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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 337 of 337Sidney, answer this question. Keep in mind the Lacrosse players were charged with first degree rape.
Keep in mind also that the rape never happened.
So why should the Lacrosse defendants not be considered innocent.
"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."
Only weak minded people like you can be victimized by 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.'"
The case did not go to trial because the evidence in the case showed unequivocally her allegations were false.
That she maintains she was assaulted means only that she continues to lie.
Sidney, to my last comment I add, the Lacrosse Defendants steadfastly maintain that no such crime occurred at the party.
What evidence do you have that the assault did happen?
That a crime which did not leave evidence is n absurd attempt on your part to duck.
The identifications Crystal made were not reliable(certainty does not equal reliability) and were the result of a tainted procedure, fruit of a poison tree, in other words(ask your friend Professor Coleman what that means).
So far as Crystal's word, it was established before the night of 13-14 March, 2006, that women do lie about rape(e.g. Tawana Brawley).
It was also established before that date that real rape victims not uncommonly identify innocent men as their assailants, e.g. the woman who identified Darrel Hunt as her attacker, the woman who identified Timothy Cole.
"Just because Judge Smith makes a statement does not make it so."
What makes you think that when you make a statement, e.g. that it is false and misleading to call the Lacrosse players innocent, makes it so?
"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."
You seriously question the innocence of the Lacrosse defendants, even though it is obvious the crime of which they were accused never happened.
It is therefore res ipsa loquitur that when you question Judge Smith, it has no weight whatsoever in the real world.
"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.'"
With no facts before him, Mr. Nifong publicly declared that a crime had happened, that members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators, and that the crime had been racially motivated.
With facts before him, facts which you admit you are not privy to, Attorney General Roy Cooper concluded no crime had happened. He then expressed his belief to the public that the Defendants were innocent.
I say again, if that had not happened, you would not care a rat's patootie about Erick Daniels.
"Justice, I believe, will ultimately prevail with the unilateral and unconditional reinstatement of Mr. Nifong's license by the NC State Bar."
That would not be justice. Justice for Nifong would be a criminal conviction, a three figure prison sentence and a 7 figure fine.
For you to believe you will get Mr. Nifong's license reinstated is but another delusion of grandeur, just like your delusion you are the equal of Walter Cronkite.
Maybe a regular person can call them innocent in a vernacular way (like on this board). But a state institution, especially an institution of justice usually refrains for legal reasons for calling anyone innocent.
Our justice system prevents judges and juries from declaring anyone innocent.
But the Attorney General was under tremendous pressure and intense advocacy from many quarters who were outraged by what these players had been through to pronounce the indicted players innocent. Some have suggested that the panic attack with symptoms of heart pain that sent Cooper to the hospital the day before was caused by this pressure and his misgivings about crossing this very firm traditional judicial line.
"...I also find them[Judge Smith's findings] suspect in the trumped up case against Mike Nifong."
Sidney, tell us why you think the charges against Mike Nifong were trumped up. Saying the charges were trumped up does not establish that they were.
"Some have suggested that the panic attack with symptoms of heart pain that sent Cooper to the hospital the day before was caused by this pressure and his misgivings about crossing this very firm traditional judicial line."
Cite some reference, if you can, that this panic attack happened.
"You noted, with some disdain, that the Ethics panel which tried Mr. Nifong included a lay person."
How can a statement of fact be considered disdain?
"Our justice system prevents judges and juries from declaring anyone innocent."
How is this consistent with the presumption of innocence? What you seem to say is that an accused can not be presumed innocent, even if he, like the Lacrosse players, were falsely accused.
I Googled the term "Attorney General Roy Cooper hospitalized for heart pain in April 2007" and found no source for that story.
Please enlighten me. Where did that story come from(pardon the dangling participle. res ipsa loquitur it is bad grammar).
Attorney General Cooper was under pressure from a number of groups to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse players.
"But a state institution, especially an institution of justice usually refrains for legal reasons for calling anyone innocent."
For what specific legal reasons?
How does that nullify this situation, that a person who did not commit the crime for which he/she was charged is in FACT innocent of that crime?
Though some Duke players were not charged for these things, (they could have been) two players robbed Cyrstal Mangum.
David Evans was also cited for two previous episodes of partying and neighbors called complaining to the police about the Evans house, urinating on their property, noise, and underage drinking innumerbale times. This house had a notorious reputation even before David Evans. And the community was sick of it.
That's why the community took action, year-round residents, to plead with the police to do something about it. The citizens were outraged that Duke University washed their hands of the Evans house becasue it was across the street and technically out of jurisdiction.
Becasue of constant complaints from white Durham citizens from that high-end neighborhood, the police instituted a no-tolerance policy toward partying. Evans ignored this. Evan after two citations, he decided to have an underage drunken stripper party. An F-you to the police.
This is only one reason why it doesn't sit well with many Durham residents the public declaration of the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse players.
"http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_duke.html"
This is a blog entry highly critical of Attorney General Roy Cooper's announcement. It mentions nothing of Mr. Cooper being hospitalized the previous day for a panic attack causing heart pain.
Do you honestly think the media would report or that the Attorney Genral's office would release to the media that Cooper had a fricking panic attack before pronouncing the players innocent?
Do you honestly think that the entire accurate story of the complicated Duke Lacrosse phenamenon has been narrated correctly in the media?
And that id it is not supported by the media it is not true?
If we only cite the media - then the players raped her. Because that's what the media said in the beginning.
I find it intriguing that if someone questions the standard story presented by the defense that that person is accused of being Cy Gurney.
As if only Cy Gurney can question the media and defense's point of view.
"For what specific legal reasons?"
Because declaring innocence is against our system of justice.
The Attorney General was under no pressure to prosecute the Duke Players.
They accepted the case to get to the bottom of it.
However, once the defense attorneys cooperated fully with the Attorney General's office and their officers, and they found out that they were going to drop the case, many groups flooded the Attorney General's office, defense attorneys and media and politicians to disregard the standard line of not guilty or we don not have enough convincing evidence and declare them outright guilty.
Cooper had to consider his future political career when making this judgement. People advised him that the people needed a strong statement fot he state of Notrth Carolina to put this disgusting event behind them.
After emerging from the hospital, he went through with it.
None of the summaries of the Duke Lacrosse case mention Mr. Cooper being hospitalized for heart pain the day before he announced the results of his investigation.
I watched Mr. Cooper's news conference the following day. To my experienced eye, he did not look like a man who had just been hospitalized for "heart pain".
I believe the poster referred to as "Cy", whoever he/she might be, has fabricated this story.
"Do you honestly think the media would report or that the Attorney Genral's office would release to the media that Cooper had a fricking panic attack before pronouncing the players innocent?"
If the Attorney General had had "a fricking panic attack", the media would have gotten hold of the story and reported it. The media did not.
"She is lying about an assault."
There is another possibility with Mangum. She could be delusional. And she really believes that she was assaulted.
As with Nifong, false statements are not always intentional. Adn therefore not a lie. This is what adds to the complication and tragedy of this huge event.
"After emerging from the hospital, he went through with it."
What evidence is there that he was ever in the hospital?
"If the Attorney General had had "a fricking panic attack", the media would have gotten hold of the story and reported it."
Inaccurate.
"...many groups flooded the Attorney General's office, defense attorneys and media and politicians to disregard the standard line of not guilty or we don not have enough convincing evidence and declare them outright guilty."
However, the investigation of the alleged crime showed unequivocally said crime never happened. Therefore it is not a matter of some legal finding but a matter of fact that the Lacrosse players were and are innocent of the crime with which they were charged.
"Because declaring innocence is against our system of justice."
What you are saying de facto(more latin) is the presumption of innocence is not part of our justice system, that being accused of a crime in an of itself means guilty.
Judge Smith did not prove his case as far as Nifong intentionally hiding evidence. If you read the transcript.
Judge Smith aped the State Bar.
We have a right as citizens to disagree with a court judgement when that judgement does not follow logically from what was presented in court.
Or a State Bar.
Especially when the context of that decision was enveloped in a furor of hysteria with state officers doing everything possible to put this behind tham and stop being the laughing stock of the country.
That's the perfect environment of scapegoating.
We have 100 years of history of court's making a wrong decision, including the Supreme Court.
" '"If the Attorney General had had "a fricking panic attack", the media would have gotten hold of the story and reported it.'
Inaccurate."
Accurate. Much more accurate than Sidney's ravings that the Lacrosse players are not innocent.
"Judge Smith did not prove his case as far as Nifong intentionally hiding evidence. If you read the transcript."
Yes he did.
"We have a right as citizens to disagree with a court judgement when that judgement does not follow logically from what was presented in court."
And many decent honest citizens objected to Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution of three innocent men for a crime which never happened.
Mr. Nifong was convicted of ethics violations and of criminal contempt because he wrongfully prosecuted three innocent men.
"What you are saying de facto(more latin) is the presumption of innocence is not part of our justice system, that being accused of a crime in an of itself means guilty."
Inaccurate. No one is saying that.
By the way, the presumption of innocence does not apply to a DA. If a prosecutor indicted someone who he thought was innocent, he would be corrupt.
Presumption of innocence only applies to a judge and jury. And should apply to the media. The media disrepected this concept with both the lacrosse players in the beginning and Nifong at the end.
That's why Dave Evans declared when Nifong was accused of hiding evidence that he assumed that Nifong was innocent. Evans impressively, had learned his lesson.
"Especially when the context of that decision was enveloped in a furor of hysteria with state officers doing everything possible to put this behind tham and stop being the laughing stock of the country.
That's the perfect environment of scapegoating."
The furor which enveloped the honest people of this state was outrage over a District Attorney prosecuting three innocent men for a crime which never happened.
How is it scapegoating to hold the perpetrator of the wrongful prosecution accountable for his actions?
"By the way, the presumption of innocence does not apply to a DA. If a prosecutor indicted someone who he thought was innocent, he would be corrupt."
More French:
UNBELIVABLE BULLSHIT!!!!!!
The prosecutor is obligated by law to regard a defendant innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
That obligation makes it unethical for a prosecutor to publicly state either that a crime had happened or that members of a certain group were the perpetrators.
"'What you are saying de facto(more latin) is the presumption of innocence is not part of our justice system, that being accused of a crime in an of itself means guilty.'
Inaccurate. No one is saying that.
De facto, you ARE saying that.
How about some concrete evidence that Mr. Cooper was hospitalized in a panic attack the day before he held his press conference.
Because by only focusing on Nifong, who in the formula for any classic scapegoat, he was the most obvious and vulnerable. By blaming EVERYTHING on him, they hide their own incompetence and mistakes.
Nifong took ALL the blame.
Case closed.
The Duke Lacrosse Case is much more complicated and the mistakes are much deeper and more widespread than any one single prosecutor.
Including the media itself which was never been punished for their abuse of both the players and Nifong. The media has not learned their lesson. whatsoever.
"That's why Dave Evans declared when Nifong was accused of hiding evidence that he assumed that Nifong was innocent. Evans impressively, had learned his lesson."
Why did Mr. Nifong not respect the presumption of innocence.
Mr. Nifong made public statements to the effect that a crime had happened, that members of the Lacross team were the perpetrators and that the crime was racially motivated. He made these statements before the case had been investigated.
Mr. Nifong also made public statements to the effect that members of the Lacrosse team were covering up for the perpetrators.
These guilt presuming statements are one reason Mr. Nifong was disbarred.
Let's have some concrete evidence that Mr. Cooper was hospitalized with a panic attack the day before he held his press conference.
If the AG's office could keep the media from finding out, how did you found out.
"Because by only focusing on Nifong, who in the formula for any classic scapegoat, he was the most obvious and vulnerable. By blaming EVERYTHING on him, they hide their own incompetence and mistakes."
Mr. Nifong was blamed because he conducted a wrongful prosecution of three innocent men. That is res ipsa loquitur.
Admitted, Mr. Nifong is not the only one guilty of misconduct in this case. That is why a number of other individuals and agencies are being sued, by the Lacrosse defendants and by the non-indicted Lacrosse players.
Those defendants are not trying to defend themselves. They are trying to have the cases dismissed before discovery can take place. They are afraid of what discovery would reveal.
I just explained that. DAs cannot presume innocence when they feel they have evidence to convict.
They have to by confident in the person's guilt.
Why would I give a source to a partisan board like this? For those to refute it? If you want to find out, do it.
Cooper went to the emergency room the day before he announced innocence because of chest pains. They were assessed to be nothing. And regarded as stress - or a panic attack.
"The Duke Lacrosse Case is much more complicated and the mistakes are much deeper and more widespread than any one single prosecutor.
"
It was the prosecutor's determination to prosecute and convict three innocent men which caused this complicated case.
If the defendants in the lawsuits were not trying so desperately to avoid discovery, we might learn all the ramifications of the Duke false rape case.
"Admitted, Mr. Nifong is not the only one guilty of misconduct in this case. That is why a number of other individuals and agencies are being sued, by the Lacrosse defendants and by the non-indicted Lacrosse players."
Then we agree. Except those who did unethical things are not just those on the prosecution side. They are also on the defense side and those people will not be sued by themselves.
"Why would I give a source to a partisan board like this? For those to refute it? If you want to find out, do it."
You have no source. You are fabricating. That is the most obvious reason why.
"Including the media itself which was never been punished for their abuse of both the players and Nifong."
Give specific instances in which the media abused Mr. Nifong.
You are only seeing things from one side. That's why it's partisan.
Mistakes were made by everyone. And for us to have a more fair justice system we have to look at the whole process.
And not just take the bait of where the media tells us to look. Or one side points fingers at the other to protect themselves.
To Anonymous @ June 3, 2011 1:21 PM
Are you the source in the know who gave Sidney all his information on Reginald Daye?
"And not just take the bait of where the media tells us to look. Or one side points fingers at the other to protect themselves."
Give specific examples of when the media abused Mr. Nifong.
"Except those who did unethical things are not just those on the prosecution side. They are also on the defense side and those people will not be sued by themselves."
Give specific examples of the Defense doing unethical things.
The media did not presume innocence with Nifong. The same complaint that you criticize Nifong for.
The defense tried him in the press.
That should be disturbing to anyone with a nuetral view. In the same way they did not presume innocence with the lacrosse players int he beginning.
At the end they presented the players as angels. Dave Evans in the media went from being Satan to an Angel in one year. He's neither.
They gave court papers to the media against direct orders from the judge. The judge was infuriated and kept warning them to desist. They never did.
Their strategy was to try Nifong in the media to stop the trial. Which they did. Some can call this a brilliant strategy. To avoid trial, put the DA on trial in the media. Cheshire is known for this. However, it's illegal to leak discovery especially when there's a specific desist order.
That's one example of many, many things.
"I just explained that. DAs cannot presume innocence when they feel they have evidence to convict."
You did not.
First, a prosecutor's duty, which supercedes any duty he has to convict, is to find the truth. That means he can not undertake the investigation of an alleged crime with the presumption that some individual or individuals are the perpetrators. He can not do that without respecting the presumption of innocence.
Second, even if that were true, a prosecutor is bound to respect the presumption of innocence, which Mr. Nifong did not do.
"They gave court papers to the media against direct orders from the judge. The judge was infuriated and kept warning them to desist. They never did."
When did the judge ever warn the defense not to give material to the media. Give specific details.
The NC NAACP did temporarily get a judge to issue a gag order. That was after Mr. Nifong made his inflammatory guilt presuming statements, and the NAACP did not want the Defense to have the opportunity to respond to those statements.
Since Mr. Nifong made those statements, the defense did have the right to respond to them. If the judge was so concerned about releasing material to the media, why did he not warn Mr. Nifong?
What you are saying is that the court system was stacked against the Defense, the defendants would never get a fair trial in a Durham court.
That is another reason why people objected to Mr. Nifong's conduct.
"Their strategy was to try Nifong in the media to stop the trial. Which they did. Some can call this a brilliant strategy. To avoid trial, put the DA on trial in the media."
The Defense did not do this. Mr. Nifong committed multiple, glaring violations of the law, of legal ethics and of the US Constitution in his attempt to convict three innocent men of a non existent crime. Mr. Nifong elicited his own unfavorable publicity.
As James Coleman said, he mooned the justice system.
"The defense tried him in the press."
No they did not.
They objected to Mr. Nifong's blatantly unethical and illegal conduct in prosecuting three innocent men.
"That should be disturbing to anyone with a nuetral view. In the same way they did not presume innocence with the lacrosse players int he beginning."
The media reported only that ethics charges had been filed against Mr. Nifong. They never said anything about whether or not he was guity.
Some of the media, in editorials and in stories they published, called upon Mr. Nifong should drop the case and explained why. They did not mention any incident other than the incidents Mr. Nifong himself made public.
They did not do anything as gross as what Mr. Nifong did, i.e. before the case had been fully investigated making guilt presuming statements.
"That should be disturbing to anyone with a nuetral(sic) view."
What bothered people who had initially been neutral about the case were it became obvious that Mr. Nifong had no case but he was determined to prosecute anyway.
Tell us why Mr. Nifong was justified in prosecuting the case when the testing of the rape kit showed no evidence of the rape. The alleged rape would have left evidence on the rape kit if it really happened.
"Becasue of constant complaints from white Durham citizens from that high-end neighborhood..."
It was not a high end neighborhood.
"Cooper went to the emergency room the day before he announced innocence because of chest pains. They were assessed to be nothing. And regarded as stress - or a panic attack."
I say again, you are fabricating this.
"At the end they presented the players as angels. Dave Evans in the media went from being Satan to an Angel in one year. He's neither."
Wrong!
They presented the players as innocent of the crime with which they had been charged. If you recall, an accused is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So what was inappropriate about this?
One thing the Defense attorneys did was publicly state that forensic exam of the rape kit would not show any DNA from any Lacrosse player. Others have pointed this out, they would not have done this if there were any possibility DNA from any Lacrosse player would be found.
"The defense tried him in the press."
No they did not.
They objected to Mr. Nifong's blatantly unethical and illegal conduct in prosecuting three innocent men.
The defense had numerous strategy meetings to pull public opinion to their side to avert a trial. Cheshire is an expert with the media. This is not a criticism.
They played offense as well as defense. This is not debatable. They of course believed in innocence of the men and were fighting for them to avoid jail and felt that they were outrageously wronged.
But that does not mean they did not intentionally try Nifong in the press. They felt that is what Nifong was doing to them. So the defense pounded Nifong in the press. So much so that it caused a rift between various defense lawyers that Cheshire had gone too far. But Cheshire emerged as the leader of a power struggle that involved literally hundreds of lawyers in N Carolina & Washington DC.
Nifong was the single lawyer on the prosecution side.
"They gave court papers to the media against direct orders from the judge. The judge was infuriated and kept warning them to desist. They never did."
What COURT papers did they have? The only papers they might have had were files turned over to them by the prosecution. They were entitled to have those papers.
What was released to the public was that forensic exam of the rape kit yielded no evidence of a rape, no evidence to implicate any Lacrosse player.
I repeat, before this evidence was available, Mr. Nifong had publicly proclaimed that a crime did happen, and that Lacrosse players were the perpetrators.
In view of that, it was perfectly proper for the Defense attorneys to release the results of the forensic testing.
"The defense had numerous strategy meetings to pull public opinion to their side to avert a trial. Cheshire is an expert with the media. This is not a criticism."
Wrong. The defense wanted a speedy trial, which Mr. Nifong denied them.
"The defense had numerous strategy meetings to pull public opinion to their side..."
Why should they not have tried to do that. Before the alleged crime was even investigated, Mr. Nifong was trying to turn public opinion against the Duke Lacrosse team.
"The media reported only that ethics charges had been filed against Mr. Nifong. They never said anything about whether or not he was guity."
Are you serious? You can actually print that?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could just look at events without spin to better our media and justice system?
Okay, I'm out. Good luck.
"But that does not mean they did not intentionally try Nifong in the press. They felt that is what Nifong was doing to them. So the defense pounded Nifong in the press. So much so that it caused a rift between various defense lawyers that Cheshire had gone too far. But Cheshire emerged as the leader of a power struggle that involved literally hundreds of lawyers in N Carolina & Washington DC."
What is your source for that?
Is it something you will again refuse to reveal.
I have reviewed the case and I did not find any evidence of a rift in the defense.
"Why should they not have tried to do that. Before the alleged crime was even investigated, Mr. Nifong was trying to turn public opinion against the Duke Lacrosse team."
There's nothing wrong with it. You said they did not do it.
See ya. Seriously. Waste of time now.
I am not done yet.
"Are you serious? You can actually print that?"
Yes.
"Nifong was the single lawyer on the prosecution side."
That was not exactly true. He could draw on all the resources of the DA's office, the support of the police.
He also, improperly, tried to turn public opinion against the defendants.
You seem to be saying, a falsely accused defendant should not vigorously defend himself because it would have been unfair to the prosecutor.
"Wouldn't it be nice if we could just look at events without spin to better our media and justice system?"
Neither Mr. Nifong nor Sidney Harr nor any of Mr. Nifong's enablers favored a "look at events without spin". They wanted the public to take Mr. Nifong's spin as truth.
"Their strategy was to try Nifong in the media to stop the trial. Which they did."
Since Mr. Nifong never established probable cause that a crime had happened, why should the defendants have gone to trial. What law, regulation or whatever states an individual charged with a crime must go trial?
Or, maybe you can explain what established probable cause.
As I have repeatedly said to Sidney, 1) Crystal's allegations were not credible 2) her identifications not only were not credible but they were also the fruit of a poisoned tree, the result of an improperly conducted, tainted lineup and 3)there was no forensic evidence to confirm a crime had been committed.
"There's nothing wrong with it. You said they did not do it."
No I did not. I said the defense attorneys did not do anything unethical, and they did not try Mr. Nifong in the media.
"'Why should they not have tried to do that[turn public opinion in favor of the defendants. Before the alleged crime was even investigated, Mr. Nifong was trying to turn public opinion against the Duke Lacrosse team.'
There's nothing wrong with it. You said they did not do it."
I do not agree with what you say, but let me rephrase.
Mr. Nifong unethically and improperly tried to inflame public opinion against each and every member of the Lacrosse team. What is wrong or improper about defense attorneys objecting to that, from trying to defuse the prosecutor's inflammatory statements.
Had Mr. Nifong acted properly and rather than try the case in the media before he had any case, then this would not have become a media circus.
You are trying to mitigate Mr. Nifong's behavior by saying Mr. Nifong was concerned about the inflamed atmosphere in Durham and the publicity surrounding the case. Mr. Nifong created the inflamed atmosphere and got the media to give the case publicity.
"Do you honestly think the media would report or that the Attorney Genral's office would release to the media that Cooper had a fricking panic attack before pronouncing the players innocent?"
Considering Mr. Cooper's composure in his press conference, I doubt he had any "fricking panic attack" over saying he believed the Lacrosse players were innocent.
"Nifong was the single lawyer on the prosecution side."
Mr. Nifong, himself, decided he would personally prosecute this case.
When he made the statement to the effect that the Lacrosse Players had rich daddies who would retain expensive lawyers, he should have realized what he was up against.
"So the defense pounded Nifong in the press."
Nifong got himself pounded in the press by his blatantly unethical illegal conduct.
"You are trying to mitigate Mr. Nifong's behavior by saying Mr. Nifong was concerned about the inflamed atmosphere in Durham and the publicity surrounding the case. Mr. Nifong created the inflamed atmosphere and got the media to give the case publicity."
No, you're mitigating it. If it's wrong for Nifong to try a case in the press, then it's wrong for the defense to do it. On ethical terms.
I'm not saying it's right for Nifong to try the case in the press.
Some would say it's best to keep the case within the justice system. Like Wade Smith felt. More traditional, Wade thought it best to prepare for trial. Cheshire disagreed strongly with this. Wade found it distasteful to use the media the way Chechire did and so did many other lawyers. Did it work? Yes.
Does the defense have the right to try the case in the media? Yes. Does the prosecution? No.
Can we object as a matter of personal opinion to lawyers cooperating with shows like 60 Minutes to try the case in front of the American people? Yes.
Of course Nifong chose to handle the case himself.
That does not change the fact that it was a single city servant paid prosecutor against hundreds of extremely well-paid lawyers.
That's the way of the world.
"That does not change the fact that it was a single city servant paid prosecutor against hundreds of extremely well-paid lawyers."
Hundreds????
Are sure you're not guilty of hyperbole? Hundreds of lawyers would cost a lot more than the legal bill was rumored to be... if so, the defendants damages are a lot more than people think.
"Can we object as a matter of personal opinion to lawyers cooperating with shows like 60 Minutes to try the case in front of the American people? Yes."
Don't forget, Mr. Nifong initiated the media circus by going public to make unethical, guilt presuming statements about the members of the Lacrosse team, either that they had perpetrated the crime or that they were covering it up.
You are saying, a defense attorney may not publicly reply to a prosecutor's public attempts to deprive his client of a fair trial.
You say the defense attorneys did not want the case to go to trial. Initially the defense pushed for and were denied a speedy trial.
You need to address this issue: there was no evidence that the allege crime had in fact occurred. If there was no crime, there was no probable cause to charge anyone with a crime. If someone was charged with committing a non existent crime, he is wrongfully charged.
Why should someone wrongfully charged with a crime have to be tried in court.
When forensic testing failed to reveal evidence of rape, it was obvious to any rational individual that charging someone with raping Crystal Mangum was wrong.
"That does not change the fact that it was a single city servant paid prosecutor against hundreds of extremely well-paid lawyers."
the only way this could have been changed would be, f the accused declined to defend themselves.
You seem to imply that an accused should not avail him/herself of the best representation he/she can because it makes it harder for a DA to get a conviction.
This is a quote from an article, dated April 11, 2006, from the ESPN College Sports web page:
""No DNA from any young man tested was found anywhere on or about this woman," defense attorney Wade Smith said Monday.
He said he hoped Nifong would drop the investigation."
It seems Mr. Smith had no qualms about making statements to the media.
To my previous comment I add:
What ultimately led to Mr. Nifong's disbarment was not the Defense trying the case in the media but things like Mr.Nifong persisting in prosecuting when evidence indicated no crime had happened.
"That does not change the fact that it was a single city servant paid prosecutor against hundreds of extremely well-paid lawyers."
So what. Mr. Nifong was set on prosecuting three innocent men for a non existent crime. If he didn't want to go up against all those private attorneys, he should not havve attempted to wrongfully prosecute their clients.
This quote comes from a document I found at the following url: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/55757360/Duke-lacrosse-lawyers-overcome-a-rush-to-judgment(Joe-Cheshire-Wade-Smith-Jim-Cooney)"
"The case started with the three defendants facing 30-year sentences and being publicly labeled as racists and rapists. It ended with the state attorney general dropping the charges before trial and declaring them innocent,while the prosecutor who filed the charges and publicly declared their guilt resigned his office and was disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct."
Note the following:
The accused were publicly labeled racists and rapists.
The prosecutor who filed the charges publicly declared their guilt.
That was how the trial by media was started.
Any Defense Lawyer who did not publicly respond to such incidents on behalf of his client would be guilty of legal malpractice.
Any judge who would not have dismissed the charges after such incidents would have been as corrupt as Mr. Nifong.
Actually, Mr. Nifong made his statements before any Lacrosse player was indicted. He called some members of the team rapists. He called the entire team racists. Those he did not call rapists, he called aiders and abettors.
Why should the Defense not have publicly replied to Mr. Nifong's public statements? Because that would have been trying the case in the media?
UNBELIEVABLY RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT!!!!!
“Dear Doug, This letter is to tell you how much we admired your work last week and how we appreciate the great job you did. This was no easy task. You had the eyes of the world on you. People were glued to their computers and television sets to see how the North Carolina State Bar would handle the ‘Nifong’ case. . . We thank you for all that you did. We know the long hours you and Katherine Jean worked. We know that you were wonderfully well prepared. The families that we represent will never forget last week. Thank you ever so much.”
This is a letter from Wade Smith to Douglas Brocker who prosecuted Mike Nifong for the ethics panel. It does not seem from this that Mr. Smith had qualms about the way the defense was handled. He seems to think Mr. Nifong's prosecution of his client was wrongful.
Who set up Samiha Khanna's interview with Crystal Mangum?
That interview set off the firestorm.
"But does it matter, doctor, that in the affidavit—I mean, these defense attorneys keep citing the affidavit that was filed. And in it, it said that the reason they wanted DNA from these 46 young men is because they felt that it would separate out effectively the guilty from the innocent. And then the DA has taken another position a little bit later which said, as we played a moment ago, well, the DNA doesn‘t make or break it."
This is a quote from Dan Abrams on a show televised on MSNBC, the date given as 4/11/2006 12:15:53 PM ET.
Absence of DNA on the rape kit was defined by the DA's office as exculpatory. Nifong prosecuted anyway. That was wrongful prosecution.
RES
IPSA
LOQUITUR
WHERE
IS
THE
GREAT
KILGO?
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
little wormy squirmy tiny whiny wacko quacko kilgo seems to be res-ing his ipsa loquitur.
Nifong knew the whole time that no rape had ever happened because no white man would ever want to have sex with Crystal Mangum.
"You say the defense attorneys did not want the case to go to trial. Initially the defense pushed for and were denied a speedy trial."
The defense NEVER wanted a speedy trial. They filed hundreds of motions through the summer to delay proceedings.
Yes, HUNDREDS of lawyers on defense. Wade SMith's office alone has almost a hundred lawyers. But law firms in Washington DC worked for free to help and many other law firms also contributed because they believed the players were innocent and wanted to stop the trial.
There's nothing wrong with this. Why do people on this board think a statement of fact is always an argument?
The families paid the lawyers millions of dollars.
I wanna be like Mike.
"It seems Mr. Smith had no qualms about making statements to the media."
Mr Wade made statements early on. That's not the point. Wade objected to trying the case on TV. Wade is a traditionist and he asserted that the defense team should prepare for trial. Cheshire asserted that they should not go to trial. Cheshire won. And he, by the end, spoke for the defense team.
This is not debatable. Ask any lawyer on the defense team.
Cheshire's strategy to stop the trial and put Nifong on trial, succeeded.
"Why should the Defense not have publicly replied to Mr. Nifong's public statements? Because that would have been trying the case in the media?
UNBELIEVABLY RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT!!!!!"
Why do you think that stating the fact that the defense, as a strategy, decided to try the case on television in order to sway public opinion to save what they saw as innocent men going to jail, a criticism?
That's what the defense team did. And it succeeded. That's why they get the big bucks. Why are you angry over that fact. Why do you see a fact as an insinuation of some kind of argument against you?
Ask Joe Cheshire what his strategy was, or Brad Bannon and they will tell you what I'm telling you.
"This is a letter from Wade Smith to Douglas Brocker who prosecuted Mike Nifong for the ethics panel. It does not seem from this that Mr. Smith had qualms about the way the defense was handled. He seems to think Mr. Nifong's prosecution of his client was wrongful."
You would be wrong to assume from this letter that Wade agreed, especially from the early months, completely with Cheshire's plan. Wade eventually got on board with Cheshire's plan. Because they made a pact to share information and work together. That would be beneficial than them separately defending their separate clients.
But Cheshire was in a much worse situation than Wade or Seligman's lawyer. Because Dave Evans had more challenges than the others. Cheshire did not want to risk going to trial. Whereas Wade thought he could do well in court with Finnerty.
Wade was Cheshire's mentor. SO Cheshire greatly respected Wade. But Cheshire had to do what was best for Evans. And Wade went along with the overall plan because he knew it was better to stand as a group.
That's what the defense team did. And it succeeded.
And given the extensive media coverage of the case triggered in large part by the DPD and Nifong statements and interviews, IT WAS ETHICAL.
You have already suggested that Nifong's response was influenced by the concern that "Durham was exploding in rage over the accusations." The defense needed to counter the false and misleading statements that had triggered that rage.
IT WAS NECESSARY.
Anon 5/31 7:53am: There was evidence in the lacrosse case.
Agreed. Let us review the known inculpatory evidence.
1. Mangum’s allegations. They changed repeatedly. Specific allegations were proven false by the lack of DNA (e.g., one attacker ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out). No witness statements and almost no physical evidence corroborated them. Nifong/DPD knew they were unreliable.
2. Mangum’s identifications. The procedure was horribly flawed. She failed two earlier procedures and provided descriptions that matched no players. She misidentified other attendees. Despite the "100%" and "90%" certainty she claimed, they knew her selections were unreliable.
3. Levicy’s statement. Her statement was inconsistent with the SANE report, and medical evidence did not support it. Vaginal edema was the only finding. They ignored the report.
4. A scratch on Evans’ arm from the NTO (discussed in Gottlieb’s deposition) and the inability to exclude Evans from DNA found in a mixture taken from the fingernails. A scratch likely was a lacrosse injury. The non-exclusion likely was the result of contamination from Evans’ wastebasket.
I believe Evans’ selection, together with the scratch/non-exclusion, would have been the focus of Nifong’s case.
He would claim that Mangum was traumatized and did not remember what occurred—the details in her statement should be ignored. “Something” happened. The lack of player DNA was irrelevant. Levicy would describe her demeanor. He would concede flaws in the identification process made it unreliable, but the selection of Evans, together with the scratch/non-exclusion, was too unlikely to be a coincidence.
Because only identifications linked the other defendants, he would claim that if you believed Mangum about Evans, you had to believe her about Seligmann and Finnerty. Finally, he would attack the team as out of control and use racial slurs allegedly made by other players to inflame the jury.
Except for the scratch, this evidence was “tried” in the media.
Despite "no credible evidence" to support charges, they made no real attempt to find other evidence, probably out of a concern that a real investigation would uncover conclusive evidence that no sexual assault occurred and further discredit Mangum.
The special prosecutors reached that conclusion.
By the way, Wade Smith & Jim Cooney, both on the lacrosse defense team, are now defending John Edwards (old partners with Wade Smith) of ethic charges.
Motor Mouth,
You misunderstand the Nifong defender. She does not argue Nifong is honorable or the evidence justified a prosecution. She argues only that evidence permitted a prosecution. Nifong had an allegation and identifications—all the law requires. Levicy’s statement provided additional support. The law imposes no credibility test. She does not defend the law.
The law permitted Nifong to seek indictments—and avoid a probable cause hearing. She does not claim Nifong is ethical or the law is fair. The DPD provided evidence to the grand jury. Himan and Gottlieb are responsible for their failure to provide a full and accurate assessment of the evidence. Kilgo provided evidence that suggests Gottlieb committed perjury in obtaining the first indictments.
Nifong has absolute immunity for his actions as a prosecutor. He is above the law for his decision—no matter how flawed or arbitrary—to prosecute the defendants for crimes—even with no credible evidence.
However, he has only qualified immunity for his interviews and his role, if any, as chief investigator. Other participants in the frame have only qualified immunity (the DPD defendants) or no immunity (the Duke defendants) for their actions.
"By the way, Wade Smith & Jim Cooney, both on the lacrosse defense team, are now defending John Edwards (old partners with Wade Smith) of ethic charges."
I heard a report this morning that the defense team is consulting with the Fong.
It is res ipsa loquitur that Motor Mouth suffers from attention deficit disorder.
WHERE
IS
THE
MIGHTY
MOTOR
MOUTH?
Hey Motor Mouth,
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
An attorney general cannot confer "innocence" or "guilt" on a defendant no more than me or you... unless you are a judge.
This is correct.
Cooper's statement did not confer innocence on the defendants. It had no legal effect.
No knowledgable person has claimed that Cooper's declaration had legal effect or that he conferred innocence. Once again, Sidney fights straw men.
The defendants are "innocent" under the law until and unless they are found guilty in a court of law. Cooper's declaration changed nothing.
They were and are innocent.
An attorney familiar with the Duke case observed: The defendants "were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they were under indictment. Surely, they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward with the rest of their lives. And that is what the attorney general was trying to give them in his declaration that they are innocent."
Anonymous said...
"'http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_duke.html'
This is a blog entry highly critical of Attorney General Roy Cooper's announcement. It mentions nothing of Mr. Cooper being hospitalized the previous day for a panic attack causing heart pain."
Thanks for the link to the site. I will check it out further.
Anonymous said...
"By the way, Wade Smith & Jim Cooney, both on the lacrosse defense team, are now defending John Edwards (old partners with Wade Smith) of ethic charges."
They are defense attorneys and that is what they do for a living. Especially defendants with deep pockets who can afford to pay for their services.
Anonymous said...
"'It seems Mr. Smith had no qualms about making statements to the media.'
Mr Wade made statements early on. That's not the point. Wade objected to trying the case on TV. Wade is a traditionist and he asserted that the defense team should prepare for trial. Cheshire asserted that they should not go to trial. Cheshire won. And he, by the end, spoke for the defense team.
This is not debatable. Ask any lawyer on the defense team.
Cheshire's strategy to stop the trial and put Nifong on trial, succeeded."
A very valid assessment, which sounds likely. Cheshire used the North Carolina State Bar to force Mike Nifong off the case, and then had his underling Brad Bannon convince the attorney general to proclaim the defendants "innocent" and state that "nothing happened." The media, fueled by Rae Evans and the rest of the Carpetbaggers, followed the Jihadist agenda to destroy Mr. Nifong, Nifong supporters, and anyone deemed by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
It's time for Motor Mouth to jump in again.
Sid,
Who are the "Powers-That-Be" that you refer to repeatedly?
Your use of that phrase makes you look like a complete moron. Is that your objective?
Mr. Trouble never hangs around,
when he hears this Mighty sound,
Here I come to save the day!
That means that Motor Mouth is on the way!
Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right,
Motor Mouth will join the fight!
On the sea or on the land,
He's got the situation well in hand!
Anonymous said...
"Sid,
Who are the 'Powers-That-Be' that you refer to repeatedly?
Your use of that phrase makes you look like a complete moron. Is that your objective?"
The "Powers-That-Be" refer collectively for those in the higher echelons of power who determine policy and the course that society follows. For different issues, different individuals make policy. Unfortunately, the Powers-That-Be have adopted the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda.
The "Powers-That-Be" refer collectively for those in the higher echelons of power who determine policy and the course that society follows.
So you refuse to answer the question?
I will take that as a "yes" to my question. Acting like a complete moron is your objective.
Two days without a new post?
No Kilgo?
No Motor Mouth?
Am I at the wrong site?
Sid,
A quick question: do you view the Carpetbagger Jihad as a theory or as established fact?
Anonymous said...
"Sid,
A quick question: do you view the Carpetbagger Jihad as a theory or as established fact?
June 7, 2011 7:43 PM"
To me the Carpetbagger Jihad is a belief system, that is based on the tenet that Mike Nifong, his followers, and everyone considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, are basically evil. I believe there is a conscientious effort by those carrying out the jihad to invoke mischief towards Nifong, et.al.
It is not as organized as a religion, but a loose confederate of cohorts determined to carry out the wishes of Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans. She laid down the gauntlet to the followers during her "60 Minutes" interview.
Examples of the Jihad's handiwork is evidenced by the charges against Crystal Mangum and how they were handled by police, prosecutors, the courts, and media. Same can be said for others, especially Mike Nifong. The media goes out of its way to sustain the jihad by its selective and biased reporting. It most certainly has stayed away from the blatant and malicious discrimination against me at Duke University and the lawsuit I filed against Duke.
There are many examples that the Carpetbagger Jihad is real, alive, and thriving.
Anonymous said...
"Two days without a new post?
No Kilgo?
No Motor Mouth?
Am I at the wrong site?"
I have recently been working on a very important flog (a portmanteau of Flash and blog) which I think you will find most interesting. It is about a case of gross NC injustice, and I bring in examples of other cases from Duke Lacrosse to the recent Erick Daniels's pardon denial.
I hope to have it completed and posted by the weekend.
Harr Supporter said: "The non-exclusion likely was the result of contamination from Evans’ wastebasket."
However, that non-exclusion was not admissable for purposes of identifying a suspect. There remained no admissable evidence of identity. That is why the DNA evidence is so important to the state's case. Such as it was.
Walt-in-Durham
Don't you just love the term carpetbagger jihad??!! sort of a post civil war meets bin laden kind of thing, I guess. Now, wouldn't it be fun to listen to Sid trying to convince the nice men from Iraq that he, Sid, has the right to publish his little comic strips, and speak against elected officials, and be a professed Christian? Boy, I would buy a ticket to see that!
Notice what Sid is really up to lately, folks? The thing that he wants most....attention....is not forthcoming....hence the whining about the media not paying notice to his allegations of mistreatment at the hands of Broadhead et al. I will continue to say that this silly blog has zero to do with Nifong, Mangum, Daniels, Daye, the lacrosse case, etc. It is ALL about Sid.....his inflated head, his embittered racist view of life, and his attempts to gain personal attention. Sad.
Sid, you might be a kook if: ... you believe in conspiracy theories.
"Same can be said for others, especially Mike Nifong. The media goes out of its way to sustain the jihad by its selective and biased reporting."
Nifong has not been the subject of selective or biased reporting beyond the usual bias in the media for reporting when elected officials do remarkably stupid things, like trying to frame innocent people for crimes that never took place.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
"Sid, you might be a kook if: ... you believe in conspiracy theories.
'Same can be said for others, especially Mike Nifong. The media goes out of its way to sustain the jihad by its selective and biased reporting.'
Nifong has not been the subject of selective or biased reporting beyond the usual bias in the media for reporting when elected officials do remarkably stupid things, like trying to frame innocent people for crimes that never took place.
Walt-in-Durham"
Walt, be sure to see my next flog for a prime example of how the biased media dilligently follows the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy. In the article it discusses an individual who was placed in jail for a year without credible evidence, then released. The prosecutor's name was only mentioned once, but the case with which he is associated (initial prosecutor in the Gregory Taylor case) is never brought up.
I'm working hard to have the flog posted by the weekend. I'm looking forward to your comments about it.
Anonymous said...
"Don't you just love the term carpetbagger jihad??!! sort of a post civil war meets bin laden kind of thing, I guess. Now, wouldn't it be fun to listen to Sid trying to convince the nice men from Iraq that he, Sid, has the right to publish his little comic strips, and speak against elected officials, and be a professed Christian? Boy, I would buy a ticket to see that!
Notice what Sid is really up to lately, folks? The thing that he wants most....attention....is not forthcoming....hence the whining about the media not paying notice to his allegations of mistreatment at the hands of Broadhead et al. I will continue to say that this silly blog has zero to do with Nifong, Mangum, Daniels, Daye, the lacrosse case, etc. It is ALL about Sid.....his inflated head, his embittered racist view of life, and his attempts to gain personal attention. Sad."
Keep your day job. I don't think you pass muster as a psychoanalyst, psychotherapist, psychologist, or psychiatrist.
You cannot seem to visualize the forest for the trees. I blog, flog, and produce educational comic strips for the purpose of enlightening the masses who are starved by the information diet meted out by the mainstream media. My secondary goal is to entertain while enlightening.
Regarding my head, it is not swollen or inflated. I would go so far as to say it is not even a broadhead. Truth be told, I am an extremely shy, introverted, and modest person. However, in order to be an effective and credible advocate, one must put him/herself out front. One cannot forcefully advocate for a position by using anonymity.
Thereby, go enlightened.
Wow oh source of enlightenment...... You make my point so much more eloquenly than i. What a swelled up head you have. Good lord. Sad little man saying sad little things.
"My secondary goal is to entertain while enlightening."
Yes, many people who read this site find you entertaining. In fact, you are a complete joke.
Anonymous said...
"'My secondary goal is to entertain while enlightening.'
Yes, many people who read this site find you entertaining. In fact, you are a complete joke."
I would rather people find my blog site entertaining than go to blog sites like durham-wonderland and liestoppers and find neither enlightenment nor entertainment.
Thereby, go enlightened.
My next blog has to do with the propensity of many law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to arrest first and investigate later... usually among suspects from the Not-So-Privileged class.
My next flog will be ready, hopefully, by Sunday.
Post a Comment