At times the conversation that takes place in the comment section of the blog can be stimulating, relevant, and important. Although I try to respond directly and immediately in the comment section, there are times when I feel the topics covered in the comment section should be addressed in the blog itself.
I find it absolutely amazing that a couple of blog commenters would even suggest that because I champion former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s case, that I would blindly support all state prosecutors. They imply that I would begrudge the wrongly incarcerated Erick Daniels compensation for his unjust conviction and incarceration for an armed robbery. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have advocated for Erick Daniels' release long before the charges against him were dismissed, and I have urged that he be declared “innocent” (he is currently seeking a pardon from Governor Bev Perdue) and that the state compensate him. The fact is that I am more likely than not going to lean in favor of justice for defendants than prosecutors. Bottom line is that I define justice based on a case by case basis.
Although I have staunchly supported Mike Nifong, I have been at odds with most prosecutors me when it comes to North Carolina justice. I have even filed complaints with the North Carolina State Bar against several, including Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford for his withholding information from the defense about two plea deals which enabled him to win a conviction against an innocent man (Gregory Taylor), and Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his prosecution of an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson) without probable cause. On the other hand, I was vociferously supportive of Johnston County Prosecutor Gregory C. Butler who was brought before the State Bar’s grievance panel on the flimsiest of charges. My schedule allowed me to be present throughout his hearing to lend my moral support to the embattled prosecutor, who was ultimately not charged with misconduct. Although the case against Mr. Butler should never have been brought by the State Bar to begin with, the outcome was just. Yet it is not only prosecutors against whom I have registered complaints with the State Bar. I filed a complaint against Defense Attorney Johnny S. Gaskins for his breach of attorney client privilege against his former client James Arthur Johnson. However, I wrote favorably and in support of Mr. Gaskins when articles in the media discussed that he had tried to evade federal laws when he made bank deposits just under the limit that would trigger scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service. Justice is not the sole province of the prosecutor, defender, defendant, or complaintant. It is determined on a case by case basis.
Another point of contention seems to be the role of the executive branch in matters that are judiciary in nature. Blog commenters have pointed out that the governor of the state has the power to grant a pardon, thereby exercising a power that is usually held by the judiciary branch of government. Somehow, they try to convey the power to apply to the state’s attorney general. First of all, Governor Mike Easley did not grant pardons to the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaimed them to be innocent on April 11, 2007 (at the prompting of defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's underling, Brad Bannon). My point is that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation carried no more legal weight than one made by me or you. What I find disturbing is that the media, which should know better, gave Mr. Cooper’s proclamation credence, instead of challenging it. The media should have known better. The media did know better, but it was working in cahoots with the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ attorneys, and the state of North Carolina to ruin prosecutor Mike Nifong. The Duke Lacrosse defendants, who were indicted by a grand jury, did not go through a judicial process in which their innocence or guilt was determined. As special prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office had only the option of proceeding with the prosecution, or dismissing the case. To make a proclamation regarding innocence or guilt was not its mandate, was overreaching in the extreme, and was inappropriate. The media, universally, made the situation all the worse by embracing the “innocent” declaration, and misleading media consumers on a broad scale.
Every time the media uses the phrase “falsely accused” and “innocent” when referring to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, it is disseminating misleading and false information… in short, playing a Jedi mind-trick on the public. Every time the media refers to the Duke Lacrosse accuser as being a “false accuser” it is, again, spreading lies.
What makes the “Roy Cooper Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” all the more suspect is that, to my knowledge, such a statement by a state attorney general has never been made in the past in North Carolina or any other state in the Union. If someone is aware of a prior instance, I would certainly appreciate a reference source.
Finally, I want to thank the blog commenters for their insightful and thought-provoking comments. Our democracy is founded on the principle of vigorous and civil debate, and justice is better served when there is healthy discourse from individuals with differing points of view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
They imply that I would begrudge the wrongly incarcerated Erick Daniels compensation for his unjust conviction and incarceration for an armed robbery.
This statement is false.
You fail to recognize obvious sarcasm.
Blog commenters have pointed out that the governor of the state has the power to grant a pardon, thereby exercising a power that is usually held by the judiciary branch of government. Somehow, they try to convey the power to apply to the state’s attorney general.
This statement is false.
Even after I corrected you, you continue to misrepresent what I said. You are either incredibly stupid or shamefully dishonest.
You owe me an apology for your continued misrepresentation of my comment.
I noted that the Governor has the power to grant a Pardon of Innocence in which he makes a “declaration of innocence.” I did not “try to convey this power” to the Attorney General. You know that. Your repetition can only be explained by dishonesty or utter stupidity.
As special prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office had only the option of proceeding with the prosecution, or dismissing the case.
He dismissed it. How should the notice of dismissal be filled out when the prosecutor has found “no credible evidence” that the alleged crimes had been committed? As you know, the form calls for an explanation.
Every time the media uses the phrase “falsely accused” and “innocent” when referring to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, it is disseminating misleading and false information…
You complain that the informed opinion of someone who has reviewed all of the evidence is misleading—but you take every opportunity to provide an uninformed opinion. You not only concede that you have NOT seen the evidence, but refuse to modify your statements when your errors of fact are pointed out.
crazy deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
I again offer you the opportunity to explain a number of issues.
First, if Roy Cooper should not have proclaimed the Lacrosse defendants innocent, by what authority do you proclaim them guilty. You may have never written the words, they are guilty. Your whole blog is based on the premise that they were guilty.
Second, how can you question the Attorney General's opinion that they were innocent when you, by your own admission, are not familiar with the evidence upon which he based his opinion.
Are you denying AG Cooper the right to free speech? Are you saying he has no right to express an opinion that is more well founded than your obvious opinion that the Lacrosse defendants were guilty.
Did the DNA evidence gathered in the case incriminate the defendants or create doubt about their guilt.
Why do you consider cgm's accusation in the case credible but not the statements of the defendants that they were innocent? cgm, as I have said before, had a history of mental instability, a history of drug abuse, a history of criminal behavior, a history of falsely accusing men of rape.
Why do you try to conceal the complete story of cgm's id of the three accused? The complete story is, in taking into account the multiple lineups she FAILED to id the defendants with 90% to 100% certainty.
How could nifong have justified a prosecution based on the word of cgm when nifong never interviewed cgm until 8 months into the case?
Answer if you dare.
Sidney,
I wanted to remind you that you still owe me the "answer" you promised me on December 3.
Why was the failure to match DNA in and on Ms. Mangum not exculpatory in a case in which the alleged victim alleged that one or more of her attackers ejaculated and did not use condoms?
You have not addressed the question I posed.
Crazy deceitful Sidney Harr de Harr Harr:
Where did you get your idea that AG Cooper was restricted by law to either prosecuting the case or to dismissing it? Please cite the references for your declaration.
"Bottom line is that I define justice based on a case by case basis."
The problem is, Sydney, you are using a double standard for your definition of justice. In every case but the hoax, you define prosecution without probable cause as unjust. Yet when it comes to the hoax, you claim that it is the prosecutor's duty.
You cannot have it both ways.
As to Eric Daniels, that case was the lacrosse hoax, before the lacrosse hoax. In the Daniels case the DPD manufactured evidence to implicate an obviously innocent person. Same as the lacrosse hoax. When facts started to come to light, the DPD failed and refused to investigate further. Same as in Lacrosse. Now, with someone about to confess, what is the DA's response? They say they got a conviction, that twelve good citizens heard the evidence.
If you believe the so called victim in the Eric Daniels case, and you believe the evidence, then there must be a thief out there somewhere. If you believe Crystal's base claim that she was violently raped, and you can disregard the medical evidence to the contrary but you do believe the iron clad alibis and DNA, then there has to be three violent rapists out there who are not David Evans, Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty.
Walt-in-Durham
crazy deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
You are actually an advocate for prosecutorial abuse.
Crazy deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
At one point, nifong threatened to bring charges of aiding and abetting against Lacrosse players who would not provide incriminating testimony against those accused. Of course, according to evidence, with which by your own admission you are not familiar, no crime was committed. Therefore, no Lacrosse player could provide incriminating evidence, save by committing perjury. Is that your definition of how the Lacrosse players were observing a no snitch rule.
nifong also made a statement to the effect that one would not need a lawyer if one were not guilty and not charged with anything. The Constitution guarantees everyone right to counsel. The Lacrosse defendants retained counsel even before beimng formally charged. Is that why you think they were guilty?
Other Lacrosse players who were threatened with criminal charges retained counsel. Is this why you say they were observing some athletic no snitch rule?
nifong: indecent, dishonorable, distinguished only by trying to perpetrate the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in NC history, exemplary by having his name become a synonym for a frame u, does not know the meaning of justice.
Sidney Harr de Harr Harr: NC's most strident apologist for Prisecutorial misconduct
To JSwift:
Regarding the DNA evidence not being exculpatory, it is my understanding that only small fractions of DNA strands were found on the exam kit, which indicated that they were not deposited recently. That is why the specimens were sent to an outside lab so that they could be analyzed.
I read Ms. Mangum's book, and I do not recall ejaculations without a condom. Where in reference to her body did the ejaculation take place? What is your source?
Also, a sexual assault and a rape can take place without DNA evidence being left behind. As I stated previously, the small DNA fragments identified as being male but not matching the Duke Lacrosse partygoers, were not deposited as recently as the party. Therefore, they are not related to the case, and have no exculpatory value.
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
It was recorded in cgm's medical record that she said one or more of her attackers penetrated her and ejaculated on her, that they did not use condoms.
You do not understand due process or the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It is not enough to say a sexual assault can take place without DNA being left. The prosecutor is required by law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime did happen. How was nifong going to prove that in the absence of DNA from any Lacrosse player on cgm's person and in the face of cgm's medical record which recorded her as saying material was left.
So far as the DNA matching multiple other males. You can not say it was not related to the rape accusation, since it was deposited before the date of the alleged rape. The presence of that old DNA, the absence of fresh DNA from any Lacrosse player would mean that if a rape did indeed occur, it must have happened prior to the night of the party and had to have been perpetrated by someone other than members of the Lacrosse team.
Where did you learn your concepts of evidence? From nifong? You need to learn about open discovery, about the Brady versus Maryland law. They mean that a prosecutor may not present only incriminating evidence and exclude and suppress exculpatory evidence. Evidence which creates doubt about a suspect's guilt is exculpatory and must be included in the trial. Do you question that?
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
What you said about cgm's book again indicates you, via your blog, have declared the Lacrosse players guilty.
The fact that you would use cgm's book as your reference and not what was in her medical record again shows your selective attitude toward evidence. You try to nifong evidence. You try to suppress evidence favorable to the defendants and present only evidence favorable to the prosecution. That is how a lot of prosecutorial misconduct happens.
Why don't you ask some law professor if presenting only incriminating evidence, excluding exculpatory evidence meets the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Better yet, since you fancy yourself a legal expert, tell us what guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is. It is certainly not guilt beyond a doubt on the part of crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr. You have amply demonstrated you are not a reasonable person.
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr:
You got it wrong as to why DNASI was retained to examine the rape kit. The state crime lab found no evidence of any material that would indicate a violent forcible rape. nifong(indecent, dishonorable, distinguished only in that his name has become a synonym for a frame up, exemplary only by his attempt to perpetrate the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in NC history, does not know the meaning of the word justice) hoped DNASI would turn up DNA matching some Lacrosse players. When it showed only male DNA matching no Lacrosse player, he tried to suppress that fact.
Again, the finding of that evidence would indicate that a rape, if it occurred, happened before the night of the party and had been perpetrated by males who were not Lacrosse players.
Sidney,
I thank you for your reply.
You ask: "Where in reference to her body did the ejaculation take place? What is your source?"
In the interest of space, I will examine only one of Ms. Mangum’s allegations. 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.
Happy New Year to you, Sidney!
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
cgm did not mention being penetrated or being ejaculated upon in her "book". Since issuing that "book", cgm has ducked any and all questions about the alleged rape. It is no surprise she does not go into specifics about the assault in what she tries to pass off as a book. She does not want to address the issues raised by the DNA evidence. Like nifong, she wants to suppress any and all evidence favorable to the defense.
"I read Ms. Mangum's book, and I do not recall ejaculations without a condom. Where in reference to her body did the ejaculation take place? What is your source?"
That's one of Crystal's problems as a witness. She has given too many versions of the event and they are too often contradictory. For example, Crystal said during the interview portion of her sexual assault exam that condoms were not used. In addition, she said the same thing in her April 2006 written statement. Yet in her book she says differently.
In one session viewing photo arrays of all the lacrosse team members, she could not pick any of them as her "attacker[s]." None of the team members were consistent with her description of her "attackers." Then, in a later session with one of the investigating officers and on video, she did pick two team members as her "attackers" after having already seen the same photos previously. Given her unreliability as a witness, forensic evidence became crucial to the state's case.
Unfortunately for the state, the forensic evidence pointed to persons other than the defendants.
Upon the shoals of an unreliable witness and divergent DNA foundered the state's case. There it should have ended.
Walt-in-Durham
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
In my last post I should have said, like nifong and like you, cgm wants to suppress any and all evidence favorable to the defense.
To JSwift:
Thanks for the reference. I will look it up immediately, and try to respond in a blog at my earliest convenience.
Currently I am busy working on the comic strip "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper." It is an especially long episode (17 parts rather than the usual four), so it occupies a lot of my time. It is written, and I am in the penciling stage. May be a couple of months before its ready for posting. I think that you will enjoy it.
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr:
Expound, if you dare, on things like evidence, burden of proof and whatever. You have declared the DNA evidence non exculpatory because it did not exclude the possibility of a rape. Did the DNA evidence obtained in the case support the allegation of a rape. Did the DNA evidence (DNA recovered from cgm's person matched none of the accused,matched none of the Lacrosse players) indicate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, was it evidence favorable to the defense or the prosecution? If it favored the defense, then explain why it was not exculpatory.
Sidney,
A few additional observations:
I read Ms. Mangum's book, and I do not recall ejaculations without a condom.
As you know, Ms. Mangum's book was not available to Mr. Nifong during the case. As you also know, Ms. Mangum has demonstrated a tendency to change the details of her story. As a result, the book is irrelevant in determining what information was available to Mr. Nifong and the defendants.
You must examine the written statements and DPD reports used during the criminal case. As you know, this information is available as exhibits in Mr. Nifong's disbarment hearing.
Also, a sexual assault and a rape can take place without DNA evidence being left behind.
This is correct, but highly unlikely given the specific allegations in this case. As you also know, DNA is left not only through semen, but also through perspiration, saliva, dandruff and skin cells, etc. Ms. Mangum alleged a brutal gang rape in a limited space over an extended period of time. Even if the attack had been the "non-ejaculatory event" suggested by Mr. Nifong in direct contradiction to Ms. Mangum's allegations, the likelihood that DNA would have been left is high.
As I stated previously, the small DNA fragments identified as being male but not matching the Duke Lacrosse partygoers, were not deposited as recently as the party.
I believe this is correct. As I have stated previously, this was not the focus of my comments regarding exculpatory evidence.
Therefore, they are not related to the case, and have no exculpatory value.
This is incorrect.
Ms. Mangum stated that she had not had sex for a week preceding the party. The DNA discovered through the DNASI tests, even though weak, would be used to attempt to impeach her testimony. As you know, evidence used to impeach testimony is exculpatory. I welcome your correction.
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
Let's talk more about DNA. You maintain the absence of Lacrosse player DNA was not exculpatory, that it did not rule out a sexual assault. I remind you again, if a prosecutor decides to charge individuals with a crime, his "job" would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime did happen, that the charged individuals did it. How does the absence of the individuals' DNA show that a crime happened? How does it incriminate the individuals? Are you saying that the DNA should be inadmissable if it does not incriminate the accused??
You regard the presence of DNA compatible with but not matching one of the accused on cgm's false fingernail as incriminating. Is a hand part of the human genital system? Can DNA end up on part of a human hand only, exclusively via sexual assault? Has Vincent Clark ever shaken cgm's hand? If he has, one would find his DNA all over her hand. Should that raise suspicion that he sexually assaulted her?
How can the presence of DNA consistent with a suspect's DNA but not exclusively matching that suspect's DNA be probable cause for indicting that suspect, especially when that DNA is found on an area not part of the genital system, when the site is a discarded false fingernail, not even part of her body?
How do you answer?
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
Regarding the cgm fingernail dna upon which you place so much importance, DNASI found the DNA of multiple males on yhat item. Why do you say it was probable cause for the indictment of only David Evans?
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
Have you ever watched AG Roy Cooper's statement? It is available on YouTube.
What Mr. Cooper initially said was that his office had conducted a thorough review of the case. Based on that review, he said there was insufficient evidence to proceed on the charges, that notices of dismissal would be filed, that there would be no further prosecution.
Then he stated, that the case was a result of, among other things, a rush to accuse and a failure to check serious allegations. His final statement was that, based on the review of the evidence, the investigators believed the Lacrosse players were innocent. He used the word "we", not I.
The Attorney General's office was asked by nifong to take over the case. They conducted an investigation, not a judicial proceeding. An investigation usually produces conclusions. The conclusion of the investigators was that the three accused were innocent. You are saying that these investigators were obliged not to come to this conclusion.
Again I ask, where do you get off calling that conclusion inappropriate when, by your own admission, you are unfamiliar with the evidence reviewed by the investigators.
What makes the “Roy Cooper Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” all the more suspect is that, to my knowledge, such a statement by a state attorney general has never been made in the past in North Carolina or any other state in the Union. If someone is aware of a prior instance, I would certainly appreciate a reference source.
Sidney, I encourage you to do some research before you make these blanket statements. Use Google to search (e.g., "attorney general" innocent; prosecutor innocent).
I believe that the proper standard is either an attorney general or a prosecutor. After all, Mr. Cooper was acting in the role as prosecutor after Mr. Nifong's recusal. Most commenters would agree that attorneys general and other prosecutors fail far too frequently to proclaim the innocence of unjustly convicted or accused defendants. Prosecutors appear to be more interested in protecting other prosecutors than in achieving justice.
After cursory research, I have found examples that disprove your theory. I do not intend to continue to research this point as I have limited time. You are free to continue to so do.
It appears that the lesson you learned in your civics class was not correct.
Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath
"A man who has spent the past 15 years in prison should be set free because DNA evidence shows he did not rape an 8-year-old girl, Attorney General Mike McGrath said Tuesday.
McGrath joined Yellowstone County Attorney Dennis Paxinos in asking a District Court judge to vacate the convictions against Jimmy Ray Bromgard.
'Clearly there has been an injustice in this case,' said Paxinos, who was not the county prosecutor when Bromgard was convicted. 'The last thing anyone wants is to keep a man behind bars when, in fact, he did not commit the crime that put him there.'
McGrath said it is the first case in Montana in which DNA evidence showed a person convicted of a crime was innocent."
http://www.truthinjustice.org/bromgard.htm
Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins
Craig Watkins has established a Conviction Integrity Unit and has opened up his files to the Innocence Project in Texas. He has aggressively sought to identify innocent men and women unjustly convicted.
A sample statement: “Technological advances in science have proved another Dallas County man’s innocence and identified the actual perpetrator."
http://www.dallasda.com/
You now have been shown that other prosecutors have also made these statements, albeit far too infrequently. These prosecutors have not been the target of criticism that they overstepped their authority that you have viciously directed at Mr. Cooper. Mr. Watkins has even won praise for his efforts.
I am sure that other readers will join in my request that you cease your insistence that a member of the executive branch does not have the legal authority to declare that a defendant is innocent. I ask other readers to note their agreement or disagreement with my request.
"Ms. Mangum stated that she had not had sex for a week preceding the party. The DNA discovered through the DNASI tests, even though weak, would be used to attempt to impeach her testimony. As you know, evidence used to impeach testimony is exculpatory. I welcome your correction."
Also, the DNASI evidence may be admissable on other grounds, even if Crystal did not open herself to impeachment. In this case, North Carolina's Rape Shield rule N.C.G.S. 8C-4-412 (found in the rules of evidence) would prevent the admission of prior sexual acts of the "victim." There is an exception under 412(b)(2) to show "that the acts charged were not committed by the defendant."
In this case the (b)(2) exception would allow the defense to introduce the DNASI results because they tend to show that the acts charged, specifically a violent gang rape, were not committed by the defendants.
Walt-in-Durham
Crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
Nancy disGrace suggested the Lacrosse players wiped cgm down, suggested that was the reason none of their DNA was found on her. Victoria Peterson (founding member of the Justice4nifong gang of 4) suggested that the DNA results had been tampered with.
The presence of non Lacrosse player DNA shoots down that hypothesis. How could the Lacrosse players remove all their DNA and leave behind DNA from other males?
This is another aspect of the exculpatory value of the DNA evidence.
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
The media gave credence to AG Cooper's belief that the wrongfully accused Lacrosse players were innocent because, unlike you, they also believed the Lacrosse players were innocent. They believed they were innocent because of all the weakness and misconduct which were part of nifong's case.
Are you into telling people what they should believe.
crazy deludeddeceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
A juror in some criminal case hears all the evidence and concludes thev defendant did not commit the crime - not that there is doubt about his guilt but that he is actually innocent. Are you saying that juror is not allowed to believe the defendant is innocent or that he/she can not vote to acquit based on his/her belief of innocence?
Sidney,
You should read about the Clarence Elkins case.
Despite DNA evidence obtained after the trial (through DNA tests not previously available) that cleared Elkins, the courts refused to grant him a new trial, and prosecutors refused to consider it.
The family turned to Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro, who was so convinced of Elkins' innocence that he intervened. He did not have the authority under Ohio law to overrule a prosecutor, but he fought for Elkins' freedom--and ultimately succeeded when he convinced the prosecutor.
"Ohio attorney general Jim Petro and chief deputy attorney general Jim Canepa also spoke at the event because it was to their office that the UC students turned when the court system repeatedly refused to give Elkins another trial regardless of new DNA evidence that they had been presenting. Godsey said Petro's intervention was crucial to the victory.
College of Law Dean Louis Bilionis said such intervention is "unheard of." He called it a "testament to the work the Ohio Innocence Project does and the forthrightness of the Attorney General's Office."
http://www.magazine.uc.edu/exclusives/elkins.htm
Petro has not been criticized for his intervention and acting beyond his authority.
Sidney,
Another example of a state attorney general to declare defendants to be innocent. This example is Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning: "They are 100% innocent."
Five people in Nebraska were recently pardoned for a 1985 murder after new DNA evidence excluded their participation in the crime. The group was also known as the “Beatrice Six.” The sixth man, the only one who had insisted on a jury trial, was exonerated in October 2008 when prosecutors declined to seek a new trial. The State Board of Pardons voted unanimously on January 26 to pardon the five people who had pleaded guilty or no contest in relation to the rape-murder. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said, “They are 100 percent innocent,” after DNA tests, not available in the 1980’s, found no evidence that any of the six were present or involved in the slaying, and instead pointed to a now-deceased suspect not prosecuted for the crime. The defendants who were pardoned had confessed to the crime to escape the threat of the death penalty. “We were all scared of it. They were all threatening us with it,” said James Dean, one of the five who was exonerated. Ada Joann Taylor, another defendant, said, “They told me they wanted to make me the first female on death row." Their confessions were used to convict the sixth defendant, whose fight for his exoneration led to the DNA testing that freed all six.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/five-innocent-people-exonerated-nebraska-defendants-were-threatened-death-penalty
Link for prior post.
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
The North Carolina grand jury system was suspect, a closed, secret tribunal in which no record was kept of what was actually presented, a panel to which someone could give false testimony with no fear of consequences. The evidence in the case did not incriminate the defendants. AG Cooper, after reviewing evidence, something you have not done, concluded the Lacrosse players were innocent. That strongly suggests the Grand Jury was given misleading testimony.
I say again, AG Cooper reviewed all the evidence and from that review believed the Lacrosse players were innocent. Are you saying he should have kept his conclusions to himself and let people like you presume them guilty? That hardly seems consistent with a fundamental principle of our judicial system, that a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
What have you got against protecting the wrongfully accused against people like you.
The evidence in the case, evidence with which you are not familiar, would suggest nifong WAS NOT wrongfully accused.
crazy deluded deceitful sidney harr de harr harr:
Again I remind you of the fundamental principle of justice, a criminal defendant is to be presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In light of this principle, how is it a "jedi mind trick" and a dissemination of false information for the media to refer to the Lacrosse players as innocent?
Are you dismissing as invalid the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Should you go to trial in California charged with tax evasion, would you want to be presumed innocent?
To JSwift:
Thanks for the link to the Nebraska case. However, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning's statement that the convicted men were innocent carried no more weight than Roy Cooper's. The State Board of Pardons was responsible for the men being found innocent. The proclamation of "innocent" by the State Board of Pardons carries legal weight. The statement of "innocent" by Attorney Generals Bruning and Cooper carry no more weight than a proclamation by you or me. The problem with the Duke Lacrosse case is that there was no Board of Pardons or judicial courts to proclaim the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent." Only Roy Cooper, and his proclamation is worthless, no matter what credence the biased media gives it.
To JSwift, re: Elkins:
In the Clarence Elkins case you stated that the Attorney General Petro acted beyond his authority. How? From what you wrote, he did not overrule a prosecutor. A.G. Petro merely convinced the prosecutor to see the light and do the right thing. Petro is to be applauded, not criticized.
I have concluded that you are truly dishonest.
The problem with the Duke Lacrosse case is that there was no Board of Pardons or judicial courts to proclaim the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent."
This is truly an idiotic statement.
As you know, there was no pardon necessary because they were never convicted. The filing made by the special prosecutors asking that the courts dismiss the charges indicated that the prosecutors believed the defendants to be innocent. The court accepted the filing.
Only Roy Cooper, and his proclamation is worthless, no matter what credence the biased media gives it.
Roy Cooper has seen the evidence. He has an informed opinion. Informed opinions have value.
You concede that you have not reviewed the evidence, even the evidence available to you. Your opinion is uninformed. As a result, your opinion is truly worthless.
Petro is to be applauded, not criticized.
Petro announced publicly that Elkins was innocent, much to the original dismay of the prosecutor. By your Cooper standard, that sort of statement is to be condemned.
In addition, you have failed to apologize for your misrepresentation of my earlier comment.
I regard your failure to do so as further evidence of your dishonesty.
"Roy Cooper has seen the evidence. He has an informed opinion. Informed opinions have value."
Sydney has refused to look at the evidence. Thus, his opinion is both uninformed and lacking in weight. He is but a mouthpiece for Nifong. However, that is what makes responding to him so important. It illustrates the depths to which Nifong and his supporters will go to excuse Nifong's gross and willful misconduct.
Walt-in-Durham
Post a Comment