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.
No, here it is - SHE's using the time of the initial complaint from the case officer:
"At 1:22 a.m. March 14, Sgt. John Shelton of the Durham Police Department was called to the Kroger supermarket on Hillsborough Road. A scantily clad woman was passed out in a Honda Accord and wouldn't get out of the car. Shelton got no response when he talked loudly to her, his notes on the encounter say."
Nifong is going to attack Sutton, Shelton, and Barfield in court - he has no choice. They all say the woman was inconsistent and said multiple things - and she even recanted. One time she was only groped on the front lawn.
Pinging DukeLax List
According to my contact at WRAL-TV, the case against cab driver Moezeldin Elmostafa was continued (delayed) today in Durham County Court. That's all I know now...
Old and Cranky,
I think she goes back and gets the details later from the case officer. Approximately and responded .. probably cover her ass.
Plus, her report HELPS the LAX players - BIG TIME.
Nifong would like to do nothing more than hang her out to dry.
I'm guessing it's customary that the Case officer keeps the timeline (instead of 7 cops writing down every minute and not focusing on what's going on in real-time).
It means she went to Duke at 1:22 in reference to a rape.
The AV doesn't arrive at Duke until 2:30 or so, and she didn't report the rape until well after 1:22 anyway, when she got to Duke Access.
It wouldn't take Sutton but a couple minutes to get to Duke ER.
Tell me your fibbing!
I'm telling you Durham changed things and it's supposed to be difficult to get a postponement. They made these changes purposefully due to court back log and fire regs.
Look up how many times Kerry Sutton has called the Durham Fire Department and reported the Court house was overcrowded and dangerous. Nifong is on record supporting her doing so.
All these postponements smell to high heaven. I don't understand.
.
or...with tin foil firmly in hand...could the DA say that she reported the rape to the original officer,at approx 1:22, but the transporting officer took her to the wrong place, they discovered mistake and sent her to Duke...could that be the ace he claims to have up his sleeve? (gotta go sit in corner with tin foil hat and wait for further instructions)
Shelton didn't write his report until 4/9, though.
This report must have been written earlier, imo.
That's what the reporter told me. Nifong's going to drag it as long as he possibly can...
LTC8k6,
1:22 am is THE TIME that Shelton got the first call. Shelton is the Case officer.
That's where that time originated. It may be confusing, but she doesn't say I'm at Duke at 0122 or I arrived at Duke at 01:22.
She says responded to a approximately 0122 call.
Well, that belies what is in the report itself. If they were following directions on the times, one would think the text below would support a rape and it DOES NOT.
Nifong would like nothing more than to discredit Sutton, Shelton, and Barfield.
Thanks for the update abb. As if I needed another reminder never to move to Durham! Delaying a 3 year old warrant on a case already adjudicated. How incompetent can these folks be? Or just plain corrupt.
When I chart, I chart times. I may be off by minutes, but not hours.
Imo, as it's written, it is false. Sutton did not respond to Duke ER at 1:22 in reference to a rape. I se no other way to read it, and I've read it all I want to. It's false, imo.
"On March 14, 2006 at approximately 01:22 hours I responded to Duke Emergency Room in reference to a rape."
"On March 13, 2006 at approximately 0122 hours I responded to Duke Emergency room in reference to a rape"
Was in a car accident yesterday, police are very specific about what they write on the report, this sounds to me like she is saying she responded at 1:22. Hopefully it doesn't matter, but if Nifong were to get this report thrown out because of the time, it is harder to prove the many stories she gave, hurts defense, not saying officer did it on purpose...
oops, should say March 14th not 13th..
Well, I took a guess that she was using the time from the original call - the time that the Offical Case officer used - and it turns out I was right.
"At 1:22 a.m. March 14, Sgt. John Shelton of the Durham Police Department was called to the Kroger supermarket on Hillsborough Road. A scantily clad woman was passed out in a Honda Accord and wouldn't get out of the car. Shelton got no response when he talked loudly to her, his notes on the encounter say."
You decide
I agree with your interpretation 1:22 is the time SHE responded.
But she probably wrote it wrong, she has no reason to lie.
(I have been guilty of that, also)
It may be about money for her at this point in the black people's view of the world, but if that's the case, it's wishful thinking on their part, not unlike reparations are.
see my 338
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.