On Georgia’s death row for more than two decades after being convicted of killing an off-duty police officer, Troy Davis was finally put to death recently after a barrage of actions to stave off his execution failed. What is alarming is that Davis’ conviction was based solely on eyewitness testimony of nine individuals, seven of whom later recanted… many citing intimidation by authorities and their youth at the time of the incident as accounting for their false statements which implicated Davis.
That police use threats to elicit statements and testimony from vulnerable individuals is not disputed by most observers of the criminal justice system in North Carolina and elsewhere. Such tactics were used to convict Glen Edward Chapman of two murders for which there was no forensic evidence linking Chapman to the crimes… crimes which he stated he did not commit. Specifically, two of his younger relatives falsely told investigators that Chapman confessed to them that he committed the crimes; claims which they later admitted were untrue and the result of duress applied by law enforcement officials.
Troy Davis refused to admit to taking the life of another… something that he maintained until he was put to death by the state of Georgia. More likely than not, Mr. Davis was truly innocent of the crime, and his insistence of maintaining his innocence is what most likely was responsible for his execution. Surely the case against Davis was extremely weak, at best. However, despite the hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and around the world who wanted his execution postponed to allow for closer scrutiny, the state of Georgia acted with Draconian expediency in moving forward with taking his life.
Unfortunately, the death penalty sentence and execution was carried out to appease and satiate the family of the fallen police officer, Mark MacPhail. Circumstances surrounding MacPhail’s death are tragic, in that he was coming to the assistance of an African American assault victim when he was shot and killed. I have great sympathy for the family of the courageous man, however I do not see how taking the life of an individual who is most likely innocent can assuage the grief. When the family members thirst for blood has ebbed and logic and common sense bring to light that they had a hand in the death of a man not responsible for their loved one’s death, their grief can only be compounded.
But it is prosecutors who benefit most by the death penalty. Many studies have shown that the threat of execution does little to deter the commission of murder. However, as has been shown recently in cases of Kenneth Kagonyera and Robert Wilcoxson, the threat of facing the death penalty can be a powerful incentive for innocent people to plead guilty to a crime that they did not commit. Both men confessed to second degree murder with full knowledge that they were innocent. Not only that, but the Buncombe County prosecutor Ron Moore withheld from the defense attorneys exculpatory DNA evidence prior to Kagonyera and Wilcoxson accepting the plea deal offered by the prosecution for confessing to second degree murder. Mark Rabil, a defense lawyer and co-director of the Innocence and Justice Clinic at the Wake Forest University School of Law said that the Kagonyera/Wilcoxson case is a prime example of how much the threat of capital punishment can distort the criminal justice system.
There are many innocent people in prison who have confessed to murder and other crimes in order to avoid receiving the death penalty. In addition, there are many innocent individuals on death row who steadfastly maintain their innocence in spite of a state sanctioned execution looming over their heads.
I am currently devoting much of my time working to help a man on North Carolina’s death row who I strongly believe is innocent of any capital crime. Nearly a year’s worth of research and investigation has gone into this project, and I hope to have a compelling and comprehensive flog documentary about it posted online within the next month or two. It will be a real eye-opener, and represent the best case yet for the abolishment of capital punishment.
The death penalty should be removed from the state’s arsenal of weapons used to get innocent people to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. The fact that the death penalty is doled out disparately based on class and color is, alone, grounds for calling for its demise… especially since its execution is a finality which cannot be reversed. Financial considerations also fall on the side of doing away with the death penalty. But perhaps the strongest reason for abolishing the death penalty is because it is morally wrong. In a nation that prides itself on being religiously Christian, how can it justify taking the life of a man or a woman? What would the Man from Nazareth think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
120 comments:
I am a strong believer in capital punishmet and i wont waste my time arguing over it with you. A couple of point though.
There was no draconian rush to execute davis. He was convicted of killing a man YEARS ago and he had nine appeals, nine opportunities to get a new trial, and countless reviews.
If capital punishment is so wrong to you, why didnt you mention that a second execution took place that same day in texas. Where a true scumbag white supremacist was executed for dragging a black man to his death behind a pickup truck? The bleeding heart liberals were all over the davis executionx, grinding their teeth over it in angst. Where were they in texas? Was THAT execution ok because it was a sure thing that the guy did it, or was it because the murderer was white? Or was it because the hollywood crowd would have a hard time making a poster boy ot of the creep that drug an innocent black man so long he wqs decapitated? Hmmmmmm????
I am from texas and i am glad my state gets it right. That creep is not breathing today and that is fine by me. I would have consideredit an honor to push the plunger
Like you said at top, I'm glad you didn't argue with him about capital punishment.
"Not only that, but the Buncombe County prosecutor Ron Moore withheld from the defense attorneys exculpatory DNA evidence prior to Kagonyera and Wilcoxson accepting the plea deal...."
Interesting that you can see exculpatory DNA evidence some places and not others.
Walt-in-Durham
What a funny world. You ever hear how some people project their own flaws? Like a thief is worried about people taking his money?
Some of the people objecting to the Davis execution were against it because they thought he was innocent. Kinda like all the people who were upset with the lacrosse case. The boys were innocent.
Now here's Davis who many people think is innocent and this poster launches a defense capital punishment.
And criticizes the "hollywood crowd", whoever they are, of not sticking up for a guy who seems to have actually murdered someone.
The reason offered is not because Davis is innocent and the Texas guy was guilty. It's because one guy was white and the other black.
I wonder how many people who defended the lacrosse players defended Davis? If they're both innocent, then what separates them? Black and white. Oops.
Ironic, isn't it?
Anon at 7:39 wrote "he had nine appeals, nine opportunities to get a new trial, and countless reviews."
That is just not the way it works. Appeals do not reweigh the evidence. They are not a trial. Appeals only look at procedural errors of the trial court.
"I am from texas and i am glad my state gets it right." No, Texas does not get it right. Cameron Todd Willingham.
Walt-in-Durham
The first poster is right. Liberals hate white people. Especially white liberals. White liberals really hate white people.
Liberals hate white people so much that they don't even protest the execution of a white guy who killed a black guy.
That's how much liberals hate white people.
Again, not going to argue capital punishment. I have my beliefs. Others have their own. My point, in the recent past, is that (a)there was no mad rush to execute Davis, and (b)there was a very obvious LACK of moral outrage over the execution of the white supremacist. The question, then, is WHY weren't the liberals hollering over the Byrd-Brewer execution? Forgot to go to Texas? Hard for them to say, with a straight face, that this creep deserved to live after what he did? Just too busy with Davis case to make it to Huntsville?
As my good friend often says, with a grin, ..."things that make you go, HMMMMMM"?"
I think you're confusing a couple of things. Not everyone who protests the execution of an innocent man is against capital punishment. And not all liberals are against capital punishment.
That would be like me assuming because you're a conservative, you must believe in capital punishment and you also believe in the execution of innocent men.
Why would "liberals" who were protesting the execution of Davis and also believe in capital punishment, care about the execution of a guilty man in Texas?
And why do you think only liberals questioned the execution of Davis?
Most of us Americans fall in the middle. And no one is for the execution of an innocent man. If there are reasonable concerns that a guy is innocent, some people believe you should hold off killing him until those things are made secure especially in the face of hundreds of thousands of people saying take another look.
And if it seems like the DA didn't have enough evidence to indict three lacrosse players, some people thought there should be an inquiry. Which there was.
Anonymous at 10:07 said: "(a)there was no mad rush to execute Davis,...">
Apparently that was exactly the case. The state desperately wanted to execute Troy Davis before the last of their witnesses could recant.
More troubling is the lack of DNA evidence to connect Troy Davis to this crime. Studies have shown, despite Syd and Nifong's unwillingness to admit it, that it is all but impossible to have close contact such as in an assault without the transfer of DNA between the combatants. No such transfer from Davis was found on McPhail. Further, no other physical evidence such as blood spatter or gunshot residue linked Davis to the crime.
No matter what your position on the death penalty, you cannot in good conscience be in favor of imposing it where there is any doubt about the guilt of the defendant. For the record, until I began practicing law in North Carolina I was a staunch death penalty supporter. I remain convinced that the penalty itself is appropriate in some cases, though I strongly distrust North Carolina and for that matter Georgia to impose it.
"and (b)there was a very obvious LACK of moral outrage over the execution of the white supremacist." A straw man argument that strikes me as something Sid and Nifong would advance. However, the truth is quite different. Lawrence Brewer admitted his crime and indeed does not apologize for dragging James Byrd to death behind a pickup truck. By any reasonable view of the facts (excluding abolitionists), Lawrence Brewer is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and deserving of the ultimate penalty. Remember, Brewer said he would do it again.
Abolitionists would argue that the penalty is wrong, I will leave that argument to them. But, a lack of objection to the Brewer execution does not prove bias on the part of those of us who question the Davis execution. All it proves is we are not abolitionists.
Walt-in-Durham
Missing my point here..........the question is WHY did the same folks who protested so loudly over Davis not show up or say one word over the case in Texas? On the very same day? Again, was it because they thought the guy in Texas was guilty and therefore, deserved his fate? Was it because he was white and slaughtered a black man, and they just couldn't stomach protesting his execution? The irony is thick here. I imagine there were some who were troubled by the Davis case and had no issue, at all, with the execution of the Texas creep. However, I suspect the larger reason for the no-shows in Huntsville was because the liberals who are opposed to capital punishment couldn't figure out how to make the white supremacist their poster boy.
The Group of 88, the pot bangers, the Wahneeema and Victoria P. types, ALL were hollering for lynching the lacrosse guys....white guys who, according to them, were guilty just a few days after the incident. They all turned out in force because, according to some people, the liberal social justice types were hot for an issue like "rich" white guys raping a black woman. Some time later a white female Duke student claimed that she went to a black men's fraternity party at Duke, was raped, and pressed charges. Where were the same folks when this happened? Why no outrage on her behalf, just a day or two after the party? Why didn't Duke throw the fraternity off campus? Seems inconsistent to me.....Where was the "listening" ad in the second case?
Same point about the executions......if capital punishment is wrong, it is wrong no matter the race of the convicted or the victim. It seems to me that liberal wailing over "social justice" causes waxes and wanes, all to often, depending on the race of the "villian" (in their eyes....)
"Missing my point here..........the question is WHY did the same folks who protested so loudly over Davis not show up or say one word over the case in Texas?"
No one is missing your point. But, it is clear you are not reading what is being written in reply to your post. So, let me make it clear. Only an abolitionist would protest Brewer's execution. He is guilty by his own admission and he said he would do it again. No point to make there, unless you are an abolitionist.
This is not a christian nation and it never was.Americans are free to believe or disbelieve as they see fit.
Walt, with respect,I disagree. I think the Texas case (and others) have been conveniently ignored by a certain subgroup of so-called abolitionists who, as I said before, can't stomach the idea of protesting the execution of a man like Brewer. I realize this is a contradiction in position, i.e., as I said earlier......by definition, the abolitionists should be against capital punishment, period. However, there has long been a behavior pattern among certain "social justice" liberals (IMHO) who are apparently opposed to capital punishment and, yet, who ignore some executions and loudly protest others. (for reasons I mentioned in a previous post). We can disagree over this point, I realize.
With regard to the Davis case, do you think his appeal rights were somehow compromised? That he was not given a fair hearing? That he was railroaded by appeals courts and judges that simply rubberstamped and upheld prior verdicts, or ignored the arguments of his defense?
Not that my personal views matter, I agree with your comments about capital punishment, in general, and your doubts about NC, in particular.
"That he was not given a fair hearing?" Of course he was denied a fair trial. The witnesses against him lied.
"That he was railroaded by appeals courts and judges that simply rubberstamped and upheld prior verdicts, or ignored the arguments of his defense?" There was only one verdict. And yes, the appellate courts simply rubberstamped his conviction. They never ever inquire into the facts again. Thus, when the state uses perjured testimony the result is insidious, it corrupts all subsequent proceedings.
Walt-in-Durham
I still find it ironic that many of those who fought to the death against the prosecution about the innocence of the three indicted lacrosse players, defend the prosecution and courts on Davis.
I wonder what the difference is?
Sorry, I should have said verdict....not verdicts. My mistake. From what I read about the actual physical evidence, scare as it may have been, the prosecution based their case, in part, on finding shell casings that matched shell casings (fired from a gun) owned by Davis, that had been used in a prior shooting. (by him). I also read that part of recanting had been statements from witnesses who said, initially, he had the gun and he pulled the trigger........to, subsequently, not sure who actually had the gun, that was never found, and who actually pulled the trigger.
What is your view on the belief that capital punishment should not be an option in cases with ONLY eye witness testimony as the basis for prosecution?
.....post mortem, partial quote.....
"Indeed, by the time the stay application arrived at the Court on Wednesday evening, there was "very little meaningful review available," said Steiker. The Supreme Court can only review cases that present issues arising under federal law. In 2009, Davis came to the Court with the claim that he had evidence to prove his "actual innocence," which would have made his execution a violation of his right to life and liberty under the U.S. Constitution. In response, the Court ordered a federal district court to weigh Davis' evidence of innocence, prompting Justice Antonin Scalia to write in dissent that "[t]his Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." Ultimately, however, Davis could not convince the district court that he was actually innocent, and both the federal appeals court and the Supreme Court denied further review. "
Walt, comment? Is the "actual innocence" standard higher than the prosecution's initial burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
"nation religiously christian"...? since when? "one nation, under god, doesn't automatically mean one nation, under a christian view of religion/god, does it? for some odd reason, I thought our nation was founded on religious "freedom"....which, I hope,still means, at least, in part) we have the freedom to be athiest, christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, pagan, etc....and that there is specifically NO intent to create, support or endorse a national religion.
It's fine to object to capital punishment on religious or moral grounds if you wish. But.... It's scary to me when I read something that says our nation is religiously christian.......
by the way, I have often wondered how some so-called far-right, born again christian folks can rationalize being opposed to abortion and for capital punishment. Or, is it the other way around? Just wondering...
"Davis came to the Court with the claim that he had evidence to prove his "actual innocence," which would have made his execution a violation of his right to life and liberty under the U.S. Constitution."
You have not exactly captured the court's order. What they did was remand the case to the District Court to determine if there was evidence now available which was not available at the original trial that would prove Davis' innocence. That is a very different standard than an evidentiary hearing into his actual innocence. The District Court found that the recanted statements were not new evidence that was not available at the original trial. Which of course does not render the original testimony truthful, rather it demonstrates its falsehood. Unfortunately, the District Court and ultimately the Supreme Court allowed yet another prosecutor to use perjured testimony to obtain a conviction.
"Is the "actual innocence" standard higher than the prosecution's initial burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?" The answer in North Carolina is certainly yes. An applicant must be claiming complete factual innocence for any criminal responsibility for the crime. N.C.G.S. 15A-1460(1). That is, you cannot be asserting a legal defense, but it must be on the facts alone. Credible evidence of innocence must exist. N.C. G.S. 15A-1460(1). Verifiable evidence of innocence must exist. N.C. G.S. 15A-1460(1). The claim must not have been previously heard at trial or in a post-conviction hearing. N.C.G.S. 15A-1460(1).
As far as I know, no other state and the federal government have actual standards for determining actual innocence. The U.S. Supreme Court seems to have adopted an "unavilable at the time of trial" test. But, that is not yet developed in any meaningful manner.
Walt-in-Durham
Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Pretty specific.
Capital punishment. War. Really not Christian.
Walt, I lifted that quote from a WSJ article so, indeed, it could have contained the Editor/Author's bias, etc. Very interesting, significant and telling that it took the Supreme Court two+ hours to announce their last decision.
Walt said...
"'Not only that, but the Buncombe County prosecutor Ron Moore withheld from the defense attorneys exculpatory DNA evidence prior to Kagonyera and Wilcoxson accepting the plea deal....'
Interesting that you can see exculpatory DNA evidence some places and not others.
Walt-in-Durham"
Big difference Walt. First of all, Mr. Nifong did not withhold any evidence. All lab results the Duke Lacrosse defense team received came from the prosecution, well in advance of a trial. Secondly, the information that unidentified DNA was found on a rape kit exam does not exclude the Duke threesome of sexual assault.
In the Troy Davis case, however, the prosecution withheld from the defense the fact that many of the witnesses gave testimony under duress and threats. In addition, there was no credible evidence linking Davis to the murder.
Anonymous said...
"What a funny world. You ever hear how some people project their own flaws? Like a thief is worried about people taking his money?
Some of the people objecting to the Davis execution were against it because they thought he was innocent. Kinda like all the people who were upset with the lacrosse case. The boys were innocent.
Now here's Davis who many people think is innocent and this poster launches a defense capital punishment.
And criticizes the 'hollywood crowd', whoever they are, of not sticking up for a guy who seems to have actually murdered someone.
The reason offered is not because Davis is innocent and the Texas guy was guilty. It's because one guy was white and the other black.
I wonder how many people who defended the lacrosse players defended Davis? If they're both innocent, then what separates them? Black and white. Oops.
Ironic, isn't it?"
The execution of the Texas guy was repugnant just as that of Troy Davis... a barbaric activity for a nation that claims to be civilized. However, what makes Davis's execution worse is that it is very likely that he was innocent of the crime. He always proclaimed that he was, and seven of nine star witnesses recanted their testimony stating, in many instances, that they were coerced into committing perjury. This is not an uncommon occurrence as Tom Ford used the tactic to help convict Greg Taylor.
Let there be no doubt, death penalty opponents do not condone execution, regardless of the color of the capital defendant's skin.
"Walt, I lifted that quote from a WSJ article so, indeed, it could have contained the Editor/Author's bias, etc."
The Supremes are constrained by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which does restrict federal courts from granting habeas corpus review based on evidence that was available at the time of trial. Thus, the United States takes the position that there can be no effective claim of actual innocence through the habeas corpus process.
"Very interesting, significant and telling that it took the Supreme Court two+ hours to announce their last decision." Somebody, probably three somebodies wanted to review the case.
Walt-in-Durham
Big difference Walt. First of all, Sid, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own set of facts. "Mr. Nifong did not withhold any evidence. All lab results the Duke Lacrosse defense team received came from the prosecution, well in advance of a trial." That was not and is not the rule. Nifong was required to turn it over and he failed to do so. Further, he lied to the court when he said he did. Not only did Nifong violate the court's order, but he lied about it. You're right, that is a difference, Nifong was worse.
"Secondly, the information that unidentified DNA was found on a rape kit exam does not exclude the Duke threesome of sexual assault." Given the near impossibility of an assault without the transfer of DNA, the evidence was exculpatory and thus Nifong was required to turn it over even in the absence of North Carolina discovery law. The constitution required it. Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 ___ S.Ct. ___, (1963)
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said: "Nifong was required to turn it over and he failed to do so. Further, he lied to the court when he said he did. Not only did Nifong violate the court's order, but he lied about it. You're right, that is a difference, Nifong was worse."
Nifong did turn it over. He turned over all materials during the discovery phase. That's how the defense "discovered" it. Further, there is no convincing evidence that Nifong lied to the court. He gave the court incorrect information in Sept. saying the defense had everything.
Nifong admitted this was wrong information as soon as he found out on Dec. 15th that Meehan did not include the sentence about the unidentified DNA in the summary report. To lie would mean he knowingly knew that lab director Meehan did not include the unidentified DNA acknowledgement in the summary report. Nifong's testimony to all of this has been consistent thoughout all questioning and interviews.
Now you can say it should have been Nifong's responsibility to have known the reference to the unidentified DNA was not in the report. But you cannot insist that he DID know without evidence that he did.
Nifong did not report all results from a DNA test obtained through a non-testimonial order, and his decision not to report evidence proving that Mangum lied when she claimed she had no sex a week before the party violated NC State Law as well.
The unidentified DNA found on Mangum was non-conclusive that she had sex within one week prior. The unidentified DNA did not conclusively prove that Mangum was lying. The lab could not determine when the DNA was placed on her.
The only way the defense could use the unidentified DNA to suggest Mangum was lying, as far as her saying she only had sex with her boyfriend one week before, was anecdotal. They used this anecdotal suggestion (that the unidentified DNA proved she lied) in the media before pre-trial where the prosecution would have had the chance to argue the evidence to be inconclusive.
Right -- Unknown DNA in and one CGM (body and panties), but it could have been older than 1 week.
Uh...Ewwwww.
I cannot find a valid link to the DNA Motion, so I cannot confirm whether or not the lab could identified when the DNA was "placed on her"...
Is that you, Linwood?
No. Are you Joe Cheshire?
Linwood!! Still beating your wife? Oh, that's right -- she's your "estranged" wife now...What with the restraining order and all, I guess you got nothing better to do than hang out here at Sid's blog...Maybe sing a gospel song or two, like them good ole' days.
Hosanna, it's "THE" Deacon! All us wimmin folk are swoonin'....
I understand the mere sight of my name causes extreme reactions in some people, from accusing me of being other people to feeling weak in the knees. The only thing I can recommend for both cases is a cold shower and a good night's sleep.
"Nifong did turn it over. He turned over all materials during the discovery phase. That's how the defense "discovered" it."
Yes, he turned the evidence over, late and only after lying to the court that he had done so previously.
"Further, there is no convincing evidence that Nifong lied to the court."
Except that he was found in contempt for lying to the court.
"He gave the court incorrect information in Sept. saying the defense had everything."
That would be lie number two. Lie number one came when he made the same statement at an earlier hearing.
"The unidentified DNA found on Mangum was non-conclusive that she had sex within one week prior. The unidentified DNA did not conclusively prove that Mangum was lying."
However, it did contradict her version of events and was thus admissable. That not only makes it discoverable by our discovery rules but also the DNA evidence was required to be turned over by Brady. Finally, the evidence was admissable under rule 412(b).
Walt-in-Durham
A hundred years from now some people are going to be saying, "I know somethin' happened that night"....and they would be RIGHT. A woman lied....and LIED....and LIED.
By the way, is Sister up at Butner, yet again, getting evaluated as to mental competency to stand trial?
Yes, the unidentified DNA was admissable and discoverable. And it was delivered to the defense during discovery.
Yes, Nifong was found in contempt for lying to a court.
However, that court finding does not mean there was convincing evidence that he did in fact lie. A court verdict is not evidence or proof.
Otherwise Davis would be clearly guilty of murder. You question that verdict.
To question the verdict of one case and then to use the verdict of another case as evidence is inconsistent.
People question court decisions and verdicts all the time. From Supreme Court decisions about abortion, black people being denied the right to vote, the Casey Anthony verdict, OJ, on and on.
We all have the right to ascertain whether courts (in Nifong's case, a single, local judge) made the right decision. Whether the judge really weighed the evidence presented. Especially when the heat of battle and political motivations fade into the past.
"And it was delivered to the defense during discovery."
Only after Nifong lied about turning it over previously.
"However, that court finding does not mean there was convincing evidence that he did in fact lie. A court verdict is not evidence or proof."
In this case it does. Nifong admitted he lied. The evidence is overwhelming. He attended the meetings with DNASI. Under the NTI statute, Nifong was under a duty to turn over all those findings immediately. He did not do so. Further, he lied about doing so, not once but twice to the court. You cannot argue, with any credibility, that Nifong did not know about meetings and discussions he himself had.
"To question the verdict of one case and then to use the verdict of another case as evidence is inconsistent."
Not when the evidence is different. In the Davis case, evidence of coercion has arisen. Further, Davis is based on eyewitness testimony, the least reliable of all. The Nifong lies are based on circumstantial evidence.
Walt-in-Durham
Crystal could have lied.
Or something else, more bizarre and complicated could have happened.
She could have believed, or convinced herself, that a rape took place, and still believes to this day that a sexual assault took place, when in fact no assault ever took place.
Crystal Mangum was unstable. It wasn't just Mike Nifong, or many police officers, or just one nurse, there were many nurses and doctors at two institutions and social workers and counselors who interviewed Mangum and observed her behavior. They all believed she behaved as someone who had experienced trauma.
If Mangum actually believed she was assaulted, she could have authentically behaved that way. And convinced many professionals.
However, the forensics ultimately did not support the behavior the professionals felt was authentic.
Or maybe she just outright lied. And is an amazing actress.
In court documents and hearings in May, June and September, Nifong told two different judges that he had no more evidence that could be considered helpful to the defense. Nifong said he didn't realize the defense hadn't been given all the DNA test results until December.
Call it "economy with the truth" if you will -- it's still a lie.
So Walt, your argument is this case is completely different than any other case.
One. Michael Nifong has never ever stated that he lied. He has been consistent from the beginning that he never lied.
Your statement that he "admitted he lied" is inaccurate. He stated that he gave the court inaccurate information. But pointed out strongly and consistently that he did not lie.
It all boils down to that he thought there was a line in the June summary report from the lab that stated there was unidentified DNA found on Mangum. Yes, he knew they found that on her. But it's his testimony that he did not know that Meehan did not include that reference in the report.
There has been no hard evidence to show that he did know it was not in the report.
You can accuse him of knowing. But you can't prove it.
One way to prove that he knew would be to catch him in a lie or inconsistent statement on this matter. But he has been consistent and has never been inconsistent on this issue.
Ah, Deacon gives us the Clinton argument.......No, I did not have sex with that woman....uh, well, it all depends on what "is" is. Uh, well, uh I did but I didn't, wink wink, if you know what I mean....cause "that" kind of sex don't count. Same old tired word tomfollery, deacon. It wasn't a lie. It was a, well, uh, it was a temporary lapse in my memory tapes caused by changes in the barometric pressure, judge.
Nice try, no cigar...bud. Nifong LIED. Mangum LIED.
( I know, I know...bad pun with the cigar deal....)
I understand the position of not believing Nifong. And that he lied outright. And that she lied outright. I understand those who take that position. It's a gut position. I get it.
I have a problem when statements are made like "Nifong admitted he lied". He did not.
I understand people's beliefs. I just can't go with changing the facts to promote those beliefs.
Again, wrong, Deacon. ONE inadequately trained, improperly supervised SANE noted vaginal redness and swelling consistent with trauma. (and, oh, by the way, it's also consistent with consensual sexual activity which we KNOW Sister had plenty of....) There were zero statements from other DUH nurses or social workers regarding whether Sister was raped or assaulted.
The woman LIED, Deacon. She had countless opportunities to get her stories straight. Didn't happen. What she DID do was constantly CHANGE her stories to try to make them somehow compatible with the FACTS. For example, she told the SANE four times, four times, that the attackers did NOT use condoms. If you don't believe it, check the statements made by the SANE at the Nifong hearing. Then, when there was no DNA, she changed her story and said (a)she couldn't remember and, then, later(b)well, no, maybe they DID use condoms.
You can excuse her behavior all you want. A lie is a lie.
I'm not excusing her behavior.
The SANE nurse is what the defense concentrates on because she was the official who filed the report. And she was new and therefore could be made less credible. And the non-testimonial order was conducted based on her report. Nifong's initial statements to the press were also based on her report in large part.
But there were several statements made by social workers, counselors and doctors to the police. One of the great fears Joe Cheshire had about going to trial for David Evans is that Nifong would parade all these hospital professionals into court to state that at the time they believed Mangum was traumatized.
I'm not saying she did not change her story or was credible. I'm not saying she was raped.
I'm saying there were other hospital staff who believed she was raped. Including the doctor who examined her for the rape kit. It was not the doctor's job to determine rape. And she did not. The doctor made the entry about vaginal swelling that you refer to which is both consistent with consensual sex and rape. It was the SANE that stated she believed Mangum was raped.
I'm not saying she was assaulted. But the defense had a much harder case to defend than sometimes is presented in retropect.
Deacon -- I'll refer you to Nifong's testimony here:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/vide
o/1505657/#/vid1505657
It's really simple -- either Nifong lied, or he was grossly incompetent, or both.
I content that he was both.
Sid -- If you review a number of these videos, you'll find Nifong referring to the DNA evidence as "potentially exculpatory"...Something you've consistently argued against.
SANE Levicy also made an inaccurate statement to police according to police reports. She told Gottlieb, according to the police report, that there was "blunt force trauma". Dr. Manly who conducted the exam on Mangum never assessed blunt force trauma, only vaginal swelling. However, Duke Hospital by way of Levicy told police that the "victim" had blunt force trauma.
Nifong was given this information of blunt force trauma on the same day that he made initial press statements. The police and Nifong may have believed they had a stronger case than they did.
Is this excusing Nifong and police? No. I'm simply articulating an accurate sequence of events that led to this horrible ordeal.
Lance,
I'm not judging whether Nifong was incompetent or lied or not. I'm not judging anyone. You and others are very anxious to do that.
I'm simply stating what the record is. Not my personal opinion.
It's very hard to state neutral facts and context without people jumping to conclusions about what angle you're taking. Why are so many people threatened by accuracy?
I've reviewed the testimony many times before. If you have a statement where Nifong admits he lied, state it. It's not there.
If you want to leap to conclusions, do it. But I don't leap.
Deacon -- Watch the video. at around 12:35, Nifong admits to making a "false statement of material fact to the court".
Do you consider a "false statement of material fact to the court" not a lie?
Sid -- For the record, Mike Nifong declares the DNA evidence from the rape kit "specifically exculpatory" at around the 22:30 mark.
Deacon says "I have reviewed the testimony many times"....well, so have many of the rest of us. And, frankly, Deacon, your recollection of what YOU to consider to be factual and accurate does NOT jibe with what many of us recall. For example, not a single DUH social worker gave ANY statement. Period. Expressing an opinion is your right. Dressing up an opinion as immutable fact is Sidney-esque. Don't expect anybody on the blob to simply accept what you say is "fact", simply because you say it.
Lance the Intern wrote: "Deacon -- Watch the video. at around 12:35, Nifong admits to making a "false statement of material fact to the court"." Ladies and gentlemen, game, set and match. Well put Lance.
Walt-in-Durham
"Lance the Intern wrote: "Deacon -- Watch the video. at around 12:35, Nifong admits to making a "false statement of material fact to the court"." Ladies and gentlemen, game, set and match. Well put Lance."
Unreal. Seriously, unreal. Wow.
As I've said from the beginning. Nifong admitted to making a false statement of material fact. But insists he did not lie. According to him IN TESTIMONY (the ones you guys are so familiar with) at the time he stated that fact (we gave the defense everything) he did not know Meehan did not include the reference to the unidentified DNA in the Spring summary report.
Lance, to your question, does a statement of material fact make a lie. Not necessarily. You can make an inaccurate statement without knowing it is inaccurate. That is not a lie.
If you know the material fact is inaccurate and testify to it, then that's a lie.
Nifong testified over and over again under oath that when he made that statement of material fact he did not know that it was inaccurate.
There is no hard evidence or contradiction by anyone that what Nifong said multiple times under oath is false.
The judge found him guilty of LYING under oath despite this testimony.
I don't care if he lied or not. I don't care.
But you cannot say that he admitted to lying under oath when he testified to the complete opposite.
When you said "Nifong admitted he lied", you may not have known that this was inaccurate. So that was a false statement of material fact but you did not lie. If you say from now on that Nifong admitted he lied, and you now know that that is not supported by any evidence or testimony, you will be lying.
Anonymous said: " For example, not a single DUH social worker gave ANY statement."
I don't what you mean by a "statement". This case never got to trial. So DUH never testified. SInce the trial was stopped.
Do you honestly believe that the police department only spoke to one single nurse at Duke Hospital? I know you believe the police are incompetent but really? They only spoke to Tara Levicy? Have you read the police reports?
The only person on record who objected to Crystal Mangum's story was a police officer, Shelton. No one at the hospital questioned her story, not the nurse who first interviewed her at the Durham Access Center and not the doctors or nurses at Duke. The staff who questioned her at the Durham Access Center was the one who asked her if she was raped originally. That staff woman believed she was raped and sent her to Duke. Are you crazy?
A male doctor interviewed her at Duke. And Doctor Manly who examined her for the rape kit thought she was sexually assaulted.
Now, maybe these professionals should have found fault with Mangum's story. But they did not. And the prosecution had them in the wings.
You only know about Levicy because that's what the defense has promoted. And her testimony was problematic. Not as much for how KC Johnson attacks her for being a feminist. But because she told police there was blunt force trauma and there wasn't.
I don't understand why some of you hold onto certain stories when they even go against common sense. The police talked to more than one nurse.
Walt said...
"That he was not given a fair hearing?" Of course he was denied a fair trial. The witnesses against him lied.
"That he was railroaded by appeals courts and judges that simply rubberstamped and upheld prior verdicts, or ignored the arguments of his defense?" There was only one verdict. And yes, the appellate courts simply rubberstamped his conviction. They never ever inquire into the facts again. Thus, when the state uses perjured testimony the result is insidious, it corrupts all subsequent proceedings.
Walt-in-Durham
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and it bears repeating.
Deacon said...
Walt said: "Nifong was required to turn it over and he failed to do so. Further, he lied to the court when he said he did. Not only did Nifong violate the court's order, but he lied about it. You're right, that is a difference, Nifong was worse."
Nifong did turn it over. He turned over all materials during the discovery phase. That's how the defense "discovered" it. Further, there is no convincing evidence that Nifong lied to the court. He gave the court incorrect information in Sept. saying the defense had everything.
Nifong admitted this was wrong information as soon as he found out on Dec. 15th that Meehan did not include the sentence about the unidentified DNA in the summary report. To lie would mean he knowingly knew that lab director Meehan did not include the unidentified DNA acknowledgement in the summary report. Nifong's testimony to all of this has been consistent thoughout all questioning and interviews.
Now you can say it should have been Nifong's responsibility to have known the reference to the unidentified DNA was not in the report. But you cannot insist that he DID know without evidence that he did.
Deacon, your comment listed above is worthy of you being positioned far ahead of the field in the category of "Most Enlightened Commenter." Please continue to join me in helping enlighten others.
Deacon, the police report from DUH specifically limited comments to one nurse, the SANE and one physician who did NOT physically examine Mangum, but who signed off on the SANE's report. The Durham Access worker, NOT a social worker by the way, took Mangum word for it.....when she, Mangum, changed her story and said she was raped. after first, twice, saying she was not. The Durham Access worker simply passed along Mangum's statement and, based on that statement, Mangum was sent to DUH rather than jail.....which is where she would have been taken, otherwise.
You believe as you wish. Your so-called facts are wrong.
All of this is twiddling about who said what is immaterial. Mangum lied. Nifong lied. You can put a pretty dress on a pig. It's still a pig.
So you agree with me. Yet you seem like you think you don't.
The poster who said the only statement was from the SANE was inaccurate. You support my correction. You give evidence that there were three. There were others besides the ones you mentioned (beyond police reports), but let's leave it at your evidence that supports what I said.
By the way, these are not my beliefs. We're just trying to determine what is accurate.
Everyone can believe their own truth. Truth can be relative. Accuracy is not a belief. When someone cannot prove their belief, they say "you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe." Beliefs may be equal. But not accuracy.
I'm open to evidence of an inaccurate statement. You cannot discern what I personally believe by my simply stating the police spoke to more than the SANE nurse.
But you believe I'm saying more than that. I'm not.
I agree with Deacon. Nifong’s statement that he made a false statement of material fact is not an admission that he lied. The false statement must be deliberate.
Deacon claims there is “no hard evidence to show” that Nifong knew the statement relating to unidentified DNA was not in the report. Because this relates to Nifong’s intent, Deacon maintains that we may only “prove” Nifong lied with an admission that he did so or inconsistent statements on his part. His actions may permit some to infer that he lied, but cannot “prove” it. Deacon’s requirement for proof is higher than the standard required to convict a defendant of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt).
We know several neutral facts:
Nifong participated in three meetings at DNASI. It is unusual for a DA to attend multiple meetings in another county to discuss DNA tests. Meehan stated that he discussed the unmatched DNA in one or more meetings. Nifong made at least one comment to the report (its date). Meehan admitted that the exclusion was in violation of company policy and industry standards. Meehan admitted that he had never excluded information from a report before. Meehan stated under oath in December that he and Nifong had agreed to exclude the unmatched DNA from the report, but recanted in later testimony. Meehan testified in December that the failure to include results was motivated by privacy concerns. Nifong stated in an interview they were trying to avoid “dragging any names through the mud” and the report noted that more information was available.
Nifong stated that he did not read the report at any time between its issuance in May and the filing in December and did not know its contents. Nifong stated that he was not focused on DNA discussions in the meetings because he had concluded the case did not depend on DNA.
Some have concluded that Nifong lied and/or was incompetent.
Those who conclude Nifong lied discount Nifong’s statements as self-serving. They conclude that it is inconceivable that Nifong devoted the time to attend meetings with DNASI, yet did not read the report or listen to the discussion, and that Meehan’s and Nifong’s statements regarding privacy issues are inconsistent with lack of knowledge. Those who conclude he was incompetent find his failure to read the report as a demonstration of incompetence.
Deacon notes that both are judgments. I agree.
Just to correct Deacon on a point. I said the police spoke to one nurse, the SANE, and the doctor who did not actually examine Mangum, but who signed off on the SANE's report. The SANE backed up this information when she was questioned during the Nifong hearing. To be clear, the "one nurse" language above IS the SANE. Not two nurses.
I went back and watched the video of the Nifong hearing again, particularly his statements under questioning. It is astounding to watch....yet again....and to hear the man trying to squirm his way out of responsibility for his own actions by blaming others. Just hard to believe Durham actually elected this guy. and shameful.
Deacon, you are good comic relief. Sadly, Nifong really does think this way, which is of course why he had to be disbarred and removed from office. "As I've said from the beginning. Nifong admitted to making a false statement of material fact. But insists he did not lie."
Neither Deac, nor Nifong know what a lie is.
Walt-in-Durham, thanking Deac for the morning chuckle.
I am thinking about how my Dad would respond to Deacon's tap dancing about Nifong's lying and Mangum's lying. Dad did not care too much for excuses. He was, however, big on responsibility and accountability..... Neither Nifong nor Mangum have a bleeping clue about either concept.
An encounter:
Policeman: Let me see your license and registration, please.
Driver: Here's my license.
Policeman: Your license is expired.
Driver: Gee, I didn't know.
Policeman: Oh golly gosh, that's ok. You didn't know. Be sure to get it renewed.
Driver: OK
Or....
Policeman: Let me see your license and registration, please.
Driver: Here is my license
Policeman: It is expired.
Driver: I didn't know
Policeman: Ignorance of the expiration date is no excuse. It is your responsibility to keep your license current. If you claim you did not know, that's immaterial. Here's your ticket.
Nifong......I didn't know I was lying...... "Here's your ticket"...
Day #180 for Crystal's most recent incarceration for murder.
She's now locked up at the psychiatric hospital in Butner awaiting a competency exam.
If ruled incompetent to stand trial, she'll be held until she is deemed competent. A win-win, but I doubt that this gambit will work in her favor.
Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney? said...
Day #180 for Crystal's most recent incarceration for murder.
She's now locked up at the psychiatric hospital in Butner awaiting a competency exam.
If ruled incompetent to stand trial, she'll be held until she is deemed competent. A win-win, but I doubt that this gambit will work in her favor.
Unfortunately I am afraid the gambit, as you put it, has already worked. Fact is that her attorney should never have put that motion for a psychiatric evaluation before the court. It does nothing more than undermine her self-defense argument. I am currently working on a flog which will explain it in detail.
Sidney: Unfortunately I am afraid the gambit, as you put it, has already worked. ... It does nothing more than undermine her self-defense argument.
It does more than that, Sidney - it keeps the citizens of Durham safe from her for that much longer, and raises the probability that we will see the psych eval eventually.
The 'self-defense argument' seems like a loser. What do you base that on?
We look forward to your fractured fairy tale explaining her legal strategy in detail.
Day 181 that Crystal's children are safe from her.
Sidney: "I am currently working on a flog which will explain it in detail."
While you're at it, Sidney, please be sure to 'splain us Crystal's 2 recent charges:
4/3/2011 [incarcerated] ASSAULT ON A FEMALE NO BOND $0.00
4/3/2011 [incarcerated] ASSAULT BY STRANGULATION NO BOND $0.00
Has sweet l'il Precious been fighting in jail?
Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney? said...
Sidney: "I am currently working on a flog which will explain it in detail."
While you're at it, Sidney, please be sure to 'splain us Crystal's 2 recent charges:
4/3/2011 [incarcerated] ASSAULT ON A FEMALE NO BOND $0.00
4/3/2011 [incarcerated] ASSAULT BY STRANGULATION NO BOND $0.00
Has sweet l'il Precious been fighting in jail?
I am unaware of those charges. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me with a reference or link?
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/
departments/shrf/IPS/current.cfm
Sid:
I am unaware of those charges.
Fact is that her attorney should never have put that motion for a psychiatric evaluation before the court.
I am currently working on a flog which will explain it in detail.
A bit of advice. You may wish to learn all of the facts before you criticize others.
An assault on another prisoner or guard may have triggered the competency examination.
This may explain why her lawyers have decided against the self-defense argument.
Stipulated to for the Bar Hearing:
135. Immediately after the conclusion of the December 15 hearing, Nifong made statements to members of the news media consistent with the following: "And we were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud but at the same time his report made it clear that all the information was available if they wanted it and they have every word of it." (A.C. at 268), (Stipulation 133)
Take this stipulation along with Meehan's testimony from the 12/15 hearing and Nifong stipulates to the fact that he knew the exculpatory unknown male DNA was excluded from the report.
You may want to argue that Nifong and Meehan were avoiding dragging the non-indicted players names through the mud and that's just laughable.
In court, under direct and specific questioning, he denied withholding anything from the defense (called it a witch hunt). Further he said all they'd discussed at the DSI meetings was The Report - arguing that his discussions with DSI weren't discoverable. Another lie - contradicts the above stipulation and Meehan's testimony.
From the very beginning I watched as Nifong chose his words carefully, trying his best to phrase things so he could avoid being called a liar. He wiggled, squirmed, accused and got away with nasty snide remarks in court. Call it what you want, he lied about the DNA, about the report, about a lot of things. He's a very skilled liar.
correction to October 2, 2011 1:33 PM:
He's a very practiced liar.
Anon Oct 2. There were two sets of DNA data.
1. The DNA profiles of unindicted lacrosse players who showed no positive results. It's this players' profile data that Meehan wanted to protect from the press. He asked Nifong if he could keep that players' data out of the report and Nifong agreed. But Nifong has stated that he told Meehan as long as all positive results were in the report.
2. The unidentified male DNA which were positive results. This set of data Nifong did not want left out of the report. And assumed was in there.
In the re-telling of what happened these two sets of data sometimes get confused. And quotes are attributed to one or the other inaccurately.
Nifong's reference in your quote about all material being available refers to the first sentence at the right hand top of the summary report. Meehan wrote the statement that other material is available.
Funnier by the post. Keep dancing deacon.
Well, if facts are funny.
I'm not on a side. I'm not invested in being pro-Nifong or anti-Nifong. I don't really care if Nifong lied or not. Or what David Evans did. Or how someone judges Joe Cheshire's behavior. I'm more interested in commentators on boards promoting inaccuracies.
Since this is a Nifong board, most inaccuracies relate to Nifong. If this were a Joe Cheshire board, most inaccuracies might relate to Joe Cheshire.
If your agenda is to attack Nifong, I believe it's in your interest to make an accurate argument that's consistent with recorded testimony.
That strengthens your argument.
Now that Sister has apparently added two more charges to her resume, one has to wonder what her attorneys are thinking? she's in custody so she is, presumably, getting no alcohol and only drugs that are prescribed. ( I know, I know....jail can be a user's paradise....) Assuming she is relatively clean and sober, and still, apparently, has racked up two more charges involving violence against another person.....it's getting more and more difficult for her defenders to claim, with a straight face, that it's always the other guy's fault and Sister is always the victim.
ANONYMOUS POSTED:
"Stipulated to for the Bar Hearing:
135. Immediately after the conclusion of the December 15 hearing, Nifong made statements to members of the news media consistent with the following: "And we were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud but at the same time his report made it clear that all the information was available if they wanted it and they have every word of it." (A.C. at 268), (Stipulation 133)"
Look at the quote. Nifong says "dragging any names through the mud". There were no names in the unidentified male DNA. Thus the term "unidentified". They did not know who the unidentified DNA belonged to.
However, they did know whose players' profiles they had. Meehan had the DNA profiles of the entire lacrosse team. It was these profiles that Meehan did not want to be abused by the press.
In the quote, Nifong goes on to say, that the report made clear, (on the first page of the report, the very first sentence) that this material was available to certain parties upon request. Meaning the defense. Not the press. The point was not to make the player profiles available to the press through court filings. Nifong is referring to the players' profiles if the defense wanted to see those even though they had no positive matches.
This statement by Nifong is not applicable to the unidentified male DNA. As pointed out, the words used show that the reference is to the players' profile DNA, not the unidentified DNA which was the set of DNA under dispute.
So Deacon are you saying Meehan (Nifong's witness) lied over and over again on the stand at the December hearing when he said he'd gone over in detail the results of DSI testing? Meehan specifically said he told nifong about the foreign DNA.
At the Sept hearing when the defense renewed their request for a record of those meetings with DSI Nifong claimed they'd merely discussed the testing DSI would be doing and then the summary report they'd produced. This not only makes no sense, it contradicts meehan's later testimony.
Nifong, in response to a specific question from the court, denied that there was any discoverable discussion... 'no other statements to me' I believe were his exact words.
So, either Meehan lied over and over or Nifong lied.
Or Nifong now claims that even tho he was in those meetings, those statements were made to someone else, not him .
Let me make clear, this is not my opinion. What I'm trying to clarify is what was said in these documents. And by clarifying what people actually said in documents, we can maybe get a more accurate portrayal of what happened, years later, after the heat of the moment.
Yes, both Nifong and Meehan said they discussed the unidentified DNA in meetings. What you may want to keep in mind is that this unidentified DNA was not useful to the prosecution's case. It was not "inculpatory". So Nifong did not have much of an interest or focus on it.
In Sept., Nifong said that there was nothing discussed in those meetings with Meehan that was outside what was covered in the summary report.
At that time, in Sept., according to Nifong testimony, he still assumed the unidentified DNA was included in the summary report. When he was asked a direct question and he said what you quote, "no other statements to me", he was saying that there was nothing else discussed in those meetings that were not covered in the summary report. He assumed the unidentified DNA was in there.
Not until Dec 15, when it was pointed out to him, by Brad Bannon discovering that the unidentified DNA was not mentioned in the summary report, did he realize, according to his consistent testimony, that Meehan did not include the unidentified DNA in the summary report. He immediately said that the unidentified DNA should have been included. And gave the defense the unidentified DNA immediately, still within the discovery phase.
Bannon made it clear at the sept hearing that he was asking about what was discussed at the meetings in april. The defense wanted nifongs notes from the april meetings.
What nifong said in reference to those meetings is that they discussed nothing other than the type of testing and the report produced. He said no other statements other than statements about those two topics were made and that is a flat out lie. Regardless what ended up in the report.
Well, I understand people accuse Nifong of lying. That's why the reading of the testimony is interesting.
Yes. Nifong testified that he took no notes at the meetings with Meehan. Himan and Gottlieb corroborated that. Nifong could not produce notes the defense was asking for since there were none.
So the defense wanted to know what was the content of what was discussed at the meetings. What you say is correct, in Sept., he told Bannon they only spoke about the type of testing and what was going into the report. In Sept. Nifong assumed, according to further testimony, that the report covered the unidentified male DNA. He assumed the unidentified male DNA was in the report. So when he said in Sept. that they only spoke about what was in the report that meant to him at that time the unidentified male DNA.
He found out, according to consistent testimony and supported by the very point you're making, not until Dec. 15th that Meehan did not put the unidentified DNA into the report.
You can call him an outright liar as many do. But I don't see the inconsistency of his testimony.
Deacon wrote: "1. The DNA profiles of unindicted lacrosse players who showed no positive results. It's this players' profile data that Meehan wanted to protect from the press. He asked Nifong if he could keep that players' data out of the report and Nifong agreed. But Nifong has stated that he told Meehan as long as all positive results were in the report."
Among the many problems with that is the NTI statute required Nifong to hand over that information to each person from whom it was taken. He failed to do that. Not so much a lie by Nifong as a violation of the law. Another of his famous ethical failings.
"2. The unidentified male DNA which were positive results. This set of data Nifong did not want left out of the report. And assumed was in there."
The famous Nifong is incompetent defense. Not the best defense to use before the commission charged with maintaining the competency of the profession. I will admit though, that Nifong was throughout his inglorious career the poorest prepared lawyer I ever encountered. Time and time again, he had not read the file, was unprepared for court even for the most minor of matters.
Walt-in-Durham
Deacon - You have certainly mastered Nifongese. Someone has taught you well.
Yes. Nifong testified that he took no notes at the meetings with Meehan. Himan and Gottlieb corroborated that. Nifong could not produce notes the defense was asking for since there were none.
Cerainly he could and that is exactly what the defense was asking him to do -- record what had been said that was discoverable. He said there was nothing. No statements made to him. HE LIED.
In Sept. Nifong assumed, according to further testimony, that the report covered the unidentified male DNA. He assumed the unidentified male DNA was in the report. So when he said in Sept. that they only spoke about what was in the report that meant to him at that time the unidentified male DNA.
Following are the statements of Doug Kingsbery from the 9/22 hearing. He makes it VERY clear that the foreign male DNA has not been reported to them. Nifong's claim that he assumed it was there doesn't pass the red face test... Shouldn't he have been saying whoa, whoa, whoa -- I thought you had that. But no...
Kingsbery: "And then lastly, Your Honor, with respect to paragraphs 35 and 36 dealing with the DNA testing, I just want to make sure that the discovery we're requesting is not being miscontrued and therefore limited in the state's response. ... I want to make sure the state understands our motion to compel discovery is not limited to some request for information to challenge those results.
There was DNA found on the alleged victim. It was none of these defendants. And the reason that the state's experts found that was because that perpetrator's DNA was submitted by the state to these experts. There may be additional male DNA that was recovered and analyzed and found by these experts but they couldn't match it with anyone because the state hasn't given the identities to the DNA experts.
And this is my point: We're seeking information of any additional DNA that was found on this alleged victim even though it doesn't match any of these defendants. And I want to make sure that the state understands our request for discovery is not limited to simply things that have to do with these defendants or the list of individuals that the state provided to the experts.
And I bring this up because I believe I heard Mr. Nifong say today that he's got some correspondence or communication from his experts which limits what's in the reports to the defendants and to those thought to be linked. And if there are additional male DNA present on this victim, I want to make sure that everyone understands that our discovery motion asks for that material, as well."
How can anybody look at the testimony and/or video of what transpired, what Nifong said and didn't say, etc.....and not come away with the conclusion that he lied, willingly, often, and without any excuse? Did he express remorse for his behavior? Perhaps....tho it appeared to many of us that he was STILL excusing, qualifying, blaming and carving out his own "safe harbors" what what he did. It's similar to the statement " I still believe something happened that night"... in the sense that he STILL wanted to shield himself, rationalize and blame... I recall his so-called "apology"... that began with "to the extent that"....crocodile tears and all.
And, now, we have Tracey Cline making the same excuses, i.e., saying she didn't know, wasn't told, etcetc. Blaming and tap dancing in the face of a CLEAR record of misbehavior.
When will the citizens of Durham elect an honorable ethical competent and accountable DA?
The issue is, did Nifong lie (knowingly) about the unidentified male DNA? When people can't prove their case, they change the subject. Or expand the conversation to things that seem related but do not prove their case.
The accusation is that Nifong lied. Even on this post: "outright lied" "He admitted he lied" "lied over and over". There must be ample opportunity, scads of examples then to be pulled from thousands of pages of testimony to show an inconsistency. To show how he said one thing there and contradict himself over here. A gotcha moment.
No one has provided one.
I'm not defending Nifong. I'm reading the documents. You have to give EVIDENCE to prove your case.
Show me ONE INCONSISTENCY.
Just one, in context.
One way to test a liar is to look at everything he says and then to see it from his point of view. And to see if what he says holds up.
I doubt if any of those who are anti-Nifong have done this on the unidentified DNA issue.
If everything he says is consistent. If there's no gotcha moment. If how he says what happened with the unidentified male DNA COULD have happened, if there's reasonable doubt that things, as convoluted and as complicated and as human as they seem, could have taken place, then maybe, just maybe they happened the way he said in the matter of the unidentified male DNA.
Prove your case with the testimony. Not with everyone agreeing that it's there.
ABC news June 6th, 2007....
"The bar's three-member disciplinary panel unanimously found Nifong guilty of fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation; of making false statements of material fact before a judge; of making false statements of material fact before bar investigators, and of lying about withholding exculpatory DNA evidence, among other violations."
That is about as clear as it can be.....
Deacon - address the specifics that I posted from the 9/22 hearing. You, in hindsight, say well he didn't know he was lying - he thought it was in the report. Kingsbery clearly, very clearly tells Nifong that it's not in the report.
You chose to ignore the specific facts and interpret the whole in Nifong's favor. He didn't know he was lying.... doesn't make him any less of a liar.
To Anonymous Oct. 3. To your first point. "He said there was no statements made to him. There was nothing".
That's not accurate. This was in response to asking was there anything MORE outside of what was covered in the report. He did not say there were no statements made to him that was discoverable. That's absurd.
He could not deliver notes that did not exist. Now he could have created notes months later. When Gottlieb did that, the defense and blogs eviscerated him as making things up.
Nifong's point was that he did not take notes but that everything discoverable in the meetings was included in the report.
So your first point does not prove he lied.
Your second point. At least you quoted something that actually related to what could be a definition of the unidentifed DNA by Doug Kingsbery.
Nifong responded to this. He said everything is in the report. Which is consistent.
This wasn't the only thing the defense asked for. They were filing tons of motions through the summer. Asking for everything from everyone. Part of this defense tactic (and a good one) was to delay moving to trial. They hired a lawyer whose job was only to file motions and to think of things to ask him for. And his answer was always the same. We've given you everything.
Nifong has a long and documented history of giving everything over to the defense. Way before the law forced prosecutors to do so. He taught young prosecutors to never hold anything back from the defense. He taught to let the defense decide what they believed to be exculpatory.
So. Your proof that he lied is what he could have said? In your imagination?
The best way to prove a lie is to show the lie that someone actually said.
You say: "Deacon - You have certainly mastered Nifongese. Someone has taught you well."
I don't master anything. I read documents neutrally.
And here's a difference. If you show me that Nifong lied, in context, in documented form. I'll accept it. Unlike many Nifong attackers accepting what's not there.
Now, anonymous, If you promote that someone lied and you can't provide a smoking gun, or any solid, specific proof in thousands of pages, my question is:
Who has taught you? Who has taught you to see something you can't prove? Who has taught you to see something that's not there? Who could that be? Who, anonymous, has taught you well?
Anon 9:24. A verdict is not proof. We've covered this. We have the right to question a verdict.
Anon:
Not knowing you are lying means you are not a liar.
You have to know something is false and then promote that in order to lie.
We've been through this. He admitted he made a misstatement of material fact. That doesn't mean he lied. Or admitted he lied.
Nifong LIED. Period. You question the verdict all you wish. As you say, your right to do so. I guess that's why we have conspiracy theorists, black helicopters, crop circles and Big Foot....so people can think what they wish.
Unless you can prove something through evidence, it's a belief. You believe he lied. As you say, people will think what they wish. Even without proof.
Questioning a verdict is part of our DNA as a democracy. It comes from innocent people being executed by the state when DNA evidence or lack of DNA evidence (proof) later disproved the verdict.
Verdicts are particularly suspect when there is high emotion and political pressure involving an event. The type of national pressure exerted on the State of North Carolina during the Duke Lacrosse Case.
The Italian courts just corrected their verdict with Amanda Knox. I wonder if they will disbar the prosecutor? I wonder if we should disbar every prosecutor who doesn't prove his case?
They certainly don't disbar all prosecutors who win a case that resulted in an execution and later found to be not guilty.
North Carolina has only disbarred one prosecutor in history. A DA whose case never went to trial.
He was disbarred partially because he lied in court.
An act that no one has proved.
Hope Cline follows right in Nifong's footsteps. She certainly has learned her sense of "ethics" and lack of accountability from him.
Deacon @ October 4, 2011 9:54 AM
Nifong said that he and DSI had discussed only two things -- that the discussed nothing that was discoverable.
Flat out, on its face, that is a lie.
Doesn't matter what he believed or didn't believe was in the report.
In the 9/22 hearing (as I stated earlier) it was clear that Bannon wanted Nifong to record what was discussed at the April 10 and April 20 meetings.
Clearly, they didn't discuss the types of tests at these two meetings (the testing was for the most part done) and they couldn't have discussed the report since it wasn't prepared until a month later.
What did they discuss?? That's what Bannon wanted to know... Nifong said 'nothing'... no statements made to me.
GIVE IT UP.
Funny you should mention the prosecutor in the Knox trial. He's already been found guilty of dereliction of duty and abuse of office in another case. His actions in the Knox case may not be an issue, his job is already on the line. Thank goodness the NC Bar took care of Nifong before he could drag anyone else through the horrors that he drug the lacrosse team through.
Can't wait to hear from Sid and his , uh, "sources" about how Sister is once-again the victim....that she was only strangling somebody in self defense, that the psychiatrists at butner failed to evaluate her properly, that she is being warehoused up there, etc, etc. How about it, Sid? When do we get the latest installment of As the Stomach Turns: the Mangum story.
I actually purchased and read Mangum's "book". Every word in that "book" is pathetic... a sad narrative of lies, self pity, finger pointing, blaming, denying and racially-based hate. If you read the material, it would be easy to say Mangum is mentally incompetent to stand trial because she appears to actually believe her own fantasies. Whatever happens next in her story, it is my hope and prayer that she NEVER gets unfettered access to her kids again.
Watchoo talkin' bout,Sidney said While you're at it, Sidney, please be sure to 'splain us Crystal's 2 recent charges:
4/3/2011 [incarcerated] ASSAULT ON A FEMALE NO BOND $0.00
4/3/2011 [incarcerated] ASSAULT BY STRANGULATION NO BOND $0.00
Has sweet l'il Precious been fighting in jail?........... To all those who hate and are ever ready to malign, these charges do not belong to Crystal and were mistakenly attributed to her and will be corrected.
Deacon loves to continue the Nifong didn't lie theory inspite of all the evidence to the contrary. What we are left with is Nifong lied in court. Nifong was found in contempt for lying in court. Nifong admitted that he in fact made a mistatement of material fact to the court. That causes Deacon to want to claim that is not an admission of a lie. Well, what we have from Deacon says more about him than anything else. Sorry Deac, you can't parse Nifong's admission into something it is not. Nifong lied. Nifong was disbarred and found in contempt. Nifong did not appeal either decision. He is a liar beyond any doubt.
Walt-in-Durham
so, if indeed these two latest charges were incorrectly attributed to Mangum on the sheriff's web site (they appear there), then as the poster says, they will be removed and we can all agree that at least those two charges were made in error. Hooray for Sister....she may not have tried to strangle somebody.
If Durham held a liar's contest this weekend, the field would be crowded and entertaining.....Nifong, Mangum, Sidney, Jackie W., Victoria P, Brodhead, the SANE, Linwood, the lab director, Houston B., Cline.....wow, what an event. It could be title, "Let's see who can tell the biggest whopper and then pretend they didn't know it is a fib" contest! wheeeee....
She did not lie about being assulted and robbed, she did not commit arson, she did not commit murder and she did not abuse her children.
"To all those who hate and are ever ready to malign, these charges do not belong to Crystal and were mistakenly attributed to her and will be corrected."
Whatever she did was bad enough.
"She did not lie about being assulted and robbed, she did not commit arson, she did not commit murder and she did not abuse her children."
wow, kennyhissyfit! I hope you are either a stock broker or a televangelist, cause you spout the best bullXXXX I've read in a looooong time, bro.
"these charges do not belong to Crystal and were mistakenly attributed to her and will be corrected."
She's not innocent until found so by a judge or jury.
Sid said so.
Anonumous @ 10:32 AM Oct 5,2011 said "Whatever she did was bad enough"
Well, that's the opinion of those, like you, who have been manipulated by the LAX defense strategy which, attempted to completely destroy Crystal's reputation, in order that her accusations would seem to be less credible. This has worked, to the extent her life has been disrupted and her opportunities have been restricted by a totally false impression that has been created of her.
Oh, good lord! … I assume you’ve got a mother. I mean, your first concern is that somebody is falsely accused?
I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar.
Anonymous said...
"http://www.co.durham.nc.us/
departments/shrf/IPS/current.cfm"
Thanks for the reference. I looked at it, but did not see any charges. I saw two blank entries, however, which you are probably referring to. No doubt they are bogus, otherwise, a legitimate entry would be filled in.
@October 6, 2011 11:36 AM
I hope you never get called for jury duty or are at least totally honest about your bias.
You really need to be up front during voir dire... "You know, I really don't want to hurt the victim's feelings so... I'm going to assume your guy is guilty until he proves to me that he's not... and, well, if he has to spend his life in prison sorry but I really, really, really don't want to hurt someone's feelings.
No, not un American...
"I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar."
-Wendy Murphy May (?) 2006 speaking in regards to the Duke LAX case
kenhyderal said...
"Well, that's the opinion of those, like you, who have been manipulated by the LAX defense strategy which, attempted to completely destroy Crystal's reputation, in order that her accusations would seem to be less credible. This has worked, to the extent her life has been disrupted and her opportunities have been restricted by a totally false impression that has been created of her."
What planet do you live on, Kenny?
"I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar."
Timothy Cole was convicted solely on the word of a rape victim who identified him as her assailant. Subsequent DNA testing proved he was not her assailant. He was convicted wrongfully. Even if the victim did not lie, she made a terrible mistake. Timothy Cole died in prison before he was exonerated.
To avoid situations such as this is why we have the presumption of innocence.
Another reason is that people like Crystal Mangum do falsely accuse men of rape.
An accusation in and of itself, as is illustrated by the Timothy Cole case, is not in and of itself proof.
Just a thought about the death penalty which is derived from JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Frodo and Gandalf are talking about the evil creature Gollum.
Frodo says that Gollum deserves death.
Gandalf replies, yes Gollum deserves death. Many who live deserve to die. Some who die deserve to live. Can you give them life. If not, do not be so hasty to deal out death in punishment.
It is not a word for word quote. It has been a while since I last read the trilogy.
The presumption of innocence (or innocent till proven guilty) is not uniquely American by any means. It is a widely held standard in many countries including France, England, Italy, Canada, Brazil and Spain. Basically, the means the burden (of proof) is on he who affirms, not he who denies. It would be hard to imagine a more fundamental right. To require the prosecution in a criminal trial to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused is NOT to assume the accuser is lying. It is simply to require proof of the accusation. How unfair to ALL parties in a criminal case it would be if the mere statement, "he raped me" were enough to send a man to prison.
The murder charge against Crystal Mangum should be dismissed, as pointed out in an earlier flog. However, the flog which I am about to post reinforces the notion that justice can only be served in this case if the murder charge - a stretch at best - is dropped.
"The murder charge against Crystal Mangum should be dismissed, as pointed out in an earlier flog. However, the flog which I am about to post reinforces the notion that justice can only be served in this case if the murder charge - a stretch at best - is dropped."
Well then, by your own definition, if the prosecutor drops the charge, she'll never be innocent.
Post a Comment