In an editorial by the News & Observer staff in the March 3, 2010 editorial page titled, “Testing the crime lab,” the newspaper and the Attorney General’s Office waltz around the issues of injustice for appearances sake. Not long ago the newspaper’s editorial chastised a state prosecutor for holding a man, Floyd Brown, for fourteen years without a trial. A judge later dismissed murder charges in this case in which a confession was cooked up by the prosecution. Problem is that the severely retarded defendant could not have possibly made the confession attributed to him. There was no physical evidence linking Mr. Brown to the crime, but he was poor, disenfranchised, and an African American. Nobody cared. However, the newspaper’s editorial pretended to be concerned by challenging the Attorney General’s Office to look into how the man could be held for 14 years without being taken to trial. Over the years, the Attorney General’s Office has not looked into the matter. The News & Observer has not pressed for a response.
With the exposure of the biased State forensic lab testing procedures which helped convict Gregory Taylor of a crime which he did not commit, the News & Observer is now calling for the Attorney General’s Office to investigate other cases in which convictions might have been won through faulty state lab procedures. Pitifully, the News & Observer is trying to reassure its readers that Attorney General Roy Cooper is conscientiously leading the charge in trying to uncover tainted convictions. As the paper puts it, “Fortunately, Attorney General Roy Cooper is facing up to the problem.” As in the Floyd Brown case, the newspaper pretends to be concerned about injustice created by the State’s lab procedures, and the A.G. is pretending to objectively review cases in search of convictions attained with faulty lab results.
The truth of the matter is that the prosecutors knew that the State’s lab was biased against the defendants long ago. Prosecutor Tom Ford and Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby were aware that the lab results used to help convict Gregory Taylor were flawed when they recently fought to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his life, despite a case that hinged completely on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and prostitute who received promises of reduced sentences in exchange for their testimony. The backroom deals that Tom Ford hatched with the “witnesses” were withheld from Taylor’s original incompetent attorneys.
Look at the facts in the Gregory Taylor case. D.A. Willoughby and Prosecutor Ford have knowledge that the blood evidence used to convict Taylor was not reliable, yet they fought against justice for Mr. Taylor. Willoughby, because he knew that he had no case, initially tried to indefinitely delay the hearing before the three judge panel which resulted from the Innocence Inquiry Commission. Is this the action of a true minister of justice? The Attorney General’s Office, in the meantime, was silent. However that is not surprising when one reflects on the Alan Gell case in which Prosecutor David Hoke withheld crucial exculpatory evidence from the defense in winning a capital murder conviction. When a new trial was ordered by a judge, the Attorney General’s Office chose to fight to keep Gell incarcerated. The jury, when armed with knowledge of the exculpatory evidence that proved that Gell could not have committed the murder, immediately found him not guilty.
The difference between Hoke, Ford and former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong is that when new evidence or testimony was presented to Mr. Nifong, he was a true minister of justice and acted accordingly. For example, when he heard that the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case could not say with absolute certainty that she had been raped, he immediately dismissed those charges. Tom Ford and David Hoke were unyielding in their positions despite the overwhelming logic against them. And whereas the media, in accordance with the carpetbagger jihad against Mike Nifong, has unfairly and wrongfully defined Mr. Nifong, it has gone out of its way to adhere to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy. Tom Ford’s name wasn’t even mentioned in the March 3, 2010 editorial.
What is most telling is what the editorial attributes Attorney General Roy Cooper as saying… which is that “the review (of the cases for flawed State lab reports resulting in convictions) will be conducted internally at the outset, but that an independent look might be warranted.” What is that supposed to mean? Basically, it means that the process will not have transparency and that the so-called review is undertaken for nothing more the sake of appearances. Everyone’s pretending, including the media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Once again you subject yourself to a self inflicted sith mind trick.
nifong was supposed to be prosecuting a rape case. nifong ignored the complaining witness, cgm, for 9 months. When he finally stopped ignoring her he learned something he should have learned much earlier, that he could not prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. His dismissal of the rape charges was not the act of a true minister of justice. At best, this was the act of a sloppy, negligent prosecutor. At worst, and time has shown this was the situation, this was the act of a corrupt prosecutor who was determined to convict three innocent Duke Lacrosse players of something regardless of evidence. He was so corrupt because he sold his political soul to the racist black Durham political leadership.
If you were knowledgeable about Star Wars you would know mind tricks work only on the weak minded. That does not say much for you seeing how susceptible you are to self inflicted sith mind tricks.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
We are back to the lineup which you consider so significant.
A properly conducted lineup contains fillers, does it not. Why? One reason is to insure the witness can truly identify the perpetrator. If the witness identifies a filler as a perpetrator, that challenges the witness as to credibility. It is a guard against the witness identifying someone wrongly as a perpetrator. It is a built in protection for the innocent.
Does a true minister of justice exclude from a lineup a protection of the innocent? Why did nifong exclude fillers from this lineup.
Provide us with a sensible, believable answer.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Did nifong have the state crime lab test the rape kit because, like other prosecutors, he knew the lab was prejudiced against defendants?
Provide a sensible, believable answer, if you please.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Did nifong request dnasi to examine the rape kit because he knew the crime lab was biaswd against the defendants? dnasi returned results which were favorable to anyone nifong intended to indict. The only male DNA they found from cgm's person did not match the DNA of any caucasian Lacrosse player.
If nifong was a true minister of justice, why did he withhold that information from the Defendants he had indicted and charged?
Let's have a believable, sensible answer, if you please.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Does a true minister of justice accept at face value a victim's identification of a perpetrator at a lineup? If so, why does a properly conducted lineup include known innocent fillers? Does that not imply a true minister of justice would verify a victim's id before proceeding against whoever was id'd.
Why would a true minister of justice proceed against anyone whose id could not be verified?
Let's have a believable, sensible answer, if you please.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The validity of the id's made by cgm could be challenged.
cgm claimed David Evans had a mustache when he allegedly raped her. Pictures obtained by the Durham Police Department soon after the alleged crime showed all the Lacrosse players to be clean shaven. Shouldn't a true minister of justice try to learn whether the person identified did at one time have a mustache? Did nifong ever try to determine if David Evans ever had a mustache? If not, why not? I say again, failure to do so would be the act of a sloppy incompetent prosecutor or a rogue prosecutor determined to indict and convict.
Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty had strong evidence they were not present at the alleged crime scene at the time of the alleged crime. Reade Seligman's attorneys tried to show nifong Mr. Seligman's evidence. Not only did nifong refuse to look at the evidence, he had one of Mr. Seligman's witnesses arrested. Further, nifong tried to intimidate Moez Elmostafa to withdraw his support for Mr. Seligman's alibi. Is this the act of a true minister of justice?
Let's have some believable, sensible answers, if you please.
more uncivility for crszy etc. sidney:
Nifong demonstrated for the video media a choke hold. He said that the perpetrators had held cgm in such a hold. That allegation was false.
Was that the act of a true minister of justice? Or, was that the act of a rogue prosecutor trying to inflame the public? If nifong was not trying to inflame the public, why did he falsely claim the incident had happened?
Let's have some believable, sensible answers, if you please.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
During his media appearances early in the case, nifong claimed to have read the medical report. The medical report noted in multiple places that condoms had not been used. Nifong made statements indicating he believed condoms had been used.
If he had failed to read the notations about condoms, he was a sloppy, incompetent prosecutor. If he had not read the medical report he was lying. Would a true minister of justice be sloppy and incompetent? Would a true minister of justice lie about such a thing?
Let's have some more believable sensible answers, if you please.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
How did nifong's handling of the results of the dnasi tests show transparency? nifong was required to deliver a REPORT of the test results as soon as he had them. He withheld part of the report, the part that the male DNA found from cgm did not match the DNA of any caucasian Duke Lacrosse player. He lied to the court about that. What he ultimately delivered to the Defense was more than 1000 pages of raw data. Why would a true minister of justice do that?
Let's have a sensible, believable answer, if you please
more uncivility for crazy etc, sidney:
Your statement, you will recall, is that when nifong interviewed cgm, he got new evidence,
Before that interview, what evidence was there? What evidence did nifong have that a rape had occurred or that implicated any member of the Duke Lacrosse team as a perpetrator.
So far, you cite cgm's allegation, which was not credible, You cite the results of an improperly conducted lineup which did not have certain safeguards in place to avoid accusation of the innocent and which did not produce any reliable identification of anyone.
Let's have some believable, sensible answers for a change instead of some attempted sith mind trick
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You say the state crime lab has been biased against defendants for a long period of time. So, give a sensible, believable explanation of this situation.
When cgm finally decided she had been raped, she described an attack in which multiple attackers, who were not wearing condoms, penetrated her and ejaculated upon her.
The state crime lab examination of the rape kit found no evidence of any material which should have been present after the attack.
Via the NTO, nifong named every caucasian Duke Lacrosse player a suspect. The results of the state crime lab were favorable to the suspects, were they not?
How does this show any anti defendant prejudice on the part of the crime lab?
March 4, 2010 8:41 AM
Edited March 4, 2010 to correct typo
I read this twice and still have no idea what you're trying to say.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let us again look at nifong's failure to interview cgm in a timely fashion, your claim that nifong discovered new evidence.
Memory experts will tell you memory gets worse with time. It could easily happen that over a period of 9 months a rape victim could no longer recall details of the attack(rape victim is not applicable to cgm).
A DA in a rape case who does not interview the victim for 9 months, creates the situation in which the victim no longer able to recall critical details of the attack. That DA has not discovered any new evidence. He has failed to obtain evidence. If he then dismisses the rape charge against the accused, he has, possibly, culpably, failed to convict a rapist.
crazy etc. sidney attempts to pull off a sith mind trick. He tries to dupe the readers into believing nifong's failure was the action of a true minister of justice. It would seem rather to be true prosecutorial misconduct directed at the alleged victim.
crazy sidney, you should ask yourself why your sith mind tricks affect no one but you.
more uncivility for crazy etc. nifong:
I say again, nifong was not presented with any new evidence regarding the Duke case in December of 2006. Rather, via his gross, sloppy negligence as a DA, he failed to obtain evidence from cgm.
Of course in a sense this is all moot. It is obvious from the case cgm was incapable of presenting credible evidence. It still does not excuse nifong for failing to interview her in a timely manner.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
After the state crime lab failed to turn up any evidence of rape, nifong proclaimed he would prosecute the case the old fashioned way, relying on the victim's word and the medical evidence.
In view of this, why did nifong not interview her early in the case? Ny waiting 9 months, wasn't he risking that her memory would fade, that what she could recall would in turn be challenged by Defense counsel?
What about the medical evidence? cgm could not recall vaginal penetration. Is it possible to prove vaginal penetration via the medical evidence?
nifong dismissed the rape charge when he learned cgm could not recall vaginal penetration. He did not resort to the medical evidence. Was that not a tacit admission by nifong that the medical record did not show evidence of rape? If so, why did nifong, before he interviewed cgm, say the medical record would prove rape?
Let's have some believable, sensible answers, if you please.
when new evidence or testimony was presented to Mr. Nifong, he was a true minister of justice and acted accordingly.
Smith asked for a dialogue and said the defense lawyers would open their files and share with Nifong all the evidence they had gathered. They hoped he would see that the charges were false.
Nifong put his hands over his ears, Smith said.
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:yhFsA8_w-qcJ:www.newsobserver.com/2007/04/15/71518/a-case-starts-to-unravel.html+nifong+hands+ears&cd=
9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
Nifong is indeed “a true minister of justice.”
unbekannte at 9:18am:
During his media appearances early in the case, nifong claimed to have read the medical report. The medical report noted in multiple places that condoms had not been used. Nifong made statements indicating he believed condoms had been used.
If he had failed to read the notations about condoms, he was a sloppy, incompetent prosecutor. If he had not read the medical report he was lying. Would a true minister of justice be sloppy and incompetent? Would a true minister of justice lie about such a thing?
The medical report had not yet been printed when Mr. Nifong made his first claims to have read the report.
I ask that your clarify your comment.
for J Swift:
I apologize for not pointing out in my comment that the medical record had not been present when nifong claimed to have read the record.
Syd, you continue to apply the double standard to everyone but Nifong. You wrote: "The difference between Hoke, Ford and former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong is that when new evidence or testimony was presented to Mr. Nifong, he was a true minister of justice and acted accordingly. For example, when he heard that the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case could not say with absolute certainty that she had been raped, he immediately dismissed those charges."
Nothing could be farther from being a minister of justice. First, a minister of justice is required to prosecute only cases that are supported by probable cause. When the DNASI report came back with no matches to any of the charged defendants, Nifong's probable cause evaporated. From that moment on he was required to dismiss. Rule 3.8(a). (I won't even go into how lazy he was for not even interviewing Crystal until months after the alleged events.)
Second, a minister of justice is prohibited by the code of professional responsibility from making extra-judicial statements that heighten the condemnation of the accused. Remember his 60+ media availabilities where he heaped scorn on innocent people? Rule 3.8(f).
Third, a minister of justice is required to make timely disclosure to the defense of all exculpatory evidence required by the constitution, statutes or court decisions. Remember Nifong concealing the DNASI report after the court ordered him to produce exculpatory evidence? Rule 3.8(d).
Fourth, all lawyers are required to be candid with the courts. They are not allowed to make false statements of material fact, such as Nifong's statement that he had nothing more from DNASI. Rule 3.3(a)(1).
And fifth, all lawyers are prohibited from obstructing opposing counsel's access to evidence, as Nifong did when he concealed the DNASI report and attempted to conceal the supporting record from defense counsel. Rule 3.4(a)(c) & (d).
All those rule violation, hardly make for a minister of justice. Rather, they add up to a multiple violator of the prosecutor's obligations. That is what Nifong will always be.
Walt-in-Durham
To Walt:
You're getting Mr. Nifong confused with Prosecutors Tom Ford and David Hoke, both of whom withheld evidence from the defense. Mr. Nifong, by October 27, 2006, had turned over all of the lab results to the defense attorneys. In all, he turned over nearly 5,000 pages of documents to the defense (three sets, one for each defendant's team). When Mr. Nifong stated that he had turned over all of the evidence, it was his belief that he had. (Not unlike Prosecutor Gregory Butler who believed that he had turned over all evidence to attorneys for Tiffany Bassett prior to learning that a file had not been turned over. This instance of inadvertently not turning over evidence is not an infrequent occurrence. Prosecutor Butler did not lie, and neither did Mr. Nifong.)
Tom Ford, on the other hand, made deals with a jailhouse snitch and a prostitute to reduce their sentence in exchange for a reduction in their prison sentences. This backroom deal was not divulged to the defense attorneys of Gregory Taylor who, as a result, was wrongly sentenced to life for a murder he did not commit... 17 years of which he served.
David Hoke withheld 17 eyewitness statements from the defense attorneys of Alan Gell... statements which proved that Mr. Gell could not have committed the murder for which he was charged. He was sentenced to death, and wrongly served a decade behind bars because of evidence withheld by Hoke.
I repeat, Mr. Nifong did not withhold anything from the defense. Ford and Hoke did.
FACT - Nifong did not deliver a complete report on October 27, nor did he provide a memorialization of Dr. Meehan's oral statements. Both are violations of NC Gen. Stat. 15A-903(a)(1).
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Since what happened in the other cases you cited is relevant to the false Duke rape case, there is no way anyone familiar with the case would confuse nifong with any other prosecutor. Once again your attempted sith mind trick recoils and affects no one but you.
The Law, prosecutorial ethics and a Supereme Court decision all required nifong to turn over exculpatory evidence as soon as he had it. North Carolina law covering Non Testimonial Orders requires whoever obtained an NTO to turn over to the subject of the NTO the report of what the NTO showed as soon as he had it. Months after he had the report, nifong turned over to the Defense thousands of pages of raw data, forcing the Defense to exert a great deal of effort to learn what the tests meant.
If you recall, nifong was a bit stunned when the Defense cross examined brian meehan, that the Defense had deciphered the report, that meehan admitted under oath he and nifong had agreed not to turn over to the Defense information about the non Lacrosse player DNA recovered from cgm. It is all pretty good evidence nifong never expected the Defense to be able to decipher the data, that he intended the Defense never to know that the male DNA recovered from the alleged victim did not match the DNA of any Lacrosse player.
If you believe that was not a violation of the law, legal ethics and the US Constitution. you have stunned yourself again with a self inflicted sith mind trick.lisms
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What about nifong's attempt to withhold from the defendants the presumption of innocence?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What about nifong's attempts to deny the defendants the right to counsel and the right to remain silent.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What about nifong's withholding from the lineup of april 4, 2006 safeguards which were designed "to prevent the conviction of innocent people and reduce the chance of mistaken identification"(A RUSH TO INJUSTICE, published 2007, authored by Nader Baydoun and R. Stephanie Good, page 55)?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The April 4, 2006 lineup violated Durham Police Procedure and violated recommendations of the Actual Innocence Commission(this comes from pages 55-56 of the work referenced in my previous post).
A properly conducted lineup contains multiple fillers for each suspect, is conducted by someone not familiar with the case(the April 4 lineup was conducted by mark gottlieb who was investigating the case), no information is given to the witness as to whether any suspect is included in the lineup(cgm was told the lineup consisted exclusively of suspects) and the witness should not be influenced in any way(cgm was told to pick out three Lacrosse players).
Why did nifong circumvent procedures which were put in to protect the innocent? Is that the act of a true minister of justice?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
In that April 4 lineup which you consider so significant, cgm identified as two of her attackers two men who were not present in the house on Buchanan Avenue at the time cgm said she was raped. She did identify her third assailant as having a mustache at the time of the alleged crime. That man was David Evans, who was shown by pictures obtained by the Durham PD as being clean shaven at the time.
According to the book I referenced two comments ago, cgm identified a number of other Lacrosse Players as being at the party when they were not.
Do you think nifong told the Grand Jury about these problems with the lineup?
In view of all these irregularities, why did nofong use this lineup as justification for indicting and charging the three innocent Lacrosse players.
What did all this say about cgm's credibility? Why would nifong make her testimony a key part of his case?
Why was she not interviewed by the DA's office after the lineup instead of December 0f 2006?
Syd, you wrote: "You're getting Mr. Nifong confused with Prosecutors Tom Ford and David Hoke, both of whom withheld evidence from the defense. Mr. Nifong, by October 27, 2006, had turned over all of the lab results to the defense attorneys."
No Syd, I am not getting them confused. You are attempting to ignore history and the law. Nifong was under an obligation in May to turn over the DNASI results. He failed to do so thus violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. Worse, he lied to the court about it. That makes him a multiple violator.
"When Mr. Nifong stated that he had turned over all of the evidence, it was his belief that he had."
That strains credulity beyond the breaking point. You see, Nifong was at the meeting where DNASI's lab director presented the information to Nifong. That meeting took place in May. There is no way that anyone can believe Nifong when he says that he thought the information was turned over, when it was not for five months. Simply put, Nifong's claim is incredible.
Further, even if someone were to believe the incredible claims of Nifong, he still violated the terms of the NTO under which the DNA evidence was gathered. The NTO statute requires immediate turnover of the results to the subjects of the NTO. The state does not get to wait five months. Either way you cut it, Nifong is guilty, as found by the DHC and as conceded by Nifong, of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.
"David Hoke withheld 17 eyewitness statements from the defense attorneys of Alan Gell... statements which proved that Mr. Gell could not have committed the murder for which he was charged."
There you go with the two wrongs make it right argument. It is no more persuasive now than it ever was. However, Hoke getting away with concealing exculpatory evidence does explain why Nifong, thought he could get away with it. Shameful that he should think that way. Even more shameful that you think a liar like Nifong should be allowed to practice law.
"I repeat, Mr. Nifong did not withhold anything from the defense."
If you repeat "the earth is flat" often enough it still won't be true. Nifong did withhold evidence from the defense.
I note that you don't even contest the fact that Nifong violated Rules 3.8(a) and (f). Of course, even Nifong does not contest that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Walt-in-Durham
There is no way that anyone can believe Nifong when he says that he thought the information was turned over, when it was not for five months. Simply put, Nifong's claim is incredible.
Walt,
You're not going to suggest that Nifong's three different reasons raise doubts about his honesty? Sidney wants us to believe that people telling the truth have a hard time keeping their story straight.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
I bet you believe that brian meehan was in cahoots with the "carpetbagger jihad" when he admitted under oath that he and nifong agreed to withhold the discovery of non Lacrosse player male DNA.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What about it, sidney. Explain why nifong subjected the suspects to a lineup from which he excluded any and all procedure which would protect them from mistaken identification as perpetrators of a crime?
Would a true minister of justice do that?
Edited March 7, 2010 4:38 AM to correct a typo.
re Edited March 6, 2010 4:40 AM to correct a second typo
Sidney,
I thank you for your reply on the preceding thread. While I agree that the Durham County Board of Elections is a credible source, I believe they may have given you incorrect information.
As I noted earlier, my internet research shows that North Carolina does not have open primaries. Importantly, in a closed primary Republicans are not permitted to vote in a Democratic primary. I believe that the primaries are semi-closed; Democrats obviously are permitted to vote in a Democratic primary. I believe that independents (the NC term is "unaffiliated voters") are permitted to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. I ask any commenters who live in North Carolina to confirm this point.
The number you cite for the percentage of registered voters who are black of 38% appears to be for all voters, including Republicans. While the DCBoE website no longer posts the May 2006 numbers, the March 2010 numbers are available (link below). Durham County currently has 164,354 registered voters, including 86,655 (52.7%) whites, 64,282 (39.1%) blacks and 13,417 (8.2%) other or not specified. These numbers include all registered voters, including Democrats, Republicans, independents and Libertarians. I am sure that you agree that these numbers are misleading for our purpose if Republicans (and Libertarians) are not permitted to vote in a Democratic primary.
A disproportionate number of blacks are registered as Democrats. Durham County currently has 101,616 registered Democrats, including 39,262 (38.6%) whites, 56,007 (55.1%) blacks and 6,347 (6.2%) other. Durham County has 25,209 registered Republicans, including 22,919 (90.9%) whites, 1,127 (4.5%) blacks and 1,163 (4.6%) other. I believe Republicans and the 214 Libertarians cannot vote in a Democratic primary. Finally, Durham County has 37,315 independents, including 24,312 (65.1%) whites, 7,127 (19.1%) blacks and 5,876 (15.8%) other. I believe, but am not sure, that independents can vote in the Democratic primary. Again, I seek confirmation.
Overall, Durham County's electorate is 39% black, similar to the 38% you cite. This number is correct for purpose of this analysis only if the primary is open to all registered voters. This number is not relevant for an analysis of a closed or semi-closed Democratic primary as it includes voters not eligible. If both Democrats and independents are eligible, the eligible voters are 45.8% white and 45.4% black. Whites do not represent the "overwhelming majority" you suggest. If I am wrong about independents, then the eligible voters (all Democrats) are 39% white and 55% black. In either case, the percentage of eligible black voters is higher than the number you cite. It would be interesting to see the May 2006 data in this detail.
While I recognize that the electorate has changed in the past four years, these current statistics are consistent with the statistics KC Johnson posted in the post I referenced in an earlier comment. If primaries are not open, the Board of Elections provided you with irrelevant data. If Republicans cannot vote in a Democratic primary, they owe you an apology for their error.
(continued from above)
Finally, the website does not provide demographic information about actual voters in any election. I am surprised that the Board provides information in a telephone call they do not post on their website.
As you know, a Vanderbilt professor published a paper in which he analyzed precinct level data to estimate the demographics of actual voters in the May 2006 DA primary. Had that data been available directly, it would have saved him a lot of work and increased his accuracy. In any event, based on the presumably misleading numbers they gave you for registered voters which included Republicans, the numbers for actual voters was probably also misleading.
If we confirm that my understanding of eligible voters in a primary is correct, you should revise your comments and earlier post if the percentages are misleading. Your analysis may be based on faulty information.
As I suggested in my earlier comment, you should also address the effect of the case on white feminists and white progressives, who are more likely to be registered as Democrats, and white conservatives, who are more likely to be registered as Republicans (and thus not eligible to vote in a closed primary). Sidney, for example, are the white members of your Committee better described as progressives or conservatives? I suggest that the case may not necessarily have been a negative factor for the white vote in a closed primary in May. I gave reasons earlier.
You should provide links to the polling data you cite for Mr. Nifong's sizable lead prior to the frame. I have seen several polls, all of which showed Ms. Black with a lead. I would have expected Mr. Nifong to have been less gleeful about his "million dollars of free publicity" if he had viewed the case as a political negative.
The suggestion that Mr. Nifong had a significant lead appears to be inconsistent with Mr. Nifong's difficulties in fundraising. As you recall, he had been forced to loan $30,000 to his campaign prior to the case. You may wish to address why Mr. Nifong had experienced financing difficulties with a significant lead and why those fundraising difficulties disappeared when that lead narrowed after the publicity from the lacrosse case. I cannot follow that reasoning. Your polling data is critical to your analysis.
Thank you again for your reply. I look forward to your links for additional data.
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/Documents/Statistics/2010_March/Monthly_Stats_Document.pdf
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/
departments/elec/Documents/Statistics
/2010_March/Monthly_Stats_Document.pdf
To JSwift:
Thank you for your input and extensive research.
The overriding point that I wish to make is that ABC published a poll the day before the May 2, 2006 primary that stated the race was a tie, and that a heavy black voter turnout benefited Mr. Nifong. The black voter turnout was dismal, yet Mr. Nifong still won. The bias in the analysis by SurveyUSA, which conducted the poll for ABC 11 News is that it limited itself solely to Nifong and Black, and their relationship with the black voters. Not a mention about how white voters, the majority of registered voters, stood with the candidates. Had they mentioned that, then the premise that Nifong's wooing black votes was the path to Primary victory would be baseless and illogical. The SurveyUSA worked with ABC 11 to present a rigged poll to support the outrageous position that Nifong's prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case was for political gain.
Not a mention about how white voters, the majority of registered voters, stood with the candidates.
You did not read my comment.
I noted that NC does not have open primaries. Republicans cannot vote in a Democratic primary.
Whites are majority of all voters in durham county. Whites are not a majority of voters eligible to vote in a Democratic primary.
I repeat:
Whites are not a majority of voters eligible to vote in a Democratic primary.
Your statement, that I cited above is misleading. It includes voters not eligible to vote.
I have made this point in several comments. You have ignored those comments.
I ask for an apology.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
If you look at pre election poll results, compare them with the election results, you can not conclude that nifong almost lost the election because of the Duke case. nifong, not Freda Black, benefitted from a surge in support, from both black and white voters.
You do not deal with the issue of why nifong was running. nifong was running so he could retire as a District Attorney, not an assistant DA, and get a higher pension. Why would he jeopardize his pension to prosecute a case which would leave him without support from the voters? Why would he prosecute an unpopular case, which was shown by the evidence, to be about a crime that never happened.
How do you explain why his fund raising had dried up, why he had to take out $30,000 in loans to keep his campaign going? Why would the local attorneys not back the front runner in the election for DA?
Why would any candidate for political office go to such efforts to publicize an issue which was costing him the election?
crazy sidney, you are promulgating not only another lie but are promulgating a glaringly obvious lie.
Post a Comment