Posted on 10/01/2006 1:40:53 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM - Anyone who asks why Mike Nifong won't drop the Duke University lacrosse rape case doesn't know Mike Nifong.
In his long career, Nifong has earned a reputation as a prosecutor who charges hard at his opposition and relishes going to trial. Although his unpredictable behavior might puzzle some observers of the lacrosse case, it is vintage Nifong.
For six months, Nifong has been the public face of -- and the driving force behind -- the case against three Duke lacrosse players who are accused of raping a woman hired to dance at a team party. Even after DNA tests came back negative or inconclusive, and evidence emerged that contradicts the state's case, Nifong pressed ahead.
He was so confident in the accuser's story and his case that he refused to meet with lawyers who said they could prove players' innocence. He bickered with the lawyers in the media and needled them in court. The faith in his case was a familiar posture for a man who, with talent and the resources of the state on his side for nearly 30 years, is accustomed to having the upper hand.
In more than 300 felony trials and countless pleas, Nifong's confidence and bluster have served him and Durham County well. For most of his career, he has been sending to prison people who belonged there.
But Duke lacrosse is not just any Durham case. The defense team is well-funded and includes some of the most highly regarded lawyers in the state. In filings and the media, they have counterattacked in an effort to dismantle Nifong's case against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.
The case has drawn national media attention, and Nifong's saber-rattling has been on display for the world.
Nifong, 56, is a prosecutor, not a politician. The lacrosse case was the first time he had to be both -- the investigation began a year after the governor appointed him district attorney. And when Nifong's early assurances that lacrosse players raped a dancer didn't jibe with the evidence that became public, his critics accused him of using the case for political gain. The weaknesses in the case have led to an election challenge from a write-in candidate and an organized effort to have voters pick anyone but Nifong on Nov. 7.
If Nifong wins the election, he will face the fight of his professional life when the case goes to trial next year. "He's staked his reputation and probably to a larger extent his career on this case," said Jim Cooney, a Charlotte criminal defense lawyer who is not involved in the lacrosse case but has been involved in many high-profile criminal cases.
Nifong declined to answer questions for this story. The News & Observer interviewed nearly two dozen people, reviewed court files and listened to recordings of him in court. The interviews and documents help shed light on why, when saddled with a case that another prosecutor might have dropped, Nifong has chosen to continue.
Faith in key witness
At the trial, Nifong's key witness will be the accuser, who will presumably testify that she was raped by Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann. Under North Carolina law, her accusation is enough evidence to take the case to a jury.
From the start, lawyers for team members have said her story is a lie. They have highlighted every inconsistency in her account as evidence that she is a "false accuser," as one of Evans' attorneys, Joseph B. Cheshire V, calls her. When the time comes for her to testify, she will be under fire. She can expect questions about a history of bipolar disorder and her career as an exotic dancer, performing for private parties or couples in hotel rooms.
Although Nifong has never heard the woman tell her story, he believes her. He said in court last month that he met with her and detectives April 11 to discuss the judicial process. Nifong said she was too traumatized to speak about the incident. The day after that meeting, Nifong told a judge he was planning to seek indictments.
Even though an accusation is enough, it does not require a prosecutor to pursue a rape case. In general, part of a prosecutor's job is to use judgment, said Robert L. Farb, professor of public law and government at UNC-Chapel Hill's School of Government.
"Prosecutors evaluate cases all the time," Farb said. "They decide whether to go forward or not, offer a plea or dismiss or whatever."
Echoes of '94 case
Twelve years ago, Nifong prosecuted a man in a rape case that bore some similarity to the one he is focused on now.
As in the Duke lacrosse case, Nifong had on his side the word of the woman. And the defense said it had plenty of evidence that no rape happened.
Even before the case made it to trial, Nifong taunted the defense attorneys.
"Poultry," Nifong said when a defense attorney asked a judge to delay the trial date.
"They're a bunch of chickens," he told the Herald-Sun of Durham to explain his comment. "I have the impression sometimes they are afraid to try cases."
The case was State v. Timothy Malloy, and the defendant was a prison guard and convenience store clerk accused of raping a woman at gunpoint. The testimony was preserved on a court reporter's audiotape.
In 1992, the accuser told authorities that after a night of heavy drinking, two friends, who each thought the other had driven her home, left her at a bar. The woman walked to a convenience store where Malloy was on duty.
After the woman used the store phone several times to try to reach friends, Malloy propositioned her. He said that she agreed and they had sex in a storeroom. She said he pulled a gun from his waistband and raped her.
The defense was aggressive. The woman said she was anally raped, but the medical report introduced by the defense showed that there was no physical evidence of injury and that the accuser had not complained of pain during the exam.
Police never found a gun, despite a thorough search of the store and Malloy's car. A newspaper delivery man testified that just after the incident, he saw Malloy and the woman talking and thought they were friends.
If Malloy had a gun that night, the defense asked, how would it have been held up by the flimsy elastic of the sweat pants he was wearing? And after being raped, why would the woman tell Malloy to come see her at the topless bar where she served drinks?
"The one thing this case really boils down to is whether or not this lady's telling you the truth," defense attorney Bob Brown told a Durham County jury Aug. 3, 1994. "There's no other evidence that backs her up."
The accuser had waited a long time for her chance to tell her story. She said in a recent interview that until Nifong got involved, she had thought about dropping the case.
"He believed in me, and until that time, I didn't feel anybody else believed in me," she said. "I felt like the system let me down until Mike took the case."
The News & Observer generally does not identify complainants in sexual assault cases.
She faced a grueling cross-examination. Brown, the defense attorney, found at least half a dozen false statements the woman had made on job and credit applications. He also asked her about written statements given to police that contained inconsistencies.
"That was a false statement?" Brown asked each time. "That was a story," he said.
Brown's questioning lasted several hours. Nifong took just one minute to question her again.
"What you've told the jury yesterday and today has been after you've taken an oath on the Bible to tell the truth?" Nifong asked.
"Yes, sir."
"Have you told the jury the truth, both yesterday and today, in everything that you've said?"
"Yes, I have."
Nifong had no further questions.
After a five-day trial, the jury deliberated two hours and 40 minutes before reaching a verdict: not guilty.
In a recent interview, Malloy, the defendant, said, "I guess once he sets his mind that he's going to prosecute, there's nothing you can really do. What could you do?"
Starting his career
Nifong, a native of Wilmington and the son of a federal Treasury agent, graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill law school in 1978. He interviewed for prosecutor's jobs in Raleigh, Durham and Greensboro but couldn't get a job. Eager for experience, he told Durham's then-district attorney, Dan Edwards, that he would work for free.
Edwards agreed, and two weeks later he placed Nifong on the payroll. Within two years, Nifong was trying cases in Superior Court, where felonies are resolved.
He liked the courtroom. "When you got in there, it was about winning," he said in a 2005 interview with a News & Observer reporter just before he was sworn in as district attorney.
Defense lawyers trying to squeeze a plea out of a prosecutor often threaten to go to trial. Nifong would happily call their bluff.
"How is that a threat?" Nifong said in the 2005 interview.
It took a lot of preparation and sometimes a little luck to beat Nifong in court, said Lisa Williams, a Durham criminal defense lawyer and former Durham prosecutor.
"If I walked into a courtroom and there has to be a DA in there, I would want to see anyone but Mike Nifong," she said. "His expectation is always that he's going to win."
Norman Williams, who is not related to Lisa Williams, started practicing law in 1965. Over the years, he has fought some tough cases against Nifong.
"He has some equals in Durham, but he has no betters," Williams said. "If you had to pick a DA to run this courthouse, you couldn't find a better person."
By the mid-1990s, Nifong was getting assigned to the county's most serious felonies. In the courtroom, he showed not just a command of the law but a certain art about trial lawyering.
In 1995, he prosecuted Walter Goldston, who was accused of killing a convenience store owner. Nifong sought the death penalty.
Brian Aus was one of Goldston's attorneys. He remembers that in closing arguments, Nifong started talking to the jury about the angles of bullets -- the state thought that Goldston fired as he lay on the floor. Nifong said, "I hate to do this in a suit," Aus recalled. Nifong flopped on the floor to describe the shooting.
"It was something," Aus said.
Goldston was convicted and sentenced to life.
"He's always very polished," said Aus, who has known Nifong for 22 years. "He doesn't rely a lot on notes or stuff. He just gets out there, gets to his point and moves on."
In his prosecutions, Nifong opened up his entire file to defense lawyers -- something the law didn't require until 2004. It was a matter of fairness, he said in the 2005 interview, but it also added to the intimidation factor. He would tell a lawyer what he had and what he was going to do, and then in court he would do it.
"I was very good at what I did, but I was kind of cocky," he said.
In 1999, Nifong was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He endured surgery, radiation and a year of hormone therapy.
After missing months of work, he said in the 2005 interview, he returned less convinced that things were black and white. His illness changed the way he thought about the courtroom.
"What you may lose sight of when all you're worried about is winning ... that's not really what the DA's office is here for," Nifong said. "This is really supposed to be about justice."
At the time, the District Attorney's Office was reeling from a scandal in traffic court. A judge, two prosecutors and a defense lawyer were implicated in a back-hall deal to clear a drunken-driving charge against a dentist.
Then-District Attorney Jim Hardin assigned Nifong to negotiate cases in the troubled court -- an important, if unheralded, assignment. Nifong was regarded as highly ethical, and he seemed a good choice to clean up traffic court.
Moody, demanding
On busy days, lawyers would wait outside Nifong's closed door to negotiate speeding tickets or revoked licenses. At times, those gatherings had the feel of schoolchildren waiting outside the principal's office. Behind the door, Nifong always had the power.
"Working with Mike, you never knew from one day or the other who you'd be dealing with," said Glenn Gray, a lawyer who handled a high volume of traffic cases. "He would curse you, scream at you, call you names over nothing."
Nifong's moods became just part of dealing with him.
"He cannot stand unprepared people," said Aus, the veteran lawyer who has known Nifong for two decades. "He'll go off on you like that. He's the first one to tell you, too, 'Don't bother me right now, I'm not in a good mood.' "
Durham lawyer C. Scott Holmes said Nifong's behavior stemmed from his passion about his cases.
"I have seen him lose his temper and berate attorneys in an unprofessional manner," Holmes said. "But I also have seen him dedicate years of service to the Durham public."
Gray remembers asking Nifong to offer his client a plea that would allow him to get his license back so he could drive to work. Nifong asked Gray, who at the time did a volume business of hundreds of clients, where the client worked. Gray didn't know.
"You don't know what he does? He's your client and you don't know?" Gray remembers Nifong asking, loudly.
Gray knew that lawyers on the other side of the door could hear the tirade. He had heard similar outbursts, sometimes profanity-laced, when other lawyers were in Nifong's office.
When asked in 2005 about traffic court, Nifong said he expects lawyers to be prepared.
"I expect them to be able to answer questions about the case," he said.
In 2005, District Attorney Jim Hardin was made a judge by Gov. Mike Easley, who then picked Nifong to fill the job until the 2006 election. For many at the courthouse, the choice made sense; Nifong had devoted his entire professional life to the office and had been chief assistant for years.
At the ceremony where Hardin and Nifong took their oaths, Hardin jokingly warned the new district attorney that his new job was often thankless. He gave Nifong a gift: a white T-shirt with a bull's-eye on it.
The lacrosse case
On March 13, 2006, members of the Duke lacrosse team gathered at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., a home just across the street from the university's East Campus. By early the next morning, one of two women hired to dance there was saying she had been gang-raped.
Ten days after the party, Nifong's chief assistant got a court order that required 46 members of the team to submit to DNA testing and other identification procedures -- and Duke lacrosse became national news.
Four days after the team gave DNA samples, Nifong granted his first of many on-the-record interviews about the case. He told a News & Observer reporter that he planned to prosecute the case himself. He said he would consider charges against bystanders at the party who did nothing to stop a brutal assault. The interview began a week during which Nifong, by his own accounts, gave more than 50 interviews and spent 40 hours responding to media requests.
In those interviews, Nifong said that when the DNA tests came back, the state would have proof of who raped the woman. The interviews were unusual for Durham prosecutors, who normally avoid talking to reporters on the record out of court.
When asked about his frequent interviews in those early days, Nifong said he has always tried to answer reporters' questions because he believes the public should understand how the courts work.
But the media interest in the lacrosse case was different.
"Back in the days when I started and he was going full tilt, before he got cancer, we didn't have the Court TV coverage," Aus said. "I chalk it up to it was a learning experience for him. ... He was trying to be accommodating, and it just got out of hand. It's not his style to do that."
It was not just his media presence that was new. Behind the scenes, Nifong had staked out an unusual role as the leader of an investigation that had yet to even identify suspects. Typically, police investigate cases and turn them over to prosecutors.
On March 31, Nifong sat with the two main Durham police detectives on the case. The accuser was having trouble identifying her attackers. According to notes taken by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Nifong suggested that the officers have the accuser look at pictures of 46 team members to see whether she remembered seeing them at the party.
The lineup procedure Nifong suggested violated the police department's guidelines, which call for photo lineups to include at least five nonsuspects for every suspect. The guidelines also call for an independent administrator to conduct the lineup, not an investigator in the case.
It was during this lineup, criticized by a defense lawyer as a "multiple choice test," that the accuser picked out Evans, Finnerty, Seligmann and an unindicted fourth player as her attackers.
By early April, Nifong had stopped granting interviews about the case, although he still made occasional offhand, newsworthy comments. Reporters followed him wherever he went through much of April.
Nifong refused to hunker down. Several times, he walked out of the courthouse to a restaurant across the street, braving the gantlet of camera crews that had framed the courthouse in the backdrop of their live shots.
Lawyers for the players also had a hard time getting time with Nifong. Just after Seligmann was indicted April 17, his attorneys tried to show Nifong that they had phone records, sworn statements and photographs that would prove that the player had an alibi. Nifong refused to see them.
Defense on offensive
If the reporters now had to struggle to get a quote out of Nifong, it was much easier with the defense. Lawyers representing the lacrosse players took the offensive. They declared that no rape or sexual assault occurred and marveled at the statements Nifong had made on national television.
Nifong bickered and squabbled with the lawyers.
After lawyer Kirk Osborn asked a judge to remove Nifong from the case, Nifong said, "If I were him, I wouldn't want to be trying the case against me either. ... The best comment I ever heard about Kirk was he was the best-dressed public defender in North Carolina."
At one court hearing, Nifong suggested that attorneys for unindicted team members had put their careers ahead of their clients:
"It looked sometimes over the course of the last few months that some of these attorneys were almost disappointed that their clients didn't get indicted so they could be a part of this spectacle."
The tensions between Nifong and the defense boiled over May 15, a Monday, the day Evans was indicted.
Late on the previous Friday -- after Nifong had left town for the weekend -- defense attorneys called a news conference to denounce a second batch of DNA tests that the prosecutor had ordered. The lawyers said Nifong was persecuting innocents on the word of a liar.
That Monday, Nifong stormed out of his office, blowing past the reporters in the hallway. He marched to the judges' chambers, where he bumped into one of Evans' attorneys. He lit into the lawyer, his voice carrying across the sixth floor. He made liberal use of profanity, including the word "mother[expletive]."
By the end of the day, the defense had stolen the story line. Just after Evans was charged with rape, he stood before dozens of reporters and declared on national television that he and his teammates were innocent.
"You have all been told some fantastic lies," Evans said.
On defense: talent
Nifong's opposition in the case is formidable. Rick Gammon, a prominent Raleigh defense lawyer, said the defense includes some of the best legal talent anywhere.
"Joe [Cheshire] and Wade [Smith] are probably two of the best trial lawyers in the state and probably in this country," Gammon said.
Cooney, the Charlotte defense lawyer, predicted that the case will involve more research by lawyers and investigators than many capital murder cases.
"There's a heck of a lot of preparation," he said. "You're going to say something, and somebody is going to be able to pull out ... something that shows it's not true. The first liar loses, and you don't want to be the first liar."
If Nifong is elected district attorney next month, what the people of Durham and the nation think about him -- his media statements, his angry outbursts, his wisecracks in court and his seemingly unwavering belief in the accuser -- will not matter in the Duke lacrosse case.
"The only people I have to persuade will be the 12 sitting on the jury, and if you want to know how I am going to do that, you will need to attend the trial," he told a Newsweek reporter in an e-mail message.
If Nifong's statements and actions in the lacrosse case, and indeed his actions over his 28-year career, are an indication, he is not likely to drop the case.
Lisa Williams, the defense lawyer, said Nifong is sometimes slow to come to decisions -- but then rarely wavers.
"No matter what the tide of public opinion says, if he's made a decision, he's going to stand by it," she said. "People either like him very much or hate him very much, and the other thing about him is he doesn't really care which one you are."
(Staff writer Joseph Neff and news researchers Brooke Cain and David Raynor contributed to this report.) Staff writer Benjamin Niolet can be reached at 956-2404 or bniolet@newsobserver.com. Staff writer Joseph Neff and news researchers Brooke Cain and David Raynor contributed to this report.
MICHAEL BYRON NIFONG
Age: 56
Family: Married to Cy Gurney, a regional administrator of the state's Guardian Ad Litem program, a state advocacy program for abused and neglected children. They have a teenage son, and Nifong has an adult daughter from a previous marriage.
The name Nifong (NYE-fong), often mispronounced by national television reporters, is of German and Swiss origin.
Nifong was born in Wilmington. Both of his parents went to Duke University. He got his undergraduate and law degrees from UNC-Chapel Hill. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ELECTION
Nifong is the Democratic nominee for district attorney. He faces a challenge in November from write-in candidate Steve Monks and County Commissioner Lewis Cheek.
What's at stake: In 2003, his salary was $87,082. When Gov. Mike Easley appointed him district attorney, he began earning $133,082.
Lacrosse -- and specifically Nifong's handling of the case -- dominated the Democratic primary for district attorney. Nifong faced Keith Bishop, a lawyer, and Freda Black, a former prosecutor. Throughout the campaign, Black and Bishop hammered Nifong on his statements about the case and questioned whether his statements in national news media brought unfavorable attention to Durham.
Nifong won the race with 45 percent of the vote, and with no Republican opponents, it appeared he had won the job. He vowed to move forward with the case.
After the primary, more of the state's case became public, either through defense motions or news reports, and opposition to Nifong grew.
Some who were unhappy with Nifong banded together, circulated a petition and collected thousands of signatures to place Cheek on the ballot.
Cheek announced that if he were elected, he would not serve. A political action committee has been collecting money to have Cheek elected anyway. If Cheek wins but declines to serve, the governor would appoint a district attorney. What that would mean for the lacrosse case is impossible to predict. ON THE DUKE LACROSSE CASE
Nifong believes the accuser's story and believes the indicted players are guilty. He wrote in an April statement to reporters that he had a duty to pursue the case.
"If the prosecutor personally believes in a defendant's guilt, it would be a violation of his moral responsibility to the victim and to his community not to prosecute a case because doing so was not popular, or because he was worried that he might not win at trial," he said in an April news release.
Did I miss anything? :-)
I haven't even signed in until a few days ago. But finally almost finished painting the house.
I'll be catching up and back to speed in no time...
Great to have you back!
But finally almost finished painting the house.
Now you can brush up on all the latest in the Duke Rape Hoax.
I would have finished it sooner but even though my husband would offer to help, I know he does not really have a death wish.
Anytime we work together I finally throw up my arms and say "Just shut up, just do what I tell you to do. Why I do it this way is not important...just know it is the right way. Don't you want to go play golf?"
LOL, as only a loving wife can say, of course.
Here's something you may have missed. Check out the timeline: http://www.freerepublic.com/~darbymcgill/
TJN zeroes in on Linda Williams and the N&O. Good read and links.
I agree. And the boys will have been shown a side of life that will essentially take the joy out of their youth.
These people, Nifong and the rest of the gang, are doing this because they CAN, and what a face of evil they show in so doing.
Dirty, rotten bastards all of them.
It seems like Durham is working overtime to kill the golden goose. Without Duke, what does Durham have? Nothing.
No Demo-rat run town is ever going to "get clean". Unless Durham changes its political fundamentals, it will continue down the same slippery slope that turned New Orleans into what it is today.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/061006
The N & O's hypocritical "fairness" policy
I'd post what I think, but you already did.
:> Hi there, ltc.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061006/ap_on_sp_co_ne/duke_lacrosse_1
Blue Devils lacrosse moving forward
By AARON BEARD, AP Sports Writer 31 minutes ago
The Duke men's lacrosse team is taking another step back from the rape scandal that led to the shutdown of the program last season.
The Blue Devils will play in an exhibition lacrosse tournament in Rockville Centre, N.Y., on Saturday. It will be the first time the team has participated in an off-campus game since rape allegations against three players led the university to cancel the remainder of the season in April.
Duke begins play in the Long Island Fall Lacrosse Tournament with a two-hour exhibition against Towson, followed by hourlong scrimmages against Hofstra and Division II New York Institute of Technology. The tournament will raise money for charity.
Coach John Danowski, who left Hofstra after 21 seasons to take over in Durham in July, said the players haven't seemed too focused on the significance of representing the university on the field again.
"We're in the middle of midterms, and the guys have been grinding in the classroom," Danowski said Friday. "I've sensed they've been a little distracted by school relative to the event of this weekend.
"I'd like to see what the reaction is going to be at the airport and on the bus. My expectations will be some giddiness and excitement on the bus, which would be normal."
Duke returned to practice on Labor Day, the beginning of a five-week training camp that ends with this weekend's tournament. That workout marked the first time the team had practiced on campus since March 27, the day before the university suspended the team from play in the wake of the rape allegations.
The case began when a woman told police she was raped at a March team party where she was hired to perform as a stripper. All but one of the lacrosse team's players gave DNA samples to investigators and were considered suspects for weeks. A grand jury indicted three on charges of rape, kidnapping and sexual offense: Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.
Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong eventually cleared the rest of the players of wrongdoing. But by then, the school had canceled the rest of the season, and coach Mike Pressler resigned. In addition, the university faced widespread criticism of the program and the players' behavior, which included alcohol-related criminal charges.
After an internal investigation and the players agreeing to a new code of conduct that they wrote, the school reinstated the program in June.
"I wasn't here last year," Danowski said. "So to me, I'm just excited to see whether some of the things they've been doing the past five weeks have taken hold. My enthusiasm for Saturday is probably a lot different."
Melanie Sill and Linda Williams getting their brains beat out on the blog today...
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=march_25_interview&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments
Comment from: david [Visitor]
10/06/06 at 22:29 We can disagree about whether it was appropriate at the time for the N&0 to leave out the accuser's comments about Kim Roberts in the original article.
What is clear now, however, is that the N&0 has an obligation to justice to report the FULL STORY of what the accuser told your reporter, considering what has happened since then.
There are no reasons to continue to hide the truth, especially since you are likely to receive a subpoena to produce the information if a trial occurs.
It's time to come clean and put out a complete account of the interview, since it was one of the few the accuser gave and it WAS on the record.
Enough feeble excuses!
FANTASTIC!!!!!!
At 4:51 PM, October 06, 2006, Anonymous said...
OH MY GOSH -did anyone see the show on vh1 last night about north carolina strippers who do porn hip hop videos- if these boys had hired a scores stripper or professional stripper this would never have happened- these north carolina girls were so illiterate -most were unwed mothers who had no high school education and just wanted money -one said "i would do anything for the green" they admitted they would get naked or have sex with a hip hop star to be in a hip hop video ...one can only imagine what they woud do to be able to sue some what they would see as rich white boys from duke
At 7:24 PM, October 06, 2006, Anonymous said...
Close watchers of the deeply racist, corrupt black Durham power structure will be not be suprised by this comment below from Judge Bushfan.
Bushfan is in charge of the Durham courts. And had previously let a suspected murderer and serial criminal out on $10,000 bail, where he promptly killed again.
Bushfan would have let this suspected serial murderer out on the streets again for a 2nd time but she (and Nifong) are getting community complaints for coddling violent criminals simply because they are black.
Durham man arrested on murder charge http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/495376.html
"Chief District Judge Elaine Bushfan rejected pleas from Odom's attorney for a reduced bond.
"Even to me, someone who has empathy for the plight of the black man in America ... this is out of control," Bushfan said to Odom after rattling off about two dozen other charges against Odom in addition to the murder counts.
"At some point, someone's got to say, 'You need to stop.' If you can't stop yourself, we can."
Apparently the price of racial solidarity is two murders and a dozen felonies.
At 9:39 PM, October 06, 2006, Anonymous said...
I hope you all are aware of the statement posted on the N&O blog by Editor Linda Williams. It concerns the first interview with the accuser last Spring. Please note the references to what was with-held from the public.
"The reporters interview with the woman was brief, an encounter that lasted a few minutes outside the womans parents home in Durham. Only two things the woman said at that time did not make publication. She provided a description of the then-unidentified second woman who had also been hired to dance at the lacrosse team party. She also offered an opinion about the other womans actions that night. The latter was clearly an opinion, offered without any substantiation. Omitting from published news articles unsubstantiated opinions is a standard, normal part of the journalistic process. The description of the second woman proved to be accurate when Kim Roberts exposed herself at a later date. That description was withheld in March, not because of doubts about its accuracy, but because it was deemed irrelevant since we had no other information to tell readers about the second woman."
******
"She offered an opinion about the woman's actions that night."
*******
Remember in some of her early statements, the accuser claimed Kim assisted in the "rape" and/or robbed her.
She may well have told this THAT DAY to the N&O and they withheld it. This at a time when they printed every angry neighbor's negative opinion of the boys.They shaped that story.
Bloggers are livid at the N&O Editors Blog. One commented at the Liestopper blog..
"Imagine how different the second half of March and the first half of April would have unfolded if the discussion had included the AV's charge that Kim robbed her and assisted in the rape.
It's like a giant wrench in all the stereotypes that drove that period."
If you are as enraged as we are...call the N&O and let Melanie Sills and Linda Williams know.
Demand they release the details!
Post on the Editors Blog! Hold their feet to the fire!
http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/05/general-topics-open.html
"This entire episode is Shameful, and the N&O's conduct in perpetuating and fueling the HOAX with it's abysmal early coverage is equally shameful. Do not add further to the shame by hiding the accuser's accusations against her fellow dancer."
Is The News & Observer deliberately and hypocritically concealing pertinent evidence that the voters of Durham County, North Carolina should be aware of before Election Day?
In a word...YES!
Should people buy such a newspaper?
NO!
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/061006
this "Welcome to Durham" has become legendary on Duke's campus. The older students have been talking about it since their freshman year. There is some incredibly incendiary stuff in the film. Once upon a time, pre-Crystal's mess, weezie jr met one of the main players in the film at the Cook Out (yes, there were plenty of other kids there, too) and he told the girls it was very intense getting the film in the can, so to speak. Talk about a field trip to the zoo! Just head over to the Cook Out any old time.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=319
Interview with the director and producer of Welcome to Durham
Brown: Okay, Courtney, what was the most shocking thing, I guess, that maybe people felt the documentary reveals, the things that they didn't know?
Conrad: A lot of people didn't know really anything. They didn't know that these kids. A lot of kids are involved in this and the fact that they do have guns, the fact that a lot of them are shot, I think they were pretty shocked to see the kids.
Brown: And when you say kids, how old are we talking about?
Conrad: We're talking like 10, 11, 12, 13; you know, teenagers, mostly teenagers. And that's the big thing about our gang problem. Like we have so-called OGs here, and it ain't like California where they're older; a lot of these OGs are like 17 years old.
Brown: And an OG is?
Conrad: Original Gangster.
Brown: Which means that.
Conrad: That they run their situation, like they're set in their neighborhood, so they're in charge. So you basically have got a teenager telling other people younger than them, to do things. So that's like the most shocking thing that they're so young. It's not really older guys.
http://www.unctv.org/bif/transcripts/2003/...script1919.html
This should scare the sh*t out of Durham residents! 17 year old OGs! This is serious
lots of children (yes CHILDREN) are going to die. Its only going to get worse
a whole lot fing worse
[credit: FODU, Liestoppers, Gaynor] Never a dull moment in the Bull City- Where Great Things happen!
Saying you're innocent doesn't make it so
This is in response to Rodney Turner's letter of Sept. 19
I don't believe Turner has read the paper enough to know the facts. The 40 players not indicted have not come forward to report anything. They will, however, have plenty to say when they are called as witnesses.
This presents a big problem for the defense.
Yes, I have read about the three rightfully accused defendants having sworn their innocence. What I have not read is where anyone at any time has ever been charged with perjury for swearing untruthfully their innocence. If all the people in prison who have sworn they were innocent were turned loose, how many people would we have left in prison? Anyone who thinks a defense attorney will put his client on the witness stand to proclaim his innocence and be cross examined by DA Mike Nifong is dreaming. It will never happen.
Turner, like the rest of us, does not know all the evidence, He does not know what evidence went before the grand jury nor has he read one word of the more than 2,400 pages of evidence Nifong has turned over to the defense attorneys. When Turner says "There is not one piece of evidence that supports a rape," he speaks incorrectly and without sufficient knowledge
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. It allows a person to speak their mind without speaking the truth.
JIMMY D. HAYNES October 7, 2006
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
My apologies for not posting this yesterday when it came available...
http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/06/News/Pace-Of.Lax.Case.Raises.Questions-2336819.shtml?norewrite200610070618&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com
Lawyers in the lacrosse case have expressed concern about the speed of the progression of the case.
Pace of lax case raises questions
News Analysis
Andrew Beach
Posted: 10/6/06
More than five months have passed since three members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team were charged with rape, but the case is still in its preliminary stages.
The defendants and the University have remained in the national spotlight for months, as the controversy and media frenzy surrounding the case continue.
With the reputations of both players and school on the line, the pace of the trial is a significant concern for the campus and community.
"You have an impression that it is taking a long time, and it is," said Robert Ekstrand, a lawyer who represented 35 lacrosse players this past spring, none of whom were indicted.
Some other people have questioned whether the defendants in the lacrosse case are receiving the speedy trial they deserve. They have also noted that the right to a speedy trial protects a defendant from unnecessary personal damages before a case is tried.
Although the alleged crime occurred on the night of March 13, the case will likely not go to trial until Spring 2007-nearly a year after the investigation and accompanying media coverage began.
"The discovery phase is taking an inordinate amount of time," Ekstrand said.
He added that the state's investigative file, which must be provided to the defendants in a speedy manner, has been a long time coming.
"There have been sizeable installments of documents month after month," he said of the thousands of pages of statements, audio transcripts and other components of the file.
Neil Vidmar, professor of law, said, however, that the timeline for the trial so far is typical of cases like this.
"The wheels of justice grind slowly for a reason," Vidmar said.
The complicated preliminary components of the case are only intensified by disputes between prosecution and the defense that must be settled before the case can continue.
"You really need to be inside it to see how complex it is," Vidmar said.
He added that it is difficult for people to understand that for the lawyers to do their job properly, they have to spend a lot of time on the investigation.
As long as the lawyers on both sides are active in moving the case forward, it is as speedy as it can get, Vidmar said.
And even though the case is one of the most high-profile in the state right now, it does not get special permission to move ahead of other cases.
"It has to take its place in line," said James Coleman, professor of law.
Additional circumstances have also delayed the pace of the trial.
One reason is that the original judges appointed to the case were only temporary.
"They did not want to set rules for the case that would bind the final judge," Ekstrand said.
He added that the appointment of Judge W. Osmond Smith as the single and final judge of the case is a sign that things will begin to move much more smoothly from now on.
Even so, some lawyers said it is hard to predict exactly how this case will turn out in the upcoming months.
"We don't know how long this case is going to take," Ekstrand said. "We just know how long discovery is taking."
And time is not the only factor affecting the case and the community.
"There are so many dimensions to it," he said. "We do not yet know the full reach of the case. But it will be significant."
Link to new thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1715338/posts?page=2
Thanks for the info.
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.