This blog will mainly be dedicated to making a few announcements. The first is that a date has tentatively be set for the highly anticipated Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.” The 17 part episode (bigger than the previous four episodes combined) is scheduled to begin its run on the first Sunday in 2011. It is titled: “Super Heroes Smackdown: Initial Encounter.” Per custom, one part of the episode will be posted on the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong website. There will be a new posting each Sunday up to the episode’s conclusion, 17 weeks later. Unlike previous episodes, this one will be inundated with local newsmakers and celebs… What’s even more gratifying is that Roy Cooper’s alter ego, Super-Duper Cooper, will make his first appearance since the opening episode. Episode V definitely fills the prescription for comic strip adrenaline junkies – loads of action. A link will be posted below for a preview trailer to the comic strip.
Also, the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has expanded its horizons, and in addition to being available on Amazon’s Kindle offering as a subscription, it has a page on Facebook, which is “Justice 4 Nifong.” Also you can now subscribe directly to the blog. (See panel on upper right side of the page.)
Finally, the website will be undergoing a few change within the next couple of weeks to make it even more easily navigated. There will be an attempt to add more animation, and more interactivity with the new web pages, and likewise, there will be an attempt to keep files small, and the download time as short as possible.
I would like to make just a few statements about false accusations made recently by a commenter to the blog. He/she stated that I called the Duke Lacrosse defendants rapists. There is nothing that could be further from the truth. It is not my objective to prove or disprove the case. What is obvious is that Mike Nifong, the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since 1933, was selectively and unjustly disbarred. My focus is on the persecution and mistreatment of Mike Nifong. The guilt or innocence of the Duke Lacrosse defendants is irrelevant to my concerns… in other words, it has nothing to do the unprecedented draconian treatment to which Mr. Nifong was subjected.
LINK to comic strip preview trailer: http://justice4nifong.com/mmedia/trailerA/trailerA.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
144 comments:
Mike Nifong was railroaded by a State Bar hearing committee that consisted of 2 defense lawyers and a school teacher.
There was no judge and no jury. And they did not have to adhere to rules of the court.
It was a complete and utter set-up. This was a conscious decision by the State to scapegoat all the horrors that had happened in this whole fiasco to one single man. Michael Nifong.
The media took this hearing as a trial for the case. The trial they all wanted. The trial they felt they were deprived of. And ramped this hearing up to national hysteria.
The purpose of the hearing was not to re-try the case, they did not have the power to do that. But they tried anyway to utter failure.
The conclusions of the hearing are laughable. Almost none of the conclusions were proven in the hearing. And ridiculously, many of the claims in the conclusion were not even discussed in the hearing much less proved.
For instance that Michael Nifong had singlehandedly caused the people of NC to lose faith in the justice system. Never once did they even bring up the subject much less evidence of whether the people of NC had lost faith in the justice system. Completely embarassing.
The conclusion speech of the chairman is so riddled with irony and hypocrisy, making rambling excuses for previous State Bar ethical blunders, putting his foot in his mouth constantly, acknowledging the AG Cooper overstepped his bounds by claiming innocence, that it's amazing that anyone took this laughable speech seriously. But they did. Without any analysis from the media.
Let's try this one last time:
1. Nifong was the prosecutor in one of the most notorious crime investigations of the decade;
2. Nifong pursued that prosecution despite DNA findings (some of which were not timely or fully reported - but all of which Nifong was aware) that incontrovertibly demonstrated that the complaining witness lied about key elements of the crime and despite incontrovertible, public evidence at the time that 2 of the 3 accused were not even present at the crime scene at the time of the alleged attack;
3. Nifong made public, extrajudicial comments that he believed a crime had occurred and that 3 members of the Duke Lacrosse Team committed the crime - something that a prosecutor can't say without prejudicing a potential jury pool;
4. This was not some little prosecutor foible that could be covered up - this was the FULL MONTY in front of national news cameras playing out for months;
5. In a key public hearing in December of 2006 the expert witness that was critical to the case told the judge and assembled media that he and Nifong agreed that his lab would NOT submit its standard summary of findings - but would only submit a partial summary of only issues that were favorable to the prosecution;
6. The State Bar (which normally tried to cover up for bad prosecutors or turn a blind eye to prosecutorial misconduct) brought pre-trial charges against Nifong because of the EXTRAORDINARY public nature of the problem of a continuing prosecution of demonstrably innocent people after a transparent attempt by the prosecutor to manipulate key evidence going to the veracity of the complaining witness;
7. Nifong had to recuse himself given the pending ethics charges because of conflict of interest;
8. The state AG took the case and reviewed the investigation of the Durham Police Department as well as conducting fresh interviews of key witnesses;
9. The state AG concluded that there was NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that a crime had occurred and that there was SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the individuals charged could not have committed the crime that was alleged - they were factually innocent because they did not have the OPPORTUNITY to commit a crime within the context of the facts adduced by the investigation - "innocence" being a factual conclusion that a criminal investigator can reasonably arrive at within the scope of his office/powers;
10. The only part of this that was media-driven was the sheer unrestrained exhibitionism of the prosecutor, Nifong, that far outstripped that of his equally-corrupt prosecutorial peers.
THAT, dear readers, is why Nifong got disbarred. It was only selective prosecution by the State Bar to the extent that Nifong selected himself by forcing the State Bar's hand with his over-the-top highly public antics in front of national news cameras.
Let's try this one last time:
1. Nifong was the prosecutor in one of the most notorious crime investigations of the decade;
2. Nifong pursued that prosecution despite DNA findings (some of which were not timely or fully reported - but all of which Nifong was aware) that incontrovertibly demonstrated that the complaining witness lied about key elements of the crime and despite incontrovertible, public evidence at the time that 2 of the 3 accused were not even present at the crime scene at the time of the alleged attack;
3. Nifong made public, extrajudicial comments that he believed a crime had occurred and that 3 members of the Duke Lacrosse Team committed the crime - something that a prosecutor can't say without prejudicing a potential jury pool;
4. This was not some little prosecutor foible that could be covered up - this was the FULL MONTY in front of national news cameras playing out for months;
5. In a key public hearing in December of 2006 the expert witness that was critical to the case told the judge and assembled media that he and Nifong agreed that his lab would NOT submit its standard summary of findings - but would only submit a partial summary of only issues that were favorable to the prosecution;
6. The State Bar (which normally tried to cover up for bad prosecutors or turn a blind eye to prosecutorial misconduct) brought pre-trial charges against Nifong because of the EXTRAORDINARY public nature of the problem of a continuing prosecution of demonstrably innocent people after a transparent attempt by the prosecutor to manipulate key evidence going to the veracity of the complaining witness;
7. Nifong had to recuse himself given the pending ethics charges because of conflict of interest;
8. The state AG took the case and reviewed the investigation of the Durham Police Department as well as conducting fresh interviews of key witnesses;
9. The state AG concluded that there was NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that a crime had occurred and that there was SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the individuals charged could not have committed the crime that was alleged - they were factually innocent because they did not have the OPPORTUNITY to commit a crime within the context of the facts adduced by the investigation - "innocence" being a factual conclusion that a criminal investigator can reasonably arrive at within the scope of his office/powers;
10. The only part of this that was media-driven was the sheer unrestrained exhibitionism of the prosecutor, Nifong, that far outstripped that of his equally-corrupt prosecutorial peers.
THAT, dear readers, is why Nifong got disbarred. It was only selective prosecution by the State Bar to the extent that Nifong selected himself by forcing the State Bar's hand with his over-the-top highly public antics in front of national news cameras.
Let's try this one last time:
1. Nifong was the prosecutor in one of the most notorious crime investigations of the decade;
2. Nifong pursued that prosecution despite DNA findings (some of which were not timely or fully reported - but all of which Nifong was aware) that incontrovertibly demonstrated that the complaining witness lied about key elements of the crime and despite incontrovertible, public evidence at the time that 2 of the 3 accused were not even present at the crime scene at the time of the alleged attack;
3. Nifong made public, extrajudicial comments that he believed a crime had occurred and that 3 members of the Duke Lacrosse Team committed the crime - something that a prosecutor can't say without prejudicing a potential jury pool;
4. This was not some little prosecutor foible that could be covered up - this was the FULL MONTY in front of national news cameras playing out for months;
5. In a key public hearing in December of 2006 the expert witness that was critical to the case told the judge and assembled media that he and Nifong agreed that his lab would NOT submit its standard summary of findings - but would only submit a partial summary of only issues that were favorable to the prosecution;
6. The State Bar (which normally tried to cover up for bad prosecutors or turn a blind eye to prosecutorial misconduct) brought pre-trial charges against Nifong because of the EXTRAORDINARY public nature of the problem of a continuing prosecution of demonstrably innocent people after a transparent attempt by the prosecutor to manipulate key evidence going to the veracity of the complaining witness;
7. Nifong had to recuse himself given the pending ethics charges because of conflict of interest;
8. The state AG took the case and reviewed the investigation of the Durham Police Department as well as conducting fresh interviews of key witnesses;
9. The state AG concluded that there was NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that a crime had occurred and that there was SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the individuals charged could not have committed the crime that was alleged - they were factually innocent because they did not have the OPPORTUNITY to commit a crime within the context of the facts adduced by the investigation - "innocence" being a factual conclusion that a criminal investigator can reasonably arrive at within the scope of his office/powers;
10. The only part of this that was media-driven was the sheer unrestrained exhibitionism of the prosecutor, Nifong, that far outstripped that of his equally-corrupt prosecutorial peers.
THAT, dear readers, is why Nifong got disbarred. It was only selective prosecution by the State Bar to the extent that Nifong selected himself by forcing the State Bar's hand with his over-the-top highly public antics in front of national news cameras.
Let's try this one last time:
1. Nifong was the prosecutor in one of the most notorious crime investigations of the decade;
2. Nifong pursued that prosecution despite DNA findings (some of which were not timely or fully reported - but all of which Nifong was aware) that incontrovertibly demonstrated that the complaining witness lied about key elements of the crime and despite incontrovertible, public evidence at the time that 2 of the 3 accused were not even present at the crime scene at the time of the alleged attack;
3. Nifong made public, extrajudicial comments that he believed a crime had occurred and that 3 members of the Duke Lacrosse Team committed the crime - something that a prosecutor can't say without prejudicing a potential jury pool;
4. This was not some little prosecutor foible that could be covered up - this was the FULL MONTY in front of national news cameras playing out for months;
5. In a key public hearing in December of 2006 the expert witness that was critical to the case told the judge and assembled media that he and Nifong agreed that his lab would NOT submit its standard summary of findings - but would only submit a partial summary of only issues that were favorable to the prosecution; [to be continued]
[continued...]
6. The State Bar (which normally tried to cover up for bad prosecutors or turn a blind eye to prosecutorial misconduct) brought pre-trial charges against Nifong because of the EXTRAORDINARY public nature of the problem of a continuing prosecution of demonstrably innocent people after a transparent attempt by the prosecutor to manipulate key evidence going to the veracity of the complaining witness;
7. Nifong had to recuse himself given the pending ethics charges because of conflict of interest;
8. The state AG took the case and reviewed the investigation of the Durham Police Department as well as conducting fresh interviews of key witnesses;
9. The state AG concluded that there was NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that a crime had occurred and that there was SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the individuals charged could not have committed the crime that was alleged - they were factually innocent because they did not have the OPPORTUNITY to commit a crime within the context of the facts adduced by the investigation - "innocence" being a factual conclusion that a criminal investigator can reasonably arrive at within the scope of his office/powers;
10. The only part of this that was media-driven was the sheer unrestrained exhibitionism of the prosecutor, Nifong, that far outstripped that of his equally-corrupt prosecutorial peers.
THAT, dear readers, is why Nifong got disbarred. It was only selective prosecution by the State Bar to the extent that Nifong selected himself by forcing the State Bar's hand with his over-the-top highly public antics in front of national news cameras.
That wasn't the subject.
The subject is the behavior of the AG and the State Bar. Not the behavior of Michael Nifong. Keep on topic.
It's been said that genius is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in your mind at the same time. Clearly there are not many geniuses arguing about the lacrosse case.
If a prosecutor acts unethically that does not mean that the party that sanctions him therefore acts ethically.
Because a defendent is found not guilty does not mean that their defense attorneys acted ethically.
Because the media acted wrongly in prosecuting the lacrosse men in the beginning, does not mean they got the story right at the end.
It's not a question of one or the other.
So genius, try to have one thought besides Nifong is the antichrist in your mind.
By the way - your number one reason why Nifong got disbarred - that he was a prosecutor in a notorious crime investigation - has absolutely no bearing on whether he should get disbarred.
After your first reason for why someone should be disbarred makes absolutely no sense, I did not read the rest.
My dear "professor," I know this is an emotional topic, but that doesn't mean you should forego your passion for "accuracy."
I realize that you are a genius, and I appreciate your patience with the rest of us. However, please reexamine your last comment: "After your first reason for why someone should be disbarred makes absolutely no sense, I did not read the rest."
I of course did not say that the notoriety of the flamboyant Mr. Nifong was the reason he SHOULD have been disbarred, I said that was the reason he WAS disbarred while other equally-culpable prosecutors were not. To paraphrase your last screed about holding two opposing thoughts in your mind at the same time - just because Nifong was selected for disbarment when others were not does not make his disbarment less righteous.
As for what the "subject" is, that has been defined by our host, who has argued repeatedly that the DNA evidence in this case was non-exculpatory, that Nifong never tried to hide any DNA results, and that he properly continued to prosecute the 3 lacrosse players when HE WAS AWARE that there was no crime to prosecute and that 2 of the three accused had NO OPPORTUNITY even to commit the crime alleged.
NONE of these arguments are supported by the facts. These arguments having failed, Nifong's conduct becomes actionable and the conduct of the AG and the State Bar in condemning it becomes justified REGARDLESS of whether those luminaries conducted themselves with equal righteousness or vigor in other circumstances of prosecutorial abuse.
By the way, your calm and supercilious veneer is peeling away.
This was a conscious decision by the State to scapegoat all the horrors that had happened in this whole fiasco to one single man. Michael Nifong.
Agreed.
No one wants to disclose the failings of the NC justice system. Nifong’s sin is not that he tried to frame innocent defendants, but that he did so too publicly.
The AG and the Bar blamed Nifong. The DPD avoided scrutiny. Critics see the Chalmers/Baker report and the Whichard Commission as attempts to whitewash the DPD’s activities and blame Nifong. Nifong could not have carried out this frame alone. I question whether Nifong is even the primary driver—he was only the most visible.
No one has investigated the actions of the DPD.
The DPD investigation was fatally flawed before Nifong was involved. It made no bona fide attempt to solve a crime. The investigation appears to be an attempt to use a variant of Mangum’s allegations, select defendants to prosecute and avoid discovering any evidence that might force them to drop the case.
I am not convinced that Gottlieb or Himan believed Mangum. Any claim otherwise is entirely self-serving and is belied by their actions.
Mangum’s allegation, supported by Levicy, justified an investigation. However, the DPD ignored and avoided other evidence that severely damaged Mangum’s credibility.
Mangum’s ridiculous descriptions and failed identifications raised questions whether she could make credible identifications. After the negative DNA tests, they failed to ask Roberts to identify attendees until after the defendants’ selection. They never asked her to identify the players Mangum alleged had forcibly separated them. Instead, they used a selection procedure they knew to be flawed.
The negative DNA tests disproved specific allegations made by Magnum, including the allegation that one of the attackers had ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. They ignored these results and asked no questions. They pretended that she was credible.
See more questions at http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/
topic/241201/1/ posts 11, 12 13.
Nifong deserves only some of the blame. Why has he agreed to serve as the scapegoat?
From the last post by Sid:
"What is obvious is that Mike Nifong, the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since 1933, was selectively and unjustly disbarred."
Sid, while you're at it, please share with us your insights into Judge Smith's decision to hold the Fong in criminal contempt for lying in court. No doubt, you view that result as another terrible miscarriage of justice?
Agree. Nifong was the most visible. He was the easiest to scapegoat for it all. And distract from all the other mistakes an unethical behavior in the justice system.
He was most visible partly because he spoke to the media in the first six days of his involvement. Armed with Nurse Levicy's false report. All of the comments to the press cited in the Bar Hearing were made in the first 6 days.
Joe Cheshire spoke for 9 months to the media. And got on TV and the press every chance he could get. Bannon and Cheshire made a decision to spend two hours a day speaking with the media to turn the public view to their side. There's nothing wrong with that. It was a successful strategy. But people forget that Nifong only spoke for 6 days. Then the media looped those interviews over and over for more than a year.
But he was not disbarred because of those comments. He would have gotten a reprimand but not disbarrment. That's why Nifong admitted in the hearing that those comments were ill-advised. Remember, Nifong made those comments before any individual was indicted. He did not say anything against any individual.
Unlike Roy Cooper.
If Nifong was disbarred for negative comments to the media that would prejudice a future procedure, then Roy Cooper should be disbarred as well. Roy Cooper used the media to negatively effect the outcome of an individual who had already been named in an ethics investigation. And it was his own prosecutor. He gave Nifong to the wolves.
To protect his own agency and to protect and advance his own career.
"Mike Nifong was railroaded by a State Bar hearing committee that consisted of 2 defense lawyers and a school teacher.
There was no judge and no jury. And they did not have to adhere to rules of the court.
This was not a court procedure but a hearing by a panel of the state bar. It was a procedure to determine whether or not Mr. Nifong met standards of practice required of a lawyer, not to determine innocence or guilt of a crime.
James P. Mosteller, Professor of Law at Duke University published the following:
The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, and False Identifi cations: A Fundamental
Failure to `Do Justice
This is available for download on the internet. Professor Mosteller considers the Bar hearing fair and its verdict appropriate.
Referring back to the comparison of Tara Levicy and the Kroger security guard, who passes the credibility test? Professor Mosteller or Anonymous @ September 24, 2010 8:37 AM.
In any event, Mr. Nifong accepted the jurisdiction of the State Bar when he began to practice Law in North Carolina. There is no legal weight to any opinion that a court or any other jurisdiction should have tried Mr. Nifong.
"Joe Cheshire spoke for 9 months to the media. And got on TV and the press every chance he could get. Bannon and Cheshire made a decision to spend two hours a day speaking with the media to turn the public view to their side. There's nothing wrong with that."
There was nothing wrong with that because Mr. Nifong used his access to the media to publicly declare them guilty before any jurisdiction could hear their defense, to undermine their right to be represented by counsel, to undermine their right not to talk to the police or any other authority about the case.
Any lawyer who would not publicly defend his client against such public attacks would be guilty of legal malpractice.
"It was a complete and utter set-up."
Would any other lawyer accused of ethics violations be tried any other way?
"The subject is the behavior of the AG and the State Bar. Not the behavior of Michael Nifong. Keep on topic."
Are you saying Michael Nifong's glaringly obvious unethical behavior was not relevant?
"If Nifong was disbarred for negative comments to the media that would prejudice a future procedure, then Roy Cooper should be disbarred as well. Roy Cooper used the media to negatively effect the outcome of an individual who had already been named in an ethics investigation. And it was his own prosecutor. He gave Nifong to the wolves."
Roy Cooper used the media to inform the public that he had reviewed the case Mr. Nifong had put together and had concluded that he had no case, that he believed the men Mr. Nifong had accused were innocent.
Mr. Nifong, on the other hand, intentionally used the media to inflame the public, from whom any jury would have come, against the Duke Lacrosse team. Mr. Nifong stated in public that three members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated the crime.
There was a big, obvious difference between Mr. Nifong and Mr. Cooper.
"Remember, Nifong made those comments before any individual was indicted."
So what. You admit that Mr. Nifong made those comments before the Defendants could defend themselves before any court. The comments were that a gang rape had happened and that three members of the Duke Lacrosse team had perpetrated the rape, and that it had been racially motivated. Mr. Nifong's grossly unethical behavior can not be mitigated by any comparison to Mr. Cooper. It was up to the Bar ethics panel to decide on guilt or innocence, to determine punishment, not some anonymous Nifong lover.
Read Professor Robert P. Mosteller's paper on the Duke case and you might understand why the Bar found Mr. Nifong guilty and imposed such sanctions. You might understand why Mr. Nifong deserved to be, in Sidney Harr's words, the only NC prosecutor to ever be disbarred for ethics violation.
"He did not say anything against any individual."
Against which individual did Mr. Cooper speak when he informed the public of his opinion that the Lacrosse players were innocent. He mentioned only the Lacrosse players. In that statement, he did not call Mr. Nifong a rogue prosecutor. According to Professor Mosteller, that remark was made to a reporter in a question and answer session after the televised portion of his statement.
"Nifong deserves only some of the blame."
I agree. Other blame deserving individuals include but are not limited to Ms. Mangum, Ben Himan, Mark Gottlieb, Linwood Wilson, the New BLack Panther party, the Potbangers, the Group of 88, Nancy (dis)Grace, Wendy Murphy, Houston Baker, Whaneema Lubiano, Carla Holloway, President Brodhead, David Addison, Brian Meehan, Victoria Peterson, Sidney Harr, Vincent Clark.
They all had a hand in creating and/or continuing the baseless accusations against the innocent men.
"Roy Cooper used the media to negatively effect the outcome of an individual who had already been named in an ethics investigation."
Make your point with evidence. What was on Mr. Cooper's mind other than he had reviewed the case and had believed, on that review, that the men were innocent.
"Roy Cooper used the media to negatively effect the outcome of an individual who had already been named in an ethics investigation."
Can you establish that Mr. Cooper's intent was to inflame the Bar Ethics Panel against Mr. Nifong? If you can not, this statement is only an unsupported allegation.
For you pro Nifongers who claim that Mr. Nifong did not control the investigation:
From
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, ETHICS, AND THE ROAD TO THE DISBARMENT OF MIKE NIFONG: THEC RITICAL IMPORTANCE OF FULL OPEN-FILE DISCOVERY
Robert P. Mosteller*
"170 Joseph Neff, Quest to Convict Hid a Lack of Evidence, NEWS & OBSERVER (Raleigh, N.C.), Apr. 14, 2007, at A1 (describing Nifong learning of case on March 23, 2006 when he found a copy of the DNA order (Nontestimonial Identification Order) on the office copy machine and the next day telling the Durham police he was taking over the investigation). 171 See Amended Complaint ¶ 190, Nifong, No. 06 DHC 35 (on file with author) [hereinafter Amended Nifong Bar Complaint]; see also Supplemental Case notes for: Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb at 6, Ex-hibit 204, Nifong, No. 06 DHC 35 (on file with author) (describing Captain Lamb’s instructions on March 24, 2006 to “continue with our investigation, but to go through Mr. Nifong for any directions as to how to conduct matters in this case”)."
These are citations from Professor Mosteller's article. This article can be downloaded. Go to the Wikipedia article on Alan Gell.
More from Robert P. Mosteller's
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, ETHICS, AND THE ROAD TO THE DISBARMENT OF MIKE NIFONG: THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF FULL OPEN-FILE DISCOVERY
This deals with the Non Lacrosse Player DNA found on Ms. Mangum:
"On April 10, April 21, and May 12, 2006, Nifong, along with Durham Police Investigator Himan and Sergeant Gottlieb, traveled to Burlington and met with Dr. Meehan.178 Before April 10, DSI had determined that DNA from up to four different males had been found on items from the “rape kit” and that all the Duke Lacrosse samples had been excluded as possible sources of that foreign male DNA.179 By April 20, 2006 further testing re-vealed DNA characteristics from additional males on another item from the “rape kit” and that the Duke players had all been excluded as possible sources of that DNA.180
This information is obviously potentially exculpatory in two ways. First, no matches from the DNA of any of the 46 players were found. That suggests, but does not establish, that no rape occurred. It is relatively strong evidence of innocence given Magnum’s statements that no condoms were used. Second, foreign DNA was found, which is exculpatory as well. That evidence would have been strongest in its exculpatory impact for three charged players if the DNA had definitely incriminated three different Duke Lacrosse players in the rape.181"
More from Professor Mosteller:
"Mangum stated that three and only three, men assaulted her at the lacrosse party, and none of the players had an innocent explanation for how his DNA could have gotten onto “rape kit” items given the intimate nature of the contact required. However, the results, even if not showing sexual activity with other Duke lacrosse players, were still exculpatory in that they suggested sexual contact with multiple males, and they would help explain the only physical finding that supported the rape allegation—the vaginal swelling that could have been produced by sexual contact.
Comment on Professor Mosteller:
It has been documented that Ms. Mangum at one time claimed as many as 20 men had assaulted her. That does not void Professor Mosteller's points, that the DNA on Ms. Mangum did not come from any of the men suspected of or actually accused of raping her, that she did have sex with multiple men who were not Lacrosse players, and sex with those multiple Lacrosse players would explain the diffuse vaginal edema, noted by Dr. Manly, not nurse-in-training Tara Levicy.
If Nifong was disbarred for negative comments to the media that would prejudice a future procedure, then Roy Cooper should be disbarred as well. Roy Cooper used the media to negatively effect the outcome of an individual who had already been named in an ethics investigation.
In your criticism of Cooper, you should focus primarily on his characterization of Nifong as a "rogue prosecutor." Arguably, that characterization was relevant to the Bar hearing.
As you have noted, Nifong was not disbarred for prosecuting innocent defendants. Cooper's conclusion that the defendants were "innocent" is therefore not relevant to this discussion.
Why do you believe that Cooper worked so hard to deflect attention from the actions of the DPD and perhaps others? Which others deserve scrutiny?
More from Professor Mosteller:
"181 Some of the exculpatory DNA results were known by DSI and presented to Nifong before evidence was first presented to the grand jury on April 17, 2006 and indictments returned against the first two charged players, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. See Robert P. Mosteller, The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, and False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure to “Do Justice,” 76 FORDHAM L. REV. 1337, 1372 (2007). Before May 15, 2006, when evidence was presented to the grand jury and an indictment was returned against Dave Evans, the third player, further exculpatory results had been obtained and presented to Nifong. Id. at 1373. Before indictments were returned against the specific players, DNA evidence definitely linking any specific three Duke lacrosse player to the rape would have been exculpatory as to all the other team members. The failure of the prosecution to demand an adequate basis of evidence to prosecute that led to the charges against the three players effectively put virtually every member of the team at some risk of indictment upon the misfortune of being selected by Mangum from one of the arrays presented to her that included only Duke lacrosse players. See generally id. at 1365-1412 (describing the identification process and arguing that the most fundamental ethical transgression in the case was the prosecutor’s failure to meet the basic duty to “do justice” as particularly manifest in the failings of the identification procedures)."
Let's do another comparison, something of the Tara Levicy/Kroger store guard comparison.
Professor Mosteller, professor of law with impressive academic credentials, argues that the evidence of only non Lacrosse player DNA on Ms. Mangum was exculpatory.
He has a citation documenting that Mr. Nifong knew of this evidence before he sought indictments against Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty, and David Evans.
Professor Mosteller argues that Mr. Nifong was not justified in seeking indictments.
Sidney Harr, layman, argues that the non-Lacrosse player DNA had been deposited before the alleged rape and was not relevant. He argues Mr. Nifong was justified not only in seeking indictments but also in prosecuting.
To which individual should be given credibility, the Law Professor or the Layman?
More from Professor Mosteller:
"At the next court hearing on October 27, 2006, Nifong provided 1,844 pages of underlying data and materials related to DSI’s tests and examinations, but critically, he did not add any explanatory material or otherwise point out the exculpatory results that the underlying data showed, if examined carefully and understood.233 The raw and unexplained data was thus provided only a little more than a week before election day in the hotly con-tested Durham District Attorney’s race in which Nifong was a candidate, and substantial evaluation would be required to understand its significance, no doubt too late to have any impact on the election.
Does this comply with the Open Discovery Law, the Law regarding the results of NTO tests, or the Brady versus Maryland decision? I say "NO!!!!". It is consistent with an attempt by Mr. Nifong to use the case as a springboard to reelection.
More from Professor Mosteller, from citation 238 of his article:
"A point to take from the Duke Lacrosse case is that for indigent defendants, trial courts should freely grant requests for expert services to help the defense understand the significance of the evidence. Disclosure of data under Brady means little if it cannot be understood. Moreover, if as this case demonstrates, prosecutors may not flag the significance of the data, ready access to expertise is the only meaningful alternative."
Did Mr. Nifong provide an explanation of the data or flag the significance of the data? No
More from Professor Mosteller:
"Jim Cooney, lead counsel for Seligmann, then examined Meehan briefly. He first clarified Meehan’s description of some of the DNA profiles as “weak,” but that even with regard to “weak profiles,” when a subject is excluded, the conclusion is with “a hundred percent scientific certainty” as applied to the conclusion that “none of the players match a profile."
Layman Sidney Harr said the foreign DNA was of no probative value. Prosecution DNA expert Brian Meehan said it was probative.
Tow whom should be given credibility?
More from Professor Mosteller's article:
"On December 19, 2006, only four days after the hearing, the Bar sent a Letter of Notice to Nifong regarding failure to disclose the potentially exculpatory DNA. [At]
its quarterly meeting on January 18, 2007, the Bar’s Grievance Committee found probable cause to refer these additional charges to the Disciplinary Hearing Commission for trial.259 The State Bar’s Amended Complaint was filed on January 24, 2007.
This is for Sidney's benefit. He calls the supplementary complaint an attempt to cover up flaws in the original complaint. Not so, Sidney. At the time of the original complaint, the Bar was unaware of Mr. Nifong's attempt to withhold the probative, exculpatory evidence from the accused.
Even more from Professor Mosteller:
"However, these were not the charges that caused Nifong to ask the Attorney General to assume responsibility for the case and to recuse himself. Instead, those charges related to improper pretrial publicity"
It seems that Mr. Nifong did not regard the initial complaint against himself as flawed.
More from Professor Mosteller:
"However, these were not the charges that caused Nifong to ask the At-torney General to assume responsibility for the case and to recuse himself. Instead, those charges related to improper pretrial publicity,261 which were alleged to have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the adjudi-cative proceeding and of heightening public condemnation of the accused in violation of Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f).262 The offensive statements were of three basic types. First, Nifong asserted confidence that a rape had oc-curred; second, he asserted that the Duke Lacrosse players had unified to withhold the truth; and third, he emphasized that the crime involved racist aspects.263 Nifong began making these statements on Monday, March 27, 2006, the same day that he was briefed by the investigation officers on the facts of the case,264 and continued in a particularly intense barrage for the rest of that week.265 By his own admission, Nifong gave fifty to seventy interviews during that period,266 and he devoted more than forty hours to reporters.267 While the pace of comments decreased, they did not cease. The [Bar}
him a follow-up letter on January 5, 2007 asking for clarification on several points.
This is a little summary of Mr. Nifong's pre indictment activity.
Yet more from Professor Mosteller:
"On August 21, 2006, the Bar sent a Letter of Notice to Nifong alleging these violations, which it supported by a long list of his statements to the press that began on March 27, 2006 and continued through the middle of June 2006,269 and as directed, Nifong responded promptly.270 On October 19, 2006, a sixteen-member subcommittee of the Grievance Committee charged with initial consideration of the allegations against Nifong met to deliberate whether to recommend to the full Grievance Committee that a complaint should be filed based on improper pretrial publicity"
All this happened before Mrs. Rae Evans was interviewed by 60 MINUTES. In fact, the Bar first expressed interest in Mr. Nifong's withholding of the DNA results in December 0f 2006. Mrs. Evans did not appear on 60 MINUTES until January of 2007.
Sidney Harr has claimed that the State Bar took action against Mr. Nifong because of Mrs. Evans' statement.
I ask again, to whom should one give credibility. Certainly not to Sidney Harr.
Someone's opinion (Mosteller) is not evidence.
Otherwise we can quote Sidney as evidence.
Sidney
How about it. You say Mr. Nifong was disbarred because of a Jihad initiated by Mrs. Rae Evans' statement on 60 Minutes. However, the State Bar had investigated the charges and filed its complaints before Mrs. Evans ever appeared on 60 Minutes.
Incidentally, while you have never used the word "rapist", you have preached that Crystal Mangum was the victim of a rape, that Mr. Nifong was justified in prosecuting them for rape, that Mr. Cooper was inappropriate for exonerating them from the rape charges, you claim they did not go to trial because of this non existent jihad. Your blog proclaims them rapists. You do not defend the charge because you can not.
Anonymous @ September 25, 2010 2:56 PM
Professor Mosteller documents what he says in his Law Review articles. Sidney Harr documents nothing.
So to whom should be given credibility, Professor Mosteller who can document or Sidney Harr who does not.
The more interesting question, I agree, is with the person who asked what/who was Cooper trying to dictract from by throwing his own prosecutor under the bus with the rogue comment even after his lieutenants Coman told Nifong they would not pubicly criticize his investigation.
Why the intentional scapegoating of some who had a sterling reputation up to this case?
"The conclusion speech of the chairman is so riddled with irony and hypocrisy, making rambling excuses for previous State Bar ethical blunders, putting his foot in his mouth constantly, acknowledging the AG Cooper overstepped his bounds by claiming innocence, that it's amazing that anyone took this laughable speech seriously. But they did. Without any analysis from the media."
Please document what you say.
Professor Mosteller has beautifully documented that the Ethics charges filed against Mr. Nifong were appropriate, that the findings of the ethics trial were correct.
"Why the intentional scapegoating of some who had a sterling reputation up to this case?"
Mr. Nifong may have had no record of ethics abuses prior to the rape case. His ethics violations were glaringly obvious. Charging him with, trying him for and convicting him of ethics violations was well documented as anything but scapegoating.
Anonymous @ September 25, 2010 2:56 PM
If that is your best reply to Professor Mosteller, you are pretty pathetic.
Just like Sidney Harr who denies he ever accused the Lacrosse players of being rapists.
"Otherwise we can quote Sidney as evidence."
Do so if you so desire. Sidney has never published anything but undocumented allegations, like his allegation that Mr. Nifong's troubles were all due to a Jihad initiated by Mrs. Rae Evans.
Well, how about it, Sidney?
The State Bar filed its initial complaint against Mr. Harr in October of 2006. It first served notice on Mr. Nifong it was investigating his behavior with regard to the test results from DNA Security International. Mrs. Evans' statement was televised on January 11, 2007.
How is that consistent with your assertion that the State Bar's action was the consequence of Mrs. Evans' statement. I am anxiously waiting for you now to claim that you never did that.
For a few years now, you have published a blog which accuses the three Lacrosse defendants of being rapists. But you claim you never made such an accusation.
"Someone's opinion (Mosteller) is not evidence.
Otherwise we can quote Sidney as evidence."
What about Sidney's writing convinces you he has presented any evidence relevant to the case. He has, as was stated before, made only unsupported allegations.
From Sidney Harr
"The guilt or innocence of the Duke Lacrosse defendants is irrelevant to my concerns… in other words, it has nothing to do the unprecedented draconian treatment to which Mr. Nifong was subjected."
So why have you have had so much heartburn over Mr. Cooper's opinion that the defendants were indeed innocent, over the Ethics charges filed against Mr. Nifong, that he prosecuted innocent men without probable cause?
Why did Cooper protect the Durham Police? Were Gottlieb and Himan really that important or were elected officials the ones he was protecting?
Come on Sidney
I think I am not the only one waiting for you to explain the carpet bagger jihad.
You claim Mr. Nifong was disbarred as the result of a jihad initiated by Mrs. Rae Evans' statement on 60 Minutes. Mr. Nifong was disbarred as the result of a State Bar investigation which culminated in the Ethics trial. That investigation started and was just about completed before Mrs. Evans made her statement.
Mrs. Evans never got a chance to make any statement until almost 10 months after Mr. Nifong unleashed his public statements declaring members of the Lacrosse team guilty of a gang rape.
The State Bar was flooded by a letter-writing campaigm orchestrated by the families and friends of the families, particulalry the Seligmanns. The State Bar was under tremendous political pressure by politicians.
NC prosecutor had a meeting and met with Nifong and threatened him to drop the case. They felt he was making them look bad. They went to the State Bar.
One politician called for a federal investigation into Nifong which was absolutely unprecedented. Nifong was an employee of the State and they wanted Federal jurisdiction over him. That was denied. This is how far people were prepared to go to stop this trial.
The families and their extremely powerful attorneys put this political action into place from the beginning.
The defense attorneys agreed to share all their information collectively and to work collectively from the beginning. To work as a unit and had regularly meetings. A grand summit at a tony golf club.
Literally hundreds of lawyers in the Washington DC area worked pro bone on this case. They loaned experts for no charge to analyze the DNA raw data.
Nifong worked alone. No other prosecutor was involved.
To say that Rae Evans and the Evans family only exerted influence from the point of the airing of the 60 Minutes piece is short-sighted to say the least.
To me, Cooper was protecting elected officials than the police. Another questionable move.
This is how far people were prepared to go to stop this trial.
Why should there be a trial with "no credible evidence" to support charges?
Nifong admitted that his statement to a court on Sept 23rd that the defense had everything he had was factually not true.
But that he did not know at the time that the reference to unidentified DNA was not in the original summary DNA report.
The contempt hearing determined whether that was an accurate statement or not. Which it was not. The defense had not received knowledge of the unidentified DNA at that time (Sept. 23rd). But legally, the contempt hearing did not determine whether Nifong KNOWINGLY stated an inaccurate statement to the court. That was not at issue and was not explored.
This is precisely where the State Bar hearing overstepped its bounds. They did not prove that Nifong INTENTIONALLY gave an inaccurate statement to the court. Yet in their conclusion, this was one of the primary reasons why they disbarred him.
A neutral, unbiased reading of the entire State Bar transcipts, which hardly anyone has done, shows that the Bar did not make its case, not even close to beyond a reasonable doubt, that Nifong INTENTIONALLY withheld evidence from the defense (they were still in the discovery phase for god's sake).
But it was not a court of law. They did not have to prove it. And the defense and families have not brought a case against Nifong for this (as they promised) because they would lose.
The irony is, of course, that how the defense "discovered" that Nifong had not given them the undiscovered DNA previously, is because he just gave it to them.
He gave them everything while still in the discovery stage before a date was set for trial. Well within requirements of delivering data to the defense.
But what Cheshire realized is that Nifong made that statement to the court on Sept. 23rd. They were desperately looking for a way to get Nifong off the case. This was their magic bullet.
This was a chance to put the DA on trial. To stop Dave Evans going to trial which Cheshire believed had a high chance of a jury sending him to prison, he now could reverse the attack and put the DA on trial.
The irony is, of course, that how the defense "discovered" that Nifong had not given them the undiscovered DNA previously, is because he just gave it to them.
He was ordered by the court to provide the underlying data to the defense by October 20. He did so on October 27. His near compliance with a court order should not be held up as his voluntary cooperation. As you recall, he fought this order on economic grounds. (You have made this point with the players' compliance with the non-testimonial order.)
Your description "he just gave it to them" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
To stop Dave Evans going to trial which Cheshire believed had a high chance of a jury sending him to prison,
In a case with "no credible evidence" to support charges? You really believe the justice system is completely unfair, don't you? You are probably correct.
It's not at all disingenuous. Nifong did not want to pay $5,000 from the DA's restricted budget to give over raw data. This was not customary for any DA's office.
But the defense's tactic was to prolong the discovery period and to delay the trial. They flooded the court all summer with demands. To the exasperation of many judges. The defense had been warned on several occasions to rein in their tactics. They hired Cooney specifically to flood the court.
The usual procedure is for the defense to make a request for backup data. Most of the time raw data is not requested. Do you want your tax dollars to wasted by DAs delivering thousands of dollars of unnecessary undeciferable raw DNA data?
The defense must request this. They did. And as you state, Nifong delivered it, as was his known custom, immediately and on time.
Who was late was Brad Bannon. Brad Bannon was late with the request.
You can't discover that someone hid something from you by him giving it to you.
"You really believe the justice system is completely unfair, don't you? You are probably correct."
What many people believe is that the jury pool had been so corrupted by Mr. Nifong's public statements, that no defendant in the Lacrosse case could have gotten a fair trial.
Mr. Nifong, I say again, before any defendant had a chance to defend himself in a trial, had declared that anyone he named as a defendant would be guilty.
"It's not at all disingenuous. Nifong did not want to pay $5,000 from the DA's restricted budget to give over raw data. This was not customary for any DA's office."
So why was it that all Mr. Nifong did turn over was raw data?
"But the defense's tactic was to prolong the discovery period and to delay the trial. They flooded the court all summer with demands. To the exasperation of many judges. The defense had been warned on several occasions to rein in their tactics. They hired Cooney specifically to flood the court."
Document this, if you can.
"But what Cheshire realized is that Nifong made that statement to the court on Sept. 23rd. They were desperately looking for a way to get Nifong off the case. This was their magic bullet."
Professor Mosteller documented Mr. Nifong had the exculpatory DNA evidence, obtained via the NTO, in April before he sought indictments. North Carolina law required him to turn that information over to the defendants as soon as he had it, as they were subject to the NTO. Mr. Nifong did not do that. In September of 2006, he claimed he did.
"The usual procedure is for the defense to make a request for backup data. Most of the time raw data is not requested. Do you want your tax dollars to wasted by DAs delivering thousands of dollars of unnecessary undeciferable raw DNA data?"
Mr. Nifong was required by law to turn over the report as soon as he had it. He did not do so. He turned over only raw data then represented to the court that he had turned over the report.
Cheshire was terrified that the line of rape counselors, Tara Levicy, Dr. Manley, Evans' DNA on the fingernails, Crystal Mangum's personal testimony, the racial aspects of the case, the outrageous and unacceptable behavior of other players at the party, a local Durham jury, etc., etc. could result in Evans being convicted or a hung jury.
His strategy was to stop the trial. Wade Smith disagreed strongly. Wade was Cheshire's mentor. But Cheshire, after a power struggle within the law team, succeeded in convincing the rest of the lawyers, instead of preparing for trial, to stop the trail. Cheshire took over the team. Every lawyer took an assignment. The most important Cheshire took himself: to tear down and discredit Crystal Mangum's character. He worked with 60 Minutes to do this. 60 Minutes delivered especially by airing a questionable video of her dancing whcih is still not proven to be her.
But when Cheshire saw that Nifong made an incorrect statement on Sept. 23rd, this was his way out. For Nifong to be taken off the case, the data HAD to be exculpatory. Who determines whether it is exculpatory is basically the defense. That's why it was of supreme importance for the raw data to be seen as exculpatory.
It's not at all disingenuous.
Fine. Then I assume that you believe that the players' cooperation with the NTO was voluntary.
"He was ordered by the court to provide the underlying data to the defense by October 20. He did so on October 27. His near compliance with a court order should not be held up as his voluntary cooperation. As you recall, he fought this order on economic grounds. (You have made this point with the players' compliance with the non-testimonial order.)"
Bullfeathers! He fought this order because the evidence was exculpatory and he wanted to withhold it from the defense.
By North Carolina law Mr. Nifong was required to turn over the results of the information obtained by the NTO to the subjects of the NTO as soon as he had it. T
You're misunderstanding any DA's position.
All DAs believe the people they are indicting are guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to a DA. It applies to a judge and jury. If a DA indicted someone who he thought was innocent, that would be unethical.
The DA has to believe the indicted are guilty.
In the DNA summary on the first page, Meehan made a note at the top that there was more data. Upon request. Nifong delivered this to the defense the very same day he received it.
(And was criticized by Cheshire for timing it on a Friday for the weekend news cycle. The DA can't do anything right.)
The defense then requested this further data.
I know it's hard to see these things other than the propaganda from seeing it only through the defense's point of view.
"But when Cheshire saw that Nifong made an incorrect statement on Sept. 23rd, this was his way out. For Nifong to be taken off the case, the data HAD to be exculpatory. Who determines whether it is exculpatory is basically the defense. That's why it was of supreme importance for the raw data to be seen as exculpatory."
What determines whether or not evidence is exculpatory is whether or not it favors the defense. Evidence which casts doubt on the defendantns' guilt favors the defense.
The DNA obtained via the NTO from DNA Security matched several men but not any Lacrosse Player. Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and David Evans were Lacrosse players.
Did the DNA test results obtained by DNA Security cast doubt on the guilt of the defendants? What was alleged was a rape in which the perpetrators left DNA. The DNA found did not match the DNA of the accused. The answer should be obvious(to anyone but Sidney Harr or his fellow Nifong lovers, that is).
"Cheshire was terrified that the line of rape counselors, Tara Levicy, Dr. Manley... "
You have stated on several occasions that rape counselors and numerous attending medical personnel were prepared to testify that they believed that Mangum had been raped.
There is no public record that the DPD ever interviewed any DUMC personnel except Levicy (and Arico). Most of Himan's report is public and all of Gottlieb's report (written in June) is public.
Manly stated to the defense that she had never been interviewed by the prosecution.
These alleged statements appear to be inconsistent with the medical report (admittedly not public, but described by several journalists and in defense filings) and the manner in which Mangum was treated at DUMC (left to sleep it off until Levicy showed up hours later).
The DPD did not do their job and investigate. Did these statements simply drop out of the sky?
Can we see some evidence?
"You really believe the justice system is completely unfair, don't you? You are probably correct."
I believe, based on his actions, Mr. Nifong never intended to give the defendants a fair trial.
Unbelievable.
Nifong did not want to give the raw data because of the expense. But as soon as the court AGREED with the defense, he gave it over without a fight.
That is not illegal. It is proper procedure.
The same with the team. They have the right to not want to give DNA to police. The police went to court, and the judge AGREED that it was important for the police to take photos, especially to see if there were any scratches. So the team went to police.
That is not illegal. It is proper procedure.
But many people, for agenda reasons, spins these procedures as if it proves something.
The team was not hiding anything.
And Nifong was not hiding anything.
The DA has to believe the indicted are guilty.
I do not believe that Nifong, Gottlieb or Himan believed at the time of the initial indictments that Crystal Mangum had been raped.
I find the complete lack of a bona fide investigation as evidence of their belief that she had not been raped.
I concede that a full investigation is required to determine whether or not I am correct. Let the discovery begin!!!!!
"Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to a DA. It applies to a judge and jury. If a DA indicted someone who he thought was innocent, that would be unethical."
Are you serious?
The DA's role is to find the truth. Yes a DA may indict if he believes a crime happened. That does not relieve him of any obligation to presume the defendant is innocent.
Mr. Nifong did not comply with the obligation he had to presume the defendants innocent when he made his public statements.
As Professor Mosteller documented, Mr. Nifong indicted the three defendants after he had evidence that exonerated them. That can not be excused just because he wanted to prove his case.
You can believe what you want. That the moon is made out of cheese for instance.
Nifong would have presented his evidence of the alleged rape. The defense would have argued against it. The jury would have decided.
Or maybe it would not have gotten to trial.
At that point it was a testimony trial. Meaning it was based on Mangum's testimony. If in pre-trial actions, if she could not prove herself a credible witness, the case could have been dropped.
"In the DNA summary on the first page, Meehan made a note at the top that there was more data. Upon request. Nifong delivered this to the defense the very same day he received it."
Why did Mr. Nifong fail to give the information to the defendants when he had it in April? As the defendants, even before indictment, had been subjected to the NTO, they were entitked to have the result as soon as Mr. Nifong had it. Mr. Nifong did not give it to them. Why?
"A neutral, unbiased reading of the entire State Bar transcipts, which hardly anyone has done..."
Professor Mosteller has conucted a thorough, objective documented review of the case. He has concluded the trial was fair, the verdict was appropriate.
You can believe what you want.
Why did the DPD not conduct a bona fide investigation? They had an accuser whose credibility was suspect and identifications they knew were flawed, yet they did nothing meaningful to build a case beyond that.
That the moon is made out of cheese for instance.
A snarky comment does not make you more credible.
I ask again: Why was DPD investigation so utterly inept? You want me to believe that the DPD assigned one of the highest profile cases in its history to a couple of complete morons and then, despite the problems with the investigation discussed repeatedly in the press, made no attempts to monitor those complete morons?
You can believe what you want.
"Cheshire was terrified that the line of rape counselors, Tara Levicy, Dr. Manley, Evans' DNA on the fingernails, Crystal Mangum's personal testimony, the racial aspects of the case, the outrageous and unacceptable behavior of other players at the party, a local Durham jury, etc., etc. could result in Evans being convicted or a hung jury."
All of that could have been easily impeached at trial. All of that has been impeached, even though there was no trial.
What Mr. Cheshire feared, with justification, was that Mr. Nifong never intended to give the defendants a fair, objective trial.
"Nifong would have presented his evidence of the alleged rape."
Why did he want to dismiss the evidence that there was no rape, the evidence that rhere had been no sexual contact between the defendants and Ms. Mangum?
A prosecutor is legally and ethically obligated to consider ALL evidence. Mr. Nifong tried to exclude exculpatory evidence.
"The same with the team. They have the right to not want to give DNA to police. The police went to court, and the judge AGREED that it was important for the police to take photos, especially to see if there were any scratches. So the team went to police."
Some of you Nifong Lovers have stated that the Lacrosse players did not willingly give DNA samples or photos but were compelled to do so.
Did any of the photos show Dave Evans with a mustache.
"That is not illegal. It is proper procedure."
It is illegal if those seeking the NTO have no probable cause to believe the subjects are suspects. Whoever requested the NTO did not have probable cause to believe all the caucasian members of the team to be suspects. Ms Mangum, in all her conflicting stories, never claimed that each and every caucasian member of the team had raped her.
"A neutral, unbiased reading of the entire State Bar transcipts, which hardly anyone has done, shows that the Bar did not make its case, not even close to beyond a reasonable doubt, that Nifong INTENTIONALLY withheld evidence from the defense (they were still in the discovery phase for god's sake)."
This statement demonstrates that the author has absolutely no idea what the standard for review was in the bar hearing. Dufus, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a CRIMINAL review standard.
"To say that Rae Evans and the Evans family only exerted influence from the point of the airing of the 60 Minutes piece is short-sighted to say the least."
Sidney Harr has claimed on many occasions that Mr. Nifong was disbarred as a result of the statement Mrs. Evans made to 60 Minutes. I guess Mr. Harr must be really short sighted. Why do you Nifong lovers follow him?
Anonymous @ September 26, 2010 7:18 AM
What is the source of all your information.
My sources are two Law Review articles published by Professor Robert Mosteller. If you read those articles objectively, you would see how well documented they are.
When has Sidney Harr documented anything.
"He gave them everything while still in the discovery stage before a date was set for trial."
Uh, well, no, actually. Meehan gave Nifong an oral report summarizing all the positive hits he got on DNA and making sure Nifong understood that "his victim" had the DNA of multiple, unidentified men in many, many sexual orifices. Nifong made sure that no one took notes and that these conclusions could never be presented in discovery. However, he was legally required to disclose the content of all oral summaries he received.
"
Literally hundreds of lawyers in the Washington DC area worked pro bone on this case. They loaned experts for no charge to analyze the DNA raw data."
Wrong!!!
Brad Bannon learned about DNA technology and did the analysis which revealed that non Lacrosse player had been found on Ms. Mangum.
Even if "hundreds of lawyers in the Washington DC area worked pro bone on this case" so what? That would have been a commendable effort on their part on behalf of victims of a rogue prosecutor.
If it had happened, Mr. Nifong coukd have prevented it by complying with the law and turning over the DNA evidence.
Brad Bannon consulted with lawyers in Washington on the DNA.
Don't believe the hype.
I see why Sidney does not react to all these comments.
You have so much misinformation. It's all argument and no exchange. You are protecting your turf. Nothing gets done that way. Especially getting down to what really happened beyond that Nifong is the anitchrist.
It would take so long to correct all of the misinformation. And you wpuld not accept it anyway. You would just repeat the same inaccurate information that is in the media and on the KC site over and over again.
If you ever want a serious discussion... well, you don't really. Besides, it seems you are the only one on this site.
Good luck brother.
Especially getting down to what really happened beyond that Nifong is the anitchrist.
I have never blamed this entire fiasco only on Nifong.
Why do you refuse to address the activities of the DPD? I cannot believe that the DPD was so utterly incompetent. Despite a weak case that depended on a tainted witness, the DPD made no real effort to find additional evidence.
Why? You have not answered that obvious question. In 4 1/2 years, no one has answered that obvious question.
"I see why Sidney does not react to all these comments. "
Sidney Harr does not respond because he can not!
"Brad Bannon consulted with lawyers in Washington on the DNA.
Don't believe the hype."
What is hype is the statement that hundreds of Washington lawyers worked pro bono helping the defense decipher the raw data it had received.
It would not have been necessry to decipher the raw data had Mr. Nifong complied with the law and provided a report as to what the raw data said
"The DA has to believe the indicted are guilty."
How does that excuse a DA from respecting the right of the accused to be presumed innocent?
How does proclaiming pre indictment that any "indictee" would be guilty respect the right to be presumed innocent?
Anonymous @ September 26, 2010 7:18 AM
Professor Mosteller documents that there was much consternation over Mr. Nifong's actions. That is not evidence of any improper activity on the part of the defendants' fami9lies. Mr. Nifong's prosecution was blatatantly, obviously without merit. That is why so many people, including the NC DA Association called for him either ot recuse himself or to drop the prosecution, He did not do so. That led to the ethics charges and the ethics trial. His guilt was firmly established.
"Nifong worked alone. No other prosecutor was involved."
Wrong! Then Assistant DA Tracy Cline was involved in the case.
"But it was not a court of law. They did not have to prove it. And the defense and families have not brought a case against Nifong for this (as they promised) because they would lose."
WRONG!!!
The defendants and their families have filed lawsuits against Mr. Nifong. Sidney Harr has admitted this. Mr. Nifong has been trying to get the suits dismissed before discovery can take place. Mr. Nifong fears what discovery would reveal.
""
Literally hundreds of lawyers in the Washington DC area worked pro bone on this case. They loaned experts for no charge to analyze the DNA raw data."
Some Nifong Lover considers this, if not unethical at least improper,
This Nifong lover does admit that all the defense had was raw data.
So the defense has clients in whom they believe. The clients are accused of rape. They have received only raw data about the results of the tests on the rape kit, not a report. So, hundreds of Washington Attorneys work for free to decipher the data. That is commendable, not condemnable.
Michael Nifong was responsible legally to turn over to the defense a REPORT, not just raw data. If hundreds of Washington freely provided time to the defense, it was because Mr. Nifong broke the law. It would not have been necessary if Mr. Nifong had complied with the law.
Maybe they should go to court and request to be compensated for their tiem. Maybe Mr. Nifong shou;d be prdered to compensate them.
"The DA has to believe the indicted are guilty."
That is not enough to convict. To convict, the DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had occurred and that the accused committed the crime.
Mr. Nifong's evidence, or lack thereof, cast doubt as to whether or not a crime had happened or that any of those he charged were involved in the alleged crime.
He was legally, ethically, Constitutionally obligated not to prosecute, regardless of what he believed.
"If you ever want a serious discussion... well, you don't really. Besides, it seems you are the only one on this site."
I have offered Sidney, who has never documented any of his allegations, who has recently been shown that his allegation of a jihad started by Mrs. Evans is untenable, is the one ducking discussion and providing all the misinformation.
"It would take so long to correct all of the misinformation. And you wpuld not accept it anyway. You would just repeat the same inaccurate information that is in the media and on the KC site over and over again."
Very little of what I have posted comes from DIW.
If I can find the time to post massive volumes of what you call msinformation, if Sidney and his Nifong lovers are indeed devoted to accuracy and truth, why can they not find time to refute it?
The obvious answer is, it is not misinformation, and Sidney and his Nifong lovers can not refute it.
Sidney, thus far, refuses to address the issue why he attributes Mr. Nifong's disbarment to a statement by Mrs Rae Evans made after the Bar had investigated Mr, Nifong ad decided that charges shou8ld be fied and tried.
Correction:
""If you ever want a serious discussion... well, you don't really. Besides, it seems you are the only one on this site."
I have offered Sidney, who has never documented any of his allegations, who has recently been shown that his allegation of a jihad started by Mrs. Evans is untenable, is the one ducking discussion and providing all the misinformation."
I should have said:
I have offered Sidney, who has never documented any of his allegations, who has recently been shown that his allegation of a jihad started by Mrs. Evans is untenable, muvh information to discuss. Sidney is the one ducking discussion and providing all the misinformation.
To Anonymous September 24, 2010 8:37 AM:
Well stated. I couldn't agree with you more.
Anonymous said...
"From the last post by Sid:
'What is obvious is that Mike Nifong, the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since 1933, was selectively and unjustly disbarred.'
Sid, while you're at it, please share with us your insights into Judge Smith's decision to hold the Fong in criminal contempt for lying in court. No doubt, you view that result as another terrible miscarriage of justice?
No doubt I do. You cannot even tell me what Judge Smith accused Mr. Nifong of lying about. No one can, because the charge was trumped up to appease the Carpetbaggers and their attorneys. Now, to circumvent some incorrect responses, I say the following: If Mr. Nifong states and believes that the defense has all of prosecution discovery, and unknowingly to him a piece was accidently omitted by those who put the folder together... then that is not the same as lying. There is a big difference. And just because the defense got some DNA results a little later than they wanted, is not even relevant because a trial date had not even been set. What's the deal? Nothing more than Judge Smith acting very unjudicial.
Great comments by Anonymous September 25, 2010 7:53 AM.
Thank you for your contribution. Everyone should be sure and read this comment.
Anonymous said...
"'Nifong deserves only some of the blame.'
I agree. Other blame deserving individuals include but are not limited to Ms. Mangum, Ben Himan, Mark Gottlieb, Linwood Wilson, the New BLack Panther party, the Potbangers, the Group of 88, Nancy (dis)Grace, Wendy Murphy, Houston Baker, Whaneema Lubiano, Carla Holloway, President Brodhead, David Addison, Brian Meehan, Victoria Peterson, Sidney Harr, Vincent Clark.
They all had a hand in creating and/or continuing the baseless accusations against the innocent men."
The aforementioned comment is totally irrational.
Anonymous said...
"More from Professor Mosteller:
'At the next court hearing on October 27, 2006, Nifong provided 1,844 pages of underlying data and materials related to DSI’s tests and examinations, but critically, he did not add any explanatory material or otherwise point out the exculpatory results that the underlying data showed, if examined carefully and understood.233 The raw and unexplained data was thus provided only a little more than a week before election day in the hotly con-tested Durham District Attorney’s race in which Nifong was a candidate, and substantial evaluation would be required to understand its significance, no doubt too late to have any impact on the election.
Does this comply with the Open Discovery Law, the Law regarding the results of NTO tests, or the Brady versus Maryland decision? I say 'NO!!!!'. It is consistent with an attempt by Mr. Nifong to use the case as a springboard to reelection."
Professor Mosteller is sadly mistaken. First, the primary contest for Durham District Attorney must not have been as hotly contested as Mosteller and the media would like the public to believe. Blacks turned out in far fewer percentage than the underrepresented number of African Americans registered to vote. The best way for Mr. Nifong to lose the election would be for him to court the black vote. The rinky-dink poll that ABC 11 News did was a bad joke, and was conducted solely for propaganda purposes. It was shameful for the media and Mosteller to embrace it.
Thank you all for a very lively and educational debate.
For the next blog, let's play a game... "What would you do?" This is about the Gregory Taylor case, and if anyone is looking for a deserving prosecutor to disbar, there is none better than Tom Ford. But, don't hold your breath. The State Bar won't touch him because his victim did not come from a family of wealth, status, and prestige (as defined by the elite in our society).
"The best way for Mr. Nifong to lose the election would be for him to court the black vote."
Sidney, that is just not so, no matter how much you believe it.
How about you respond to the question. How could Mrs. Rae Evans precipitate a jihad against Mr. Nifong when most of Mr. Nifong's wrongdoing came under scrutiny before she made her statement to 60 Minutes?
"The aforementioned comment is totally irrational."
Sidney, when have you ever presented a rational argument about anything?
"You cannot even tell me what Judge Smith accused Mr. Nifong of lying about."
Sidney, Mr. Nifong mis-represented to the court that he had given to the defense all he had.
"The aforementioned comment is totally irrational."
Here is something completely irrational.
It is Historical fact, in the period preceding the 2006 NC Democratic primary DA election, Mike Nifong had no support either from black or white voters(the only poll done confirms this - Sidney discounts this poll because he dislikes what it shows). Post Duke rape case outbreak, Mr. Nifong won the primary by less than 1000 votes. Subtract the black votes he won, he would have lost the election.
Sidney argues, without ever presenting any information about who preferred whom pre primary, that Mr. Nifong was winning the election and nearly lost the election because he prosecuted the Lacrosse players.
Sidney has never shown himself capable of rational thought.
There is no objective poll that shows Nifong did not have support before the the Duke Lacrosse case. The only poll that the defense quotes was a poll financed and conducted by Nifong's rival Freda Black. The point of the Black poll and the way the questions were phrased were to encourage a planned result to show she was in the lead.
And yet this is the poll KC, Stuart, the defense and the Nifong-antichrist crowd constantly cling on desperately to show that Nifong had no support.
They must show this in order to prove that Nifong needed the lacrosse case to win the election. But there is simply no convincing data to show that.
Nifong's advantage was that he was the incumbent. He was stronger in the city of Durham with both liberal whites and blacks. Freda Black was stronger in the country where it was mostly white support. Her advantage was that she known (name recognition) from the Petersen case. It took a lot of effort to overcome the incumbent who had a sterling record who was appointted by the Governor because he was the most qualified and most experienced in the DA's office.
Nifong had the support of two of the three important organizations. The common political knowledge was that you two out of the three to win. He had 2 out of the 3 before the lacrosse case broke. Black had none.
That Nifong was hurting in the polls is completely false. There were no polls. (except Blacks' propaganda).
The idea that Nifong was behind in the race before the Duke lacrosse case is utter and unprovable fabrication.
I agree with Nifong supporter, Professor Most's interpretations are sadly off-key.
What's more, he continues to get facts wrong. When you do that, how can you possibly come to a correct conclusion?
So many opinions, based on so many politically -driven agendas.
If Danny Flannery had not picked up the phone and ordered white strippers and lied about the number of players there, Nifong would still have his law license.
Danny Flannery introduced race from his first sentence uttered and lied on top of it.
These dancers had no idea what they were walking into. From all accounts, every player was drunk. They were loud, aggressive, large, athletic and angry.
If these lacrosse players had not treated the dancers so badly, if they had not insulted Kim Roberts by calling her a slut, mock her stretch marks, scream into her face, become physically threatening in their stance and call her a nigger right to her face, she would not have called the police and Mangum would not have been handed over to police and Nifong would still have his law license.
What's so frustrating about those who only defend the players is they don't give in at all to behavior that outraged the nation.
This is partly why the media was all over this. Whether they raped Mangum or not, the defense and their defenders always present this nightmarish night as boys will be boys, normal behavior. The families defend their sons' behavior. This is what also outraged Duke U.
If Danny Flannery did not pick up the phone and lie and order white strippers, Nifong could still practice law in NC.
Team defenders don't allow any responsibility at all for their initial contribution to this fiasco.
Team defenders don't allow any responsibility at all for their initial contribution to this fiasco.
Although many of the "defenders" have defended their behavior, not all have done so. I have never defended the boorish behavior exhibited by many of the players. the captains have apologized for at least some of it.
As badly as it has been described, this behavior does not justify a deliberate frame in which three players were charged with multiple felonies without a credible investigation.
This statement is a lie as you apply it to all of the prosecution critics. I demand an apology.
I repeat, and let me make it more clear.
No defenders of only-the-families-are-right have ever, in any way, taken responsibility whatsoever that the team's despicable actions led to a North Carlolina's District Attorney having his law license taken away.
Many of the players acted boorishly and deserve much of the criticism they have received.
As bad as the players' conduct may have been, that bad conduct does not excuse the DPD's failure to conduct a credible investigation. That bad conduct does not excuse Nifong's decision to prosecute without credible evidence uncovered by a bona fide investigation.
You seem like the young man who murdered his parents begging for sympathy because he is an orphan.
Always back to the same tune. Always the same shouting megaphone of Nifong being the antichrist. A refusal to take responsibility for anyone else's actions in this complicated fiasco. Keeping to the script.
Let's define boorish behavior. Sexist, classist and racist. This behavior set these events in motion. Forcing their families to hire the best lawyers - Fiinnerty alone spent $5 million - to defend these players at any cost. That led to the Governor, the AG, the State Bar and the State of NC to take unprecedented and extravagant action to save their reputations and the State's reputation to be known as sexist, racist and class bigots, to set up a prosecutor who had a squeaky clean reputation, who even criminals said he was always fair in court, who defense attorneys said he always shared everything he had for years, decades before he was required by law, and shared it in this case in a timely manner without any illegality, who mentored countless young lawyers to hand over, under all circumstances, everything they had.
The immoral behavior of this lacrosse team started the path toward the railroading of this prosecutor, in order to stop the trial and finally take his law license away.
But let's predict something. You're going to say how bad Michael Nifong is.
Why was the DPD investigation so abysmal? Are Gottlieb and Himan really complete and utter morons? Why weren't they supervised? They seem to have started the frame before Nifong knew what was going on. Why is Nifong protecting them? Who else is he protecting?
I have asked about the role of the DPD before. Let's make a prediction. You'll ignore it again.
My impression is that this board is not about the DPD but about the unjust disbarment of Michael Nifong.
"My impression is that this board is not about the DPD but about the unjust disbarment of Michael Nifong."
Then you are deluded. The disbarment of Michael Nifong was justified. People like KC Johnson and Robert Mosteller have documented just how wrongful was Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players. Mr. Harr has offered nothing in rebuttal other than unsubstantiated allegations, some of them pretty irrational.
His most irrational undocumented allegation is that Mr. Nifong was disbarred because of a "Crpetbagger Jihad" initiated by a statement made to 60 Minutes by Mrs. Rae Evans.
"Let's define boorish behavior. Sexist, classist and racist. This behavior set these events in motion."
That boorish behavior occurred at the party at 610 North Buchanan on the night of 13-14 March 2006 is another substantiated allegation.
"If these lacrosse players had not treated the dancers so badly, if they had not insulted Kim Roberts by calling her a slut, mock her stretch marks, scream into her face, become physically threatening in their stance and call her a nigger right to her face, she would not have called the police and Mangum would not have been handed over to police and Nifong would still have his law license."
Please document that all this happened.
Until Proven Innocent, cited as a reliable source by a Nifong Supporter, documents that Ms. Roberts was called "n-----", but that she initiated the exchange, that she provoked the response.
"No defenders of only-the-families-are-right have ever, in any way, taken responsibility whatsoever that the team's despicable actions led to a North Carlolina's District Attorney having his law license taken away."
You are delusional.
What was despicable in this case was that Mr. Nifong, without any evidence to establish a crime, let alone implicate any member of the Lacrosse team in said crime, chose to prosecute three men. That is why Mr. Nifong lost his law license.
Why would despicable behavior by anyone trigger an ethics investigation into a DA's conduct? According to Mr. Harr, the NC State Bar refuses to investigate allegations of misconduct after it has occurred.
"There is no objective poll that shows Nifong did not have support before the the Duke Lacrosse case."
There is no poll to show that Mr. Nifong did have support. Why did Mr. Nifong commission a poll to show he did have support. Was it because no one was contributing to his campaign and he had no money to do so?
If no one was giving him campaign contributions, how does that indicate Mr. Nifong had any support?
If Mr. Nifong was receiving campaign contributions, why did he loan $30,000 of his personal funds?
"Forcing their families to hire the best lawyers - Fiinnerty alone spent $5 million - to defend these players at any cost."
What forced the families to defend their sons was that Mike Nifong indicted them and charged them without having evidence of a crime or evidence implicating their sons in said crime. Getting back to the concept of WHAT WOULD YOU DO, if I had been one of those parents, I would have spared no expense to defend them. What parent would not have done that? What Mr. Nifong did not expect was that the families of the accused had the resources to do so.
What conduct on the part of the Lacrosse players justified the DA with charging them with a vicious felony when he had no evidence that such felony did indeed happen?
"Whether they raped Mangum or not, the defense and their defenders always present this nightmarish night as boys will be boys, normal behavior."
I again challenge a Nifong supporter to document that a nightmarish night took place. The only people who have produced documented accounts of that night have provided accounts that do not show any nightmarish activity on the part of the Lacrosse players.
The defense attorneys did not try to justify any boorish behavior on the part of members of the Lacrosse team. They discovered that Mr. Nifong had no evidence of a crime, that Mr. Nifong had no evidence of Lacrosse player involvement in said crime, that the complaining witness in that crime was not a credible witness, that the complaining witness had a history of inappropriate behavior much more egregious than the behavior of any Lacrosse player, that Mr. Nifong had concealed exculpatory evidence and had lied to the court about that evidence.
"...defense attorneys said [Mr. Nifong] always shared everything he had for years..."
How does that excuse him from concealing the evidence that the only DNA found on the Mangum rape kit did not match the DNA of any Lacrosse player? The only information he did share was that no Lacrosse player DNA had been found, something the defense already knew.
For all the Nifong supporters who focus on the undocumented, unsupported boorish behavior of the Lacrosse team:
Why did that justify Mr. Nifong charging any of them with gang rape. What evidence was there that a rape occurred?
I say again, the alleged crime, as described in the Medical record and in a Police report was a crime in which DNA would have been left. It was impossible for such a crime to have occurred without the perpetrators leaving DNA evidence. No Lacrosse player or member of their families had any opportunity to tamper with the rape kit. Testing of the rape kit revealed that no evidence of a rape had been left, that the only DNA found did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team.
So I challenge you again, in view of the lack of evidence of a rape, how did alleged boorish behavior justify charging any of the Lacrosse team with perpetrating a gang rape?
"What's more, he continues to get facts wrong. When you do that, how can you possibly come to a correct conclusion?"
Please quote what "facts" are incorrect?
"The immoral behavior of this lacrosse team started the path toward the railroading of this prosecutor, in order to stop the trial and finally take his law license away."
You are deluded.
The path toward Mr. Nifong losing his law license started with Mr. Nifong flouting the law, legal ethics and the Constitution of the United States in conducting a wrongful prosecution of innocent men. Mr. Nifong himself flouted how wrongful his actions were.
Contrar to one of Mr. Harr's most prominent unsupported, undocumented allegations was that Mrs. Rae Evans began the path with her statement to 60 Minutes in January of 2007.
"[Mr. Nifong] had a squeaky clean reputation, who even criminals said he was always fair in court..."
I ask again, why should that justify his illegal, unethical, unconstitutional prosecution of three innocent men.
Would you try to exonerate a real rapist by saying he had never raped any woman before?
"[Mr. Nifong] a prosecutor who had a squeaky clean reputation..."
Bernie Madoff had a clean reputation before his Ponzi scheme was revealed. Does that mean he should not have been prosecuted?
Lisa Nowak had a wonderful reputation before she drove 1000 miles to confront Colleen Shipman. Does that mean the US Navy should not have taken disciplinary action against her?
You Nifong supporters say the alleged boorish behavior of the Lacrosse team justified prosecuting them for a crime without evidence. There was more than ample evidence that Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players was a wrongful prosecution, much of that evidence made public by Mr. Nifong himself, e.g. his public statements compromising the right to presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, the right to counsel. Why should his behavior before said wrongful prosecution exempt him from the consequences of that wrongful prosecution.
"
And yet this is the poll KC, Stuart, the defense and the Nifong-antichrist crowd constantly cling on desperately to show that Nifong had no support."
Please reveal any documentation you might have that shows Mr. Nifong was in the lead, that Mr. Nifong was not trailing as badly as the Black poll showed.
The logical response to the Black poll would have been for Mr. Nifong to commission his own poll showing he was a viable candidate. Either he could not afford to do so, showing a lack of financial support for his campaign, or he was afraid to do so, he was afraid any poll he commissioned would show he was not a viable candidate.
"Mangum’s allegation, supported by Levicy, justified an investigation."
Levicy was a SANE Nurse in Training, no a certified SANE Nurse. It was obvious she could be impeached as an expert nurse. If Mr. Nifong did indeed think Ms. Levicy's findings justified an investigation, Mr. Nifong was indeed an incompetent prosecutor.
I say again. Testing of the rape kit, which no Lacrosse player or Carpetbagger" jihadist could have interfered with, showed no evidence of a rape and no evidence to implicate any Lacrosse player in said alleged rape.
How, in light of that evidence, does Ms. Levicy's opinion, essentially the opinion of an inexperienced SANE nurse in training, justify an investigation, let alone indicting and arresting any Lacrosse player?
Or, are you going to call it a false "fact" that there was no forensic evidence to implicate any Lacrosse player in the alleged crime.
From Sidney
"The best way for Mr. Nifong to lose the election would be for him to court the black vote."
If that is true, then the best way for Mr. Nifong to have retained his job would have been to conduct the investigation in a legal ethical constitutional manner. He did not do so, and that is more than adequately documented.
"Someone's opinion (Mosteller) is not evidence.
Otherwise we can quote Sidney as evidence."
Why do you consider Professor Mosteller's documented articles as only opinions?
Why do you consider Sidney Harr's unsupported, undocumented allegations, like his allegation as to how Mrs. Rae Evans initiated the "Carpetbagger Jihad", as evidence.
To use Sidney's own words, your comment is a"comment [which] is totally irrational."
"Someone's opinion (Mosteller) is not evidence.
Otherwise we can quote Sidney as evidence."
Why do you consider Professor Mosteller's documented articles as only opinions?
Why do you consider Sidney Harr's unsupported, undocumented allegations, like his allegation as to how Mrs. Rae Evans initiated the "Carpetbagger Jihad", as evidence.
To use Sidney's own words, your comment is a"comment [which] is totally irrational."
"Always back to the same tune. Always the same shouting megaphone of Nifong being the antichrist."
Who besides you, has referred to Mr. Nifong as the antichrist. Please cite and quote the posts.
To the Nifong follower who argues there was no evidence other than the Freda Black poll showing that Mr. Nifong was losing the election. Let's play WAT WOULD DO?
If I were running against Ms. Black, I would have published my own poll showing I wss either in the lead or at least not trailing so badly. If I could not get a poll showing that I was a viable candidate, I surely would not publish that information.
One thing I would not do is initiate a wrongful prosecution to inflame racial tensions which would get me the support of a certain ethnic group.
For all those Nifong followers who blame boorish behavior for Mr. Nifong's disbarment.
According to Professor Mosteller, Michael Nifong saw the NTO and decided to take over the cse personally. Mr. Nifong was looking to take over a case of a gang rape. It was not boorish behavior which made Mr. Nifong get involved in the case.
After he deliberately made himself responsible, he learned there wss no evidence of a crime. He decided to prosecute anyway.
Was it a responsible rational decision to prosecute even boorish Lacrosse players for a rape when there was no evidence for a rape. No. If Mr. Nifong made the decision, then he was a victim of his own irrationality, and irrationmality so ridiculous, it called into question his competence as an attorney and as a Dsrict Attorney.
9/26 @8:15 pm: My impression is that this board is not about the DPD but about the unjust disbarment of Michael Nifong.
This thread has been focused on whether the State made Nifong the scapegoat for all of the horrors connected with this case. In other words, was Nifong forced to shoulder the blame and was he punished for the misdeeds and mistakes of other parties?
The activities of the DPD are directly relevant to that discussion. The many "mistakes" in the DPD investigation merit scrutiny. Was Nifong punished more severely in an attempt to bring closure and deflect attention from other parties, such as the DPD or those who directed it, and whose actions also deserve to be investigated?
9/27 @10:12am: If Mr. Nifong did indeed think Ms. Levicy's findings justified an investigation, Mr. Nifong was indeed an incompetent prosecutor.
I disagree (Nifong was not involved at that point). The threshold for beginning an investigation is lower than the threshold for arrests and/or indictments. Mangum's accusation and Levicy's opinion justified beginning an investigation. Importantly, no investigation should be conducted with tunnel vision. Preliminary conclusions must be reviewed as conflicting evidence is obtained. They did not do this. The decision to investigate does not require arrests.
The interview with Mangum on March 16 was sufficient to taint Mangum's credibility, but may not have ended the investigation (she may not have remembered anything because she was impaired). She was unable to provide coherent descriptions and failed to make any identifications. At that point, they realized that if a crime had ocurred (and there should have been doubt), evidence other than Mangum's testimony would be required to solve it. That made DNA testing and identifications from other witnesses critical. I believe that the search warrant on the Buchanan house was justified, but should have cast further doubt on the accusation.
When they decided to proceed, the case should have been transferred to the sexual assault investigation unit. No one has explained why the biggest sexual assault case in Durham's history was run by a pair of property crimes investigators.
The next step should have been interviews ASAP with all who interacted with Mangum that night: the Kroger security guard, Durham Access medical staff, other DUMC attending medical personnel, the responding officers. There is no indication that Gottlieb or Himan interviewed any of these individuals early in the investigation (e.g., Manly and other DUMC personnel apparently were never interviewed by the DPD, Altmon [Kroger guard] was interviewed in December, DA personnel in June). Particularly if other medical personnel disputed Levicy's conclusion, the medical report itself would be critical to resolve those differences. Instead, they pretended that no one read the report or noticed that it was inconsistent with Levicy's opinion.
When Himan and Gottlieb interviewed Kim Roberts on March 22, Mangum had provided descriptions that matched none of the players and failed twice to indentify attackers. Incredibly, they did not ask Roberts to identify anyone at that time. She was asked to identify attendees in May, after two of the indictments and after the third defendant had been selected. Roberts interview further challenged Mangum's credibility. They failed to attempt to reconcile differences in Mangum's and Roberts' versions.
When they received the SBI analysis of the rape kit on about March 28, with the findings that there was no semen, they realized that DNA would not solve a crime. Those tests further tainted Mangum as a witness, disproving some of her specific allegations. Without credible witness testimony, the case was over. They had none.
I think the comments on this blog have shown there are more loose ends than Sidney can even hope to tie up.
"Anonymous said...
'To say that Rae Evans and the Evans family only exerted influence from the point of the airing of the 60 Minutes piece is short-sighted to say the least.'
Sidney Harr has claimed on many occasions that Mr. Nifong was disbarred as a result of the statement Mrs. Evans made to 60 Minutes. I guess Mr. Harr must be really short sighted. Why do you Nifong lovers follow him?"
Let me be as clear as possible about Ms. Evans's call for jihad and its relationship to Mr. Nifong's disbarment.
When it became apparent to the Powers-That-Be that Mr. Nifong wasn't going to automatically drop the charges in the Duke Lacrosse case, and in fact was proceeding to prosecute, the State Bar was called upon to issue ethics complaints against Mr. Nifong in order to force him off the case. This is what happened. The Carpetbagger Jihad, which was called way before Mr. Nifong was disbarred, may have had something to do with his disbarment, but it had nothing to do with the initiation of process to disbar him.
"When it became apparent to the Powers-That-Be that Mr. Nifong wasn't going to automatically drop the charges in the Duke Lacrosse case, and in fact was proceeding to prosecute, the State Bar was called upon to issue ethics complaints against Mr. Nifong in order to force him off the case."
What was apparent to the powers that be was that Mike Nifong had no probable cause to proceed with the prosecution. What the Bar investigated, and ultimately found credible, was that Mike Nifong had violated prosecutorial ethics by making inflammatory pre trial statements presuming guilt on the part of Duke Lacrosse players. What the bar next investigated and ultimately found credible was that Mr. Nifong had evidence which was exculpatory for the defendants and had withheld from the defendants.
What the powers that be were trying to do is prevent a wrongful prosecution.
The bar investigations began before Mrs. Evans ever had a chance to make her statement to 60 Minutes. You have alleged that Mrs. Evans statement initiated the process which led to Mr. Nifong's disbarment.
You tell us why Mr. Nifong was justified in continuing the prosecution of the Lacrosse defendants.
Post a Comment