This just in...
http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/30/Editorial/Are-You.Sure.Mr.Nifong-2409369.shtml?norewrite200610300813&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com
Are you sure, Mr. Nifong?
Posted: 10/30/06
This weekend, media descended on the Durham courthouse once again and pounced on a new fact emerging from a hearing in the lacrosse rape case. Following the hearing, a slew of stories and TV segments were focused on Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's reporting that he had never interviewed the alleged victim of a rape allegedly perpetrated by three members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team at a March 13 party.
To many, this fact seemed like an egregious oversight by the lead prosecutor in a controversial and nationally covered case.
Although prosecutors aren't required to-and often don't-interview alleged victims while an investigation is underway, Nifong is certainly able to do so if he wants to.
In not interviewing the alleged victim, Nifong has not done anything legally wrong. This part of his prosecutorial conduct has technically followed the law, but the district attorney's failure to interview the alleged victim seems to illustrate that he demonstrated a significant error in judgment in the way he handled the case in its initial stages.
Here's how.
For one of several examples of Nifong's confident statements that there was a rape, we can look to March 28. Fifteen days after the now-infamous party, Nifong said on Dan Abrams' nationally televised show that he was "convinced" a rape had occurred.
Nifong cited evidence from a nurse's report saying there were "injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally."
He made the public believe he was sure. And when we hear a publicly elected official tell us that he is sure, our first reaction is to believe him.
But learning that Nifong talked to most every media outlet imaginable during the first few weeks about how certain he was without ever spending time to talk to the woman seems questionable.
As evidence in this case keeps seeping out, many students at the University-and in the larger Duke and Durham communities-are beginning to wonder how it is possible that Nifong could have been so sure.
The first-hand information that comes with conducting an interview seems like an integral part in believing someone's account of events. Without it, how can one make a logically sound judgment on credibility?
If Nifong wanted to wait for the police investigation to finish before interviewing the alleged victim, that's fine. But explicity announcing that he was convinced that a rape occurred polarized a community and publicly shamed and stigmatized the lacrosse team immensely.
Unless there's factual information that Nifong is still holding onto that proves their guilt-which now appears unlikely given that he should have disclosed that information to defense lawyers already-it seems wrong to push forward in a case with only convictions and not facts.
In general, people want to believe that their public officials are telling them the truth. We hope that after this ordeal has finally ended, we will still have the same trust in what our government officials tell us on TV.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/30/Letters/Students.For.An.Ethical.Durham.Supports.Lewis.Cheek.For.Durham.Da-2409376.shtml?norewrite200610300814&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com
Students for an Ethical Durham supports Lewis Cheek for Durham DA.
Casey Shanley
Posted: 10/30/06
This election directly affects you. Durham District Attorney candidate Lewis Cheek is on the ballot.
Cheek wants your vote because he strongly believes that the removal of current District Attorney Mike Nifong from office is what is best for the Durham community. He wants to win. He wants justice. And so should you.
Should Cheek choose not to accept the district attorney position when he is elected, it is true that the governor would appoint someone to fill the position. We do not believe that an appointment by Gov. Mike Easley will cure all evils. The governor's appointment will not be the panacea.
What we do believe is that Easley will appoint someone who will critically examine each of the cases against David Evans, Trinity '06, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team, dismiss those charges that do not have merit and pursue any that do.
Ethical Durham believes that the governor will appoint someone who will not turn a blind eye to the discriminating police policy that targets Duke students-a policy that encourages disproportionate arrests, warrantless raids and criminal records for anyone who attends Duke University, just because that person is a Duke student.
We do not support District Attorney candidate Steve Monks. Write-in candidates virtually never win. Voting trends tell us that a write-in would need 25,000 people to handwrite their name on the ballot in this election.
Monks campaigned hard for the 6,300 signatures necessary to be on the ballot. He could not even do that. He cannot hope to get 25,000 votes as a write-in on Election Day.
In more than 1,300 Senate elections since 1913 only one write-in candidate has won (Strom Thurman in 1954) and in more than 20,000 House elections since 1900 only five write-in candidates have won. In fact, on the face of it for all we know, Monks is deliberately working to split the change vote.
It has been suggested in these pages that you should not vote because the administration of the District Attorney's office does not directly affect the Duke student community.
When the history of this episode is written, we hope that Duke Students, faculty and staff will be proud of their actions on Election Day. This election is one of historical dimensions. Do the right thing. Recall Nifong, restore justice in Durham, vote Cheek.
Casey Shanley
Board Member, Duke Students for an Ethical Durham
This opinion is not authorized by any candidate