[Note: Click link provided to access the flog (Flash blog). Be patient to allow time for it to upload as the running time is twenty minutes. Audio is required for the flog. The essence of the flog is basically contained in the script which is printed below in the traditional blog form. Return from the flog to the blog page to post comments.]
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog2.html
The mainstream media has once again painted a mirage for its viewers, readers, and subscribers regarding the April 3, 2011 stabbing incident involving Crystal Mangum and Reginald Daye. What the media wants you to believe is that Reginald Daye was a good citizen with a kind heart who took it upon himself to try and help Crystal Mangum, who had been burdened by notoriety of the Duke Lacrosse case and the February 17, 2010 case in which she was found guilty of several misdemeanor charges. It suggested that Daye offered to share his apartment with Crystal and her three children, who were for all intents and purposes homeless. And that he did so despite a warning from his nephew about Mangum.
Then, the media would have you believe that Crystal, who had been labeled by police as the physical domestic abuser against her boyfriend in the February 17, 2010 incident, followed an established pattern by stabbing Daye, for the purpose of stealing his money. Conscious, after being wounded, Daye told police that Mangum stabbed him and took his money.
Shortly, after the incident, Mangum was apprehended and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.
Daye underwent emergency surgery on April 3, 2011, for his stab wound and was on the mend and on the verge of discharge when he suddenly went into a coma around April 9th or 10th. It was an irreversible coma and on the evening of April 13, 2011, Daye was taken off life support. The cause of death was not established at the time.
On April 18, 2011, five days after his death, Durham prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment against Mangum for murder, and two counts of larceny… one count for each of two money orders Crystal was alleged to have taken from Daye. At the time of the indictment, an autopsy report had not been released and there was no official cause of death listed for Reginald Daye.
On April 19, 2011, the sixth day following his death, Reginald Daye had a funeral and was laid to rest.
Before explaining what happened during the wee hours of April 3, 2011, let’s review the events which led up to the encounter… beginning with the Duke Lacrosse case. What the media persistently glosses over is the fact that Ms. Mangum’s services to entertain on March 13, 2006, were fraudulently obtained… with a Duke lacrosse party host using an alias and claiming he wanted an exotic dancer to entertain a small bachelor party of four or five. Media also frequently ignored the presence of under-aged drinking at the party… a crime. Finally, in recounting the tale, the media goes to extreme lengths to shield the fact that racial epithets were hurled at Ms. Mangum by the partygoers.
The abject bias of the specific rulings pertaining to the prosecution’s case and the media coverage is apparent as Mr. Nifong, who had always maintained an open file policy – even prior to it being mandated by law – handed over nearly 5,000 pieces of evidence to each of the three teams of defense attorneys. Brad Bannon, one of Joseph Cheshire’s underlings, led the charge that Mr. Nifong delayed turning over lab evidence, which he claimed was exculpatory. Fact is, that the so-called evidence was not exculpatory, and that the basis of the prosecution’s case was not DNA. The media, however, tried to represent before the public that Mr. Nifong had withheld evidence… especially vital exculpatory evidence. This was blatantly false and misleading.
What is not false is that when Mr. Nifong sought reciprocal discovery from the defense attorneys, he was rebuffed, ignored. Defense attorneys had no problem plying media types with snippets of videos, which may or may not have been doctored, but they refused to submit them to the prosecution. This is a twist of irony, again that the media does its best to conceal.
Aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse case fielded many innocent casualties, the most obvious being former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who was selectively disbarred, selectively jailed on trumped up contempt charges, and otherwise persecuted. Subsequent to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocence Promulgation” the media began in earnest its ambitious quest to mislead the populous into believing that the boys were by legal determination found to be innocent. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the media boldly and brashly trumpeted that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent,” “exonerated,” and “cleared.” Ms. Mangum, in the meantime was shackled with the label of the “false accuser.” Furthermore, the media had the audacity to intimate that grounds existed to charge Ms. Mangum – supposedly with filing a false report.
K Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, used to work as an executive for CBS News for a decade. Afterward, this enterprising lady founded a very successful public relations firm in Washington, DC. During an interview on “60 Minutes,” the CBS TV newsmagazine she expressed her unlimited enmity towards Mike Nifong, and her desire to see that he “paid every day for the rest of his life.” This statement fueled the flames of critics of Mike Nifong, and ushered in the despicable and malicious treatment against Nifong, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters, and others considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case… a juggernaut which has come to be known as the “Carpetbagger Jihad.”
On February 17, 2010, Durham police, like true Carpetbagger jihadists, took full advantage of their encounter with Ms. Mangum, who at the time was self-supporting, employed, independent mother, attending classes at NCCU in pursuit of a Masters degree. Durham’s finest were summoned to Ms. Mangum’s apartment by a 9-1-1 call placed by one of Mangum’s children during an altercation initated by Mangum’s ex-boyfriend who had repeatedly punched her in the face. Instead of taking him into custody, police designated him as the victim and proceeded to arrest and charge Crystal Mangum with assaulting him. To invoke more serious charges which carry heavy jail sentences, police evacuated the house on the pretense of smelling smoke and then set clothing ablaze in the bathtub. They made no attempt to extinguish it by turning on the water. Instead, the assembled law enforcers closed the bathroom door, called the Durham Fire department, and waited for there arrival.
Among the outlandish charges the police saddled on Ms. Mangum were attempted first degree murder, assault and battery, first degree arson, identity theft, child abuse, communicating threats, injury to personal property and resisting a public officer. The number and seriousness of the charges supported a bail of one million dollars, which is unheard of in a domestic violence case.
Of those charges, Ms. Mangum was indicted on felony first degree arson, three counts of child endangerment related to the fire, injury to property, and resisting a public officer. She was held under a reduced bail of $100,000. There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Mangum would still be languishing in jail today awaiting trial had not a generous and benevolent bail bondsman satisfied the bond, which paved the way for Ms. Mangum’s release from the jail after 88 days of incarceration. Because prosecutors cruelly labeled Mangum’s children as victims of their mother, conditions were set by the Court regarding visitation with them, and Ms. Mangum was required to remain under house arrest.
Prosecution took the case to trial, and Ms. Mangum was convicted of the three misdemeanor charges. Despite a feather-weight defense by Mani Dexter, the prosecution was unable to prevail on the felony arson charge and a mistrial was declared. She was sentenced to time-served and released.
A friend from her church allowed Ms. Mangum to live with her in her apartment, and that is where she and her three children remained until recently. Because of the notoriety of the Duke Lacrosse case and the February 17th incident, Ms. Mangum was unable to secure employment. Apartment hunting was fruitless as well, especially with the arson tag deceitfully affixed to her by Durham police.
Taking inventory following the February 17th incident, Ms. Mangum faced the reality of having lost her job, being dropped from courses at NCCU, losing her apartment, losing many of her belongings, and basically losing her independence. Furthermore, during her incarceration, she was unable to help care for her father, and he passed away. Her mother, who was unable to care for herself, was spirited off to a nursing home by Crystal’s aunt, who then proceeded to terminate Crystal’s mother’s lease. Although her friend was gracious and generous to house Crystal and her children, by the spring of 2011, Crystal was desperate to find lodgings for herself and her family.
In the spring of 2011, Reginald Daye, who had been working as a painter, had been laid off work. He had a history of heavy alcohol consumption and a history of criminal activity, although mostly misdemeanor. According to records from the court, Daye had approximately fifteen charges against him, including two for assault… one victim in particular identified as being a female. I was told that by March 2011, Daye was a couple of months arrears in his rent, and that he was on the verge of being evicted from his apartment.
These conditions set up the symbiotic relationship which was to develop between Crystal Mangum and Reginald Daye. I am unaware as to how the two initially met or the precise nature of their relationship, other than they, including Crystal’s children, were to share the apartment. Although Daye had been laid off, there is the possibility that he was re-hired shortly before April 3, 2011… but he had not generated money to pay the rent due. Although Crystal was receiving training to enable her to become once again gainfully employed, she resorted to only avenue of employment open to her… exotic dancing at a club. Working for several days she cleared enough money to pay rent due on Daye’s apartment. In addition, she anticipated receiving a tax refund which would supplement her financially.
Around April 3, 2011, Crystal, using her money, purchased two money orders, one in the amount of three hundred, and the other for four hundred, as there was probably a five hundred dollar maximum limit. I was told that she wrote “rent” on the memo portion of the money orders, and used Reginald Daye’s name as its purchaser. The reason for using Daye’s name on the check was because he was the one listed on the rental agreement as the renter. With her negative name connotation, had Crystal placed her name as purchaser of the money order, recognition of it by the landlord might very well have jeopardized the arrangement and possibly even the apartment.
I was informed that the argument between Crystal and Reginald began because he wanted to use the money order to purchase beer or otherwise have a good time. Crystal, on the other hand, wanted the money orders to go towards paying the rent. The verbal argument, to my understanding, was quite heated and lengthy, and I am ignorant as to the proximate events which led to the stabbing itself. To my knowledge Daye was stabbed once, although he might have been stabbed as many as three times. ABC-11 news which has a very biased anti-Nifong bent, reported that Daye was stabbed as many as seven or eight times. The autopsy report, if and when it is made available to the public, may shed light on the number of wounds he sustained.
Taking a look at the Certificate of Death for Reginald Daye, a public document, you will notice that the immediate cause of death is listed as “pending.” For sequential cause of death, there is nothing which states that a stab wound or laceration was involved. In the section for “manner of death,” “pending” is checked… not “homicide.” This death certificate was dated April 18, 2011, the day that Crystal Mangum was indicted by the Grand Jury for premeditated murder. The updated cause of death will be at least four months from the time the autopsy was performed. I am further unaware if toxicology tests were performed on Daye and whether or not, if done, their results will be made available.
Examining the criminal record of Reginald Eugene Daye, as provided by the Clerk of Courts Office in Durham, you will note that the first page contains incidents involving mainly traffic offenses, including a misdemeanor involving beer or wine.
Page two lists two traffic offenses, one of which is driving while intoxicated… most likely due to alcohol consumption. On that charge he pled guilty. The other charge appears to be driving with license revoked.
Page three contains four misdemeanor charges including breaking and entering, assaulting a female, larceny, and simple assault. The fifth name on the page carries a middle name of Douglas and a birth date which differs from Reginald Eugene Daye, so this might be a different individual who shares the same first and last names.
Page four is a mixed bag containing a couple of traffic related charges and several misdemeanor charges including larceny and shoplifting.
My assessment of Daye’s criminal record is that it is not representative of a hardened career criminal. However, the presence of assault charges, along with the confiscation of brass knuckles from his apartment, indicates to me that he is not adverse to using physical force. The brass knuckles and his criminal record, in conjunction with his apparent problems with alcohol, and allegations from my sources relating multiple instances of the physical abuse of females, entertains the likelihood that Crystal Mangum’s actions were borne out of self-defense.
That Daye was stabbed by Mangum is not in dispute, but that he died by her hands most vigorously is. To charge Ms. Mangum with the murder of Reginald Daye is outlandish, and to charge her with two counts of larceny for money orders which she purchased is a joke. This extreme and vindictive scorched earth take no prisoners mindset that is and has been utilized in attacking Crystal Mangum, Mike Nifong, Nifong supporters, and others considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case is unholy, unjust, and makes the North Carolina justice system the laughing stock of the country.
The Carpetbaggers need to take charge of their own dirty work when it comes to inflicting punitive retribution against Mangum, Nifong, et al… we Tar Heelians, and Durhamians, in particular, need to immediately cease and desist from doing it for them.
On March 13, 2011, The News & Observer published an op-ed piece titled “An Anniversary Duke will try to overlook.” It was authored by Bob Wilson, a Durhamian who reached the correct conclusion, but by using faulty reasoning. Yes, Duke University would like to forget March 13, 2006, and the events that transpired subsequently. However, the overriding reason they would like to forget the incident is because it was bamboozled out of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000.00) by three avaricious and crafty attorneys who represented the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Those attorneys (Joseph Cheshire, Wade Smith, and James Cooney) probably convinced Duke that it would have no problem being reimbursed by their insurance carrier after paying the Duke threesome. Duke realized, only too late that it had been snookered when their insurance company refused to simply fork over to them the sixty mil. Then, Duke threw good money after bad when it fought to force the insurance company to pay, ignoring the fact that it was Duke that breached its contract with the insurance company and not the other way around. After substantially wasting money on this ill-fated endeavor, Duke University eventually dropped its complaint with both parties agreeing to pay their own costs.
The misguided columnist, however, seems to feel, for some unexplained reason, that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are entitled to an apology from Duke University. My question is: Why? The Duke Lacrosse defendants, with their well-earned reputation for revelry and debauchery, held the beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party with under-aged drinking (and most likely illicit drug use) despite warnings by the university president to their coach to rein in the boys. Not only did the Duke Lacrosse player who arranged the night’s entertainment use a false name to procure it, but a false pretense as well… stating two exotic dancers were wanted for a small bachelor party of four or five, instead of a rowdy kegger sponsored by the Duke Lacrosse team. Now, add to the mix that the partygoers shouted out racial epithets using the “n-word” to the two African American female performers.
The Duke Lacrosse team members had a shady background when it came to legal matters to begin with, as nearly a third of the team had run-ins with the law for offenses ranging from public intoxication, driving with open beer containers, urinating in public, and other transgressions. Specifically Collin Finnerty was convicted of assault and battery against two men who he erroneously assumed to be gay… a hate crime. Dave Evans was cited for driving with an open alcoholic beverage in his car. And Reade Seligmann had a lien slapped against him for attempting to evade paying taxes of $6.7 million on his $20 mil windfall. Mr. Wilson obviously believes these are the types of citizens who are entitled to a payday of $20 million… while Duke University hikes tuition and cuts services and classes for its entire student body in order to make up for the loss of more than $60 million. Rest assured, that none of the make-up for the debt is coming from the hefty compensation packages that the Duke University bigwigs enjoy.
The columnist seems to feel that the Duke Lacrosse defendants suffered greatly because a protester against their reckless party-going ways held up a sign that read “Castrate.” Face it, the boys never spent one day in jail, and the media played them as victims from the git-go. The biased media, following the Carpetbagger Jihadist doctrine to destroy Mike Nifong and anyone deemed to be against the Duke Lacrosse defendants, crucified Mr. Nifong and the victim of the incident, Crystal Mangum. Every article written and broadcast aired spoke about how the Duke Lacrosse defendants were wrongly accused, that Mike Nifong was disbarred, and that the defendants had been declared “innocent.” The media types knew that they were misleading the public and that the Attorney General Roy Cooper had no legal right to make such an unprecedented innocent proclamation. (This promulgation of April 11, 2007, was engineered by Joseph Cheshire’s underling Brad Bannon). Books have been written in defense of the Duke Lacrosse boys, and HBO has been trying to make a movie about the incident… but they had to keep firing scriptwriters for creating a story that was uncomfortably too close to the truth. (Trying to make the Duke Lacrosse defendants appear like choirboys is a monumentally impossible task, if an attempt is made to retain any semblance of the truth.)
The fact is that the Duke defendants prospered, and not just financially, because of their involvement in the case. An admiring judge in Washington, DC, expunged all legal trace of Collin Finnerty’s assault and battery conviction, and they were all highly sought after and recruited by universities and Wall Street-type companies. Doors were open to them for all types of opportunities and ventures. The ones who truly suffered as a result of the aftermath of March 13, 2006, are Mr. Nifong and his family, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters, and others considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
The treatment I received by Duke University was far worse than what the institution doled out to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, as I was kicked off campus and nearly arrested at a public event I attended in April 2010. Because I was a known supporter of Mike Nifong, holding thoughts, beliefs, and opinions favorable to him, I was humiliated, intimidated, and nearly arrested by a security guard who was unable to give an explanation as to why I was being kicked off campus. As he stated, he was merely doing his job, which was to get rid of me. Fortunately for me, I ran into James Coleman, a Duke law professor and friend, who interceded on my behalf. Had he not, I believe the Duke police officer who was called in for backup, without cause, would have arrested me.
Duke University does have hostility and animus as a result of the Duke Lacrosse case, but I submit that it is directed at the wrong targets. Mike Nifong was conscientiously performing his duties when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal Mangum was the victim of the Duke Lacrosse case, and Mike Nifong supporters are merely seeking justice… equal justice for all, which begins with justice for Mike Nifong. And, none of the above attempted to shakedown Duke for $20 million.
If Duke University wishes to vent its hostility, it should direct it towards the true culprits, the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Yes, Duke University, Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and most everyone else involved in the case would like to forget the anniversary… everyone except the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the defendants themselves, their avaricious attorneys, and the Duke Lacrosse defendant worshippers (which probably includes Mr. Wilson) who want to brag about and laud before the masses their financial rip-off of Duke University.
Below is a link to the documents and audio of Nifong supporter Sidney B. Harr’s encounter with Duke University on April 14, 2010.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irepoBopen.htm
Rae Forker Evans, the founder and president of Evans Capitol Group, has an extraordinarily impressive resume. The Evans Capitol Group had its beginning in 1995, and is a public policy firm operating in Washington, D.C. It provides strategic guidance to corporations, non-profits, and trade associations seeking to influence the political process on a broad range of public policy issues. In 1982, Ms. Evans established the National Affairs office and represented Hallmark Cards, Inc. and its 25,000 employees on Capitol Hill, at the Executive Branch, and with national and international communities in Washington. She has received numerous honors and appointments throughout her career, including serving as president and Board Member of the Business-Government Relations Council, recipient of the 1996 National Women’s Economic Alliance Director’s Choice Award, and a 1992 appointment by President George W. Bush to the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. Ms. Evans is married to a Washington D.C. attorney, David Evans, and they have two children, David and Kristen. Her son, Dave, was a student at Duke University, and was one of three Duke lacrosse players who were indicted by a grand jury on sexual assault charges stemming from the infamous stripper and beer guzzling party on Durham’s Buchanan Street in March 2006.
I would be remiss, if I were not to mention that Ms. Evan’s stellar professional career also included a decade-long stint at CBS News. From 1971 to 1981, she held positions at CBS News, the megacorporation that produces “60 Minutes” on CBS – TV. Later she worked as Director of Government Relations for CBS, Inc. The strong and intimate relationship that Ms. Evans enjoyed with CBS News is information that neither CBS, Inc. nor the mainstream media has wanted to share with the public after the Duke Lacrosse case was brought to the fore by the media. CBS’s “60 Minutes” devoted several television programs to the Duke Lacrosse case, and featured interviews with Ms. Evans, and the parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants. Never once, did CBS, Inc. disclose that Ms. Evans, mother of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, had worked for more than a decade with CBS, News. Likewise the biased mainstream media never bothered to bring up this relationship between Evans and CBS.
CBS, like other mainstream media – ABC, Fox News, and NBC – has been markedly prejudicial in its coverage of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, like the rest of the mainstream media, it embraces the concept that Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” carries legal weight and is a matter of fact. It consistently and constantly refers to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “cleared,” and “exonerated,” based on the attorney general’s statement. It is my belief that the news media knows that they are misrepresenting the Duke Lacrosse defendants when it refers to them as “exonerated” or “innocent,” but they believe and rely on the belief that the majority of the public will not be aware that these descriptions are misleading, and that those who do, won’t care.
All the same, I wrote to executives at major media outlets to inform them that their use of the “innocent”-like adjectives with relationship to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was incorrect and misleading. To give credence to my position, I told them that Campbell University law school professor Anthony V. Baker agreed that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation of innocent had no legal substance or standing. Professor Baker stated, “The A.G. presents a case but does not sit as "trier of fact" -- or ultimate adjudicator -- of it. That is the sole province of the jury, or a judge sitting in lieu of a jury.” To date, the media, in general, has chosen to ignore my complaint with this aspect of the Duke Lacrosse coverage.
CBS News is also guilty of another instance of attempting to mislead the public. It arises out of the Carpetbagger Families’ obsessive and intense desire to erase from the minds of people that an attack or criminal action against the exotic dancers could have possibly taken place the night of March 13, 2006. Through attorney Joseph Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, the Attorney General in his April 11, 2007 statement capitulated to Carpetbagger demands by stating that “no attack occurred.” The Carpetbaggers tried to extract a similar statement from Prosecutor Mike Nifong, using the threat of significant jail time (on trumped up contempt charges), however, despite the duress Mr. Nifong constantly maintained that he believed that something (criminal) happened. To get around Mr. Nifong’s persistent stand on this issue, CBS News put words into Mr. Nifong’s mouth with its blaring headline, “Ex-DA admits no crime in Duke case.” The headline is a blatant outright falsehood that is not substantiated within the text of the article.
As with “60 Minutes,” the online CBS News article with the false headline does not disclose the close relationship between the mother of defendant Dave Evans and CBS News. If the public were aware of the close relationship, then questions of bias and fairness would be entertained by those with open and objective minds… and that is something neither the Carpetbaggers nor the media wants. And let there be no doubt about it, that Rae Evans, with all of her relationships with CBS and other media, as well as the contacts she has made throughout the upper echelons of government in the nation’s capital, and her husband who is an attorney in a prestigious Washington law firm, carries humongous clout. And if you have any doubt that she would use this clout, let me refer to her vindictive “60 Minutes” interview in which she promises that “he (Mr. Nifong) is going pay every day for the rest of his life.”
Ms. Evans had the clout with the media, and with her attorneys and others, she did a magnificent job in orchestrating a media propaganda campaign that was so successful in defining Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case to her liking, that former Bush architect Karl Rove would be green with envy. There’s no doubt about it… the mainstream media is not only in cahoots with Carpetbagger Jihad Movement against Mike Nifong etal., but is at the fore, actively blazing the way amongst the weak-minded populous. The link is undeniable.
There is no doubt that Ms. Evans is a brilliant and highly motivated individual, and a person of whose achievements I am in awe. However, it was her famous and insightful statement in the “60 Minutes” interview with Lesley Stahl: “Mr. Nifong, you picked on the wrong families,” that so succinctly and accurately defined the crux of the problem with the state’s criminal justice system. As I am sure that Ms. Evans would agree, the North Carolina system of justice is one that is based on a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” For this profoundly truthful admission by Ms. Evans, we, Tar Heelians who ascribe to the principle of “equal justice for all,” are extremely grateful.
At times the conversation that takes place in the comment section of the blog can be stimulating, relevant, and important. Although I try to respond directly and immediately in the comment section, there are times when I feel the topics covered in the comment section should be addressed in the blog itself.
I find it absolutely amazing that a couple of blog commenters would even suggest that because I champion former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s case, that I would blindly support all state prosecutors. They imply that I would begrudge the wrongly incarcerated Erick Daniels compensation for his unjust conviction and incarceration for an armed robbery. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have advocated for Erick Daniels' release long before the charges against him were dismissed, and I have urged that he be declared “innocent” (he is currently seeking a pardon from Governor Bev Perdue) and that the state compensate him. The fact is that I am more likely than not going to lean in favor of justice for defendants than prosecutors. Bottom line is that I define justice based on a case by case basis.
Although I have staunchly supported Mike Nifong, I have been at odds with most prosecutors me when it comes to North Carolina justice. I have even filed complaints with the North Carolina State Bar against several, including Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford for his withholding information from the defense about two plea deals which enabled him to win a conviction against an innocent man (Gregory Taylor), and Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his prosecution of an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson) without probable cause. On the other hand, I was vociferously supportive of Johnston County Prosecutor Gregory C. Butler who was brought before the State Bar’s grievance panel on the flimsiest of charges. My schedule allowed me to be present throughout his hearing to lend my moral support to the embattled prosecutor, who was ultimately not charged with misconduct. Although the case against Mr. Butler should never have been brought by the State Bar to begin with, the outcome was just. Yet it is not only prosecutors against whom I have registered complaints with the State Bar. I filed a complaint against Defense Attorney Johnny S. Gaskins for his breach of attorney client privilege against his former client James Arthur Johnson. However, I wrote favorably and in support of Mr. Gaskins when articles in the media discussed that he had tried to evade federal laws when he made bank deposits just under the limit that would trigger scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service. Justice is not the sole province of the prosecutor, defender, defendant, or complaintant. It is determined on a case by case basis.
Another point of contention seems to be the role of the executive branch in matters that are judiciary in nature. Blog commenters have pointed out that the governor of the state has the power to grant a pardon, thereby exercising a power that is usually held by the judiciary branch of government. Somehow, they try to convey the power to apply to the state’s attorney general. First of all, Governor Mike Easley did not grant pardons to the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaimed them to be innocent on April 11, 2007 (at the prompting of defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's underling, Brad Bannon). My point is that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation carried no more legal weight than one made by me or you. What I find disturbing is that the media, which should know better, gave Mr. Cooper’s proclamation credence, instead of challenging it. The media should have known better. The media did know better, but it was working in cahoots with the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ attorneys, and the state of North Carolina to ruin prosecutor Mike Nifong. The Duke Lacrosse defendants, who were indicted by a grand jury, did not go through a judicial process in which their innocence or guilt was determined. As special prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office had only the option of proceeding with the prosecution, or dismissing the case. To make a proclamation regarding innocence or guilt was not its mandate, was overreaching in the extreme, and was inappropriate. The media, universally, made the situation all the worse by embracing the “innocent” declaration, and misleading media consumers on a broad scale.
Every time the media uses the phrase “falsely accused” and “innocent” when referring to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, it is disseminating misleading and false information… in short, playing a Jedi mind-trick on the public. Every time the media refers to the Duke Lacrosse accuser as being a “false accuser” it is, again, spreading lies.
What makes the “Roy Cooper Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” all the more suspect is that, to my knowledge, such a statement by a state attorney general has never been made in the past in North Carolina or any other state in the Union. If someone is aware of a prior instance, I would certainly appreciate a reference source.
Finally, I want to thank the blog commenters for their insightful and thought-provoking comments. Our democracy is founded on the principle of vigorous and civil debate, and justice is better served when there is healthy discourse from individuals with differing points of view.
Yesterday evening while watching Melanie Sanders deliver the evening news on NBC-17, she mentioned a story about former Governor Mike Easley retaining the services of the prominent criminal defense attorney Joseph Cheshire. She went on to state that Mr. Cheshire was well known for “representing a ‘falsely’ accused Duke Lacrosse defendant.” The statement was read as a matter of fact, and not as opinion.
This statement is totally false and misleading, and is intended to further embed in the consciousness of its weak-minded viewers that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent of the charges brought by former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. It would have been accurate and responsible for Ms. Sanders to omit the adverb “falsely” and phrase the statement as follows, “…representing an accused Duke Lacrosse defendant.” But, unfortunately, accuracy and truth does not appear to be the top priority of NBC-17. If it was, the statement she made would never have been uttered.
Make no mistake about it, NBC-17 is not alone in misleading the public about this issue. In fact, I would say that the majority, if not all, of the media outlets refer to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” and “wrongly accused”; while referring to the accuser and the alleged sexual assault as being a “hoax,” and “false accuser.”
These misleading statements have been made by the media ever since North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007,” in which he made the unprecedented proclamation that the Duke Lacrosse players charged with sexual assault were “innocent,” and that “nothing happened.” As has been referenced in a previous blog, the attorney general made these statements after Joe Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, had a conversation with Assistant Attorney Generals James J. Coman and Mary Winstead. Mr. Bannon directed them to have the attorney general declare that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent” and that “nothing happened.” This is exactly what transpired at the attorney general’s press conference on April 11, 2007.
Now although the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government and not the judicial branch, the media has never, to my knowledge, challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper’s proclamations. Instead it has embraced them as a basis for making statements of fact that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that nothing happened. This is not objective reporting. It is biased reporting, and is a keystone in supporting our belief that the media is in cahoots with the anti-Nifong forces (the state of North Carolina and its agencies – such as the NC State Board of Elections and others – , the North Carolina State Bar, and the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players).
Unlike the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defense team and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office (through Brad Bannon), no smoking gun has directly established a direct relationship between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media. However, a reliable source does note that the father of defendant Dave Evans is an attorney who works with the media, and his position as such could give him access to the upper echelon of media bigwigs. And higher-ups in the executive offices of these media corporations have final say in the spin and propaganda used in formulating and carrying out its agenda. It is, and has been, the goal of the media, in general, to destroy Mr. Nifong, and to defend and sanitize the Duke Lacrosse defendants.
The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has long challenged the legitimacy of the “innocent” proclamation by Roy Cooper. Committee President Victoria B. Peterson in a July 2009 interview on WPTF-680 AM’s “Bill LuMaye Show” challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper’s declaration of “innocent.” Likewise, Committee Lay Advocate Sidney B. Harr also called into question the propriety and legality of the “innocent proclamation” during his appearance on that radio talk show in September 2009.
NBC-17 News and all media need to begin reporting objectively and fairly on the Duke Lacrosse case. To do so would include the following when writing a factually based news story: 1) refrain from using terms such as “innocent” or “falsely accused” to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants; 2) refrain from using terms such as “hoax” to describe the alleged crime; and 3) refrain from using terms such as “false accuser” to describe the alleged victim.
The media needs to give up the biased charade to promote the Duke Lacrosse defendants as “innocent” and stop playing Jedi mind-tricks on the impressionable public. Failure to immediately cease and desist from doing so will continue to mislead those who believe what the media says, and insult the intelligence of those who know better.
During my September 14, 2009 interview on WPTF - 680's "Bill LuMaye Show," guest host Rick Martinez scoffed at my belief that a widespread conspiracy existed which conspired to successfully bring down former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. However, thanks to the boastful statements made by Joseph Cheshire's firm's underling, Brad Bannon, a direct connection has been established between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and Attorney General Roy Cooper. In statements carried by WRAL 5 News's online website, Bannon affirms that he told representatives of the North Carolina Attorney General to: 1) proclaim the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent;" and 2) state that "nothing (criminal) happened." These demands by the attorney representing Duke defendant Dave Evans were made well before the mid-April 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Roy Cooper to the media at a press conference.
The chain of conspiracy between the defense and A. G. Cooper is irrefutable and is linked as follows: Dave Evans is one of three Duke Lacrosse defendants - Evans is represented by prominent defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's law firm - Attorney Brad Bannon is an attorney in Cheshire's law firm - Bannon meets with Assistant Attorney Generals Mary Winstead and James J. Coman - Bannon tells Winstead and Coman to instruct the attorney general to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and to state that "nothing happened" (at the March 13, 2006 beer-bash Spring Break party hosted by Duke Lacrosse players noted for their raucous regalements and beer-induced disorderly conduct and public urination) - Winstead and Coman report to their superior, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and pass on Bannon's mandate - Attorney General Roy Cooper goes before the media at an April 2007 press conference and proclaims that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and that "nothing happened."
It is also my understanding that Mr. Bannon represented Alan Gell, who was victimized by the North Carolina justice system when he was convicted of capital murder, despite being in jail at the time of its commission. After he wrongfully served more than nine years in prison (half on death row), exculpatory evidence which was withheld by Prosecutor David Hoke was uncovered and led to the judge throwing out Gell's conviction. Yet, Mr. Bannon never demanded that the attorney general proclaim Mr. Gell innocent. Why? (Hint: It has to do with selective justice based on Class.)
The carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players have sought, in addition to millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements, to have their boys declared "innocent" and an admission that "nothing happened" at the animal house on Buchanan Street. Attorney General Cooper gave them exactly what they wanted, and they used the threat of going to jail for criminal contempt of court to try and wring such statements from Mike Nifong. Despite the pressure from Judge Osmond Smith III, defense counsel, and the state, Mr. Nifong maintained his belief that something criminal did happen at the party. In order to navigate around this position that Mr. Nifong stubbornly held on to, the media took it upon itself to put words into Mr. Nifong's mouth. On the WRAL.com website, a story about the in-court apology Mr. Nifong made to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was headlined: "Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened." (It is my understanding that ESPN.com also had a similarly titled headline.) Nothing could be further from the truth as the context of the story did not substantiate that he admitted that "nothing happened." Someone in the media must have made the deliberate decision to play a Jedi mind-trick on the public. To its credit, the wral.com general manager acted timely, responsibly, and appropriately in correcting the headline and including an editor's note. (espn.com apparently changed its headline, as well, since it no longer reads that Nifong "admits nothing happened.")
Now the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media exists, without a doubt in my mind. So far, no one has come forward to admit that dialogue took place between them, but that is usually the way things work in a conspiracy. I am not certain why Mr. Bannon came forward to brag about his law firm's role in prodding the attorney general to make two such unprecedented, inappropriate, overreaching, and misleading statements. Regardless of his motive, it clearly establishes that the two worked together behind the scenes in crafting the pronouncements made by Attorney General Roy Cooper, in mid-April 2007.
What I find particularly disturbing is that the Attorney General's Office is suppose to represent the interests of the people of North Carolina, not the special interests of the well-heeled families of defendants. The liaison between these two camps in the Duke Lacrosse case to quench the vindictive thirst of the vengeful families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, with Mike Nifong in the cross-hairs, is a poke in both eyes of Lady Justice.
[Note: Click link provided to access the flog (Flash blog). Be patient to allow time for it to upload as the running time is twenty minutes. Audio is required for the flog. The essence of the flog is basically contained in the script which is printed below in the traditional blog form. Return from the flog to the blog page to post comments.]
