Posted on 06/15/2006 2:22:31 AM PDT by abb
In the early days of the Duke lacrosse rape case, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's public statements appear to have contradicted certain facts in his own files.
After an escort service dancer said three men raped her at a lacrosse party, Nifong talked frequently with national and local reporters -- 50 to 70 interviews consuming 40 hours of his time, Nifong estimated. Nifong then went quiet in early April, refusing most interview requests.
A comparison of his words with documents that Nifong gave defense lawyers show that Nifong made what appear to be misstatements about condom use, a purported struggle and a 911 call made by a second dancer, among other things.
Nifong said the assailants might have used condoms; the accuser told an emergency-room nurse none were used, according to a defense filing. Nifong described a violent attack in which the accuser was choked and struggled to breathe; the accuser told a nurse she wasn't choked, the filing said.
Defense lawyers have filed some of the documents in court and characterized others, such as the medical exam, in affidavits.
Nifong declined through an assistant to answer questions Wednesday.
"Either he knew what the facts were and misstated them, or he was making them up," said James Coleman, a Duke law professor who has publicly requested that Nifong remove himself from the case. "Whether he acted knowing they were false, or if he was reckless, it doesn't matter in the long run. This is the kind of stuff that causes the public to lose confidence in the justice system."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
Pinging the DukeLax list. New thread...
One of the typical posts in the N & O Blog run by their executive editrix, Melanie Sill. She's getting her brains dashed out...
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=duke_lacrosse_comments_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]
06/14/06 at 20:17
Has John in Carolina been banned?
I've missed his thoughful, well written and researched posts. And yes, he was always civil. Discussion can be pointed here, but John was always polite. John is no more frequent or long-winded a poster than..., dare I say it....Joan! And here I thought I had just emerged from the shadow of impending deletion. I hope he will be invited back.
Melanie, have you noticed more and more people are posting at this site, I would assume your blog is growing in its readership. That means that you are successfully communicating with your customers , readers, and yes, critics. Even occasionally contentious discussion is better than none at all. We need to understand the N&O point of view. And you need to hear what is being said about your coverage. If you were able to explain some of these issues in depth, perhaps you'd even make some conversions. I do not believe you just came to work one day and said, "Let's help destroy those three kids from Duke." Not at all. Emotions run high here because good people can not help but be buffeted by the incredible pain in this story...on all counts. I know you feel it too.
Have you noticed the number of posts on the Duke topic vs.the REST of the board in total? And the posts are growing. It's the elephant in the living room.
Thanks for this start of hashing it out with you. You need to keep giving us a place where it CAN be discussed...where we CAN be on topic. This paper's coverage is being discussed EVERYWHERE. But HERE, you get a chance to rebut. Keep the Duke topic up for the sake of the N&O. Let's all keep trying to understand each other. Let's listen to each other.
May John in Carolina please come back?
thank you.
I think there is something out there, see this post and link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1647375/posts?page=623#623
Yes, I've been keeping up with that thread. I put a link to this one over there.
New article in the Durham Herald Sun
Will lacrosse case claims hurt prosecution?
By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun
June 15, 2006 12:23 am
DURHAM -- Although a few observers are willing to give District Attorney Mike Nifong the benefit of the doubt, recent defense claims in the Duke University lacrosse rape case have many lawyers and professors once again predicting doom for the prosecution.
Mark Godsey, a former New York City prosecutor who now teaches law at the University of Cincinnati, put it this way on Wednesday:
"These events are more bad news for the prosecution, but we still don't know what evidence they have. Nevertheless, as we learn more, the universe of the prosecution's possible evidence seems to shrink."
But Irving Joyner, a law professor at N.C. Central University, did not agree that the defense claims are automatically and necessarily damaging to Nifong.
"In the public view, it probably seems like this is a big deal and that the police were caught doing something wrong," Joyner said Wednesday. "It plays well in the theater, so to speak. But at this point, I don't think it's all that strong. A lot will depend on the fortitude of Mike Nifong and his faith in his case. If he believes in what he is doing, it could go all the way."
The defense claims, included in court paperwork filed last week, indicated that police withheld many details from a judge as they began to investigate the case. The omitted details were seemingly inconsistent with an exotic dancer's allegation that she was raped, beaten, choked and sodomized during an off-campus lacrosse party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
For example, an investigator failed to note a co-dancer's claim that the rape allegation was "a crock," even though the second dancer was with the accuser for all but about five minutes on the night in question, defense lawyers said.
And while there apparently was no toxicology testing of the woman, last week's defense paperwork indicated she told a nurse she had only one drink on the night of the party, then reported to a physician the next day that she "was drunk and had had a lot of alcohol."
The information in question was gleaned by defense lawyers from nearly 1,300 pages of data they received from Nifong in May.
Unlike Nifong, defense attorneys are not barred from making all 1,300 pages public. So far, however, they have released only a small fraction of the documentation through various court filings.
The released information tends to support the defense position that no rape occurred, and that the dancer's version of events was inconsistent and unbelievable. If defense lawyers received information to the contrary from Nifong, they have kept it to themselves.
The district attorney and Police Department have declined comment.
Three people have been indicted on rape, kidnapping and sex-offense charges in the case: Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, Duke sophomores at the time of the lacrosse party, and David Evans, who graduated from the university in May.
All are free under $400,000 bonds as they await a trial that may begin next spring.
It was police investigator Benjamin Himan, according to defense paperwork, who allegedly withheld information in a sworn affidavit at the outset of the case.
"If false statements were made in court documents, that is actionable," attorney Alex Charns said Wednesday, referring to a possible lawsuit.
"It's premature to talk about civil liability, but officers are not immune for any knowingly false statements that may have been made," Charns added. "All of that is extremely significant and will be reviewed in the future."
Charns represents an unindicted Duke lacrosse player and has handled numerous cases of alleged police misconduct.
"Was he trying to hide information or did he merely omit it because he thought it was cumulative?" lawyer James D. "Butch" Williams asked of Himan.
"If it was the latter, he might need more training," said Williams. "But if he did it intentionally, disciplinary action certainly would be appropriate."
Like Charns, Williams represents an unindicted lacrosse player. He said that because of the new information, "dropping the case should be one avenue that is seriously considered."
In addition, it was "not far-fetched" to suggest that Nifong should back out of the case and call in the state Attorney General's Office, according to Williams.
"Mr. Nifong has to search his heart to see if he has too much invested in this case," Williams said. "Too much personal investment can cloud your judgment. If that's what happened, duty requires that he step aside and bring in someone who is objective."
Durham lawyer John Fitzpatrick, who is unconnected to the lacrosse case, noted Wednesday that Himan was not legally required to include every possible detail in his sworn affidavit.
"Police don't have to try their cases in an affidavit," said Fitzpatrick. "They don't have to put down every fact. Even if the officer doesn't believe what he puts down, he just has to say that someone told it to him. But if the officer told a deliberate lie, that's a whole different matter."
Fitzpatrick described the information in latest defense motions as potentially "crushing" to the exotic dancer's credibility.
"So far, we haven't heard from her to explain these inconsistencies," he added. "There are a lot of questions only she can answer. She probably won't answer them until trial. I'm not saying her story is frivolous. I'm just saying any defense lawyer will be able to expose any weaknesses in her story and her credibility. It will all come out in cross-examination. Jurors will not only listen to what she says. They'll also be watching her body language and other signals to see if they think she is telling the truth."
URL for this article: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-744372.html
thanks. I thought if we moved over here, some opinions on that individual post and link could be discussed in this thread.
I think it's new info.
thanks for the ping!
Looks like the N&O is responding to all the complaints. I fired a letter to them yesterday and I think they've had some internal meetings on how they walled themselves off from reality.
It was police investigator Benjamin Himan, according to defense paperwork, who allegedly withheld information in a sworn affidavit at the outset of the case.
"If false statements were made in court documents, that is actionable," attorney Alex Charns said Wednesday, referring to a possible lawsuit.
"It's premature to talk about civil liability, but officers are not immune for any knowingly false statements that may have been made," Charns added. "All of that is extremely significant and will be reviewed in the future."
Read through that blog I posted the link to. The editrix is really getting hammered. The DukeLax blog is getting more comments than ALL the rest of the N & O blog topics put together...
Yes, I was reading it yesterday. It seems like an outrage is growing. The N&O is clearly responding to public pressure.
The N&O has two related articles today both highlighting the problems in the case. Only took 3 months!
Here's another News and Observer article/facts critical of Nifong:
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/450764.html
The DA and the documents!
Statements from District Attorney Mike Nifong haven't always matched the documents from his own files.
Thanks. I missed that one in my first pass through the paper. I best be careful, the FRPP (Free Republic Posting Police) may write me a ticket, lol...
Both newspapers have finally seen the light. It is a shame they had to be MADE to do their jobs, though...
Why would the N&O put the meatier, Nifong quote-filled article in the Sports section? Do they think people won't notice it there?
I dug through some of the onset threads: There's much more that Nifong asserted/alluded to, directed, required, requested than what is contained in this article.
Yes.
Yesterday, the had the article about the Professor calling for an independent prosecutor all the way back right next to the obituaries.
They don't want to report it, that's for sure.
But its all the more sweeter to our side knowing that they look at us through slitted eyes. "Journalists" absolutely hate being pointed out to be wrong...
btt
How Cynthia McKinney's treatment differs from LAX players:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199358,00.html
It was police investigator Benjamin Himan, according to defense paperwork, who allegedly withheld information in a sworn affidavit at the outset of the case.
"If false statements were made in court documents, that is actionable," attorney Alex Charns said Wednesday, referring to a possible lawsuit.
"It's premature to talk about civil liability, but officers are not immune for any knowingly false statements that may have been made," Charns added. "All of that is extremely significant and will be reviewed in the future."
Someone in the media finally got it. It isn't what isn't in the warrant but what is. The judge should throw out the evidence from the warrant. Nifong can say he no longer has a case without the evidence and blame Himan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.