DA's statements, record at odds (DukeLax)

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.

"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."

I did not say I believe that the child welfare rules were particularly good. The idea of taking children first and asking questions later is well-intentioned, but also very traumatic for the children. I am glad I do not make those calls because emergency custody orders do not fall under the auspices of a prosecutor's office. Social Services and the family court handle that. I may handle resulting criminal charges (if any), but by the time they get to me the defendants have all the protections of a presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If I wanted to decide child custody matters, I would run for the family court bench. I do not. If a child has truly been harmed, I will gladly prosecute the one doing the harm, though. I will say that the vast majority of Social Service actions never result in criminal charges.

I don't know where you get off saying I am too wrapped up in my job to see the results. I live with the results every day. I have tried cases that resulted in fathers being taken from their children, but I do not see the wisdom in allowing a murderer or armed robber to escape punishment merely to keep a family together (if that is what you were getting at - I'm not sure what you meant). I LIVE with the results of the criminal justice system every day. I have lost many a nights sleep over violent criminals who have gone unpunished because we lacked evidence or because a trial did not end as we wished. That really bothers me. On the other hand, I share with judges and with no other attorneys the requirement that I do justice. Prosecutors are not charged and sworn to win cases, but to do justice - to the extent the system allows it. I have dismissed many a case where I thought the defendant guilty but had no evidence. I have also dismissed cases where I had lots of evidence but thought the defendant innocent. It is a great responsibility, but I take prosecutorial discretion seriously. I even get to give people breaks occasionally when they are caught dead-to-rights.

I dare say I know quite a bit better than you what the results of the criminal justice system are (though I suspect from your tone that you may know better the results of family court matters - which I never deal with). The cost of our system is criminals who are never punished. The benefit of the system is that innocent people are seldom convicted of crimes. I can live with the cost of the system, but only by realizing that criminal justice is no such thing. It is just a procedure to punish those who leave the most evidence. Ultimate justice will come at a higher court. If I did not believe that, I would have quit this business long ago.

What is Stephens going to do?

On Greta tonight, a reporter from the Durham Herald Sun, that has been on this case from the beginning, said that Nifong is not under pressure in Durham. He said he has NOT come under criticism in Durham, he said it has come from the "OUTSIDE".
Ah - the enclave of Durham and Durham Justice served like no other.

So, where is Stephens going. This is one guy that can shut Nifong down. Stephens could've listened at the first hearing and put a stop to this farce, however, he grandstanded and cut off defense attorneys and acted indignant when they sincerely tried to document all evidence and ensure their access to all information in the case - their rights, by law.

Looking for someone - anyone - that can stop the madness.
As far as someone that has authority of the Justice system - the courtroom - no one in that realm has made one little peep of criticism or raised even the most tacit questions about Nifong's case, actions, or appearances.

Any Ideas?

How smug would Nifong be if he could be sued for defamation?

You guys don't understand rat politics. Nifong knows what he is doing. He is banking on a rat sweep of the legislature in 06, and a leftie rat, maybe Hitlary willing in 08. That would set his career all up.

Remeber REPRESNTAIVE Schumer defending the clintonistas over Waco? They made him a senator for that.

The radical fems running the far left will take care of Nifong.

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.