the Lacrosse players were guilty. That is res ipsa loquitur(for ever gets an orgasm from this phrase). What gives you the authority to pronounce them guilty?
Post a Comment