The National Football League team Carolina Panthers have gotten off to a dismal 0-3 start this year, in large measure due to significant deficiencies in a key player position, quarterback. Earlier in the year, it jettisoned the seasoned veteran QB starter of previous seasons Jake Delhomme, where an injury currently prevents him from competing. Matt Moore was anointed as starter at quarterback at the beginning of the season. Stepping in as a backup during last season, Moore showed flashes of competence, and at times even played extremely well. The franchise decision makers settled on Jimmy Clausen, a rookie fresh from Notre Dame University as Moore’s backup. After the first two games ended in the L column, Moore was pulled and his backup Clausen was given the starting nod for game number three. Unfortunately, the outcome was no different than before.
Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, the Eagles are riding a 2-1 record, in large measure due to the arm and legs of its QB Michael Vick. After a forced 18 month hiatus, imposed by the justice system because of his role in a dog-fighting enterprise, Michael Vick was slated as a backup quarterback to the less experienced starter Kevin Kolb (only two previous pro starts). When Kolb was knocked out of the game in the second quarter, Vick nearly brought the Eagles a come from behind victory. Vick’s play in the second game of the season (while Kolb sat out due to a concussion), not only garnered a victory for the Eagles, but earned him the starting position. In game three, the Eagles handily prevailed with Vick posting a three touchdown passing game.
What makes Michael Vick so valuable is his ability to escape from the pocket and eat up big chunks of yardage. This particular talent opens up passing opportunities which would not be available to pure pocket passers and QBs slow of foot. Vick is also gifted with a powerful and accurate throwing arm. However one of his greatest assets might just be his many years of league experience in which he as faced many defenses, game situations, and pressures.
Now, I do not profess to be a sports fanatic, or even an aficionado. So, how, you may wonder, does this discussion relate to the usual topics of discussion on this blog? Simple. It explains how going along with public opinion does not always result in a positive outcome. In this case specifically, Michael Vick could easily have been on the Carolina Panther roster. He could have been designated as the starter which he deserved to be, or brought in off the bench to dig the Panthers out of a hole in trying to secure a come from behind victory. And after his release from prison, Vick was available to any NFL team for a song. But they all passed on him… even the Oakland Raiders. Teams that desperately were in need of a quarterback, did not even give Vick an opportunity. None, that is, except the Philadelphia Eagles. Let’s face it, Vick is no slouch at the position, and is, in fact, a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame in Canton.
Why did Carolina, Oakland, and other teams in dire need of talent in the most important position in the game, willing to overlook Michael Vick? It was certainly not because he lacked talent. There was a generalized view that because of his dog-fighting past Vick was a pariah intended to be ostracized. Owners of football teams were wary of P.E.T.A. and the public outcry against Vick’s past involvement with the promotion and involvement in dog-fighting, and they silently decided amongst themselves to basically blacklist Vick from the game and to penalize him by preventing him from making a living by playing the game he loved. Everyone, including the Carolina Panthers, was on board… except for the Philadelphia Eagles. Now the bigwigs and owners of the Carolina Panthers are probably kicking themselves in the rear end for letting the golden opportunity of having a talented, quality, exciting quarterback like Michael Vick end up with the Eagles when it was well within their grasp. And if they are not kicking themselves, they should be as they languish in their division’s cellar.
Believe it or not, I do like dogs… although I am more of a cat person. Also, I detest dog-fighting for sport… and other sports which pit animals against one another in brutal battles to the death. I also believe that Michael Vick’s punishment was excessive because of his celebrity, however, to his credit, he handled it with much dignity. He served the time for the crime with which he was convicted, and he should have been free to pursue his career without the animosity and hostility to which he was subjected. And, yes, the Carolina Panthers, with its quarterback uncertainties, should have leapt at the chance to acquire him when he first hit the market. But bowing to media and public opinion and sentiment, Carolina decided to go along with the other teams and freeze Vick out of the league… which was where his career was headed when Vick finally received a chance with the Eagles.
Had Carolina Panther owners had the courage to do the right thing and bring Vick on board early on, it would have been to their benefit. Instead, they folded to pressures of public opinion and passed on him, despite knowledge that he could have undoubtedly been a great addition to the team. Now the Panthers are hurting at the quarterback position and they have no one to blame but themselves. Other teams, like the Oakland Raiders, are in the same boat. But going along with public opinion is safe, and does not require courage.
That is why the vast majority of individuals, who have been spoon-fed gobs of Carpetbagger Jihad anti-Nifong propaganda succumb to the Jedi mind-tricks of the media and espouse vitriolic sentiment against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. They feel the security in being among the vast majority of people in their beliefs. Plus, it requires no courage to side with the majority and those perceived to be in power.
Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong are vastly outnumbered in their support of justice for Mike Nifong… and to acknowledge their position which is markedly in the minority, takes a tremendous amount of courage. And courage has been tested, as I was nearly arrested on the Duke University campus earlier this year solely because of my support for Mike Nifong. And no one represents courage like Mike Nifong, who weathered the public sentiment whipped up against him by the biased media storm, as he carried forth with his prosecution in the Duke Lacrosse case. (The North Carolina State Bar had to intervene with its trumped up ethics charges in order to get Nifong off the case, the first step in getting charges dropped against the three Duke lacrosse lads from families of wealth, status, and privilege.)
Mike Nifong mustered up the courage to go against prevailing wishes of the state and media-generated sentiment of the public when he pursued the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong mustered up courage to support justice for Mike Nifong against overwhelming anti-Nifong public opinion. Taking an unpopular stand did not, and probably will not, accrue to the benefit of Mr. Nifong or his supporters in the near term. However, the same cannot be said for the Carolina Panthers. Had the Panther owners shown some guts to go against the flow of the opinions held by the public and NFL, they would undoubtedly have a better record and be in contention for making the playoffs.
In life, people are often presented with opportunities to go with the flow or swim upstream against the tide. Which direction you go is not the issue of importance. Choosing to take the right path, even when it is in the face of a hurricane, is the right thing to do. Just keep in mind that the greater the headwinds, the more courage will be required.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
So now Mike Nifong is Michael Vick? Well -- let's look at it. Both did something illegal, both did a little jail time, both had to file for bankruptcy.....
Of course the difference is that Michael Vick repented his misdeed and has been working in the community to make amends.
Nifong rallies a bunch of fringe players to argue he was framed by a vast conspiracy and selectively abused.
You can't compare the two stories. One is a story of redemption and second chances. The other is a story of denial and bitterness. Sid, you're not doing Nifong any favors by allowing him to wallow in his perceived victimhood.
Sidney
What relevance does this have to Mr. Nifong or Ms. Mangum?
Sidney said
"In life, people are often presented with opportunities to go with the flow or swim upstream against the tide. Which direction you go is not the issue of importance."
How true is that of Mr. Nifong. Had he gone against the flow and showed ethics and a regard for the truth in the Lacrosse case, his name might now be remembered as that of a true hero instead of a synonym for frameup.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said
'In life, people are often presented with opportunities to go with the flow or swim upstream against the tide. Which direction you go is not the issue of importance.'
How true is that of Mr. Nifong. Had he gone against the flow and showed ethics and a regard for the truth in the Lacrosse case, his name might now be remembered as that of a true hero instead of a synonym for frameup."
Mr. Nifong did go against the flow, which took courage, without regards to politics and overriding media-induced public sentiment. He prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case because he felt that legally and ethically it was the right thing to do. Mr. Nifong was too independent, and because he did not do the bidding of the Powers-That-Be, he was disbarred and made an example of. His story is not unlike that of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, who refused to go along with the directives of King Henry II of England.
"Mr. Nifong did go against the flow, which took courage, without regards to politics and overriding media-induced public sentiment."
BULLFEATHERS!!!!
Mr. Nifong stirred up public sentiment against the Duke Lacrosse team in a racially inflammatory manner. He then indicted three presumably innocent men without probable cause to believe them guilty because otherwise he would have had no support from black voters in Durham.
He did not go against the tide. He created the tide and rode it to election victory, Sidney Harr's unsupported allegations noywithstanding.
A quick look at http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/media_archive.html
Shows that the media was overwhelmingly anti-Duke LAX players through at least June 2006. This, of course, would be a month or so AFTER Mike Nifong's election. Claiming that Nifong was going against the flow of the media-induced public sentiment (which he largely created) at the time of his election is simply not true.
blah blah blah.
He went against the power structure in the Fall when it looked like he was going to lose the general election. When the Mayor asked him to drop the case because of politics. When the prosecutors asked him to drop it. When his campaign manager quit because he would not drop the case and on and on.
The democratic candidate almost always wins the race for DA, but Nifong almost lost because of the lacrosse case.
Which in itself disproves the whole idea that the case helped him win the election.
blah blah blah megaphone megaphone punch punch foam at mouth - Nifong antichrist - Nifong antichrist - argue everything - keep repeating dogma - where is KC? - blah blah blah- must get a life - must get a life - Nifong antichrist...
Anonymous @ September 29, 2010 1:25 PM
Is that you Kilgo
"Which in itself disproves the whole idea that the case helped him win the election."
If that is true, and no Nifong supporter has shown anything to prove Mr. Nifong was winning the election before the rape case, then it seems had he prosecuted the case in an ethical manner, then he would have retained his job.
Freda Black did have a poll showing she, not Mr. Nifong, was leading by 17 percentage points. Why did Mr. Nifong not commission his own poll?
Who besides a Nifong supporter has ever called Mr. Nifong the anti christ?
"When the Mayor asked him to drop the case because of politics. When the prosecutors asked him to drop it. When his campaign manager quit because he would not drop the case and on and on."
You ignore the fact that he had a case which he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt was the lack of evidence or witnesses to corroborate Ms. Mangum's story.
"The democratic candidate almost always wins the race for DA, but Nifong almost lost because of the lacrosse case"
Nifong's main competition in the November 2006 election, Lewis Cheek (a County commissioner), was a democrat.
"Mr. Nifong was too independent, and because he did not do the bidding of the Powers-That-Be, he was disbarred and made an example of. His story is not unlike that of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, who refused to go along with the directives of King Henry II of England."
Mr. Nifong had nothing in common with Thomas Beckett. Thomas Beckett stood up for what he believed was right. What Mr. Nifong stood up for was that his personal interest trumped the Law, trumped Legal Ethics, trumped the Constitution of the United States.
Sidney said, "Mike Nifong mustered up the courage to go against prevailing wishes of the state and media-generated sentiment of the public when he pursued the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants."
Hardly. Mr. Nifong compromised his integrity by pandering to the interests of racist black leaders in Durham. That was not courage.
Sidney said, "In life, people are often presented with opportunities to go with the flow or swim upstream against the tide. Which direction you go is not the issue of importance."
Absolutely. The Lacrosse players and their families stood up to a corrupt prosecutor supported by a number of racist rabble rousers. That is something which demonstrated courage and integrity.
Has Mr. Nifong ever stood up in public and vigorously denied the charges against him. No. He said the Bar was appropriate in its decision to disbar him. He apologized to them and to their parents. He ultimately admitted he had no credible evidence to justify his actions.
David Evans, right after his indictment, stood up in public and declared that the charges against him and Mrs. Seligman and Finnerty were lies.
Sidney said, "The North Carolina State Bar had to intervene with its trumped up ethics charges in order to get Nifong off the case, the first step in getting charges dropped against the three Duke lacrosse lads from families of wealth, status, and privilege."
Among others, KC Johnson and Professor Robert Mosteller have documented that the ethics charges against Mr. Nifong were the result of Mr. Nifong's own improper actions.
Mind you, Sidney explains away the lack of incriminating evidence by claiming the alleged crime could have happened with the perpetrators of said crime not leaving evidence.
Sidney also says Ms. Mangum identified three assailants with 90% to 100% certainty. Mr. Nifong indicted three men. Two of those men had evidence they were not at the party at the time of the alleged crime. The third assailant was identified as a man with a mustache and Mr. Nifong identified a man without a mustache.
Sidney thinks to think that Ms. Mangum's 90% to 100% certainty was meaningful. Sidney has never commented on why Ms. Mangum said with 100% certainty that Brad Ross, who had not even been in Durham at the time of the party, was present at the party.
Sidney says, "And no one represents courage like Mike Nifong, who weathered the public sentiment whipped up against him by the biased media storm, as he carried forth with his prosecution in the Duke Lacrosse case."
HUH?????
Sidney keeps himself unaware that the Mr. Nifong himself stirred up the initial guilt presuming media frenzy directed against the Duke Lacrosse team. Has he not read the multiple sources documenting that Mr. Nifong, by his own admission gave at least 40 hours worth of interviews to the media. When one reads what Mr. Nifong said, one sees that Mr. Nifong's comments were inflammatory and inappropriate.
The media turned against him when it became apparent that Mr. Nifong was conducting a wrongful prosecution against whom he had no evidence. I believe Mr. Nifong persisted because he did not want to offend the Racist black leaders who delivered the votes which got him elected. He owed them.
More from Sidney, "Members of the Com h on Justice for Mike Nifong are vastly outnumbered in their support of justice for Mike Nifong..."
And no member of said Committee has ever documented that the ethics prosecution or the criminal prosecution of Mr. Nifong were inappropriate.
All that has come forth from said Committee are unsupported allegations, such as Sidney's allegation that Mrs. Rae Evans precipitated a Carpet Bagger jihad via her statement to 60 Minutes.
Sidney seems to at least be backing off from that allegation.
Sidney
I join the chorus.
Explain how the crime alleged by Ms. Mangum and by the Durham police could have happened without leaving behind DNA evidence.
Again, Sidney said, "
Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong are vastly outnumbered in their support of justice for Mike Nifong"
Which should say something to you about how little credibility your undocumented allegations and your bullying vendetta against the Lacrosse players have generated.
You would have had credibility by now if you had presented anything credible about the Lacrosse case instead of your prejudices.
Sidney said, "Just keep in mind that the greater the headwinds, the more courage will be required."
The greater the truth, the more difficult will it be for unreasoning fanatics to deny it.
Look at the success or lack thereof of the J4N committee in establishing that Mike Nifong conducted a justified prosecution. The truth is that Mike Nifong conducted a rogue prosecution.
Sidney said, "Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong mustered up courage to support justice for Mike Nifong against overwhelming anti-Nifong public opinion.'
WRONG!!!
The members of said committee have conducted a vendetta against the innocent men whom Mr. Nifong wrongfully prosecuted and have tried to camouflage it as a crusade for justice.
It comes out, despite the camouflage, as a campaign to support a rogue, unethical prosecutor.
Sidney said, "Taking an unpopular stand did not, and probably will not, accrue to the benefit of Mr. Nifong or his supporters in the near term."
That is because it has been documented that Mr. Nifong wrongfully prosecuted three innocent men. If it was not deliberate, it was negligence, negligence of a criminal magnitude.
Again, Sidney said, "The North Carolina State Bar had to intervene with its trumped up ethics charges in order to get Nifong off the case, the first step in getting charges dropped against the three Duke lacrosse lads from families of wealth, status, and privilege."
In a fair trial, no jury would have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.
Considering there was evidence which exonerated the Lacrosse players at the outset, evidence which Mr. Nifong himself had described as exonerating, Mr. Nifong should have dropped the charges before the state bar intervened.
I say again, the merit of the charges against Mr. Nifong have been documented extensively. That is why almost no one believes the J4N Committee.
Sidney says, "Michael Vick’s punishment was excessive because of his celebrity..."
And the punishment Michael Nifong intended for the Lacrosse defendants was not excessive, considering that the evidence Mr. Nifong generated exonerated them?
Mr. Nifong intended this excessive punishment for them because of their status, caucasian athletes from relatively well to do families.
Sidney says, "[Michael Vick] served the time for the crime with which he was convicted, and he should have been free to pursue his career without the animosity and hostility to which he was subjected."
Why is Sidney subjecting the Lacrosse Defendants to his hostility. They were never convicted of anything, but there is more. They were not convicted because an experienced attorney, Mr. Cooper had their case reviewed, i.e., and ended up convinced that there was no case, that there was no corroborating witnesses, no corroborating witnesses, that the complaining witness herself was not credible, all compelling arguments why presumably innocent defendants should not be deprived of innocence or have their innocence questioned.
Incidentally, this happened after Mr. Nifong asked Mr. Cooper to take over handling of the case.
Sidney says, "Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong..."
They sure have not mustered a whole lot of credibility in their cause, however. The reason for this is that Mr. Nifong did attempt a wrongful prosecution of innocent men to further his own personal agenda. The evidence of that is overwhelming.
Sidney, specify exactly how the ethics charges against Mr. Nifong were trumped up.
Sidney, specify exactly why you believe that Mrs. Evans' statement to 60 Minutes led to the ethics charges.
Sidney says, '... it requires no courage to side with the majority and those perceived to be in power."
As Mr. Nifong demonstrated when he pandered to the racist black leaders in Durham rather than do his duty as a prosecutor and seek the truth.
Sidney
What was Mr. Nifong seeking when he decided to prosecute the three Lacrosse players when he had facts, yes facts, which indicated the truth, that no rape had occurred?
Sidney says, "They feel the security in being among the vast majority of people in their beliefs."
Rather they felt a great deal of insecurity of having Mr. Nifong in the position of Durham District attorney, not because he prosecuted three "privileged" white men but because he wrongfully prosecuted three presumed innocent men without any evidence either or a crime or the defendants' involvement in said alleged crime.
Sidney said, "[The Carolina Panthers] they folded to pressures of public opinion..."
As did Mr. Nifong when he chose to pander to the racist black leaders of Durham rather than seek the truth. What makes it sad is that Mr. Nifong, himself, stirred up the racial animosity to which he pandered.
Sidney says, "Now the Panthers are hurting at the quarterback position and they have no one to blame but themselves."
Now Nifong is a synonym for intentional frameup rather than for ethical prosecution. Mr. Nifong, contrary to Sidney's unsupported allegations, has no one but himself to blame, not Mrs. Evans, not anyone, but himself.
Sidney says, "There was a generalized view that because of his dog-fighting past [Michael] Vick was a pariah intended to be ostracized."
Sidney, you characterize the three Lacrosse defendants as pariahs because they were wrongfully prosecuted without evidence for a crime which never happened in the first place.
Sidney says, "...I detest dog-fighting for sport… and other sports which pit animals against one another in brutal battles to the death."
Sidney, so why do you support the prosecution, without evidence, of defendants for a crime which never happened? Isn't that rather vicious?
Sidney says, "Had Carolina Panther owners had the courage to do the right thing and bring Vick on board early on, it would have been to their benefit. Instead, they folded to pressures of public opinion and passed on him..."
Sidney, had Mike Nifong sought the truth instead of the votes of Durham black voters, it would have been to his benefit. Even if he had lost the election, he would have been remembered as an heroic prosecutor and not as the only DA in North Carolina to be disbarred.
Sidney called his last entry "Going along with public opinion can lead to disastrous results… just ask the Carolina Panthers"
Just ask Mr. Nifong. He fomented public opinion in a way that resulted in a racist belief that Caucasian Male Lacrosse players had perpetrated a gang rape on a black woman. Mr. Nifong then generated facts which rendered that public opinion not credible.
Rather then seek the truth, Mr. Nifong rode that public opinion into office.
The results were truly, using Sidney's word, "Disastrous".
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'In life, people are often presented with opportunities to go with the flow or swim upstream against the tide. Which direction you go is not the issue of importance.'
Absolutely. The Lacrosse players and their families stood up to a corrupt prosecutor supported by a number of racist rabble rousers. That is something which demonstrated courage and integrity.
Has Mr. Nifong ever stood up in public and vigorously denied the charges against him. No. He said the Bar was appropriate in its decision to disbar him. He apologized to them and to their parents. He ultimately admitted he had no credible evidence to justify his actions.
David Evans, right after his indictment, stood up in public and declared that the charges against him and Mrs. Seligman and Finnerty were lies."
Your referring to Nifong supporters as racist rabble rousers is misdirected, as it was the beer-guzzling, stripper ogling Duke lacrosse partygoers who were shouting out racial epithets (including the N-word) at the African American dancers... not Nifong supporters.
Sidney:
And of course calling someone "a limp-*ick white boy who can't get a girl friend" is neither racist nor sexist and therefor does not invite a response in kind?
Please, save your moral outrage. The entire "racist exchange" was based on money - the team payed money for a performance that wasn't delivered - and the back-and-forth name calling resulted from an argument over money. Kim Pittman is no more a anti-white misandrist that the fellow who responded to her was an anti-black or anti-hispanic misogynist.
Your tired old trotting out of stereotypes about a particular group of college guys that you don't consider worthy of individual treatment - because I guess you just don't see folks that are different from you as deserving of being treated not as a collective but as a group of individuals - is as bad as your repeated references to a vast conspiracy that you have no hope of proving exists.
Personally, I don't consider you a racist. I consider you sad, obsessed and disturbed.
Sidney said, "Your referring to Nifong supporters as racist rabble rousers is misdirected, as it was the beer-guzzling, stripper ogling Duke lacrosse partygoers who were shouting out racial epithets (including the N-word) at the African American dancers"
First, I never referred to Nifong supporters as, in your words, "racist rabble". I reported the truth, that Mr. Nifong created racial tensions that fueled a wave of media condemnation and then rode that wave to an election victory. Your statistics about voter registration and voter turnout do not refute that.
Further, there was not awhole lot of either beer guzzling or stripper ogling at the party, especialy stripper ogling as the srippers did not do much stripping. There were only two incidents concerning racial epithets, one when Kim Roberts provoked one of the Lacrosse players into calling her "n-----", and one in which Ms. Roberts falsely told the police at 12:53 AM, when 610 North Buchanan was empty, that someone in the house called her "n-----".
It is you Nifong supporters who are calling innocent men rapists. You may not have used the word rapist, but your blog since its day 1 has been dedicated to the proposition that the Lacrosse players were guilty.
This especially sad since you yourself admit there was no evidence of rape.
Bottom line is that the Carolina Panthers could have had Michael Vick as their quarterback if they would have exhibited the courage of a Michael Nifong.
The following blog concerns the vast disparity in the way justice is meted out in North Carolina based on Class and Color.
Sidney says, "Bottom line is that the Carolina Panthers could have had Michael Vick as their quarterback if they would have exhibited the courage of a Michael Nifong."
Michael Nifong exhibited no courage. Michael Nifong pandered to racists rather than do his duty.
Courage is something like David Evans standing up to a rogue prosecutor who thinks he can, with impunity, conduct a wrongful prosecution.
Sidney
The bottom line is, r. Nifong conducted a wrongful prosecution and you have been unable to credibly show otherwise. Is this why you bring in so much material which has no relevance to the Duke hoax/
Anonymous said...
"Sidney
The bottom line is, Mr. Nifong conducted a wrongful prosecution and you have been unable to credibly show otherwise. Is this why you bring in so much material which has no relevance to the Duke hoax?
I respectfully disagree that Mr. Nifong's prosecution was wrongful. First, the Duke Lacrosse team had a reputation of holding raucous parties, and of engaging in distasteful and criminal behavior... usually related to drinking. And what were they doing the night in question? Guzzling beer. It is also well known that the player who arranged the night's entertainment used an alias when talking with the escort service and lied about the particulars of the event. Also he requested white dancers. It is also common knowledge that the Duke Lacrosse team, which has only one African American player, started yelling out racial epithets at the black dancers. Furthermore, the victim alleges that degrading remarks and gestures forced them to stop the performance prematurely. So it is not unreasonable to believe that the case brought by Mr. Nifong had merit. (More so than the cases the prosecutors brought against James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Gregory Taylor, and Alan Gell. And unlike the three Duke lacrosse defendants, these innocent men spent years in jail.)
That is why the post is relevant. Johnson, Daniels, Taylor and Gell were not from families of wealth and privilege. The justice system ignores their rights because of their class and color, and permits their unjust incarceration. With the well-heeled as defendants, the justice system went after the prosecutor who refused the demands of the Powers-That-Be to drop the case.
Sidney said, "First, the Duke Lacrosse team had a reputation of holding raucous parties, and of engaging in distasteful and criminal behavior... usually related to drinking. And what were they doing the night in question? Guzzling beer. It is also well known that the player who arranged the night's entertainment used an alias when talking with the escort service and lied about the particulars of the event. Also he requested white dancers. It is also common knowledge that the Duke Lacrosse team, which has only one African American player, started yelling out racial epithets at the black dancers. Furthermore, the victim alleges that degrading remarks and gestures forced them to stop the performance prematurely."
Sidney, even if all your allegations were true, and there is documentation that they were not, how does that add up to probable cause that some of the Lacrosse players had perpetrated a gang rape on Ms. Mangum.
I remind you, when Ms. Pittman/Roberts called 911 at 12:53AM, she did not report any rape pr sexual assault, She reported that at a time when 610 North Buchanan was empty, people in the house called her and her "girlfriend "n-----".
Ms. Mangum's word, upon Mr. Nifong said he would base his case, was that the rape was one in which the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving DNA evidence of their identity.
Testing of the rape kit yielded no, repeat no evidence of a crime. The only DNA recovered from Ms. Mangum did not match any of the men Mr. Nifong accuse of the crime.
Do you deny all of this?
In the face of all this, how was Mr. Nifong justified in believing a crime had occurred?
You have explained why you believe it. Via your explanation, you have shown yourself to be biased and to have no comprehension of how the law should work.
Sidney said, "It is also common knowledge that the Duke Lacrosse team, which has only one African American player, started yelling out racial epithets at the black dancers."
Sidney, give us the source of this common knowledge.
As documentated on Page 29 of UPI, a source one of your Nifong lovers cited as documentation of Lacrosse team behavior, Ms. Pittman/Roberts admitted inciting the only exchange of racial epithets which occurred at the party. Ms. Pittman/Roberts also admitted her allegation of people at 610 North Buchana called her "n-----" was a lie.
None of your allegations are credible which is not surprising since you n ever document them.
Post a Comment