In a Newsweek web exclusive by Susannah Meadows dated February 23, 2010, is the following passage:
As the trial wore on, one defendant's mother, Rae Evans even expressed sympathy for Mangum. "You know, when I'm trying to get over the rage, I am thinking about so deeply this young woman who has been abused by men all her life, and nobody has abused her more than Mike Nifong," she said, referring to the Durham prosecutor.
In accordance with many error-plagued media articles about the Duke Lacrosse case and its original prosecutor former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, Newsweek writer Susannah Meadows stated that a trial was held in the Duke Lacrosse case. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Most people, at least those in North Carolina, are aware of the fact that after Mr. Nifong was forced to recuse himself from the case, the Attorney General’s Office dropped charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. A trial date was never set, a jury was never selected, and a trial was never held.
Whether or not this misstatement was the honest result of sloppy journalism, or the willful attempt to mislead the reader, I do not know. What I find most ludicrous is the quote attributed to Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans. Ms. Evans states, “… I am thinking about so deeply this young woman who has been abused by men all her life, and nobody has abused her (Crystal Mangum) more than Mike Nifong.” Naturally, Rae Evans does not explain how she came to the conclusion that Mike Nifong abused Ms. Mangum, and how the abuse she suffered at his hands is worse than the abuse she suffered at the hands of other men. Is she talking physical abuse? Emotional abuse? Mental abuse? Spiritual abuse? And, of course, writer Meadows doesn’t delve into the issue or question the alleged abuse by Mr. Nifong. She just tosses it out there like a piece of rotten bologna for the media subscribers to consume. More media Jedi mind-tricks played on the public.
In my quest to try and understand the illogical statement by Ms. Evans, I am offering a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) award to anyone who can explain to me what Rae Evans said and meant in her quote about Mr. Nifong’s abusive behavior toward Ms. Mangum. The explanation must make sense and be reasonable in order to collect the prize. This offer is open worldwide, without age restrictions, and without I.Q. restrictions. I alone will make the judgment as to whether or not any of the entries satisfies the requirement needed to be granted the award. The payment, if any is forthcoming, will be made by cashier’s check, and will be presented after James Arthur Johnson receives the $20,000.00 reward offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis for solving the death of the young Wilson teen. Entries can be made either in the comment section of the blog, or sent by e-mail to: justice4nifong@gmail.com.
Unfortunately, the Newsweek article was as anti-Nifong biased as they come. For Newsweek to assign the subject matter to a Duke alum staff writer (Ms. Meadows) doesn’t instill much confidence that an evenhanded and objective work will be the end product.
And Ms. Meadows states that this is the sad final chapter to the Duke lacrosse scandal…? Don’t count on it! The final chapter in the Duke Lacrosse saga will end with Mike Nifong’s law license being unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated by the North Carolina State Bar.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
77 comments:
Since we all know you're not going to be paying out any reward, why don't you simply ASK Rae Evans what she meant by her statement? Here -- I'll get you started on your way:
http://evanscapitolgroup.com
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
That there was no trial of the Lacrosse players in this case was totally appropriate. There was no evidence whatsoever that there was any crime, let alone any evidence that would connect them with that non crime.
Crazy sidney, tell us why the falsely accused, viciously and maliciously prosecuted innocent Lacrosse players should have gone to trial?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The innocent Lacrosse players were falsely accused and then maliciously prosecuted. I would call that a trial, in the sense of an ordeal they should never had to endure. They had to endure that ordeal because an unethically corrupt prosecutor wanted to win an election.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
There was one error filled article during the Duke case. It was entitled something like, The Silence is Sickening. I believe Ruth Sheehan was the author. It alleged, erroneously, that a crime had happened and that the Duke Lacrosse team was covering it up.
I believe Ms. Sheehan either retracted the piece or apologized for it once she realized there had been no crime.
How do you suppose she came to that conclusion? Did the "carpetbagger jihad" get to her?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Where is your evidence that cgm ever suffered any abuse at the hands of any Lacrosse player?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
There were two judicial type trials in connection with the Duke false rape case.
If you recall, at the ethics trial of nifong, it was rather conclusively proved nifong had violated so many ethics regulations, he became the first and only DA in NC to be disbarred, a distinction he labored mightily to deserve.
Then he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal contempt of court, specifically lying to the court about exculpatory evidence he had discovered then concealed.
for anonymous at March 1, 2010 1:00 PM:
crazy sidney will avoid Mrs. Evans because he fears courageous, honest people. Why else would he try to make a hero of nifong, perpetrator of the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in the history of North Carolina.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You got it wrong about AG Cooper. Mr. Cooper and his investigators reviewed the evidence(something you have never done), interviewed cgm(something nifong failed to do until 9 months into the case), interviewed other witnesses
(something nifong never did because he wanted to exclude any and all exculpatory evidence from the case), then concluded the Lacrosse Players were innocent. After coming to that conclusion, Mr. Cooper made the decision to dismiss the charges and end the prosecution of the Lacrosse Players.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You intend never to award that reward. You are making an empty gesture.
You say the answer must make sense and be reasonable. Since when have you ever made sense or sound reasonable.
You say nifong will eventually regain his law license. You know that is not going to happen. You use your justice4nifong vendetta as a vehicle by which you spew out your hostility towards the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse Players and their families.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Can you name any witnesses who ever came forward to provide incriminating information about the Lacrosse players? What information did they provide?
The only people who ever engaged in witness tampering or witness intimidation were nifong and the police.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
nifong actually ignored cgm for nine months. How did that show concern for cgm?
Sydney, yet another in your string of irresponsible posts. This has been explained to you twice already. Send me the $1000.
But, I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to hit Nifong again with his own abuse of Crystal. If you believe she was raped or sexually assaulted, then Nifong is the worst abuser of her as he made sure that her rapist[s] or assailant[s] went free because he pursued innocent people accusing them of the crime. He then prosecuted a case with so many flaws and so outrageously that the guilty parties, if any there might be, were never even investigated.
Walt-in-Durham
unbekannte,
Sidney claimed several months ago that the lacrosse players were behind an attempt by the State of California to collect back taxes from him. At the time, Sidney simply did not realize that he was a victim of the Carpetbagger Jihad®.
Sidney,
A few recommendations:
1. Register a trademark for the phrase Carpetbagger Jihad®. This theme best captures the spirit of your cause. Don’t let others steal it from you.
2. Sell official j4n merchandise incorporating the Carpetbagger Jihad® theme. This is your opportunity to commercialize your important work. Because you are a non-profit, you can donate profits to Mr. Nifong’s and Ms. Mangum’s defense funds.
3. Do not post without using the phrase Carpetbagger Jihad®. You can work it into any of your posts. In the current post, for example, Susannah Meadows and Newsweek clearly are part of the Carpetbagger Jihad® and should be identified as such. With proper use, the phrase will increase recognition of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, earning you the respect you so richly deserve.
4. Draw a cartoon to answer the question on everyone’s minds. Ms. Mangum alleged to the special prosecutors that she was attacked while being “lifted up into the air.” Mr. Nifong’s critics have trivialized this allegation, falsely claiming that Ms. Mangum alleged she was assaulted while levitating. Levitation makes Ms. Mangum appear to be ridiculous. This widely-repeated error clearly is the result of the success of the Carpetbagger Jihad®.
All commenters,
Make every attempt to use the phrase Carpetbagger Jihad® where appropriate in all of your comments directed to Sidney. We can all help Sidney and the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong achieve the recognition they deserve.
Sidney,
As part of the rebranding of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, believe that you need a new title, one more befitting of your knowledge of this case. Instead of Lay Advocate, I suggest Crusader Against the Evil Carpetbagger Jihad®.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
There was from nancy disgrace a lot of error filled reporting on the Duke case, reporting that a gang rape had happened for example.
When do you suppose the "carpetbagger jihad" will get after nasty nancy>
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidmey:
For error filled reporting on the Duke case, how about wicked wendy murphy who claimed nifong had no political agenda, who claimed nifong was justified in withholding exculpatory evidence?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
A more specific examole of a Duke case error:
How about your claim that the lack of DNA evidence was not excupatory because it did not rule out a crime?
A prosecutor has to rule in a crime. A defendant does not have to rule out a crime.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
For another error to your credit, how about your assertion that cgm always maintained she was raped?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
One of your grosser errors:
There is a jihad conducted by rich carpetbagger families that caused the Duke case to implode.
I add, after making that pronouncement you admitted you have no evidence of that.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The state bar will never reinstate nifong to practice law, not unless they cave in to your racially motivated vendetta against three innocent falsely accused caucasian men.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Judging from Mr. Roy Cooper's overwhelming re election in 2008, the good people are more supportive of what you call the "carpetbagger jihad" than they are of your racially motivated vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused, maliciously prosecuted Lacrosse Players.
Sydney,
When you no longer have a hole in your A$$, the chances of "The final chapter in the Duke Lacrosse saga [ending] with Mike Nifong’s law license being unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated by the North Carolina State Bar.
might become a reality. Until then his chances will be a big fat ZERO!
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Do you include your own writing when you refer to error filled articles about the Duke case?
For example, your initial report about David Evans courageous, gallant mother incorrectly gave her first nme as Rhea.
What about your claim that nifong's surge in the pre election polls after the Duke case developed did not happen?
How about your claim that nifong's judgmental, guilt presuming statements were only ild attempts to get witnesses to come forth?
How about your claim that the Seligman family paid off Moez Elmostafa?
How about the claim about the non Lacrosse player DNA found on cgm was not exculpatory, that it was not of any value to the Defendants to know that the only DNA found on thev alleged victim did not match them?
How about your claim that nifong did not withhold that evidence.
Like Ricky said to Lucy, you got a "lotta 'splainin' " to do
March 2, 2010 4:27 AM
Edited Msrch 2, 2010 5:19AM
To Anonymous:
Thank you for your suggestion. I just might take you up on it. If I get a reply from Ms. Evans, I will definitely post it.
To Walt:
As stipulated in the rules, your explanation must be logical and make sense in order for you to win the $1,000.00. Your explanations are neither.
An analogy of Mr. Nifong's abuse to Crystal Mangum, using your reasoning, would be stating that Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford, who unjustly prosecuted Greg Taylor and caused him to lose 17 years of his life, abused Yolanda Littlejohn, the sister of the victim who Taylor was charged with killing. If anything, Tom Ford abused Mr. Taylor and his family, as well as justice, itself. But, when used by Ms. Evans, the definition of abuse has a meaning which does not really transfer to the way that attorneys practice law.
Sorry, you don't get the g-note, Walt.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
To my comment referring to David Evans' mother, I add this lady is also honest and compassionate.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sydney:
To your list of abusive prosecutors must be added nifong who indicted and prosecuted three innocent falsely accused men when there was no evidence of a crime, when the accuser was unable to identify any Lacrosse player as an attacker, when there was evidence which exonerated all the Duke lacrosse players.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
If nothing else, Mrs. Evans' statement about cgm was was compassionate.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
nifong's failure to interview cgm until 9 months into the case was no expression of ompassion.
Is it standard procedure for the prosecutor in a rape case to delay interviewing the complaining witness for 9 months.
While he was trying to intimidate Moez Elmostafa, nifong was neglecting to find out he could not prove Rape.
Why does nifong deserve any points for failing for 9 months to learn he did not have a rape case against the innocent Lacrosse players?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Is it believable that you really intend to offer any reward?
You are aware that the Willis Family has no intention of paying convicted felon James Arthur Johnson(his plea was an admission the Prosecution had evidence to convict him).
To insure objectivity why don't you have a neutral, uninterested party decide if any explanation makes sense or is reasonable. You making the decision is like mark gottlieb running nifong's improperly suggestive lineup.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Abuse does not have to be criminal. Calling a man a m----rf----r is verbally abusive but not criminal.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Mrs. Evans may not have explained her use of abuse.
You do not explain how nifong, who deliberately prosecuted three falsely innocent men for a crime which never happened can be an honest honorable prosecutor.
The only male DNA on cgm did not match any Lacrosse player. You do not give any reasonable or believable explanation why that was not exculpatory. Nor do you offer any reasonable, believable explanation how nifong could withhold that vidence and not violate the law.
cgm's 90%-100% id of her alleged assailant was an id of two men who were not at the alleged crime scene and a man who had a mustache(all the lacrosse players were clean shaven). You use this id as justification for nifong's actions. You have never advanced any explanation why this faulty id should have incriminated anyone. How about we have one now.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
When have you ever advanced any believable, sensible explanation why you have never familiarized yourself with the evidence before starting your racially motivated vendetta against the caucasian lacrosse players.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Ms. Meadows noted that a Lacrosse player said to Kim Pittman something on the order of, thank your grandfather for my cotton t shirt.
Ms. Meadows did not note the remark made by Kim Pittman, something calling the Lacrosse team a bunch of l--p d--k white boys. Kim Pittman provoked the exchange of slurs.
How is Ms. Meadows omission of Kim Pittman's remark anti nifong.
Let's have a believable, sensible answer.
Mike Nifong treated Crystal Mangum as a cause, not a human being. She was simply his leverage in a closely contested DA election. When she couldn’t maintain the hoax, she was no longer of any value.
There's your abuse, Sidney. Ask Nifong what he's done for Crystal and her family once she outlived her usefulness.
If you get a reply from Nifong, will you post it, too?
"An analogy of Mr. Nifong's abuse to Crystal Mangum, using your reasoning, would be stating that Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford, who unjustly prosecuted Greg Taylor and caused him to lose 17 years of his life, abused Yolanda Littlejohn, the sister of the victim who Taylor was charged with killing."
Syd, you are the one who defies logic. But, I like that. Because you make Nifong an easy target. Thanks.
"If anything, Tom Ford abused Mr. Taylor and his family, as well as justice, itself. But, when used by Ms. Evans, the definition of abuse has a meaning which does not really transfer to the way that attorneys practice law."
You must be really buddy buddy with Colin Willoughby. You never criticize his role in the Taylor prosecution. There is no evidence that Ford actually knew of the blood test results. But, there is overwhelming evidence that Willoughby did know and continued to fight Taylor. Of course, that is consistent with your position that Nifong did nothing wrong by withholding evidence and lying about it.
Never the less, Nifong lied, he lied to the court and he lied to counsel. He prosecuted a case without probable cause. And, if you believe Crystal, he let the guilty ones go free. Nice work Mike. The most incompetent DA in the history of North Carolina.
Walt-in-Durham
NIFONG SUPPORTER said...
To Anonymous:
Thank you for your suggestion. I just might take you up on it. If I get a reply from Ms. Evans, I will definitely post it.
Be very careful Sydney! By contacting Ms Evans, you will most certainly come into contact with the TRUTH.Remember, as Jack Nicholson famously said: "TRUTH.....you can't handle the TRUTH" *
* "A Few Good Men"
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Just like you not to see the compassion in Mrs. Evans' statement.
Do you recall the video in which nifong demonstrated the "choke hold" in which cgm was held. That choke hold never happened. Was that compassion on nifong's part, to fabricate an event that never happened.
Was it compassion on nifong's part to ignore the complaining witness in a rape case until 9 months had passed since the alleged crime?
Let's have some sensible, believable answers from you.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let's rehash your claim that cgm id'd her three attackers with 90% to 100% certainty.
Is it your contention that a prosecutor has to accept a victim's id of a criminal at face value?
If so, then why are fillers included in a lineup? Fillers are people known to be innocent who are included in a lineup. If the crime victim id's a filler, the lineup result shows that victim can not reliably recognize the perpetrator. If there had been fillers, and cgm id'd a filler as an assailant, what then? Is it your contention nifong should have indicted and charged a known innocent filler? Have you a reasonable, believable explanation why no fillers were included in the lineup shown to cgm?
That lineup, even without fillers, showed cgm could not reliably id any Lacrosse player as an attacker. Two of the people she id'd were not at the scene at the time of the alleged crime. She id'd the third man as a man with a mustache. The photos obtained by the police via the NTO showed every caucasian member of the team to be clean shaven. Please offer a believable reasonable explanation why, in the face of those results,nifong waited 9 months to drop the rape charges?
March 3, 2010 5:52 AM
Edited Mar 3, 2010 5:54 AM
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Again, do you have a reasonable believable explanation why no fillers were included in the lineup you consider so significant?
One might say that the guilty were included in the lineup and nifong did not want to chance cgm id'ing someone innocent. If that is true, it is not any kind of an explanation. If it is true, it would be an admission that person(s) included in the lineup had been presumed guilty. It would also be an admission that whoever orgnized the lineup recognized cgm could not id her attacker. It would be an admission the lineup was staged and suggestive, carried out so cgm could id the people the organizer thought guilty.
In other words it was an improperly conducted lineup and is of no validity.
for Brod Dickhead:
Personally, I think crazy etc. sidney would not have the guts to face off against someone as decent and courageous as Mrs. Evans.
March 3, 2010 3:52 AM
Edited to remove typo
March 3, 2010 6:03 AM
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
More about fillers:
Fillers are people who can not be charged with a crime if picked out of a lineup. Fillers are included in a lineup because they are known to be innocent. The implication is, a Prosecutor who orders a lineup can not just accept a victim's id of a perpetrator. He has to validate the id.
Answer these questions with reasonable believable answera. Why did nifong abandon standard procedure to protect the innocent when he ordered this lineup? I mean the one at which you claim cgm made reliable id's of her assailants. Could it be that nifong WAS skeptical of her ability to id any Duke Lacrosse Player as an assailant? What reasonable believable answers are suggested by this exclusion of fillers?
Wow. Just found this site and am shocked that anyone is still defending Nifong. The guy was friends with the accuser and her family. Period. That's all you need to know.
What, you want more? "[Nifong] went on to say what a wonderful person she was. He said she was fully believable, she was intelligent, articulate ... and telling a convincing story about what happened."
More, you say? "Smith asked for a dialogue and said the defense lawyers would open their files and share with Nifong all the evidence they had gathered. They hoped he would see that the charges were false. Nifong put his hands over his ears."
"Not once during the 10 months in which the Durham district attorney was responsible for the case did Nifong, his investigator or police ask Mangum about problems with her allegations. Only after Jan. 12, when Nifong handed the case to Cooper's office, did prosecutors challenge Mangum."
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
According to you, it was nifong's job to prosecute the Lacrosse players because cgm had alleged a crime and she had identified her attackers with 90% to 100% certainty.
As we have seen, cgm's rape allegation was not credible(yes I was, no I wasn't). cgm identified an assailant a clean shaven man even though she claimed her assailant had a mustache(no lacrosse player had a mustache at the time of the alleged crime), cgm identified as assailants two men who were not present at the alleged crime scene.
Please give a believable, sensible explanation why these facts justified nifong's going forward with the case?
Please give a believable, sensible explanation how this was acceptable procedure for a prosecutor?
To Anonymous:
You have fallen victim to the biggest Jedi mind-trick pulled by the biased media. The Durham D.A. race was never close, and if Mr. Nifong wanted to win so badly, he definitely would not have courted the black vote. On May 1, 2006, blacks made up only 38% of the registered voters whereas whites made up 56%. During the Primary on May 2, 2006, only 34% of the votes were cast by blacks compared to 64% by whites. ABC's rigged poll wanted the public to believe that the race was close with their cockamamie poll conducted by SurveyUSA. They had the audacity to use a turnout model in which blacks represented 48% of the voters. How ridiculous is that. No black leaders nor black organizations endorsed Mike Nifong, and you expect me to believe that he prosecuted the Lacrosse case in order to win?
The Durham DA race was never close? Really? Let me hit you with some knowledge, Sid:
Durham DA Primary Election, May 2006:
Candidate Total Votes %Black Vote
Nifong 11,206 44%
Black 10,323 25.2%
Bishop 3,293 30.8%
Nifong won by only 883 votes. Here's the freakin' math, Sid -- 24,822 votes cast. 24,822*34% = 8,439 votes. 44% of the black vote would be 3,713 votes. 25.2% of the black vote would be 2,176 votes, 30.8% would be 2599 votes. If Nifong had the percentage of black voters that voted for either Freda Black or Keith Bishop, he would have lost the election.
Nifong USED Crystal Mangum to get elected, because he DIDN'T have the endorsement of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People (Bishop had the endorsement). In every election OTHER than the DA race, the only white candidates that won a plurality or majority of the black vote were endorsed by the committee.
To J Swift:
I really like your idea of registering Carpetbagger Jihad® as a trademark for Sydney and Mikey.
Perhaps they could open inter alia a chain of Carpetbagger Jihad® Fried Chicken Outlets with Victoria Peterson as CEO.
AND POSSIBLY
Carpetbagger Jihad® Fresh fruit stalls that specialize in selling watermelon®.
AND WHAT ABOUT
Carpetbagger Jihad® Fish Sandwiches? A small royalty would obviously need to be paid to Barry Saunders.
A definite best seller would be Carpetbagger Jihad® Carpet Bags!
The Lacrosse Team members can each buy one and take it with them to court. After all, weren't carpetbags used as a repository for the loot the "Yankees" got from the South.
The Carpetbagger Jihad® Exotic Dance Review with CGM as the principal dancer would rake in tons of $$$$.
Why, the possibilities are endless.
I do not however feel that the porceeds, taxed or otherwise, should be distributed to pay for Mikey's and Crusty's defence funds. Rather they should be paid to the administrator of Mikey's Insolvent Estate; he is, after all, an unrehabilitated bankrupt.
Said proceeds should be distributed only to the plaintiffs as liquidated damages in the various law suits, after they win their suits.
I feel that is a far more equitable disposition of the profits.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Before the rape case the DA primary was not close. nifong trailed Freda Black by double figures in the polls, between 15 and 20 percentage polls. After the rape case, his numbers caught up with Freda Black's. Then, as anonymous at 11:47 AM has shown, nifong won a narrow victory. Give us a believable, sensible reason that happened, if the Duke phony rape case was costing him the election.
Give us a believable, sensible reason why nifong was seeking publicity about his involvement in the case if it was costing him the election?
Give us a believable, sensible reason why Freda Black did not make an issue of the Duke case if it was costing her opponent the election?
Why would nifong go to nccu and promise a predominantly black audience the case was not going away, if it was costing him the election?
?Have you watched the ABC nightline video about the implosion of the rape case. It shows nifong very gleeful and happy that he can not go anywhere any more without being recognizes? Give a reasonable, believable explanation why he would be so joyful over something which was costing him the election.
Remember, nifong had fired Freda Black from her job in the Durham DA's office. If nifong had lost the election, it is likely he would alsolost his job in the DA's office.
The URL of the video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gh8oGF4iXQ&feature=related
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Here is a quote: "Mr. Bishop, who is black and who recently won the endorsement of a prominent black community group in Durham after entering the race in February, said he believed that Mr. Nifong feared that Mr. Bishop would dilute his support among black voters. Durham has 53,832 registered black voters, compared with 79,335 white ones, said Joseph Fedrowitz, a geographer for the Durham County Board of Elections.
Mr. Bishop, a lawyer, noted that Mr. Nifong, who has been a prosecutor for 28 years, had never run for office. Mr. Nifong, who is white, was appointed to the district attorney post last year after his predecessor was appointed to a judgeship.
"I believe that was foremost in his calculations," Mr. Bishop said Tuesday of Mr. Nifong's public stance in the case. "He needed to create some momentum. He was unknown."
This comes from the New York Times: By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: May 3, 2006
Give a reasonable, believable explanation how an unknown who had never before ron for office could be comfortably ahead at any time in the elextion.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
This comes from the Johnsville news:
"Freda Black lost to Mike Nifong by 883 votes, primarily because blacks voted for Nifong by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio. The gang problem had been blown away by the Duke lacrosse issue in the minds of Durham voters."
Here's some more math for you sidney. Two thirds of 8439 is 5626. More than 50% of the votes for nifong came from black voters. How would he have gotten that support except for his highly publicized handling of the Duke Rape Case?
Give us a sensible, believable explanation of how the support of the black community almost cost him the election.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Here is a quote from USA Today:
"I've never seen him do one so public like this one," said Edward Sarvis Sr., a retired Durham police captain who has seen Nifong try a lot of cases over the years.
Sarvis said Nifong has always been a subdued, behind-the-scenes kind of prosecutor. However, in this case, Nifong has been more open, Sarvis said.
"It makes me think it's because of the upcoming election," he said."
The impression that nifong was exploiting the phony rape case came from the way nifong was handling the case, not from any jedi mind trick.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"In May, D.A. Nifong faced a tough re-election challenge in the Democratic primary. With the aid of the Durham news media, he spun the case in terms of Gown versus Town, White versus Black, and Privilege versus Working-Class. Thus, in addition to Means and Opportunity, Nifong had Motives to politicize the Duke Rape Case. He won his primary, and now faces a de facto recall vote in the general election in November: Motive to prolong an unjust and unwinnable case for a few more months."
"The Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax: Witnessing a Media Train Wreck
By 'AMac' on September 19, 2006 11:08 AM "
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney.
I must stand corrected, defer to anonymous, today at 11:47 AM. The black vote broke down roughly 44% for nifong, 31% for Keith Bishop and 25% for Freda Black. However, nifong won by a margin of fewer than 900 votes. So how did the support of the black community almost cost nifong the election?
Before the election, nifong was an unknown in both the black and white electorates. Freda Black had the white vote sewn up. She had greater name recognition than nifong. Regardless of the false Duke rape case.nifong was not going to get the white vote. No one in the white electorate knew who he was. From the start of the election campaign the white vote was going to Freda Black. It was the black vote that was up for grabs. It was the black vote that nifong courted.
Your contention that nifong almost lost the election because of the Duke case is a pitiful imitation of a sith mind trick attempted by an unreasonable facsimile of Darth Vader(my apologies for the insult to Darth Vader, comparing crazy etc. sidney to him)
Dr. Harr --
We've had a few discussions off-line, and I've found you to be well-reasoned and thoughtful, even if we don't agree on a number of views. With that said, I'll note your response to the anonymous posting at 1:00pm on March 1st. You stated, "Thank you for your suggestion. I just might take you up on it. If I get a reply from Ms. Evans, I will definitely post it."
Don't you think the responsible, well-reasoned action would have been to ask Rae Evans to explain her statement BEFORE you posted this blog entry? Would you think it in any way appropriate for me to ask anyone other than you to explain your comments?
Sidney,
Unfortunately, you fail once again to provide your sources. I ask that you provide a link to the source of your data for voter registration and turnout. I request that you retract this comment and your earlier post unless you can provide your source.
KC Johnson discussed the subject of the demographics of voters in the primary in a May 19, 2006, post on Durham-in-Wonderland. He provides different data and, unlike you, provides links to the Durham County Board of Elections for his data (these links are now dead; the post is almost four years old). Johnson also provides several quotes (including one from Mr. Nifong himself) to provide some context for the importance of the black vote. In May 2006, Mr. Nifong apparently disagreed with your current assessment.
The link for the post is as follows:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/
05/nifong-and-black-vote.html
Johnson notes that North Carolina does not have an open primary system. In other words, only registered Democrats (and, I believe, independents) can vote in the Democratic primary. He provides data that the “county has 86,621 registered Democrats, 46,586 of whom are black.” Based on this data, 53.8% of registered Democrats are black. He does not provide data for independents. The percentage of eligible primary voters who are black is much higher than your data suggests. You appear mistakenly to have included all voters in your data.
Johnson notes further that the county has “27,070 registered Republicans, 24,566 of whom are white” and that conservative white voters have increasingly shifted to the Republicans. These voters, including many of Mr. Nifong's critics, could not vote in the Democratic primary.
As a result of this shift, many of the whites remaining in the Democratic Party and eligible to vote in the primary are more liberal than those who have become Republicans. One may ask whether black voters represented the only constituency to whom Mr. Nifong’s handing of the Duke case may have been an important positive factor. White feminists and other white progressives come immediately to mind. As suggested above, few of these liberal or leftist voters left the Democratic Party to become Republicans.
Feminist commentators in general strongly supported Mr. Nifong, motivated by the belief that women never lie about rape (Susan Estrich was a rare exception). Many, apparently a significant majority, of the demonstrators supporting “sister survivor” were white. Leftists viewed the case as supporting the meta-narrative popular in academia. The race/gender/class trilogy generates a significant volume of current academic research; many academics analyze problems almost exclusively through the prism of race, gender and class. Many of the Gang of 88 are white.
Unless your data excludes Republicans (and thus includes only those voters who were eligible to vote in the primary), I submit that you have provided misleading data. If you have included Republicans, I am sure that it was an inadvertent oversight on your part. I am confident that you did not intend to deliberately mislead your readers.
If you inadvertently used overall voter registration (and thus included Republicans in your statistics), I ask that you either correct your data or retract both your post and your subsequent comment. I ask also that you comment on support for Mr. Nifong among feminists and other progressives.
Because you have failed to provide a link to the source of your data, your readers are unable to determine whether your data is accurate or misleading. I ask that you provide a link.
Sidney,
How did Mr. Nifong abuse Ms. Mangum? Anonymous 3/2/10 1:37 pm said it well. I will merely add more detail. 3/2/10 1:37 pm deserves the prize.
Mr. Nifong and other Durham defendants took advantage of a young woman with serious problems and used her.
Mr. Nifong and the DPD had access to Ms. Mangum’s medical file. That file apparently shows a troubled young woman with a prior history of mental health issues.
They never prepared Ms. Magnum for what she would experience. They knew that she would be savaged in the media, particularly when the lack of inculpatory evidence became apparent and the case fell apart. This occurred. Her past was investigated and exposed. She was ridiculed and called a false accuser, a liar, a whore, a drug addict, a gold digger, a nut case, etc. As her recent episode demonstrates, she continues to be vilified.
Mr. Nifong and the DPD didn’t care what happened to Ms. Mangum.
The case record demonstrates that Mr. Nifong and the DPD investigators did not believe Ms. Mangum’s allegations that she had been sexually assaulted. Mr. Nifong's protests that he "believed her" are belied by his actions and have no credibility.
There was never a bona fide investigation. The DPD never attempted to demonstrate that a crime had occurred, let alone solve a crime. They failed to interview relevant witnesses. They failed to investigate physical evidence they had in their possession or knew to exist. They failed to read reports. They avoided and ignored exculpatory evidence. They intimidated witnesses and falsified reports. They never tried to identify suspects using accepted procedures. They never reconciled inconsistencies and contradictions. Mr. Nifong merely sought indictments for three of the four young men Ms. Mangum selected in a lottery Mr. Nifong designed for that purpose.
Mr. Nifong never discussed the specific allegations with Ms. Mangum for more than nine months. He had heard nothing to "believe." He treated her allegations as if they were irrelevant.
Ms. Mangum was simply a pawn.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The verdict of history, supported by the evidence, is that nifong pursued the innocent Duke Lacrosse players because he wanted to court the black vote, that he won the DA primary election because the Durham black electorate voted for him. Your attempt to prove otherwise is a rather weak attempt at a sith mind trick.
Have you ever become knowledgeable about the Star Wars saga? The Jedi are the good guys who inevitably triumph.
Maybe you want to reconsider your statement that your gang(sters)of4 will force the reinstatement of nifong's law license. You seem to be inflicting a sith mind trick on yourself
To Anonymous:
The 2006 Primary D.A. election turned out to be close because Mike Nifong pursued the Duke Lacrosse case. Had Mr. Nifong dismissed the Duke Lacrosse case, he would have won the primary by a landslide.
For ABC 11 News to state prior to the primary that the race was close was not supported by the rigged poll conducted by SurveyUSA. No where in the analysis did it mention Nifong's relationship with white voters who made up the overwhelming majority of registered voters. The survey concluded that heavy black voter turnout would benefit Nifong, but it did not mention that heavy white voter turnout would benefit Black.
It is illogical to believe that by pursuing the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case that it would improve his chances of winning the primary. The opposite is true, and he pursued the prosecution at the risk of losing.
Stating that the primary race was close and that Mike Nifong's best chance for winning was to court the black vote is one of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks ever pulled on the public.
Sid, Nifong received 46.3% to Freda Black's 50.6% of white and other nonblack vote in the District Attorney primary. These numbers are DOCUMENTED, Sid. A simple google search will find them, but if that's too much for you, let me know.
We also know that leading up to the election, but prior to the Duke Lacrosse case, Freda Black was leading in the polls by double-digits.
Without the black vote and the (swing in polls overall) drummed up by Nifong's heresthetical maneuvers with regards to the Duke Lacrosse case, he would have simply lost the election. Your continued statements otherwise cannot change this fact.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Here is some math for you deried from anonymous at March 3, 2010 11:47 AM:
nifong received 11,206 votes. Freda Black received 10,323 votes. 44% of the black voters go for nifong. 25.2% of black voters go for Freda Black.
By anonymous' calculations, nifong received 3713 black votes. Freda Black received 2176. Nifong received 7413 white votes. Freda black received 8147 white votes.
Among black voters nifong's margin was 1537 votes. Among white voters Freda Black's margin was 654 votes. That was a little more than a 4 percentage point difference. Of the white votes cast either for nifong or for Freda Black, about 47.9% were for nifong. Overall nifong won over Freda Black by 973 votes.
It is obvious nifong won because of the black vote. However, prior to the Duke case, nifong trailed Freda Black by between 15 and 20 percentage points. It is also obvious that nifong, not Freda Black, enjoyed a surge in white voter support post Duke case, albeit not enough to win the election.
If nifong lost white voter support because of the Duke case, why was the white vote so close? Pre election, pre Duke case polls would not have predicted this.
How does this show that the Duke case almost cost nifong the election? What pre Duke case hard data can you show that nifong would have won by a landslide. What post Duke case hard data can you show that says Freda Black enjoyed a surge of white support?
Let's have some sensible believable answers. Meanwhile, you would do well to cease inflicting upon yourself these sith mind tricks.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Your last comment on this post clearly shows your capacity for logic, or, rather, your lack thereof. Why don't you support your contentions with hard evidence instead of illogical extrapolation and unsupported opinions? The hard evidence, I say again, is that there was a surge in white voter support for nifong, not Freda Black. In the face of hard evidence it is illogical to claim the Duke case almost cost nifong the election.
Of course, when one is suffering from a self inflicted sith mind trick, one does not really see things logically.
Sidney,
Any success with finding your source for the voter registration and turn out data?
I want to confirm whether you are looking at correct data. Primaries are not open.
To JSwift:
Information about the May 2, 2006 Primary for the District Attorney race was obtained with a phone call to the Durham Board of Elections. They were very helpful in giving me information about the vote results and the demographics. Also they gave information about the registered voters for that primary.
Sid -- Since you're apparently in an answering mood, here's a question for you.
Why was Nifong the only white candidate in the May 2 2006 election without the endorsement of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People to carry a plurality or majority of the black vote?
To Anonymous:
You make a good point. As you stated, Mike Nifong was not endorsed by the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. This was echoed by Cash Michaels of the Carolinian who suggested that the black political group did not endorse Mr. Nifong because of the way he was handling the Duke Lacrosse case. That's just it. By pursuing the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case, Mr. Nifong did not win voters, white or black. He never received, to my knowledge, the endorsement of any black leader or black organization. The black turnout for the election was absymally small, proving that the rigged poll that suggested a dead heat between Nifong and Black was fiction. Had the poll by ABC 11 been accurate, Nifong would have lost because of the low black voter turnout. It is illogical to believe that Mr. Nifong would pursue the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case for the purpose of winning the election. Common sense would tell anyone that had Mr. Nifong dropped charges prior to the primary, that he would have easily won by a large margin. The relative closeness of the vote was due to the fact that he pursued the case.
As I suspected, the analysis offered by Sid is borrowed from Wendy Murphy cir. 12/06:
Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Nobody seems to care that despite claims that the prosecutor brought charges so he could win the 'black vote,’ he didn’t win the majority of black votes in the primary and more important, he lost a ton of wealthy white votes—something he surely knew would happen if he brought charges—yet he brought the charges anyway.”
Wrong then, wrong now. At least the analysis was "original" to Murphy!
No Sid -- Common sense tells us that had Nifong dropped the charges prior to the election, he would have lost to Freda Black.
You still didn't answer the question originally asked -- Every candidate backed by the Durham committee won a plurality or majority of the black vote, EXCEPT for Nifong.
What event polarized the majority of the black vote to vote for Nifong, rather than the Durham Committee candidate, Bishop?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Five weeks before the Democratic primary a poll was taken. It showed 37% of the respondents for Freda Black, 20% for nifong. The election results showed 47.9% of the white vote for nifong, 52.1% for Freda Black. How do those results reflect a loss of white voter support for nifong? Nifong would never have had the support of any wealthy white voters in Durham County because they predominantly belonged to the Republican Party and could not vote in the Democratic Primary.
Nifong's prosecution of the Duke phony rape case did not cost him any white votes. After he took on the phony Duke rape case and tried it in the media, he had 44% of the black vote to 25.2% for Freda Black. How did that happen?
It is obvious to any one not affected by a sith mind trick, nifong's handling of the phony rape case won him an election he would not have otherwise won.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
It is illogical, except to anyone affected by a sith mind trick, to think nifong would have so extensively publicized an issue which would cost him the election.
Have you considered this? Had nifong lost the election, he would have also lost control of the phony Duke rape case.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
nifong told his campaign manager, Jacky Brown, that he intended only to run for one term. He wanted to serve less than a full term, 3 years and 7 months, before he retired.
At that point, he could retire as a full fledged District Attorney and receive a higher pension. According to the North Carolina retirement system, an individual has to serve 4 years as a District Attorney to retire with a District Attorney's pension, which was higher than that of an Assistant DA by about $15,000.
Was nifong really running for better retirementbenefits? Was that why he wanted a full term as DA? If so, it would make no sense at all to personally take on a case which would cost him the election. It would make no sense at all to look for valuable free advertising featuring his direction of the case.
Early on, it became apparent that the Duke phony rape case was phony. The medical record showed no evidence of rape. The SBI criminal lab of the exam turned up no evidence of a rape. dnasi exam of the rape kit showed the only male DNA on cgm was from people other than the Lacrosse players. If nifong wanted better retirement benefits, if the phony rape case would have jeopardized his retirement benefits, if there was no evidence to support the rape case, it would have made perfect sense to dismiss it.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Whether or not prosecution of the rape case would have influenced the election, nifong should have dismissed it before the election. There was no hard evidence, no probable cause to believe the rape had happened.
Dismissing a case for lack of probable cause would not be politically motivated. Pursuing the Duke case without probable cause was.
Post a Comment