Many consider Captain Ahab’s obsession to kill Moby Dick, the great White whale that took his leg, to be the height of obsessive behavior. Well, you’ll need to push that aside and make room for Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford’s obsession to convict Johnny Beck, the African American drug partner of Gregory Taylor the night that Jacquetta Thomas was murdered in 1991. As has been stated previously, Tom Ford did not care a whit about the black prostitute who was murdered, and therefore had no desire to solve the crime. He was only interested in convicting someone for it, and if he could sentence a black male to spend the rest of his life in jail, so much the better. He pinned his hopes on charging and convicting Beck on perjured testimony of Gregory Taylor. However, things did not work out as planned for the wily prosecutor who had the art of perjury-based convictions down to a science. Mr. Taylor, to the dismay of Ford, was a man of principles and integrity, and he refused to commit perjury and implicate a man who he knew to be innocent of committing homicide. So, Ford, using his trademark m.o. of perjured testimony in exchange for lesser sentences, along with fantasy forensics, convicted an obviously innocent man for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas… and it carried a life sentence.
While serving this life sentence, Ford approached Taylor in prison, and offered the promise of a lighter sentence if only he would lie under oath in order to enable him to charge Beck with the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Even under these conditions, Greg Taylor held firm to his convictions… prepared to spend the rest of his life in jail rather than falsely finger an innocent man. And Taylor languished in jail for seventeen years until his case was finally heard by the Innocence Inquiry Commission, which led to his freedom and exoneration by Governor Bev Perdue in 2010.
According to an article in The News & Observer, dated October 6, 2010, Wake County prosecutors, led by District Attorney Colon Willoughby are focusing on Johnny Beck as the primary suspect in the 1991 Thomas homicide. The Mandy Locke article, titled “Taylor’s companion still investigated,” did break with tradition by mentioning Tom Ford’s name (in violation of the PAPEN Policy). And it was a powerful paragraph at the end of the article which bears repeating: “Charges against Beck were dismissed in August 1993. A month earlier, Wake County Assistant District Attorney Tom Ford wrote to Taylor and told him that he could persuade the governor to adjust Taylor's sentence if he would testify against Beck. Taylor refused.”
Charges were dismissed against Beck in 1993. So, what has changed in the subsequent seventeen years to make Wake County prosecutors focus their investigation on Beck now? I can think of only two things: (1) Gregory Taylor has been completely exonerated; and (2) Prosecutor Tom Ford, his prosecution against Taylor, and the SBI lab has been totally discredited. It was not only obvious to the three judge panel and the media that Gregory Taylor was innocent, but it is also obvious to the public. If Taylor is innocent of the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, then by all rationale, Johnny Beck, his companion of that fateful night, is innocent as well.
By pursuing Beck as a suspect, D.A. Willoughby and his team are essentially saying that the public is stupid. The N&O reported as follows: “Willoughby said in the motion that any evidence showing contact between Thomas and a white vehicle may be relevant to prosecutors or defense attorneys should anyone be prosecuted for Thomas' death in the future.” I fail to comprehend the logic therein. Personally, I am insulted by Willoughby’s reasoning for wanting to hold on to property of Taylor and Beck. It is almost as insulting to my intelligence as was the statement by Duke University’s Michael Schoenfeld that defined “solicitation” as handing out business cards.
The obsessive targeting of Johnny Beck for a murder he could not have committed not only insults the intelligence of Tar Heelians and wastes taxpayer money, but goes contrary to the supposed role of prosecutors acting as “Ministers of Justice.” A true minister of justice would have dismissed Gregory Taylor and Johnny Beck as suspects in the Thomas murder back in 1991 or early 1992 (at the latest). Alas, Tom Ford, and Colon Willoughby are no ministers of justice by their actions in this case. Neither was the Attorney General’s Office acting as a minister of justice when it re-tried Alan Gell after it became apparent that Prosecutor David Hoke withheld from defense attorneys 17 eyewitness statements that proved beyond doubt that Gell could not have possibly committed the murder for which he was sentenced to die.
A shining example of a true Minister of Justice can be found in the way former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case. After initially charging the three Duke Lacrosse defendants with multiple offenses, Mr. Nifong dismissed the charge of rape when he felt that statements by the alleged victim no longer supported it. He, however, continued to pursue other charges against the defendants, including sexual assault. This is the action of a prosecutor with an open mind who is determined to aggressively seek a conviction, but with the priority of first and foremost attaining justice. Mr. Nifong never tried to solicit perjured testimony or false statements as did Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford in the Gregory Taylor case. Mr. Nifong never harbored personal ill-will or a vendetta against the defendants… he just merely executed his job to the best of his abilities and within acceptable standards.
Hopefully the judge hearing the motion filed by Willoughby, to hang on to evidentiary property that is no longer of value, will deny his request. Enough is enough. Johnny Beck is innocent… just like Gregory Taylor. It is past time to put an end to this Tom Ford foolery.
NOTE: Link provided below tells of interesting event featuring Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Eugene Robinson. (Click the botton featuring that headline)
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/newsDirec/news.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
192 comments:
For all you Nifong Supporters who call the Mangum fingernail incriminating evidence against David Evans:
This is a quote from Jonna Spilbor, published on line May 19, 2006, "All that can be said is that the DNA is "consistent" with DNA VOLUY_{}NTARILY SUPPLIED EARLY ON BY [DAVID] EVANS(emphasis added).
If Mr. Evans had perpetrated a rape in which he would have left evidence, why would he voluntarily give a specimen for DNA analysis to the authorities
Sidney said, "Ford approached Taylor in prison, and offered the promise of a lighter sentence if only he would lie under oath in order to enable him to charge Beck with the murder of Jacquetta Thomas."
Mr. Ford approached Mr. Taylor with an offer of a lighter sentence if he told what he knew to the prosecution. There was no attempted subornation of perjury.
Mike Nifong, on the other hand, did threaten Lacrosse team members with charges of aiding and abetting if they did not come forward with incriminating testimony.
For all you Nifong Supporters who call the Mangum fingernail incriminating evidence against David Evans:
This is a quote from Jonna Spilbor, published on line May 19, 2006, "All that can be said is that the DNA is "consistent" with DNA VOLUNTARILY SUPPLIED EARLY ON BY [DAVID] EVANS(emphasis added).
If Mr. Evans had perpetrated a rape in which he would have left evidence, why would he voluntarily give a specimen for DNA analysis to the authorities
It was the police who tried to coerce Mr. Taylor to testify against Johnny Beck.
"Many consider Captain Ahab’s obsession to kill Moby Dick, the great White whale that took his leg, to be the height of obsessive behavior."
I consider your attempts to rewrite history and cast Mike Nifong as a "true minister of justice" the height of obsessive behavior....
Sidney,
Both Gregory Taylor and Johnny Beck have agreed to having their clothes tested for the victim's DNA. Their motivation is, they want it clear they did not kill the unfortunate woman.
It is sort of like David Evans voluntarily giving a specimen for DNA analysis to the police because he knew his DNA would not be found on the alleged victim.
Sidney said, "A shining example of a true Minister of Justice can be found in the way former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case."
Since when is indicting men for rape and prosecuting them without any evidence the rape had occurred a shining example of justice?
"After initially charging the three Duke Lacrosse defendants with multiple offenses, Mr. Nifong dismissed the charge of rape when he felt that statements by the alleged victim no longer supported it."
Mr. Nifong had no evidence at the start of the case that a rape had occurred. So why did he have the men indicted and charged with first degree forcible rape?
Sidney said Nifong's dismissal of the rape charges "...is the action of a prosecutor with an open mind who is determined to aggressively seek a conviction, but with the priority of first and foremost attaining justice."
Hardly. It is the action of a rogue prosecutor hoping he can block the introduction of evidence which exonerated the defendants.
Sidney said, "Mr. Nifong never harbored personal ill-will or a vendetta against the defendants… he just merely executed his job to the best of his abilities and within acceptable standards."
Why did Mr. Nifong make inflammatory, guilt presuming, racially inflammatory statements about the Lacrosse team before he had proven anything in court?
Why did Mr. Nifong make this statement to Bob Eckstrand, "If you've come here to ask me questions instead of telling me what you know about who did it, then we don't have anything to talk about. You're wasting my time. You tell all of your clients I will remember their lack of cooperation at sentencing. I hope you know if they didn't do it, they are all aiders and abettors, and that carries the same punishment as rape." That sure sounds a lot like personal hostility towards the Lacrosse team members.
Sidney said that Mr. Nifong "just merely executed his job to the best of his abilities and WITHIN ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS(emphasis added)."
I have asked Sidney to define "acceptable standards".
I have pointed out Mr. Nifong's pre trial statements, guilt presuming statements, statements which undermine an accused's right to counsel, a statement which undermined an accused's right to remain silent. I have asked Sidney to explain how these acts conformed to "acceptable standards".
Thus far, Sidney has declined to respond to these requests.
Sidney
In your j4n Headline News dated August 5, 2010, you do accuse Mrs. Rae Evans, via her statement to 60 Minutes, of precipitating the "carpetbagger jihad" which ultimately lead to the Nifong disbarment.
I say again, Mrs. Evans made her statement AFTER the State Bar's investigation of Mr. Nifong was nearly complete.
I also say, until pointed out to you the date of Mrs. Evans' statement you were unaware of when Mrs. Evans made her statement.
This comes from Talk Left, posted on line April 25, 2006:
" According to court records, 16 players were charged in the past three years with misdemeanor charges in Durham including noise violations, public urination and alcohol violations. The deals placed the men on probation for either six months or a year. They were to complete community service and in some cases were required to abide by the rules and regulations of the university. The deals required the men to pay fees and in some cases remain in school.
Nifong said he will reinstate the charges against players whose deferred prosecution deals are still active, unless they can show they were not at the party."
Was this or was this not an act of hostility directed against members of the Duke Lacrosse Team?
This comes from Alas: a Blog.
:There are two questions to consider here: First, “Did a rape happen?” and second, “Is there enough evidence to prove in a courtroom that these particular three men committed rape?”
Sidney, how do you answer these questions? Please explain your answers.
I remind you, the first question asks, did a RAPE happen.
Sidney
Brendan Nyhan published a blog on March 31, 2006, about the alleged but never corroborated rape case.
He points out that at 12:53 AM on March 14, a woman called 911 and reported men at 610 North Buchanan called her n-----. Police arrived at the house two minutes later and found the house empty.
He reported that Kim Pittman reported picking up Ms. Mangum while Ms. Mangum was walking on North Buchanan. She drove her to a Kroger store which was 2.3 miles away. There was a police statioin only 0.9 miles away.
If Ms. Pittman/Roberts believed Ms. Mangum had been raped, why did she drive her to a supermarket and then try to have Ms. Mangum removed from her car?
This is from an article published in the News and Observer published in April of 2006(url http://www.newsobserver.com/2007/04/15/71518/a-case-starts-to-unravel.html)
This concerns Attorney Bill Thomas who represented Lacrosse Captain Brett Thompson:
"Thomas had concluded the rape charges were false after spending an afternoon with his client, lacrosse captain Brett Thompson. Thomas worried that the Durham police might have fed bad information to Nifong. Thomas asked Nifong to investigate fully before bringing charges. He offered to share facts and evidence with the prosecutor.
Thomas said Nifong wouldn't listen: "He said that he had personally interviewed her and had spoke with her at length about this case, and that he fully believed every word she said about this incident, and that he knew a lot more about this case than I did, and that he was going to proceed as he saw fit."
Of course, in October of 2006, Mr. Nifong admitted that neither he nor anyone in his office had interviewed Ms. Mangum.
Sidney, is this an example of acceptable behavior, acceptable procedure on the part of a prosecutor?
Great work Sidney !! You have the lacrosse Robo-Spammers
working overtime. Maybe you can get them to overheat
and have a complete meltdown.
"Great work Sidney !! You have the lacrosse Robo-Spammers
working overtime. Maybe you can get them to overheat
and have a complete meltdown."
Hardly likely.
Sidney is ducking requests to define acceptable standards of behavior for a prosecutor. He is ducking requests to explain how Mr. Nifong's prosecution met acceptable standards.
Some pro Nifonger has accused Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty of robbing Crystal Mangum. He is as of this moment pulling a Kilgo.
They are the ones reluctant to face the heat.
Sidney
Here is something for you to ruminate upon.
Your SOS about the rape kit in the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape is, a sexual assault could have happened without evidence being left.
It is an acceptable standard that a prosecutor must establish probable cause that a crime happened. Probable cause is a reasonable belief that a crime did in fact happen.
How does the possibility that a crime did happen in the face of no evidence establish probable cause? It does not.
If Mr.Nifong could only say that a crime could have happened without leaving evidence, he did not establish probable cause.
Without resorting to more of your SOS, explain how Mr. Nifong did establishe probable cause in the Duke case.
Sidney
The revelations of Duke alumna Karen Owen's now famous
Duke F*ck List, prominently featuring eight members of the
current Duke men's lacrosse team, show an ongoing pattern
of drunkenness, perversion and sexual debauchery among
Duke male athletes, which was all to familiar to Durham police
during the Duke lacrosse rape case.
Do you think this barnyard animal like behavior, which lacrosse
supporters continue to deny, helped form the Durham authorities
belief that the 2006 Duke men's lacrosse team was quite
capable of committing the felonies for which three members were indicted?
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 7:20 AM
I for one do not deny the occurrence of inappropriate behavior among Duke Lacrosse players. I say that the kind of inappropriate behavior you focus on is not unique to the athletes you so detest.
The question you and the other Nifong supporters, including Nifong Supporter himsel, try to dodge is, how does this establish probable cause to indict men for rape.
I am familiar with Sidney's SOS about why Mr. Nifong indicted the three Lacrosse defendants. However, and we can debate this, the victim's word was not credible, there were no physical findings diagnostic of rape, there was no evidence of rape on the rape kit, the DNA recovered from the rape kit did not match any of the men Mr. Nifong named as suspects, and Ms. Mangum's identification of her assailants was not credible.
Do you care to debate?
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 7:20 AM
Personally, I would question your character. You would use this sad incident(for which the young lady has apologized) as an excuse to attack the Duke Lacrosse team.
This incident happened more than four years after the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape case and has no relevance to said case.
"Do you think this barnyard animal like behavior, which lacrosse
supporters continue to deny, helped form the Durham authorities
belief that the 2006 Duke men's lacrosse team was quite
capable of committing the felonies for which three members were indicted?"
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 7:20 AM
I again challenge you to establish why said alleged behavior could be considered probable cause in the face of the lack of any hard evidence that a rape had occurred?
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 7:20 AM
Via your comment you have established that you yourself are capable of cruel and farm animalistic behavior.
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 7:20 AM
Please explain why Nifong Supporter himself continues to deny Mr. Nifong's violations of legal ethics, if you are so concerned about denial.
The reason why no one wants to debate you is that you are a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who has something lacking in his life and must rave on this blog.
Many of your questions have been answered over and over but you personally don't accept those answers and just continue on as if they were not addressed. You don't debate in a civilized way but in a bullying monomaniacal screed.
But now you will assert that this statement means that your questions are not answered and dodged. Nothing can be further from the truth. You simply repeat the media's narrative and prove the media's narrative by quoting, what else, the media.
Either get a therapist or maybe turn your neurosis to a more recent subject. You've been raving for 4 years now. And now you will accuse of an ad hominem attack. For Pete's sake. What a froth.
People who approach controversial and complex events like the Duke Lacrosse case like you, never, ever, get the whole human truth of it right.
What patience Sidney has.
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 7:20 AM
Your last comment is nothing more than another ad hominem attack on the Duke Lacrosse team. That, in turn, is an admission that you can not deal with the actual innocence of those wrongfully prosecuted for the alleged Duke rape.
"The reason why no one wants to debate you is that you are a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who has something lacking in his life and must rave on this blog."
The reason why you have backed down from my challenge to debate is that you have nothing but ad hominem attacks to offer.
The above quote from your last comment is an ad hominem attack.
"The reason why no one wants to debate you is that you are a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who has something lacking in his life and must rave on this blog."
If that is what I am, then what is Sidney Harr?
"But now you will assert that this statement means that your questions are not answered and dodged."
You did not address any questions. You have dodged them.
Run Kilgo Run
Duck Kilgo Duck
"You've been raving for 4 years now. And now you will accuse of an ad hominem attack."
Whoever you think I am, I can assure you I have not been posting about the alleged but never corroborated Duke Rape case for four years.
Who are you. You do sound like Kilgo.
"People who approach controversial and complex events like the Duke Lacrosse case like you, never, ever, get the whole human truth of it right."
Mike Nifong obviously never got it right about the alleged but never corroborated Duke Rape case until he admitted he had no credible evidence to justify his actions.
"What patience Sidney has."
Has Sidney resumed practicing medicine? If so, then he has "patience".
"People who approach controversial and complex events like the Duke Lacrosse case like you, never, ever, get the whole human truth of it right."
Patience or no patience, Sidney hasn't gotten the Duke alleged but never corroborated rape case right either. So what else is there left to say?
"Many of your questions have been answered over and over but you personally don't accept those answers and just continue on as if they were not addressed."
I have asked Sidney why Mr. Nifong prosecuted when there was no evidence to corroborate a rape. Sidney's answer was that Mr. Nifong prosecuted for Sexual Assault and did not need to prove rape.
That was not an answer. That was a dodge.
"Many of your questions have been answered over and over..."
I have asked Sidney several questions about what constitutes acceptable standards of ethics and behavior for a prosecutor. I have pointed out many of Mr. Nifong's actions in the Duke rape case, actions which now are part of the public record. I have asked Sidney how those actions met the criteria of acceptable behavior.
Can you cite any answer Sidney has given me?
"Many of your questions have been answered over and over..."
You have not answered my question to you, namely, how did all this alleged bad behavior on the part of the Duke Lacrosse team amount to probable cause to charge any of them with rape. They were charged with rape even though there was no forensic evidence to corroborate a rape or to incriminate any Lacrosse player in said rape.
"Many of your questions have been answered over and over..."
Sidney has never answered any of my challenges to his assertion, that Ms. Mangum's identification of the three Lacrosse defendants was probable cause to charge them with rape.
Do you want to ask me why I challenged Sidney?
"But now you will assert that this statement means that your questions are not answered and dodged. Nothing can be further from the truth."
So answer the questions rather than dodge.
"But now you will assert that this statement means that your questions are not answered and dodged. Nothing can be further from the truth."
In making your latest ad hominem attack, you admit you have not answered my questions and you will not even try to do so.
"Many of your questions have been answered over and over but you personally don't accept those answers..."
Did Mr. Nifong ever accept the Defendants' assertions that they were innocent? No. Were they innocent? Yes.
Do you want to ask me why I say that?
Many of your questions have been answered over and over but you personally don't accept those answers..."
From a previous comment to this blog:
"This comes from Alas: a Blog.
:There are two questions to consider here: First, “Did a rape happen?” and second, “Is there enough evidence to prove in a courtroom that these particular three men committed rape?”
Sidney, how do you answer these questions? Please explain your answers"
Sidney has not answered>
This is Sidney. Whatever else might be made of it, it is an admission that he has not responded to issues I have raised.
"I apologize for not responding to all of your questions, but I am limited by time constraints. For one, I am very busy trying to complete Episode V of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper," am producing animated video trailers about it, am writing blogs, trying to revamp the new look for the website, and writing letters about the discrimination I faced on Duke University campus because I am a Nifong supporter."
With regard to my previous comment:
I say Sidney is not in a big hurry to respond to my comments.
What ad hominem attack are you going to make in response to this comment.
"You don't debate in a civilized way but in a bullying monomaniacal screed."
This is another example from your latest comment of an ad hominem attack.
"You don't debate in a civilized way but in a bullying monomaniacal screed."
What do you call Sidney's allegation that a "carpetbagger jihad" initiated by Mrs. Evans to 60 Minutes resulted in Mr. Nifong's disbarment?
I say again, Mrs. Evans never made that statement until the Bar investigation was near complete.
"And now you will accuse of an ad hominem attack."
You got this right, but only partly. I accuse you of making multiple ad hominem attacks in your most recent comment.
"For Pete's sake. What a froth."
Who is Pete.
Is that the Peter whom some Nifong supporter accused, without any supporting evidence, of stealing Ms. Mangum's money?
"People who approach controversial and complex events like the Duke Lacrosse case like you, never, ever, get the whole human truth of it right."
Tell us, what is the "whole human truth", as corroborated by hard evidence, of the Duke alleged but heretofore never corroborated rape case?
"
Many of your questions have been answered over and over but you personally don't accept those answers..."
That is true. Here is an example:
Sidney said Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Duke defendants was within "acceptable standards" of ethics and behavior for a prosecutor. I did not accept that answer.
Do you want to ask me why I did not accept that answer? I would be happy to tell you, if you really want to know.
Believe me, we already know.
Wow...It's kinda like watching Gollum argue with himself in "The Two Towers"....
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 10:38 AM
Do you also already know why I do not accept Sidney"s allegation of a "carpetbagger jihad"? If not I can tell you that. I have a feeling you do not want to confront the truth.
"Wow...It's kinda like watching Gollum argue with himself in "The Two Towers"...."
My argument with Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 9:17 AM reminds me of Denethor unraveling in "Return of the King".
Or maybe it reminds me of Captain Queeg unraveling in "The Caine Mutiny".
Or, how about Harry Morgan's performance in the MASH episode "The General Flipped at Dawn"?
How about Edward Winter's many performances as Colonel Flagg in MASH?
How about Robert Duvall unraveling in the movie MASH?
Anonymous said...
"It was the police who tried to coerce Mr. Taylor to testify against Johnny Beck."
This statement is blatantly false. Even the N&O acknowledged it in its recent article... the paragraph is as follows: “Charges against Beck were dismissed in August 1993. A month earlier, Wake County Assistant District Attorney Tom Ford wrote to Taylor and told him that he could persuade the governor to adjust Taylor's sentence if he would testify against Beck. Taylor refused.”
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'Ford approached Taylor in prison, and offered the promise of a lighter sentence if only he would lie under oath in order to enable him to charge Beck with the murder of Jacquetta Thomas.'
Mr. Ford approached Mr. Taylor with an offer of a lighter sentence if he told what he knew to the prosecution. There was no attempted subornation of perjury.
Mike Nifong, on the other hand, did threaten Lacrosse team members with charges of aiding and abetting if they did not come forward with incriminating testimony."
Again, you are wrong regarding Tom Ford. His offer to Taylor was contingent on him implicating Johnny Beck. Greg Taylor had cooperated with the police from the very beginning, telling them the truth over and over again. But Ford wasn't interested in the truth. He wanted the case closed, and the blame placed on the black man, Beck. This is obvious.
More about my conversation with Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 9:17 AM
He/she/whoever reminds me of Mike Nifong trying to defend himself at his ethics trial.
He/she/whoever reminds me of Sidney Harr stating Mike Nifong's prosecution was within accepted standards of behavior and ethics for a prosecutor.
He/she/whoever reminds me of the anonymous poster who asked me if I wanted to know the name of the Lacrosse player who called Kim Roberts n-----. When I said yes, he ran away.
He/she/whoever reminds me of long gone poster Kilgo. Kilgo would claim to have extensive, intimate knowledge of the Duke case. When asked to cinfirm that, Kilgo responded with ad hominem attacks.
He/she/whoever reminds e of Senator Joe McCarthy claiming, I have names of thousands of Communists.
He/she/whoever reminds me of Tracey Cline saying she would prove Leon Brown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sidney said, "Again, you are wrong regarding Tom Ford. His offer to Taylor was contingent on him implicating Johnny Beck."
What was reported was that Mr. Ford offered the reduced sentence in return for Mr. Taylor telling him what he knew.
Sidney said, "This statement is blatantly false."
Police officers did try to coerce Greg Taylor to finger Johnny Beck.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'Mr. Nifong never harbored personal ill-will or a vendetta against the defendants… he just merely executed his job to the best of his abilities and within acceptable standards.'
Why did Mr. Nifong make inflammatory, guilt presuming, racially inflammatory statements about the Lacrosse team before he had proven anything in court?
Why did Mr. Nifong make this statement to Bob Eckstrand, 'If you've come here to ask me questions instead of telling me what you know about who did it, then we don't have anything to talk about. You're wasting my time. You tell all of your clients I will remember their lack of cooperation at sentencing. I hope you know if they didn't do it, they are all aiders and abettors, and that carries the same punishment as rape.' That sure sounds a lot like personal hostility towards the Lacrosse team members."
Let it be clear that comments Mr. Nifong made to the public prior to the defendants even being identified, were made to goad those at the party to cooperate fully with the police investigation. Furthermore, the statements he made were hardly inflammatory. "Hooligan" doesn't even begin to approach the disgraceful use of the N-word epithet used by the Duke Lacrosse partygoers.
Furthermore, on the battlefield of war, a soldier attempts to take the life of his adversary, but that doesn't mean that he has personal hostility towards his enemy. Same in the courtroom battlefield, but Mr. Nifong was directing his energies against forces which he believed were responsible for heinous and criminal behavior.
Sidney
I would like to hear your definition of what constitutes acceptable standards of ethics and behavior for a prosecutor.
I would also like you to illustrate how Mr. Nifong's actions adhered to those standards.
Mr. Nifong's actions included:
Public statements which undermined the right to be presumed innocent, the right to counsel, the right to remain silent;
Failure to comply with North Carolina law regarding Non Testimonial Orders;
Attempts to exclude from the case DNA evidence which exonerated the defendants. Via your statements on Sexual Assault versus rape, you acknowledge this. Mr. Nifong, via his statement to the News and Observer in 2000 said that failure to find the suspect's DNA on the victim exonerated the suspect;
Attempt to intimidate Moez Elmostafa;
Attempts to intimidate the entire Duke Lacrosse team(see my comment about Bob Eckstrand's meeting with Mike Nifong);
Well, Sidney, what have you to say.
Sidney,for now I do compliment you. So far you have not tried to link this sad incident at Duke to the Lacrosse alleged rape case. Some of your Nifong supporters have tried to do so.
Sidney said, "Let it be clear that comments Mr. Nifong made to the public prior to the defendants even being identified, were made to goad those at the party to cooperate fully with the police investigation."
Sidney, Mr. Nifong made statements that he would file charges of aiding and abetting against Lacrosse players who did not come forth. That is not goading, that is intimidating. As Mr. Nifong, via the NTO, had designated all Caucasian Lacrosse players as suspects, I say that was an attempt to force those suspects to give up their right to remain silent. I advise you to check out my comment which quoted Bob Eckstrand on his conversation with Mr. Nifong.
Marcia Goodenow testified, at the Ethics trial about this. What she said made sense. Briefly, as best I can remember, she said such coerced testimony is tainted testimony. The court could not know whether or not the coerced witness testified just to avoid a criminal charge rather than to give the truth.
As there had been no crime at 610 North Buchanan on the night of 13-14 March 2006, there was nothing for any Lacrosse player to come forward about. Had any Lacrosse player testified he had witnessed a crime, he would have been perjuring himself.
I say Mr. Nifong was attempting to subborn Perjury.
"Furthermore, the statements he made were hardly inflammatory"
I draw your attention to the following:
In an April 2006 conversation with a representative of the Raleigh News and Observer newspaper, Nifong compared the alleged rape to the quadruple homicide at Alpine Road Townhouse and multiple cross burnings that outraged the city of Durham in 2005 and stated "I'm not going to let Durham's view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl in Durham."
If I compared the work of the J4N committee to the aforementioned homicide and cross burnings, or replaced the words "a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke" with the words "Sidney Harr", would you find MY comments inflammatory?
Sidney said, "Furthermore, the statements he made were hardly inflammatory. 'Hooligan' doesn't even begin to approach the disgraceful use of the N-word epithet used by the Duke Lacrosse partygoers."
I say, Mr. Nifong's public statements, made before he had proven anything in court, that Lacrosse players had committed a racially motivated gang rape, were a lot more serious and than anyone using the word n-----, regardless of the context. Those public statements were a violation of Mr. Nifong's obligation to treat any suspect as innocent until proven guilty.
Incidentally, the use of the word n----- was in response to Kim Roberts directing a racial slur at a Lacrosse player. Ms. Roberts herself admitted this.
Sidney, have you no comment about Ms. Roberts' admittedly false allegation, that in the early morning of 14 March 2006 someone at 610 North Buchanan called her n-----?
Sidney said, "Furthermore, on the battlefield of war, a soldier attempts to take the life of his adversary, but that doesn't mean that he has personal hostility towards his enemy."
Sidney, you are unfamiliar with the war in the Pacific. After Pearl Harbor, after the Bataan Death March, American soldiers, sailors, marines had a lot of animosity towards the Japanese. The Japanese certainly had a lot of animosity for the Americans. Let us hope that is no longer so.
Does the name Malmedy mean anything to you. In the Battle of the Bulge, Germans from the 1st SS Panzer Division slaughtered American POW's at the Belgian town of Malmedy. After that incident, American soldiers had plenty of animosity towards the SS troopers.
It just shows how aware you are.
Sidney, these are from previous comments I have made.
"Mr. Nifong [made] this statement to Bob Eckstrand, "If you've come here to ask me questions instead of telling me what you know about who did it, then we don't have anything to talk about. You're wasting my time. You tell all of your clients I will remember their lack of cooperation at sentencing. I hope you know if they didn't do it, they are all aiders and abettors, and that carries the same punishment as rape." That sure sounds a lot like personal hostility towards the Lacrosse team members.
" According to court records, 16 players were charged in the past three years with misdemeanor charges in Durham including noise violations, public urination and alcohol violations. The deals placed the men on probation for either six months or a year. They were to complete community service and in some cases were required to abide by the rules and regulations of the university. The deals required the men to pay fees and in some cases remain in school.
Nifong said he will reinstate the charges against players whose deferred prosecution deals are still active, unless they can show they were not at the party."
Are these mild attempts at goading or attempted intimidation?
Do you argue these do not indicate hostility on the part of Mr. Nifong towards the Lacrosse team?
Sidney said, "...Mr. Nifong was directing his energies against forces which he believed were responsible for heinous and criminal behavior."
The question is, which you are not answering, what probable cause did Mr. Nifong have in the first place that this "heinous and criminal behavior" ever happened? By "heinous and criminal behavior" I mean a racially motivated gang rape in which the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving behind evidence of said rape and their DNA. That is how the crime was described.
I remind you, forensic testing of the rape kit revealed no evidence of rape and the only DNA found did not match the DNA of those Mr. Nifong had named as suspects.
Sidney said, "But Ford wasn't interested in the truth. He wanted the case closed, and the blame placed on the black man, Beck. This is obvious."
In 2000, he handled a rape case. DNA found on the victim did not match the DNA of the accused. Mr. Nifong dismissed the case and proclaimed, via the News and Observer, the DNA evidence exonerated the accused.
In 2006, I say again, what was alleged was that Lacrosse players had perpetrated a racially motivated gang rape in which evidence, including DNA, was left behind. The exam of the rape kit yielded only DNA which did not match any of the men Mr. Nifong had indicted. Before he had them indicted, Mr. Nifong proclaimed that a crime had happened but nothing was left.
How does this show that Mr. Nifong was interested in finding the truth.
"Anonymous said...
Sidney
The revelations of Duke alumna Karen Owen's now famous
Duke F*ck List, prominently featuring eight members of the
current Duke men's lacrosse team, show an ongoing pattern
of drunkenness, perversion and sexual debauchery among
Duke male athletes, which was all too familiar to Durham police
during the Duke lacrosse rape case.
Do you think this barnyard animal like behavior, which lacrosse
supporters continue to deny, helped form the Durham authorities
belief that the 2006 Duke men's lacrosse team was quite
capable of committing the felonies for which three members were indicted?
October 14, 2010 7:20 AM "
John Burness and Houston Baker are vindicated.
"John Burness and Houston Baker are vindicated."
Houston Baker, in particular, like Sidney Harr, came up with nothing more than unsupported allegations.
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 1:57 PM
The supposed senior thesis of Ms. Owen has no relevance at all to the alleged but never corroborated Duke Rape case. The Duke rape case was resolved a bit more than three years before the list.
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 1:57 PM
Whether or not Durham authorities believed the Duke Lacrosse team were capable of committing a felony, how does that relieve them of establishing probable cause before indicting for or charging anyone with said felony?
I say again, the felony alleged in the Duke case was a rape in which the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving evidence and DNA. No evidence of a rape, no DNA matching that of the alleged perpetrators was found. Do you think that established probable cause?
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 1:57 PM
Consider Gregory Taylor, about whom Sidney has blogged.
Mr. Taylor did admit that before his arrest he was drinking heavily and doing drugs doing drugs. People under the influence of illicit drugs and/or alcohol have committed crimes. People who use illicit commit crimes to support their habit.
Did that mean that finding a murder victim near Mr. Taylor's car establish probable cause that Mr. Taylor killed her? No it did not. To establish probable cause, the authorities would have to have evidence linking him to the crime. As we have seen thanks to Sidney, there was no evidence. A crime lab technician reported incomplete findings to the court.
What had been alleged against the Lacrosse team, pre Rape Case, consisted of underage drinking, public urination, noise violations. How does any of those establish probable cause that any of them committed a rape on March 133, 2006?
In your own mind, what did establish probable cause in the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape case? Are you willing to discuss this?
Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 7:20 AM
Are you getting any satisfaction out of exploiting this sad incident for which this girl has already expressed remorse? That is one person whom you are hurting.
Here are some examples of probable cause Mr. Nifong DID NOT have in the Duke case. I am prepared to discuss this further.
Probable cause would be a credible allegation of a crime. There was no credible allegation of the crime in the first place.
Probable cause would be evidence of a crime. There was no evidence of a crime ever found.
Probable cause would be witnesses to a crime. There were no witnesses. Mr. Nifong used threats of criminal charges to get Lacrosse players to bear witness to the crime. In spite of those threats, no Lacrosse player ever came forth.
Probable cause to indict someone for a crime would be evidence that implicated that individual in the crime. No evidence ever implicated any Lacrosse player as a perpetrator. What evidence there was excluded with 100% certainty the three men ultimately indicted as perpetrators.
Probable cause would be a credible identification of the perpetrators by the victim. Ms. Mangum's identification of the three defendants was not credible.
Who wants to debate this?
"Are you getting any satisfaction out of exploiting this sad incident for which this girl has already expressed remorse? That is one person whom you are hurting."
Has the Duke men's lacrosse team apologized for embarrassing the University again? Do they take satisfaction in degrading the degrees of more than 100,000 alumni?
Or are we going to get a press release from their lawyers saying "boys will be boys", it's business as usual for our entitled rich brats, if you don't like it - send your daughters somewhere else for an education.
Lance the Intern said...
"'Furthermore, the statements he made were hardly inflammatory'
I draw your attention to the following:
In an April 2006 conversation with a representative of the Raleigh News and Observer newspaper, Nifong compared the alleged rape to the quadruple homicide at Alpine Road Townhouse and multiple cross burnings that outraged the city of Durham in 2005 and stated 'I'm not going to let Durham's view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl in Durham.'
If I compared the work of the J4N committee to the aforementioned homicide and cross burnings, or replaced the words 'a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke' with the words 'Sidney Harr', would you find MY comments inflammatory?"
No. Mr. Nifong was merely stating his opinion that he did not want the city he represented to be viewed as being tolerant of racism and heinous racially motivated crimes. Keep in mind that the partygoing members of the Duke Lacrosse team, of which only one teammate of 47 is African American, shouted racial epithets including the N-word at the black dancers.
I commend and applaud Mr. Nifong for forcefully stating his unwillingness to allow such racially motivated behavior to take place in Durham.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'Furthermore, on the battlefield of war, a soldier attempts to take the life of his adversary, but that doesn't mean that he has personal hostility towards his enemy.'
Sidney, you are unfamiliar with the war in the Pacific. After Pearl Harbor, after the Bataan Death March, American soldiers, sailors, marines had a lot of animosity towards the Japanese. The Japanese certainly had a lot of animosity for the Americans. Let us hope that is no longer so.
Does the name Malmedy mean anything to you. In the Battle of the Bulge, Germans from the 1st SS Panzer Division slaughtered American POW's at the Belgian town of Malmedy. After that incident, American soldiers had plenty of animosity towards the SS troopers.
It just shows how aware you are."
I do not doubt that prisoners of war who have been mistreated develop a hatred for their captors, but in the heat of battle their motivation to kill is not based on hatred of the individual enemy soldiers. That is the point I make when going with a comparison about the courtroom battlefield. Mr. Nifong did not prosecute the Duke Lacrosse defendants because he hated them, he prosecuted them because it was his job. No doubt he did hate what the individuals allegedly did.
Sidneysaid, "Mr. Nifong did not prosecute the Duke Lacrosse defendants because he hated them, he prosecuted them because it was his job."
Sidney, Mike Nifong's job was to establish probable cause before he undertook to prosecute.
In 1989, Mike Nifong handled a rape case. The accuser's allegations were not credible. Mr. Nifong dropped the case.
Did Mr. Nifong establish probable cause. We'll see.
Sidney said, "Keep in mind that the partygoing members of the Duke Lacrosse team, of which only one teammate of 47 is African American, shouted racial epithets including the N-word at the black dancers."
Mr. Nifong was the individual who characterized the party as an out of control orgy punctuated by multiple racial slurs being hurled at the dancrers. He never offered any evidence to corroborate this. Like Sidney Harr after him, Mr, Nifong made unsupported allegations.
Sidney said, "No. Mr. Nifong was merely stating his opinion that he did not want the city he represented to be viewed as being tolerant of racism and heinous racially motivated crimes."
Sidney did not report that before proving anything Mr. Nifong stated in public, that a crime, a gang rape had happened, that members of teh Lacrosse team had perpetrated the crime, and that other members of the Lacrosse team had witnessed the crime but were not coming forth with information about what they witnessed.
Anonymous @ October 15, 2010 6:54 AM
I have heard nothing from any lawyers, probably because no one has alleged any crime.
Why do you try to connect this to the Lacrosse case. The Lacrosse case was resolved with the innocence of the Lacrosse players years ago. The Lacrosse players did nothing in 2006 to embarrass the the University except maybe to hire strippers and to tolerate underage drinking. The team took responsibility for that and apologized for that. The Unicersity has never really apublicly admitted it had thrown the players under the bus. That was more embarrasing to Duke than anything the Lacrosse team did.
You are trying to hijack a bus so you can drive it over the Lacrosse players.
If you are a student at Duke or a gang of 88 member, which I think likely, you are doing more to embarrass Duke than any member of the Laccrosse team.
Anonymous @ October 15, 2010 6:54 AM
Can you name the lawyer who said of the Lacrosse team in 2006, "Boys will be boys."
Back to the issue of probable cause.
Did Mr. Nifong have a credible complaint at the start to establish probable cause?
After the party, Ms. Mangum was in Kim Roberts' car. Ms. Roberts caleled 911 at 12:53 AM on March 14, 2006, to report not that a rape had occurred but that she and her girlfriend had been called "N-----"
Ms. Roberts drove Ms. Mangum to a Kroger store. There was a police station closer to the party house then that Kroger store. Ms. Roberts then had the police called again, not to report a rape of Ms. Mangum but to have them get Ms. Mangum out of her car.
Ms. Mangum was then taken to the Duke access center. There she was asked if she had been raped. She answered yes. Then she was taken to DUMC. Police questioned her.
Her answers to their questions varied between, Yes I was raped, and, No I was not raped before she finally settled on Yes I was raped.
I say, in and of itself that was not a credible allegation. Does anyone want to dispute this?
Sidney said, "No. Mr. Nifong was merely stating his opinion that he did not want the city he represented to be viewed as being tolerant of racism and heinous racially motivated crimes."
But when Mr. Nifong was trying to get the state to pay for his defense of the lawsuits filed against him, he claimed he was a state employee, not a city employee.
"I commend and applaud Mr. Nifong for forcefully stating his unwillingness to allow such racially motivated behavior to take place in Durham."
What racially motivated behavior are you referring to here? Sid, Mike Nifong has admitted that there was no credible evidence for ANY crimes ((note -- ANY crimes, not just rape) allegedly committed by the accused against Ms. Mangum.
Think about Mike Nifong's statements and the conclusion you're drawing here, Sid-- Do you REALLY want to argue that saying the "N-word" is comparable to multiple homicide, cross burnings and rape?
Sidney said, "I commend and applaud Mr. Nifong for forcefully stating his unwillingness to allow such racially motivated behavior to take place in Durham."
The question you have not answered is, How did Mr. Nifong establish probable cause that such "racially motivated behavior" did indeed take place?
Did he establish probable cause before he made that statement? He was required by acceptable standards of Prosecutorial Ethics and prosecutorial behavior to do so.
No one wants Durham to be known as a place where a black girl was raped by a bunch of lacrosse players.
That's what the media was blaring.
That statement does not say that lacrosse players raped the girls. It addresses that the town should not be known for that.
This statement has been used over and over again by ONLY pro-lacrosse team defenders.
More on probable cause:
Did Mr. Nifong have any witness to establish probable cause?
Ms. Roberts, in her two calls to the police, did not say that a rape had occurred. The first call was to report, falsely, that someone at 610 North Buchanan(which was empty at the time) had shouted "n-----" at her and her girlfriend. Her second call was for assistance in removing Ms. Mangum from her car.
Via David Addison a wanted style poster, featuring pictures of Lacrosse team members, was published. The poster requested anyone with information to come forth. No one came forth.
Mr. Nifong tried to intimidate members of the Lacrosse team into incriminating other members. In spite of Mr. Nifong's threatened criminal charges, no one came forth.
Did any witness establish probable cause for Mr. Nifong to believe that a racially motivated gang rape had occurred? No.
Does anyone dispute this?
More on probable cause:
Did Mr. Nifong have evidence to establish probable cause?
After Ms. Mangum had settled on, Yes I was raped, she described a crime in which the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving evidence and could not have avoided leaving their DNA.
Forensic examination of the rape kit(taken at a time when no Lacrosse team player, attorney or family member could have tampered with it) revealed no evidence of a rape. The only DNA recovered did not match any of the men Mr. Nifong had named as suspects, did not match any of the men Mr. Nifong had indicted.
Did Mr. Nifong have any evidence to establish probable cause? No.
"...16 players were charged in the past three years with misdemeanor charges in Durham including noise violations, public urination and alcohol violations."
How did any of this establish probable cause to believe members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated a gang rape?
Does anyone care to answer.
The Duke Senior thesis, at worst, is a record of several episodes of consensual sex.
Why should any one suspect from this that 4 years earlier members of the Duke Lacrosse team had committed gang rape?
Someone please answer.
Anonymous's constant defense of a white lacrosse player yelling the "n-word" at a black woman is disturbing.
There's no excuse to use that word. Especially a white 22 year old man to a I believe 32 year old black woman.
The fact that she used the word white before that statement has no bearing on anyone accepting his usage. The n-word has no other equal weight. Certainly not the word white. That's why we call it the n-word. The country finds the use of the word so deplorable.
Writer also never says what happened before Kim Roberts said that word white. It did not come out of nowhere. They were calling her slut, that she had stretch marks, that she was just a stripper (meaning below them). They used sexist and classist language against her. Then the one player went to n-word.
Also, Kim Roberts wasn't the first to use white in a racial manner. That was Danny Flannery. He asked for white dancers.
Then Dave Evans, when Crystal showed up asked the players if a black dancer was all right. Evans was so clueless to races other than white that he thought Kim Roberts was Hispanic and refers to her that way in his police statement. He calls Mangum "the black dancer". They were both black. He wanted to know if these white lacrosse players could get properly sexually excited with a black girl.
It's this type of classist, sexist and racial behavior and speech that turned off the country and Duke.
For you now to defend that behavior and actually blame Kim Roberts for that racial term is outrageous.
Dave Evans said it was wrong for that player to use the "n-word." I believe you were the same anonymous who denied awhile ago that no player used the n-word. That only Kim Roberts did. What does that kind of racial denial get you?
Do you disagree with Dave Evans? Do you disagree with the lacrosse team who said that the use of the n-word was wrong? Do you criticize the defense attorneys who went out of their way to separate the rape charge from the use of the n-word and to distance their clients from that universally unacceptable language and behavior? Do you think they were wrong to criticize it? It seems as if you are.
When you defend a clearly racist remark that was completely uncalled for and most Americans find unacceptable, I think you have to look around and see who you're standing with. At the very least, realize that you come off, to many people, like just another bigot. And it's harder to accept your other arguments when you reveal such a deep-seated bias at the heart of things.
I'm not pro-Nifong. But I'm anti-racist. And you do the lacrosse players no favors by defending the one player for his unacceptable racist remark.
Anonymous @ October 15, 2010 10:29 AM
Sidney has been asserting that the party was punctuated by multiple racist epithets hurled by Lacrosse players at the dancers. It turns out, that was nothing more than Sidney repeating Mr. Nifong's unproven allegations about the party on the night of 13 March 2006.
You say the remark was uncalled for. Then why did Kim Roberts provoke it.
There was one exchange of racist epithets between one Lacrosse player and Kim Roberts. Ms. Roberts admitted she initiated the exchange, that she provoked the slur.
How does stating the truth amount to "Anonymous's constant defense of a white lacrosse player yelling the "n-word" at a black woman"?
If you are claiming that is not what happened, if you are claiming more than that happened, what you are defending is a lie.
I have also pointed out that there was one more occurrence of the word "n-----". That was the black dancer calling police and claiming, falsely, that people at 610 North Buchanan called her and her girlfriend "n-----". 610 NBuchanan was empty at the time she made the accusation.
What is not racist about a black woman, regardless of her age, falsely claiming that white men called her "n-----"? Why do you defend racism on the part of a black woman directed at white males?
"No one wants Durham to be known as a place where a black girl was raped by a bunch of lacrosse players."
Before he said that, before he had proven anything in court, Mike Nifong had asserted in public that Lacrosse players had perpetrated a racially motivated gang rape. If he was not referring to that previous public statement, then what was Mr. Nifong referring to.
Mr. Nifong created the impression that Durham was teeming with racism. The above quoted statement is chutzpah, i.e., a man kills his mother and father and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.
No one wants Durham to be known as a place where a black girl was raped by a bunch of lacrosse players.
That's what the media was blaring."
Wrong!
Mike Nifong was the one blaring that white on black racism was rampant in Durham. He was doing that to get himself elected.
"When you defend a clearly racist remark that was completely uncalled for..."
I say again, how was I defending a racist remark. How was that remark completely uncalled for? Kim Roberts, by her own admission, provoked the remark.
What called for Kim Roberts falsely accusing white men of directing a racial slur at her?
"It's this type of classist, sexist and racial behavior and speech that turned off the country and Duke."
What turned off the country about Duke is that it enabled and countenanced Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution of three innocent men.
To my previous comment I add,
Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution was motivated by considerations of race and class. He hoped that by going after defendants perceived as Caucasian male athletes, he could induce racist Durham black leaders to deliver the black vote to him.
A white man called Kim Roberts a nigger. She reported that to the police because she was upset about it. Repeating the racial slur thrown at her cannot be used against her as using a racial slur.
You call Kim Roberts a liar and then say she is proof that she provoked the attack by what she said.
You are inconsistent. Either Roberts is a liar. Or she's telling the truth. You cannot argue both ways and cherry pick her statements to support your racial defense.
Be a man and admit that the lacrosse player was wrong in calling her a nigger under any circumstance.
Was the lacrosse player wrong in calling Kim Roberts a nigger?
"A white man called Kim Roberts a nigger. She reported that to the police because she was upset about it. Repeating the racial slur thrown at her cannot be used against her as using a racial slur."
Ms. Roberts reported the slur at 12:53 AM on March 14, 2006. At 12:55 AM police arrived at the house and it was dark and empty. Ms. Roberts made a false police report.
You are dodging the question. Was it wrong for the the lacrosse player to call Kim Roberts a nigger?
"Was the lacrosse player wrong in calling Kim Roberts a nigger?"
Yes it was wrong for a lacrosse player calling her a "n-----". Was she justified calling him something on the order of a limp dick white boy? If you are saying yes, you are ignoring black on white racism.
If you are saying it justified her falsely accusing white men of calling her "n-----", I say you are wrong.
In any event, how did this exchange of racial epithets justify Mr. Nifong falsely charging three innocent men with a racially motivated gang rape? That is a much more important issue.
So, finally, after how long, you admit that a white man calling a black woman a nigger is morally wrong.
Why is this important? Because something as simple as this you would not admit.
And if you are not willing to admit something so obvious, that nearly everyone can agree on, on how many other things do you refuse to admit that are not so obvious but still true.
So, again, you finally admit that a white man calling a black woman a nigger is wrong. Congratulations. Welcome to the human race. But why was it so difficult?
"You are dodging the question. Was it wrong for the the lacrosse player to call Kim Roberts a nigger?"
You are dodging the essential issue. Did Mike Nifong establish probable cause for prosecuting the Lacrosse defendants.
Are you saying that this single exchange of racial epithets initiated by Ms. Roberts established probable cause that a crime occurred?
While I agree that calling her "n-----" was wrong, I think Ms. Roberts indignation was chutzpah. An example of similar chutzpah was Charles Manson flashing to his Jury the Headline, NIXON SAYS MANSON IS GUILTY, then expecting the judge to declare a mistrial.
"Why is this important? Because something as simple as this you would not admit."
I never denied it was wrong. I pointed out the truth, that Ms. Roberts proviked the use of the word "n-----"
Why are you defending Ms. Roberts' conduct, falsely accusing white men of calling her "n-----"?
Do you call this being anti racist?
"Was the lacrosse player wrong in calling Kim Roberts a nigger?"
My goodness, where is your sense of proportion? Are you a complete and utter shill for the race-baiters? It's a word, for goodness sakes. It's a bad word, for sure - but so is "limped-dicked white boys." The difference is in your distorted world view, one is an insult and the other is an unforgivable sin and evidence of a lynch mentality.
The back-and-forth name calling is the absolute LEAST of the problems that happened that night. It pales compared to the attempt by Mangum to put three innocent men in jail for decades.
Man up! Get a sense of proportion and general decency. Childish name call is one thing - a callous attempt to frame innocent people in order to make a buck is quite another.
Your priorities are terribly warped. I pity you for your lack of basic humanity
"And if you are not willing to admit something so obvious, that nearly everyone can agree on, on how many other things do you refuse to admit that are not so obvious but still true."
prove that Mike Nifong established probable cause that a crime had occurred.
Better yet, establish that a crime did occur.
This was one of the big problems the defense had in defending the indicted players. And the problem KC Johnson had on his website.
The problem of racists helping them defend the players.
It helped and it didn't help.
KC had to delete hundreds of racists attacks of the lowest and most brutal and despicable kind of racism.
KC's blog consistently attracted the most virulent kind of racists. They all loved what he had to say.
KC blamed this on when his blog got national attention.
This case brought out the racists in force. White men who felt they could finally claim victimization for themselves. And racism against themselves.
Racists who could not admit that a white man calling a black woman a nigger is wrong.
And this is black heart of this case.
You have it wrong again. I'm not defending Kim Roberts. You were defending a racist remark.
By saying that Kim Roberts provoked the racist remark you are defending it.
So now, after admitting the racist remark was wrong, are you still defending it?
"The n-word [nigger] has no other equal weight."
Oh no. Ask an Italian American how he/she might feel about being called dago or wally-o?'
Ask an Arab how he/she might feel about being called rag head.
Ask a Welshman how he/she might feel about being called taffy.
Ask a Peurto Rican how he/she might feel about being called a spic.
Who the slur is applied to is relevant. You are a racist if you think calling a Caucasian something on the order of a limp dick white boy is not a racial slur.
"Repeating the racial slur thrown at her [Kim Roberts} cannot be used against her as using a racial slur."
When did I call Ms. Roberts "n-----"? That would be an essential element of me using that slur against her.
What do you call a black woman falsely accusing white men of calling her "n-----". I call it a racially motivated false accusation.
"By saying that Kim Roberts provoked the racist remark you are defending it."
Please explain why. How is that saying, Calling this woman "n-----" was not wrong.
I am saying both parties were wrong. Ms. Roberts did instigate the incident. She admitted that. Why do you defend her racism?
"You have it wrong again. I'm not defending Kim Roberts. You were defending a racist remark."
You are not admitting Ms. Roberts cast a racial slur, which she had the decency to admit.
You defend a racist act for which the perpetrator herself, to her credit, has expressed some regret.
No. The issue is not me. The issue is that you were defending a racist remark.
Don't project what I think about it. You refused to admit something so obvious and simple.
And this leads one to question everything about your approach to this case. Your fundamental resistance to admit the obvious.
The point is not about race. The point is the dodging techniques of not being honest.
You finally admit something you could have admitted long ago. What else won't you admit now that you really believe but protect against? That's the issue.
I'm not defending her. Where have I defended her?
You defended a racist. That's the issue. You can't get out of it.
It's your actions we're investigating.
Oh, so now the story changes even more. Now suddenly both parties are wrong. Mark this down on a calendar.
Both the lacrosse player and Kim Roberts were wrong.
How generous of you.
And now "Ms." Roberts has decency.
Not so long ago she was the single person who cast the word nigger.
How far the mighty have fallen.
"This was one of the big problems the defense had in defending the indicted players. And the problem KC Johnson had on his website.
The problem of racists helping them defend the players."
Have you anything to say about the black racists condemning the players? These included the New Black Panthers(parading in town demanding guilty verdicts), Victoria Peterson(calling for arson of 610 Buchanan, claiming that DUMC tampered with the DNA evidence) William Barber(head of the NC NAACP which published an error filled list of crimes and torts on its web site) Whaneema Lubiano (who organized the guilt presuming statement of the gang of 88).
The black on white racism was much louder and more strident than any white on black racism.
What was more racist than falsely accusing white men of raping a black woman by a DA candisate pandering to black voters?
Anonymous @ October 15, 2010 2:51 PM
I stand by what I have said.
I said Ms. Roberts did take responsibility for instigating the single exchange of racial slurs at the party. I say that is decency.
I also said her indignation over being called "n-----" was Chutzpah, Chutzpah of the wrong kind. Please refer to my previous comment.
So here we go again.
You chose to bring up the Black Panthers and start blaming them.
Besides Nifong is there anyone who did anything wrong besides black people?
Do you realize what you sound like?
Anonymous @ October 15, 2010 2:50 PM
You won't admit Ms. Roberts' behavior was racist.
How generous of YOU
I've referred to it. You've blamed Roberts for a white racist's use of the word nigger.
And now you've finally said he was wrong.
"You chose to bring up the Black Panthers and start blaming them."
Are you saying it was right and proper for NBP's to appear at Reade Seligman's arraignment and call out' "Dead Man Walking"?
Are you saying it was right and proper for the NBP's to march in Durham and demand guilty verdicts for the accused?
If you are saying that, you are closing your eyes to black on white racism.
My issue has never been with Kim Roberts. I've never commented on her behavior.
Stop dodging. My issue is with a commentator who blamed a racist comment on the person who received the racist comment.
My issue has always been with you.
Roberts has nothing to do with your comments.
I'm not saying any of that.
Why do you project and accuse people of saying something they haven't.
My subject is you. After admitting that a lacrosse player was wrong in using a racial epithet, why do you then volunteer that a group of black people are wrong, too?
That's my problem.
"I've referred to it. You've blamed Roberts for a white racist's use of the word nigger.
And now you've finally said he was wrong."
It is fact that Kim Roberts did admit that she, not the Lacrosse player, provoked the exchange of racial epithets.
Besides this anonymous who opposed earlier, who else ever asked me if I thought the Lacrosse player was wrong. If this was the first opportunity I ever had to answer this question, how can you say I "finally" admitted he was wrong.
When will you admit Mr. Nifong conducted a wrongful prosecution of innocent men.
When will you admit that Mike Nifong was the individual who made this a racially charged case.
Who besides Mike Nifong said in public, before anything was proven in court, that Lacrosse players had perpetrated a racially motivated gang rape?
"Oh, so now the story changes even more. Now suddenly both parties are wrong. Mark this down on a calendar."
These are differences.
When specifically asked if I thought the Lacrosse player was wrong, I did say he was.
Kim Roberts, I say again, initiated the exchange of racial slurs. She was also wrong.
You want to ignore Ms. Roberts' racism.
I say again, I complement Ms. Roberts for acknowledging her racism.
Why can't these other anonymouses acknowledge it?
"Stop dodging. My issue is with a commentator who blamed a racist comment on the person who received the racist comment."
That commentator said, Ms. Roberts provoked the exchange of racial epithets between her and a Lacrosse player. Ms. Roberts herself has admitted that.
I also said Ms. Roberts herself used a racial slur. She has admitted that.
I also pointed out that Ms. Roberts falsely accused white men at 610 North Buchanan of calling her a racial slur(nigger, if you want me to spell it out).
"So, again, you finally admit that a white man calling a black woman a nigger is wrong."
When you admit Mike Nifong conducted a wrongful prosecution against three innocent men, then you may join the human race.
"Besides Nifong is there anyone who did anything wrong besides black people?"
Yes.
How about Richard Brodhead and Robert Steele who caved in to the gang of 88 and threw the Lacrosse players under the bus.
I have repeatedly called Sidney Harr wrong for saying Mike Nifong conformed to acceptable standards when he prosecuted the Lacrosse defendants. I have no idea of Mr. Harr's ethnicity.
"Besides Nifong is there anyone who did anything wrong besides black people?"
Several members of the gang of 88 were caucasian. I call them wrong.
Professor Kim F. Curtis, who is caucasian, flunked Kyle Dowd because he was a Lacrosse player. I call her wrong.
Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy are caucasian. I call them wrong.
"I'm not defending her. Where have I defended her?"
If you are referring to Kim Roberts, you are defending her casting a racial slur at a white Lacrosse player.You are defending her initiating an exchange of racial slurs. You are defending her falsely accusing white men of casting racil slurs at her.
"At the very least, realize that you come off, to many people, like just another bigot."
So?
They are the same people who condemn the Lacrosse players for being caucasian athletes, who defend Mike Nifong for wrongfully prosecuting them.
"And this leads one to question everything about your approach to this case. Your fundamental resistance to admit the obvious."
What is obvious, what the Nifong supporters refuse to admit, and that includes Nifong Supporter himself is that Mike Nifong wrongfully accused Caucasian male athletes of perpetrating a gang rape, that Mr. Nifong did this because they were Caucasian male athletes.
"Racists who could not admit that a white man calling a black woman a nigger is wrong."
Why can you not admit that wrongfully charging white men of raping a black woman, just because of their race and perceived social status, is racist and wrong?
"It's your actions we're investigating."
If Mr. Nifong and Sidney Harr are leading your investigation, good luck. Both have shown themselves to be quite inept as investigators.
"You finally admit something you could have admitted long ago."
I could not admitted anything about the Kim Roberts initiated exchange of racial epithets before today because before today no one asked me to admit anything about it.
My first post about this was weeks ago. A Nifong supporter said that a Lacrosse player admitted in "a sworn statement" that he had said, "We wanted white girls, not n-----s". I asked his source. He said Page 29 of Until Proven Innocent.
I quoted the account of the exchange of epithets from Page 29. I did say in that comment that s Lacrosse player did say the word "n-----". How can that be construed as a defense of the Lacrosse player.
I say again, Ms. Roberts herself did admit she provoked the slur. Sidney Harr has been saying that numerous unprovoked racial slurs were hurled at the women by multiple members of the Lacrosse team.
I was defending nothing. I was attacking Sidney's grossly distorted account of what happened at the party.
I call it denial of the obvious for people to want to suppress the correct version of what happened at the party.
Now let's get back to a substantial issue, something today's pro Nifong Anonymouses do not want to confront. Did Mr. Niong establish probable cause that a crime had happened, that Lacrosse players were the perpetrators.
The final issue is, did Ms. Mangum's id of Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans as perpetrators establish probable cause?
Ms. Mangum described three assailants. None of those descriptions matched Collin Finnerty.
On two previous occasions, when shown pictures of Lacrosse Team members, Ms. Mangum could identify neither Reade Seligman nor David Evans as an assailant.
On two previous occasions Ms. Mangum identified Brad Ross as having been at the party. Mr. Ross had been in Raleigh the night of the party.
The third lineup session was tainted. It was not conducted in accord to regulations of the Durham Police Department. Mr. Nifong himself ordered the Police to conduct this procedure.
At that procedure, Ms. Mangum identified with 100% certainty Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty. Neither Mr. Seligman nor Mr. Finnerty were present at the party at the time of the alleged rape. The evidence of their alibis is a matter of public record now.
Ms. Mangum did not identify David Evans with 100% certainty. She said he would have looked like her assailant if he had had a mustache. Mr. Evans never had a mustache.
Did Ms. Mangum's id's establish probable cause. No they did not.
I asked if anyone wanted to debate this. Today's annonymouses wanted to focus on Ms. Kim Roberts provoked exchange of racial epithets. Those anonymouses argued Ms. Roberts had no responsibility for the situation. They said Ms. Roberts false allegation of being called a racial slur was not a racial incident.
That says a lot about the concern of all these Nifong lovers about a fundamental issue.
This is my last post for a while. All you Nifong supporters are now free to rant and rave about peripheral issues for now.
You have consistently defended the use of the word nigger by saying it was provoked by Kim Roberts.
You have never until forced with several direct questions whether you thought the use of the n-word was wrong.
Why did you have to be forced to say that this was wrong instead of always and constantly excusing it by blaming the woman who who called a nigger.
You have no defense.
Dav Evans asked if it was ok if the girls were black. Flannery said they wanted white girls. The players pushed Devin who was the black player towards the dancers when they were dancing.
This was all racial. Do you think Kim Roberts did not notice this racial tension when she walked nto this scene.
You want to be taken legitimately by saying that Kim Roberts provoked this racial scene?
Your complete defense of the players no matter what puts you in very a very questionable moral position.
And it means nothing to you if your words and defense of racial comments and making excuses makes you look like a bigot.
Great. Good defense.
Michael Nifong did not pursue the lacrosse players because they were white.
That is a completely unsupported statement.
He pursued them despite their race.
You my friend are inept.
You say Kim Roberts is a liar. And then you use her statement that she provoked the attack as proof that she did.
Is she a liar or does what she say "proof" of what happened? There's a legal term for this kind of inept argument: idiocy.
You are not being honest in your comments.
You have defended the lacrosse player's racist comment over and over again by saying the black woman was the cause of the man who called her a nigger.
And then you finally say that he was wrong. But you had to be provoked to admit that.
It did not come naturally because you were too busy trying to blame her for his actions.
There's no way you can get out of this.
And now you want to change the subject after you've been caught out.
And talk about the same tired stuff.
You are the one who has ranted on this blog.
And now I'm going to give you a little of your own medicine.
By you saying you are not going to engage, you would accuse yourself of not having the courage of your convictions.
I am not going to tell you that.
I think you are shook up after realizing that you cannot defend racism. You've caught and revealed to be in an untenable position.
And how many other positions have you taken that are just as untenable.
You are a bully and I like bullying bullies. Especially using their own aggressive techniques.
Please go away for awhile and lick your wounds.
Defending racists is an exhausting job. You must be very tired.
Your defense of the lacrosse player's use of the n-word is indefensible.
The lacrosse families do not need your kind of defense.
Who do you people think you are kidding?
Your lacrosse culture and your lacrosse nation
are nothing more than a modern day reincarnation
of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
Yet instead of going around lynching Negroes,
you now lynch prosecutors or academics and
anyone else getting in the way of your totally
racist elitist greed driven agendas.
How do we know this?
Come on down to the Duke Plantation
and we will show you who are the cotton pickers
and who are the overseers.
"Please go away for awhile and lick your wounds."
I am ROTFLOL
"Your lacrosse culture and your lacrosse nation
are nothing more than a modern day reincarnation
of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan."
I never heard anything about Lacrosse until the alleged but never corroborated Duke Rape became news.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 1:57 PM
Consider Gregory Taylor, about whom Sidney has blogged.
Mr. Taylor did admit that before his arrest he was drinking heavily and doing drugs doing drugs. People under the influence of illicit drugs and/or alcohol have committed crimes. People who use illicit commit crimes to support their habit.
Did that mean that finding a murder victim near Mr. Taylor's car establish probable cause that Mr. Taylor killed her? No it did not. To establish probable cause, the authorities would have to have evidence linking him to the crime. As we have seen thanks to Sidney, there was no evidence. A crime lab technician reported incomplete findings to the court.
What had been alleged against the Lacrosse team, pre Rape Case, consisted of underage drinking, public urination, noise violations. How does any of those establish probable cause that any of them committed a rape on March 133, 2006?
In your own mind, what did establish probable cause in the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape case? Are you willing to discuss this?"
The Duke Lacrosse case, unlike the murder of Jacquetta Thomas for which Greg Taylor was falsely convicted, had a victim who identified her alleged assailants with 100% certainty in two cases and 85% certainty in the third (which had fingernail DNA evidence which did not exclude him). In many sexual assault cases, such as Ronald Cotton's case, prosecutions are pursued based on victim identification alone.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous @ October 14, 2010 1:57 PM
Consider Gregory Taylor, about whom Sidney has blogged.
Mr. Taylor did admit that before his arrest he was drinking heavily and doing drugs doing drugs. People under the influence of illicit drugs and/or alcohol have committed crimes. People who use illicit commit crimes to support their habit.
Did that mean that finding a murder victim near Mr. Taylor's car establish probable cause that Mr. Taylor killed her? No it did not. To establish probable cause, the authorities would have to have evidence linking him to the crime. As we have seen thanks to Sidney, there was no evidence. A crime lab technician reported incomplete findings to the court.
What had been alleged against the Lacrosse team, pre Rape Case, consisted of underage drinking, public urination, noise violations. How does any of those establish probable cause that any of them committed a rape on March 133, 2006?
In your own mind, what did establish probable cause in the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape case? Are you willing to discuss this?"
The Greg Taylor case differed from the Duke Lacrosse case in that there was no witness to the crime. In the Duke Lacrosse case a victim identified two of the men with 100% certainty, and a third with 80-90% certainty, and that defendant had fingernail DNA which did not exclude him. In many instances, such as the Ron Cotton case, prosecutions move forward based on witness identification alone, and are not supported by any forensic evidence.
Sidney said, "In the Duke Lacrosse case a victim identified two of the men with 100% certainty, and a third with 80-90% certainty, and that defendant had fingernail DNA which did not exclude him."
The ALLEGED victim of the ALLEGED crime identified with 100% certainty two men who had not been present at the scene when the ALLEGED crime ALLEGEDLY happened. Ms. Mangum also identified with 100% certainty a fourth assailant whom Mr. Nifong never had indicted. Ms. Mangum identified her third assailant as a man with a mustache. David Evans never had a mustache.
That the evidence did not exclude David Evans is legally meaningless. Mr. Nifong's job was to incriminate David Evans. The only DNA found on Ms. Mangum did not match David Evans' DNA. According to Brian Meehan, David Evans was excluded with 100% certainty as a male who had left DNA on Ms. Mangum. Sidney, are you saying Ms. Mangum's 90% certain id outweighed the 100% exclusion of David Evans as a perpetrator?
Sidney, Ms. Mangum's id's did not establish any justification for Mr. Nifong to prosecute.
Does anyone else want to debate this?
Nifong did not indict the 3 players. A grand jury did. A durham jury did. In front of a judge.
Maybe if you were a juror you would not have indicted. But this jury did indict on the evidence presented.
They did not convict. The police did not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can disagree with the jury.
The jury indicted Finnerty and Seligman on the alleged victim's 100% percent ID.
The jury indicted Evans on alleged victim's ID and that he could not be excluded on forensic DNA evidence that he could not be excluded from a fingernail. Alleged victim described that she was choked from behind and that she broke her nail off in the struggle.
Jury was also presented with forensic evidence by Duke Hospital that the SANE nurse assessed that alleged victim was raped. SANE nurse reported that the doctor's exam of alleged victim supported and corroborated alleged victim's claim that she was raped.
The jury, upon considering this evidence in a court process that the DA was not present at, indicted these 3 players.
They did not convict them. They did not declare them guilty. They indicted them so that the DA, police and court could begin the procedure of further discovery of material.
Which is what happened and the case never went to trial.
You can disagree with the jury. Or you can say that you would have been smarter than the jury from the comfort of retrospect.
You can criticize our justice system.
But you cannot say there was no evidence in this case presented to the jury.
To say there was no evidence is a false statement. It is an interpretive opinion, not a fact.
To say there was no evidence is an inaccurate and false statement.
So now the person who said a lacrosse player did not call Kim Roberts the n-word, then flips and says that actually he did but it was her fault, and then flips again and says it was wrong and then said he would shut up - now comes back with there was no evidence presented to the grand jury?
WTF?
Go away.
Some things never change. White man calls black woman n-word. Another white man says it was her own fault.
Same white man then says there was no evidence that a black woman was raped.
When evidence was presented to the jury.
But the white man who says calling the n-word to a black woman was her own fault says he doesn't believe the evidence that the racist's friend raped her.
Hmmm...
I guess if you believe that it's a black woman's fault when she's called the n-word, I guess you would believe that a black woman's 100% ID is not evidence either.
Anonymous said...
"I guess if you believe that it's a black woman's fault when she's called the n-word, I guess you would believe that a black woman's 100% ID is not evidence either."
Anonymous makes a good point.
Moving along to the subject of discrimination against a Mike Nifong supporter on the Duke University campus and it coverage, or lack thereof, by the media in comparison with another case of discrimination.
"Anonymous said...
"I guess if you believe that it's a black woman's fault when she's called the n-word, I guess you would believe that a black woman's 100% ID is not evidence either."
Not when the men she id'd can establish with 100% certainty that they were not present at the scene of the alleged crime at the time the crime allegedly happened.
Not when a third party establishes with 100% certainty that the person she identified with 90% certainty could not have raped her.
Should any one have believed the white woman who identified Timothy Cole with 100% certainty as her rapist?
Sidney said, "Anonymous makes a good point."
Anonymous made an invalid and bad point. No one should doubt a crime victim simply because of race. Why should anyone believe an alleged crime victim simply because of her race?
To believe a crime victim victim's race is all that is needed for proof beyond a reasonable doubt is racist.
"Nifong did not indict the 3 players. A grand jury did. A durham jury did. In front of a judge."
Mike Nifong sought the indictments. Mike Nifong controlled what was present to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury would not have indicted had it been aware of all the evidence, no evidence of a crime, no evidence to connect the accused of said crime, the only DNA found on the victim did not match the DNA of any of the accused.
So Nifong got a misinformed Grand Jury to hand down indictments. He withheld relevant evidence from the Grand Jury.
"The jury indicted Finnerty and Seligman on the alleged victim's 100% percent ID."
The Grand Jury was not aware that both Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty could establish with 100% certainty that they were not present at the scene of the alleged crime at the time said crime allegedly happened.
"Yet instead of going around lynching Negroes, you now lynch prosecutors or academics and anyone else getting in the way of your totally racist elitist greed driven agendas."
The Prosecutor(Mr. Nifong) and certain academics(the gang of 88) were the only ones who tried to lynch anyone>
"The jury indicted Evans on alleged victim's ID and that he could not be excluded on forensic DNA evidence that he could not be excluded from a fingernail. Alleged victim described that she was choked from behind and that she broke her nail off in the struggle."
The ALLEGED victim identified a man with a mustache as her third attacker. David Evans never had a mustache. Indirectly Mr. Nifong admitted this. In December of 2006, about 9 months after the Duke case became news, Mr. Nifong finally had someone from his office interview Ms. Mangum. Linwood Wilson claimed after the interview Ms. Mangum had claimed only that David Evans had 5 o'clock shadow.
Rush to Injustice by Nader Baydoun and R. Stephanie Good quoted from the transcript of the April 4 lineup. Ms. Mangum said the man who had raped her had a mustache.
The Grand Jury was never told this information.
"Go away."
No
"The police did not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
That is true. It was Mr. Nifong who, in the course of respecting the right of the defendant to be presumed innocent, had the obligation to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He had no evidence to prove a crime, no witnesses, other than Ms. Mangum, to testify a crime had happened. How could he have proven anyone guilty of said ALLEGED crime beyond a reasonable doubt?
"I guess if you believe that it's a black woman's fault when she's called the n-word, ..."
Yes, when the woman herself admits she provoked the exchange of racial epithets in which she was called "n-----".
I guess you believe it is the white men's fault when said woman falsely accuse them of calling her "n-----".
"But the white man who says calling the n-word to a black woman was her own fault says he doesn't believe the evidence that the racist's friend raped her."
I am completel, totally personally unacquainted with any Duke Lacrosse player, past or present.
The black woman, who admits she provoked the exchange of racial epithet is at fault for the occurrence of the slur.
There was no evidence that Ms. Mangum was raped. Sidney has repeatedly said that the crime could have still happened even though no evidence was left.
Sidney said, "...such as the Ron Cotton case, prosecutions move forward based on witness identification alone,..."
Sidney, you do not report that Ronald Cotton was incorrectly identified as Jennifer Thompson's rapist.
From Mark Hansen, Forensic Science: Scoping out eyewitness Ids, 87 A.B.A.J. 39, April, 2001, which dealt with the Ron Cotton case,
"But experts say they aren't surprised by her story. Mistaken eyewitness identification is the No. 1 cause of wrongful convictions, they say."
Sidney, your citation of the Ron Cotton case does not justify prosecuting on the basis of incorrect id. There was plenty of evidence that the id's made by Ms. Mangum were, at best, mistaken.
To my last comment I add:
Cases like the Timothy Cole case and the Darryl Hunt case went forward on the basis of identification. DNA evidence subsequently proved the identifications were mistaken.
"Some things never change. White man calls black woman n-word. Another white man says it was her own fault."
Considering she admitted provoking the exchange of epithets, yes it was her fault
Sidney, more about Ronald Cotton.
DNA evidence, after it had been obtained, showed a man named Bobby Poole had raped the victim.
Does this justify Mr. Nifong proceeding in his prosecution of the Duke Defendants while dismissing the DNA evidence(the only DNA found on Ms. Mangum matched males other than the accused)? Obviously no.
Did you think I would not check out the Ronald Cotton case myself?
This guy is still saying, even after he said it is wrong to use the n-word, that it is the woman's fault for a man to call her a nigger.
I don't think anyone has to listen to anything this man has to say.
That Kim Roberts said she provoked it does not mean it was not the man's fault.
Can't you get that through your skull?
They provoked her to say what she did.
You are inconsistent and you come off like you are a racist.
There is no acceptable excuse for a white man to call a black woman a nigger. Period.
Sidney, more about Ronald Cotton:
This comes from http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Ronald_Cotton.php:
"
On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the 1985 conviction because the second victim had picked another man out of the lineup and the trial court had not allowed this evidence to be heard by the jury. In November 1987, Cotton was retried, this time for both rapes because the second victim decided that Cotton was her assailant. Before the second trial, a man in prison, who had been convicted for similar crimes, told another inmate that he had committed the crimes for which Cotton had been convicted. A superior court judge refused to allow this information into evidence, and Cotton was convicted of both rapes. The next year, Cotton’s appellate defender filed a brief but did not argue the failure to admit the second suspect’s confession, and the conviction was affirmed."
Ronald Cotton happened because exculpatory evidence was withheld from his trial.
If you are submitting this case as an example of how Mr. Nifong followed "acceptable s\standards, you admit that Mr. Nifong did withhold exculpatory evidence.
Withholding exculpatory evidence, by definition, is unacceptable behavior on the part of a prosecutor
For Anonymous Nifong supporter whoever or wherever you are:
Timotuy Cole was black. The Rape victim is white. The Rape victim identified Timothy Cole with 100% certainty as her rapist.
DNA testing subsequently showed aomeone else, not Timothy Cole had raped the victim.
Should the prosecutor in the Timothy Cole case have simply accepted the victim's id as reliable evidence?
Why should Ms. Mangum's id have been accepted as reliable evidence.
"This guy is still saying, even after he said it is wrong to use the n-word, that it is the woman's fault for a man to call her a nigger.
I don't think anyone has to listen to anything this man has to say."
So don't listen to me. I will just ROTF and LOL at your discomfiture.
"That Kim Roberts said she provoked it does not mean it was not the man's fault."
It does mean SHE was at fault.
"They provoked her to say what she [Kim Roberts] did."
How?
Kim Roberts said SHE provoked the exchange of racial epithets. You are calling her a liar.
"Same white man then says there was no evidence that a black woman was raped."
Specify what evidence there was to show the woman was raped.
"The jury indicted Evans on alleged victim's ID and that he could not be excluded on forensic DNA evidence that he could not be excluded from a fingernail."
Since when is a fingernail a private area? Why did the DNA recovered from Ms. Mangum's private areas exclude David Evans with 100% certainty as a source of that DNA. If he could not have been a source of that DNA, he could not be proven to be a perpetrator
"The jury indicted Evans on alleged victim's ID and that he could not be excluded on forensic DNA evidence that he could not be excluded from a fingernail."
"[F]orensic DNA evidence that he could not be excluded" is of no value to the prosecutor who has the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did actually commit the crime.
Were the prosecutor tell the jury that the evidence did not exclude the defendant, the judge would instruct the jury that this does not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anonymous Nifong Supporter
I am gone for the night. You can come out and rave now. After I read your ravings, I will ROTF and LOL at your inability to accept the truth
Good Bye for now.
Hey everyone quiet down and listen, a racist is lecturing on how our justice system should work.
"Hey everyone quiet down and listen, a racist is lecturing on how our justice system should work."
I am already ROTFLOL
Please indulge me for one more comment
RUN KILGO RUN
DUCK KILGO DUCK
DECOMPENSATE KILGO DECOMPENSATE
"Hey everyone quiet down and listen, a racist is lecturing on how our justice system should work."
That individual is an anonymous racist pro Nifonger.
How clever.
Someone calls you a racist because you say it's Kim Robert's fault for a white player calling her the n-word, so you call THEM a racist.
What are you in 3rd grade?
The whole sorry affair regarding the false rape sexual assault allegation was about money, not about race. Only folks who have a sick emotional need to defend Mangum and Nifong see this otherwise.
Fortunately for them, they can continuing deceiving themselves because the sorry little circle of deluded acquaintances they travel in have "redefined" racism to be a one way street. Only whites can be racists.
Thus, they can continue harping on what one, provoked individual on the team said and ignore everything else.
Because, if you have to see the facts, the "bad" white boys were right and the "good" black woman (and her noble white knight) were wrong. And THIS JUST CAN'T BE!
"What are you in 3rd grade?"
Another example of Anonymous pro Nifonger responding with an ad homonem.
I am not in any grade now because I finished the work for my advanced degrees long ago.
Did you ever get beyond the third grade?
Post a Comment