Finally, I would like to mention that I believe that the discrimination against the lesbian couple at Cameron Village was despicable, and in no way did I intend to minimize its egregious nature when writing the blog.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Duke could learn a thing or two from York Properties
The blog that was posted on October 16, 2010, has been removed because it has caused grief to someone who I love very much. She asked me not to post the blog on the subject, but I thought that I could successfully navigate through the topic without causing distress for her, but that was not the case. I took much caution in writing the article not to cause offense, but I did, and for that I am truly sorry, and I offer her my deepest apology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
257 comments:
1 – 200 of 257 Newer› Newest»Sidney said..."that Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred and persecuted because of his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case".
Mike Nifong was correctly and justly disbarred because he wrongfully prosecuted three innocent men without having probable cause even to believe that a crime had happened. He also tried to exclude exculpatory evidence from the case.
In his comments on the Ronald Cotton case, Sidney does say that Mr. Nifong did exclude exculpatory evidence from the case. Ronald Cotton was convicted because exculpatory evidence from the case. Mr. Nifong has cited the Ronald Cotton case as an example of the "acceptable standards" to which Mr. Nifong adhered.
Sidney said he "merely attended an event [on the Duke University campus] which was open to the public".
Earlier Sidney admitted he was handing out business cards and asking people to visit his web site.
Sidney also said that he was told he had violated Duke's policy on solicitation.
Considering his citation of the Ronald Cotton rape case, I say Sidney has a way of selective reporting events which is deceptive.
Sidney
This is a transcript of Kim Roberts' 911 call to Durham police at 12:53 AM on March 14:
"CALLER: I don't know if this is an emergency, but I'm in Durham and I was driving down near Duke's campus and it's me and my black girlfriend and the guy, there's like a white guy by the Duke wall and he just hollered out (BEEP) to me and I'm just so angry. I saw them all come out like a big frat house and me and my black girlfriend are walking by and they called us (BEEP). I'm not going to press the issue I guess, but I live in a neighborhood where they wrote KKK on the side of a white station wagon and that's near right where I'm at. THEY DIDN'T HARM ME IN ANY WAY(emphasis added), but I just feel so completely offended.
Does this establish probable cause that Kim Roberts or her girlfriend(Ms.Mangum was in her car at the time) were ever harmed on the night of 13-14 March 2006? No.
Sidney,
I told you to threaten Duke with a lawsuit. Dickie Brodhead will fold within two days.
Sidney
You say Ms. Mangum's identification of perpetrators on April 4 justified Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse defendants.
This is what the innocence project says about eye witness identifications:
"Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.
While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated."
Anonymous Nifong supporter, are you going to call this racism on the part of the Innocence project. The Innocence project, =which has exonerated many innocent black defendants, says that eyewitness identification should not be considered reliable evidence.
Sidney
Joseph Abbit, a black man, was convicted of rape via eye witness testimony. He was exonerated by DNA testing.
Sidney
These cases say that DNA testing can and does exonerate innocent men convicted via eyewitness testimony. How does it exonerate? DNA recovered from the victim does not match DNA of the accused.
The DNA found on the Alleged Victim of the Alleged Duke Lacrosse rape did not match the men Mr. Nifong named as suspects.
By dismissing the DNA testing results, and proceeding with the prosecution, how did Mr. Nifong comply with "acceptable standards" of ethics and behavior?
Sid -- As I explained earlier, your failure to familiarize yourself with the solicitation policies at Duke resulted in your escorted departure.
If Ms. Mangum was mistaken with her identifications
of her attackers, afterall, all those white boys do look alike,
then who on the 2006 Duke lacrosse team dragged her into
the bathroom? Adam, Bret, Matt and Dan, perhaps?
"Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound."
Well this explains why Ms. Mangum allegedly gave varying accounts of her attack in the bathroom by the "attendees" of the stripper party.
Colin and Reade were in the party
house at the time of the attack upon
Ms. Mangum. That is a fact.
Several partygoers sported quite
noticeable facial hair, which could
easily be described as mustaches.
That is a fact.
Peter and Ryan took money from Ms. Mangum's bag in the bathroom.
That is a fact.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said... 'that Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred and persecuted because of his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case'.
Mike Nifong was correctly and justly disbarred because he wrongfully prosecuted three innocent men without having probable cause even to believe that a crime had happened. He also tried to exclude exculpatory evidence from the case.
In his comments on the Ronald Cotton case, Sidney does say that Mr. Nifong did exclude exculpatory evidence from the case. Ronald Cotton was convicted because exculpatory evidence from the case. Mr. Nifong has cited the Ronald Cotton case as an example of the 'acceptable standards' to which Mr. Nifong adhered."
You are quite the Word Wizard. I never stated that Mr. Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence because he did not. All evidence, including the lab results which were not exculpatory, were handed to the defense in a timely manner.
With regards to Mr. Cotton's case, I am unaware of any exculpatory evidence withheld at his trial. Please let me know of what you are referring.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said he 'merely attended an event [on the Duke University campus] which was open to the public'.
Earlier Sidney admitted he was handing out business cards and asking people to visit his web site.
Sidney also said that he was told he had violated Duke's policy on solicitation.
Considering his citation of the Ronald Cotton rape case, I say Sidney has a way of selective reporting events which is deceptive."
I don't know what you consider selective reporting and deceptive. I did travel to Durham from Raleigh to attend the event at Duke. I did not go there to hand out business cards. Furthermore, I did not go around distributing my cards to everyone in my path. I selectively handed them out to a few individuals, possibly a half dozen, with whom I had conversations. And, I was told by Michael Schoenfeld that I had repeatedly violated Duke's policy against solicitation. That's nothing more than poppycock, and it's the best excuse they could come up with for the draconian treatment to which they subjected me.
Would you consider handing out business cards and asking someone to visit your website "solicitation"?
"If Ms. Mangum was mistaken with her identifications
of her attackers, afterall, all those white boys do look alike,
then who on the 2006 Duke lacrosse team dragged her into
the bathroom? Adam, Bret, Matt and Dan, perhaps?"
No one dragged her into the bathroom.
guiowen said...
"Sidney,
I told you to threaten Duke with a lawsuit. Dickie Brodhead will fold within two days."
Good to hear from you. Episode V is scheduled to begin January 2, 2011.
Regarding Duke, all options are on the table. I would like to resolve this matter outside of the courtroom, if possible.
"Colin and Reade were in the party
house at the time of the attack upon
Ms. Mangum. That is a fact."
It is a fact that Ms. Mangum falsely alleged she was attack.
It is a fact that Collin and Reade were not in the party house at the time of the alleged attack on Ms. Mangum.
"Well this explains why Ms. Mangum allegedly gave varying accounts of her attack in the bathroom by the "attendees" of the stripper party."
It is a fact that Ms. Mangum did give varying accounts of her alleged attack in the bathroom at the party.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney
Joseph Abbit, a black man, was convicted of rape via eye witness testimony. He was exonerated by DNA testing."
My point exactly. The prosecutor who prosecuted him, and he was incarcerated for many years unlike the Duke Lacrosse defendants who never spent one day in jail, was considered to have acted within acceptable standards. No one ever tried to have Cotton's prosecutor disbarred. The State Bar did not initiate a grievance against Cotton's prosecutor. The media never railed against Cotton's prosecutor.
However, I believe that the actions of Cotton's prosecutor were egregious in that he arbitrarily picked a black man off the street to place in the lineup.
Mr. Nifong's standards in the Duke Lacrosse case were undoubtedly much higher than those used to convict Mr. Cotton.
"Several partygoers sported quite
noticeable facial hair, which could
easily be described as mustaches.
That is a fact."
It is a fact that Ms. Mangum said at the April 4 lineup that her third alleged assailant had not facial hair but a "mustache(quote taken from the transcript of the April 4 lineup)".
It is also a fact that the person who said Ms. Mangum described the "mustache" as facial hair was Mr. Nifong's investigator Linwood Wilson.
It is a fact that Mr. Wilson was not present at the lineup.
It is a fact that Mr. Wilson made that unsupported allegation 8 months after the lineup.
"Peter and Ryan took money from Ms. Mangum's bag in the bathroom.
That is a fact."
That is an allegation not supported by another pro Nifong supporter who claimed that Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty admitted to Jim Cooney that they had taken the money.
Of course, it is a fact that Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty were not present in the house at the time the money allegedly was taken.
Sidney said, "My point exactly. The prosecutor who prosecuted him, and he was incarcerated for many years unlike the Duke Lacrosse defendants who never spent one day in jail, was considered to have acted within acceptable standards. No one ever tried to have Cotton's prosecutor disbarred. The State Bar did not initiate a grievance against Cotton's prosecutor. The media never railed against Cotton's prosecutor."
Sidney, your point was that other prosecutors convicted innocent defendants with eyewitness testimony and that justified Mr. Nifong's attempt to do so.
Sidney, when you first brought up the Ronald Cotton case, you did not bring up that Mr. Cotton was wrongfully convicted. I say again, your point was that Mr. Cotton was convicted on eyewitness identification and that justified Mr. Nifong trying to convict the Duke defendants on Ms. Mangum's eye witness identifications.
Sidney said, "However, I believe that the actions of Cotton's prosecutor were egregious in that he arbitrarily picked a black man off the street to place in the lineup.
Mr. Nifong's standards in the Duke Lacrosse case were undoubtedly much higher than those used to convict Mr. Cotton."
Sidney, you said Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Duke defendants was within "acceptable standards(your words)" of ethics and behavior for a prosecutor. You offered up Mr. Cotton's case as a case of the "acceptable standards" to which Mr. Nifong conformed, i.e. Mr. Cotton was convicted on the basis of an eyewitness identification.
You did not state that Mr. Cotton was convicted on the basis of a mistaken eye witness identification and that exculpatory evidence had been excluded from his trials.
Mr. Nifong prosecuted the Duke defendants on the basis of eyewitness identifications which were the result of a tainted procedure. Those identifications were mistaken, as shown by facts.
Mr. Nifong's standards may have conformed to the standards of prosecutorial ethics and behavior shown in the Ronald Cotton case. They were not by any definition of "acceptable" the "acceptable standards" of ethics and behavior for a prosecutor.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney
These cases say that DNA testing can and does exonerate innocent men convicted via eyewitness testimony. How does it exonerate? DNA recovered from the victim does not match DNA of the accused.
The DNA found on the Alleged Victim of the Alleged Duke Lacrosse rape did not match the men Mr. Nifong named as suspects.
By dismissing the DNA testing results, and proceeding with the prosecution, how did Mr. Nifong comply with 'acceptable standards' of ethics and behavior?"
Mr. Nifong has consistently stated that this case was not DNA based, but eyewitness-based. The fact that no DNA from Duke Lacrosse players was present does not exclude them from being guilty of sexual assault. Furthermore, not all rapist leave DNA semen evidence. In the Duke Lacrosse case, the DNA specimens tested by the outside lab were fragmented, and suggested that they were not recently deposited in the accuser. So the fact that they did not match with the defendants or any of the lacrosse partygoers is to be expected. It is certainly not exculpatory in any sense.
Anonymous said...
"Sid -- As I explained earlier, your failure to familiarize yourself with the solicitation policies at Duke resulted in your escorted departure."
Are you familiar with the solicitation policies at Duke? Do you think that everyone who hands out a business card is familiar with the solicitation policies at Duke? Do you believe that the solicitation policies at Duke even mention a business card exchange?
If you are aware of the Solicitation policies at Duke, I would appreciate it if you could send me a link or reference.
To my previous comment I add, it is a fact that the April 4 lineup violated Durham Police regulations. It contained only men who had been declared suspects by Mr. Nifong. It had no fillers. It was conducted by Mr. Mark Gottlieb, who was involved in conducting Mr. Nifong's investigation of the case and who was demonstrated to have great hostility and bias to Duke students. It was conducted at Mr. Nifong's direction, i.e. Mr. Nifong instructed the Durham Police to violate their own procedures.
The April 4 lineup was conducted so that Ms. Mangum could pick any three Caucasian Duke lacrosse players for Mr. Nifong to prosecute.
The April 4 lineup was conducted after evidence established no probable cause for Mr. Nifong to consider any of the Lacrosse team as suspects.
Sidney said, "Mr. Nifong has consistently stated that this case was not DNA based, but eyewitness-based."
Mr. Nifong did not say that the case was not DNA based until after the testing of the rape kit revealed no evidence of a rape, no DNA from any Lacrosse player.
If the case from the beginning was eye witness based from the beginning why did Mr. Nifong not first hand get eyewitness information from Ms. Mangum at the beginning?
Why did Mr. Nifong countenance atthe beginning the attempt to get DNA evidence which would incriminate members of the Lacrosse team.
I repeat, Mr. Nifong did not base this case on eyewitness testimony until the DNA evidence failed to implicate any Lacrosse player.
The point Sidney does not get is, after the DNA did not implicate those he had named as suspects, he had no legal justification to proceed with his prosecution. He had not established probable cause.
Sidney said, "The fact that no DNA from Duke Lacrosse players was present does not exclude them from being guilty of sexual assault."
Sidney directly admits there was no forensic evidence that a rape did in fact occur, that this was no more than an ALLEGED crime.
Sidney also does not get it, that to establish probable cause, he had to establish reason to believe his suspects did commit the crime. Not excluding them as suspects does not meet the prosecutor's obligation to establish probable cause. By law, which a DA is sworn to uphold, the DA must prove.
Sidney said, "...the DNA specimens tested by the outside lab were fragmented, and suggested that they were not recently deposited in the accuser."
So how does that explain why none of Mr. Nifong's suspects implanted any fresh DNA on Ms. Mangum on the night of March 13-14 2006? How does that negate the fact that the only DNA found on Ms. Mangum did not match the DNA of Mr. Nifong's suspects?
I remind you, the crime as alleged was a crime in which perpetrators would have left evidence, would have left their DNA.
How do you explain in that context why there was no DNA?
How did Mr. Nifong explain why there was no DNA? Mr. Nifong did say he believed condoms had been used. The Medical record said in multiple places that condoms had not been used.
Sidney said, "So the fact that they did not match with the defendants or any of the lacrosse partygoers is to be expected. It is certainly not exculpatory in any sense."
Sidney ignores the facts that a prosecutor is obligated to uphold the law and that under the law that prosecutor is obligated to prove. Failure to exclude is proof of nothing and therefore does not give a prosecutor to a legal justification to prosecute anyone. In that sense, the evidence was exculpatory.
In any event, because the evidence was obtained via a NTO which designated the Caucasian Lacrosse players as suspects, all those men had a legal right to know in a timely fashion the results obtained via that order. Mr. Nifong failed to comply with that legal obligation.
Sidney said, "No one ever tried to have Cotton's prosecutor disbarred. The State Bar did not initiate a grievance against Cotton's prosecutor."
Why did you not bring up that issues when you first cited Mr. Cotton's case as an example of a prosecutor convicting a defendant of rape based on an eyewitness identification?
"Peter and Ryan took money from Ms. Mangum's bag in the bathroom.
That is a fact."
Was any DNA from Peter and Ryan ever found in the bathroom or on Ms. Mangum's bag? Were any fingerprints from Peter and Ryan ever found in the bathroom or on Ms. Mangum's bag?
How did you establish this alleged fact?
Sidney said, "If you are aware of the Solicitation policies at Duke, I would appreciate it if you could send me a link or reference."
"Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission."
This comes from the Duke University Office of Student Affairs.
You, by your own admission, did pass out business cards and ask people to visit your web site. How was this not "request[ing] information or [not an attempt to] communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission."
I think you have never claimed any affiliation with "Duke University or its educational mission."
Consider yourself informed.
Why did you not get yourself informed before you went to the event? You knew no more about Duke's solicitation policy than you did about the date of Mrs Evans statement to 60 Minutes.
Incidentally, I am not the individual who first asked you about Duke's policy on solicitation.
You should be careful about what you wish for.
Sidney,
To my last comment, I found my information via the internet. You can obviously access the internet if you need to.
Sidney said, "So the fact that they did not match with the defendants or any of the lacrosse partygoers is to be expected."
Was that to be expected at the start?
Sidney admits that the only DNA recovered from the alleged victim of the alleged crime did not match the DNA of the men Mr. Nifong had indicted for and charged with the crime?
Give us your opimion. Why would Mr. Nifong ask DNA Security to test the rape kit for DNA?. You have said Mr. Nifong made this a case based on eyewitness testimony from the beginning. If so, why would Mr. Nifong then waste money to obtain evidence he would not use?
Give us another opinion. Would Mr. Nifong ask DNA security to test the rape kit for male DNA if he expected that the only DNA Mr. Meehan would find would be DNA that did not match any of his suspects?
Sidney
You can not hide forever. More will be coming.
"Anonymous Nifong supporter, are you going to call this racism on the part of the Innocence project. "
The Innocence Project never said that when a white man calls a black woman the n-word, it's the black woman's fault..
If they did please reference it.
From the J4N Facebook page:
"Equal justice for all in North Carolina begins with justice for Mike Nifong!"
Mister Nifong has gotten justice, what he deserved for wrongfully prosecuting three innocent men. He has not received the full measure of what he deserves.
"Does this establish probable cause that Kim Roberts or her girlfriend(Ms.Mangum was in her car at the time) were ever harmed on the night of 13-14 March 2006? No."
Kim Roberts was not in the bathroom when the alleged rape happened. That Roberts was calling police about the racist behavior of the lacrosse players does not prove a rape did not happen.
As you know, the lacrosse players racist behavior led many to believe that the team was capable of rape not that their racist behavior exonerated them.
To use a police report showing that the lacrosse players demonstrated racist behavior does not prove they are innocent of rape.
A sociology major should do a study. How many Duke security guards have escorted how many people off campus when they gave someone a business card?
"The Innocence Project never said that when a white man calls a black woman the n-word, it's the black woman's fault.."
I say again, since said woman admitted she provoked the incident, she admitted she was at fault.
If she sued for emotional distress for this incident, she would revceive no substantial damages. It is a matter of public record that she admitted she had provoked the incident.
I am aware that anonymous pro nifongers do not like hypothetical situations which make them uncomfortable with their unsupported allegations.
Nifong and the police never took the moustache comment by Ms. Mangum as literal. Many of the players had facial hair and were unshaven because it was spring break.
The Linwood Wilson interview with Mangum in December months later did not affect the police or Nifong thoughts in March of 2006.
"A sociology major should do a study. How many Duke security guards have escorted how many people off campus when they gave someone a business card?"
Incidentally, before he took down this post, Sidney claimed only that he was minding his own business.
Maybe said sociology major should study why passing out business cards and asking people yo visit one's web site is minding one's own business.
Two lacrosse players took money from Crystal Mangum's purse. They robbed her.
The police found much of the money when they came in with a search warrant. Dave Evans told them who took the money from her purse.
Danny Flannery had shoved some of this money under the door to the dancers when they were in the bathroom.
They also found her purse, one shoe, her cell phone as well as her money. Evans admitted they were all the property of Mangum.
"Nifong and the police never took the moustache comment by Ms. Mangum as literal. Many of the players had facial hair and were unshaven because it was spring break."
What could Mr. Nifong infer from Ms. Mangum's statement other than her third alleged assailant had a "mustache".
Was Mr. Nifong acting properly to disregard a statement made by the person he called "his victim".
Mr. Linwood's claim that what Ms. Mangum saw only facial hair is an attempt to evade the fact, that Ms. Mangum SAID her alleged third assailant had a "mustache, to evade the fact that David Evans never had a mustache.
How is that proper prosecutorial procedure?
Evans also told the police that Mangum had knocked repeatedly on the door after they locked her outside asking for her things back.
Evans said he and Zash refused to give her her money. purse, shoe, cellphone back.
"Two lacrosse players took money from Crystal Mangum's purse. They robbed her."
So who were Peter and Ryan?
Why did some anonymous pro Nifonger claim that Reade Seligman and Colin FInnerty admitted to Jim Cooney that they had taken the money?
What is your source for your information.
Are you the individual who gave page 29 of UPI as the source of the "Sworn Statement" in which a Lacrosse player said, "We wanted white girls, not n------."
I remind you the charge of which the Defendants stood accused as a result of the indictments Mr. Nifong sought was first degree rape. How does any of this establish probable cause for first degree rape?
"Evans also told the police that Mangum had knocked repeatedly on the door after they locked her outside asking for her things back."
Ms Mangum repeatedly knocked on the door to get back in after she had been brutally raped? A woman who had been brutally raped would have run from the crime scejne as fast as she could regardless of what she left behind.
The money in question was the $400 Ms. Mangum was to be paid for a two hour performance. She did not perform for two hours. She had a contract, her side of which she did not fulfill.
She was not raped. She was not dragged into any bathroom. There was no use of racial slurs, other than the exchange provoked by Kim Robertson and Ms. Robertson's admittedly false allegation that men at the party house had called her n-----.
Ms. Mangum didv admit to police that she had taken alcohol and Flexeril together before the party. She did not give a 2 hour performance because she was incapable of doing so.
It is questionable that Ms. Mangum ever earned the money in question. If the money was never hers in the first place, how could anyone have stolen it.
"Evans said he and Zash refused to give her her money. purse, shoe, cellphone back."
An anonymous pro nifonger said Ryan and Peter took the money.
So who did it.
Whoever you are, you get no points for consistency.
Anonymous, please show where Duke University states in writing that it is against their policy that an person cannot give another person a business card.
And show how that policy is enforced on a daily basis.
Show how security guards walk people off campus and call for back-up every time a person hands a business card to another person.
Prove that they have a written rule against giving out business cards and a history of enforcing that written rule.
Whoever you are Mr/Ms anonymous pro nifonger, you shouldn't throw stones whrn you live in a glass house.
Anonymous said "Mr. Nifong did not say that the case was not DNA based until after the testing of the rape kit revealed no evidence of a rape, no DNA from any Lacrosse player."
Correct. They had her eyewitness account. SBI tested. They found no DNA. Which does not prove in court that a sexual assault did not happen. Especially when you have a 100% ID by the alleged victim.
The case then became again a victim ID case. Except in Dave Evans case when he could not be excluded from forensic evidence of his DNA on the fingernails.
"Anonymous, please show where Duke University states in writing that it is against their policy that an person cannot give another person a business card."
I found Duke's written definition of Solicitation on the web site of Duke University's Office of Student Affairs. You can read it there for yourself if you have a mind to. You obviously have internet access. It defines handing out Business Cards as solicitation.
Whether or not they strictly enforce this policy I do not know. What Sidney did fit the definition of solicitation. If he solicited in an way Duke considered disruptive, then Duke was correct to enforce the policy. If Sidney did not stop when requested to do so, Duke was right to have him escorted off campus.
Another glass house inhabitant bites the dust.
"Why did Mr. Nifong countenance atthe beginning the attempt to get DNA evidence which would incriminate members of the Lacrosse team.
I repeat, Mr. Nifong did not base this case on eyewitness testimony until the DNA evidence failed to implicate any Lacrosse player."
Nifong went to the SBI lab because that's what any good prosecutor would do. He did not go to the lab to "incriminate" anyone. He went there as part of an investigation that any good prosecutor would do.
The case was always based on eyewitness testimony from the beginning from the moment Mangum said she was raped. He also had the Duke Hospital forensic analysis supporting the eyewitness account of the rape.
And like any good prosecutor, he did not drop the case when DNA was not found. He did not throw out the eyewitness when DNA was not found, an absence of DNA which does not prove a sexual assault did not take place. No matter how many CSI shows you watch.
Nifong acted within acceptable practices.
ANonymous, "Sidney directly admits there was no forensic evidence that a rape did in fact occur, that this was no more than an ALLEGED crime."
Again anonymous is making false statements.
There was forensic evidence from Duke Hospital and forensic evidence from the fingernails that were inculpatory.
Anonymous' assertion that a legitimate rape case needs an assailant to "implant fresh DNA" is an absurd assertion disproved every day in courts all across the nation.
"In any event, because the evidence was obtained via a NTO which designated the Caucasian Lacrosse players as suspects, all those men had a legal right to know in a timely fashion the results obtained via that order. Mr. Nifong failed to comply with that legal obligation."
The NTO stated that the list of players were "subjects' not suspects.
The DA delivered to all "subjects" all results in a timely manner.
"Give us another opinion. Would Mr. Nifong ask DNA security to test the rape kit for male DNA if he expected that the only DNA Mr. Meehan would find would be DNA that did not match any of his suspects?"
The DA went to Meehan because SBI recommended him to. SBI said to further test. SBI, not Nifong.
SBI wanted further testing. SBI. The State Bureau.
Nifong further tested because he was a good prosecutor.
The unidentified male DNA was old and had nothing whatsoever to so with the night in question. The fact that an exotic dancer had DNA from other males within the last two weeks is unsurprising.
Anonymous @ October 17, 2010 6:18 AM
The DA's office, of which Mr. Nifong was the head, sought the DNA evidence at the start of the case. Mr. Nifong himself sought evidence of Male DNA on the rape kit. That is what made it a DNA case rather than only an eyewitness case. The fact that DNA did not prove either that the alleged crime had happened or that any of the Lacrosse players had perpetrated said crime, how did not then turn it into a case in which that evidence could be dismissed? How did that establish that a crime had happened but that no evidence had been left?
w a prosecutor is obligated to prove.
What did Mr. Nifong have to prove? He, at this point did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. He did have to establish probable cause. He had to prove it was reasonable to believe a crime had occurred.
That any DNA evidence did not exclude anyone is legally meaningless. By the law, which Mr. Nifong was obligated to uphold, a prosecutor must prove. No, at this point he did not have to meet his legal obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But he is legally required to prove probable cause, that it is reasonable to believe that a crime had occurred.
In a rape in which the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving evidence or leaving DNA, does the absence of that evidence establish probable cause? No it does not. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence in the alleged Duke rape, Mr. Nifong had not legal justification to prosecute, no legal justification to declare that the DNA was not significant.
Another pro Nifong glass inhabitant bites the dust.
Why did the Durham Police not conduct a credible investigation of one of the highest profile alleged crimes in the city's history?
Are they unspeakably incompetent? Or are they corrupt?
"Nifong further tested because he was a good prosecutor."
Nifong was not a good prosecutor to obtain such evidence, for what ever reason, then to declare it meaningless when it did not make his case.
So when a lacrosse player calls a black woman a nigger it's her fault. And when a lacrosse player takes money from a woman's purse, it is not stealing.
So if they raped a woman, it wouldn't be rape? That it would be the woman's fault? Maybe she was asking for it. Maybe she'll say that she provoked it by the way she dressed, and then that proves it was her fault.
You're right, no matter what these players do, they are always right.
They are perfect little angels.
Sid -- Duke's solicitation policy can be found here:
http://www.studentaffairs.duke.edu/osaf/resources/sponsored-corporate-solicitation-policy
In response to your question "Would you consider handing out business cards and asking someone to visit your website 'solicitation'"
What you and I consider "solicitation" doesn't matter. What matters here is Duke's definition, which states that solicitation is the "...act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission."
By this definition, you were indeed soliciting without completing the proper registration.
"Why did the Durham Police not conduct a credible investigation of one of the highest profile alleged crimes in the city's history?"
Durham Police did not conduct such an investigation.
According to Mark Gottlieb, DPD allowed his contemporary notes on the case to be destroyed before they could be momorialized.
DPD allowed the District Attorney to assume personal control of the investigation, something which was by any definition an "acceptable standard" of ethical behavior for a prosecutor.
DPD, at Mr. Nifong's behest orchestrated the intimidation of Mr. Moez Elmostafa, a witness who supported Reade Seligman's alibi.
DPD, at Mr. Nifong's behest, conducted a lineup procedure which violated its own regulations on lineups. That tainted lineup was the source of much of Mr. Nifong's tainted evidence. The DPD cooperated with Mr. Nifong in producing fruit of a poisoned tree to facilitate his wrongful prosecution.
"So if they raped a woman, it wouldn't be rape? That it would be the woman's fault? Maybe she was asking for it. Maybe she'll say that she provoked it by the way she dressed, and then that proves it was her fault."
The Lacrosse players did not rape anyone on the night of 13-14 March 2006. That is why is was not rape.\.
"Kim Roberts was not in the bathroom when the alleged rape happened. That Roberts was calling police about the racist behavior of the lacrosse players does not prove a rape did not happen."
By her own admission, here was no racist behavior for Ms. Roberts to report.
The question is, how did anything prove that a rape did happen. The state has the obligation to prove a rape did happen beyond a reasonable doubt. That nothing proved a rape did not happen is legally meaningless.
"The unidentified male DNA was old and had nothing whatsoever to so with the night in question. The fact that an exotic dancer had DNA from other males within the last two weeks is unsurprising."
It is when it is alleged that the only DNA which would be found on the alleged victim would be fresh DNA from the alleged perpetrators.
It was exculpatory evidence that no such DNA was found.
"The NTO stated that the list of players were "subjects' not suspects."
North Carolina law specifically states the justification for obtaining a NTO against anyone is a reasonable belief that the individual is a suspect.
The Durham DA's office obtained a NTO against each and every Caucasian member of the Lacrosse team.
Therefore, the Durham DA's office, for which Mr. Nifong was responsible, did name each and every Caucasian member of the Lacrosse team as suspects.
"You're right, no matter what these players do, they are always right."
And whenever a black woman falsely accuses white men of a gang rape she is always right to do so.
Is that what you are saying?
"There was forensic evidence from Duke Hospital and forensic evidence from the fingernails that were inculpatory."
The evidence from the infamous fingernail was not inculpatory. For the evidence to be inculpatpry, it must incriminate the defendant. The best any anonymous pro nifonger has been able to say was the fingernail could not exclude David Evans.
The rape kit was obtained by DUMC personnel. The evidence was not inculpatory.
The DUMC record said no alleged perpetrator had ysed condoms. That record had the description of a crime in which such perpetrators would have left evidence of the alleged deed. That combination of facts was exculpatory evidence.
The only evidence consistent with rape recorded on the record was diffuse vaginal edema. Ms. Mangum was sexually active before the party. That reasonably explain diffuse vaginal edema. That finding was not inculpatory.
So what else came from DUNC?
"ANonymous, "Sidney directly admits there was no forensic evidence that a rape did in fact occur, that this was no more than an ALLEGED crime."
Sidney admitted only that there was no forensic evidence of guilt on the rape kit. He did this on multiple occasions when he said that the absence of inculpatory evidence did not rule out a sexual assault.
To my last comment I add that in a previous post to this direct forum Sidney did directly admit that there was no inculpatory evidence found on the rape kit.
"SBI tested. They found no DNA. Which does not prove in court that a sexual assault did not happen."
That is a totally meaningless statement because no one is required to prove in court that a sexual assault or any other crime did not happen.
The only one obligated to prove anything in a criminal trial is the Prosecutor. He is obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime DID happen.
"The DA delivered to all "subjects" all results in a timely manner."
The Lacrosse players, via North Carolina law, were designated as suspects via the obtaining of the NTO.
The DA did not deliver any results in any timely manner.
No Lacrosse player was aware of the foreign DNA found on Ms. Mangum until 9 months after the alleged case when Brad Bannon discovered in open court that Mr. Nifong had withheld those results.
"Kim Roberts was not in the bathroom when the alleged rape happened. That Roberts was calling police about the racist behavior of the lacrosse players does not prove a rape did not happen."
Neither was Crystal Mangum.
Neither was any member of the Duke Lacrosse team.
Boy there is a lot of shattered glass lying around from a lot of glass houses belonging to anonymous Pro Nifongers.
ROTFLOL
"Anonymous' assertion that a legitimate rape case needs an assailant to "implant fresh DNA" is an absurd assertion disproved every day in courts all across the nation."
Cite one.
In the alleged Duke rape case, the alleged crime was described as one in which the alleged perpetrators left DNA. It could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this case that a rape cold have happened without any DNA evidence.
In this particular case, the absence of DNA evidence, in anything, established that a rape did not occur.
"So if they raped a woman, it wouldn't be rape?"
I am saying that when a black woman is falsely accusing white men of raping her, that is a situation in which no rape has occurred.
To say an accusation by a black woman against white men should be accepted at face value is racist.
"The DA went to Meehan because SBI recommended him to. SBI said to further test. SBI, not Nifong."
So why did Mr. Nifong seek the testing if not to get incriminating evidence against Lacrosse players?
The perfect method to assess the truth
of the facts of the Duke lacrosse rape case
is too measure the lengths the deniers will
go to bury them.
Sidney said, "You are quite the Word Wizard. I never stated that Mr. Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence because he did not. All evidence, including the lab results which were not exculpatory, were handed to the defense in a timely manner."
Regardless of what you might say, Mr. Nifong did withhold exculpatory evidence.
Had you read thoroughly about the Ronald Cotton case before citing it, you would have learned there was exculpatory evidence which was withheld from the court.
Sidney said, "I don't know what you consider selective reporting and deceptive."
Try this:
In an earlier post you said you were handing out business cards and asking attendees at the event to visit the J$N web site.
In this post, which you have withdrawn, you claim you were just minding your business.
"So why did Mr. Nifong seek the testing if not to get incriminating evidence against Lacrosse players?"
You constantly ask the same questions after they have been answered.
He tested the rape kit as any good prosecutor would have done when a woman and a hospital says she was raped.
The Duke policy you quote say nothing about business cards.
Please give evidence of Duke U escorting a person off campus for giving someone s business card.
" Anonymous' assertion that a legitimate rape case needs an assailant to "implant fresh DNA" is an absurd assertion disproved every day in courts all across the nation."
I said that that in specifically the alleged Duke rape case, the alleged perpetrators could not have perpetrated the alleged crime without leaving their DNA.
An anonymous pro Nifonger admitted the DNA found on Ms. Mangum was not fresh, recently left DNA.
I then said that the absence of fresh DNA did not establish probable cause for a prosecutor to believe a rape had occurred on 13-14 March 2006.
Do you deny this statement about one case? If you answer yes, can you explain your answer?
"The Duke policy you quote say nothing about business cards.
Please give evidence of Duke U escorting a person off campus for giving someone s business card."
"Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission."
Since when is handing out business cards not "communicat[ing] information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission."?
"admitted the DNA found on Ms. Mangum was not fresh, recently left DNA."
Admitted? He asserted it was old DNA and therefore was not exculpatory.
As Sidney says you're a real word wizard. Twisting, spinning and distorting what's been said
"The perfect method to assess the truth of the facts of the Duke lacrosse rape case is too measure the lengths the deniers will go to bury them."
The only individual who tried to bury any truth about the Alleged Duke rape was Mike Nifong.
The truth was, as established by the evidence, no one raped Ms. Mangum on the night of March 13-14 2006.
Mr. Nifong had the evidence. Mr. Nifong went public to proclaim that a crime had occurred, that Duke Lacrosse players were the perpetrators, that other Duke Lacrosse players were covering for the perpetrators, and that the alleged crime had been racially motivated.
Mr. Nifong then tried to nullify the evidence by inflaming the Duke public against members of the Lacrosse team.
That is the measure of what Mr. Nifong went to.
Duke Lacrosse defenders, in fact, went to extraordinary lengths to get the truth out.
"It is when it is alleged that the only DNA which would be found on the alleged victim would be fresh DNA from the alleged perpetrators."
Another completely absurd statement. Completely and utterly false.
No on ever alleged that.
"The evidence from the infamous fingernail was not inculpatory. For the evidence to be inculpatpry, it must incriminate the defendant."
Another false statement.
It is a fact that the grand jury indicted Evans that evidence. Therefore it most assuredly was inculpatory.
There's a difference between your opinion and fact.
"He tested the rape kit as any good prosecutor would have done when a woman and a hospital says she was raped."
But then, Sidney says that Mr. Nifong intended to make his case with eyewitness testimony, not the DNA evidence.
Why did he go to the expense to obtain evidence which he did not intend to use?
Would it have been improper for the Defense to obtain DNA evidence even if Mr. Nifong did not want that evidence?
"Why did he go to the expense to obtain evidence which he did not intend to use?"
Again asking the same questions over and over after they have been answered.
If there was DNA evidence incriminating someone, the prosecutor would have used it in addition to the eyewitness statement.
There was not, so the DA went forward with the eyewitness statement and the report from Duke and the DNA fingernail DNA.
The grand jury indicted.
Is it really so difficult to understand?
"It is a fact that the grand jury indicted Evans that evidence. Therefore it most assuredly was inculpatory."
The legal definition of "inculpatory evidence" is "Evidence establishing the guilt of the accused." That is from http://law.yourdictionary.com/inculpatory-evidence.
It is res ipsa loquitur that evidence which does not exclude the innocence of a defendant does not establish the guilt of said defendant.
The Nifong supporter position on the fingernail evidence was that the infamous fingernail evidence did not exclude David Evans.
If the jury accepted non inculpatory evidence as exculpatory then the Grand Jury erred and the indictment was not justified.
Okay - so now here it is.
When you cannot justify your absolutely fruity arguments -
THE WHOLE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS WRONG!
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'No one ever tried to have Cotton's prosecutor disbarred. The State Bar did not initiate a grievance against Cotton's prosecutor.'
Why did you not bring up that issues when you first cited Mr. Cotton's case as an example of a prosecutor convicting a defendant of rape based on an eyewitness identification?"
The Cotton and Duke Lacrosse cases are entirely different. The Lacrosse defendants were at the house where the alleged sexual assault took place. Mr. Cotton was picked up off the street and placed in a lineup without cause, other than the color of his skin.
If you know the name of the prosecutor in the Cotton case, give it to me. Because the witness felt so positive about her assailant's identity, I may not be as inclined to file a complaint with the State Bar. It was, and probably still is standard practice to prosecute a sexual assault based on eyewitness identitification alone.
"Again asking the same questions over and over after they have been answered."
The issue has not been addressed by any pro Nifonger, anonymous or otherwise.
Is it logical that a DA would go to extra expense to obtain evidence he would not use to incriminate a defendant? No is it not. Ergo, it is not credible to believe that Mr. Nifong obtained the evidence for any other reason other than to incriminate the defendants.
Ergo, it is not credible to believe that Mr. Nifong intended to make the case via eyewitness evidence.
It also raises questions why Mr. Nifong did not make the evidence known to the Defense in timely fashion. By law, he was required to do so.
I will keep bringing up the issues so long as pro Nifongers keep trying to dodge them.
When your false statements have been corrected over and over again, when you are shown to defensding a racist, when you deny that players stole money from Mangum even though Evans and others on the team admitted they did, and admitted it was racist and wrong fot the one players called her a nigger, not when it is proved by the justice system itself that the DNA evidence against Evans was inculpatory, everyone is crazy.
Dave Evans is wrong, The grand jury is wrong. The lacrosse players are wrong.
Everyone in the world is wrong except one person.
You.
How is this a dodge?
You don't have to BELIEVE he went forward with only eyewitness evidence.
He DID go forward with that. It is a fact. Not a belief.
He did not DNA test to incriminate. He tested to investigate.
He did not want to pin this on anyone. He wanted to see if he could collect evidence to support the eyewitness statement.
How is this a dodge.
The dodge is you applying false motivations to support your insane defense.
"If there was DNA evidence incriminating someone, the prosecutor would have used it in addition to the eyewitness statement."
If the DNA evidence was exculpatory(and it was in the Duke alleged rape case) then the DA was obligated by law to make that evidence known to the defense.
What is a definition of exculpatory evidence. According to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com, exculpatory means tending to absolve, tending to clear, tending to pardon, tending to prove guiltless, tending to prove not guilty, tending to set free, tending to vindicate.
In 2000 Mr. Nifong handled a rape case. He dropped charges against the defendant initially charged with the crime. DNA evidence recovered from the victim did not match the DNA from defendant. Did Mr. Nifong use DNA evidence in that case which was incriminating? Yes he did.
What Mr. Nifong said to the News and Observer was that the DNA evidence exonerated the defendant.
The DNA recovered from Ms. Mangum did not match any of the men indicted for the alleged crime. By Mr. Nifong's definition, those defendants were exonerated.
So, why was he justified in ignoring evidence which exonerated the defendants.
Such evidence, res ipsa loquitur, was exculpatory.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'If you are aware of the Solicitation policies at Duke, I would appreciate it if you could send me a link or reference.'
'Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission.'
This comes from the Duke University Office of Student Affairs.
You, by your own admission, did pass out business cards and ask people to visit your web site. How was this not 'request[ing] information or [not an attempt to] communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission.'
I think you have never claimed any affiliation with 'Duke University or its educational mission.'
Consider yourself informed.
Why did you not get yourself informed before you went to the event? You knew no more about Duke's solicitation policy than you did about the date of Mrs Evans statement to 60 Minutes.
Incidentally, I am not the individual who first asked you about Duke's policy on solicitation.
You should be careful about what you wish for.
The disbarment of Mike Nifong and his unjust treatment by the State Bar is subject matter which should be of interest and concern to law students in the United States, especially Duke. Duke wants to avoid the issue instead of entering into academic debate about it because it is well aware that Mr. Nifong was mistreated by the state and State Bar.
With regards to Duke's definition of solicitation that was given, it is as vague as they come. Who considers handing out business cards to be solicitation? Handing out business cards is not specifically mentioned under solicitation. Is asking someone to visit my website which concerns a legal issue considered to be solicitation by itself? Are Duke police going to eavesdrop and monitor the speech of everyone on campus looking for solicitation? I don't think so... it only discriminates against supporters of Mike Nifong.
"He DID go forward with that. It is a fact. Not a belief."
It would have been more correct to say he DID go forward when he had evidence which, by his own definition, exonerated the defendants.
"It is a fact that the grand jury indicted Evans [sic] that evidence. Therefore it most assuredly was inculpatory."
Please provide your source.
As you know, grand jury proceedings in NC are not public, and no record is kept of the proceedings.
Ben Himan was the only witness to appear before the grand jury that indicted Evans. Himan refused to discuss his testimony in his deposition.
An analysis of Himan's performance in this shoddy investigation causes one to reach the conclusion that Himan is utterly incompetent at best. As a result, I also ask that you provide evidence that Himan described the non-exclusion accurately.
"The disbarment of Mike Nifong ... [by]the State Bar is subject matter which should be of interest and concern to law students in the United States, especially Duke.
That part is something with which I agree. It is a graphic example of how not to comply with "acceptable standards" of ethical behavior for a prosecutor.
"He did not DNA test to incriminate. He tested to investigate."
Why would a prosecutor, whose obligation by law was to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, investigate for DNA evidence if not to get proof of the crime?
"He did not want to pin this on anyone. He wanted to see if he could collect evidence to support the eyewitness statement."
Ergo, he wanted to obtain evidence which would incriminate any one named by eyewitness statements as a perpetrator.
What Mr. Nifong did, via his investigation, was obtain no evidence to incriminate anyone and then prosecute anyway. He then tried to justify this misconduct by saying he was using eyewitness evidence.
If the DNA evidence did not support the eyewitness evidence, then how did Mr. Nifong know said eyewitness evidence established probable cause?
"It is res ipsa loquitur that evidence which does not exclude the innocence of a defendant does not establish the guilt of said defendant."
I'm impressed. You must be a first year law student.
Sidney said, "With regards to Duke's definition of solicitation that was given, it is as vague as they come. Who considers handing out business cards to be solicitation?"
Au contraire. Duke's policy, which you never knew until recently is clear, except to anyone who does not look at it.
Sidney asked, "Is asking someone to visit my website which concerns a legal issue considered to be solicitation by itself?"
I answer, Yes if you did not first if the individual did not want to hear of you web site.
"I'm impressed. You must be a first year law student."
One does not have to be a law student to recognize the term res ipsa loquitur.
One does not have to be a law student to recognize that a prosecutor's obligation by law is to prove guilt, that evidence which fails to establish guilt is meaningless to an honest prosecutor.
One does not have to be a law student to recognize an anonymous pro Nifonger who can come up with nothing but ad hominem comments.
"Sidney said, "Are Duke police going to eavesdrop and monitor the speech of everyone on campus looking for solicitation?"
If the police see someone handing out business cards and talking to people about visiting a web site, they are going to ask if the individual is aware of Duke's policy solicitation at public events.
Sidney obviously was not aware, which is why the Duke Police objected to it.
"I don't think so... it only discriminates against supporters of Mike Nifong."
Did any non Nifong supporter at the event try to hand out business cards or ask attendees to visit his web site?
I say a Duke Police officer can reasonably infer that a Nifong supporter who did so was soliciting.
"The dodge is you applying false motivations to support your insane defense."
I assure you that my motivation, to raise issues which no Nifong supporter, including Nifong Supporter himself, wants to confront, is genuine.
As a side effect, I can elicit meaningless ad hominem attacks from you Nifong supporters. You end up admitting you do not want to confront the issues
ROTFLOL
"It is res ipsa loquitur that evidence which does not exclude the innocence of a defendant does not establish the guilt of said defendant."
I'm impressed. You must be a first year law student."
What knowledge of the law have you demonstrated?
"One does not have to be a law student to recognize an anonymous pro Nifonger who can come up with nothing but ad hominem comments."
And your anonymous posting makes you a profile in courage?
"An analysis of Himan's performance in this shoddy investigation causes one to reach the conclusion that Himan is utterly incompetent at best."
Himan was young. And this was his first assignment as lead investigator.
He just made detective.
He also deferred to the more experienced Gottlieb.
Anonymous 8:34/9:37:
Nice try.
You asserted that the grand jury indicted Evans based on the DNA non-exclusion and therefore it must be inculpatory. I asked for evidence to support that assertion and that Himan described it accurately.
Himan's youth and inexperience is not relevant to the accuracy of his testimony.
Please provide the support for your assertion or retract it.
"He did not want to pin this on anyone. He wanted to see if he could collect evidence to support the eyewitness statement."
This is nonsense.
Why didn't Nifong ask the Durham Police to conduct a credible investigation to "collect evidence to support the eyewitness statement" as well?
I don't know who you think you're talking to but I'm agreeing with you.
Himan did shoddy work. He was young and he capitulated to Gottlieb. He was inexperienced. That's why he did not do competent work.
Why is everyone so paranoid on this board? Why does everyone attribute negative motivation to facts.
Why do you think I asserted anything?
Anonymous 11:49 asked:
"Why do you think I asserted anything?"
I directed my comment to the person who posted the following at 8:34:
"It is a fact that the grand jury indicted Evans [on] that evidence [the non-exclusion]. Therefore it most assuredly was inculpatory."
That is an assertion.
I asked how that commenter knew it as a "fact" that Himan discussed the non-exclusion, and, more importantly, discussed it accurately. If Himan described the non-exclusion as a match, for example, he would have misrepresented the facts. I do not believe that any conclusion is valid if the evidence was misrepresented.
8:34, please answer my question. How do you know as a "fact" that Evans was indicted on the basis of the non-exclusion?
Himan did shoddy work. He was young and he capitulated to Gottlieb. He was inexperienced. That's why he did not do competent work.
Why do you believe that the Durham Police assigned the investigation of one of the highest profile alleged crimes in its history to such a young, inexperienced and incompetent investigator (instead of, say, the sexual crimes investigation unit) and then, despite numerous warnings in the media that the investigation was fatally flawed, did not adequately supervise that investigation?
It seems that you are admitting that the DPD bears enormous blame for this fiasco. A failure to provide adequate training and supervision can lead to liability.
If I were Nifong, I would try to blame Gottlieb and Himan for providing bad information. Why should Nifong be the only scapegoat?
(Nifong would have to admit that he never read the discovery file and ignored the media coverage of the many flaws of the investigation, but claim that he relied entirely on Gottlieb and Himan for all of his information. He "believed" Mangum because Gottlieb and Himan said that she was credible. It's worth a try.)
Why is everyone so paranoid on this board? Why does everyone attribute negative motivation to facts.
Sorry. I believe that some people are frustrated because after more than 4 1/2 years, there has been no bona fide investigation of what went so horribly wrong in this fiasco. The federal, state and local governments have all abdicated their responsibility.
Let the discovery in the civil suits begin.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'I don't know what you consider selective reporting and deceptive.'
Try this:
In an earlier post you said you were handing out business cards and asking attendees at the event to visit the J$N web site.
In this post, which you have withdrawn, you claim you were just minding your business."
I will clarify the statement. I was leaving the event, walking and minding my business, when I was approached by the security guard. I did exchange business cards with a gentleman who asked me what I thought of the event. We spoke for several minutes and we exchanged business cards. Since when is giving a business card considered solicitation? Also, Duke tried to mislead and suggest that I was handing out my business card like flyers. Nothing could be further from the truth as I handed out about a half dozen only, and only to people with whom I had conversations.
The solicitation excuse was the best excuse they could come up with for harassing me, humiliating me, intimidating me, and nearly arresting me. What Duke was doing was discriminating against me because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong.
The assault against me was premeditated, without merit, and malicious.
"It seems that you are admitting that the DPD bears enormous blame for this fiasco."
I'm not just admitting it, I'm asserting it. In any big city no newbie would be assigned such a big case, maybe at first, but once it had gained national attention, Himan would have been pulled off.
It seems what I've read on this blog is that there are more anti-Nifong people on here. I'm certainly not pro-Nifong.
What I'm afraid of is that these civil suits won't go to court. The families want this all to go away. Most of these participants want distance on this.
The families want the money, but they don't want all this stuff to be drudged up.
I agree, we should be able to see more investigation into what happened not just a limited hearing of a non-court like the State Bar focusing on just a single prosecutor.
Duke would have a very hard time proving that the consensual exchange of business cards constitutes solicitation.
This one poster giving Sidney a hard time just doesn't like Sidney and won't give an inch. Even if it doesn't make sense.
And that's the problem with the us vs. them mentality.
Authoritarian powers that victimize people should be criticized whether that is a prosecutor, defense attorney, University, police dept. or State Bar.
Taking only one side and defending that one institution inevitably leads you into hypocrisy.
Anonymous 5:17:
The families do not appear to be those fighting discovery. I suspect that the defendants in the civil suits have far more to lose from additional disclosure.
Will we discover who dragged Crystal into the bathroom?
Anonymous said...
"Duke would have a very hard time proving that the consensual exchange of business cards constitutes solicitation.
This one poster giving Sidney a hard time just doesn't like Sidney and won't give an inch. Even if it doesn't make sense.
And that's the problem with the us vs. them mentality.
Authoritarian powers that victimize people should be criticized whether that is a prosecutor, defense attorney, University, police dept. or State Bar.
Taking only one side and defending that one institution inevitably leads you into hypocrisy."
The above comment is right on the mark and deserves repeating.
Collin wasn't in the party house during the time of the attack?
You better tell KC Johnson that.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Finnerty Timeline
"12.10am-12.20am: As Kim Roberts and Crystal Mangum went to the back of the house, Finnerty and several other members of the team milled around for a brief period in the living room. At no point during this period was Collin ever alone; several members of the team recalled seeing him leave through the front door. "
From Dr. Harr -- ""Taking only one side and defending that one institution inevitably leads you into hypocrisy."
The above comment is right on the mark and deserves repeating."
You truly have no concept of irony, do you? Here's a little hint -- Replace "that one institution" with "Mike Nifong".
Collin is milling about the living room of the lacrosse party house
while twenty feet away the victim is being robbed and attacked in the bathroom.
No wonder he needed to spend $5 million on Wade Smith.
This was a response to anonymous asserting strongly Finnerty was not in the house during the attack.
KC Johnson says he was.
Dr. Harr has criticized other prosecutors and DA offices He does not defend DA offices across the board nor does he always defend the police or Duke University across the board.
He does not defend a single institution under all circumstances.
He takes his position on each individual case.
In this case he believes the DA's office acted correctly.
Milling about the living room.
Where were Reade and Dave milling about?
DeHall said "From Dr. Harr -- ""Taking only one side and defending that one institution inevitably leads you into hypocrisy."
The above comment is right on the mark and deserves repeating."
You truly have no concept of irony, do you? Here's a little hint -- Replace "that one institution" with "Mike Nifong".
According to the Webster dictionary, Michael Nifong is not an institution.
However, the State Bar is an institution. The Attorney General's office is an institution.
The State Bar never disbarred a single prosecutor in their entire history except for the individual Michael Nifong for a case that never went to trial.
While many other prosecutors put innocent people in jail for many years, prosecutors who absolutely and intentionally hid evidence from defendants and sent innocent people to long sentence terms.
Blindly defending this institution of the State Bar in all circumstances leads one to hypocrisy.
Blindly defending the Attorney General's office who not only did not call these other prosecutors rogue prosecutors but protected them from the State Bar and other other inquiries also leads you to hypocrisy.
Yeah, that's what the lacrosse players were doing, milling about, whistling a tune, just being relaxed, taking a yoga class, drinking for 10 hours straight, milling about, telling a dancer she could f--k herself with a broom, stealing money from a dancer's purse, just being, you know, cool, screaming names at them, just milling about, you know being cool...
What's the big deal, man, they were just milling about...
"Colin and Reade were in the party
house at the time of the attack upon
Ms. Mangum. That is a fact."
Uh...no. There was no attack. THAT is a fact. Where Seligman and Finnerty were at the time of a NON-EVENT is, of course, of no interest to anyone. Now, where they were at the time that Nifong would have tried to prove that had access to Mangum IS of interest. They weren't at the house at any such time. THAT is also a FACT.
"Several partygoers sported quite
noticeable facial hair, which could
easily be described as mustaches.
That is a fact."
A mustache is a mustache. It is not subject to "interpretation."
Perhaps you are simply a black racist for whom all white people with facial hair look alike, and look like they have mustaches?
"Peter and Ryan took money from Ms. Mangum's bag in the bathroom.
That is a fact."
Prove it.
"Furthermore, not all rapist leave DNA semen evidence. In the Duke Lacrosse case, the DNA specimens tested by the outside lab were fragmented, and suggested that they were not recently deposited in the accuser. So the fact that they did not match with the defendants or any of the lacrosse partygoers is to be expected."
As it is "to be expected" that if Mangum spit semen on the floor as she said she did then THESE PARTICULAR RAPISTS (not some generic rapists from some hypothetical historic/present/future fact pattern that Sidney can conjure) would have left "recently deposited" semen which Brian Meehan or the SBI lab would have found. Since they didn't find such material, but only older male DNA material, that fact was definitely exculpatory.
"Two lacrosse players took money from Crystal Mangum's purse. They robbed her.
The police found much of the money when they came in with a search warrant. Dave Evans told them who took the money from her purse.
Danny Flannery had shoved some of this money under the door to the dancers when they were in the bathroom.
They also found her purse, one shoe, her cell phone as well as her money. Evans admitted they were all the property of Mangum."
Prove it. Also, prove that the shoe, cell phone and money was not just left behind by Mangum due to her self-inflicted chemical impairment.
"You're right, no matter what these players do, they are always right.
They are perfect little angels."
No, but in the lacrosse hoax the players were right. It obviously galls the hell out of you, doesn't it?
It must be terribly difficult for you to confront a reality that doesn't fit your prejudices.
For a while there, it looked like the robo-spammer was having a meltdown.
No such luck.
We have probable cause.
Relax, you beat the rap.
"He tested the rape kit as any good prosecutor would have done when a woman and a hospital says she was raped."
Well....no, not exactly. He tested the kit at SBI and then it came back negative. That's where a "good prosecutor" would have stopped. Problem is, he decided he needed 3 men to indict and he only had 2 identified sufficiently. So he had to go hunting for more evidence. Hence, the referral to Brian Meehan.
"We have probable cause.
Relax, you beat the rap."
Since you're awake and have the energy to be snarky, maybe you have the energy to explain ejaculation, expectoration and no DNA?
Sidney has been unable to explain it since January.
The point I attempted to make (obviously poorly) is that in his attempts to cast Mike Nifong in a positive light, Dr. Harr has made a number of hypocritical statements. He has made statements here that I am sure Mike Nifong himself would disagree with, or has pubicly stated otherwise.
Let's be honest here -- Mike Nifong is neither the lionized "Minister of Justice" that Dr. Harr continually makes him out to be, nor is he the bumbling DA looking . to extend his retirement pension that others have cast him. The truth is most likely somewhere between.
Uh... no comment, huh?
Didn't think so. Better change the subject now. What will your point be this time? But...but..the nasty white people said mean things to the dancers. Mean, unforgivable things. Or maybe...the players took Mangum's money. Something REALLY important like that stuff. Yea, that's the ticket!
"Yeah, that's what the lacrosse players were doing, milling about, whistling a tune, just being relaxed, taking a yoga class, drinking for 10 hours straight, milling about, telling a dancer she could f--k herself with a broom, stealing money from a dancer's purse, just being, you know, cool, screaming names at them, just milling about, you know being cool...
What's the big deal, man, they were just milling about..."
What they did not do was perpetrate a gang rape upon Ms. Mangum.
The topic here is ejaculation, expectoration and the lack of player DNA in Mangum's mouth and the lack of Mangum DNA evidence on the floor of any bathroom at 610 N. Buchanan.
Which is why you want to change the topic, right?
"Peter and Ryan took money from Ms. Mangum's bag in the bathroom.
That is a fact."
Some other anonymous pro Nifonger said it was Reade and Colin who took the money.
Or at least he said that Jim Cooney said that Reade and Colin said that they had taken the money.
Oh, by the way do you notice how Sidney is using the term "sexual assault" instead of rape? Does that make you feel better Sidney? That way, you can continue to argue that you've never said the players were rapists - even though the acts that Magnum identified in her hand written witness statement - included rape. That way, you can continue to ignore the ejaculation/expectoration problem you said you'd address last January, right?
Anonymous said, "Two lacrosse players took money from Crystal Mangum's purse. They robbed her.
The police found much of the money when they came in with a search warrant. Dave Evans told them who took the money from her purse.
Danny Flannery had shoved some of this money under the door to the dancers when they were in the bathroom.
They also found her purse, one shoe, her cell phone as well as her money. Evans admitted they were all the property of Mangum."
Prove it. "
Dave Evans police statement, Zash's police statement, Flannery's police statement. Himan's police report about what they found during the search warrant. Joe Cheshire's statements. Brad Bannon's statments. Should I go on? The DA's statements. More? Oops, I'm boring myself with documented references to support my statement.
What I don't understand, is how this poster can have such an aggressively certain attitude and know so little about the case.
Oh, wait, maybe he only read Stuart Taylor's book.
"Well this explains why Ms. Mangum allegedly gave varying accounts of her attack in the bathroom by the "attendees" of the stripper party."
That Ms. Mangum gave varying accounts of what happened to her it is res ipsa loquitur she could not give credible eyewitness testimony.
The question then becomes, why did the DA try to make his case based on her eyewitness testimony.
There was no other eyewitness testimony given, except testimony by Lacrosse players that nothing happened, and Mr. Nifong did not want to hear that.
Incidentally, Anonymous pro Nifonger ought to check out Ed Bradley's interview of Kim Roberts from October of 2006.
Ms. Roberts does not say that the party was the out of control orgy Sidney has described. She admits she provoked the one exchange of racial epithets at the party. She says that she never heard Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty or David Evans direct any racial slurs at the dancers.
"Dave Evans police statement, Zash's police statement, Flannery's police statement. Himan's police report about what they found during the search warrant. Joe Cheshire's statements. Brad Bannon's statments. Should I go on? The DA's statements. More? Oops, I'm boring myself with documented references to support my statement.
What I don't understand, is how this poster can have such an aggressively certain attitude and know so little about the case.
Oh, wait, maybe he only read Stuart Taylor's book."
What did you read? What do you know about the case? Are you going to tell or will you pull a kilgo?
"Oh, by the way do you notice how Sidney is using the term "sexual assault" instead of rape? Does that make you feel better Sidney? That way, you can continue to argue that you've never said the players were rapists - even though the acts that Magnum identified in her hand written witness statement - included rape. That way, you can continue to ignore the ejaculation/expectoration problem you said you'd address last January, right?"
I guess Sidney keeps himself unaware that what Ms. Mangum described was a rape, that what Mr. Nifong alleged in his inflammatory unethical pre indictment statements was a rape, that what the Duke Defendants were indicted for and charged with was a rape.
Does anonymous Pro Nifonger dispute this?
This person knows nothing. It's a troll.
If it knew something it would post quotes from the alleged witness statements.
Besides, since it's fixated on Mangum's purse its show itself to have no sense of priorities whatsoever.
"For a while there, it looked like the robo-spammer was having a meltdown.
No such luck."
RUN KILGO RUN
DUCK KILGO DUCK
DECOMPENSATE KILGO DECOMPENSATE
and now
MELT DOWN KILGO MELT DOWN
"He tested the rape kit as any good prosecutor would have done when a woman and a hospital says she was raped."
Well....no, not exactly. He tested the kit at SBI and then it came back negative. That's where a "good prosecutor" would have stopped."
We went through this before. Pay attention.
The SBI lab suggested that the DA go to an outside lab. THE SBI LAB.
That's the STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. You know? That organization?
THEY recommended that the DA's office go to an outside lab. Because the instruments at SBI were not sophisticated enough to separate the strands in the FINGERNAILS.
Not the rape kit. They went for the FINGERNAILS.
I feel like I have to cap things for a 3rd grade reader.
It was NOT Nifong's decision to go to an outside lab.
Oh right, he's the anti-christ so he did every single thing in this case. He was a rogue who acted completely alone. Right.
"For a while there, it looked like the robo-spammer was having a meltdown.
No such luck."
What's interesting about this robo-spammer is he wakes up in the morning and completely forgets everything that has happened in the past. Like the movie Memento.
He re-sets and then just programs the same BS over and over again. Robo-spammer type. Robo-spammer type good.
DeHall said..."The point I attempted to make (obviously poorly) is that in his attempts to cast Mike Nifong in a positive light, Dr. Harr has made a number of hypocritical statements. He has made statements here that I am sure Mike Nifong himself would disagree with, or has pubicly stated otherwise.
Let's be honest here -- Mike Nifong is neither the lionized "Minister of Justice" that Dr. Harr continually makes him out to be, nor is he the bumbling DA looking . to extend his retirement pension that others have cast him. The truth is most likely somewhere between."
I agree.
Dave Evans police statement is available at http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/838.
Where in that statement does David Evans say any Lacrosse player took money from Ms. Mangum's purse.
David Evans did say that Ryan Macfayden(sp?) wanted to take the money from Ms. Mangum's purse because she had not performed for two hours. David Evans cautioned him not to do so.
David Evans said Peter had told him he had taken the money but that he did not know for sure whether or not Peter had actually done that.
David Evans said after "the black girl" left he heard loud knocking on the back door and the black girl yelling, "F--k You".
No, the SBI didn't put any idea in Nifong's head about further testing. Nifong was dissatisfied that SBI couldn't find semen in the rape kit and couldn't connect any player to the victim in any way. So he went on a wild goose chase to see if he could some evidence somewhere to indict a 3rd guy.
"On Nifong's orders, DNA Security had subsequently obtained the same fingernail DNA mixture from the state lab..." UPI
Nifong had to decided he wanted to spend the money on this wild goose chase. It certainly wasn't the SBI's doing. Not that the SBI is any paragon of virtue. (I better be careful, or you'll accuse me of calling the SBI the anti-Christ.)
Anyhow,if you're so much smarter than a 3rd grader, explain why we needed YSTR testing in the first place when semen would have been found in Mangum's mouth if she spit it out.
Perhaps capitalizing might help me? Like :MAGIC SPIT, maybe?
All I could find in David Evans' statement was that Ryan wanted to take the money and that Peter had said he had taken the money.
Anonymous @ October 18, 2010 10:16 AM, I ask again, what did you read.
"
The SBI lab suggested that the DA go to an outside lab. THE SBI LAB.
That's the STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. You know? That organization?
THEY recommended that the DA's office go to an outside lab. Because the instruments at SBI were not sophisticated enough to separate the strands in the FINGERNAILS.
Not the rape kit. They went for the FINGERNAILS.
I feel like I have to cap things for a 3rd grade"
Please explain then to us third graders why DNA Security tested for male DNA on the rape kit materials.
Please explain why DNA Security said the fingernail DNA did not match David Evans" DNA. Compatible is not a match. Our DNA is 98% compatible with a chimpanzee's DNA.
Please explain why Brian Meehan said that David Evans was excluded with 100% certainty as a source for the DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person.
Dan Flannery's statement is at http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/839
Where does Dan Flannery accuse Peter and Ryan of taking money from Ms. Mangum?
What's interesting about this robo-spammer is he wakes up in the morning and completely forgets everything that has happened in the past. Like the movie Memento.
He re-sets and then just programs the same BS over and over again. Robo-spammer type. Robo-spammer type good."
What is interesting is that anonymous Pro Nifonger can never come up with anything more than an ad hominem comment even after being exposed to the same postings day after day.
"...Mike Nifong is neither the lionized "Minister of Justice" that Dr. Harr continually makes him out to be, nor is he the bumbling DA looking . to extend his retirement pension..."
He sure looks like a rogue DA who deliberately prosecuted innocent men without probable cause, whatever the reason.
"Please explain why DNA Security said the fingernail DNA did not match David Evans" DNA."
DNA Security did not ever say the fingernail DNA did not match Dave Evans.
That's another false statement.
Even Joe Cheshire, Evans' lawyer, conceded that the fingernail DNA was probably Dave Evans.
No player matched on the RAPE KIT. Get it straight.
Jesus Christ.
What a waste of time.
SBI sent the rape kit over as a mistake. Instead of the FINGERNAILS. They sent the RAPE KIT by mistake.
Since the rape kit was sent over by SBI, Meehan tested it.
When Nifong, Himan and Gottlieb went over to DNA Security for a talk, they were expecting to see if there was a match on the FINGERNAILS. (recommended to test by SBI).
Meehan gave them results on the RAPE KIT.
Nifong was furious that SBI sent over the wrong material. (especially since SBI was the one who recommended it).
To blame Nifong for deciding to send over the rape kit for further testing is insane.
To my comment of October 18, 2010 10:58 AM I add:
I do acknowledge that anonymous pro Nifonger comes up with different ad hominem comments each time.
It is fascinating that the issues I raise cause him/her/them/whoever such varying discomfort.
"Please explain why DNA Security said the fingernail DNA did not match David Evans" DNA. Compatible is not a match. Our DNA is 98% compatible with a chimpanzee's DNA."
Please explain why Roy Cooper asked Meehan to retest the fingernail mixture, which he did, and found the match to David Evans at 99.9% ? ? ?
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
Just in case you missed that.
By the way, you won't get that information in the Stuart Taylor/KC Johnson book.
They know that happened. But they won't print it.
It goes against their agenda.
"I do acknowledge that anonymous pro Nifonger comes up with different ad hominem comments each time.
It is fascinating that the issues I raise cause him/her/them/whoever such varying discomfort."
Bullying ignorance usually causes me discomfort.
Ipso fatso. Ad hominy grits. Amen.
""Please explain why DNA Security said the fingernail DNA did not match David Evans" DNA."
DNA Security did not ever say the fingernail DNA did not match Dave Evans.
That's another false statement."
DNA Security said the Fingeernail DNA was consistent with David Evans' DNA. For it to be a match, the chance of it not being David Evans' DNA had to be one chance in a million. The chance that the Fingernail was not David Evans' DNA was several orders of magnitude greater than that. If Mr. Nifong claimed in court that this was a match, Mr. Meehan's statement would have impeached that.
No anonymous pro nifonger has ever explained why Mr. Evans' DNA was never found on Ms. Mangum's rape kit.
Has any anonymous pro Nifonger ever written anything about DNA matchung?
"Bullying ignorance usually causes me discomfort."
I think it is your ignorance of the legal system and of the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape that is causing your discomfort.
To my comment at October 18, 2010 11:19 AM I add a correction.
I should have asked, Has any pro Nifonger ever read anything about DNA testing?
"Bullying ignorance usually causes me discomfort."
This is yet another example of anonymous Pro Nifonger responding with an ad hominem comment.
"By the way, you won't get that information in the Stuart Taylor/KC Johnson book.
They know that happened. But they won't print it."
What information?
Some anonymous commenter to DIW alleged that "Stuart Taylor/KC Johnson" had information about the David Evans arrest. When challenged to reveal the information this anonymous pro Nifonger ran away.
This comment shows that this anonymous Pro Nifonger, whoever he/she/they might be does not know much about the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape.
""Please explain why DNA Security said the fingernail DNA did not match David Evans" DNA."
That's a false statement.
This is how you spin things. And then when confronted with this inaccuracy you spin some more. This is your MO.
Evans could not be excluded. For all practical purposes it was his DNA. It would not be impeached in court. That's foolish. The defense would admit that it's his DNA but got on the fingernails by being in the waste basket.
At least make the right defensive argument for christ sake. This is why you don't help the players. You make the wrong arguments.
Unbelievable.
"I feel like I have to cap things for a 3rd grade".
Were you ever educated beyond the fourth grade level. That would enable you to "cap things" for people at a higher level than the third grade.
Most of us have an education far beyond the fourth grade. Is that why you can not comprehend what we say?
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
Just in case you missed that.
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
Just in case you missed that.
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
Just in case you missed that.
Anonymous said, "What information?"
The information that SBI sent over the rape kit instead of the fingernail material.
You won't find that in UPI.
Do you have ADD? Read your own posts.
""Please explain why DNA Security said the fingernail DNA did not match David Evans" DNA."
I say again, DNA security did not call the fingernail DNA a "match" but consistent with. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about genetics and DNA would understand why "consistent" is not a match.
"Anonymous said, "What information?"
The information that SBI sent over the rape kit instead of the fingernail material.
You won't find that in UPI.
Do you have ADD? Read your own posts."
So I ask again, why did DNA security test the rape kit for DNA?
Why would Mr. Nifong not request rape kit testing after the fingernail DNA came back as "consiostent with", instead of "match"? That evidence would not corroborate any eyewitness information that Ms. Mangum had been raped. Some anonymous pro Nifonger said that Mr. Nifong got the forensic testing because he wanted information which would corroborate the accuser's eye witness testimony.
"99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
Just in case you missed that.
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
Just in case you missed that.
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
Just in case you missed that.
I suggest again you read something about DNA testing. To be a match the DNA samples have to match to something like 9999999.9% certainty. That is roughly more than 1000 times more than 99.9.
Anonymous said...
"'Oh, by the way do you notice how Sidney is using the term "sexual assault" instead of rape? Does that make you feel better Sidney? That way, you can continue to argue that you've never said the players were rapists - even though the acts that Magnum identified in her hand written witness statement - included rape. That way, you can continue to ignore the ejaculation/expectoration problem you said you'd address last January, right?'
I guess Sidney keeps himself unaware that what Ms. Mangum described was a rape, that what Mr. Nifong alleged in his inflammatory unethical pre indictment statements was a rape, that what the Duke Defendants were indicted for and charged with was a rape.
Does anonymous Pro Nifonger dispute this?"
When I use the term "sexual assault," I refer to any physical assault that is sexual in nature, and rape would not necessarily be excluded. I am unaware a a legal definition of "sexual assault" excluding the commission of a rape.
Be aware that when Mr. Nifong determined that the assault did not meet standards to support the rape charge, he acted like a "Minister of Justice" and dropped the charge. This is refreshingly different from the many "win-at-all-costs" prosecutors who proceed with prosecutions despite evidence to the contrary.
To my last comment I add, the 99.9% compatibility was between not only David Evans but also between thousands of other men in Durham County. It would not meet any standard of an exclusive match.
Read something about DNA matching
"When I use the term "sexual assault," I refer to any physical assault that is sexual in nature, and rape would not necessarily be excluded."
I say again, what was alleged was first degree rape. What was described was a first degree rape, the perpetrators of which could not have avoided leaving evidence. There was no evidence.
How does that justify declaring that a crime had happened which left no evidence and then changing the charge(which is what Mr. Nifong DID do).
You need evidence before declaring at any stage that a crime had happened.
"Be aware that when Mr. Nifong determined that the assault did not meet standards to support the rape charge, he acted like a "Minister of Justice" and dropped the charge. This is refreshingly different from the many "win-at-all-costs" prosecutors who proceed with prosecutions despite evidence to the contrary."
Mr. Nifong should have known at the start of the case that he could not make the case for rape. There was evidence neither of a crime nor was there any evidence that any Lacrosse player had perpetrated alleged said crime(anonymous pro Nifonger I am repeating. Can you come up with any incriminating evidence instead of another ad hominem attack?). That does not say a crime happened but that no evidence was left. It says no crime happened.
This was a win at all cost move by Mr. Nifong. This was an attempt to go forward with prosecuting innocent men while excluding exculpatory evidence.
An ethical prosecutor would not have prosecuted such a case.
"Evans could not be excluded. For all practical purposes it was his DNA."
With a 99.9% match neither David Evans nor thousands of other men could have been excluded as a source. For all practical purposes, that was not an exclusive match. It would not have met legal criteria for an exclusive match. Read something about DNA testing.
I suggest you also read something about the legal system, presumption of innocence and the obligation of the prosecutor to prove the case to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Here is another repetition of something to which anonymous pro Nifonger can not respond except with an ad hominem attack.
That evidence does not exclude a defendant as a perpetrator is legally meaningless. To make his case, the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond any and all reasonable doubt. Failing to exclude a defendant as a perpetrator does not prove he is a perpetrator, unless, maybe, like an exclusive DNA match, the prosecutor can exclude everyone else to the level of 999999.9%
Something else anonymous pro Nifonger does not seem to realize is that the defendant in a criminal case is not obligated to prove himself innocent. I say again, the prosecutor is the only side in a criminal trial required to prove anything.
999999.9%
Please take a math class.
"The defense would admit that it's his DNA but got on the fingernails by being in the waste basket."
Not that I would want to but I could shake Ms. Mangum's hand and my DNA would be all over her hand. That would not be evidence of a sexual assault, rape or otherwise.
If you had really read the statements of David Evans and Dan Flannery, you would have read that Ms. Mangum got very angry at the party. How could the prosecution establish beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault by Ms. Mangum on David Evans was not the reason the compatible but not matching DNA was found on the fingernail?
I again suggest you read something about the obligation of the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. How could a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a sexual assault was the reason that DNA compatible with but not matching David Evans' DNA was on the fingernail.
How many of the thousands of other men with compatible DNA in Durham county did Ms. Mangum touch before the party?
"999999.9%
Please take a math class."
I have taken several.
You find out what is an exclusive DNA match by reading about DNA matching, not by taking math classes.
How many math classes have you taken?
"...win-at-all-costs" prosecutors...proceed with prosecutions despite evidence to the contrary."
Sidney, you yourself admit that Mr. Nifong proceeded with a RAPE prosecution in spite of "evidence to the contrary".
Mr. Nifong did not drop the rape charge until December of 2006, roughly eight months after he had the Lacrosse defendants indicted and charged. That is EIGHT MONTHS in which he prosecuted them for RAPE without having any evidence of a rape.
Mr. Nifong admitted before the prosecution he was prosecuting without evidence, via his statement to the testing of the rape kit revealed only that a crime had occurred which had left no evidence.
Anonymous @ October 18, 2010 11:30 AM
If you care to do so, you could divide 999999.9 by 99.9 by calculator and get the result 1000.
OOPS! I was wrong. The result would be more like 10,000.
Good bye for now. Time for more ROTFLOL over the discomfiture of Anonymous pro Nifonger. Will be back soon.
ROBOSPAMMER!!! IS COMING!!!
RUN KILGO RUN
DUCK KILGO DUCK
DECOMPENSATE KILGO DECOMPENSATE
MELT DOWN KILGO MELT DOWN
Incidentally, you shoul learn to spell ad hominem
Post a Comment