Replies

No argument here. I'm just saying I think the admission and conviction of the person the Cabbie was driving carries more weight than when a warrant was issued.

I believe initially they did issue a warrant for him, that wouldn't be surprising if they were investigating the crime and it was unknown to authorities whom did what at that point.

The authorities NOW do know what happened and there's an admission and a conviction - so, that alone, to me, makes what Nifong has done an outrageous abuse of power.

There could be another reason for the serving of the warrant. Mostafa has been interviewed by the DPD (after he was on Rita). We don't know what Mostafa has said in that interview. The warrant might have been to prevent the defense from saying that Mostafa received favorable treatment from the DA (that would be if Mostafa's interview helped the AV in any way). Of course, it could be that Nifong is using the serving of the warrant to strong-arm Mostafa into cooperating.

This is how the DPD dealt with Kim.

A week later, Roberts' escort agency told her police wanted to talk to her about a possible rape. After she gave a statement, police arrested her for the probation violation.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/438314.html

I'm saying though that the person(s) who pled may have implicated Mostafa. Okay. The question then is was the warrant sought then? Was it activated then? I'm assuming for the moment that there were grounds for the warrant at the time of the plea by the shoplifters. If it had been issued and activated then, it should have been served, either by seeking out Mostafa, who would not have been difficult to find, or therough his cabbie permit renewal process. But it wasn't. So, again I ask, when was the warrant sought and when was it activated?

What if Nifong contacted these women who pled and suggested someone else was involved with them? What if he suggested their records would be expunged if they would name that person? What if he asked them, "It was the cabdriver who helped you, wasn't it?"

Doesn't the local and/or state warrant repository have a diligence and stale-date oversight program embedded to avoid arrests on warrants expired by statute in order to avoid false arrest suits? If the warrant was issued and activated in 2003 and never served, it seems to me it should have stale-dated out of the system.

I would really like to know more about the inner workings of the warrant repository system there. I'm really perplexed as to how this whole arrest warrant on Mostafa came about, and I hope somebody, such as reade's attorney is looking into these questions with a careful eye.