In a December 28, 2011 article in The News & Observer by Thomasi McDonald titled “Raleigh charges 8 beggars,” it was divulged that eight people were arrested in Raleigh for begging without a permit. According to the article, the arrests show the city’s growing intolerance of panhandling. Well, in today’s economic climate where the unemployment rate is at an all time high, banks are foreclosing on homes like there’s no tomorrow, and most of those people with jobs are overworked at slave wages, it is no surprise that the number of people panhandling is expected to increase.
According to the Raleigh ordinance, those individuals seeking to beg must obtain a permit… which is issued free of charge. It is not a revenue generator and the city is not being cheated out of any income, so why is it a crime for the poor and needy obtain a permit? If it is so important to regulate panhandling, why not have the police register the beggars on site… like they do for voting, rather than handing out citations and arresting the people.
The panhandling permit is one of the most ridiculous and inhumane laws on the books. If during hard times people are forced to beg, surely their financial status will not enable them to pay a bail of $1,000.00, or even $75.00. Instead of jailing them at taxpayer expense, one solution would be for them to be given a permit. And yet, even then it’s all madness. It’s absurd.
What Raleigh is doing, according to Raleigh police spokeswoman Laura Hourigan is merely enforcing an ordinance that is on the books. Its net effect is to turn law-abiding, poor, disenfranchised people who are desperate down on their luck into jail inmates… fodder for the all powerful Prison Industrial Complex. Surely these people are not being locked up for no reason. Head honchos who control the unethical corporations that feast on those who suffer from famine, are bringing in big bucks… hand over fist at the unjust misery of these unfortunates. And what is a boon to the Prison Industrial Complex is a bust to the taxpayers.
Now, if Raleigh’s obtuse panhandling permit wasn’t bad enough, it has evidently inspired other government agencies to follow its heartless lead. In fact, Wake County is in essence double dipping by forcing its Raleigh residents to obtain a panhandler permit that requires renewal every week. As if in an attempt to outdo Wake County, Johnson County is considering a panhandler permit that will require its applicants to undergo a criminal background check.
Those people who are panhandling need employment and not incarceration. Unfortunately, the news article did not state how long these violators who did not have a begging permit would be held in jail. Only one of the eight was able to post bond. The remaining seven are still being held in jail… their crime, panhandling without a permit.
What makes this panhandling permit nonsensical is that police state that panhandling is a “public safety concern” by blocking rights of way… whatever that is. But what I would like to know is how does a permit to panhandle improve public safety over panhandling without a permit?
Like most people, I don’t enjoy being approached by panhandlers, but more likely than not I will usually make an attempt to help them out financially and treat them with dignity. I would prefer that desperate people panhandle rather than mug others in order to survive. Making it a crime to panhandle merely makes it more difficult for those asking for money to distinguish between the legal consequences of begging and mugging.
Seven of the eight arrested on December 27, 2011 were in their 40’s and 50’s age-wise, and one fifty year old woman told the court that she was begging for her dying sister. So the magistrate hearing her case told her that she would only have to pay a bail bondsman $75.00 to get out of jail. As she so eloquently put it as she was being led away to jail sobbing, “I don’t have the money. That’s the problem.” Why can’t the city of Raleigh figure that out?
What’s next on the city of Raleigh’s agenda..? Forcing people who are living on the streets to have a homeless permit?
No doubt, the Man from Nazareth is not happy at what is going on in Raleigh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
98 comments:
More hogwash from Sid.
I have had personal experience with so-called panhandlers who are "down on their luck" or "begging for their dying sister" and, pal, you are a blind fool if you think even half these people are what they want you to think they are. Having workded several years in an organization that helps homeless people find permanent shelter and employment, I can tell you that the LAST people who ae legitimately in trouble and legitimately wanting to get help are those folks who approach you on the street corner, or run up and down medians in busy intersections. Ask police officers about the drug dealing, drunken, prostituting, petty theft and robbery that routinely accompanies this so-called "begging". There was an article in the NYTimes recently, arguably a very liberal paper, regarding the need to use extreme caution when dealing with panhandlers because so many New Yorkers had been attacked, robbed, beaten and even raped by people waving signs or running in front of cars to hold up traffic for money.
I agree 100% with requiring permits. The intent is to reduce the number of people who are scamming and robbing. Are you not aware of how frequently panhandlers use the guise of standing on a neighborhood street corner with a begging sign as a convenient cover while they scope out whose house seems empty and a good robbery target?
I do not EVER give money to anybody who approaches me because I have no desire to promote a habit or to make it easier for a potential crime to occur. I do, however, sometimes offer to call a police officer to help these people get assistance or transport to a center. Amazing how many of them start backing up and running when you confront the scam.
Your bleeding heart syndrome is highly misplaced. Want to help a homeless person, Sid? Go directly to a legitimate shelter and volunteer you time or donate directly. Otherwise you are doing nothing but putting drugs and booze money in the hands of people who spend their time making up false signs about being out of work, a veteran, having a dying sister.....or, worst of all, asking you to give money to some little child they have hauled to a corner to use as a shill.
They're not "law abiding" if they don't have a permit. Just saying.
IF (and that's a big IF) The City is using the permit as an opportunity to educate panhandlers on the municipal codes (little things like "don't panhandle in a school zone during the school day", or "no obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic") then I think I'm OK with the concept of permits.
Permits are widely used in major cities around the country.....to name a few....San Fran, Kansas City, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Richmond...and many others. When someone is picked up without a permit, they are breaking the law. Officers have the right, the obligation and the basis to check for any outstanding warrants after they verify ID. (if they can). Sid might be amazed to find out how many supposedly down on their luck panhandlers have extensive criminal history, warrants, vagrancy charges, failure to pay child support, etc. What Sid does not disclose is that police officers in Raleigh do NOT routinely arrest people immediately for failure to have a permit. There are typically warnings to cease begging, to move on, etc. If the behavior continues, then violators can get themselves arrested. Sid also does not disclose that officers sometimes find open containers (booze, not cokes), drugs, needles, stolen property, etc, when they stop to check permits. When this happens, arrests can and do get made. The third point Sid fails to even mention is that there are followup support agencies and shelters that pick up homeless people from the jail, after an arrest is made and cleared, based on a referral from the station/law enforcement agency involved. In short, this is NOT a case of trying to round up a bunch of hard luck innocent people to throw in jail for feeding the prison corporations......a notion so silly that even Sid must laugh when he types such dribble.
There ARE legitimately homeless, desperately needy people all around us. They need our help! If getting picked up on a permit violation gets them off the street, and at least gives them an opportunity to come into contact with shelters and help agencies, then it's a good thing.
By the way, I carry 25 plastic bags in the trunk of my car to hand to people I feel are truly desperate....the bags do NOT contain money. They contain nonperishable food bars, water bottles, clean socks, a space blanket, hygiene supplies, a list of shelters and phone numbers, a cheap winter watch cap, etc. Sid, I suggest you spend more time actually doing something for legitmately needy people and less time hurling accusations that have nothing to do with reality.
wow, sid now tells us that his conspiracy theories include the great prison feeding system otherwise known as being arrested for breaking the law.
Lets take a poll, shall we? How many people think the guy at the intersection of 15-501 and Erwin is legit? He's there almost every weekend....usually with a new sign. Guess what....he has a record as long as Sid's line of bull. And, it includes a variety of charges for vagrancy, drug sales, attacking his common law wife with a baseball bat and keying cars that pass by without giving him money. Nice guy...
Permits are appropriate and at least give help to officers who are trying to control vagrancy and a wide array of related crimes.
"When someone is picked up without a permit, they are breaking the law. Officers have the right, the obligation and the basis to check for any outstanding warrants after they verify ID."
Not so fast. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to enforce the law. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).
At best these registration ordinances provide the basis for a Terry [392 U.S. 1 (1968)] stop where the police can question a panhandler and run a warrant check. Beyond that, they provide no basis to obligate the police to enforce the law. I doubt we will ever see a municpality taking on an obligation to enforce the law.
Sid is obviously and rightly upset about the continuing plight of the poor and downtrodden. As am I. My own view is most of these anti-panhandling ordinances are designed by feckless Democrats to give the impression they will do something about a problem when they have no intention of helping what so ever. Sort of like Mike Nifong, O.J. Simpson and Michael Peterson going on an owl hunt.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, my apology......I should have qualified comment about the word "obligation"...if an officer sees something else, other than the absence of a permit, then perhaps a more appropriate word would be opportunity to take appropriate action. You do know, for example, that many officers find pan handlers without permits and, most often, no arrest (for that offense alone) is made. Far more often, the person is simply told to stop the begging and "move on".
I don't know whether Sid is upset about the plight of the downtrodden. His focus in this piece is far more toward bashing the "estalibhment" and the question of requiring permit and far less toward urging others to help. It's his usual negative whining and conspiratorial bias.
Sideny, your reference to the Man from Nazareth is grossly hypocritical, considering your hateful vendetta against three innocent men who committed no crime.
@ Anonymous 12:04 PM...... Nifong Supporter said, "the Man from Nazarath would not be pleased". Thats what it says in Luke:16 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Kenhyderal, I am very familiar with Luke's Gospel and the story of Dives and Lazarus.
It has nothing to do with Sideny's vicious vendetta against the Lacrosse players, which vendetta is motivated by Sideny's distress that the three innocent Lacrosse players were not wrongfully convicted.
Kenhderal -- 2 can play this game. Matthew 22 (ESV):
"15. Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.
16. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are.
17. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
18. But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?
19. Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius,
20. and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21. “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22. When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away."
If you think Matthew 22 is relevant to this post you've completely mis-interpreted it.
No, Kenhyderal, it's you that have made the mistake. Matthew 22 speaks directly to the so-called 2 Kingdoms of God - The left (secular) and right (Sacred) -- or the two swords (temporal and spiritual). What Sid is complaining about is a "left-hand Kingdom" issue -- That is, the laws we have aloowed to be made that govern us and our conduct.
Seriously -- Go read Milton's A Treatise of Civil Power
You have also misinterpreted John Milton. Let me quote him, from A Defence of the English People "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Did Christ mean that freedom belonged to Caesar, or only one denarius? To surrender our freedom to any Caesar "would be an act of shame most unworthy of man's origin."
Look into a man's face and see the image of God himself. We are God's image, God's property, and God's children.
To surrender ourselves as slaves to Caesar or any other tyrant is to dishonor our creator.
God gave the Israelites a king despite his unwillingness and his anger at them. But Christ went further: "It shall not be so among you," meaning that the haughtiness of kings cannot be reconciled with humility and reverence for the face of man.
Whoever is first among men, Christ taught, must be the servant of men, not their master: "Amongst Christians, then, there will either be no king at all, or else one who is the servant of all; for clearly one cannot wish to dominate and remain a Christian."
The very nature of kingship is irreconcilable with Christianity..................... I certainly don't want to ge into an arguments using the Bible to support my point of view but Dr. Harr was called a hypocrit for asking, rhetorically, what would Jesus view might be on people begging for help in Raleigh. I thought Luke:16 answered that.
Kenhyderal: I call Sideny a hypocrite for invoking Jesus Christ while indulging in a very unchristian vicious vendetta against three innocent men because they were not wrongfully convicted or a crime.
Kenhyderal -- No, What Sid asked rhetorically was what Jesus would think of the panhandlers being required to have a permit -- Not only have you misapplied your Biblical quotes, but you've misread Sid as well.
Not surprising.
I don't presume to know what Jesus might think about much of anything.....not being psychic and all....as my teenaged friends would say. My GUESS is that God pretty much looks down on our world , in general, and says, WTF???
Anyway, whenever Sid wants to claim the moral high ground in his pseudo analysis, he invokes the almighty.....and we get treated to the Nazareth speech. And now we get a dose of Christian-moralization from the Dubai scholar himself. (gakking noise.....)
A good friend of mine told me something funny recently. She was speaking about those "What Would Jesus do?" slogans and bumper stickers on the cars of all the hypocrites in the church parking lots. She said, and I quote, "WWJD?, Well, Jesus would beat the SXXX outta most of us, for starters".
I think sid misses the point completely here..........whining and ponitificating about permits, instead of turning his ever-condeming finger inward, and asking himself what he is going to DO to help someone, TODAY.
Anonymous said...
They're not "law abiding" if they don't have a permit. Just saying.
IF (and that's a big IF) The City is using the permit as an opportunity to educate panhandlers on the municipal codes (little things like "don't panhandle in a school zone during the school day", or "no obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic") then I think I'm OK with the concept of permits.
So, in other words, you think it is okay to put panhandlers in jail who don't have a permit, and give them a bail of $1,000? Keep in mind that taxpayer dollars are paying for their incarceration.
Anonymous said...
Permits are widely used in major cities around the country.....to name a few....San Fran, Kansas City, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Richmond...and many others. When someone is picked up without a permit, they are breaking the law. Officers have the right, the obligation and the basis to check for any outstanding warrants after they verify ID. (if they can). Sid might be amazed to find out how many supposedly down on their luck panhandlers have extensive criminal history, warrants, vagrancy charges, failure to pay child support, etc. What Sid does not disclose is that police officers in Raleigh do NOT routinely arrest people immediately for failure to have a permit. There are typically warnings to cease begging, to move on, etc. If the behavior continues, then violators can get themselves arrested. Sid also does not disclose that officers sometimes find open containers (booze, not cokes), drugs, needles, stolen property, etc, when they stop to check permits. When this happens, arrests can and do get made. The third point Sid fails to even mention is that there are followup support agencies and shelters that pick up homeless people from the jail, after an arrest is made and cleared, based on a referral from the station/law enforcement agency involved. In short, this is NOT a case of trying to round up a bunch of hard luck innocent people to throw in jail for feeding the prison corporations......a notion so silly that even Sid must laugh when he types such dribble.
There ARE legitimately homeless, desperately needy people all around us. They need our help! If getting picked up on a permit violation gets them off the street, and at least gives them an opportunity to come into contact with shelters and help agencies, then it's a good thing.
By the way, I carry 25 plastic bags in the trunk of my car to hand to people I feel are truly desperate....the bags do NOT contain money. They contain nonperishable food bars, water bottles, clean socks, a space blanket, hygiene supplies, a list of shelters and phone numbers, a cheap winter watch cap, etc. Sid, I suggest you spend more time actually doing something for legitmately needy people and less time hurling accusations that have nothing to do with reality.
I applaud you for the plastic emergency care bags you hand out to those in need. What you are doing is a wonderful idea. You see, it is the ordinary citizens like you and me who are helping the poor and disenfranchised. (Although I usually give them a dollar or spare change, which doesn't compare with your largess). The wealthy look down upon the poor, and the Republican led politicians are doing away with the safety net of public assistance programs that have enabled the poor to get by without having to beg.
Keep up with your humanitarian efforts.
I forgot to add that many people who are in need are addicted to drug... a health issue that funding for help is drying up. People who are behind in child support may be individuals who have lost their jobs... and they may not have had the money to pay child support. That's why they're begging. And sure, some people may have warrants or may even be criminals, but they are human beings first and they should not be expected to do nothing but sit and starve or succumb to the elements just to keep from violating an unethical ordinance.
Anonymous said...
Sideny, your reference to the Man from Nazareth is grossly hypocritical, considering your hateful vendetta against three innocent men who committed no crime.
Au contrare, mon ami. First allow me to make a few corrections:
(1) I do not hate the three Duke Lacrosse defendants;
(2) I harbor no grudge or carry a vendetta against the three; and
(3) They have not been legally judged to be "innocent."
The only one with a vendetta has been the Carpetbagger families who have been going after Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum and others considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
My main focus is on securing justice for Mike Nifong.
Thereby go ye enlightened.
Going after Nifong and Sister? Now, THAT'S funny.....!
I guess Mrs. Evans made Mangum stab Mr. Daye. I guess poor old Mike was just forced to lie...bless his heart. Couldn't have been that he wanted to suck up to the black community in Durham in order to get votes, and he was willing to sell out three innocent men and a thoroughly messed up woman in order to do so. couldn't be that! couldn't be that he was and is an amoral SOB who put himself above the law. couldn't be that 88 faculty members at duke condoned protests with signs that said "castrate" the team members. couldn't be that Mangum LIED over and over and over again.
why, no, of course not. what a deluded little man you are.
No, Sid -- I think exactly what I stated. IF the city is using the permits as a means to educate panhandlers about when and where it is appropriate to panhandle, then I'm OK with the city enforcing permits. I don't think it's appropriate for panhandlers to be hanging around schools or blocking traffic.
If the city ISN'T using the permits for this type of education, then requiring a permit serves no purpose and the requirement should be abolished.
There is no "in other words", and I don't appreciate your putting the worst possible construction on my post. If you'd like me to explain my comments in further detail, then ask me to do so. Don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put them in yours.
"My main focus is on securing justice for Mike Nifong."
If that were the case, you'd be demanding more jail time for the convicted liar. For it is clear that Nifong has not been rehabilitated by his short stay in the county jail. He needs much more rehabilitation, of only the variety availble through the Department of Corrections during a lengthy incarceration. Prosecutors, including Nifong, who pursue innocent suspects should be given no less prison sentence than the maximum that could have been given to their victims.
Walt-in-Durham
Amen, Walt. Exactly. If Sid were truly concerned for JUSTICE, he would be saying that Mangum should get a fair trial, and if she is found guilty, should be held accountable. If Sid were concerned fairness, honesty, decency and integrity, he would be screaming his head off about the utter lack of these character traits in ANY of the 88 faculty people who pre-judged the entire lacrosse team, condoned violence against them, used the hoax as a platform to push their own agenda, and....to this day......have not had the strength of character to apologize for their behavior. If Sid were really all that fired up about compassion and caring, he would be apologizing for his OWN totally false and nasty comments about Mr. Reginald Daye.
But, that's not Sid....he just enjoys flashin' it and pretending to be something is he is not.....
"'Au contrare, mon ami. First allow me to make a few corrections:
(1) I do not hate the three Duke Lacrosse defendants;
(2) I harbor no grudge or carry a vendetta against the three; and
(3) They have not been legally judged to be 'innocent.'"
1) The multiple posts in your blog indicate you hate the Lacrosse players.
2). You do carry a vendetta against them
3) Evidence of 2) is your persistent refusal to acknowledge that they are in fact innocent, they committed no crime.
Sideny: "Thereby go ye enlightened."
As a deluded megalomaniac, you are capable of enlightening anyone, least of all yourself
Sid just thinks his posts are cute, funny, loves to think he is irritating others, loves to enjoy his own sense of self importance. that's basically all this whole flub nonsense is about. I feel a certain sense of pity for somebody who thinks his nuisance suit against Duke is one of the top three stories in 2011. that's kinda sad, but in his narrow world, I guess it fits. Sid apparently has nothing more productive to do with his time, which is also unforunate for him. You would think a retired physician could find many ways to give back to his community. This silliness is NOT giving back anything to anybody.
"As a deluded megalomaniac, you are capable of enlightening anyone, least of all yourself."
Er, I think you meant "incapable".
Guiowen:
Yes, I should have said sideny is incapable of enlightening anyone.Thanks for picking up my error
Anonymous said...
No, Sid -- I think exactly what I stated. IF the city is using the permits as a means to educate panhandlers about when and where it is appropriate to panhandle, then I'm OK with the city enforcing permits. I don't think it's appropriate for panhandlers to be hanging around schools or blocking traffic.
If the city ISN'T using the permits for this type of education, then requiring a permit serves no purpose and the requirement should be abolished.
There is no "in other words", and I don't appreciate your putting the worst possible construction on my post. If you'd like me to explain my comments in further detail, then ask me to do so. Don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put them in yours.
Chill, Bro. I didn't mean any disrespect. By the way, thanks for the clarification. Seeing as how my time online is limited because I don't have internet at home and use the library's where it's free, I tend to do a little speed reading and on rare occasions I do manage to misinterpret, as you pointed out.
As far as panhandling around schools, I don't think that would be a very productive target site for begging. I do believe that panhandlers should be removed from traffic sites that put them in danger... but I don't think they should be arrested.
Walt said...
"My main focus is on securing justice for Mike Nifong."
If that were the case, you'd be demanding more jail time for the convicted liar. For it is clear that Nifong has not been rehabilitated by his short stay in the county jail. He needs much more rehabilitation, of only the variety availble through the Department of Corrections during a lengthy incarceration. Prosecutors, including Nifong, who pursue innocent suspects should be given no less prison sentence than the maximum that could have been given to their victims.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey, Walt.
I agree that prosecutors such as Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case) should serve serious jail time, but not Mr. Nifong. First of all, he never lied to the Court. If so, what did he lie about? And he never withheld any evidence... the Defendants may not have gotten all the prosecution discovery as quickly as they would have liked, but they received it all in plenty of time. Mr. Nifong deserves the respect of all Tar Heelians who believe in equal justice for all.
guiowen said...
"As a deluded megalomaniac, you are capable of enlightening anyone, least of all yourself."
Er, I think you meant "incapable".
Hey, guiowen, where's the love? I give you a major role in Episode V of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" and this is the thanks I get?
Seriously, I hope you and your family have a great year in 2012.
Sid said " First of all, he [Nifong] never lied to the Court."
He has been legally judged to be guilty of lying.
Sid says "They have not been legally judged to be "innocent." "
In the USA, one is innocent until proven guilty.
Consider yourself enlightened.
Sideny: "... the Defendants may not have gotten all the prosecution discovery as quickly as they would have liked, but they received it all in plenty of time."
NC law regarding evidence obtained via a non testimonial order must be made available to those subjected to the NTO in a timely fashion, as soon as the evidence becomes available. Mr. Nifong did not meet that criterion.
Sideny: "If so, what did he[Mr. Nifong] lie about?"
Mr. Nifong lied to the court when he said he turned over to the defense all the results of the DNA testing. That was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in open court in a fair trial.
Sideny, your opinion as to what is or is not a fair trial is legally meaningless. After all, you believe the only thing that matters in your own lawsuit is your own opinion.
No white man would ever want to have sex with Crystal Mangum much less go to all the trouble of raping her.Why would anybody rape a prostitute when they could just give her more money?
I want to continue a discussion from a prior thread. Lance asked in response to Ken’s comment: Why would Nifong NOT bring charges against the LAX players for the one thing [taking some of Mangum’s money] they may have been guilty of?
I suggest that we focus on Gottlieb and Himan. Nifong was not involved for more than a week after Gottlieb and Himan made the decision not to investigate.
On March 16, 2006, Gottlieb and Himan interviewed Magnum and executed the search warrant on the Buchanan house. The captains provided written statements. At that time, they had the following information:
1. Mangum alleged that someone took her money (at various times, she accused players, Kim and Officer Barfield).
2. Mangum was paid $400.
3. Her purse was recovered during the search, but it contained less than $400.
4. Evans’ statement alleged that 2 players had taken money from Mangum’s purse, which she left in the house; Evans told them to replace it, fearing violent retaliation, but did not know whether it was replaced.
5. Evans named the players in his statement.
Mangum made an allegation that someone stole her money, the DPD had evidence to support the allegation and Evans named suspects. The DPD clearly could justify an investigation.
Consider further that investigation of a misdemeanor theft could provide leverage in a sexual assault investigation (they could drop theft charges in exchange for useful information).
I believe there are two explanations for the failure to investigate the theft allegation:
GOTTLIEB AND HIMAN ARE GROSSLY INCOMPETENT AND FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE BASICS OF AN INVESTIGATION. MOREOVER, THE DPD FAILED TO SUPERVISE THESE GROSSLY INCOMPETENT OFFICERS IN ONE OF THE BIGGEST CASES IN DURHAM HISTORY.
or
GOTTLIEB AND HIMAN DID NOT BELIEVE MANGUM HAD BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED. THEY ATTEMPTED TO FRAME PLAYERS FOR A CRIME THEY DID NOT BELIEVE HAD OCCURRED. THEY DID NOT INVESTIGATE BECAUSE A BONA FIDE INVESTIGATION COULD UNCOVER EVIDENCE THAT WOULD MAKE THE INTENDED FRAME IMPOSSIBLE.
Bulletin....Bulletin.....Bulletin! Tracey Cline is falling behind in her bid to win the Worst Prosecutor of the Year Award. She is losing to John Bradley who is right up there with Nifong in the "reprobate mind no conscious" category. (thank you, Ms. Cline) If you have not yet cast your vote for Tracey, go to DIW, follow the link, and do so today! We want to put Durham on the map....the home of such paragons of intelligence and virtue as Nifong, Cline, Peterson, Wagstaff, Wilson, and Harr. Sorry, there is no category for write-in votes, and, alas, no category for "all of the above"
Anonymous January 5, 2012 5:11 AM:
Let us by all means give Ms. Cline all the support she deserves!
Kenhyderal:
This is something to consider>
Crystal Mangum was hired to Dance for, I believe, two hours. According to accounts, when she arrived, she was so impaired she could not perform(it is a matter rf record that Kim Pittman/Roberts drove her to Krogers, it was because Crystal was dimpaired and Kim wanted her out of her car).
The money in question was what Crystal was to be paid for dancing.
She was unable to dance. She, therefore, did not earn the money in question. She could not have been robbed of money which was not hers in the first place.
Here's a link to the actual voting website.
Vote for Tracey!
Sidney,
You're right, I've been busy with my teaching and research. I do appreciate your including me in the comic strip. I'll try to post more frequently, even if it's mainly to disagree with you.
guiowen said...
Sidney,
You're right, I've been busy with my teaching and research. I do appreciate your including me in the comic strip. I'll try to post more frequently, even if it's mainly to disagree with you.
My friend, just a little ribbing. Comment when you can. It's more important that you take care of business, hold down a job, and make time for your family.
Anonymous @5:58 AM said ". According to accounts, when she arrived, she was so impaired she could not perform"...... Not according to her fill-in driver Brian Taylor in his signed statement to Detective Himan or to 610N neighbor Jason Bissey who saw her arriving. Soon after the girls, were given a drink by the players, one that Roberts/Pittman set aside without consuming Crystal showed signs of impairment. The flawed police investigation failed to discover a source for her impairment. The matron at the substance abuse centre said she had no signs of alcohol. By the time she reached DUMC she showed no signs of impairment, whatsoever. Her 5 drug screen was clear (no cocaine,heroin,cannibis,methamphetamine or ghb) The much later, out of state, hair ananysis for the most common date rape drug rohypnol was also negative. The natural history of this rapid onset and short recovery seems indicitive of a substance like chloral hydrate that was not tested for. If the players were dissatisfied with the performance or it's length their only recourse was civil not to rob Crystal. It has not been determine what the cause of her sudden impairment was and one possibility might be that she was administered a substance that impaired her.
Kenhyderal - Police notes indicate that Crystal Mangum said she had one or two large-size beers before the party and had taken Flexeril, a muscle relaxant, which might have contributed to her inebriated condition later when officers first encountered her and thought she was drunk.
Alcohol used in combination with Flexeril can result in additive central nervous system depression and impairment of judgment, thinking, and psychomotor skills.
It's possible in a Cyclobenzaprine naive person. Crystal was not. She had a spinal condition for which muscle relaxants were needed especially prior to giving a dance performance. She finally had surgery to correct this problem in 2010. Such a reaction,in similar circumstances, had had never happened to her before.
Kenhyderal --
A) We only have Crystal's word to the police about how much alcohol she had consumed. In a similar situation, most people will tend to "err on the low side" about how much alcohol (or drug) was consumed.
B) Can you cite a study that would indicate that the effects of cyclobenzaprine and alcohol are reduced over time due to concomittant use? I can find no such reference.
Sid -- Since you are apparently no longer replying to a previous posting, I will reiterate my question here:
Sid says "That's precisely the point. The attorney's job is to assure that the meritorious case (such as mine) loses in court. Then the attorney, for purposely bungling the case, can receive a much bigger payout from the opposition with the deep pockets (such as Duke)... and their endearing gratitude.
Happens all the time."
Name one instance, and provide proof.
Sideny, I again ask you to explain why Duke chose to settle with the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players rather than buy off their attorneys?
Kenhyderal, consider this:
"The Durham police are, in fact, investigating an alleged rape/kidnapping at 610 N. Buchanan. On Monday, March 13, two strippers were hired to perform at 610 N. Buchanan. About 30 men were in attendance, all members of the Duke Lacrosse team. One of the strippers appeared to be on drugs. the men decided to pay the women early, and then asked them to leave. They refused and the men paid them more. The one stripper ended up passing out either on a porch or deck in the back of the house and the men carried her to the other woman’s car. At some point later, the passed out woman interacted with Durham police at the Kroger on Hillsborough Road and made the allegations. I believe she was examined at Duke ED."
The stripper in question was Crystal Mangum.
This is an excerpt from an email authored by Sue Wasiolek in 2006
Ken claimed: The matron at the substance abuse centre said she had no signs of alcohol.
This statement is inconsistent with Himan's report of his 6/14 interview with Mariecia Smith from Durham Access. Smith indicated that she smelled alcohol on Mangum's breath.
I do not believe that the records from Durham Access are public. As a result, Himan's report may the only publicly-available source. Your statement is not consistent with the only available source.
What is your source? Please provide a link. If you fail to do so, tell us why we should believe your statement and why a false statement on this point does not damage your credibility more generally.
In addition, your comment relating to Durham Access raises several questions:
Why did Gottlieb and Himan delay for three months before conducting interviews at Durham Access?
Did Gottlieb and Himan interview Alycia Wight, the attending nurse, or Gerry Wilkes, a security guard, who had also interacted with the accuser?
Why did Gottlieb and Himan not interview the outcry witnesses until after all indictments had been handed down?
Kenhyderal --
C) Cyclobenzaprine is meant for short-term use only (2-3 weeks).
Lance the Intern said...
Sid -- Since you are apparently no longer replying to a previous posting, I will reiterate my question here:
Sid says "That's precisely the point. The attorney's job is to assure that the meritorious case (such as mine) loses in court. Then the attorney, for purposely bungling the case, can receive a much bigger payout from the opposition with the deep pockets (such as Duke)... and their endearing gratitude.
Happens all the time."
Name one instance, and provide proof.
I speak from personal experience. An attorney who was representing me on trumped up criminal charges was promised that cases would be sent his way if he was able to get me to accept a plea deal from the prosecutor wherein I would be on probation. My wife, who has knowledge of the law advised me not to and my attorney was enraged because I would not accept the prosecutor's deal.. She forced the judge to refer the case to a civil court where a settlement was reached... even though I did not owe any money. But it was better than being put in jail on trumped up criminal charges. Right after my court appearance, before my attorney was even out of my sight, he began getting offers on the phone. I can give other examples. If you want more details, I'll tell them to you personally.
Lance asked for proof. You provided none.
@ Anonymous 10:08 AM I agree Mariecia Smith did smell alcohol on Crystal's breath however here are the notes from her interview with Det. Hinman made in the presence of her Lawyer. " I asked if she remember talking about the incident. She stated that the victim had an wrote Brian had - set it up - and that she worked for Angels escort. She stated that she noticed a white streak on her arm, she did not know what it was but it was on her left arm, she stated in the end she was crying and stated that someone took her mony that she needed that money to feed her kids. Ms. Smith stated that she did not smell a strong odor, but she did smell alcohol on the victim's breath. Ms. Smith stated that she was was there for 15 minutes, and she stated one of the officers came back and had run her name through the system and that he had told one of the officers that she did not have a history of prostitution" This would be consistent with the drink Crystal was given on her arrival at 610n. As well there is the statement of the security guard at Kroger's "The guard walked to the car and asked Mangum to leave, but Mangum stayed in the vehicle. The guard said that she did not smell alcohol on Mangum's breath, but thought she might have been under the influence of other drugs. At 1:22 AM, the guard called 911 to report that Mangum refused to leave the car. Police then arrived, tried to remove Mangum from the car, and questioned her
Ken:
What notes are you referring to? Are they publicly-available? If not, how did you get them in Dubai?
Why did it take 3 months for Himan to interview anyone at Durham Access? Why did it take 9 months for Himan to interview Angel Altmon, the security guard?
Was he "purposely bungling" the investigation?
@ Lance re: cyclobenzaprine "
Many doctors will combine Flexeril with other meds, such as cough syrup, and even tell the patient it’s OK to have a drink or two; but only if they know the patient and their tolerance. It also, again, depends on dosages. Those medicines are often also prescribed long term as long as the person follows dose directions.
However, that said, I’m guessing this person may not be taking recommended doses?? Cough medicine is available ONLY to those over 18 now because it can be abused. There are ways of getting “high” off of cough medicine that involve severe overdosing, and can be dangerous.
Flexeril is also hard to get high off of, but it is possible at very high doses, high enough to be dangerous.
Cough medicine and Flexeril are not terribly addictive, and weaning off of them typically isn’t a problem.
However, if this person is taking doses large enough to get high off the Flexeril and cough medicine with the alcohol, or is taking them all together long term, all kinds of possibilities come to mind – mild brain damage from the cough medicine, liver failure, kidney failure, respiratory arrest, and even coma or fatal overdose if this person is really taking massive amounts.
Kennnnneeey is , ah , trying to impress us. Try harder, stud. It aint workin'
@ Anonymous 2:35 PM 1/6/12 http://www.123people.com/ext/frm?ti=person%20finder&search_term=beth%20fleishman&search_country=US&st=person%20finder&target_url=http%3A%2F%2Fhackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com%2Ftopic%2F702%2FRe-Himan-s-Case-Notes-Part-I-Transcribed%3Fpage%3D-1§ion=blog&wrt_id=262
Lance said: Can you cite a study that would indicate that the effects of cyclobenzaprine and alcohol are reduced over time due to concomittant use? I can find no such reference. No study only anecdotal evidence
Ken:
Did Gottlieb and Himan purposely bungle the investigation?
http://www.123people.com/ext/frm?ti=person%20finder&search_term=beth%20fleishman&search_country=US&st=person%20finder&target_url=http%3A%2F%2Fhackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com%2Ftopic%2F702%2FRe-Himan-s-Case-Notes-Part-I-Transcribed%3Fpage%3D-1§ion=blog&wrt_id=262
Ken:
The link you provided is bad. It only contains Himan's notes through the middle of April. He did not get around interviewing the outcry witnesses at Durham Access until June 14. Yes, that's right, June 14.
I had Himan's notes from another source. My review indicated that your earlier claim was false. You falsely claimed:
The matron at the substance abuse centre said she had no signs of alcohol.
As you have now conceded, that statement is false.
In my humble opinion, you are "purposely bungling" your comments.
Try this link and sroll down: http://www.123people.com/s/beth+fleishman
Ken:
As I said before:
"I had Himan's notes from another source. My review indicated that your earlier claim was false. You falsely claimed:
The matron at the substance abuse centre said she had no signs of alcohol.
As you have now conceded, that statement is false.
In my humble opinion, you are "purposely bungling" your comments."
Your comment was false. You have not retracted it. I don't know how any of the readers on the blog can ever trust you again.
Why did Himan wait for 3 months to interview anyone at Durham Access and then only interview one of the 3 people who had interacted with Mangum?
Was Himan "purposely bungling" the investigation?
Ken:
Another question from your earlier comment. You claimed:
By the time she reached DUMC she showed no signs of impairment, whatsoever.
Can you provide a source for this?
I believe that Levicy was the only person at DUMC that attended to Mangum ever interviewed by Gottlieb or Himan. She examined Mangum several hours after Mangum arrived. I do not believe that other DUMC records are available.
Do you find it odd that Gottlieb and Himan did not interview other medical personnel? One might conclude that they were "purposely bungling" the investigation.
Anonymous quoted me @ 5:57 AM 1/7/12 "The matron at the substance abuse centre said she had no signs of alcohol" I conceeded that this was wrong but taken in context it's my contention that Crystal was not impaired by alcohol or cyclobenzaprine but by some other substance that was perhaps administered to her surreptitiously. I'm not sure what you mean by "purposely bungling". There is no more evidence for the conventionlly held views, promoted as a defence strategy and designed to trash Crystal, then there is for alternate theories of what happened. The case was dropped because, a sloppy investigation made it impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt and by a very successful campaign, waged, that was successful in casting doubt on the credibility of the alleged victim
@ Anonymous 9:10........10/30/06 - 0939hrs - Met with Sara Beth Falcon dob 10/12/74. She was working for Duke Police on March 14 when the victim came in to Duke Hospital. She stated that she had just recently been released from field training and was working the ER. She stated Officer Day was the officer in charge. She stated that when the victim came in she was asked to comfort the victim in the triage room, she was crying and visibly shaking and she did not want any males in the room with her. She stated she did not ask any questions and that she was in the triage room for about 10 minutes. She stated Crystal Mangum has said that her girlfriend had taken her phone and purse and that Crystal Mangum did not want any males in the room with her. There was a triage nurse who was male that was asking the victim questions and Crystal did not want him in the room, so the staff asked for a female nurse to take over the duties. She stated that the Victim’s clothes were in disarray-messed up not dirty. Her make up was running because she was crying. ****Ms. Falcon stated she did not smell any odor of alcohol coming from Crystal Mangum Ms. Falcon stated she never smelled alcohol coming from her at any point during the night****. She stated that Lt. Best and a Sgt. were called in and other people were also called. She didn’t ask why but thought it was weird that they were calling people in. She stated she thought major schwab was called in. She stated that during her time with the victim Durham Police Sgt. kept going in and out of the room and stated “Ii have to conduct an investigation” at one point he asked her to leave the room, and he was inside the room alone with Crystal Mangum
Ken:
Thanks for the notes of the interview with Falcon. Can you provide the notes for the interviews with the attending DUMC medical personnel? Mangum was at DUMC for many hours, and I have not been able to find interviews for any attending DUMC medical personnel except Levicy. I think you would agree that any bona fide investigation would have interviewed all those persons who interacted with Mangum at DUMC.
If Gottlieb and Himan didn't interview others, one conclude that they were "purposely bungling" the investigation.
very successful campaign, waged, that was successful in casting doubt on the credibility of the alleged victim
What about the inconsistent and false statements made by Mangum to police? Should that have casr doubt on her credibility?
Kenhyderal:
The sequence of events was this:
With Ms. Mangum in her car, Kim Roberts/Pittman called the Durham police to say that men at 610 Buchanan had yelled "nigger" at her and her girlfriend. She did not say her girlfriend had been raped.
After the phone call, Ms. Pittman/Roberts then drove to a Kroger parking lot and tried to have a security guard remove Ms. Mangum from her car. That failed, and Ms. Pittman/Roberts called the Police to remove Ms. Mangum.
The Police took her to the Durham Intake center, which indicates they believe she was intoxicsted. At the Durham Intake center, a nurse asked her, were you raped?
After that question, Ms. Mangum waivered between, Yes I was, and No I wasn't, before she decided she had been raped. After that she was taken to DUMC ER.
She described a crime in which multiple assailants had assaulted her and penetrated her. They did not use condoms and had ejaculated. Forensic exam of the rape kit did not reveal any evidence of that kind of activity. Contrary to what you have put forth, absence of evidence meant that kind of assault could not have happened.
The only actual finding was diffuse vaginal edema, which is not pathognomonic of rape. Crystal had had other sexual encounters before going to 610 Buchanan, which could have resulted in diffuse vaginal edema. That finding was not conclusive evidence of rape.
The bottom line, forensic evidence did not corroborate what she might have said about being raped on the night of March 13/14 2006. The only DNA found on her did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team.
So the questions are, again, why did Mr. Nifong believe she had been raped, and why did he focus on the Lacrosse team as suspects.
@ Anonymous 11:43 AM.... The events at 610N Buchannan are, to Crystal, a series of frightening images. Victims of brutal assults because of terror and shock are often unable to clinically describe their ordeal. In Crystal's case the defence exploited every inconsistency in her jumbled recolletion of what happened to her.
Anonymous 1:43 PM said: "The Police took her to the Durham Intake center, which indicates they believe she was intoxicsted. At the Durham Intake center, a nurse asked her, were you raped?"............
Is this a question that every impaired person brought to Durham Intake Centre is asked. Here is what my research has found...... Mangum was first evaluated at 2:53 a.m. by triage nurse Jenni Hauver R.N. Mangum said she had been sexually assaulted and claimed to be in pain (McFadyen et al vs. Duke University)
Memo to Ken:
Two. Words: Bull Crap.
You are full of it.
No rape no assault nothing nada zip. Just a case of stupid drunk boys hiring " dancers" and then an attempt by one of the ladies to shake down what she thought were rich guys...... That all got inflated by a scumbag DA who tried to use the case to snooker the black community into voting for him.
You make up all the fantasies you want, Dubai... It changes nothing Those of us who live here and who lived through this disgusting nightmare, are accustomed to crack pots like you trying to sell your nonsense.
Anonymous 6:01 PM said: "an attempt by one of the ladies to shake down what she thought were rich guys"....... So, which was it a scheming and quick-witted con-artist or a barely conscious drug addled person unable to stand. What has been made up, with no basis in fact, is the false characterization of Crystal that has been disseminated by the defence team, of those who were charged. You've obviously bought into this false characterization of her even though you don't know her. The defence had the duty to use any means they could to have their clients acquitted. That is their job. Later they saw a chance, in civil actions, to hit pay-dirt and so the slander of Crystal continued. After settling with the University, they are now going after the City and continuing to trash Crystal is an ongoing effort, that could prejudicially influence their action
Ken 3:25 notes:
Mangum was first evaluated at 2:53 a.m. by triage nurse Jenni Hauver R.N. Mangum said she had been sexually assaulted and claimed to be in pain
The McFadyen lawsuit provides more information than you provided:
At 2:53 a.m. Jeni Hauver, R.N. was the triage nurse who first interviewed Mangum when she presented to the E.D. Mangum told Nurse Hauver that she had been “sexually assaulted,” and Nurse Hauver noted that Mangum appeared to be “anxious.” On the pain scoring scale, ranging from 1 (“mild”) to 10 (“worst ever”), Mangum scored her pain as a perfect “10.” Nurse Hauver performed several tests designed to test the veracity of a high self-report of pain. Nurse Hauver tested Mangum for symptoms associated with pain and found none. In Mangum’s chart, Nurse Hauver noted that Mangum appeared to her to be “in no acute distress, no obvious discomfort.”
There is no record that Gottlieb or Himan interviewed Nurse Hauver. Why not? Were they "purposely bungling" the investigation?
Ken 3:25:
The McFadyen lawsuit provides more information:
From 3:14 a.m. – 3:40 a.m., Mangum was clinically examined and interviewed by Dr. Jaime Snarski, M.D. Mangum reported to Dr. Snarski that she was “stripping at a bachelor party,” and “the bachelor [and] other guys...put their fingers and penises” in her “vagina against her will.” To Dr. Snarski, Mangum complained of extreme pain. Mangum denied being hit. When asked to describe the pain, Mangum said it was “only in her vagina.” Dr. Snarski examined Mangum for symptoms that would corroborate Mangum’s self-report of pain but found none.
There is no record that Gottlieb or Himan interviewed Dr. Snarski. Why not? Were they "purposely bungling" the investigation?
Ken 3:25:
The McFadyen lawsuit provides more information:
At 3:28 a.m., as Mangum was being interviewed by a police officer, a nurse, Carole Schumoski, examined Mangum and asked Mangum to score her pain. Mangum reported that her pain was a “10.” When Nurse Schumoski asked Mangum to describe the pain, Mangum said it was “down there.” Nurse Schumoski examined Mangum for symptoms associated with pain, and found none. Shortly thereafter, Nurse Schumoski found Mangum, alone, resting quietly in no apparent distress.
There is no record that Gottlieb or Himan interviewed Nurse Schumoski. Why not? Were they "purposely bungling" the investigation?
Ken 2:54 claimed:
The events at 610N Buchannan are, to Crystal, a series of frightening images. Victims of brutal assults because of terror and shock are often unable to clinically describe their ordeal. In Crystal's case the defence exploited every inconsistency in her jumbled recolletion of what happened to her.
As you know, AG Cooper's conclusion is consistent with your first sentence. He and the SPs concluded that Mangum may actually have believed her stories, despite there being no evidence that the alleged attack occurred and significant additional evidence that it did not occur. Some describe that as delusion.
Your last two sentences are correct; victims of attacks sometimes are unable to recount details what happened. However, liars and delusional witnesses also are unable to do so. For that reason, in cases in which the accusing witness has a "jumbled recollection of what happened," police are required to required to build a body of evidence that does not depend on the testimony of the witness with "jumbled recollection."
After all, if a witness does not remember what actually happened, why should we believe that she remembered who did it (whatever "it" was), particularly when the suspects are selected in a tainted procedure?
Why did Gottlieb and Himan make no bona fide attempt to obtain evidence other than Mangum's testimony? Are they guilty of "purposely bungling" their investigation?
Ken 8:19:
You've obviously bought into this false characterization of her even though you don't know her.
I remind you that you are posting as a Canadian expatriate living in Dubai. In that role, you would have had no reason to know Mangum. Please stay in character when posting.
What has been made up, with no basis in fact, is the false characterization of Crystal that has been disseminated by the defence team, of those who were charged.
You have provided no evidence that the unflattering characterization of Crystal is "in fact" false. Please provide evidence to support your conclusion.
@ Anonymous 10:31 AM....... Crystal Mangum has been a good friend of mine for many years. Evidence of Crystals good character comees from no less a source then Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones.
So now we are to believe that kenny the canadian living in dubai is longtime companion to Sister. Ok ken. Sure thing. You betcha.
I have a friend who happens to know Mangum as well. My friend says Mangum is exactly what she appears to be.....only worse.
Sid -
I speak from personal experience when I say that all retired doctors are socialists.
Is there proof in my statement?
How about Ron Paul and others in the AAPS.
All socialists live in canada and drink buttermilk. I kmow this because one time i met a buttermilk drinkin socialist from Toronto. It is true because i say it is.
Signed,
Sid
Kenhyderal -- Did I mention either Ron Paul or the AAPS in my statement?
Ooops Lance. It was a knee jerk reaction. I missed that you were trying to show a fallacy in Dr.Harr's argument.
Kenhyderal: According to the Medical record, Crystal described an assault in which multiple assailants who did not use condoms attacked her, penetrated her, ejaculated on her. Forensic exam of the rape kit showed no evidence of such an attack, blood, semen, saliva. Ergo, there was no corroboration of what Crystal described.
The question which you should now answer is, if Crystal was so dazed she could not remember, how could her word be used to indict anyone? You have just said her word was not reliable. So there needed to be corroborating evidence, witness testimony or forensic evidence, before anyone could be indicted for the crime. The simple reason was, an innocent person should not be charged with a crime.
As AG Cooper said, there was no corroborating evidence.
You and Sidney both admit that. The best comeback you have for the lack of evidence is, the crime could have occurred without leaving evidence.
Anonymous 9:05 AM 1/14/12 said: "So there needed to be corroborating evidence, witness testimony or forensic evidence, before anyone could be indicted for the crime"....... This was not available thanks to an inadequate police investigation and a fraternal code of silence that until now has remained un-broken. Anonymous also said: "As AG Cooper said, there was no corroborating evidence"...... There most probably was,corroborating evidence but because of sloppy police work it remained un-discovered..
Ken: This was not available thanks to an inadequate police investigation
It is clear that the DPD did not believe the accusations.
Ken: fraternal code of silence that until now has remained un-broken
I agree. Who will crack first and admit their role in a deliberate frame--Gottlieb or Himan?
Anonynous @ 7:36 PM 1/14/12 said : "It is clear that the DPD did not believe the accusations" ... A "Rush to Judgement" ........ Anonymous also said:
"Who will crack first and admit their role in a deliberate frame--Gottlieb or Himan".... No deliberate frame but exposing their poor crime investigation will illustrate why the case had to be dropped. They will be deposed in the Civil suit. Perhaps then certain matters will come to light. Some of us feel the DPD failed Crystal rather then the conventional view of politically motivated prosecutorial misconduct directed against the players.
Kenhyderal: "Some of us feel the DPD failed Crystal rather then the conventional view of politically motivated prosecutorial misconduct directed against the players."
You got it wrong.
I am aware that you have bugged out rather than face any more heat.
Kenhyderal: "Some of us feel the DPD failed Crystal rather then the conventional view of politically motivated prosecutorial misconduct directed against the players."
Kenny, you have conceded that the evidence did not incriminate any member of the Lacrosse team. So, what was the reason why Mr. Nifong chose to prosecute them.
C'mon, Kenny. If you are so firm in your beliefs, get back into the fray.
Anonymous @ 12:15 said.."the evidence did not incriminate any member of the Lacrosse team"... What little evidence, that is, which came came from the woefully inadequate police investigation into what happened. A skillful defence was able to cast a reasonable doubt on any evidence that was developed, making the chance of a conviction impossible. Perhaps Attorney Nifong did not came to that conclusion
Ken, you are getting closer.
What little evidence, that is, which came came from the woefully inadequate police investigation into what happened.
Despite relying on a witness who at best didn't remember what happened, the DPD made no attempt to conduct a bona fide investigation. They made no attempt to solve a crime.
They didn't interview witnesses; they avoided evidence. In the end, there was no credible evidence. Unless they are grossly incompetent, one may conclude that they were attempting a deliberate frame.
A skillful defence was able to cast a reasonable doubt on any evidence that was developed, making the chance of a conviction impossible.
The defense did not need to be that skillful. There was a strong chance that the "identifications" would have been inadmissible due to the severe flaws in the procedure. The non exclusion of Evans DNA may also have been inadmissible. Without that, the prosecution had nothing else.
Perhaps Attorney Nifong did not came to that conclusion
Nifong knew (or should have known) that the only evidence he had may not have been admissible. He didn't insist that the DPD do their jobs.
I am willing to consider your theory that Nifong is an incompetent moron, but I will want to see some evidence.
Anonymous @6:03 PM 1-16-12 said: "Unless they are grossly incompetent, one may conclude that they were attempting a deliberate frame".... If by "they" you mean DPD then I go with the former. Anonymous also said: "I am willing to consider your theory that Nifong is an incompetent moron, but I will want to see some evidence"... I have no such theory, unless you can convine me that blame for the flawed investigation can, properly, be directed at the District Attorney's Office.
What i find hilarious is that half of the people posting on here have no other out look on life but from a window in their nice comfortable homes. Yes there are those out there who arent doing these things for the right reason but to be so IGNORANT as to group them all together (the American way to do things so we feel better about ourselves by putting others in their deserving places) realize they are individuals. Otherwise we might as well go back to racism and sexism... oh were still there? hrm i wonder why... second for those of you poor ignorant people who posted before educating yourselves your trying to tell me walking around with an ice cream cone in my pocket is a good law as well right? so dont act like our officials dont make the most ridiculous laws just to be making them. Third half of you people posting on here dont do a damn thing to help anyone but yourselves out so you have no rights to talk about what you dont know in the first place. Like your governments systems are working so well for all of you as is... seriously people need to get a realistic grip instead of passing a long FALSE information and assumptions as well as opinions and hate speech... yes i called it that because thats what it is. And before any of you decide to go throw out state run options go visit these places you expect these ppl to stay which are usually full of nasty conditions as well as violent people and thieves. Most of them arent places you would send your dog to if you were putting it down muchless live in it with your family you love so dearly.
This is unjust law to punish the poor so severly for not having a permit when other who are more able to pay are provided permits on the spot. This is just a way to get rid of them and wash the gov't's hands of them. This is totally contrary to how Jesus operated who although he was rich became poor that we might become rich.
Post a Comment