"You'd think he'd have the statements of the woman," Kirk Osborn, who represents charged sophomore Reade Seligmann, said Saturday. "You'd think he has the hospital reports. You'd think he has a toxicology report. You'd think he'd have all of that. And that's all discoverable."
But the prosecutor -- who has declined daily requests for comment from The Associated Press -- has said little else about the facts of his case, other than that he firmly believes a rape occurred and doesn't need DNA evidence to move forward. That means what the public knows is mostly based on the word of defense attorneys, who have an obvious interest in what they release to the public.
"We don't know what else the prosecution may have," said Stan Goldman, a Loyola Law School professor and former Los Angeles County public defender. That might include a lacrosse player willing to testify for the prosecution, although that's a prospect defense attorneys have strongly dismissed.
"Every single one of these young men steadfastly deny that anything of a sexual nature took place with this accusing woman whatsoever," said defense attorney Bill Thomas, who represents an uncharged player. "None of those stories have changed nor will they change."
Said Goldman, "At this moment in time, I'd be surprised if this prosecution continues unless they really have something significant that they are not revealing" to the public.
Defense attorneys say Nifong's silence extends to them. Attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents a team captain who has not been charged, said the prosecutor has not responded to several requests for discovery, an issue that has rankled the defense team for weeks.
"Generally when people bring indictments, they have made their case and they have the discovery to give to the defendants," Cheshire said. "It's awfully strange when a person is charged and the district attorney says he doesn't have his discovery. It's kind of like putting the cart before the horse."
The presence of DNA from someone other than a lacrosse player will be tough for the prosecution to explain to a jury, Goldman said.
"I'm not trying to suggest that the prosecution has no case, but this is a real hit for a prosecution case," he said.
After Monday's grand jury meeting, the case will next appear in a courtroom on Thursday, when Seligmann is scheduled to appear. Osborn said he will proceed then with arguments about the lack of discovery evidence -- though he sounded frustrated Saturday that he has to keep arguing at all.
"I don't know what it's going to take to convince (Nifong) he doesn't have a case and these kids never did it," he said.
Good Lord
We need our Durham Freepers to keep a Nifong watch.
Is he in his office?
At home?
Driving to Burlington? Nah, been there, done that.
Driving to Greensboro to personally hand deliver "new" samples to a NEW lab?
I want Nifong sightings!
Re: Dave Evans' parents and Nifong:
Pi$$ing off Powerful People to secure a rinky-dink DA's office is like mugging a mafia don's daughter for her shopping money.
If a wife is murdered, no matter where or how, the husband is always a "suspect of inquiry". Why wasn't the "boyfriend"? He wasn't. We learned all about CGM's family (except her children); friends, other relatives -- adults who were intimately close to her. But NOT the "boyfriend". He was an "entity".
I smell a cover-up. And like I did with the Duke boys, I'm saying the boyfriend might be "innocent until proven guilty" -- until more hard evidence is revealed.
I wanna know who IS hiding in the shadows behind Nifong masterminding this case; directing it. And why.
If its the boyfriend, then it's the boyfriend. But my hunch tells me there's another shoe to yet drop.