Reginald Daye’s autopsy report is nothing more than a disgraceful shame…

LINK to flog: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog7.html

The above flog is interactive to allow you to view documents at will.

Script for the flog is below.

Recently I examined two autopsy reports related to Reginald Daye, the early morning April 3, 2011 stabbing victim of Crystal Mangum… the Duke Lacrosse case victim and accuser. Documents included the Report of Investigation by Medical Examiner conducted on April 13, 2011 by someone whose signature I cannot decipher, and the Report of Autopsy Examination of April 14, 2011 performed by the Orange County medical examiner, Clay Nichols, M.D.

Beginning with the investigative report, it clearly shows that at the time of the stabbing he was intoxicated, as he had a blood alcohol level of 296 mg/dl. However, what I find highly curious is that of all media accounts I am aware of regarding the Daye stabbing and subsequent course of events, there was no mention of Daye’s drunken state. A prime example of media bias.

Supporting the intoxicated state of Daye is a passage from an article in the Newsweek’s “The Daily Beast.” It reads as follows: “A neighbor told The Daily Beast that Mangum and Daye had returned to Daye’s apartment after drinking at a cookout and began quarreling about money, eventually leading to the stabbing…”

Under Probable cause of death, the box “Pending” is checked. Lines are left blank where it states that death was “Due to...” No where is “stab wound” or “stabbing” indicated.

In the section “Manner of Death” the pending box is checked. Notice that the homicide box is not marked.

In the Medical History portion of the form, the box for smoking is checked, but notice that the one for alcoholism is left unmarked. It is my understanding from my sources that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic. He had a high blood alcohol level when medical personnel first obtained blood samples following the incident. Furthermore, I believe that the argument proceeding the stabbing had to do with Reginald Daye wanting to use money contributed by Crystal and intended to go towards rent, to purchase beer.

Under “Means of Death,” a sharp instrument is indicated as being utilized, however under description it reads only “knife per report.” There is no mention of what type of knife was used or the dimensions of the blade. My sources told me that a paring knife was used. However, the media again has elected to be as vague as possible by stating only that a kitchen knife had inflicted the damage. Had it been a butcher knife you can bet that the news reports would have said so… and not just said “kitchen knife.”

I looked below in the report’s “Narrative Summary of Circumstances Surrounding Death,” and not only was there no description of a knife, but there was no mention of a knife… the report reading “Mr. Daye… was reportedly stabbed in the flank at 3:15 am…”

The sections titled “Description of Body” and “Body Diagrams” were both left empty with a notice to “Defer to Orange County Medical Examiner.” Now, I do not know if this is standard procedure or not, but it strikes me as being baffling and quite curious.

The “Narrative Summary of Circumstances Surrounding Death” is where things really get mystifying. First it states that the incision wound is in the left 7th intercostals space of the chest… and that the CAT scan examination shows a laceration of the spleen and a small laceration at the superior pole of the left kidney. The exploratory laparotomy does not confirm any lesions to the left kidney or spleen… the only injury noted is to the splenic flexure of the colon.

The narrative of the operation Mr. Daye underwent states the following: “He underwent exploratory laparotomy, mobilization of splenic flexure, repair of splenic flexure lesion, and lysis of adhesions, and was admitted.” Notice that no where in this report is there any mention of a laceration to the left lower lobe of the lung. No mention of a perforation of the diaphragm. And no mention of an injury or repair to the fundus of the stomach.

Based on this report, what I believe the stab wound injuries to Reginald Daye consisted of is a laceration to the splenic flexure of the colon… period. The CT scan confirmed injury there, and the description of the operative procedures listed attention to the colon only. There was no mention of repair of a stomach laceration. There is no mention of repairs to the diaphragm, left kidney, left lung, or spleen.

You will also notice there is no mention of any lacerations, bruises or other lesions to the left upper extremity. This is in sync with media reports in which I did not find any mention of any defensive-type wounds to the left arm.

WRAL reported that Daye underwent surgery and was expected to make a full recovery. With Daye being at Duke Hospital, with its stellar reputation, I would expect nothing less. Newsweek commented that “a friend told ‘The Daily Beast’ on April 5 that he, Daye, was recovering.” This was one day before Reginald Daye unexpectedly went into cardiac arrest.

However, it appears that Daye’s problems began on the evening of Wednesday, the third post-op day, when the report implies that Daye vomited, and aspirated – vomitus entering his airway – which led to respiratory distress and his cardiac arrest.

Then, according to the report, after 20 minutes of CPR, his heart and lungs were functioning, but he was brain dead. So, on the evening August 6, 2011, Reginald Daye was in a deep coma, and remained in a coma for a week until he died the following Wednesday evening of April 13, 2011… and the media never mentioned it once. Remember, Daye was expected to make a full recovery.

There is no mention of how Daye died, but I have been told that he passed away after he was taken off life support.

This report is deficient in explaining what procedures Mr. Daye underwent, other than the emergency exploratory laparotomy. It is my understanding that he underwent some major procedures which may have contributed to his cardiac arrest.

Finally, on July 28, 2011, a reviewer lists “Stab wound to chest” as the cause of death. A vague and totally inadequate finding. There is no nexus between the stab wound and the cardiac arrest. The cardiac arrest which allegedly occurred on April 6th obviously contributed to his grave neurological condition. And, was he removed from life support?

As problematic as this report is, I believe it to be, by far, more accurate and reliable than the Report of Autopsy Examination which was conducted the following morning, on Thursday, April 14, 2011.

It lists the cause of death as “Complications of stab wound to chest.” However, it fails to list what any of those complications were, or how they were related to the stab wound.

Then, under diagnoses, the fantasy begins with the following entry:
“Stab wound to chest with: Perforation of left lower lung lobes; Perforation of diaphragm; Perforation of stomach; Perforation of colon; Perforation of left kidney; and Perforation of spleen (clinical).”

I’m assuming that a clinical perforation of the spleen is a phantom lesion that somehow produces a laceration within the organ without interrupting its capsule. Actually, I’ve never heard of such.

The paragraphs under “Injuries” I find most curious… especially involving the stab wound itself which the medical examiner described as “gaping.” I would hardly call an incision less than three quarters of an inch in length gaping, but if it were open, more than a quarter of an inch wide, then why was it not sutured closed at the time of surgery to prevent infection? Surgical intervention was well within time for primary closure… and if the wound was not closed at the time of the operation, it would have been well on its way to healing itself by granulation. There is no explanation I can see for the stab wound to be “gaping.”

It then claims that there are sutures on all of the following sites: left lower lung lobe, diaphragm, stomach, colon, and kidney. No mention of surgical intervention on the spleen.

Now if there were sutures to the left lower lung, would they have been performed by a thoracic surgeon, or would a trauma surgeon have been charged with its repair?

Regarding the stab wounds to the left arm, which first appear in this report, there is no mention as to the number of wounds. They are stated to run from the biceps to the wrist with 5 inches the greatest in length.

Under Internal Examination, the left lung does not mention any suture material, as stated was present earlier in the report. The tracheobronchial tree is described as having no abnormalities, which would contradict an aspiration. There is no sign of pulmonary embolism, either. These findings beg the question of what caused the cardiac arrest.

The Gastrointestinal System claims to show sutures in the fundus of the stomach and in the splenic flexure of the colon… sigmoid flexure being an obvious mistake.

The spleen does not show any signs of sutures or disruption of the organ’s capsule.

The left kidney supposedly shows signs of hemorrhage under the upper pole of the left kidney, which the medical examiner attributes to a stab wound… but there is no gross lesion observed on the organ’s capsule or any suturing. Also the adrenal gland which sits like a cap over the upper pole of the kidney is intact and normal in appearance.

The diaphragm is not specifically mentioned in this report… so there is no confirmation by report of the gross exam that sutures are present.

The examination of the brain exhibited no signs of pathology to help explain why Reginald Daye went into a comatose state. Most likely, the brain was deprived of oxygen for an extended time prior to the cardiac arrest, but the reason is unknown. Many people who are successfully resuscitated with CPR lasting twenty minute or longer, usually do not end up brain dead. The cause of his brain death is at the crux of his death, and I can find no nexus with the stab wound.

This leads to the “Summary and Interpretation.” The summary is inconclusive and there is no interpretation. The medical examiner explains that Reginald Daye sustained a single puncture laceration that penetrated a slew of organs in the thoracic and abdominal cavities, with hemorrhaging into them. It is evident that Daye did not die due to shock or blood loss. If there was a hemothorax, or bleeding into the chest cavity, or pneumothorax, air in the thoracic cavity, a chest tube would have been inserted. Repairs to lacerated organs should have put an end to the bleeding into the abdominal cavity. There is no mention as to why Daye was brain dead, why he went into cardiac arrest, which preceded which, and whether or not the patient was taken off life support. These questions are all the more baffling when it was reported post-operatively that he was expected to make a full recovery.

From the type of trauma he sustained, he should have made a full recovery. I believe that only the colon at the splenic flexure was penetrated by the stab wound, and that the Autopsy report embellished the injuries to make a better case for a death secondary to complications of the stab wound. The investigative report of April 13, 2011 is by far the more factual report.

The autopsy report of April 14, 2011 does nothing to shed light on why Reginald Daye died. The only thing that is obvious is that he did not die due to the stab wound he received… which penetrated his colon only.

The media, of course, is in cahoots with the police and prosecutors, and the medical examiner, Dr. Clay Nichols. This was evident from the very beginning when ABC-11 News stated that the warrants read that Mangum repeatedly stabbed her boyfriend. The online video of that news report titled: “Warrants: Mangum repeatedly stabbed boyfriend.” Posted the day following the incident, ABC-11 News went on to state that Daye was stabbed seven times. By misleading the public about the number of times Daye was stabbed, the ABC-11 was trying to make a self-defense scenario seem less likely.

The media also attempted to make the damage from the single stab wound seem more severe than it actually was. Whereas only the colon was penetrated by the knife, in my opinion based on the initial investigative report of April 13, 2011, the media wants the public to believe that six organs were penetrated… and to help do that, they refer to the diaphragm, which is nothing more than a very large muscle, as an organ. And the left kidney and spleen show no indication on gross examination that they were lacerated or repaired.

In short, the Autopsy report of April 14, 2011 is a sham, and does not even list any complications of the stab wound or surgery other than a cardiac arrest which mysteriously appeared and which, upon resuscitation left the patient brain dead… it is not even clear if Mr. Daye was brain dead prior to the cardiac arrest.

The media has done such a terrific job of sowing a culture of hatred against former District Attorney Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and those who are considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, that I would not be surprised if a sinister hand at the hospital was responsible for the death of Reginald Daye. And although this is a very real possibility, the Durham Police never treated Mr. Daye’s death as a possible homicide. Instead the prosecutor was quick to upgrade the charge against Crystal Mangum to include first degree murder… months before the medical examiner even determined a cause of death.

Anatomically there are reasons to doubt the April 14, 2011 Report of Autopsy Examination. According to both reports, the stab wound would have been in the left seventh intercostal space… here. It is very likely that a puncture could have easily penetrated the colon and/or stomach. The April 13, 2011 investigative report well documents that the colon at the splenic flexure was injured.

However, the April 14th report states that the fundus of the stomach had a sutured lesion. This is fundamentally impossible as the fundus of the stomach, which is the part most superiorly positioned, is no where near the colon. Both organs could not be penetrated with a single stab wound.

The April 14th autopsy report is also flawed when it suggests that the knife traveled in a downward direction after penetrating the skin. Notice the position of the diaphragm… and the lungs are sitting atop them. In order to pierce the diaphragm and the lung from the 7th intercostal space, a knife would have to proceed in an upward direction.

The left kidney is located along the back wall of the abdominal cavity, and would require a strenuous thrust up to the hilt of a paring knife to possibly reach the left kidney, and I do not believe it could be reached without first going through the spleen.
And it could not be reached if the blade followed a downward course as determined by the medical examiner.

It is not only the discrepancies between the two reports that makes me doubt the April 14th report’s accuracy, but issues involving human anatomy. The April 14, 2011 autopsy report is nothing more than fiction designed to garner Crystal Mangum a first degree murder charge. The medical examiner is not at fault in the fabrication of this false report. Fault lies with the state and the media, working in conjunction with the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants in carrying out their vendetta against Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and those whom they consider to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.

In the pursuit of justice, serious problems with reports by the medical examiners in the autopsy of Reginald Daye demands that the first degree murder charge against Crystal Mangum be dropped.



“Race played no role” in Governor’s denial of pardon for Daniels

Click Link below to view interactive flog:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog6redo.html

Script of flog

On Friday, September 9, 2008, Erick Daniels, at 22 years of age was freed after more than seven years of incarceration after being convicted of a September 21, 2000 armed robbery. His road to freedom had begun in late 2004, when attorney Carlos Mahoney began to appeal Daniels’ conviction. Despite several unsuccessful appeals, including a setback in January 2007 when the state’s Court of Appeals denied his case, Mahoney was undaunted and persevered.

Then in September 2008, state prosecutors, knowing they had a pitifully weak case against Erick Daniels, offered an Alford plea deal… wherein he would deny involvement in the crime but acknowledge evidence existed for his conviction in exchange for his immediate release. Had he accepted the plea deal, Daniels would forever be branded a felon. With faith in his attorney, Daniels refused to accept the deal… he would take his chances with an appeals hearing in hopes of getting a new trial.

During two days of the hearing, in which attorney Mahoney dissected the prosecutors’ case against Daniels like a skilled surgeon, the evidence to support Daniels’ innocence was so substantial and overwhelming, that Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson took the initiative to dismiss the charges and proclaiming that Erick Daniels was innocent.

Judge Hudson specifically stated, “I would order a new trial if I were satisfied that this defendant committed this crime and the state could prove it. I have no confidence the defendant committed these charges.”

Lending support to Judge Hudson’s assessment was the fact that in 2003 Daniels submitted to a polygraph tests in which he denied robbing the victim, denied pointing a gun at the victim and denied being present when the robbery took place. According to polygraph examiner Steve Davenport, “It is my opinion there were no reactions indicative of deception to those relevant questions.”

Not only that, but a young man who fit the description of the armed perpetrator and had a history of committing armed robberies, had confessed to his attorney that he was responsible for the September 2000 armed robbery for which Daniels was convicted.

Shortly after Daniels was proclaimed innocent by the judge and released, Durham attorney Gladys Harris began filing a petition for a pardon of actual innocence on behalf of Erick Daniels. Such a pardon was a prerequisite for him to be able to receive financial compensation for his years of wrongful incarceration… as legislated at the North Carolina General Assembly.

In 2010, attorney Carlos Mahoney met with Eddie Speas, Will Polk, and Barry Jenkins, and he requested that Governor Perdue grant Daniels’ petition and issue a pardon of actual innocence. To assist the governor, Mahoney even provided a notebook containing pleadings and trial transcripts.

Apparently in February 2011, the North Carolina Office of Executive Clemency denied a pardon of actual innocence for Erick Daniels, but failed to notify him or his attorney. It was only in mid-April 2011 that Daniels accidentally uncovered the panel’s decision. An article titled, “Erick Daniels denied pardon,” in the April 20, 2011 edition of the “Independent Weekly” brought this to my attention, as all other mainstream media outlets ignored the story.

Erick Daniels’ petition for a pardon was not the only one presented to Governor Perdue… she also received one from Gregory Flynt Taylor.

I had been a staunch supporter of Gregory Taylor since 2009 when I first learned through the media of his questionable conviction for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Like many others, I admired and was in awe of Greg Taylor’s integrity, principles, courage and ethics. Rather than falsely implicate an African American man, who Greg knew to be innocent, at the urgings of prosecutor Tom Ford in the Thomas murder case, Greg refused, and as a result spent seventeen of his best years behind bars. He was facing life in prison.

Gregory Taylor, who was found innocent of the murder by a unanimous three panel judge during mid February 2010, immediately sought a pardon from the governor after his exoneration.

When a pardon for Taylor was not forthcoming in what I considered a timely manner, I hand delivered a letter to Governor Perdue on April 12, 2010. I questioned the delay in her response to his request for a pardon. No reply was forthcoming.

The following month, on May 21, 2010, I hand-delivered another letter to the Capitol building for the governor. Again, I received no response. However, shortly thereafter an official pardon was granted by Governor Perdue.

On June 1, 2011, a little over a month following the “Independent Weekly” article about Daniels’ petition for a pardon being denied, I hand-delivered a letter to the governor. I pointed out how Erick Daniels had been unjustly convicted, served seven years wrongly incarcerated, and how he, like Gregory Taylor, had been declared “innocent” by a judge or judges.

Finally, I asked the governor to explain why the Office of Executive Clemency denied Daniels’ request for a pardon. I did not hear from her office.

On July 13, 2011, roughly six weeks after the previous letter, I hand delivered another for the governor. In it, I praised her for granting the pardon to Gregory Taylor, although belatedly. Furthermore, I specifically expressed that I did not feel that because Erick Daniels is an African American that he should be disqualified from being given a pardon. I expressed to her that unless I received an explanation for the denial of Erick Daniels’ petition, I would conclude that the decision to deny his request for a pardon was racially based. To this letter, I did receive a reply from the Office of the Governor.

On July 27, 2011, I received a letter from the governor’s office dated July 26th. It was written by her general counsel Mark A. Davis. He vigorously denied that race played any role in Governor Bev Perdue’s decision to deny Erick Daniels a pardon… that it was based on results of their extensive investigation that failed to prove his innocence. Then he stated that “confidentiality concerns” prevented him from sharing details of this investigation with me.

I have many serious problems with Mr. Davis’s reply. First he suggested that the Governor’s Office conducted an extensive investigation. I don’t believe it. If they did, in fact, investigate Daniels’ case as he claimed, then it was an extravagant waste of taxpayer dollars.

Secondly, he averred that due to “confidentiality concerns” he was unable to share results of the investigation. The confidentiality concerns excuse is commonly used to obstruct and to make opaque and keep from the public information that is damaging to officials, be they in the corporate or governmental spheres. However, what I find most hypocritical is the illusion that Governor Bev Perdue places a high value on “transparency.”

Thirdly, and most importantly, the governor decided that the findings of their alleged investigation did not support Erick Daniels’s innocence. By such a statement it is inferred that she approached the Daniels’ case with a presumption of guilt… this, after Judge Hudson dropped the armed robbery charges against Daniels and proclaimed that he was innocent.

What the governor fails to understand is the basic concept found in Civics 101 called the separation of powers. The governor, like the attorney general, belongs to the executive branch of government. Judicial decisions are handed down by those belonging to the judicial branch of government. Proclamations of “innocent” or “guilt,” whether made by the governor or the attorney general, carry no legal weight.

Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 promulgation in which he declared the three Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent” is as invalid and irrelevant as Governor Perdue’s claim that Erick Daniels is “guilty” of armed robbery.

To summarize, the entire gist of the governor’s letter was that race played no role in the governor’s decision to deny Daniels’ request for a pardon of innocence, and that the secret extensive investigation they conducted contradicts the ruling of Judge Hudson… but they can’t divulge results of their investigation due to confidentiality concerns.

This letter from the Office of the Governor actually hurt my feelings as my intelligence was justifiably insulted. Mr. Davis’s letter profoundly failed to convince me that the denial of a pardon for Erick Daniels was not based on racism.

The onus remains on the governor to come up with another excuse for denying Daniels a pardon, or to do the right thing by reversing the February 2011 decision, and granting Erick Daniels a pardon of innocence.



In response to the Unbelievers: the "Innocent Promulgation"

On July 31, 2011, a blog commenter with the moniker of Sid Owes Another Apology said...
“Sid,

I don't believe your claim about having received correspondence from wral.com. Post it.

Your claim that ALL the media rely on Cooper's statement is almost certainly false. Many observers reached the conclusion that the defendants were innocent through a review of the evidence. As you know, much is publicly available.

Stop it with the straw man arguments. No one has claimed Cooper's statement had legal weight. Your use of straw man arguments is misleading. You owe yet another apology to your readers.”

This comment was in response to the previous blog in which I railed against the media for constantly misleading the public by stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were proclaimed “innocent.” This claim was obviously based on the infamous April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation of Roy Cooper.” The A.G. made the unprecedented move of proclaiming the defendants innocent at the strong, arm-twisting urgings of Joseph B. Cheshire’s underling Brad Bannon. The clever defense attorney needed this admission in order to utilize Rae Evans’ decade-long past history as CBS News executive to its fullest.

Once Cooper publicly stated that the Duke defendants were innocent, the biased mainstream media took hold of it and ran with it. Everywhere you looked the media presented as fact that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been proclaimed “innocent.” To many of the naïve, but trusting public, they took this to mean that they were “legally” found to be innocent. I repeatedly challenged the media about this purposely false misrepresentation, pointing to a statement made by former Campbell Law School professor Anthony Baker. He stated that only a jury or judge, in lieu of a jury, can make determinations of innocence or guilt. The opposition has failed to provide a legal source to support that an attorney general can do so.

Due to the hullabaloo I continued to raise about this subject, the media’s statements about the Duke boys’ alleged “innocence” has morphed. As I pointed out in my previous blog, WRAL, in one of their online articles attribute to reporter Erin Hartness, wrote that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent by “state officials”… plural. In other words, it was trying to disguise the fact that the attorney general, from the executive branch of government made the proclamation. By using the plural, and suggesting that more than one person proclaimed them innocent, WRAL was trying to increase the credibility of the statement.

After confronting the station, I received a response from the news director. WRAL deserves kudus for replying to my e-mail and blog on the subject. The response I received supported my assertion in my previous blog that their statement of “innocence” was based on Cooper’s promulgation, and not upon declarations by “state officials” as stated in the article.

Blog commenter Sid Owes Another Apology doubted that I received any communication from WRAL and challenged me to post it. So, I will paste below the statement I received via e-mail on the matter:

“Gall, Rick to me, Aysu
show details Jul 17

Sid,

Thank you for contacting WRAL and sharing your thoughts. When Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a news conference that charges against the three lacrosse players were being dropped, he specifically said they were "innocent". That's the source of our reporting.

Rick Gall
NewsDirector WRAL News”

So, as the above e-mail clearly affirms, only one state official, who was from the executive branch of government, made the proclamation of “innocence”… a proclamation that carries no legal weight and is false and misleading.

Finally, in regards to statements I make, you can count on them being truthful. For me to present falsehoods in my blog would only take away from its credibility… and that is what this blog site is all about. 

Media kowtows to Carpetbagger families

Note: This Flog is approximately eight minutes in length, and requires audio.

LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog5.html

It is shameful the power that the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue to hold over the mainstream media. The most recent disgraceful example can be found in the July 12, 2011 online article posted on wral.com titled “Father gains custody of Duke Lacrosse accuser’s children.”

One wonders how such a topic could once again focus on expressing the innocence of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants… but it does. WRAL follows the lead of many recent Duke lacrosse related stories in misleading the public with regards to the source of the defendants’ innocence. Initially, wral.com, and other media outlets stated that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, in his April 11, 2007 promulgation, found the three partygoing defendants “innocent” of sexual abuse charges related to the March 2006 beer-guzzling, stripper ogling bacchanal.

It wasn’t until this blog site repeatedly pummeled the media with the fact that the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government, has no judiciary powers, and is incapable of the legal pronouncement of “innocent” or “guilt,” for that matter, that media types stopped naming the attorney general as the source of the boys’ exoneration.

Time and time again this blog enlightened readers, and e-mails informed media-types that, as former Campbell University law school professor Tony Baker stated, “Only a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury” can decide innocence or guilt.

So the media continues to morph its statement regarding the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse triad by stating, quote: “state officials (plural) later declared the players innocent,” unquote. This is a flagrant, bald-faced, in-your-face, two-faced lie. Fabrication. Prevarication. A blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… or at least the vast majority who do not bother to engage their gray matter and are easily susceptible to Jedi mind-tricks.

By using the plural when citing “state official” wral is trying to give credibility to its claim that the boys were found innocent. I have spoken to media-types about this very issue in the past, and the only source given for the proclamation of innocence has been A.G. Roy Cooper.

Now, although the article was attributed to reporter Erin Hartness and Matthew Burns, the web editor, I doubt very seriously that either one of them is responsible for the misinformation about who was responsible for proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent.” There is probably policy in place at WRAL, as well as in other media outlets, as how to phrase the innocence statement. Just as there most assuredly is a policy in place to bring up the alleged “innocence” of the Duke Lacrosse defendants whenever an article even remotely touches on someone who is somehow related to the Duke Lacrosse case.
Not only that, but you can bet that certain topics related to the Duke Lacrosse case are strictly off limits. For example, the fact that the three defendants and their avaricious attorneys shook down Duke University for $20 million each and are seeking an additional $10 mil from the city of Durham, is never broached.

Likewise, Reade Seligmann’s alleged failure to pay close to $7 million in taxes is kept hush-hush by the media.

The expunged record of Collin Finnerty’s assault charge against two men he mistook for being homosexual in Washington, D.C. is glossed over.

And the fact that Dave Evans’ mother, Rhea Evans, worked for more than a decade as an executive at CBS News, was and is never disclosed… not even during the CBS broadcasts of “60 Minutes” during which the Duke Lacrosse case was featured, and in which Ms. Evans and the Carpetbagger parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants were interviewed.

It is no doubt that Ms. Evans’ connections with the media, and her professional role as a highly successful founder of a Washington D.C. public relations firm have served the Carpetbagger Jihadist’s agenda well. How else can you explain wral.com’s perpetual and false assertion that “state officials later declared the players innocent.”

Instead of continuing to consent to the whims of the Carpetbagger Jihadist agenda, it is high time for wral and all media sources to begin reporting truthfully and objectively when it comes to stories with even the slightest connection to the Duke Lacrosse case.


Judge Gessner takes charge by tossing out charge

In an Anne Blythe article in Friday’s July 8, 2011 The News & Observer titled “Judge throws out murder charge,” Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner dismissed murder charges against 31 year-old Mario Antonio Smith. Prosecutors accused Smith of killing Dwight Lee Dean at a night club after a disturbance there. According to prosecutors, their witnesses gave statements after the incident that significantly differed from testimony given on the witness stand in court. (This is similar to a case involving the conviction of Shan Carter, which I will be highlighting in the future.) Furthermore, the prosecution’s one witness who linked Smith to the crime, described a perpetrator -who did not match the defendant in stature or hair style. (Not unlike the Erick Daniels case.)

Since the incident took place in July 2010, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Smith was incarcerated for a year prior to his weak case being dismissed by Judge Gessner. The fact that the prosecution even brought such a merit-less case to trial was not surprising to defense attorney Jeff Cutler. Cutler stated about prosecutors, “That’s what they do. They don’t want to take heat for not trying the case. They’d rather let a judge or jury make the decision. I’m not surprised the judge dismissed it.” The prosecutor lacked credible evidence! Without forensics tying Mario Antonio Smith to the crime or a consistent and credible eyewitness, prosecutors plodded forward in preparing a flawed and flimsy case while the defendant cooled his heels in the cooler. (Similar to the Carletta Alston case, Smith essentially served a year sentence on a charge so weak that a judge threw it out before it could be brought before a jury… in Alston’s case the prosecutor avoided that humiliation by dropping charges against her himself.)

In their zeal, the Wake County prosecutors also charged Gregory Mecos Lee Watkins with accessory after the fact because he allegedly drove Smith from the nightclub stabbing scene. The article made no mention of whether or not he endured a lengthy pre-trial incarceration, or was released on bond. Regardless, due to actions from the bench on Smith’s case, the “accessory” charge against Watkins was dropped, as well.

I applaud Judge Gessner for his actions in this case, as it supports justice that is much too often denied the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color. Because prosecutors in the Tar Heel state have a propensity to charge people from the disadvantaged and “not-so-privileged” classes with crimes despite the paucity of evidence against them, they can usually count on a jury, with a mindset to please the prosecution, to deliver a verdict against the defendant. It happens time and time again, when defendants are convicted without a shred of credible evidence. Most of the time these cases pass public attention because the media does not cover them… it is only when the advantaged and privileged are snagged in the cogs of the criminal justice system that the media-types jump on criminal cases.

Unfortunately, it is only in high profile cases involving defendants from the upper echelons of society that jurors take their oaths seriously. In the Jason Young case, for example, the jurors fought to a standoff in a murder trial that was declared a mistrial after several days of deliberation. Holdouts against conviction in that group of twelve, did not feel that the prosecution presented a case without reasonable doubt. In most trials, however, with defendants lacking status or media appeal, jurors tend to reach verdicts not by analyzing the facts, evidence, and presentations of the barristers but instead rely on their visceral emotions… ready to convict when a crime victim is young and innocent or to assuage the grief of victims’ friends and relatives.

Jurors in the Erick Daniels case were not presented with a compelling case for his guilt, yet those dozen who sat in judgment reached a unanimous decision against him. The same can be said for the jurors in the Gregory Taylor case. Indifferent juries are responsible for many innocent people being convicted and given lengthy sentences in this state… the majority of wrongly incarcerated being the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.

The second to the last paragraph in the article revealed the identity of Smith’s prosecutor as being Melanie Shekita… only to say that efforts to reach her were unsuccessful. I am glad to see the staff of the newspaper taking baby steps away from its ensconced PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. Although prosecutors may feel pressure to convict someone of an especially heinous crime such as murder, it behooves them to take pains to see that their priority is to convict the guilty party. All too often they bring charges and prosecute knowing that the defendant is innocent (such as the Gregory Taylor case and the Erick Daniels case).

Until North Carolina prosecutors become true “Ministers of Justice,” prosecuting only those cases which have merit, it is incumbent upon judges to assure that the rights and liberty of the innocents are protected by dismissing those cases brought by prosecutors in which there is not enough evidence to convict… as did Judge Paul Gessner in the Mario Antonio Smith case. Unfortunately juries cannot be relied upon to use sound reasoning and impartial objectivity instead of sympathy and raw emotions in reaching a fair verdict… especially when it comes to the lives and futures of defendants who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.

I believe I speak on behalf of all Tar Heelians when I state that we are all in Judge Paul Gessner’s debt.

GOP Speaker Thom Tillis caught with finger in hypocrisy cookie jar

NOTE: Be patient as the time to upload this flog may be more lengthy than usual. Click on the link below to access the flog which has a running time of approximately twenty minutes. Audio is required.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/thp/thp1.html


Despite my criticism of The News & Observer’s blatant and well established anti-Nifong bias, it deserves a few kudus every now and then for doing what a good media outlet should do… which is to inform the public about misdeeds and malfeasance amongst public officials. On its Saturday, June 11, 2011 front page, it boldly called out the North Carolina Republican Speaker of the House Thom Tillis for giving outrageous pay hikes to half of his staff, some as high as 27%. This comes at a time when the budget is being slashed with draconian relish by the power-mongering Republican party. It is also at the expense of many Tar Heelians who are unemployed and living on the fringes barely able to survive and who are dependent on the services and programs that are being downsized or eliminated.

According to the article, Tillis’ general counsel Jason Kay received the 27% pay raise bringing his annual salary from $110,000 to $140,000. That’s a $30,000 raise during an economic downturn in which the state’s unemployment rate is at its highest… in large measure thanks to the recently Republican veto-overridden budget which counted many of its victims as state employees whose jobs were shelved. Not only that, but according to Dana Cope of the State Employees Association of North Carolina, the last time most state workers received a raise was three years ago due to the recession, and any raises that were authorized never even approached 27%.

Another benefactor of Speaker Tillis’ largess was Chief of Staff Charles Thomas whose annual pay was bumped by $30,000, too… from $120,000 to $150,000. Two other noticeable pay hikes mentioned in the article went to Christopher Hayes and Amy Hobbs, both of whom were hired in January 2011 as policy advisers at a salary of $70,000, and within six months saw their yearly income balloon to $82,000.

Thom Tillis, who is quite talented when it comes to obfuscation, stated that the initial $70,000 salary the new hires received was probationary and that they would get more money if they performed well. In other words, according to Speaker Tillis, if the new hires did not perform well, they would not get a raise. That just doesn’t make sense. In most business models if new employees do not perform well during the probationary period, they’re fired. This is the typical type of Republican double-speak that I find insulting. But the speaker believes that most Tar Heelians are stupid.

Prior to April 2011, Tillis had a fourteen person staff, and in all, seven of them, including the aforementioned, received raises. Information about the other three who received raises was not presented in the article. Then, in May 2011, amid firings, layoffs, Thom Tillis hired another person to join his staff at a salary of $70,000. The position title was not mentioned, nor was there any clarification as to whether or not the $70,000 amount was probationary.

Not long ago, in January, Tillis boasted that his office payroll would be 17% lower than his predecessor Joe Hackney by hiring fewer people and lowering salaries. However, actions speak louder than words, and as it turns out, Tillis’ payroll is ten percent higher and his staff is larger than Hackney. This hypocrisy when it comes to pay for the staff of the legislative leader is not restricted to a single party. According to Cope, Tillis and others “always find a way to give their staff members higher salaries and pay raises than the rest of state government.”

I do not stand alone in my indignation at the pay raises doled out by Speaker Tillis. Arlene Pulley-Morris of Leland, North Carolina, wrote an insightful letter to The News & Observer that appeared in its People’s Forum on June 16, 2011. In 1975 the Speaker of the House had one full-time employee and three part-time employees; Ms. Pulley-Morris was that full-time employee. She states that the staff for the speaker’s office has swollen to eighteen. Her credible assessment is that payment of these abundant salaries and the inexplicable increase in staff size is a waste of Tar Heelian taxpayer dollars. I fully agree. Furthermore, I applaud her for having the courage to enlighten us about what is going on at the General Assembly. As she also stated, she is of the opinion that “everyone is afraid to speak up because they will be punished by the speaker.”

In the paper’s People’s Forum of June 14, 2011, Valorie Jones of Raleigh, Karen Padgett of Garner, and Martha Hayes of Raleigh also voiced their displeasure at Speaker Tillis’ wasteful actions. Ms. Jones asked Tillis to explain why his staff is given raises when the state is forced to lay off teachers and teaching assistants; cuts are made to child care which allows poor single mothers to hold down jobs; medical and dental health for the uninsured poor is diminishing; and other sacrifices are made due to dire financial straits. Like Ms. Jones, I would very much like an explanation as well.

Ms. Padgett, a veteran teacher, expressed her outrage at Tillis’ raises for his staff, stating that she hadn’t received a raise in years while those in the General Assembly are asking her to do more in the classroom with less.

Ms. Hayes stated that Speaker Tillis should be ashamed for the raises given while Wake County teacher assistant positions are being cut to 90%. Again, I wholeheartedly agree.

In the June 17th People’s Forum, David Lea, of Raleigh, and Connie Schafer, of Apex, opine about their unhappiness over Tillis’ pay raises. Mr. Lea, who admits to being a Republican, noted that the June 11th headline “Tillis gives his staff fat raises,” was clearly understated. Unconscionable, indefensible, egregious, insensitive, and tone-deaf are adjectives Mr. Lea believes are far more worthy.

Ms. Schafer pointed out that many state employees put Tillis and other state Republicans in office and now they are being laid off in droves while not seeing a pay raise in nearly four years. That really is not surprising, as the GOP is a party which puts the privileged, the powerful, and profits ahead of the needs of the masses of people who struggle to buy food, put gas in their cars, and pay for the mortgage on their homes that is most likely underwater. She got it right, and it bears repeating. “It is a slap in the face of each one of them for Tillis to pass a budget that will lay off workers, add a fourth year of no raises, and increase health care costs while handing out raises to a privileged few.” Unfortunately, Republicans, who are masters of obfuscation, will continue to use Jedi mind-tricks and false and misleading rhetoric to skillfully persuade state employees and others to elect to office Republicans who will work against the best interests of those who are vulnerable, downtrodden, disenfranchised, and hardworking Americans who are trying to get by.

Without doubt, the Republican Party works for the interests of corporations, big business, and the well healed, seeking tax breaks and doing whatever else it can, including outsourcing American jobs and manufacturing overseas, to increase its bottom line.

Three letters appeared in the Sunday Forum section of The News & Observer of June 19th, written by Robert I. Bruck, Ph.D., Ken Andrews, and Evelyn Holland, all from Cary. Dr. Bruck wrote that at first he thought the 12 to 27% pay raises to Tillis’ staff was a joke. He read the proposed budget which specifically stated “no pay raises to state employees” for a third consecutive year. Then, for Tillis to reward his state employees with huge raises is like rubbing salt in the wounds.

Mr. Andrews questioned the raises handed out after a probationary period was completed. As Mr. Andrews stated, it makes no sense to give a probationary raise. The incentive for working hard and doing an outstanding job during a probationary period is to hold on to the job… not get a raise. That is unheard of, and it is what makes Tillis’ excuse for the raises lack credibility. Put another way, according to Tillis, if a worker performs poorly or unsatisfactorily during a probationary period, he/she remains employed at the initial salary and is not given a raise. It makes no sense, but Mr. Tillis expects the people to believe him.

Ms. Holland expressed how disappointed she was in Tillis’ pay raises to his staff, and suggested that it wasn’t just Democrats who were disgusted, but some Republicans, too. Those disgusted Republicans, I would venture to guess, are not from the privileged class, but have bought into the Republicans’ lofty words and rhetoric which belie their true motives and actions.

I have been reading the People’s Forum section of The News & Observer since the story about Tillis’ raises appeared. I have found nine opinions fiercely against Tillis’ actions, but have found none in praise of the raises he meted out using taxpayer dollars. The reason is most likely due to the fact that no such letters were submitted… otherwise, at least one or more would have been published to give the subject matter an alternative view or more balance.

I believe the speaker should be accountable to the people to explain how taxpayer money is being spent. I have serious reservations about the large staff at the speaker’s disposal and the salaries they enjoy. Furthermore, I question the need for the May 2011 hire, especially during this debilitating recession. We do not even know the new hire’s job title or description.

Unless the speaker can give reasonable and compelling reasons for the number of his staff and the compensation that they receive, then I would recommend that Thom Tillis rescind the ill-advised fat raises that half of his staff received. In addition, I believe that he should trim not only the number of his staff but compensation packages they receive, as I have no doubt that they are excessive.

Consider, for example, the two policy advisers. What exactly is their job description, and how many are on his staff? How many hours a week do they put in on the job? When the legislature is not in session, what work is being done by the speaker’s staff and how is it audited? Regarding Tillis’ general counsel, why is there a need for his services as a staff member? What hours does he devote to serving the speaker? Does the general counsel receive other income? What work is being conducted by the general counsel when the legislation is not in session? The same questions could be applied to the Chief of Staff for the Speaker of the House, as well as the other staff members whose titles, job descriptions, and incomes are unknown.

Unfortunately I believe that many of the people in power have a tendency to lavish themselves, their cronies, and sycophants with exorbitant compensation and benefits while transferring the burden of making up their avaricious excesses by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits, services and programs for others who are scraping hard just to survive.

Government employees such as firefighters and police put their lives on the line daily to protect lives and property, often working in harsh and unpredictable situations. Maintenance and sewer workers, trash collectors, and those employed to keep the roads cleared and paved and the infrastructure safe and sound makes everyday life comfortable and tranquil. Teachers, teacher assistants, and those who work as janitors and cooks in our public school system help to assure that children will get an education that will help prepare them to meet future challenges and take advantages of opportunities. These individuals all have a job that most people can comprehend the effort exerted by them and their value to society.

The same cannot be said for the staff of Speaker Tillis. What does a policy adviser do? How many hours a week does he/she work? Does a policy adviser work when legislature is not in session?... which is most of the year. Why does Tillis need two policy advisers? Does he have more than two? I do not know the salaries of all of the speaker’s staff members, but I do not believe they deserve to be paid double and triple that of teachers, policemen, firemen, maintenance people, and others who work full-time and year round and make solid and meaningful contributions. The speaker’s staff’s hours and job description are vague, ambiguous, and murky, which makes it difficult, if not impossible to appreciate their positions.

Because we taxpayers are providing money to pay for salaries and benefits of Thom Tillis’s staff, we have right to know what we’re getting in return for investing in their salaries. I am inclined to believe that the money set aside for the outrageous raises and the new position on Tillis’ staff, is nothing more than an extravagant waste of taxpayer money. If Mr. Tillis cannot give a satisfactory explanation for graciously handing out pay raises during the presence of our local and national recession, then I would recommend that he invalidate the raises given to his staff and dissolve the unidentified position for which he hired someone in May 2011.

In other words, we should all demand that Thom Tillis be held accountable for the January 2011 promise he made to Tar Heelians to set an example for others in state government by cutting his office payroll. As Mr. Lea stated, the example that Mr. Tillis has set thus far is unconscionable, indefensible, egregious, insensitive, and tone-deaf. 

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. 