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

Skip to comments.

DA plans to turn over more papers in lacrosse case (DukeLax)
The Herald-Sun ^ | June 22, 2006 | John Stevenson

Posted on 06/22/2006 2:23:47 AM PDT by abb

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,621-1,6401,641-1,6601,661-1,680 ... 2,061-2,065 next last
To: Publius22

In fact, I'm ready for this stinking case to be done with so we can move on to solving the real mystery - why were 3 innocent men indicted?



I agree, that is the mystery. They are so obviously innocent. Is it as simple as Nifong using them for the nomination?

Maybe that is how it started. I guess I am trying to figure out what is driving it now. Anyone with 1/2 a brain, an objective brain, can see this for the injustice it is.

Is it The Perfect Storm for the corrupt? As corrupt as Durham seems to be, are we seeing anyone with something to gain exploit this for all it is worth.

I have thought that if a hungry journalist wanted to make a name for himself, he would use this to expose the corruption in Durham.

One other thing bothers me. There have been conflicting reports, but as best as I can learn, there are no transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings. I don't know if it is statewide or just Durham. If true, God only knows what was said.


1,641 posted on 06/28/2006 9:38:01 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1640 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
why were 3 innocent men indicted?

Because they are white in a city run by blacks. Because a candidate for DA exploited the racial hatred in Durham to lock up the nomination.

Durham is a racial powder keg. AV's mother is quoted as saying someone manipulated the DNA results to favor the white boys. I would bet the farm her opinion is shared by many, if not most of her peers, the jury pool.

I think the drive to put Cheek on the ballot is an attempt to stop a speeding train. Think about what will happen if this goes to trial. It is a lose/lose situation. If they are aquitted, there will be hell to pay.

If they are convicted, Durham will be the loser.

1,642 posted on 06/28/2006 9:54:14 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1641 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
I would bet the farm her opinion is shared by many, if not most of her peers, the jury pool.

By now everyone knows that the AV is a liar and no rape occurred. Even in Durham they know this. They also know that the AV and the DA have a scam going and they'll go along with it.

1,643 posted on 06/28/2006 10:01:05 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1642 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
Because they are white in a city run by blacks. Because a candidate for DA exploited the racial hatred in Durham to lock up the nomination.

Not quite, they were white in a city where white elected officials, ie DA and judges, have to run in the Dim primary. While Durham is 40% black, the Dim primary voters are probably much more black.

This case was not about black officials seeking the black vote. It was about ONE white official seeking enough black support in the Dim primary.
1,644 posted on 06/28/2006 10:02:21 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1642 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights; maggief; JLS; pepperhead; Ken H; All

At this juncture in the case, the new phenomenon is Nifong's
charisma. And, I'm not joking.

Before the last hearing date, Nifong was being cooked by many on TV. In the Papers and on TV, the subject was how Nifong was going to extricate himself from this. It was not going to trial. What changed? Why is the consensus in the media today that a jury will hear this?

Nifong changed it all with 90 minutes in court. Journalists came from all over and they listened, they watched, and they followed Nifong around. Suddenly, his supporters in the Media are back. It's back to Shawn Hannity and Abrams versus the world in one sense.

All this from 90 minutes in court.

The only comparison I can think of is Bill Clinton in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Even as Clinton was shown lying on National TV and wagging his finger, he was going up in the Polls. The Media people shreiked with Joy. I can remember Chris Matthews showing a clip of Clinton chiding the press and wagging his finger, and Matthew's said, WOW, is he the best or what. This guy is so smooth. He has such great charisma and confidence. This guy communicates on another level, he connects to you emotionally. I've never seen anything like it, Matthews said.

A lack of sympathy of empathy, in the Media, for the white players that are perceived as privleged has allowed them to
emotionally connect to Nifong. It's like a group epiphany occurred and they said, it's okay to disregard the facts. We can just support this woman because we believe her, because she is deserving of our support - after all good people support minorities don't they.

Just like respected journalists, lawyers, and politicians took to the airwaves to boldy tell us that Oral sex wasn't really sex. An indefensible argument if there ever was one.

The media is forwarding the new standard for Justice in this country. The new standard developed out of political allegiance to this alleged victim is if the DA looks in your eyes and believes you, he can do everything in his/her power, including modifying witness testimony with favorable deals, to bring about a conviction at all costs.

It's a dangerous new standard.


1,645 posted on 06/28/2006 10:22:30 PM PDT by Mike Nifong (Somebody Stop Me !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1641 | View Replies]

To: JLS

I don't think it's a misdemeanor. i think it's an infraction. The article referring to it as a misdemeanor may be wrong, although I haven't looked it up.


1,646 posted on 06/29/2006 3:55:13 AM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1471 | View Replies]

To: Mike Nifong

Nifong groupies...
What a way to start the day.


1,647 posted on 06/29/2006 3:56:54 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1645 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights; maggief

You are both correct, but I will go one step further. It is about race, class and power. However, I maintain that the biggest factor is the corruption and crime within the power structure of Durham.


1,648 posted on 06/29/2006 4:57:18 AM PDT by TommyDale (Stop the Nifongery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1636 | View Replies]

To: gopheraj

mark


1,649 posted on 06/29/2006 5:23:46 AM PDT by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1648 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

I have thought that if a hungry journalist wanted to make a name for himself, he would use this to expose the corruption in Durham.

from my post 1641


1,650 posted on 06/29/2006 7:02:00 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1648 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
"There have been conflicting reports, but as best as I can learn, there are no transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings. I don't know if it is statewide or just Durham. If true, God only knows what was said."

I can just about imagine:

"Billy Bob, your daddy and my daddy worked together roundin' up those moonshiners in Johnston County. You know me. I want you to trust me and indict these boys from Duke. Remember how Duke kicked our butts back when we was in school? Here, sign this indictment!"

1,651 posted on 06/29/2006 7:14:37 AM PDT by TommyDale (Stop the Nifongery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1641 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
"I have thought that if a hungry journalist wanted to make a name for himself, he would use this to expose the corruption in Durham."

It wouldn't necessarily take a hungry journalist, just one who isn't lazy. There is plenty of information out there. All they need to do is lift the rug and watch all the cockroaches run for cover in Durham.

1,652 posted on 06/29/2006 7:16:46 AM PDT by TommyDale (Stop the Nifongery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1650 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

The lazy journalist only needs to read our threads, LOL!

We even supply the documentation.


1,653 posted on 06/29/2006 7:21:58 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1652 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

I don't think they want to admit that they get their news from FreeRepublic, however.


1,654 posted on 06/29/2006 7:23:36 AM PDT by TommyDale (Stop the Nifongery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1653 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Well done, Ken ~ non-confrontational and to the point.


1,655 posted on 06/29/2006 8:24:51 AM PDT by Dukie07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1635 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
I would add Greta's comment as another possibility - that Nifong is either insane or evil.

Some people have wondered if AV and Nifong expected the parents to settle big and then they would have split the money?

1,656 posted on 06/29/2006 8:44:45 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1648 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/455800.html

Finnerty gets bond dropped to $100K


1,657 posted on 06/29/2006 9:14:44 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1653 | View Replies]

To: Dante3

What concerns me now is that both Lewis Cheeks and Steve Monks are apparently going to qualify for the November ballot. If both men appear on the ballot, they will split the Anti-Nifong vote, and Nifong will win again. One of them needs to drop out.


1,658 posted on 06/29/2006 9:26:20 AM PDT by TommyDale (Stop the Nifongery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1656 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

They won't split the vote unless they are both democrats. :-)


1,659 posted on 06/29/2006 9:35:34 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1658 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

One is a Republican, but they both may be required to be listed as independents, because they did not run in the Primary. So you have 2 independents, running against a Democrat. If Nifong gets 49% of the vote, the remaining 51% split between the two independents would result in Nifong's winning plurality. Actually, Nifong could win a purality with less, as little as 34% if the two independents each gather 33%. What I'm not sure of is whether a runoff is required if no one gathers one vote over 50%. Anyone know? Researchers?


1,660 posted on 06/29/2006 9:41:11 AM PDT by TommyDale (Stop the Nifongery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1659 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,621-1,6401,641-1,6601,661-1,680 ... 2,061-2,065 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