I think that it is imperative that I explain in greater detail about the brave individuals who make up the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. The organization, which was formed in June 2008 with just two people, has recently seen a steady increase in its membership. Those who join the Committee come from all walks of life, varying backgrounds, and a diversity of cultures. They have different social-justice interests, however what they all have in common is the belief that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. He is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. This is an outrage when one considers that other prosecutors have conducted themselves far more egregiously than Mr. Nifong’s alleged misconduct. The Committee members are united in their goal of seeing that the State Bar unilaterally and unconditionally reinstates Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state of North Carolina without restrictions.
What makes members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong special is that they backup the conviction of their commitment by courageously lending their names and faces to a cause that is at odds with the State of North Carolina, at odds with the biased media, and at odds with the misguided public which has succumbed to the Jedi mind tricks of the media. Members have the freedom to contribute what legal and moral efforts they wish in pursuing the Committee’s goal of Mr. Nifong’s reinstatement. This may be in the form of letter writing, participating in peaceful demonstrations, or engaging in debates.
As the Lay Advocate of the Committee, I am actively involved in writing letters, posting and maintaining the Committee’s website and blog site, and interacting with media types and politicians. It must be kept in mind that everything that I write represents my opinion solely, and that I am solely responsible for my comments and actions. That does not preclude the fact that others wholeheartedly agree with what I say or do. However, I believe that it is important for this distinction to be clear, especially as membership in the Committee grows.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
98 comments:
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What relevance do the actions of other prosecutors have to the Duke case? nifong was disbarred because he prosecuted three innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players. By nifong's own admission, there was no credible evidence against the Lacrosse players - you know - like there was no credible evidence of tax fraud against you.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"[nifong] is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933."
And how well he deserved that distinction.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"What makes members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong special" is that they have all succumbed to your sith mind tricks and are actively aiding you in your racially motivated vendetta against three innocent, falsely accused caucasian men.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
I just heard on TV something about the Casey Anthony case, that the state will do anything it can to enable her to defend herself.
nifong did everything he could to sabotage the ability of the innocent falsely accused Duke defendants to defend themselves.
That was unethical, illegal, unconstitutional as well as just plain wrong. None of your sith mind tricks will convince anyone different.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Ironic, isn't it. You call yourself justice crusaders but you crusade on behalf of the perpeetrator of one of the grossest attempted miscarriages of justice in North Carolina history.
Since 1933, has any prosecutor other than nifong tried to convict three innocent, falsely accused men of a non existent crime just to win an election and pad his retirement benefits?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You call yourself justice crusaders.
Well, at one point in his career, hitler tried to portray himself to the world as a friend of the Jewish people.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
How many members have you?
In 2008 you had 3. About a year later you had 4.
That is hardly comparable to the number of people who voted for AG Roy Cooper in the 2008 election.
There was a man of real courage. In the face of attempted intimidation by racist black leaders, he did the right thing. He dismissed the charges against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players. Then he had the courage to state why he dismissed the charges. We(the investigators who reviewed the evidence) believe these men are innocent.
What a bitter pill for you and your Justice4nifong gangsters, a pill you still are trying to regurgitate.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
For courage, how about David Evans mother, Rae Evans, who told nifong on national television, for millions to see, that the Evans family and the other families would fight nifong and win.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
For courage, don't forget the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse defendants, who steadfastly refused to succumb to nifong and the power he wielded, who steadfastly refused to succumb to the lynch mobbers, the pot bangers, the gang of 88, the cowardly namesake of Brod Dickhead.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
For courage, let's not forget the Duke Women's Lacrosse Team who refused to succumb to the poitically correct pressure to condemn the innocent falsely accused Duke men's Lacrosse team members.
To unbekannte:
You have succumbed to the biggest Jedi mind trick of all, and that is the media's embrace of the April 11, 2007 promulgation of innocence by Attorney General Roy Cooper. What the A.G. says with regards to innocence or guilt carries no legal or factual weight... period. Cooper dismissed the case. The Duke Lacrosse defendants are not "innocent" as you continue to falsely claim.
YOUR BLOG HAS BEEN REPORTED FOR ONGOING RACIST HATE SPEECH
Sydney - Cooper dismissed the case.
Indeed he did, after determining that there was no evidence that a crime had even been committed.
Sydney - The Duke Lacrosse defendants are not "innocent" as you continue to falsely claim.
No evidence that a crime had even been committed = Innocent, even, as in your case, Sydney, you do not believe in the presumption of innocence.
Sydney -The Committee members are united in their goal of seeing that the State Bar unilaterally and unconditionally reinstates Mr. Nifong’s license...
Don Quixote, meet windmill. Nothing is going to happen unless Nifong asks for his license back after 5 years, and he has said that he will not do that.
You have been asked repeatedly two questions:
1. How were the DNA findings not fully and completely exculpatory when other mens' DNA were found in each orifice and the alleged victim testified that at least one LAX player ejaculated in her mouth (which she then spat on the floor)?
2. What other evidence did Mr. Nifong have (that would have been admitted at the trial-that-never-happened) in addition to that already available to the media from "open discovery" case files provided the Defense?
Until you answer these questions, you might as well stop posting, because your failure to even attempt to answer demonstrates that even you do not believe the foundational elements for your claims.
I agree with Michael and the other posters here. If you haven't the integrity to answer logical questions, however can you expect your "conclusions" to be taken with any seriousness?
What are your direct answers to specific questions here?
Anyone who might have an open mind, can not fail to see that you cannot or will not answer salient questions.Therefore your whole effort here is essentially a waste of time.
If anything, it gives the impression that Nifong's situation is indefensible...because you seem quite incapable of defending it. Therefore, you might as well be the employ of Mrs Evans...because your efforts rebound to Nifong's discredit and mortification.
If you have answers, let's hear them...on point and without prevarication.
1. How were the DNA findings not fully and completely exculpatory when other mens' DNA were found in each orifice and the alleged victim testified that at least one LAX player ejaculated in her mouth (which she then spat on the floor)?
2. What other evidence did Mr. Nifong have (that would have been admitted at the trial-that-never-happened) in addition to that already available to the media from "open discovery" case files provided the Defense?
Please proceed. Thank you.
more uncivility for crazy etc, sidney:
Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not succumb to mind tricks, jedi or other. Mind tricks work only on the weak minded like yourself, as your blog entries have shown
more uncivility for crazy etc, sidney:
Once more you get it wrong,
I never claimed that the Attorney General's opinion carried any legal weight. Contrary to what you have proclaimed, Mr. Cooper did not proclaim the falsely accused Duke defendants innocent. After reviewing the evidence, something you have not done, by your own admission, he dismissed the charges. He then stated his conclusion, that he believed the Duke defendants were innocent.
Why have you succumbed again to one of your own sith mind tricks?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Of what are the falsely accused Duke Lacrossse players guilty?
What evidence are you aware of that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime happened?
What evidence are you aware of that links the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players to that alleged crime?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What you are saying is that AG Coopeer has no right to express an opinion. That right, within limits, is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
It is no surprise to me that you would deny someone a fundamental constitutional right. Your hero nifong tried his case against the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players by trying to undermine their fundamental rights, right to be presumed innocent, right to remain silent, right to counsel. Yet, you call him a true minister of justice.
To Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney?:
The unregulated North Carolina State Bar grossly erred when it disbarred Mike Nifong. We expect the members of the Bar to recognize the error of its ways with respect to its selective and unjust actions against Mr. Nifong and to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong's license to practice law in the state of North Carolina without restrictions. As you correctly observed, Mr. Nifong has no intention of asking the State Bar to reinstate his license... nor should he. The onus is on the North Carolina State Bar to do the right thing and reinstate Mr. Nifong's law license.
To Anonymous:
The blogs in justice4nifong.blogspot.com do not contain racist hate speech. However, the same cannot be said about statements made from some of the blog's commenters.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The AG's opinion does in fact carry a great deal of legal significance.
For example, should cgm sue the Lacrosse players in civil court, could she prevail in view of the AG's opinion.
AG Cooper would meet the criteria of an expert witness. Unlike you, he based his opinion on guilt or innocence on a thorough review of the evidence. Any lawyer foolish enough to represent cgm in such a civil suit would not be able to counter the evidence AG Cooper could give on behalf of the innocent, falsely accused Duke defendants.
For Vinc(ious) Clark, the true reason why cgm has not filed a civil suit is that there is no lawyer in the US dumb enough or foolish enough to represent her, not even nancy dissgrace or wicked wendy murphy.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Suppose cgm did sue the falsely accused innocent Lacrosse Players. Suppose she put you up as her expert witness as to the guilt of the Lacrosse players. Do you think you could present any evidence which would cast any doubt on the innocence of the Falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players?
You see, Mr. Cooper's opinion does carry more weight than anything you have said. That must really disturb you.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You know, your last comment to me was more anemic than the comment in which you thanked me for telling you Mrs. Rae Evans' correct name.
You really are pathetic.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let's get back to the issue of membership in your justice4nifong gangsters.
Can you prove that the number of members in your group is greater than the number of comments I have made to this post today?
I saw the video of the Martin Luther King day march, the one in which you and your gang tried to force yourself into the picture. There weren't more than three or four people following your banner.
Compare that to the number of voters who re elected Mr. Roy Cooper and you will get some idea of the real power, or lack thereof of your group.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Your whole blog effort is and always has been a vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players motivated by hatred for their race.
To Michael and Giseunghill:
I have answered these questions numerous times, however my answers do not evidently satisfy the questioners. I will briefly respond to the two questions once more.
1. How were the DNA findings not fully and completely exculpatory when other mens' DNA were found in each orifice and the alleged victim testified that at least one LAX player ejaculated in her mouth (which she then spat on the floor)?
Answer: Although unidentified male DNA was obtained from the rape kit exam, it was determined to have been deposited at a time prior to the Duke Lacrosse party. Secondly, just because no DNA was obtained from the victim which matched the Duke lacrosse players does not mean that a sexual assault by the partygoers did not take place. The DNA is definitely not exculpatory in this case.
2. What other evidence did Mr. Nifong have (that would have been admitted at the trial-that-never-happened) in addition to that already available to the media from "open discovery" case files provided the Defense?
Answer: I am not privvy to all of the evidence the prosecution had, but I will say that the prosecution had witness statements by the accuser and eyewitness identification by the accuser. Now, if you're so concerned about prosecutorial evidence, I would like to direct your attention to Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford who had no credible evidence when he won a murder conviction against Greg Taylor. Mr. Taylor was sentenced to life and served 17 years wrongly imprisoned before a three judge panel determined his innocence at a hearing. Prosecutor David Hoke had no credible evidence against Alan Gell. Hoke withheld exculpatory evidence from Gell's attorneys and won a capital murder conviction. Gell was wrongly incarcerated for a decade, half of it on death row, before knowledge of the exculpatory evidence came to light. At his retrial, Gell, with formerly withheld evidence in play, was immediately found not guilty by the jury.
I could name many cases in which prosecutors went to court without credible evidence... but the media is not critical of those prosecutors, and in fact go out of their way to protect them.
Because you may not agree with my answers does not mean that I did not answer the questions you presented.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let's refresh your recollection some more.
nifong has admitted he had no credible evidence which justified his charging the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players with a crime.
Why then was it not misconduct that he prosecuted them anyway.
You don't want to answer that one either, do you?
Is it because of your PAPEN policy - prosecute every prosecutor except nifong?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
I remind you that mind tricks, jedi or otherwise work only on the weak minded like yourself.
Regarding your racially motivated vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, you haven't made believers of many people. Why do you think you can make believers of the North Carolina State Bar.
The conviction of nifong on ethics charges shows they are not susceptible to sith mind tricks.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let's refresh your recollection.
In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no obligation to exonerate himself.
You have said that the lack of DNA evidence did not rule out a rape or exonerate the accused. Did it rule in a crime? Did it incriminate any Lacrosse player. The answer to these questions, to which you are afraid to respond, is resoundingly NO!
The only thing that could have been ruled in by the DNA was this. If there had been a rape, it had happened before the night of 13-14 March and had been perpetrated by men other than the Lacrosse players.
The accuser's word was not credible. Her word immediately following 13-14 March was, successively, no I wasn't raped, yes I was, no I wasn't, yes I was.
The lineup at which she supposedly id'd her assailants was rigged. It contained no fillers. It was conducted by someone who was involved in the case. She was coached, told the lineup contained only suspects.
Two of the men she fingered had not been at the scene of the alleged crime scene at the time of the alleged crime. The third man she fingered had been shown to be clean shaven at the time of the alleged crime but cgm claimed he had had a mustache. In spite of the rigged nature of the lineup, her id's of the alleged assailants were hardly rock solid, were they? This is another question you will not answer.
So how does a prosecutor prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt in this scenario? His evidence does not rule in the alleged crime, does not incriminate anyone he has designated as a suspect and, if anything, points away from his suspects. The word of his accusing witness is not credible. She can not really identify any suspect as one of her attackers. The answer is, he can not.
So how do you justify nifong's prosecution of this case? You can not answer that either, can you.
March 19, 2010 6:00 PM
Edited March 19, 2010 6:03 PM
Re-edited March 20, 2010 4:08 AM
more uncivility for crazy eyc. sidney:
Considering the way cgm vacillated on whether or not she had been raped, isn't incumbent on a prosecutor to interview her immediately? Yes it is.
So why did nifong fail to interview her for nine months?
You don't want to answer that, do you.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What relevance do these other cases have to the Duke rape case?
This is one question you have on multiple questions failed to address.
Sydney:
Why do you not post the names of the new membership of the "Committee"? Is it because they are a mere figment of your deluded imagination.
More likely it is because they are just more of the stupid bigoted racist morons like you and Mikey and VP and couldn't take the ridicule to which you might expose them!
Sidney,
You make the preposterous claim:
just because no DNA was obtained from the victim which matched the Duke lacrosse players does not mean that a sexual assault by the partygoers did not take place. The DNA is definitely not exculpatory in this case.
You insult the intelligence of your readers with this comment. Once again you owe your readers an apology.
You know that “exculpatory evidence” is not required to disprove conclusively any possible crime. It merely must tend to establish the innocence of the accused. For example, evidence that may damage the credibility of an accusing witness is by definition exculpatory.
Because you may not agree with my answers does not mean that I did not answer the questions you presented.
It does, however, suggest that you are either delusional or dishonest. You are not free simply to make up your own definitions.
I remind you once again that you promised on January 13 (66 days ago) to respond at your "earliest convenience" to Ms. Mangum's written statement. You have failed to keep this promise.
As you know, I asked how the failure to find DNA that matched any of the players was not exculpatory in a case in which the accuser alleged that one or more of her attackers had ejaculated and did not use condoms. As you know, Ms. Mangum claimed in her April 6 written statement 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.
In several earlier posts, I provided six questions that may help you in formulating your answers. I will reprint them here.
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?
You now have failed to keep your promises for more than 8 and 14 weeks. While I know that you are preoccupied with your valiant fight against the Carpetbagger Jihad®, I believe that you should provide an explanation for your inexplicable delay.
I urge you not to make promises that you do not intend to keep. Some of your readers may conclude that you are dishonest.
In your response, please address Ms. Mangum’s specific allegation:
“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.
Keep your promise. No more delays.
Syd, you continue to ignore the law. That totally undercuts your claim that Nifong should be reinstated. You wrote: "The DNA is definitely not exculpatory in this case.
We have gone over this before, NCGSA 8C-412(b) makes the DNA evidence exculpatory. Further, You ignore the amendment to NCGSA 15A-903 regarding open file discovery. You could have been excused the first time you made this mistake. But, I have brought this to your attention many times. Nifong, who was allegedly a lawyer at the time cannot be excused for not knowing or following the law.
Syd you also wrote: "Answer: I am not privvy to all of the evidence the prosecution had, but I will say that the prosecution had witness statements by the accuser and eyewitness identification by the accuser."
That eyewitness identification is fatally flawed by the Durham Police Department's use of an unduly suggestive lineup technique. Their multiple lineups did not use fillers, know innocents. None of the people she identified, after seeing their photos multiple times earlier, matched Crystal's descriptions of her alleged assailants. None of the people she identified left any DNA evidence to corroborate her identifications. In short, she did not identify anyone. Further, ask yourself if you would defend this type of identification process if Tom Ford had used it.
Finally, you claim the burden is on the NC State Bar to reinstate Nifong. The bar has already met its burden. It proved and the DHC, an independent fact finder agreed, that Nifong violated the code of professional responsibility, he violated the discovery statutes and he lied to the bench and bar. If ever there was a case for disbarment this was it. Now, the burden is on Nifong, who admits he prosecuted a case without credible evidence, to show why he should be readmitted. So far, he has not shown contrition and he has shown no evidence of rehabilitation. Finally, he has proven he was grossly incompetent in the prosecution.
In summary: Nifong is violator of the rules of professional conduct who thinks nothing of lying to the court and fellow attorneys. He thinks nothing of prosecuting people without probable cause. He got what he deserved.
Walt-in-Durham
I also wanted to remind you that I responded to two of your challenges, and you have not yet acknowledged my responses. I believe that you owe a reply to a commenter who responds to your challenges.
On February 24, you challenged me: ”Now then, Mr. JSwift, how would you explain the excessive charges against Ms. Mangum? Coincidence?”
I responded the same day (24 days ago), suggesting that Durham defendants may seek to silence Ms. Mangum for their own reasons. You have not replied.
On March 1, you offered $1,000 for an explanation of Mrs. Evans’ comment that Mr. Mangum had abused Ms. Mangum. I responded on March 3 (17 days ago). You have not replied. I assume by your lack of criticism that my explanation wins the prize.
While I know that you are preoccupied with your valiant fight against the Carpetbagger Jihad®, I believe that you should acknowledge those commenters who take the time to respond in good faith to your questions and challenges. Many of your readers are also busy.
I believe that you owe me an explanation and an apology.
Sydney - We expect the members of the Bar to recognize the error of its ways with respect to its selective and unjust actions against Mr. Nifong and to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong's license to practice law in the state of North Carolina without restrictions.
Well, hope in one hand and poop in the other, and see which one gets filled first.
No evidence that a crime had even been committed = Innocent, even, as in your case, Sydney, you do not believe in the presumption of innocence. Nifong has admitted that he had no probable cause to pursue the case.
Walt,
He got what he deserved.
I disagree with this conclusion.
I believe that Mr. Nifong's actions deserve additional investigation. The disbarment hearing and the criminal contempt trial merely touched the surface. Depending on the results of that investigation, Mr. Nifong may deserve additional punishment.
As you have suggested earlier, the Department of Corrections offers a number of rehabilitation programs.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You say nifong had cgm's statement that a crime had occurred.
nifong did not interview cgm directly until nine months into the case. He pushed the case forward for nine months without any first hand knowledge of what the complaining witness was saying.
Another question you will refuse to answer is this. By ignoring the complaining witness, how was nifong meeting his obligation of proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Anonymous @ 4:20AM -Sydney:
Why do you not post the names of the new membership of the "Committee"?
Anon, the members can be found here.
Jackie Wagstaff is a funny addition. See what La Shawn Barber thinks of Wagstaff here.
Thank you, Dr Harr.
I'm trying to understand.
Now let's say you and I get on an elevator today with 40 plus other people. (big elevator) As the doors open, I scream that you raped me and beat me viciously. None of the other people on the elevator collaborate my story. The woman who is with me says it was "a crock." There is no DNA evidence to link you to any crime against me.
But as I understand your reasoning, YOU would feel a moral obligation to be indicted anyway...because this is how you wish our justice system to proceed.
On an allegation and no evidence, you would stand by your words on this Blog and demand the two of us proceed to trial. You would happily fund an expensive legal representation for yourself, because , in your moral code, if I accuse you of rape, you DEMAND I have the opportunity to face you in court. You would not expect the District Attorney to interview me to ascertain my credibility before you were indicted....oh, no! You would deem it just fine, if my friend was given a sweet deal by the D.A. and subsequently changed her story to endanger you. You would smile with pride in our system, as a Nifong-esque D.A. had a man who stepped forward to defend you...brought to trial on bogus charges. Even knowing you were completely INNOCENT, you would happily submit yourself to months of legal bills, media harassment, character assassination, to take your chances in the courtroom....up against that "richest Daddy of them all"...The State. You would embrace the risk that my lie about what happened in the elevator might just be believed by a local jury, because , YOU, Sidney Harr, approve of Nifong-esque prosecutors who subject men to that risk....on an allegation and no evidence ALONE.
In brief, as the target of my imaginary rape accusation, EVERY tactic Nifong used...you would desire used toward you? Correct?
Because surely, Dr. Harr, you would not ask for a different "opportunity" for yourself than Nifong provided for the Lacrosse players , would you?
If I am to believe you are a man of principle, I have to believe you would want YOURSELF or your son or some young man you love...to be treated just like Nifong treated the Lacrosse players. Please don't dodge and point to this other case, or that other prosecutor. I'm talking here about your embrace of Nifong-esque justice in this particular case. And what that says about Sidney Harr's philosophy about justice FOR ALL PEOPLE as evidenced by your comments on this Blog
If a False Accuser points at YOU someday...if you suddenly find yourself up against "the Richest Daddy of them all."....The State...are you praying you yourself will be treated..JUST EXACTLY as Nifong treated the Lacrosse players?
Because, surely you realize, reasonable people will not allow you to have it both ways. You cannot just applaud Nifong's actions in the isolation of this one case. You must apply them to defendants that might be more sympathetic to you. Or to yourself. In fact, if you like Nifong's tactics, how can you complain about similar tactics in any other case?
Therefore reasonable people must conclude that , in ALL circumstances, Sidney Harr is cheering for rigged line-ups in police departments. In ALL cases, Sidney Harr is fist=pumping for witness intimidation a la Mr. Elmostafa. In ALL cases, Sidney Harr is high fiving sweet deals to get witnesses like Kim to change their stories. And in ALL cases, Sidney Harr, is a rigorous supporter of hiding crucial DNA evidence from the defense in a report that the Lab Director admitted under oath...DID NOT FOLLOW the Lab protocol!
You, Sidney Harr are sanctioning in this Blog....Nifong's every move, every tactic, every decision as the way you DEMAND other District Attorneys treat other men, Black, white and yellow in all trials going forward.
Right?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You say the finding of non lacrosse player DNA on cgm's person was not relevant to the case. The Defense attorneys believed otherwise. Why should your belief outweigh that of the Defense Attorneys.
Here is a hypothetical situation for you, derived from reality to be sure. Say, just for the sake of argument, you are a defendant in a criminal tax evasion case. Your attorney becomes aware the prosecutor has information which may exonerate you. Who should decide whether or not your attorney gets the information? The prosecutor? Some layman with no standing in the case who happens to dislike you? Or maybe the trial judge after hearing arguments from the opposing attorneys?
A correct way for nifong to have handled the DNA situation would have been to give the information to the defense and then argue before the court whether or not the evidence was relevant. Did he do that? No. Why did he not do that? Why did he conceal the evidence and then lie to the court about it?
These care two more questions you have never answered.
gisenghill,
Your hypothetical is very well done!
I do not expect Sidney to respond quickly, if at all. Even after promising on January 13 to comment on Ms. Mangum's written statement at his "earliest convenience," Sidney has failed to respond to numerous reminders over the past 9 weeks.
He tends not to like questions that cannot be answered purely with his mantra...
I hope that other commenters will remind Sidney that he should provide an answer. We know, however, that Sidney does not believe that Mr. Nifong and the lacrosse players are subject to the same rules and protections that apply in all other cases.
Sidney has been quite transparent about his shameless double standard. He makes no real attempt even to disguise it.
I suggest that you repost it daily.
J Swift, you wrote: "I disagree with this conclusion.
I believe that Mr. Nifong's actions deserve additional investigation."
J Swift, quite right. I should have said he deserved his disbarment, contempt and more. Nifong's lack of remorse for his actions shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he needs the type of rehabilitation available only by long term custody in the Department of Corrections.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey Sidney,
The news just gets worser and worser!!
Brian Meehan (remember him?) had just had his 'wrongful termination' (LOL) lawsuit against former employer DNA Securites Inc tossed.
For the new members of your "committee":
Meehan conspired with former Durham DA Mike Nifong (the thug who you are so stupidly supporting in this travesty of a Blog) to with hold exculpatory DNA evidence in the Duke Lacrosse Frame.
Remember the "we're fu**ed" meeting, Mikey?
Very prophetic words, Mikey.
How d'you like them apples, Mikey?
Still think you're going to get your law license back, Mikey?
Mikey - a free word of advice: If the stalwarts on the newly expanded "Committee" are the best you can do, you might as well give up now.
MYROH!
Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sydney? said...
Nothing is going to happen unless Nifong asks for his license back after 5 years, and he has said that he will not do that.
He told the governor he wouldn't seek the DA position either, I'm sure he will ask for his license back.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You have made such an issue of the Lacrosse team's past record.
Did you notice jackie wagstaff's record whrn you admitted her as a member of your justice4nigong gangsters?
I bet you will duck this question.
In the wods of silly chicken killy:
"QUACK QUACK QUACK"
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"The report did not make it clear that the lab found DNA of unknown men — from cells, not sperm — on the accuser’s body. There was a vague reference to the lab having “DNA profiles from non-probative reference samples.” Defense attorneys did not get that information for months.(http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/graham-32475-dismisses-bodycopy.html)"
This is from the report of the dismissal of Brian Meehan's lawsuit.
North Carolina law regarding non testimonial orders is clear and unequivocal. The subjects are to receive the REPORT of the results as soon as the DA had it. That DA not matching the Lacrosse players was the direct result of nifong's NTO.
Even if it were not exculpatory, the Defense was entitled by law to have the report. I say again the REPORT, not the raw data.
How can you argue that nifong was not required by law to turn over that REPORT to the Defendants?
That is another question I think you intend to duck.
QUACK QUACK QUACK
Dr. Harr
As a gesture of good will I'm going to share with you a little confidential insider information from within the ranks of the Carpetbagger Jihad. It was NOT, as you suppose, Rae Evans that recruited so many of us to the cause...nor Joe Cheshire...nor any of your usual suspects.
No, it was that Ayatollah of the Airwaves, that Mullah of the MSM, the disgraced and disbarred Micheal Nifong...who relentlessly pursued us to engage in this Durham spectacle. Many of us had little interest in Duke, Durham, or Lacrosse, but every morning there was Nifong proselytizing from some media minaret about this "crime" on the morning news shows; or preaching to us on radio programs as we drove in our cars to work; or choking himself on the evening shows'as we tried to relax from our day.
Over and over, Nifong inserted this case into our Carpetbagger lives, beseeching us with his "million dollars worth of free publicity" to join HIS Carpetbagger Jihad against
Duke Lacrosse team.
Dr. Harr, I can identify with one of Ms. Mangum's many fantasies...because that Spring , whenever I started to loose interest ...there was Nifong ...in some manifestation...blocking the door...saying essentially "Honey, you can't leave."
So I stayed. And others stayed. And as the truth continues to emerge, we remain engaged.
So, FYI...if you have a problem with our presence, you must address your issues with the High Priest of the Hoax, the Global Recruiter for the Carpetbagger Jihad...the disgraced, disbarred Mullah Nifong himself.
HE came to US.
To Anonymous:
Names and photos of members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong are depicted on the opening page of our website. There are additional members who have yet to be posted because a photo has not yet been acquired.
Unlike you, who use an anonymous name, we have the courage to back up our convictions by using our names and faces. This does require courage when supporting a position and individual who are targeted by wealthy and powerful citizens, the state, and the media.
Dr. Hill:
Are you planning to respond to gisenghill?
Sidney Sidney Sidney.... you said:
To Anonymous:
Names and photos of members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong are depicted on the opening page of our website. There are additional members who have yet to be posted because a photo has not yet been acquired.
Unlike you, who use an anonymous name, we have the courage to back up our convictions by using our names and faces. This does require courage when supporting a position and individual who are targeted by wealthy and powerful citizens, the state, and the media.
THis asinine post merely proves my point! You and your are just abunch of retards using the last resort of the bigoted AA .. play the victim card.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Here is another hypothetical situation for you.
A woman is raped. She identifies you as her attacker. You are charged with the crime.
Later another man confesses to the rape. His DNA is recovered from the victim.
What should the prosecutor do? Should he dismiss the charges? Or, should he continue to prosecute you because the confession and the DNA did not prove you did not do the crime? Explain your answer, if you have the nerve to do so.
If the prosecutor does dismiss the charges, then what should he say about your status. Should he say he believes you are innocent? Should he say your guilt or non-guilt is moot? Should he say no one can believe your innocence?
QUACK QUACK QUACK
More questions you will DUCK.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You haven't got the courage to address the obvious flaws in your beliefs. Your response is always something like, this is a jedi mind trick, the biased media does not report the truth, there is a carpet bagger jihad which prevents nifong from being treated fairly.
You offer no evidence to support your position.
You tell lies, like cgm identified her assailants with 90%-100% certainty, nifong did not withhold exculpatory evidence, nifong did not make improper, inflammatory guilt producing statements.
Then you portray nifong's neglect of his complaining witness as an example of nifong's "integrity".
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
During the Duke phony rape case, most prosecutors in North Carolina were calling for nifong to drop the case, or to at least recuse himself.
Even prosecutors in North Carolina, of whom you are so critical, recognized that nifong's prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused
Lacrosse players was the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in North Carolina history.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The families of the Duke Lacrosse players said, before nifong's ethics trial, that they hoped he would receive a fair trial. What a vicious expression of the carpet bagger jihad!
You are critical of Mrs. Rae Evans' statement on 60 Minutes. How does that one statement compare with nifong's hours and hours of media coverage, his million dollars of free publicity, in which he presumed the falsely accused innocent Lacrosse players guilty and attempted to undermined their Constitutional rights as defendants.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
How has your justice4nifong band of gangsters advanced the cause of justice when you have declared, without evidence, of three innocent, falsely accused men guilty, when you argue the grossest act of prosecutorial misconduct in NC history never happened, that it was an example of a prosecutor acting within acceptable standards?
Is it acceptable behavior for a prosecutor in a rape case to igfnore the complaining witness for 9months?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Since when have you ever engaged in debate. A number of examples have been presented of the flaws in your position, a number of examples have been presented of nifong's failures as a prosecutor in the phony Duke rape case. You do not address them. You have ducked them.
You have insisted that the DNA evidence in the case was not exculpatory.You have presented no plausible explanation why.
You don't debate the issues. You DUCK them.
QYACK QUACK QUACK
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Give us numbers as to how many people wholeheartedly agree with you. Have you ever takn a poll. If so many people wholeheartedly agree with you, how come sales of cgm's book are so anemic? How come so many people voted to re elect Roy Cooper? Can you name any prominent people who have endorsed your position?
Nothing you say or do shows that many people support you.
more uncivility for crazy etc.sidney:
Most of what is available on your web site is just justice4nifong band of gangster propoganda. Whatever is on the web site that promises substantive information, e.g. documents, profiles of members, links, just isn't there.
Your web site is another example of how you duck the real issues in the phony Duke rape case, like why did nifong prosecute three innocent, falsely accused men without probable cause, why did nifong try to convict them in the media before the case went to trial(not that it should have gone to trial), why did nifong abandon any semblance of ethical behavior just to win an election.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
How many people have turned you down when invited to join your justice4nifong band of gangsters?
I believe for every member you have, hundreds of people have declined membership.
To JSwift:
Regarding your response to the $1,000 question there are a couple of points I would like to make. First, I am not able to reply to every answer submitted. Specifically, with regards to your answer, I make the following comments to your statements.
JSwift: "Mr. Nifong and other Durham defendants took advantage of a young woman with serious problems and used her."
My Reply: The basic premise is false and unsubstantiated... and who are the "other Durham defendants"..?
JSwift: "They never prepared Ms. Magnum for what she would experience. They knew that she would be savaged in the media.."
My Reply: How do you know that Ms. Mangum was not prepared? An unsubstantiated claim. Am I supposed to just take your word? With regards to her being savaged in the media, I agree with you that media types often act irresponsibly and brutally by attacking people, even those who may be victims of a crime.
JSwift: "Mr. Nifong and the DPD didn’t care what happened to Ms. Mangum."
My Reply: How did you come to that conclusion? Again, another unsubstantiated statement.
JSwift: "There was never a bona fide investigation."
My Reply: Of course there was an investigation, which was led by Investigators Mark Gottlieb and Benjamin Himan. And is it your contention that if a "bona fide" investigation is not conducted, then the District Attorney is guilty of abuse against the complaintant? If that is the case, then Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford is guilty of abusing murder victim Jacquetta Thomas and her family. Ford is the Rush-to-Judgment prosecutor who charged Greg Taylor with murder within 12 hours of the murder victim being found, and his investigation consisted of finding two snitches who would implicate Greg Thomas for a murder he did not commit.
JSwift: "He (Nifong) treated her allegations as if they were irrelevant."
My Reply: To the contrary, Mr. Nifong gave serious consideration to her allegations. Otherwise, he would not have brought charges in the case.
JSwift: "Ms. Mangum was simply a pawn."
My Reply: A pawn of whom? Ms. Mangum was an alleged victim of a crime, and Mr. Nifong acted as a prosecutor seeking to see that justice prevailed.
JSwift, I hope that the above clarifies to your satisfaction why I feel that your response about how Mr. Nifong abused Ms. Mangum more than other men in her life fails dismally to warrant consideration for the thousand dollar prize.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Regarding this "carpetbagger jihad", of which you yourself have admitted you have no proof, answer this question. Did any individual from the families of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players ever make public, guilt declaring statements about nifong before the ethics trial? For examples of public, guilt presuming statements, read what nifong said about the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players before he had anyone indicted or charged.
Did any member of those families ever confront nifong the way viv(ious)toria peterson confronted Colin Finnerty's Mother at the ethice hearing?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"How do you know that Ms. Mangum was not prepared?"
For nine months nifong ignored cgm, his complaining witness. How does nine months of neglecting cgm prepare her to testify in a trial? nifong sure did not prepare brian meehan to testify.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"JSwift: "Mr. Nifong and the DPD didn’t care what happened to Ms. Mangum."
My Reply: How did you come to that conclusion?"
How do you come to the conclusion that nifong and the DPD did care for cgm when nifong, who had taken charge of the investigation, ignored cgm for nine months.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"JSwift: "He ([n]ifong) treated her allegations as if they were irrelevant."
My Reply: To the contrary, Mr. Nifong gave serious consideration to her allegations. Otherwise, he would not have brought charges in the case."
I agree with you that nifong gave serious consideration to cgm's alegations, even though they were false, and brought charges. His serious consideration was, how could this case get him popular with durham's black voters and help him win this election which he was so badly losing. Because that was the "serious consideration" nifong brought charges without probable cause to do so and committed prosecutorial abuse.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"JSwift: "Ms. Mangum was simply a pawn."
My Reply: A pawn of whom? Ms. Mangum was an alleged victim of a crime, and Mr. Nifong acted as a prosecutor seeking to see that justice prevailed."
While cgm did allege a crime, her allegations were not credible, there was no evidence to show a crime had been committed, there was no evidence to connect any of those named suspects to the alleged crime, there were no witnesses to corroborate cgm's allegations of a crime, cgm was not able to reliably id any Lacrosse player as an assailant. The evidence nifong had clearly exonerated the Lacrosse players. Yet nifong made a serious, rather vicious attempt to convict them. Much of that effort to convict he made in the media.
So how was he pursuing justice in pursuing a case in which no probable cause existed?
more uncivility for craxy etc. sidney:
One thing more bout a bona fide investigation:
How does a principal investigator conduct a bona fide investigation when he has a defense alibi witness arrested and threatened with being charged with a crime if he does not chanfge his story?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"JSwift: "There was never a bona fide investigation."
My Reply: Of course there was an investigation, which was led by Investigators Mark Gottlieb and Benjamin Himan. And is it your contention that if a "bona fide" investigation is not conducted, then the District Attorney is guilty of abuse against the complaintant?"
Do you call it a bona fide investigation when the lead investigator, nifong(who did control the investigation), obtained exculpatory evidnce and then tried to exclude it?
Do you call it a bona fide investigation when the principal investigator, nifong, can not establish a connection between suspects and alleged victim, then orders a rigged, improper procedure to manufacture a connection?
Do you call it a bona fide investigation when the principal investigator simply accepts the alleged victim's id of her alleged assailants when the principal investigator had significant reason to question those id's?
Do you call it a bona fide investigation when the principal investigator proceeds without probable cause?
And yes it is an abuse of the complaining witness, even though she was bearing false witness, to ignore her for nine months.
March 22, 2010 8:01 AM
Edited March 22. 2010 8:20 AM to correct typos
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"and who are the "other Durham defendants"..?"
How about the city of durham, the durham police department, people like linwood wilson, mark gottlieb, tara levicy, who enabled nifong in his totally meritless prosecution of three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse Players. These have been named defendants in the various lawsuits filed in the wake of nifong's meritless prosecution.
March 22, 2010 7:46 AM
edited March 22, 2010 8:23 AM to correct typos
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"JSwift, I hope that the above clarifies to your satisfaction why I feel that your response about how Mr. Nifong abused Ms. Mangum more than other men in her life fails dismally to warrant consideration for the thousand dollar prize."
Maybe you should read my comments to see why you fail so dismally in establishing any credibility for your self, except as someone who hates innocent, falsely accused caucasians
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
If nifong was truly concerned, why did he make public statements which he knew were false, like the choke hold which never happened, like his claim to have read the medical record before it had been transcribed and printed?
March 22, 2010 8:30 AM
Edited March 22, 2010 9:07 AM to correct typos
I rarely check out the "justice4nifong" website, preferring to read Dr. Harr's blog entries instead. Since he posted this, I thought it would be appropriate to take a look. While there, I came across the "Super-Duper Cooper" cartoons. Imagine my surprise, when I came across this dialog in one of Sid's cartoons -- It's Roy Cooper discussing Sid Harr with one of the "triumvirate of barristers". The conversation goes like this:
Roy Cooper: "The other is a guy named Sid Harr...Reliable sources suggest he is severely retarded!"
Barrister: "Retardation...Hmm...That would definitely explain his support for Nifong!"
Here's the link:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/sdc/
dcei/sdc005.htm
Kudos to Sid for recognizing that there is some humor in his position -- Although I question his use of the word "retarded"....
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"Prosecutor David Hoke had no credible evidence against Alan Gell. Hoke withheld exculpatory evidence from Gell's attorneys..."
Prosecutor nifong had, by his own admission, no credible evidence against the Duke Lacrosse Players. nifong, like hoke, withheld exculpatory evidence from the Defence.
How can you say hoke's conduct was more egregious than nifong's? You say that Gell spent 17 years in prison. nifong only attempted to put away three innocent, falsely accused men each for 30 years.
If that makes his conduct less egregious, it is because, I say again, the North Carolina State Bar and the Attorney General intervened to prevent him from doing so. His conduct, if it was less egregious, was not due to any of his own efforts to make it so.
What is improper about preventing a DA from wrongfully convicting innocent, falsely accused men?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"The Duke Lacrosse defendants are not "innocent" as you continue to falsely claim."
If you say it is a false claim that the Lacrosse players are innocent, then you are saying they are guilty.
Show us any evidence that proves them guilty. It is not enough to say the evidence does not rule out guilt. For there to be guilt, there has to be proof of guilt. If there is no proof, then the Lacrosse defendants are truly innocent, regardless of what you proclaim. If you proclaim guilt when you have no proof of guilt, then you are falsely proclaiming guilt.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What specific errors did the North Carolina State Bar make when it found nifong guilty of ethics violations.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"However, the same cannot be said about statements made from some of the blog's commenters."
You have allowed the one I have referred to as injustice58 to make rather vicious racist comments on your blog directed at the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players. Is that person an example of a contributor who makes racist coments?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"Because you may not agree with my answers does not mean that I did not answer the questions you presented."
Maybe not. But your answers are erroneous and you can not defend them against the flaws which have been pointed out, like the flawed, unduly suggestive lineup procedure which produced cgm's eye witness id's of her assailants, or the fact that the id's were in themselves flawed. I say again, two of the men she identified were not at the scene of the alleged crime when the crime allegedly happened. The third assailant, according to cgm, sported a mustache but she id'd a man who was clean shaven at the time of the alleged crime. Do you really think this kind of id is enought to prosecute?
To DeHall:
My Comic strip, "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper," is a light hearted and non-malicious comic strip which is meant to educate people about the justice system in the State of North Carolina. I enjoy poking fun at myself... I do so in Episode III, and I also poke fun at myself in Episode V (which is currently under production). You see, I can not only dish it out, but I can take it, as well.
Episode V will be 17 parts long (longer than all previous episodes combined), and it will be very informative and entertaining. It's still months away from completion.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Your vendetta against the innocent falsely accused Duke Lacrosse Players is anything but light hearted and non malicious.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
This comes from Durham in Wonderland, but substitute sidney harr for meehan and it would describe your attitude towards the word "exculpatory":
"Bannon concluded by asking Meehan whether the lab head understood the definition of “exculpatory.” It quickly emerged that Meehan seemed to believe that he wasn’t obligated to follow the law. Instead, he would make up whatever definition of “exculpatory” he found convenient, and produce a report that reflected his personal definition."
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney
Why should your concept of exculpatory be taken seriously. Your concept regarding the DNA evidence was, it did not rule out a crime, did not exonerate the defendants.
How does that fit with the prosecutor's burden to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let me explain.
In a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He nmust prove the crime occurred. He must prove the accused did it. The accused are under no obligation to prove anything. There is no obligation on the pat of any defendant to exonerate himself.
I repeat. You judge the DNA testing results non exculpatory because "...just because no DNA was obtained from the victim which matched the Duke lacrosse players does not mean that a sexual assault by the partygoers did not take place. The DNA is definitely not exculpatory in this case."
How is this compatible with the Prosecutor's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? That a crime might have happened is hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I repeat, combined with cgm's description of the alleged crime, that "no DNA was obtained from the victim which matched the Duke lacrosse players" creates significant doubt whether the alleged crime did happen, let alone that it had been perpetrated by any member of the Duke Lacrosse team. The finding of males, non Lacrosse players, validates the testing, if nothing else.
You got it wrong by a large margin. The DNA evidence was exculpatory.
March 24, 2010 6:47 AM
edited Mar 24, 2010 6:50 AM to correct a typo
@ unbekannte "You have allowed the one I have referred to as injustice58 to make rather vicious racist comments "
Hey you cracka ass cracka! Lyin liars and the lies they tell!
Im one fine black nubian love queen! Check it out!
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
cgm described a crime in which the perpetrators would have left behind blood, semen, saliva, DNA. Testing revealed nothing had been left behind except DNA which did not match the DNA of any Duke Lacrosse player.
Therefore, that testing did rule out the kind of crime cgm described. It did rule out any sexual assault on cgm committed by any Duke Lacrosse Player.
How can you say it was not exculpatory?
injustice 58:
If that is you, where have you been saccharine?
Check you out? I'm not suicidal
March 24, 2010 12:26 PM
edited March 24, 2010 to correct typo
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
This also comes from Durham in Wonderland:
"It’s worth remembering that the Open Discovery Law was supposed to avoid this very debate: prosecutors in North Carolina do not have the right to decide whether evidence might or might not be exculpatory: they must turn over all evidence in their file to the defense. Nifong and Meehan apparently conspired to get around the law’s requirements by producing a report that wouldn’t reveal key exculpatory evidence, and hope that the defense wouldn’t ask for the underlying data.'
If prosecutors in North Carolina do not have the right to decide whether or not evidence is exculpatory, what gives you, a layman with no standing in the case, the right to do so?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
This is another quote taken from Durham in Wonderland. It is, in turn, a quote from the hearing on Deceember 6, 2006, in which Brad Bannon questioned brian meehan on what DNSI turned up in its exam of the rape kit:
"Seligmann attorney Jim Cooney: “Was the exclusion of material the result of a specific agreement between you and representatives of the state of North Carolina?”
DNA Security director Brian Meehan: Yes. "
Do you still say that nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense?
This site is Amazing. Anyone who followed the case or read the book, Until Proven Innocent has to realize that Nifong is a chunk of Human Waste. Justice for Mike Nifong would be to have him spend the rest of his life in Prison being sodomized by some of the people he surely railroaded into prison. Because make no mistake about it the Duke students survived only because their parents could afford competent counsel. From his early days as a Draft Dodger during the Vietnam War, to his Cowardly actions as Prosecutor; Nifong is a disgrace to our System of Justice.
Post a Comment