Replies

You know what dipthong's got...A single skin cell under her fingernail from a causual brush on the cheek. He's gotta have something, I mean he spent 7 years in college he can't be a total idiot.

LOL. Good one.

You know what dipthong's got...A single skin cell under her fingernail from a causual brush on the cheek. He's gotta have something, I mean he spent 7 years in college he can't be a total idiot.

Sure he can:

Hey, you can contribute to his campaign too!

http://www.mikenifong.com

As someone once said about Jimmy Taylor, the Green Bay Packer fullback, "he went through full years of college untouched by education".

"He's gotta have something, I mean he spent 7 years in college he can't be a total idiot."

Having been to law school and taken a Bar Exam, I know a complete idiot could not pass. This guy has to know that a photo lineup with only Lacrosse team members would be thrown out and that the in-court identification by the accuser would go with it as tainted by the improper procedure (because they cover it in every first year criminal law class, much less advanced training). I find it very hard to believe the D.A. could be that stupid. He must have something more. he must have a valid photo lineup. He must have some physical evidence besides a medical report that indicates (perhaps) that the accuser was a participant in some sort of sexual activity (and medical evidence cannot say whether it was willing or unwilling or who else was involved). He may have gotten by the Grand Jury with just the accuser's statements, but he would not put himself out on a limb without something else. He cannot be as stupid as many here assume he is. He must have hairs or fibers or something else.

He went to the Grand Jury before he had all DNA test results. I suspect he must have a very small amount of something that required testing by an outside lab. In my State, the equivalent of the North Carolina SBI does not do mitochondrial DNA. That is a different type of analysis from regular DNA that can be done on much smaller samples - such as the bits of skin adhering to the roots of a pubic hair. Such samples have to be sent to the FBI or a private lab, and generally take much longer. I wonder if he was enough of a gambler to proceed to indictment before he receives the results of such analysis on the assumption it will back up the accuser's identification? If he is, the alibi evidence suggests he may lose his gamble.

If he let election politics stampede him to the Grand Jury before he had all his ducks in a row, he will end up looking like a fool. However, if he wins the primary, his gamble may still pay off. As long as he had probable cause - and the victim's statement alone gives him that - he is not at risk of an ethical complaint. All he has to fear would be the wrath of the voters.

In 2010, if he runs for reelection, that is.