Thursday, April 1, 2010

Carpetbagger families of Duke LAXers and their direct link to the mainstream media

Rae Forker Evans, the founder and president of Evans Capitol Group, has an extraordinarily impressive resume. The Evans Capitol Group had its beginning in 1995, and is a public policy firm operating in Washington, D.C. It provides strategic guidance to corporations, non-profits, and trade associations seeking to influence the political process on a broad range of public policy issues. In 1982, Ms. Evans established the National Affairs office and represented Hallmark Cards, Inc. and its 25,000 employees on Capitol Hill, at the Executive Branch, and with national and international communities in Washington. She has received numerous honors and appointments throughout her career, including serving as president and Board Member of the Business-Government Relations Council, recipient of the 1996 National Women’s Economic Alliance Director’s Choice Award, and a 1992 appointment by President George W. Bush to the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. Ms. Evans is married to a Washington D.C. attorney, David Evans, and they have two children, David and Kristen. Her son, Dave, was a student at Duke University, and was one of three Duke lacrosse players who were indicted by a grand jury on sexual assault charges stemming from the infamous stripper and beer guzzling party on Durham’s Buchanan Street in March 2006.

I would be remiss, if I were not to mention that Ms. Evan’s stellar professional career also included a decade-long stint at CBS News. From 1971 to 1981, she held positions at CBS News, the megacorporation that produces “60 Minutes” on CBS – TV. Later she worked as Director of Government Relations for CBS, Inc. The strong and intimate relationship that Ms. Evans enjoyed with CBS News is information that neither CBS, Inc. nor the mainstream media has wanted to share with the public after the Duke Lacrosse case was brought to the fore by the media. CBS’s “60 Minutes” devoted several television programs to the Duke Lacrosse case, and featured interviews with Ms. Evans, and the parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants. Never once, did CBS, Inc. disclose that Ms. Evans, mother of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, had worked for more than a decade with CBS, News. Likewise the biased mainstream media never bothered to bring up this relationship between Evans and CBS.

CBS, like other mainstream media – ABC, Fox News, and NBC – has been markedly prejudicial in its coverage of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, like the rest of the mainstream media, it embraces the concept that Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” carries legal weight and is a matter of fact. It consistently and constantly refers to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “cleared,” and “exonerated,” based on the attorney general’s statement. It is my belief that the news media knows that they are misrepresenting the Duke Lacrosse defendants when it refers to them as “exonerated” or “innocent,” but they believe and rely on the belief that the majority of the public will not be aware that these descriptions are misleading, and that those who do, won’t care.

All the same, I wrote to executives at major media outlets to inform them that their use of the “innocent”-like adjectives with relationship to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was incorrect and misleading. To give credence to my position, I told them that Campbell University law school professor Anthony V. Baker agreed that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation of innocent had no legal substance or standing. Professor Baker stated, “The A.G. presents a case but does not sit as "trier of fact" -- or ultimate adjudicator -- of it. That is the sole province of the jury, or a judge sitting in lieu of a jury.” To date, the media, in general, has chosen to ignore my complaint with this aspect of the Duke Lacrosse coverage.

CBS News is also guilty of another instance of attempting to mislead the public. It arises out of the Carpetbagger Families’ obsessive and intense desire to erase from the minds of people that an attack or criminal action against the exotic dancers could have possibly taken place the night of March 13, 2006. Through attorney Joseph Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, the Attorney General in his April 11, 2007 statement capitulated to Carpetbagger demands by stating that “no attack occurred.” The Carpetbaggers tried to extract a similar statement from Prosecutor Mike Nifong, using the threat of significant jail time (on trumped up contempt charges), however, despite the duress Mr. Nifong constantly maintained that he believed that something (criminal) happened. To get around Mr. Nifong’s persistent stand on this issue, CBS News put words into Mr. Nifong’s mouth with its blaring headline, “Ex-DA admits no crime in Duke case.” The headline is a blatant outright falsehood that is not substantiated within the text of the article.

As with “60 Minutes,” the online CBS News article with the false headline does not disclose the close relationship between the mother of defendant Dave Evans and CBS News. If the public were aware of the close relationship, then questions of bias and fairness would be entertained by those with open and objective minds… and that is something neither the Carpetbaggers nor the media wants. And let there be no doubt about it, that Rae Evans, with all of her relationships with CBS and other media, as well as the contacts she has made throughout the upper echelons of government in the nation’s capital, and her husband who is an attorney in a prestigious Washington law firm, carries humongous clout. And if you have any doubt that she would use this clout, let me refer to her vindictive “60 Minutes” interview in which she promises that “he (Mr. Nifong) is going pay every day for the rest of his life.”

Ms. Evans had the clout with the media, and with her attorneys and others, she did a magnificent job in orchestrating a media propaganda campaign that was so successful in defining Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case to her liking, that former Bush architect Karl Rove would be green with envy. There’s no doubt about it… the mainstream media is not only in cahoots with Carpetbagger Jihad Movement against Mike Nifong etal., but is at the fore, actively blazing the way amongst the weak-minded populous. The link is undeniable.

There is no doubt that Ms. Evans is a brilliant and highly motivated individual, and a person of whose achievements I am in awe. However, it was her famous and insightful statement in the “60 Minutes” interview with Lesley Stahl: “Mr. Nifong, you picked on the wrong families,” that so succinctly and accurately defined the crux of the problem with the state’s criminal justice system. As I am sure that Ms. Evans would agree, the North Carolina system of justice is one that is based on a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” For this profoundly truthful admission by Ms. Evans, we, Tar Heelians who ascribe to the principle of “equal justice for all,” are extremely grateful.

48 comments:

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Stop! No one (outside your circle of true believers) believes any of what you write.
Give it a rest!

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Once again I remind you that the North Carolina Bar began its investigation of nifong on March 30, 2006. Mrs. Evans made her statement on 60 Minutes roughly six and one half months later, on March 15, 2006.

David Evans was indicted for RAPE in April of 2006, as were Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty. The medical record, the forensic evidence showed absolutely and definitively that no sex crime was perpetrated against cgm on the night of March 13-14, 2006. Maybe that was the reason the families rejected the notion that any crime happened, that their sons should have been prosecuted for any crime. What made the party infamous was only that nifong publicly, falsely whipped up racist beliefs that a crime had happened there.

Again, AG Cooper did not proclaim the Lacrosse players innocent. AG Cooper reviewed the evidence, something you have refused to do, dismissed the charges because he concluded the Lacrosse players were innocent. Since no crime happened in the first place, how could the Lacrosse players be anything but innocent.

I again present a hypothetical situation. Mr. Cooper testifies he reviewed the evidence and concluded the Lacrosse players were innocent. You testify that the absence of evidence did not rule out the possibility of a crime. Whose testimony will carry more weight with a jury?

Kim Roberts' 911 call to the Police early on March 14, 2006, did not allege any crime. cgm wavered on whether or not she had been assaulted. I say again, the forensic evidence did not rule in any crime, and showed no intimate contact between cgm and any Lacrosse player. cgm's id of her assailants with 90%-100% certainty? cgm id'd Brad Ross with 100% certainty as having been at the party. Brad Ross was not present at the party. The two men she id'd with 100% certainty were not at the party at the time of the alleged crime. Is that a reliable identification? cgm claimed the third assailant had a mustache at the time of the alleged assault but identified a man who had been clean shaven at the time. How does that constitute a reliable identification? Why should anyone believe that a crime had occurred? To say a crime could have occurred in spite of the lack of evidence means nothing. The DA has to have evidence that a crime did happen.

You yourself have said there is no evidence that any "carpetbagger jihad" exists. Therefore there is no evidence that the main stream media are in cahoots with anything. This is again an example of your belief that your powers of reason and common sense can negate reality. There is no link, other than in your imagination.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"...the Attorney General in his April 11, 2007 statement capitulated to Carpetbagger demands by stating that “no attack occurred.”

Again you can show no evidence that any carpet bagger jihad exists. How can the Attorney General capitulate to something you can not prove to exist?

How do you know an attack did occur? By your own admission, you are not familiar with the evidence in the case. The statement that an attack might have occurred is legally meaningless without evidence. Where is your evidence that an attack did occur?

I ask again, when the evidence does not support the accuser's allegations, why should a case go to trial. Prosecutorial ethics, which you attempt to apply to other prosecutors but from which you seek to exempt nifong, says pretty clearly that a DA should not prosecute a case in which there is no probable cause. Where was the probable cause in the phony Duke Rape case?

If a case must go to trial, then how do you explain the way the DA's office under nifong disposed of most rape cases without trial, by either dismissing the charges outright or by having the defendant plead to something other than rape. That was how nifong's durham DA's office handled the michael jermaine burch case.

From a technical point, the falsely accused innocent Lacrosse players must be considered innocent. As you say, they were never tried. The suspects in a crime are presumed innocent until and unless they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would you deny that?

In the Lacrosse case, I say again, the evidence definitively and absolutely excluded the crime which was alleged, the crime nifong said had happened in his multiple inflammatory guilt presuming pre indictment statements.

Can you show us anything which ruled in a crime?

Walt said...

"Ms. Evans is married to a Washington D.C. attorney, David Evans, and they have two children, David and Kristen. Her son, Dave, was a student at Duke University, and was one of three Duke lacrosse players who were indicted by a grand jury on sexual assault charges stemming from the infamous stripper and beer guzzling party on Durham’s Buchanan Street in March 2006."

What we have here is an integrity issue. You fail to mention that the charges were dropped because in Nifong's own words "there was no credible evidence against him."

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar sidney harr de harr harr:

Regardless of how you characterize the party on 13-14 March 2006, there was no evidence at all that any crime had taken place. Ergo, there was no way nifong was justified in falsely accusing innocent men and charging them with a crime.

You have yet to explain why kim roberts' 911 call immediately after the party did not allege any crime.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I remind you, nifong had David Evans, as well as Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty, indicted and charged with rape.

Even before he indicted the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse Players, based on a manufactured connection between them and cgm, he was in public, proclaiming a rape had occurred, that Lacrosse players had perpetrated the crime, and that it had been racially motivated.

AG Cooper the evidence and came to the conclusion the Lacrosse players were innocent. You say that was inappropriate. nifong never had evidence of a crime but proclaimed them guilty, but, according to you, that was appropriate.

Why are you conducting a vendetta against three innocent, falsely accused men?

Anonymous said...

Congratulations Sid -- with this post it looks like you've progressed from your "denial" stage to "anger"...From http://www.recover-from-grief.com/7-stages-of-grief.html

"...you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame on someone else. Please try to control this, as permanent damage to your relationships may result. This is a time for the release of bottled up emotion."

Anonymous said...

Sid -- Rae Evans worked for CBS news 25 years ago, and you refer to that as a "strong and intimate relationship that Ms. Evans enjoyed with CBS News"?

Who did YOU work for 25 years ago? Who did Mike Nifong work for 25 years ago? Would you characterize the relationship you have with those organizations "Strong and intimate"?

I see you've managed to navigate to the Evans Group website (where you plagiarized the vast majority of information here in your post -- without giving any citation, I might add)
You get around to sending that e-mail asking Rae Evans to clarify her comments?

Anonymous said...

Just a quick clarification -- by "25 years ago", I mean 25 years from the time of Rae Evans interview on "60 Minutes"...

Anonymous said...

Sid -- The Evans Capital Group website is copyrighted. I suggest you take a few minutes to review

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/
stopping-internet-plagiarism/

Particularly, take a few minutes to read the "Fair Use" section of the "limitations of Copyright" article. You'll find that non-attributed use (such as you've done here) is almost certainly a copyright violation.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

In this case, the phony Duke rape case, why should the case have gone to trial? I say again, there was no evidence that any crime happened at that party, there was no evidence to implicate any Lacrosse player in any crime, sex crime or otherwise.

Why should anyone have to go to trial when a DA does not have probable cause to prosecute.

nifong wanted to try this particular case in front of a biased jury which had already found the Lacrosse players guilty. That would have hardly been a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt bya a fair, unbiased jury.

Did you ever think AG Roy Cooper stepped in to prevent nifong from conducting an unfair trial?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, Sydney? said...

unbekannte - Did you ever think AG Roy Cooper stepped in to prevent nifong from conducting an unfair trial?

AG Cooper could not do that, unbekannte. Nifong first had to recuse himself. Nifong should have recused himself immediately after the Dec 15 hearing, when it became evident that he was hopelessly conflicted due to him and his star witness being at cross purposes, but he waited until 2 weeks after the NC State Bar filed a complaint against him.

unbekannte said...

for Whatchoo Talkin' about sidney:

You are correct. I admit my error.

I also point out crazy etc. sidney seems unaware that nifong himself involved Mr. Cooper in the case.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Guiowen:

What I write regarding my opinions is based on fact, which is more than I can say for MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan F. Filan. The facts are that: Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, did work from 1971 to 1981 at CBS News; CBS's "60 Minutes" did feature positive stories and interviews about the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their families; and CBS never disclosed its relationship with Ms. Evans. Those are the facts, and I realize that some closed minded individuals have a hard time dealing with facts.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charges because later testimony by the accuser did not support it to his satisfaction. It is refreshing to see a true "minister of justice," unlike Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford who tried to keep Greg Taylor jailed for life despite the lack of "credible evidence" against him and misleading and false statements made about SBI lab results.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Anonymous:

You get around to sending that e-mail asking Rae Evans to clarify her comments?

Yes, I did take your advice and I wrote her. Told her that I would even give her the $1,000 prize if she were able to make sense out of her statement (with payment being made after James Arthur Johnson received his $20,000 reward for solving the Brittany Willis murder). I will display the letter in the near future on the website: www.justice4nifong.com. Will let you know when.

Nifong Supporter said...

Addendum to Anonymous:

Forgot to state in my previous comment that I have not received a response from Ms. Evans to date. I sent the letter several weeks ago.. can't recollect the date offhand.

Walt said...

"Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charges because later testimony by the accuser did not support it to his satisfaction."

There you go again Syd. Surely you are a fluent English speaker and writer. If you are not, then I suggest you take another crack at your ESL course. Crystal never testified. Testimony requires that she be placed under oath. What she did is tell multiple stories, many of which contradicted the previous story she told. That was par for the course in this case as Nifong too told stories that later turned out to be false. For example at one of his notorious press conferences he claimed he read a report that described a violent rape. A report that was not written until the day after the presser. Of course Nifong also told lies in court where he said he had turned over all the DNA evidence to the defense when he had not. And don't say that he was just telling the court what he understood at the time. Nifong can't get away with that one. He was at the meeting where DNASI told him what evidence they had and he and Meehan agreed to withhold it.

"It is refreshing to see a true "minister of justice,"..."

You always amaze me with your double standard. Ford does something that you disapprove of and he's the worst of the worst but if Nifong does it, he's a saint. Which is it Syd, is prosecution withholding evidence wrong or not?

Walt-in-Durham

guiowen said...

Sidney,
When you're in a hole, stop digging!

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"What I write regarding my opinions is based on fact"

What facts?

The fact is, forensic evidence definitively ruled out a crime on the night of 13-14 March 2006 but you have written a crime could have happened in spite of the lack of evidence.

cgm could not reliably identify any Duke Lacrosse player as her attacker but you write her identifications were reliable.

nifong was trailing badly in the polls prior to the 2006 NC Democratic and no one was contributing to his campaign but you write he was on his way to a decisive victory.

nifong made multiple improper inflammatory statements presuming guilt but you write he only made mild attempts to get witnesses to come forth.

mifong called Lacrosse players' retention of counsel an indication of guilt but you have written he never violated anyone's constitutional rights.

nifong ignored the accusing witness in an alleged rape case for nine months, but you write this showed his integrity and commitment to justice.

When evidence showed no connection between cgm and any Duke Lacrosse player, nifong organized an improper lineup procedure to produce one, but you say nifong never manufactured any evidence.

Facts?! In your writing you have shown either unawareness of the facts or total disregard for them. You have promulgated multiple lies.

Your opinions are based solely on your hatred of the innocent. falsely accused Lacrosse players and their families.

Anonymous said...

Sid -- You've already stated you believe Nifong is a liar, why are you continuing to support him?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"
Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charges because later testimony by the accuser did not support it to his satisfaction."

What in the case did support charging the innocent Lacrosse players with rape in the first place? The answer is nothing. Had nifong truly been an honest minister of justice he would not have sought indictments of innocent men for rape in the first place. That he dismissed the rape charges after 9 months of failing to interview the complaining witness, whose word he said would be vital to his case, only emphasizes his corruption and lack of any sense of justice.

Your offer of $1000 for an explanation of Mrs. Evans' statement that cgm was abused by nifong, is meaningless, as meaningless as offering Beethoven $1000 today to write a 10th symphony.

Brittany Daniels' family does not believe that James Arthur Johnson was uninvolved in the murder and has said it will not pay him the offered reward. They believe he does not deserve it.

Regardless of what explanation you get, no matter how logical or believable, you have never had any intention of paying anything.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What is so refreshing about nifong's prosecution of the innocent Lacrosse players?

The alleged victim's story was crazy from the start. There were no witnesses to corroborate her story. nifong himself said DNA obtained from cgm would exonerate the innocent - it was oe of his justifications for getting an NTO. When it exonerated all the members of the Lacrosse team, nifong did not just dismiss it. He tried to conceal part of it from the Defendants. The complaining witness could not reliably identify who was and who was not present at the scene of the alleged crime.

I say again, if nifong had really been an honorable prosecutor, he never would have filed rape charges in the first place.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

You are mistaken about Brian Meehan and Mike Nifong. They never made an agreement to withhold evidence from the defense attorneys or from the courts. Mr. Meehan, director of the DNA lab, did express concern about the sensitive information in reports which all of the lacrosse players who gave specimens were entitled to receive. In those reports, out of concern for privacy issues only, it is my understanding that Mr. Nifong suggested that Mr. Meehan follow procedures used by the State lab when making his report. As Mr. Meehan testified in court, Mr. Nifong never asked him to conceal or withhold evidence.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc, sidney:

Again you show disregard for the facts in expressing your opinion.

In December of 2006, brian meehan testified under oath he and nifong agreed to withhold the information about the DNA found in the cgm rape kit, that male DNA found on cgm did not match any Duke Lacrosse Player, something which was obviously exculpatory evidence.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

brian meehan also did something contrary to the policies of his own lab, withholding part of the information derived from the report given to the Defense. That was why he was fired from his job as director of the DNA lab, why his wrongful termination suit was dismissed by Federal Court.

These are more facts which you disregard.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You think it inappropriate that the families of the Lacrosse players would be outraged that their sons would be charged with a crime.

What justification did nifong have to charge them with a crime? Explain - what corroborated cgm's allegation of a crime. What implicated any Lacrosse player in the crime?

Give us an answer, not just your delusions about the truth.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Did you notice Brian Meehan tried to sue DNA Security for "wrongful termination", and had his suit dismissed? Clearly the judge in that suit realized the type of misconduct Meehan and Nifong had engaged in.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Did you ever notice the mainstream media was largely pro nifong early in the case?

Nifong Supporter said...

To guiowen:

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Did you notice Brian Meehan tried to sue DNA Security for "wrongful termination", and had his suit dismissed? Clearly the judge in that suit realized the type of misconduct Meehan and Nifong had engaged in.


To enlighten you... what the judge clearly realized was the benefits that come along with socking it to Mike Nifong. For example, F. Lane Williamson, who was extremely critical of Mr. Nifong in disbarring him, was rewarded with a Superior Court judgeship appointment by Governor Perdue. The same goes for the judge who's socking it to Crystal Mangum with his $1 million bail on attempted first degree murder charges for allegedly scratching her boyfriend.

It's not that unusual for judges to toss lawsuits filed against Duke University or its lacrosse team... take for example the lawsuit filed against Duke by Andrew Guiliani. The law suit that should be dismissed by the judge is the one filed by 38 un-indicted Duke Lacrosse case. That's hilarious... See Episode II of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" for my take on that.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
What is hilarious is that you should think any one of us should believe any of what you say.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Your take on anything is based on your irrational hatred of the falsely accused, innocent Duke Lacrosse players and their families.

This "carpet bagger jihad", of which you have admitted you have no proof, now controls the entire North Carolina judiciary?! Just how deep is your hatred?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

The only one who has benefited from all the justified criticism of what nifong did(which is supported by hard evidence) is you. This has furnished you an excuse to vent your hatred of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse team members and then call it a crusade for justice.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

No judge in the North Carolina Judiciary has tried to benefit from the nifong situation.

nifong himself did benefit from it. Because of his unjustified prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, he got one million dollars worth of free advertising(according to nifong himself), got a surge in support from both black and white voters, and won this election which he had been badly losing.

Unfortunately for nifong, and fortunately for North Carolina, the benefits were not long lasting. All the corrupt, unethical, illegal, unconstitutional chickens he hatched came home and roosted on his head.

unbekannte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Mr. F. Lane Williamson, reviewed the evidence, listened to nifong's testimony and concluded he was guilty of multiple ethics violations.

Similarly, AG Roy Cooper reviewed the evidence gathered by nifong, including the evidence nifong tried to conceal from the Defendants, and concluded the falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players were innocent.

On the other hand you have never reviewed any evidence, by your own admission. But you conclude that the Lacrosse players were guilty and that the exoneration is the work of some "carpetbagger jihad", of which you admit you have no proof, which controls the state of North Carolina and orchestrated nifong's downfall.

Really, now. How deeply do you hate the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players and their families?

April 5, 2010 5:14 AM

Edited April 5, 2010 5:16 AM

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Did the michael jermaine burch show the justice system is based on race and class.

There was probable cause that mjb raped a caucasian Duke coed. There was no probable cause to believe that any caucasian Duke Lacrose player ever raped cgm.

nifong went public, before any evidence was in, to say that caucasian Duke Lacrosse players had committed a racially motivated rape of cgm. No one from nifong's da office ever went public to declare mjb guilty.

Bail for each innocent, falsely Duke Lacrosse player was set at an unusually high figure. Bail for mjb was not set as high, and there was probable cause to believe while out on bail mjb raped a second woman.

Comparing Black mjb with the Caucasian Lacrosse players, who was treated more leniently?

You don't want to answer, do you?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I should say a geometry lesson for crazy etc. sidney.

His circle of true believers is one really small circle.

It includes Vi(cious)ncent Clark who backed cgm's book in which she again falsely claims she was raped by Duke Lacrosse players.

It also includes Vic(ious)toria Peterson who wanted to burn down the house at 610 Buchanan Avenue and who claimed that the DNA evidence, which exonerated the falsely accused innocent Lacrosse Players, had been tampered with. Vic(ious)toria can not explain how anyone could have tampered with the evidence in such a way as to remove any inculpatory DNA but selectively leave behind the exculpatory DNA.

Maybe this figment of crazy sidney's imagination, the carpetbagger jihad is responsible for the lack of inculpatory evidence.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"The same goes for the judge who's socking it to Crystal Mangum with his $1 million bail on attempted first degree murder charges..."

What has your committee of gangsters done to get cgm out of jail? If you believe in her innocence, why have you neglected any attempt to raise money for her bail?

You are imitating your boy nifong who, although he declared cgm's story was vital to making his case, ignored her for nine months.

nifong waited nine months to find out he could not prove rape. But he continued the prosecution anyway. Yes he still had charges lodged of sexual assault and kidnapping. He still had no evidence which would convict.

Do you really call this integrity?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"...Dave, was a student at Duke University, and was one of three Duke lacrosse players who were indicted by a grand jury on sexual assault charges stemming from the infamous stripper and beer guzzling party on Durham’s Buchanan Street in March 2006."

You again ignore facts. The Grand Jury did indict David Evans, as well as Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligman on charges of First Degree Rape.

You omit to mention that the North Carolina grand jury meeting is a closed procedure in which only the prosecutor can present evidence and of which no record is kept. A prosecutor like nifong can present false evidence to a grand jury without fear of consequences.

You omit to mention it was not the common way of doing things, for the da's office to take a rape case to a grand jury without any preliminary procedure. The common procedure is to ask for an arrest warrant which would trigger a probable cause hearing.

Why did nifong avoid a probable cause hearing in this case? Judging from what is now part of the public record in this phony case, nifong had no inculpatory evidence to present to establish probable cause. The innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players could have presented more than adequate exculpatory evidence, even without the exculpatory withheld from them by nifong.

unbekannte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

From what you have written, Mrs. Rae Evans is a distinguished, honorable individual who has a spotless record of public service to the country.

In comparison, what can you say about nifong. You say he had a distinguished career in the durham county da's office. If so, why was he so unknown when he ran for election to the da's office. Why did the polls show he had less popularity than Freda Black? Why was no one supporting his campaign financially?

Comparison of nifong to Mrs. Rae Evans is really no comparison at all. nifong was a thouroughly corrupt public official who tried to convict three falsely accused innocent men of a non existent crime, just to win an election. That is self service, not public service.

Not many people, even corrupt people, can compare to how high nifong measures on the corruption scale.

April 5, 2010 10:19 AM

Edited April 5, 2010 10:22 AM

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"It's not that unusual for judges to toss lawsuits filed against Duke University or its lacrosse team... "

Who has filed suit against the Duke Lacrosse team?

nifong has not. cgm has not. brian meehan has not.

If these people are truly the victims of a carpetbagger jihad, why have they not filed suit?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"...CBS never disclosed its relationship with Ms. Evans."

brian meehan never disclosed his arrangement with nifong, to withhold exculpatory evidence from the innocent, falsely accused Duke defendants, until Brad Bannon put him into a corner, a corner from which he could not avoid the admission.

DeHall said...

Dr. Harr -- I'll refer you to the transcript from the Dec 15th hearing that contains the following:


DR. MEEHAN. This report was a specific report at the request and in discussions with Mr. Nifong that we would report only specimens that matched evidence items. (pp. 59-60)
---------
MR. BANNON. You didn’t include the results for each DNA test in your report dated May 12; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. So you violated this protocol of your own lab?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And you violated this protocol of your own lab because the district attorney told you to; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. No. It’s not just because the district attorney told me to. (p. 66)
-----------

MR. COONEY: Did your report set forth the results of all of the
tests and examinations that you conducted in this case?

DR. MEEHAN: No. It was limited to only some results.

MR. COONEY: Okay. And that was an intentional limitation arrived
at between you and representatives of the State of North Carolina not to report on the results of all examinations and tests that you did in this case?

DR. MEEHAN:Yes. (p. 86)
-----------

So, you can plainly see there WAS an agreement to withhold evidence, and there WAS a blatant attempt to disregard established protocol. Why you continue to argue otherwise just doesn't make sense.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

DNA samples were obtained from the Caucasian Duke Lacrosse Players as a result of a Non Testimonial Order. That the DNA from cgm was the result of comparing those samples to the DNA from cgm.

North Carolina law covering NTO's obligates whoever obtains the evidence via the NTO to give the report of the testing of the evidence to the subjects of the NTO as soon as that report is available.

nifong was obligated by North Carolina law to share that exculpatory evidence with the Defendants immediately, not just before any trial was scheduled. He did not do so.

Months after the report, he gave thousands of pages of raw data to the Defendants, expecting they would never learn about the exculpatory evidence.

As people have told you, crazy sidney, your delusions do not negate the historical reality.

Nifong Supporter said...

To DeHall and unbekannte:

I will respond to your most recent comments in the future with a blog. To do so as a comment would be too time consuming. But thank you for your comments. Also, a lot of my time is devoted to working on Episode V of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper." I think that you both will find it entertaining and enlightening.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"They [nifong and meehan] never made an agreement to withhold evidence from the defense attorneys or from the courts."

What about this quote, originally quoted on DIW from the record of the December hearing:

""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."

I originally posted this quote on March 24, 2010 12:44 PM