As you may be aware, we are approaching what is the third anniversary marking the HBO purchase of rights to make a Duke Lacrosse movie. It has had its ups and downs, mostly downs, due to it's impossible attempt to try and make the product it wants to make conform with history and fact. Other stumbling blocks include trying to make the Duke Lacrosse team members look decent when much of their time off field and out of the classroom is invested in its raucous party activities.
The following link presents an exclusive look into the making of the movie... a painful process which should be aborted immediately. As I suggested to Len Amato, President of HBO Movies, it should produce a compelling movie with substance... one that is worth watching. Such a movie would be about the life of Gregory F. Taylor. Not only that, but the movie would come with facts and a history that would not require alteration to make interesting and inspirational.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/btnnews/news18/news18.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
207 comments:
1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»Sidney
Why has Mr. Nifong been so reluctant to release to the media his version of the events, i.e. a book or a documentary or something?
Why has your committee reluctant to fund such an endeavor?
What is it you fear? What do you not want to come out?
The innocent men against whom Mr. Nifong filed trumped up charges certainly have shown no reluctance to air the story.
What's your source for this bit of news, Sid?
FWIW, IMDB shows that the Duke LAX movie will be released in 2011.
Just what the world needs, is this what you would call a cockumentary?
Or how about "Cock & Bull?"
Anonymous said...
"Sidney
Why has Mr. Nifong been so reluctant to release to the media his version of the events, i.e. a book or a documentary or something?
Why has your committee reluctant to fund such an endeavor?
What is it you fear? What do you not want to come out?
The innocent men against whom Mr. Nifong filed trumped up charges certainly have shown no reluctance to air the story."
I am unaware of any of the three defendants writing a book about the Duke Lacrosse case. And the novelists of the books about the Duke Lacrosse case are doing nothing more than hood-winking the public by re-writing history. Like the biased media, they are merely playing Jedi mind-tricks on the people... merely carrying out the agenda of the Carpetbagger Jihad.
And the novelists of the books about the Duke Lacrosse case are doing nothing more than hood-winking the public by re-writing history.
What is inaccurate in the books?
Michael Nifong cooperated fully with HBO to tell his story hiding nothing. He was not reluctant. He is not afraid of anything coming out.
Now HBO is in the position to revise and distort that honest cooperation under intense pressure by the lacrosse families, authors of the optioned book and defense attorneys. These cooperative forces are using the same successful tactics, threats and pressure they exerted on the case itself.
60 Minutes is also exerting tremendous pressure on HBO to adhere to CBS's version of events (and who also worked very intimately with the authors, defense and families during the case itself and advocated their cause in the media, to the Attorney General's office and to the State Bar using their media position) to distort the prosecutor's point of view despite Nifong's full, exclusive and straightforward cooperation.
Michael Nifong cooperated fully with HBO to tell his story hiding nothing.
I would love to hear him explain why he prosecuted a case with what he concedes had "no credible evidence" to support the charges.
Because Nifong believed Crystal Mangum. He believed her story that she was raped. And he believed her testimony should be aired before a jury.
He believed the woman who said she was raped. And he still to this day believes that something happened in that bathroom. As he testified.
His apology and his statement of no credible evidence was the result of an extremely long negotiation. A negotiation that he held out about even over the objections of his own defense team.
He made that statement because he believed the Attorney General's investigation was genuine. He asked them to investigate the case after he was forced by a highly unusual strategic move by the State Bar who made public his ethics charges before the case was over or even went to trial. The State Bar was pressured by the defense and 60 Minutes to take him off the case.
The Attorney General's office had full cooperation with the defense and families and had access to evidence and testimony that all the defense lawyers refused to give police and Mr. Nifong. With the cooperation of the defense lawyers, the Attorney General was able to do a much deeper investigation which Michael Nifong immediately accepted.
His apology to the families was genuine. "No credible evidence" was negotiated at length. Under threat of further action against him.
The state wanted to put this case to bed. After Coman promised Nifong that the Attorney General would not criticize Nifong's investigation, Cooper went before the cameras and called Nifong a rogue prosecutor. Reneging on their promise.
60 MInutes insinuated to the Attorney General's office that Cooper could get exposure on 60 Minutes for his planned run for governor if he would declare the boys innocent. And he did. No Attorney General or a jury or a judge can declare anyone innocent.
Cooper declared them innocent and blamed Nifong and thereby prejudicing Nifong's State Bar hearing through prejudicial comments to the media.
What was the ethics complaint against Nifong from the State Bar? Prejudicing a future hearing through prejudicial comments to the media.
What is inaccurate in the books?
Pick a page.
Cy Gurney -- It's OK to use your real name -- you don't need to post as "anonymous"
"Because Nifong believed Crystal Mangum. He believed her story that she was raped. And he believed her testimony should be aired before a jury."
So why did he not put her before the grand jury? She did not present any evidence to the grand jury. Nifong's enablers and companions in crime are the only people who presented anything to the grand jury.
Why did Mr. Nifong avoid the usual procedure of arresting getting warrants for those charged before going to the grand jury? Was it because it would have triggered a probable cause hearing, at which the defense would have demonstrated Mr. Nifong had no probable cause to believe that a crime had been perpetrated?
What about the actual evidence in the case, the DNA evidence? The medical record described a rape in which the perpetrators would have left their DNA. The police alleged a rape in which the perpetrators would have left their DNA. SBI crime lab testing - you know, the SBI crime lab which was so favorable to helping prosecutors get the evidence to convict - found no DNA from any member of the Duke Lacrosse team. The only male DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person immediately after the alleged rape belonged to people other than members of the Duke Lacrosse team.
Why is it that all you Mike Nifong enablers always duck that issue. Sidney Harr, for pitiful example, says Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charge but kept the sexual assault charge, and a sexual assault could have happened without any DNA being left behind.
Sidney
The three defendants, as you have often pointed out in your blog, have filed lawsuits against various parties involved in the wrongful prosecution they had to endure. That means they will have to testify about the situation. They will have to reveal to the defendants everything they have that supports their case(and Michael Nifong did attempt to prevent them from learning information about his lack of a case).
The defendants, thus far, have devoted their effort not to availing themselves of the opportunity to defend themselves and thus exonerate themselves, but to keeping the lawsuits from ever happening.
So, what are they trying to hide. Why would they be so terrified of defending themselves, if they had done nothing wrong?
Anonymous @ September 19, 2010 9:01 PM
"The Attorney General's office had full cooperation with the defense and families and had access to evidence and testimony that all the defense lawyers refused to give police and Mr. Nifong."
If you had recalled the situation correctly, you would tell the truth, that the wrongfully prosecuted Duke defendants, via their attorneys, did try to present Mr. Nifong with the evidence of their innocence. Mr. Nifong said he was unwilling to talk to any of them unless they were willing to plead guilty.
As someone pointed out earlier in this blog, Reade Seligman named Mr. Moez Elmostafa as a witness to his alibi. The result was that Mr. Elmostafa was arrested on a weak charge and then put on trial when he refused to change his statement supporting Mr. Seligman.
Mr. Nifong publicly accuse members of the Lacrosse team of having knowledge of the alleged crime. He went so far as to threaten criminal charges if they did not come forth and provide such information.
If Mr. Nifong and the Police were prepared to intimidate anyone who came forward with information exonerating the Lacrosse players. If they did not have evidence of the defendants' innocence it was solely because they did not want any such information, and they discourage people from providing such information.
If you were to read the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, you would know that the defendants were entitled not to talk to the police. At the start of the case, all the members of the Lacrosse team cooperated with the investigation by providing DNA samples. That is not at all consistent with the allegation that the defendants improperly withheld information from the police and from Mr. Nifong.
How does that excuse Mr. Nifong from withholding from the defense information about the case which he was legally obligated to turn over to them. Sidney plays mind tricks on himself by saying the evidence was not exculpatory. Whether or not it was, by North Carolina law, the defendants were entitled to have is as soon as Mr. Nifong had it. Mr. Nifong did not provide it.
Unless you are deliberately blind and deaf to the truth, Mr. Nifong prejudiced his own bar hearing by his blatantly wrongful rogue prosecution of the defendants. Nothing Mr. Cooper did affected the outcome of the hearing.
Anonymous @ September 19, 2010 4:49 PM
Present evidence supporting this contention, if you are not such a coward about facing the truth, like Sidney Harr.
"And the novelists of the books about the Duke Lacrosse case are doing nothing more than hood-winking the public by re-writing history."
OK, you Mike Nifong admirers. Why do you not write a book telling your so called true history? Thus far, none of you has done anything to refute the public record of Mr. Nifong's wrongful, rogue prosecution of the Duke defendants.
Why are you afraid to do so?
"He believed the woman who said she was raped. And he still to this day believes that something happened in that bathroom. As he testified."
Please explain why Benjamin Himan testimony to the Bar hearing the ethics complaint, quoting Mr. Nifong's statement, "You know we're f----d." The statement was a comment of the strength of his case against the Defendants.
Anonymous @ September 19, 2010 9:01 PM
Why did Mr. Nifong not seek warrants for the defendants' arrests. As has been pointed out, that would have resulted in a probable cause hearing at which the defendants' attorneys would have presented evidence as to their innocence. The Police and the DA would have had all the evidence the defense had.
You do seem to be saying that the Defendants in this case improperly withheld information from the Police and from Mr. Nifong. That was not the case.
Why are you trying to falsify history? Why do you fear the truth? The most likely reason is that you fear the truth. People who fear the truth do so because they do not tell the truth.
Anonymous @ September 19, 2010 9:01 PM
"He asked them to investigate the case after he was forced by a highly unusual strategic move by the State Bar who made public his ethics charges before the case was over or even went to trial."
Are you saying that the State Bar should have kept the charges secret until the case went to trial? That would have been as unethical and contrary to due process as Mr. Nifong's attempt to conceal exculpatory DNA evidence from the Defendants.
I offer the opinion that making the charges public is a guarantee that a defendant will not be subjected to a secret tribunal, or that a prosecutor can prepare a case against a defendant in total secrecy. Do you disagree with that?
What is improper pre trial publicity is something like Mr. Nifong vouching, before any evidence had been gathered, that he was sure that three members of the Duke Lacrosse team had perpetrated a rape, or that members of the team had eyewitness knowledge of the alleged crime which they were withholding from the authorities.
The mythology of this case is mixed together like strands of spaghetti. Fact and fiction. And it's difficult to pull them all apart.
It's the prosecutor's decision what to put in front of a grand jury. Why did he not get warrants? He didn't have to. The jury indicted.
At the time it was a DNA case, not a victim testimony case. The jury indicted the players on evidence of Nurse Levicy, other counselors and doctors who all believed Crystal Mangum was raped. Please don't write in attacking Levicy. Her inaccurate statement about blunt force trauma were not known to be inaccurate at that time.
That's the problem arguing with hindsight. everything unfolded and was not know from the beginning.
The jury felt the police should be allowed to investigate this case further.
DNA can only be used in court if you find DNA. Lack of DNA never, never, proves someone is not guilty. No matter what the defense says. Of course they should argue that. But it does not hold up in court only in the media.
You can rob an apartment and not leave fingerprints. But if you find fingerprints, you can use that as evidence. Women are raped by men who do not leave DNA evidence.
Once there was no DNA evidence, Nifong made it a victim testimony case.
Why don't Nifong, police want to go to trial? Ironic. Those who can only see the families' point of view, accuse Nifong of wrongly criticizing the players and the accusations themselves are damaging. Cheshire has said that no innocent man should have to defend himself in court.
Yet, Nifong should embrace the opportunity to go to court and defend himself. Do you really not see the irony?
Nifong met with some defense attorneys. He did not meet with Cheshire. It is the DA's decision to meet with a defense attoney or not. Especially when the purpose of the meeting is to drop the case or cut a deal. In this media circus environment, especially, it would not be wise to cut a deal.
Nifong advised the defense to give this evidence to police. All defense attorneys declined. This was not improper withholding. It's typical defense strategy. But what the defense did not do is fully cooperate with police as has been advocated by many. It was not in the interest of the players to cooperate with police. There's nothing wrong with that. But saying you have fully cooperated with police is inaccurate.
The lacrosse captains originally spoke with police before lawyers were involved. Once there were lawyers no player spoke to police again. The team DNA was forced by court order. It was not voluntary. The team did not come forward and talk about that night. Which was the basis of much of the protests at that time.
Continued in next post:
There is no evidence that Nifong intimidated any witness. When the second stripper and the cab driver were caught in this event, it was discovered that they had outstanding warrants under changed names. Normal police procedure is to serve those warrants when these people are discovered. Were they not supposed to serve the warrants when these people were discovered under assumed names? Not serving the warrants would be questionable action. Serving the warrants was proper police procedure.
As far as Nifong telling his story. As stated in the article above, he's worked for 2 years with HBO to tell his story. To a broader audience than the books.
Himan. Read that statement in context. Nifong was reacting to Himan telling him that the police never went to the lacrosse house the night of the alleged rape to gather evidence. The players had time to alter the scene. Nifong said "We're f--ked" because "he said-she said" rape cases are hard to prove. He was angry that the police did not get a warrant sooner. Any prosecutor in that situation would have felt the same. But this quote taken out of context is regularly promoted to mean something different than what it means in context.
The State Bar usually keeps ethic charges private until after the trial. If you have a problem with that in NC speak to the State Bar. But it is another instance that the State Bar changed their normal operating procedures when it came to Nifong.
AG Cooper had a profound effect on the disbarment proceedings against Nifong. He went on national TV and announced to the State Bar that his agency, which is normally on the prosecution's side, was willing to cut Nifong loose. That the NC legal system was intact except for this one individual county DA. The AG refused to represent Nifong, or pay for his defense which is the normal procedure. Again, Nifong was an exception.
Why must we choose sides in this very complicated event? Do you really believe that everyone acted in a completely ethical, noble way and only one single person, a DA, acted as a villain? Especially in such high stakes. That's against almost everything we can observe in human behavior.
Someone spoke about truth. Truth can be relative and I'm careful of those who claim to know the truth especially in such a complex matter. I prefer to try to adhere to accuracy. Why can't we feel for the tremendous ordeal for these families as well as the exceptional action of the state as well?
Why can't we understand the outrage of 60 Minutes about this case but keep an eye on the way they used their power?
Why choose sides? Why not try to understand the accurate course of events? Why are those who purport to know the truth so afraid of accuracy? And if one questions an inaccurate statement, they're attacked as being on one side or the other.
It says something about the divisive nature of discourse in America right now.
Cy -- If you want to be accurate, explain why Nifong decided to pursue this particular case, and why he decided to make the very prominent comments at the beginning of the investigation?
You know, some questions never get old no matter times you answer them.
Your question is not a question. It's a statement. You are not interested in answers.
A woman said she was raped. The nurse who examined her said she was 100% certain she was raped and would testify to that fact. The doctors and rape counselors all said she was raped. Eyewitnesses said lacrosse players carried her out of the house after she had walked in fine and called her a nigger. Two lacrosse players admitted that they stole her money.
The cops thought she was raped.
Should I go on? It's mandated by law to investigate any rape case. If any prosecutor did not pursue this case in the beginning, he would have abused his office.
When the whole town was exploding. The case was in the paper before Nifong was even involved.
The irrefutable fact remains, that HBO had to dismiss two writers because their scripts were too close to the truth for the likes of the HBO producer, Radutzky, and the Carpetbaggers' attorneys. That is why this movie is such a struggle for HBO.
As I stated, what HBO should do is deep-six the Duke Lacrosse movie project and instead produce a movie about Greg Taylor... a compelling and interesting story which doesn't require fabrication to make it worth watching.
"The cops thought she was raped." Really? Are you sure, Cy, or is this, like Sid's posts, just more wishful thinking?
Exactly when did Mikey interview CGM?
Sid -- Can you cite a source? I can't find ANYTHING about the HBO Duke Lacrosse movie....
Gottlieb and Himan, the lead investigator, both testified that initially evidence supported that she was raped.
Nifong first spoke to Crystal Mangum in person in his office on April 11th, 2006.
What about the police officer that responded to the 911 call to the Kroger? What did he think?
The "rape" occurred on March 13th. As you stated, the town was "exploding". Why did it take a month for Nifong to interview the "victim"?
Gottlieb and Himan, the lead investigator, both testified that initially evidence supported that she was raped.
Nifong first spoke to Crystal Mangum in person in his office on April 11th, 2006.
Neither Gottlieb nor Himan are credible sources. Their investigation made no real attempt to solve the alleged crime.
Nifong claimed that he never discussed the allegations with Crystal Mangum.
It's mandated by law to investigate any rape case.
Why did the DPD not conduct a bona fide investigation?
They made no real attempt to solve the alleged crime. The investigation appeared to be designed merely to select defendants and to avoid all other evidence.
The same tired interpretations over and over in the face of facts.
Himan was the lead investigator. You use him with the f--ked statement but when he testifies that in the beginning there was convincing evidence, you discredit him.
You must maintain consistency. If you feel he's discredited, you can't use him to attack Nifong.
The police interviewed both dancers right after the incident. Nifong read those official police statements.
Nifong was not the investigator. The police were running the investigation. Nifong worked with the police as DA. Like all DAs and police do.
(Now bring out the illogical argument that Nifong ran the investigation).
Should he have spoken to her sooner? He has admitted that he should have done that. Is that illegal? No.
He has said he did not discuss the case with her because he felt she was still traumatized as he had seen in many rape and sexual assaults before. Many people have said that she was emotionally unstable. Do you want to call him a liar and not believe sworn testimony?
Was it illegal? No. Could he have done a better job in retrospect? Yes, he would have changed some things.
But he was not disbarred for these interpretive differences.
The police interviewed both dancers right after the incident. Nifong read those official police statements.
The police interviewed both dancers right after the incident. Nifong read those official police statements.
Kim: "Crock!"
He has said he did not discuss the case with her because he felt she was still traumatized as he had seen in many rape and sexual assaults before.
And not having heard her tell her story, he "believed" her nonetheless.
Many people have said that she was emotionally unstable.
Many of these people did not believe her.
Do you want to call him a liar and not believe sworn testimony?
His actions are inconsistent with this professed belief. Why did he not insist that the DPD conduct a bona fide investigation and try to solve the alleged crime.
Anonymous at 4:49 p.m. on 9/19 made the following statement:
"Michael Nifong cooperated fully with HBO to tell his story hiding nothing. He was not reluctant. He is not afraid of anything coming out."
I have trouble believing that the Fong is discussing with movie producers events that lie at the heart of a multi-million dollar law suit in which he is a defendant. But then again, maybe he really is that stupid.
"Lack of DNA never, never, proves someone is not guilty."
The defense is not obligated to prove the defendants are not guilty. The obligation in a criminal case is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty.
I say again, Ms. Mangum and the police described a crime in which DNA should have been left.
How did the lack of DNA in this case prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? That it did not prove guilt, to paraphrase Sidney Harr, had no legal significance.
"Yet, Nifong should embrace the opportunity to go to court and defend himself. Do you really not see the irony?"
Do you not see the irony in Mr. Nifong saying that one wonders why one should need a lawyer when one has done nothing wrong?
Do you not see the irony in the question asked by some Nifong supporters, why were the Defendants reluctant to go to court so they could exonerate themselves?
"Why did he not get warrants? He didn't have to. The jury indicted."
The way a rape case was usually handled in Durham under Mr. Nifong's tenure was that arrest warrants were sought before the case would go to the grand jury. As I have so often said, an arrest warrant would have triggered a probable cause hearing at which Defense attorneys could have presented evidence. Mr. Nifong opted out of that in favor of a procedure at which only he could present evidence.
Did Mr. Nifong present the medical record or the police affidavit which alleged a crime in which DNA would have been left. Did he present the lack of DNA evidence. Prior to the Grand Jury, Mr. Nifong said he would prove the case without DNA evidence. Draw your own conclusion.
Would the Grand Jury have indicted if they had heard the above mentioned evidence about the crime and the lack of DNA? I think not.
"The jury indicted the players on evidence of Nurse Levicy, other counselors and doctors who all believed Crystal Mangum was raped."
Did Ms. Levicy, who has been discredited as a credible witness, testify before the Grand Jury? Did any other counselor or Doctor testify before the Grand Jury?
Who presented the evidence? DA Mike Nifong did. Before the Grand Jury was convened, before any evidence was ever gathered, Mike Nifong publicly proclaimed that a rape had happened and that three members of the Duke Lacrosse team had perpetrated the rape. After such statements, do you think he would present evidence casting doubt on the occurrence of a rape?
Are you saying exculpatory evidence is not valid?
"Women are raped by men who do not leave DNA evidence."
I say again, the medical record and a police affidavit described an alleged rape in which DNA would have been left. So, instead of rationalizing why the prosecution should have gone forward in the absence of DNA, explain why no DNA evidence incriminating the defendants was ever found. Are you saying, even if the DNA evidence cast strong reasonable doubt on their guilt, they should have been tried? What about a prosecutor's ethical obligation not to prosecute if he can not prove his case?
"Nifong met with some defense attorneys."
Mr. Nifong refused to look at evidence that the defendants were in fact innocent.
I again point out, when he learned of Mr. Moez Elmostafa's statement supporting Reade Seligman's alibi, he had Mr. Elmostafa arrested and attempted to have him intimidated into changing his statement. He also tried to intimidate members of the Lacrosse team into providing false statements incriminating the men he wanted to indict.
"That's the problem arguing with hindsight. everything unfolded and was not know from the beginning."
It was not hindsight which caused Mr. Nifong to first claim the DNA testing would make or break his case.
Nor was it hindsight when, after the DNA evidence broke his case, Mr. Nifong dismissed the significance of the DNA evidence.
Nor was it hindsight which caused Mr. Nifong to conceal from the defendants and from the cout exculpatory DNA evidence
"Nifong advised the defense to give this evidence to police. All defense attorneys declined."
Do you think Mr. Nifong's and the Police's attempts to intimidate witnesses favorable to the defense had something to do with that?
That they might not have had the defendants talk to the police, again to paraphrase Sidney Harr, has no legal significance. The 5th Amendment guarantees someone suspected of or charged with a crime the right not to provide information to the police.
"Yet, Nifong should embrace the opportunity to go to court and defend himself. Do you really not see the irony?"
So why does Mr. Nifong not want to go to discovery and then move that the suit against him be dismissed?
"There is no evidence that Nifong intimidated any witness."
Mr. Nifong discovered there was an outstanding warrant against Mr. Elmostafa, a warrant which had not justification it turned out. He had Mr. Elmostafa arrested. When Mr. Elmostafa was brought in, he was asked if he wanted to change his statement about Mr. Seligman. When Mr. Elmostafa said no, he was charged and tried. The trial showed the warrant was riciculous.
Mr. Nifong, before any evidence was gathered, publicly charged members of the Lacrosse team with being eye witnesses to the alleged crime. He threatened to bring charges of aiding and abetting against them if they did not come forth and identify the perpetrators.
"As far as Nifong telling his story. As stated in the article above, he's worked for 2 years with HBO to tell his story. To a broader audience than the books."
So why is he so desperately trying to have the lawsuit against him dismissed before discovery can take place?
"Nifong was not the investigator. The police were running the investigation. Nifong worked with the police as DA. Like all DAs and police do."
It is a matter of public record that Mr. Nifong took over the conduct of the investigation of the alleged rape, that the police who were investigating were instructed to report to him.
"You can rob an apartment and not leave fingerprints."
Does that justify charging someone who did not rob the apartment with the crime? You seem to be arguing that lack of evidence does justify filing charges against someone.
How did the lack of DNA evidence in this case justify charging innocent men with the crime?
"Nifong was reacting to Himan telling him that the police never went to the lacrosse house the night of the alleged rape to gather evidence."
No one went to the house to gather evidence on the night of the alleged crime because the crime was not alleged until several hours after the party happened.
I say again, when the second dancer first called the police, she did not allege a rape had happened but that she and her girlfriend had been called "n----r" when they either walked or drove by the house.
When she called police the second time, it was because Ms. Mangum was under the influence of something(actually she was under the influence of something when she arrived at the party) and would not get out of the car.
Ms. Mangum was then taken to a detox center. There, she was asked by a counselor if she had been raped. She said yes. She was then taken to DUMC. After her first yes she said no, then yes, then no, then finally yes.
Evidence was then gathered, the rape kit. The rape kit showed no evidence of the rape she had alleged.
Is it likely that combing the alleged crime scene right after the alleged crime supposedly happened would have yielded evidence of a rape?
"I prefer to try to adhere to accuracy."
Is it or is it not accurate that the medical record and a police affidavit described an alleged crime which would have left behind DNA evidence?
Is it or is it not accurate that testing of the rape kit revealed no evidence of any DNA from any Duke Lacrosse player?
Was it or was it not accurate for Mr. Nifong to say, after he had the DNA evidence, that a crime had happened but that nothing had been left behind?
"The team DNA was forced by court order."
Mr. Nifong obtained a non testimonial order requiring each and every caucasian member of the Lacrosse team to give DNA samples. Mr. Nifong publicly stated he believed only three members of the Lacrosse team perpetrated the alleged crime. Therefore he did not have probable cause to believe each and every Caucasian member of the team was a suspect. The non testimonial order was therefore not proper. For a NTO to be justified, the person seeking the order has to have probable cause for believing the subject of the order is a suspect. That is North Carolina law.
You have just admitted that Mr. Nifong violated the law right at the outset.
"The team did not come forward and talk about that night"
Nothing was alleged "that night" about any sexual assault. The allegations came after "that night".
And since nothing actually did happen "that night" there was nothing for the team to come forward and talk about.
In any event, the 5th amendment guarantees someone suspected of or charged with a crime the right not to talk about it if that person chooses not to do so. Again to paraphrase Sidney Harr, that the team would not come forward and talk has no legal significance.
Why don't you talk about something significant, like why Mr. Nifong alleged a crime had happened when there was no evidence of such crime?
"How did the lack of DNA in this case prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? That it did not prove guilt, to paraphrase Sidney Harr, had no legal significance."
I correct myself. I should have said that "[t]hat it did not prove INNOCENCRE, to paraphrase Sidney Harr, had no legal significance."
That it did not prove guilt has great legal significance, something Sidney Harr and his followers ignore.
"He has said he did not discuss the case with her because he felt she was still traumatized as he had seen in many rape and sexual assaults before. Many people have said that she was emotionally unstable. Do you want to call him a liar and not believe sworn testimony?
Was it illegal? No"
Mr. Nifong did not have Ms. Mangum interviewed until about than 9 months after the alleged crime. At that time Ms. Mangum could not recall actually being penetrated, an essential element of the crime of rape.
Memory does not improve with time. Memory deteriorates with time. A prosecutor who waits 9 months to interview his complaining witness allows the witness's recall of the case to deteriorate, risking his chance of proving his case.
In not interviewing Ms. Mangum immediately after the case and then recording her recollections of the case, Mr. Nifong was guilty of legal malpractice, even if his case was bogus.
If Mr. Nifong did not have Ms. Mangum interviewed after the indictments, how can anyone claim he sought indictments because he believed her?
"The police interviewed both dancers right after the incident. Nifong read those official police statements."
Ms. Mangum gave multiple mutually contradictory statements to the police immediately after the case. Detective Sgt. Shelton, who interviewed her, did not believe her. Why did Mr. Nifong?
"Should he have spoken to her sooner? He has admitted that he should have done that. Is that illegal? No."
I say again, it might not have been illegal but it was legal malpractice which should have caused people to question Mr. Nifong's competence.
Sidney
"The irrefutable fact remains, that HBO had to dismiss two writers because their scripts were too close to the truth for the likes of the HBO producer, Radutzky, and the Carpetbaggers' attorneys"
What is the source of that information. If you can provide a source it is nothing more than an unsupported allegation which has no significance, legal or other.
"Nifong first spoke to Crystal Mangum in person in his office on April 11th, 2006."
It is a matter of public record that Mr. Nifong, several months after the case developed, admitted he had not yet interviewed the complaining witness.
Is this assertion something from the memo Mark Gottlieb drew up from memory three months after weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case became apparent?
"Eyewitnesses said lacrosse players carried her out of the house after she had walked in fine and called her a nigger."
What eyewitnesses saw her walk into the house. It has been reported she was already under the influence of something before she went into the house. Ms. Mangum admitted taking Flexeril and drinking alcohol before the party.
The only one who used the word "n----" was the second dancer, when she called police after the party and said she and her girlfriend were called that epithet when they were either walking or driving past the house. The party was not mentioned. The second dancer did not allege a rape in that phone call.
So many inaccuracies.
This is the problem. These inaccurate facts, this mythology is repeated over and over again ad nauseum. Narrow-minded and Nifong obsessed. The more they are repeated, the more they become accepted as real.
This case is larger than the one DA. But there is a viral obsession with Mr. Nifong that blinds all other considerations.
As long as this attack of keeping the focus on Nifong is in place, we do not examine the role of the defense, the media, the State Bar, the AG, and on and on.
To break your inaccuracies down I believe will not help. Because you will simply bring up other points about Nifong that continue to be inaccurate and keep the focus on him.
Nifong spoke to Mangum on April 11. It's a matter of record. That he did not have her interviewed until 9 months later is mythology.
HBO has dismissed 2 separate writers not connected to the case because they found through 2 years of research a narrative that goes against your mythology.
You're very confused about how DNA is handled in a court of law.
There was evidence of a crime that night. That evidence, upon further investigation, did not become convincing.
Nifong did not obtain the non-testimonial order. He did not even know the case existed at that point.
It is not a matter of record that Nifong took over the case. That's inaccurate. He told the police to report to him personally instead of other prosecutors. Nifong had never handled a case as DA yet. The defense certainly knew the difference in offering evidence to Nifong and refusing to offer the same evidence to the police who the defense, by their action, knew was running the case.
The warrant against the cab driver was not issued originally by Nifong. Whether you personally believe it was unwarranted is irrelevant.
Nifong met with 3 defense attoneys. And Cheshire showing a photo of Dave Evans without a moustache when Evans was not excluded from the DNA on the fingernail is not proof of innocence.
The police presented the evidence at the Grand Jury. Nifong, by law, was not present.
As far as irony, you're missing it again.
So you criticize Nifong for not telling his side, then when he does, he's stupid.
Okay. This case is bigger than Nifong. Why don't you direct your obsession toward the behavior of your own justice system, like Sidney is doing. The behavior of the AG, the politics of the State Bar. And the other constant injustices that this system perpetrates.
The man who lived next door gave an affadavit that said Crystal Mangum was fine when she walked into the party and when she left she had to be carried out.
It has never been contested that a player called the dancers niggers. As in, "we ordered white girls, not niggers."
To say that the 2nd dancer, by reporting this incident to police, is the only one who uttered the word is absurd.
Crystal Mangum never said she was on flexeril. In the rape nurse interview report, the only thing she said she had that night was two beers.
You are again promoting proven inaccurate statements.
Anonymous @ September 21, 2010 6:18 AM
I am providing accurate statements. The only person involved in this case who used the epithet N----r was the second dancer when she reported that she and her girlfriend had been called that epithet.
Ms. Mangum did admit to taking Flexeril along with alcohol.
If the rape nurse to whom you refer was Tara Levicy, she has shown herself to be an unreliable witness.
What other fantasies do you believe in?
"Evans was not excluded from the DNA on the fingernail is not proof of innocence."
That statement has absolutely no legal weight whatsoever.
The prosecutor in a case has the obligation to prove guilt beyond any and all reasonable doubt. There is no obligation on the part of the Defense to establish innocence. Or, do you not believe in due process?
The DNA on the fingernail was consistent with but not a match to David Evans. The chance that the DNA was not David Evans was about one in one hundred. Considering the population of Durham, that DNA was compatible with not only David Evans but with several thousand other men. To be a match with David Evans that chance had to be one in several million. How does that prove guilt beyond any and all reasonable doubt?
How did the DNA get on the fingernail. You could shake hands with Ms. Mangum and have her DNA all over your hand. Is that proof beyond any and all reasonable doubt that you sexually assaulted Ms. Mangum? Can you show beyond all reasonable doubt that Ms. Mangum did not approach Mr. Evans and touch him. You would have to do that in a court of law to have a chance of showing that DNA was evidence of a crime.
Are you arguing that due process did not apply in this case because the alleged victim was black and the alleged perpetrators were white? That was the argument of the racists who were calling for a guilty verdict.
"It is not a matter of record that Nifong took over the case."
It is a matter of record that Mr. Nifong took personal control over this investigation.
"Why don't you direct your obsession toward the behavior of your own justice system, like Sidney is doing. The behavior of the AG, the politics of the State Bar. And the other constant injustices that this system perpetrates."
Other cases have no bearing on what happened in the Duke Rape Hoax. It was a case of a rogue prosecutor going after innocent men so he could advance his own personal political ambitions. That it was not handled like other alleged cases of prosecutorial misconduct is something for which you and Sidney Harr should be grateful.
Instead, you are defending a narcissistic sociopath who never should have been allowed to practice law in the first place.
"The nurse who examined her said she was 100% certain she was raped and would testify to that fact."
If the nurse was Tara Levicy, it has been established that she cared more about advancing a feminist agenda rather than establishing the occurrence of the rape.
"The doctors and rape counselors all said she was raped."
What doctors? What rape counselors? One doctor examined Ms. Mangum, an ob-gyn resident. She found only diffuse vaginal edema, not at all evidence of rape, especially in light of the facts that Ms. Mangum had had sexual activity before appearing at the party.
Please explain the DNA evidence, or lack thereof. Don't dodge the question. I say again, the medical record and a police affidavit describe a rape in which DNA evidence would have to have been present. There was no evidence of anything that would have indicated a rape. There was no DNA from any of the people who Mr. Nifong identified as suspects. Did the "doctors" or the "rape counselors" have anything about that. Tara Levicy sure did. She said, in effect, the lack of DNA did not exclude a rape, even though the description of the crime was of a crime in which DNA had been left.
The argument seems to be that the evidence did not prove innocence. That shows ignorance, not only of due process but also of North Carolina's Open Discovery Law and of the Brady Versus Maryland decision of the US Supreme Court. Let me describe it again for you.
The Prosecutor has the obligation of proving guilt beyond any and all reasonable doubt. That, to use a word recently used by Sidney Harr, is irrefutable.
Evidence which fails to implicates defendants in a crime and which casts doubt on their involvement in a crime is exculpatory evidence. It is not required for evidence to be exculpatory to prove a defendant's innocence. In this case the DNA evidence did prove the innocence of the people Mike Nifong named as suspects. DNA evidence showed no crime had occurred. If there was no crime, there were no criminals. Can you or Mr. Harr refute that?
A prosecutor is ethically, Constitutionally, legally obligated to share exculpatory evidence with the defense. any exculpatory evidence is an essential part of any criminal case. A prosecutor can not exclude exculpatory evidence because he is personally convinced of the Defendants' guilt, or because he has a personal stake in proving the Defendants' guilt. Can you refute that?
Your arguments make sense only if the DNA evidence were excluded. The DNA evidence, or lack thereof, can not be excluded if you want to understand why any sane rational person, like Roy Cooper, would believe in the innocence of the accused.
"The doctors and rape counselors all said she was raped."
What doctors? What rape counselors? Mr. Nifong did claim that the medical record indicated she had been raped. At the time there was no hard copy of the medical record available for Mr. Nifong to review. It had not been printed when he made that statement.
Only one doctor examined Ms. Mangum, an ob-gyn resident. The only finding recorded was diffuse vaginal edema, not at all a finding diagnostic of rape considering Ms. Mangum had had sexual activity before appearing at the party.
Tara Levicy did say Ms. Mangum had been raped. Ms Levicy was more interested in pushing a feminist agenda than in establishing whether or not a rape had occurred.
"To break your inaccuracies down I believe will not help. Because you will simply bring up other points about Nifong that continue to be inaccurate and keep the focus on him."
In other words, "YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH"(Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men")
"Nifong spoke to Mangum on April 11. It's a matter of record. That he did not have her interviewed until 9 months later is mythology."
It is a matter of record that Mike Nifong admitted, several months after April 11, that he had not personally interviewed Ms. Mangum. It is a matter of record that the DA Office's first direct interview with Ms. Mangum took place in December of 2006.
"...Cheshire showing a photo of Dave Evans without a moustache..."
Crystal Mangum said her third assailant was a man who had a mustache. David Evans never had a mustache. The 'wanted poster", distributed largely via the efforts of David Addison, made up of Lacrosse Team pictures taken before the party, showed David Evans without a mustache. Mike Nifong was never able to produce a picture of David Evans with a mustache. Some commenter on a blog said he had a picture of David Evans with a mustache but never produced it when challenged to do so. Put all that together and it is evidence which any decent honorable prosecutor would have considered exculpatory.
So far as the DNA on Ms. Mangum's fingernail, we have dealt with that. That DNA matched not only David Evans but also thousands of other men in Durham. And you Nifong supporters can not show beyond reasonable doubt that it landed on that finger nail as the result of a sexual assault on the wearer.
Maybe it landed there because Ms. Mangum assaulted David Evans. That a believable scenario.
"You're very confused about how DNA is handled in a court of law.
There was evidence of a crime that night. That evidence, upon further investigation, did not become convincing."
You are very confused about the requirements of proving a crime beyond any reasonable doubt.
What evidence was there that a crime had occurred, other than Ms. Mangum's allegation? The medical record did not show evidence of the crime. Or are you relying on Mr. Nifong's assertion that he had reviewed the record at the time when there was no record for him to review?
The rape kit was obtained within one day of the alleged rape, obtained soon after the allegations were first made. There was nothing on the rape kit to show that the crime alleged in both the medical record and in a police affidavit had happened. There was no DNA found in the rape kit to implicate any member of the Lacrosse team. Those are indisputable irrefutable facts.
Michael Nifong waited for the DNA evidence before he actually proceeded. He believed the DNA evidence would prove the crime and identify the perpetrators, based on his public statements before the DNA came back.
After the DNA came back, within a few weeks of the alleged crime, it showed that no crime had happened. That was when the evidence became unconvincing.
So why did Mr. Nifong decide the case, in his own words, would not "go away", I emphasize AFTER the evidence became non convincing.
No reasonable, honest prosecutor would have continued the case in the face of such unconvincing evidence.
"The police presented the evidence at the Grand Jury. Nifong, by law, was not present."
So why have postrs implied that Ms. Mangum, the examining "doctors", multiple rape counselors and the rape nurse all testified to the Grand Jury?
Who testified? Mark Gottlieb, who never memorialized any statements he had taken immediately after the case? Three months after, from memory, he suddenly recalled everything he had found. Some how, it all explained away the discrepancies in Mr. Nifong's case. He is hardly a credible, honest witness.
"The warrant against the cab driver was not issued originally by Nifong. Whether you personally believe it was unwarranted is irrelevant."
Mr. Nifong made sure Mr. Elmostafa was arrested and brought in, after which police officers attempted to intimidate him to change his statement. Why did they do that, if not on the instructions of Mr. Nifong who has a record of trying to intimidate members of the Lacrosse team into incriminating certain team members.
"Cooper declared them innocent and blamed Nifong and thereby prejudicing Nifong's State Bar hearing through prejudicial comments to the media."
Nifong made pre indictment statements to the media before any indictments were handed down. These were statements to the effect that a crime had occurred, that members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated the crime, that members of the Lacrosse team had witnessed the crime and were refusing to come forth. He made statements to the effect that their retention of counsel(a Constitutionally guaranteed right, for you Nifong supporters who claim he never tried to undermine their rights) was an indication of guilt. He made statements that their refusal to provide information to the police(again a constitutionally protected right) was an indication of their guilt.
Are you saying these public statements on the part of Mr. Nifong did not prejudice the defendants' right to a fair trial?
"Nifong did not obtain the non-testimonial order. He did not even know the case existed at that point."
Mr. Nifong did know the case was developing and did know about the non testimonial order. If he did not, he was negligent because the non testimonial order violated North Carolina law.
Regardless, once the evidence was obtained via the NTO, Mr. Nifong was obligated by law to release the results of the testing to those subjected to the testing IMMEDIATELY!!!, including the results of the tests done by DNA Security. He did not do so. He lied to the court about what he had learned via the NTO.
"So you criticize Nifong for not telling his side, then when he does, he's stupid."
Rather, in view of statements by a Duke University official and by J4N commenters that the Defendants should have gone to trial and proven themselves innocent, I find it curious that Mr. Nifong and his supporters believe the lawsuits against him should be dismissed before discovery can take place. I find that curious because discovery in a civil case would allow Mr. Nifong to tell his story. Some people, e.g. Sidney Harr(who claims the inculpatory evidence Mr. Nifong had was suppressed by the Attorney General) and Wendy Murphy(who has claimed that more than 1000 pages of evidence have been withheld from the public) claim Mr. Nifong has never been able to tell his story.
Also, a number of J4N posters have commented that the reluctance of the defendants(whose right to a fair trial in Durham had been compromised by Mr. Nifong's public pre indictment statements) to go to trial is an indication of their guilt.
So why should we not consider Mr. Nifong's demonstrated reluctance to go to trial as an admission of wrongdoing. Or does that only apply to innocent caucasians wrongfully accused of violating a black woman?
Why the animosity? For whatever reasons, you are simply promoting inaccurate statements.
It would help your argument if you had your facts straight. I'm sure we don't totally disagree on everything.
Have you read Tara Levicy's report? Crystal Mangum says she only drank two beers. When asked if she took any drugs she says no. Saying she admitted she took Flexeril is a proven inaccurate statement. No matter how many times someone like KC Johnson says it, it doesn't make it true.
Michael Nifong took over the case for the DA's office. He prosecuted the case. He told the police lieutenant to have everything run through him, opposed to the sexual crimes unit. Again, all the defense attorneys knew the difference between the police, who they refused to show evidence to, and the DA who they begged to show evidence to. The defense's behavior shows that Nifong did not take over the police investigation. Himan worked in tandem with Nifong as well as independently of Nifong.
Nifong spoke to Mangum on April 11. He did not ask her about that night. The police previously interviewed her a few times. They spoke with Nifong in detail about these interviews and showed him the text. Nifong never personally interviewed her about the night in question ever. Wilson interviewed her, representing the DA's office, in December.
I'm not making an interpretation or judgement. I'm simply stating the fact.
Only one doctor conducted the physical exam, but two doctors spoke with Crystal Mangum at the Access Center and Duke Hospital, and a few counselors also spoke with her and observed her. They all assumed she was raped. It was this line of hospital workers that Joe Cheshire was frightened of taking the stand.
Tara Levicy also told Gottlieb that there was "blunt force trauma" to Mangum's pelvic region. This turned out to be false. But at the time Nifong went in front of cameras that first week, he thought this to be true. He did not assume that the rape nurse was giving them wrong information.
Again. In sworn testimony, which no lacrosse players have denied and many have supported, which Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon accept, a player said to the second dancer, "We ordered white girls, not niggers."
I know this is emotional. And it's difficult when these inaccuracies have been repeated for years. But testimony and documents are the records to base information on, not hearsay, for us to really understand what happened.
You're missing the point on the Cooper statement.
If you believe that Nifong prejudiced a future hearing/trial by talking about the lacrosse players, then you have to be consistent in being troubled by Cooper's statement about Nifong.
When Nifong made statements, it was before any individuals were indicted.
Cooper made the rogue prosecutor statement after charges were filed against Nifong and a hearing was a certainty.
I'm not saying what Nifong did was right talking to the media. No one believes that, even Nifong. What I'm pointing out is that Cooper did a similar thing.
Nifong did not know about or sign or create the language of the NTO.
Good luck, my friend.
"At the time it was a DNA case, not a victim testimony case."
When did it not become a DNA case?
That seemed to be when Mr. Nifong dismissed the DNA evidence when it did not support the case he was trying to make.
This case should have ended when the DNA evidence, or lack thereof, came in.
"He believed the woman who said she was raped. And he still to this day believes that something happened in that bathroom. As he testified."
How does that justify prosecuting men against whom there was no incriminating evidence?sep
"Once there was no DNA evidence, Nifong made it a victim testimony case."
So why did Mr. Nifong wait almost 9 months before having the victim interviewed.
Why did Ms. Mangum's testimony outweigh the lack of any evidence from the rape kit that a rape had happened? Why did the lack of any DNA evidence incriminating any member of the Duke Lacrosse team not outweigh her testimony.
It is a matter of public testimony that Ms. Mangum's testimony was erratic and inconsistent, multiple mutually conflicting accounts.
Her identification of her assailants was far from credible. Two of the people she id'd had solid evidence they had not been present at the party of the time of the alleged rape. She identified as her third assailant not David Evans but a man with a mustache(specifically, she would have been 90% sure David Evans was a perpetrator if he had had a mustache).
No reasonable honest prosecutor would have proceeded with this case just on the "strength???" of Ms. Mangum's credibility. That Mike Nifong did is res ipsa loquitur evidence that he was a rogue prosecutor.
"But saying you have fully cooperated with police is inaccurate."
Mr. Nifong tried to intimidate members of the Lacrosse team into providing incriminating evidence against other members of the Lacrosse team. When they could not do so(there was no crime to be witnessed) he said they were not cooperating.
Ruth Sheehan published an opinion piece in the News and Observer alleging that the Lacrosse team was stonewalling the police("The Silence is Sickening" I believe was the title).
This is how the myth started that the Lacrosse team was refusing to cooperate with the police.
Incidentally, Ms. Sheehan later admitted she was wrong in accusing the team of stonewalling.
"He believed the woman who said she was raped. And he still to this day believes that something happened in that bathroom. As he testified."
So, what evidence did he have which supported his belief? His belief is not probable cause for him charging any Lacrosse player with any crime.
"HBO has dismissed 2 separate writers not connected to the case because they found through 2 years of research a narrative that goes against your mythology."
Provide the evidence you have. If you have no evidence, this is nothing but an unproven, unsupported allegation>
"...refusing to offer the same evidence to the police who the defense, by their action, knew was running the case."
Where in the legal system do you find that a defense attorney is required to provide any evidence to the police. Even if a defendant has perpetrated a crime, even if he has shown the defense attorney evidence of his guilt, the attorney would, via attorney-client privilege be prohibited from providing that evidence to the police.
"I know this is emotional. And it's difficult when these inaccuracies have been repeated for years. But testimony and documents are the records to base information on, not hearsay, for us to really understand what happened."
I have reviewed the records, as did Mr. Cooper before he determined that the Defendants were innocent.
"Again. In sworn testimony, which no lacrosse players have denied and many have supported, which Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon accept, a player said to the second dancer, "We ordered white girls, not niggers."
So why do so many of you Nifong supporters allege that the Lacrosse team captains sought to hire black strippers?
"Have you read Tara Levicy's report? Crystal Mangum says she only drank two beers. When asked if she took any drugs she says no. Saying she admitted she took Flexeril is a proven inaccurate statement. No matter how many times someone like KC Johnson says it, it doesn't make it true."
No many times you deny it, it does not make the statement that Ms. Mangum did mix alcohol and flexeril does not make it untrue.
"Why the animosity? For whatever reasons, you are simply promoting inaccurate statements."
I simply can not believe any one would try to defend a narcissistic sociopath who would put three innocent men in prison simply to further his own agenda or promote his own welfare. This narcissistic sociopath believed his own well being trumped the law, legal ethics and the Constitution of the United States.
What I am saying I learned by reading the facts of the case.
"You're missing the point on the Cooper statement."
"When Nifong made statements, it was before any individuals were indicted."
You are missing the point. The statements Mr. Nifong made, that a crime had occurred, that members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators, that members of the Lacrosse team had witnessed the crime and were not coming forth were made before there was any evidence generated in the case. Those comments violated the presumnption of innocence
Statements to the effect that retaining representation of counsel was an indication of guilt, that refusing to talk to the police or to the DA was an indication of guilt were undermining of the defendants' rights under the Constitution.
Even if they were made pre indictment, they wer prejudicial to the members of the Lacrosse team and no reasonable, honest prosecutor would have made them. That they were made pre indictment only emphasizes the rogue nature of Mr. Nifong's prosecution of members of the Lacrosse team.
Then we have the principle of clean hands. A person can not sue another person to recover money when the money is money the first person originally acquired by theft. You are not on the moral high ground arguing that Mr. Cooper's statements were improper and Mr. Nifong's were not.
In any event, can you demonstrate that Mr. Cooper's statement affected the State Bar when it tried Mr. Nifong on ethics violations?
Mr. Nifong's statements, even though they were pre indictment, did prejudice people against members of the Lacrosse team. Or are you forgetting how the New Black Panthers gathered in Durham pre trial to demand guilty verdicts against the defendants? Would that have happened had Mr. Nifong behaved like an ethical prosecutor and not made those statements? Are you forgetting the pot banger demonstrations, the sign calling for castration of the members of the Lacrosse team? Would those have happened had Mr. Nifong not made his prejudicial, unethical pre indictments about the case?
"If you believe that Nifong prejudiced a future hearing/trial by talking about the lacrosse players, then you have to be consistent in being troubled by Cooper's statement about Nifong."
Rather, if you express concern about Mr. Cooper's statement, why do you defend Mr. Nifong's much more egregious, harmful, unethical statements about the Lacrosse players?
"Cooper declared them innocent and blamed Nifong and thereby prejudicing Nifong's State Bar hearing through prejudicial comments to the media."
What evidence do you have that the Defendants were not innocent. What evidence do you have that a crime happened(an allegation is not evidence). What evidence do you have which incriminates any member of the Lacrosse team.
There was evidence that no rape had happened, and that no Lacrosse player ever perpetrated any sexual assault upon Ms. Mangum, the oft mentioned DNA evidence which you wish to deny.
Since there was no evidence either of the alleged crime or of the Lacrosse team's involvement in the said crime, what is inappropriate about Mr. Cooper's belief that they were innocent? Why would his expression of that belief prejudice Mr. Nifong's right to a fair trial before the State Bar?
That Mr. Nifong could not refute the evidence had more to do with his conviction and well deserved disbarment than any statement on the part of Mr. Cooper.
My friend, take a breath.
Why do you think I'm defending Michael Nifong?
When you say that Crystal Mangum admitted that she took Flexeril. And I say that is proven not to be true if you read the nurse's report, why is that defending Nifong?
This is the problem. When an inaccuracy is corrected without judgement, it's assumed to promote an opposite political viewpoint. If someone points out a factual mistake, it's defending a psychopath.
Is this where we are in America? On my side or against me. So paranoid. Mangum can promote a false accusation without being on Flexeril. Why isn't that good enough? Why do you have to play loose with the facts to make your point?
When you promote that she said she was on Flexeril, when that is patently false, it weakens your whole argument.
And much of what you say falls into the same category. True, the media gets it wrong. And you've gotten much of these inaccuracies from the media and blogs.
I'm not defending Nifong. I'm correcting your inaccuracies.
"Cooper declared them innocent and blamed Nifong and thereby prejudicing Nifong's State Bar hearing through prejudicial comments to the media."
Mr. Cooper was not involved with prosecuting Mr. Nifong before the State Bar. So how was it inappropriate for him to express an opinion about the Defendants' innocence. He certainly had more justification to believe they were innocent than Mike Nifong or Sidney Harr have to believe they were guilty.
If Mr. F. Lane Williamson had made that comment then it would have been inappropriate.
What you are saying is that the innocent should have stood condemned so the Bar would not have been able to make its case against Mr. Nifong.
This is a PAPEN policy - Prosecute Every Prosecutor Except Nifong.
"Again. In sworn testimony, which no lacrosse players have denied and many have supported, which Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon accept, a player said to the second dancer, "We ordered white girls, not niggers."
Produce the testimony.
You're missing the point again.
Nifong prejudiced a possible future trial by speaking to the media and was charged by the State Bar as being against the code of conduct.
Cooper prejudiced a Nifong's State Bar hearing by speaking to the media (rogue prosecutor) and was not only not charged, he was never even criticized.
For a quick reference, page 29 in KC Johnson & Stuart Taylor's book Until Proven Innocent:
"The comment was:"We wanted white girls, not n_____."
No one involved has ever denied that this racist comment was yelled at Kim Roberts.
Anonymous said...
"Sid -- Can you cite a source? I can't find ANYTHING about the HBO Duke Lacrosse movie...."
You can't find anything about the HBO Duke Lacrosse movie because it is one big gigantic mess, and they (HBO, the movie's producers, the Carpetbaggers and their attorneys, and the media) don't want the public to know. That is why you need to visit this blog site to find out what's going on. Not even the Durham-wonder-land blog site wants to touch this.
Anonymous @ September 21, 2010 11:38 AM
How do you justify objecting to Mr. Cooper's comment and not objecting to Mr.Nifong's far more vicious comments? That is the point not gotten.
Mr. Nifong's comment were demonstrably prejudicial and harmful to the members of the Lacrosse team. You can not demonstrate that Mr. Cooper's comment adversely affected Mr. Nifong's chance for a fair trial.
You are saying that the innocent should have stood condemned in order that Mr. Nifong would have a better chance for acquittal. How does that satisfy the requirements of due process?
Sidney:
"You can't find anything about the HBO Duke Lacrosse movie because it is one big gigantic mess, and they (HBO, the movie's producers, the Carpetbaggers and their attorneys, and the media) don't want the public to know. That is why you need to visit this blog site to find out what's going on. Not even the Durham-wonder-land blog site wants to touch this."
Don't make me laugh. You haven't provided one truthful, accurate fact about the hoax since ed blogging.
Have you ever provided any evidence of any carpet bagger jihad? Thus far it is only an unproven allegation which means nothing. For this allegation to mean something, you have to prove the truth of it.
Anonymous said...
"'As far as Nifong telling his story. As stated in the article above, he's worked for 2 years with HBO to tell his story. To a broader audience than the books.'
So why is he so desperately trying to have the lawsuit against him dismissed before discovery can take place?"
The HBO movie about the Duke Lacrosse case is not Mr. Nifong's doing. He merely cooperated by making himself accessible to the man writing the screenplay and telling him what actually happened.
The reason he is trying to have the lawsuit against him dismissed is because it is baseless, without merit, and malicious. The judge should have took the initiative to toss out the case on his own.
"Have you read Tara Levicy's report? Crystal Mangum says she only drank two beers. When asked if she took any drugs she says no. Saying she admitted she took Flexeril is a proven inaccurate statement. No matter how many times someone like KC Johnson says it, it doesn't make it true."
She said this in the UNC medical interview...about the Flexeril that is.
For a little change of pace, the next blog will discuss discrimination against Nifong supporters on the Duke University campus.
Also: work is progressing well on the next "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" comic. It will be bigger than the previous four episodes combined. Titled, "Episode V: Super Heroes Smackdown: Initial Encounter."
It promises a lot of action, and will feature many cameo appearances, including one by Governor Bev Perdue. Watch for it... coming soon to the j4n website!!!
"DNA can only be used in court if you find DNA. Lack of DNA never, never, proves someone is not guilty....
You can rob an apartment and not leave fingerprints. But if you find fingerprints, you can use that as evidence. Women are raped by men who do not leave DNA evidence."
Uh, eh, ok, "Mr./Ms. truth is relative, I strive for accuracy" soooo...
Ms. Mangum's handwritten account taken shortly after the party (not months later) says one of her attackers ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. Hours (not days or months) after she held the very life essence of her attackers (literally teeming with DNA) in her mouth albeit for the briefest time, the mouth is swabbed in a clinical setting and a chain of custody for the swab is established.
The swab goes to the SBI lab. No semen. Zero. Well....maybe her spit is magical! It completely clears her mouth of all traces of the attacker's sperm and the attackers (being the brilliant criminal masterminds that they are) scrub the bathroom of the semen/spit combination while leaving other semen (from house residents) on the very same floor.
Let's test the magic spit theory says the DA. Do we do YSTR because we can't find semen and lo and behold! Paydirt! Male DNA from at least two males in her mouth. The spit wasn't so magical after all. Great, so let's go get the guys whose DNA we found!
Uh, no, not LAX players. OK let's go back to magic spit! Uh, no. It can't be magic spit because we have evidence of early sex that didn't get out of her mouth and we cant say that the spit was selective and just cleared her mouth of evidence of later sex.
Why can't we? Because that would be an inaccurate statement of a scientific reality. And we're all about accuracy aren't we, professor? Truth, well, not so much about that, huh, professor?
Look how quick Sid is to change the subject when the ejaculate in the mouth spit on the floor thing comes up.
Anonymous @ September 21, 2010 10:55 AM
"'Again. In sworn testimony, which no lacrosse players have denied and many have supported, which Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon accept, a player said to the second dancer, "We ordered white girls, not niggers.'"
Who do you claim provided this sworn testimony? How do you justify saying that Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon accepted this as true, "sworn" testimony?
As I demonstrated in my previous comment(I apologize for the typos) this DID NOT come from anyone's sworn statement.
I ask you, did you really believe I did not read Until Proven Innocent?
OOPS! My previous comment did not appear. I will redo it.
As Paul Harvey might have said, this is the rest of the story about Page 29 of Until Proven Innocent.
Kim Roberts: "I called him a little dick white boy, who probably could'nt get it in on his own and had to pay for it."
More Kim Roberts: "So he was mad, and it ended with him calling me gthe N word. And it echoed, so you heard 'nigger once and then you heard, 'Yeah, nigger, nigger, nigger.' You know what I mean?...[I] OBVIOUSLY PROVOKED THAT REMARK(emphasis added). But then...ge ciykd gave saud 'black girl'. He dudb't have to go that route."
Farther down on Page 29 "[Matt Zash recalled hearing SECONDHAND(emphasis added) that the comment was: 'We wanted white girls, not n______.'
Farther on down on page 29: "At 12:53 A.M., Kim called 911, saying that she and a girlfriend had been driving (or walking, she said at one point) past 610 North Buchanan and that the guys had yelled racial slurs at them. HER ASSERTIONS WERE, SHE LATER ACKNOWLEDGED, LIES(emphasis added)."
The quote does not come from any one's sworn testimony, according to Page 29. In fact, Kim Roberts, the target of the slur, does not recall that as the quote.
Did you really believe I did not read Until Proven Innocent?
Sidney
"
The reason [Mr. Nifong] is trying to have the lawsuit against him dismissed is because it is baseless, without merit, and malicious. The judge should have took the initiative to toss out the case on his own."
Your opinions, again, mean nothing.
If the case were indeed baseless, then why would Mr. Nifong not let the case go on to discovery? Surely his best chance for showing the case is baseless would be to allow his attorneys access to the plaintiffs.
"For a little change of pace, the next blog will discuss discrimination against Nifong supporters on the Duke University campus."
Sidney, you really can not stand the heat and want to get out of the kitchen>
OOPS again! Let'a see if I can post this without typos.
As Paul Harvey might have said, this is the rest of the story about Page 29 of Until Proven Innocent.
Kim Roberts: "I called him a little dick white boy, who probably could'nt get it in on his own and had to pay for it."
More Kim Roberts: "So he was mad, and it ended with him calling me gthe N word. And it echoed, so you heard 'nigger once and then you heard, 'Yeah, nigger, nigger, nigger.' You know what I mean?...[I] OBVIOUSLY PROVOKED THAT REMARK(emphasis added). But then...he could have said 'black girl'. He ddidn't have to go that route."
Farther down on Page 29 "[Matt Zash recalled hearing SECONDHAND(emphasis added) that the comment was: 'We wanted white girls, not n______.'"
Farther on down on page 29: "At 12:53 A.M., Kim called 911, saying that she and a girlfriend had been driving (or walking, she said at one point) past 610 North Buchanan and that the guys had yelled racial slurs at them. HER ASSERTIONS WERE, SHE LATER ACKNOWLEDGED, LIES(emphasis added)."
Again, this quote does not come from anyone's sworn testimony. One wonders, why would someone supposedly committed to truth distort Page 29 so grossly as to hide the truth.
Sid -- What's your source for this story?
Just for comparison -- It took 3 years for another sport-related novel (“The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game”, by Michael Lewis) to become a movie.
It has taken 8 years for "Moneyball" (same author) to become a movie.
FWIW, I've never heard of struggles with regards to making either of these movies....
Why does Sid have to give up a source for his story?
On this site, anonymous said the only one who said the n-word was Kim Roberts.
That's a false statement.
Even KC Johnson admits that one lacrosse player said this. We know who this player is. His identity has been protected. I think his identity should be protected because it may put him in danger.
Dave Evans in his police statement said there were racial slurs. Zash also reported this in his police statement. The team went into the AG's office and interviewed. Those players present said that this certain player called Roberts a nigger.
Roberts never took back that she was called the n-word, only that she was not walking by the house.
Why intentionally distort these things?
All the defense attorneys know that this one player did this. No one had ever contested this, including KC Johnson & Stuart Taylor.
Why make a stand on something that is clearly false.
This is what makes people not believe those defending only the players. That this side won't concede to anything.
Because you use a racial epithet does not mean you rape. Why deny the epithet?
Why fight so hard against something that is so clearly inaccurate?
"Professor" accuracy: deal with a real issue, like exculpatory DNA. Why do you even spend time on the name calling issue with Kim? What point are you trying to make - that you're reasonable and other people aren't. OK, be reasonable, explain your position regarding the "accuracy" of the theory that lack of DNA proves nothing.
"Why does Sid have to give up a source for his story?"
Because until he can provide a source it will alway be "his story" (with the emphasis on "story"). He has stated several things as facts -- he stated that there have been "ups and downs, mostly downs" in making the movie, then he stated the "irrefutable fact" that HBO had to dismiss two writers because their scripts were too close to the truth for the likes of the HBO producer.
If these are FACTS, then they can be verified elsewhere. If these are FACTS, Sid shouldn't have a problem identifying the source for them.
Otherwise, Sid's statements are simply uniformed opinions (at best) or outright lies, and should be exposed as such.
I was incorrect to say that Kim Roberts was the only one to use the "n" word.
"Why intentionally distort these things?"
Indeed why?
Kim Roberts admitted she had provoked the only use of the word N----- by a member of the Lacrosse team. Kim Roberts admitted that it was a lie that she and some girlfriend were called N----- while either walking or driving by 610 North Buchanan.
Furthher, is is a lie that any player gave sworn testimony that what was said, "We wanted white girls, not N______."
Anonymous @ September 21, 2010 11:29 AM
"When you say that Crystal Mangum admitted that she took Flexeril. And I say that is proven not to be true if you read the nurse's report, why is that defending Nifong?"
Anonymous @ September 21, 2010 12:31 PM
"Have you read Tara Levicy's report? Crystal Mangum says she only drank two beers."
According to WRAL, "Police notes also indicate the the accuser said she had one or two large-size beers before the party and had taken Flexeril, a muscle relaxant, which might have contributed to her inebriated condition later when officers first encountered her and thought she was drunk."
This was posted on WRAL's web site on August 25, 2006 and updated on
January 7, 2007
They're spending time on the n-word because someone said that the lacrosse players never used it. And blamed the word on Kim Roberts. That's why. They brought this issue up.
And finally that person has just admitted that he was incorrect. But mitigates it by saying she provoked it. Calling someone white and then calling them a nigger is not equal. Especially when there are 40 men and two women. She was called a bitch, slut, they made fun of her stretch marks and that she had children. Should I go on? What is with you people? Don't you have any common decency?
And now, since I just read this thread, this same person is now claiming some kind of issue still because there was no sworn statement about it.
Even though all the lacrosse players present gave statements to the Attorney General's office as well as the police and their own lawyers that a player called her a nigger.
He's still trying to make some kind of point. My god!
Anonymoius @ September 22, 2010 3:17 PM
Had you any real undistorted awaeness of the situation, you would realize:
1) We are spending time on it because a lot of Nifong supporting liars claim that the lacrosse players directed numerous unprovoked racial epithets at the women.
2) Only one player spoke a racial epithet, the word n-----, which he directed at the second dancer.
3) The second dancer, Kim Roberts, admitted she provoked the epithet by calling him "a little dick white boy, who probably could'nt get it in on his own and had to pay for it."
4) After the party, Kim Roberts called the Durham police and reported that guys at 610 North Buchanan had called her and a girlfriend "n-----". She later admitted she had made a false report.
5) Two J4N posters alleged that it was sworn testimony by a Lacrosse player that one of them said, "We wanted white girls, not n------." One of those posters cited Page 29 of Until Proven Innocent as the source supporting the claim. The story on Page 29 shows that statement did not come from anyone's sworn testimony. That is a fabrication.
5) What is your evidence that "she was called a bitch, slut, they made fun of her stretch marks and that she had children."? Who was the subject of those remarks. Kim Roberts never claimed she was referred to in such a manner.
5) Which "lacrosse players present gave statements to the Attorney General's office as well as the police and their own lawyers that a player called her a nigger."? Can you quote those statements. Even if you can, one player exchanging racial epithets with Kim Roberts is not 40 players all shouting epithets at the two women.
What kind of a lie are you trying to foist on us?
Anonymous @ September 22, 2010 3:17 PM
"What is with you people?"
We have a bit of dislike for liars like you distorting the facts of the false Duke Rape case.
For all you anonymouses who say Mike Nifong interviewed Ms. Mangum immediately after the case developed, here is the headline of an article published in the Washington Post on October 27, 2007:
"Prosecutor Yet to Interview Rape Accuser"
Anonymous @ September 22, 2010 3:17 PM
One or two pro Nifong posters got caught fabricating a lie. You don't like that, do you?
"The jury felt the police should be allowed to investigate this case further."
Wrong! The jury, acting only on evidence presented by Mike Nifong, which probably did not include the exculpatory DNA ec=vidence, indicted the Lacrosse players. That meant the jury felt they should be bound over for trial.
As some of your fellow pro Nifongers have said, get your facts straight,
Anonymous @ September 21, 2010 10:08 AM
You say Mike Nifong interviewed Crystal Mangum on April 11, 2007. According to the Washington Post, in October 2007, Mr. Nifong admitted he had not yet interviewed Ms. Mangum.
He never had Ms. Mangum interviewed until about two months after that admission
More for you pro Nifongers:
"I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We're not at that stage yet."
That is Mike Nifong quoted by the Washington Post in itss October 27, 2997 article.
"According to Nifong, none of his assistants had discussed the case with her, either."
That is also a quote from the October 27 article of the Washington Post.
Anonymous @ September 22, 2010 3:17 PM
What are your reactions to this pro Nifong lie?
For the pro Nifongers who say the police reacted immediately to allegations of rape at 610 North Buchanan, here is a quote from DIW:
"Gottlieb’s investigation was almost laughably shoddy. He didn’t request a search warrant for the players’ house until 48 hours after the alleged attack."
For the pro Nifongers who claim that Ben Himan found credible evidence of rape, more from DIW:
"According to Inv. B.W. Himan’s notes, the accuser described at least two of her attackers in ways didn’t remotely resemble any of the lacrosse players."
For the pro Nifongers saying that there was evidence of a rape at the outset, here is a quote. The individual making the quote is the security guard at the Krogers at which Kim Roberts sought assistance getting Ms. Mangum out of her car.
"On the tape, which was recorded April 3, three weeks after the lacrosse party, the guard can be heard saying, "There ain't no way she was raped -- ain't no way, no way that happened."
This report was posted on ABC News posted on April 17, 2006.
A lacrosse player called Kim Roberts a nigger. An anonymous writer here said that never happened. It did happen.
Do you want to know his name?
He has admitted he called her that. His family knows he did. Do you want me to tell you his name? Do you want to know the name of the lacrosse player who said Kim's "only a stripper"? Do you want to know the name of the lacrosse player who mocked her stretch marks?
Do you really think this information would be on DIW?
Quoting KC Johnson's opinion is not evidence.
For the last time (or maybe not). Michael Nifong met Crystal Mangum in person in his office on April 11th. He did not talk to her about that night. He asked her if she was sure she wanted to press charges. He also explained some procedures on what she would have to do to proceed.
The police had already interviewed her. He had already spoken to the police officers about it. He had read her written police statement.
By the way, quoting media reports as evidence is unreliable. If it were reliable, you can quote Newsweek as calling the lacrosse players rapists. Media sources are not reliable evidence.
I am not saying that these players raped anyone. But why can't you get your facts straight? Even after they are already accepted by everyone who was involved in the case.
As stated, the police did not get a search warrant for 48 hours. When Nifong learned of this, this is where the "We're f--ked" statement comes from.
This length of time for the warrant was not acceptable to Nifong.
You can't criticize the police for getting a warrant so late and then turn around and criticize Nifong for reacting the same way you are. It's inconsistent.
This is not a pro-Nifong stance. This is you're making an inconsistent argument stance.
So let me understand this new argument.
A night security guard at a Kroger store who never interviewed Mangum or examined her said "ain't no way she was raped."
A rape nurse expert who interviewed Mangum and was present during her physical exam and did an official report and also gave a statement to police that Mangum was raped.
If you were a prosecutor which one would you think was more credible?
Of course, Nifong did not know the comment of this security guard at the time.
As it turns out, there was not convincing evidence of a rape.
But think of a prosecutor in that circumstance in the initial moment.
Do you really believe that Nifong should have acted on a comment of a security guard, a security guard that he did not know at that time made that comment?
Can you imagine the criticism brought down upon a prosecutor if he said a rape nurse expert at highly respected Duke Hospital examined this young woman and says that emotionally she was traumatized consistent with a sexual offense and physically there is evidence of a rape.
On the other hand a night guard at the Kroger says, "She ain't raped." So I'm going with the security guard.
Folks, she ain't raped.
"A lacrosse player called Kim Roberts a nigger. An anonymous writer here said that never happened. It did happen."
Yes I did say it did not happen. When I learned I had been mistaken, I took responsibility for my error.
A lot of Nifong lovers claim, without any evidence to support them, that Ms. Mangum was raped by the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. Have any of these ever taken responsibility for their error?
"Do you want to know his name?"
Yes. Please provide it.
"He has admitted he called her that. His family knows he did. Do you want me to tell you his name? Do you want to know the name of the lacrosse player who said Kim's "only a stripper"? Do you want to know the name of the lacrosse player who mocked her stretch marks?"
Yes. Please tell us the source of your information so others can examine it, the same way I examined Page 29 of UPI after two lying pro Nifongers claimed it was a sworn statement that a player said, "We wanted white girls, not n------."
"Quoting KC Johnson's opinion is not evidence."
So, why did two lying Nifong supporters refer to UPI(KC Johnson is the co author) as evidence that in a sworn statement someone testified a player said, "We wanted white girls, not n------."
At the time of the examination, the nurse that examined CGM could hardly be characterized as "a rape nurse expert". She was still considered "in training" and was not qualified to conduct or evaluate the sexual assault examination.
This has been documented extremely well by Kathleen Eckelt, a SANE nurse trainer.
"For the last time (or maybe not). Michael Nifong met Crystal Mangum in person in his office on April 11th. He did not talk to her about that night. He asked her if she was sure she wanted to press charges. He also explained some procedures on what she would have to do to proceed."
That is not an interview.
Why did Mr. Nifong admit in October of 2006 that neither he nor anyone in his office had yet interviewed Ms. Mangum?
Why did he not interview Ms. Mangum on that occasion. Her recollection of the night would have been better than her recollection nine months later.
Why did lying Nifong supporters state that Mr. Nifong "interviewed" Ms. Mangum on April 11, 2006 when in fact, by your admission, he did not?
"A rape nurse expert who interviewed Mangum and was present during her physical exam and did an official report and also gave a statement to police that Mangum was raped."
I repeat what a poster has already said. On the morning of March 14, 2006, Ms. Levicy had just completed training as a SANE nurse, had never performed a SANE exam and had not met the requirements for certification as a SANE nurse. It is a matter of record that an Ob-Gyn resident, Dr. Julie Manly performed the exam because Ms. Levicy was not allowed to do so.
As so many of your pro Nifongers like to say, get your facts straight.
Anonymous @ September 23, 2010 6:36 AM
Please read the comments about Ms. Levicy's quslificstions. Would a Grand Jury have indicted any one in this case if it had known that Mr. Nifong's evidence had come from a recently trained, inexperienced, non certified SANE nurse who had not actually examined the patient? What would have happened to such nurse in court had Mr. Nifong offered her as an expert witness.
The Nifong supporters say there was ample evidence obtained after the alleged crime that Ms. Mangum was raped. The first witness who saw her after the alleged rape did not believe she had been raped.
It is a good thing he did not come forward as boldly as Moez Elmostafa. Mr. Nifong would have probably arrested him on some charge.
"I am not saying that these players raped anyone. But why can't you get your facts straight? Even after they are already accepted by everyone who was involved in the case."
None of the defendants in the case accepted as fact the accusation that Ms. Mangum had been raped. The evidence obtained via the NTO, the lack of DNA to demonstrate any sexual contact between any defendant and Ms. Mangum supported the defendants, as many pro Nifongers have admitted in a back hand way.
I say again that the descriptions of the alleged crime in the Medical Record and in a Durham police affidavit are of a rape(not sexual assault but a rape) in which DNA evidence would have been raped.
I should also point out, no defendant or jihadist had any opportunity to tamper with the evidence before it was obtained.
"By the way, quoting media reports as evidence is unreliable. If it were reliable, you can quote Newsweek as calling the lacrosse players rapists. Media sources are not reliable evidence."
So you admit that the initial Ruth Sheehan article in the N&O, that the Duff Wilson article in the New York Times, the reports in the media that Ms. Mangum had been battered and bruised, had no legal weight in the case?
"Do you really believe that Nifong should have acted on a comment of a security guard, a security guard that he did not know at that time made that comment?"
I believe that the first individual who had witnessed Ms. Mangum after the alleged crime believed she had not been raped.
I believe, Mr. Nifong, had he been aware of the comment, should have interviewed the witness. Mr. Nifong was more into intimidating witnesses favorable to the defense than he was into interviewing them.
I believe that Mr. Nifong should not have declared in the media before any evidence had been gathered that he was sure that a rape had occurred and that three members of the Lacrosse team had been the perpetrators.
I believe Mr. Nifong should not have stated publicly that he had reviewed the Medical Record when there was no record to review.
I believe that Mr. Nifong was correct in stating the DNA evidence which he had sought would exonerate the innocent and identify the guilty.
However, I believe Mr. Nifong should not have proceeded with the case once he had DNA evidence which had exonerated all the potential suspects and identified none of them as a perpetrator.
To sum up, I believe Mr. Nifong, after having no evidence, should have proceeded to indict three men identified as assailants by Ms. Mangum in an improperly conducted lineup. I say again, two of them were not at the scene of the alleged crime at the time the crime allegedly happened. She identified as the third assailant a man with a mustache. The man Mr. Nifong indicted never had a mustache.
Do you want to know what else I believe?
You can't criticize the police for getting a warrant so late and then turn around and criticize Nifong for reacting the same way you are. It's inconsistent."
You can criticize them for waiting 48 hours to search the alleged crime scene rather than searching it immediately.
It is like a DA waiting 9 months to interview the alleged victim of an alleged crime.
No one said the KC book was evidence of a sworn statement. They said the fact that a lacrosse player is even referenced in your own bible. You claimed it did not happen.
They referenced the incident from KC's book to show you even KC knows that the player used that word.
What's the point of harping on whether a police statement or statements to the Attorney general's office are technically sworn statements or not.
If a sworn statement was required, these players would testify that this particular player used that epithet.
And why would you want that player's name identified? If you are defending those players. I don't. I would not want to say who called her those names or other things.
"A rape nurse expert who interviewed Mangum and was present during her physical exam and did an official report and also gave a statement to police that Mangum was raped.
If you were a prosecutor which one would you think was more credible?"
If the Rape Nurse was a trained experienced certified rape nurse, the prosecutor should regard her as the expert. However, you miss the points, that Ms. Levicy was not at the time a trained, experienced, certified rape nurse and she had not actually done the examination.
Had Mr. Nifong put her on the stand as his expert witness, the Defense could have easily impeached her.
Doesn't Mr. Nifong's reliance on Ms. Levicy as his expert actually show he did not have credible evidence of a rape?
"To sum up, I believe Mr. Nifong, after having no evidence, should have proceeded to indict three men identified as assailants by Ms. Mangum in an improperly conducted lineup. I say again, two of them were not at the scene of the alleged crime at the time the crime allegedly happened. She identified as the third assailant a man with a mustache. The man Mr. Nifong indicted never had a mustache."
Correction:
I should have said "...Mr. Nifong, after having no evidence, should NOT have proceeded to indict three men identified as assailants by Ms. Mangum in an improperly conducted lineup."
My apologies.
"They referenced the incident from KC's book to show you even KC knows that the player used that word.
What's the point of harping on whether a police statement or statements to the Attorney general's office are technically sworn statements or not."
The point on harping on it is that two Nifong said that the source of that statement was a sworn statement. That was a fabrication.
Further, the source they cited documented that the Lacrosse team DID NOT indulge in hurling multiple racial epithets at the Dancers.
Why do you not want to harp on it? Do you also not like that a couple of Nifong Lovers were caught in a lie, like Mr. Nifong was.
You are missing the point again about a prosecutor in that situation.
First, Levicy had completed training. As she testified, in a SWORN statement for the bar hearing. She had completed her training. And she was qualified to conduct the SANE nurse exam. She had not received her certificate through the mail yet. That's why on the report she put nurse-in-training. But she was qualified to do the exam.
This is a typical distortion to discredit Duke, etc. and to make the argument that Nifong should have known IMMEDIATELY that a SANE nuse was lying.
That a doctor examined Mangum was not because Levicy was not qualified to do so. It's common procedure at Duke that a doctor perform the actual ezam. Dr. Manly did this exam. Levicy was in the room at all times, assisted and observed. Dr. Manly was not to determine whether Mangum was raped or not. Her job was to simply describe her physical condition. It was Levicy's job to determine whether that physical exam supported the possibility of this person being raped.
Levicy determined that there was enough evidence to support in a court that Mangum was raped. And would testiify to that in court.
Again, I'm not saying that this means that Mangum was raped. I'm saying that's a very strong statement from Duke Medical Center. When did the DA receive this information? Right before he walked out and gave his first interviews with the media.
It doesn't mean that he was right in what he did. But can you at least try to understand the circumstances that this DA was thrust into.
No one said that Nifong interviewed Mangum on April 11 about the night in question.
Because he did not.
No one said that. Nifong spoke to her. It's already been explained. Please read more carefully.
Tara Levicy was certified at the time she performed the SANE exam.
She was recently certified. That's true. But you cannot say that she was not certified.
"If a sworn statement was required, these players would testify that this particular player used that epithet."
Matt Zash was the only player referenced by name on Page 29 of UPI. Mr. Zash "recalled hearing SECOND HAND(emphasis added) that the comment was 'We wanted white girls, not n------.'"
That is what Mr. Zash would have said in a sworn statement. He heard someone say the comment was "We wanted white girls, not n------."
Such testimony, even if sworn to under oath, would not be admissable in court. It is not direct testimony that he heard the statement but that hearsay testimony that he had heard that some other Lacrosse player had made the statement.
In view of what is described on Page 29, why do Nifong lovers claim there were numerous racial epithets hurled at the dancers at the party.
If you say UPI is not reliable, then why did some Nifong lovers use it to "prove" a lacrosse player spoke a racial epithet? Why would they not quote Kim Roberts' account in which she admitted she provoked the epither?
"Levicy determined that there was enough evidence to support in a court that Mangum was raped. And would testiify to that in court."
And I say again, Ms. Levicy's status as a qualified expert witness could have been easily impeached, which would undermine any significance of her statement.
"Before any evidence had been gathered"
You can discredit the SANE Levicy. But you cannot say that the DA made statements to the press before ANY evidence had been gathered.
A SANE at Duke Medical Center after she and a doctor examined her said Mangum was raped.
"And why would you want that player's name identified? If you are defending those players. I don't. I would not want to say who called her those names or other things.
For the following reason I would at least like the accuser to reveal the source of his accusations.
Two Nifong lovers did claim it was someone's sworn testimony that a Lacrosse player said, "We wanted white girls, not n------." I asked for a source. One of them cited Page 29 of UPI. When I looked at Page 29, I saw that the source of that statement was not any one's sworn testimony. The claim made by those Nifong lovers was a lie.
I would like the accusers to at least cite their source so someone can check to see it their accusations are accurate.
One would not cite the source of one's allegations if one did not want to be exposed as a liar.
"You can't criticize the police for getting a warrant so late and then turn around and criticize Nifong for reacting the same way you are. It's inconsistent."
The inconsistency here is between the claim of many Nifong lovers that there was evidence obtained immediately after the alleged rape that a rape had occurred and the failure of the police to examine the alleged crime scene until 48 hours after the alleged crime.
How can anyone argue that the police obtained valid evidence right after the crime when it is a matter of public record that they did not search the crime scene in a timely manner?
No one said the lacrosse players used multiple racial epithets.
You said no one did.
The team members, in first hand accounts, told Coman and Winstead at the AG that one player, and they named him, called Roberts a nigger. They also said it was wrong of him to do so.
Why can't you admit the same.
"It was Levicy's job to determine whether that physical exam supported the possibility of this person being raped."
So why was Ms. Levicy not permitted to do the Physical exam? Why did an ob-gyn resident, to whom Mr. Nifong never referred, brought in to do the physical exam.
Don't you understand that everyone has protected the players who used the word nigger and held up a broomstick and said other negative insults and the two players who robbed Mangum?
These players are known. They are being protected because they could be in danger.
They are not sources. The sources are the other team members. The AG. The DA, the police. The police records.
"But you cannot say that the DA made statements to the press before ANY evidence had been gathered."
Before any evidence was gathered, Mr. Nifong did state that he was sure a rape had occurred and that three members of the Duke Lacrosse team had been perpetrators. At the time, Ms. Mangum was saying that any where from 5 to 20 members had perpetrated the crime.
Mr. Nifong stated he had reviewed the Medical Record. At the time the medical record had not been printed. In a subsequent statement, after he had stated he had reviewed the medical record, after the rape kit testing revealed no evidence of a rape, Mr. Nifong said he would not be surprised if condoms had been used. The medical record, which Mr. Nifong claimed to have read, stated in multiple places, Ms. Mangum had said her assailants did not use condoms.
This was already explained.
Levicy was not PREVENTED from conducting the physical exam. A doctor (MD) always conducts the physical part of the exam.
Dr. Manly has conducted hundreds of rape exams.
For those who say I am "... missing the point on the Cooper statement."
Please note, before Mr. Cooper became involved in the case, DAs in North Carolina, commenters in other areas, called Mr. Nifong questionable and called for him to drop it. Professor James Coleman. Even DU President Robert Brodhead called for him to recuse himself.
In that context, Mr. Cooper's April statement of his belief in the defendants innocence had no significant effect on the State Bar.
You said Nifong made statements to the press before ANY evidence had been gathered.
That's not an accurate statement.
Evidence had been gathered by a doctor and SANE nurse at Duke Medical Center.
"The police had already interviewed her. He had already spoken to the police officers about it. He had read her written police statement."
The police had recorded that Ms. Mangum had made multiple conflicting statements to the police. That Mr. Nifong read those statements should have caused Mr. Nifong to interview her personally before proceeding.
Mangum never said that 20 people raped her.
This is another of hundreds of inaccurate statements that constantly get thrown around.
The Duke campus police misunderstood a police officer say that he thought there were 20 men at the party.
The campus cop thought he said 20 men raped her.
So the defense and others ran with this in the media until they discovered that it was false.
Mangum said 5 men one time. All the other times she said 3 men.
She never said 20 men raped her.
"You said Nifong made statements to the press before ANY evidence had been gathered."
Why did Mr. Nifong eventually claim, after he had supposedly read the medical record, that the perpetrators had probably used condoms. The medical record, which was not available at the time Mr. Nifong claimed he had read it, stated Ms. Mangum had denied her assailants had used condoms.
"You said Nifong made statements to the press before ANY evidence had been gathered."
Was Mr. Nifong's demonstration of a choke hold which had never happened, an indication that he was really aware of any evidence in the case?
Ms. Mangum never alleged she had been choked.
"You said Nifong made statements to the press before ANY evidence had been gathered."
Even if he had had evidence at the time he made these statements, he should not have made them. The source for that is the North Carolina standards of ethics for a prosecutor.
The Attorney General of the state of North Carolina announcing to the media, the public and the State Bar that one of his own men was fully and singly responsible for the entire lacrosse case mess had tremendous ramifications.
Regardless of the hypocritical position of Cooper publicly influencing a future hearing of a man accused of publicly influencing a public hearing.
"Don't you understand that everyone has protected the players who used the word nigger and held up a broomstick and said other negative insults and the two players who robbed Mangum?"
According to the source cited by two fabricating Nifong lovers, only one player used the epither "n-----".
I say again, one who will not cite his sources is afraid of being exposed as a liar.
"The Attorney General of the state of North Carolina announcing to the media, the public and the State Bar that one of his own men was fully and singly responsible for the entire lacrosse case mess had tremendous ramifications."
Not after multiple other attorneys, most North Carolina's DA's, Professor James Coleman and NY sex crime prosecutor Linda Fairchild(view the ABC nightline video on the dropping of the Lacrosse case) all publicly questioned Nifong's ethics in pursuing the prosecution of three innocent men.
You seem to be saying the three real victims of this case should have plead guilty so that Mr. Nifong would not have to face an ethics trial
Mangum did allege that she was choked in a police statement.
Another inaccurate statement.
The TV interviewer asked Nifong how would that have been done. And Nifong demonstrated it.
The news cast cut out the question of asking how that would have been done and just showed Nifong doing the choke hold. This clip got played constantly over the course of a year.
"The Attorney General of the state of North Carolina announcing to the media, the public and the State Bar that one of his own men was fully and singly responsible for the entire lacrosse case mess had tremendous ramifications."
Specify, if you will, exactly how Mr. Cooper's statement adversely affected Mr. Nifong's ethics trial.
Mr. Nifong's statements, that three Lacrosse players had perpetrated a gang rape on Ms. Mangum, made when he had no evidence incriminating any of them, did have an inflammatory effect on Durham, the venue in which Mr. Nifong wanted to try the case.
If Mr. Nifong did indeed have evidence, why did he say the DNA testing would be crucial in showing who were the perpetrators. Why did he discount the DNA evidence once it showed not merely that no Lacrosse player had perpetrated an alleged rape, but that no rape had happened?
"Regardless of the hypocritical position of Cooper publicly influencing a future hearing of a man accused of publicly influencing a public hearing."
Again, you seem to think the Lacrosse players should have plead guilty so that Mr. Nifong would not have to have faced the hearing.
Why has Mr. Nifong never tried to have the hearing result overturned? Why has Sidney Harr never tried to have the hearing result overturned.
Such an attempt would trigger a public reesamination of the evidence and I believe Mr. Nifong does not want that.
Can we also say one is a hypocrite who believes Mr. Nifong should not have been charged with making improper, unethical public statements but who thinks the AG should not have expressed his opinion that the Lacrosse players were innocent.
Why do you believe it was not unethical or inflammatory for Mr. Nifong to proclaim, publicly, without any evidence, that three Lacrosse players had perpetrated a rape. Was he not trying to stir up support for his indicting three men?
How is that consistent with the duty of the prosecutor to determine the truth before prosecuting?
Mr. Cooper did determine the truth. Mr. Nifong never tried to do so. Had he done so, would he have waited 9 months to interview the accusing witness. Would he have dismissed the results of the rape kit testing? Would he have withheld the results of DNA Security's tests on the rape kit?
One of the commenters on this post said that Mr. Cooper should have been on Mr. Nifong's side.
Mr. Nifong's primary "side" in this case was to have determined the truth of the rape allegation, not to prosecute it. I recall Sidney Harr saying that a prosecutor's primary duty is to determine the truth. Did Mr. Nifong try to determine the truth. I say again, the results of the rape kit testing, which Nifong lovers want to disappear, showed that no rape had occurred. Mr. Nifong prosecuted any way.
No ethical attorney in the country could have been on Mr. Nifong's side.
Are you Nifong lovers saying Mr. Cooper should have tried to make Mr. Nifong's case for him? That was not any duty of the State Attorney General.
How could Mr. Cooper not support the Lacrosse players in public if he was convinced of their innocence and after Mr. Nigong had so unethically condemned them in public?
"Mangum did allege that she was choked in a police statement."
So how come the medical record never recorded it and how come no evidence of choking had been noted on the physical exam, which HAD NOT been performed by Tara Levicy?
Why is correcting your inaccurate statements assumed to be pro-Nifong?
Why is correcting your inaccurate statements taken to be anything except correcting your inaccurate statements?
I'm not re-trying the case. I'm correcting your inaccuracies.
"Levicy was not PREVENTED from conducting the physical exam. A doctor (MD) always conducts the physical part of the exam."
An experienced, certified SANE nurse would have been allowed to examine a rape victim. That is part of their training.
"Dr. Manly has conducted hundreds of rape exams."
So why was Dr. Manly never interviewed by the DA? Why did Mr. Nifong never refer to her. Why do so many Nifong lovers cite Ms. Levicy as having performed the physical exam?
"Why is correcting your inaccurate statements taken to be anything except correcting your inaccurate statements?"
I am not making inaccurate statements. I am refuting inaccurate statements and fabrications made by Nifong lovers.
Why are your statements pro Nifong. Because, deny it if you will, you support Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution of innocent men.
"Mangum never said that 20 people raped her."
Yes she did
"It doesn't mean that he was right in what he did. But can you at least try to understand the circumstances that this DA was thrust into."
Mr. Nifong's circumstances are a matter of public record, Sidney Harr notwithstanding. Mr. Nifong was running for DA. Mr. Nifong was badly trailing Freda Black in pre election polls. Mr. Nifong needed a racially charged issue which would get him the support of Durham's black voters. He turned the false allegation of the crime into a racially charged situation.
When you say no player called Kim Roberts a nigger.
And I say that a player did call her a nigger, that does not support Nifong's prosecution of innocent men.
"The sources are the other team members. The AG. The DA, the police. The police records."
So tell us how we might access the sources.
You are incorrect. Crystal Mangum never said she was raped by 20 men.
You must be getting your information from KC Johnson. I guess that's your "source".
I just told you what happened. Joe Cheshire knows this. All the defense attorneys know this.
Wilson had a conflict with Joe Cheshire about this.
This was an unfortunate misunderstanding by campus police.
"I'm not re-trying the case. I'm correcting your inaccuracies."
Who ever said anyone was retrying the case? Quote the comment in which this statement was made.
The only things which could be retried are Mr. Nifong's ethics trial and Mr. Nifong's trial for Criminal Contempt, both of which he tried to sidetrack.
Mr. Nifong thus far has tried to avoid a re trial.
"Wilson"
Which Wilson. Do you mean Linwood Wilson.
For those who say Ms. Mangum never alleged she had been raped by 20 men, this is from Wikipedia:
"Durham police said that Mangum kept changing her story and was not credible, reporting that she initially told them she was raped by 20 white men, later reducing the number to only three.
Wikipedia cites the News and Observer as its source for this statement. Unfortunately the links are broken.
Nifong lovers may have as much regard for Wikipedia as they do for KC Johnson. Can they provide quotes to support the claim that Ms. Mangum never claimed 20 men raped her?
I say, if they can or will not, let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.
To whoever claimed to know the name of the Lacrosse player who said "We wanted white girls, not n------."
If you were reluctant to release the name, why did you challenge me to ask it.
You challenged me to ask it. When I did you backed down.
"First, Levicy had completed training. As she testified, in a SWORN statement for the bar hearing. She had completed her training. And she was qualified to conduct the SANE nurse exam. She had not received her certificate through the mail yet. That's why on the report she put nurse-in-training. But she was qualified to do the exam."
A SANE nurse has to do much more than "complete training" before she can be a certified SANE(incidentally, for you have said a SANE does not examine, SANE stands for Sexual Assault Nurse EXAMINER!!!). In fact she had not completed training. The training included a period in which Ms. Levicy had to function under supervision and complete a number of examinations(more for the Nifong lovers who say a SANE does not examing). Ms. Levicy, at the time she first saw Ms. Mangum, had just started her supervised hands on training, so to speak. She was not a certified Nurse Examiner who was qualified to examine a victim and render an independent opinion.
So what if Tara Levicy gave a sworn statement. Her statement would have been easily impeached at trial, considering she had not examined Ms. Mangum.
Are you saying a defense attorney can not attempt to impeach a witness? How deluded you are! Consider Brian Meehan, formerly of DNASI. The Defendants attorneys were able even without an expert witness of their own, were able to impeach his credibility as Mr. Nifong's expert. While he was under oath, and without the full report of DNASI's testing, just the raw data, the Defense attorneys were able to have Mr. Meehan admit he and Mr. Nifong conspired to conceal results of that testing from the Defense.
Are you saying that is not permissible trial procedure. Are you saying any testimony of a Prosecution Witness should be accepted by the court at face value
"Professor" accuracy relays the following information that we can be sure is accurate because of the "professor's" passion for "accuracy:
"The police had already interviewed her. He had already spoken to the police officers about it. He had read her written police statement."
"Professor," if Nifong had read her "written police statement" he would have seen the part where one of her attackers ejaculated in her mouth, no?
Now, to be accurate, did Nifong not say that the DNA tests would clear the innocent?
SBI tests come back showing no semen found anywhere. How could that be if Mangum were telling the truth?
A prosecutor concerned with "accuracy" would have gone to Mangum, or have had the police go to Mangum, and ask a simple question: Why couldn't we find semen in your mouth if what you said was true?
An "accurate" description of Nifong's behavior in these circumstances would be that her could not bring himself to ask that question.
An "accurate" description of your behavior on this board is that you can not bring yourself to answer that question. Answering that question means dealing with the enormous credibility issue that Mangum's account posed.
As for the number of men she identified, you forgot one more inconsistency: that she named 4 men in the rigged non-lineup, lineup as her attackers, but Mr. Nifong only indicted 3. The 4th, unfortunately for Nifong, was a local Durham kid that everyone knew and liked.
Now, if you truly are not taking sides, "professor," perhaps you will FINALLY STOP DODGING AND EXPLAIN THE LACK OF SEMEN IN MANGUM'S MOUTH.
Otherwise, just shut up.
"Levicy was not PREVENTED from conducting the physical exam."
I say again that SANE means Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner. That in turn says the SANE is qualified to examine a patient alleging Sexual Assault.
If Ms. Levicy was qualified to examine Ms. Mangum, why was a resident called in to do the exam? Why was that resident never interviewed by the DA's office.
Anonymous @ September 23, 2010 11:26 AM
How accurate you tell it.
Professor Accuracy, like most Nifong lovers, does not want to face the truth.
If you read all Mangum's police statements and the nurse's reports, she never said 20 men raped her.
The media got many things on all sides of the issues wrong.
I asked rhetorically if you would want to reveal this young man's name on the internet.
Why would I give you control of that information?
KC Johnson knows who said it.
SANE stands for Sexual Assault Nurse Expert, not examiner.
I haven't answered any questions.
I'm simply correcting your inaccuracies.
To the last poster:
A quick Google of "SANE Nurse" would have turned up a document from the US Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, entitled "Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs: Improving the Community Response to Sexual Assault Victims."
Now, do you still say that the "E" in SANE is for "expert," or do you agree with the US Department of Justice?
Post a Comment