[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?
The judge actually told the defense they could file the motion later. He did not tell the defense to get lost.
Cash could at least pretend to follow the case...
Larry Jones owns The Gallery and Diamond Girls.
Is he the same Larry Jones who served as Interim Director of the Durham Housing Authority?
Spare us the tap dancing Cash.
Getting Nifonged is a new term many of us use as a result of this Duke hoax case. Most of us are already very well aware of the term getting O.J'd. Why must you continue your tap dance all the while ignoring the huge pink elephant in the middle of the living room? Just type it up, it is what it is.... "There very well may be blacks on the jury who will vote to convict the accused because they are white, regardless of evidence".
Most of us already know that's what you mean...