"Dead man walking" would bring a charge of communicating threats."
One would think that a District Attorney who heard/witnessed this would initiate legal action, but Nifong cannot and will not carry his own weight in this matter.....he will pander for personal gain until the looting, shooting, and burning starts.
and the cell phone records or contents were denied by the "Judge" because of PRIVACY concerns. These players are looking at 20 years in the slammer and the Judge and Nifong are concerned about PRIVACY because it appears that the phone the AV used is owned by a third party.
so it sounds as if the "Judge" will look at the records and contents and only hand over to the defense what HE thinks they should know. i don't like what I'm reading.
everyone is pandering and putting their positions as Whites in power in Durham ahead of Justice. Stephens told me a lot today.
I may have screwed up that Cell phone thing. I just heard on TV that Nifong and Osborn are supposed to work it out.
The motion for the phone was denied by Stephens and PRIVACY concerns were raised and Stephens hinted that the phone may be owned by a third party.
If you lend or give a phone to a Criminal, you waived your your right to privacy in my Opinion - OR WAS IT STOLEN?
I am confused. This article says:
"(Judge) Stephens hinted at the possibility that the cellphone may have belonged to a third party, and cited privacy issues in denying Osborn's request for the time being."
The judge also agreed with District Attorney Michael Nifong's argument that experts in his office were equally capable of protecting the integrity of the evidence and said he would review the data obtained from the phone before deciding whether it had any evidentiary value."
http://www.courttv.com/news/duke-rape/051806_seligmann_ctv.html
Greta described something totally different