Showing posts with label Duke lacrosse defendants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duke lacrosse defendants. Show all posts
Saturday, March 24, 2018
Monday, June 12, 2017
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Postmortem shenanigans and media makeover of Reginald Daye
[Note: Click link provided to access the flog (Flash blog). Be patient to allow time for it to upload as the running time is twenty minutes. Audio is required for the flog. The essence of the flog is basically contained in the script which is printed below in the traditional blog form. Return from the flog to the blog page to post comments.]
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog1.html
Media bias against Crystal Mangum has been evident for some time… made obvious by the unflattering and misleading moniker given to her “the False Accuser.” This title which is almost always affixed to her name is false and misleading. She stands by her story that she was sexually assaulted in March 2006, and a court has not made a ruling in the Duke Lacrosse case, as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants.
However, the A.G. took an unprecedented step on April 11, 2007 of proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent,” a proclamation which was overreaching and which carried no legal weight. People in the legal profession and most media-types are aware of that and realize that only a jury, or a judge in lieu of a jury can determine “innocence” or “guilt.” If the Attorney General possessed such power, there would be no need to hold a trial. The A.G. could simply review the evidence presented by the prosecution and render a decision.
The media could barely contain itself, anxious to declare that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent,” “exonerated,” and/or “falsely accused.” Never mind that it was aware that it was misleading the public by declaring the defendants “innocent” and by labeling Ms. Mangum as the “False Accuser.” Its goal was to mold the minds of the gullible flock to believe that the determination of “innocence” had been legally reached and carried legal weight.
During the February 17, 2010 incident involving Crystal Mangum and her ex-boyfriend, the media toned down its coverage after realizing that the charges against her were a bunch of crock. A domestic violence call was placed to 911 by Crystal’s children because she was being beaten up by her ex. When police who responded became aware that Ms. Mangum was the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, all attention was focused on trumping up charges against her which would result in a lengthy jail sentence. So Durham Police, who were the only ones with motive, means, and opportunity, set clothes in the bathtub on fire, made no attempt to extinguish them, and called the Durham Fire department.
Police were so intent on trumping up charges against her that they purposely did not even address the fact that Crystal’s ex-boyfriend instigated the physical clash between the two by repeatedly punching her in the face.
Charges brought against Crystal by police were excessive and without merit, and she was placed under a million dollar bail. Media-types, aware that the charges against Mangum were bogus, devoted most of their news stories to re-hashing Mangum’s role in the Duke Lacrosse case… which also afforded the opportunity to mention that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent.”
Although the charges against Ms. Mangum were pathetic, the jury sided with the prosecution on the misdemeanor charges. Despite a feather weight defense by Mangum’s counsel, the jury could not bring itself to wrongfully convict her of the arson charge, and Ms. Mangum walked away from court with a sentence of 88 days time served.
The city’s unjust treatment and incarceration of Ms. Mangum was the proximate cause of her losing her job, apartment, being dropped from graduate program at NCCU, losing custody of her children, losing personal property, and losing her independence. Furthermore, the notoriety from that case in combination with media vilification regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, made it impossible for her to just pick up from where she was at the time of her arrest on February 17,, 2010. She had trouble finding employment and someone willing to rent her an apartment. This situation spawned her ill-fated symbiotic relationship with Reginald Daye.
Reginald Daye, at 46 years of age, was 14 years senior to Crystal. From what I had been told, Daye’s reputation was anything but sterling. Sources told me that he had had run-ins with the law, that he was a heavy consumer of alcoholic beverages, that his alcohol induced drunken states had led to clashes with police, and that he had the capacity and a reputation for physically abusing women with whom he had relationships.
The media, however, refused to sully Mr. Daye’s reputation, printing and broadcasting only the positive… of which there was very little, and some fabrication. To my knowledge, there was never any mention of his criminal record, which I have been told is extensive. Yet, the media stresses Mangum’s record, and gives credence to the charges stemming from the February 17, 2010 incident in which she was an assault victim and against whom charges were trumped up.
In an ABC-11 online article, Reginald Daye was said to have been employed at the time of his stabbing, working at Scotts Painting and Decorating, however, my sources have informed me that he was unemployed at the time. It is further my understanding that he was two months behind in his rent payments when he met Ms. Mangum. In addition, it was Ms. Mangum who was employed, doing the only work she could get at the time, dancing. She had been attending a trade school in preparation of seeking another position which would be considered more socially acceptable. I was told that she was anticipating getting a sizeable tax refund, as well.
By moving in with Daye, she prevented his impending eviction and was able to provide shelter for herself and her three children. Whether or not an intimate relationship between the two existed, I do not know.
I was told that early Sunday, April 3, 2011, Crystal and Reginald were involved in an argument about money which she had earned. She wanted the money to go towards rent, and I believe a money order or check had been made out to go towards rent. He wanted the money to go towards something other than rent. Money that he had not generated. However, the media only reported that a search warrant stated that responding Durham police officers said Daye told them that Mangum stabbed him and took his money. This statement by Daye was evidently enough for police to charge Mangum with two counts of larceny, regardless of the fact that they were cohabiting and possibly in a relationship. Again, an example of aggressive over-charging by the Durham police.
According to WRAL 5 news, Daye underwent emergency surgery for his stab wound to the torso and was expected to make a full recovery. However, the wral.com article posted on April 5th, two days after the incident exhibited prime examples of shoddy biased reporting. The headline, for example, blares, “Police seize knives from Duke Lacrosse accuser’s apartment.” The apartment was, in fact, rented by Daye, and not Ms. Mangum… therefore, police seized knives from Daye’s apartment. By conferring apartment rental status to Mangum, it suggests that its contents belonged to her and not Daye. Mention was made of a set of brass knuckles, but reporters made no attempt to determine its ownership. My guess would be that the brass knuckles belonged to Reginald Daye. Ownership of the knives which were confiscated during the execution of the search warrant was not addressed in the article.
WRAL’s article further states that in the February 2010 incident Mangum was accused of assaulting a “different boyfriend” and setting his clothes on fire. This statement is disingenuous and misleading as Ms. Mangum was the victim of the assault, being repeatedly punched in the face in the incident instigated by her ex-boyfriend. WRAL is trying its best, along with other media, to establish a pattern of specific criminal conduct that does not exist.
As is usual media protocol, wral.com misled the public by stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent. Not only that, but an attempt was made to give credence to the innocence declaration by stating that officials, plural, were responsible for the determination... but, in fact, the media had based its claim of Duke Lacrosse innocence solely on the April 11, 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Roy Cooper.
This article is a prime example of media reporting on a Duke Lacrosse case related story that is false and misleading throughout.
In addition to Reginald Daye’s criminal record which is publicly available to the people and media alike, a source of mine also procured a copy of Reginald Daye’s death certificate which lists the cause of death as “pending.” However, CNN writer Maria White, in her April 14, 2011 piece takes the liberty to mislead by claiming that Daye died “as a result of the stabbing…” Keep in mind, this is well after WRAL reported a couple of days post-op that Daye was “expected to make a full recovery.”
In an article in “The Daily Beast” by David Graham titled “Murder Charge Latest Twist for Duke Lacrosse Accuser,” a friend of Daye’s told the “Beast” on April 5th, two days following surgery, that Daye was recovering. The rumor in the Durham community was that Daye died due to something other than as a result of his stab wound… a rumor which is only logical. Whether Daye’s death was due to complications from another unrelated pre-existing medical condition, due to medical mistakes, or the result of premeditated homicide, it is unknown, but I believe it is safe to say that he did not die due to the stab wound he received on April 3rd.
For a death which has the potential for being the handiwork of a homicidal fanatic who might have been motivated by a strong desire to see charges against Mangum to be upgraded to murder, the Durham Police department and Durham County District Attorney’s Office seem to approach this incident in a lackadaisical manner. To my knowledge, the potential crime scene was not secured, surveillance cameras were not reviewed, and no steps taken to ascertain whether or not Daye’s care might have been intentionally compromised or sabotaged. Instead, without even having a cause of death, the prosecutors make a dash to the grand jury seeking an indictment on the charge of first degree murder.
According to the article in “The Daily Beast,” the Durham County Medical Examiner stated that an autopsy might not be available for 120 days, or roughly four months. And he stated that there would not be a preliminary autopsy report issued. The postmortem treatment of Daye by the medical examiner is not routine, and there is a reason for that… to conceal, to shield, to coverup, to obfuscate the truth. Rest assured, that had autopsy findings directly linked the Mangum-inflicted stab wound to Daye’s death, a final report would have already been published and eagerly carried by the media to the people.
Some media outlets try to suggest Daye’s April 13th death was a result of the wounds he received ten days earlier on April 3rd. ABC-11 News, which is extremely biased in its reporting stated that “Daye died days later..” suggesting that he succumbed to wounds sustained. This is an example of misleading media spin at its best.
David Graham’s article in “The Daily Beast,” is one of the most balanced accountings of the April 3rd story that I have seen. Unfortunately, like the rest of the mainstream media, it too insisted on referring to Mangum’s rape allegations as false… as though decided by a court of law. Duke law professor James Coleman questions the appropriateness of the first degree murder charge against Mangum that was handed down by the Grand Jury on Monday, April 18th. Taking their domestic relationship into consideration Coleman represented that a more suitable charge would be voluntary manslaughter.
I don’t know what kind of investigation the Durham Police Department undertook with regards to the stabbing incident, but with Daye’s criminal record (which I have been told includes an assault against a female) there is a great likelihood that the April 3rd stabbing was an act of self-defense on Crystal Mangum’s part.
There is no doubt in my mind that the authorities, courts, and media are, and have been, out to get Crystal Mangum because of her accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case. The excessive overcharging, the exceedingly high bail, the secrecy with public reports, and biased, selective, and misleading reporting by the media has been engaged for the purpose of punishing Crystal Mangum because of her claims about being sexually assaulted in 2006.
The success in carrying out their vendetta against Ms. Mangum can be attributed in large measure to the silence of politicians representing Durham. To my knowledge, U.S. Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall have been silent and made no attempt to challenge the gross mistreatment of Ms. Mangum by the authorities and the court. Likewise, civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP under state President Reverend Doctor William Barber has been quiet as dormice. As far as I know, women’s rights organizations and those which profess to protect battered women, stand by while Ms. Mangum is slaughtered by the state and the media. The viciousness of the attacks against Crystal Mangum rivals only those launched against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.
Although I am not a Durham County resident I have been appalled at the recent treatment of Ms. Mangum by the state, and on the morning of Monday, April 18th, I mailed letters to Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez and Durham District Attorney Tracy Cline advising them against seeking to indict Ms. Mangum in Reginald Daye’s death. I later learned that at the time I was dropping off my letter at the post office, a Grand Jury had been convened and had given the prosecution the murder indictment against Ms. Mangum that it had sought.
An indictment for first degree murder when the victim’s cause of death had not even been determined in a patient who postoperatively had the prognosis of making a full recovery. First degree murder wherein the victim and the offender were in a domestic relationship wherein the possibility of self-defense was not even considered by the authorities. First degree murder in which the victim was well on his way to recovery and close to discharge when he suddenly and without explanation lapsed into a deep and irreversible coma. First degree murder in a man whose death was without doubt not related to a stab wound he had received.
I wrote the letters to Lopez and Cline in hopes of preventing the murder indictment which I felt might come against Mangum, but which I strongly believed was based on irrational Duke Lacrosse case bias instead of the objective and fairly applied rule of law. Durham County, in a swirl of Duke Lacrosse aftermath litigation, is dead set on taking its frustration and hostilities out on Ms. Mangum, Mike Nifong, Mike Nifong supporters, and others with empathy towards Nifong. I have made my voice heard on the Duke Lacrosse-related issues, while the voices of Price, McKissick, Michaux, and Hall have remained silent. They remain hushed because they lack the will and the courage to protect their most vulnerable of constituents from the bullying and vindictive individuals in positions of power in law enforcement and the prosecutors’ office who are motivated to carry out the vitriolic vendetta against those perceived by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
Towards the unethical goal of unjustly saddling Crystal Mangum with a first degree murder conviction, the media is doing its part by portraying Reginald Daye in the best light possible… amplifying the good, concealing the bad, and giving an ambitious makeover on the ugly.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Gluttonous Carpetbaggers’ shakedown of Duke greater than believed
Recent revelations about a 2007 IRS tax lien against Duke Lacrosse defendant Reade Seligmann just goes to confirm the obvious, as I stated long ago… the reason for keeping the financial arrangement of Duke University’s settlement with the party-going Duke Lacrosse defendants secret was because it was so outrageous. Duke University was too embarrassed for rolling over without a fight and submitting to the demands of the avaricious attorneys, and the Carpetbagger families didn’t want people to think that they threatened Duke with a law suit just for the money. It seems that the amount Duke University forked over to each of the Duke Lacrosse defendants was far greater than the figure my sources gave me of $7 million. That amount actually is closer to the amount of tax due the IRS, which the agency puts at $6.5 million. According to Raleigh tax lawyer Jack Cummings, a tax of that amount would be indicative of an income of $18 million. Another tax attorney has the estimate as $20 million… which is probably the most accurate and the figure with which I will refer.
And it was in 2007 that Duke University settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants, and it is where the vast majority of their income would be of account. That is $13.5 million after tax per Lacrosse player, and that’s not bad especially when you consider what they went through to get it. First, they attended a beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party with under-aged drinking, shouting of racial epithets (and probably other crimes taking place), then after being charged with a sexual assault they did not spend one day in jail. They became media darlings with all the media types coddling over them and misleading the public by proclaiming that they had been “exonerated” (as was reported by Deborah Morgan of WRAL-TV-5 as recently as the night of February 24, 2011, when the story broke here.) Then books are written about the Duke Lacrosse party incident which is revisionist propaganda history at its best. And HBO has been wracking its brains trying to somehow produce a movie about the Duke Lacrosse case without showing the true colors of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Two objective screenplays have already been written, but the head honchos discarded them and fired their authors… HBO is essentially requiring that the Duke boys be put in a positive light which is itself an impossibility if a story about the Duke Lacrosse case is to contain an iota of truth. The plan which seems to be adopted by HBO movie executives is to demand a script that does not mention the Duke Lacrosse boys and instead focuses on former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. (I would suggest that they consider hiring MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan F. Filan. She has shown the capacity to fabricate libelous statements about Mr. Nifong and then to use those very false statements to attack his character.) Finally, universities and Wall Street bigwigs have been clamoring to bring the boys into the fold to study and work.
Now it’s not enough that each of the defendants was rewarded with $20 million for their bad behavior, but even after that, they want an additional $10 million each from the city of Durham. It is very apparent that the Carpetbaggers and their counsel thought that when the mighty Duke University toppled, that the city of Durham would follow suit and turn over the money. Somehow the cash-strapped city managed to summon up the nerve to stand and fight against the Carpetbagger juggernaut, not unlike Winston Churchill stood up against Nazi aggression. Now action on that front has been at a standstill for years, more or less. Nonetheless, Durham is still wasting taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to go through the motions of defending the city.
The Carpetbaggers want the public to believe that they are so much in legal debt in fighting Duke University and the aftereffects of the Duke Lacrosse case, but surely they can use some of their net gain of $13.5 mil to pay their attorneys. Their stated excuse for suing the Bull City (to effect changes in the criminal justice system to the benefit of all Durhamians) is nothing more than a bunch of bull. They are suing the city because they are GREEDY.
Although Duke shelled out $60 million in an ill-advised settlement with the Carpetbaggers, they compounded that mistake by trying to force the National Union Fire Insurance Company, the university’s insurance company, to reimburse them… this, after making such an outlandish settlement without even discussing it with them. Duke is the one that breached its agreement with the insurance company, yet it filed suit in an attempt to recover the money it handed over on a platter. Just recently, Duke reached an agreement with the company, an affiliate of AIG, and per protocol terms were not disclosed. However, both parties agreed to drop claims and counterclaims against each other, and pay their own legal costs.
The Carpetbaggers need to emulate Duke University with regards to its squabble with National Union Fire Insurance Company. Instead of continuing to throw good money after bad, they need to rein in their attorneys and drop their suit against the city of Durham. They need to accept the fact that the city refused to take their bluff, as did the mighty university, unless it is the underlying goal of the Carpetbaggers to deplete the city’s coffers as a final vindictive act. But I don’t believe that is their goal… they’re in it for the money.
According to a news report last night, Duke University has approved a substantial increase in tuition… no doubt to help cover its giveaway to the Duke Lacrosse defendants and its ill-advised lawsuit against their insurance company.
Note: Click on the link below to access the latest installment (Part 9) of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.”
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc145.htm
And it was in 2007 that Duke University settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants, and it is where the vast majority of their income would be of account. That is $13.5 million after tax per Lacrosse player, and that’s not bad especially when you consider what they went through to get it. First, they attended a beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party with under-aged drinking, shouting of racial epithets (and probably other crimes taking place), then after being charged with a sexual assault they did not spend one day in jail. They became media darlings with all the media types coddling over them and misleading the public by proclaiming that they had been “exonerated” (as was reported by Deborah Morgan of WRAL-TV-5 as recently as the night of February 24, 2011, when the story broke here.) Then books are written about the Duke Lacrosse party incident which is revisionist propaganda history at its best. And HBO has been wracking its brains trying to somehow produce a movie about the Duke Lacrosse case without showing the true colors of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Two objective screenplays have already been written, but the head honchos discarded them and fired their authors… HBO is essentially requiring that the Duke boys be put in a positive light which is itself an impossibility if a story about the Duke Lacrosse case is to contain an iota of truth. The plan which seems to be adopted by HBO movie executives is to demand a script that does not mention the Duke Lacrosse boys and instead focuses on former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. (I would suggest that they consider hiring MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan F. Filan. She has shown the capacity to fabricate libelous statements about Mr. Nifong and then to use those very false statements to attack his character.) Finally, universities and Wall Street bigwigs have been clamoring to bring the boys into the fold to study and work.
Now it’s not enough that each of the defendants was rewarded with $20 million for their bad behavior, but even after that, they want an additional $10 million each from the city of Durham. It is very apparent that the Carpetbaggers and their counsel thought that when the mighty Duke University toppled, that the city of Durham would follow suit and turn over the money. Somehow the cash-strapped city managed to summon up the nerve to stand and fight against the Carpetbagger juggernaut, not unlike Winston Churchill stood up against Nazi aggression. Now action on that front has been at a standstill for years, more or less. Nonetheless, Durham is still wasting taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to go through the motions of defending the city.
The Carpetbaggers want the public to believe that they are so much in legal debt in fighting Duke University and the aftereffects of the Duke Lacrosse case, but surely they can use some of their net gain of $13.5 mil to pay their attorneys. Their stated excuse for suing the Bull City (to effect changes in the criminal justice system to the benefit of all Durhamians) is nothing more than a bunch of bull. They are suing the city because they are GREEDY.
Although Duke shelled out $60 million in an ill-advised settlement with the Carpetbaggers, they compounded that mistake by trying to force the National Union Fire Insurance Company, the university’s insurance company, to reimburse them… this, after making such an outlandish settlement without even discussing it with them. Duke is the one that breached its agreement with the insurance company, yet it filed suit in an attempt to recover the money it handed over on a platter. Just recently, Duke reached an agreement with the company, an affiliate of AIG, and per protocol terms were not disclosed. However, both parties agreed to drop claims and counterclaims against each other, and pay their own legal costs.
The Carpetbaggers need to emulate Duke University with regards to its squabble with National Union Fire Insurance Company. Instead of continuing to throw good money after bad, they need to rein in their attorneys and drop their suit against the city of Durham. They need to accept the fact that the city refused to take their bluff, as did the mighty university, unless it is the underlying goal of the Carpetbaggers to deplete the city’s coffers as a final vindictive act. But I don’t believe that is their goal… they’re in it for the money.
According to a news report last night, Duke University has approved a substantial increase in tuition… no doubt to help cover its giveaway to the Duke Lacrosse defendants and its ill-advised lawsuit against their insurance company.
Note: Click on the link below to access the latest installment (Part 9) of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.”
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc145.htm
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The judge’s hand in the capital convictions of Shan Carter
The Donald Brunson kidnap/murder.
On December 6, 1996, at approximately 3:00 am, a home invasion took place at the Wilmington, NC house that 27 year-old Donald Brunson shared with his girlfriend Ana Santiago and her children. According to initial reports by Ms. Santiago, three masked invaders beat and kidnapped Brunson in an attempt to find his stash of drug and gambling money. Brunson’s beaten body with a fatal bullet wound was later found near Santiago’s car which was used in the kidnapping. The car contained two masks and a toboggan cap which were used to shield the identities of the intruders. DNA evidence from these articles linked Kwada Temoney to the crime, but excluded Shan Carter. Mr. Carter has always maintained his innocence in this crime, stating that he was at home with his wife during the early morning hours when the crime was committed.
The deaths of Tyrone Baker/Demetrius Green.
In November 1996, the month prior to Brunson’s death, Shan Carter, along with Kwada Temoney and Damont White, burglarized the apartment of Tyrone Baker, a drug-dealer from New York. They had taken a coat, boots, and a few other items before coming across a cache of $40,000 which they evenly split. Baker had taken White into his confidence somewhat, and suspected he (White) had a part in the theft. Baker kidnapped White in broad daylight, held him for approximately six hours and pistol whipped him to get information about the burglary. Word was soon on the street that Baker intended to kill those who stole his money, and according to his reputation, Baker was one to follow through on his threats. On February 16, 1997, a couple of months after the burglary of Baker, Shan Carter parked his car on the corner of Ten and Dawson Street. Kwada Temoney was his passenger, and they exited the car with Carter heading for the corner store. In the periphery of his vision, he saw Temoney being forcefully sucker punched in the face by Tyrone Baker. (Temoney later told Carter that the blow knocked him unconscious.) Baker with a heavy field Army draped over his arm, concealing his hand and a possible weapon, menacingly advanced toward Carter at which time Carter withdrew his .357 magnum from his shoulder holster and fired low at Baker, with the intent of wounding, not killing him. The first bullet struck Baker in the thigh, but the recoil of the powerful weapon which was held in one hand forced the barrel of the gun higher… and when he squeezed off the second shot it caught Baker below the left rib cage as he had turned to his right in order to flee. As Baker ran from Carter, Carter followed at an angle in order to prevent Baker from using the corner of the building as a shield from which to return fire. As Baker ran across Tenth Street, Carter fired approximately three more rounds as motivation to keep Baker on the defensive. It was during this series that a bullet unintentionally struck 8 year-old Demetrius Green in the head killing him. As Baker collapsed Carter returned to his car, along with Temoney who had regained consciousness, and they left the scene. Before police arrived at the crime scene, Renee Barnes, a woman who sold drugs for Baker, went to his side and took his coat, and whatever it possibly concealed, along with his car keys. She then drove Baker’s car to his girlfriend’s house. The coat eventually ended up in New York. It was later that day that Carter learned that Baker had died from his wounds and surprisingly and remorsefully that an innocent bystander (Demetrius Green) had been killed.
February 18, 1997, two days after the Tenth and Dawson Street shooting, Carter and Temoney were arrested when leaving a Wilmington motel. They have both been in custody since that day. Temoney later entered a plea deal, confessing to killing Donald Brunson and implicating Carter as an accomplice in that crime. He did so in order to escape a possible death sentence. What subsequently happened to Carter is a total miscarriage of justice… sentenced to two death penalties and serving a life sentence.
The state of North Carolina, in securing death penalty convictions, was successful in its objective of seeking to put Shan Carter to death even though he did not commit a capital crime. Whether the state’s motive was due to one victim of the violence being an 8-year old boy, or if the defendant’s class and color was sufficient, is anyone’s guess. But the state is proceeding with its efforts to put to death a man who they very well know is not deserving of it. The judges, prosecutors, and the media-types are not dumb, but they believe the public in general is, and that is why they feel they can get away with it. Below I will set forth the scheme which I strongly believe led to the unjust capital convictions against Shan Carter.
That Shan Carter was responsible for the February 16, 1997 deaths of Tyrone Baker and Demetrius Green is not in dispute. Carter’s contention was that he shot Baker in self-defense, and he directed his gunfire with the intent to wound and not kill Baker. The tragic and unfortunate death of the 8 year-old boy was a horrific accident that Carter was not aware of until hours later when the story was carried on the news. The state’s prosecutors, however, argued to the jury that Carter’s actions in killing Tyrone Baker were deliberate and premeditated. And, using a little known and arbitrarily utilized legal statute, extended the capital charge in Baker’s case to apply to that in the case involving the boy’s death.
In order to turn the obvious self-defense death of Baker into one worthy of the consideration of capital punishment, the prosecution had to paint Carter into the monster that he was not. Up to this point, Shan Carter did sell crack cocaine, and he did burglarize residences thought to be unoccupied. He used his gun only for self-defense and never in the commission of a crime. Carter never robbed a bank, or an individual at gunpoint. He fired his weapon only on two occasions… both times in self-defense. The first time was on February 5, 1997 when another burglary victim of Carter’s, Keith Richardson confronted Carter and drew a pistol on Carter first (this has been documented by an affidavit by Julius Jones). The other time Carter fired his gun was on February 16, 1997 at Tenth and Dawson when he was threatened by Tyrone Baker, as described previously. A small-time petty thief, burglar, and drug dealer, yes… but Shan Carter was no cold-hearted trigger happy killer, as the prosecutors made him at to be in his trials in 2000 and 2001.
Kwada Temoney, on the other hand, more aptly fit the role of a criminal monster. He did use a gun to rob banks and individuals. Temoney had no compunction about shooting at the unarmed who posed him no threat. He shot Louis Tyson, a robbery victim in both legs, and allegedly fired shots at customers during a bank robbery. And it is Temoney who was tied to the murder/kidnapping of Donald Brunson. Carter will be the first to admit that he was involved with the monster Temoney in a couple of burglaries, but that is about it. And Carter had absolutely no prior knowledge or involvement in the crimes against Donald Brunson on December 6, 1996.
New Hanover prosecutors invested their efforts up until October 1998 trying to forensically link Shan Carter to the Brunson kidnap/murder, for they knew that if they were to prevail with serious charges against Carter in the Baker/Green deaths that they would need him convicted on more serious charges beforehand. The police and prosecutors then began using unethical and illegal practices to obtain hearsay testimony for which to charge and later try Carter for Brunson’s death.
Prosecutors wanted to convict Carter in the Brunson murder case before putting him on trial for the deaths of Baker and Green… charges which were in place long before prosecutors brought charges of murder against Carter for the Brunson murder. Therefore, prosecutors had to fast-track the Brunson case against Carter so that it’s probable guilty verdict could be used to elicit a serious conviction against him in the Baker/Green cases.
Part Two will be added to this blog tomorrow.
On December 6, 1996, at approximately 3:00 am, a home invasion took place at the Wilmington, NC house that 27 year-old Donald Brunson shared with his girlfriend Ana Santiago and her children. According to initial reports by Ms. Santiago, three masked invaders beat and kidnapped Brunson in an attempt to find his stash of drug and gambling money. Brunson’s beaten body with a fatal bullet wound was later found near Santiago’s car which was used in the kidnapping. The car contained two masks and a toboggan cap which were used to shield the identities of the intruders. DNA evidence from these articles linked Kwada Temoney to the crime, but excluded Shan Carter. Mr. Carter has always maintained his innocence in this crime, stating that he was at home with his wife during the early morning hours when the crime was committed.
The deaths of Tyrone Baker/Demetrius Green.
In November 1996, the month prior to Brunson’s death, Shan Carter, along with Kwada Temoney and Damont White, burglarized the apartment of Tyrone Baker, a drug-dealer from New York. They had taken a coat, boots, and a few other items before coming across a cache of $40,000 which they evenly split. Baker had taken White into his confidence somewhat, and suspected he (White) had a part in the theft. Baker kidnapped White in broad daylight, held him for approximately six hours and pistol whipped him to get information about the burglary. Word was soon on the street that Baker intended to kill those who stole his money, and according to his reputation, Baker was one to follow through on his threats. On February 16, 1997, a couple of months after the burglary of Baker, Shan Carter parked his car on the corner of Ten and Dawson Street. Kwada Temoney was his passenger, and they exited the car with Carter heading for the corner store. In the periphery of his vision, he saw Temoney being forcefully sucker punched in the face by Tyrone Baker. (Temoney later told Carter that the blow knocked him unconscious.) Baker with a heavy field Army draped over his arm, concealing his hand and a possible weapon, menacingly advanced toward Carter at which time Carter withdrew his .357 magnum from his shoulder holster and fired low at Baker, with the intent of wounding, not killing him. The first bullet struck Baker in the thigh, but the recoil of the powerful weapon which was held in one hand forced the barrel of the gun higher… and when he squeezed off the second shot it caught Baker below the left rib cage as he had turned to his right in order to flee. As Baker ran from Carter, Carter followed at an angle in order to prevent Baker from using the corner of the building as a shield from which to return fire. As Baker ran across Tenth Street, Carter fired approximately three more rounds as motivation to keep Baker on the defensive. It was during this series that a bullet unintentionally struck 8 year-old Demetrius Green in the head killing him. As Baker collapsed Carter returned to his car, along with Temoney who had regained consciousness, and they left the scene. Before police arrived at the crime scene, Renee Barnes, a woman who sold drugs for Baker, went to his side and took his coat, and whatever it possibly concealed, along with his car keys. She then drove Baker’s car to his girlfriend’s house. The coat eventually ended up in New York. It was later that day that Carter learned that Baker had died from his wounds and surprisingly and remorsefully that an innocent bystander (Demetrius Green) had been killed.
February 18, 1997, two days after the Tenth and Dawson Street shooting, Carter and Temoney were arrested when leaving a Wilmington motel. They have both been in custody since that day. Temoney later entered a plea deal, confessing to killing Donald Brunson and implicating Carter as an accomplice in that crime. He did so in order to escape a possible death sentence. What subsequently happened to Carter is a total miscarriage of justice… sentenced to two death penalties and serving a life sentence.
The state of North Carolina, in securing death penalty convictions, was successful in its objective of seeking to put Shan Carter to death even though he did not commit a capital crime. Whether the state’s motive was due to one victim of the violence being an 8-year old boy, or if the defendant’s class and color was sufficient, is anyone’s guess. But the state is proceeding with its efforts to put to death a man who they very well know is not deserving of it. The judges, prosecutors, and the media-types are not dumb, but they believe the public in general is, and that is why they feel they can get away with it. Below I will set forth the scheme which I strongly believe led to the unjust capital convictions against Shan Carter.
That Shan Carter was responsible for the February 16, 1997 deaths of Tyrone Baker and Demetrius Green is not in dispute. Carter’s contention was that he shot Baker in self-defense, and he directed his gunfire with the intent to wound and not kill Baker. The tragic and unfortunate death of the 8 year-old boy was a horrific accident that Carter was not aware of until hours later when the story was carried on the news. The state’s prosecutors, however, argued to the jury that Carter’s actions in killing Tyrone Baker were deliberate and premeditated. And, using a little known and arbitrarily utilized legal statute, extended the capital charge in Baker’s case to apply to that in the case involving the boy’s death.
In order to turn the obvious self-defense death of Baker into one worthy of the consideration of capital punishment, the prosecution had to paint Carter into the monster that he was not. Up to this point, Shan Carter did sell crack cocaine, and he did burglarize residences thought to be unoccupied. He used his gun only for self-defense and never in the commission of a crime. Carter never robbed a bank, or an individual at gunpoint. He fired his weapon only on two occasions… both times in self-defense. The first time was on February 5, 1997 when another burglary victim of Carter’s, Keith Richardson confronted Carter and drew a pistol on Carter first (this has been documented by an affidavit by Julius Jones). The other time Carter fired his gun was on February 16, 1997 at Tenth and Dawson when he was threatened by Tyrone Baker, as described previously. A small-time petty thief, burglar, and drug dealer, yes… but Shan Carter was no cold-hearted trigger happy killer, as the prosecutors made him at to be in his trials in 2000 and 2001.
Kwada Temoney, on the other hand, more aptly fit the role of a criminal monster. He did use a gun to rob banks and individuals. Temoney had no compunction about shooting at the unarmed who posed him no threat. He shot Louis Tyson, a robbery victim in both legs, and allegedly fired shots at customers during a bank robbery. And it is Temoney who was tied to the murder/kidnapping of Donald Brunson. Carter will be the first to admit that he was involved with the monster Temoney in a couple of burglaries, but that is about it. And Carter had absolutely no prior knowledge or involvement in the crimes against Donald Brunson on December 6, 1996.
New Hanover prosecutors invested their efforts up until October 1998 trying to forensically link Shan Carter to the Brunson kidnap/murder, for they knew that if they were to prevail with serious charges against Carter in the Baker/Green deaths that they would need him convicted on more serious charges beforehand. The police and prosecutors then began using unethical and illegal practices to obtain hearsay testimony for which to charge and later try Carter for Brunson’s death.
Prosecutors wanted to convict Carter in the Brunson murder case before putting him on trial for the deaths of Baker and Green… charges which were in place long before prosecutors brought charges of murder against Carter for the Brunson murder. Therefore, prosecutors had to fast-track the Brunson case against Carter so that it’s probable guilty verdict could be used to elicit a serious conviction against him in the Baker/Green cases.
Part Two will be added to this blog tomorrow.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Dismissal and “innocent” are not one and the same
A recent blog commenter (who identified itself as "Whatchoo talkin' '
bout Sidney?") was kind enough to share with me the information that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper filled out form AOC-CR-307 when disposing of the Duke Lacrosse case. The commenter also told me that the form was signed by a judge. I presume this document was tendered and signed on or around April 11, 2007, the date of the A.G.’s “Innocent Promulgation.” I have not seen the form, but I will take the commenter at his/her word.
The form AOC-CR-307 is a form used by the criminal courts in the state of North Carolina, and is officially titled, “Dismissal Notice of Reinstatement CR-307 – North Carolina.” It is a dismissal form. Since Attorney General Cooper decided to dismiss the case, one acceptable possible outcome by a special prosecutor taking over a criminal case, it stands to reason that he did, in fact, fill out the document. The presiding judge, in signing the document, agreed to grant the prosecutor’s request for dismissal, and make it final. This is what most likely transpired, and such actions seem believable.
What the blog commenter would want viewers to believe, however, is that this document is one that justifies a declaration of innocence. That the judge, by signing the document, agrees with any text within the document that may recklessly state that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are “innocent” and that “no attack occurred.” Attorney General Cooper, or one of his deputy assistant attorney generals may write whatever they want within the document, but at the end of the day, it is merely a form to dismiss the case. It is not a form to declare a verdict or to declare “innocence.” Because of the blog commenter’s bias, he wants to interpret the dismissal form as being an innocent verdict by the judge who signed off on the document. Like Cooper’s promulgation of innocent, this reasoning is an example of overreaching by the blog commenter.
I have not seen the dismissal form used in the Duke Lacrosse case by the Attorney General’s Office, and if the blog commenter has an address where I could find the document, I would be very appreciative. And I appreciate the commenter bringing this form to my attention.
Now, I have no problem with Attorney General Cooper dismissing the case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants (although I doubt that such an act was justifiable having not seen the evidence). He acted appropriately as a special prosecutor in determining whether or not to proceed with prosecuting the case, or whether or not to drop the charges and dismiss the case. However, to proclaim “innocence” or “guilt” was not within his mandate as special prosecutor to the case. What I find appalling is that the media gave Mr. Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” credibility instead of challenging it. Again, by doing so, the media misled the public who believed it, and insulted the intelligence of those who know better. Likewise, the blog commenter, with respect to form AOC-CR-307, is misleading readers who believe him/her, and is insulting the intelligence of those of us who know better. For us, the Jedi mind-tricks do not work.
bout Sidney?") was kind enough to share with me the information that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper filled out form AOC-CR-307 when disposing of the Duke Lacrosse case. The commenter also told me that the form was signed by a judge. I presume this document was tendered and signed on or around April 11, 2007, the date of the A.G.’s “Innocent Promulgation.” I have not seen the form, but I will take the commenter at his/her word.
The form AOC-CR-307 is a form used by the criminal courts in the state of North Carolina, and is officially titled, “Dismissal Notice of Reinstatement CR-307 – North Carolina.” It is a dismissal form. Since Attorney General Cooper decided to dismiss the case, one acceptable possible outcome by a special prosecutor taking over a criminal case, it stands to reason that he did, in fact, fill out the document. The presiding judge, in signing the document, agreed to grant the prosecutor’s request for dismissal, and make it final. This is what most likely transpired, and such actions seem believable.
What the blog commenter would want viewers to believe, however, is that this document is one that justifies a declaration of innocence. That the judge, by signing the document, agrees with any text within the document that may recklessly state that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are “innocent” and that “no attack occurred.” Attorney General Cooper, or one of his deputy assistant attorney generals may write whatever they want within the document, but at the end of the day, it is merely a form to dismiss the case. It is not a form to declare a verdict or to declare “innocence.” Because of the blog commenter’s bias, he wants to interpret the dismissal form as being an innocent verdict by the judge who signed off on the document. Like Cooper’s promulgation of innocent, this reasoning is an example of overreaching by the blog commenter.
I have not seen the dismissal form used in the Duke Lacrosse case by the Attorney General’s Office, and if the blog commenter has an address where I could find the document, I would be very appreciative. And I appreciate the commenter bringing this form to my attention.
Now, I have no problem with Attorney General Cooper dismissing the case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants (although I doubt that such an act was justifiable having not seen the evidence). He acted appropriately as a special prosecutor in determining whether or not to proceed with prosecuting the case, or whether or not to drop the charges and dismiss the case. However, to proclaim “innocence” or “guilt” was not within his mandate as special prosecutor to the case. What I find appalling is that the media gave Mr. Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” credibility instead of challenging it. Again, by doing so, the media misled the public who believed it, and insulted the intelligence of those who know better. Likewise, the blog commenter, with respect to form AOC-CR-307, is misleading readers who believe him/her, and is insulting the intelligence of those of us who know better. For us, the Jedi mind-tricks do not work.
Monday, November 2, 2009
WRAL… Prime example of the Media molding minds of the public
“Walt in Durham,” the pseudonym of a frequent commenter in this blog site, www.justice4nifong.blogspot.com, is an intelligent individual, but even he has been duped and bamboozled by the media… WRAL, in particular. If the media is capable of feeding misinformation to Walt, and having him accept it as truthful, then it is obvious why the vast majority of media subscribers, like Walt, have negative attitudes towards former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong which are unwarranted.
This observation stems from a recent blog (around October 18, 2009) in which I made the following statement, “Just because Attorney General Roy Cooper said nothing happened at the party does not make it so.” Walt replied with a comment on October 21, 2009 which stated as follows: “But, Nifong himself said so twice” (insinuating that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened at the Duke lacrosse party). When I requested the source upon which he based his comment, he told me it was from WRAL. And sure enough, I went to the WRAL website and upon searching, I found the following article posted on July 26, 2007, with the headline, “Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened.”
That headline is an outright blatantly false and purposely misleading statement, and it was extremely effective in playing a Jedi-mind trick on Walt, and many others. The first part of the statement, “Nifong Apologizes,” is true, but the second part, “Admits Nothing Happened,” is offensively false on its face and baseless. There is absolutely nothing in the web article to substantiate such a claim.
Mr. Nifong does make the following statement, as published in the article: “I agree with the Attorney General’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party.” Yes, he states that “there is no credible evidence” that the three defendants committed any crimes for which they were indicted, but that does not mean that he does not believe that they are not guilty of committing crimes against Ms. Mangum. Definitely it does not mean that Mr. Nifong believed that “nothing happened.” For the media to state that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened is wrong and grossly irresponsible.
That said, there are many cases that move forward without credible evidence. In the Brittany Willis murder/rape/kidnapping/armed robbery case, there was no credible evidence against defendant James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson heroically solved the crime for the Wilson police, he ended up spending 39 months in jail on charges which lacked credible evidence; charges that were later dropped. Notice that the media did not go after Prosecutor Bill Wolfe. In the case against 14 year old Erick Daniels, who was identified by a robbery victim due to the shape of his eyebrows in a school yearbook, there was no credible evidence that existed against him. Yet he wrongfully served seven years in jail and the media is not critical of his prosecutor, Freda Black. There was no credible evidence against Alan Gell for the murder with which he was convicted and unjustly served nine years in prison (half of it on death row). However, there was exculpatory evidence favoring Mr. Gell which the prosecutors withheld from defense attorneys in order to win a conviction. Even at that, the media went out of its way to protect and shield his prosecutor (David Hoke) from criticism. I could go on.
Bottom line is that there are many charges that are brought by prosecutors without credible evidence… but just circumstantial evidence. The admission by Mr. Nifong that no credible evidence existed does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against the defendants.
Finally, the nexus between credible evidence and the occurrence of a sexual assault is non-existent, but WRAL and the media in general would like the public to believe that in this particular Duke Lacrosse case they are linked; one and the same. The folly of this argument is obvious when you consider, for example, the rape case against Ronald Cotton. Mr. Cotton was picked up off the street and placed in a lineup where he was positively identified as the rapist by a rape victim. There was no credible evidence linking him to the crime, nonetheless he was convicted and served many years in prison before being cleared by DNA. Because no credible evidence against him existed does not mean that the rape for which he was charged did not happen. In the Duke Lacrosse case, Attorney General Cooper has reached far beyond his bounds by declaring that no criminal activity took place against Ms. Mangum, based on the fact that there was no “credible” evidence against those accused by Ms. Mangum. And this is the line that the media, including WRAL, pursued and propagated.
Furthermore, the media, instead of questioning the legitimacy and propriety of the attorney general’s “innocent” proclamation of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, accepted it as being legitimate and binding. This declaration is an example of overreaching and irresponsibility by the attorney general at its greatest, and the media has been content to completely ignore its lack of legal substance. This is an outrage that WRAL reported without question and as factual with its online statement: “Following North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s declaration this April that the three men were innocent, …”
A final disgracefully misleading passage in the WRAL article is: “The defense’s request to drop the motion for criminal sanctions means that Nifong will no longer be required to reimburse the defendants thousands of dollars for costs incurred in the defense’s uncovering of exculpatory DNA evidence that could have cleared the players had the case gone to trial.” First of all, the defense probably decided to drop the motion for criminal sanctions because of the absurdity of the charge, which would become apparent in a courtroom. To expect a prosecutor to pay for work performed by the defense team is absolutely ludicrous, yet the media’s take on it is matter-of-fact. But the most egregious and disingenuous part of the statement is the use of the adjective “exculpatory” when describing DNA evidence. There is absolutely no way in which the referenced DNA evidence could be exculpatory (that is, clear the players of sexual assault), and to suggest so is a monumental disservice to the public. WRAL, along with almost all other media sources, has consistently erred on this specific issue of great importance.
In reporting on the same event, John Stevenson, of The Herald Sun, makes statements similar to WRAL such as: “All remaining charges against the defendants were dismissed in April by Attorney General Roy Cooper, who declared the three innocent,…”
The Herald Sun goes out of its way to generate sympathy for the Duke defendants by quoting one of their attorneys, Joseph Cheshire: “…a long journey of suffering for innocent people.” Mr. Cheshire takes advantage of Attorney General Cooper’s “innocent” declaration, and then the public is supposed to believe that the Duke Lacrosse players suffered? First, they spent no time in jail (their prosecutor – Mike Nifong – spent more time in jail than they did combined). Second, they each received $7 million from Duke University in an out of court settlement (don’t ask me why). Third, their avaricious carpetbagger families are currently trying to gouge another $10 million for each of their defendant sons from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Fourth, they were represented by high-powered attorney, not public defenders. And fifth, they were certainly not oblivious to the biased media attacks being lodged against Mike Nifong, the accuser, and the city of Durham. With consideration of the aforementioned, I doubt very seriously that the boys endured a “long journey of suffering.” James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Charles Wayne Munsey, Theodore Jerry Williams, and other innocent people who were wrongfully incarcerated for long periods of time without compensation know what it is to suffer. On the other hand, the Duke Lacrosse defendants have mainly experienced pampering and coddling by the courts, the media, and the public… privileged treatment for which they have been accustomed and to which they feel is their birthright.
As outrageous and unfair as the coverage by WRAL and The Herald Sun was, it pales in comparison to the ranting of MSNBC Senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan. In an online article posted June 17, 2007, titled “Nifong’s punishment is extreme, appropriate,” Ms. Filan claims that Mr. Nifong damaged the sport of lacrosse. Now, I am not making this up. She actually wrote that! I would like to know how. First of all, I doubt that he even knows anything about the sport. Another unsubstantiated claim by Ms. Filan is that Mr. Nifong damaged the reputation of Duke University. Again, I would like to know how. Her article failed to explain. Ms. Filan claims Mr. Nifong damaged three innocent men. Like the rest of the media, she gives credence to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “innocent” declaration. Now I have never attended law school, and I am certainly not the senior legal analyst of a major media network, but from my high school civics class I learned that the attorney general, or anyone else in the executive branch, does not have the authority to render judicial decisions. That authority lies clearly with the judicial branch of government, as in judges.
Finally, Ms. Filan blames Mr. Nifong for damaging the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case on behalf of a victim who was poor, disenfranchised, and of color, against three young college men from families of wealth and privilege, was following the principle of “equal justice for all.” North Carolina justice, in practice, follows the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” That is what prevailed in the Duke Lacrosse case. The powers that be, and the media (including Ms. Filan) which was in cahoots with those powers, are responsible for destroying the public’s faith in the criminal justice system of North Carolina. All one has to do is look at the cases of James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Theodore Jerry Williams, Wayne Charles Munsey, Darryl Hunt, and many others who are poor and disenfranchised, and then compare them with the Duke Lacrosse case.
I take umbrage at Ms. Filan’s baseless speculations, especially her following statement: “He used the Duke case to get re-elected, and he resigned to try to save his law license.” What proof does she have for making these claims? They are reckless, inflammatory comments that are unsubstantiated… definitely statements which I doubt that she can back up with fact.
Ms. Filan did note in her article the rarity of the disbarment of an attorney, stating that it is the legal equivalent of a unicorn sighting. I would disagree when it comes to attorneys in private practice, but the statement is valid when it comes to state prosecutors. She failed to mention that Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. During a 76 year period, hundreds, if not thousands of North Carolina attorneys have lost their law license, but only one prosecutor has been disbarred… Mike Nifong. This is a fact that the media has kept hidden from the public, especially in light of North Carolina cases in which there has been egregious prosecutorial misconduct… in particular the Alan Gell case. Furthermore, North Carolina follows only the states of Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated.
This type of Journalism engaged in by WRAL, The Herald Sun, MSNBC and other media outlets is detrimental to the public which relies on the media for fair and objective reporting. The false, fraudulent, unsubstantiated statements and claims put forth by the media about Mr. Nifong are not the result of sloppiness or inattention, but they are carefully calculated statements made as propaganda intended to direct public sentiment against Mr. Nifong who has attempted to take class and color out of the equation when it comes to justice in North Carolina.
Mr. Nifong has always maintained that he felt that something criminal did happen to the accuser at the March 13, 2006 party hosted by the Duke Lacrosse team. Unlike Attorney General Roy Cooper, Mr. Nifong never said “nothing happened” at the party. So, the media took it upon itself to do it for him… even though there was no truth to it. And as a result, intelligent people, like Walt in Durham, believed the lie… proving that the media has become quite adroit at using the Jedi-mind trick on the public. That is what the media did in its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and its prosecutor, Mike Nifong – instead of informing the people, it was busy molding their minds.
This observation stems from a recent blog (around October 18, 2009) in which I made the following statement, “Just because Attorney General Roy Cooper said nothing happened at the party does not make it so.” Walt replied with a comment on October 21, 2009 which stated as follows: “But, Nifong himself said so twice” (insinuating that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened at the Duke lacrosse party). When I requested the source upon which he based his comment, he told me it was from WRAL. And sure enough, I went to the WRAL website and upon searching, I found the following article posted on July 26, 2007, with the headline, “Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened.”
That headline is an outright blatantly false and purposely misleading statement, and it was extremely effective in playing a Jedi-mind trick on Walt, and many others. The first part of the statement, “Nifong Apologizes,” is true, but the second part, “Admits Nothing Happened,” is offensively false on its face and baseless. There is absolutely nothing in the web article to substantiate such a claim.
Mr. Nifong does make the following statement, as published in the article: “I agree with the Attorney General’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party.” Yes, he states that “there is no credible evidence” that the three defendants committed any crimes for which they were indicted, but that does not mean that he does not believe that they are not guilty of committing crimes against Ms. Mangum. Definitely it does not mean that Mr. Nifong believed that “nothing happened.” For the media to state that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened is wrong and grossly irresponsible.
That said, there are many cases that move forward without credible evidence. In the Brittany Willis murder/rape/kidnapping/armed robbery case, there was no credible evidence against defendant James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson heroically solved the crime for the Wilson police, he ended up spending 39 months in jail on charges which lacked credible evidence; charges that were later dropped. Notice that the media did not go after Prosecutor Bill Wolfe. In the case against 14 year old Erick Daniels, who was identified by a robbery victim due to the shape of his eyebrows in a school yearbook, there was no credible evidence that existed against him. Yet he wrongfully served seven years in jail and the media is not critical of his prosecutor, Freda Black. There was no credible evidence against Alan Gell for the murder with which he was convicted and unjustly served nine years in prison (half of it on death row). However, there was exculpatory evidence favoring Mr. Gell which the prosecutors withheld from defense attorneys in order to win a conviction. Even at that, the media went out of its way to protect and shield his prosecutor (David Hoke) from criticism. I could go on.
Bottom line is that there are many charges that are brought by prosecutors without credible evidence… but just circumstantial evidence. The admission by Mr. Nifong that no credible evidence existed does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against the defendants.
Finally, the nexus between credible evidence and the occurrence of a sexual assault is non-existent, but WRAL and the media in general would like the public to believe that in this particular Duke Lacrosse case they are linked; one and the same. The folly of this argument is obvious when you consider, for example, the rape case against Ronald Cotton. Mr. Cotton was picked up off the street and placed in a lineup where he was positively identified as the rapist by a rape victim. There was no credible evidence linking him to the crime, nonetheless he was convicted and served many years in prison before being cleared by DNA. Because no credible evidence against him existed does not mean that the rape for which he was charged did not happen. In the Duke Lacrosse case, Attorney General Cooper has reached far beyond his bounds by declaring that no criminal activity took place against Ms. Mangum, based on the fact that there was no “credible” evidence against those accused by Ms. Mangum. And this is the line that the media, including WRAL, pursued and propagated.
Furthermore, the media, instead of questioning the legitimacy and propriety of the attorney general’s “innocent” proclamation of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, accepted it as being legitimate and binding. This declaration is an example of overreaching and irresponsibility by the attorney general at its greatest, and the media has been content to completely ignore its lack of legal substance. This is an outrage that WRAL reported without question and as factual with its online statement: “Following North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s declaration this April that the three men were innocent, …”
A final disgracefully misleading passage in the WRAL article is: “The defense’s request to drop the motion for criminal sanctions means that Nifong will no longer be required to reimburse the defendants thousands of dollars for costs incurred in the defense’s uncovering of exculpatory DNA evidence that could have cleared the players had the case gone to trial.” First of all, the defense probably decided to drop the motion for criminal sanctions because of the absurdity of the charge, which would become apparent in a courtroom. To expect a prosecutor to pay for work performed by the defense team is absolutely ludicrous, yet the media’s take on it is matter-of-fact. But the most egregious and disingenuous part of the statement is the use of the adjective “exculpatory” when describing DNA evidence. There is absolutely no way in which the referenced DNA evidence could be exculpatory (that is, clear the players of sexual assault), and to suggest so is a monumental disservice to the public. WRAL, along with almost all other media sources, has consistently erred on this specific issue of great importance.
In reporting on the same event, John Stevenson, of The Herald Sun, makes statements similar to WRAL such as: “All remaining charges against the defendants were dismissed in April by Attorney General Roy Cooper, who declared the three innocent,…”
The Herald Sun goes out of its way to generate sympathy for the Duke defendants by quoting one of their attorneys, Joseph Cheshire: “…a long journey of suffering for innocent people.” Mr. Cheshire takes advantage of Attorney General Cooper’s “innocent” declaration, and then the public is supposed to believe that the Duke Lacrosse players suffered? First, they spent no time in jail (their prosecutor – Mike Nifong – spent more time in jail than they did combined). Second, they each received $7 million from Duke University in an out of court settlement (don’t ask me why). Third, their avaricious carpetbagger families are currently trying to gouge another $10 million for each of their defendant sons from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Fourth, they were represented by high-powered attorney, not public defenders. And fifth, they were certainly not oblivious to the biased media attacks being lodged against Mike Nifong, the accuser, and the city of Durham. With consideration of the aforementioned, I doubt very seriously that the boys endured a “long journey of suffering.” James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Charles Wayne Munsey, Theodore Jerry Williams, and other innocent people who were wrongfully incarcerated for long periods of time without compensation know what it is to suffer. On the other hand, the Duke Lacrosse defendants have mainly experienced pampering and coddling by the courts, the media, and the public… privileged treatment for which they have been accustomed and to which they feel is their birthright.
As outrageous and unfair as the coverage by WRAL and The Herald Sun was, it pales in comparison to the ranting of MSNBC Senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan. In an online article posted June 17, 2007, titled “Nifong’s punishment is extreme, appropriate,” Ms. Filan claims that Mr. Nifong damaged the sport of lacrosse. Now, I am not making this up. She actually wrote that! I would like to know how. First of all, I doubt that he even knows anything about the sport. Another unsubstantiated claim by Ms. Filan is that Mr. Nifong damaged the reputation of Duke University. Again, I would like to know how. Her article failed to explain. Ms. Filan claims Mr. Nifong damaged three innocent men. Like the rest of the media, she gives credence to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “innocent” declaration. Now I have never attended law school, and I am certainly not the senior legal analyst of a major media network, but from my high school civics class I learned that the attorney general, or anyone else in the executive branch, does not have the authority to render judicial decisions. That authority lies clearly with the judicial branch of government, as in judges.
Finally, Ms. Filan blames Mr. Nifong for damaging the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case on behalf of a victim who was poor, disenfranchised, and of color, against three young college men from families of wealth and privilege, was following the principle of “equal justice for all.” North Carolina justice, in practice, follows the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” That is what prevailed in the Duke Lacrosse case. The powers that be, and the media (including Ms. Filan) which was in cahoots with those powers, are responsible for destroying the public’s faith in the criminal justice system of North Carolina. All one has to do is look at the cases of James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Theodore Jerry Williams, Wayne Charles Munsey, Darryl Hunt, and many others who are poor and disenfranchised, and then compare them with the Duke Lacrosse case.
I take umbrage at Ms. Filan’s baseless speculations, especially her following statement: “He used the Duke case to get re-elected, and he resigned to try to save his law license.” What proof does she have for making these claims? They are reckless, inflammatory comments that are unsubstantiated… definitely statements which I doubt that she can back up with fact.
Ms. Filan did note in her article the rarity of the disbarment of an attorney, stating that it is the legal equivalent of a unicorn sighting. I would disagree when it comes to attorneys in private practice, but the statement is valid when it comes to state prosecutors. She failed to mention that Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. During a 76 year period, hundreds, if not thousands of North Carolina attorneys have lost their law license, but only one prosecutor has been disbarred… Mike Nifong. This is a fact that the media has kept hidden from the public, especially in light of North Carolina cases in which there has been egregious prosecutorial misconduct… in particular the Alan Gell case. Furthermore, North Carolina follows only the states of Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated.
This type of Journalism engaged in by WRAL, The Herald Sun, MSNBC and other media outlets is detrimental to the public which relies on the media for fair and objective reporting. The false, fraudulent, unsubstantiated statements and claims put forth by the media about Mr. Nifong are not the result of sloppiness or inattention, but they are carefully calculated statements made as propaganda intended to direct public sentiment against Mr. Nifong who has attempted to take class and color out of the equation when it comes to justice in North Carolina.
Mr. Nifong has always maintained that he felt that something criminal did happen to the accuser at the March 13, 2006 party hosted by the Duke Lacrosse team. Unlike Attorney General Roy Cooper, Mr. Nifong never said “nothing happened” at the party. So, the media took it upon itself to do it for him… even though there was no truth to it. And as a result, intelligent people, like Walt in Durham, believed the lie… proving that the media has become quite adroit at using the Jedi-mind trick on the public. That is what the media did in its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and its prosecutor, Mike Nifong – instead of informing the people, it was busy molding their minds.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Presidential appeal for sacrifice and to forsake greed falls upon deaf ears of the carpetbaggers
Throughout his campaign, and in his recent inaugural address, President Barack Obama had asked the United States citizens to make sacrifices, take responsibility, and turn from greed, all for the good of the country. During this economic downturn, with the record numbers of jobs being lost, and the skyrocketing number of home foreclosures, people from all walks of life are suffering. President Obama, to his credit, did not just talk the talk, but he walked the walk by freezing the pay of those on his staff who earned more than $100,000 in yearly salary.
Cities, including Durham, are struggling to provide basic sanitary, social, and law enforcement services to its residents due to its tremendous budget deficit. The cash-strapped city of Durham is even being asked to make cuts by the governor of the state, because the state’s financial health is itself in critical condition.
However these times of severe economic hardship to those in Durham and the state of North Carolina, do not seem to faze the families of the three exonerated Duke Lacrosse defendants, as they plow ahead, full steam, with their lawsuits against the city of Durham, Duke University, and the individuals with any link (no matter how trivial) to the Duke Lacrosse case. To keep from handing over thirty million dollars to three party-going student athletes and their families, the city has already spent more than one million dollars in preparing for its defense. This is taxpayer money that could be going for social programs, education, infrastructure projects, and to pay decent salaries for police, firefighters, and probation officers. And the meter is still running.
If the carpetbagger families of the ex-Duke lacrosse players had an ounce of decency, they would do the Christian thing and immediately drop their law suits. But these wealthy families, from northern states, are driven by two powerful forces: greed and malice. And their greed is surpassed only by their malice. Even if they are not awarded a dime by the courts, they will take pleasure in all of the pain that they inflict on Durham and Duke University by diverting precious taxpayer dollars from needed programs and projects in order to legally defend against the merit-less carpetbagger lawsuits.
Yes, the president challenged all Americans to take responsibility and make sacrifices that will be in the future best interests of us all. Unfortunately, like the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, there are some shortsighted, self-centered individuals among us who place who place their own self interests, regardless of how contemptible, above all else.
Cities, including Durham, are struggling to provide basic sanitary, social, and law enforcement services to its residents due to its tremendous budget deficit. The cash-strapped city of Durham is even being asked to make cuts by the governor of the state, because the state’s financial health is itself in critical condition.
However these times of severe economic hardship to those in Durham and the state of North Carolina, do not seem to faze the families of the three exonerated Duke Lacrosse defendants, as they plow ahead, full steam, with their lawsuits against the city of Durham, Duke University, and the individuals with any link (no matter how trivial) to the Duke Lacrosse case. To keep from handing over thirty million dollars to three party-going student athletes and their families, the city has already spent more than one million dollars in preparing for its defense. This is taxpayer money that could be going for social programs, education, infrastructure projects, and to pay decent salaries for police, firefighters, and probation officers. And the meter is still running.
If the carpetbagger families of the ex-Duke lacrosse players had an ounce of decency, they would do the Christian thing and immediately drop their law suits. But these wealthy families, from northern states, are driven by two powerful forces: greed and malice. And their greed is surpassed only by their malice. Even if they are not awarded a dime by the courts, they will take pleasure in all of the pain that they inflict on Durham and Duke University by diverting precious taxpayer dollars from needed programs and projects in order to legally defend against the merit-less carpetbagger lawsuits.
Yes, the president challenged all Americans to take responsibility and make sacrifices that will be in the future best interests of us all. Unfortunately, like the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, there are some shortsighted, self-centered individuals among us who place who place their own self interests, regardless of how contemptible, above all else.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Duke’s secret settlement results in forfeiture of reimbursement by insurer
“Don’t make us pay, says Duke insurer” is the title of an article in the January 21, 2009 News & Observer. According to the article, the National Union Fire Insurance Company was not told about the settlement Duke University reached with the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ families until after the fact. The university’s excuse for not letting the insurance company know beforehand is because of a confidentiality clause in the settlement. The university should never have agreed to any confidentiality when negotiating the settlement with the Lacrosse defendants’ families, and made its big blunder when it, instead, violated its contract with its insurer. For Duke University to enter into a settlement agreement without first consulting with its insurance company doesn’t make sense and is unheard of (especially if planning on seeking financial relief from that company).
The fact that the conditions of the Duke-defendants’ families settlement (including the payout made by the university) are confidential, is troubling. Why not disclose the amount of the settlement? There are two reasons that come to mind. (1) The Lacrosse defendants’ families demanded such an outrageously high amount of money from the university that it did not want the public to realize the enormity of its greed. (2) The university did not want the public to realize the amount of money that it turned over to the Lacrosse defendants’ families without a fight. I still have no idea what Duke University did to incur substantial liability that would even consider agreeing to an out-of-court settlement.
It had been well documented that the Duke lacrosse team had a history of throwing raucous parties prior to the March 2006 incident. Furthermore, Duke administrators had previously warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players’ off-field shenanigans.
Although I do not know for a fact, I have reason to believe that each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants received in settlement from the university the amount of seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00). A total of twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000.00). That is enough incentive for 41 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players to file suit against the university, and for the former Duke lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, to want a “do-over” (he is attempting to discard the settlement agreement that he had reached with the university and seek a more lucrative award through the court system).
The News & Observer article included this statement which it reported as fact, “The families of the Duke players racked up millions of dollars in legal fees.” I would like to know, for what? And you can bet that the families did not expend millions of dollars in legal fees. The avaricious law firms representing the families may have billed millions of dollars in an effort to demand more money from Duke University, but one thing is certain – they didn’t earn it. The media wants its consumers to believe that the families of the three lacrosse defendants endured financial hardships in order to free their boys. I don’t believe it.
Because of the irrational legal actions of Duke University (including withholding information from its insurer), suicidal actions by the state in destroying its own case and prosecutor, and the media’s pro-biased slant favoring the three lacrosse defendants, it’s no wonder that “the university also faces suits from most of the other players on the 2006 team and from former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler (last statement in the N&O article).”
The fact that the conditions of the Duke-defendants’ families settlement (including the payout made by the university) are confidential, is troubling. Why not disclose the amount of the settlement? There are two reasons that come to mind. (1) The Lacrosse defendants’ families demanded such an outrageously high amount of money from the university that it did not want the public to realize the enormity of its greed. (2) The university did not want the public to realize the amount of money that it turned over to the Lacrosse defendants’ families without a fight. I still have no idea what Duke University did to incur substantial liability that would even consider agreeing to an out-of-court settlement.
It had been well documented that the Duke lacrosse team had a history of throwing raucous parties prior to the March 2006 incident. Furthermore, Duke administrators had previously warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players’ off-field shenanigans.
Although I do not know for a fact, I have reason to believe that each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants received in settlement from the university the amount of seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00). A total of twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000.00). That is enough incentive for 41 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players to file suit against the university, and for the former Duke lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, to want a “do-over” (he is attempting to discard the settlement agreement that he had reached with the university and seek a more lucrative award through the court system).
The News & Observer article included this statement which it reported as fact, “The families of the Duke players racked up millions of dollars in legal fees.” I would like to know, for what? And you can bet that the families did not expend millions of dollars in legal fees. The avaricious law firms representing the families may have billed millions of dollars in an effort to demand more money from Duke University, but one thing is certain – they didn’t earn it. The media wants its consumers to believe that the families of the three lacrosse defendants endured financial hardships in order to free their boys. I don’t believe it.
Because of the irrational legal actions of Duke University (including withholding information from its insurer), suicidal actions by the state in destroying its own case and prosecutor, and the media’s pro-biased slant favoring the three lacrosse defendants, it’s no wonder that “the university also faces suits from most of the other players on the 2006 team and from former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler (last statement in the N&O article).”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
