In today’s News & Observer article titled “E-mail claim hit Easley in 2008,” former Governor Mike Easley’s press secretary Renee Hoffman is noted to have testified under oath last week that she had instructed public information officers to delete e-mail messages. She did so under orders from then Governor Easley. The e-mails, which were public records, were not to be destroyed, and doing so would be in violation of the law.
The same accusation (Governor Easley ordered e-mail destroyed) was made nearly two years earlier in March 2008 by Debbie Crane, a former public information officer for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. In response to Crane’s statement, Easley, through his spokesman Seth Effron, called Ms. Crane “dishonest, untruthful, and insubordinate.” Ms. Crane said that she felt vindicated by Hoffman’s deposition last week in which Ms. Hoffman stated that she, too, had been instructed to have public information officers delete e-mails. The N & O article quoted Debbie Crane as saying: “Being called a liar by Mike Easley is a badge of honor.”
Debbie Crane shares that honor with former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, because he was also called a “liar” by Governor Easley a year earlier, in 2007. However, in Mike Nifong’s case, the governor made the statement personally (not through a spokesman), publicly, and proactively. The statement, made months before Mr. Nifong was scheduled to appear before the North Carolina State Bar’s disciplinary panel because of his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case, accused Mr. Nifong of making a promise to him (Easley) that he would not run for re-election, and then doing just that. In addition, he stated that Mr. Nifong was “the worst appointment I have ever made.” The governor was not the only high level official to make pre-hearing statements against Mr. Nifong that were prejudicial and inflammatory… Attorney General Roy Cooper called Mr. Nifong a rogue prosecutor and proclaimed the three Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent.” However, I do not believe these statements had any bearing on Mr. Nifong’s disciplinary hearing, as its outcome was predetermined long before the State Bar even became involved.
As early as May 1, 2006, defense for the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been calling for the Court to remove Mr. Nifong as prosecutor. It alleged that Mr. Nifong was motivated in pursuing the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants purely for political gain (to help him get elected for the position of Durham District Attorney… which he held). Defense attorneys never did provide any facts to back up that statement. The Duke Lacrosse defense team, which did not want to face Mr. Nifong in court, came up with the following solution: have the North Carolina State Bar charge Mr. Nifong with an ethical complaint; that would force Mr. Nifong to step down as prosecutor for the case due to a conflict of interest. Their diabolical scheme worked to perfection… worthy of the admiration of Bush architect Karl Rove, himself.
I admire Debbie Crane, like Mike Nifong, for doing the right thing in 2008, even though, like Mr. Nifong, she suffered proximately as a result. I believe that Debbie Crane and Mike Nifong exhibited extraordinary courage and are deserving of the gratitude of all North Carolinians. Others who merit honor for their courageous acts are Judge Melissa Owens Lassiter (who defied Governor Easley by using the principle of “equal justice for all” in her order to re-instate a NC trooper who had been selectively fired), and L. F. Eason, who quit his job with the state rather than pay homage to the unrepentant racist bigot Senator Jesse Helms at his death.
Honorees, wear your badges proudly. We are not worthy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
I ask you again, how can you declare that nifong was unfairly prosecuted when, by your own admission, you are not knowledgable about the evidence.
Why do you object to AG Roy Cooper expressing his belief that the accused were innocent. He had access to the evidence about which, by your own admission, you are not knowledgable?
If nifong's case had merit, why did he deviate from normal procedure and issuing arrest warrants? Why, in this particular case, did nifong deprive the defendants of a probable cause hearing?
If making inflammatory comments is to be disallowed, why was it acceptable behavior for n ifong to make inflammatory statements undermining the rights of the suspects?
You say he was only trying to get people to come forward with information about the crime. There was no crime about which to give information. If nifong wanted testimony under oath that a crime had happened, then he was trying to subborn perjury.
You sure have picked one rotten apple to hold up as a hero.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-answer sidney harr de harr harr:
Speaking of missing documents, what ever happened to mark gottlieb's original notws in the case? Somehow the original notes disappeared, then months later gottlieb produced a from memory document which changed the narrative of the case to accthe weaknesses of the case.
Can we say, lacks credibility, boys and girls?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
I doubt that the defense attorneys for the Innocent Lacrosse Players would have any reason for wanting nifong removed from the case. I posted a number of passages from DIW, November 1, 2006 on your previous entry. nifong had a very poor track record in rape cases. Under his tenure as DA, almost half were dismissed and most of the rest were pleaded down, the defendants pleading to lesser charges.
Dr Harr --
Did Mike Nifong make a promise to Governor Easley not to run for re-election?
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
nifong's political motivation in prosecuting the innocent Lacrosse players is a matter of res ipsa loquitur. He was running against Freda Black, whom he had fired from the DA's office. He was trailing her by double digits in the polls. That was pre Duke Lacrosse hoax.
After nifong made his inflammatory comments and promised the mob at NCCU that the case would not go away, suddenly he was even with Ms. Black and had the overwhelming support of Duke's black voters.
nifong tried to put innocent men in jail over a non existent crime just to secure his personal future.
You again lie when you say nifong had no political agenda
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Attorny General said at his announcement of the dismissal of charges, "We believe these men are innocent". Unlike you, he formed his opinion after reviewing all the evidence in the case and speaking with the people involved. You seem to be saying that he should not have expressed his belief because that would damage nifong's credibility before the North Carolina Bar.
You are saying that the innocent be convicted rather than have a prosecutor, who tried to perpetrate the grossest case of prosecutorial abuse in NC history, be found guilty.
What a twisted idea of justice you have.
Sidney,
I wanted to remind you yet again of your unfulfilled promises. You have failed to provide the answer you promised on December 3 (65 days ago) and the response you promised on January 13 (24 days ago).
I believe that many of your readers remain interested in your forthcoming explanation of why DNA results were not important in a case in which the accusing witness alleged that one or more of her attackers had ejaculated and did not use condoms. As you know, in her April 6 written statement, Ms. Mangum alleged that:
“ADAM EJACULATED IN MY MOUTH AND I SPIT IT ONTO THE FLOOR, PART OF IT FELL ONTO THE FLOOR AFTER HE PULLED HIS PENIS OUT.”
With no DNA.
I have raised this question in numerous posts and suggested that, unless you were “remarkably uninformed,” your statements bordered on dishonesty. You can no longer claim to be uninformed.
I have been patient. I have raised this question in numerous comments, including comments posted on November 5, November 10, November 12, November 15, December 3, December 7, December 14, December 27, December 28, January 10, January 11, January 12, January 17, January 20, January 31 and February 2.
Finally (after I had raised the question five times), you promised on December 3 to provide an answer. You delayed any answer until December 28 (after I had reminded you of your promise three additional times).
As you know, your answer was unacceptable.
You evaded the question I asked and substituted one of your own. You answered that not all sexual assaults would necessarily leave DNA. As you know, DNA is found not just in semen, but also in other human residue, such as skin cells, hair, dandruff, saliva and perspiration. I agree that it would be possible, although in fairly limited circumstances, for a sexual assault to leave absolutely no DNA. As you know, however, Ms. Mangum’s allegations were not consistent with those limited circumstances. She alleged specifically that:
“ADAM EJACULATED IN MY MOUTH AND I SPIT IT ONTO THE FLOOR, PART OF IT FELL ONTO THE FLOOR AFTER HE PULLED HIS PENIS OUT.”
With no DNA.
The sexual assault she alleged would certainly have left DNA. As a result, your answer, while theoretically accurate, was irrelevant in this case. You know that. Your disingenious reply can only be viewed as an attempt to deceive your readers. You owe your readers an apology.
Finally, on January 11, you asked for my source, admitting (or pretending) that you were unaware of publicly available evidence. I provided it the following day. On January 13, you acknowledged my comment and link to the source and promised a reply at your “earliest convenience.” You have failed to do so.
On January 20, you repeated your ridiculous claim that: “This was not a case that hinged on DNA evidence.” That statement is false. You know that. You owe your readers another apology.
Sidney, we know that you are busy, but I find your lack of responsiveness to be unacceptable. I too am busy. I have raised this question in at least 16 separate comments posted over almost three months. You have yet to provide a direct answer. You owe me an apology for your delay.
I noted that your statements regarding DNA were so outrageous and transparently false that they raised legitimate questions about your honesty. Your failure to address this question over an extended period suggests to me that you regard your reputation to be of little value. You have time to complain about two year old articles, but not to defend your integrity. Many of your readers understand why.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Would you have called the DNA results irrelevant had they been inculpatory rather than exculpatory? I think not.
The only kind of rape case in which a prosecutor would try to get a conviction without entering the DNA results into evidence is one in which the DNA exonerates the defendants. The only kind of prosecutor who would do so is one who, like nifong, is hell bent on convicting.
You say the case did not turn on DNA, that there have been convictions in rape cases without DNA evidence. Are you, like the anonymous irrelephant, trying to say these cases give a rape prosecutor discretion whether or not to submit DNA evidence? North Carolina law, North Carolina prosecutorial ethics regulations, and the Supreme Court of the United States all say a resounding NO!!!
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
nifong tried to convict three innocent men of a crime for which he had no evidence, neither evidence of a crime nor evidence of Lacrosse player involvement. I say he believed as Durham DA, with the backing of Durham's racist black leaders, he was invulnerable. He did not think his intended victims could not fight back. He was acting the part of a bully. A bully goes after people who can not fight back. Where is the courage in that?
How sad it is, that you think acting the part of a bully shows courage.
To DeHall:
I do not know whether or not Mike Nifong made a promise to Governor Easley not to run. I have no knowledge to support that he did.
do you have knowledge to support that he did not?
To DeHall:
Anonymous made a good point. Do you have knowledge to support that Governor Easley did ask Mr. Nifong not to run for the office?
"I admire Debbie Crane, like Mike Nifong, for doing the right thing in 2008, even though, like Mr. Nifong, she suffered proximately as a result. I believe that Debbie Crane and Mike Nifong exhibited extraordinary courage and are deserving of the gratitude of all North Carolinians."
Mike Nifong and extraordinary courage in the same sentence? Unbelieveable.
Let's recap:
1. Nifong violated the rules of professional conduct by holding numerous news conferences.
2. Nifong lied to the trial court.
3. Nifong pursued a prosecution without probable cause.
Sorry Syd, that's not a profile in courage.
Walt-in-Durham
Dr. Harr -- I only have what was reported - the quote from Governor Easley.
In the absence of a denial from Mike Nifong, one can only assume that the quote is accurate. Why don't you ask Mr. Nifong?
Persons in this blog lose the core issue in Nifong.
His supporters view him as representing the clash between the poor and powerless fringe members of society against the powerful elite.
He would not let a case "go away."
His detractors denounce his motives, his honesty and his competence.
Sadly, his detractors have made the name of Nifong to be a scourge on justice. But all I hope would agree that the concept of Nifong is noble. His guilt wasn't in manufacturing evidence--as many charlatan prosecutors and police officers have done; he never denied the defense their constitutional protections. His purported guilt rests in solely over-protecting the poor and powerless when there was an insufficiency of evidence to do so.
What a strange world we live in.
Anonymous -- Please look at the record of rape cases by Nifong's office...He let a number of them "go away", dismissing 12 of 25 cases from 2005-2006.
He would not let THIS case "go away". Why?
for the anonymous irrelephant:
Prosecuting three innocent men without any evidence they had victimized anyone is not noble or just, regardless of their socio-economic circumstances.
nifong wanted to get elected DA so he would qualify for a higher pension. That is why he would not let the case go away, even though he had no case. He did not give a d--n about the status of the poor versus the rich.
If he cared so much about poor cgm, why did he let the case go on for nine months before he interviewed her? Why did he drop the rape charges after he interviewed her?
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
nifong did not manufacture evidence?!
Maybe you could explain the from memory memo produced by mark gottlieb several months into the case, conflicting with previous recorded accounts of what happened, produced after questions developed about the case, which just happened to account for those questions.
Maybe you could explain the so called lineup at which cgm allegedly id'd her assailants. This was done at nifong's behest after cgm failed to id anyone at two previous lineup procedures. At nifong's behest, this procedure violated established guidelines for lineups. The procedures were put in place to insure that innocent men were not fingered.
Regarding evidence, explain something about the DNA. nifong himself declared the DNA evidence would exonerate the innocent and incriminate the guilty. By nifong's definition that evidence exonerated the Lacrosse team. He proceeded with the prosecution anyway.
nifong did not just manufacture evidence. He manufactured an entire prosecution.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
The sixth amendment guarantees a suspect representation by an attorney. The fifth amendment guarantees a suspect the right to remain silent when questioned by the authorities. This is on top of the right to be presumed innocent. If a prosecutor were to tell a jury, because a defendant hired a lawyer or would not give information to the police or would not testify in his trial, that all this indicated guilt, the result would be a mistrial. Do you think nifong was unaware of this.
At the outset of the case, nifong declared a rape had happened, that it was racially motivated, that Lacrosse players were the perpetrators. Via that he named the Lacrosse players as suspects.
Then he made further statements: their rich daddies would hire expensive lawyers to get them off; why would one need a lawyer if one were innocent and had not been charged with anything; that remaining silent might have been good legal advice, but it was not good moral advice.
When he threatened team members with arrest if they did not give evidence against other team members, implied the suspects had no right to remain silent.
nifong did not violate the suspects rights!? Your credibility has sunk into the Marianas trench.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
I bet nifong is now wishing the case had gone away.
For the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
nifong was trying to protect the powerless when there was insufficient evidence to do so. Explain, please.
Are you saying that if one of the poor falsely accuses one of the rich of a crime, it means the rich must be prosecuted and convicted anyway.
Where is the evidence that cgm was raped. You seem to indicate there was none. If so, there was no justice in prosecuting innocent men. There was no injustice in declaring those men innocent.
Anonymous,
Your comment is superb satire. It captures perfectly the mindless blathering of the Nifong enablers: Nifong is a noble man who is blameless; he is persecuted because he protected the helpless. It carefully avoids any attempt to provide evidence to support these absurd claims. Bravo
"guilty of over-protecting the poor and powerless"
Rather than ratcheting-up prosecution, as is usual in over-prosecutions, Mr. Nifong was ratcheting down. At the time of disbarment charges against him, without being forced to, Nifong had dropped the rape charges.
The usual condemnations against overzealous prosecutors can't justifiably be hurled in this case. The evidence doesn't support it. Rather, it is his detractors that are guilty of overzealous condemnation.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room?
You say nifong protected the poor and helpless when there was insufficient evidence to do so. Are you saying there was insufficient evidence for the supposed poor and helpless(cgm) needed protection? If so, how was nifong protecting her? Against what was he protecting her?
Are you admitting nifong had insufficient evidence to charge any Lacrosse player with a crime? If so, you are admitting nifong did commit prosecutorial misconduct.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
More about DNA:
nifong himself declared the DNA evidence would exonerate the innocent. How would the DNA exonerate an innocent individual accused of rape? Judging from the cases of Darryl Hunt, Timothy Cole and Dean Cage, exoneration means there was no match between DNA found on the victim and the accused's DNA. If nifong had some other definition, we have yet to hear it.
The DNA found on cgm did not match the DNA of any Lacrosse player. Therefore, taking into account nifong's statement and the meaning of exoneration in this scenario, the DNA did exonerate the DNA evidence, and all of it, was exculpatory.
Also taking into account nifong's statement and the meaning of exoneration in this scenario, you lie big time when you say the evidence was not exculpatory, that it did not exonerate the defendants.
When are you going to list nifong's pre indictment statements on your blog?
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
You forget to mention that dropping charges of rape was common behavior for nifong in rape cases. You also forget to mention nifong dropped the charges because cgm told him she could not recall being penetrated. nifong learned this when, nine months into the case, he finally interviewed her.
How was this protecting poor helpless cgm? How does dropping charges protect the poor helpless rape victims?
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
With the way you defend nifong, there is no need for overzealous detractors. You defend him with the effectiveness equal to that of saddam hussein's military in the first Gulf War.
"Rather than ratcheting-up prosecution, as is usual in over-prosecutions, Mr. Nifong was ratcheting down. At the time of disbarment charges against him, without being forced to, Nifong had dropped the rape charges."
Nifong changed the charge to sexual assault to get around the problem of not having any DNA evidence. The penalty remained the same. If there was any other support for the charge, Nifong should have made the switch in April when he first learned that there was no DNA linking any of the defendants to Crystal. Try not to engage in too much spinning annon, er Mike.
Walt-in-Durham
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
If the anonymous irrelephant in the room really is "Mike"(reference, Walt in Durham), how can you claim the Lacrosse defense attorneys did not want to face off against him in court. Whoever he is, he has failed miserably defending against a group of legal laymen.
Incidentally, when are you going to publish on your blog a list of quotes of nifong's pre indictment comments, those you call "mild".
Mike Nifong was a terrible DA in this ivestigation. Its funny when he says things are "unfair" and he doesn't know why he keeps "expecting people to do the right thing." Well big Mike, you should know a little bit about unfairness and people not doing the right thing, shouldn't you? If he didn't abuse his position for personal gain, then he must be the dumbest, most thick headed DA of all time. Seriously, I would rather have him tell me that the whole thing was for personal gain. Then I would think to myself "You know,even fundamentally good people sometimes just do bad things for personal gain. Money and power can be strong motivators" But if he's telling me he still believes any part of that ever-changing story of the alleged Victim, I may may never set foot in North Carolina again because it sounds like my left shoe could get a job as the DA. Destroying lives is not cool. Wanting to be reelected is no excuse. Incompetence is no excuse. Having a gut feeling is no excuse. There is no excuse for Mike Nifong's actions during this investigation. Sorry, I am not really responding to anyone's comment. I needed to write my thoughts down because thinking about this whole investigation (plus the words Mike Nifong and Honor so closely together) were making me extremely upset.
Godspeed everyone.
To Anonymous:
Thank you again for sharing your very insightful, and objective views with us. Again, I wish you had a different "handle" so that we could distinguish you from others who go by anonymous. I encourage you to continue to give readers of this blog your informative perspectives.
for the anonymous irrelephant in the room:
Yes, keep giving us your spectrum of ignorance and prejudice in this case. I say again, with friends like you, nifong does not need any overzealous detractors. You detract from his case everytime you post to this blog.
This assessment is contradictory and pure embellished garbage. Nifong was a self-aggrandized and self-serving attorney who used a public office for his own political pursuits. He unlawfully attempted to steal the life and liberty of innocent citizens while stealing the public stage for himself. He got far less than he deserved, in my opinion, and he serves as a clear example of the abuse of power granted by the citizenry and abuse of a public office intended to be held by a “Public Servant” – a servant of the people intended to protect the rights and safety of the citizens he serves and who pay his salary. Shameful. Perhaps this blog posting suffers the same affliction (poor summation and grammar notwithstanding).
Post a Comment