Nifong knew he had no tox report, yet he alluded to one and suggested the boys gave her a date-rape drug. That alone - making those statements to the press - was highly unethical.
When asked about the alleged victim’s evident intoxication the night of the party, District Attorney Mike Nifong told NEWSWEEK several weeks ago that her impaired state was not necessarily voluntary. Refusing to speak about the evidence in this case specifically, Nifong, in retrospect, now appears to have been offering a clue: “What does it mean that she was intoxicated?” said Nifong. “Just as an example--speaking hypothetically--if I had a witness who saw her right before this and she was not intoxicated, and then I had a witness who said that she was given a drink at the party and after taking a few sips of that drink acted in a particular way, that could be evidence of something other than intoxication, or at least other than voluntary intoxication,” Nifong told NEWSWEEK. “There are many explanations for someone appearing to be intoxicated,” he said. Asked if he had any evidence suggesting this scenario took place the night of the alleged rape, Nifong responded, “I don’t have any evidence that I want to talk to you about right now.” Still speaking hypothetically, he went on to say that depending on the circumstances, an alleged victim’s intoxication might make her a more credible witness. FROM NEWSWEEK Susannah Meadows April 18, 2006