If you enjoy comedy, especially the kind in which its humor is derived from the contrast of its content with reality, then you won’t want to miss the upcoming TV-cinematic fare offered by HBO about the Duke Lacrosse case. Although I am sure it is going to be marketed as an objective docu-drama about the Duke Lacrosse case, I cannot help but believe that it will be nothing more than just another thinly veiled volley from the carpetbagger jihad against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.
I admire HBO for accepting the inherent challenge of trying to present the beer guzzling, publicly intoxicated, public urinating, spoiled and privileged Duke student athlete partygoers as decent and respectable innocents who are targeted by a ruthless and conniving district attorney for the sole purpose of wooing the black vote as a surefire means of retaining his D.A. position in the May 2006 primary. The entire premise is total folly itself, and actually lends itself as fodder for a hilarious comedy… the only problem is is that this movie is supposed to be taken seriously.
Now I have not read the screenplay, but I believe that the producer’s intention is to sympathetically portray the members of the Duke Lacrosse team in a favorable light by omitting the fact that nearly a third of the 47 lacrosse team roster had had skirmishes with the law (including an assault charge against Duke Lacrosse defendant Collin Finnerty, and an alcohol related charge against Duke Lacrosse defendant and team captain Dave Evans). I would imagine that the made for HBO-TV movie is supposed to tug at its viewers’ heartstrings because of the travails and trauma suffered by the three defendants and their families (although not one of the defendants spent a day in jail and they each received $7 million in an out-of-court settlement with Duke University). Also, remember to disregard reality as the movie will undoubtedly present North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” as a watershed moment that cements the innocence of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. (Since that day, the media has knowingly embraced that declaration – which they knew to have no legal weight – as a basis upon which to use descriptive terms such as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” and “exonerated” to describe the Duke defendants.)
It is important for the potential viewer of this future movie to enjoy it for its comedic offerings, and not to try and extract anything deep, significant or meaningful from it. Keep in mind that in a range of artistic offerings it is much closer to a Hardy Boys mystery than a time weathered classic such as Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables.”
Instead of wasting its money to buy the rights for the pitiful story of the Duke Lacrosse boys attending a stripper party and its aftermath, HBO should have waited for a story with real merit to come along. It would not have had to wait long, as a tragic story with a Hollywood ending recently unfolded when Gregory Flint Taylor was released from jail… a free man. After spending 17 years wrongfully imprisoned for a murder he did not commit, all that remains, at this time, is a pardon from North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue. Odds are highly in Greg Taylor’s favor that it will come sooner rather than later.
What would make the Greg Taylor story such an inspirational tear-jerker, is that it is about a man of convictions and moral fortitude who would rather face a lifetime in prison than falsely implicate an African American man who he knew was innocent of a murder. It is about a kind and good natured man with a kind heart and good soul, but with personal demons tied to an addiction to drugs and alcohol. It is a redemptive story of a man, who during his 17 year incarceration in one of the most highly improbable places, prevails over his addiction to crack and beer, and betters himself by taking advantage of the educational opportunities available inside the correctional facilities. It is a story of a loving family that is unified and galvanized to fight and leave no stone unturned in order to free its innocent kin. It is the story of an innovative program, the brainchild of former Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake, that helps many wrongly accused, who are otherwise without hope, get another chance at a justice denied. It is the story about a state’s selective justice system based on Class and Color, and the attempts by two of its prosecutors to keep a man they knew to be innocent confined for the rest of his life. It is the story of a man who took the horrendous hand fate dealt him, and with the help of his family and friends, and religious faith endured.
It is anyone’s guess as to why HBO would want to glorify accused members of the raucous Duke Lacrosse team with its well-earned and deplorable reputation, and highlight the vindictive carpetbagger jihad call for action against Mike Nifong by Rae Evans (mother of Duke defendant Dave Evans).
Rae Evans, whose son did not spend one day in jail, received $7 million in a settlement with Duke University, and is currently trying to appropriate another $10 million from the cash-strapped city of Durham, stated that Mr. Nifong picked on the “wrong” families… and that “he will pay, every day, for the rest of his life.” Contrast this statement with Gregory Taylor who lost 17 years of his life after being convicted (without credible evidence) for a murder he did not commit, who wisely commented shortly after his release that there were times when he wished he could be more angry, but that “it is not a sustainable emotion.” Anger is not a sustainable emotion in a person with a kind heart and a good soul.
My advice to HBO executives is if they wish to have a feel-good and positive impact on viewers, that they select stories that offer substance, hope, and inspiration. The Gregory Taylor story fits the bill, and is as close to a non-fiction “Les Miserable” as you can get.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Colin Finnerrty's legal troubles in Georgetown turned into a conviction because of nifong. He had to remain clear of legal trouble for 6 months in order to have his record clean. Then nifong arranged for him to be falsely charged with and indicted for rape.
David Evans had an alcohol related charge on his record. Many college students have had this happen. Was it comparable to cgm's history of drug abuse. Hardly.
Speaking of cgm, she has on her record charges stemming from her theft of a cab, leading police officers on a high speed chase, attempting to run down a police officer.
At the time of his arrest, Atwater had convictions on his record for felony breaking and entering, larceny, possession of a firearm by a felon, and probation violation.
Lovette had been convicted of misdemeanors, breaking and entering, larceny, things more serious than an unspecified alcohol related charge.
You did not report on cgm's record, which was more serious than either Colin Finnerty's of Dave Evans". You did not mention Atwater's criminal record, or Lovette's criminal record on your recent post about them.
Talk about biased reporting.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Whatever legal problems Lacrosse team members had with the law pre Duke Rape case, they had no relevance to the Duke rape case. The Coleman report, commissioned by the modified namesake of Brod Dickhead showed the allegations against the Lacrosse team were exaggerated. Further, none of them had criminal records as serious as Atwater's, Lovette's or cgm's. Compared to those three individuals you lionize, they were decent and respectable.
You call it material for comedy. I bet neither cgm nor nifong will be laughing at it. If I ever get a chance to see it, I am sure it will leave me rotf and lol. I will be lol at nifong, because I bet he now wishes he had dismissed the case. I will be lol at you because millions of people will see what a liar you are.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
One group of men who showed integrity and courage in the Duke case was the Lacrosse team. In spite of being threatened with criminal charges, team members refused to falsely incriminate their teammates.
Sid -- The movie is based on Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson's "Until Proven Innocent".
If they'd wanted to make a comedy, they would've chosen "last Dance for Grace" instead
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
A pre primary poll showed nifong losing to Freda Black by 17 percentage points. He was receiving no campaign contributions. How does that show nifong had any chance of winning the primary election?
nifong won the primary by less than 900 votes. Analyzing the result using your measurements, showing that only 34% of the voters were black, and factoring in the effect of Keith Bishop, nifong took 46% of the white vote. Not including Keith Bishop, of the voters who voted for either nifong or Freda Bishop, nifong got 47.9% of them. How does this show nifong lost support by his prosecuting the Duke case?
How does the pre primary poll show nifong had any appreciable support from the black electorate. In the election nifong received 44% of the black vote. What caused the surge in black support(side bar, so to speak: wicked wendy murphy pointed out that nifong received less than half of the black vote, but she did not think it significant he was elected with less than half of the overall vote)
crazy sidney, I say again, of all the lies you have tried to promulgate, this is the stupidest. It is so transparently obvious from history this is a lie.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
I ask again, what relevance do other cases have to nifong's rather gross and obvious misconduct.
So what if the innocent Lacrosse players spent no time in prison. Why don't you consider an issue you have raised in your blog - why should innocent, falsely accused people have to spend time in prison.
nifong should be grateful that AG Cooper blocked his attempt to convict three innocent, falsely accused men of a non existent crime. If not for AG Cooper, nifong's misconduct would be a lot fouler than it already is.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why shouldn't the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players receive compensation from Duke, which actively cooperated with nifong in his attempt to frame and imprison them.
Why shouldn't Durham be held accountable for trying to frame three innocent, falsely accused men?
The cash strapped city of Durham could have spared itself all this expense by following correct legal procedure, by not allowing a rogue prosecutor to take over a police operation, by not holding the improper tainted lineup, by not allowing mark gottlieb, with his known hostitlty to Duke students, to involve himself in the investigation.
nifong could have spared himself the distinction of being the only prosecutor in North Carolina history to be disbarred, a distinction he labored mightily to deserve. All nifong had to do was dismiss a case in which there was no probable cause to proceed.
one more piece of uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Show us evidence that cgm was raped and show us evidence that members of the Duke Lacrosse team were the perpetrators.
To say the evidence is in the file and is sealed is a non answer, a cop out. You, by your own admission, do not know what is in the file, so how can you claim there is inculpatory evidence.
The only occasion in which nifong ever tried to present inculpatory evidence was the Grand Jury, which was a closed procedure of which no records were kept. At the time of the Grand Jury, a lot of evidence which exonerated the Lacrosse players was public. So, why did it not raise questions as to what nifong had presented to the Grand Jury?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Once again I point out to you that AG Roy Cooper did not issue any proclamation of innocence. None so blind as they who will not see, none so deaf as they who will not hear.
AG Cooper and his investigators reviewed the evidence and dismissed the charges. Cooper announced to the public that he and his investigators had concluded the Lacrosse players were innocent. You, on the other hand, by your own admission, have not reviewed the evidence and have concluded the Lacrosse players were guilty. You may not have directly said, they are guilty. But the passages you post in your blog scream your belief.
Why should the media believe someone who has not reviewed the evidence but who condemns the evidence as a "carpet bagger conspiracy"? Why should any one believe you after you have admitted you have no evidence of a "carpet bagger conspiracy"?
Why shouldn't the media, based on the AG's expression of his belief in the accused's innocence not conclude that they were innocent?
There was no evidence of a crime in the first place. I have repeatedly asked you to present evidence of a crime. You have not. Why should the media then not believe that the Lacrosse players were falsely accused. For them to be correctly accused, there had to be a crime, there had to be evidence linking them to the crime. There was evidence of neither.
Maybe you can use your powers of logic and common sense to explain why the media should not consider the Lacrosse players falsely accused.
March 8, 2010 8:10 AM
Edited March 8, 2010 8:50 PM for clarity
for Anonymous at March 8, 2010 8:33 AM:
Good one. I wish I had thought of that.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
No one is buying cgm's book. It has not been rated as highly as "A rush to Injustice", "It's not About the Truth", or "Until Proven Innocent". Think about what that means about support for you and your malignant cause. Do you really think you can intimidate the State Bar to restore nifong's license.
Considering your posts on the nifong election in May of 2006, maybe you do believe you have a lot of support. No one can help an individual who repeatedly wallows in delusion.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
I should have said, no one can help an individual who repeatedly wallows in SELF delusion.
That is especially true for you because your self delusion is generated by your racist vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
When thinking about courage and integrity, let us not forget the falsely accused Lacrosse players and their families. They faced off against a rogue prosecutor who determined to use the power of his office and the power of the state to falsely charge and then convict their innocent sons and won. Now this corrupt rogue prosecutor faces further retribution and he is scurrying around desperately trying to have to account for what he did.
If nifong did nothing wrong, why is he so reluctant to defend himself and show his innocence?
Why do you consider it a "carpet bagger conspiracy" for families to be outraged about their sons being falsely accused for a heinous but nevertheless non existent crime?
March 8, 2010 8:15 AM
Edidted March , 2010 9:03 PM for clarity.
I am curious... Has Nifong ever asked you to remove this website? It would appear to me that this could only be an embarressment for him? I am just wondering if the man you so poorly attempt to defend is dismayed by your attempts? As soon as you put something in writing and post it on the internet you can't take it back... Please stop making yourself sound so utterly racist and stupid. If you truly were looking out for Mr. Nifong, you would let him disappear into obscurity quietly.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Most people not only in North Carolina but the entire natioin applaud HBO's choice of subject for a drama.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You are trying to portray convicted criminals as unfairly prosecuted.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The criminals for whom you advocate are Atwater nd Lovette. Both had criminal records before they were arrested and charged with the murder of Eve Carson.
more uncivility for crazy etc.
Indeed "Anger is not a sustainable emotion in a person with a kind heart and a good soul."
So explain why you are so angry over the exoneration of three innocent men falsely accused of rape, why you are so angry that a corrupt, unethical prosecutor got called to account.
Think about what your anger says about your soul.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You are trying to portray the most corrupt prosecutor in North Carolina history as a true minister of justice.
Even from the cgm viewpoint, nifong was hardly out for justice. Why would a true minister of justice, while prosecuting a rape case, ignore the purported victim?
What is in your soul, you who portrays nifong's de facto contempt for the purported victim as an example of his integrity?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Three innocent men are falsely accused of rape. A rogue prosecutor names them suspect. That same rogue prosecutor goes public to deny them their rights as suspects and convict them in the court of public opinion. He does it because he wants to win an election.
They are vilified in the media, attacked by racist groups, denied respect as students by their very own teachers, vilified, slandered.
You say they have been coddled and suffered no harm because the prosecutor failed to incriminate them, because Duke University settled with them rather than defend any lawsuit resulting from Duke's misconduct.
All these rantings of yours are just manifestations of the racially generated poison that is driving your heart.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Once again I ask you a question you are tremendously afraid to answer. What evidence is there to indicate guilt on the part of the Duke defendants.
What kind of cardiac poison is clouding your ability to think? Why should the public doubt the opinion of a man who extensively researched the evidence? Why should anyone believe you when you have never looked at the evidence?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Another question of which you seem to terribly fear:
Why is it not exculpatory in a rape case that the DNA from the victim does not match the DNA of the accused?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Another question you try to duck instead of answer(is that why silly killy kept quacking before he bugged out - he was ducking the truth of the situation?)
If nifong is a true minister of justice, why did he conceal exculpatory evidence from the defense, why did he try to exclude all exculpatory evidence from the case?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why would a true minister of justice respond to an alibi witness for the defense by arresting that witness.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why would a true minister of justice insist on an id procedure and then exclude from that procedure all the safeguards to insure the innocent are not falsely accused?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why should cgm have been considered a credible witness when her word vacillated between Yes I was raped and No I was not raped?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why do you recoil at the purported misbehavior of the Duke Lacrosse Team but ignore the rather significant criminal records of cgm, Atwater and Lovettez?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why was it inappropriate for the Attorney General to review the evidence and conclude the Lacrosse players were innocent?
Why is it appropriate for you to ignore the evidence of the case and then declare the Lacrosse players guilty?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidneh:
If the attorneys for Atwater and Lovette discover evidence that exonerates their clients, should their clients still go to trial to prove their innocence?
You seem to think that the Lacrosse Players should have gone to trial even though there was abundance of evidence which exonerated them.
Why the difference in your attitude towards people charged with a crime? Do we have some biased reporting here?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why is the city of Durham afraid to go to trial so it can exonerate itself?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Here's an oldie but a goodie: where is the evidence that a crime happened at Buchanan Avenue on the night of 13-14 March 2006.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let's ask this again. Why do you object that nifong was not able to wrongfully imprison three innocent, falsely accused men?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let's ask this once again, in different words: why would a true minister of justice try to imprison three innocent men.
The answer to that is already known. nifong wanted to curry favor with the black electorate by demonizing and prosecuting three innocent white men. He wanted to win the election to pad his retirement benefits.
Does a true minister of justice prosecute innocent men just to advance his own personal welfare. nifong did.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What kind of poison infests the soul of someone who promulgates lies about the Duke case?
What lies? well, cgm always maintained she had been raped, that cgm had id'd attackers with 90% to 100% certainty, that nifong did not attempt to try this case in the media, that nifong did not prosecute the case because he wanted to win an election, that nifong almost lost the election because he prosecuted the duke case, that nifong did not conceal exculpatory evidence from the Defense, that nifong did not lie to the court about the exculpatory evidence.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why was no Lacrosse player DNA ever found on cgm's person?
Syd, we've been over this and over this, but you keep repeating the same falsehoods: "Rae Evans, whose son did not spend one day in jail, received $7 million in a settlement with Duke University, and is currently trying to appropriate another $10 million from the cash-strapped city of Durham,...."
I call on you to stop repeating the same falsehoods. I will tell you and your readers one more time, Durham has sovereign immunity from the claims of David Evans and everyone else. The city's liability is limited to the extent it has purchased insurance. The whole point of the Evans suit is to establish an oversight board to prevent future miscarriages of justice where the DPD participates in the prosecution of suspects where there is no credible evidence.
I do want to think you though Syd for writing such obviously false statements. By doing so, you further diminish the already terrible reputation of Mike Nifong and you squander any credibility you might have in the process. Keep it up.
Walt-in-Durham
HBO, if it wants comedy, needs to look no further than serializing the blog "Justice 4 Nifong"! Have you heard of it Sydney?
Its about a mindless socialist who tries to write a blog about a disbarred and bankrupt former Durham DA. It's a laugh a minute!
You should read it some time, Sydney.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
I doubt you have read Until Proven Innocent, the excellent book by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson upon which the upcoming HBO film is based.
The evidence of nifong's wrongdoing is out there, but you dismiss it all as the product of a biased media controlled by the "carpet bagger jihad".
Your attitude is quite nifongian. You do not like the evidence, so ignore it and keep repeating lies.
Is this why you believe in a carpet bagger jihad - the public does not embrace your lies the way the Durham black public embraced the lies of nifong.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"...not one of the defendants [in the Duke case] spent a day in jail and they each received $7 million in an out-of-court settlement with Duke University..."
I find all this very gratifying. A corrupt, rogue prosecutor tried to take away 30 years or so from these three innocent, falsely accused men. He tried it because he wanted to win an election and pad his retirement benefits. And the Good Guys triumphed.
And crazy etc. sidney, who could be doing something constructive, like building a habitat house, spends his time carrying on a racially motivated vendetta against the innocent Lacrosse players because they blunted the attempts to wrongfully convict them.
Don't forget, the University who should have supported innocent, falsely accused students, supported the corrupt prosecutor.
To unbekannte, Walt, Anonymous, JSwift, and Brod Dickhead:
Tell me simply this... which makes a more compelling, interesting, heart-warming, feel-good, Hollywood-ending story? The Duke Lacrosse case or the Gregory Taylor story? (This is basically a rhetorical question as the obvious answer is "the Gregory Taylor story.") ..And that is the main point of the blog.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Boy did you get it wrong. The story of the courageous, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players standing up to and bringing down the most corrupt, unethical prosecutor in North Carolina history is obviously the more inspiring story, all rhetoric aside. Res ipsa loquitur.
I believe attorneys are advised not to ask a question of a witness unless they already know the answer. Better advice would be, don't ask a question of a witness when you know the answer will make you look bad.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why can you not show why any Duke Lacrosse player should have had to spend any time in prison? You have not shown any evidence of a crime, any evidence linking any Lacrosse player to the alleged victim.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The main point of your blog is that you are angry because nifong was unable to convict the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.
There is a high profile sexual assault case going on right now....Look at the statements from the Milledgeville police chief and compare/contrast them to the statements from the Durham PD. Also look at the statements coming from the DA in the case and compare/contrast them to the statements of Mike Nifong. After doing so, answer honestly, who is/was best serving justice? Who made/is making irresponsible comments to the press?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Just think of all the inspiring scenes in the upcoming movie of Until Proven Innocent:
Moez Elmostafa standing up to nifong's attempt to intimidate him.
David Evans addressing a group, declaring the rape charges were lies.
Brad Bannon getting brian meehan to dmit he and nifong conspired to withhold exculpatory evidence.
Mrs. Evans saying her family and the other families would stand up to nifong.
Maybe there would be a scene of nifong saying to Ben Himan "You know we're f----d".
Maybe there would be a little poetic license - scenes of wicked wendy and nancy disgrace decompensating when AG Roy Cooper announces, We believe these me are innocent.
I would like a scene in which houston baker snarls, grunts and paws the ground like a farm animal when he learns that the Lacrosse players had been exonerated. He said and did more, in my opinion, to act like a farm animal than did any Lacrosse Player
"Tell me simply this... which makes a more compelling, interesting, heart-warming, feel-good, Hollywood-ending story? The Duke Lacrosse case or the Gregory Taylor story?"
Syd, I have to say that seeing Nifong go to jail was definitely heart warming. For once, a lying cheating double dealing DA got caught and went to jail. It just does not get any better than that.
Now, if Willoughby and the SBI lab director get to star in a perp walk, I might just see some heart warming in the Greg Taylor story too. But, it's too soon to tell if that's going to happen. For me though, Nifong hearing the jail door slam shut was a good start. Too bad he didn't spend more time behind bars. He needs the rehabilitative services that only the DOC can provide during a lengthy incarceration.
Walt-in-Durham
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Now that would be a great scene, nifong doing the perp walk.
Thanks to Walt in Durham
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
If there is a scene of meehan's cross examination, I hope it shows nifong cringing when meehan makes his admission.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
nifong tried to put three innocent falsely accused men in prison, each for thirty years. What is decent or honorable about that? What did the three innocent men do to deserve that? Why should they have to go to prison just so nifong could get a bigger pension.
G?ive us a credible, logical answer.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What "beer guzzling, publicly intoxicated, public urinating, spoiled and privileged Duke student athlete partygoers" are you talking about?
Until Proven Innocent is about three innocent men falsely accused of rape by a woman with a past history of mental instability, drug use, promiscuity and criminal behavior and the corrupt, unethical prosecutor who, because he was desperate to win an ellection, tried to wrongfully convict them.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
"[E]ach [falsely accused Duke Lacrosse player] received $7 million in an out-of-court settlement with Duke University".
The innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players deserved more, like an apology from brod dickhead's namesake, a condemnation of the group of 88, and letters of reprimand for each of the 88ers.
nifong deserved millions of dollars from the case - millions of dollars in fines, millions of dollars in a judgment against him in the lawsuit he wants to duck.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What jihad? You yourself have admitted there is no evidence of any jihad.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Doing a movie based upon Until Proven Innocent is not a waste of money. A lot of people out there are interested to know how and why a corrupt, unethical prosecutor tried to convict three innocent falsely accused men of a non existent crime.
There aren't many people out there interested in knowing any more about false accuser cgm.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Once again I ask this. On what part of the law do you base your opinion that the Lacrosse players committed any crime? What part of the case leads you to conclude there was any wrongdoing in the case, except for the illegal, unethical behavior of corrupt prosecutor mifong?
unbekannte,
There are many other scenes to enjoy:
1. The 3/16 interview of Mangum. Himan and Gottlieb interview Mangum. Gottlieb shows Magnum how to “ambulate” as if in great pain. Mangum provides descriptions of short, fat attackers and several different versions of what happened. The group howls in laughter.
2. The scene in Nifong’s office. The defense lawyers offer him all of the information in their files. Nifong puts his hands over his ears, laughing and singing: “Na, na, na, na. I can’t hear you.”
3. Nifong’s conversation with Jackie Brown. Nifong describes his interviews as a “million dollars of free publicity.” Nifong chuckles as he explains why massive publicity in an unpopular case is so valuable.
4. The scene in the courthouse hallway. Nifong demonstrates his professionalism when he screams and curses at Kerry Sutton because she appeared at the press conference when defense attorneys released the negative SBI DNA results. Nifong laughs as his sycophants congratulate him for showing who is in charge.
5. The design of the 4/4 “identification” procedure. Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan discuss her 3/16 descriptions. The descriptions of short, fat “attackers” are a source of amusement once again. They discuss Mangum’s failure to identify her “attackers” in two prior procedures. Nifong laughs as he instructs Gottlieb: “don’t let her leave until she has picked three.” The movie includes coaching sessions beforehand.
6. The 4/4 “identification” procedure. Mangum identifies four of her three attackers. She identifies attendees who are found not to have been in Durham. She remembers players she didn’t recognize before. The session requires more than one “take” even with these errors. After she leaves, Gottlieb bangs his head against the wall in obvious frustration.
7. Mangum’s 4/6 written statement. Mangum provides her statement in which she alleges that one player “ejaculated in her mouth” and she “spit it out” without leaving any DNA. After she leaves, Gottlieb reads the statement aloud to Himan and other officers, and the group howls with laughter.
8. The 4/10 DNASI meeting. Meehan informs Nifong and the DPD that not only did the highly sensitive tests fail to find DNA from any players, but found DNA from several unidentified male sources. Based on Meehan’s 12/15 testimony, he and Nifong agree to exclude the unidentified DNA from the report. Meehan notes that the exclusion violates Company and industry standards, but the “client” knows best. Nifong tests several excuses (privacy, too busy, wasn’t listening) during the meeting, with the group advising on what sounds contrived. Meehan suggests the “non-probative” explanation, causing the group to erupt in laughter.
9. The 4/11 meeting with Mangum. Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan and Ripberger meet with Mangum. Mangum demonstrates “ambulation” techniques learned from Gottlieb. Although Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan learned the prior day there was male DNA from several unidentified men in Mangum and several specific accusations are demonstrably false, the meeting consists of jokes and casual chit-chat.
10. The night before the Finnerty/Seligmann indictments. Himan is told to testify before the grand jury and get indictments. "With what?" is his response. Lamb, Ripberger and Gottlieb instruct the neophyte in the Durham way: indictments with no evidence. The group cackles with delight as they tell him that he can say anything he wants because there is no record and no one to challenge him. They promise he will be in and out in a couple of minutes, with indictments in hand.
11. Gottlieb’s composition of his report. This provides many creative opportunities (much like the report itself). The movie casts Nifong as ghostwriter or editor for this report. Gottlieb “remembers” his activities from 2 to 3 months earlier in great detail without the benefit of contemporaneous notes. He magically fills gaps in an exploding case, much to the amusement of Nifong and Himan.
12. Mangum visualizes the attack she describes to the special prosecutors. She is “lifted up into the air” as she is raped and sodomized. Because this is a Carpetbagger Jihad® production, she visualizes levitating during the attack, making her look foolish.
The humor Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan display in many scenes shows how cavalier they were in executing a frame for crimes they knew never occurred. That the defendants faced up to 30 years in prison was unimportant to them.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
JSWift, EXCELLENT!!
Post a Comment