tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post6422785559809779545..comments2024-03-26T13:03:49.523-07:00Comments on justice4nifong: Greg Taylor’s wrongful murder conviction is no isolated incident in North CarolinaNifong Supporterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00893537130835998222noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-51251412748916641612010-02-25T13:33:38.903-08:002010-02-25T13:33:38.903-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
It took yo...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />It took you long enough to use the word alleged. It was longer than the time it took you to learn the name of David Evans Mother.<br /><br />Now, when are you going to learn the meaning of exculpatory, due process, presumption of innocence, Brady versus Maryland, open discovery, accepted behavior for a prosecutor?unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-66317145995251985432010-02-25T13:29:37.584-08:002010-02-25T13:29:37.584-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Once again...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Once again, sid, you got it wrong.<br /><br />You said the accused were at the scene of the crime and were identified by cgm with 100% certainty.<br /><br />cgm identified David Evans with 90% certainty. She said David Evans had a mustache at the time of the alleged rape. The picture she looked at to id David Evans showed no mustache.<br /><br />Did nifong look for a picture of David Evans which showed a mustache? Had he found such a picture it would have increased the certainty of cgm's id to more than 90%. Has any such picture emerged? Did nifong not seek out such a picture because he knew no such picture existed? nifong showed himself reluctant to introduce exculpatory evidence into the case. Pictures of David Evans without a mustache were exculpatory. They raised doubt about cgm's id.<br /><br />For that id to be inculpatory nifong had to prove David Evans had a mustache. Remember, the prosecutor i.e. had the burden of proof. <br /><br />Neither Reade Seligman nor Colin Finnerty were present at the scene of the alleged crime at the time it was alleged to have taken place. Each could prove his absence from the party at the crucial time. The only thing nifong tried to do to impeach Reade Seligman's alibi was to arrest Moez Emostafa, an alibi witness for Reade Seligman. That says nifong could not impeach Reade Seligman's alibi.<br /><br />So, by your own unintended indirect admission, the cgm id's were not credible id's, and the fact that she made them was not incriminating. Therefore, nifong had no justification to indict any of the accused.<br /><br />Maybe now you can show us by logic and common sense that the indictments were justified.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-79177532304946190582010-02-25T13:23:15.600-08:002010-02-25T13:23:15.600-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Once again...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Once again, sid, you got it wrong.<br /><br />You said the accused were at the scene of the crime and were identified by cgm with 100% certainty.<br /><br />cgm identified David Evans with 90% certainty. She said David Evans had a mustache at the time of the alleged rape. The picture she looked at to id David Evans showed no mustache.<br /><br />Did nifong look for a picture of David Evans which showed a mustache? Had he found such a picture it would have increased the certainty of cgm's id to more than 90%. Has any such picture emerged?<br /><br />On the other hand, pictures of David Evans without a mustache discredit this particular cgm id. For this id to be significant, nifong would have had to prove David Evans had a mustache. Remember, the prosecutor i.e. nifong had the burden of proof.<br /><br />Neither Reade Seligman nor Colin Finnerty were present at the scene of the alleged crime at the time it was alleged to have taken place. Each could prove his absence from the party at the crucial time. The only thing nifong tried to do to impeach Reade Seligman's alibi was to arrest Moez Emostafa, an alibi witness for Reade Seligman. That says nifong could not impeach Reade Seligman's alibi.<br /><br />So, by your own unintended indirect admission, the cgm id's were not credible id's, and the fact that she made them was not incriminating. Therefore, nifong had no justification to indict any of the accused.<br /><br />Maybe now you can show us by logic and common sense that the indictments were justified.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-8241978111302626282010-02-25T08:32:53.002-08:002010-02-25T08:32:53.002-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
If there i...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />If there is indeed evidence establishing the occurrence of a crime, it would exonerate nifong, would it not? Why hasn't nifong's lawyer asked the Federal Court to order the unsealing of the case file so nifong can exonerate himself? If nifong can exonerate himself, then why not do it instead of wasting money to have the case dismissed?<br /><br />Is the answer that there is no evidence of any crime in the file - except for crimes committed against the innocent, wrongfully accused Duke Lacrosse Players?unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-23912741965162215712010-02-25T08:27:17.809-08:002010-02-25T08:27:17.809-08:00more incivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Maybe nifo...more incivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Maybe nifong did not charge the fourth man id'ed by cgm because he, himself, early in the case when there was no evidence, that three Lacrosse players had taken cgm into the bathroom.<br /><br />nifong might have further damaged his credibility had he charged a fourth Player.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-64519917808850329142010-02-25T08:24:18.495-08:002010-02-25T08:24:18.495-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc: sidney:
I have rea...more uncivility for crazy etc: sidney:<br /><br />I have read that the improper, unduly suggestive lineup resulted in four id's, not three. Why did nifong not indict and charge the fourth man? Why did nifong indict and charge David Evans when cgm's id said he had a certain obvious facial feature which was never there.<br /><br />I ask again, if nifong really did view the photos of the Lacrosse team, why did he not question cgm's id of David Evans. <br /><br />A competent prosecutor would realize he had a better chance of making his case against David Evans if he could verify David Evans had once sported a mustache. A rogue prosecutor would realize lack of a mustache would cast doubt.<br /><br />Did nifong deliberately fail to verify David Evans mustache or lack thereof? Throughout this case nifong showed a marked reluctance to introduce exculpatory evidence into the case, e.g.withholding of the exculpatory evidence of non Lacrosse Player DNA onn cgm's person.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-3992613560427101012010-02-25T08:13:36.031-08:002010-02-25T08:13:36.031-08:00more uncicility for crazy etc. sidney:
Back to th...more uncicility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Back to the crime which you now admit was only alleged(you have never offered any evidence to the contrary).<br /><br />cgm gave details about the alleged crime, that she was penetrated and ejaculated on by multiple accusers who did not use condoms. The condom part is noted in multiple places in the medical record(maybe you will allege that the "carpetbagger jihad" ordered DUMC to kowtow and put those notations into the record).<br /><br />A rape like cgm's alleged rape(remember, it was only alleged at this point) would leave DNA and other material on the victim. Forensic examination of the rape kit revealed no evidence consistent with the rape cgm alleged. <br /><br />So, how could that kind of evidence justify accusing any Lacrosse player of a rape in this case? Why was cgm's boyfriend not a suspect? The rape kit exam turned up evidence that this man had intimate contact with cgm.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-68611760187257273222010-02-25T08:02:20.305-08:002010-02-25T08:02:20.305-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You have s...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />You have said cgm alleged she was raped, that she always maintained she was raped.<br /><br />The historical record is: at the Duke access center she said she was raped; then she told Sergeant Shelton she was not raped; at DUMC she said she was raped. During this time, nifong never personally interviewed her.<br /><br />9 months later, nifong did interview her and she said she could not remember being penetrated. Bofore tha was the tainted, improperly conducted, improperly suggestive lineup in which she said she was raped<br /><br />Months after that, when her memoir was released upon the public, she said she was raped.<br /><br />In one sentence, her replies to the question, Were you raped, were successively yes, no, yes, yes, no, yes.<br /><br />How can any reasonable person believe that is a credible allegation of a crime?unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-21244667076877190132010-02-25T07:53:51.692-08:002010-02-25T07:53:51.692-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You now ad...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />You now admit the crime was an alleged crime. If there is no proof of a crime, how can it be any more than alleged?<br /><br />If a prosecutor has no more than an alleged crime, what justification does he have to conduct a lineup? The obligation of a DA who prosecutes is to first prove the crime then to prove the accused committed the crime.<br /><br />So, what justifies naming suspects before proving a crime.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-86655802149283566242010-02-25T07:49:32.780-08:002010-02-25T07:49:32.780-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
nifong him...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />nifong himself admitted he had no credible evidence to charge the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players with a crime. Why do you believe AG Cooper has any credible evidence of their involvement in the alleged crime?unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-40593600679376534542010-02-25T04:10:29.077-08:002010-02-25T04:10:29.077-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Did it occ...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Did it occur to you, nifong should have made all his evidence available to the defense team. He should have made all his evidence public before the AG ever got involved. He was legally, ethically, Constitutionally obligated to release that evidence. Why did he not do so before he asked Mr. Cooper to take over the case?unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-67519790087763313002010-02-25T04:07:25.568-08:002010-02-25T04:07:25.568-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
cgm said D...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />cgm said David Evans had a mustache at the time of the alleged assault. Photos prove that no Lacrosse player had a mustache at the time.<br /><br />How do you explain that? How does that not question the validity of cgm's id.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-1379287156152842642010-02-25T04:04:11.894-08:002010-02-25T04:04:11.894-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The case f...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />The case file would again become public if nifong and durham would defend themselves instead of trying to have the lawsuits dismissed.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-21126496342116811142010-02-25T04:02:49.861-08:002010-02-25T04:02:49.861-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Again, you...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Again, you lie when you say cgm identified her attackers with 90% to 100% certainty. That lineup was not conducted in accord with police procedures, was unduly suggestive, i.e. rigged so cgm would identify someone, and consisted of individuals who had already been exonerated by the evidence.<br /><br />Further, nifong knew, at the time the lineup was conducted, there had been no crime.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-19762427308415073992010-02-23T20:01:37.999-08:002010-02-23T20:01:37.999-08:00"In the Duke Lacrosse case, the accused were ...<i>"In the Duke Lacrosse case, the accused were at the scene of the crime, when the alleged crime took place, and were identified with 100% certainty by the accuser. We are not aware of other evidence that links the accused to the possible crime because the Attorney General has it sealed and it was never presented in court."</i><br /><br />Syd, there you go again. Not one word of truth to your statements. <br /><br />First, there was no scene of the crime. Remember, no credible evidence. That means, there was no crime to have a scene. <br /><br />Second, there was no crime. Again, no credible evidence. That's what Nifong himself said, and for once, he is right about the contents of the file. Crystal told, by my count, five (5) different versions of the story. Newsweek sent a reporter to dig through all the police reports, she has counted ten (10) versions of the story told by Crystal. No other witness corroborated any of Crystal's versions of events. Not one. <br /><br />Third, Crystal's so called identification came after two previously failed attempts with the same photos. The three innocent men she identified do not match the descriptions she gave in her various stories. <br /><br />Fourth, the only parts of the file that are sealed are Crystal's medical records. Those are sealed not by the Attorney General, but by order of the Superior Court. (As well they should be because those records contain matters which relate to mental health treatment.)<br /><br />Nifong behaved worse than the prosecutor in the Cotton case in that he picked three demonstrably innocent men and prosecuted them without any credible evidence and with no probable cause. <br /><br />Walt-in-DurhamWalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064038481537517025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-21885755784911771082010-02-23T18:30:30.650-08:002010-02-23T18:30:30.650-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.JSwifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07758976125626982551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-86854458843820294152010-02-23T16:29:00.224-08:002010-02-23T16:29:00.224-08:00To JSwift:
What is so tragic about the Ronald Cot...To JSwift:<br /><br />What is so tragic about the Ronald Cotton case is that he was picked up off the street and placed in a lineup. There was nothing else to implicate him in the rape, other than that he was an African American male as was the rapist.<br /><br />In the Duke Lacrosse case, the accused were at the scene of the crime, when the alleged crime took place, and were identified with 100% certainty by the accuser. We are not aware of other evidence that links the accused to the possible crime because the Attorney General has it sealed and it was never presented in court.Nifong Supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00893537130835998222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-84492946932550453282010-02-23T07:24:10.724-08:002010-02-23T07:24:10.724-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
More about...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />More about cgm's id of David Evans:<br /><br />The wanted poster, showing all of the caucasian members of the Lacrosse team, distributed by the Crimestoppers organization in Durham showed no member of the Lacrosse team had a mustache.<br /><br />Does that support or impeach cgm's 90% id of David Evans?<br /><br />Should nifong have checked those photographs before asking the Grand Jury to indict David Evans?<br /><br />Have you ever checked that poster to see if David Evans had a mustache?unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-17955835062783020952010-02-23T07:17:49.385-08:002010-02-23T07:17:49.385-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Referring ...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Referring back to JSwift's last comment, you did say that a prosecutor could make a case without any credible evidence.<br /><br />Credible means believable. Credible evidence is believable evidence.<br /><br />How could nifong have proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if he could not present anything believable to either establish the crime or to incriminate the defendant?<br /><br />Your thinking is kind oe oxymoronic.<br /><br />February 23, 2010 5:14 AM<br /><br />Edited Feb 23, 2010 7:17 AMunbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-14846779227514539712010-02-23T05:14:36.113-08:002010-02-23T05:14:36.113-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-63559022364783437052010-02-22T17:47:59.597-08:002010-02-22T17:47:59.597-08:00Your support of Mr. Nifong can be defended in thre...Your support of Mr. Nifong can be defended in three ways:<br /><br />First, you could claim that misconduct is triggered by a wrongful conviction. A prosecutor is permitted to proceed without “credible evidence” and to delay proceedings with impunity. Requiring that defendants indicted without “credible evidence” put their lives on hold for more than a year and to spend millions of dollars defending themselves against bogus charges is consistent with the activities of a prosecutor. <br /><br />You have defended Mr. Nifong with the statement that: “<i>The admission by Mr. Nifong that no credible evidence existed does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against the defendants</i>.” This statement justifes any prosecution, no matter how baseless. Moreover, because the defendants were never convicted and did not spend time in prison, Mr. Nifong did not do anything wrong. <br /><br />Second, your support can be defended if you agree with the statement attributed to Chan Hall: he wanted to see Duke students prosecuted “whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past.” In other words, the justice system is not used to determine guilt and innocence in specific cases. It is used to exact payback.<br /><br />Third, you may claim that affluent defendants do not deserve the same protections as other defendants. Poor defendants are unfairly disadvantaged because they do not have the resources to adequately defend themselves. Because affluent defendants have the resources, the prosecutor must be able to regain his unfair advantage through other means. In other words, the objective is not a system of fairness, one in which the rights of the accused are balanced against the power of the state, but a system in which all defendants are treated equally unfairly.<br /><br />I do not understand why some seem to blame the lacrosse defendants for the flaws in the system. <br /><br />The state has unlimited resources and has stacked the rules in its favor. The grand jury system is a cruel joke, virtually guaranteeing indictments. With indictments, probable cause hearings are not required. The right to a speedy trial does not exist. The prosecutor astonishingly is able to hand pick the judge who will preside over the trial and can proceed at his own pace. The defendant has no right to force a hearing on substantive motions until discovery is complete. Yet, there are no rules for timely discovery. Although the Gell case resulted in an open discovery law, those requirements have few teeth; many law enforcement officials have responded by documenting less of their activities in writing. Incredibly, the response of NC DAs to the Duke frame was to attempt to weaken the open discovery law. <br /><br />The prosecutor can bleed poor defendants financially and force plea bargains, even when he has no evidence. <br /><br />I am sympathetic to the claim that the Duke defendants' ability to retain competent counsel was a significant factor in determining the outcome. Nifong would not have been forced to recuse himself without Bannon's discovery of the unidentified DNA and the agreement by Meehan and Nifong to exclude that information from the DNASI report. Without his recusal, the case would have proceeded to trial or been dismissed on a "technicality" if the April 4 "identifications" were disallowed. There would have been no declaration of innocence. <br /><br />Those who resent the defendants' ability to defend themselves from baseless charges miss the obvious point. Poor, minority defendants who have been railroaded in unfair trials are not made better off because affluent, white defendants suffer the same fate. They are made better off when the system is changed to ensure their rights. There has been no effort to use the Duke frame to gain allies to make these changes.JSwifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07758976125626982551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-34874396328999853502010-02-22T17:35:54.999-08:002010-02-22T17:35:54.999-08:00Sidney,
I agree with your judgment on prosecutori...Sidney,<br /><br />I agree with your judgment on prosecutorial abuse in many cases. I further agree that serious flaws in the system require that the death penalty be dropped as a sentencing option.<br /><br />However, I disagree with much of your analysis. You reach your conclusion regarding prosecutorial abuse exclusively on whether a conviction subsequently is shown to have been wrongful. A more useful criterion would be whether the prosecutor made a genuine effort to comply with the letter and spirit of applicable rules and guidelines. As I have noted previously, rules and guidelines have been adopted to avoid mistakes to the extent possible. However, honest mistakes unfortunately can never be eliminated completely.<br /><br />For example, Ronald Cotton’s conviction was overturned when subsequently available DNA evidence demonstrated that the identification was faulty. Despite your criticism I have seen no information on the Innocence Project website or elsewhere to suggest that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct. He relied on identification from an accusing witness whom he reasonably thought to be credible. The identification process apparently met all guidelines. Nevertheless, she was wrong. Mr. Cotton’s conviction was tragic.<br /><br />You demonstrate an egregious inconsistency with Mr. Nifong. You state that Mr. Nifong did nothing wrong—even though he proceeded with a case for which he concedes he had “no credible evidence.”<br /><br />Mr. Nifong designed an identification procedure that violated material guidelines and cannot be defended as reliable. He violated the rules. You ignore these flaws only with Mr. Nifong.<br /><br />He relied exclusively on an accusing witness who had failed to provide credible descriptions of her attackers, had failed to make any identifications in two earlier procedures (neither of which had met all guidelines) and had provided a constantly changing set of allegations that were inconsistent with physical evidence, medical evidence, other witness statements and other versions of those allegations. You ignore these flaws only with Mr. Nifong.<br /><br />He relied on the statements of Ms. Mangum, who apparently made allegations in order to stay out of a substance abuse facility. You ignore these conflicts only with Mr. Nifong.<br /><br />The investigation intimidated witnesses, offering plea bargains to those whose statements changed. He violated the rules. You ignore witness intimidation only with Mr. Nifong.<br /><br />He agreed with DNASI to exclude certain results from its report, in violation of company and industry standards and in violation of state law for open discovery and non-testimonial orders. He was required to turn over ALL evidence when he received it. An agreement to violate standards so that the information was not “received” is inconsistent with those requirements. You ignore these violations only with Mr. Nifong, pretending that the information was not exculpatory (the requirement is “all”) and that he was only required to deliver it sometime prior to trial (the requirement is shortly after receipt).<br /><br />Mr. Nifong allegedly had responsibility beginning on March 24 for the DPD’s failure to conduct a bona fide investigation. They failed to interview witnesses, investigate evidence in their possession or known to exist, read reports and to make any attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in the evidence. Despite a weak case that depended on the inconsistent allegations and flawed identifications of a tainted witness, they made no attempt to “solve” the alleged crime or to determine whether a crime had actually taken place.<br /><br />They merely selected defendants and indicted them. You ignore a prosecution with tunnel vision only in this case.JSwifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07758976125626982551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-17183477826245583162010-02-22T15:59:04.267-08:002010-02-22T15:59:04.267-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Once more ...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Once more I ask: what do other cases have to do with the Duke case?<br /><br />How does evidence of another prosecutor's abuse show nifong's performance was within acceptable standards of behavior for a prosecutor?unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-56880738229973559592010-02-22T15:47:08.565-08:002010-02-22T15:47:08.565-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You are sa...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />You are saying Tom Ford threatened Gregory Taylor with prosecution if he did not incriminate another man.<br /><br />nifong did threaten Lacrosse players with prosecution if they did not provide him with evidence incriminating other Lacrosse players. <br /><br />Were there differences. Obviously.<br /><br />But there was a gross similarity in that both prosecutors used their power to coerce testimony which would make their cases, testimony which would convict someone innocent of a big time felony.<br /><br />That does nt show a whole lot of difference between nifong and ford.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773293499407151140.post-70600876606386499632010-02-22T15:39:00.032-08:002010-02-22T15:39:00.032-08:00more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Consider n...more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:<br /><br />Consider nifong's statements regarding lawyers. Why would any one need a lawyer if he were innocent and had not done anything wrong. the Lacrosse players had rich daddies who would hire expensive lawyers to get them off. <br /><br />Those were guilt presuming statements made within 18 days of the party on Buchanan Avenue.How can a guilt presuming statement be anything but judgmental? <br /><br />Please explain.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.com