Posted on 08/11/2006 1:18:59 PM PDT by abb
Thursday, August 10, 2006 Dear Friends and Neighbors,
The Committee to Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek was formed on August 9, 2006 as a political action committee to campaign for Lewis Cheek in the upcoming election for District Attorney. While Mr. Cheek has declined to campaign for this office, and has stated that he will not accept the position if elected, we believe that this election, and the referendum on Mr. Nifong that it has become, is not about politics but rather about Durham and what Durham stands for.
The Committee to Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek (RNVC) is not comprised of politicians in any way, shape or form. The people who have organized and will direct this campaign over the next few months have no personal political ambitions and no affiliation with any of the parties involved in the drama that has shed such a bad light on the community of Durham. RNVC is not a movement born of political ambition, nor is it only about the Duke drama. RNVC does not campaign on its own behalf, nor on behalf of any person with ambitions to be the District Attorney of Durham County. RNVC will campaign on behalf of the entire Durham community, save one.
Our movement was born in Durham homes by Durham citizens and for the Durham community. This Durham community, to which the participants in RNVC proudly belong, has become the target of nationwide ridicule and scorn. Durham County has been manipulated, deceived and divided by inflammatory, ambition-serving words uttered by the man entrusted to protect it. RNVC believes that the role of the District Attorney should be that of a protector, and not that of a divider. RNVC believes that the community deserves a District Attorney that inspires trust and not fear. It is the fear of Mr. Nifong and distrust of his words, motives and competency for office that has inspired this movement.
If one of our daughters were the victim of a violent crime, we do not want the person pursuing justice on her behalf to be one who compromises the pursuit of justice either by serving his own self interests, or by his own failure and unwillingness to follow procedure. If one of our sons were to be accused falsely, we do not want a District Attorney who would see those false accusations as an opportunity to defeat a bitter rival in a primary election. We believe that our justice system must not be compromised by misdeed or willful mistakes.
We believe that our district attorney must be one who allows a thorough investigation to precede his public proclamation of guilt or innocence. We believe that indictments should be brought based on evidence at hand, and not evidence hoped for. We believe our District Attorney must value procedure, due process, the rulings of our state’s Supreme Court and the constitution this nation was built on. We believe that our District Attorney must not be allowed to interject himself into a Police investigation in such away that he instructs them to disregard the recommendations of the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission, as approved by the NC Supreme Court. We believe that our District Attorney must not be a man who manipulates our law enforcement investigators into violating the Department’s own written policies simply to secure indictment before election.
We have heard Mr. Nifong ask Durham to consider the entirety of his career in the District Attorney’s office. We fail to see the relevancy of his performance in lesser roles within the office as an indicator of how he will perform when holding the power of the Office of District Attorney. We ask all of Durham to instead inspect his actions, his words and his motives while he has briefly served as District Attorney. We believe it is far more relevant to this referendum to inspect his conduct, questionable ethics and lack of performance in the short time that he has held the extensive powers and responsibilities of District Attorney.
Of all that we believe in, and of all that we ask of our community, with regard to this referendum on Mr. Nifong, what we hold most dearly is the notion that we all must speak. We believe this election is what the Durham that we love is about and, as such, requires a true and full measure of consideration by each of its citizens. We ask that Durham show, not only to Mr. Nifong, but also to Governor Easley and to the nation that watches, that Durham cares, that Durham has pride and, most importantly, that Durham has a voice.
We ask that you add your voice to ours.
ON-LINE VERSION
Published: Aug 15, 2006 12:30 AM
Modified: Aug 15, 2006 06:05 AM
Rape case witness has court date
A taxi driver who says he gave a ride to a Duke lacrosse player has his own problem
Benjamin Niolet and Joseph Neff, Staff Writers
DURHAM - The cab driver who surfaced as a witness for one of the players charged in the Duke University lacrosse rape investigation -- only to be arrested on a three-year-old shoplifting warrant -- is due in court today on the charge that he says is unfounded.
Moezeldin Elmostafa signed a sworn statement in April saying that on the night of a Duke lacrosse party, he picked up Reade Seligmann and another player and drove them to a cash machine, a fast-food burger joint and then a campus dorm. Seligmann is one of three players indicted on accusations brought by a woman hired through an escort service.
In May, an investigator in the lacrosse case arrested Elmostafa on a 2003 warrant charging the On Time taxi driver in a shoplifting from Hecht's at Northgate Mall. The cab driver has said the warrant came after he gave a cab ride to a woman who later pleaded guilty to stealing from the department store. Elmostafa has said that once he learned about the theft, he helped investigators with the case.
Lawyers representing the players raised questions about why authorities made the arrest and questioned whether someone was trying to intimidate the driver. Elmostafa's case was one more battleground where the defense lawyers criticized and questioned Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.
Defense lawyers have said in court and in written motions that Elmostafa's account of that night provides an alibi for Seligmann.
Nifong said at a July news conference that Elmostafa was arrested because it is the DA office's policy to serve old warrants. There are more than 60,000 unserved warrants in Durham, Nifong said.
"It's always been our policy when we discover those things to get them served," Nifong said.
Linwood Wilson, an investigator in Nifong's office, said Monday that he discovered the warrant when he ran a routine criminal background check on Elmostafa, the type of check he does for all victims and witnesses the prosecutor's office handles. Wilson said he told Nifong about the warrant, and Nifong told him that the office policy was to serve it.
Wilson said he told two detectives working the lacrosse case about the warrant, and Investigator R.D. Clayton arrested Elmostafa on May 10. He was released from the Durham County jail on $700 bail. According to notes taken by Investigator Benjamin Himan, Wilson said that Nifong wanted to be told when the taxi driver was arrested.
The prosecutor's office or police collected evidence on Elmostafa that included his insurance and driving history, several years' worth of drug tests -- all of which were negative -- and a criminal record check.
Elmostafa declined to comment on his case. His attorney could not be reached for comment. The case is scheduled this morning.
The case against Elmostafa is at least the second time in which a witness involved in the lacrosse case received personal attention from Nifong.
The second woman hired to dance at the party was arrested on a probation violation immediately after she gave a statement to investigators. Nifong personally signed paperwork that changed Kim Roberts' bail status, which freed her from having to pay a $1,875 balance to her bail bondsman.
Nifong said the change was routine and denied it had anything to do with the lacrosse case.
Staff writer Benjamin Niolet can be reached at 956-2404 or bniolet@newsobserver.com.
© Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company
A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company
Link for Cabbie article from this morning
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/471043.html
I cannot recall where I read this but I did not dream it.
I will look for it, hopefully I saved it.
Cannot remember the exact wording but the crux of it was that serving that warrant on the cabbie originated with Nifong.
Has there been any word on the fate of the cabbie in court today?
This is incredible - THE MOST DAMAGING PARTS CLEANSED - and far more many people read the PRINT version:
Wilson said that NIFONG WANTED TO BE TOLD when the taxi driver was ARRESTED.
The prosecutor's office or police collected evidence on Elmostafa that included his insurance and driving history, several years' worth of DRUG TESTS-- all of which were negative -- and a criminal record check.
The case against Elmostafa is at least the second time in which a witness involved in the lacrosse case received PERSONAL ATTENTION FROM NIFONG.
The second woman hired to dance at the party was arrested on a probation violation immediately after she gave a statement to investigators. Nifong PERSONALLY signed paperwork that changed Kim Roberts' bail status, WHICH FREED HER FROM HAVING TO PAY a $1,875 balance to her bail bondsman.
NIFONG said the change was routine and denied it had anything to do with the lacrosse case.
I have not heard anything yet.
Keep the "outsiders" happy while duping the local citizens.
How pathetic.
http://www.wral.com/slideshow/news/9417089/detail.html?qs=;s=3;w=800
What is Gwendolyn Sutton doing investigating a rape at Duke ER at 1:22? Crystal hasn't even reported a rape yet, and she won't arrive at Duke ER for an hour yet.
Damn.
According to everything I have seen, the rape will not even be reported for a while yet at 1:22, but apparently Sutton and Mangum are already at Duke ER talking about it.
Strange.
Did she get the Approx 1:22 time from Shelton?
What time did Shelton repond? Do they use the first call time
in multiple reports?
What time was the call from Kroger?
What the heck? Who is Tammy and Angel?
Phathom or Ghost Dancers
I don't know how the report can be read any other way. It is written as if she responded to Duke ER around 1:22 and took this report at that time.
Sutton and Shelton seem to tell it like it is - she recanted, she wasn't raped it was 5 guys, it was 2, it was 3, it was groping.
If Shelton responded at 1:22, she could've got that response time from him and it may be customary use the initial call time. It does say "Approximately".
Shelton was the Primary officer or Responding Officer or whatever designation they use. So it may be that he is the timekeeper - or other reports done later utilize his times.
I dunno
Was 1:22 am the time on Shelton's report?
Was that the time he responded or got the call?
If so, I can see them correlating that time, she does say APPROXIMATELY.
The rape was not reported at 1:22 though, so how can that be the official time?
It's probably suppsosed to be 2:22.
Just more crack police work, I guess.
She says she RESPONDED to DUKE Emergency at Approximately 1:22 am. Does Responded mean arrive?
I'm thinking she checked the time with Shelton (the Case Officer) and filled the time in at the hospital later.
She wrote "On March 13, 2006 at approximately 0122 hours I responded to Duke Emergency room in reference to a rape"
You would think it would say something to the effect of responded to a rape reported at 0122 hours or something. She specifically says at that approx time she reported to Duke ER...this is confusing...maybe there is a correction somewhere? Will the DA be able to throw out this because the time is not right, therefore not being able to show her different stories?
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.