I agree. Is he confident the case will never go to trial so he can say whatever he pleases with impunity? If there is no trial, his evidence won't be shown to be the joke it likely is. That seems so unfair.
That's the part I don't get. Can't Nifong be held accountable for not giving the accused even an interview before indictments? I know he's hanging his hat on "new" DNA results on May 15. But again, shouldn't he have held off until then for indictments? I know he had an election to win, but he's a DA on a wild goose chase. Shouldn't there be some recourse for the falsely accused when there's is negligence on the part of the DA to do even a minimal investigation?
I have wondered if part of the reason the defense is making public so much evidence is that: if this never goes to trial (which it shouldn't, imo), this is their only chance to "prove" their clients are not guilty. Another possibility, particularly with regard to the AV's prior history, is so that it is out there for the jury pool to see and hear, because it may not be allowed in court.