When I was growing up in the 50s, and television was in its infancy, many critics of the new fangled contraption derisively referred to it as the “idiot box” because time spent being entertained by it deprived boys and girls from time that could be much better spent reading and doing homework. As a result, today I spend very little time watching free TV. I definitely do not subscribe to cable or satellite because that would only encourage me to watch more television just in order to get my money’s worth… like gorging oneself at a buffet, such as Golden Corral. The only shows I currently watch are “The Bold and the Beautiful” (a soap opera that is mercifully only 30 minute long), the local and national news, occasional re-runs of “The Patty Duke Show,” “Jeopardy,” and a few minutes of sports, usually ones showing highlights. I almost never watch a sporting event from beginning to end.
From my relatively brief viewing, I have become aware of a show advertised on CBS or ABC titled “What would you do?” It is a take off on the old “Candid Camera” hidden camera show that featured Allen Funt, except, from what I gather, a bit more sinister. Whereas “Candid Camera” was played strictly for laughs, “What would you do” stages hidden camera incidents to unsuspecting civilians that are much more stress producing, and afterwards conducts an interview with them. Depending on the video victim’s reaction, they are berated or lauded for their behavior. One example of an actual episode filmed in a public bar, exposed the unsuspecting video victim to a staged scenario in which a man laced his female companion’s drink with a substance that could have been a date-rape drug while she was away. The video victim is then faced with the dilemma of what to do… mind his/her own business and say nothing, or butt in and attempt to prevent an assault. Not an easy choice, especially when not all the facts are at hand. So that is the basic gist of the program, as I am able to deduct from the advertisements on TV.
Now, I would like to invite the reader to play the game based on a real-life situation. Let’s see what your response will be.
Unlike the television version, this game requires a little role-playing. First, let’s assume that you’re an average Joe in America (either living in poverty, or on the verge of poverty). Also, let’s assume that you are an alcoholic and have a bit of a drug habit… mainly marijuana and cocaine. Finally, let’s assume that you’re white. Now, let’s set the stage. You’re out late at night getting high with an African American friend, and your vehicle gets stuck in mud and you’re forced to walk home. On the way, you come across the body of a partially clad black woman in a cul-de-sac, but do not come in close physical contact with her. The following morning when you go to retrieve your vehicle, police are at the scene as you walk to your SUV located nearby. You are arrested for the crime of murdering the victim whose body you came across the night before, but knowing your total innocence, feel the misunderstanding will be cleared up shortly and that you’ll be only a few minutes late for work. Then you meet with the prosecutor and you declare your innocence. The prosecutor dismisses it and gives you a choice. Implicate your black drug-using friend (who you know to be innocent) as the perpetrator of the murder in return for a light charge and sentence, or be charged with the murder and face life in prison or the death penalty if convicted. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Hold on… we’re not through yet. You end up being convicted of the murder with which you had nothing to do, and you’re sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Now the prosecutor returns and makes you another offer. Implicate the black man you did drugs with as the murderer, and get your sentenced substantially reduced, possibly with time served and probation. Your choice is to lie and put a black man who is innocent of the murder in jail for life in exchange for your release from jail and a short period of probation, or to defy the prosecutor and turn down his offer and remain in jail for the rest of your life. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
This is the exact true-life “What would you do?” situation that faced Gregory Flint Taylor. Prosecutor Tom Ford counted on getting perjured testimony from Taylor in order to convict Taylor’s black friend Johnny Beck. He did not believe it would be a difficult task because Taylor was an alcoholic and drug user, and in order to save himself, surely he would have no problem in getting Taylor to go along with his plan to put an innocent black man in jail. If Taylor was faced with life in prison, surely he would go along with the program in order to taste freedom. After all, Tom Ford had no trouble getting two other people to falsely implicate Taylor for the murder in return for promises of leniency related to their criminal cases. The truth of the matter is that Tom Ford specialized in getting perjured testimony in exchange for plea deals… that’s how he won his cases. This was especially true in cases where the victim is poor, disenfranchised, and of color, and closing the case is more of a concern with Ford than solving it. So what if an innocent person lands in jail… who cares?
But Ford misjudged Gregory Taylor. Taylor was, and is, a man of great inner strength, high ethical standards, and a determination to do the right thing. He refused the multiple plea deals of Prosecutor Ford, and as a result, remained in jail for seventeen years before finally being freed… and there was no guarantee that he would ever be free.
I have tried to put myself in Greg Taylor’s shoes, and have always come to the same conclusion… I would not implicate an innocent man in exchange for my freedom. But hypothetical and real life are entirely different. In real life… I just don’t know what I would do. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of people, if not all, if faced with this choice would have caved in and worked with Prosecutor Ford to put an innocent black man in jail. That is what makes Greg Taylor’s case all the more remarkable and worthy of being told. That is the movie that HBO should be making, instead of the propaganda fictional movie about the Duke Lacrosse case.
Only by putting yourself in his moccasins can you begin to appreciate what Greg Taylor did. In a similar situation, what would you do?
LINK to HBO struggling with its Duke LAXer movie:
http://justice4nifong.com/btnnews/news18/news18.htm
LINK to preview trailer of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper:
http://justice4nifong.com/mmedia/trailerA/trailerA.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
130 comments:
Sidney
This has no relevance to Mike Nifong. Regardless of the sad situation of Gregory Taylor, Mike Nifong was a rogue prosecutor who tried to put three innocent men in prison for a non existent crime.
Why would Sidney publish something on his blog which has no relevance to the Michael Nifong situation? Maybe he wants to divert people's attention away from the fact that Nifong was a rogue prosecutor who prosecuted three innocent men.
Sidney has said I left a totally irrational statement on his blog.
Here is something totally irrational. KC Johnson, Robert Mosteller, Roy Cooper, F. Lane Williamson, all provided documentation to back up what they have said. Sidney Harr has offered the public only unsupported allegations.
One of Sidney's Nifong Lovers has said that Sidney is a source of "evidence" but the others are only offering opinions.
Sidney, here is a situation for you. One of your Nifong Lovers has said that a prosecutor is not required to presume innocence. You have said you believe a prosecutor should respect the presumption of innocence.
Mr. Nifong made public statements that a crime had definitely occurred and that three members of the Duke Lacrosse team had perpetrated the crime, that eyewitnesses to the crime were protecting the perpetrators. One of your Nifong Lovers excused Mr. Nifong for making the statements by pointing out that he made the statements before any Lacrosse player had been indicted for the crime.
For a conviction to happen, the accused must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt guilty of the crime. It is the obligation of the prosecutor to prove the crime. For your Nifong lovers who claim the defendants never proved their innocence, no criminal defendant, including Ms. Mangum, is required to prove his/her innocence.
Before Mr. Nifong had ever proven anything in a court of law, let alone proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt, he was declaring those whom he would indict guilty.
How did Mr. Nifong's statements conform to standards of acceptable conduct for a prosecutor?
Here is something also totally irrational.
Sidney claims that Mr. Nifong's disbarment was caused by a "Carpetbagger Jihad" initiated by Mrs. Rae Evans, via her statement to 60 Minutes in January of 2007.
The investigation by the State Bar into Mr. Nifong's conduct started months before and was largely completed before Mrs. Evans ever made the statement.
Sidney has been called upon to explain but so far he has not.
I will play a WHAT WOULD YOU DO scenario.
You are the ethical DA of Durham County. You become aware of Ms. Mangum's rape allegation. You learn of the description of the crime, multiple caucasian assailants, no condoms used. What do you conclude? What do you do? You conclude DNA evidence was left and you have the rape kit tested. The test reveals no material consistent with rape. You engage DNA Security to do more sensitive testing. DNA from multiple males is recovered.
What do you do next? Do you order each and every caucasian member to give DNA? No, because the number of males who left DNA on the complaining witness is less than the number of caucasian male Lacrosse players. You do not have probable cause to believe each and every caucasian member of the team assaulted Ms. Mangum.
More to follow.
More WHAT WOULD YOU DO:
You conduct a lineup procedure which conforms to standards for a valid lineup procedure, conducted by a neutral party, witness is not informed whether or not suspects are included, and fillers are included. Ms. Mangum does identify three members of the Lacrosse team as her assailants.
Well, right away you should have some doubt. The DNA on Ms. Mangum came from more than three men. You conduct another proper lineup but Ms. Mangum but she is unable to identify any other Lacrosse player as her assailants. Do you get DNA from all the Caucasian Lacrosse players? NO. You still do not have probable cause to suspect any other member of the Lacrosse team.
What next?
The final act of WHAT DO I DO NOW:
All caucasian members of the Lacrosse team voluntarily give specimens for DNA analysis. Analysis reveals that none of those specimens match the male DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person. What do you do now?
If you are indeed an honorable and ethical prosecutor, you realize there is no evidence that any member of the Lacrosse team perpetrated the alleged crime. You go public and you announce that the evidence obtained thus far conclusively does not incriminate any member of the Lacrosse team.
If you still do believe Ms. Mangum was raped, you try to identify the real perpetrators. You would also again interview Ms. Mangum to learn why she accused members of the Lacrosse team.
Did Mr. Nifong handle this case this way? The answer is definitely NO.
In a bit of irony, if one believes Mr. Harr's claim that Mr. Nifong's prosecution of Lacrosse players cost the election, maybe if he had handled the case this way he would have won the election.
Some part of WHAT DO YOU DO NOW got left out. Here is the omitted part.
You obtain an NTO requiring the three men id'd by Ms. Mangum to give DNA for analysis. You have probable cause to believe they may be perpetrators. They give specimens for DNA analysis.
DNA analysis reveals that none of the men ID'd by Ms. Mangum matches the DNA found on Ms. Mangum. What do you do now?
You realize you do have no probable cause to believe the three men id'd by Ms. Mangum perpetrated the crime. What you DO NOT do is attempt to arrest, indict or file charges against the men. If you go public about anything, you announce that the reliable forensic procedures do not incriminate any if those id'd.
You question Ms. Mangum why she identified those three. Ms. Mangum says she was mistaken. What do you do next?
Another omitted part:
You conduct another proper lineup in which Ms. Mangum can not identify any caucasian Lacrosse player as a perpetrator. What you do now.
You might ask Caucasian members of the Lacrosse team to VOLUNTARILY give specimens for DNA analysis. You could reasonably conclude that if one or more of them were perpetrators they might not voluntarily give specimens.
Final word of WHAT DO I DO NOW.
Start with September 27, 2010 4:44 AM.
Follow with September 27, 2010 4:51 AM
Next read September 27, 2010 5:11 AM
Next read September 27, 2010 5:14 AM
Finish with September 27, 2010 5:05 AM
That was the intended order
More of WHAT WOULD YOU DO:
I am the parent of a caucasian male member of the Duke team. I learn my son has been indicted as one of the perpetrators of a gang rape.
I learn my son had been indicted on the basis of the alleged victim saying he would have looked like a perpetrator if he had had a mustache. My son never had a mustache.
I learn the DA had evidence that the only DNA found on the victim rape kit did not match my son or match any other of those indicted. I learn that the District Attorney who is personally prosecuting the case. What would I do.
I would not just stand meekly by and allow the DA to convict my son without probable cause or evidence. I would challenge the District Attorney as forcefully as I could.
Sidney
When are you going to explain why you accused Mrs. Rae Evans of initiating the process which led to Mr. Nifong's disbarment?
Hey Sidney
It has been reported on Liestoppers that Crystal Mangum's boyfriend is taking responsibility for the fire in the bathtub.
How does this mesh with your allegation that the "Carpetbagger Jihad" is responsible for Ms. Mangum's plight. Why did her boy friend let her languish in jail for so long? Are you going to claim that the "Carpetbagger Jihad" has co-opted Ms. Mangum's boyfriend?
Maybe you should explain how Mrs. Evans could have precipitated this "Jihad", which you claim iniyiated the events leading to Mr. Nifong's disbarment. Mrs. Evans made her statement after the State Bar had initiated its investigation of Mr. Nifong.
Here's the link to the N&O story --
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/27/705817/mangums-ex-boyfriend-says-he-set.html
From the N&O story:
"On Monday Friends of Crystal Mangum spokesman Steven Matherly tried to deliver Walker's note to District Attorney Tracey Cline. But Cline refused it."
Sid -- You, "white man's DNA" Steve Matherly, and the rest of the j4N crowd should NOT be attempting to deliver anything to the DA's office....It needs to go to CGM's lawyer.
Morons.
For all you Nifong followers who say boorish behavior on the part of the Lacrosse team caused Mike Nifong's downfall, here is another WHAT WOULD YOU DO.
Professor Coleman's report DID NOT document any pattern of wholesale, sociopathic boorish behavior on the part of the Duke men's Lacrosse team. It did document organized, constructive behavior on the part of that team.
If I had been Professor Coleman, I would have statistically analyzed the results I had obtained.
Scientists do not assume experimental results are valid. An experiment is a test to see if an hypothesis causes a difference between an experimental group and a control group. If there is a difference, a Scientist statistically evaluates that difference. It is a test to see what the probability of that difference just happened. If the probability is 50% or so that the difference just happened, the scientist has not ruled out random chance as a factor. He can not conclude his hypothesis is the explanation.
Professor Coleman did not conduct a scientific experiment. He could have determined statistically whether or not random chance could have caused his results. If he had found that the probability he could have just gotten his results is something like 75%, then neither he nor anyone could conclude validly that his study revealed anything about the Lacrosse team.
The question in my mind is whether or not Professor Coleman did any statistical analysis. His report did not give any statistical analysis. If he did conduct such an analysis and it was not significant, then did he refrain from publishing it?
Anonymous @ September 28, 2010 5:51 AM
My question is why Ms. Mangum's boyfriend allowed Ms. Mangum to languish in jail so long before coming forth?
It certainly does not show he had any real consideration for Ms. Mangum. Why would he suddenly show such compassion for her?
His story does not meet the credibility test.
Sidney, if his story had met the credibility test, what would that mean to your allegation that the so called "Carpetbagger Jihad" unleashed the police on Ms. Mangum?
“Although we have received many calls expressing concerns and anger about this incident, we have not received any calls which will allow us to assist in resolving this case. We are extending our plea for information and help to our Duke family, who are also part of our community.” (WRAL, March 28)
This is a quote from thenDurham Pliice Corporal David Addison.
If I had been David Addison, this is what I would do. I would have wondered, if no one is coming forward, does that mean there is nothing to come forward about. I might have then looked into the evidence available. Had I learned the tests on the rape kit showed no evidence if a rape, I would have really questioned if the alleged crime was real.
This pre supposes I woud have been an honest, non racist officer.
My precedent for saying how I would have behaved in David Addison's shoes is the Tawana Brawley case.
Bill Cosby offered a large reward to anyone who would come forward to provide information about the case. No one came forward. That should have been a clue to Al Sharpton et al that there was no crime to come forward about.
To those Nifong believers who blame boorish Lacrosse players for his downfall:
You accuse but you never document anything.
The nazis in Germany blamed the Jewish people for all of Germany's problems. They never documented anything. They just kept repeating their accusations.
Then they passed laws and carried out measures to exterminate the Jewish People.
Sidney Harr might call you fighters for justice. I say you are more like the nazis.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney
When are you going to explain why you accused Mrs. Rae Evans of initiating the process which led to Mr. Nifong's disbarment?"
The process of disbarring Mr. Nifong began shortly after it became apparent to the powers that be that Mr. Nifong was not going to disregard the complaint and proceed with the prosecution. Ms. Evans's call for Jihad against Mike Nifong was just that. A call to the media, the state, and the public to do whatever was in their power to "make Mr. Nifong pay, everyday, for the rest of his life." I didn't just make up this stuff.
Sidney, the round is underway.
Are you going to come out of your corner? If you do not come out, you concede to your opponents?
What does that say about any chance you might have to refute your opponents' case?
Anonymous said...
"Hey Sidney
It has been reported on Liestoppers that Crystal Mangum's boyfriend is taking responsibility for the fire in the bathtub.
How does this mesh with your allegation that the 'Carpetbagger Jihad' is responsible for Ms. Mangum's plight. Why did her boy friend let her languish in jail for so long? Are you going to claim that the 'Carpetbagger Jihad' has co-opted Ms. Mangum's boyfriend?
Maybe you should explain how Mrs. Evans could have precipitated this 'Jihad', which you claim iniyiated the events leading to Mr. Nifong's disbarment. Mrs. Evans made her statement after the State Bar had initiated its investigation of Mr. Nifong."
First, as I have repeatedly stated, the disbarment process began early on when it was apparent to the Powers-That-Be that Mr. Nifong was not going to drop the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case.
The Carpetbagger Jihad is responsible for the police and court action taken against Ms. Mangum which was unprecedented, excessive, and unwarranted. If the jihad had not been in play, and the police and courts had treated the case as any other domestic dispute, then Ms. Mangum would not have been arrested or charged in the February 17th incident, and her boyfriend may have possibly been arrested for domestic violence.
As to why he allowed Ms. Mangum to languish in jail, I have no idea. Maybe he was still upset with her for breaking up with him... or maybe he felt it was not in his best interests to come forward about the events and his role.
"First, as I have repeatedly stated, the disbarment process began early on when it was apparent to the Powers-That-Be that Mr. Nifong was not going to drop the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case."
You have said the disbarment was the result of this jihad initiated by Mrs. Evans via her statement to 60 Minutes in January, 2007
"The process of disbarring Mr. Nifong began shortly after it became apparent to the powers that be that Mr. Nifong was not going to disregard the complaint and proceed with the prosecution."
Even you admit there was no evidence from the rape kit that a rape occurred. You claim Mr. Nifong was justified because rapes can happen and not leave evidence.
It was impossible that the crime alleged by Ms. Mangum could have happened without the perpetrators leaving evidence.
It is a no brainer why people would object to Mr. Nifong proceeding with the case. He had no probable cause to believe either that the crime had happened or that any Lacrosse player had perpetrated said alleged crime.
"The Carpetbagger Jihad is responsible for the police and court action taken against Ms. Mangum which was unprecedented, excessive, and unwarranted."
What jihad. Have you ever documented this so called jihad? No.
You have blamed Mrs. Evans for inciting the jihad via her statement to 60 Minutes. However, as you now admit, objections to Mr. Nifong's course of action began before she ever spoke to 60 Minutes.
What decent honest people objected to was that Nifong was prosecuting three innocent men without probable cause, without any evidence of a crime, without any evidence linking those men to the crime.
Please tell us what evidence you know of that there was a crime. All you have done is cited Ms. Mangum's allegations, which were multiple and mutually contradictory, and the lineup procedure which was not a proper lineup procedure and which did not produce reliable identifications of anyone.
Ms. Mangum actually identified four men, with 90% t0 100% certainty. Why did Mr. Nifong not seek an indictment against a fourth man? Was it because Mr. Nifong had previously vouched in public that there had been only three rapists?
If there had been only three assailants, then why was DNA from more than three men recovered from the rape kit?
How could anyLacrosse player or any so called jihadist interfered with the rape kit materials?
"As to why he allowed Ms. Mangum to languish in jail, I have no idea."
Previously you have expressed greation that Ms. Mangum was allowed to languish in jail. Her boyfriend admits now he allowed her to languish. And you are not even interested in why?
"Ms. Evans's call for Jihad against Mike Nifong was just that."
So what parent would not call for action against a Prosecutor who was deliberately prosecuting his/her son without any probable cause whatsoever.
Professor Mosteller has documented that Mr. Nifong indicted David Evans in spite having evidence he had not had any part in the alleged crime.
Who is in a better position to know whether or not evidence is exculpatory? You, layman Sidney Harr or Law Professor Robert Mosteller?
"First, as I have repeatedly stated, the disbarment process began early on when it was apparent to the Powers-That-Be that Mr. Nifong was not going to drop the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case."
I again tank you for admitting that Mrs. Evans could not have initiated any action against Mr. Nifong.
What tthat be were aware of early on was that Mr. Nifong had no probable cause to proceed with the prosecution. What they were trying to do was prevent Mr. Nifong from trying presumed innocent men before an unfair, biased court. I say that Mr. Nifong brought down that action on himself. This is one action for which the NC justice system should be commended.
"What tthat be were aware of early on..."
I should have said was What the powers that be were aware of early on...
Sorry I can not cut and paste from an already published comment.
Well, Sidney, you have come out swinging. You haven't landed any telling blows and you have taken some severe blows to your credibility.
"First, as I have repeatedly stated, the disbarment process began early on when it was apparent to the Powers-That-Be that Mr. Nifong was not going to drop the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case."
I again thank you for admitting that Mrs. Evans could not have initiated any action against Mr. Nifong.
What the powers that be were aware of early on was that Mr. Nifong had no probable cause to proceed with the prosecution. What they were trying to do was prevent Mr. Nifong from trying presumed innocent men before an unfair, biased court. I say that Mr. Nifong brought down that action on himself. This is one action for which the NC justice system should be commended.
This is how the September 28, 2010 8:47 AM comment should have read.
Sidney, do you deny that the Lacrosse defendants were presumed innocent prior to anything being proven at trial?
Sidney
You have refused to explain why you have attributed Mr. Nifong's disbarment to Mrs. Evans' statement to 60 Minutes in January 2007.
I believe you were not even aware she had not made her statement until January of 2007.
Sidney
I notice none of your Nifong supporters have come forth in this most recent round with anything.
Not that they have ever presented anything substantial.
"Ms. Mangum actually identified four men, with 90% t0 100% certainty. Why did Mr. Nifong not seek an indictment against a fourth man?"
Could it be because the fourth man was a local kid whom everyone liked? So much easier to vilify those Yankee carpetbaggers than a nice southern kid (even if he is white.)
See, the whole problem is that in 21st century America the vast majority of white folk like the nice, smart, polite black kids they know and the vast majority of black folk like the nice, smart, polite white kids they know. The truth is that it's almost impossible to play the race card in modern U.S. society unless the person against whom it's played is considered an "outsider" by whatever standard that may be determined in the particular circumstance.
Sidney
Who, besides Mrs. Evans, have you specifically identified as preaching jihad? You have identified a number of people with whom you disagree, but you have never said that anyone other than Mrs. Evans has specifically called for jihad.
That Ms. Mangum's erstwhile boyfriend would come forth, for whatever reason, does not support your allegation of jihad. The Friends of Crystal Mangum were involved with the boyfriend coming forth. That says neither Ms. Mangum nor her friends buy into your allegation of jihad.
So why do you make this unsupported allegation?
I recall a Lacrosse player's family member expressing a wish that Mr. Nifong's trial would be fair. Is that a call to jihad?
SID"S COMMENTS
"As to why he allowed Ms. Mangum to languish in jail, I have no idea. Maybe he was still upset with her for breaking up with him..."
INITIAL PRESS REPORT
"According to the arrest warrant, Mangum scratched, punched, and threatened her 'boyfriend,' Milton Walker after he decided to break up with her. Mangum's 9 year old daughter called 911."
SO....
In one version of the story Milt breaks up with Crystal and in another version of the story Crystal breaks up with Milt. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
AND WHAT IS MORE CREDIBLE...
that Crystal destroys his clothes and vehicle preventing Milt from walking out on her, OR
that Crystal dumping him causes him or "hear voices" telling him to destroy his clothes and car?
Interesting, too, that Steve Matherly told Milt to stop talking to the reporter when the reporter tried to get him to explain stuff.
"Could it be because the fourth man was a local kid whom everyone liked?"
Who, on the 2006 Duke Lacrosse team could have been described this way? According to Sidney and his Nifong supporters, they were all rude, boorish, ill mannered, arrogant carpetbaggers.
On December 21, 2006, an investigator for the district attorney’s office,
Linwood Wilson, interviewed Mangum.295 The defense based a
supplement to the suppression motion on the victim’s radically different version of the events that came out of that interview. That interview, which
the defense alleged conveniently modified the victim’s time line of events in a way that avoided Seligmann’s alibi evidence296 and altered Evans’s mustache to a “5 o’clock shadow,”297
This concerns Ms. Mangum's identification of David Evans as an assailant. Ms. Mangum said she would been 90% certain that David Evans would have been her assailant if he had had a mustache. Some Pro Nifong commenters have claimed to have pictures of Mr. Evans with a mustache. Others have claimed he shaved off his mustache.
It seems that Mr. Nifong was backing down on the issue that Mr. Evans had had a mustache. What his investigator came up with in an interview which "altered Evans’s mustache to a “5 o’clock shadow,”.
The questions are, why did Mr. Nifong initially believe in the David Evans mustache. When he realized there had been no David Evans mustache, why did he continue to prosecute Mr. Evans.
From Sidney:
"The process of disbarring Mr. Nifong began shortly after it became apparent to the powers that be that Mr. Nifong was not going to disregard the complaint and proceed with the prosecution."
In April of 2006, after the first results of DNA testing came back, Mr. Nifong declared that he would not drop the case.
Before that, Mr. Nifong made his inflammatory, public guilt presuming statements.
The State Bar did not begin its investigation until months after these events. A State Bar grievance committee did not recommend filing ethics charges over Mr. Nifong's inappropriate public statements until October of 2006.
The State Bar did not learn of Mr. Nifong's concealment of DNA evidence until December 2006. The second ethics complaint was not drawn up until January 2007. Of course, Mrs. Evans' statement to 60Minutes did not become public until January 11, 2007.
Sidney, your allegation is not credible.
Nifong never believed Evans had a moustache. He always took her statement to mean he hadn't shaved. He did not change his mind. Many of the players hadn't shaved because they were on Spring break. They looked very different from their official team photos which was first shown to Magnum where they all had very short hair and clean shaven. She had trouble differentiating them. The police could not even differntiate the guys in uniform. They all looked the same. And this was a cross-racial ID. Many of the players now had facial hair. Evans was unshaven.
That's why the police wanted to present more recent photos (the NTO photos) in order for her to be able to recognize anyone who she may have spoken to. Because the players and their lawyers were refusing to speak to police, the police thought if she remembered talking to a particular player, they could go to the lawyers and say, hey your guy spoke to her. And maybe a player would talk to them to say what happened or what did not happen. Remember none of the players (after the 3 captains) said nothing happened. They just weren't talking at all.
According to the police, they did not intend for her to ID her attackers.
Not only can you indict a person on a 100% victim identification, you can convict a person on a 100% victim identification. So they felt they were OK on FInnerty & Seligman.
Because she was only 90% sure of Dave Evans, Nifong felt they needed corroborating evidence.
The prosecution felt with the scratch on Evans' arm that corroborated her described struggle that she scratched someone, compounded by his DNA on her fingernails which she said she broke in a struggle, compounded by the towel found right outside the bathroom with Evans' semen on it after she had described an assailant wiping her with a cloth, was enough evidence to put before the jury.
They did, and based upon that evidence, the jury indicted Evans.
".....compounded by his DNA on her fingernails which she said she broke in a struggle, compounded by the towel found right outside the bathroom with Evans' semen on it after she had described an assailant wiping her with a cloth, was enough evidence to put before the jury."
Professor, that's the most inaccurate thing you've said so far in a series of farfetched statements. The false fingernail they found in Evans' wastebasket did not contain HIS DNA and was not broken. It was an unattached, unpainted nail that found its way into the trash. The DNA found could not exclude Evans as a contributor, but was not able to be definitively matched to Evans. The DNA found on the towel was Evans, but was not mixed with Mangum's DNA as would be expected if the towel was wiped on her privates. Also, no towel in the physical universe could completely wipe Magnum off and not leave some of Evans' DNA on her.
None of this was "evidence" of anything, let alone corroborating evidence of any of Magnum's numerous contradictory stories.
As for the Nifong never believed stuff, or the police thought this and that stuff, how would you know? Did you interview them at they were doing all this stuff?
You are a pompous windbag and nothing more.
You can disagree with the actions of the jury. You can feel that this was not convincing evidence. You can disagree with the actions of the police and the prosecutor.
But this circumstantial evidence was put before the jury and they indicted Dave Evans. They did not convict him. They indicted him.
You can feel that that's unfair. But it's accurate and fair to say that that is what happened.
The grand jury decided when the evidence was presented by Himan that the case should not be dropped. Those people felt the investigation should go further at that point in time. That it should enter the discovery phase.
None of this is my personal opinion or analysis. It's simply a description of what happened.
As far as what Nifong believed, etc., about the moustache, etc. this is what they said happened, what they said they thought at the time. You don't have to believe them. You can call them all liars.
I can give you a detailed point of view of what the families felt. Or the lawyers. But what gets lost in your interpretation is that you only give one side and one side only. And when you only see such a complex situation from only one side, you have a lesser chance of seeing the whole picture.
Anonymous said...
"'Ms. Evans's call for Jihad against Mike Nifong was just that.'
So what parent would not call for action against a Prosecutor who was deliberately prosecuting his/her son without any probable cause whatsoever.
Professor Mosteller has documented that Mr. Nifong indicted David Evans in spite having evidence he had not had any part in the alleged crime.
Who is in a better position to know whether or not evidence is exculpatory? You, layman Sidney Harr or Law Professor Robert Mosteller?
A responsible parent would look at the actions of his/her son and take into consideration that the team had a history and reputation for raucous parties and behavior, note that they were attending a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party, and be aware that partygoers hurled racial epithets at the dancers. They would not overlook their son's involvement.
As a prosecutor, Mr. Nifong was merely performing his job in prosecuting the defendants.
Because Professor Mosteller has a law degree does not make him impervious to misleading the gullible. Common sense dictates that the DNA evidence was neither exculpatory, nor withheld, as the media, the state, and Duke University would have you believe.
Even if the unidentified male DNA was exculpatory, it was delivered to the defense while the case was in the discovery stage. Before the court date and before any court preparations were being made.
No one would know whether the material was truly exculpatory until the case was put before the jury and the defense used this material to try to convince the jury that the 3 lacrosse players were innocent. To claim the material is exculpatory is hypothetical at the very least.
If you truly understand the nature of that unidentified male DNA, which did not have anything to do with the night of the alleged rape, it seems unfathomable that any jury would take that irrelevant DNA as a signifier of anything.
It's almost impossible to believe that a jury would find this material exculpatory or that it would aid in the defense of the players in any way whatsoever.
It was announced in Spring that there was no DNA of any players on the rape kit. That's exculpatory. That she had other DNA on her especially being an exotic dancer where people touch her during lap dances etcetera is completely understandable and unsurprising and has nothing to do with anything.
The DNA cannot even be used to prove that she had consensual sex before the night in question.
But that did not stop the defense from using this material to attack Mangum even claiming on television that it showed that she had anal sex with multiple partners which was an outrageous misuse of that material. This was done to publicly humiliate her and discredit her.
In the discovery stage, the defense can claim that just about anything can be used to defend their clients. The defense needed the unidentified male DNA to be exculpatory to get the State Bar to charge Nifong with withholding in order to get him off the case and stop the trial.
One thing is certain. The unidentified DNA is not inculpatory, in other words it was not useful in the least to the prosecution. That's why it never really registered with Nifong or the police. It was completely and utterly irrelevant to them.
That's why Nifong has preached for decades on the record to all prosecutors that the DA should not make a judgement on whether something is exculpatory or not, or whether you have to imagine if the defense can claim material can be useful to them or not, you just hand over everything.
Which is exactly what Nifong did in this case.
"None of this is my personal opinion or analysis. It's simply a description of what happened."
Professor, you are so incredibly dishonest. Your description of what happened dismisses the fact that at the time the Grand Jury was presented the so-called evidence, Himan admits that he could not even determine whether Selligman and Finnerty were PRESENT at the party. He did not tell the grand jury that, did he?
Your description of what happened omits the several statements in the press from members of the Grand Jury that they would not have indicted had they been given a full and objective rundown of the evidence the police had and DID NOT HAVE at the time.
Himan cherry picked the facts in the Grand Jury room and you cherry pick the facts based "on your personal opinion" - which is wrong, by the way. You're just plain wrong.
"Common sense dictates that the DNA evidence was neither exculpatory, nor withheld, as the media, the state, and Duke University would have you believe."
If it's so easy that it's simple common sense, then why have you delayed providing the rest of us - who are apparently too stupid to understand common sense - an explanation of why Meehan found the DNA of Mangum's earlier sexual partners in her mouth but no DNA from the Lacrosse player who ejaculated in her mouth only a few hours before the SANE exam was performed?
This is simple, Sindey. Very, very simple. You can explain it to us stupid folks really quickly. So JUST DO IT.
Otherwise, shut up.
"No one would know whether the material was truly exculpatory until the case was put before the jury."
Professor, there is no way any prosecutor could follow Brady if the only way he or she could determine whether something was exculpatory was to wait and see what the jury thought about it. Read Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 203.
Again, Nifong's duty was to provide the defense a summary of all findings. He received this summary orally from Meehan. Meehan thought the presence of non-LAX DNA in Mangum's vagina, anus and mouth was significant enough to report it to Nifong. He could have written it down and provided those notes to the defense. Why didn't he do it?
Remember, Brady says that the "good faith" of the prosecutor is immaterial to whether a violation has occurred. It doesn't matter what Nifong thought of this evidence, or what a jury might think of this evidence. he had it. He should have turned it over. He didn't. He turned over a bunch of raw data that did not constitute a "summary of findings" from the DNA expert.
By the time the evidence was presented to the grand jury, Himan had evidence that Seligman was at the party. He had a photo of him sitting on a couch.
What the jury would have done or should have done is not what I am addressing.
I'm simply saying what the jury did.
They indicted the players on circumstantial evidence.
You cannot deny that fact.
And that omission that Meehan made from the summary report, which Nifong immediately said was wrong, that the defense absolutely should have had, when he found out just before Dec. 15th, was immediately corrected while still in discovery.
He's always admitted that it was a mistake. And it was corrected. In discovery.
You're missing the point again. Nifong, as a prosecutor, never had to determine whether something was exculpatory or not.
He always delivered everything he had to the defense.
Brady doesn't come into it.
Meehan did not include the unidentified DNA in the summary report. Although, on the first page of the summary report, he did say, at the very top of the page, almost the very first thing you read in the entire report, that there was other DNA material upon request.
According to Nifong, when he discovered that a reference about the unidentified male DNA was not in the summary report, he corrected it.
While the case was still in discovery.
"Brady doesn't come into it."
Are you out of your Nifong supporting mind!!!!
The testing of the rape kit revealed that Ms. Mangum, the complaining witness alleging the rape in which DNA evidence had to be left, had the DNA of more than males on her person, none of which matched the DNA of the three males Mr. Nifong indicted. Got that?
Is that information favorable or unfavorable to the defense? Since it casts doubt on the guilt of the three indicted men, it is favorable. It is therefore exculpatory.
The Brady versus Maryland decision requires that ALL exculpatory evidence be turned over to the defense. Mr Nifong was required to turn over the ALL exciulpatory evidence to the defense. He did not do so.
If he failed to do so unintentionally, and I do not accept that considering his determination to convict, then he was negligent and still deserved disbarment.
"...that there was other DNA material upon request."
The information was obtained via a Non Testimonial Order. North Carolina law required the DA's office, Mr. Nifong's bailiwick, the agency that sought the order, to turn all results obtained via that order to the subjects of the order as soon as possible. The three indicted players had been subjected to that order.
That the information was available by request was irrelevant. The DA's office did not turn over the reports. Brian Meehan did admit under oath there was an agreement between him and Mr. Nifong not to turn over all the results DNA security had obtained.
Can a violation of the law regarding NTOs be any clearer?
"What the jury would have done or should have done is not what I am addressing.
I'm simply saying what the jury did.
They indicted the players on circumstantial evidence.
You cannot deny that fact."
So what. There was evidence which was conclusively exculpatory which was not presented to the Grand Jury.
Mr. Nifong's actions scream that he wanted to keep all exculpatory evidence excluded from the case. That was unethical, illegal, and unconstitutional, no matter how firmly he believed in his case.
He did give over the evidence. During discovery.
His contention is that he did not withhold that information intentionally. The State Bar never proved that he withheld it intentionally.
It rests upon the prosecution to prove that Nifong withheld it intentionally. They did not.
But the State Bar ruled anyway that Nifong intentionally withheld evidence, and disbarred him for that.
They did not disbar him for negligence.
"Nifong never believed Evans had a moustache."
Where is there a quote from Mr. Nifong or anyone else to that effect?
Regardless, it is a matter of public record that Ms. Mangum said her third alleged assailant had a "mustache". David Evans never had a mustache. No photo turned up of David Evans, including the photo in the Addison wanted poster, showing him sporting a mustache. Yet Michael Nifong indicted him when he had reason to question the id.
If Mr. Nifong concluded that Crystal Mangum had meant that he hadn't shaved, I say that was stretching things so he could go ahead and seek an indictment in spite of Ms. Mangum's failure to id him.
His actions do not scream that he wanted to hide all exculpatory evidence from the case.
The prosecutor at the State Bar hearing could not prove it.
The threats by the defense to bring Nifong to criminal court on this issue never materialized because prosecuting lawyers investigating the evidence know they cannot prove it. They have never carried through with a lawsuit because they know they would lose.
Meehan should have included that information in the original summary report. Meehan did not.
"By the time the evidence was presented to the grand jury, Himan had evidence that Seligman was at the party. He had a photo of him sitting on a couch.'
IRRELEVANT!!!
That evidence is meaningless in the face of Mr. Seligman's evidence that he was not at the party at the time of the alleged rape.
Was it in the interest of justice if that photo was presented to the grand jury, but the exculpatory evidence was not.
Would that have been consistent with the Brady versus Maryland decision?
You know... the moustache... That could have been stretching things.
"Common sense dictates that the DNA evidence was neither exculpatory, nor withheld..."
Testing done by DNA security found DNA from more than three males had been on Ms. Mangum's person. Mr. Nifong sought indictments against three males, even though Ms. Mangum had actually identified four as assailants. The DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person did not match the DNA of any of the three men indicted. The crime as described would have resulted in the perpetrators leaving DNA evidence.
Any one with common sense, taking all that into consideration, would conclude the DNA evidence was exculpatory.
"Again, Nifong's duty was to provide the defense a summary of all findings."
WRONG!!!
"Nifong's duty" ethically, legally and Constitutionally was to provide the defense the REPORT of all the findings. He did not do so.
Further, I say again, Mr. Meehan admitted under oath there was an agreement between him and Mr. Nifong not to report all the fingings.
"That's why the police wanted to present more recent photos (the NTO photos) in order for her to be able to recognize anyone who she may have spoken to."
If the NTO photos were unlike any of the previous photos Ms. Mangum had seen, how would they have helped her identify any of the Lacrosse players? By your own admission, none of the Lacrosse players' appearance at the party resembled their appearance in the NTO photos.
Why did Corporal David Addison use photos of clean shaven Lacrosse players in the Wanted Poster.
The fact remains that David Evans never had a mustache and Ms. Mangum said her third attacker had a mustache. Yet, Mr. Nifong had him indicted.
"The DNA cannot even be used to prove that she[Ms.Mangum) had consensual sex before the night in question."
IRRELEVANT!!!!!
The DNA cast doubt on the guilt of the indicted players. That made it relevant.
".....compounded by his DNA on her fingernails which she said she broke in a struggle, compounded by the towel found right outside the bathroom with Evans' semen on it after she had described an assailant wiping her with a cloth,"
Using words once used by Stuart Taylor in a radio interview, "FALSE, FALSE, FALSE"
The DNA found on the fingernail could have been identified only as coming from David Evans if it had been a 1 in millions chance it had come from someone else. The chance it had come from someone else was 1 in one hundred, not enough to be a match.
The question which no Nifong supporter wants to deal with is, why was DNA matching David Evans not found on the rape kit?
"Not only can you indict a person on a 100% victim identification, you can convict a person on a 100% victim identification."
Not if the Defense could successfully impeach the identification. The Defense in this case could present solid evidence to impeach the identifications.
A properly conducted lineup is supposed to include fillers, people who are known to be innocent. What if Ms. Mangum had identified a filler with 100% certainty? Would that have justified indicting a filler, let alone trying to convict him?
Ms. Mangum, with 100% certainty, identified Brad Ross as having been at the party. Brad Ross had not been at the party. What does that say about Ms. Mangum's ability to identify with 100% certainty?
The agreement Meehan and Nifong made, testified under oath many times, was to leave out the DNA profiles of all the lacrosse players who did not have any DNA identified.
This was completley suggested by Meehan. His concern was that becasue of the tremendous media circus, that at that point was against the lacrosse players, that the media would abuse their profiles. Because of these privacy issues that were the concern of Meehan, Meehan asked Nifong if he could not include those lacrosse player profiles.
Nifong said fine.
When Cooney asked Meehan at the Dec. 15th hearing, if there was an agreement between him and a representative of the state of North Carolina not to include all data, and Meehan said yes, this is what he was refering to - the lacrosse player profiles.
But to this day, the families and the defense quote this as an admission that Meehan and Nifong agreed to leave out the unidentified male DNA.
This is inaccurate.
Later Meehan cleared this up many times under oath.
Even at the Dec. 15th hearing after Meehan said that, Meehan said in no uncertain terms that no one ever told him not to include anything or to leave out anything.
Sidney
Like you your Nifong supporters are flailing at air and leaving themselves open to serious counter punching.
Are you enjoying this. I sure am.
"This was completley suggested by Meehan. His concern was that becasue of the tremendous media circus, that at that point was against the lacrosse players, that the media would abuse their profiles. Because of these privacy issues that were the concern of Meehan, Meehan asked Nifong if he could not include those lacrosse player profiles."
In the words of Sherman Potter, "HORSE HOCKEY!!!!!"
The players had already been abuse in the media. Considering the wanted poster, the Pot banger demonstrations, the Group of 88, the actions taken against Kyle Dowd in the class room, the players had been left with no privacy to protect.
As another poster has commented, even if Mr. Nifong's omission of the exculpatory DNA was unintentional it was still culpable.
"One thing is certain. The unidentified DNA is not inculpatory, in other words it was not useful in the least to the prosecution. That's why it never really registered with Nifong or the police. It was completely and utterly irrelevant to them."
WRONG!!!
A prosecutor does not meet his/her legal, ethical or Constitutional obligation by presuming that evidence is either inculpatory or irrelevant.
Evidence which is not inculpatory is still relevant to the case. In this case the evidence cast doubt in the guilt of the accused. Therefore it was exculpatory.
You are re-arguing the case.
As I've said before, you can disagree with the evidence presented to the grand jury. You can say that you would not have believed it.
You can say that the evidence is unconvincing.
I'm not saying that it was.
Why are you so angry about facts?
The police presented circumstantial evidence. The jury indicted Dave Evans.
Nifong did not act alone. He was not a rogue prosecutor operating outside the justice system.
The police collected evidence. The SANE falsely told Gottlieb that Mangum had "blunt force trauma".
Nifong decided on the strength of the SANE report and doctor report and other circumstancial evidence and IDs, and DNA results, etc. that the DA should pursue indictments.
The police (Himan) was at the grand jury. Nifong was not.
The jury looked at the circumstantial evidence and the alleged victim IDs.
The jury from Durham indicted the three players.
Joe Cheshire believed that Dave Evans could be convicted in a trial with a jury and sought to stop the trial.
Now if you have a problem with this, as almost everyone does, as I do (that is my personal opinion) there is more to this than a rogue prosecutor.
There is something wrong with the entire justice system in NC.
And that's what Sidney's trying to get at.
"But this circumstantial evidence was put before the jury and they indicted Dave Evans. They did not convict him. They indicted him."
Would they have indicted him if they had seen more than circumstantial evidence?
Would they have indicted if they had been presented the evidence that
1) The description of the alleged rape was of a crime in which it was impossible for the perpetrators not to leave evidence.
2) SBI testing of the rape kit revealed no evidence of a rape.
3) DNA security testing of the rape kit materials revealed DNA from multiple males which did not match the DNA of David Evans.
Explain please why all this more than circumstantial evidence should have been outweighed by the purely circumstantial evidence?
Was this evidence ever presented to the Grand Jury? NO! How is that consistent with justice or a prosecutor's obligation not to prosecute when he can not prove?
You do admit that the Grand Jury did indict. One Nifong supporter claimed that the Grand Jury said more investigation should be done.
You see this as a fight. As a boxing match. It's about you. And you winning.
To you, it's not about understanding what happened.
You take a sentence from someone out of context and apply that sentence to another issue.
You misunderstand the use of the sentence itself. And object to the sentence casting it into another context.
Nothing ever gets accomplished that way.
It doesn't matter if the male DNA was inculpatory or expulpatory. (Now take that sentence out of context). Nifong delivered everything to the defense during discovery.
"Even at the Dec. 15th hearing after Meehan said that, Meehan said in no uncertain terms that no one ever told him not to include anything or to leave out anything."
Meehan did admit under oath that there was an agreement between him and Mr. Nifong not to report certain results to the Defense.
Whether or not this included the foreign DNA found on Ms. Mangum is a bit irrelevant. By law, Mr. Nifong, since he had taken over the case, was obligated to turn over all results to the defense. You admit he did not do so.
Even if it were not intentional on Mr. Nifong's part, it was still culpable. He failed in his duty not to prosecute the innocent. Pre trial, the defendants were presumed innocent by law, and Mr. Nifong had evidence which, by one commenter's admission, did not incriminate them.
"You know... the moustache... That could have been stretching things."
Perhaps. But that Mr. Evans had never had a mustache cast doubt on the reliability of Ms. Mangum's id.
At the lineup, Ms. Mangum said her third accuser was a man with a "mustache". Is it appropriate for a district attorney to read something into it other than the face value of the statement?
If Ms. Mangum was unable to tell the difference between 5 o'clock shadow and a mustache, what does that say about the credibility of her identification?
"Joe Cheshire believed that Dave Evans could be convicted in a trial with a jury and sought to stop the trial."
Joe Cheshire believed, with reason, that a Durham Jury would not be a fair jury.
Neither Joe Cheshire nor any other defense attorney wanted to avoid trial. They demanded for their clients what their clients were Constitutionally guaranteed, a fair, objective trial. That is why they requested a change of venue, something hotly opposed by many in Durham.
"Nifong delivered everything to the defense during discovery."
No he didn't.
This is not about winning. It is about showing the absurdity of the statements made by Mr. Nifong's supporters.
Why have you not addressed a basic issue in this case. I say again, in the crime alleged, it would have been impossible for the perpetrators not to leave evidence. No evidence of the crime was found by testing of the rape kit. The only DNA found on the complaining witness' person did not match any of the DNA of the people initially accused of either committing the alleged crime or aiding and abetting the alleged crime. It did not match the DNA of anyone actually charged with the crime. So why did Mr. Nifong determine to pursue his prosecution?
This is an issue I and a lot of other people have been waiting for Sidney and you Nifong supporters to address. All you have come up with is, that a rape can happen without DNA evidence being left, and that the Lacrosse team were all louts.
Neither of those points is relevant.
Just coming in on this, I feel this board is taken over by one person who yells and screams against Nifong. What's the point of discussing anything?
Why is one bully allowed to wreck a free discussion of information?
Is that what he's trying to do, wreck this blog? Because he's doing it.
"You see this as a fight. As a boxing match. It's about you. And you winning."
Via this ad hominem attack you admit that neither you nor Sidney Harr nor any other Nifong supporter can refute the points made.
"Even if the unidentified male DNA was exculpatory, it was delivered to the defense while the case was in the discovery stage."
First, the unidentified male DNA WAS EXCULPATORY!!! It raised reasonable doubt that the accused had perpetrated the alleged crime.
Second, what was delivered was raw data, not a report. Some Nifong supporter admitted this when he/she/whoever claimed the defense had the pro bono help of hundreds of Washington lawyers in deciphering the evidence.
Mr. Nifong was obligated by law to turn over a report, not just raw data. He was obligated to turn over the report as soon as he had it, which was in April before he sought indictments against Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty. He did not turn over raw data until months later.
I say again, even if this was not intentional, it was legally, ethically and Constitutionally wrong.
Is a man absolved of the responsibility for another's death by shooting him by saying, I did not intend to kill him.
I think not.
"The prosecution felt with the scratch on Evans' arm that corroborated her described struggle that she scratched someone, compounded by his DNA on her fingernails..."
If true, this corroborates only the bad faith of the prosecution.
The DNA found on the fingernail was consistent with but not a definite match to David Evans' DNA. What conclusive proof was there that it ended up there because of a struggle?
How did that outweigh that David Evans' DNA was excluded with 100% certainty as a match to any of the male DNA actually found on Ms. Mangum's person?
"His actions do not scream that he wanted to hide all exculpatory evidence from the case."
So why was the report of the evidence never delivered in a timely manner, as required by North Carolina law? Mr. Nifong had the report before he sought indictments of anyone. He delivered only raw data to the defense months after he had the report.
No matter how often your questions are answered, you still ask the same questions.
Do you have ADD?
Many of your questions have been answered in full. Someone already explained in full why Nifong did not have the male DNA mentioned in the summary report.
How many times do you want it repeated?
These are bullying tactics.
"You're missing the point again. Nifong, as a prosecutor, never had to determine whether something was exculpatory or not."
From the Wikipedia: In deciding Brady versus Maryland, "The court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process 'where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.'"
Mr. Nifong had three men indicted for first degree rape, a rape in which as described it would have been impossible for the perpetrators not to have left DNA. DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person did not match any of those three men indicted for the crime. How could that be not "material...to guilt"?
And how does that indicate the prosecutor has no responsibility to determine whether or not evidence may be "material...to guilt", ergo potentially exculpatory. Evidence which casts reasonable doubt on guilt is not immaterial to the determination of guilt or innocence. It is exculpatory.
I say again, the prosecutor does not meet his obligations under Brady versus Maryland if he decides ahead of trial that evidence is either inculpatory or irrelevant.
"Do you have ADD?"
I say again, this ad hominem attack is an admission that neither Sidney nor you nor any Nifong supporter can answer the questions.
Pointless.
You're like Kruschev banging your shoe on the table.
"There is something wrong with the entire justice system in NC.
And that's what Sidney's trying to get at."
Perhaps. But why does he argue that a prosecutor, whose misconduct was so glaringly obvious, should get a pass for it? That others have gotten away with it, that the Lacrosse players were boorish louts, these are not relevant to whether or not the Justice system is flawed.
Sidney's allegation that there was a carpetbagger jihad is an unsupported allegation.
He has presented no reason why the prosecution was justified. Ms. Mangum identified her assailants with 90% to 100% certainty. She did not. A rape could have occurred without leaving DNA evidence. Not this alleged rape. The Lacrosse team had a record of boorish behavior. No they did not. Even if they did, how does it justify prosecuting them for a crime for which there is not proof.
Sidney may be correct in calling the Justice System broken. He is way off the mark when he says the prosecution and disbarment of Mr. Nifong was not justified by the facts.
Sidney is incorrect if he believes he can fix the Justice system by nullifying the prosecution and disbarment of Mr. Nifong.
"They just weren't talking at all."
Mr. Nifong wanted them to provide eye witness testimony that a crime had happened. The Lacrosse players did talk in that they said, no crime had happened.
In any event, since via the NTO Mr. Nifong's office had named them all suspects, they had a right not to talk, something Mr. Nifong was Constitutionally bound to respect. He did not respect that right via his threats to charge them with aiding and abetting if they did not come forward.
In any event, it has been conclusively shown there was nothing for them to talk about except their innocence.
"
Joe Cheshire believed that Dave Evans could be convicted in a trial with a jury and sought to stop the trial.
Now if you have a problem with this, as almost everyone does, as I do (that is my personal opinion) there is more to this than a rogue prosecutor."
Maybe not, but the rogue prosecutor was a big part of it. Joe Cheshire believed his client would not receive a fair trial in Durham because of the inflammatory pre trial publicity which Mr. Nifong generated.
"Why are you so angry about facts?"
The facts were, there was no evidence of the alleged crime, let alone evidence to implicate the indicted Lacrosse players as perpetrators of said crime.
Those facts outraged better men and women than me.
"Nifong decided on the strength of the SANE report and doctor report and other circumstancial evidence and IDs, and DNA results, etc. that the DA should pursue indictments."
In spite of the SANE-in-training(Ms. Levicy was not a certified SANE)report and what other circumstantial evidence?
The IDs were the result of an improperly conducted lineup done at Mr. Nifong's insistence. In other words, Nifong collected fruit of a poisoned tree. And by no means were these ids reliable or credible.
The DNA evidence indicated the alleged crime had not happened and that no Lacrosse player could have perpetrated the alleged crime.
Mr. Nifong pursued indictments when he had no probable cause to do so.
"Why are you so angry about facts?"
What facts have the Nifong lovers presented to support the prosecution.
The Lacrosse team were boorish louts. Even if true,that does not support a prosecution for rape.
Mr. Nifong believed in his case. Mr. Nifong never got close to proving his case. His obligation was to prove his case, not just to believe in it.
Ms. Mangum alleged a rape. The full story is, someone asked Ms. Mangum if she had been raped and she said yes, then no then yes then no then finally yes again. That is hardly a credible allegation.
There was evidence of rape on the physical exam. The only finding with rape was diffuse vaginal edema. The DNA evidence did document that Ms. Mangum was sexually active before the party and that finding is no where near conclusive proof of a rape.
The Lacrosse players would not corroborate Ms. Mangum's allegation. There was no crime to corroborate.
Tara Levicy believed Ms. Mangum was raped. Ms Levicy was a SANE in training, not a SANE and not really qualified to make any meaningful statement.
Mr. Nifong believed the perpetrators had used condoms. The medical record says no condoms were used.
A sexual assault could have occurred without leaving DNA. Not this sexual assault which was described by the complaining witness and the police as a rape in which DNA would have been left.
We could go on and on about facts. None of the facts presented by the Nifong lovers are relevant or meaningful or, in many cases, documented.
".....compounded by his DNA on her fingernails which she said she broke in a struggle, compounded by the towel found right outside the bathroom with Evans' semen on it after she had described an assailant wiping her with a cloth, was enough evidence to put before the jury."
Why was Ms. Mangum's DNA ever found on that towel if it had been used to wipe the bodily areas attacked in the alleged crime. If that towel had been successful in removing any trace of Lacrosse player DNA, why did it not remove any of the foreign DNA. If multiple Lacrosse players had raped her, as Mr. Nifong had charged, why was only semen from David Evans recovered? Obviously Mr. Nifong never asked those questions. Had he done so, he would not have considered the towel evidence at all. The towel in no way answers the relevant question, why was none of Mr. Evans' DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person.
If anything, this towel raises questions as to whether Mr. Nifong took seriously his obligations under Open Discovery Law or the Brady versus Maryland decision.
"Pointless.
You're like Kruschev banging your shoe on the table."
Yet another ad hominem attack in which a Nifong lover admits neither he nor Sidney nor any other Nifong lover can deal with the issues raised.
"The defense needed the unidentified male DNA to be exculpatory to get the State Bar to charge Nifong with withholding in order to get him off the case and stop the trial."
WRONG!!!!!!
That DNA evidence cast reasonable doubt on Mr. Nifong's charge that they had perpetrated a gang rape.
"Many of your questions have been answered in full. Someone already explained in full why Nifong did not have the male DNA mentioned in the summary report."
Since when are ad hominem attacks answers to questions?
"According to the police, they did not intend for her to ID her attackers."
So why did Mr. Nifong, who insisted upon that improper id procedure, use her ids and excuses to indict Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and David Evans?
"A responsible parent would look at the actions of his/her son and take into consideration that the team had a history and reputation for raucous parties and behavior, note that they were attending a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party, and be aware that partygoers hurled racial epithets at the dancers. They would not overlook their son's involvement."
There is no evidence that the Lacrosse team had that reputation you describe, even in the Coleman report. There is no evidence the party was a beer guzzling orgy as you described. Other organizations at Duke, other than the Lacrosse team, had organized Stripper ogling parties, so that was not unique to the Lacrosse team, just like prosecutorial misconduct was not unique to Mr. Nifong. There was only one exchange of racial epithets, one initiated by one of the dancers by her own admission. That dancer later admitted she had falsely accused inhabitants of the house of calling her and her girlfriend a racial epithet. At the time she made that allegation, the house was empty.
Whatever involvement their sons had at that event, it was not anything which would have justified charging them with rape. Two of those charged were not even at the party at the time of the alleged rape.
Sidney, only you and your few Nifong lovers believe that the Lacrosse players were guilty of rape. You DO believe they were guilty of rape. Otherwise you would have never published this blog under the guise of defending Mr. Nifong.
"[The defense claimed] on television that it showed that she had anal sex with multiple partners which was an outrageous misuse of that material. This was done to publicly humiliate her and discredit her."
The result of the DNA testing did show DNA from more than one male from her anus. Draw your own conclusion.
The defense used that information to show that none of the men charged with having unlawful sexual contact with her could have had any sexual contact with her.
This falls under the concept of opening the door. Ms. Mangum did say that multiple had unlawful sexual contact with her. She claimed that at least one had penetrated and ejaculated in her vagina. The defense is allowed to present evidence to refute that.
Let us see how else the Nifong lovers will try to justify the withholding of exculpatory evidence.
"As a prosecutor, Mr. Nifong was merely performing his job in prosecuting the defendants."
INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!
Sidney, you yourself have said that a prosecutor's duty is to find the truth, that this obligation takes priority over any duty to prosecute. Which side of your mouth are you trying to talk out of.
How can a prosecutor who prosecutes presumably innocent men without evidence showing a crime or showing any evidence connecting any suspect to the crime?
Show us any evidence which would have proven the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That the case never went to trial is irrelevant. Reasonable doubt existed before trial.
Sidney
Have you and your Nifong supporters nothing to offer but irrelevant facts, unsupported allegations, distorted understanding of legal ethics and ad hominem attacks to offer?
To those who say I am ignoring facts:
Is it or is it not a fact that Ms. Mangum alleged a gang rape in which multiple assailants penetrated her and ejaculated in assorted places, including her mouth and rectum?
Is it or is it not a fact that the rape kit was done at a time when no Lacrosse player or no Lacrosse player fan could have touched it or affected the outcome of testing?
Is it or is it not a fact that testing revealed no evidence of the alleged crime, no blood, no semen, no saliva?
Is it or is it not a fact that the only male DNA recovered from Ms. Mangum did not match the DNA of anyone who had been accused of this alleged crime?
Experts have opined it would have been impossible for this crime to have happened without the perpetrators leaving behind DNA. Some of them have been cited in Until Proven Innocent, which Nifong lovers hate the same way the devil hates the truth.
The Nifong supporters cite as a fact is tha6t a ra0ppe can happen without the perpetrators leaving behind DNA. Has Sidney or any Nifong supporter ever shown how this rape could have happened without leaving behind DNA?
Well, one Nifong supporter has cited a towel upon which was found semen from David Evans. That towel did not have any DNA from Ms. Mangum, and had no one's semen other than David Evans'. Mr. Nifong alleged a gang rape by three men against Ms. Mangum. If that towel had been used to remove evidence from Ms. Mangum, then why did it not hold any DNA from Ms. Mangum or from any other assailant? Why did it not remove the foreign DNA from Ms. Mangum?
The facts cast reasonable doubt that either a crime had occurred or that any of those charged had committed that crime. In the face of such facts, how could Mr. Nifong proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? He could not.
Since he could not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, how could he justify prosecuting.
To the Nifong acolyte who objected to the recovery of DNA from multiple males from an anal swab taken from Ms Mangum:
SBI crime lab testing found no evidence that the alleged crime had occurred, no evidence of blood, semen or saliva on the rape kit material.
Why did Mr. Nifong then seek further testing on the rape kit. It is a safe assumption that he wanted to recover inculpatory evidence.
Did he recover inculpatory evidence? Did the result of further testing provide him with evidence which would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? No it did not.
Why did Mr. Nifong then indict three men and attempt to have them tried and convicted? Was it because he believed in his case? It was not reasonable, legal or ethical to proceed with the case if he could not prove it, regardless of how much he believed in it.
Had Mr. Nifong not sought inculpatory evidence, had Mr. Nifong done the proper thing and not proceeded with the case, any foreign DNA would have never been recovered.
Had the case gone to trial, and had Mr. Nifong really turned that evidence over to the defense, it would have gone public. That Ms. Mangum might have been embarrassed by such evidence is the responsibility of Mr. Nifong.
"Many of your questions have been answered in full."
No they haven't. Sidney and his Nifong fellow travellers have tried to dodge the questions rather than answer them.
A Prime Example of Dodge:
Q) Why did the testing of the rape kit reveal no DNA from the suspected perpetrators?
A(from the Nifong supporters and from Nifong Supporter himself) They could have raped her and not left any DNA.
For you who claim that it has been explained why Mr. Nifong withheld certain results:
How does that jive with your other Nifong supporters claiming he did turn over all results?
"These are bullying tactics."
And it was not bullying when Mr. Nifong threatened to charge members of the Lacrosse team with aiding and abetting if they did not incriminate fellow members of the team?
What am I intimidating you to do? Is it intimidation or truth that you fear. Those who do not like the truth often call it intimidation.
Why do you not respond to the issues and answer the questions instead of resorting to discredited dodges and ad hominem attacks?
All you Nifong supporters who object to what I have posted, including Nifong Supporter himself.
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"
Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men
"The question which no Nifong supporter wants to deal with is, why was DNA matching David Evans not found on the rape kit?"
All you Nifong supporters who have said you have answered all questions, well here is one you have not.
Regarding the allegation that Mike Nifong never believed David Evans had a mustache:
It is a fact, at the id procedure, Ms. Mangum said her third assailant had a mustache at the time of the alleged assault. David Evans never had a mustache.
If, after the id procedure, Mike Nifong never believed Dave Evans had a mustache, he was disregarding information which cast doubt on Ms. Mangum's id.
It is a manifestation of Mr. Nifong's overall disregard of exculpatory evidence.
Is it not bullying that Sidney Harr is conducting this online vendetta against the Lacrosse players and their families.
Sidney said, "Only by putting yourself in his moccasins can you begin to appreciate what Greg Taylor did."
Only by putting yourself in the position of Durham County DA can you appreciate the enormity of Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution of the Lacrosse players.
Sidney said, " Prosecutor Tom Ford counted on getting perjured testimony from Taylor in order to convict Taylor’s black friend Johnny Beck."
Mr. Nifong apparently believed he could intimidate members of the Duke Lacrosse team to give perjured testimony which would convict whoever he indicted for the alleged crime.
Mr. Nifong also apparently believed he could intimidate Defense witnesses to withdrawing support for the defense witnesses, e.g. Moez Elmostafa.
Sidney said, "I have tried to put myself in Greg Taylor’s shoes, and have always come to the same conclusion… I would not implicate an innocent man in exchange for my freedom."
If I had been in the shoes of any Duke Lacrosse player in 2006, I would not let any prosecutor intimidate me into giving perjured testimony against my teammates.
More about DNA evidence for the reluctant-to-respond pro Nifongers.
The crime described was a crime in which the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving DNA.
Mr. Nifong did represent to the public that DNA evidence would be found which would incriminate the guilty and exonerate the innocent. What could exonerate mean other than DNA found would not match that of the innocent? The logical conclusion of that would be if the no DNA were found to incriminate the guilty then there was no evidence to incriminate anyone, that anyone who gave specimens for analysis was exonerated.
Mr. Nifong said, after initial DNA test results became public that it meant that a crime happened but that no DNA had been left.
That statement does not make sense, that this crime would have occurred and no perpetrator DNA would be left. To paraphrase Judge Judy(which is going to incur the wrath of the pro Nifongers) if some allegation does not make sense, it lacks credibility.
So, all you pro Nifongers, including Nifong Supporter, explain why testing of the rape kit revealed no male DNA. Note, I did not say no perpetrator DNA but no male DNA.
For the pro Nifongers who talk about the towel which held semen from David Evans.
What identifies this towel as a towel which was used to remove evidence from Ms. Mangum?
Ms. Mangum alleged an assault from multiple men. Mr. Nifong had three men indicted and arrested for the crime. Why would their semen not have been found on the towel.
If this towel had been used to wipe down Ms. Mangum, it would have picked up her DNA. Why was her DNA not found on the towel?
How could this towel, if used to wipe down Ms. Mangum, have removed only DNA belonging to Lacrosse players. Why did it not remove foreign DNA?
What credible evidence is there that any towel was used to wipe down Ms. Mangum
For all you pro Nifongers(and Sidney admits there are few of you) who cite the fingernail DNA
Again, the DNA found on Ms. Mangum's false fingernail was compatible with but not a match to David Evans. To be considered a match, it would have to exclude all other males to a very high confidence level. The confidence level required would be a chance of 1 in several million that it matched anyone other than Dave Evans.
That DNA means nothing as no one can establish how it got there. One pro Nifonger has posted that Ms. Mangum could have had foreign DNA on her from some male touching her. How do we know she did not touch David Evans.
What does mean something is that no DNA matching David Evans' DNA was ever found on Ms. Mangum's person.
So, why was Mr. Nifong justified in considering Mr. Evans a suspect?
Anonymous said...
"'As a prosecutor, Mr. Nifong was merely performing his job in prosecuting the defendants.'
INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!
Sidney, you yourself have said that a prosecutor's duty is to find the truth, that this obligation takes priority over any duty to prosecute. Which side of your mouth are you trying to talk out of.
How can a prosecutor who prosecutes presumably innocent men without evidence showing a crime or showing any evidence connecting any suspect to the crime?
Show us any evidence which would have proven the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That the case never went to trial is irrelevant. Reasonable doubt existed before trial."
I was not a member of the prosecution team, so I have not been privvy to the evidence that would have been presented at trial. Since the evidence was turned over to Attorney General's Office, it has been sealed, so the world will never know the evidence which would have been presented.
But you're telling me that credible evidence was present in Prosecutor Tom Ford's case against Gregory Taylor? That credible evidence was present in Prosecutor Bill Ford's case against James Arthur Johnson? That credible evidence was present in Prosecutor Michael Parker's case against Floyd Brown? That credible evidence was present in Prosecutor David Hoke's case against Alan Gell? That credible evidence existed against Erick Daniels, Charles Munsey, Ronald Cotton, and other innocents who were convicted by prosecutors?
We don't know the breadth of evidence that Mr. Nifong had, but the aforementioned prosecutors had none, and no one is up in arms about their actions. Why do you think that is? Do you think Class and Color could play a role?
No, class and color play no role. Zero. Nothing. It's notoriety, pure and simple. None of these other cases had, for example, any where near the voluminous ink that the New York Times spilled on this case. It was everywhere.
Also, in none of these cases did the prosecutor say that a single piece of evidence would determine who was guilty and who was innocent and then, when that piece of evidence came in demonstrating that every current suspect was innocent, proceed to indict folks anyway.
There's nothing like what your boy Nifong did anywhere. Period. He was the worst.
Now, did other innocent folks suffer far worse than the "Duke three" from less notorious but equally corrupt prosecutors. Doubtless. But your point seems to be that the penalty to the prosecutor should be proportionate to the suffering of the victim. That's not the way things work. The system defends itself by making examples of the most notorious offenders, not the ones that necessarily cause the most suffering.
Nifong got far less than he deserved in terms of punishment for his abuses. The fact that these other prosecutors got even less than Nifong, when they should have suffered the same or worse punishment, does not make Nifong's treatment unjust, nor does it make that punishment racist or classist.
"The system defends itself by making examples of the most notorious offenders, not the ones that necessarily cause the most suffering."
How absolutely true.
The system makes examples of the most notorious offenders not the ones that cause the most suffering.
That's the way it works.
I think we have a little light. Wow.
That's the way it works. The system makes examples of the most notorious offenders not the ones who cause the most suffering.
Sidney says, "
I was not a member of the prosecution team, so I have not been privvy to the evidence that would have been presented at trial."
Maybe not. However he was aware of the evidence Mr. Nifong did not want to come out at trial, the evidence that there was nothing corroborating a rape on the rape kit, the evidence that the only DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person was DNA which did not match the DNA of the men he had indicted.
Sidney says, "But you're telling me that credible evidence was present in Prosecutor Tom Ford's case against Gregory Taylor? That credible evidence was present in Prosecutor Bill Ford's case against James Arthur Johnson? That credible evidence was present in Prosecutor Michael Parker's case against Floyd Brown? That credible evidence was present in Prosecutor David Hoke's case against Alan Gell? That credible evidence existed against Erick Daniels, Charles Munsey, Ronald Cotton, and other innocents who were convicted by prosecutors?"
Read this CAREFULLY!!!!
I am saying that there was no evidence whatsoever to justify Mr. Nifong's charging the three defendants with first degree rape.
Mind you, he charged them with first degreee rape, not just sexual assault.
There was no evidence to show a crime had happened, let alone that any Lacrosse player had been involved in said crime.
I have repeatedly asked you, what do all these other cases have to do with the Duke Rape hoax? You have yet to answer.
ARE you trying to divert attention away from all the unsupported allegations you have made about the case?skaphrop
Sidney says, "We don't know the breadth of evidence that Mr. Nifong had, but the aforementioned prosecutors had none, and no one is up in arms about their actions. Why do you think that is? Do you think Class and Color could play a role?"
So what. Does the wrongful prosecution of those defendants justify accusing the Lacrosse players of rape? If not, then your concern about the "aforementioned prosecutors" has no relevance to this discussion you have initiated.
Yes class and race played a role in the Duke case. Mr. Nifong prosecuted caucasian males from well off families because he believed this would win him the support of Durham black voters.
Sidney
I say again, READ THIS!!!
I have said nothing about credible evidence in any case but the Duke Hoax.
Why are you trying to divert attention away from your beliefs about the Duke Fraud?
"The system defends itself by making examples of the most notorious offenders, not the ones that necessarily cause the most suffering."
Anonymous said...
"The system defends itself by making examples of the most notorious offenders, not the ones that necessarily cause the most suffering."
Unfortunately, I must agree with you. As long as the innocents who are suffering are disenfranchised, poor, and of color, the state and the media makes no big deal about the prosecutor responsible.
But if a prosecutor pursues charges against people with wealth, status, and privilege, then, as in the Duke Lacrosse case, the prosecutor will be persecuted and made an example of.
I agree with Sid -- Mike Nifong is a notorious offender.
Sidney said, "But if a prosecutor pursues charges against people with wealth, status, and privilege, then, as in the Duke Lacrosse case, the prosecutor will be persecuted and made an example of."
Sidney, do you think it is proper to pursue criminal charges against the people with wealth and status when there is no evidence that those people ever committed a crime?
In the Alleged but never Corroborated Duke rape case, Mr. Nifong had no evidence that a crime had occurred. That is one reason he was prosecuted for ethics violations.
Sidney
Leon Brown possibly could have been described as "disenfranchised, poor, and of color".
He was innocent of the crime of which he was charged. Trace Cline, who can be described as a person of color, prosecuted him. You have never blogged about Leon Brown.
I say you would have never cared about defendants who were "disenfranchised, poor, and of color" had had the Alleged but never Corroborated Duke Rape case never happened.
You are angry only because the innocent Duke Lacrosse players were not wrongfully convicted.
Post a Comment