Every now and again it seems as though the readers and commenters of this blog site get derailed about the purpose of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and its members. Once again, let me put the train back on track to avoid the discourse of distractions and the obstacles of obfuscation… so we can locomotion along the rails to enlightenment.
As we near our four anniversary this coming June, our mission statement and resolve has been steady, uncompromising, and one which follows the light of truth. The fundamental beliefs upon which this organization was founded have been and remain based upon the following principles: (1) former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly persecuted and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handing of the Duke Lacrosse case; (2) Mr. Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case well within the acceptable standards of a state prosecutor; (3) that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred due to professional misconduct is an outrage, especially when considering prosecutors Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael D. Parker (Floyd Brown case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case), just to name a few. Our group’s focus remains committed to encouraging the NC State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. Although Mr. Nifong has expressed that he never intends to practice law again, it is the contention that his license to practice law was unjustly taken by the Bar, and that it needs to man up and do the right thing by reinstating it.
Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, I believe, are some of the most courageous people in the state, because they lend their names and their faces to a righteous cause that is widely unpopular with the public because of contamination of the news that is broadcast and published by biased media-types… the big wigs in the upper echelons who determine what stories to follow, which stories to ignore, and what spin to give. Instead of remaining silent in the face of blatant anti-Nifong injustice, like most politicians, media outlets, and many civil rights organizations, members of the Committee speak loudly by their demonstration of courage. There are many ways to put it, but I like the saying attributed to President Abraham Lincoln who stated: “To sin by silence makes cowards of men.” One thing is certain… the members of our group, currently one shy of two dozen, are not cowards.
The Committee is, and always has been an inclusive organization, welcoming brave individuals who coalesce around the principles recited above with respect to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. No one has been turned down for membership, and dues and/or investment of time or money is not required. All that is required is the heart to seek justice for Mike Nifong, which at its most primal form would be the reinstatement of his law license. Potential members are not vetted or required to provide personal information about themselves, their political leanings, or their ideologies on other topics. Likewise, our group is extremely tolerant of others and we do not discriminate with respect to granting membership.
It is not expected, or even desired that everyone who joins the group hold the same beliefs or opinions on issues other than Mike Nifong’s mistreatment by the state and the media. Gay and lesbians, people of all races and colors, worshippers of all religions as well as atheists, Democrats and even Republicans are all invited to join.
Some commenters are quick to cast some Committee members as homophobes or racists, but I find that these labels are often made without substance. There are people who might not agree with same-sex relationships or who might have a problem with gay and lesbians getting married, but that, at least to my way of thinking, does not categorize them as being homophobes. Personally, I have no problem whatever with gay and lesbian relationships. I have no problem with civil union between couples of the same sex and I do not object to the term “marriage” being used to define such relationships. To my mind marriage is an institution in which two individuals are fully and lovingly committed to one another regardless of their sexes. Not only that, but I believe that the liberal tolerance towards gays and lesbians is growing and gaining greater acceptance.
Hopefully this blog will put issues about homophobia and racism to rest, and the future blogs can be devoted to issues of criminal justice… such as the vendetta prosecutions of Crystal Mangum, the racist pardon policy that the governor’s office has used to deny pardons to Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey, the anti-Nifong discrimination by Duke University against me, and other important issues facing Tar Heelians who believe in the principle of “equal justice for all” instead of those who follow the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
270 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 270 of 270Anonymous @5:35 said: "The only way I can think of is that Kim herself administered the noxious substance"....... Your really grasping at straw here. I guess it's a defence strategy to deny anything and everything that went down there. We need to apply common sense and try and resolve the discrepancy of why Brian Taylor testified he delivered Crystal to the party completely sober and then suddenly after coming out from a bathroom, into where drinks were handed in, to her and Kim, she became so impaired that she was out of it. One thing to consider is who might have a motive for drugging an exotic dancer
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
How would it have damaged Ms. Pittman/Roberts' parole status to have reported a rape?
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
How would it have adversely affect Ms. Roberts/Pittman's parole status to report a rape?
If she did witness a rape and not report it, that would be more likely to adversely affect her parole status.
The obvious answer to the "hard to answer question" is, Ms. Roberts/Pittman did not witness either administration of a noxious substance or a rape.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "We need to apply common sense and try and resolve the discrepancy of why Brian Taylor testified he delivered Crystal to the party completely sober and then suddenly after coming out from a bathroom, into where drinks were handed in, to her and Kim, she became so impaired that she was out of it."
According to Ms. Roberts/Pittman's statement, Crystal did not imbibe the drink, she spilled it in the sink.
I say again, the only plausible reason, if Ms. Roberts/Pittman was concerned about her parole status, why she would not report the administering of a noxious substance is that she did it herself.
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
I say again that Dave Evans and Dan Flannery both said in statements to the Police Crystal was impaired when she arrived at the party. That you want this testimony suppressed is an indication it is valid testimony.
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
Grasping at straws is your implausible hypothesis of what happened at the Lacrosse Party, which I describe again:
Crystal was raped by non LAXers who were attending the party. They were not identified because they were not compelled to submit samples for DNA testing. The Lacrosse team embers knew who the perpetrators were but covered for them. They covered for them even after(via the NTO) they were named as suspects. They covered for them, even though three of their own were indicted for the crime.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, I ask again, if Ms. Roberts/Pittman had reported to the police that Crystal had been given a noxious substance, how would that imperil her parole status?
Your claim is grasping not at a straw but grasping at thin air.
The most plausinle, most logical answer is, she did not witness any such thing.
Typo in my last post. I typed plausinle when I should have typed plausible. Sorry, folks.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "One thing to consider is who might have a motive for drugging an exotic dancer".
You ignore the distinct possibility that Crystal may have drugged herself. The news and observer reported after the exoneration of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, tha Crystal more than once showed up impaired at her work place.
Again I say, that you might want thus kind of eevidence discarded, it does not make such evidence irrelevant.
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
I say again, according to Sergeant Shelton, Ms. Pittman/Roberts reported Crystal was impaired but she did not know why.
One reason she may have said that was thar she gave her the inpairing substance.
If she feared her parole status would be affected, I ask you why it would be if Crystal had been administered the substance at the party?
Ken-ninny-hyderal: another example of grasping at thin air:
Crystal, according to her statement, alleged a DNA depositing rape perpetrated by three membersof the Lacrosse team.
Forensic exam of the rape kit materials did not reveal any DNA from any member of the lacrosse team
Kenny says there was a non DNA depositing sexual assault perpetrated by non-lax players, for whom the lax players are covering up the crime.
From me: "If she feared her parole status would be affected, I ask you why it would be if Crystal had been administered the substance at the party?"
I should have said: If [Kim] feared her parole status would be affected, I ask you why it would be if Crystal had been administered the substance by some guy at the party?
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
You ask who might have had a motive to drug an exotic dancer.
Maybe it was one of the non-lax players you allege were at the party.
Give a plausible, logical reason why the Lacrosse players would cover for them if they knew the non-laxers were the perps but that the lax players were going to be charged.
That people do not act in their best interests is true(e.g. Crystal Mangum), but it is not a logical plausible explanation to the above. It is a dodge.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "I guess it's a defence strategy to deny anything and everything that went down there."
I am in no way connected withe the innocent players defense attorneys.
I am asking you valid questions which you do not wish to answer.
Like your friend Kilgo you prefer to dodge and duck.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "I guess it's a defence strategy to deny anything and everything that went down there."
You should have said what was alleged to have gone down there.
What was alleged to have gone own there, by Crystal herself, was a DNA depositing rape. Via the forensic evidence that allegation was proven false. So why shouldn't the Defense deny it?
What else was alleged to have happened was alleged by people like Sid-ninny, Kilgo and yourself, none of whom was in a position to make such allegations.
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
When did kilgo ever corroborate any of the allegations he made about the Lacrosse team?
Kenny, you ain't da man and you ain't in demand.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, why did you leave out part of what I said. I said, if Ms. Roberts/Pittman would not reveal to a police officer that Crystal had been administered a noxious substance the only reason I could imagine is that she herself had administered the substance.
So far as defense strategy being to deny everything that went down, that presupposes that something did go down. You have only implausible speculation to offer, not credible evidence.
I need to get to the next page.
Here I am on the next page.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, I ask again, how would it have damaged Ms Pittman/Roberts' parole status to have reported a rape?
Ken-ninny-hyderal, Tell us what did go down at 610 N Buchanan, and what evidence supports the allegations.
I see this thread is contunuing on but I have been unable to access the page 2 posts.I have contacted Dr.Harr and he does not have access to a computer presently but will look into the matter when he can. In case there is any responses to my posts of Jan.29 th be patient. When I can read them I will try and respond.
Anonymous @ 3:37 said: "How would it have damaged Ms. Pittman/Roberts' parole status to have reported a rape" .... I guess we would have to know the conditions of her parole. @ Anonymous 8:21 AM. We need an answer to why, when she called the police, she said "me and my girl-friend were walking by the place" Anonymous @ 8:26 said: " According to Ms. Roberts/Pittman's statement, Crystal did not imbibe the drink, she spilled it in the sink" .... It's my understanding she drank some and spilled some. Anonymous @ 8:45 said : "
You ignore the distinct possibility that Crystal may have drugged herself. The news and observer reported after the exoneration of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, tha Crystal more than once showed up impaired at her work place" Typical N & O "yellow journalism". At any rate, it's after the fact and will be classed as inadmissible hearsay. Anonymous @ 12:55 said "Tell us what did go down at 610 N Buchanan, and what evidence supports the allegations".... Crystal was administered a noxious substance. ( Evidence: She arrive with witness Taylor in a sober condition. Two drinks were handed in to her and Kim while they were preparing to dance" As she came out to dance she appeared to be impaired. Theft. Evidence ( money paid to her for coming and performing was taken without her consent from her bag. If she failed to perform as contracted the only recourse was a civil action against the booking company not removing cash from her bag. Rape by unidentified perpetrators. Evidence from Nurse Levicy and Physician Manley. Circumstantial evidence. Un-identified and unaccounted for DNA found in the rape kit specimens. Not all present have been identified. The two non-players identified came from incomplete photographic evidence
next page
Page 2 came up for an interval then disappeared again. I will continue to respond when I can. Be patient.
Ken-ninny-kyderal: "At any rate, it's after the fact and will be classed as inadmissible hearsay."
I posted that this ws published after the fact. So far as the issue of ehen Crystal beame impaired, it was relevant information whether or not Crystal had appeared for work in an intoxicated condition. If the individual who gave the information to the N&O had testified to it in open court, it would not have been hearsay.
Ken-niny-hyderal: "Evidence: She arrive with witness Taylor in a sober condition. Two drinks were handed in to her and Kim while they were preparing to dance" As she came out to dance she appeared to be impaired."
Evidence Ken-ninny-hyderal would like to suppress: David Evans and Dan Flannery said Crystal was impaired when she arrived: Ms. Pittman/Robertson's statement was that Crystal spilled her drink: she was observe in other circumstances showing up for work in an impaired condition: the tox screen showed noxious substance.
Ken-ninny-hyderal would say she was given chloral hydrate, whuch was not tested for. It has not been established she became impaired at the party. If chloral hydrate was the culprit drug, there is a distinct possibility she took it pre party.
Of course, it has been documented she imbibed the equivalent of almost three pnts of beer and took flexeril before arriving at the party.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "'The news and observer reported after the exoneration of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, tha Crystal more than once showed up impaired at her work place'" Typical N & O 'yellow journalism'"
was it typical N&O yellow journalism when it published Ruth Sheehan's editorial presuming guilt on the part of the Lacrosse team.
Anonymous @ 9: 218 said : "Give a plausible, logical reason why the Lacrosse players would cover for them if they knew the non-laxers were the perps but that the lax players were going to be charged"..... Allow me to speculate. Evans Seligman and Finnerty knew that Crystal had identified the wrong ones and that none of their DNA could be found. A substantial number of Players, themselves, did not witness any attack that may have occured and this might even have included one or more of the ones charged. It was known the most serious charge of rape could not be sustained against the three charged. Friends did not want to inform on non-player friends who were there but unknown to authorities. The three charged could have been guilty of the, serious enough, lesser charges. The easiest charge to prove of theft was never acted on. The DA threw in the towel as the inadequacies of the investigation turned on him.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Evidence from Nurse Levicy and Physician Manley. Circumstantial evidence. Un-identified and unaccounted for DNA found in the rape kit specimens."
Nurse Levicy has been discredited as a reliable witness, if for no reason that she was not an experienced SANE and did not actually do the exam. Dr. Manley, who was never interviewed for the case. The only finding was diffuse vaginal edema, which was not pathognomic of rape, especially in this case in which Crystal did admit to engaging in sexual activity, including using a vibrator.
So far as the DNA, some was old, degraded DNA which was not deposited at the time of the alleged rape. DNA was found which belonged to her boyfriend.
All that can be concluded from the forensic exam of the rape kit was, no DNA depositing rape on occurred on the night of 13-14 March 2006.
In view of Crystal's allegation of a DNA depositing rape, the only conclusion possible from that is Crystal lied.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Not all present have been identified. The two non-players identified came from incomplete photographic evidence"
If, as you say, the only person you knew who was at the party was Crystal. It has been documented Crystal could not reliably identify who was and who was not at the party - two of the people who she identified with 100% certainty as her assailants could prove with 100% certainty they were not at the party - and let's not forget her identification of Brad Ross, who had not been in Durham the night of the party, as a party goer.
You have no basis to argue that there were other party goers who were not identified.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "It was known the most serious charge of rape could not be sustained against the three charged."
Yet you do not ask why Mr. Nifong persisted in prosecuting them.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Friends did not want to inform on non-player friends who were there but unknown to authorities."
Kenny, this is not plausible. Friends would have been closer to friends. They would not allow friends to be charged with a crime those friends did not commit and then cover up for strangers who they knew committed the crime.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The three charged could have been guilty of the, serious enough, lesser charges."
What other lesser charges? In addition to first degree rape, they were charged with sexual assault and kidnapping. What other lesser yet serious charges were there.
In spite of your speculation, the fact that the tox screen failed to reveal any noxious substance would not support a charge of administering a noxious substance. Does not the drawing of a tox screen not indicate that such a charge was considered?
In any event, one can not charge an individual with a crime which could have happened. It has to be proven that a crime did happen, e.g. the tragic case of Eve Carson - the discovery of her body established the occurrence of the crime.
Your attitude is, consider all the crimes the Lacrosse players could have committed and presume them guilty.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The DA threw in the towel as the inadequacies of the investigation turned on him."
Incorrect.
With ethics charges filed or about to be filed against him. Mr. Nifong asked the AG to take over the case. The AG and his investigators reviewed all Mr. Nifong's material and, unlike Mr. Nifong, interviewed the complaining witness and concluded that no crime had happened.
What evidence do you have that other crimes happened, no including the questionable theft? All you have presented so far is speculation.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "A substantial number of Players, themselves, did not witness any attack that may have occured and this might even have included one or more of the ones charged."
How does that indicate that any attack had happened at all. This statement would indicate that no attack had happened.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The three charged could have been guilty of the, serious enough, lesser charges."
Based on what evidence?
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Evans Seligman and Finnerty knew that Crystal had identified the wrong ones and that none of their DNA could be found."
David Evans, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligman all insisted that no rape had happened.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, in addition to my last comment I would ask, if there was a rape, why David Evans, Reade Seligman, and Colin Finnerty cover for those who perpetrated the rape after being indicted for the rape?
I say again, the three innocent, falsely accused defendants all insisted that no rape had happened.
The Lacrosse team all insisted no rape had happened.
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
What about the issue of the bathroom. Crystal said in her statement that she and her attackers were all in the bathroom together during the alleged attack. The alleged scene of attack was not large enough to accommodate four adults at once.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, the challenge was to come up with a plausible, believable reason why Lacrosse players would have covered up for non Lacrosse players who perpetrated a felony at their party in the face of the players themselves being charged with the felony.
In all your speculation you have not done so.
Anonymous said" "Kenny, this is not plausible. Friends would have been closer to friends. They would not allow friends to be charged with a crime those friends did not commit and then cover up for strangers who they knew committed the crime " These non-players present were not strangers. They may well have been even closer to the accused then to some of their team-mates. Identifying them would have required players who knew them to volunteer their names. The two non-players present who were identified by investigators, thanks only to them being found in photos taken, were tested.
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
Why not speculate on why Ms. Pittman/Roberts would not report a crime to police out of concern for her parole status, the crime being administration of a noxious substance to Ms. Mangum.
I say again, if that were the case, the only plausible explanation would be that Ms. Pittman/Roberts administered it herself.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "These non-players present were not strangers. They may well have been even closer to the accused then to some of their team-mates."
That is not plausible, unless every member of the Lacrosse team who were closer to those non Lacrosse players than they were to the accused.
The fact that most of the unindicted players are suing Duke and Durham and other individuals says that is not so. If it had been non LAX perps, someone on the Lacrosse team would have fingered them instead of allowing the accused to be prosecuted.
You are grasping at thin air.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, to my last comment I add:
Even if there were non LAX perps who were closer to the accused than the accused were to their team mates, it is not plausible that the accused would cover for them after the accused were indicted.
You are grasping at thinner air.
Anonymous @ 4:35 said: "I say again, if that were the case, the only plausible explanation would be that Ms. Pittman/Roberts administered it herself" And, the plausible, possible motive for that would be??
Anonymous @ 4:53 said : "it is not plausible that the accused would cover for them after the accused were indicted".... They might if they knew they could prove their own innocence. Again I say people don't always act in their own best interest. It's often trumped by loyalty.
next
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "They might if they knew they could prove their own innocence. Again I say people don't always act in their own best interest. It's often trumped by loyalty."
However, in this case, the three defendants did prove their own innocence and the DA insisted in prosecuting them any way. In those circumstances, they would not have risked a conviction and a 30 year prison term to cover for the real perps.
You are grasping at thinner and thinner air.
Ken-ninny-hyderal:
You have to remember that the Lacrosse defendants were under no obligation to prove their innocence.
What proved their innocence basically is that Crystal alleged a DNA depositing rape. No fresh male DNA was found on her person, save the DNA of her boyfriend.
In addition, Crystal COULD NOT reliably identify who assaulted her. Of the three people she identified had solid alibis, they were not there. She identified her third assailant as a man with a mustache. Based on that id, David Evans, who never had a mustache, was indicted.
When the forensic exam results came back, Mr. Nifong did not say he would look for other suspects. He decided he would go after members of the Lacrosse team(he had a photo lineup done which showe only pictures of Lacrosse team members).
Under those conditions, it is implausible that memers of the Lacrosse team, had they known that non LAXers had perpetrated the crime , would not cover for them. Loyalty does not run that deep.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Again I say people don't always act in their own best interest. It's often trumped by loyalty."
That statement does notmake it plausible that men accused of a felony like first degree rape would choose to go to prison over naming the real perps.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "'it is not plausible that the accused would cover for them after the accused were indicted'.... They might if they knew they could prove their own innocence."
Did you ever think, if they could prove their own innocence, that would not really cover for the perps. What would have happened had the DA been ethical rather than corrupt is the DA would have dropped the charges and go after the real perps.
I said "Under those conditions, it is implausible that memers of the Lacrosse team, had they known that non LAXers had perpetrated the crime , would not cover for them. Loyalty does not run that deep."
I should have said:
Under those conditions, it is implausible that members of the Lacrosse team, had they known that non LAXers had perpetrated the crime, would have continued to cover for them. Loyalty does not run that deep.
I ask Ken-ninny-hyderal, why would the three accused run up millions of dollars in legal expenses to cover for the real perps? That is not plausible. What is plausible is that they would name the perps rather than incur the legal expenses.
The air you grab at is thinner and thinner and thinner.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Anonymous @ 4:35 said: "I say again, if that were the case,[Pittman/Roberts feared for her parole status] the only plausible explanation would be that Ms. Pittman/Roberts administered it herself" And, the plausible, possible motive for that would be??"
The plausible reason is obvious to anyone but a ninny.
Committing a crime on parole/probation violates that parole/probation.
As you have admitted, deliberately giving someone a noxious substance is a crime. I believe it would be classified as an assault.
The only plausible reason Kim would fear that reporting a crime would endanger her parole status would be if she had perpetrated the crime.
That is why I say, if Kim did not report the crime,that Crystal had been given a noxious substance, out of fear for her parole situation, the only reason would be that she had perpetrated that crime.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, with regard to Kim again, Mr. Nifong did use her parole status as leverage to get her to recant what she had first said about the rape, that it was a crock.
Mr. Nifong also tried to intimidate Mr. Moez Elmostafa to change his statement which supported Reade Seligman's alibi.
If you recall, Mr. Nifong refused to look at Mr. Seligman's alibi evidence.
That shoots down your contention, that the accused would have covered for the real perps(provided there were real perps - the forensic evidence showed no crime had happened) if they could prove their innocence. Mr. Nifong intended to keep out of the case any and all evidence of their evidence. That was evident at the start of the case.
If there had been a crime in the first place, if the perps were friends of the three accused, the three accused would not have covered for them. Even the motive you propose was not there.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, answer truthfully.
If you were wrongfully accused of and indicted for a class 1 felony which carried a 30 year prison term, if you knew you were innocent, if you knew who had committed the crime, would you risk a conviction and a 30 year sentence and millions of dollars in legal bills when all you had to do to clear your name is name the perps?
If your loyalty to anyone would run that deep, I would say you don't know how or when to be loyal.
Anonymous @6:17 said: "The plausible reason is obvious to anyone but a ninny.
Committing a crime on parole/probation violates that parole/probation"...... You've missed the point. The question is why would Roberts commit such a crime,in the first place,not if she did why would she try to cover it up.
Anonymous @ 5:57 said: "I ask Ken-ninny-hyderal, why would the three accused run up millions of dollars in legal expenses to cover for the real perps? That is not plausible. What is plausible is that they would name the perps rather than incur the legal expenses".... They needed to defend themself against charges for other crimes which they were possibly facing including kidnapping and accessory after the fact
next
Ken-ninny-hyderal:"They needed to defend themself against charges for other crimes which they were possibly facing including kidnapping and accessory after the fact".
No they weren't. They were charged with kidnapping. They could not be charged with accessory after the fact when the fact was that no crime had occurred.
What you are doing, in legalese, is assuming facts not in evidence. You are assuming as fact that other crimes had occurred. You have never established that.
So far as the questionable crime of theft, they were never charged with that.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "You've missed the point. The question is why would Roberts commit such a crime,in the first place,not if she did why would she try to cover it up."
If she had committed said crime(notice the if) her motive in covering it up would be to avoid prosecution, even if she were not on parole. Anyone but a ninny would see that.
However, Kim had Crystal in her car, which makes it unlikely that she did drug her. That again brings up the question why she would not report the crime to the police if she had indeed witnessed it? Why would that have affected her parole status?
The answer to those questions is again obvious to anyone but a ninny. She did not witness any such crime.
Ergo, your contention that she might have witnessed that crime is meaningless.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "'I ask Ken-ninny-hyderal, why would the three accused run up millions of dollars in legal expenses to cover for the real perps? That is not plausible. What is plausible is that they would name the perps rather than incur the legal expenses'.... They needed to defend themself against charges for other crimes which they were possibly facing including kidnapping and accessory after the fact".
If that were indeed true, why would they, through their attorneys, try to cut a deal - they would name the perpetrators in exchange for immunity on any other charges.
You are dodging the question -
If you were wrongfully accused of and indicted for a class 1 felony which carried a 30 year prison term, if you knew you were innocent, if you knew who had committed the crime, would you risk a conviction and a 30 year sentence and millions of dollars in legal bills when all you had to do to clear your name is name the perps?
If you would refuse to name the perps for whatever reason, I say your attorney would have you plead not guilty by reason of insanity.
I said, "If that were indeed true, why would they, through their attorneys, try to cut a deal - they would name the perpetrators in exchange for immunity on any other charges."
I should have said, f that were indeed true, why would they not, through their attorneys, try to cut a deal - they would name the perpetrators in exchange for immunity on any other charges.
Ken=ninny-hyderal, consider this:
You have claimed that Kim Roberts/Pittman confirmed in her statement that Crystal became impaired after taking a drink at the Lacrosse party. You say this shows she was given a noxious substance. Again, in legalese, you presume facts which are not in evidence.
You say Kim said Crystal took half her drink. I have read a statement from Kim that Crystal spilled her drink. So, Kim's statement does not establish as fact that Crystal took a drink at the Lacrosse house.
There are three witness statements as to Crystal's condition when she arrived at the Lacrosse house. Two of them say she was impaired at the time she arrived at the house. And there is the story from the N&O that Crystal often showed up at work at the Platinum club in an impaired condition.
Finally, with regard to Crystal's activity pre party, the story is she drank two 22 ounce cans of beer and then took her flexeril.
So, it has not been established as fact that Crystal was sober when she arrived at the house, and it has not been established as fact that she became impaired at the House.
I say again, evidence is not discardable because it does not make your case.
n ext
take me to the next page
take me to the next page
Ken-ninny-hyderal, you say Sid-ninny will vouch for you.
Sid-ninny has been vouching that the media said the weapon which caused Mr. Reginald Daye's wound was a paring knife. The media actually said it was a kitchen knife. Sid-ninny then said that, since a paring knife qualifies as a kitchen knife, he did not distort anything.
Sid's endorsement is something not to be desired.
let's see what is on the next page
Post a Comment