After recent comments on our blog from Charles, which have been similar to arguments made by other detractors of Mike Nifong for some time, it has become apparent that I need to clarify some very important issues regarding previous statements.
First, when I state that “Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933 while other prosecutors who have been guilty of prosecutorial misconduct far more egregious than that which Mr. Nifong has been accused and they have not been disbarred or seriously disciplined”… this is a statement to express the selectivity of the treatment Mr. Nifong received in comparison with other prosecutors. Justice should be delivered equally, and not selectively, as it was in Mr. Nifong’s case with his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. Mr. Nifong should not be held to a higher standard of practice while other prosecutors are held to lower standards.
Second, when I make the statement in the previous paragraph, I am in no way conceding that Mr. Nifong’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case was below acceptable standards of practice for prosecutors in the state. I have seen no evidence that Mr. Nifong has done anything dishonorable, disreputable, unprofessional, or wrong with his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case. Mike Nifong has a 27 year history of being a prosecutor, and his reputation and service to the state of North Carolina has been sterling.
Third, there has been a lot of talk about how in the Duke Lacrosse case Mr. Nifong has tried to put three innocent young men in jail. First, just because North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaims that they are “innocent” does not mean that they are innocent. Acting as a special prosecutor, the attorney general was out of line in making such a statement. Taking over the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case as special prosecutor, it was his job to review the evidence and proceed with the prosecution if he felt that the evidence supported an outcome of guilty. If he felt the case was too weak to be successfully prosecuted, he had the duty to do as all of the other prosecutors in the state and throughout the country have done in the past when faced with a case that had low probability of success… dismiss it. He had no mandate to make a judgment about the Duke Lacrosse defendants, and for him to do so was outrageous, reckless, irresponsible, and unheard of. The second issue regards Mr. Nifong’s mandate. In our system of criminal justice it is mandatory that the prosecutor fight to take away the freedom of the defendant, just as it is the mandate of the defense attorney to preserve it for the defendant. When a prosecutor attempts to take away the freedom of a defendant who is from wealth, privilege and status, it is much easier for the media and public to be up in arms than when the defendant is poor, disenfranchised, and of color. That said, I also aver that there is no evidence to support the claim that throughout his long and stellar career Mr. Nifong has not acted as a minister of justice.
To summarize the position of the Committee of Justice for Mike Nifong:
1) Mr. Nifong was selectively disbarred while other prosecutors who have conducted themselves far more egregiously have not been;
2) Mr. Nifong was selectively presecuted by the state, and the North Carolina State Bar – subjected to treatment that no other prosecutor has undergone, including a jail sentence;
3) The “two wrongs (prosecutorial misconduct)” analogy is not analogous with the State Bar’s selective disbarment of Mr. Nifong because in his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case Mr. Nifong did not commit any wrong;
4) The Duke Lacrosse defendants are not “innocent” even though Attorney General Roy Cooper says they are. Such a proclamation was reckless, wrong, and out of line;
5) As a prosecutor in our system of criminal justice, it was the job of Mr. Nifong to try and take away the freedom of defendant(s) he was charged to prosecute; and
6) There is no evidence to suggest that throughout his career Mr. Nifong has not acted as a minister of justice.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford – No “Minister of Justice”
“After 16 years in prison, a chance: Panel (Innocence Inquiry) will hear convicted killer” is the News & Observer title of an article in the August 13, 2009 edition. On September 3 and 4, 2009, the eight-person Innocence Inquiry Commission will hold its third hearing since its creation by the state two years ago to investigate claims of innocence by convicts. It will help determine the fate of Gregory Flint Taylor, now 47, who was convicted of a 1991 murder in 1993, and was sentenced to serve life.
The victim of that crime was a prostitute whose body was found near Taylor’s vehicle. Taylor stated that his vehicle got stuck after a night of “four-wheeling” and that he had no contact with the victim.
As far as I can tell from the news article, the prosecution’s case was built on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and what Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford stated was what appeared to be blood on the bumper of Taylor’s vehicle. Evidently the testimony of the snitch was that Taylor and another man (Johnny Beck), who was later arrested as an accomplice in the crime, had been partying with the victim the night of the crime. The snitch stated to jurors that Taylor told him about the victim’s death. Taylor denied this account, and professed his innocence, claiming that he did not even encounter the victim the day that she died. Although the substance on the Taylor vehicle appeared to be blood, the prosecution did not conduct any forensic testing to confirm it.
Four months after Taylor’s conviction in 1993, murder charges against Beck were dropped by Prosecutor Ford, but not after the prosecutor unsuccessfully attempted to obtain testimony from Taylor implicating Beck in the crime. According to court records and news accounts, Ford offered to reduce Taylor’s sentence in exchange for providing statements supporting Beck’s involvement in the murder.
Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford’s actions in the Gregory Flint Taylor case are below the standards of acceptable prosecutorial conduct in several ways. He failed to see to it that forensic studies were performed on what appeared to be blood on the Taylor vehicle bumper, charged Taylor and Beck without probable cause – relying only on the word of a jailhouse snitch, and he tried to entice statements from Taylor to implicate Beck by offering Taylor a reduced sentence. Of these three malfeasances, the last is the most despicable and goes against his obligation to seek truth as a “minister of justice” before seeking a conviction. Without Taylor’s cooperation on this point, it seems as though Ford was forced to drop the murder charges against Beck.
Although actions by Ford were far more egregious than what former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of doing in the Duke Lacrosse case, and the injustice against Beck (and probably Taylor, as well) was far more severe than what the Duke Lacrosse players endured, do not expect an outpouring of rage against Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford by the Attorney General’s Office, the media, or the public. The state of North Carolina has a system of “selective justice based on Class and Color” and unless those tenets are violated (as in the Duke Lacrosse case where Prosecutor Nifong used the principle of “equal justice for all”), there will be no societal ripples of concern, indignation or consternation. Only when the status quo is challenged, as in the Duke Lacrosse case, will the cauldron of passion be stirred. And it will be stirred irrespective of whether or not the cause which incites it is just.
The victim of that crime was a prostitute whose body was found near Taylor’s vehicle. Taylor stated that his vehicle got stuck after a night of “four-wheeling” and that he had no contact with the victim.
As far as I can tell from the news article, the prosecution’s case was built on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and what Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford stated was what appeared to be blood on the bumper of Taylor’s vehicle. Evidently the testimony of the snitch was that Taylor and another man (Johnny Beck), who was later arrested as an accomplice in the crime, had been partying with the victim the night of the crime. The snitch stated to jurors that Taylor told him about the victim’s death. Taylor denied this account, and professed his innocence, claiming that he did not even encounter the victim the day that she died. Although the substance on the Taylor vehicle appeared to be blood, the prosecution did not conduct any forensic testing to confirm it.
Four months after Taylor’s conviction in 1993, murder charges against Beck were dropped by Prosecutor Ford, but not after the prosecutor unsuccessfully attempted to obtain testimony from Taylor implicating Beck in the crime. According to court records and news accounts, Ford offered to reduce Taylor’s sentence in exchange for providing statements supporting Beck’s involvement in the murder.
Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford’s actions in the Gregory Flint Taylor case are below the standards of acceptable prosecutorial conduct in several ways. He failed to see to it that forensic studies were performed on what appeared to be blood on the Taylor vehicle bumper, charged Taylor and Beck without probable cause – relying only on the word of a jailhouse snitch, and he tried to entice statements from Taylor to implicate Beck by offering Taylor a reduced sentence. Of these three malfeasances, the last is the most despicable and goes against his obligation to seek truth as a “minister of justice” before seeking a conviction. Without Taylor’s cooperation on this point, it seems as though Ford was forced to drop the murder charges against Beck.
Although actions by Ford were far more egregious than what former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of doing in the Duke Lacrosse case, and the injustice against Beck (and probably Taylor, as well) was far more severe than what the Duke Lacrosse players endured, do not expect an outpouring of rage against Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford by the Attorney General’s Office, the media, or the public. The state of North Carolina has a system of “selective justice based on Class and Color” and unless those tenets are violated (as in the Duke Lacrosse case where Prosecutor Nifong used the principle of “equal justice for all”), there will be no societal ripples of concern, indignation or consternation. Only when the status quo is challenged, as in the Duke Lacrosse case, will the cauldron of passion be stirred. And it will be stirred irrespective of whether or not the cause which incites it is just.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
State Bar “teaching moment” coming to talk radio in September ‘09
Around the time of the September 18, 2009 State Bar disciplinary hearing against prosecutor Gregory C. Butler, the talk radio station WPTF-680 AM will feature a program dedicated to the North Carolina State Bar and its only disbarred prosecutor in its 76 years of existence, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is currently in negotiations with the station’s news and programming director, Rick Martinez, to schedule a discussion and debate which will include the Committee’s Lay Advocate Sidney B. Harr as an in-house guest for the three hour “Bill LuMaye Show.” To date, no time has been scheduled in for this program, but as soon as there is confirmation, the date and time of the event will be immediately posted on this blog site, as well as the Committee’s website: www.justice4nifong.com.
It is hoped that the State Bar’s counsel, Katherine E. Jean, will play an active role in the program. In the event she is unable, for whatever reason, to participate, it is the hope of the Committee that another knowledgeable and qualified representative from the North Carolina State Bar take part. The Bar’s participation will afford listeners a chance to learn about this little known and secretive state agency, which is unregulated, has no oversight, and is accountable to no one group or individual. In addition to questioning its unjust and selective disbarment of Mike Nifong, the Bar could address other issues, including its plans to construct a new building, why it feels it needs to borrow money (a privilege in House Bill 360 that Governor Perdue recently signed into law) and if taxpayers are going to be held liable for these loans, and the financial status of the organization (including the subsidies it receives from state taxes).
For those individuals who read or contribute comments to our blog site (K.C. Johnson, Bill Anderson, Walt-in-Durham, Duke Dad, Charles, Rhonda, and others), this upcoming program will give you invaluable insight and information about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, and the Duke Lacrosse case. Furthermore, you will recognize that you have long been misguided by the false claims made by the State Bar against Mr. Nifong, and perpetuated and reinforced in the biased media. Hopefully, you will be able to call in the program for a personal discourse with our lay advocate.
While the Committee looks forward to what promises to be a highly enlightening and entertaining event, we believe that the State and the North Carolina State Bar are extremely distressed and alarmed at the prospect. We therefore believe that there is a high probability that the Bar, as well as all state officials, will distance themselves from this program and go to extremes not to join the discussion. Avoiding discourse and debate on the unjust and selective disbarment of Mike Nifong on their part, is not an act of cowardice, but an act of wisdom. That is because the Bar’s position of disbarring Nifong is not only unethical, but indefensible. On the point of their involvement, we hope that we are mistaken, and that the state and State Bar will be as engaged in this project as we are.
However, the Committee would not be surprised if the state even went so far as to use its power and persuasion to try and scuttle the event. Even though the biased media has been solidly against Mr. Nifong, we are confident that a radio station of WPTF’s caliber and reputation will not be swayed by efforts to derail the Bill LuMaye program on the State Bar and its disbarment of Mike Nifong.
Keep tuned to this blog and our website for the latest information about this exciting event tentatively to be scheduled in mid-September.
It is hoped that the State Bar’s counsel, Katherine E. Jean, will play an active role in the program. In the event she is unable, for whatever reason, to participate, it is the hope of the Committee that another knowledgeable and qualified representative from the North Carolina State Bar take part. The Bar’s participation will afford listeners a chance to learn about this little known and secretive state agency, which is unregulated, has no oversight, and is accountable to no one group or individual. In addition to questioning its unjust and selective disbarment of Mike Nifong, the Bar could address other issues, including its plans to construct a new building, why it feels it needs to borrow money (a privilege in House Bill 360 that Governor Perdue recently signed into law) and if taxpayers are going to be held liable for these loans, and the financial status of the organization (including the subsidies it receives from state taxes).
For those individuals who read or contribute comments to our blog site (K.C. Johnson, Bill Anderson, Walt-in-Durham, Duke Dad, Charles, Rhonda, and others), this upcoming program will give you invaluable insight and information about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, and the Duke Lacrosse case. Furthermore, you will recognize that you have long been misguided by the false claims made by the State Bar against Mr. Nifong, and perpetuated and reinforced in the biased media. Hopefully, you will be able to call in the program for a personal discourse with our lay advocate.
While the Committee looks forward to what promises to be a highly enlightening and entertaining event, we believe that the State and the North Carolina State Bar are extremely distressed and alarmed at the prospect. We therefore believe that there is a high probability that the Bar, as well as all state officials, will distance themselves from this program and go to extremes not to join the discussion. Avoiding discourse and debate on the unjust and selective disbarment of Mike Nifong on their part, is not an act of cowardice, but an act of wisdom. That is because the Bar’s position of disbarring Nifong is not only unethical, but indefensible. On the point of their involvement, we hope that we are mistaken, and that the state and State Bar will be as engaged in this project as we are.
However, the Committee would not be surprised if the state even went so far as to use its power and persuasion to try and scuttle the event. Even though the biased media has been solidly against Mr. Nifong, we are confident that a radio station of WPTF’s caliber and reputation will not be swayed by efforts to derail the Bill LuMaye program on the State Bar and its disbarment of Mike Nifong.
Keep tuned to this blog and our website for the latest information about this exciting event tentatively to be scheduled in mid-September.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Rare occurrence: State Bar to take prosecutor before Grievance panel
Mark September 18, 2009, on your calendar because that is when the North Carolina State Bar is going to have its Grievance Commission weigh in on Johnston County prosecutor Gregory C. Butler’s conduct in a murder trial. This grievance, which was initiated by the N.C. State Bar’s own attorneys, accuses the Roseboro attorney of failing to gather and hand over potentially exculpatory evidence in the murder case against Tiffany Ann Bassett.
Butler, who was assigned to the case a year after the crime, was specifically faulted for turning over a 437 page report from the police department to the defense attorneys a week before trial was to begin, in violation the state’s “open file discovery law.” Although the bulk of information within the report had been previously disclosed, it did contain exculpatory evidence, according to Bassett’s defense attorney Bob Denning. A delay in the trial resulted, but the defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of second degree murder, and was sentenced to 18 years.
Prosecutors of the following cases (James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Theodore Jerry Williams, and Floyd Brown) have acted far more egregiously and their actions have resulted in a far greater injustice to their defendants than actions by prosecutor Gregory Butler. Yet, the N.C. State Bar failed to initiate actions against these prosecutors.
Prosecutor Bill Wolfe charged James Arthur Johnson as an accomplice in the murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery of Brittany Willis. This was after Johnson, who had nothing to do with the crime, told the police the identity of the perpetrator who had confided in him. Johnson spent 39 months in jail on these charges before they were dropped by a special prosecutor. In a pre-arranged scheme, the special prosecutor then charged Johnson with an “accessory after the fact,” all in an attempt to protect Wolfe from a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct filed by the NAACP. Eventually, Johnson ended up making a Alford plea to avoid the possibility of further incarceration on a “misprision of felony” charge (failure to tell police knowledge of a crime… he waited three days before going to police with information which solved a heinous crime that would most likely have remained unsolved without his intervention). Bill Wolfe had no physical evidence tying Johnson to the crime, and attempted to employ two eyewitnesses (with ties to the police department) after the person identified by Johnson recanted his statement made in anger that implicated Johnson. Yet the N.C. State Bar took no action against Prosecutor Bill Wolfe.
Prosecutor Freda Black charged 14 year old Erick Daniels with armed robbery, based solely on the victim’s identification of his eyebrows in a middle school year book. Although he did not have the hair style or complexion of the robbery suspect, nor any physical evidence linking him to the crime, Prosecutor Black convicted him of the crime in an adult court, with the aid of a defense attorney who made the mistake of putting the young man on the stand. Although another young man, who was later arrested and fit the description of the perpetrator in the armed robbery, and had a history of armed robbery was willing to confess to the crime, Prosecutor Black did not interview him. Erick Daniels wrongfully spent seven years of a fourteen year sentence in jail for a crime he did not commit, after being charged without probable cause. The N.C. State Bar took no action against Prosecutor Black.
A prosecutor, who has not been named by the media, destroyed crucial, exculpatory evidence in the case of Theodore Jerry Williams. He was charged with assaulting a prison guard, although the charges were trumped up by authorities as a vendetta because Williams had the audacity to complain about the local district attorney. When a judge learned that the evidence which was requested by the defendant was destroyed by the prosecutor, he dropped the charges against the defendant. Attorney General Roy Cooper used his office to appeal the judge’s ruling, with full knowledge that the prosecutor destroyed evidence so crucial to the case that charges were dropped. The Attorney General’s Office failed to get the appeal overturned, and rightfully so. However, the N.C. State Bar took no action against the prosecutor(s) involved in destruction of evidence.
Anson County Prosecutor Michael Parker charged a retarded man, Floyd Brown, for murder. His primary evidence against Brown was a confession which mental health experts testified Brown was so mentally retarded that he could not have possibly authored such a statement. Parker held Brown in custody without a trial for over fourteen years, until a judge finally dropped the charges against him. The N.C. State Bar took no initiative to take actions against Prosecutor Parker.
It is extremely curious to me as to why the N.C. State Bar would go to such lengths to go after a prosecutor in which justice may have been delayed somewhat, yet ignore cases in which justice has been shredded and trampled upon by prosecutors. The rationale of going after Butler while ignoring the shenanigans of Wolfe, Black, Parker, and others escapes me.
Regardless, I doubt that Gregory Butler will be disbarred. Nor do I believe that he should, knowing what I do about the complaint filed against him. But whether or not future prosecutors are disciplined or disbarred by the State Bar, the Bar’s actions will not ameliorate the stains of injustice wrought by the unjust and selective disbarment of Mike Nifong.
By September 19th, we should have a better idea of what the North Carolina State Bar is up to regarding its complaint against Gregory C. Butler, prosecutor.
Butler, who was assigned to the case a year after the crime, was specifically faulted for turning over a 437 page report from the police department to the defense attorneys a week before trial was to begin, in violation the state’s “open file discovery law.” Although the bulk of information within the report had been previously disclosed, it did contain exculpatory evidence, according to Bassett’s defense attorney Bob Denning. A delay in the trial resulted, but the defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of second degree murder, and was sentenced to 18 years.
Prosecutors of the following cases (James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Theodore Jerry Williams, and Floyd Brown) have acted far more egregiously and their actions have resulted in a far greater injustice to their defendants than actions by prosecutor Gregory Butler. Yet, the N.C. State Bar failed to initiate actions against these prosecutors.
Prosecutor Bill Wolfe charged James Arthur Johnson as an accomplice in the murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery of Brittany Willis. This was after Johnson, who had nothing to do with the crime, told the police the identity of the perpetrator who had confided in him. Johnson spent 39 months in jail on these charges before they were dropped by a special prosecutor. In a pre-arranged scheme, the special prosecutor then charged Johnson with an “accessory after the fact,” all in an attempt to protect Wolfe from a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct filed by the NAACP. Eventually, Johnson ended up making a Alford plea to avoid the possibility of further incarceration on a “misprision of felony” charge (failure to tell police knowledge of a crime… he waited three days before going to police with information which solved a heinous crime that would most likely have remained unsolved without his intervention). Bill Wolfe had no physical evidence tying Johnson to the crime, and attempted to employ two eyewitnesses (with ties to the police department) after the person identified by Johnson recanted his statement made in anger that implicated Johnson. Yet the N.C. State Bar took no action against Prosecutor Bill Wolfe.
Prosecutor Freda Black charged 14 year old Erick Daniels with armed robbery, based solely on the victim’s identification of his eyebrows in a middle school year book. Although he did not have the hair style or complexion of the robbery suspect, nor any physical evidence linking him to the crime, Prosecutor Black convicted him of the crime in an adult court, with the aid of a defense attorney who made the mistake of putting the young man on the stand. Although another young man, who was later arrested and fit the description of the perpetrator in the armed robbery, and had a history of armed robbery was willing to confess to the crime, Prosecutor Black did not interview him. Erick Daniels wrongfully spent seven years of a fourteen year sentence in jail for a crime he did not commit, after being charged without probable cause. The N.C. State Bar took no action against Prosecutor Black.
A prosecutor, who has not been named by the media, destroyed crucial, exculpatory evidence in the case of Theodore Jerry Williams. He was charged with assaulting a prison guard, although the charges were trumped up by authorities as a vendetta because Williams had the audacity to complain about the local district attorney. When a judge learned that the evidence which was requested by the defendant was destroyed by the prosecutor, he dropped the charges against the defendant. Attorney General Roy Cooper used his office to appeal the judge’s ruling, with full knowledge that the prosecutor destroyed evidence so crucial to the case that charges were dropped. The Attorney General’s Office failed to get the appeal overturned, and rightfully so. However, the N.C. State Bar took no action against the prosecutor(s) involved in destruction of evidence.
Anson County Prosecutor Michael Parker charged a retarded man, Floyd Brown, for murder. His primary evidence against Brown was a confession which mental health experts testified Brown was so mentally retarded that he could not have possibly authored such a statement. Parker held Brown in custody without a trial for over fourteen years, until a judge finally dropped the charges against him. The N.C. State Bar took no initiative to take actions against Prosecutor Parker.
It is extremely curious to me as to why the N.C. State Bar would go to such lengths to go after a prosecutor in which justice may have been delayed somewhat, yet ignore cases in which justice has been shredded and trampled upon by prosecutors. The rationale of going after Butler while ignoring the shenanigans of Wolfe, Black, Parker, and others escapes me.
Regardless, I doubt that Gregory Butler will be disbarred. Nor do I believe that he should, knowing what I do about the complaint filed against him. But whether or not future prosecutors are disciplined or disbarred by the State Bar, the Bar’s actions will not ameliorate the stains of injustice wrought by the unjust and selective disbarment of Mike Nifong.
By September 19th, we should have a better idea of what the North Carolina State Bar is up to regarding its complaint against Gregory C. Butler, prosecutor.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Victoria Peterson is quest on the Bill LuMaye Show
On Thursday, July 2, 2009, Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong president Victoria Peterson was a guest on the Bill LuMaye Show – a program on the conservative talk radio station WPTF-680 AM. Rick Martinez (the station’s news and programming director), along with his wife Donna, hosted the three hour afternoon program sitting in for the vacationing LuMaye.
The cordial and even questioning by the Martinezes covered a range of issues on the topic of Mike Nifong. Ms. Peterson made comments and fielded queries for an hour before departing. The second hour which followed consisted of calls from listeners who continued the conversation. To kick off the questioning, Mr. Martinez asked how Mike Nifong was doing. Ms. Peterson responded that he was doing well, and mentioned the fact that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong was organized and operated without the consent, knowledge, or input from Mr. Nifong.
During the first hour, callers had negative positions related to Mr. Nifong, with one media-misguided caller of African descent incredulously asking Ms. Peterson how she could support a prosecutor who “withheld exculpatory evidence” from the defense (a false allegation). Another caller felt Ms. Peterson’s forceful, “take no prisoners – yield no quarter” manner was too overpowering, and he lamented the fact that there was not an equally vociferous devil’s advocate on the program.
A point repeatedly hammered by Victoria was that Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse accuser, never had a chance o tell her story, and that she never had her day in court. When Donna Martinez countered that Attorney General Roy Cooper didn’t bring the case to trial because he felt that there wasn’t sufficient evidence, Ms. Peterson had earlier responded that the attorney general overstepped his bounds and instead of deciding not to prosecute, took the extra unprecedented step of declaring the Duke defendants “innocent.” This, she stated, opened the city of Durham an Duke University to a slew of civil suits.
The first hour of the show is on the station’s website podcast. Hopefully the www.justice4nifong.com website will soon have the interview posted alng with the second hour (which contains comments by some callers supportive of Mike Nifong).
It is rare that the media affords the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong a forum wherein it can support and defend Mr. Nifong, and put forth its objective (which is for the North Carolina State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mike Nifong’s license to practice law in the state, without restrictions). WPTF-680 AM is to be commended for the opportunity to the Committee.
The Committee looks forward to having a full in-house, no holds barred debate about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment with Bill LuMaye, himself, in the near future. Keep tuned to this blog site or the home page of our website, www.justice4nifong.com, for information.
The cordial and even questioning by the Martinezes covered a range of issues on the topic of Mike Nifong. Ms. Peterson made comments and fielded queries for an hour before departing. The second hour which followed consisted of calls from listeners who continued the conversation. To kick off the questioning, Mr. Martinez asked how Mike Nifong was doing. Ms. Peterson responded that he was doing well, and mentioned the fact that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong was organized and operated without the consent, knowledge, or input from Mr. Nifong.
During the first hour, callers had negative positions related to Mr. Nifong, with one media-misguided caller of African descent incredulously asking Ms. Peterson how she could support a prosecutor who “withheld exculpatory evidence” from the defense (a false allegation). Another caller felt Ms. Peterson’s forceful, “take no prisoners – yield no quarter” manner was too overpowering, and he lamented the fact that there was not an equally vociferous devil’s advocate on the program.
A point repeatedly hammered by Victoria was that Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse accuser, never had a chance o tell her story, and that she never had her day in court. When Donna Martinez countered that Attorney General Roy Cooper didn’t bring the case to trial because he felt that there wasn’t sufficient evidence, Ms. Peterson had earlier responded that the attorney general overstepped his bounds and instead of deciding not to prosecute, took the extra unprecedented step of declaring the Duke defendants “innocent.” This, she stated, opened the city of Durham an Duke University to a slew of civil suits.
The first hour of the show is on the station’s website podcast. Hopefully the www.justice4nifong.com website will soon have the interview posted alng with the second hour (which contains comments by some callers supportive of Mike Nifong).
It is rare that the media affords the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong a forum wherein it can support and defend Mr. Nifong, and put forth its objective (which is for the North Carolina State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mike Nifong’s license to practice law in the state, without restrictions). WPTF-680 AM is to be commended for the opportunity to the Committee.
The Committee looks forward to having a full in-house, no holds barred debate about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment with Bill LuMaye, himself, in the near future. Keep tuned to this blog site or the home page of our website, www.justice4nifong.com, for information.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Our sympathies to Rhonda
For those who have not visited the comments portion of our blog, a brief introduction: Rhonda Fleming is a lady in a tremendous amount of grief over the passing of her beloved brother, Jack. He died years ago in Durham, North Carolina, of what was determined to be a suicide, however Rhonda believes that his death was due to homicide, and she cannot find closure until the perpetrator is brought to justice. She has been actively trying to get any possible witnesses to come forward and for authorities to designate the case as a homicide and re-open the investigation. The depth of the love she had for her brother is evidenced by her passion and persistence in pursuing this issue.
On behalf of all members of the Committee on Justice for MikeNifong, I extend to you our deepest sympathies over your loss. Although I do not know the particulars of your brother’s passing, I will put a link to your website on our Links page when we get it up and running. (There is much important information, especially on the Documents page, that has yet to be posted, so it will not be done in the near future, but as soon as possible.)
There are a few misconceptions you and other readers may have that should be clarified:
(1) The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong took it upon itself to seek the reinstatement of Mr. Nifong’s law license because his license was selectively and unjustly taken from him by the North Carolina State Bar.
(2) Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the State Bar since its inception in 1933. One prosecutor disbarred over a 76 year period, although other prosecutors have conducted themselves far more egregiously than the petty nonsense with which Mr. Nifong has been accused. North Carolina ranks third behind Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates who have been exconerated, and most, if not all of them were convicted through prosecutorial misconduct.
(3) Mr. Nifong is not seeking to have his law license reinstated by the State Bar, and has stated that he has no intention of practicing law in North Carolina in the future even if his license were reinstated. In pursuing reinstatement of his law license, we are aware of his position regarding the practice of law, but we do not hold him to it.
We are aware that emotionally you are in pain, but we do not understand your animus towards Mr. Nifong. Again, we do not know your brother’s case, but I would like to think that if evidence existed that suggested that he was murdered, that the Durham Police would have thoroughly investigated. Often, a murder is staged to appear as a suicide, so I do not believe that your view regarding the cause of his death is totally unreasonable.
Feel free to share with us any specific evidence or information you might have to support your case. Please be aware that our efforts are focused first and foremost on obtaining justice for Mr. Nifong, which would be the reinstatement of his license. Only after achieving that goal will be able to consider giving our full attention to your brother’s case.
Let us know if there is anything else we may do that may be of help to you.
On behalf of all members of the Committee on Justice for MikeNifong, I extend to you our deepest sympathies over your loss. Although I do not know the particulars of your brother’s passing, I will put a link to your website on our Links page when we get it up and running. (There is much important information, especially on the Documents page, that has yet to be posted, so it will not be done in the near future, but as soon as possible.)
There are a few misconceptions you and other readers may have that should be clarified:
(1) The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong took it upon itself to seek the reinstatement of Mr. Nifong’s law license because his license was selectively and unjustly taken from him by the North Carolina State Bar.
(2) Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the State Bar since its inception in 1933. One prosecutor disbarred over a 76 year period, although other prosecutors have conducted themselves far more egregiously than the petty nonsense with which Mr. Nifong has been accused. North Carolina ranks third behind Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates who have been exconerated, and most, if not all of them were convicted through prosecutorial misconduct.
(3) Mr. Nifong is not seeking to have his law license reinstated by the State Bar, and has stated that he has no intention of practicing law in North Carolina in the future even if his license were reinstated. In pursuing reinstatement of his law license, we are aware of his position regarding the practice of law, but we do not hold him to it.
We are aware that emotionally you are in pain, but we do not understand your animus towards Mr. Nifong. Again, we do not know your brother’s case, but I would like to think that if evidence existed that suggested that he was murdered, that the Durham Police would have thoroughly investigated. Often, a murder is staged to appear as a suicide, so I do not believe that your view regarding the cause of his death is totally unreasonable.
Feel free to share with us any specific evidence or information you might have to support your case. Please be aware that our efforts are focused first and foremost on obtaining justice for Mr. Nifong, which would be the reinstatement of his license. Only after achieving that goal will be able to consider giving our full attention to your brother’s case.
Let us know if there is anything else we may do that may be of help to you.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Comparing Duke Lacrosse to Scottsboro: Blasphemy!
The Trial of the Scottsboro Boys is widely held to be one of the worst cases of court room injustice in the history of the United States. It occurred in the southern state of Alabama during the height of Jim Crow and the Great Depression of the early thirties. In that case, nine black boys, the youngest being twelve, were rounded up by a gun toting posse after an altercation on a freight train in which they forced several whites off. One of the white women on the train, was a prostitute and was concerned about possible criminal charges she would face for traveling across state lines to provide service, so she convinced another white woman to divert attention from themselves by accusing the black boys of gang raping them. Of the nine boys rounded up on the freight train that night, they were confined in prisons and jails that were essentially hell holes, for many years, during numerous trials and re-trials. Outcome of almost all of the trials, despite evidence pointing to the innocence of the boys, was a conviction and death sentence. The last Scottsboro boy to be released, was released fifteen years later. It was a miracle that the boys even survived their incarceration, as the National Guard was called in to prevent their lynching by a mob shortly after they were first arrested and charged.
Now some individuals, such as Bill Anderson, want to compare the three Duke Lacrosse defendants to the Scottsboro boys and suggest a close kindred bond between the two. The purpose of trying to link the two is to try and convince people that the alleged injustice suffered by the Duke boys was of the same magnitude as that of the Scottsboro boys. Such an analogy is nonexistent, and to attempt to force such a relationship in the minds of people is blasphemous. There is definitely no comparison, other than both groups were charged with sexual assault. That is where the similarities end. Differences are as follows:
1) the Scottsboro boys were hitching a ride on a freight train in search of work when an altercation broke out with white riders on the freight. In the Duke Lacrosse case, the defendants were at a raucous party (ala “Animal House”) where their was under-aged drinking, drugs, and strippers. These parties were notoriously rowdy, and the Lacrosse coach had even been warned by the Duke administration to curb them, something he was unable to accomplish.
2) the Scottsboro boys were nearly lynched after charges were brought, and they faced the death penalty. Duke Lacrosse defendants’ safety was never an issue and they surely were not submitted to the stress of facing capital punishment.
3) the Scottsboro boys’ initial two defense attorneys were no dream team. One was so drunk that he couldn’t walk a straight line, and the other was in his 70’s and hadn’t been in the courtroom for decades. They didn’t call outside witnesses, didn’t effectively cross examine those on the stand, and made no closing statement. The Duke Lacrosse defendants families retained several prestigious law firms to represent their sons (which they claim charged them millions of dollars).
4) the Scottsboro boys were confined in small, squalid rat-infested cells, under the most deplorable conditions imaginable for many years. They were subjected to physical and psychological horrors routinely while incarcerated. None of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants spent any time in jail… the only one serving time as a result of the Duke Lacrosse case was prosecutor Mike Nifong.
5) although wrongfully charged and incarcerated, none of the Scottsboro boys receive compensation. The Duke Lacrosse defendants received seven million dollars ($7,000,000) each in an out of court settlement with Duke University, and they are avariciously suing the city of Durham for ten million dollars ($10,000,000) each.
6) the Scottsboro boys were not proclaimed innocent, however, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper took it upon himself to rule that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent!”
7) many years after their ordeal, one of the Scottsboro boys wrote about the terrible experience. In the Duke Lacrosse case, a myriad of books, all favorable to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, have hit the market, and television and news programs, such as “60 Minutes” have produced stories about the case. At least one movie about the Duke Lacrosse case is already in the works.
8) the events that transpired with the Scottsboro boys are accepted and undisputed. However, what happened at the Duke lacrosse house party will never be known with certainty because Attorney General Roy Cooper saw to it that the case was shut down. No ensuing trial was held which would be able to bring clarity to what happened at the house on Buchanan Street in Durham on a night in March 2006. We will never know about the conversations the father of defendant Reid Seligmann had with the taxi cab driver and its effect on his changing testimony.
The aforementioned are just a few of the reasons that the Duke Lacrosse case doesn’t even come close to the standard of injustice set by the Scottsboro boys case. To suggest or insist that the two are comparable is a ploy used to steer the minds of those individuals who are not used to exercising theirs to think for themselves. The misguided followers and supporters of the Duke Lacrosse defendants have allowed the families of the defendants, the NC Attorney General’s Office, and the media (locally and nationally) to persecute Mr. Nifong, a dedicated prosecutor with 27 years of service to the state of North Carolina, who followed the principle of “equal justice for all” in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case. By doing so, these North Carolinians supporting the Duke Lacrosse defendants are enabling the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants to further rape the state (the city of Durham alone has spent well over a million dollars in defending itself against the frivolous lawsuits of these families of wealth, status, privilege, greed, and vindictiveness).
A final analysis: The rape of the state of North Carolina by the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants more closely approaches the magnitude of injustice associated with the Scottsboro boys than the pitiful alleged "injustice" suffered by the Duke Lacrosse defendants, which doesn’t even merit a blip on the scale of injustice.
Now some individuals, such as Bill Anderson, want to compare the three Duke Lacrosse defendants to the Scottsboro boys and suggest a close kindred bond between the two. The purpose of trying to link the two is to try and convince people that the alleged injustice suffered by the Duke boys was of the same magnitude as that of the Scottsboro boys. Such an analogy is nonexistent, and to attempt to force such a relationship in the minds of people is blasphemous. There is definitely no comparison, other than both groups were charged with sexual assault. That is where the similarities end. Differences are as follows:
1) the Scottsboro boys were hitching a ride on a freight train in search of work when an altercation broke out with white riders on the freight. In the Duke Lacrosse case, the defendants were at a raucous party (ala “Animal House”) where their was under-aged drinking, drugs, and strippers. These parties were notoriously rowdy, and the Lacrosse coach had even been warned by the Duke administration to curb them, something he was unable to accomplish.
2) the Scottsboro boys were nearly lynched after charges were brought, and they faced the death penalty. Duke Lacrosse defendants’ safety was never an issue and they surely were not submitted to the stress of facing capital punishment.
3) the Scottsboro boys’ initial two defense attorneys were no dream team. One was so drunk that he couldn’t walk a straight line, and the other was in his 70’s and hadn’t been in the courtroom for decades. They didn’t call outside witnesses, didn’t effectively cross examine those on the stand, and made no closing statement. The Duke Lacrosse defendants families retained several prestigious law firms to represent their sons (which they claim charged them millions of dollars).
4) the Scottsboro boys were confined in small, squalid rat-infested cells, under the most deplorable conditions imaginable for many years. They were subjected to physical and psychological horrors routinely while incarcerated. None of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants spent any time in jail… the only one serving time as a result of the Duke Lacrosse case was prosecutor Mike Nifong.
5) although wrongfully charged and incarcerated, none of the Scottsboro boys receive compensation. The Duke Lacrosse defendants received seven million dollars ($7,000,000) each in an out of court settlement with Duke University, and they are avariciously suing the city of Durham for ten million dollars ($10,000,000) each.
6) the Scottsboro boys were not proclaimed innocent, however, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper took it upon himself to rule that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent!”
7) many years after their ordeal, one of the Scottsboro boys wrote about the terrible experience. In the Duke Lacrosse case, a myriad of books, all favorable to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, have hit the market, and television and news programs, such as “60 Minutes” have produced stories about the case. At least one movie about the Duke Lacrosse case is already in the works.
8) the events that transpired with the Scottsboro boys are accepted and undisputed. However, what happened at the Duke lacrosse house party will never be known with certainty because Attorney General Roy Cooper saw to it that the case was shut down. No ensuing trial was held which would be able to bring clarity to what happened at the house on Buchanan Street in Durham on a night in March 2006. We will never know about the conversations the father of defendant Reid Seligmann had with the taxi cab driver and its effect on his changing testimony.
The aforementioned are just a few of the reasons that the Duke Lacrosse case doesn’t even come close to the standard of injustice set by the Scottsboro boys case. To suggest or insist that the two are comparable is a ploy used to steer the minds of those individuals who are not used to exercising theirs to think for themselves. The misguided followers and supporters of the Duke Lacrosse defendants have allowed the families of the defendants, the NC Attorney General’s Office, and the media (locally and nationally) to persecute Mr. Nifong, a dedicated prosecutor with 27 years of service to the state of North Carolina, who followed the principle of “equal justice for all” in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case. By doing so, these North Carolinians supporting the Duke Lacrosse defendants are enabling the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants to further rape the state (the city of Durham alone has spent well over a million dollars in defending itself against the frivolous lawsuits of these families of wealth, status, privilege, greed, and vindictiveness).
A final analysis: The rape of the state of North Carolina by the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants more closely approaches the magnitude of injustice associated with the Scottsboro boys than the pitiful alleged "injustice" suffered by the Duke Lacrosse defendants, which doesn’t even merit a blip on the scale of injustice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
