Media continues to Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong

As the one year anniversary of the self-defense stabbing of Reginald Daye by Duke Lacrosse case victim/accuser Crystal Mangum rolled around, Ms. Mangum was concerned about the lack of movement on her case. She had been incarcerated since the incident and asked Sidney B. Harr, a layperson, for assistance. After sending Harr some of the prosecution discovery, the Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong drafted three Pro Se motions on behalf of Mangum which she signed. Harr physically took these motions to the court where they were filed, and he then notified the media. More than one journalist, in turn, contacted the North Carolina State Bar and asked what action it might take in response to the motions. With the State Bar named as the complainant, the Authorized Practice Committee launched an investigation into Harr’s actions.

On Thursday, April 5, 2012, Harr filed the motions he drafted for Mangum, and by the following Tuesday, April 10th, the State Bar had sent to Harr a Letter of Notice, which informed him of its investigation into his actions and the fifteen day deadline by which an answer to the complaint was to be filed. On April 19, 2012, Harr mailed to the State Bar his answer to the action taken against him. The case against Harr will be heard by the Authorized Practice Committee on July 17, 2012 at its quarterly meeting in Pinehurst.

In the June 30, 2012 issue of The News & Observer there is an article by the Associated Press titled “Murder convict free after 17 years.” It tells about a Greensboro man, LaMonte Armstrong, who was given a life sentence in 1995 for the 1988 killing of Ernestine Compton, one of Armstrong’s former college professors. He was freed on June 29, 2012 by Superior Court Judge Joe Turner after another man was linked to the crime and it was learned that the police and prosecutors hid important evidence from defense attorneys. One of the keys to LaMonte Armstrong’s conviction was the perjured testimony from a convicted felon who later admitted that police pressured him to accuse Armstrong. It should be of note that although fingerprints at the crime scene could be traced to others, there were no fingerprints or other forensic evidence to tie Mr. Armstrong to the murder.

Prosecutors’ star witnesses against Armstrong included three convicted felons who claimed that Armstrong made jailhouse confessions to them, and a fourth convicted felon who claimed to have witnessed the crime. This witness later stated that he was told by police officers that he would be charged with the killing of Ms. Compton unless he fingered Armstrong.

Theresa Newman, co-director of the Duke Law School’s Wrongful Convictions Clinic, stated, “I really hope that nobody was intentionally framing (Armstrong), but this is so close to the line, it raises questions.

Greensboro prosecutors, without any credible evidence and who withheld vital evidence from defense attorneys, using perjured testimony of their star witnesses who are all convicted felons, won a life sentence against LaMonte Armstrong. This most definitely was a frame by prosecutors, but again, the media protects them by adhering to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy and refusing to list the names of any of these so-called “ministers of justice.” Did the journalists go to the NC State Bar with the Armstrong story and ask if it will seek any action against these prosecutors who effectively stole 17 years from the life of an innocent man? No! Instead the media is more concerned about the State Bar focusing its efforts on a non-attorney civilian whose crime was that he helped to draft three motions on behalf of Crystal Mangum.

There is no doubt that when the Authorized Practice Committee of the North Carolina State Bar convenes on July 17, 2012 it will dispense the most lenient option at its disposal and give Harr a warning to cease and desist from such activity in the future. It is just unfortunate that the State Bar will have been forced to expend time, money, and effort to investigate such a trivial matter involving a non-attorney. I believe that the State Bar’s resources could have been much better spent on investigating the activities of the prosecutors who framed an innocent man for a murder he did not commit. 


Link to companion documents: http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/genl/blinkdirec.htm

The cosmetic self-serving bill that the Guv shouldn’t’ve signed into law

In the Saturday, June 25, 2011 issue of The News & Observer is an article by staff writer Craig Jarvis titled, “Perdue vetoes bill on lawsuits.” The article makes mention of some of the other bills that Governor Bev Perdue signed into law on Friday. One bill she signed was to “protect prosecutors if police don’t give them all the material they’re supposed to in criminal cases…” This is truly a joke and it’s the kind of thing that cements into the minds of countrymen and women that North Carolina is the laughing stock of the nation when it comes to criminal justice.

The bill is one without substance, offers no benefits to the majority of Tar Heelians, and at its worst is capable of debilitating court room justice. It is self-serving in that the General Assembly, which is comprised mostly of attorneys and individuals with law degrees, in passing it is merely protecting one of its flock from civil liability. This should not even be an issue because prosecutors enjoy immunity in cases which they are prosecuting… all attorneys except former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. Because Nifong exhibited rare independence and refused to kowtow to the Power-That-Be and dismiss the Duke Lacrosse case charges, he was subjected to the most overbearing and devastating persecution by the state, including disbarment, and crucifixion in the media. The protection he was due as a prosecutor was stripped away to permit the unprecedented filing of civil suits against him. What makes this all the more tragic is that he prosecuted the case well within acceptable standards.

Other prosecutors, such as Tom Ford, who solicit and use perjured testimony, withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense, utilize hocus-pocus forensics, and have no qualms about holding “suspects” in jail for lengthy periods without bringing them to trial, are and have been protected by the laws already in place that provide them with immunity. They are protected under the umbrella of the law so long as they comply with the wishes of those in power… if not the consequences of their actions can be predicted by observing what happened to the independently thinking prosecutor seeking true justice, Mike Nifong.

With the Mike Nifong situation, the state merely bypassed the law that protected Nifong… acted as though it didn’t exist. Because the media had thoroughly poisoned the minds of the masses with its anti-Nifong reporting and opinions there was little reason to believe that the public would object this judicial indiscretion.

But, that is the way things work in the Tar Heel state. When people of privilege, power, status, and connections go afoul of the law, then the laws are bended or broken and they receive “a rare deal for the privileged.” When the disenfranchised, poor, people of color, and those who have incurred the wrath of the state bigwigs are involved in a controversy, then you can bet that the laws will be manipulated and molded in a way that is not to their advantage… a “rare deal for the not-so-privileged.” Bottom line is that this bill is totally useless. The courts and state will continue to use creative means when dealing with the law in order to obtain the results it desires.

The absence of civil lawsuits filed against prosecutors is evidence that this bill to protect them is superfluous. Prosecutor Tom Ford, who vindictively put Gregory Taylor, a man he knew to be innocent, behind bars for a life sentence is not being sued. Even though after serving 17 years wrongfully in prison Greg Taylor was exonerated and proclaimed “innocent” by a three judge panel. Prosecutor David Hoke who put Alan Gell on death row even though he possessed exculpatory evidence of his innocence, is not being sued. This, despite the fact that Alan Gell served ten years wrongfully incarcerated. These are but two of many cases where prosecutors exhibited egregious professional misconduct far worse than anything Mr. Nifong has been accused of and yet are not subjected to civil suits. This bill is unnecessary for protecting those prosecutors who tow the state’s line by following the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”

What the bill does is divest prosecutors of responsibility for the cases they choose to prosecute. In this way, it is a major impediment for criminal defendants who are seeking justice. It is an out for the prosecutors, allowing them to put the blame of an ill-fated and wrongful prosecution on police and investigators. If crucial evidence, records, lab results, notes, and/or documentation are found to be withheld from the defense, then prosecutors can do as they have done in the past… which is to put the blame on the investigator, police, or lab tech. This bill allows prosecutors to say, loud and clear, “Hey, it’s not my fault,” whenever an innocent person has been found to have languished behind bars for years and decades due to a prosecutorial misdeed. If anything, this bill which was just signed into law, has the propensity to ramp up the number of bad acts by prosecutors. This is an outcome that is obviously not in the best interests of Tar Heelians.

A prime example of what I’ve stated comes from an article which appeared in The News & Observer titled, “Bill critics: Hold DAs accountable.” In the news piece, by AP writer Emery P. Dalesio, it discussed an Iredell County double-murder case in which the judge declared a mistrial and barred prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty against defendant Al Bellamy. This ruling from the bench was the result of prosecutors, who three weeks into the trial and having completed presenting their case, handed defense attorneys about 1,700 pages of interview notes taken by a former narcotics detective. Although the prosecutors’ case may be in slight jeopardy, the prosecutors themselves certainly are at no risk. In accordance with the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong), the names of the prosecutors are not even mentioned. The bill newly signed into law would have absolutely no bearing on this case.

These Iredell County prosecutors will not face sanctions, punishment, or disbarment for withholding gobs of evidence from defense attorneys well into the trial, which is an abomination when one considers that the North Carolina State Bar, in large measure, disbarred Mike Nifong for allegedly not giving defense attorneys non-exculpatory lab results fast enough… a trial date having not even been set in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Final analysis: it is the people who need protection from prosecutors, not the prosecutors who need protection from the people. However, through obfuscation, Jedi mind-speak, spin, and fancy rhetoric, the General Assembly has been able to convince many of those who do not adequately exercise their gray matter that this new law to protect prosecutors will lead to fairer criminal justice outcomes. Hah. The laugh’s on us. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Nasher Museum of Art open to the public… except for Nifong supporters

In the Sunday, November 28, 2010 edition of The News & Observer, staff writer Mandy Locke wrote an article titled “Plensa Gets His Hug.” The article is about six outdoor sculptures by contemporary Spanish artist Jaume Plensa that adorn the landscape of Nasher Museum of Art on the Duke University campus. More than that, the article is more about publicity for the museum, giving its hours and price of admission. Under normal circumstances, I would be grateful for the information about the exhibit at the museum, but ever since I was maliciously kicked off the Duke University campus while attending another event which was advertised as open to the public, I have adopted a different point of view. The premeditated act of kicking me off campus took place April 14, 2010, after I attended an public interview which featured U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, has made me incensed that a newspaper would give coverage to a museum located on a campus that openly discriminates against individuals who are openly known supporters of Mike Nifong.

Although Duke spokesperson Michael Schoenfeld wrote in his May 10, 2010 letter to me that I was welcomed back on campus and had not been banned from it, unless there is appropriate resolution of the incident, how can I ever feel safe setting foot on that campus again? Appropriate resolution would be for Duke to take responsibility for its spiteful offense against me, or provide me with a valid reason for the actions taken by the security guard on April 14th. The former track would be the wise one for the university to take, as its attempt at providing a credible reason for my expulsion in the May 10th letter fell far short of its mark while being the best excuse it could conjure up.

As has proven to be the case over the years, The News & Observer, like other mainstream media, is biased against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and his supporters. That is why the newspaper refuses to write stories that might put Nifong or his supporters in a positive light, and refuses to cast a shadow on Nifong detractors. The only story written about the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong was the deliberate hatchet job by the newspaper’s sarcastic hit-man columnist Barry Saunders in July 2008, one month after it was founded. What the media has as its goals is to keep the public it serves ignorant about issues involving the unjust treatment of Mike Nifong, and the existence of individuals who support him. So, when Duke University discriminates against a person for no reason other than being a supporter of Mike Nifong, The News
& Observer is quick to say that that event is not “newsworthy.” In other words, the newsworthiness of an article is determined by media head honchos who weigh the impact that informing the public will have with regards to their agenda… in this case, that of the Carpetbagger Jihad against Mike Nifong.

The local Triangle Area media has no problem with carrying stories about other acts of discrimination, such as that which recently occurred at Cameron Village in which two lesbians were asked by security to leave the shopping mall because they were showing affection in public… but when it comes to discrimination by Duke University against someone… not for his/her actions… not for his/her speech… but solely based on the beliefs, thoughts and opinions carried in their head, then that story is not “newsworthy.” It was okay to write about three of Mike Nifong’s guitars being auctioned off, but it is not “newsworthy” to write about the fact that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong gifted him a guitar similar to one which he was forced to auction off. It is okay for stories to be written about other individuals and groups who advocate on behalf of a person, policy or principle, but writing about the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is not “newsworthy.”

The media has strongly adhered to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, has done its best to keep the public ignorant of the fact that Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred since its inception in 1933, and has taken every opportunity to mislead the public into believing that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were exonerated and that Mike Nifong increased his chances to be elected as the incumbent Durham district attorney when he pursued the “black” vote by prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case.

Because openly known supporters of Mike Nifong are subject to discrimination by Duke University, which can include being arrested without cause (like what occurred to former Duke University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.), the media owes it to the public and masses to warn them that Duke University has zero tolerance for openly known supporters of Mike Nifong. That is the least that Mandy Locke should have done with her article, especially since the head honchos at the newspaper do not consider writing a story about the alleged discrimination by Duke against me, a Nifong supporter, to be “newsworthy.”

The mystery of Isley’s promotion is elementary

In the Sunday, October 17, 2010 edition of The News & Observer, was a front page, below the fold, article titled, “Isley’s climb at SBI followed his claim of racism.” Evidently Mark Isley’s claim had teeth, and in accordance with terms of a 2005 settlement which was reached after he filed a discrimination complaint against the SBI, he was promoted with a wage increase.

Mark Isley is an African American SBI agent who played an integral part in the successful incarceration of mentally impaired Floyd Brown, who was held in limbo for years awaiting a trial that never materialized. The article, by staff writers Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff, was in strict compliance with the paper’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, as it never once mentioned the name of the prosecutor responsible for the handling of Mr. Brown’s case, Anson County prosecutor Michael D. Parker.

Now the question posed by the N & O writers concerns the mysteries of how SBI agent Mark Isley’s career "soared" while evidence mounted that he fabricated a confession that forced a disabled man to be locked away at a mental hospital for 14 years. After putting on my “Sherlock Holmes cap,” and making a few deductions, the answer is, well, elementary. The key to this puzzle has to do with the timeline.

The investigative reporting in this article is a little sloppy and vague, with attempts to mislead the reader. In early 2004, Mr. Isley had been employed by the SBI for approximately 15 years… the length of time spent as a supervisor of field agents is unclear. At some point during his employment he began to complain about discriminatory practices in the SBI which had prevented him and other African Americans from advancing in the ranks. Now the N & O, without giving dates, stated that Isley began complaining months after attorneys for Floyd Brown began registering complaints about Isley’s work. The importance of this statement is to dispel any “cause and effect” relationship. However, I believe that Mr. Isley’s complaints about racial discrimination preceded those against him by Brown’s attorneys. The timing is a critical issue here. Why in spring of 2004 would one look into Isley’s handling of Brown’s case?

The facts concerning Floyd Brown had not changed since he was first charged and held in a mental hospital in 1993. He was severely retarded and, according to mental health experts, could not have dictated a confession which Isley allegedly wrote word for word. This so-called confession was the only thing tying Brown to the crime, as no forensic or physical evidence linking Brown to the murder could be established. The defense attorneys were aware of this, as was Anson prosecutor Michael D. Parker. But everyone, including the media, was content to allow Brown to languish in the mental hospital because he was disenfranchised, poor, and an African American… in accordance with the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”

So, evidently there seemed to be no movement in Brown’s situation until nearly a decade later… around the time Mark Isley began complaining about being discriminated against by being passed over for promotion by other less qualified white SBI applicants. Then, all of a sudden and out of the clear blue Floyd Brown’s attorneys request Isley’s personnel records from the SBI and began making allegations of misconduct against him. There was no indication that any complaints were made against the prosecutor who was actually responsible for Brown being held in custody without a trial, Michael D. Parker.

It can also be deduced from the newspaper article that the SBI and Mr. Isley did not see eye to eye regarding his complaints, as he was forced to eventually file a racial discrimination claim against the SBI.

It can also be deduced, from the settlement which included a promotion and pay raise for Isley, that his claim of racial discrimination had substance, a matter that the media has chosen to gloss over. In addition to settling with Isley, the agency was forced to pay Isley’s attorney fees, and the SBI later issued a revised policy regarding the promotion process and incorporated increased minority hiring and recruitment.

After being dealt a significant blow by Mr. Isley’s complaint, it is not a stretch to come to the realization that Mr. Isley did not hold a favored agent status within the state agency. This is a situation which usually engenders retribution… and what better way to knock Mr. Isley down a peg or two than to bring to the fore earlier acts of possible serious misconduct, of which the agency had been aware since the beginning.

Now, David Rudolf, a Charlotte criminal defense attorney who filed a civil suit on behalf of Floyd Brown and is smacking his lips at the thought of his percentage of a potential humongous award in court, was quick to criticize SBI agent Mark Isley. He was quick to blame Isley for Brown being held for fourteen years in a mental hospital without a trial. I have not heard a disparaging word coming from the mouth of Mr. Rudolf about the prosecutor, Michael D. Parker. Parker was the person in charge of the Brown case, and he knew, or should have known, about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Brown’s so-called written confession. Parker was also the person who refused mental health staff requests to allow Mr. Brown to have lunch with his sister and to leave for several hours to attend the fair. Parker was also the person who maliciously interfered with living arrangements which had been painstakingly made by state social workers for Brown in an assisted living facility. But, again, there apparently are no complaints from Attorney Rudolf about Mr. Parker’s conduct.

I only used the newspaper article as a source for analyzing its topic of Isley’s complaint, his promotion, and the Brown case, so my conclusions, which follow, are mostly based on educated supposition. They are as follows:
(1) Attorneys on both sides of the murder charge against Brown knew that the so-called confession allegedly obtained by Isley was bogus, but it was the only thing that the prosecution had with which to hold Brown;
(2) Floyd Brown definitely had ineffective counsel at his original trial;
(3) the North Carolina SBI agency practiced racial discrimination with regards to promotions at the time that Isley first complained about it;
(4) the sudden emergence of complaints by Brown’s attorneys about Isley, including the request to see his personnel records, was directly related to Isley’s complaints of discrimination;
(5) as pointed out in The News & Observer, Isley’s promotion was related to his settlement regarding complaints of racial discrimination in the SBI;
(6) the media reporting on the Floyd Brown case adhere to the PAPEN Policy, and are scapegoating Mark Isley; and
(7) the problems Mark Isley now face are a result of his complaints against the SBI.

Keep in mind that Prosecutor Michael D. Parker is in good standing with the North Carolina State Bar... as are Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson), and David Hoke (Alan Gell). And Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933 - a travesty of justice... something that defies logic and is definitely not elementary.

“Ineffective counsel” enabled prosecution to win capital conviction in Goode case

Today’s edition of The News & Observer contains an article by Anne Blythe titled, “New trial sought in murder case that used SBI blood tests.” It briefly covers a motion that was filed in federal court yesterday that is seeking a new trial for George Goode. Initially sentenced to death for the double murder of a Johnston County couple nearly two decades ago, a judge recently threw out the death sentence because of “ineffective counsel.” Now Goode is under a sentence of two life sentences. His defense is that he was present and witnessed the murder of the couple, but was paralyzed with fear at the homicidal actions of two others.

N & O staff writer Anne Blythe, in her article, is in full compliance with the media’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, as she never mentions the name of the prosecutor who sought the most extreme penalty for a man who was linked to the murder solely on a little prosecutorial hocus-pocus provided by SBI agent Duane Deaver. Mr. Deaver has since been admonished for misleading the jury that convicted Mr. Goode, but as has been recently divulged, he was only following the standard protocol of the slanted playing field used by the prosecution. In allowing the jurors to believe that Goode was linked to the crime by blood, Mr. Deaver used the same tactic (expressing the presumptive test for blood and withholding the negative confirmatory test) that he employed in helping to falsely convict Gregory Taylor for the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas.

Ms. Blythe would have readers believe that SBI agent Deaver acted alone in this obvious conspiracy with prosecution… she expects us to believe that Goode’s prosecutor was oblivious to the misleading statements of its star witness, Deaver. In order to win the conviction against Goode, Goode’s prosecutor needed every trick in his bag of magic, including the misleading hocus-pocus lab analysis in which the jurors had reason to believe Deaver’s testimony to be truthful, objective, and unbiased.

The fact that the case against George Goode was also tainted by “ineffective counsel” is not surprising, and was probably an essential building block in reaching the capital conviction. Was the defense counsel for Mr. Goode back in the day merely inept, or was it purposely hanging its client out to dry for the prosecution’s benefit? I have not followed that case enough to know for sure, but I would not be surprised if the defense was in cahoots with the prosecution.

Speaking from personal experience with both civil and criminal trials, attorneys were not at all shy about taking large sums of money to represent me and then selling me down the drain. More often than not, that would be the case. There are many cases in the North Carolina criminal arena in which I believe that defense attorneys, especially from the Public Defenders office which represent the poorest of the poor and those most greatly disenfranchised, throttle back in the defense of their clients in order to enable the prosecution to come away with a win.

When it comes to public defenders, they really have a conflict of interest, especially when it comes to misconduct on the prosecutor’s side of the table. By definition, public defenders are agents of the state who are tasked to represent the indigent or those without legal representation who are faced with criminal charges. The prosecutors, who are also agents of the state, are pressing for convictions of the defendants represented by the state’s public defenders. In highly publicize cases, it is definitely not to the public defender’s best interests to win an acquittal for a defendant who is unpopular with the press and the people.

The cases against some defendants are so weak that prosecutors are unable to prevail without the ineffective contributions by the defendants’ counsel. In one particular incident, a defendant who was charged with “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury” for stabbing a woman, waived his right to assigned legal counsel. Subsequently, with the defendant left to represent himself, the prosecution filed to dismiss the case. Reasons for the dismissal were that the victim refused to cooperate with prosecution, and that there was lack of evidence to corroborate the victim’s story that she was stabbed. Had this man been represented by assigned counsel, it is possible that the prosecution would have moved forward. This, however, is merely speculation.

Ineffective counsel can on occasion be due to the ineptitude of the defense attorney, such as in the case in which Erick Daniels, a 15 year-old, who was convicted of an armed robbery conviction based largely on the shape of his eyebrows in a middle school year book. With no credible case against him, Erick’s lawyer nevertheless put him on the stand to testify. He was pummeled by Prosecutor Freda Black cross-exam which contained highly prejudicial and inflammatory questions. Daniels served seven years unjustly behind bars. And despite being dragged out of a middle school classroom by police without the existence of a shred of credible evidence to implicate him, the media did not raise a ruckus because the teenage defendant was poor, disenfranchised, and an African American.

In a legal environment in which most prosecutors seek unfair advantage on a skewed playing field, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong long ago sought to level the field and give defendants fair advantage and justice. More than two decades before it became mandated by law, Mike Nifong was sharing his evidentiary files with defense attorneys. He has maintained an open file policy throughout his 27 year career as a prosecutor. (This is something that the media and the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson never mention and don't want the public to know.) When defense in the Duke Lacrosse case filed a motion seeking discovery, three sets (one for each defendant) of thousands of pages of documents, and copies of CDs and DVDs were provided within 24 hours. When Mr. Nifong sought copies of evidence held by defense attorneys, they gave him nothing (even though some so-called defense evidence was shared with the extremely friendly media). To accuse Mr. Nifong of withholding evidence is ludicrous, especially in light of past history. Such accusations should be reserved for prosecutors such as David Hoke (Alan Gell case), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael Parker (Floyd Brown case), and Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor case).

Prosecutorial hocus-pocus and ineffective defense counsel may have put George Goode on death row, but hopefully now that the unfair practice of the SBI lab have been exposed, he will at least get another trial… and this time on a more level playing field.

SBI agent Duane Deaver to be sacrificial lamb

The abominable legal proceeding in 1993 that resulted in an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, being locked away for seventeen years on a murder charge can be credited to Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford. When confronted with the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas, an African American prostitute whose body was discovered in a desolate Raleigh cul-de-sac, Mr. Ford’s primary goal was to close the case quickly by convicting a “perpetrator.” Ford didn’t care whether or not the designated “perpetrator” was guilty or not, because he did not care about the victim or her family. So he set his sights on two unfortunate individuals who happened to come upon the body in the early morning hours after they were forced to walk from their vehicle which had gotten stuck in the mud.

Because the disabled vehicle belonged to Taylor, Ford felt obligated to charge him… but only as an accomplice. What Ford really wanted was to pressure Taylor to implicate Johnny Beck, the black man with whom Taylor had been doing drugs just hours prior to the discovery of the body. Other than walking by the body earlier in the morning, there was no physical evidence connecting Taylor or his African American friend to the crime. Furthermore, no plausible motive existed for Taylor or Beck to attack Ms. Thomas. To win a conviction, Ford would resort to the tactic which he has honed to an art… obtain perjured testimony in exchange for the promise of leniency or a reduced sentence.

No “Minister of Justice” Prosecutor Tom Ford believed that this cut and dried case would be shut and closed easily, by threatening Taylor with life in prison unless he cooperated with his demands that he implicate the black man (who Ford had no reason to believe was guilty of the homicide). After all, Ford believed, Greg Taylor did not come from the upper echelon of society, he was not of a privileged class, and he was a drug user. And, all he had to do was implicate a black man… how hard could that be? An easy choice, right? It would have been an easy choice for Ford, and probably 99 per cent of people in the state. But this would not be a slam dunk for Ford, because he had not counted on Taylor possessing the integrity and moral compass to withstand his despicable offer.

Gregory Taylor never wavered in the accounting of his innocence and that of Johnny Beck, but that didn’t deter Prosecutor Ford. Tom Ford was obsessed with putting the African American man behind bars for life, and Taylor’s refusal to join his conspiracy did nothing but fuel Ford’s animus towards Taylor. Because Taylor would not comply with Ford’s game plan, Ford utilized the same “perjured testimony” tactic (that he tried unsuccessfully to employ using Taylor to implicate Beck) to obtain a guilty verdict against Taylor. Ford approached two disreputable individuals and promised them a reduction in their sentences in exchange for testimony that would implicate Greg Taylor in the murder of Ms. Thomas. They both jumped at the opportunity, lied before the court, and handed Prosecutor Ford his tainted courtroom victory. As a result, Taylor was sentenced to serve the remainder of his life in prison. He served seventeen long years in prison before the truth of his indisputable innocence would surface.

It was during the hearing which freed Taylor that it became apparent that Ford not only employed false witnesses in obtaining Taylor’s conviction, but that he also used false science. SBI agent Duane Deaver, it seems, had given misleading and false testimony about the presence of blood on the bumper of Taylor’s SUV, which became mired in the mud the night of the Thomas murder. Although he knew that presumptive tests for blood were not supported by a confirmative lab test, Deaver did not give such testimony in court. The jury was misled into believing that blood from Taylor’s vehicle was linked to the body. Taylor’s 2010 hearing before the three judge panel that exonerated him also exposed how Ford used a little hocus pocus on the 1992 jury in winning a conviction by getting tracking dog handlers to imply that a trail could be traced from the victim to Taylor’s vehicle.

Tom Ford orchestrated the cruel and vindictive prosecution against Gregory Taylor, skillfully bringing in false witnesses and false testimony resulting in a conviction. However, the media has given Ford a pass on this debacle, and instead has zeroed in on Duane Deaver. The News & Observer led the charge against Deaver and the SBI with its four part series on the misdeeds of the SBI in the Taylor case. However, in compliance with its PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, Ford’s name was mentioned only once or twice (and then, in passing). So, the criminal justice system, in following the media’s lead, has ordered a contempt hearing for Mr. Deaver on the charge that he made false and misleading testimony before the N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission in 2009. According to a recent News & Observer article, a date for the hearing has not been set. Deaver has become the sacrificial lamb for the miscues, mistakes, and malfeasance that resulted in an innocent man spending seventeen of his most productive years of life behind bars.

Focusing attention on SBI Agent Deaver, not only provides a scapegoat for the injustice that befell Greg Taylor, but it is to divert attention from the true culprit, Tom Ford. To believe that Ford did not know the substance on the bumper was not blood defies logic. Ford’s stock and trade in prosecuting comes from eliciting perjured courtroom testimony in exchange for promises of a reduced sentence. Deaver was nothing more than Ford’s accomplice. That’s not to say that Deaver should not face a hearing on his conduct, but I believe that his position is more defensible because he worked in a culture where it was acceptable to stretch the truth in order to obtain the desired outcome of a conviction. And it appears that Deaver was more than willing to work with vigilante prosecutors in their pursuit of rogue justice.

Despite the suffering experienced by Gregory Taylor and his family, the unresolved murder of Jacquetta Thomas and its impact on her family and friends, Tom Ford seems to have weathered the storm unscathed. The media has handled him with Teflon gloves and even powerhouse defense attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V complimented Ford on how well he handled the prosecution’s interests in Taylor’s February 2010 hearing. In fact, Cheshire, who represented Taylor in his hearing before the three judge panel, never uttered a disparaging word about Ford… a prosecutor who needlessly left many shattered lives in his wake. Now, Cheshire has no problem with castigating former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who was prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case. That is because the Duke Lacrosse prosecution by Nifong was a North Carolina legal aberration in that it did not comply with the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Cheshire was vociferous and upfront in his criticism of Nifong, pleading for the severest of sanctions against him, despite the fact that Mr. Nifong was doing nothing more than pursuing a prosecution which was well within acceptable standards. However, on the subject of Prosecutor Tom Ford (whose malicious, vindictive and vile prosecution of Cheshire’s own client Greg Taylor), Cheshire is as silent as a dormouse.

In North Carolina it is acceptable to sacrifice a prosecutor, such as Mr. Nifong, in order to set an example of what will happen if a prosecutor steps beyond the bounds of the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” It is also acceptable to sacrifice a designated scapegoat from another sector, such as SBI agent Duane Deaver, in order to protect a prosecutor who zealously clings to the state’s selective justice tenet.

N & O on Tim Helms’s death: An open case

Nearly a half century ago, Timothy Helms was born with severe retardation. Compounding his tragic life was the fact that he had been plagued with mental illness throughout his years. In 1994, he was accused of driving a vehicle which took the lives of three individuals, and later convicted and sentenced to three life sentences. While incarcerated, he racked up many “infractions,” including one for hoarding postage stamps. His retardation and mental illness made Timothy Helms a difficult prisoner to manage, and prior to his 2008 head trauma incident, he complained of abusive treatment he received and pleaded to be released from solitary confinement (euphemistically referred to as “administrative segregation” by authorities, while referred to as “The Hole” by those who have spent time there). Because of the great potential for psychological damage, solitary confinement is restricted to no more than 60 consecutive days. Helms had been in solitary for more than nine times that long (more than a year and a half) when he set his mattress on fire which resulted in his head being used as a battering ram on the concrete walls. Although setting the fire helped effect his release from solitary, it unfortunately resulted in head trauma that left him a quadriplegic who could barely speak. The SBI did its perfunctory investigation and to no one’s surprise could find no wrongdoing on behalf of the guards in solitary… they were stumped as to how Mr. Helms received his injuries (which in addition to two skull fractures and bleeding in the brain, included a fractured nose and welts all over his body consistent with those made by a baton). Department of Corrections Secretary Alvin Keller suggested that Mr. Helms might have sustained those injuries by falling and striking his head on the concrete floor. Paralyzed and unable to feed or take care of himself, Keller considered Helms too serious a threat to society to release from custody, so taxpayers continued to foot the bill for his lodgings and care until his recent, merciful death.

Now, The News & Observer wanting to toot its own horn about its four-part investigative report critical of the SBI lab, wrote an editorial in its September 8, 2010 paper titled “An open case: Recent revelations about the SBI’s work add to questions remaining in the case of Timothy Helms.” As usual, the editorial section in The News & Observer is a Johnny-come-lately… always making comments and observations long after they should have been made. To begin with, the newspaper editorial writers should have questioned the prosecution and conviction of the mentally ill and severely retarded man. Mr. Helms denied driving the car that took three lives, and to my knowledge there was no credible evidence that he did (the man Helms alleged to have been driving died from injuries in the crash). Furthermore, I do not believe that it had been established that Mr. Helms had been drinking or was drunk at the scene of the fatal accident.

Although Mr. Helms passed away some time ago, and the Department of Corrections and the SBI have closed their cases on the death of Mr. Helms, I agree with The News & Observer that the case of Timothy Helms should be opened and seriously investigated. It is obvious that, as Mr. Helms stated, after the brutal assault against him his head was repeatedly bashed into the concrete cell wall. The state, of course does not want to revisit this case anymore than it does other cases which the state closed with full knowledge that their resolution was far from just. In particular is the disbarment of former Durham Prosecutor Mike Nifong by the North Carolina State Bar. The Bar is an unregulated organization without accountability. It has a long-standing history of protecting prosecutors regardless of the magnitude of injustice they mete out. Since its inception in 1933, Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by this organization. What’s worse, is that the was disbarred on trumped up trifle. Other prosecutors, such as David Hoke, Bill Wolfe, Tom Ford, Michael Parker, and Freda Black, have withheld exculpatory evidence, tried to force plea deals, won convictions on perjured testimony obtained in exchange for promises of reduced sentences, fabricated evidence and confessions… the list of unethical and dastardly prosecutorial practices by these state attorneys goes on. But these prosecutors are all protected not only by the state, but by the media which has embraced the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy.

What did Mr. Nifong do to deserve to be disbarred? Well, according to The News & Observer he was guilty of 20 ethics violations. The only problem is that nobody, especially media types, knows what they were. Media has gone out of its way to mislead the public by inferring that Mr. Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence. Truth of the matter is that Mr. Nifong did not withhold any discovery, and that the DNA lab evidence he has been accused of withholding is not exculpatory. Mr. Nifong has also been accused of lying to the court, which is, itself, a lie. But that is not important to the State Bar’s F. Lane Williamson… death of the truth was considered acceptable collateral damage in the state’s efforts to remove Mr. Nifong from the Duke Lacrosse case. In the Carpetbagger Jihad against Mr. Nifong et al., the truth, facts, morals, and justice are expendable concepts and contrary to their goals of destroying Mike Nifong and anyone and everyone who even had the most peripheral connection with the prosecution in the case.

Open the case regarding the death of inmate Timothy Helms… I agree. But I believe that The News & Observer editorial page should also call for opening the investigation into the trumped up disbarment of Mike Nifong.

Prosecutors lie and work with defense team to pressure man who’s maintained his innocence to accept guilty murder plea

Exposure of typical widespread prosecutorial misconduct was once again made apparent in an article in August 29, 2010’s The News & Observer, titled “‘Bloody’ evidence misused to elicit plea deal in death.” The article by J. Andrew Curliss actually eschewed the paper’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy by actually mentioning the name of the prosecutor responsible for the prosecutorial misconduct, Durham Prosecutor Freda Black… even though buried deep in the article, it was nonetheless mentioned. Mr. Curliss deserves kudos for this, but it is not surprising (as he has taken on former Governor Mike Easley and other heavyweights with his investigative reporting). The article about the injustice against Derrick Allen, who was recently granted a new trial, only reinforces the contention that North Carolina follows a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”

In the summer of 1999, Durham prosecutors, led by Freda Black, were pursuing the death penalty against Derrick Allen for allegedly killing and sexually assaulting the two-year old daughter of his girlfriend. When Black received confirmatory lab results stating that what was presumed to be blood stains on the victim’s clothing was in fact not blood, the prosecution changed course and sought a plea deal. In offering the deal, prosecutors lied to defendant Allen, who had always maintained his innocence, telling him that their was blood on the child’s garments. They offered a deal which would remove the death penalty from consideration in exchange for a lengthy prison sentence.

Although he knew of his innocence, Allen agreed to pleading guilty to committing a murder which he knew that he did not commit because of what he believed to be honest and accurate lab results, and because his own defense attorneys expended their efforts in advising him to accept the offered plea deal rather than preparing for his defense against the charges in court. Unfortunately, and all too often, defense attorneys pressure their clients to accept deals even when they know it is not in their clients' best interests. The reasons may be due to shear laziness or in the form of incentives, but let there be no doubt that defense attorneys often purposely work with prosecutors to get their clients to plead guilty… even in a case that is weak and has no credible evidence.

A “Minister of Justice” would not lie about such important evidence in order to wring out a knowingly false admission of guilt. To make it more palatable for the defendant to enter into a plea deal despite insisting upon his innocence, the Alford Plea was introduced. It is the same tool that was successfully used by the prosecutors in the James Arthur Johnson case. Unfortunately, although it facilitates the prosecution’s ability to obtain a plea deal, it has no legal bearing or benefit to the defendant. In other words, the Alford Plea is nothing more than a “legal Jedi Mind-trick”… just another sinister weapon in the prosecutor’s arsenal to gain an unfair advantage over the defendant.

Wake prosecutor Tom Ford tried unsuccessfully to force Gregory Taylor to enter into a plea deal which included fingering another innocent man (an African American) for a murder that neither of them committed. Taylor stood on his principles and refused to implicate a man he knew to be innocent, and therefore he was subjected to the wrath of Ford who convicted him with phony and misleading blood testimony… not unlike that used by Prosecutor Black to sway Derrick Allen to admit guilt. Sadly, Taylor served 17 years of a life sentence before he was cleared by a three judge panel in February 2010. During this hearing, Ford, the original prosecutor in 1992, fought to keep Taylor behind bars for the rest of his life based solely on the testimony of two witnesses who offered statements in exchange for a reduction of their time of incarceration. Tom Ford, and his district attorney, Colon Willoughby, are definitely not “Ministers of Justice.”

In another article by Mr. Curliss, titled “Defense sees evidence 12 years after plea deal,” he explains that the defendant, Derrick Allen and his current attorneys are seeing for the first time important evidence about the murder and sex charges brought against him 12 years ago. Evidence of particular importance that prosecutors held back from the defendant was a statement by the state’s main witness against Allen in which she stated that she and Allen had an intimate relationship that had turned sour and that she considered him her enemy. Since his incarceration more than a decade ago, Mr. Allen has been trying to obtain all evidence prosecutors had in their file, but prosecutors have been reluctant to release it to him.

So with regards to his case 12 years ago, Prosecutor Black withheld from defendant Allen crucial lab evidence regarding alleged “bloody” stains, withheld from Allen crucial information about a witness statement that was favorable to the him, and she lied to the Allen about results of a lab test in order to coerce him into accepting a plea deal instead of a possible death penalty conviction.

Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has never purposely withheld evidence from defendants, including the Duke Lacrosse defense teams (although the media has grossly misled the public into believing that he did just that). Furthermore, he has never lied to the defense to give the impression that he had incriminating evidence for the purpose of forcing a defendant to accept a plea deal. Mr. Nifong has always maintained an open file policy which granted the defense counsel complete access to the prosecution’s evidence… he did this for more than two decades before it was mandated into law. He has prosecuted in good faith to uphold equal justice for all, not unlike principles that guided Wyatt Earp and Eliot Ness. And Mr. Nifong acted independent of pressures brought by his superiors and public sentiment… actions were guided by his overriding desire to see that justice prevailed. In the Duke Lacrosse case, he proceeded with his prosecution of the defendants despite its unpopularity with the Attorney General’s Office, Duke University, the media, and the general public. He prosecuted despite the fact that by doing so it markedly damaged his chances for being elected to the post of Durham district attorney. And, like another courageous man in history, Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, Mr. Nifong suffered the consequences.

Yet, it is Mr. Nifong that the state persecutes and the media crucifies. Prosecutors like Freda Black, Tom Ford, Bill Wolfe, and others of their ilk are protected by the Attorney General’s Office and the media, in general. The articles in The News & Observer by Mr. Curliss are an unexpected and pleasant change from the PAPEN Policy. Without doubt, had Joseph Neff authored the story, the identity of the prosecutor responsible for the misdeeds and malfeasance against Derrick Allen would not have been mentioned.

Because of problems with the SBI lab, as exposed during the Greg Taylor hearings and which are really reflections on the prosecutors, Derrick Allen now has an opportunity to get justice. However, even if he is found “not guilty” on re-trial, if the prosecution chooses that route, do not expect for Governor Bev Perdue to issue a pardon. Do not expect to see him compensated for a dozen years wrongfully spent behind bars. The North Carolina justice system does not work that way… it is not fair. In North Carolina, justice tends to benefit those who are well-heeled, privileged, and not people of color.

Likewise, do not expect an upsurge in demands for sanctions or disciplinary actions against Prosecutor Black by the media, the governor, the Attorney General’s Office, or the public. After all, Allen does not come from a family of wealth, power, and privilege, so injustice meted out to him is readily tolerated by the Tar Heel masses. To paraphrase Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) and put things in perspective, Prosecutor Freda Black, in pursuing and prosecuting Derrick Allen, picked on a person from the “right” family to indict… namely one that is poor, disenfranchised, and of color. Because Mr. Nifong picked on people to indict who came from the “wrong” families, the avenging agenda of the Carpetbagger Jihad that calls for his total destruction in appropriate in the eyes of many.

An ultimate betrayal by the SBI agents and its lab?

The News & Observer, with a big boost from its recent four-part series on “Agents’ Secrets,” in which it actually shares blame with someone other than Mike Nifong for the abysmal state of the North Carolina justice system, is now the front-runner for my annual “Jedi Mind-trick Award”… barely squeaking ahead of NBC-17 News. The series by staff writers Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff predictably places blame for all the state’s criminal justice woes on a few bad apples in the State Bureau of Investigation and the forensic lab that it runs. The four-part series recounts numerous horrific tales of injustice and wrongful incarcerations that have occurred in the state in the not so distant past, but what is truly remarkable is that the writers did it while mentioning the name of a prosecutor (linked to a case) only once! And even when mentioned, it was not in a derogatory context. Ms. Locke and Mr. Neff surely deserve accolades for adhering to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy when presented with such a challenging topic. And they did well to shift all responsibility from North Carolina State prosecutors to SBI agents and SBI lab personnel.

When it comes down to it, a few individuals in the SBI and its lab were sacrificed as scapegoats to take the downfall and accept blame for all of the malicious and baseless prosecutions and lengthy incarcerations of the innocents that have occurred. The prosecutors, the newspaper would like you to believe, were nothing much more than bystanders and onlookers when the prosecutorial treads of injustice squashed designated individuals (mostly the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color) along with their civil and constitutional rights. From reading the four-part series, one would swear that the investigative agents and lab technicians were single-handedly in charge of determining the fate of the state’s defendants.

The Gregory Taylor case was, of course, mentioned. Revelations from his hearing before a three judge bench in February 2010 was responsible for media focus being directed at the SBI and its forensic practices. But Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name was never mentioned in the series, and his actions in that case were some of the most despicable in the annals of North Carolina juris prudence. Ford was responsible for the vindictive and malicious incarceration of Mr. Taylor because he (Taylor) would not bow to Ford’s urgings for him to implicate an innocent African American man in a murder. Without any credible evidence, Mr. Taylor was sentenced to life, and served 17 years before he was freed by a three judge panel. Ford was even a pivotal figure in attempts to persuade the recently seated panel to deny Taylor’s bid for freedom by arguing against Taylor’s release.

In the Taylor case, The News & Observer left the SBI lab workers and its lab protocol, which in general heavily trended in favor of the prosecution, holding the bag when it came to the fact that the prosecution identified blood on the bumper of Taylor’s car… crucial in winning a conviction against an innocent man. It was the only so-called “evidence” used by Ford against Taylor besides the trumped up testimony of two so-called “witnesses” seeking shorter sentences in exchange for their statements. Prosecutor Tom Ford is neither dumb nor naïve… to the contrary, he is smart, cunning, and calculating. Make no mistake about it, Ford knew in 1991, as well as in February of 2010, exactly what the SBI lab’s complete results were with respect to the red substance on the bumper of Greg Taylor’s vehicle. He was aware that the confirmatory tests did not support the specimen being human blood.

But with the murder of African American prostitute Jacquetta Thomas, Ford was not interested in solving a crime… because he cared not about the victim, his priority was in closing the case. Despite Tom Ford knowing that Taylor was innocent, Taylor’s refusal to falsely implicate Johnny Beck, a black “suspect,” was all it took for Ford to seek a life sentence conviction. Prosecutor Ford could care less whether results forthcoming from the lab were bogus or legit, as long as they supported his case against Taylor.

In another case cited by the newspaper, unnamed prosecutors referred to only as “Davie County prosecutors” supposedly relied on lab work and forensic testimony in prosecuting a Kernersville dentist for the murder of his wife. It seems that the SBI agent involved in the case did not make the appropriate notes and documentation, predated a document, and made false statements about evidence. According to the newspaper, the misdeeds by the agents and bloodstain pattern expert were done to fit the investigator’s theory. The reader is to believe that the unidentified prosecutors were totally out of the loop? Such a scenario is not to be believed as it is the prosecutors who drive the prosecution of defendants, not the other way around. The investigators and agents try to conjure up results backing up the prosecutor’s story about how the crime(s) unfolded and the defendant’s role.

Perhaps the most blatant example of the PAPEN Policy in The News & Observer series is a redacted quote by Barry Scheck who is questioning Alan Gell investigator Dwight Ransome: “When you were talking with [the district attorney], didn’t you…” Mr. Scheck probably said, “When you were talking with David Hoke, didn’t you…” So in order to protect the identity of the Gell prosecutor (Hoke) who put an innocent man (Gell) on death row despite exculpatory evidence that proved Gell could not possibly have committed a murder, the newspaper substituted a generic [the district attorney].

There are many more examples which I could point out, but doing so would only be redundant. The fact is that whether it’s DNA, bloodstain patterns, confirmatory testing for human blood, missing notations and documentation, false testimony, purposely not conducting tests on evidence, etc., the investigators and lab analysts who are acting unethically and inappropriately are doing so at the behest of the prosecutors to help win a conviction. By and large, prosecutors are anything but “ministers of justice” whom they are portrayed to be… prosecuting a case but seeking the truth and assuring that the defendant receives justice. In North Carolina with its system of “selective justice based on Class and Color,” prosecutors have absolutely no qualms about putting away individuals in society who are disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. Likewise, as exemplified by the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, prosecutors lack the resolve to solve to crimes against the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. They just want to close their case by sticking any body fitting the desirable profile (disenfranchise, poor, and of color) behind bars.

There once was a district attorney who did not fit the mold of the typical North Carolina prosecutor. Nearly a quarter of a decade before it became mandated, he had an open file policy wherein he shared all of his evidence with defense attorneys. He was a district attorney of the highest integrity, who believed in the principle of “equal justice for all.” He had the same respect for the law, sense of fair play, and obligation to duty as famed lawmen Wyatt Earp and Elliot Ness. And he had the independence and courage of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett to forge ahead and do what was right… and not do what was expedient or expected. As a result, Mike Nifong, former Durham district attorney was persecuted by the state and crucified in the media. The best district attorney the state of North Carolina will probably ever see was figuratively speaking thrown under the bus because he would not adhere to the Carpetbagger agenda in the Duke Lacrosse case. Unfortunately, the crimes by the state against Mr. Nifong are an abomination that has placed a scar on the justice system from which the state will never recover.

Although prompted by testimony at Greg Taylor’s hearing just months ago, the problems with the state’s criminal justice system have festered for many decades. What I find thoroughly disingenuous is the reaction to The News & Observer four-part series, with politicians and prosecutors feigning shock and indignation at problems which they have known to exist and have tolerated. Durham Representative Mickey Michaux, according to the newspaper, “was disturbed to read about false reports filed by SBI agents and the innocent people harmed, and said that agents who violate law and policy need to be punished.” But Michaux knows that the rights and liberty of innocent people (especially the poor and of color) are violated routinely by police and prosecutors. What has Representative Michaux done about it? Nothing, at least that I am aware of. And punishing agents who violate law and policy seems to be misplaced when they do so in response to the persuasion and pressure applied by prosecutors. Punishing wayward prosecutors, who are the driving force behind many innocents being locked away and mistreated, is not an unreasonable step. In my mind, it is also unlikely to be undertaken.

After reading the newspaper series, North Carolina Prosecutor Ann Kirby was quoted as saying: “It’s an absolute betrayal to us as prosecutors and to the agents who are doing their job fairly. To find out that people we relied on so heavily in so many cases were slanting results – by their own accord or by the instruction of supervisors – is the ultimate betrayal. We are not playing a game here. These are people’s lives.” To me, the betrayal seems to be on the other foot. The prosecutors entice, cajole, plead, demand, threaten and do whatever is necessary to extract results, regardless of how bogus, from willing or vulnerable agents and lab technicians in order to prevail in court. Then, when the unsavory practices for which these prosecutors are responsible are exposed by the media spotlight, they attack the agents and lab techs who did their bidding. Now that’s what I call the ultimate betrayal.

N&O columnist joins in scapegoating the SBI

This week, The News & Observer newspaper has been presenting a four-part series about misconduct and malfeasance at the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation and its lab. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to shift all of the blame for exposed prosecutorial misdeeds upon a few “rogue elements” within the SBI. As in keeping within its adherence of following the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, I believe that the name of a prosecutor has been mentioned possibly once in the two parts that have been published to date in the newspaper. Recently, Barry Saunders, the paper’s columnist with the acerbic keyboard, jumped into the fray by dumping on two SBI agents in particular in his column titled “Meet he SBI’s bad guys.”

Following the same tenor as articles in the four-part series, Mr. Saunders lambastes the investigators, while not laying a single kid-gloved hand on the prosecutors. This is yet another example of the strict compliance which the media has when it comes to the PAPEN Policy. To his credit, Mr. Saunders does mention the name of a prosecutor in his article once, but he fails to tie him to the real injustice visited upon defendant Floyd Brown.

Barry wrote the following about the Brown prosecutor: “…Anson County District Attorney Michael Parker spitefully refused Dix workers’ request to take him to the State Fair. Brown would have loved that.” However, nowhere in the article does he attribute Brown’s fourteen years of incarceration without a trial to D.A. Parker. Readers of the Saunders column are supposed to believe that SBI investigator Mark Isley is responsible for that. As a matter of fact, the column doesn’t begin to touch upon the depth of Parker’s malevolence and misconduct. Michael Parker not only denied Dix workers’ request for Mr. Brown to have an occasional lunch with his sister, but he willfully and maliciously interfered with Brown’s disposition after being released from 14 years in custody. This was achieved by Parker surreptitiously finding out the assisted living facility where social workers had arranged for Brown to be sent, then talking with the owners of said facility. Shortly thereafter, there was an abrupt 180 by the owners of the house, and Floyd Brown was denied admittance.

What is terribly misleading about these articles is that they put the onus of the injustice in these criminal cases on the investigators, and not on the prosecutors where it squarely belongs. Surely, District Attorney Parker knew that the lucid confession by a severely retarded defendant was flawed to the point of being fraudulent. And don’t think for a minute that investigators work in a vacuum. They are frequently in contact with the prosecutors. As the articles in the four-part series allude, investigators often work to please the prosecutors on the case. So even if the evidence that is brought by investigators before the prosecutor is not credible, it is accepted by the prosecutor if it supports his/her version of events. These articles printed thus far point to the SBI agents and investigators as being the driving force behind the prosecution of defendants. The prosecutors’ roles have almost been relegated to that of bystanders. “Protect those prosecutors… except Nifong” should be the media’s motto.

What I find to be most disingenuous about castigating remarks about SBI agent Dwight Ransome, is that the media maintains that the investigator zeroed in on a particular defendant and skewed his findings to support his belief. But what about the prosecutor? It begs the question, who is running the prosecution? You would believe the investigator and not the prosecutor after reading this week’s articles in The News & Observer. And what I find curious in Barry’s column is the total omission of the highly publicized case to which Ransome was related… that of Alan Gell. Of course, the identity of the prosecutor of Mr. Gell, David Hoke, would not be expected to be mentioned (in accordance with PAPEN).

As you may remember, in the Gell case, the prosecution withheld from defense attorneys the existence of 17 eyewitness statements wherein the alleged murder victim of Gell was seen alive, after Alan Gell had been locked up on an unrelated charge… clearly and definitively exculpatory evidence. Although these documents were within David Hoke’s folder (and I believe that Hoke maintains that he overlooked them), SBI agent Ransome is the one the media holds responsible for defendants not having access to the evidence. What is even further outrageous is that the media contends that had Prosecutor Hoke and defense attorneys been aware of these witness statements that the charges would have probably been dropped. What the media fails to mention however, is that even with knowledge of the 17 witness statements, the Attorney General’s Office chose to re-try Alan Gell (which resulted in an immediate verdict of not guilty). Now if SBI investigator Ransome’s work was so tarnished at Gell’s initial trial, why would state prosecutors take it upon themselves to take Mr. Gell to court a second time? This is not addressed by the media.

What the media needs to focus on is the vendetta case against Crystal Mangum, the former Duke Lacrosse victim who is currently facing trumped up charges of arson and injury to personal property. The News & Observer needs to sic its top investigative reporters on the Durham Police Department and prosecutors. It needs to delve into the basic question of who started the fire. It needs to ask what credible evidence is in possession of the prosecution to support its claim that Crystal Mangum vandalized a car the night of February 17, 2010. It needs to question the specific basis for the initial charges of attempted first degree murder and identity theft lodged against Mangum. It needs to look into the inactivity of police to clothes ablaze in a bathtub. It needs to try and make sense of a timeline vaguely proffered by police and prosecution regarding events that took place the night of February 17th.

There is plenty for a couple of good investigative reporters to sink their teeth into regarding this case. Not only that, but such an exploration would provide fodder for another highly sarcastic and entertaining column by The News & Observer’s own Barry Saunders. I can’t wait.

Now, it is important to pay attention to these blogs, as you might be tested about them in the future. To get an indication of your apprehension of the topic of Duke Lacrosse’s big connection to the media, click on the following link to access the latest quiz on the topic. Click Quiz 10 on the directory page.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/quiz/quiz.htm

Linwood Wilson…Nifong’s personal investigator?

WRAL and other mainstream media outlets continue to spin the news reports like yarn by stating that former Duke Lacrosse case investigator Linwood Wilson is Mike Nifong’s investigator. A recent WRAL online article about Linwood Wilson has the following headline: “Guns, computers seized from home of former Nifong investigator.” It doesn’t read: “… of former Duke Lacrosse investigator.” It doesn’t read: … of former state investigator.” The fact is that Mr. Wilson is not Mr. Nifong’s personal investigator, and the media is red-handedly caught purposely trying to tie Mike Nifong into the recent domestic troubles facing Linwood Wilson.

A sampling of other WRAL online headlines about Linwood Wilson, who is currently under a cloud of negative publicity and possible criminal charges, include the following:
“Former Nifong investigator gets higher bond after case revisited;” “State handling domestic case involving former Nifong aide;” and “Nifong’s former investigator in domestic dispute.”

However, Linwood Wilson’s presently alleged problems being tied to the former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong is nothing new. A WRAL headline in 2007 read: “Nifong’s top investigator toppled.” And an article in 2008, which was also about Mr. Wilson, read: “Nifong’s investigator in Duke case wants lawsuit dropped.”

Such headline is disingenuous to say the least, and without doubt, selective. When the state and media recently lowered the boom against the initial head investigator of the case against Alan Gell, Dwight Ransome, the media referred to him as “SBI investigator.” The mainstream media never mentioned or referred to Mr. Ransome as “(David) Hoke’s investigator.” In fact, in most all media articles about Alan Gell’s unjust prosecution, Prosecutor David Hoke’s name was never mentioned. This, of course, is in strict compliance with the media’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy.

However, it is unheard of for media to attribute investigators as being possessions of the prosecutor(s) of cases being investigated. Only in the Duke Lacrosse case can one expect the unusual, the unexpected, the unprecedented, and the unjust treatment by the state and the media.

Like Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, Brian Meehan, myself, and others who are considered to be supporters of Mike Nifong and/or on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, Linwood Wilson, as a Duke Lacrosse prosecution investigator, is a high valued target in the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda. Because of that, it is unwise for one to place faith in what is spoon-fed about him to the public by the media. The media has been very effective in vilifying Mike Nifong, and supporting the state’s trumped up charges against Crystal Mangum, the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case.

News & Observer’s familiar dance with the Attorney General’s Office

In an editorial by the News & Observer staff in the March 3, 2010 editorial page titled, “Testing the crime lab,” the newspaper and the Attorney General’s Office waltz around the issues of injustice for appearances sake. Not long ago the newspaper’s editorial chastised a state prosecutor for holding a man, Floyd Brown, for fourteen years without a trial. A judge later dismissed murder charges in this case in which a confession was cooked up by the prosecution. Problem is that the severely retarded defendant could not have possibly made the confession attributed to him. There was no physical evidence linking Mr. Brown to the crime, but he was poor, disenfranchised, and an African American. Nobody cared. However, the newspaper’s editorial pretended to be concerned by challenging the Attorney General’s Office to look into how the man could be held for 14 years without being taken to trial. Over the years, the Attorney General’s Office has not looked into the matter. The News & Observer has not pressed for a response.

With the exposure of the biased State forensic lab testing procedures which helped convict Gregory Taylor of a crime which he did not commit, the News & Observer is now calling for the Attorney General’s Office to investigate other cases in which convictions might have been won through faulty state lab procedures. Pitifully, the News & Observer is trying to reassure its readers that Attorney General Roy Cooper is conscientiously leading the charge in trying to uncover tainted convictions. As the paper puts it, “Fortunately, Attorney General Roy Cooper is facing up to the problem.” As in the Floyd Brown case, the newspaper pretends to be concerned about injustice created by the State’s lab procedures, and the A.G. is pretending to objectively review cases in search of convictions attained with faulty lab results.

The truth of the matter is that the prosecutors knew that the State’s lab was biased against the defendants long ago. Prosecutor Tom Ford and Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby were aware that the lab results used to help convict Gregory Taylor were flawed when they recently fought to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his life, despite a case that hinged completely on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and prostitute who received promises of reduced sentences in exchange for their testimony. The backroom deals that Tom Ford hatched with the “witnesses” were withheld from Taylor’s original incompetent attorneys.

Look at the facts in the Gregory Taylor case. D.A. Willoughby and Prosecutor Ford have knowledge that the blood evidence used to convict Taylor was not reliable, yet they fought against justice for Mr. Taylor. Willoughby, because he knew that he had no case, initially tried to indefinitely delay the hearing before the three judge panel which resulted from the Innocence Inquiry Commission. Is this the action of a true minister of justice? The Attorney General’s Office, in the meantime, was silent. However that is not surprising when one reflects on the Alan Gell case in which Prosecutor David Hoke withheld crucial exculpatory evidence from the defense in winning a capital murder conviction. When a new trial was ordered by a judge, the Attorney General’s Office chose to fight to keep Gell incarcerated. The jury, when armed with knowledge of the exculpatory evidence that proved that Gell could not have committed the murder, immediately found him not guilty.

The difference between Hoke, Ford and former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong is that when new evidence or testimony was presented to Mr. Nifong, he was a true minister of justice and acted accordingly. For example, when he heard that the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case could not say with absolute certainty that she had been raped, he immediately dismissed those charges. Tom Ford and David Hoke were unyielding in their positions despite the overwhelming logic against them. And whereas the media, in accordance with the carpetbagger jihad against Mike Nifong, has unfairly and wrongfully defined Mr. Nifong, it has gone out of its way to adhere to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy. Tom Ford’s name wasn’t even mentioned in the March 3, 2010 editorial.

What is most telling is what the editorial attributes Attorney General Roy Cooper as saying… which is that “the review (of the cases for flawed State lab reports resulting in convictions) will be conducted internally at the outset, but that an independent look might be warranted.” What is that supposed to mean? Basically, it means that the process will not have transparency and that the so-called review is undertaken for nothing more the sake of appearances. Everyone’s pretending, including the media.

Nifong’s past convictions under scrutiny?

Another wcbstv.com online article, this one titled: “Ousted DA Nifong’s Past Convictions May Appeal,” is totally misleading and prejudicial. It is yet another arrow from the quiver of a biased media agenda to destroy former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong by misleading the malleable media consumer with outrageous lies and innuendos. Another headline patent made for pulling the wool over the eyes… another Jedi mind-trick. This ridiculous headline infers that Mike Nifong’s actions in handling the Duke Lacrosse case were not only far outside the bounds of acceptable prosecutorial practice, but that his past convictions were won using unacceptable practices. What’s worse is that it states that those who were convicted by Mike Nifong in the past are entitled to an appeal. How absurd. Again the media insults the intelligence of those who no better, while misleading those who don’t.

Steve Cron, a defense lawyer from Santa Monica, California, stated: "But his behavior in this case was so outrageous and so beyond what's required of an ethical prosecutor that everyone's going to start going back and looking." Please give me a break. Mr. Nifong acted well within accepted standards of prosecutors within the state. Mr. Cron did not mention what Mr. Nifong did that was so “outrageous.” Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense attorneys, like prosecutor David Hoke did in winning a wrongful conviction against Alan Gell, or like prosecutor Tom Ford did in winning a wrongful conviction against Greg Taylor, or like Jim Hardin did in winning a conviction against Michael Peterson and depriving him of a fair trial. Furthermore, Mr. Nifong did not lie to the court, as the court would want everyone to believe. The court purposely misinterpreted Mr. Nifong’s statements in order to levy the cockamamie charge against him… then, used it as a basis for a contempt of court charge and a 24 jail sentence. This chain of events is totally mind boggling. Statements Mr. Nifong made to the press, which defense attorneys labeled as so prejudicial and inflammatory, were made prior to indictments being handed down. They were mild, and made for the purpose of encouraging party-goers to break from the “athletic no-snitch rule” and give truthful honest statements about what transpired during the party.

The headline is, in fact, cruel in giving false hope to those convicted under prosecutor Nifong, and it encourages those convicted by Nifong to entertain the possibility of seeking an appeal. Worst of all, the headline suggests that others convicted by Mr. Nifong were victimized by his inherent prosecutorial misconduct. The article presents nothing to substantiate its reckless, illogical, and biased headline.

If one wants to investigate past cases, then I would strongly recommend looking into convictions won by Wake prosecutor Tom Ford. His conviction of an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, should be overturned by the three judge panel at its hearing which begins on February 9, 2010. The vendetta prosecution by Ford was made against Mr. Taylor because Taylor refused to wrongfully implicate another innocent man (Johnny Beck) in a murder. Ford offered Taylor a reduced sentence if only he would implicate Beck, an African American male. When Taylor refused, he was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he did not commit. And Ford won a conviction against Greg Taylor on the testimony of two witnesses… a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch. Both had received deals, similar to the one Ford offered Taylor… testimony Ford wanted them to give in exchange for a reduction in their sentences. It was an offer which they could not refuse, because they did not have the moral values of Greg Taylor. And, it was an offer that Prosecutor Tom Ford withheld from Greg Taylor’s defense team, in violation of ethical rules.

Rather than do the right thing and get the conviction overturned, Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby is fighting to keep an innocent man in jail in order to protect his prosecutor, Tom Ford, from complaints of prosecutorial misconduct.

From the prosecution of Gregory Taylor in 1993, Tom Ford displayed a propensity of winning convictions by making deals in exchange for testimony to suit his agenda. This type of conduct by a prosecutor is frightening, and leads one to question the testimony used by Ford to convict others in the seventeen years since. If past cases should be examined for prosecutorial misconduct in hopes of establishing grounds for appeals, then Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford is the ideal prosecutor with which to begin investigating. They should scrutinize whether backroom deals were made with witnesses in exchange for a favor from Ford, and whether the knowledge of such deals was withheld from the defense team.

Don’t expect the media to advocate such a position, however, because it operates under the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. The media wants to stir the public and those convicted under Nifong into a frenzy against a prosecutor (Nifong) who acted well within acceptable standards, yet tiptoe around the minefield of misdeeds of the truly unethical prosecutors and shield their wrongdoings from the public. This is indeed a pathetic situation.

Media’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy is strictly adhered to

In the News & Observer, January 16, 2010 article titled “Judge won’t delay Taylor case,” staff writer Mandy Locke strictly followed the media’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy by omitting Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name from the article. Prosecutor Ford is responsible for convicting Gregory Flint Taylor for a 1993 murder that he did not commit. Mr. Taylor received a life sentence because he would not implicate another innocent man (Johnny Beck, an African American) for the crime. Even despite tantalizing offers in exchange for his testimony, Mr. Taylor refused to lie at Tom Ford’s demand, and has, as a consequence, spent sixteen years wrongly incarcerated. Tom Ford convicted Taylor solely on testimony from a jailhouse snitch and a prostitute, both of whom were offered reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation. What is even more egregious is the fact that Prosecutor Ford withheld these backroom deals with the two false witnesses from the Taylor defense attorneys. Despite the above, Tom Ford’s name is never even mentioned in the entire article. Not once! But that is the way it is when the PAPEN policy is in place.

Now, Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby has pleaded for a delay in the Gregory Taylor case before the three judge panel which is scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 2010. The newspaper article did not state the length of time D.A. Willoughby sought to delay the hearing. Fact of the matter is that even with a delay of an additional sixteen years from now, Willoughby would still not be ready to go before a panel of three judges. And it won’t be because he didn’t have the time to prepare, it’ll be because he doesn’t have a case. He never did, and neither did the original prosecutor Ford, who Willoughby is trying to protect. Willoughby would rather waste taxpayer resources and time and the court’s time with this charade against Gregory Taylor in order to protect the wheelin’ and dealin’ prosecutor Tom Ford than to dismiss the murder charge and allow an innocent man to go free… an innocent and honorable man who has wrongly spent sixteen potentially productive years lost behind bars.

One thing should be clear, however, and that is that Gregory Flint Taylor will be free. There is no doubt about that. Now that there is some oversight on some shaky convictions, in the form of an Innocence Inquiry Commission, prosecutors will be less likely to continually hold innocent people unjustly… all to the dismay of D.A. Willoughby. As a prosecutor, Colon Willoughby is supposed to be a “minister of justice,” seeking truth over a conviction. The fact that he voted against the recommendation of the creation of the Innocence Inquiry Commission shows Willoughby’s lack of commitment to putting truth before conviction. It is the same position taken by Attorney General Roy Cooper who retried Alan Gell in the murder case initially prosecuted by David Hoke. Cooper wasted taxpayer money by re-trying a man in which exculpatory evidence proved that he could not possibly have committed the murder for which he was sentenced to death (evidence withheld by prosecutor Hoke from Gell’s defense included information that Gell was incarcerated on an auto-theft charge during the time that the murder was committed). The jury immediately acquitted Gell at his retrial, when this exculpatory evidence was presented.

“We’re at a disadvantage. We don’t know much of anything,” Willoughby is quoted as stating with regards to not knowing the identity of witnesses Taylor’s attorneys will likely call at the February 9th hearing. The bottom line is, that if Tom Ford’s initial prosecution had merit, then Willoughby would be prepared to take on anything that Taylor’s attorneys could toss at them. The problem for Willoughby is that Ford’s case against Taylor in 1993 was merit-less. That is their disadvantage, and it is one that cannot be overcome by time or anything Willoughby does. The three judge panel will find Gregory Taylor not guilty.

And when the media covers that event on February 9th, they will talk about how Gregory F. Taylor was wrongfully incarcerated for sixteen years, the details about the hearing, and give a background history about the murder which led to this tragedy of sixteen lost years. But, in strict compliance with the PAPEN policy, the media will not mention the name of Tom Ford, the prosecutor responsible for this tremendous injustice. However, do not be surprised to see Mike Nifong’s name, through some convoluted and tortuous manner, linked to the ghastly tragedy that befell Greg Taylor… from which the mindless and misled among the media consumers will naturally attribute Mr. Taylor’s misfortune to that evil and sinister Mr. Nifong.