Beginning with this blog, you will notice the continuation of new and exciting changes to the official website and blogsite of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. Not long ago, the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong acquired its own Facebook page. Now, the “Justice4Nifong” video page can be found on You Tube. This is another forum under which our group can better serve the public by informing it about relevant news and features.
One of the most exciting is news about the upcoming educational comic strip, “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper. An animated video, which can be accessed through You Tube, or directly from this blog (see below) gives a preview of the upcoming comic strip’s “Episode V: Super Heroes Smackdown – Initial Encounter.” More trailers about the comic strip will be forthcoming. This episode, which is larger than the previous four combined, has been in production for more than a year, and although not completely finished at the time of this posting, it should be completed by its due date. As with other episodes, one part will be posted each Sunday.
Visitors to the website will notice many improvements and changes for the better. As our opening page had become cluttered due to the large and growing membership, the menu page has been significantly rearranged to better accommodate the display. Navigation through the site will continue to be as easy, if not easier than before.
Uploading and transferring pages into the new format will take time, and all links may not be functionally complete right away. I ask your patience as the transition to the new website is undertaken. The site will not be offline as work progresses, just be aware that all pages may not be accessible for up to a week from today.
Another recent feature that is now available is a subscription to the blog which is free of charge. And for convenience, individuals with a Kindle account on Amazon can subscribe as well, but there will be a nominal fee for this service.
Although we are focused on the state’s criminal justice system, its cases, and in particular the injustice towards Mike Nifong, and the Duke Lacrosse case, we will keep abreast of technology and strive to give viewers information conducive to today’s fast-paced lifestyle. As always we invite suggestions on ways we can better serve you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Sidney talks about "injustice towards Mike Nifong..."
What injustice done to Mike Nifong. What brought him afoul of the North Carolina was his blatantly wrongful prosecution of three innocent men.
Sidney says, "we are focused on... the Duke Lacrosse case"
He has been focused on publishing undocumented allegations about the innocent Duke Lacrosse Defendants and ridiculous, untenable claims about why Mr. Nifong was prosecuted for his misconduct.
The lover boys on the Duke men's lacrosse team
are at the center of another sex scandal.
It doesn't take much to drop these guys pants.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney talks about 'injustice towards Mike Nifong...'
What injustice done to Mike Nifong. What brought him afoul of the North Carolina was his blatantly wrongful prosecution of three innocent men."
First and foremost, it has never been proven that the prosecution of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants was "wrong." Under the Attorney General the prosecution was dismissed. Furthermore, Mr. Cooper does not have the authority or legal right to proclaim "innocence" or "guilt."
Sidney claims, "First and foremost, it has never been proven that the prosecution of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants was "wrong."
Sidney himself admits there was no evidence that a rape ever happened or that any Lacrosse player was involved in said alleged rape.
Sidney, however, tries to dodge this by claiming Mr. Nifong prosecuted them for sexual assault and did not have to prove rape. Sidney also tries to dodge certain facts, that Mr. Nifong himself proclaimed that members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated rape, that Mr. Nifong himself had three of them indicted for rape. Sidney has disssociated himself from the reality of this case a long time ago.
Mr. Nifong prosecuted three innocent men without any proof of a crime, without any evidence to incriminate them. By any definition, except Sidney's, that is wrongful prosecution.
Maybe it has not been proven in court. That is only because Mr. Nifong has been ducking the lawsuits against him instead of defending himself.
"The lover boys on the Duke men's lacrosse team are at the center of another sex scandal. It doesn't take much to drop these guys pants."
It doesn't take much for some Nifong lover to blame the girl's actions on the Lacrosse team.
Sidney,
Please tell us what justified Mr. Nifong prosecuting the Lacrosse Defendants. Have you anything new except that Ms. Mangum alleged a crime or that she identified three men as her assailants or that you believe the team had a bad reputation.
Why, in her 911 call early in the AM of 3/14/2006 did Kim Pittman/Roberts NOT report a rape?
Why did Kim Pittman early in the AM of 3/14/2006 have the police summoned not to report a rape but to have them remove Ms. Mangum from her car.
It is a fact that Ms. Mangum herself did not claim rape until someone at a detox center asked her if she had been raped. Then, her word, which Mr. Nifong never got for himself until 9 months after the allegation wavered between, Yes I was and, No I wasn't.
Ms. Mangum's id of the three defendants was not reliable, considering the circumstances already cited in this blog.
Finally, even though Mr. Nifong himself believed there was incriminating evidence on the rape kit, THERE WAS NONE!!!
So tell us, Sidney, how was Mr. Nifong justified in prosecuting these men.
Sidney says, "Furthermore, Mr. Cooper does not have the authority or legal right to proclaim 'innocence' or 'guilt.'"
Sidney, by what authority do you proclaim Mr. Nifong was disbarred because of a "Carpetbagger Jihad"?
I say again, if you had bothered to review Mr. Cooper's statement, he did not proclaim anything. He stated, he and his investigators had investigated the case, as developed by Mr. Nifong, I might add, and concluded that no crime had happened, that the defendants were innocent. Are you saying the Attorney General has no right to express an opinion. Isn't that a violation of Mr. Cooper's right to free speech?
Mr. Cooper stated among other things, there was no evidence to corroborate a crime, no witnesses to corroborate a crime. Why don't you tell us what did corroborate the crime.
Saying the team maintained a wall of silence, claiming Mr. Cooper has sealed the evidence Mr. Nifong had, is ducking the issue, not addressing it.
"The lover boys on the Duke men's lacrosse team are at the center of another sex scandal."
What other ad hominem attacks are you going to launch against the Lacrosse team and, thereby, admit you can not defend the wrongful prosecution of the three Defendants.
Sidney
Dispense all the unsupported allegations you want.
People like KC Johnson, Stuart Taylor and Robert Mosteller have documented that Mr. Nifong carried on a wrongful prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. You have documented nothing. You have made assertions which are not at all supported by the historical record facts. You have no credibility. Your lack of credibility affects what you say about other cases.
Do you cite other cases because you are really interested in justice? Would you have any interest in other cases if not for your hostility towards the Duke defendants? Or do you cite other cases hoping to divert attention away from your unsupported allegations about the Duke alleged rape case?
Mr. Nifong would have been negligent had he not went forward with the prosecution based on the accuser's testimony and eyewitness certainty. Keep in mind that the Duke Lacrosse team had a well deserved reputation of having raucous parties, and degrading behavior. The president of Duke University even had to implore the lacrosse coach to rein in his players. A third of the team had documented run-ins with the law, usually involving alcohol. And it cannot be disputed that the partygoers hurled epithets at the black dancers, including the "n-word."
Mr. Nifong had more cause to pursue prosecution than Bill Wolfe had to pursue a first degree murder charge against James Arthur Johnson. Mr. Nifong had more cause to purse a Duke lacrosse prosecution than Tom Ford had in going after Gregory Taylor.
Now, let's delve into an offshoot of the Gregory Taylor case. Looks like SBI Agent Duane Deaver has been designated as the one to fall on his sword and except blame for the horrific tragedy that befell Mr. Taylor. With the media going along in order to protect the misconduct of prosecutor Tom Ford.
Sidney said, "Keep in mind that the Duke Lacrosse team had a well deserved reputation of having raucous parties, and degrading behavior. The president of Duke University even had to implore the lacrosse coach to rein in his players."
Sidney, that is another of your unsupported allegations.
Sidney says, "Mr. Nifong had more cause to pursue prosecution than Bill Wolfe had to pursue a first degree murder charge against James Arthur Johnson."
Sidney, Mike Nifong had no cause to pursue any prosecution against any Lacrosse player. There was no hard evidence that a rape ever occurred. There was no hard evidence of any intimate contact, forced or otherwise, between any Lacosse player and Ms. Mangum. There were no witnesses. Ms. Mangum's identifications were not reliable. There was no medical evidence. Sidney did not even know what Ms. Mangum's word was, when he sought indictments.
In spite of what Josef Goebbels claimed, you can not nullify the truth by repeating false beliefs,
Sidney says, "Mr. Nifong would have been negligent had he not went forward with the prosecution based on the accuser's testimony and eyewitness certainty."
How do you reconcile this unsupported allegation with the following facts?
Mr. Nifong never had the accuser's testimonmy when he sought indictments. By his own admission, in October of 2006, neither he nor anyone from his offiuce had interviewed Ms. Mangum. He never interviewed Ms. Mangum until Deecember of 2006.
When first questioned by thee police, Ms. Mangum did not describe Colin Finnerty as an assailant.
At two previous views of Lacrosse team photos, Ms. Mangum could identify neither David Evans nor Reade Seligman as an assailant.
Although she did identify Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty with 100% certainty, she also identiufied Brad Ross with 100% certainty as having been at the partywhen he was not.
Neither Colin Finnerty nor Reade Seligman were present at the party at the time of the alleged crime.
Ms. Mangum said her third assailant had a mustache. David Evans, who was indicted, never had a mustache.
Fianlly, Mr. Nifong could not corroborate with hard evidence that a crime had ever happened. I say again, you yourself have admitted this.
Where was the probable cause?
How is it negligent not to proceed with a prosecution when the prosecutor has no probable cause to proceed?
Sidney says, "And it cannot be disputed that the partygoers hurled epithets at the black dancers, including the "n-word."
Yes it can be disputed that "the partygoers hurled epithets at the black dancers". I refer you to page 29 of Until Proven Innocent, which one of your Nifong supporters cited as an accurate description of what happened.
There was one exchange of epithets in which Kim Roberts/Pittman was called n-----. Ms Roberts/Pittman admitted she provoked the exchange.
There was one other use of n----- in connection with 610 North Buchanan. At 12:53 AM, when the house was empty, Ms. Pittman/Roberts called 911 and falsely reported that people in the house had called her and her girlfriend n-----.
Ms. Mangum was in Ms. Pittman's/Roberts' car at the time. Ms. Pittman did not report a rape. She did not even report that she and her "girlfriend" were even in the house.
Is it logical she would not report a rape if there had been one? No. If that is not logical, then it is not credible to believe a rape took place.
Sidney, it is now a rare occurrence that any of your Nifong Supporters come to your support.
ha ha ha ha . . .
In spite of what Josef Goebbels claimed, you can not nullify the truth by repeating false beliefs,
ha ha ha ha
"Neither Colin Finnerty nor Reade Seligman were present at the party at the time of the alleged crime."
Did Roy Cooper ever confirm this?
"Neither Colin Finnerty nor Reade Seligman were present at the party at the time of the alleged crime."
Did Roy Cooper ever confirm this?"
Mr. Seligman's activities at the time of the alleged rape are a matter of public record, confirmed by cell phone records, surveillance photographs at an ATM, the statement of cab driver Moez Elmostafa. He was not at the party at the time of the alleged rape.
Neither was Mr. Finnerty, who had left the party to get something to eat.
Mr. Nifong could have confirmed this for himself had he been willing to consider exculpatory evidence. He was not.
In any event, Mr. Cooper did confirm that no crime had happened and that the men accused of this non existent crime were innocent.
Anonymous @ October 11, 2010 9:24 PM who said, "'Neither Colin Finnerty nor Reade Seligman were present at the party at the time of the alleged crime.'
Did Roy Cooper ever confirm this?"
Here are some thoughts for you. I apologize for any repetitiveness.
The alleged crime was a crime in which the perpetrators would have left evidence and would have left DNA. Forensic testing revealed no evidence of the crime, no DNA from anyone Mr. Nifong had named as suspects. Did Mr. Nifong confirm the occurrence of a crime before he indicted anyone? No he did not.
Ms. Mangum could not initially describe Colin Finnerty as an assailant. Before the April 4 session, on two previous occasions, Ms. Mangum could not identify either David Evans or Reade Seligman as one of her assailants. She did identify Brad Ross with 100% certainty as having attended the party when he in fact did not. Did Ms. Mangum confirm her credibility as a witness? No she did not. Did Mr. Nifong seek indictments anyway? Yes he did.
After Mr. Elmostafa was charged in connection with the shoplifting, the DA's office tried to have the shoplifter testify against him. She refused to do so, saying he was not involved with her crime. She was in custody, serving a sentence at the time. Could the DA's office have questioned her before Mr. Elmostafa was arrested? Yes it could. Could it have confirmed before having him arrested that he was not involved in the crime? Yes it could. Did it do so? No it did not.
In view of all these, I say it is not relevant whether or not Mr. Cooper confirmed any alibi on the part of Reade Seligman or Colin Finnerty. THERE WAS NO CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Anonymous @ October 11, 2010 9:24 PM who said:
"'Neither Colin Finnerty nor Reade Seligman were present at the party at the time of the alleged crime.'
Did Roy Cooper ever confirm this?"
Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty could have confirmed this themselves if, like most other defendants in rape cases in Durham under the Nifong regime, they had been afforded a Probable Cause hearing.
Mr. Nifong got charges filed in a way that denied them a probable cause hearing.
Sidney, how does that demonstrate selective lenient justice for Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Seligman based on their race and class?
Something doesn't make sense here. Why would Colin have
to spend $5 million on defense lawyers, if he wasn't even at
the party when the alleged crimes occurred?
"Something doesn't make sense here. Why would Colin have
to spend $5 million on defense lawyers, if he wasn't even at
the party when the alleged crimes occurred?"
He had to hire lawyers because Mike Nifong had him indicted for and charged with first degree rape. It would not make sense if Mr. Finnerty did not retain counsel in such a situation. You know the saying, I think. An individual who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
You sound like Mike Nifong claiming that any Lacrosse player who hired a lawyer would be admitting guilt. Since when is acceptable for someone who is supposed to be upholding the law questioning a defendant's availing himself of his rights under the law.
"Something doesn't make sense here. Why would Colin have
to spend $5 million on defense lawyers, if he wasn't even at
the party when the alleged crimes occurred?"
Anyone targeted for prosecution by a rogue like Mike Nifong would be crazy not to avail himself of his constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel.
Was Colin in the party house when Ryan and Peter were stealing the victim's money?
"Was Colin in the party house when Ryan and Peter were stealing the victim's money?"
What has that to do with the fact that Mr. Finnerty was wrongfully indicted for a rape, that Nifong supporters think he should not have retained counsel to defend himself?
Anonymous @ October 12, 2010 9:18 PM
Have you ever taken your incriminating information about "Ryan and Peter" to the authorities? If you are so concerned about Ms. Mangum, if you knew who took it, why have you done nothing to help her reclaim it?
Anonymous @ October 12, 2010 9:18 PM
Do you question Ms. Mangum's right to a defense in her current situation? Your attitude is that anyone who defends himself/herself against a criminal charge indicates he/she is guilty.
So the claim Colin was not present
at the scene of the crime is inaccurate.
"So the claim Colin was not present
at the scene of the crime is inaccurate."
The claim that neither Colin Finnerty nor Reade Seligman were not present at the party at the time of the alleged crime is accurate.
Sidny Harr has made the claim that Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Seligman were present. Have you ever asked him to confirm that.
Do you say that "Ryan and Peter" stole Ms. Mangum's money. How do you confirm that? How do you confirm that Ms. Mangum's money was stolen?
Anonymous @ October 13, 2010 4:56 AM
With regard to the issue of Colin Finnerty and the alleged theft of Ms. Mangum's money, I am asking what that has to do with certain facts, namely:
Ms Mangum early in the case gave descriptions of three assailants, none of which were descriptions of Colin Finnerty;
and(repetitiously):
The crime alleged by Ms. Mangum was a crime in which the perpetrators would have left evidence and their DNA. SBI crime lab(which Sidney claims is devoted to helping prosecutors convict) found no evidence of rape on Ms. Mangum's rape kit. DNA Security(retained by Mr. Nifong to find DNA on the rape kit material) found only DNA which did not match any of the suspects.
Colin Finnerty was wrongfully charged with a crime. What has the alleged theft of Ms. Mangum's money or whether or not Colin Finnerty was present at the time of said alleged theft? That is the question you are dodging.
I remind you, Mr. Finnerty was never charged with any theft of anyone's money.
For whoever is focusing on Colin Finnerty:
This comes from Until Proven Innocent, which Nifong supporters recoil from the way Vampires recoil from a cross(pg. 183 of UPI).
Colin Finnerty's fingerprints were not found in the bathroom in which the alleged rape was alleged to happen.
After 12:22 AM and before 12:30 AM, Mr. Finnerty had left 610 North Buchanan. There are cell phone records showing he had made multiple cell phone calls at the time of the alleged rape from sites other than the site of the alleged rape. He went to a Mexican Restaurant(the Cosmic Cantina), got food and then returned to his dorm room.
Yes there is confirmation that Colin Finnerty was not present in 610 North Buchanan at the time of the alleged but never corroborated rape.
For whoever has questions about Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty:
"Multiple sources told ABC News that Reade Seligmann, 20, was not present in the house at the time the alleged victim says the crime occurred. Sources say this is established through different witness accounts, as well as cell phone and credit-card records."
This was posted on ABC News' web site on April 19, 2006.
Anonymous @ October 12, 2010 10:21 AM
Now it is time to ask you, can you confirm that Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty were present in the house at the time of the alleged but never corroborated rape?
That is correct.
They were both present in the party house during the time of the alleged rape, sexual assault and admitted theft
of the victim's money.
Why don't you ask Jim Cooney?
To whoever wants to know if Mr. Finnerty was present when "Ryan and Peter" stole Ms. Mangum's money.
Was anyone on the Lacrosse team ever charged with theft or larceny or something?
If not, what confirmation do you have that "Ryan and Peter" ever took anything?
Why not share that information with us?
To whoever wants to know if Mr. Finnerty was present when "Ryan and Peter" stole Ms. Mangum's money.
If you were to review Professor Mosteller's Law Review articles on the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape, you would learn that Mr. Cooper was aware of alibi evidence for Reade Selignman and Colin Finnerty. Mr. Cooper never expressed any doubt about that evidence. Beyond that I really can't say, other that I was able to review the evidence in other sources.
I ask again, do you have any evidence to show they were present at the time the alleged but never corroborated rape was supposed to have taken place?
"That is correct.
They were both present in the party house during the time of the alleged rape, sexual assault and admitted theft
of the victim's money.
Why don't you ask Jim Cooney?"
Have you ever personally asked Mr. Cooney anything. If so tell us what he said. What were the date and time of your talk with him? What did Jim Cooney specifically say.
If you have never talked to Mr. Cooney what is your source for this information?
Why should anyone talk to Mr. Cooney if you are the one vouching for this information?
Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty have solid evidence whichsaid they were not at 610 North Buchanan at the time of the alleged rape.
If they admitted the theft, why were they never charged?
This is a quote from Ms. Mangum's media event at which her book was announced:
"She describes in detail being raped but never identifies her alleged attackers and never mentions Finnerty or Seligmann in the book. She also says it is difficult for her to remember everything about her attackers."
Ms. Mangum makes no allegations about anyone robbing her.
I ask again, specify exactly what Jim Cooney said and the source of your information.
Or are you going to pull a Kilgo and disappear leaving behind only some ad hominem comment?
This is from an Associated Press story posted on line on Oct. 23, 2008:
"Jenny Warburg for Newsweek
Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were cleared of sexual assault two years ago.
Mangum declined to answer questions about case details Thursday, including when asked directly whether Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty — the three cleared players — attacked her. Vincent Clark, co-author and publisher of the book, said repeatedly “the case is closed” and Mangum accepts the conclusions of state prosecutors."
Did the state prosecutors ever allege that Mr. Seligman or Mr. Finnerty ever robbed Ms. Mangum? No. Why do you make such an assertion?
Anonymous @ October 13, 2010 10:19 AM
I asked you if you could confirm that Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Seligman were present at 610 North Buchanan at the time of the alleged rape.
Your response was an unsupported allegation. You then told me to ask Jim Cooney.
That is confirmation of nothing. I asked you, not MR. Cooney, to provide confirmation. You did not. Why am I not surprised at that?
Anonymous @ October 13, 2010 10:19 AM
So far you have not responded. You are trying to pull a Kilgo.
Anonymous @ October 13, 2010 10:19 AM
I am still waiting for your response. You have confirmed nothing. You are pulling a Kilgo
Anonymous @ October 13, 2010 10:19 AM
Can we spell Kilgo, boys and girls?
Run Kilgo run
Duck Kilgo duck
For kilgo or kilgo wannabe or whoever:
You have said only that Jim Cooney said that Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty have said that they were present at the time of the alleged crime and admitted the theft of Ms. Mangum's money. That is hearsay, not confirmation.
I am offering you the opportunity to come up with something better>
There was no response to my last comment.
I say again:
Run Kilgo Run
Duck Kilgo Duck
To which I add:
Whoever you are, can you not even come up with an attempt at an ad hominem attack?
""That is correct.
They were both present in the party house during the time of the alleged rape, sexual assault and admitted theft of the victim's money."
Earlier someone else said:
"Was Colin in the party house when Ryan and Peter were stealing the victim's money?"
Did you make the same comments?
Regardless, does it confirm that Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty admitted to Mr. Cooney that they stole the money? No.
So, why did you say that Jim Cooney said that Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty said they had stolen Ms. Mangum's money.
Post a Comment