Prosecution’s not-so-secret weapon v. Mangum’s only weapon

Word count: 2,177

As I have stated before, the trial and inquisition given to Joan of Arc by the English was far fairer and much more humane than the state’s treatment afforded to Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse case victim/accuser. Ms. Mangum has clearly been subjected to a malign vendetta-driven prosecution by a wide ranging cabal of conspirators with a goal of exacting misguided payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case… and you can bet that their pursuit of this persecution is based in part on the fact that she is an African American woman. Those colluding to subvert justice and punish Mangum consist of the medical examiner Dr. Clay Nichols, the mainstream media (which to date has done a magnificent job of concealing the truth from the masses), and the Enablers… individuals and organization who are in positions to help put a halt to the injustices against Mangum, such as the NAACP, but elect to remain silent and do nothing due to lack of will, lack of courage, or both. One of the prosecution’s most valued and no-so-secret weapon is H. Wood Vann, the defense attorney for Crystal Mangum. The fact that he was the Court’s initial choice in appointing a defense attorney, speaks volumes as the entire Tar Heelian justice system has been and is now relying on him to do the bidding of the prosecutors.

Although the State’s initial goal may have been to win a conviction for first degree murder in order to hand Mangum a life sentence, the intervention by the grass roots organization Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has taken that draconian option out of play and placed the prosecution on defense. The State, representing the city of Durham, is now fighting to extract a plea deal (preferably to a felony) for time served in order to extricate the City of Bull from any civil liability for its malicious prosecution of Mangum. And it is Mangum’s own attorney, Woody Vann, who has been given the mandate to deliver her on a silver platter to Durham prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks. You can bet that Mr. Vann will continue to dutifully carry out his assignment as he already indicated that he does not intend to step aside amidst criticism and accusations of some Mangum supporters… accusations against which he has no answer and which include the following:
(1) his failure to file a motion to dismiss the murder charge due to lack of probable cause and a charge based upon a blatantly bogus autopsy report;
(2) his failure to file a motion to dismiss the larceny of chose in action charge due to lack of probable cause;
(3) his withholding important exculpatory evidence from his client including photographs which document her injuries and suggest that Reginald Daye was the aggressor;
(4) his withholding important exculpatory evidence from his client including the report from Dr. Christena L. Roberts which assesses Daye’s cause of death and the autopsy report by Dr. Nichols; and
(5) his testing the waters on behalf of the prosecutors to see if Mangum was ready to accept a plea deal by presenting one to her and advising her to take it… saying that she had a weak case.

For Mr. Vann to suggest that the case for Mangum’s defense is weak when the prosecution is willing to drop a first degree murder charge to assault with a deadly weapon for time served (about 500 days at the time) shows the ludicrous nature of his contentions about the offer. Rest assured that after Ms. Mangum is softened up with more jail time, the plea deal will be offered once more, because the prosecution is not going to take this case to trial, because it has no case. And because, as Mangum’s legal counsel, Mr. Vann holds a position of his client’s trust, he is charged with bringing about her downfall.

On September 18, 2012, Mr. Vann and his collaborators put on a court performance in which he was pretending to valiantly fight to have Ms. Mangum’s bail reduced from $200,000 to $50,000. I felt all along that this event was staged for Mangum’s benefit and that all participants involved in this charade knew that there was absolutely no way in Hades that her bail would be reduced one cent. Vann had been taking a lot of well-deserved criticism from Mangum supporters for not doing anything for his client, so in response he felt forced to put on this little courtroom drama. Mr. Vann’s true allegiances and fidelity are evidenced by his actions in which includes his failure to seek dismissal of the bogus charges against Mangum, his withholding all pertinent discovery and evidence not already in her possession from her, his infrequent visits and lack of communication with his client, and his general lack of urgency and willingness to allow Mangum to unjustly sit in jail separated from her three children. The bottom line is that Mr. Vann has sold his soul to the Blue Devil, as his priorities obviously are to protect Duke University and its hospital from negative publicity.

Because it is obvious to anyone with at least one functioning gray matter neuron that the stab wound inflicted by Mangum was not responsible for Reginald Daye’s brain death and subsequent elective removal from life support a week later and resultant death, the defense and prosecution have even shifted their stories to suggest that Mr. Daye’s brain death was due to a massive aspiration following a bout of emesis. Even the mainstream media is going along with this misdirection by not mentioning the fact that Mr. Daye was improperly intubated by Duke University Hospital staff. This medical mistake that attorneys on both sides and the media are trying to keep covered up led to hypoxia which resulted in brain death and Daye’s comatose state.

In addition to protecting Duke University Hospital’s reputation, Mr. Vann is entrusted with eliminating any legal liability Ms. Mangum has against the city of Durham for bringing a malicious prosecution against her. The privileged Duke Lacrosse defendants, who never spent a single day in jail and who were able to shake down Duke University for $20 million each, feel that they are now entitled to receive $10 million each from the city of Durham just because Attorney General Roy Cooper felt pressured by Joe Cheshire to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent.” Not only that, but the mainstream media has lionized and coddled these boys while viciously attacking Crystal Mangum and labeling her as a liar who is emotionally unstable, violent, irrational and a threat to society. In this backdrop, Ms. Mangum’s attorney is trying to wrangle from her a plea deal that would let the city and its prosecutors off the hook for compensation she rightfully deserves for a premeditated vindictive and malicious prosecution that has deprived her of her liberty for nearly a year and a half and deprived her of contact with her three children who love her and need her.

Whereas Mr. Vann is the prosecution’s not-so-secret weapon against Ms. Mangum, the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and Mangum’s supporters are her only weapons against an injustice system bent on making her suffer because of politics related to the Duke Lacrosse case. Legal layperson Sidney Harr, a retired physician who has been sounding the alarm about serious problems with the Nichols’ autopsy report of April 14, 2011 since its release to the public in mid-August 2011, has helped Ms. Mangum draft and file motions to the court to dismiss the charges against her. The result netted by his action has been for the North Carolina State Bar to investigate Harr for the unauthorized practice of law; the action originating from complaints by “more than one journalist,” and whose identities have been hidden by the Bar which assumed the role of complainant for that specific purpose. Then, when Harr filed a Pro se petition for writ of mandamus to order prosecutors to dismiss charges against Mangum for lack of probable cause and to order attorney Vann to desist from withholding evidence and discovery from his client Mangum, the State Bar launched another investigation for unauthorized law practice (this one scheduled to be heard on October 24, 2012). However, all of Harr’s complaints filed with the Bar against prosecutors Kelly Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks (for malicious prosecution against Mangum without probable cause) and H. Wood Vann (for withholding evidence and prosecution discovery from his client Mangum) were not acted upon.

What contributes to making this an uphill battle for the Committee and Mangum supporters is the silence and idleness of the enablers – NAACP, the ACLU, the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence (in Durham), politicians (including those in the North Carolina General Assembly), and civil rights and religious community leaders. It is understandable why people refuse to get involved in trying to help Crystal Mangum… they realize that to do so is politically incorrect and they justifiably fear the consequences. A lesson was learned in 2007 in North Carolina when former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was persecuted by the state, disbarred by the State Bar, and crucified in the media because he went forward with his prosecution of the three defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case… that lesson being that acting ethically and with professional integrity will not protect an individual from being mauled by the system. This has even been borne out in this situation as Harr has already been confronted twice by the NC State Bar… actions against him initially instigated by the media.

I am of the firm belief that Dr. Clay Nichols felt under duress to go along with the program and issue a report he knew to be fraudulent in order to wrongly implicate Mangum lest he be subjected to the torturous treatment meted out to Mr. Nifong. The politicizing of Duke Lacrosse related issues have cast a pall over the state’s criminal justice system unlike any other case, forcing some good and decent people to unwillingly take part in corruption and others to look the other way. The timorous NAACP is looking the other way and has been quiet as a dormouse when it comes to the gross injustices against Ms. Mangum… as has the aforementioned enablers. Governor Bev Perdue has been apprised of the injustice against Mangum as has Attorney General Roy Cooper, and they have both elected to ignore the issue and allow an innocent mother of three to remain locked behind bars because of a misguided vendetta.

The Committee is engaged in waging a lonely battle for justice with the enablers being effectively throttled by a statewide reign of political-inspired terror that is ant-Nifong and anti-Mangum. After peeling off the veneer to expose the true nature of the prosecution’s not-so-secret weapon, it is time for Crystal Mangum to jettison Mr. Vann… deadweight that is undermining her case while propping up hopes for the prosecution. For example, Mr. Vann has consistently been inconsistent in his explanations about prosecution discovery and evidence. First he tells Ms. Mangum that he has received Dr. Roberts’ report but will withhold it from her. Then, after confronted by the Committee he states that he has not yet received the report. First he tells Ms. Mangum that he will withhold from her the photographs taken by prosecution related to the April 2011 incident… photographs which document her injuries at Daye’s hand and the other exculpatory evidence. Then, after pressed by the Committee, he told Ms. Mangum that he sent the disc containing the photographs to the printer and they came up blank. The most recent explanation is that the photographs provided by the prosecution show only images of smoke damage to the apartment in the 2010 case… that he has no images related to the 2011 case. Durham Police Forensics report  (Note: the smoke damage was the result of Durham Police officers allowing clothing on fire in a bathtub to burn for fifteen minutes without any attempt by officers to intervene and douse the blaze by turning on the bathtub spigot or shower.) He gave Mangum no indication as to when he would have possession of the above referenced evidence and discovery. He gave her no indication of any action he might take to expedite there retrieval… documents and evidence that holds the key to her release from custody and the dismissal of charges against her as the photos support her claims of self-defense and the Roberts report will undoubtedly reinforce the baseless foundation for the prosecution’s murder charge.

As this justice system tragedy continues to play out, Mangum’s sole supporters will continue to carry the good fight against the state and its not-so-secret weapon… Woody Vann, a wolf in sheep’s clothing who is guarding the hen house. Even so, it is Mangum who will prevail as truth is on her side… and hopefully other current enablers will eventually muster up the courage to do the right thing by moving from the sidelines and take part in this all-important conflict with justice on the line. 

In response to the Unbelievers: the "Innocent Promulgation"

On July 31, 2011, a blog commenter with the moniker of Sid Owes Another Apology said...
“Sid,

I don't believe your claim about having received correspondence from wral.com. Post it.

Your claim that ALL the media rely on Cooper's statement is almost certainly false. Many observers reached the conclusion that the defendants were innocent through a review of the evidence. As you know, much is publicly available.

Stop it with the straw man arguments. No one has claimed Cooper's statement had legal weight. Your use of straw man arguments is misleading. You owe yet another apology to your readers.”

This comment was in response to the previous blog in which I railed against the media for constantly misleading the public by stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were proclaimed “innocent.” This claim was obviously based on the infamous April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation of Roy Cooper.” The A.G. made the unprecedented move of proclaiming the defendants innocent at the strong, arm-twisting urgings of Joseph B. Cheshire’s underling Brad Bannon. The clever defense attorney needed this admission in order to utilize Rae Evans’ decade-long past history as CBS News executive to its fullest.

Once Cooper publicly stated that the Duke defendants were innocent, the biased mainstream media took hold of it and ran with it. Everywhere you looked the media presented as fact that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been proclaimed “innocent.” To many of the naïve, but trusting public, they took this to mean that they were “legally” found to be innocent. I repeatedly challenged the media about this purposely false misrepresentation, pointing to a statement made by former Campbell Law School professor Anthony Baker. He stated that only a jury or judge, in lieu of a jury, can make determinations of innocence or guilt. The opposition has failed to provide a legal source to support that an attorney general can do so.

Due to the hullabaloo I continued to raise about this subject, the media’s statements about the Duke boys’ alleged “innocence” has morphed. As I pointed out in my previous blog, WRAL, in one of their online articles attribute to reporter Erin Hartness, wrote that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent by “state officials”… plural. In other words, it was trying to disguise the fact that the attorney general, from the executive branch of government made the proclamation. By using the plural, and suggesting that more than one person proclaimed them innocent, WRAL was trying to increase the credibility of the statement.

After confronting the station, I received a response from the news director. WRAL deserves kudus for replying to my e-mail and blog on the subject. The response I received supported my assertion in my previous blog that their statement of “innocence” was based on Cooper’s promulgation, and not upon declarations by “state officials” as stated in the article.

Blog commenter Sid Owes Another Apology doubted that I received any communication from WRAL and challenged me to post it. So, I will paste below the statement I received via e-mail on the matter:

“Gall, Rick to me, Aysu
show details Jul 17

Sid,

Thank you for contacting WRAL and sharing your thoughts. When Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a news conference that charges against the three lacrosse players were being dropped, he specifically said they were "innocent". That's the source of our reporting.

Rick Gall
NewsDirector WRAL News”

So, as the above e-mail clearly affirms, only one state official, who was from the executive branch of government, made the proclamation of “innocence”… a proclamation that carries no legal weight and is false and misleading.

Finally, in regards to statements I make, you can count on them being truthful. For me to present falsehoods in my blog would only take away from its credibility… and that is what this blog site is all about. 

Update on the Un-Indicted Duke LAXer’s attempted money-grab

I spent the better part of last evening skimming the 223 page March 31, 2011 ruling issued by U.S. District Judge James A. Beaty on the complaint filed by the three un-indicted “Duke Lacrosse Defendant wannabe’s” Ryan McFadyen, Matthew Wilson, and Breck Archer. Three civil case plaintiffs who want to parlay their evening of bacchanal barbarianism at a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling, under-aged drinking party in March 2006 into a big pay day… and I’m not referring to the peanutty candy bar.

These three lads were never charged with a crime related to that evening of debauchery and criminality, and they were not arrested. Ryan McFadyen, in fact, invited closer scrutiny by his hateful and threatening e-mail about the night’s entertainers, though when exposed, he stated that it was just a harmless joke. In the atmosphere of events that night, talking about skinning strippers alive is cruelty at its worst and insensitivity on a grand scale at best. However, such an action as McFadyen’s befits the well-earned reputation that the Duke Lacrosse players had cultivated over the years.

The lawsuit by the three Un-Indicteds listed 29 defendants (I don’t believe any janitors at Duke were included), and claimed 41 counts of deprivation of their civil rights. What a joke. Plaintiffs had the gall to claim that they suffered emotional distress on many of the counts, which Judge Beaty wisely dismissed. The claims were so ludicrous that even the plaintiffs themselves could not support them in writing. I, however, believe that the Un-Indicted Threesome did suffer severe emotional distress… only not at the hands of the defendants. When they learned that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants settled out of court with Duke University for $20 million each, they were extremely distressed. And since Duke was in the gifting mood, they wanted some of that charity.

Greed by the Un-Indicted and their avaricious attorneys are what has fueled this ambitious, though ridiculous, legal storm surrounding the Duke Lacrosse case, and it was undoubtedly brought about by Duke University’s excessive largess in settling with the three original Duke Lacrosse defendants without a fight. Well, Duke is now willing to put up a vigorous defense, but it is too little and too late, as the wolves are loose and in search of their pecuniary prey, which has spread to encompass the deep pockets of the cash-strapped city of Durham and any individual with even the remotest and most benign contact with the case.

Although the judge complained about the plaintiff’s submissions being long on wind, his ruling which comes close to requiring a half ream, surely could have been condensed. My ruling in the Un-Indicted’s case would have taken no more than three pages total, considering that the first two pages list all of the defendants and the counts. No doubt I would have tossed out all of the Un’s charges.

In most circumstances, the setting of precedence is taken into consideration, but as has been show to be clear with all of its singular rulings and the total disregard for the rule of law, what happens in the Duke Lacrosse case stays with the Duke Lacrosse case. It gets special treatment by the state of North Carolina, the biased media, and the misguided public. So, it is safe to say that defendants such as Gregory Flynt Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, Floyd Brown, Levon “Bo” Jones, Alan Gell, and Erick Daniels will never be afforded the wide breadth of opportunity to pursue recompense in the civil courts for losses incurred when wrongfully charged, convicted and incarcerated. If that was the case defense attorneys like David Rudolf, Joseph B. Cheshire V., James Cooney, and Wade Smith would have already filed civil suits against prosecutors, investigators, and labs for these victims of Tar Heel injustice. Joe Cheshire won’t be filing a civil suit on behalf of his client Gregory Taylor against Prosecutor Tom Ford. It ain’t gonna happen. In fact, Cheshire has not one disparaging word to say about Ford, who used perjured testimony from felons in exchange for leniency and hocus-pocus forensics to win a murder conviction against Taylor and a life sentence. Cheshire even considers Ford to be an estimable courtroom opponent.

What did not come as a surprise when going over the ruling is that as many counts as humanly possible that were lodged by the Un-Indicteds against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong were kept intact. As has been long demonstrated, Mr. Nifong is the sole designated lightning rod for all of the state’s justice system ills. He has been in a biblical sense sacrificed to atone for sins of his fellow prosecutors… not unlike another man from Nazareth. Discount fairness, ethics, and the rule of law when dealing with Nifong. This biased media, wealth-idolizing, capitalistic society encourages keeping the heel on the necks of the downtrodden and heeping praise, privilege, and riches on the well-heeled.

I dread reading the opinions with regards to the complaints by the original Duke Lacrosse defendant threesome as they seek to enhance the $20 mil gifted to them by Duke resulting from a shakedown of the institution by their high-profile attorneys. Think I’ll take a break for a couple of days before slogging through that morass of legalese mumbo-jumbo. Although I venture to say that I am sure to be disappointed by what I find, at least I believe that it will be more palatable than the civil complaint filed by McFadyen, Wilson, and Archer. Keep in mind that these Un-Indicted gold diggers were never even charged with a crime.  <>

Below is a link to Part 14 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.” Be sure to check out the commentary which follows by clicking the upper left blue button. At the end of the commentary is a link for feedback. Enjoy.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc175.htm

Secrecy – the most valued weapon in the ordnance of the Greedy

Secrecy is employed by the greedy to conceal from others their outrageous, insatiable, gluttonous appetite for money and the possessions and power it can purchase. Whenever transactions are made in which pertinent details are omitted or withheld, it is a sure bet that the reason for its concealment is an attempt to shield from view unreasonable and outlandish terms benefiting one or both parties. For any transaction that is legitimate and on the up and up, and void of excessive, over-the-top compensation, there is no need to withhold terms, especially financial, of the agreement.

Transparency in contractual matters is the honorable policy and one which best serves the interests of all. Transparency is the policy by which the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong conducts its business and to which it strictly adheres.

Unlike the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their avaricious attorneys demanded that the terms of their settlement with Duke University be cloaked in secrecy. Carpetbagger attorneys were successful in shaking down Duke University for a total of $60 million for their clients because they imposed upon Duke University a vow of secrecy regarding its financial settlement until the financial transfer had been completed and it was too late. At the crossroads, Duke elected to abide by its agreement with the Carpetbagger attorneys even though adhering to that agreement was in conflict and violation of its agreement with its insurance company and resulted in a breach of contract with its insurers. As a proximate result of withholding terms of its settlement from its insurance company, Duke University forfeited coverage which it might have been entitled had it reached a reasonable agreement.

Due to Duke Lacrosse defendant Reade Seligmann’s attempt to evade paying taxes on his windfall settlement, the Internal Revenue Service slapped a $6.7 million plus tax lien against him, and it was only through this public filing that tax experts were able to accurately calculate the payout that Duke University made to the Duke Lacrosse defendants nearly four years earlier… $20 million per defendant… a $60 million total.

Greed, unfortunately is widespread, and arm in arm is the secrecy that is in place to conceal it. A prime example is the recent dispute between players and owners of the National Football League. The owners of the teams, who are basically nothing more than parasites living off the gridiron gladiators who destroy their bodies and brains in a brutal sport, risk strangling the lucrative enterprise in order to squeeze every last cent they feel that they can. The owners want billions of dollars off the top of $9 billion annual revenue claiming that they need it for “operating expenses.” However, when the players ask to actually “see” the operating expenses, secrecy jumps into the mix and the owners refuse to open their books. The same secrecy employed by attorneys for the Duke Lacrosse defendants (Joseph B. Cheshire V, James Cooney, and Wade Smith).

I would have more respect for the owners of the NFL teams if they just came forward and admitted that they want all of that money because they are greedy. Instead, they expect the football players, the football fans, and the public in general to believe that they are really not greedy… that cost of living expenses, oil problems in Libya, natural disasters, and other expenses which they have no control over, have raised costs of operations to the point that they need all that money in order to barely break even with just a minimal profit. In other words, the NFL owners believe that the American people are idiots. For the most part, Americans aren’t idiots… they’re just apathetic. They know the owners are in it, not for the love of the game or to provide family entertainment… but because they’re greedy. That, greed, is why they do not invest any of their excessive profits in supporting the wounded and injured players after they retire or are forced by injury to retire. The owners care not a whit about the Alzheimer’s or other debilitating brain damage that the players suffer. The owners will continue to demand as much money as they can from the hardworking ticket buying fans. And the owners will continue to extort from cities taxpayer money to build palatial stadiums with luxurious skyboxes and offices which deprives cities of revenue for the services and programs most in need to help the poor and disenfranchised.

Of all of the teams in the NFL, the current world champions, the Green Bay Packers, have the best model… a team that is not owned by one person or one family in the private sector, but by a community. I believe that all sports teams should be owned by municipalities, and that profits should be used to help support its citizens through social programs and help its fans by providing tickets at reasonable prices.

The owners should open their books, but they won’t because they have something to hide… proof of their greed. Just as in the Duke Lacrosse case, when Attorney Jim Cooney refused to divulge the amount of the settlement payment given to the Duke Lacrosse defendants by the university, he wanted to hide from the public proof of the greed of the Carpetbagger families and their attorneys. Shameful.

Transparency is the answer in all issues… whether you’re talking about legal settlements, arbitration in professional sports, or contracts involving the purchase of an automobile through financing by the automaker. 


Below is a link to Part 11 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.” Be sure to view the Commentary that follows the strip which can be accessed by clicking the upper left blue button. We welcome comments with an e-mail link that is present at the conclusion of the Flash commentary.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc157.htm

Joseph Cheshire’s criticism of the media is the height of hypocrisy

Joseph B. Cheshire V, the state’s premiere defense attorney for the powerful, privileged, and well-heeled, should know about the media, and its ability to mold the minds of individuals who are ill-informed and have an abiding faith in whatever the media spoon-feeds them. Cheshire used the media in the Duke Lacrosse case, playing it like a well-tuned Stradivarius, in laying waste to the good reputation that had been built over nearly three decades by a dedicated prosecutor and man of the highest integrity, Mike Nifong. When called upon to destroy the man who dared to charge and prosecute the sons of the three Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, Cheshire exceeded all expectations in helping to orchestrate the downfall of the man who Rae Forker Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, vowed on CBS’s “60 Minutes” would “pay every day for the rest of his life.” Cheshire did not pull any punches in lambasting Nifong in the media… the media working in unison with Cheshire, state agencies of North Carolina, the North Carolina State Bar and others in fulfilling the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda against Nifong. It was the perfect storm that the media used to control public thought about the Duke Lacrosse case, and mindless individuals exposed to the biased media spin came away believing that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were exonerated, that Prosecutor Mike Nifong prosecuted the case in an attempt to win an election, and that nothing untoward happened at the Duke house on Buchanan Street, which Duke University wasted no time in secretly razing. The media characterized Mr. Nifong as the second coming of Satan, and he was vilified to the extent that almost all individuals in North Carolina, and those individuals somewhat familiar with the media’s presentation of it throughout the country, have negative and even hostile feelings towards Mr. Nifong. And one person responsible for fanning the media flames has been Joseph Cheshire.

In the November 24, 2010 edition of The News & Observer is an article titled “Lawyer says media fanned the flames.” In it Mr. Cheshire decries the media treatment of his client, former North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. The former governor was involved in several shady deals during which he received substantial financial gain… deals involving real estate and travel. Cheshire managed to wrangle out a plea agreement in which his client pled guilty to a single felony charge in exchange for the State and Federal investigations and prosecutions coming to a close. And, of course, he was to face no jail time… that is punishment reserved for those North Carolinian felony offenders who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color. Privileged felons are usually required to pay a nominal fee to the court… and I believe that the fine for Mr. Easley was approximately one thousand dollars. Also he is not subject to probation or required to spend time with community service.

All told, Mr. Easley got off easy. He was treated with kid gloves not only by the media, but by the prosecutors and judge as well. State and federal prosecutors were quick to bring their investigations to a close as soon as the former governor agreed to plead guilty to a minor, but felonious, charge. Easley was probably well advised to take the deal in order to prevent more damaging revelations from being brought to the fore. Although Cheshire was able to arrange for the attorney general to state that his Duke Lacrosse clients were “innocent” (and which the media falsely gave credence to), he could not engineer one in this case, so he took it upon himself to state that although his client pled guilty to a felony charge, there was no corruption. I don’t know what Mr. Cheshire’s definition of “corruption” is, but it must come from the same dictionary used by Duke’s Michael Schoenfeld who defined “solicitation” as handing out a business card and asking someone to visit your website.

It’s hard for me to conjure up sympathy for the friendly media treatment of Mike Easley when one considers the hostile and blatantly biased media treatment of Mike Nifong. The media’s greatest flaw is in using Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” as a basis for stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent or exonerated. Despite being informed about this misleading statement, it continues to this day, nearly four years later. In addition, the media persistently labeled Mike Nifong as the “disgraced” former Durham district attorney. Any negative adjectives used to describe Easley were sparingly if ever used. For me, it is more disgraceful to abuse one’s position of power in exchange for one’s personal gain… such as what apparently transpired with Cheshire’s client. Mike Nifong, on the other hand, was merely carrying out his job as the Durham district attorney when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case. And he carried it out at the risk of losing his election bid as the incumbent district attorney. By proceeding with the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case, the May 2006 primary election was tightened, and he nearly lost to a November candidate who ran only to oppose Nifong, with the publicized intention of resigning if victorious in order to permit the governor to appoint a new district attorney.

Joe Cheshire is selective when it comes to criticizing the media, or others. For example, he is highly critical of Mike Nifong, but when it comes to Tom Ford, the prosecutor of one of Cheshire’s other clients, Gregory Taylor, Cheshire doesn’t utter one disparaging word. Ford put an innocent man in jail for life as a vendetta because he would not turn and give perjured testimony to implicate an innocent black man in the death of Jacquetta Thomas. Taylor was convicted by hocus-pocus forensics and Ford’s witnesses who gave perjured testimony against Taylor… and although Taylor was wrongfully incarcerated for seventeen years because of Ford’s vengeful actions, Cheshire publicly refers to Tom Ford as a good prosecutor and admirable court-room adversary.

Tom Fetzer, the state Republican chairman stated in response to Easley’s plea deal, “I think North Carolina has developed a reputation for being a very corrupt state.” Well, I agree with Fetzer’s observation, and believe that it is a reputation that is well deserved. How else can the state explain why Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in1933, when it trails only the states of Louisiana and Illinois in the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated by DNA evidence? How else can the state explain the draconian, singular, and unwarranted persecution of Mike Nifong when it is not even apparent to public why Nifong was disbarred? There is no logical or reasonable explanation for the persecution meted out to Nifong… he was punished to set an example for other prosecutors who elect to pursue the principle of “equal justice for all” instead of abiding by the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Nifong was also punished as part of the Jihad against him that was launched by Rae Evans in her “60 Minutes” interview.

For his Duke Lacrosse defendant, for Gregory Taylor, and for Mike Easley, Joseph Cheshire served his clients well. And even though only one of his aforementioned clients was legally found to be innocent (Gregory Taylor), the media has been favorable to them all. The same cannot be said for Duke Lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong who the media attacked with relish. Spearheading the media onslaught against Nifong was Joseph Cheshire who now takes umbrage at the slightest media insult of his client, the former governor of the state. The complaints by Cheshire leveled at the media for its coverage of Mike Easley’s alleged corrupt actions are hypocritical and mind-boggling when one considers Cheshire’s role in the media war aimed at Mike Nifong… a war that has not let up since its first volleys in 2006.

SBI agent Duane Deaver to be sacrificial lamb

The abominable legal proceeding in 1993 that resulted in an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, being locked away for seventeen years on a murder charge can be credited to Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford. When confronted with the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas, an African American prostitute whose body was discovered in a desolate Raleigh cul-de-sac, Mr. Ford’s primary goal was to close the case quickly by convicting a “perpetrator.” Ford didn’t care whether or not the designated “perpetrator” was guilty or not, because he did not care about the victim or her family. So he set his sights on two unfortunate individuals who happened to come upon the body in the early morning hours after they were forced to walk from their vehicle which had gotten stuck in the mud.

Because the disabled vehicle belonged to Taylor, Ford felt obligated to charge him… but only as an accomplice. What Ford really wanted was to pressure Taylor to implicate Johnny Beck, the black man with whom Taylor had been doing drugs just hours prior to the discovery of the body. Other than walking by the body earlier in the morning, there was no physical evidence connecting Taylor or his African American friend to the crime. Furthermore, no plausible motive existed for Taylor or Beck to attack Ms. Thomas. To win a conviction, Ford would resort to the tactic which he has honed to an art… obtain perjured testimony in exchange for the promise of leniency or a reduced sentence.

No “Minister of Justice” Prosecutor Tom Ford believed that this cut and dried case would be shut and closed easily, by threatening Taylor with life in prison unless he cooperated with his demands that he implicate the black man (who Ford had no reason to believe was guilty of the homicide). After all, Ford believed, Greg Taylor did not come from the upper echelon of society, he was not of a privileged class, and he was a drug user. And, all he had to do was implicate a black man… how hard could that be? An easy choice, right? It would have been an easy choice for Ford, and probably 99 per cent of people in the state. But this would not be a slam dunk for Ford, because he had not counted on Taylor possessing the integrity and moral compass to withstand his despicable offer.

Gregory Taylor never wavered in the accounting of his innocence and that of Johnny Beck, but that didn’t deter Prosecutor Ford. Tom Ford was obsessed with putting the African American man behind bars for life, and Taylor’s refusal to join his conspiracy did nothing but fuel Ford’s animus towards Taylor. Because Taylor would not comply with Ford’s game plan, Ford utilized the same “perjured testimony” tactic (that he tried unsuccessfully to employ using Taylor to implicate Beck) to obtain a guilty verdict against Taylor. Ford approached two disreputable individuals and promised them a reduction in their sentences in exchange for testimony that would implicate Greg Taylor in the murder of Ms. Thomas. They both jumped at the opportunity, lied before the court, and handed Prosecutor Ford his tainted courtroom victory. As a result, Taylor was sentenced to serve the remainder of his life in prison. He served seventeen long years in prison before the truth of his indisputable innocence would surface.

It was during the hearing which freed Taylor that it became apparent that Ford not only employed false witnesses in obtaining Taylor’s conviction, but that he also used false science. SBI agent Duane Deaver, it seems, had given misleading and false testimony about the presence of blood on the bumper of Taylor’s SUV, which became mired in the mud the night of the Thomas murder. Although he knew that presumptive tests for blood were not supported by a confirmative lab test, Deaver did not give such testimony in court. The jury was misled into believing that blood from Taylor’s vehicle was linked to the body. Taylor’s 2010 hearing before the three judge panel that exonerated him also exposed how Ford used a little hocus pocus on the 1992 jury in winning a conviction by getting tracking dog handlers to imply that a trail could be traced from the victim to Taylor’s vehicle.

Tom Ford orchestrated the cruel and vindictive prosecution against Gregory Taylor, skillfully bringing in false witnesses and false testimony resulting in a conviction. However, the media has given Ford a pass on this debacle, and instead has zeroed in on Duane Deaver. The News & Observer led the charge against Deaver and the SBI with its four part series on the misdeeds of the SBI in the Taylor case. However, in compliance with its PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, Ford’s name was mentioned only once or twice (and then, in passing). So, the criminal justice system, in following the media’s lead, has ordered a contempt hearing for Mr. Deaver on the charge that he made false and misleading testimony before the N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission in 2009. According to a recent News & Observer article, a date for the hearing has not been set. Deaver has become the sacrificial lamb for the miscues, mistakes, and malfeasance that resulted in an innocent man spending seventeen of his most productive years of life behind bars.

Focusing attention on SBI Agent Deaver, not only provides a scapegoat for the injustice that befell Greg Taylor, but it is to divert attention from the true culprit, Tom Ford. To believe that Ford did not know the substance on the bumper was not blood defies logic. Ford’s stock and trade in prosecuting comes from eliciting perjured courtroom testimony in exchange for promises of a reduced sentence. Deaver was nothing more than Ford’s accomplice. That’s not to say that Deaver should not face a hearing on his conduct, but I believe that his position is more defensible because he worked in a culture where it was acceptable to stretch the truth in order to obtain the desired outcome of a conviction. And it appears that Deaver was more than willing to work with vigilante prosecutors in their pursuit of rogue justice.

Despite the suffering experienced by Gregory Taylor and his family, the unresolved murder of Jacquetta Thomas and its impact on her family and friends, Tom Ford seems to have weathered the storm unscathed. The media has handled him with Teflon gloves and even powerhouse defense attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V complimented Ford on how well he handled the prosecution’s interests in Taylor’s February 2010 hearing. In fact, Cheshire, who represented Taylor in his hearing before the three judge panel, never uttered a disparaging word about Ford… a prosecutor who needlessly left many shattered lives in his wake. Now, Cheshire has no problem with castigating former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who was prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case. That is because the Duke Lacrosse prosecution by Nifong was a North Carolina legal aberration in that it did not comply with the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Cheshire was vociferous and upfront in his criticism of Nifong, pleading for the severest of sanctions against him, despite the fact that Mr. Nifong was doing nothing more than pursuing a prosecution which was well within acceptable standards. However, on the subject of Prosecutor Tom Ford (whose malicious, vindictive and vile prosecution of Cheshire’s own client Greg Taylor), Cheshire is as silent as a dormouse.

In North Carolina it is acceptable to sacrifice a prosecutor, such as Mr. Nifong, in order to set an example of what will happen if a prosecutor steps beyond the bounds of the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” It is also acceptable to sacrifice a designated scapegoat from another sector, such as SBI agent Duane Deaver, in order to protect a prosecutor who zealously clings to the state’s selective justice tenet.

Carpetbagger families of Duke LAXers and their direct link to the mainstream media

Rae Forker Evans, the founder and president of Evans Capitol Group, has an extraordinarily impressive resume. The Evans Capitol Group had its beginning in 1995, and is a public policy firm operating in Washington, D.C. It provides strategic guidance to corporations, non-profits, and trade associations seeking to influence the political process on a broad range of public policy issues. In 1982, Ms. Evans established the National Affairs office and represented Hallmark Cards, Inc. and its 25,000 employees on Capitol Hill, at the Executive Branch, and with national and international communities in Washington. She has received numerous honors and appointments throughout her career, including serving as president and Board Member of the Business-Government Relations Council, recipient of the 1996 National Women’s Economic Alliance Director’s Choice Award, and a 1992 appointment by President George W. Bush to the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. Ms. Evans is married to a Washington D.C. attorney, David Evans, and they have two children, David and Kristen. Her son, Dave, was a student at Duke University, and was one of three Duke lacrosse players who were indicted by a grand jury on sexual assault charges stemming from the infamous stripper and beer guzzling party on Durham’s Buchanan Street in March 2006.

I would be remiss, if I were not to mention that Ms. Evan’s stellar professional career also included a decade-long stint at CBS News. From 1971 to 1981, she held positions at CBS News, the megacorporation that produces “60 Minutes” on CBS – TV. Later she worked as Director of Government Relations for CBS, Inc. The strong and intimate relationship that Ms. Evans enjoyed with CBS News is information that neither CBS, Inc. nor the mainstream media has wanted to share with the public after the Duke Lacrosse case was brought to the fore by the media. CBS’s “60 Minutes” devoted several television programs to the Duke Lacrosse case, and featured interviews with Ms. Evans, and the parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants. Never once, did CBS, Inc. disclose that Ms. Evans, mother of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, had worked for more than a decade with CBS, News. Likewise the biased mainstream media never bothered to bring up this relationship between Evans and CBS.

CBS, like other mainstream media – ABC, Fox News, and NBC – has been markedly prejudicial in its coverage of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, like the rest of the mainstream media, it embraces the concept that Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” carries legal weight and is a matter of fact. It consistently and constantly refers to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “cleared,” and “exonerated,” based on the attorney general’s statement. It is my belief that the news media knows that they are misrepresenting the Duke Lacrosse defendants when it refers to them as “exonerated” or “innocent,” but they believe and rely on the belief that the majority of the public will not be aware that these descriptions are misleading, and that those who do, won’t care.

All the same, I wrote to executives at major media outlets to inform them that their use of the “innocent”-like adjectives with relationship to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was incorrect and misleading. To give credence to my position, I told them that Campbell University law school professor Anthony V. Baker agreed that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation of innocent had no legal substance or standing. Professor Baker stated, “The A.G. presents a case but does not sit as "trier of fact" -- or ultimate adjudicator -- of it. That is the sole province of the jury, or a judge sitting in lieu of a jury.” To date, the media, in general, has chosen to ignore my complaint with this aspect of the Duke Lacrosse coverage.

CBS News is also guilty of another instance of attempting to mislead the public. It arises out of the Carpetbagger Families’ obsessive and intense desire to erase from the minds of people that an attack or criminal action against the exotic dancers could have possibly taken place the night of March 13, 2006. Through attorney Joseph Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, the Attorney General in his April 11, 2007 statement capitulated to Carpetbagger demands by stating that “no attack occurred.” The Carpetbaggers tried to extract a similar statement from Prosecutor Mike Nifong, using the threat of significant jail time (on trumped up contempt charges), however, despite the duress Mr. Nifong constantly maintained that he believed that something (criminal) happened. To get around Mr. Nifong’s persistent stand on this issue, CBS News put words into Mr. Nifong’s mouth with its blaring headline, “Ex-DA admits no crime in Duke case.” The headline is a blatant outright falsehood that is not substantiated within the text of the article.

As with “60 Minutes,” the online CBS News article with the false headline does not disclose the close relationship between the mother of defendant Dave Evans and CBS News. If the public were aware of the close relationship, then questions of bias and fairness would be entertained by those with open and objective minds… and that is something neither the Carpetbaggers nor the media wants. And let there be no doubt about it, that Rae Evans, with all of her relationships with CBS and other media, as well as the contacts she has made throughout the upper echelons of government in the nation’s capital, and her husband who is an attorney in a prestigious Washington law firm, carries humongous clout. And if you have any doubt that she would use this clout, let me refer to her vindictive “60 Minutes” interview in which she promises that “he (Mr. Nifong) is going pay every day for the rest of his life.”

Ms. Evans had the clout with the media, and with her attorneys and others, she did a magnificent job in orchestrating a media propaganda campaign that was so successful in defining Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case to her liking, that former Bush architect Karl Rove would be green with envy. There’s no doubt about it… the mainstream media is not only in cahoots with Carpetbagger Jihad Movement against Mike Nifong etal., but is at the fore, actively blazing the way amongst the weak-minded populous. The link is undeniable.

There is no doubt that Ms. Evans is a brilliant and highly motivated individual, and a person of whose achievements I am in awe. However, it was her famous and insightful statement in the “60 Minutes” interview with Lesley Stahl: “Mr. Nifong, you picked on the wrong families,” that so succinctly and accurately defined the crux of the problem with the state’s criminal justice system. As I am sure that Ms. Evans would agree, the North Carolina system of justice is one that is based on a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” For this profoundly truthful admission by Ms. Evans, we, Tar Heelians who ascribe to the principle of “equal justice for all,” are extremely grateful.

Why Prosecutor Tom Ford is among the worst of the worse

On the morning of September 26, 1991, Raleigh police officers come upon the body of Jacquetta Thomas, a 26 year old African American, in a cul de sac at the end of Blount Street. The murder victim, who worked as a prostitute, had been severely beaten and her body partially exposed. Near by, but out of sight, is an SUV belonging to Gregory Flint Taylor, which had been abandoned earlier that morning after it became bogged down off-road in marshy land.

When Greg Taylor returns to the scene to see about extricating his vehicle, he identifies himself to the police at the crime scene as the owner of the vehicle and cooperates with their questioning in the homicide investigation. He does so freely and without legal consultation, and even goes to the police station to submit to further interrogation.

During his interviews, Greg Taylor gives consistent statements to the investigators. He he tells that he did not know the victim Jacquetta Thomas, never met her, and that she never was inside of his SUV. He states that his only passenger that night was Johnny Beck (an African American man), that they were riding around seeking and using drugs, and that while driving off road, his car got stuck in the moist terrain during the wee hours of the morning. He tells detectives that unable to remove it from its quagmire, the two decided to leave the vehicle to walk and try to hitch a ride home. On exiting the cul de sac, they noticed for the first time what appeared to be a body, but did not get close or examine it; planning instead to call authorities later in the morning if it had not been discovered by then.

Within twelve hours of the police’s discovery of Jacquetta Thomas’s body, Greg Taylor is charged with the murder. He is charged without forensic evidence linking him to the victim or vice versa, and without evidence confirming the victim’s presence in his vehicle. The unsubstantiated motive for the murder, according to Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford is that Jacquetta Thomas, a prostitute, refused to engage in sex with Taylor, which resulted in Taylor becoming so enraged that he severely beat her to death. As was pointed out during the February 2010 hearing before the three judge panel, Gregory Taylor has never had a history or reputation of violence, either before the murder or afterwards during his 17 years of incarceration (during time spent in prison, he was not charged with any violations or misconduct… a rare accomplishment).

Prosecutor Tom Ford, I strongly believe, does not care whether or not the killer of Ms. Thomas is apprehended and faces judgment because he has absolutely no compassion for the victim… an African American and a prostitute. His only priority is closing the case, and not solving the crime. So, he rushes to judgment in charging Greg Taylor with the murder of Jacquetta Thomas without reasonable cause or due diligence. Tom Ford heeds the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color” when he charges Taylor, who is white but admitted to drug use and did not come from a family of material wealth and privilege, with the murder of Ms. Thomas.

Now, this is where Tom Ford’s actions become really sinister and despicable. His plan is to entice Greg Taylor, the white owner of the SUV, to falsely implicate his black passenger and fellow drug user Johnny Beck for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. If Taylor refuses, Ford threatens to convict Taylor and have him spend the rest of his life in jail. By doing so, Ford could accomplish two objectives… close the case on a murder, and take a black man off the Raleigh streets (innocent or not). Ford initially believes that wrapping up this case would be relatively easy, thinking that Taylor would jump at the chance to avoid a conviction for murder and a lifetime in prison by simply implicating a black man for the commission of the crime, even though Taylor knew Beck to be innocent. However, Tom Ford does not count on Greg Taylor being a man of such integrity that it far exceeds what little that Ford, himself, possesses. Gregory Flint Taylor, at the repeated urgings and threats by Prosecutor Ford, refuses to give false testimony implicating Johnny Beck, a man he knew to be innocent.

Because Greg Taylor refuses to perjure himself by giving false testimony at the behest of Prosecutor Ford for the purpose of implicating another innocent man, Tom Ford makes good on his threat to convict Taylor of the murder. Ford achieves this goal by making deals with two other incarcerated individuals (a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch), who are facing long stretches behind bars, and like him, are lacking morals and integrity. They provide false testimony against Taylor in exchange for the promise of a reduction in their sentences. What is particularly egregious about this action is that Taylor’s defense team is not made aware by the prosecution of this backroom deal between Ford and the perjurers. In addition to the false testimony, false forensic blood test results, as well as the falsely misinterpreted actions of a scent hound, are used by Prosecutor Ford to win a conviction against Taylor in 1993 for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Greg Taylor is sentenced to life in prison.

Facing a life sentence for a murder he did not commit, Prosecutor Ford continues to offer Greg Taylor incentives for a reduced sentence and a chance at freedom in exchange for the false testimony needed to convict Johnny Beck, the black man against whom Ford was forced to drop charges because Taylor would not provide the false and necessary testimony to needed to convict. Despite the prospect of spending the rest of his life and dying within the dreary confines of a small prison cell, Greg’s ethics and integrity remain strong. Ford is unable to break him.

After sixteen years in prison, the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission takes up Greg Taylor’s case and presents it to the Innocence Inquiry Commission. After a thorough review of the case, the eight member board unanimously recommends that Greg Taylor’s case be brought before the three judge panel to determine whether or not he should be proclaimed innocent and freed, or remain in jail… the burden of this hearing being placed on the defense.
Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford, with full knowledge of the sleazy backroom deals made with the jailhouse snitch and the prostitute, and full knowledge that the SBI lab test results were not confirmatory for the presence of blood on Greg Taylor’s SUV, nonetheless decides to work with Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby to fight and try to keep an innocent man in jail for the remainder of his life. Tom Ford is definitely no “minister of justice.”

In February 2010, the truth, as cogently and orderly presented by Attorneys representing Greg Taylor (Mumma, Klinkosum, and Cheshire), combined with the pathetically convoluted, disjointed, and irrelevant presentation by the state assures a pronouncement of “innocent” by the judicial body at the hearing. Gregory Taylor, at long last, is unfettered by shackles and bars, and tastes freedom for the first time in nearly two decades. Seventeen years of his life are lost because of the actions of a prosecutor who, is angered by Taylor’s refusal to work with him to wrongfully convict an innocent black man in the Thomas murder. This anger is what led Ford to punish Taylor by convicting him of the Thomas murder.

Clearly, actions by Ford in the Greg Taylor case, warrant Tom Ford the dubious distinction of being hailed as among the “worst of the worse prosecutors in the Tar Heel state. Other deserving North Carolina prosecutors include David Hoke, who withheld from the defense attorney of Alan Gell exculpatory testimony of seventeen independent eyewitnesses which absolutely refuted Gell’s guilt in a murder for which he was sentenced to death and served a decade wrongfully behind bars. Wilson County Prosecutor Bill Wolfe deserves mention as one of North Carolina’s worst prosecutors for charging James Arthur Johnson for the murder of Wilson teen Brittany Willis, a crime that Wolfe knew Johnson did not commit… a charge based on the statement of Kenneth Meeks, a black teenager and the true killer of the victim. Meeks made the statement implicating Johnson (who is also African American) in the murder of the Wilson teen after police informed the killer that Johnson snitched on him. When Meeks, more than a year later, recanted his statement and admitted that he made it out of anger, Prosecutor Wolfe had no case against Johnson because there was no forensic evidence tying Johnson to the crime. Therefore, Wolfe shortly thereafter manufactured two eyewitnesses, both related to the Wilson Police Department (one being a retired police officer) to implicate Johnson in the crime. The use of these two false witnesses was quickly jettisoned by the prosecution after Dr. Reverend William Barber, President of the NC NAACP became involved; because with his involvement came closer media scrutiny… scrutiny that the false testimony of Wolfe’s two eyewitnesses could not withstand.

As horrendous as these overt acts of prosecutorial misconduct are, and the terrible injustice for which they are responsible, only one of the prosecutors, David Hoke, was taken before the unregulated North Carolina State Bar’s Disciplinary panel. He was merely given a mild reprimand by the group. However, professionally Hoke did not suffer as he was promoted to the position of Assistant Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. Rev. Barber filed a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct with the North Carolina State Bar against Bill Wolfe, which the Bar proceeded to ignore. Likewise, the North Carolina State Bar refused to act on my complaint against Tom Ford (for his actions in the Gregory Taylor case) which was filed in August 2009. As things now stand, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong remains the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933.

And why was Mike Nifong disbarred? He was disbarred because, as Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) so insightfully put it during an interview on “60 Minutes,” he “picked on the wrong families.” In other words, Mr. Nifong did not automatically stop the investigation and he did not refrain from pressing charges in the alleged sexual assault against the Duke University student-athlete partygoers who came from families of wealth, status, and privilege, as was expected from a Durham district attorney. Instead Mr. Nifong pursued the investigation and prosecution as he would in any other case, without Class or Color entering the equation. To express the displeasure by the state, Mike Nifong was singularly persecuted to an extent never before seen… and it was done in order to set an example for other North Carolina prosecutors who might consider not complying with the unwritten state tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color. In addition to disbarment, Mr. Nifong was convicted on a trumped up contempt of court charge and sentenced to jail; the U.S. Department of Justice was asked to launch a criminal investigation into Mr. Nifong for depriving the Duke Lacrosse defendants of their civil rights; Mr. Nifong was denied immunity to which he was entitled as a state employee carrying out his duties; the Attorney General’s Office refused to represent him at his hearing before the North Carolina State Bar; the North Carolina State Board of Elections chose to harass Mr. Nifong by singularly auditing his campaign without cause; and he was blatantly bashed by the biased mainstream media.

The unregulated and self-serving North Carolina State Bar was so hard pressed to come up with a complaint carrying enough substance against Mr. Nifong to appear legit that it was forced to amend the complaint initially filed… a rare action indeed and not supported by law. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong withheld evidence… which he did not. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong lied to the court… which he did not. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong made prejudicial and inflammatory statements against the defendants… which he did not (most, if not all, of the statements for which Mr. Nifong was accused of making took place prior to any indictments being handed down). It is the position of the Committee of Justice for Mike Nifong that Mr. Nifong acted within the acceptable standards of the state’s prosecuting attorneys.

F. Lane Williamson, the chair of the Bar’s grievance panel, used his divine powers of mind reading to reach the conclusion that Mike Nifong prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case solely for political gain (to retain his post as Durham district attorney). A rigged poll by SurveyUSA conducted for WTVD – ABC 11 News helped fertilize the idea that the May 2, 2006 primary for Durham district attorney was close and that wooing black voters would assure Nifong of victory. In actuality nothing could be further from the truth, as black voter registration was low, and black voter turnout was even lower. Using common sense and logic, the best route to a victory would have been for Mr. Nifong not to have brought charges against the Duke lacrosse player or to dismissed them. Instead, his pursuit of the prosecution turned a landslide May 2006 primary victory into a narrow one, and enabled another campaigner (who ran on a platform of solely beating Nifong and promising to give up his position to enable an appointment to the Durham D.A. position by Governor Mike Easley) to garner a whopping 39% of the fall election vote. The only person to use the Duke Lacrosse case for his/her own political gain was Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose main television campaign ad begain with a screen showing in big letters: “The Duke Lacrosse Decision.”

It should be noted that Mr. Nifong acted as a “minister of justice” as evidenced by the fact that he dropped the rape charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants after the alleged victim could not give assurances in later testimony, to his satisfaction, that a rape had taken place. Mr. Nifong’s actions in this respect are in stark contrast to those of Tom Ford, who continues to press for Greg Taylor to remain in jail for the rest of his life in spite of the fact that his contention that blood evidence used to convict Taylor was false, as was the interpretation of actions by a scent hound in the initial trial. Also, the Attorney General’s Office continued to fight for Alan Gell to remain locked up after it came to light that 17 eyewitness statements that proved Gell could not possibly have committed the crime for which he was sentenced to death.

Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford is no minister of justice, but as a prosecutor he most definitely is among the worst of the worse. Yet, the state does not go after him professionally or personally. The biased mainstream media follows the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy and shields his identity from the public whenever possible when discussing the Taylor case. Even Greg Taylor’s attorney, Joseph B. Cheshire V, has not a disparaging word to say about Tom Ford, the prosecutor responsible for his client losing 17 productive years of his life due to Ford’s malicious vendetta. Yet, Cheshire, the most powerful attorney in North Carolina, is quick to chastise and criticize Mr. Nifong for his actions in the Duke Lacrosse case (well within standards practiced by other prosecutors), even though Cheshire’s client (one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants) does not spend one day in jail, and receives a $7 million out-of-court settlement with Duke University.

What I find most disheartening, however, is the response, or lack thereof, by the leadership of the African American communities in Durham and throughout the state of North Carolina. To my knowledge, Dr. Reverend William Barber (president of the NC NAACP) and other leaders have not been critical of Prosecutor Tom Ford and his actions in the Gregory Taylor case. To my knowledge, leaders of the black communities have also been silent about the barbaric treatment of Mike Nifong by the state and the media for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case in which he adhered to the principle of “equal justice for all.” And now that fallout from the Carpetbagger Jihad against Mike Nifong etal. has engulfed Crystal Mangum (charged with attempted first degree murder for allegedly scratching her boyfriend and held in jail on a million dollar bond), the black leadership continues to follow its course of timidity, and remains silent about this injustice. This is disgraceful.

Don’t believe the hype fostered by the Carpetbagger Jihad Juggernaut and dutifully disseminated by the biased mainstream media that Mike Nifong is the worst prosector in North Carolina history and the only one deserving of disbarment. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Mr. Nifong’s nearly thirty years of service to the state has been exemplary and exemplified by the principle of “equal justice for all.” The truly worst of the worst designation, without doubt, goes to Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford, although compelling arguments could be made for prosecutors Bill Wolfe (in the James Arthur Johnson case) and David Hoke (the Alan Gell case.)

Thank goodness D.A. Willoughby ignored my pleas

After the unanimous September 2009 decision of the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission to recommend the case of Gregory F. Taylor be taken before a three judge panel for adjudication, Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby had the perfect opportunity to work to free the man who had spent 17 years wrongly incarcerated for a murder which the state failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, he chose to fight the release of Taylor by first requesting a lengthy delay in the hearing. The judge refused to acquiesce and the February 2010 date of the hearing remained firm.

Because Greg Taylor had already lost 17 years of his life behind bars, I felt that each day was especially precious, and I wrote two letters to the Wake district attorney imploring him to work to have Mr. Taylor released as soon as possible and forego the scheduled hearing before the three judge panel. D.A. Willoughby never responded to my correspondence and refused to do so. Instead, with the assistance of Tom Ford – the prosecutor responsible for Taylor’s initial conviction in 1993, Willoughby proceeded to argue before the three judge panel to have Greg Taylor remain imprisoned for the rest of his life.

There was never a question in my mind about the outcome of the three judge panel’s decision, as Tom Ford’s “rush to judgment without credible evidence” case in 1993 was fraught with problems: no forensic evidence linking the victim to Taylor or Taylor to the victim; prosecutor testimony of two witnesses who fingered Taylor in exchange for the promise of a reduced sentence; blood evidence on Taylor’s vehicle which the State SBI lab knew was not of human origin; and the motive for the murder did not hold water. The state’s case against Greg Taylor was so weak that I believe that first year Campbell University law students representing Taylor would have prevailed before the panel of jurists… despite the burden of proof being shifted to the defense.

Now, had Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby followed my advice and taken the initiative to release Mr. Taylor prior to the February hearing, then the testimony from prosecution witness Duane Deaver about SBI lab’s uneven reporting practices in 1993 might never have come to light. According to Mr. Deaver, protocol in place at that time prevented him from putting in his report the results of confirmatory tests which favored Taylor’s innocence and countered the presumptive test which tended to be damaging to Taylor. This revelation is of immense importance because other convictions won while this biased and flawed lab policy was in place could now possibly earn a second look. So even though Greg Taylor’s liberty was delayed for several weeks, in the big picture his sacrifice will enable many wrongly incarcerated innocents to have another shot at freedom.

I do not expect the state to welcome review of the cases and work hard to identify the wrongly accused. This was made apparent when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper first stated that an internal review would be conducted. He later succumbed to the intense prodding by defense attorney Joseph Cheshire V to permit an external review of the cases. As Joseph Cheshire stated… to paraphrase, the people do not trust the state to conduct a fair and objective audit of its own past practices. Nor should they.

This hearing is not the first time that prosecutorial egos and the desire to protect the misconduct of a prosecutor overtook common sense. Not long ago the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office decided to retry Alan Gell despite the presence of irrefutable exculpatory evidence of his innocence. This trial was undertaken for the purpose of mitigating David Hoke’s obvious misconduct in the initial Gell trial in which he won a death penalty conviction. However, with the exculpatory evidence in play at the re-trial, the jury was quick to find Alan Gell not guilty. In a more recent case, Forsyth County prosecutor Belinda Foster was forced by D.A. Tom Keith to file an “accessory after the fact” charge against James Arthur Johnson while she dropped charges of murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. Special prosecutor W. David McFadyen then stepped in to prosecute the case, which resulted in an Alford plea by Johnson to a charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime to authorities). Now, although James Arthur Johnson did report to the Wilson Police three days after his knowledge of the crime (which resulted in the case being solved), he evidently did not report it quick enough.

So, thanks to the hubris and desire of Willoughby to shield Tom Ford from criticism of his prosecution of the innocent Greg Taylor, he did not take my advice and instead proceeded with fighting against the release of a man wrongfully convicted. And, as a result, other innocents may hopefully find another avenue by which they can obtain a justice that has been denied.

NBC-17 News and all media need to stop misleading and insulting the public

Yesterday evening while watching Melanie Sanders deliver the evening news on NBC-17, she mentioned a story about former Governor Mike Easley retaining the services of the prominent criminal defense attorney Joseph Cheshire. She went on to state that Mr. Cheshire was well known for “representing a ‘falsely’ accused Duke Lacrosse defendant.” The statement was read as a matter of fact, and not as opinion.

This statement is totally false and misleading, and is intended to further embed in the consciousness of its weak-minded viewers that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent of the charges brought by former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. It would have been accurate and responsible for Ms. Sanders to omit the adverb “falsely” and phrase the statement as follows, “…representing an accused Duke Lacrosse defendant.” But, unfortunately, accuracy and truth does not appear to be the top priority of NBC-17. If it was, the statement she made would never have been uttered.

Make no mistake about it, NBC-17 is not alone in misleading the public about this issue. In fact, I would say that the majority, if not all, of the media outlets refer to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” and “wrongly accused”; while referring to the accuser and the alleged sexual assault as being a “hoax,” and “false accuser.”

These misleading statements have been made by the media ever since North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007,” in which he made the unprecedented proclamation that the Duke Lacrosse players charged with sexual assault were “innocent,” and that “nothing happened.” As has been referenced in a previous blog, the attorney general made these statements after Joe Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, had a conversation with Assistant Attorney Generals James J. Coman and Mary Winstead. Mr. Bannon directed them to have the attorney general declare that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent” and that “nothing happened.” This is exactly what transpired at the attorney general’s press conference on April 11, 2007.

Now although the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government and not the judicial branch, the media has never, to my knowledge, challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper’s proclamations. Instead it has embraced them as a basis for making statements of fact that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that nothing happened. This is not objective reporting. It is biased reporting, and is a keystone in supporting our belief that the media is in cahoots with the anti-Nifong forces (the state of North Carolina and its agencies – such as the NC State Board of Elections and others – , the North Carolina State Bar, and the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players).

Unlike the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defense team and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office (through Brad Bannon), no smoking gun has directly established a direct relationship between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media. However, a reliable source does note that the father of defendant Dave Evans is an attorney who works with the media, and his position as such could give him access to the upper echelon of media bigwigs. And higher-ups in the executive offices of these media corporations have final say in the spin and propaganda used in formulating and carrying out its agenda. It is, and has been, the goal of the media, in general, to destroy Mr. Nifong, and to defend and sanitize the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has long challenged the legitimacy of the “innocent” proclamation by Roy Cooper. Committee President Victoria B. Peterson in a July 2009 interview on WPTF-680 AM’s “Bill LuMaye Show” challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper’s declaration of “innocent.” Likewise, Committee Lay Advocate Sidney B. Harr also called into question the propriety and legality of the “innocent proclamation” during his appearance on that radio talk show in September 2009.

NBC-17 News and all media need to begin reporting objectively and fairly on the Duke Lacrosse case. To do so would include the following when writing a factually based news story: 1) refrain from using terms such as “innocent” or “falsely accused” to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants; 2) refrain from using terms such as “hoax” to describe the alleged crime; and 3) refrain from using terms such as “false accuser” to describe the alleged victim.

The media needs to give up the biased charade to promote the Duke Lacrosse defendants as “innocent” and stop playing Jedi mind-tricks on the impressionable public. Failure to immediately cease and desist from doing so will continue to mislead those who believe what the media says, and insult the intelligence of those who know better.

Title: ABC News plays the “Race Card” using Duke Lacrosse player Devon Sherwood

An online article by Chris Francescani of the ABC News Law & Justice Unit was posted on October 31, 2006, and titled: “Sole Black Duke Lacrosse Player Says White Teammates Stereotyped.” The sole black player, Devon Sherwood, a 19 year old, and youngest member of the team, allegedly attended the “stripper party” on March 13, 2006, and stayed through to the end of the abbreviated performance by the two African American women, according to an interview that he gave to Chris Cuomo on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Mr. Sherwood stated that his three teammate Duke Lacrosse defendants had been stereotyped (by whom, he did not say) based on their class and skin color. Sherwood claimed the stereotype used against his teammates is: “Well, their daddies are gonna buy them the big-time lawyers, and they’re gonna get off.” Well, it seems as though the stereotype turned out to be quite prophetic as their daddies did get big-time attorneys (Joseph Cheshire, James Cooney III, and Wade Smith), and they did get off… even without a trial. Attorney Brad Bannon, of Joseph Cheshire’s law firm, instructed the assistant Attorney Generals James J. Coman and Mary Winstead to direct Attorney General Roy Cooper to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent” and to say that “nothing happened.” Which is exactly what happened. They lived up to the stereotype and reinforced it. If the stereotype fits, wear it.

But it was not just the daddies of the defendants who worked feverishly to spin the Duke Lacrosse case in favor of the defendants. Groups of boosters and supporters of the Duke lacrosse team hired powerhouse attorney Bob Bennett (who represented President Bill Clinton) as part of an aggressive public relations effort to argue that a rape did not occur at the party, even before any indictments were handed down.

And although many are quick to accuse former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong of trying the case in the media (unsubstantiated gibberish), it is the attorneys for the players (prior to any indictment being handed down) who divulged to the media that DNA failed to connect any of the 47 member team to the alleged attack. Even players’ parents had started to speak out about the case, according to USAToday online article posted April 12, 2009, titled: “Clinton lawyer joins team to represent interests of Duke lacrosse players.”

The online article about the October 31, 2006 interview is but one shameful example of ABC News’s use of the “Race Card” in order to play Jedi mind-tricks on the public in order to spin the case. Beginning with the article’s headline (“Sole Black Duke Lacrosse Player Says White Teammates Stereotyped”) which infers that the white lacrosse players have been somehow victimized… regardless that the stereotypes proved to be right on. The fact that a black lacrosse player is defending the reputation, character, and integrity of his white teammates, is suppose to be convincing evidence to the African American community that the Duke lacrosse players are decent and honorable people. However, no where in the article does it mention that fifteen (nearly one third of the 47 member team) players had prior run-ins with the law (under-aged drinking, disorderly conduct, public urination, etc.), including the captain and subsequent defendant Dave Evans. The Duke lacrosse team was notorious for hosting raucous parties, and the president of the university had even warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players’ off field shenanigans. Devon Sherwood speaks only in glowing terms of his teammates, even though there is reason to believe that racial epithets were hurled, including the “n-word.” Mr. Sherwood does not know which of his teammates made the slurs, they have not manned up and apologized to him, nor were they pointed out to him by other teammates. Still, he considers the 46 other team members to be his “brothers.” And Devon’s reaction is that the slurs used against the two black dancers was nothing more than a mistake that he is willing to forgive. I believe such a statement is made to encourage other African Americans to overlook the racist hate-speech of Devon’s white teammates, and to forgive them, as well.

Devon also states that he believed that when the three defendants came to him (advising him not to believe what he hears) that they were showing their concern for him, when in fact their actions had more to do with protecting themselves and getting Devon’s support. Had Devon been around when the dancers were leaving, maybe some of the players might have refrained from using racial slurs within his earshot. In addition, the online article by Francescani dwells on the cotton shirt insult rather than the n-word epithets, again to minimize the malevolence of the racially charged verbal attacks on the dancers. Although Devon stated in the interview, “I believe in the character of my teammates,” I am not impressed with the character of teammates who use epithets and the n-word to maliciously demean African Americans, period.

Finally, the interviewer gets Mr. Sherwood to say that he thought Mike Nifong had used race “to his advantage to get re-elected.” It is difficult to ignore the issue of race when Duke lacrosse players shout out racial slurs at two African American women. It is also evident that the players did not want African American dancers to begin with. When using false pretenses to hire the dancers, the Duke lacrosse player using an alias, specifically requested that the escort service assign white dancers. Race was not an issue that any diligent prosecutor could ignore in prosecuting the case. As for all of the hype about prosecuting the case in order to get re-elected, that is not even a realistic premise. Although the city of Durham may consist of 40% African American population, a great majority were disillusioned and not even registered to vote. The percentage of registered African American voters who did vote was most likely extremely low, as well. On the other hand, Duke University and Duke lacrosse supporters who were at odds with Mr. Nifong for not automatically dropping the charges against the three golden boys, were very motivated to see Mr. Nifong toppled in an election. I have no doubt that Mr. Nifong detractors were more motivated in their advocacy to see Nifong lose the election than individuals sympathetic to his actions in taking on the prosecution of students from on of the city’s biggest employers. The myth bandied about by the media, North Carolina State Bar, Attorney General’s Office, and other Nifong detractors is that Mr. Nifong prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case for political gain. The reality is that by going against the powers that be on the state level and at Duke University and prosecuting the Duke players, he severely damaged his chances to win re-election. That is why the Durham district attorney primary in 2007 ended up being as close as it was. There is no doubt in my mind that had Mr. Nifong followed the dictates of the Attorney General and Duke University (by following protocol and dismissing the charges against the Duke students) that he would have won the primary contest in a landslide.

I don’t begrudge Devon Sherwood his close friendship with his teammates, and I am proud of his academic accomplishments at such a prestigious institution as Duke. What I find appalling is the way that the media (ABC’s “Good Morning America” and its online news website) had flagrantly taken advantage of Devon Sherwood in order to push its agenda of supporting the Duke Lacrosse defendants and undermining Mike Nifong and his prosecution of the case. ABC shamefully played the race card with its interview of the Duke Lacrosse’s sole black player, Devon Sherwood.

Conspiratorial link between Duke defendants and Attorney General established

During my September 14, 2009 interview on WPTF - 680's "Bill LuMaye Show," guest host Rick Martinez scoffed at my belief that a widespread conspiracy existed which conspired to successfully bring down former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. However, thanks to the boastful statements made by Joseph Cheshire's firm's underling, Brad Bannon, a direct connection has been established between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and Attorney General Roy Cooper. In statements carried by WRAL 5 News's online website, Bannon affirms that he told representatives of the North Carolina Attorney General to: 1) proclaim the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent;" and 2) state that "nothing (criminal) happened." These demands by the attorney representing Duke defendant Dave Evans were made well before the mid-April 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Roy Cooper to the media at a press conference.

The chain of conspiracy between the defense and A. G. Cooper is irrefutable and is linked as follows: Dave Evans is one of three Duke Lacrosse defendants - Evans is represented by prominent defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's law firm - Attorney Brad Bannon is an attorney in Cheshire's law firm - Bannon meets with Assistant Attorney Generals Mary Winstead and James J. Coman - Bannon tells Winstead and Coman to instruct the attorney general to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and to state that "nothing happened" (at the March 13, 2006 beer-bash Spring Break party hosted by Duke Lacrosse players noted for their raucous regalements and beer-induced disorderly conduct and public urination) - Winstead and Coman report to their superior, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and pass on Bannon's mandate - Attorney General Roy Cooper goes before the media at an April 2007 press conference and proclaims that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and that "nothing happened."

It is also my understanding that Mr. Bannon represented Alan Gell, who was victimized by the North Carolina justice system when he was convicted of capital murder, despite being in jail at the time of its commission. After he wrongfully served more than nine years in prison (half on death row), exculpatory evidence which was withheld by Prosecutor David Hoke was uncovered and led to the judge throwing out Gell's conviction. Yet, Mr. Bannon never demanded that the attorney general proclaim Mr. Gell innocent. Why? (Hint: It has to do with selective justice based on Class.)

The carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players have sought, in addition to millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements, to have their boys declared "innocent" and an admission that "nothing happened" at the animal house on Buchanan Street. Attorney General Cooper gave them exactly what they wanted, and they used the threat of going to jail for criminal contempt of court to try and wring such statements from Mike Nifong. Despite the pressure from Judge Osmond Smith III, defense counsel, and the state, Mr. Nifong maintained his belief that something criminal did happen at the party. In order to navigate around this position that Mr. Nifong stubbornly held on to, the media took it upon itself to put words into Mr. Nifong's mouth. On the WRAL.com website, a story about the in-court apology Mr. Nifong made to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was headlined: "Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened." (It is my understanding that ESPN.com also had a similarly titled headline.) Nothing could be further from the truth as the context of the story did not substantiate that he admitted that "nothing happened." Someone in the media must have made the deliberate decision to play a Jedi mind-trick on the public. To its credit, the wral.com general manager acted timely, responsibly, and appropriately in correcting the headline and including an editor's note. (espn.com apparently changed its headline, as well, since it no longer reads that Nifong "admits nothing happened.")

Now the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media exists, without a doubt in my mind. So far, no one has come forward to admit that dialogue took place between them, but that is usually the way things work in a conspiracy. I am not certain why Mr. Bannon came forward to brag about his law firm's role in prodding the attorney general to make two such unprecedented, inappropriate, overreaching, and misleading statements. Regardless of his motive, it clearly establishes that the two worked together behind the scenes in crafting the pronouncements made by Attorney General Roy Cooper, in mid-April 2007.

What I find particularly disturbing is that the Attorney General's Office is suppose to represent the interests of the people of North Carolina, not the special interests of the well-heeled families of defendants. The liaison between these two camps in the Duke Lacrosse case to quench the vindictive thirst of the vengeful families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, with Mike Nifong in the cross-hairs, is a poke in both eyes of Lady Justice.

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.