Sunday, March 27, 2011

NC General Assembly: “Yup, We’re racist bigots.”

A resolution was recently brought before the floor of the North Carolina General Assembly to pardon Reconstruction era NC Governor William W. Holden. The offense that he committed which resulted in him being the only governor in United States history to be impeached and removed from office, was his attempt to curb the slaughter of innocent African Americans civilians by the Ku Klux Klan shortly after the Civil War’s end. This is an action by the General Assembly that is long overdue, such as the interracial marriage of heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson during the early Jim Crow days which was a crime in several southern states. Recently, Arizona Senator John McCain has led the crusade to have Johnson posthumously pardoned by the nation’s legislative body and to be signed by the president. There are many examples in history where grave and immoral injustices by the municipal, state, and country’s ruling body are rectified with apologies and pardons after generations of objectivity and distance from the emotional pressures of the day. The resolution to pardon Governor Holden is really a no-brainer and should have been adopted and passed with unanimity. However, Tar Heel politicians have managed to turn what should have been a sure thing into so much drama. Where the issue now stands, I know not and am thoroughly confused. I only know that it did not fly through the General Assembly for Governor Bev Perdue’s signature. What confounds me is what is the argument against passing such a resolution? By not absolving Holden for taking action against the KKK, the General Assembly is in essence saying to the world, “Yup. We’re racist bigots.” This sentiment is reinforced by the recent passage of a bill honoring the unrepentant and admitted racist Jesse Alexander Helms, a North Carolina senator whose actions inside Washington’s capitol helped impede the nation’s movement towards equal civil rights. Of course, Senator Helms’s actions in North Carolina were especially repressive and detrimental to African Americans, gays and lesbians. Yet, the General Assembly honored Helms by passing a laudatory resolution praising him by a bi-partisan, sweeping and almost unanimous vote, with but one nay dissent, and a dozen or so abstaining from the vote. Actions by the Assembly in both the Helms and Holden cases are an insult to African American in the state, and others who were discriminated against by Helms (such as homosexuals). Democratic Senator Dan Blue, one of several African Americans who voted in favor of honoring Jesse Helms, is a leading state senate voice for pardoning Holden. The Assembly’s refusal to do so is a slap in his face. It is indefensible. However African American politicians, such as Blue, have no one to blame except themselves for the disdain state politicians have shown regarding Governor Holden’s pardon. For example, black politician have remained silent when the state castigated former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who was violently attacked for doing his job in extending the concept of “equal justice for all” to a young African American woman who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by members of the Duke Lacrosse team. Durham politicians in particular (Representatives Larry Hall, Mickey Michaux, and Senator Floyd McKissick) deserve the brunt of criticism, as they were also quiet as dormice when the Duke Lacrosse case victim, Crystal Mangum, was arrested on trumped up charges and held for three months until her unexpected release by a benevolent bail bondsman satisfied the $100,000 bond under which she was held. That trio of black Durham politicians, like so many other politicians, is missing in action when it comes to issues of the social injustices that plague our state with its tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color”… lacking the will and/or the courage to do the right thing. Governor William Holden should no more have been impeached and removed from office than Mike Nifong should have been disbarred and forced to resign as Durham district attorney. Generations removed from the accepted standards and attitudes of the day, the morally correct path is clear in the case of Holden, and it demands his immediate pardon. Generations from now, when the emotional turmoil that has been stoked by the biased media has simmered and the minds of the people are driven by reason and objectivity, a movement will be undertaken to reinstate Mike Nifong’s law license… rest assured. It will be Mike Nifong’s legacy that will shine brightest in the future, not the members of the unregulated North Carolina State Bar, not Attorney General Roy Cooper who caved in to defendants’ attorneys’ demands for him to issue an “innocent proclamation,” and not the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, who along with their attorneys, were responsible for shaking down Duke University for $60 million and with their greed not satiated are trying to rip off the cash-strapped city of Durham for $30 mil in addition. Today most people look back at the 19th century and wonder how an injustice such as the one against Holden could have taken place. In the future, the vast majority of people will shake their heads in disgust at the disbarment and mistreatment of Mike Nifong… as many people are already beginning to do. It would be a wonderful thing if people today could take responsibility for cleaning up the injustices it commits, instead of handing the duty for righting wrongs over to those in the future. Current North Carolina politicians should pardon William Holden and undo the injustice of their predecessors, and they should clean up their own mess by seeing that Mike Nifong’s license to practice law is unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated without restrictions. Don’t miss the most recent installment of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper”… Part 13 of 17. Be sure to view the Comments, Insight, and Analysis which follows the strip and feel free to offer feedback on the link at the conclusion of the commentary. A link is provided below. LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc169.htm

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm sure there have been other govenors removed from office.Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office in Illinios and there was Evan Mecham in Arizona.The chance that the NC state bar will ever give Mike Nifong his license back are between zero and nothing.He brought tremendous embarrassment to the legal system by prosecuting people he knew were innocent.Anyway,Duke lacrosse just beat Georgetown and the rest of the schedule is easy.I hope they win the national championship again.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"I'm sure there have been other govenors removed from office.Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office in Illinios and there was Evan Mecham in Arizona.The chance that the NC state bar will ever give Mike Nifong his license back are between zero and nothing.He brought tremendous embarrassment to the legal system by prosecuting people he knew were innocent.Anyway,Duke lacrosse just beat Georgetown and the rest of the schedule is easy.I hope they win the national championship again."


I believe that it William Holden was not the only governor to be impeached and removed from office, he was the first.

By the way, you never gave your opinion about whether or not you believe Holden should be pardoned. What are your views on this?

With regards to Mr. Nifong, I believe that the prospects are good that he will be reinstated to practice law in North Carolina. I believe that because Mr. Nifong was in the right. It is not going to be easy to get the State Bar to reverse itself, and it might not be anytime soon, but there is no doubt in my mind that he will be reinstated.

As far as sports go, I don't follow lacrosse.

Anonymous said...

Kilgo must hav ehad a change of view...all posts deleted as far as the eye can see. What the matter Kilgo? Did you grow up? Did you finally quit fantasizing about the lacrosse boys penises? What ever the reason, I'm glad you're gone. Adios troll.

Anonymous said...

Govenor Holden should be pardoned and Jack Johnson was awesome.Disbarred lawyers are hardly ever reinstated especially prosecutors who try to frame innocent people.The only famous case of a disbarred lawyer that I can think of being given his license back was Alger Hiss but there was a lot of doubt about his guilt.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Govenor Holden should be pardoned and Jack Johnson was awesome.Disbarred lawyers are hardly ever reinstated especially prosecutors who try to frame innocent people.The only famous case of a disbarred lawyer that I can think of being given his license back was Alger Hiss but there was a lot of doubt about his guilt."


I am glad you agree that Governor Holden should be pardoned by the General Assembly.

As far as disbarment goes, prosecutors are hardly ever disbarred. I admit that it will be a rare occurrence when Mike Nifong's license to practice law is reinstated.

Anonymous said...

Go Sidney. You are just like me. I have as much confidence in you as I have in myself.

Charlie Sheen

Walt said...

I too am troubled by the Durham legislative contingent's lack of support for pardoning Gov. Holden. However, attacking the KKK and prosecuting three innocent men without probable cause are diametric opposites.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Mr. Harr

Contact us. We could get you into the White House.

The Selahes

Anonymous said...

This is an extremely misleading and one-sided polemic. You trivialize the issue with your failure even to mention the legal basis on which Holden was impeached and removed from office.

Based on limited research, I believe that the case for absolving Holden has significant merit.

In response to murders by the Klan (“slaughter” appears to be hyperbole, but I have done only limited research and do not know the extent of the attacks), Holden declared an insurrection in several counties and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in those counties. He hired a group of men from outside the state to seize citizens without demonstrating cause (permitted due to the suspension of habeas corpus). Holden disobeyed a court order for their release. None of the detainees subsequently was convicted of a crime.

The constitution permits a suspension of habeas corpus in limited circumstances. Others have done so. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the early years of the Civil War; Bush in reaction to terrorist attacks (but, unlike Lincoln and Holden, only for aliens and with the approval of Congress). One can support Holden’s decision due to extreme circumstances. Further research would be useful.

However, you fail to discuss the facts—your failure to mention the suspension of habeas corpus or failure to obey a court order is inexcusable. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks (opponents are “racist bigots”) rather than to engage in an honest discussion of the merits of the resolution. In doing so, you discredit your case.

You owe your readers an apology.

(I note that Holden, a Republican, held office with the support of the Carpetbaggers you appear to denigrate. Perhaps you intend the irony your term Carpetbagger Jihad can imply: only outsiders [like the Duke defendants] can bring about long overdue changes to an abusive justice system that fails to treat defendants with fairness; the monitor they seek can protect defendants, most importantly poor defendants without the resources to defend themselves.)

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

You should get in touch with me. I can arrange for you th get some publicity for yourself and your campaign. Have you ever ridden in a balloon before?

Richard Heene

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"I too am troubled by the Durham legislative contingent's lack of support for pardoning Gov. Holden. However, attacking the KKK and prosecuting three innocent men without probable cause are diametric opposites.

Walt-in-Durham"


Hey, Walt. Your statement contains a couple of issues with which I disagree. To label the Duke Lacrosse players as "innocent" is faulty, as they were not so proclaimed by a jury or judge. Secondly, I would not say that probable cause did not exist. You have a rowdy group of athletes with a well-earned reputation of debauchery and misconduct, a member of the team arranges for the "entertainment" by using an alias and false pretenses, laws pertaining to under-aged drinking are broken, denigrating comments and actions are made by the partygoers which results in the premature conclusion of the dancing, the dancers' money is stolen, and the partygoers yell racial epithets. Furthermore, these Duke athletes are at a beer guzzling party and a third of the Lacrosse team has had run-ins with the police. Yet, you think it is not probable that this group of partygoers with raging hormones and diminished mental capacity would sexually assault skimpily-clad dancers? Of course it is probable.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"This is an extremely misleading and one-sided polemic. You trivialize the issue with your failure even to mention the legal basis on which Holden was impeached and removed from office.

Based on limited research, I believe that the case for absolving Holden has significant merit.

In response to murders by the Klan (“slaughter” appears to be hyperbole, but I have done only limited research and do not know the extent of the attacks), Holden declared an insurrection in several counties and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in those counties. He hired a group of men from outside the state to seize citizens without demonstrating cause (permitted due to the suspension of habeas corpus). Holden disobeyed a court order for their release. None of the detainees subsequently was convicted of a crime.

The constitution permits a suspension of habeas corpus in limited circumstances. Others have done so. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the early years of the Civil War; Bush in reaction to terrorist attacks (but, unlike Lincoln and Holden, only for aliens and with the approval of Congress). One can support Holden’s decision due to extreme circumstances. Further research would be useful.

However, you fail to discuss the facts—your failure to mention the suspension of habeas corpus or failure to obey a court order is inexcusable. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks (opponents are “racist bigots”) rather than to engage in an honest discussion of the merits of the resolution. In doing so, you discredit your case.

You owe your readers an apology.

(I note that Holden, a Republican, held office with the support of the Carpetbaggers you appear to denigrate. Perhaps you intend the irony your term Carpetbagger Jihad can imply: only outsiders [like the Duke defendants] can bring about long overdue changes to an abusive justice system that fails to treat defendants with fairness; the monitor they seek can protect defendants, most importantly poor defendants without the resources to defend themselves.)"


Thank you for sharing your research. The only research that I have done pertains to what the media has aired and published, but I believe I have the general gist.

Let me first address a few statements you made. First, I did not call the NC General Assembly "racist bigots." The actual statement was "By not absolving Holden for taking action against the KKK, the General Assembly is in essence saying to the world, “Yup. We’re racist bigots.”"

Secondly, as far as the term "Carpetbaggers" go, it is a southern term, I believe, and I assign no negativity to the word. I use it purely as a descriptive definition, which the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants fit. Actually, one of my heroes, Albion Tourgette, a fierce fighter for equal rights and civil rights in the nineteenth century, was a carpetbagger.

With respect to Governor Holden, I believe that his impeachment and removal from office boiled down to his attempts to curb the racially motivated violence and hatred meted out by the Ku Klux Klan. The Assembly members just used the suspension of habeas corpus as an excuse. And, am I surprised that none of those individuals who were held were not convicted of a crime? No.

Walt said...

Sydney, the presumption of innocence is the rule. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) for juveniles, Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) for adults. That means criminal defendants are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Here, not only were they not proven guilty, but the evidence shows that they were not even involved with a crime, and there is considerable doubt that there ever was a crime.

The rest of your statement consists not of probabl cause that a crime took place or that a prosecution should continue let alone that any particular person should have been prosecuted. For someone who, in other circumstances, argues for justice, I find your stance incomprehensible.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

None of the lacrosse players had raging hormones for unattractive,drunk prostitute Crystal Mangum nor did they rape her in a bathroom that was too small for four people to stand still in at the same time.There are hardly any cases of white men raping black women because they aren't usually attracted to them.

Anonymous said...

To label Sid "innocent" of solicitation is faulty, as he has been not so proclaimed by a jury or judge.

Anonymous said...

For someone who, in other circumstances, argues for justice, I find your stance incomprehensible.

Walt, don’t be so naïve. Sidney has been consistent since he started this blog almost three years ago. With his distorted analysis of the Duke lacrosse frame, Sidney is in essence saying to the world:

"Yup. I'm a malicious Nifong supporter. I repeat obsessively all negative innuendo about his adversaries."

“Yup. I’m a shameless hypocrite. I apply a transparent double standard. How I analyze something depends on my desired conclusion.”

“Yup. I’m a contemptible liar. I make up any story I need to support my narrative. I distort facts and invent new definitions to try to make my arguments appear plausible.”

“Yup. I’m a disingenuous phony. I ignore unfavorable evidence and pretend that I don’t understand facts or legal concepts when they are problematic to my case. I am a master at setting up 'straw man' arguments to avoid discussing real issues.”

“Yup. I’m a completely unreliable source. No one should ever trust me.”

Anonymous said...

"....as far as the term "Carpetbaggers" go, it is a southern term, I believe, and I assign no negativity to the word."

Apparently, you have no idea what the word means, either historically or politically.

You've simply latched onto it as a pejorative term without any consideration to it's real meaning. The same is true for the word "jihad".

I'm reminded of the conversation between Inigo and Vizzini -- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Walt said...

Anonymous at 5:11 PM wrote:

"Walt, don’t be so naïve. Sidney has been consistent since he started this blog almost three years ago. With his distorted analysis of the Duke lacrosse frame,...."

That is what is so baffling. In the cases of Greg Taylor, Darrell Hunt, Alan Gell and others he looks at prosecutorial misconduct and sees it for what it is. Yet in the hoax, he excuses exactly the same behavior.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Mr. Harr:

Contact me. I am occupied right now but when I am free I would like to do some fundraising for you.

Bernie Madoff

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Anonymous at 5:11 PM wrote:

'Walt, don’t be so naïve. Sidney has been consistent since he started this blog almost three years ago. With his distorted analysis of the Duke lacrosse frame,....'

That is what is so baffling. In the cases of Greg Taylor, Darrell Hunt, Alan Gell and others he looks at prosecutorial misconduct and sees it for what it is. Yet in the hoax, he excuses exactly the same behavior.

Walt-in-Durham"


There is a big difference between Mike Nifong, who I believe acted within accepted standards when prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case and the cases involving Alan Gell, Gregory Taylor and others (I am not that familiar with the Hunt case). Prosecutor David Hoke withheld exculpatory evidence proving Gell could not have committed a murder for which he was sentenced to death and served ten years. Hoke, though receiving a reprimand by the Bar, was none the less promoted. In the Greg Taylor case, Prosecutor Tom Ford tried to pressure Taylor to implicate Johnny Beck, an African American. Taylor refused, and Ford, in retribution, congered up a couple of jailhouse snitches that wanted their sentences reduced, to fabricate a false tale against Taylor. Ford has never been brought before the Bar, although Taylor lost 17 years of his life due to Ford. The Bar will not bring up charges against Ford.

In the Duke Lacrosse case, the only person who served time in jail was Mr. Nifong. The Duke Lacrosse defendants were successful in shaking down Duke University for at least $20 mil each, and the media coddled them like idols... whenever possible talking about how they were "proclaimed innocent" or were "exonerated." Mike Nifong did not seek false testimony, did not withhold evidence, and he acted as a true minister of justice when he dismissed the rape charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Sid, what information did Nifong have when he dismissed the rape charges in October that he DIDN'T have in April?

Harr Supporter said...

Sidney,

Great news! Judge Beatty ruled that the civil cases can go forward. A number of complaints were thrown out, but a number remain.

Although his ruling likely will be appealed, perhaps discovery can at last begin. We may begin to receive answers to our questions.

Nifong must be excited. He can prove that he acted honorably as a "minister of justice" and did not attempt to deliberately frame innocent defendants.

Anonymous said...

Sid -- Here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio
nal/judge-lets-former-duke-
lacrosse-players-pursue-civil-
lawsuit-against-prosecutor-
investigators/2011/03/31/AFPzZ1CC_s
tory.html

"U.S. District Judge James Beaty said in his decision that the players can pursue claims such as malicious prosecution, concealment of evidence and fabrication of false evidence. He dismissed several other accusations, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Richard Emery, an attorney for one of the former players, Reade Seligmann, said they are prepared to vigorously pursue the case.

'The opinion is what I would call, overall, a ringing success for the boys,' Emery said."

Anonymous said...

More details from Judge Beaty...This might be a topic for a later post:

Counts 1-3: Malicious prosecution, concealment of evidence, and fabrication of false evidence — upheld

Count 4: false public statements -upheld

Beaty: must move beyond reputational harm; “Plaintiffs contend that they have stated a claim because the false public statements made by governmental officials in this case were intended to inflame the grand jury pool and result in indictments against Plaintiffs.”

Count 8: fraud — upheld

related to Duke’s giving the DPD access to the lacrosse players’ key card info in March 2006, without a warrant, and in apparent violation
of FERPA; and then lied about it when Nifong subsequently requested a court order for the information, which Judge Titus denied

Count 6: supervisory liability — upheld
“Under the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Shaw, it was clearly established that an official violated the Constitution if, in deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens, the official knew of his subordinate’s constitutional violations and failed to act.”

Count 13: conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution - upheld

Very high standard, but enough to go forward at this stage: “Defendant Nifong enjoys absolute prosecutorial immunity for the decision to prosecute, but that immunity does not extend to investigatory acts by Defendants Nifong and Wilson, particularly the creation of false and misleading evidence during the investigation.

Nifong Supporter said...

The newspaper article by the Associated Press, as usual, was biased against Mr. Nifong, and was full of omissions. I hope to know more about the ruling and to blog about it this coming Sunday.

Walt said...

"Prosecutor David Hoke withheld exculpatory evidence proving Gell could not have committed a murder....

As did Nifong.

"Hoke, though receiving a reprimand by the Bar, was none the less promoted."

Let me get this straight, if someone is given a light punishment for discrimination and subsequently rewarded, it is thus acceptable to discriminate?

Nifong lied. He lied to the court, he lied in his pressers. He pushed forward a prosecution for which there was no probable cause, let alone evidence to support.

That there are others who need to be disbarred is not in question. The Durham DA's office seems to have a pattern of withholding exculpatory evidence to railroad defendants, but we've definitely gotten rid of the worst with Nifong.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Where's your apology?

Anonymous said...

Anon,

Sid isn't going to apologize. This is his blog. He doesn't need to tell the truth. If readers point out his mistakes, he can simply ignore the corrections.

Anonymous said...

"I hope to know more about the ruling and to blog about it this coming Sunday."

We look forward to reading your thorough and insightful analyis of the court's opinion. In the meantime, let us know if your buddy is peeing in his pants yet.

Anonymous said...

"Kilgo must hav ehad a change of view...all posts deleted as far as the eye can see."

Kilgo may have been tipped off that the opinion was coming. Could this be an attempt to cover his/her tracks?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Anon,

Sid isn't going to apologize. This is his blog. He doesn't need to tell the truth. If readers point out his mistakes, he can simply ignore the corrections."


There is no apology forthcoming regarding this issue. I will not apologize because I do not feel I owe one. An apology that is not heartfelt, I believe is meaningless. So I will not submit and give you a meaningless apology. You should appreciate that.

To specify, do you think that I would want to force an apology from Duke University for discriminating against me? NO. I would graciously accept an apology from Duke if it was not forced, however.

Anonymous said...

There is no apology forthcoming regarding this issue.

You have been shown to be wrong. I take it that you believe that you are under no obligation to tell the truth.

Sidney B. Harr in essence is saying to the world:

"Yup. I'm a contemptible liar."

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"'Prosecutor David Hoke withheld exculpatory evidence proving Gell could not have committed a murder....'

As did Nifong.

'Hoke, though receiving a reprimand by the Bar, was none the less promoted.'

Let me get this straight, if someone is given a light punishment for discrimination and subsequently rewarded, it is thus acceptable to discriminate?

Nifong lied. He lied to the court, he lied in his pressers. He pushed forward a prosecution for which there was no probable cause, let alone evidence to support.

That there are others who need to be disbarred is not in question. The Durham DA's office seems to have a pattern of withholding exculpatory evidence to railroad defendants, but we've definitely gotten rid of the worst with Nifong.

Walt-in-Durham"


I disagree that Nifong withheld evidence. All evidence was turned over to the defense... maybe not as fast as they wanted. (I am not convinced that the defense did not remove lab results and then claim they were not submitted.)

Besides that, the trial date had not even been set in the Duke Lacrosse case.

The Gell case is far worse because the prosecution statements were withheld from defense after the trial, after the conviction, and after Gell had served a decade in jail... Furthermore, the statements were exculpatory, unlike evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Harr Supporter said...

Sidney,

I just read your proposal to Duke.

In addition to an apology and promises that they not discriminate against Nifong supporters, you also attempted to dictate Duke’s opinion, requiring that they include the following (or something similar) in a press release:

Duke University’s position is that Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting what is known as the Duke Lacrosse case, was performing his duties as prosecutor and there is no evidence to suggest any other motivation. (The claim made by F. Lane Williamson of the State Bar that Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case for political gain is laughable… not even the rigged poll by SurveyUSA for WTVD ABC 11 News supports such nonsense.)

I find it ironic that your response to Duke’s perceived attempt to prevent you from expressing your opinion is an insistence that Duke adopt your opinion as their own.

You provide no evidence to support your case. You seek merely to use your mistreatment as a means to coerce agreement.

Is this how you defend First Amendment rights—through extortion?

Anonymous said...

(I am not convinced that the defense did not remove lab results and then claim they were not submitted.)

This is a completely asinine statement. You have no basis in fact for making this charge.

The report is public. It does not contain an explicit reference to the unmatched DNA.

Nifong has admitted this both in the press and under oath.

Meehan has admitted this under oath.

It is moronic for you to make charges when that charge is demonstrably false.

YOU ARE INSULTING THE INTELLIGENCE OF YOUR READERS.

I DEMAND AN APOLOGY.

Anonymous said...

My money is on the defendants trying to settle the lawsuits, which settlement would include a confidentiality agreement. they desperately do not want the facts of the case to become a part of the public record. I bet the plaintiffs would not agree to any confidentiality provision. The innocent Duke Lacrosse players want the facts to become known.

Sidney, the Lacrosse players are innocent because the committed no crime, not because anyone proclaimed them innocent.

You obviously believe your perception of the case takes precedence over reality.

I bet you will totally decompensate into mindless blathering lunacy when discovery goes forward. I can't wait for the laughs I will have over your confrontation of yuor own nothingness.

Anonymous said...

Always figured Kilgo was one of the 88 THUGS! Well Kilgo maybe, just maybe some of us have copied all your posts and archived them?! Hope you get royally fu€k€d un the ass during your depositions!

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Crystal was arrested again.

Authorities say Mangum was arrested Saturday night and is being charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit robbery and inflicting serious injuries.

What happened?

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8050461

Anonymous said...

A conspiracy no doubt. The police stabbed him and got her somehow to put her prints on the knife. Its really his fault I'm sure.

Nifong Supporter said...


Harr Supporter said...
"Sidney,

I just read your proposal to Duke.

In addition to an apology and promises that they not discriminate against Nifong supporters, you also attempted to dictate Duke’s opinion, requiring that they include the following (or something similar) in a press release:

Duke University’s position is that Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting what is known as the Duke Lacrosse case, was performing his duties as prosecutor and there is no evidence to suggest any other motivation. (The claim made by F. Lane Williamson of the State Bar that Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case for political gain is laughable… not even the rigged poll by SurveyUSA for WTVD ABC 11 News supports such nonsense.)

I find it ironic that your response to Duke’s perceived attempt to prevent you from expressing your opinion is an insistence that Duke adopt your opinion as their own.

You provide no evidence to support your case. You seek merely to use your mistreatment as a means to coerce agreement.

Is this how you defend First Amendment rights—through extortion?"


I feel that Duke should make such a statement as it had the audacity to lay blame related to the Duke Lacrosse case solely on Mr. Nifong. In redressing the damage done to me, I think my request is quite modest.

Nifong Supporter said...


My next blog will be remarks about Judge Beaty's ruling.

Walt said...

"I disagree that Nifong withheld evidence. All evidence was turned over to the defense... maybe not as fast as they wanted. (I am not convinced that the defense did not remove lab results and then claim they were not submitted.)

Besides that, the trial date had not even been set in the Duke Lacrosse case."


The trial date did not matter. The DNA evidence had a timeline derived from the NTO law. That statute requires immediate handover. Further, Nifong lied about it in open court. He was asked in May if he had turned over the evidence. He said he had, when he had not. He was asked again in September and the response was the same. When he finally produced the results in October, he was trapped in both lies and of course in a violation of the NTO statute.

"The Gell case is far worse because the prosecution statements were withheld from defense after the trial, after the conviction, and after Gell had served a decade in jail..."

Situational ethics at best. Would you be claiming the lacrosse players innocence today if they were in jail? I doubt it. Thus it is not that Gell was punished that makes Hoke and Graves actions wrong, it is that they did them. So to for Nifong.

"Furthermore, the statements were exculpatory, unlike evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case."

You have claimed this several times without further clarification. Thus, I want to know what you regard as exculpatory.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Sidney, you have said that the DNA found on Ms. Mangum had been deposited several months before the night of 13-14 March 2006. :That would mean no DNA had been deposited by anyone on the night of 13-14 March 2006. The crime alleged was a crime in which the perpetrators' DNA would have been left. The proof that no DNA had been deposited on the night of the alleged crime indicated no crime had happened. How is that not exculpatory.

To say a crime could have happened without DNA having been left is legally meaningless. An essential part of proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that a crime did happen. That a crime might have happened might justify further investigation but it does not justify charging anyone with said alleged crime.