The abominable legal proceeding in 1993 that resulted in an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, being locked away for seventeen years on a murder charge can be credited to Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford. When confronted with the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas, an African American prostitute whose body was discovered in a desolate Raleigh cul-de-sac, Mr. Ford’s primary goal was to close the case quickly by convicting a “perpetrator.” Ford didn’t care whether or not the designated “perpetrator” was guilty or not, because he did not care about the victim or her family. So he set his sights on two unfortunate individuals who happened to come upon the body in the early morning hours after they were forced to walk from their vehicle which had gotten stuck in the mud.
Because the disabled vehicle belonged to Taylor, Ford felt obligated to charge him… but only as an accomplice. What Ford really wanted was to pressure Taylor to implicate Johnny Beck, the black man with whom Taylor had been doing drugs just hours prior to the discovery of the body. Other than walking by the body earlier in the morning, there was no physical evidence connecting Taylor or his African American friend to the crime. Furthermore, no plausible motive existed for Taylor or Beck to attack Ms. Thomas. To win a conviction, Ford would resort to the tactic which he has honed to an art… obtain perjured testimony in exchange for the promise of leniency or a reduced sentence.
No “Minister of Justice” Prosecutor Tom Ford believed that this cut and dried case would be shut and closed easily, by threatening Taylor with life in prison unless he cooperated with his demands that he implicate the black man (who Ford had no reason to believe was guilty of the homicide). After all, Ford believed, Greg Taylor did not come from the upper echelon of society, he was not of a privileged class, and he was a drug user. And, all he had to do was implicate a black man… how hard could that be? An easy choice, right? It would have been an easy choice for Ford, and probably 99 per cent of people in the state. But this would not be a slam dunk for Ford, because he had not counted on Taylor possessing the integrity and moral compass to withstand his despicable offer.
Gregory Taylor never wavered in the accounting of his innocence and that of Johnny Beck, but that didn’t deter Prosecutor Ford. Tom Ford was obsessed with putting the African American man behind bars for life, and Taylor’s refusal to join his conspiracy did nothing but fuel Ford’s animus towards Taylor. Because Taylor would not comply with Ford’s game plan, Ford utilized the same “perjured testimony” tactic (that he tried unsuccessfully to employ using Taylor to implicate Beck) to obtain a guilty verdict against Taylor. Ford approached two disreputable individuals and promised them a reduction in their sentences in exchange for testimony that would implicate Greg Taylor in the murder of Ms. Thomas. They both jumped at the opportunity, lied before the court, and handed Prosecutor Ford his tainted courtroom victory. As a result, Taylor was sentenced to serve the remainder of his life in prison. He served seventeen long years in prison before the truth of his indisputable innocence would surface.
It was during the hearing which freed Taylor that it became apparent that Ford not only employed false witnesses in obtaining Taylor’s conviction, but that he also used false science. SBI agent Duane Deaver, it seems, had given misleading and false testimony about the presence of blood on the bumper of Taylor’s SUV, which became mired in the mud the night of the Thomas murder. Although he knew that presumptive tests for blood were not supported by a confirmative lab test, Deaver did not give such testimony in court. The jury was misled into believing that blood from Taylor’s vehicle was linked to the body. Taylor’s 2010 hearing before the three judge panel that exonerated him also exposed how Ford used a little hocus pocus on the 1992 jury in winning a conviction by getting tracking dog handlers to imply that a trail could be traced from the victim to Taylor’s vehicle.
Tom Ford orchestrated the cruel and vindictive prosecution against Gregory Taylor, skillfully bringing in false witnesses and false testimony resulting in a conviction. However, the media has given Ford a pass on this debacle, and instead has zeroed in on Duane Deaver. The News & Observer led the charge against Deaver and the SBI with its four part series on the misdeeds of the SBI in the Taylor case. However, in compliance with its PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, Ford’s name was mentioned only once or twice (and then, in passing). So, the criminal justice system, in following the media’s lead, has ordered a contempt hearing for Mr. Deaver on the charge that he made false and misleading testimony before the N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission in 2009. According to a recent News & Observer article, a date for the hearing has not been set. Deaver has become the sacrificial lamb for the miscues, mistakes, and malfeasance that resulted in an innocent man spending seventeen of his most productive years of life behind bars.
Focusing attention on SBI Agent Deaver, not only provides a scapegoat for the injustice that befell Greg Taylor, but it is to divert attention from the true culprit, Tom Ford. To believe that Ford did not know the substance on the bumper was not blood defies logic. Ford’s stock and trade in prosecuting comes from eliciting perjured courtroom testimony in exchange for promises of a reduced sentence. Deaver was nothing more than Ford’s accomplice. That’s not to say that Deaver should not face a hearing on his conduct, but I believe that his position is more defensible because he worked in a culture where it was acceptable to stretch the truth in order to obtain the desired outcome of a conviction. And it appears that Deaver was more than willing to work with vigilante prosecutors in their pursuit of rogue justice.
Despite the suffering experienced by Gregory Taylor and his family, the unresolved murder of Jacquetta Thomas and its impact on her family and friends, Tom Ford seems to have weathered the storm unscathed. The media has handled him with Teflon gloves and even powerhouse defense attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V complimented Ford on how well he handled the prosecution’s interests in Taylor’s February 2010 hearing. In fact, Cheshire, who represented Taylor in his hearing before the three judge panel, never uttered a disparaging word about Ford… a prosecutor who needlessly left many shattered lives in his wake. Now, Cheshire has no problem with castigating former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who was prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case. That is because the Duke Lacrosse prosecution by Nifong was a North Carolina legal aberration in that it did not comply with the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Cheshire was vociferous and upfront in his criticism of Nifong, pleading for the severest of sanctions against him, despite the fact that Mr. Nifong was doing nothing more than pursuing a prosecution which was well within acceptable standards. However, on the subject of Prosecutor Tom Ford (whose malicious, vindictive and vile prosecution of Cheshire’s own client Greg Taylor), Cheshire is as silent as a dormouse.
In North Carolina it is acceptable to sacrifice a prosecutor, such as Mr. Nifong, in order to set an example of what will happen if a prosecutor steps beyond the bounds of the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” It is also acceptable to sacrifice a designated scapegoat from another sector, such as SBI agent Duane Deaver, in order to protect a prosecutor who zealously clings to the state’s selective justice tenet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Sidney said, "When confronted with the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas, an African American prostitute whose body was discovered in a desolate Raleigh cul-de-sac, Mr. Ford’s primary goal was to close the case quickly by convicting a “perpetrator.” Ford didn’t care whether or not the designated “perpetrator” was guilty or not, because he did not care about the victim or her family."
Mr. Nifong did not care whether or not a crime had been committed at 610 North Buchanan. He did not care about anyone's families.
He wanted an issue which would inflame the black electorate and get him their votes. So, although he had no probable cause to do so he indicted three innocent men and tried to put rthem in prison for thirty years each.
Sidney says that was not wrongful prosecution, that Mr. Nifong would have been negligent if he did not prosecute the three innocent men.
I say again Sidney, your unsupported allegations do not nullify the truth of what happened.
Sidney said, "Because the disabled vehicle belonged to Taylor, Ford felt obligated to charge him…"
Sidney also said Mr. Nifong was obligated to charge the three men Ms. Mangum identified as her assailants, eveen though, in spite of the improper lineup, her id's were not at all reliable, and Mr. Nifong had no hard evidence of any crime.
Sidney said, "'Minister of Justice' Prosecutor Tom Ford believed that this cut and dried case would be shut and closed easily, by threatening Taylor with life in prison unless he cooperated with his demands that he implicate the black man (who Ford had no reason to believe was guilty of the homicide).
Mr "Minister of Justice Nifong, before he had proven anything in court, declared that members of the Lacrosse team had witnessed a gang rape. He threatened to file charges of aiding and abetting against them if they did n ot come forward and incriminate anyone.
Sidney said, "Gregory Taylor never wavered in the accounting of his innocence and that of Johnny Beck, but that didn’t deter Prosecutor Ford."
The Lacrosse team defendasnts never wavered in defending themselves, in saying they were innocent. Fellow team members never wavered with Mr. Nifong's attempts to intimidate them. That did not deter Mr. Nifong from prosecuting them.
Events did show they were innocent and that Mr. Nifong had prosecuted them wrongfully.
Sidney said,"no plausible motive existed for Taylor or Beck to attack Ms. Thomas."
As Sidney himself has admitted, no credible evidence existed to show a crime had been committed or that there had been any intimate contact between Ms. Mangum and those named as suspects by Mr. Nifong.
Mr. Nifong himnself did admit he had no credible evidence to indict anyone.
Sidney said, "It was during the hearing which freed Taylor that it became apparent that Ford not only employed false witnesses in obtaining Taylor’s conviction, but that he also used false science."
Mr. Nifong tried to intimidate witnesses who would support the indicted players. While Mr. Nifong used true science to investigate the alleged crime, the results showed no crime had happened. Mr. Nifong tried to withhold that information from the defense.
Sidney says his own opinion that the evidence was not of probative value, was not exculpatory excused this misconduct on the part of Mr. Nifong. Sidney is a layman. Legal experts have opined that the evidence was withheld, it was of probative vlue, and it did exonnerate the defendants,
Sidney said, "Tom Ford orchestrated the cruel and vindictive prosecution against Gregory Taylor, skillfully bringing in false witnesses and false testimony resulting in a conviction."
Mr. Nifong, fortunately for true justice, proved not to be too skillful in perpetratimg his attempted wrongful prosecution.
Sidney has often referred to "However, in compliance with its PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy"
Sidney's version of PAPEN is prosecute all porosecutors except Nifong.
Sidney said, "Now, Cheshire has no problem with castigating former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who was prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case."
That might have been because Mr. Nifong tried to put Mr. Cheshire's client before a biased, prejudiced jury in his attempt to wrongfully convict him.
Sidney said, "Deaver...worked in a culture where it was acceptable to stretch the truth in order to obtain the desired outcome of a conviction."
That was the same environment in which the Mangum Rape kit was tested and in which environment, no evidence was found whichwoul aid Mr. Nifong's case.
Can Sidney explain that. Both Sidney and Mr. Nifong have admitted there was no creidble evidence in the case against any Lacrosse player.
Sidney said, "In North Carolina it is acceptable to sacrifice a prosecutor, such as Mr. Nifong, in order to set an example of what will happen if a prosecutor steps beyond the bounds of the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
In any other rape case disposed of by Mr. Nifong's office, was any defendant of color treated any more harshly than the three innocent Duke Lacrosse players.
If so, name them.
sidney, document your case against Tom Ford.
Unsupporteed allegations are not documentation.
I say, you have shown a tendency to selectively quote from the press in a way i consider misleading.
There was a comment in the Gregory Taylor case, that Mr. Taylor could not have committed the murder without leaving evidence, i.e. blood, on his car. SBI crime lab examination of the car revealed no evidence of blood.
In the Duke alleged rape case, the said alleged rape could not have occurred without the perpetrators leaving evidence and their DNA. Testing of the rape kit showed no evidence of a rape or any DNA from any of the men Mr. Nifong named as suspects, the caucasian members of the Lacross team.
Sidney says Mr. Ford was not justified in prosecuting Mr. Taylor. But he says Mr. Nifong would have been negligent had he not prosecuted the Lacrosse defendants.
More comparisons between the Gregory Taylor case and the Alleged Duke Rape case which Sidney has not made:
The investigator for the state crime lab admitted the following. The initial testing of Gregory Taylor's car for blood was positive. Followup testing was not. The investigator withheld the results of the followup testing from Tom Ford.
DNA Security testing of the Mangum rape kit revealed the only DNA on the kit did not match the DNA of anyone Mr. Nifong had named as suspects, anyone he had indicted. The Defense did not get this information because Mr. Nifong and Mr. Meehan had an agreement not to release all the results to the Defense.
After he had found out about all the crime lab test results, Mr. Ford did see that Mr. Taylor's attorneys and the Judge presiding over the Innocence commission became aware of the results.
Again, Mr. Nifong did nothing to make the Defense attorneys in the Alleged Duke Rape case aware of exculpatory evidence he had discovered.
Tracey Cline, African American DA of Durham County once prosecuted a man named Leon Brown for rape. When the trial opened, she vouched she would prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt.
DNA taken from the defendant did not match the DNA recovered from the victim. The victim had initially told authorities the rapist had been her caucasian cousin. Mr. Brown is African American.
The victim's cousin had been offered immunity if he would finger Mr. Brown as the rapist.
The outcome of the trial was a not guilty verdict. The Jury Foreman, Howard Williams, Jr., described the trial as a "waste of time". He said, "“We all wondered what we were doing there...The evidence was nonexistent. We’re very comfortable with the decision we made. I can’t understand why that man spent a year in jail when there was no evidence whatsoever against him. It made no sense to us. Where’s the justice?”
Sidney Harr has never blogged about this prosecution. Ms. Cline would have been Mr. Nifong's second chair had he been able to take the Alleged but never Proven Duke Rape case to trial.
This comes from Durham in Wonderland, published on December 12, 2006. It is relevant to Sidney's assertion that Mr. Nifong would have been negligent had he not prosecuted the Alleged but never Confirmed Duke Rape Case.
"As noted on Monday, Nifong failed follow this approach in a 1989 “gang rape” allegation that he oversaw. Then, police tested the accuser’s credibility—in part by having the person supervising the investigation actually speak to the accuser. When “embarrassing” contradictions in her story were discovered, Nifong dropped the charges. The accuser never “got on the stand and told what happened to [her].” Instead, the prosecutor exercised discretion, as he is required to do under the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
One difference between this case and the alleged Duke Rape case was when he handled this case, Mr. Nifong was not the incumbent and on the verge of losing his bid for election.
This also comes from the December 12 Durham in Wonderland. It is also relevant to Sidney's assertion that Mr. Nifong would have been negligent had he not prosecuted the Alleged Duke Rape case. It is also relevant to Mr. Nifong's statement in the Duke case that the absence of DNA evidence meant nothing.
"In early 2000, two rapes occurred in the Trinity Park neighborhood, off Duke’s east campus. Acting under strong pressure from the Trinity Park “community,” police charged a black homeless man, Leroy Summers, based solely on an identification from the second woman who was raped. According to the April 8, 2000, edition of the Herald-Sun, Ed Sarvis (last heard from confirming that the DPD has an official policy of disproportionately meting out punishment to Duke students) expressed confidence in the department’s actions—although, he added, “we’re still in the process of collecting probable cause.” Summers could not meet his $150,000 bail.
Maybe the police should have tried a little harder to ascertain probable cause before making an arrest. After Summers was charged, the police sent a rape kit to the State Bureau of Investigation lab. [The Lab] took more than three months to perform its tests. When the results came in, no match existed for Summers’ DNA. But a male DNA specimen was found. Technicians ran the result through a national crime database, revealing the DNA of Jeffrey Lamont McNeill, who subsequently was charged with the crime.
According to the July 12, 2000 N&O, the prosecutor issued a definitive written statement: 'Results of DNA testing exclude the defendant as the perpetrator of this crime.'
The prosecutor’s name: Mike Nifong."
Why was there such a fast turnaround in the Duke case. Mr.Nifong got those results, got the results of the DNA Security testing in less than a month.
The results have a striking similarity to the 2000 case. The only DNA recovered from the complaining witness did not match the DNA of any suspect.
Why was there such a fast turnaround in the Duke case? Why did Mr. Nifong dismiss the results of said testing?
Was it because Mr. Nifong was the incumbentbDA and was about to lose the upcoming election?
That charges were dismissed against the black defendant in the 2000 case, was that selective harsher justice based on his race and social class?
This also comes from the December 12 Durham in Wonderland. It is also relevant to Sidney's assertion that Mr. Nifong would have been negligent had he not prosecuted the Alleged Duke Rape case. It is also relevant to Mr. Nifong's statement in the Duke case that the absence of DNA evidence meant nothing.
"In early 2000, two rapes occurred in the Trinity Park neighborhood, off Duke’s east campus. Acting under strong pressure from the Trinity Park “community,” police charged a black homeless man, Leroy Summers, based solely on an identification from the second woman who was raped. According to the April 8, 2000, edition of the Herald-Sun, Ed Sarvis (last heard from confirming that the DPD has an official policy of disproportionately meting out punishment to Duke students) expressed confidence in the department’s actions—although, he added, “we’re still in the process of collecting probable cause.” Summers could not meet his $150,000 bail.
Maybe the police should have tried a little harder to ascertain probable cause before making an arrest. After Summers was charged, the police sent a rape kit to the State Bureau of Investigation lab. [The Lab] took more than three months to perform its tests. When the results came in, no match existed for Summers’ DNA. But a male DNA specimen was found. Technicians ran the result through a national crime database, revealing the DNA of Jeffrey Lamont McNeill, who subsequently was charged with the crime.
According to the July 12, 2000 N&O, the prosecutor issued a definitive written statement: 'Results of DNA testing exclude the defendant as the perpetrator of this crime.'
The prosecutor’s name: Mike Nifong."
Why was there such a fast turnaround in the Duke case. Mr.Nifong got those results, got the results of the DNA Security testing in less than a month.
The results have a striking similarity to the 2000 case. The only DNA recovered from the complaining witness did not match the DNA of any suspect.
Why was there such a fast turnaround in the Duke case? Why did Mr. Nifong dismiss the results of said testing?
Was it because Mr. Nifong was the incumbent DA and was about to lose the upcoming election?
Sorry for the double posting. When I firts tried to post my comment, I got a message that it was too large. Then I edited it and posted it again.
Sidney, here is a question for you. I asked this of one of the commenters on your previous post.
When the DA's office took Mr. Elmostafa in trial, the shoplifter whom he was accuse of abetting was serving her sentence/ The DA's office tried to get her to testify that Mr. Elmostafa had been her accomplice. She told them that Mr. Elmostafa had not been involved in her crime.
Why did the DA's office not interview her before Mr. Elmostafa was taken into custody. They might have confirmed then that Mr. Elmostafa had been innocent and that there was no need to arrest him.
Of course, if the DA's office had confirmed pre arrest that Mr. Elmostafa was innocent, they would have had no opportunity to intimidate him.
Sidney
One of the things convincing the Innocence Commission of Greg Taylor's innocence was that he steadfastly maintained his innocence, refusing plea bargains in return for a lighter sentence.
The Defendants in the Alleged but never Confirmed Duke rape steadfastly maintained their innocence.
Tell us why you doubt their innocence. Come up with something new, something other than, the crime was alleged, that Ms. Mangum had identified her assailants, that a sexual assault as opposed to a rape could have happened without the perpetrators leaving evidence, that the Lacrosse team was evil.
You know, one of your Nifong supporters complained about people making Mr. Nifong out to be the anti-Christ. That individual who was the only individual who used the term anti-Christ.
Without justification, you make the Lacrosse players out to be the personification of ultimate evil. And you do believe the defendants did rape Ms. Mangum.
Sidney said, "...Mr. Nifong was doing nothing more than pursuing a prosecution which was well within acceptable standards."
Sidney, without resorting to your SOS, explain how the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse Defendants was "well within acceptable standards"? Mr. Nifong had evidence which he had defined previously as exculpatory, as exonerating. Yet he prosecuted them anyway.
Incidentally, I got wrong the date of the DIW post which discussed Mr. Nifong's handling of previous rape cases. I said the date was December 12, 2006. The date was December 21, 2006. I apologize for my error.
This information and other interesting information may be read at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~pepperhead/
Sidney called Tom Ford's prosecution of Gregory Taylor a "malicious, vindictive and vile prosecution".
Sidney, I disagree with you.
Mr. Ford was given an incomplete report by the State Crime Lab as to the finding of blood on Mr. Taylor's SUV. The crime lab technician admitted he had withheld the information. Unlike Mr. Nifong's action with the DNA evidence in the Alleged but never Corroborated Duke Rape, Mr. Ford did not try to conceal any evidence regarding Mr. Taylor's car.
Mr. Ford had witnesses. Mr. Nifong never had any witnesses come forth to corroborate Ms. Mangum's claims. Don't give me the SOS that the Lacrosse team was not cooperating. There were no corroborating witnesses because there was no crime.
I would call your actions towards Mr. Ford malicious, "vindictive and vile...".
I say you carry out your actions against Mr. Ford to divert attention away from Mr. Nifong's "vindictive and vile prosecution" of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'It was during the hearing which freed Taylor that it became apparent that Ford not only employed false witnesses in obtaining Taylor’s conviction, but that he also used false science.'
Mr. Nifong tried to intimidate witnesses who would support the indicted players. While Mr. Nifong used true science to investigate the alleged crime, the results showed no crime had happened. Mr. Nifong tried to withhold that information from the defense.
Sidney says his own opinion that the evidence was not of probative value, was not exculpatory excused this misconduct on the part of Mr. Nifong. Sidney is a layman. Legal experts have opined that the evidence was withheld, it was of probative vlue, and it did exonnerate the defendants,"
First, I have never conceded that Mr. Nifong withheld evidence. He most certainly did not. The defense was in possession of all prosecution discovery well before a trial date was even set. Mr. Nifong believed that all of the files had been sent to the defense attorneys, and although he did not individually supervise every piece of evidence included in the folder given to the defense, he had every reason to believe that it had been received by the defendants. (I, personally, would not be surprised if the defense received the labwork and destroyed it only to claim that it was withheld. Those big-bucks attorneys are very intelligent and crafty... and that is why they are so successful.)
Anonymous said...
"Sidney called Tom Ford's prosecution of Gregory Taylor a 'malicious, vindictive and vile prosecution'.
Sidney, I disagree with you.
Mr. Ford was given an incomplete report by the State Crime Lab as to the finding of blood on Mr. Taylor's SUV. The crime lab technician admitted he had withheld the information. Unlike Mr. Nifong's action with the DNA evidence in the Alleged but never Corroborated Duke Rape, Mr. Ford did not try to conceal any evidence regarding Mr. Taylor's car.
Mr. Ford had witnesses. Mr. Nifong never had any witnesses come forth to corroborate Ms. Mangum's claims. Don't give me the SOS that the Lacrosse team was not cooperating. There were no corroborating witnesses because there was no crime.
I would call your actions towards Mr. Ford malicious, 'vindictive and vile...'.
I say you carry out your actions against Mr. Ford to divert attention away from Mr. Nifong's 'vindictive and vile prosecution' of the Duke Lacrosse defendants."
Do you really believe for a nanosecond that Prosecutor Tom Ford did not know that the confirmatory tests for blood were negative? Of course he knew. Ford worked with Deaver like the Lone Ranger and Tonto. They were a team that used whatever means possible to win a conviction.
And, yes, Ford had two "witnesses" who gave perjured testimony against Greg Taylor in order to get more lenient sentences for themselves. It's the same m.o. that Ford used against Taylor to try and get him to commit perjury in order to help convict Johnny Beck, a black man.
But the North Carolina State Bar refuses to bring Ford before the Grievance Commission. That's because Ford follows the state's tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color."
Sidney said, "Do you really believe for a nanosecond that Prosecutor Tom Ford did not know that the confirmatory tests for blood were negative? Of course he knew. Ford worked with Deaver like the Lone Ranger and Tonto. They were a team that used whatever means possible to win a conviction."
Why did Mr. Deaver admit he withheld the evidence from Mr. Ford?
Sidney said, "But the North Carolina State Bar refuses to bring Ford before the Grievance Commission. That's because Ford follows the state's tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color."
Has the North Carolina ever disciplined African American Durham DA Tracey Cline over her prosecution of Leon Brown?
Why have you never blogged about African American Tracey Cline?
Sidney said, "First, I have never conceded that Mr. Nifong withheld evidence."
No you did not. Instead you have argued that your opinion that the evidence was not exculpatory or probative to the defense trumped the opinion of legal experts that the evidence was exculpatory.
Sidney said, "And, yes, Ford had two 'witnesses' who gave perjured testimony against Greg Taylor in order to get more lenient sentences for themselves. It's the same m.o. that Ford used against Taylor to try and get him to commit perjury in order to help convict Johnny Beck, a black man."
And you have called Mr. Nifong's attempt to coerce members of the Lacrosse team to give perjured testimony against other members simply mild attempts to get them to come forward.
Sidney said, "I, personally, would not be surprised if the defense received the labwork and destroyed it only to claim that it was withheld. Those big-bucks attorneys are very intelligent and crafty... and that is why they are so successful."
So why did Brian Meehan admit under oath that he and Mr. Nifong agreed to withhold results from the defense.
Sidney, Brad Bannon devoted several hours to decipher the raw data given to him by Mr. Nifong(Mr. Nifong was obligated to give the defense a report in a timely manner, not raw data months after it was generated). One of your Nifong supporters said that Washington attorneys devoted hours of pro bono time to aid in the deciphering the data.
You are alleging the defense got the report, destroyed the report and then devoted hours of time to recover from raw data what the report said. Does that make sense? No. If it does not make sense, is it credible? No. Do you think you have made a case for your credibility? Hardly
Instead of the SOS, Sidney, you dispense MOS(More of the same).
Sidney said, "[Ford and Deaver] They were a team that used whatever means possible to win a conviction."
Why did the SBI Crime lab fail to find evidence for Mr. Nifong which would make his case against the Lacrosse Defendants?
Sidney said, "First, I have never conceded that Mr. Nifong withheld evidence.'
You have admitted Mr. Nifong had no evidence either of a crime or of any involvement of any Lacrosse player in said crime. You have done this via your SOS that Mr. Nifong did not need forensic evidence to prove Sexual Assault.
I remind you, what was alleged was a rape. Mr. Nifong sought and got indictments for first degree rape.
Your SOS about sexual assault is an attempt on your part to justify Mr. Nifong's prosecution of innocent men without any evidence.
Sidney, address this issue.
You said Mr. Nifong would have been negligent in not prosecuting Ms. Mangum's alleged assailants. Her id of those assailants was not reliable and her allegations were not credible.
In 1989 Mr. Nifong handled a case in which a gang rape was alleged. The accusing witness proved not credible so Mr. Nifong dismissed the charges.
Please explain, without resorting to your SOS why Ms. Mangum should have been considered a credible witness.
Sidney, without resorting to your SOS, address this issue.
Mr. Nifong handled a rape case in 2000 in which the victim did identify an individual as her rapist. The DNA found on the victim did not match the DNA of the accused individual.
Mr. Nifong dismissed the charges against the accused. He proclaimed to the News and Observer that the DNA evidence was exculpatory, that it had exonerated the accused.
In 2006, in the Alleged but never Corroborated Duke Rape case, the only DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person did not match the DNA of anyone designated by Mr. Nifong as a suspect.
Why was the DNA evidence in the Duke case not exculpatory?
Why did Mr. Nifong try to convict when he had evidence which by his own definition was exculpatory, which did exonerate the men he had named as suspects?
Why was Mr. Nifong not negligent when he dismissed the charges against the original accused in the 2000 case? The victim in the 2000 case was credible.
Sidney,
A federal judge vacated the death sentence imposed on George Goode.
In that case, the judge noted that Duane Deaver had presented evidence that blood had been found on Mr. Goode's boot. Mr. Deaver had only performed a preliminary test. The judge said Mr. Deaver presented misleading testimony.
Was Mr. Ford involved in this case.
If not, it would indicate Mr. Deaver made his decisions on his own.
From the Charles Smith Blog, posted on February 24, 2010
"[Crime scene expert and former FBI agent Gregg] McCrary also said he doubted that Taylor could have committed the crime without getting blood on his clothes or in his car."
The Alleged Rape of Crystal Mangum could not have happened without the perpetrators leaving evidence and DNA. The description was that multiple men had assaulted her, penetrated her and had ejaculated on her. None of the men had used condoms.
How was it justified for Mr. Nifong to prosecute the case ignoring the results of the testing for evidence and DNA?
There was no evidence on the rape kit of rape. The only DNA found on Ms. Mangum did not match the DNA of the men Mr. Nifong accused.
Sidney
This is from WTVD's coverage of the Innocence Commission hearing:
"Expert Tom Bevel testified that lab notes from an agent with the State Bureau of Investigation indicated important tests on two items from convicted killer Greg Taylor's truck showed no presence of blood. But the agent's formal lab report did not include that information - only that initial tests did show the presence of blood."
Did that say Mr. Ford was involved in the misrepresentation of the evidence? No.
Why do you claim Mr. Ford was involved?
Two quotes from a News and Observer story on Mr. Taylor's hearing.
"Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby and his assistant Tom Ford are contesting Taylor's claim of innocence. According to a report prepared by Ford, Deaver told them that the additional blood tests weren't conclusive because the size of the sample was too small."
"Two crime scene investigators testified at Taylor's trial that blood was found on the fender of his Nissan Pathfinder. Those investigators were aware only of initial results that indicated there could be blood there.
Tom Bevel, a blood spatter expert and professor at the University of Central Oklahoma who was called to testify by Taylor's attorneys, said the PROSECUTORS AND JURY(emphasis added) should have heard about the negative tests.
That does not indicate Mr. Ford's involvement in concealing evidence.
Mr. Meehan did admit under oath that he and Mr. Nifong agreed that some results of the DNA Security testing of the rape kit would be withheld from the Defense.
The charade is over, Mike. A careful fractal word analysis shows that only a consummate egomaniac such as yourself could author such tripe blog after blog. Get over yourself. Pay your debts. Stop lying. Grow a spine. At least grow a pair and get out from behind those skirts pretending to be your supporters. K?
If this message even shows up, I'll be surprised, and it will be the first time I have been surprised by you since you started down this dark, lonesome road of self pity, self loathing, and self destruction.
BTW, we share the same oncologist. I got the :grow a pair" comment from him!
Sidney
You say that " Mr. Nifong was doing nothing more than pursuing a prosecution which was well within acceptable standards."
Please define "acceptable standards" for us.
Sidney
Would you agree it is within acceptable standards for a prosecutor to comply with the presumption of innocence.
The Durham DA's office, which was the responsibility of Mr. Nifong, sought and got a Non Testimonial Order against each and every Caucasian Member of the Lacrosse team. Via that NTO, the Caucasian team members were named as suspects. Suspects have a right to be presumed innocent.
After the NTO, Mr. Nifong made public statements to the effect that members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated a gang rape, that other members were covering up the rape, that the rape had been racially motivated.
When Mr. Nifong made those statements, how was he complying with his obligation to presume suspects innocent?
Sidney
Is it an acceptable standard of prosecutorial behavior for a prosecutor to respect the Constitutionally guaranteed right of a suspect to remain silent.
Mr. Nifong made a public statement to the effect that Lacrosse team members were not talking to the police, that it might be on the advice of their lawyers, that it was good legal judgment but not good moral judgment.
When Mr. Nifong made that statement, was he complying with his obligation to respect the right of suspects to remain silent?
Sidney
Is it an acceptable standard of prosecutorial behavior for a prosecutor to respect a suspect's Constitutionally guaranteed right to representation by counsel?
Mr. Nifong made a public statement to the effect that the Lacrosse players(whom had been named as suspects via the NTO) had rich daddies who would hire expensive lawyers who would get them off.
Mr. Nifong also made a public statement to the effect that a suspect who had not been formally charged with anything and who was innocent would have no need for lawyer.
How, by making those statements, did Mr. Nifong respect the Constitutionally guaranteed right of suspects to be represented by counsel?
Sidney
Regarding your recent statement that you wouldn't be surprised if the Defense Attorneys had received and then destroyed their copy of the DNA Security report:
Did Mr. Nifong record the date and time when he delivered the report to the Defense?
If so, why did he not show that record to the Judge at the December hearing regarding the Defense's discovery request?
Why did he not just deliver another copy of the report to the Defense?
Ni said...
"The charade is over, Mike. A careful fractal word analysis shows that only a consummate egomaniac such as yourself could author such tripe blog after blog. Get over yourself. Pay your debts. Stop lying. Grow a spine. At least grow a pair and get out from behind those skirts pretending to be your supporters. K?
If this message even shows up, I'll be surprised, and it will be the first time I have been surprised by you since you started down this dark, lonesome road of self pity, self loathing, and self destruction.
BTW, we share the same oncologist. I got the 'grow a pair' comment from him!"
This blog site and the website are authored by Sidney B. Harr. I lend my face and name to the cause of justice and to backup my beliefs, which is more than can be said of many commenters. But I have no problem with commenters who wish anonymity.
Furthermore, all comments, regardless of how distasteful or inappropriate, are posted on this site (unlike Durham-In-Wonderland, for example which does not publish my benign comments).
Sidney said, "This blog site and the website are authored by Sidney B. Harr. I lend my face and name to the cause of justice and to backup my beliefs, which is more than can be said of many commenters. But I have no problem with commenters who wish anonymity."
Sidney, I concede you have the courage of your convictions, something which is lacking in a number of your supporters.
However, since when is calling wrongful prosecution of three innocent men a "prosecution which was well within acceptable standards" a manifestation of any concern for justice?
I have asked you to explain what you mean by "acceptable standards" for a prosecution. You have not answered.
I have asked you to comment on Mr. Nifong's pre indictment statements and explain how they met criteria of "cceptable standards" for a prosecution. You have not.
Hey, Sidney
DIW has not posted some of my benign comments. Why is your nose out of joint?
Why don't you publish a book giving your view of what happened on the night of 13-14 March?
I bet you will answer that the "carpetbagger jihad" controls the media and will not let you.
That is as credible as your recent rant that the Defense attorneys had received a report about the exculpatory DNA evidence(it was exculpatory in the minds of many legal experts) and then destroyed it just so they could charge Mr. Nifong with concealing evidence?
Wouldn't it have been simpler and more effective for them just to make the report public?
Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'This blog site and the website are authored by Sidney B. Harr. I lend my face and name to the cause of justice and to backup my beliefs, which is more than can be said of many commenters. But I have no problem with commenters who wish anonymity.'
Sidney, I concede you have the courage of your convictions, something which is lacking in a number of your supporters.
However, since when is calling wrongful prosecution of three innocent men a 'prosecution which was well within acceptable standards' a manifestation of any concern for justice?
I have asked you to explain what you mean by 'acceptable standards' for a prosecution. You have not answered.
I have asked you to comment on Mr. Nifong's pre indictment statements and explain how they met criteria of 'cceptable standards' for a prosecution. You have not."
I apologize for not responding to all of your questions, but I am limited by time constraints. For one, I am very busy trying to complete Episode V of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper," am producing animated video trailers about it, am writing blogs, trying to revamp the new look for the website, and writing letters about the discrimination I faced on Duke University campus because I am a Nifong supporter.
It is all I can do just to read all of the comments, and some that can be answered easily, I do. Although your questions are important, they, like some other questions, deserve a blog themselves.
Believe me, I am not trying to dodge your questions. And I appreciate you taking the time to write them.
These are quotes from The Raleigh News and Observer form a story published April 14, 2007:
"DURHAM - Mike Nifong found out about the case that now threatens his career March 23, 2006, when he stopped by the office copier and found a court order demanding DNA samples from 46 Duke lacrosse players. An escort service dancer told police that three men at a team party had dragged her into a bathroom and raped her anally, vaginally and orally for 30 minutes, according to the order."
And:"The next day, Nifong told Durham police he was taking over. At 9 a.m. March 24, a police captain told the senior investigator, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, that "Nifong was going to be running and prosecuting this case. ... Go through Mr. Nifong for any directions as to how to conduct matters in this case."
This is for Nifong Supporter number 1 and all his Nifong supporters who claim that Mike Nifong did not take personal control of the Duke alleged rape investigation.
Sidney, yes you are dodging the questions.
Sidney, this also from the News and Observer, April 23, 2007, Bob Eckstrand quoting Mike Nifong:
"Nifong ended the meeting abruptly. Ekstrand recalled Nifong's parting words: 'If you've come here to ask me questions instead of telling me what you know about who did it, then we don't have anything to talk about. You're wasting my time. You tell all of your clients I will remember their lack of cooperation at sentencing. I hope you know if they didn't do it, they are all aiders and abettors, and that carries the same punishment as rape.'
How does this kind of statement conform to any stanndard of acceptable conduct for a prosecutor?
Post a Comment