Replies

Interesting Read.....

http://www.duke.edu/web/dulug/list/840.html

Re: DULUG: GNOME! (fwd)
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Robert G. Brown wrote:

(snip)

Lastly, we come to Durham. Durham is the only _real_ city in
this whole area. Durham has some suburban areas, often annexed
thanks to the state's rather loose annexation laws that don't require
consent of the annexed, and a real inner city. Durham has always
been an industrial city, and looked down on by the other cities
for that reason. Durham is also where much of "the working class"
of Cary and Chapel Hill live. (UNC Housekeepers, Cary firefighters,
etc.) Why? Because it's the only city where there's cheap housing
available. (Cary only builds expensive housing-- Chapel Hill builds
expensive when it must, but generally prefers not to build at all)

Why is cheap housing available in Durham? Politics. Durham
has a much easier process to build, but the political dynamic
also plays into it. Durham, unlike the other cities, has politics
controlled by 4 PACs (Poltical Action Committees) It's often
possible to predict elections by counting the sponsorships of:

the People's Alliance, a left-liberal group with Chapel Hillian ideas.
Many of them live in the Watts Hospital neighborhood, where the homes are
surprisingly expensive for their size. They're generally well-to-do,
but that doesn't stop them from getting state money to keep their
neighborhood in shape. Their candidates tend to win, but they tend
to get betrayed on lots of issues, thanks to THE COMMITTEE (more on
that later)

the Durham Voter's Alliance, a moderate liberal group. Tends to
represent the swing opinion of the city, and their candidates tend
to win.

the Friends of Durham, a moderately conservative business-oriented
group. The losers in most elections. Often a candidate supported
by the Friends of Durham will face a candidate supported by the other
3, and lose big.

finally, the most powerful is the Durham Committee of the Affairs
of Black People. The Committee is the only mostly black PAC, and
in a city with the black population of Durham (defnitely higher
than other cities in the state), that means a lot. The Committee
does a great job getting the black voters of the city to vote
for their candidates. Their leadership consists of the black
leadership and business leaders of the town. (Like people on
the board of NC Mutual Life, the largest black-owned insurance
company in that nation) Since they're both large and effective
at turning out the vote, they're very strong. Generally liberal
in outlook, the Committee nearly always approves of development
as long as the Committee gets it's share of the pie. This may
take the form of deals with prominent Committee members (Ken
Spaulding, Lavonia Allison, NC Mutual Life, etc.) for financial
gain, promises to high black workers, renovations to black
communities, etc. This frustrates the People's Alliance especially,
because while nominally slow-growth, the Committee ends up favoring
most growth because most businesses, like Duke, know how to deal
with the Committee. Observe the Southpoint Mall, where People's
Alliance candidates, most also supported by the Committee,
voted for it, while most of those who voted against were not
supported by the People's Alliance, like Republican mayor
Nick Tennyson, who incidentally is a real estate developer.

[Excerpt from Cash Michaels at WTVD11 board;
insight into possible prosecution strategy].

But once the lion's share of the discovery evidence had been reviewed, it was clear that, as best we knew, there was no "smoking gun" evidence proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Recently, Prof. Irv Joyner and atty Al McSurely suggested in my 60 Min. story that the DA hasn't shown his full deck by way of evidence. Folks immediately jumped on me saying I was promoting this viewpoint.

Wrong, so wrong. I was reporting this viewpoint, this perspective, if you will, because that's what I'm supposed to do.

I just got off the phone with Prof. Joyner because even a member of the defense team wrote me with his objections. Strangely enough, his objections actually backed up what Joyner was originally saying.

While state law mandates that all facts, physical evidence, reports, notes and everything else material be handed over to the defense, Joyner made clear that the prosecution's case (we're speaking generically here) is much, much more than that.

His "theory" of the case, based on his or the investigating officers' interpretation of the evidence, facts and /or crime scene/or sequence of events, is NOT discoverable under the law. In effect, the prosecutor's "spin" on the same set of discovery is totally his province, and that's rarely written down.

Therefore, the defense has no right to it under North Carolina law, according to Prof. Joyner.

How does he know? Because he recently had a case involving police officers that was appealed to the NC Court of Appeals, and they made that point clear in their 3-0 opinion.

How do I know?

Because at the Sept. 22 hearing, as you'll recall, Nifong advised the court that, based on the evidence, he has a new theory on how the rape occurred. Instead of the original 30 minutes, he's now saying the window was really 5-10 minutes.

The defense told the judge, "We want a copy of the state's theory."

Judge replied (not literally of course), "You're not entitled to it. Get lost!"

Now many of you are saying "BS," but Joyner warns that the law allows Nifong to make a horse race of this thing at trial just based on that exception. He has to convince a jury of his spin, his interpretation of the evidence.

Now this is perspective that should have been in that 60 Min. report, and Bradley could have pointed to other cases where everything seemed as cut and dry as this one, and turned out to be anything but in the end as a result.

Many of you have, I'm sure, heard the old saying, " In court, it's not about what the truth is, but who has the best lawyer."

Many of you are so emotionally invested in this case, when a reporter puts a different perspective on the table, you immediately assume he's doing so in opposition to you personally.

No, it's about covering this case from stem to stern.

Ask yourself this question? If the lack of evidence against the Duke Three is so compelling, and it is, then why are the defense attorneys, with all of the ammunition they've got, still micromanaging this case as if there was a ton of evidence against their clients?

Evans press conference. 60 Min. interview. Prospective juror survey. Manipulating the media. Filing a million motions to determine Nifong's case absent the evidence.

Because, depending on the makeup and mood of the jury, the defense knows the Nifong has an outside chance to sell whatever that theory is, and they don't want to take any chances, though they won't admit that publicly.

I'm not saying Nifong's ploy will work, or should work. Just telling folks, according to Prof. Joyner, what it is.

That's what that different, learned perspective apart from Prof. James Coleman, who I totally respect and regard, offers. Allowing all of us to see what could happen, and that it's not as open and shut as we think, lack of evidence notwithstanding.

As journalists, Ed Bradley and the 60 Min crew should have educated us to that. They didn't, and I rightfully criticized them for it.

So I'm telling you, and strangely enough, Mike Nifong already informed on Sept. 22. You didn't take him seriously, but the defense obviously is.

Why do you think Nifong has kept the accuser absolutely away from any of us in the press?* As under the gun as he is, even after 60 min., he still has wiggle room.

http://forums.go.com/abclocal/WTVD/thread?threadID=134470

* Why can't the press find her at the Platinum, or Teaser's, or Diamond Dogs?