During my September 14, 2009 interview on WPTF - 680's "Bill LuMaye Show," guest host Rick Martinez scoffed at my belief that a widespread conspiracy existed which conspired to successfully bring down former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. However, thanks to the boastful statements made by Joseph Cheshire's firm's underling, Brad Bannon, a direct connection has been established between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and Attorney General Roy Cooper. In statements carried by WRAL 5 News's online website, Bannon affirms that he told representatives of the North Carolina Attorney General to: 1) proclaim the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent;" and 2) state that "nothing (criminal) happened." These demands by the attorney representing Duke defendant Dave Evans were made well before the mid-April 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Roy Cooper to the media at a press conference.
The chain of conspiracy between the defense and A. G. Cooper is irrefutable and is linked as follows: Dave Evans is one of three Duke Lacrosse defendants - Evans is represented by prominent defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's law firm - Attorney Brad Bannon is an attorney in Cheshire's law firm - Bannon meets with Assistant Attorney Generals Mary Winstead and James J. Coman - Bannon tells Winstead and Coman to instruct the attorney general to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and to state that "nothing happened" (at the March 13, 2006 beer-bash Spring Break party hosted by Duke Lacrosse players noted for their raucous regalements and beer-induced disorderly conduct and public urination) - Winstead and Coman report to their superior, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and pass on Bannon's mandate - Attorney General Roy Cooper goes before the media at an April 2007 press conference and proclaims that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and that "nothing happened."
It is also my understanding that Mr. Bannon represented Alan Gell, who was victimized by the North Carolina justice system when he was convicted of capital murder, despite being in jail at the time of its commission. After he wrongfully served more than nine years in prison (half on death row), exculpatory evidence which was withheld by Prosecutor David Hoke was uncovered and led to the judge throwing out Gell's conviction. Yet, Mr. Bannon never demanded that the attorney general proclaim Mr. Gell innocent. Why? (Hint: It has to do with selective justice based on Class.)
The carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players have sought, in addition to millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements, to have their boys declared "innocent" and an admission that "nothing happened" at the animal house on Buchanan Street. Attorney General Cooper gave them exactly what they wanted, and they used the threat of going to jail for criminal contempt of court to try and wring such statements from Mike Nifong. Despite the pressure from Judge Osmond Smith III, defense counsel, and the state, Mr. Nifong maintained his belief that something criminal did happen at the party. In order to navigate around this position that Mr. Nifong stubbornly held on to, the media took it upon itself to put words into Mr. Nifong's mouth. On the WRAL.com website, a story about the in-court apology Mr. Nifong made to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was headlined: "Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened." (It is my understanding that ESPN.com also had a similarly titled headline.) Nothing could be further from the truth as the context of the story did not substantiate that he admitted that "nothing happened." Someone in the media must have made the deliberate decision to play a Jedi mind-trick on the public. To its credit, the wral.com general manager acted timely, responsibly, and appropriately in correcting the headline and including an editor's note. (espn.com apparently changed its headline, as well, since it no longer reads that Nifong "admits nothing happened.")
Now the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media exists, without a doubt in my mind. So far, no one has come forward to admit that dialogue took place between them, but that is usually the way things work in a conspiracy. I am not certain why Mr. Bannon came forward to brag about his law firm's role in prodding the attorney general to make two such unprecedented, inappropriate, overreaching, and misleading statements. Regardless of his motive, it clearly establishes that the two worked together behind the scenes in crafting the pronouncements made by Attorney General Roy Cooper, in mid-April 2007.
What I find particularly disturbing is that the Attorney General's Office is suppose to represent the interests of the people of North Carolina, not the special interests of the well-heeled families of defendants. The liaison between these two camps in the Duke Lacrosse case to quench the vindictive thirst of the vengeful families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, with Mike Nifong in the cross-hairs, is a poke in both eyes of Lady Justice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
You have a pathologically hyperactive imagination. This is as believable as the balloon boy or the Selahes
I should have said you are as narcissistic as the Selahes
You have a pathologically hyperactive imagination.
False!
Justice4Nifong is getting some action. Pray tell? Why didn't Brad Bannon ask that his client, who wrongfully served more than nine years in prison (half on death row)be declared innocent? Why?
IIRC, didn't Bill Anderson also write an open letter or send an email to the AG's office asking him to say the duke accused are innocent at the press conference?
Biased Prejudiced Racist Bigot Fanatic Know Nothing Megalomaniac injustice58:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Just like Sidney Harr de Harr Harr, you are pathologically hyperimaginitive and pathologically narcisstic. And just like good old Sidney, you are always good for a laugh.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
@Justice 58:
Pity, I was hoping you had choked on your Thanksgiving fried chicken and watermelon.
To Anonymous:
With racist comments like the ones you just made, it is obvious why you use the tag "Anonymous".
When individuals can't make constructive argument or engage in intelligent discussion, they resort to personal attacks and demeaning statements. That's a pity.
@ Lord Harr Harr: I was also hoping you had choked on your Thanksgiving fish sandwich, & a YooHoo
I had not planned to post on this one, but since someone has accused me of being in on a "conspiracy," all I can do is to roll my eyes. Yeah, like I had any contact with anyone in the North Carolina AG's office and had any influence at all in what Cooper declared.
Gee, if I were that influential, then why did the charges last as long as they did, given that I was on the record even before indictments were handed down that Nifong was lying and the whole thing was a fraud. Yeah, we are supposed to believe that I was secretly directly the investigation.
What will be the next revelation, that I am to be the next president at Duke? So, please, don't tie me to any conspiracies.
Sidney,
This is one of your most ridiculous posts. Once again, you really should be ashamed of yourself. I believe that you owe your readers yet another apology.
You begin by whining that Rick Martinez “scoffed” at your allegation of a “widespread conspiracy” that targeted Mike Nifong. Surely you must have learned that allegations are more credible if you provide support.
You now claim “irrefutable” proof because, in his conversations with the special prosecutors, Brad Bannon, one of Dave Evans’ attorneys, “told” the special prosecutors to “proclaim” the defendants “innocent” and to state that “nothing (criminal) happened” and that AG Cooper acceded to this “demand.”
These conversations are scarcely “irrefutable” proof of the “widespread conspiracy” you claim.
As you know, prosecutors and defense attorneys communicate regularly on criminal cases. Indeed, as you also know, Mr. Nifong’s refusal to discuss the case with or to hear evidence from the defense attorneys was described as an aberration by other prosecutors.
When the special prosecutors indicated that they had insufficient evidence to continue the cases, I believe that Mr. Bannon did exactly what he should have done: press for a more complete exoneration. Had the charges merely been dropped due to “insufficient evidence,” the defendants would have remained under a cloud that they had escaped punishment due merely to a technicality.
As you know, Mr. Nifong understood this point when he explained Mr. Cooper’s declaration:
“Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they were under indictment. Surely, they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward with the rest of their lives. And that is what the attorney general tried to give them in his declaration that they are innocent.”
As you know, the special prosecutors found “no credible evidence” that the crimes for which the defendants had been indicted had even occurred. As you also know, Patrick Baker, on behalf of the City of Durham and the Durham Police Department, agreed with that conclusion. As you also know, Mike Nifong admitted that he had “no credible evidence” to support the charges.
Finally, as you know, Inv. Ben Himan, one of the investigators responsible for the DPD faux “investigation” and the liaison between the DPD and the special prosecutors’ investigation, concluded that Ms. Mangum was not telling the truth.
It is also my understanding that Mr. Bannon represented Alan Gell
This is correct. I informed you of this last week. I noted at that time that I found it incredible that you could write so extensively on both the Gell and Duke cases and yet be so badly informed.
Yet, Mr. Bannon never demanded that the attorney general proclaim Mr. Gell innocent.
Can you please provide your source for this statement? If you fail to do so, some may assume that you simply invented it. As I have noted previously, your command of the facts is not your strength.
Why?
Even if he did not ask for a declaration of innocence as you suggest, another more plausible explanation is that Mr. Bannon did not believe that pressing for a declaration of innocence was prudent prior to the resolution of the charges. Asking for this declaration makes more sense after a decision has been made to drop charges and the defendant thus is out of danger. As you know, AG Cooper made the indefensible decision not to drop the charges, but rather to try Mr. Gell for a second time. Mr. Gell was not yet out of danger.
I agree that Mr. Cooper failed to act in the interests of justice in the Gell case. I suspect that his decision was motivated in part by a desire to protect the special prosecutors office, which under AG Easley, prosecuted the first case. A decision to drop the charges would have been an admission that the special prosecutors office, which then reported to him, had acted improperly. In other words, he protected his own.
Please provide a link to the WRAL story -- I'd like to read Bannon's comments.
Bill Anderson,
Did you or did you not send Roy Cooper an open letter or email asking him to say the Duke Lacrosse accused were "innocent" of the charges against them at his press conference?
I read what you posted at Liestoppers. Don't make me go find your post! You know Imho makes a screen shot of everything.
But I did find this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson176.html
An Open Letter to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper
It is clear that you have a number of important decisions to make about the case, and I hope I can make those decisions easier to make.
An Open Letter to Roy Cooper: Part II
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson179.html
Now, Mr. Cooper, you will be tempted to give the standard prosecutorial line: We do not have enough evidence to bring this to trial or to gain a conviction. However, let me urge you not to give into this one.
Second, this lie would please no one. It would consider the fiction that perhaps "something happened," but that you just cannot figure what it was. That would be dishonest, for it would be a smear of David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty, who did none of the things of which they are accused.
Do you really think that the black voters in North Carolina would respect you for taking such a way out? You would be telling them that "something happened," but that you do not have the courage to take it to trial for fear of losing. No, I guarantee you that the black voters of North Carolina would respect you much more if you simply announced that you are ordering the charges to be dropped because the case was a fraud from the beginning.
Once you have disposed of the case, however, there are some other things that need to be done. First, and most important, you need to apologize to Reade, Collin, and David. This vicious and false prosecution cost their families millions of dollars. That is right. They had to spend millions of dollars in order to defend their sons against charges that were a lie from the beginning. This is not a "no harm, no foul" situation. The State of North Carolina has acted dishonorably throughout this affair, and you have the chance to set it right by standing in front of the television cameras and telling the truth.
Second, you need to throw Nifong to the wolves by announcing that your office has initiated a criminal investigation of his actions, and those of the Durham police. Don’t worry that you will offend anyone;
OOPS!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson179.html
I can guarantee you that if you publicly apologize to the players and their families, you will earn more respect (and more future votes) than if you try to find some way to continue the smear even while dropping charges. Come clean and urge others to do likewise.
Yes, an admission that the state acted dishonorably, coupled with an apology, will open North Carolina to lawsuits. Yet, those lawsuits are going to come anyway, and if you try to continue the fiction that perhaps "something happened," I can assure you that "something" will happen to you when the players’ attorneys start the discovery process in the upcoming lawsuits. You will be exposed, and, worse, you will look like a dishonest politician. (Yes, I know that "dishonest politician" is a redundant term, but I am trying to help you improve your image.)
Bill, I'm just asking, were you trying to influence the Attorney General's decision in the duke lacrosse case?
To Anonymous regarding link to the story:
All I can tell you is that WRAL.com had the article online that stated that Brad Bannon told James Coman and Mary Winstead that Duke Lacrosse defendants should be proclaimed "innoncent" and that they should find that "nothing happened." I have made a cursory search for the link but have not found it. Search the site at WRAL.com. It should be there, unless they took it down.
Yes, I wrote the "open letter," but, no, it was not sent via mail or even email to Roy Cooper. I have no idea if he read it or not, nor do I care.
You were saying that my "open letter" constituted "proof" of a "conspiracy," which is nonsense. I can state absolutely for the record that I never had any contact with Cooper, personal, or with anyone associated with him or his office. I was just writing an opinion on blog.
Now, I have seen many times in situations where newspapers have worked hand-in-glove with government officials, which often happens with federal prosecutors in certain high-profile cases and also in the area of environmental policy. As we have seen in the recent release of a number of emails from the "climate change" crowd, there is clear evidence that the scientists worked with journalists and government officials to present a certain point of view, and to shut out other points of view.
Elliot Spitzer often used that tact in some of his "investigations," which generally turned out to be shams, much like everything else Client #9 has done in public life.
But, to deal with the original question, to claim that I "conspired" with Roy Cooper is a howler. Had I approached him, Cooper most likely would not have given me the time of day, and I had no desire to speak to him, anyway. An "open letter" is what it is: an open letter, and to try to read a "conspiracy" into that simply does not fly.
Biased prejudiced racist bigot fanatic know nothing megalomaniac injujstice 58:
Boy, you must have been really delerious or tripping out on something when you wrote your last posts on this blog
unbekannte/yankenstein/
Kick rocks!
Not surprising, but a search of WRAL failed to find any article stating these claims. An extensive google search for keywords "Brad Bannon James Coman Mary Winstead Duke Lacrosse" (again, not surprising) found only this website stating any communication regarding the defendants' innocence.
I would respectfully ask that this blog entry be retracted until a verifiable source is available.
To DEHall:
I appreciate and respect your statement requesting that I retract the blog, however, the information in it did not materialize from thin air. It came from a source, and that source, as indicated in the blog was wral.com. After the blog was posted, I like you, was unable to pull it up. I must therefore deduce that the powers that be removed it. If you have no objection, I will use your comments in a letter to the general manager John Clark, seeking information about what has transpired, and ask them to replace the post. I will post a copy of the letter on our website www.justice4nifong.com. Please permit a few days. In the meantime, I will leave the blog posted. Thank you again for your comments and concerns.
Thank you, Dr. Harr...If you need anything specific from me in your letter to John Clark, please let me know.
I would like to see Mr. Clark's response to you as well -- perhaps that may a topic of a future blog post?
To DEHall:
Thank you, but the comment you made of December 8th will suffice. I plan on sending him a copy of it. I will make Mr. Clark's response the topic of a future blog, most likely, so keep checking out the blog site and the website where I will post the letter to him. And, by all means, I will post on the blog or website any response I receive from Mr. Clark or wral.com.
Any progress w/ WRAL on the article that forms the sole basis for your conspiracy claim? I, like DeHall did a fairly exhaustive search (within 2-3 days of your post) before asking you for the link.
Without the link, without the quotes from Bannon you have no evidence of a conspiracy...
I found this on Youtube (Note - it IS a WRAL broadcast):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfp4nzHvp1Y
I can only assume this is the discussion referenced in Dr. Harr's blog entry. I'll leave it to the viewer to determine if this is, in fact, evidence of a conspiratorial link to the AG office.
To DEHall:
The information that I used for this blog came from a written article, not a video. I rarely have headphones with me, so when I go on the internet, I usually do not go to videos. The article that I obtained my information from was most likely taken down and deleted... probably at the request of the Attorney General's Office and/or Joe Cheshire's office.
Post a Comment