Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DA's statements, record at odds (DukeLax)
News & Observer ^ | June 15, 2006 | Joseph Neff

Posted on 06/15/2006 2:22:31 AM PDT by abb

In the early days of the Duke lacrosse rape case, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's public statements appear to have contradicted certain facts in his own files.

After an escort service dancer said three men raped her at a lacrosse party, Nifong talked frequently with national and local reporters -- 50 to 70 interviews consuming 40 hours of his time, Nifong estimated. Nifong then went quiet in early April, refusing most interview requests.

A comparison of his words with documents that Nifong gave defense lawyers show that Nifong made what appear to be misstatements about condom use, a purported struggle and a 911 call made by a second dancer, among other things.

Nifong said the assailants might have used condoms; the accuser told an emergency-room nurse none were used, according to a defense filing. Nifong described a violent attack in which the accuser was choked and struggled to breathe; the accuser told a nurse she wasn't choked, the filing said.

Defense lawyers have filed some of the documents in court and characterized others, such as the medical exam, in affidavits.

Nifong declined through an assistant to answer questions Wednesday.

"Either he knew what the facts were and misstated them, or he was making them up," said James Coleman, a Duke law professor who has publicly requested that Nifong remove himself from the case. "Whether he acted knowing they were false, or if he was reckless, it doesn't matter in the long run. This is the kind of stuff that causes the public to lose confidence in the justice system."

(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: dirtyrats; duke; dukelax; durham; durhamdirtbag; lacrosse; lyingliars; nifong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-254 next last
To: pepperhead
Himan just can't stop lying can he?

He is so busted.

141 posted on 06/15/2006 5:23:47 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
They did bring up the misleading statements on the warrant as well.

How many days latter? These same people were saying the motion was garbage. I bet they never bothered to read the affidavit for the warrant the first time they spoke.

142 posted on 06/15/2006 5:27:23 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Fido969
"Are you part of the problem - or part of the solution?"


I am not sure what problem you refer to. I have prosecuted many (probably 2 to 3 dozen) false police report cases in the last few years. I even had a young woman arrested at a preliminary hearing because she got up, recanted her story, and said she lied to the police. I have also at times been fooled by lying victims. In one case I really stuck my neck out to keep a guy in jail only to have the victim refuse to testify when I got the case ready for trial. I immediately consented to a personal recognizance bond to free the defendant (who had been convicted twice of rape before). I suspect the victim lied in the first place (I later learned a divorce was involved, and what easier target than a two-time loser), but I could not prove it. I dismissed the case on the eve of trial. All I could do was get angry. I later learned that the defense had all sorts of impeachment ammo for the victim, but they never shared it with me (nor were they required to). It was probably a lucky thing for me she refused, because I would have been beat like a drum at trial.

Lying victims are a fact of life. Lots of people try to use the criminal law as a weapon. Few succeed, in my opinion. The safeguards go far beyond the instincts of a prosecutor. In our system, even after the prosecutor decides a case should be pursued, the defense, the jury, the trial judge, and the appellate system stand between the defendant and punishment. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a tough standard for the prosecution to meet. As proof of that statement, look at the conviction rate for murder: only about 60 to 65% of murders ever result in a conviction. That is despite all the best efforts of the police and prosecutors to hold someone responsible in the most important of all classes of criminal cases.
143 posted on 06/15/2006 5:27:31 PM PDT by Law is not justice but process
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane
So --there will be no rulings until close to trial?

I don't know, I think Stevens just might reevaluate that now. Judges don't like people coming in there to get warrants and taking advantage of them.
144 posted on 06/15/2006 5:31:26 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: abb
"Had not the DukeLax parents not known how to work the PR angle, Nifong would never have been exposed."

Had Nifong not breached prosecutorial ethics by giving 70 interviews when this case was being investigated, I do not think this case would have gotten the national news coverage it has gotten. In our office, the only thing we release about cases are those things which are, by law, public record. That includes warrants, indictments, and police incident reports. Nifong put this case in the media and the defense was forced to reply. And reply they did, with gusto. Now everyone seems to have reached a conclusion regarding the guilt or innocence of these Lacrosse players. It is a textbook example of why it is a breach of prosecutorial ethics to discuss details of a case in the media. It taints the jury pool with evidence that has never been vetted for admissibility, relevance, or reliability (which is the judge's job).

That is why this case angers me so. Nifong started the media circus. The press always wants to know everything that is going on. If we relied on the press, though, we would still be looking for the Middle Eastern men that allegedly blew up the Murrah Building. The press has no filters. Both the accused and the accuser deserve a fair trial. The media circus makes that less and less likely every day. I would much rather have my trial in the judicial system than in a press that made the O.J. and Peterson jurors individual celebrities.

And I daresay it was the defense attorneys rather than the parents who knew how to work the PR angle. They had to do it, after the prosecutor got up and vouched for the credibility of the accuser on national television.
145 posted on 06/15/2006 5:48:30 PM PDT by Law is not justice but process
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
Dan Abrams has his work cut out for him...

If I was Dan the first thing I would do is get rid of Olbermann. He is one nasty individual.

146 posted on 06/15/2006 5:48:42 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead

Cheshire's motion says the accuser told the SANE at some point that only two men assaulted her:

http://dwb.newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/story/2962283p-9397856c.html


147 posted on 06/15/2006 5:55:00 PM PDT by GAgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

sissyjane, according to reports they had already seen her buck naked. Your are absolutely right. "Sweetheart" would not be a term that they would use. AAARRRH!! is a little to mild. LOL.


148 posted on 06/15/2006 6:28:10 PM PDT by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: abb

abb, I remember a statement attributed to Nifong early on when he told the defense attorneys that he new more than they would ever know about the case. It now appears the defense knows a whole lot more than Liefong knew then and will ever know about the case. That is until the boys get him in court in a civil suit. He may learn a whole lot then. Just MHO.


149 posted on 06/15/2006 6:32:48 PM PDT by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GAgal

Hannity and Colmes

1. Hannity starts with Nifong's lies in the press compared to the facts in the evidence.

2. Hannity askes if Nifong ever talk to Mangum.

3. Hannity ask Megan Kendall about the contradictions. She says it really is shocking and why prosecutors should not make such out of statements. Forgot or proceeded in bad faith.

4. Hannity asks Guilfoyle about the "croc" statement. She says his obligation is to read the entire case file.

5. Asked Natasha something and she says he must have a political agenda. DA regularly listen to defendents.

6. Ask Kendall about threatening comments and will he be removed. She says it is stronger than she originally thought last night. She says a lawyer once told her to f-off in open court.

7. Colmes calls this selective release. Guilfolye jumps back on Nifong juice. Colmes calls for a trial again, moron. Complains Nifong is being criticized for being quiet now. Kendall says that not all discovery was done.

8. Colmes asks Natasha if it is better if it ends up in the court. She has it never should have gotten this far.

9. Hannity says no indictment should have taken place and there will never be a guilty plea.

10. Gretta comes on to tease a Duke segment on her show.


150 posted on 06/15/2006 6:40:29 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: GAgal

Is the actual motion out yet?


151 posted on 06/15/2006 6:41:52 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Thank you for the excellent report.


152 posted on 06/15/2006 6:42:27 PM PDT by sissyjane (Don't be stuck on stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Seems that all his "silver bullets" turn our to be blanks.


153 posted on 06/15/2006 6:43:31 PM PDT by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: JLS
1. Hannity starts with Nifong's lies in the press compared to the facts in the evidence.

He should have compared Himan's statements in the affidavits for the warrants to the facts in evidence.
154 posted on 06/15/2006 6:45:20 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: GAgal

GAgal, I had a hard time last night dealing with either 3, 4, or 5 attackers. Now you are making it even tougher.


155 posted on 06/15/2006 6:55:27 PM PDT by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
He should have compared Himan's statements in the affidavits for the warrants to the facts in evidence.
That would make another excellent segment. I think one idea a night is the best you can do on TV. It is not like reading.
156 posted on 06/15/2006 6:57:00 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

I am watching the US Open replay as I played golf this afternoon and missed the coverage. I will try to time switching back for Gretta but may miss it. Gretta maybe has seen actual motion filed today.


157 posted on 06/15/2006 6:58:45 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: JLS
That would make another excellent segment. I think one idea a night is the best you can do on TV.

Especially with Colmes there acting like Nifong's mafia lawyer.
158 posted on 06/15/2006 7:04:21 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: abb; Howlin; Constitutions Grandchild

Constitutions grandchild & I came up with a new reality show

"Pajama Justice with Judge Howlin"

We can take turns each week being her trusty baliff.


159 posted on 06/15/2006 7:04:36 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Hogeye13

Gretta begins:

1. Did Nifong lie when talking about Mangum's medical report before it was printed and he got it.

2. Jeff Brown says Mangum is lying. He spoke of documents before he got them.

3. Gretta say unless it had been briefed to him. Jeff Brown says he says he read it. It is protected by privacy and he broke the law if he was briefed on it earlier.

4. Hammer says if he could turn back time he would not give the interviews. Hammer says maybe "my reading" is figure of speech. Brown says you never cut the defendents such a break.

5. Grimm says he knew the condum statement was a lie. And that Hammar would not says such a thing.

6. Gretta says she is glad Nifong exposed himself if it is unfair.

7. Williams jumps in with a poor Mangum. Says Nifong has become part of the case and he should recuse.

8. Gretta says if I was the Judge, I would call them all in for a hearing on these motions in COURT. Williams agrees.

9. Gretta asks Hammer what the DA should do. Hammer says he needs the public to have faith in the system and he should respond in writing to the motions.

10. Gretta says she can not get around that he was politically motivated. Grimm says that Jeff Brown a month ago said it was politically motivated. Williams says at that stage and he must come out, he is taking too many hits. Gretta tells Brown she has come to his view it was purely political. Brown says the Feds should investigate.

Break and maybe the end.


160 posted on 06/15/2006 7:08:33 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-254 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson