Readers of my blog and viewers of my flog know that I am no fan of suspended Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. As the county’s head prosecutor, I believe that she should have stepped in and dismissed her Assistant D. A. Angela Garcia-Lamarca’s 2010 vendetta prosecution of Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. Likewise, I feel she should have moved to force prosecutor Kelly Gauger to drop the murder and larceny charges against Ms. Mangum related to the April 13, 2011 death of Reginald Daye. Despite the fact that D.A. Cline is a friend of former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong and has treated him with civility and respect, I am nonetheless not an ardent backer of her.
You may then query, why do I advocate for her to be reinstated as Durham district attorney? The answer is surprisingly simple and devoid of political prejudices. Tracey Cline should be reinstated as the district attorney because she was overwhelmingly elected to that position by the people of Durham County. In other words, the people had spoken… people who Ms. Cline represented. Her job, and that of any other elected official, be it municipal, county, or state, should not be threatened because of a single individual’s discontent.
Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton is certainly not an objective bystander when it comes to D.A. Cline. Attorney Sutton had sparred with Cline numerous times within the confines of the courtrooms housed in the Bull City’s justice building. The News & Observer even intimated that Ms. Sutton may have political aspirations and be considering a run for the state senate. Wherever the truth lies, her motives for launching the attack against Ms. Cline can be brought into question.
I am also bothered by the fact that a “little known law” that is on the books and one that is rarely used is the basis for the removal of Ms. Cline from elected office. Not only that, but the law is ambiguous, vague, and subject to a wide range of interpretation. Yes, I am concerned that a “little known law” is being used in an attempt to oust from office the county’s highest ranking prosecutor.
Ms. Sutton seems to be especially offended by the language Tracey Cline used in going after Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson. She refers to it as “venom.” However, Cline supporters may construe this same language as a yardstick to measure her passion for vigorously prosecuting those charged with crimes. Her supporters may attribute her defiant and unyielding stance against Judge Hudson to be an indication of her dedication and determination in the conviction of her beliefs.
In a way, and to an extent, I can appreciate Ms. Cline’s actions in going against the superior court judge… although I would never advise it. I agree that, as human beings, judges make mistakes and that none are infallible. For example, in my civil rights discrimination lawsuit against Duke University, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, in a Recommendation, misstated facts about the case; inaccurate and prejudicial “facts” which he attributed to me. He stated that I represented that “after an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded, I began passing out my business cards.” This was totally incorrect, false and misleading. Specifically, in my Complaint, I mentioned that “while waiting for the interview to begin I passed out a few cards to some individuals I had engaged in conversation.” Kerry Sutton and others may consider my use of the accusatory term that he “lied” to be venom. I would say that it is possibly a “politically incorrect” term… but it is nevertheless the truth. Should I have used a less inflammatory term to describe the magistrate judge’s misstatements? Possibly. But like Ms. Cline, I am extremely passionate about the anti-Nifong discrimination to which I was subjected by Duke University and I do not feel that I should be sanctioned because of it.
The fact that Judge Robert Hobgood, who is charged with overseeing Sutton’s complaint against Cline, decided to immediately suspend Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney does not bode well for her. Doing so automatically prejudices the case against her by implying that the action taken was a safeguard to prevent Ms. Cline from pursuing a course that would result in an imminent threat or peril. Without an explanation from Judge Hobgood about his decision for immediate suspension, it is not unreasonable to believe that he caved to The News & Observer-led media vendetta against Ms. Cline.
It has been evident for months that the Triangle area newspaper had Tracy Cline in its crosshairs… just like it did her predecessor, Mike Nifong. The three part series by the N & O, titled “Twisted Truth” was a pathetic bid to stir the public into an anti-Cline frenzy, just like it had successfully accomplished against Mr. Nifong. In its rare exception to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, the newspaper was at the vanguard of the media offensive against Cline. It highlighted a few instances in which it alleged the prosecutor had withheld evidence and misled the court… dramatizing them as if they were singular events throughout the state’s history of juris prudence. Had the media been conscientiously objective, then it would have produced three-part series about the following legal luminaries: Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his mishandling of the case against James Arthur Johnson; Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford and his misconduct in Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases; prosecutor David Hoke’s withheld exculpatory evidence in the Alan Gell case, and many others. Note, that although The News & Observer did extensively cover the Alan Gell case and its associated prosecutorial misconduct, it went out of its way to shield the prosecutors and take the focus away from their misdeeds.
Without doubt the media’s attacks against Tracey Cline are rooted in the Duke Lacrosse case and are a part of the seemingly endless and ubiquitous vindictive web cast by the Carpetbagger Jihadists in an attempt to ensnare those considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of that case. For example, the discrimination against me by Duke University had its origins from that case, as well. That the repetitive onslaught to remove Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney is vindictive and politically motivated is clearly evident.
Do I agree with Ms. Cline’s repeated attacks against Judge Hudson? No.
Do I believe her disparaging confrontations against the judge are productive? No.
Do I agree with the way her assistant prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca handled the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum? No.
Do I agree with the ongoing prosecution of Mangum by her assistant Kelly Gauger? No.
The most important question is, however, do I think Tracey Cline should be removed from office because of my disagreements with the way she has conducted herself as Durham district attorney? No. Because the people of Durham elected her to the office of Durham district attorney, the people should be the ones to remove her, if so inclined… not a single individual who may or may not have an ax to grind against Ms. Cline.
I submit that instead of using a “little known law” that is rarely used to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, Kerry Sutton should have taken the more appropriate and responsible track of initiating and circulating a recall petition amongst the Durham County electorate… allowing the people to determine the destiny of their elected officials instead of a single person.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
231 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 231 of 231Anonymous @ 11:36 said: "the detection of prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) in vaginal tissue measuring levels greater than 3 U/ML (units per milliliter) is used as supporting evidence that a rape has occurred"..... But levels below that can't confirm that it did not occur. DSI performed a seratic PSA presumptive tests for the presence of semen on the rape kit. That negative test could not eliminate the presence of semen on Crystal's person either. Results of that test, though, are entered as evidence in the civil suit.If NC SBI performed the RSID test why is this result also not part of the hundreds of SBI test result records supoenaed as evidence in Evans Finnerty and Seligmann's civil suit against Durham
Ken,
I agree with you. Investigators should never consider, let alone investigate, the most probable explanation before they have proven with absolute certainty that highly implausible explanations are not possible.
Should we also consider the explanation for unmatched male DNA in Mangum's vagina and anus Mike Nifong gave in his testimony at his disbarment hearing?
Ken-ninny-hyderal: ""the detection of prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) in vaginal tissue measuring levels greater than 3 U/ML (units per milliliter) is used as supporting evidence that a rape has occurred"..... But levels below that can't confirm that it did not occur."
Acid Phosphatase is found in seminal fluid at a concentration of 1000 times the level of Acid Phosphatase in other tissues. If the Acid phosphatase level in the vagina in the absence of semen, is less than 3 U/ML (units per milliliter) and if the acid phosphatase level in the rape kit is found to be less than 3 U/ML (units per milliliter), how does that establish the presence of semen?
It doesn't.
That it does not rule out a miniscule probability that semen is present, that is irrelevant.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "But levels below that(less than than 3 U/ML (units per milliliter))can't confirm that it(semen deposition) did not occur."
Ken-ninny, how do you establish that semen DID occur? That is what you have to do to establish the crime of rape, as alleged by Crystal Mangum, DID occur.
Inability to confirm that a crime did not occur is meaningless - it is not part of the US Judicial system. I do not think that is part of the Canadian Judicial System.
I said, "Ken-ninny, how do you establish that semen DID occur? "
I should have said, Ken-ninny, how do you establish that semen deposition DID occur?
I add, that the non deposition of semen can not be ruled out is meaningless. If you are alleging that semen was deposited, you need to prove it.
You have cited absolutely no evidence to confirm that semen was present on Crytal's rape kit.
Ken-ninny-hyderal,
You seem to forget that these biochemical assays for semen were designed to document the presence of semen, not its absence. The absence of semen is the logical conclusion when one of these tests fails to reveal semen.
Another reason why your assertion, "[that] levels...less than than 3 U/ML (units per milliliter))can't confirm that [semen deposition] did not occur." is a meaningless statement.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Anonymous @ 9:23 said: "The NC SBI Crime lab uses the RSID test for semen"......... No they didn't. On April 7, 2006, DSI performed a seratic PSA presumptive tests for the presence of semen on the rape kit. That negative test could not eliminate the presence of semen on Crystal's person".
Are you saying that the purpose of rape kit testing is to eliminate the presence of semen? It is not. It is to establish the presence of semen. I say again, failure to "eliminate the presence of semen" is medico-legally meaningless.
Regarding "seratic PSA presumptive tests for the presence of semen", I have read the false negative rate is 2.9% What that means is that the chances that semen is present in the face of a negative test are less than three in 100. The chances that semen is absent are slightly more than 97 out of 100.
That does not establish the presence of semen.
Ken-ninny-hyderal,
Let's look at this again. You say one can not demonstrate with 100% certainty that Crystal was not raped based on the forensic examination of the rape kit.
Based on same examination, you can demonstrate only with a probability of 1-3% that Crystal was not raped.
You seem to be saying a 1-3% probability that the crime did happen is enough to convict, that it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime did happen.
It doesn't work that way.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, I add this to my last comment:
When you establish a 1-3% probability tha Crystal was raped, you establih a 97-99/% probability she was not.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: from http://www.iape.org/emanual/biological_evidence.htm:
DNA analysis cannot:
Determine how old the sample is
Determine how the sample was deposited
Determine whether or not force was used in a suspected rape from the analysis of semen evidence
The finding of DNA from unknown males on Crystal's rape kit does not establish that said DNA was deposited at the time of the alleged crime.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: from http://www.enotes.com/semen-sperm-reference/semen-sperm:
"In a forensic examination, semen can be detected by the presence of the enzyme acid phosphatase. Because this enzyme is present elsewhere in the body, however, the test is not absolute proof of the presence of semen on clothing or in material recovered in a case of suspected sexual assault. But, detection of acid phosphatase is powerful circumstantial evidence, and indicates that further efforts should be made to investigate the possibility that semen is present."
So what does the failure to detect semen mean? It means nothing inculpatory.
Ken-ninny-hyderal< to my last comment I add:
If acid phosphatase was the only test done by SBI for semen, there was additional testing done by DSI, namely "seratic PSA presumptive tests for the presence of semen". As you have inadvertently pointed out, that test was negative.
So what inculpatory evidence is provided by the combination of negative acid phosphatase assay and negative "seratic PSA presumptive tests for the presence of semen"? Absolutely none.
If you allege Crystal was raped you should prove it. How does the failure to disprove it with 100% certainty prove it?
I said: "The finding of DNA from unknown males on Crystal's rape kit does not establish that said DNA was deposited at the time of the alleged crime."
I add: The finding of unknown male DNA on Crystal's rape kit in and of itself does not establish that a rape occurred.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, this from http://www.semenonpanties.com/laux.htm:
"Swabs collected from sexual assault survivors are generally tested for the presence of acid phosphatase followed by tests for the presence of spermatozoa, and P30 IF NECESSARY(emphasis added).
The question is, if acid phosphatase is negative, what is the chance more specific tests for semen will reveal semen.
This information suggests that the likelihood is low.
I know of only one incidence in which a negative acid phosphatase assay was followed by a test more specific for semen. That was the combination of the SBI testing and the DSI testing of Crystal Mangum's rape kit. DSI's more specific test did not establish the presence of semen.
Ke-ninny-hyderal, this from www.dnatestingcentre.com/InfidelityKit.htm#AP:
"35% of all semen detections are PSA positive when the AP test is false negative. Three percent of all semen detections are PSA negative and AP false positive."
Which does suggest that a PSA assay will reveal the presence of semen in a significant number of cases when the AP assay does not.
In Crystal's case, however, both AP and PSA assays were negative. I call that proof beyond a reasonabledoubt that semen was not found on her rape kit.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: from http://books.google.com/books?id=mpxTRdbspWEC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=Roach+Vladutiu:+1993&source=bl&ots=if0XZAJXYa&sig=U4FaPRNxA4e-3v44n9Kmsxu4nQE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4QRNT8yAN8OhtweB2PBD&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Roach%20Vladutiu%3A%201993&f=false:
"Another study comparing PAP (prostatic acid phosphatase) to PSA (prostatic specific antigen) found, in a sample of 212 women who had consenting sex within four days, that more positive results were obtained with PAP analysis. While both were positive 59% of the time, PAP was positive 84% of the time and PSA was positive 60% of the time. PAP was negative only 2% of the time when PSA was positive, and PSA was negative 25% of the time when PAP was positive".
This is interesting. Apparently, PSA fails to confirm the presence of semen when Acid Phosphatase assay is positive. Could this be due tothe fact that AP is found in bodily fluids other than semen.
On the other hand, this indicates that when PSA nnd AP are negative, the odds against semen being present are something like 49 to 1.
Ken-ninny-hyderal' from The Medical
Investigation of Alleged Rape by IRVING ROOT, MD, WENDELL OGDEN, MD, and WAYNE SCOTT, MD
San Bernardino, California published in The Western Journal of Medicine, 120:329-333, Apr 1974.
The information is old but still valid.
"As in any medical examination, the conclusion should be the physician's clinical impression. Is there evidence that coitus has occurred? Are the physical and laboratory findings consistent with the history or is there a discrepancy? The physician cannot and should not state whether the patient has been raped. Rape is a legal, not a medical, definition."
In other words, Tara Levicy's report of "injuries consistent with rape" was improper and would not have held up in court as evidence.
I conceed, reasonable doubt exists from the forensic evidence. What I would have liked to have seen, was for the investigators to try and determine the source of the contemorary DNA, extraced from sperm cells, that was found. That would require testing all who were there present and not just the registered team members. Of course, for the sake of elimination and to confirm Crystal's provided sexual history, clients of the escort service she worked for should also be identified and eliminated.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "What I would have liked to have seen, was for the investigators to try and determine the source of the contemorary DNA, extraced from sperm cells, that was found."
Why? There was no evidence a rape had happened on the night of 13/14 March 2006.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "That[additional DNA testing] would require testing all who were there present and not just the registered team members."
There is no evidence, other than your unreliable hearsay evidence from Kilgo, that there were unidentified males at the party.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, let's put it this way.
The point in contention is, asexual assault on Crystal Mangum did not happen on the night of 13/14 March 2006.
You contend that there is reasonable doubt as to that because the lab tests cannot rule out a sexual assault with 100% certainty.
Referring to the items I have cited, and this is repetition, the probability that the tests failed to pick up evidence of a sexual assault is on the order of 2%.
That would mean that the probability that a sexual assault did not happen is 98%.
So explain why that is not overwhelming evidence that nothing happened?
Anonymous @ 5:51 said : "That would mean that the probability that a sexual assault did not happen is 98%"....... No, that would indicate that no semen was detected on the rape kit specimens. Condom use, failure to ejaculate, bowel evacuation or leakage, faulty swabbing, etc. would all be possible factors for the failure of the detection of semen. Since unidentified DNA, extracted from sperm, was found, to completely eliminate that a rape occured that night you would have to disprove Crystal's affadavit, regarding her sexual history, by identifying these individuals and prove they were not present at the party. Of course, the burden of that proof is on the prosecution and they chose to withdraw. We'll see how the defense in the civil action goes. There may be some surprises.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: ""That would mean that the probability that a sexual assault did not happen is 98%"....... No, that would indicate that no semen was detected on the rape kit specimens. "
In the face of Crystal's llegation that semen WAS deposited on her person, what does it mean that "no semen was detected on the rape kit specimens."? It would mean that the crime Crystal alleged never happened.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Condom use, failure to ejaculate, bowel evacuation or leakage, faulty swabbing, etc. would all be possible factors".
Crystal said in her statement that her assailants did not use condoms and did ejaculate on her. What evidence is there that bowel evacuation or leakage might have occurred?
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Since unidentified DNA, extracted from sperm, was found, to completely eliminate that a rape occured that night you would have to disprove Crystal's affadavit, regarding her sexual history, by identifying these individuals and prove they were not present at the party."
What you seem to be asserting that one must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged rape did not occur. I assert you can not prove that the alleged rape did occur, even by a lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence. You offer NO evidence, only speculation and hearsay.
If you can not prove Crystal was raped, why should I or anyone else have to prove shewas not?
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "We'll see how the defense in the civil action goes. There may be some surprises."
In case you have not been following the civil suits, the defendants are trying to get the suits dismissed before discovery takes place via a number of technicalities. Thatsuggests they can not defend the suits.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Since unidentified DNA, extracted from sperm, was found...".
That finding does not establish that sperm were deposited on Ms. Mangum's person on the night of 13/14 March 2006, let alone that they were deposited via a rape.
Remember, in a criminal case, it is the Prosecution's obligation that something happened. The prosecution's allegation of a crime does not impose any obligation on the defense to disprove the alleged crime.
Which is why I ask, if you can not prove a crime happened, how does that obligate anyone to prove the crime did not happen?
Anonymous @11:33 said: "In case you have not been following the civil suits, the defendants are trying to get the suits dismissed before discovery takes place via a number of technicalities. Thatsuggests they can not defend the suits" That's a standard defense strategy. If it does not succeed they will be more inclined to, again, look for evidence that a crime occured. Hopefully, this time, not such a woefully inadequate investigation.
Ken-ninny-hyderal: "That's a standard defense strategy. If it does not succeed they will be more inclined to, again, look for evidence that a crime occured. Hopefully, this time, not such a woefully inadequate investigation."
If the Defense is trying to get the case dismissed without going to trial, it is because they don't want any evidence to become part of the public record.
Just for interest, how do you propose new evidence will come to light? Have Kilgo reveal what he knows about the case? Have Kilgo testify he knows someone who knows that unidentified males were at the party?
Ken-ninny-hyderal, consider this:
If the case were to go to discovery, then defense attorneys could depose all the Lacrosse team. They could ask each member how many Lacrosse team members attended the party. I have read that 30 people were present. If it is revealed that only 23 Lacrosse players were present, then you could establish there were more that two non Lacrosse player unknowns there. So why doesn't the defense try this?
Of course, if it were revealed that 35 Lacrosse players were present, it would shoot down your hypothesis.
Maybe the defense attorneys are trying to prevent something like that.
Ken-ninny-hyderal, consider this:
If the defense can not get the suits dismissed, they might settle with the plaintiffs rather than let the case go to discovery. That is what happens when the defense knows it can not prevail in court.
What would you do if the case were settled?
Post a Comment