Another wcbstv.com online article, this one titled: “Ousted DA Nifong’s Past Convictions May Appeal,” is totally misleading and prejudicial. It is yet another arrow from the quiver of a biased media agenda to destroy former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong by misleading the malleable media consumer with outrageous lies and innuendos. Another headline patent made for pulling the wool over the eyes… another Jedi mind-trick. This ridiculous headline infers that Mike Nifong’s actions in handling the Duke Lacrosse case were not only far outside the bounds of acceptable prosecutorial practice, but that his past convictions were won using unacceptable practices. What’s worse is that it states that those who were convicted by Mike Nifong in the past are entitled to an appeal. How absurd. Again the media insults the intelligence of those who no better, while misleading those who don’t.
Steve Cron, a defense lawyer from Santa Monica, California, stated: "But his behavior in this case was so outrageous and so beyond what's required of an ethical prosecutor that everyone's going to start going back and looking." Please give me a break. Mr. Nifong acted well within accepted standards of prosecutors within the state. Mr. Cron did not mention what Mr. Nifong did that was so “outrageous.” Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense attorneys, like prosecutor David Hoke did in winning a wrongful conviction against Alan Gell, or like prosecutor Tom Ford did in winning a wrongful conviction against Greg Taylor, or like Jim Hardin did in winning a conviction against Michael Peterson and depriving him of a fair trial. Furthermore, Mr. Nifong did not lie to the court, as the court would want everyone to believe. The court purposely misinterpreted Mr. Nifong’s statements in order to levy the cockamamie charge against him… then, used it as a basis for a contempt of court charge and a 24 jail sentence. This chain of events is totally mind boggling. Statements Mr. Nifong made to the press, which defense attorneys labeled as so prejudicial and inflammatory, were made prior to indictments being handed down. They were mild, and made for the purpose of encouraging party-goers to break from the “athletic no-snitch rule” and give truthful honest statements about what transpired during the party.
The headline is, in fact, cruel in giving false hope to those convicted under prosecutor Nifong, and it encourages those convicted by Nifong to entertain the possibility of seeking an appeal. Worst of all, the headline suggests that others convicted by Mr. Nifong were victimized by his inherent prosecutorial misconduct. The article presents nothing to substantiate its reckless, illogical, and biased headline.
If one wants to investigate past cases, then I would strongly recommend looking into convictions won by Wake prosecutor Tom Ford. His conviction of an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, should be overturned by the three judge panel at its hearing which begins on February 9, 2010. The vendetta prosecution by Ford was made against Mr. Taylor because Taylor refused to wrongfully implicate another innocent man (Johnny Beck) in a murder. Ford offered Taylor a reduced sentence if only he would implicate Beck, an African American male. When Taylor refused, he was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he did not commit. And Ford won a conviction against Greg Taylor on the testimony of two witnesses… a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch. Both had received deals, similar to the one Ford offered Taylor… testimony Ford wanted them to give in exchange for a reduction in their sentences. It was an offer which they could not refuse, because they did not have the moral values of Greg Taylor. And, it was an offer that Prosecutor Tom Ford withheld from Greg Taylor’s defense team, in violation of ethical rules.
Rather than do the right thing and get the conviction overturned, Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby is fighting to keep an innocent man in jail in order to protect his prosecutor, Tom Ford, from complaints of prosecutorial misconduct.
From the prosecution of Gregory Taylor in 1993, Tom Ford displayed a propensity of winning convictions by making deals in exchange for testimony to suit his agenda. This type of conduct by a prosecutor is frightening, and leads one to question the testimony used by Ford to convict others in the seventeen years since. If past cases should be examined for prosecutorial misconduct in hopes of establishing grounds for appeals, then Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford is the ideal prosecutor with which to begin investigating. They should scrutinize whether backroom deals were made with witnesses in exchange for a favor from Ford, and whether the knowledge of such deals was withheld from the defense team.
Don’t expect the media to advocate such a position, however, because it operates under the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. The media wants to stir the public and those convicted under Nifong into a frenzy against a prosecutor (Nifong) who acted well within acceptable standards, yet tiptoe around the minefield of misdeeds of the truly unethical prosecutors and shield their wrongdoings from the public. This is indeed a pathetic situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
151 comments:
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-resp0nd sidney harr de harr harr:
What is acceptable in prosecuting three innocent men on the basis of the word of a witness with credibility problems?
What is acceptable in prosecuting innocent men when the witness is unable to give an identification without any reasonable certainty(that cgmwas able to id the accused with 90%-100% is a LIE!)?
What is acceptable about prosecuting suspects when no evidence ties the suspects to the alleged crime,when the evidence indicates there was no crime(you have admitted you are not knowledgable about the evidence)?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
That you say nifong was within accepted norms when he prosecuted the Lacrosse players shows you do believe the Lacrosse players were guilty of a crime even though, by your own admission, you are not familiar with the evidence in the case. When you are not familiar with evidence in a case, how can you know whether or not it was exculpatory?
Exculpatory/inculpatory aside, essential questions in evidence are whether or not it shows a crime has been committed and whether or not it incriminates the accused. Do you accept that it is the prosecutor's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? He has to prove BOTH that a crime happened and that the accused perpetrated the crime.
cgm told investigators she was penetrated and ejaculated upon by assailants who used no condoms. What evidence was there, other than cgm's word, that this happened? The Lacrosse players insisted there had been no rape, so it was her word against theirs. cgm had real problems regarding her credibility. The Lacrosse players all cooperated with the police, so your allegation of a "no snitch code" operating is another of your deluded lies. What evidence was there that incriminated the Lacrosse players?
Further, did nifong have evidence that cgm was even raped. I remind you, nifong never interviewed cgm until nine months into the case and After he did so he dropped the rape charge.
So nifong prosecuted the Lacrosse players on the basis of the word of a questionably credible witness without any evidence of a crime, without any evidence that incriminated them. How is that acceptable practice for a prosecutor?
Incidentally, nifong did withhold and conceal exculpatory evidence and then lie about it to the court. Your claim that he did not is another of your deluded lies.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Early in the case, before any evidence was available, nifong went public to declare that a rape had occurred, that it had been racially motivated, that members of the Duke Lacrosse Team had been the perpetrators. At that point, evidence or no, nifong declared the Duke Lacrosse players suspects.
nifong, in public, made certain other statements: that the Lacrosse players had rich daddies who would hire expensive lawyers for them; that if someone was not guilty and was not charged with anything why would they need a lawyer: that it may be legally correct for the Lacrosse players to remain silent on advice of counsel but it was not morally right.
Suspects have rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, or were you unaware of that? The sixth amendment guarantees a suspect right to be represented by counsel. The fifth amendment guarantees a suspect to remain silent when questioned by authorities(is this fifth amendment right what you are calling the athletic no snitch code?).
You may say nifong was trying to get people with information to come forth. Well, at the same time he was saying their exercise of their fifth and sixth amendment rights was an indication of guilt. If he had done that in a trial, the judge would have declared an immediate mistrial. Surely nifong knew that.
So, when is deliberate undermining of a suspects rights under the fifth and sixth amendments acceptable practice by a prosecutor?
The article mentioned is also over 2 years old (Dated Jun 23 2007).
Here's the link, if you're interested:
http://cbs3.com/national/Duke.
lacrosse.case.2.285532.html
I saw nothing misleading in the article...Dr Harr, did you read anything past the headline?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Since when does designating individuals as suspects in a a crime and then deliberately undermining their constitutional rights as suspects classify as "mild".
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Since when does designating individuals as suspects in a a crime and then deliberately undermining their constitutional rights as suspects classify as "mild".
It also does not qualify as accepable practice for a prosecutor.
To DeHall:
I read the headline and the article. My complaint was with the headline being misleading. The article was typically biased against Mr. Nifong, as no such article has been written about Prosecutors David Hoke, or Tom Ford. And if a prosecutor's cases should be reviewed, Tom Ford's definitely should. A prosecutor who wins convictions by making secretive backroom deals with jail house snitches and others for taylor-made testimony in exchange for reduced sentences is an abomination. Talk about lack of credible evidence. Where was the credible evidence in the Gell and Taylor cases?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Where was the evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case that showed that a crime had occurred or which incriminated any member of the Duke Lacrosse Team?
...were made prior to indictments being handed down...
Sidney, that is irrelevant. That was Nifong's professed 'excuse' or safe harbor for making his inflammatory extra-judicial statements, but no one bought it.
Correction for Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney?
Nobody bought nifong's excuse for his inflammatory statements except crazy deluded etc. sidney and his gang of 4. :-)
"Another wcbstv.com online article, this one titled: “Ousted DA Nifong’s Past Convictions May Appeal,”
What convictions? In calender year 2006 Nifong's office obtained only one rape conviction. Only 1! How could that be when there were at least 100 reports of rapes?
"Steve Cron, a defense lawyer from Santa Monica, California, stated: "But his behavior in this case was so outrageous and so beyond what's required of an ethical prosecutor that everyone's going to start going back and looking." Please give me a break. Mr. Nifong acted well within accepted standards of prosecutors within the state."
Syd, you never cease to amaze me. You bleat about how this prosecutor did that injustice to Gell, another prosecutor did a different injustice to Dial, a third prosecutor did yet another injustice to Taylor, ad infinitum. Yet, when it is pointed out that Nifong did everything the other prosecutors did, and worse, you defend his conduct. You cannot have it both ways.
Walt-in-Durham
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
I would say the only intelligence being insulted over nifong is your own. However, your contention, that nifong's prosecution of three innocent men with no probable cause was acceptable shows you have no intelligence.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Your contention, that nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense attorneys, is another of your lies.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
nifong did lie to the court about withholding evidence from the defense attorneys. You tell another lie.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
For anyone except a fool, nifong's statements consisted of designating the Lacrosse players suspects, undermining their rights, their right to be represented by counsel, their right to protection from self incrimination, then inciting the jury pool against them.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
What is the relevance of all these cases to nifong? Even if these cases never happened, nifong would still be guilty of trying to perpetrate the grossest case of prosecutorial miscoduct in nc history.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You advocate a policy of PNOBn, protect no one but nifong, who perpetrated the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in nc history.
“A prosecutor who wins convictions by making secretive backroom deals with jail house snitches and others for taylor-made [sic] testimony in exchange for reduced sentences is an abomination.”
I agree.
I take it from your support of Mr. Nifong, however, that you do not object to “deals with jail house snitches and others for taylor-made [sic] testimony in exchange for reduced sentences” as long as those deals are not secretive.
If I have misunderstood your opinion, I apologize. I believe that you should discuss the parole deal that Mr. Nifong agreed with Ms. Roberts. As you recall, she originally characterized Ms. Mangum’s allegation as a “crock” in a March 20 telephone conversation with Inv. Himan. She did not repeat this characterization when she was interviewed two days later and in her written statement. As you know, she was arrested on a parole violation immediately after her interview.
As you also know, Linwood Wilson, Mr. Nifong’s investigator, had a private conversation with Ms. Roberts as she was waiting for a meeting with Mr. Nifong and her attorney. At this meeting, she "remembered" an additional time period in which she and Ms. Mangum had been separated. Although she did not claim that she had witnessed an assault, she claimed she did not know what happened. As I am sure you would agree, this version was more favorable to Mr. Nifong than her earlier characterization that the allegation was a “crock.” In the subsequent meeting, Mr. Nifong offered her a deal in which she served no time for the parole violation and received much more favorable restitution terms than originally imposed. Oddly, Ms. Roberts appeared to be rewarded, rather than punished, for her parole violation.
You may also wish to contrast the treatment Mr. Nifong offered Ms. Roberts, who violated her parole from a felony conviction related to embezzlement of $25,000 from a prior employer, and that offered Mr. Elmostafa, who was arrested on a 2 ½ year old misdemeanor warrant related to a theft when his fare had shoplifted some purses. You may also wish to explain why Mr. Elmostafa was treated this way given that he helped solve the initial crime, providing police with the name and address of the shoplifter.
Sid, once again you betray a double standard. I would think it more important for you to address the questions raised in recent threads about your credibility than to complain about 2 year old articles. You now have had 3 weeks since you promised to comment on Ms. Mangum's written statement in which she alleged:
“I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT ADAM EJACULATED IN MY MOUTH AND I SPIT IT OUT ONTO THE FLOOR, PART OF IT FELL ONTO THE FLOOR AFTER HE PULLED HIS PENIS OUT.”
With no DNA.
His conviction of an innocent man, Gregory Taylor
Please explain on what basis you have concluded that Gregory Taylor is, in fact, innocent.
The testimony of the prostitute and jailhouse snitch appears to have been discredited, with little, if any, additional evidence to support the charges. However, you have indicated repeatedly in the Duke frame that you do not accept the absence of incriminating evidence as proof of innocence.
The primary evidence of his innocence appears to be the confession of Craig Taylor, a man who has “confessed” to dozens of crimes. You have also indicated that you need to “see the physical evidence in person” in order to reach a conclusion. As you know, Craig Taylor has not testified in court that he committed the murder.
As a result, you could only have reached your conclusion if you personally interviewed Craig Taylor. Otherwise, you would have insufficient information to meet your high threshold of proof. I am sure that your readers would be interested in learning how you were given access to Mr. Taylor for this interview and how you determined that this confession, unlike many of his other confessions, was legitimate.
On the other hand, your ability to declare Gregory Taylor to be innocent without having interviewed Craig Taylor would betray your double standard yet again. I am sure that your readers would relish hearing your explanation of how you could conclude that Gregory Taylor was innocent without having had the opportunity to determine the validity of the confession. Many times you have noted that the absence of evidence does not prove innocence.
Some might even call you a hypocrite.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
nifong tried to intimidate members of the Lacrosse team into giving perjured incriminating testimony against other members of the team. Their refusal to do so is what you call the athletic no snitch code.
Crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You say nifong's prosecution of the innocent Lacrosse players, without evidence of a crime, without evidence incriminating them of anything, was within standards of behavior for a prosecutor. That is about the grossest lie you have told on your blog.
To JSwift:
Gregory Taylor is innocent, and was wrongly incarcerated for 17 years, was unanimously determined to be innocent by the eight member Innocence Inquiry Commission, and will be found not guilty of the 1991 murder by a three judge panel after a hearing set to begin next Tuesday, February 9th.
Mr. Taylor was not linked to the murder with forensic physical evidence, there was no credible evidence to convict him, and the testimony of the jailhouse snitch and prostitute were made at the request of Prosecutor Tom Ford in an exchange for a reduced sentence for both of them (a fact which was hidden from the defense attorney). Finally, Craig Taylor confessed to the crime, with knowledge of facts not made public, plus he knew the victim and had a relationship with the victim.
The murder victim's family believes that Greg Taylor is innocent. I know of no one with knowledge of the case who believes that Greg Taylor is guilty.
Furthermore, because I criticize Mr. Ford for not telling defense about the backroom deals does not mean that I endorse them. I think their credibility is suspect, especially when they are not consistently in accord with facts.
To Walt:
How can you say that Mr. Nifong's actions were worse than David Hoke (withholding exculpatory evidence from seventeen independent witnesses that proved Alan Gell could not have committed the murder for which he was convicted), Tom Ford (obtaining a conviction solely on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and prostitute in exchange for a reduction in their jail sentences), and Bill Wolfe who charged a man with murder and held him without a trial for 39 months (James Arthur Johnson) without forensic evidence or credible evidence?
Mr. Nifong never withheld evidence from the defense team, and he did not lie to the court.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
nifong indicted three innocent men in spite of having no evidence that a crime happened in the first place. The evidence he DID have from the rape kit(no Lacrosse player DNA, DNA from multiple males other than Lacrosse players) DID NOT show any intimate contact between cgm and any member of the Lacrosse team.
Further, it is another lie you try to perpetrate that nifong did not withhold evidence. nifong withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and lied about it to the court.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
I ask you again, what do any of these cases have to with nifong. I say again, even if these cases had never happened, nifong would have been guilty of perpetrating a rather foul act of prosecutorial misconduct.
Are you also unfamiliar with all the evidence upon which the conviction was based?
Come On Sydney,
Instead of writing fiction; and defamatory fiction at that, why not thell us the real story of Mikey and his deluded criminal attempt to railroad three (any three) Duke Lacrosse Players. A good place to start would be: What was Nifong's professional relationship with Crystal Gail Mangum?
Sidney,
I believe that you should address as quickly and as forthrightly as possible the many questions and comments regarding the accuracy of your statements.
It is inappropriate for you to complain about others when your own comments have been shown consistently to be inaccurate and highly misleading and to apply an obvious double standard. Your refusal to address these issues and endless repetition of the same mistakes long after your statements have been shown to be incorrect raise legitimate questions about your honesty.
I suggest that you begin by addressing the relevance of DNA in this case.
You have repeatedly made the claim that the failure to find a DNA match with any of the players was not exculpatory. You have also claimed repetitively that the case did not hinge on DNA.
Both of these claims are preposterous.
In a November comment you have evaded, I suggested that the first claim (the failure to find a DNA match with any of the players was not exculpatory) bordered on dishonesty. I conceded, however, that you may simply have been “remarkably uninformed.”
You no longer have that excuse.
On January 11, after you had questioned when Ms. Mangum had alleged that her alleged attackers had ejaculated and had not used condoms, I provided you with a link to Ms. Mangum’s April 6 written statement. I quoted a portion of that statement that provided an unambiguous claim that one of her attackers had ejaculated and had not used a condom:
“I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT ADAM EJACULATED IN MY MOUTH AND I SPIT IT OUT ONTO THE FLOOR, PART OF IT FELL ONTO THE FLOOR AFTER HE PULLED HIS PENIS OUT.”
The next day, you acknowledged the comment and the link and promised a response at “your earliest convenience.” You have had approximately three weeks.
You have failed to respond.
On January 20, you repeated the ridiculous claim: “This case did not hinge on DNA.” In making this statement, you ignored completely the evidence I provided to you that you acknowledged receiving: Ms. Mangum had in fact made the unambiguous allegation that one or more of her attackers had ejaculated and had not used a condom. As you know, the specific attack described by Ms. Mangum would have left DNA. As you also know, the failure to find DNA disproved that specific allegation made by Ms. Mangum. In other words, it suggests either that Ms. Mangum did not remember what had happened or that she lied. As a result, this failure to find DNA raised legitimate questions about her credibility.
You justify Mr. Nifong’s decision to pursue this case with no DNA evidence by noting that rape cases had been prosecuted before DNA evidence was available. This implies that police today can simply disregard unhelpful DNA evidence because that evidence would not have been available in earlier cases. I do not think that you actually believe that. As you know, that is a transparently ridiculous argument.
As a result, I find that statement to be deliberately dishonest.
You consistently have made what appear to be deliberately dishonest statements, apparently in a conscious attempt to deceive your readers. Moreover, you act as though you believe that your readers are uninformed fools. Many of those who read this blog know many of the facts, even if you pretend that they are not available. You persist in repeating the same inaccurate and misleading statements long after the errors are noted. You act as though your readers do not remember or do not understand.
I believe that you owe your readers an explanation, followed by an apology.
Sidney,
I want to assist with the response you promised on January 12. Below is my discussion of one of Ms. Mangum’s allegations. I know that you have little time to locate recent comments.
I will be helpful, reposting this every few days until you have provided an answer that appropriately addresses both Ms. Mangum’s specific allegation and the lack of player DNA. The questions I raise may be helpful to you in structuring your reply.
Your readers and I look forward to a more honest response than you have provided in the past. We thank you in advance.
In the 7:27 pm addendum to her April 6 written statement (added immediately after she had completed it), Ms. Mangum described the ejaculation by one of her alleged attackers unambiguously. Similarly, it is clear from this addendum that this alleged attacker did not use a condom.
Ms. Mangum’s written statement is a direct source, filed as Exhibit 13 in connection with Mr. Nifong’s disbarment hearing. This statement was introduced into evidence during Inv. Himan’s deposition, and he confirmed under oath that the statement was that of Ms. Mangum.
The statement may be read in full at:
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html
Ms. Mangum states:
“I would like to add that Adam ejaculated in my mouth and I spit it out onto the floor, part of it fell onto the floor after he pulled his penis out.”
I find this statement to be unequivocal in answering two critical questions:
Did Ms. Mangum allege that a least one of her attackers ejaculated?
Ms. Mangum answers: “I would like to add that Adam ejaculated in my mouth.”
Did Ms. Mangum allege that at least one of her attackers did not use a condom?
Ms. Mangum answers: “I spit it out onto the floor, part of it fell onto the floor after he pulled his penis out.”
Sidney, I believe the term “it” used in this context by Ms. Mangum refers to the semen that would have been deposited in Ms. Mangum’s “mouth” when “Adam ejaculated.”
There would be no semen to “spit…out” or “[fall] onto the floor” if “Adam” had had not “ejaculated” or had used a condom.
As you know, Ms. Mangum was examined within hours of the alleged attack. Ms. Mangum was taken to Duke University Medical Center within hours of leaving the party. She did not bathe. AT DUMC, she underwent a sexual assault examination later that morning.
There was no male DNA that matched any of the players in her mouth or on any of the evidence collected from the SANE exam. There was no semen with DNA that matched any of the defendants or Ms. Mangum on the bathroom floor.
You have claimed this failure to find a DNA match is not exculpatory.
Sidney, I ask you:
1. Why was “Adam’s” DNA not found in Ms. Mangum’s mouth?
2. What does the failure to find “Adam’s” DNA in Ms. Mangum’s mouth suggest about the accuracy of Ms. Mangum’s allegation that “Adam” had “ejaculated in [her] mouth and [she] spit it out?”
3. What does that failure say about Ms. Mangum’s credibility with respect to her ability to remember what happened?
4. If Ms. Mangum is shown not to be a credible witness with respect to her ability to remember what happened, why are her identifications in a tainted procedure credible?
5. If Ms. Mangum’s identifications are not credible, what evidence remains to support the prosecution?
6. Why is the failure to find “Adam’s” DNA in Ms. Mangum’s mouth not exculpatory?
In your response, please address Ms. Mangum’s specific allegation:
“I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT ADAM EJACULATED IN MY MOUTH AND I SPIT IT OUT ONTO THE FLOOR, PART OF IT FELL ONTO THE FLOOR AFTER HE PULLED HIS PENIS OUT.”
With no DNA.
You must explain the lack of DNA remaining after Ms. Mangum “spit it out onto the floor” without damaging Ms. Mangum’s credibility.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
One particularly egregious lie you have told is that Reverend Martin Luther King would have endorsed your agenda. Your agenda was RFEEDLP, rights for everyone except Duke Lacrosse Players.
You endorse their guilt although there is no evidence of a crime, no evidence linking them to any intimate contact with cgm. You endorse nifong denying them the presumption of innocnce. You endorse nifong's attempted undermining of their right to counsel and to remain silent. You endorse nifong's attempted condealment of exculpatory evidence. You endorse nifong's attempt to exclude evidence which creates doubt of their guilt. Reverend Martin Luther King would never have endorsed such actions.
You demonstrate quite how totally unfamiliar you are, not only with evidence but also with due process, legal ethics, the law and the Constitution of the United States.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
This is from Durham in Wonderland, published November 1, 2006:
"As Durham County’s “minister of justice,” it would have seemed that Nifong had an obligation to bring charges, as soon as possible, against those he believed committed a brutal rape. Instead, for nearly two extra weeks—until the next meeting of the grand jury, on April 18—he left people on the street that he had labeled “hooligans,” figures whose “contempt . . . for the victim, based on her race” added “another layer of reprehensibleness, to a crime that already reprehensible.”
With the benefit of hindsight, it’s easy to see why Nifong didn’t move for an arrest as soon as the accuser gave her statement to the police on April 6 (inexplicably, three weeks after her initial police interview). Under North Carolina procedures, his seeking an arrest warrant entitled the defendants to a probable cause hearing."
It is an example of how nifong operated within acceptable standards for a prosecutor. KC Johnson asked this question in his blog. I now dare you to respond to it. If nifong really had probable cause to arrest the innocent Duke Lacrosse players, why was he unwilling to deal with a probable cause hearing?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Here is more from Durham in Wonderland from November 1, 2006:
"Several weeks ago, startling figures emerged that Nifong’s office dismissed 12 of the 25 rape cases of which it disposed in the 2005-2006 fiscal year. The court files for many of these cases raise disturbing patterns relating to Nifong’s denial of a probable cause hearing in the lacrosse case:
* In each and every one of these cases (presumably the office’s weaker ones, as they ended with outright dismissals or plea bargains), Nifong’s office sought an arrest warrant, with the subsequent requirement for a probable cause hearing. The office went to the grand jury only months later, if at all. The lacrosse case thus radically departed from precedent. Among even the shaky rape-case defendants, Finnerty, Seligmann, and (later) Dave Evans seem to have been alone in the Nifong era in being denied the opportunity for a probable cause hearing*—the only built-in check to Nifong’s power in the charging process.
* Nifong’s latter-day positioning of himself as a crusader for social justice is chimerical. His office regularly entered into plea bargains resulting in the dismissal of rape charges and the imposition of often laughably light sentences. “I’m not going to allow,” the D.A. said at one campaign forum, “Durham’s view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke raping a black girl from Durham.” Yet he seems to have cared little for the “black girls from Durham” when their alleged rapists didn’t fit a profile that would benefit him politically."
It again describes nifong's behavior in the Lacrosse case, which you say was within acceptable standards for a prosecutor.
Answer this question: why was nifong's behavior in other rape cases not consistent with his behavior in the Duke case?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
More from DIW, November 1, 2006:
"In further remarks at the April NCCU forum, Nifong stated that he was compelled to seek indictments and carry the case through to a trial. “Anytime,” the D.A. told the audience, “you have a victim who can identify her assailant, then what you have is a case that must go to the jury, which means, in this situation, a jury will get to evaluate the evidence.”
This claim, of course, was wholly untrue. North Carolina’s general statutes impose no such obligation on the D.A., while Section 3.8, comment 2 of the state bar’s ethics code contradicts Nifong’s description of his duties: “The prosecutor represents the sovereign and, therefore, should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of government powers, such as in the selection of cases to prosecute.”
So much for your allegation that nifong was only doing his job when he prosecuted the innocent Lacrosse playeers.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
More from DIW, November 1, 2006, summaries of rape allegations dismissed by nifong when he was Durham's DA, doing his job.
"1.) State v. Che Usef Fletcher
Charge: second-degree rape
* Arrest warrant: September 15, 2005
* $50,000 bond: September 17, 2005
* Waives probable cause hearing: February 28, 2006
Case dismissed June 29, 2006: “The victim married the defendant.”
__________________________________________________
2.) State v. Herbert Jackson
Charge: first-degree rape
First-degree sexual assault
* Arrest warrant: March 10, 2005
* Waives probable cause hearing: May 17, 2005
The case was dismissed on September 20, 2005, when the D.A.’s office said that it could not locate the accuser.
3.) State v. Rigoberto Hernandez
Charge: first-degree rape
* Arrest warrant/probable cause found: May 27, 2005
* $250,000 bond
* Grand jury: August 15, 2005
The case was dismissed on February 10, 2006, when the accuser refused to cooperate with the Nifong’s office.
4.) State v. Hinojosa
Charge: second-degree rape
* Arrest warrant: September 3, 2005
* Bail: September 20, 2005 (reduced from $50,000 to $12,000)
* Waives probable cause hearing: January 24, 2006
The case was dismissed for insufficient evidence on February 10, 2006. The court file contains no explanation of the rationale for the dismissal."
As KC Johnson pointed out, under nifong, the Durham DA's office had a history of going after cases with little or no probable cause. You would say he was just doing his job.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
More from DIW November 1, 2006.
" * In all 12 of these cases, which didn’t even have strong enough evidence to get a rape charge to trial, Nifong’s office followed the routine procedure of seeking an arrest warrant and a probable cause hearing.
* In the lacrosse case, though his “investigation” was complete on April 6, Nifong employed a different procedure, waiting waited 12 days to go to a grand jury."
These were cases which were disposed of via the plea deal route.
The question for you is, why did nifong do his job differently in the Lacrosse case, i.e. handling it in such a way as to deny the accused a probable cause hearing?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
This comes from a Susan Estrich published on line December 18, 2006. This refers to the lineup in which cgm supposedly identified her assailants with 90% to 100% certainty:
"The identification procedures were unduly suggestive, limiting the universe from which her selections were made to men who were members of the team, thus ensuring that she would pick someone who had been at the party, where a line up with true third parties would not, and rightly so."
However, when nifong ordered this improper lineup he was only doing his job, according to you.
Tawana Brawley and the Mangum case are dissimilar - the grand jury in the former rape allegation found no credible evidence. (The district attorney was not held culpable.) The grand jury in the Mangum case did find probable cause; but Mr. Nifong was held culpable. One should point out that expecting DNA WOULD BE FOUND on Ms. Mangum, the lacrosse defense lawyers went on a preemptive media blitz in the days before the DNA report was due. The lawyers offered possible scenario for how lacrosse player semem may get upon Ms. Mangum. In a WUNC radio interview on the Saturday before the release of the report, Kirk Osborn, representing Reade Seligmann, said--referring to the atheletes--"that these players were young men with 'raging' hormones and that he had too walked through the house and was afraid himself of getting something on him." It appears, the defense lawyers were the ones surprised that the report proved negative. Nifong reported at the time that his office [under former DAs in Durham County] had successfully prosecuted many rape cases where DNA wasn't found. This lack of DNA wasn't altogether uncommon in rape cases.
"Nifong reported at the time that his office [under former DAs in Durham County] had successfully prosecuted many rape cases where DNA wasn't found. This lack of DNA wasn't altogether uncommon in rape cases."
Anon, February 4, 2010 7:51 PM or should I say Mike, a rape prosecution without DNA was possible, and might still be possible, but not where the only witness cannot give an in court identification. No credible visual identification and no DNA identification, then the state lacks probable cause.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous:
The grand jury process in NC was a closed process, no record kept of the proceedings, the DA(nifong) controlling what was presented. I have said in a previous post, one could give parjured testimony to a North Carolina Grand Jury without fear of prosecution. There is doubt about what the Grand Jury heard.
Rape cases in which there was no DNA evidence are irrelevant to the Duke fraud. There was DNA evidence in the Duke case, obtained at the behest of nifong. nifong himself did say the case would turn on the DNA evidence. The DNA evidence did not show any intimate contact between cgm and any Duke Lacrosse player. Remember, cgm's description of the alleged attack was that she had been penetrated and ejaculated upon. So, did the lack of DNA evidence make nifong's case or did it cast doubt upon his case? I say it cast doubt upon nifong's case, and nifong probably did not present that evidence to the Grand Jury.
Further, the usual procedure in a rape case was to first obtain arrest warrants. However, this would entitle the accused to a probable cause hearing, in which the DNA evidence, as well as other exculpatory evidence(the flawed id procedure used to id the accused, Reade Seligman's alibi evidence, Colin Finnerty's alibi evidence, David Evans lack of a mustache) would have been prevented. Instead of establishing probable cayse, nifong went straight to the Grand Jury, where he could control what was presented. Why did nifong deny the accused access to a probable cause hearing?
The obvious answer is, nifong did not have a case, but he had to prosecute someone anyway. His political future and personal well being depended upon it. He had vouched for the crime before any evidence was in, he needed the support of Durham's black voters, and he had promised Durham's racist black leaders he would prosecute someone.
Anonymous:
You got one thing wrong. No one on the Defense expected DNA to be found on cgm. There was no media blitz from the Defense to explain DNA. The Lacrosse players all stated there had been no rape. The Defense prediction was that the DNA evidence would exonerate the Lacrosse players.
You, like crazy etc. sidney, are resorting to fabrications.
crazy deceitful deluded spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Maybe you and your anonymous friend could answer another question.
It has been said the Lacrosse players should have gone to trial and proven themself innocent. I emphasize the defendants in a criminal case are not under any obligation to prove anything. The burden of proof is with the Prosecutor.
However, the accused Lacrosse players COULD have proven themselves innocent at a probable cause hearing. It was nifong who denied them the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. Why?
anonymous:
You did not list all the dissimilarities between tawana brawley and cgm.
In response to cgm's false allegations, nifong publicly declared the Lacrosse team suspects, tried to inflame the public against them, tried to undermine their right to be presumed innocent, right to counsel, right to remain silent. None of that happened in the brawley case.
One similarity between the cases is this, that the wrongfully accused were exonerated. Did you get that?
Thank you for pointing out the dissimilarities between Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum. -- The defendents sued Ms. Brawley. No claim of her poverty or mental health status deterred them. However, the lacrosse defendents claimed they would sue Ms. Mangum if she'd continue to maintain that "something happened." Ms. Mangum called their bluff. No lawsuit. A lawsuit means the case has to go to trial. [In the future please stay on topic.]
anonymous:
First, where is the evidence that a crime happened and that the Lacrosse players were the perpetrators?
Second, if cgm was indeed raped, why is SHE not pursuing the case in civil court?
If she could prove she was raped in a civil procedure(and she would not have to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt) she could be awarded a significant amount in damages. Any civil case in which the plaintiff is likely to collect a large cash award would be done on a contingency fee basis, meaning cgm would not have to worry about legal bills.
So, again, why is cgm not pursuing the case in civil court? The most likely answer is, she has no case, that exposing herself to having to testify would expose her as a fraud.
anonymous:
I say again, the biggest difference between tb and cgm is that nifong committed prosecutorial misconduct and the tb prosecutors did not.
The similarities were 1) in each case innocent men were accused of rape and 2) in each case the accused were exonerated and the accusers shown to be liars.
I ask you again, what evidence indicated there was a crime and what evidence incriminated the accused?
anonymous:
When you say cgm called their bluff, you are as deluded and ignorant as crazy etc. sidney. She hasn't called anyone's bluff.
cgm published her book, made a couple of public appearances in which she alleged she had been raped, and then refused to answer any questions about the incident. Since then she has vanished from public view.
Again, if she was raped by the Lacrosse players, then why does she not file suit in civil court?
anonymous:
Answer this, if you dare. If nifong really have a case against the Lacrosse players, why deny them a probable cause hearing. A lot of pro nifong commentators said the Defense was manipulating the public to gain sympathy for their clients. In a probable cause hearing, nifong would have called the Defense's bluff. He did not do so.
Wich highlights the most glaring difference between twb and cgm. Nifong perpetrated gross prosecutorial misconduct.
To Anonymous:
Thank you for your insightful comments. I would only request that you use a name other than anonymous so we can differentiate your comments from others who go by that name.
I welcome you participation in the future.
crazy deceitful deluded spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You are so desperate for support you would welcome anyone as deluded and biase as yourself
one more for anonymous:
twb did not defend herself when she was sued. The judgment against her was a default judgment, she did not answer the complaint, she did not offer evidence in her own behalf. Isn't that like cgm is behaving now, making her allegations then disappearing so she won't have to prove them. How is cgm calling their bluff?
yet another one for anonymous:
Again, why does cgm not file a civil suit against the people she accused as her assailants. According to you, their not suing cgm is an admission of guilt on their part.
So what would happen if cgm did decide to sue the Lacrosse players. Her evidence: they did not sue me.
Their evidence: cgm unable to describe Colin Finnerty, cgm unable to id either Dave Evans or Reade Seligman on two occasions, claiming that Dave Evans, who had been clean shaven all along, had a mustache at the time of the alleged crime, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligman each having alibis, the rape kit showing no eifdence of a crime, the DNA ecovered from her person matching other males but none of the Lacrosse players.
Could cgm have prevailed under these circumstances? I think not. If you know of any other circumstances under which cgm would prevail, let us know. It is not a legitimate circumstance to nifong the evidence, i.e. to exclude the evidence favorable to the Lacrosse players.
Anonymous -- From what I've found,the family of ONE exonerated player said they were "considering a lawsuit".
You have stated "the lacrosse defendents claimed they would sue Ms. Mangum if she'd continue to maintain that 'something happened.'"
I can cite an actual source for my statement...What's the source for yours?
yet another for anonymous:
Have you noticed cgm did not dare name any names before she made her allegations and disappeared back into whatever woodwork she came from.
This crazy etc. sidney whom you support has claimed that cgm identified her assailants with 90% to 100% certainty. So, why was she so reluctant to name names after she published her book
In the days leading up to the debut of LAST DANCE FOR GRACE: THE CRYSTAL MANGUM STORY, Joseph Cheshire, lead lacrosse defense attorney, gave numerous on-air and radio interviews. In all these interviews he emphatically said that the lacrosse families WILL SUE if Ms. Mangum dare state in her book that "something [criminal] happened that night." She did.
anonymous:
It unlikely that the Lacrosse players would ever have to testify, if they filed a lawsuit against cgm.
cgm has made a couple of public appearances. She refused to answer any questions about her experience.
In a lawsuit against her, she would either have to file an answer and then testify. Otherwise she would lose by default. What, in her past behavior indicates she would be willing to answer questions, i.e. testify.
Like twb before her, cgm would default and then run so she would not have to answer any questions. that is hardly calling anyone's bluff.
If she wants to call anyone's bluff, then why is she hiding.
anonymous:
I think Mr. Cheshire said there would be a lawsuit if cgm tried to accuse the Lacrosse players. cgm did not. She made allegations, did not name names(awfully curious if she really did know who her assailants were), and then ran.
I say again, that is hardly calling anyone's bluff.
The names are not necessary. Everyone knows who she was talking about.
This line is about "Nifong's past convictions under scrutiny."
Let us ignore no longer the elephant in the room, i.e., how many rape cases were won in Durham County where no DNA was present? And, who won those cases?
Astonishingly, the astute media was silent on the most important questions.
Apparently, appointed Judge Harden did not have the same agreement* with Gov. Easley as Nifong did.
[*Easley claimed that he only appointed Michael Nifong to Durham district attorney because Nifong agreed not to seek election to the job. Nifong disputed the governor's comments.]
[Appointed Jim Harden seeks election]
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/5806380/article-Appointed-judge-Hardin-seeks-electorate-s-nod?
anonymous:
I ask again, what relevance does any rape case decided without DNA have to do with a case in which DNA was available? DNA evidence was available in the Duke case not only because nifong sought it. nifong also obtained more sensitive testing of the rape kit because the state crime lab could not detect Lacrosse player DNA. nifong himself declared the case would turn on the DNA.
Are you aware of the DNA evidence, i.e. the DNA obtained from cgm did not match any Lacrosse player but did match a number of other males. Did such evidence prove nifong's case beyond reasonable doubt or did it create doubt. If it created doubt, it was favorable to the defense and was therefore exculpatory.
You are saying that all the previous cases which were decided without DNA constitute a precedent. You are saying that precedent allowed nifong to exclude the DNA evidence. What legal mind ever gave you that idea?
North Carolina standards of legal ethic, North Carolina's open discovery law, and the Brady versus Maryland Supreme Court decisions all say you are wrong. Once he had the DNA evidence, nifong was obligated to have that evidence included in the case.
There is more than one elephant in that room. You try to dismiss all the relevant ones.
If the DNA had incriminated the defendants, should nifong have tried to get a conviction without introducing that evidence?
anonymous:
We all know who cgm accused. Still she did not name names, which would allow her to claim she did not mean the innocent men she originally accused. Then she ran and hid.
I say again, if sued cgm would default and then run farther away. cgm has shown she does not want to answer questions, that she refuses to really stand by what she says. Where do you get the idea that is a gauntlet she has cast down?
anonymous:
Whoever won those cases in which no DNA evidence was available , it was not nifong. I say again, during nifong's tenure as DA, almost half of the rape cases his office handled were dismissed. A number were dismissed before it got to a probable cause hearing. Most of the rest were disposed of via a plea bargain, the accused pleading guilty to lesser charges, charges other than rape, often misdemeanor charges.
Incidentally, in how many rape cases with DNA evidence does a prosecutor proceed without introducing that evidence?
anonymous:
Did you ever think that nifong's track record handling rape cases is why crazy etc. sidney and his gang of 4 have been "silent on [these] most important questions"?
for the anonymous irrelephant:
Here is another difference between twb and cgm on the issue of a lawsuit. Stephen Pagones sued twb because he wanted exoneration. When twb defaulted on the case, did not file an answer and did not defend herself, she admitted she had falsely accused Pagones.
Why would the innocent Lacrosse players seek exoneration from cgm? AG Roy Cooper, after his office thoroughly examined the evidence, something about which crazy etc. sidney is not knowledgeable, He announced that he and his investigators believed the Lacrosse players were innocent. What do you and crazy etc. sidney have that says they are guilty? That they have not sued cgm? That is hardly a remote indication of, let alone an admission of, guilt. Although she alleges she was raped, cgm refuses to sue any Lacrosse player. Considering the evidence, that means she would not prevail.
What makes you think cgm would defend herself? Since the publication of her book, cgm has refused to answer any questions. She hides from the public. What indication do you have that cgm would submit to being questioned by any Lacrosse player's attorney? I say again, if sued cgm would default rather than answer questions. So there would be no trial.
For a lawsuit to go forward, the defendants have to be notified, officially served with papers informing them they are being sued. Why does cgm hide. I say she fears a lawsuit and wants to avoid service.
I say again, that is hardly casting down a gauntlet.
more for the anonymous irrelephant:
When a rape prosecutor tries for a conviction without DNA evidence, the situation usually is that the DNA exonerates the defendant and the prosecutor, like nifong, is hell bent on getting a conviction.
crazy etc. sidney has noted a number of cases in which DNA evidence not available at trial, exonerated a defendant. Off hand, I can think of two rape cases in which DNA evidence not available at trial ultimately exonerated the defendant, Darryl Hunt and Timothy Cole.
Is that why you and crazy etc. sidney believe nifong was within acceptable limits in concealing the DNA evidence he obtained?
even more for the anonymous irrelephant and crazy etc. sidney:
Are you two going to start blogging that Stephen Pagones' exoneration was unfair and irrelevant because twb didn't get the chance to defend herself.
yet even more for the anonymous irrelephant:
Suppose cgm was sued, suppose she did try to defend herself. Consider the weight of evidence, or lack thereof on cgm's side. She could not argue Lacrosse player guilt is indicated by their not suing. So what evidence could she offer to support her defense?
The innocent Lacrosse players would have a lot of evidence to support their case. What do you think the most likely outcome would be?
I say the most likely outcome would be a summary judgment for the Lacrosse players. I say further, should cgm sue the Lacrosse players, that would have the same outcome.
All of this maybe explains why, instead of casting down any gauntlet, cgm is desperately hiding from legal action.
Please desist in alluding to evidenciary flaws as factual regarding the line-up identifications, etc., in the lacrosse case UNLESS you can cite Judge Smith's rulings or the AG's opinion on those issues.
[Whatever the defense lawyers claimed about procedural errors--which were much--outside of court is irrelevant.]
Thanks.
anonymous,
I disagree with your statement that the defense claims of procedural error are irrelevant. They are unproven allegations and, if true, are very much relevant to the charge of misconduct.
Perhaps discovery in the civil suits can establish whether those claims of procedural errors are true or false.
If the defense lawyers can make unproven allegations--that should be accepted as you say as fact before being ruled upon--then Ms. Mangum's allegations should be taken the same way.
J4N agrees with your logic.
Thanks.
anonymous,
Allegations merit investigation, not acceptance as fact.
The Durham Police did not adequately investigate Ms. Mangum's allegations. The special prosecutors appear to have done so.
No one has investigated the defense lawyers' allegations.
Why?
Thanks.
AG mystery -- calling in psychological/psychiatric forensic experts to extract fact from delusion with crime victims is standard investigatory practice. And, the N.C. Attorney General's office has such persons on staff.
However, the Cooper special prosecutors did not call in any such experts to interview Ms. Mangum. Rather, they themselves offered their own opinions about Ms. Mangum's mental health.
Durham police investigators and DA personnel said that when they interviewed Ms. Mangum she seemed credible to them.
Strange photographs -- Months after the incident, the Duke lacrosse defense attorneys released cellphone photographs, claiming that this proved their clients' innocence. Ms. Mangum said the photographs were "doctored."
When the special committee wanted to call Ms. Mangum to testify and test the authenticity of those photographs, the following day the committee was shut-down.
Anonymous@11:22 a.m
What special committee? Do you mean the investigators at the AG's office? I don't think they were shut down.
Crystal was questioned about the photographs by the AG's office and she said they were doctored. That information was in the AG's report.
What committee?
The City of Durham assembled a blue ribbon panel (which was comprised of esteemed judges, etc.) to investigate the Duke lacrosse scandal.
The committee was known for months to begin and had started in its proceedings. Then......
The first presenters were the lacrosse defense lawyers (who rolled out brand new never seen before photographs that they claimed proved their clients innocence.)
However, after their presentation the committee's chair--a former N.C. supreme court judge and others--said that their presentation DID NOT ADD UP (and raised new questions).
To verify their testimony, of Joseph Cheshire, etc., the panel decided to call Crystal Mangum to testify and also to authenticate those new photographs.
Then.. a strange thing happened. At midnight that night a letter from the legal department of the city's insurance company arrived. It said they were advising against continuing the committee's investigation.
The next day the blue ribbon investigatory panel disbanded.
Please provide your source.
Anonymous@10:22 p.m.
Do you mean the Whichard Committee? And are you specifically referencing Judge Whichard when you state:
"However, after their presentation the committee's chair--a former N.C. supreme court judge and others--said that their presentation DID NOT ADD UP (and raised new questions)."
I do recall the presentation by the lacrosse lawyers - I don't recall any discussion between the committee members concerning bringing Crystal Mangum before the committee to testify.
If I recall the committee was impressed with the lacrosse lawyers presentation and later met with various members of the city government and police department to consider what the committee's next steps would be in addressing the topics brought up during the lawyers presentation. This meeting between the committee and city officials did not take place the next day but more than a week later after the presentation.
Do you have a source for what have written and can you elaborate on what the members found "did not add up" concerning the lacrosse lawyers presentation?
Whitchard's exact quote is "it answered some questions but raised others" [referring to the presentation made by the Duke lacrosse defense lawyers.]
Whitchard's comments about the Duke lacrosse defense presentation appeared on all local evening news programs and in print media the following day.
The Whitchard committee decided to call Crystal Mangum [a fact] to help answer the discrepancies in Cheshire's presentation.
A late night fax [received from the legal department of the city's insurance company] arrived advising not to proceed further.
Duke U. alumni were known to be employed at this same insurance company.
I'm glad that you find this revelation incredulous.
Anonymous@8:52 a.m.
I'm glad that you find this revelation incredulous.
I had no opinion on what you wrote, only responded to what I recalled of the committee's meetings.
I did ask for verification of the information you provided (having never heard it before).
Anonymous@8:52am
I googled the "exact quote" you cited, with various other words, including Whichard, Duke, Durham. Nothing came up. Please provide a link. Context is important.
To Anonymous concerning claims AIG requested halting the Whichard Committee investigation the day after the lacrosse lawyers' presentation
You are approximately one month off the AIG notification:
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=5608783
Lawsuit Threat Could Suspend Duke LAX Panel
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Sources tell Eyewitness News the insurance company, which would pay for a potential lawsuit settlement, threatened to suspend the city's policy if it didn't reconsider the Duke Lacrosse Investigative Committee. We're told the company sent its request by fax last Thursday. The city's policy would cover up to $5 million in the event of a lawsuit.
The Whichard Committee listened to the lacrosse lawyers' presentation on July 20, 2007. According to WTVD the fax from AIG to the city was sent on August 23, 2007.
Also, the reason given for suspending the committee was the possible civil suits being considered against the city.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Are the names Darryl Hunt, Timothy Cole and Dean Cage familiar to you? They are men who were convicted of rape without DNA evidence. Subsequent DNA testing revealed, in each case, the man convicted WAS NOT the rapist. How many convictions for rape in NC have been subsequently overturned by DNA evidence?
If you really know anything about the case, you know nifong did not interview cgm until 9 months into the case. After that interview he dropped the rape charges. nifong would not have gotten a rape conviction in the cgm case.
It seems that nifong's track record on rape cases is one of filing charges and then backing off.
to the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
The Wichard committe included a number of people who supported cgm and nifong during the rape case. Does the name Diane Cattoti mean anything to you?
to the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
How could cgm know the photos were doctored? Why did she not bring this up until questioned by the AG? Did nifong ever question the authenticity of the photographs?
It would have been up to cgm to provide reason why she thought the photos were doctored. Did she provide any?
to the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
How could cgm explain any alleged inconsistencies in the Defense case? cgm could not explain the inconsistencies in the multiple conflicting accounts she gave of her alleged assault?
to the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
The Wichard committee stopped its proceedings because Durham's insurance company was unwilling to risk what the committee would find. It was afraid the findings would expose the city to increased liability.
to the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Why does Durham not throw down the gauntlet and defend the suit filed against it. The Lacrosse players are willing to make their case public. Rather than challenging their case, Durham is trying to have the suit dismissed. Why is Durham so afraid to put its case into the public record?
to the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
It is a matter of public record, it is a fact, that the so called line up at which cgm identified her attackers was not conducted according to proper line up standards, i.e. there were no fillers in the lineup, the lineup was conducted by an individual(mark gottlieb) who was involved in the process. As Susan Estrich noted, there was no way to know that cgm would identify anyone who was not a Lacrosse player or who was not at the party.
I doubt you are knowledgeable about the case. If you were, you would know that this "lineup" was the third procedure in which cgm was involved. In the previous id procedures cgm identified Brad Ross as being at the party. Brad Ross was not even in Durham the night of the party.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Why would Durham's liability insurer direct Durham to cease an investigation which was about to yield results which would protect the City and its insurer?
$5 million is a significant sum of money. No company director would direct a client not to obtain information which would exonerate the client. Avoiding a 7 figure loss would mean more to a company director than any old school tie.
If an insurance company lost a 7 figure judgment because a director ordered a client not to exonerate itself, that director might find himself personally liable for the amount the company had to pay.
So, does it really make sense that a liability insurance company director would direct a client not to exonerate itself? Just like cgm, you fail the credibility test.
for the anonymous elephant in the room:
Did cgm say the pictures were altered or that they might have been altered? marcella chester, on a blog published years ago, said cgm said that the pictures might have been altered. marcella took the Durham authorities to task for not checking the pictures. Since the pictures exonerated their clients, it would make sense that the defense attorneys checked them for reliability. Why would they knowingly submit impeachable evidence? that would open them up to a claim of legal malpractice by their clients.
If the pictures were altered cgm could prove it. she could file suit against the lacrosse players and then obtain the photos for her own experts to examine.
The only circumstance under which that would happen is that cgm could prove they perpetrated a rape against her. Such a tort would, if proveable, would be a slam dunk for a seven figure award, meaning a high six figure or a seven figure contingency fee for her lawyer.
cgm has backed down on filibg a lawsuit. That indicates she does not have a case. I believe she sought legal representation and was told, probably more than once, she has no case.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
When her book was published, cgm said she would donate $ 1 from each sale yo a women's charity. So far the sales of her book have been more than anemic. Sales have been aplastic.
Why has cgm not made more public personal appearances to promate her book, if she wants to support a women's charity? Is it because she fears a lawsuit? Has she gone to ground to avoid service, to avoid answering questions about her assertions? That's not much of a gauntlet she has cast down.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Is the name Michael Jermaine Burch familiar?
In early 2007, he was charged with the rape of a white Duke coed. He was released on bond. While free on bond, he was charged with a second rape. He was allowed to plead guilty to lesser charges.
Yes sir, let's hear it for nifong's conviction record, or lack thereof, in rape cases.
for the anonymous irrelephant in thr room:
From 2005 to 2006, 162 rapes were reported in Durham county. The DA's office got one conviction. This is the nifong conviction rate, of which you are so proud?
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Why would the Wichart Committee call cgm to testify about the photographs. As many commenters on different blogs have pointed ouy, cgm could not give consistent accounts of her alleged rape. When nifong interviewed her, she could not recall being penetrated(so much for those, like injustice58 who say cgm never recanted her rape claim).
What expertise would she have in digital photography? If the committee seriously believed a photograph was doctored, why wouldn't they call upon an expert to examine them. Neither nifong nor the Durham PD ever questioned the validity of the photographs.
You just took another hit in your credibility.
These posters are obviously well informed. Tell me more about the accuser's books sales and donations.
I'm curious, most accused persons desire a trial for vindication. However, the lacrosse boys didn't. With the stats that you report about rape convictions in Durham--known to the defense--these boys had little to worry about.
Therefore, why did they seek to have their vindication through an AG report? --a report that swiped the slate clean involving all crimes [even crimes not known then that may have come out during trial?]
That's right -- a pardon.
The innocence declaration by Roy Cooper serves as a "pardon." True the lacrosse boys cannot be charged again for anything that they were already charged with, i.e., double jeopardy.
But, for any crimes committed that night in which they had not been charged--which often do come out during trials--they could still be criminally charged with those.
However, Roy Cooper's innocence declaration works as a pardon to all and any crimes committed by the lacrosse boys that night, i.e., those charged and those uncharged.
No wonder the operator of this blog is so hung up on Cooper's innocence declaration!
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
The usual procedure for a rape case in Durham, as KC Johnson pointed out, is for an arrest warrant to be issued before any other procedure. An arrest warrant would require a probable cause hearing, a procedure which would allow an accused to present evidence of his innocence. Because nifong went first to the grand jury, the Lacrosse players never got a probable cause hearing. Why did nifong deny them, early in the case, the opportunity to vindicate themselves? Was it because he would be obligated not to prosecute defendants who could show evidence of their innocence? Why would the defendants want to vindicate themselves at trial when they could vindicate themselves before trial?
In any event, a defendant is ENTITLED to a fair, objective trial. nifong clearly indicated he did not intend for any trial to be fair and objective. Why would any defendant subject himself to an unfair trial?
The only evidence nifong generated actually cleared the defendants. What makes you think he could have generated evidence of other crimes?
You say most defendants are eager to go to court to vindicate themselves. So, why is nifong so reluctant to defend himself against the lawsuits filed against him? Why is Durham so reluctant to vindicate itself?
Roy Cooper did not proclaim the defendants innocent. Go to youtube and watch the video of his announcement. First, he described the extent of the investigation his office conducted. Next he announced that all charges would be dismissed and there would be no further prosecution. Finally he said, "WE BELIEVE(emphasis added)" the Lacrosse players were innocent. Translated, the investigators looked at the evidence, came to the conclusion the defendants were innocent. To put it another way, this was not a pardon. One does not pardon individuals one believes innocent.
Roy Cooper looked at the evidence. Crazy etc. sidney, by his own admission, did not. sidney is angered by Mr. Cooper's belief because he is a crazy, deluded deceitful, spiteful liar who wanted the Lacrosse players condemned regardless of guilt or innocence.
The heat turned up by the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong makes AG Roy Cooper think of leaving his term before its over.
The AG who condemned Michael Nifong for using the lacrosse case to get elected in 2006 and THEN used the lacrosse case himself in campaign ads to get elected in 2008, is now thinking of bowing out (like the under investigation Sen. Tony Rand going to the Parole Department.)
Let's see how far this trial balloon from "anonymous" sources in state government [ooh, it gives me a bad name] flies.
I wonder - could it have been the J4N banner? [It did look striking in the MLK parade.]
Some of Mike Nifong's detractors here need to brush-up on their CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
Criminal cases can be dismissed by a DA either "with prejudice" or "without prejudice."
Double jeopardy protections only apply if the trial had actually started. Dismissals "with prejudice" mean the charges cannot be brought against these defendants again. "Without prejudice" WHICH IS THE MORE COMMON FORM OF DISMISSALS BY DAs, means that the criminal charges can be brought up again anytime within the statute of limitations.
The PARDON given by Roy Cooper was exceptional. It prevents Crystal Mangum from bringing a civil case. [I believe someone here asked why she didn't.]
Well, it's Cooper's PARDON stupid!
"Nothing happened"
These were the words defense sought from Cooper, Nifong and the taxi driver.
Oh, the taxi driver?
Yes, this is the same taxi driver who said in his initial interviews that "it appeared to him that someone got hurt" when he arrived at the lacrosse party that night.
However later, he backtracked. This was after the lacrosse families and their lawyers met with him privately.
Does witness tampering ring a bell?
[The taxi driver's testimony would have been impeached at trial because of his conflicting public statements. It takes a prosecutor to bring witness tampering charges. There was no prosecutor after Nifong.]
To Anonymous:
Thanks again for your very insightful and intelligent remarks. Your contributions to this blog are thought provoking and educational, and much appreciated.
Please ignore the insults from unbekannte. He resorts to personal attacks when he is unable to debate the issues in a civilized manner.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
What in the Attorney General's statement prevents cgm from filing a civil suit against the Lacrosse players? It would not be double jeopardy, since it was not a criminal prosecution. Double jeopardy protects a defendant from multiple prosecutions for the same crime by the same jurisdiction.
What prevents cgm from filing a civil suit is that she has no case and no attorney would represent her. If she has a case then why does she not make public appearances and answer questions about the case?
crazy deluded deceitful spite unable and afraid to respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Let's get back to statements nifong made to the media in March of 2006, statements which you say were mild, which were made only to get witnesses to come forward.
nifong made several statements to the effect that a rape had happened, that it was a racially motivated crime, and that Duke Lacrosse players were the perpetrators. If you say nifong made no such statements then publish a word for word list of his statements. The NC state bar complaint detailed when and tio whom nifong made those statements
Answer yes or no: is a suspect supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? How were nifong's statement compliant with the presumption of innocence?
Is a prosecutor who investigates a crime without complying with the presumption of innocence committing prosecutorial misconduct?
If he was not respecting the presumption of innocence, was he not perpetrading prosecutorial misconduct?
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Unless you can document what you say about Attorney General Cooper, no one believes you. I will pay you a complement I once paid crazy etc. sidney. You are as believable as the balloon boy's father or as the Selahis.
You remind me of silly chicken killy. He claimed to have intimate knowledge of the rape case. When pushed to reveal what he knew, he disappeared from this forum.
Maybe you are silly chicken killy hiding behind the anonymous title
for the irrelephant in the room:
Can you name any defendant who was eager to go to trial? Darryl Hall? Timothy Cole? Erick Daniels? James Arthur Johnson?(his plea was a not guilty plea in which he admitted the prosecution had enough to convict) Dean Cage? Alan Gell?
Was nifong eager to go to trial, either his ethics trial or his contempt trial?
More uncivil debate, I guess.
for the anonymous elephant in the room:
You believe the allegation that the Seligmans paid off Moez Elmostafa. So, let's have more uncivil debate.
Why did nifong not pick up on that? nifong had Mr. Elmostafa picked up on a warrant which would have probably been dismissed in a probable cause hearing. nifong's reps asked Mr. Elmostafa if he wanted to change his story on the Lacrosse case. When Mr. Elmostafa said no, he was prosecuted.
Do you or do you not agree that nifong really wanted Reade Seligman, not Moez Elmostafa. Why did his reps not say to Mr. Elmostafa, tell us the Seligmans bribed you and we will go easy on you?
The answere most likely is that nifong and his reps had no cause at all to believe Mr. Elmostafa had been bribed.
Why would Mr. Elmostafa turn down the Seligmans' offer to pay his expenses for his trial if he had alreay taken a payoff from them?
Why do you not go to the authorities with your allegations about Mr. Elmostafa. If Mr. Elmostafa had taken a payoff, he was obstructing justice. Have you knowledge of a crime which you are not reporting?
Maybe you are not going to the authorities because like nifong in so many real rape cases, you have gathered insufficient evidence.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Maybe you are silly chicken killy trying to remain incognito. You have the same astuteness, or lack thereof, as silly chicken killy.
I left a comment on Vincent Clark's blog some weeks ago. I asked why cgm was not filing a civil suit against the Lacrosse players. His response was that cgm had considered a lawsuit but decided she was not in it for money. There was nothing about cgm being barred from filing a suit. I say again, double jeopardy applies to criminal, not civil prosecution.
AG Roy Cooper did not pardon the Lacrosse defendants. crazy etc. sidney has correctly pointed out that he had no authority to issue pardons. He investigated the case. After becoming knowledgeable about the evidence, something crazy etc. sidney, by his own admission, is not, he dismissed the charges. Then he said "WE BELIEVE(emphasis added)" that these men are innocent.
Where do you get pardon in that?
more incivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
The banner of the justice4nifong gang of 4 was unimpressive. None of the news media picked it up, in spite of the gang's ineffective attempts to get into the media. Most people never noticed it. So, how could that banner influence anyone?
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Had you heard what AG Roy Cooper said, you would know he never mentioned any other "crimes" accept for the crimes for which the Lacrosse players had been wrongfully charged. He said there would be no more prosecution for THESE crimes. Nothing in his expression of belief in the defendants' innocence would have precluded prosecution for any other crime
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
AG Cooper was not running for anything in 2006. He was elected to a 4 year term in 2004. He made his statements in April of 2007, when he again was not running for anything.
Yes keep posting your comments. You make such a fool of yourself
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
You refer to the impeachability of Moez Elmostafa's evidence.
How would dcgm's testimony have convicted the defendants after she had told multiple, mutually conflicting accounts of the attack? How could that testimony be anything but impeachable?stazer
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
nifong himself did admit he had no credible evidence upon which to base his prosecution of the innocent Lacrosse players.
OJ SIMPSON and THE LACROSSE BOYS -
Oh, these Nifong detractors have to be spoon fed:
Well here it is pureed for you:
You ask: why does Cooper's "pardon" preclude Crystal Mangum from suing in civil court?
For example, if the jury had in the OJ Simpson case declared that "he was (absolutely) innocent," then there would have been no civil case possible for the Goldman family.
Declaring "innocence" by the chief law enforcement officer of a state [an unheard of occurrence] makes winning a civil case then almost nil.
The defense and Cooper knew what they were doing.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Attorney General Cooper did not declare the Lacrosse players innocent. He can not pardon any one. He dismissed the charges. Then he said "We believe[d]" i.e. he and his investigators, that the Lacrosse players were innocent. Nothing in that would have barred cgm from filing a civil suit against the Lacrosse players.
Maybe it deterred her from filing a lawsuit. If she filed a suit, the Lacrosse players could have entered into evidence the Attorney General's report. After the Judge reviewed it, the Lacrosse players would have moved for a summary judgment in their favor. The judge, most likely, would have granted it.
That means there would have been no opportunity for a lawyer to collect a large contingency fee. Ergo, no lawyer would have taken her case.
In any event, when I submitted a comment to Vincent Clark's blog asking why cgm had not filed a lawsuit, Vincent Clark replied. He said cgm had considered a lawsuit. He did not say that anything barred cgm from filing.
more uncivility for the irrelephant in the room:
I agree the Lacrosse players knew what they were doing.
It is too bad that district attorney nifong did not know what integrity and fairness mean.
I say again, the fact that AG Cooper's expressed belief, that the Lacrosse players were innocent, would deter cgm from filing a lawsuit. No attorney, no matter how unscrupulous or nifongian he was, could make a case for liability in the face of that. It still did not bar her from trying. Based on what Vincent Clark said in his blog, she apparently did try.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
I admit, AG Cooper did know what he was doing. Too bad you do not. You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on at least three occasions now.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
You have yet to name any criminal defendant who is really eager to go to trial, rather than having the case dismissed in his favor before the trial?
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Moez Elmostafa's testimony in any criminal trial for the Lacrosse defendants would have been, Reade Seligman was riding in his cab at the time the alleged rape was supposed to be occurring. How could nifong have refuted that? The Defense could have refuted any nifong refutation by pointing out that nifong pressured Mr. Elmostafa to change his story.
The prosecution would not be able to cross examine him on anything but his direct testimony.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
In your last quote, you put the word pardon in quotes. What source are you quoting that said Attorney General Cooper pardoned the defendants. As crazy etc. sidney has correctly pointed out, the State Attorney General has no power to pardon.
some uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Do you really consider your super dooper Cooper comic strip to be civil debate.
It seems the anonymous irrelephant in the room is not the only one who does not know what he is doing or saying.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
One tyna marie robertson accused Michael Flatley of rape. The charge was dismissed. robertson then attempted to sue Michael Flatley. How did that happen.
Incidentally, robertson lost a counter suit filed by Mr. Flatley. Fear of a counter suit would be a very logical reason for cgm not to sue.
That is not exactly casting down a gauntlet.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Some woman accused David Copperfield of raping her. After the FBI concluded their investigation with dropping the charge, the woman tried to sue Mr. Copperfield.
The suit has been short circuited because the woman has been arrested for prostitution and for filing a false rape complaint against another man.
Could it be, cgm won't sue because she does not want to expose her background to public scrutiny?
Whatever she cast down, it was no gauntlet.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Please cite a legal source supporting your claim that a verdict of absolutely innocent would have barred the Goldman family and the Brown family from suing OJ. Is a verdict of absolutely innocent even possible?
A number of posters have said on this blog that the only possible verdicts in a criminal trial are either guilty or not guilty?
Are you saying, if the Lacrosse case had gone to trial, a verdict of absolutely innocent was possible?
Did you notice the not guilty verdict in the OJ trial, which should have been a deterrent to filing a civil suit, did not deter the Goldmans or the Browns from suing. What is really deterring cgm from suing?
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
How many criminal cases have ever ended with a verdict of absolutely innocent? It seems such a case is one like the Duke Lacrosse case, one in which the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the defendants. Such a case should never have gone to trial.
How many civil lawsuits have been dismissed because of a criminal court verdict of absolutely innocent? The defendant has been found absolutely innocent by a criminal court. then he is sued in civil court over the same issue.
You must have a source.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Whatever your reason, you concede a criminal verdict of absolutely innocent is possible. What, then is so irregular about AG Cooper's belief that the Lacrosse players are innocent? You obviously believe a jury or a judge can review the evidence and come to the same conclusion.
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
In case you haven't heard, double jeopardy has jurisdictional issues. A defendant may be found not guilty in one jurisdiction but be tried for the same incident in a different jurisdiction. The officers who beat Rodney King were found not guilty. I admit, I do not know whether their first trial was in municipal or state court. They were then tried in Federal Court. The charges were different - they were tried for civil rights violation. Nevertheless they were tried a second time for the same incident.
Would AG Cooper's belief in the Lacrosse players' innocence have barred a trial in Federal Jurisdiction? Why has the Federal Government not charged them with something? If someone committed a racially motivated rape, would that not violate Federal Civil Rights laws?
Would AG Cooper's belief bar from filing a suit in Federal Court alleging violation of her Civil Rights?
more uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:
What do you call civil debate? You seem to consider as uncivil any question to which you are unwilling or unable to answer. Why do you call that uncivil? Is it because your only answer might be an ad hominem attack on whoever asked the question.
In your blog you have made ad hominem attacks on the Lacrosse Defendants, on their families, on their lawyers, on Mr. Elmostafa, on AG Roy Cooper, on Joseph Neff.
more uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Do you consider all the lies you have told civil debate.
You have claimed the DNASI evidence was not exculpatory or relevant to the case although nifong himself said it was. You have claimed nifong did not withhold evidence when he did. You have claimed nifong did not lie to the Court when the Court said he did. You have said nifong almost lost the DA election by courting the black vote when he barely won by doing that.
There are also claims which you have made and never backed up. You claim the Seligmans bribed Moez Elmostafa but have not gone to the authorities. You have claimed that Defense attorneys conspired with the AG to have the Lacrosse Defendants declared innocent but have never gone to the authorities. If you have credible evidence for these claims, you have knowledge of crimes. Isn't someone obstructing justice when he withholds knowledge of a crime from the authorities? Isn't obstruction of justice a crime?
Why do you not go to the authorities. I believe you are aware that filing a false police report is also a crime. Is that why you do not go to the authorities?
more for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
In the OJ trial, did Lance Ito instruct the jury it could bring in a verdict of absolutely innocent? If not, then the jury would not have had the authority to bring in such a verdict.
Can you give any examples of a judge in a criminal trial ever instructing a jury to bring in a verdict of absolutely innocent? If not, upon what do you base your claim?
more for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
If a prosecutor can impeach the testimony of a defense witness, why would he try to intimidate that witness into changing his story. Is witness intimidation not a crime? Witness intimidation indicates a prosecutor can not impeach a witness's testimony, does it not?
The story on Moez Elmostafa is, he was picked up on an old outstanding warrant. If nifong had held a probable cause hearing, Mr. Elmostafa would have demonstrated no probable cause. The warrant charged him with abetting a shoplifting. The store involved eventually conceded Mr. Elmostafa had not been involved in the shoplifting.
After Mr. Elmostafa was brought in at nifong's behest, he was asked if he wanted to change his story? Mr. Elmostafa replied no. Mr. Elmostafa was then subjected to a trial, at which he was found not guilty.
nifong attempted to intimidate Mr. Elmostafa. That indicates nifong knew he could not impeach Mr. Elmostafa's story, does it not?
nifong was never charged with or tried for witness intimidation. Do you suppose the DA would charge himself with witness intimidation, especially in a case he wanted so dearly to win? A witness intimidation charge would have seriously undermined nifong's case, had it not already been seriously undermined.
Would nifong now, if he were charged with Witness Intimidation, would he be eager to go to trial to exonerate himself. So far, he has tried to have the ethics charges diemissed, he has tried to change the rules for his contempt trial to make it more difficult for the prosecution to prove its case, he has tried to have the Lacrosse players' lawsuit rather than defend himself. Does that at all indicate nifong would want to face a trial?
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Let's clarify somewhat the cgm civil lawsuit topic.
You said AG Roy Cooper's statement made the winning of a civil lawsuit almost nil. For once in this blog you have made a correct statement.
That does not bar cgm from filing a lawsuit. To prevail in a civil lawsuit, cgm would have to present evidence which proves her case, evidence to overcome the Defense evidence which exonerates the Defendants. Certainly Mr. Cooper is rather weighty evidence which exonerates the Defendants.
What makes nil the possibility of cgm winning a civil suit is that she could not prevail. But don't forgst, if cgm filed a civil suit, she would have to answer questions from the Defense Attorneys. cgm has shown a marked reluctance to answer questions. That also makes nil the possibility of cgm winning a civil suit. Finally, if cgm filed a civil suit, she would face the possibility of a counersuit. In a countersuit she would have to answer questions. That also makes cgm's chance of winning a civil suit nil.
AG Coopers expressed belief in the Lacrosse players innocence in no way bars a civil suit am.
more for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Regarding cgm's book sales, the last time I checked Amazon, it stood at about position 1,500,000 on Amazon's best(?) seller list.
more uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to answer sidney harr de harr harr:
Where was the credible evidence that incriminated the Lacrosse players? I think you have been asked this before and you have not answered indicating you do not want to answer or can not answer. Your reluctance to answer is hardly civil debate. It is ignoring the relevant evidence.
nifong himself stated eventually he had no credible evidence against the Lacrosse players, did he not?
The anonymous irrelephant characterized nifong's case as something like an attempt to stand up for a poor helpless defendant when he had insufficient evidence to do so. That indicates there was not credible evidence, does it not?
So what justified nifong's prosecution of the three innocent men? Are you going to answer that?
Are you going to repeat the lie that cgm identified her assailants with 90% to 100% certainty?
more uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid and unable to respond sidney harr de harr harr:
If nifong had a case against the Lacrosse players, why did he say he believed the Lacrosse players used condoms?
Let me refresh your recollection. nifong not only sought DNA evidence, he did say the case would turn on the DNA testing result. nifong said, from his reading of the medical record, he believed cgm had been raped. The medical record said no condoms had been used. Actually, when Tara Levicy was cross examined in nifong's ethics trial, she noted three places in the medical record in which she aid no condoms had been used. The DNA evidence DID NOT incriminate any Lacrosse player. After that, nifong said he believed condoms had been used. He made these statements to the media.
These were two instances in which nifong tried to deceive the media and the public, were they not, when he said he had reviewed the medical record and when he said he believed condoms had been used?
I got my information from the report of the ethics trial. If you dismiss the report, then refute it. Publish a word for word list of nifongs statements on the case in March of 2006
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Back to your comment that most criminal defendants are eager to go to trial to exonerate themselves. You show a lack of due process. I have noted this before for crazy etc. sidney. He thinks reminding him of due process is uncivil debate.
No criminal defendant is under any obligation to exonerate himself. The obligations in the trial so far as making the case are on the prosecutor. The prosecutor must prove the crime happened and that the perpetrator was the accused. The standard of proof he must meet is BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT!!! If the prosecutor does not meet that need, the jury must find the defendant not guilty.
In the face of the DNA evidence, in the face of cgm's credibility or lack thereof, in the face of alibi evidence which would have been presented, could nifong have proven his case beyond all reasonable doubt?
If a prosecutor does not have such proof, again I say he is ethically obligated not to prosecute. Do you deny that. You have indicated in a previous post you believe nifong did not have suct evidence. So how can you justify his prosecution of the Lacrosse Defendants?
more uncivility for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Hypothetical case:
A man is on trial for rape. Before he can defend himself, another man confesses to the rape. DNA evidence confirms the second man is the rapist.
Can the second man be considered guilty without going to trial? If so, what is so irregular about a man, whom the evidence unequivocally indicates is innocent, being declared innocent without a trial? Why would such a man want to go to trial rather than be declared innocent before trial?
The first man never got to present evidence which would exonerate him. Would you deny his innocence, just because he did not exonerate himself?
Of course, AG Roy Cooper did not declare the Duke Defendants innocent - I call that another one of crazy etc. sidney's lies about the case. After reviewing the evidence, he expressed his opinion, a much more informed opinion than anything crazy etc. sidney has ever expressed, that the Duke Defendants were innocent.
Actually, if cgm were to file suit against the Duke Defendants, that opinion would have enhanced legal status. I say again, the Duke Defendants could introduce the AG's report and Mr. Cooper's opinion into evidence. The judge trying that case would then issue a summary judgment for the Duike Defendants.
I think that has something to do with cgm's nil chance of winning a lawsuit.
Sayonara
Post a Comment