In the News & Observer, January 16, 2010 article titled “Judge won’t delay Taylor case,” staff writer Mandy Locke strictly followed the media’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy by omitting Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name from the article. Prosecutor Ford is responsible for convicting Gregory Flint Taylor for a 1993 murder that he did not commit. Mr. Taylor received a life sentence because he would not implicate another innocent man (Johnny Beck, an African American) for the crime. Even despite tantalizing offers in exchange for his testimony, Mr. Taylor refused to lie at Tom Ford’s demand, and has, as a consequence, spent sixteen years wrongly incarcerated. Tom Ford convicted Taylor solely on testimony from a jailhouse snitch and a prostitute, both of whom were offered reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation. What is even more egregious is the fact that Prosecutor Ford withheld these backroom deals with the two false witnesses from the Taylor defense attorneys. Despite the above, Tom Ford’s name is never even mentioned in the entire article. Not once! But that is the way it is when the PAPEN policy is in place.
Now, Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby has pleaded for a delay in the Gregory Taylor case before the three judge panel which is scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 2010. The newspaper article did not state the length of time D.A. Willoughby sought to delay the hearing. Fact of the matter is that even with a delay of an additional sixteen years from now, Willoughby would still not be ready to go before a panel of three judges. And it won’t be because he didn’t have the time to prepare, it’ll be because he doesn’t have a case. He never did, and neither did the original prosecutor Ford, who Willoughby is trying to protect. Willoughby would rather waste taxpayer resources and time and the court’s time with this charade against Gregory Taylor in order to protect the wheelin’ and dealin’ prosecutor Tom Ford than to dismiss the murder charge and allow an innocent man to go free… an innocent and honorable man who has wrongly spent sixteen potentially productive years lost behind bars.
One thing should be clear, however, and that is that Gregory Flint Taylor will be free. There is no doubt about that. Now that there is some oversight on some shaky convictions, in the form of an Innocence Inquiry Commission, prosecutors will be less likely to continually hold innocent people unjustly… all to the dismay of D.A. Willoughby. As a prosecutor, Colon Willoughby is supposed to be a “minister of justice,” seeking truth over a conviction. The fact that he voted against the recommendation of the creation of the Innocence Inquiry Commission shows Willoughby’s lack of commitment to putting truth before conviction. It is the same position taken by Attorney General Roy Cooper who retried Alan Gell in the murder case initially prosecuted by David Hoke. Cooper wasted taxpayer money by re-trying a man in which exculpatory evidence proved that he could not possibly have committed the murder for which he was sentenced to death (evidence withheld by prosecutor Hoke from Gell’s defense included information that Gell was incarcerated on an auto-theft charge during the time that the murder was committed). The jury immediately acquitted Gell at his retrial, when this exculpatory evidence was presented.
“We’re at a disadvantage. We don’t know much of anything,” Willoughby is quoted as stating with regards to not knowing the identity of witnesses Taylor’s attorneys will likely call at the February 9th hearing. The bottom line is, that if Tom Ford’s initial prosecution had merit, then Willoughby would be prepared to take on anything that Taylor’s attorneys could toss at them. The problem for Willoughby is that Ford’s case against Taylor in 1993 was merit-less. That is their disadvantage, and it is one that cannot be overcome by time or anything Willoughby does. The three judge panel will find Gregory Taylor not guilty.
And when the media covers that event on February 9th, they will talk about how Gregory F. Taylor was wrongfully incarcerated for sixteen years, the details about the hearing, and give a background history about the murder which led to this tragedy of sixteen lost years. But, in strict compliance with the PAPEN policy, the media will not mention the name of Tom Ford, the prosecutor responsible for this tremendous injustice. However, do not be surprised to see Mike Nifong’s name, through some convoluted and tortuous manner, linked to the ghastly tragedy that befell Greg Taylor… from which the mindless and misled among the media consumers will naturally attribute Mr. Taylor’s misfortune to that evil and sinister Mr. Nifong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Syd,
Is Colon Willoughby one of your buddies too? It seems like you are going out of your way to criticise Tom Ford and excuse Colon Willoughby. The truth is, Willoughby is the one calling the shots on this case, not Ford. Ford is a Deputy [emphasis mine] District Attorney who answers to Colon Willoughby.
It is possible, even probable that Ford obtained an erroneous conviction. What is lacking in the Taylor case is the intention to secure an erroneous conviction that Nifong had with respect to the innocent lacrosse defendants.
That does not excuse Colon Willoughby. He does not like the innocence commission. He does not want anyone or any group of people looking over his shoulder. The article made that clear enough.
What is critical here is to remember that if the wrongful conviction that Nifong so wanted and you so endorse had taken place, then the lacrosse players would be sitting in Gregory Taylor's chair. Would you be blogging for them?
Walt-in-Durham
Sidney,
You again betray your double standard in your analysis of the Taylor case.
I have provided most of the following examples in a December 6 comment on the thread of your December 5 post. The quotations are all taken from that post. You have failed to respond to any of these comments and continue to ignore the evidence used in the original trial. (I note again that I agree that Mr. Taylor certainly deserves another hearing.)
I repeat this comment because you not only have failed to respond to it, but that you continue to repeat your earlier inconsistencies.
Recent evidence brought forth by Taylor’s attorneys state that Prosecutor Ford and a detective tried repeatedly to force Greg Taylor to falsely implicate Johnny Beck (an African American with a criminal drug record) in the murder of Ms. Thomas.
I thought that you disbelieved evidence provided by defense attorneys.
They threatened to pin the murder on him if he did not cooperate to help them get an innocent (of the murder) black man off the street.
The DPD arrested Mr. Elmostafa, the taxi driver who picked up Mr. Seligmann when he told them he had nothing new about the Duke case. Mr. Nifong pursued charges of conspiracy to commit misdemeanor theft from a 2 ½ year old shoplifting committed by one of Mr. Elmostafa’s fares. The charges could have threatened Mr. Elmostafa’s citizenship.
Displaying more integrity, honesty, and sense of ethics than the prosecutor and detectives, Taylor refused, and as a result, the bogus case was manufactured against him, as promised.
Despite the fact that Mr. Elmostafa’s original statement is consistent with phone records, bank photographs and electronic data, you make unsubstantiated smears about Mr. Elmostafa.
The case against Gregory Taylor was flimsy to non-existent from the beginning.
Other than the inconsistent allegations by Ms. Mangum and the “identifications” from a flawed procedure, Mr. Nifong had essentially no evidence.
You fail to mention the evidence that placed Gregory Taylor near the murder scene. He and Mr. Beck were smoking crack cocaine the night of the murder and saw the victim’s body. Mr. Taylor left his SUV near the body where it was stuck in the mud. He and Mr. Beck agreed not to report the body to the police.
Mr. Taylor, like the Duke defendants, was placed near the scene of the crime (or alleged crime). You view that as “flimsy” in one case, but not the other.
Given your obsession with underage drinking, open container and noise violations, I am surprised that you do not harp on Gregory Taylor’s admitted drug use.
Sidney,
This is the second part of the prior comment. Your analysis provides many examples of a double standard.
Without physical evidence tying him to the crime, he was convicted solely on the testimony of a prostitute
Ms. Mangum had several one-on-one “dates” in hotel rooms with men she did not know in the days preceding the party. Her testimony would have been the only “evidence” had the case gone to trial.
the prosecutor gave them a break in their jail sentences
Ms. Mangum avoided involuntary confinement at Durham Access when she nodded her head “yes” in reply to the question: “Were you raped?”
Mr. Roberts was given a favorable settlement in her probation violation (resulting from an earlier embezzlement conviction) when she changed her characterization of the allegation from a “crock.”
The case against Gregory Taylor really collapsed when another man, Craig Taylor (no relation) confessed to the crime.
No analogy here to Mr. Nifong. No one confessed to a crime that never occurred.
However, you fail to include the information that Craig Taylor has “confessed” to some 70 crimes, including at least one in which he was in jail at the time of the crime. A “confession” from a “serial confessor” must be viewed with some skepticism.
Craig Taylor appears to have provided information that was not publicly known. As a result, Gregory Taylor deserves another hearing and, unless Mr. Willoughby has additional evidence not discussed in the media coverage, his freedom.
“Minister of Justice” Tom Ford, as late as 2003, asked a judge to deny Taylor’s request for DNA testing, despite the willingness of Taylor’s family to pay the costs.
You have insisted in the Duke case that DNA evidence is not exculpatory except when the attack involves ejaculation with no condoms. As a result, the prosecutor is free simply to announce, as did Mr. Nifong, that the murder was a “non-ejaculatory event” and the DNA is therefore irrelevant.
I am sure that these differences are completely unintentional. Otherwise, some might question why you apply vastly different standards to Mr. Nifong than to other prosecutors. Some might even think that you were guilty of tremendous hypocrisy and could not be taken seriously.
Some might believe that you have made yourself into a laughingstock.
Crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
Answer if you dare. So far you have not dared.
Why do you hate the Duke Lacrosse players? Why, when you are not familiar with the evidence, do you proclaim them guilty? What evidence incriminated the Lacrosse players? Why do you deny them the presumption of innocence, even after a thorough investigation has failed to show any crime let alone incriminating evidence? Why do you object to someone who is familiar with the evidence expressing his belief in the innocence of the accused? And what do all these red herrings you drag into the case have to do with nifong?.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful sidney harr de harr harr:
It should be no surprise to see "nifong" turn up in stories of prosecutorial misconduct. "nifong" after all is now a synonym for frame up.
Had nifong thought more of genuine justice instead of his own selfish personal interests that might never have happened.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Why have so many comments been deleted?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful sidney harr de harr harr:
Please specifically list what shows nifong's case against the Lacrosse players had merit. cgm's id of the defendants was shaky. The medical report showed no physical injuries. The rape kit showed no material left on her person, although she reported material had been left, that her attackers did not use condoms. DNA ultimately recovered from her person did not match any of the accused.
Your statement, that the lack of DNA did not exclude a rape is irrelevant. None of the evidence incriminated the accused.
So, on what do you base your belief that nifong's case against the Lacrosse players had merit? Answer if you dare.
To Walt:
I am not a buddy of Mr. Willoughby, however, the newspaper article did not omit his name. It omitted the name of the prosecutor responsible for Greg Taylor wrongfully spending 17 years of a life sentence in prison. My blog, which addresses the PAPEN Policy is critical of the media.
Furthermore, I disagree with your premise that Mr. Nifong wanted to wrongfully convict anyone. When the victim of an alleged crime identifies the defendants with 90-100% certainty, the prosecutor has an obligation to look into the complaint. Sometimes, the wrong people are identified, such as Ronald Cotton. But no one is critical of his prosecutor because Mr. Cotton is poor, disenfranchised, and a man of color. Unfortunately, there is a selective system of justice in North Carolina based on Class and Color.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful sidney harr de harr harr:
Have you learned nothing from Erick Daniels or, more importantly, Timothy Cole. Both were convicted, wrongfully, based on a victim identifying each of them as a perpetrator. Timothy Cole was convicted of rape. He was exonerated by DNA evidence. However he died in prison before his exoneration.
Identification of a suspect, even with 905 TO 100% certainty, does not necessarily incriminate a suspect and DOES NOT obligate a prosecutor to charge the suspect. What the prosecutor is obligated to do is investigate, to gather evidence, inculpatory and exculpatory. If there is no evidence, if evidence does not incriminate the suspect, or if evidence exonerates the suspect, the prosecutor is obligated NOT to prosecute. nifong received an offer from Reade Seligman's lawyer to view evidence which exonerated him. nifong refused to view that evidence. nifong's refusal was prosecutorial misconduct on his part
Let us again go over the ID process.
First, when first interviewed by the police, cgm described three men, none of whom resembled Colin Finnerty. The names she gave for her assailants were not David, Reade or Colin.
Twice cgm was shown photos of the Lacrosse team. On neither of those occasions could she identify either Dave Evans or Reade Seligman. She identified Brad Ross, who had not been in Durham the night of the party, as a party attendee. It turned out later both Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty could prove they were not at the party at the time of the alleged rape.
The third "lineup" included only suspects, i.e. members of the Lacrosse team. It should have included 7 fillers for each suspect. It should have been conducted by an officer not involved in the investigation, not familiar with the evidence in the case. It was conducted by Mark Gottlieb who was involved in the case. gottlieb was known to be biased against Duke students. That rendered the identifications of questionable reliability.
At this third lineup, cgm identified Reade Seligman, after failing on two previous attempts. She identified Colin Finnerty after failing to describe him as an attacker. She claimed David Evans had a mustache when he raped her, and David Evans could document he had never had a mustache.
That is the complete story of the identification of the Lacrosse defendants. IT IS A GROSS LIE THAT cgm IDENTIFIED HER ATTACKERS WITH 90% TO !00% CERTAINTY. The truth is, nifong had cgm identify 3 Lacrosse players at random for him to prosecute.
The fact, that you use such a gross distortion of the truth to justify him indicates you can not justify what nifong did to those three innocent men.
Why do you persist in lying about this supposed 90% to 100% identification.
"When the victim of an alleged crime identifies the defendants with 90-100% certainty, the prosecutor has an obligation to look into the complaint."
First, Crystal was not a victim, but a perpetrator.
Second, her "identification" was the product of a suggestive procedure designed to produce an erroneous identification. Nifong, if he was very bright at all, knew that.
Third, once the DNA tests were in, there was no further probable cause to continue with the prosecution against the innocent defendants. From that moment on, Nifong was intentionally seeking a wrongful conviction.
"I am not a buddy of Mr. Willoughby, however, the newspaper article did not omit his name. It omitted the name of the prosecutor responsible for Greg Taylor wrongfully spending 17 years of a life sentence in prison."
Syd, you are way off target on this one. Ford is not the one fighting to keep Taylor in prison, Willoughby is. Ford is not the one who does not want the innocence commission at all, Willoughby is.
You never did answer my question though, if the lacrosse defendants had been wrongfully convicted, would you be blogging for them?
Walt-in-Durham
Hey, crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar sidney harr de harr harr:
Where are your fans, injustice58 and silly chicken killy? Have they recognized how ridiculously hopeless your cause is? Have they bailed on you?
It seems that a lot of people, like nancy disgrace and wicked wendy and jesse jackson and al sharpton have bailed on cgm and the Lacrosse case.
Crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar sidney harr de harr harr:
Why don't you listen to Walt in Durham. nifong had the DNA evidence before he had any suspect indicted. Your argument is that the DNA evidence did not rule out a rape. Listen! THAT WAS IRRELEVANT!!! nifong was obligated to determine whether the DNA evidence incriminated any of the suspects. It resoundingly did not.
If you recall, nifong himself said the DNA would incriminate the guilty and exonerate the innocent. He was aware of his responsibility. When the DNA did not incriminate any Lacrosse player, and that includes the result from DNASI, he proceeded to pick suspects and prosecute anyway. That was deliberate misconduct.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar sidney harr de harr harr:
How about that grand jury. I say again, NC's grand jury was a closed procedure in which no record was kept, a procedure in which no witness can be compelled to reveal what he/she might have said. A witness at the time of the Lacrosse indictments could have lied to the grand jury without fear of consequences. That raises questions about what is said to the grand jury.
nifong controlled what was presented to the grand jury. Do you think he presented to the grand jury thev DNA evidence which did not incriminate any Lacrosse player? He certainly did not present to the grand jury Reade Seligman's evidence that he was elsewhere at the time of the alleged rape. nifong himself refused to consider it. Do you think he presented all the details of cgm's id if the accused?
Face it sidney. nifong realized he had no case against the Lacrosse defendants. So he manufactured one. That is called a frame up. That, in turn, is called prosecutorial misconduct.
Why are you so spiteful that the innocent Lacrosse players were exonerated?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar sidney harr de harr harr:
Let's put things a different way. You call cgm a victim of a crime. You should have said, cgm alleged she was a victim of a crime. A DA has to look into the allegation to determine if it is credible. With her history, mental instability, drug use, criminal behavior, previous false allegation of a rape, cgm in and of herself, had credibility problems.
The DA has to find evidence to support her allegation, even if she is credible. He has to establish that a crime did take place. He has to establish who perpetrated the crime. In this case, medical exam failed to show evidence of a rape. The state crime lab could not find evidence of a rape in the rape kit. DNA evidence did not incriminate any Lacrosse player.
The lineup, at which cgm claimed to have identified her assailants, did not happen until AFTER nifong's investigation failed to establish a crime, failed to link any suspect. The lineup was conducted in such a way as to render it meaningless. It was a lineup consisting only of suspects whom evidence did not incriminate.
So, cgm's id of her alleged assailants was meaningless. Why do you lie about it?
To Walt:
How can you say that Crystal was a perpetrator? Of what crime? Is it your view that rape victims should face criminal charges if the prosecution is unable to successfully prosecute the case?
Also, sexual assault cases were prosecuted long before DNA forensics became available. This was not a case that hinged on DNA evidence.
Also, I think that a responsible unbiased reporter would have included the name of the original prosecutor. The fact that his name is omitted is a blatant attempt to protect his identity. This deals with the double standard of mentioning Mike Nifong's name with respect to the Duke Lacrosse case, and not mentioning the names of David Hoke in the Alan Gell case, Bill Wolfe in the James Arthur Johnson case, etc.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-answer sidney harr de harr harr:
Sexual assault cases were decided before the availability of DNA testing. What relevance is that to a case in which DNA testing was not only available but which was actually done? nifong himself did declare that the DNA testing would make the case, that it would incriminate the guilty and exonerate the innocent. The DNA testing, done before anyone was actually indicted, DID NOT incriminate any suspect. Would that evidence have helped nifong prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt, once he committed to prosecuting the Lacrosse players? Or would that evidence have created doubt as to their guilt?
Whether you like it or not, the DNA tesing result was rather significant evidence, absolutely relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence. On what do you base your argument, that a Prosecutor may suppress or conceal or exclude relevant evidence which is not favorable to his case?
How can you say that Crystal was a perpetrator? Of what crime?
The evidence supports the conclusion that Crystal made a false accusation. Filing a false report may be a criminal offense. The question of criminality becomes one of intent.
A false accusation may be the result of confusion, mistaken identity, impairment and other reasons that do not make it criminal. However, as you know, a false accusation may also be deliberate. I do not have sufficient evidence to determine Ms. Mangum’s intent.
The Attorney General summarized the evidence that supported the special prosecutor’s conclusion that Crystal made a false accusation. He concluded there was no criminal intent. Read the report.
Is it your view that rape victims should face criminal charges if the prosecution is unable to successfully prosecute the case?
Walt did not make that claim and you know that. You intentionally misrepresented his comment and are once again making a straw man argument. I believe that you owe him an apology.
In many cases, while there may be compelling evidence that a rape occurred, there is nevertheless insufficient evidence to obtain convictions, arrest suspects or even to identify suspects. No one would suggest that this justifies false accusation charges.
However, when evidence suggests that the accuser has intentionally fabricated an accusation, the prosecutor and police are obligated to consider that possibility and investigate it. If evidence supports charges, then the accuser should face criminal charges.
Also, sexual assault cases were prosecuted long before DNA forensics became available.
As you have demonstrated, many sexual assault cases prosecuted long before DNA forensics became available resulted in wrongful convictions. I am confident that you agree that we should not ignore DNA evidence today simply because it had not been available earlier.
This was not a case that hinged on DNA evidence.
This statement is false. And you know that.
As you know, in her April 6 written statement Ms. Mangum alleged a brutal gang rape in which one or more of her attackers ejaculated and did not use a condom. DNA evidence thus was critical. The failure to find a DNA match cleared the defendants of the attack alleged by Ms. Mangum.
You acknowledged my quotation and link to Ms. Mangum’s statement in an earlier comment. As a result, I conclude that this assertion demonstrates your dishonesty. I believe that you owe all of your readers an apology for what can reasonably be viewed as a deliberate misstatement of fact.
Also, I think that a responsible unbiased reporter would have included the name of the original prosecutor. The fact that his name is omitted is a blatant attempt to protect his identity. This deals with the double standard of mentioning Mike Nifong's name with respect to the Duke Lacrosse case, and not mentioning the names of David Hoke in the Alan Gell case, Bill Wolfe in the James Arthur Johnson case, etc.
I agree that the reporter should have included Mr. Ford’s name.
However, you have demonstrated a transparent double standard throughout your commentary and thus have no moral authority to criticize others for the same offense.
Syd, you wrote: "How can you say that Crystal was a perpetrator?"
Her false report got the hoax rolling. The evidence is clear from her numerous contradictory statements, her wildly fluctuating identifications and descriptions and her failure to identify anyone who looked remotely like her descriptions that her initial report was false.
"Of what crime?"
I did not accuse her of committing a crime. Defense counsel has said she was deeply troubled and probably did not know what she was doing. I'll take their word that she did not know what she was doing. Thus, she lacks the requisite intent to commit a crime.
"Is it your view that rape victims should face criminal charges if the prosecution is unable to successfully prosecute the case?"
I never wrote or implied such a thing. Of course, I do not think rape victims should face criminal charges. However, it is abundantly clear that Crystal was not raped by David Evans, Reid Seligman or Colin Finnerty.
"Also, sexual assault cases were prosecuted long before DNA forensics became available."
Yes, and as you have so well illustrated, too many of those prosecutions were false convictions.
"This was not a case that hinged on DNA evidence."
For your fund of knowledge it was. Crystal could not identify her alleged attackers. She failed to pick them out of a photo lineup. Then, her identification was permanently tainted by a suggestive lineup. Her stories never matched. Her physical injuries were inconsistent with a rape. The only thing that could make this a rape or sexual assault case was DNA. And from that first meeting with DNASI, Nifong knew there was no DNA match.
"Also, I think that a responsible unbiased reporter would have included the name of the original prosecutor."
I won't defend the N&O's copy editing. But, I will say that it's Willoughby who opposes the actual innocence commission. It's Willoughby who decides which cases to fight. I will also say that Willoughby is doing the right thing by testing the actual innocence claim because it is based on the confession of a serial confessor.
Walt-in-Durham
Sydney, are you naturally stupid, or did mikey train you specially????
crazy deluded deceitful liar afraid-to-answer sidney harr de harr harr:
nifong's name is associated so prominently because nifong made a media event out of the case. Had nifong not used the Lacrosse case to seek out free publicity for his election campaign, his name would have never become a synonym for gross prosecutorial misconduct.
What you fail to recognize is the injustice of three innocent men being falsely accused of rape. That is how their names became associated with this case.
crazy deceitful deluded spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Do you recall nifong's appearance before the forum at NCCU? This was after the release of the results of the crime lab testing of the rape kit. Do you recall nifong telling the crowd that his presence meant the case was not going away? Do you think that had anything to do with his now being forever associated with the Lacrosse case?
This was a chain nifong forged for himself and he willingly bound himself with this chain (acknowledgement to Charles Dickens' A CHRISTMAS CAROL)
Post a Comment