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.
"I would be interested in hearing from prosecutors on whether Nifong committed malpractice by not assessing the FA's credibility first hand"
http://www.ncbar.com/rules/rules.asp
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
(snip)
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
Comment
[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate; the prosecutor's duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.
Precisely how far the prosecutor is required to go in this direction is a matter of debate and varies in different jurisdictions. See the ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function. A systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.
[2] The prosecutor represents the sovereign and, therefore, should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of government powers, such as in the selection of cases to prosecute.
During trial, the prosecutor is not only an advocate, but he or she also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all.
In our system of criminal justice, the accused is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt. With respect to evidence and witnesses, the prosecutor has responsibilities different from those of a lawyer in private practice;
the prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of available evidence known to him or her that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment. Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused.
[6] Paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor's extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused.
Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is intended to restrict the statements that a prosecutor may make which comply with Rule 3.6(b) or 3.6(c).
[7] Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3, which relate to responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work for or are associated with the lawyer's office. Paragraph (f)
reminds the prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in connection with the unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In addition, paragraph (f) requires a prosecutor
to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements, even when such persons are not under the direct supervision of the prosecutor. Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law-enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.
REMEMBER to TURN ON THE VOLUME on your PC to enjoy the sounds.
THANKS to LIESTOPPERS!, they were the first to put up a link.
www.Liestoppers.com
Bingo
Got to love these N&O headlines. The stormy DA? How about an unstable DA? A bully DA? A local petty tyrant DA?
Ping
Well, anyone who knows the families of the accuseds knows they aren't lettig Mike get away with this. The train wreck in store for Mikey will not be pretty.
What a liar. An overconfident liar. I'm not sure Nifong knows who he's dealing with. He comes across as an even bigger prima donna than I thought him to be.
A lot of people want a front row seat to this one.
I know I would do more than hold a grudge. I would spend my last penny making sure the man never gets inside a courtroom again in order to do this to another family without the same resources.
Their kids have been scared for life and they got the money to fight. So they will probably do so. But you know, they might be able to get a book or movie deal. That would go a long way in defraying the cost of legal action against Nifong, Durham, the media and that lying drug addicted hooker. Hollywood would have a hard time writing a script with villain as bad as Nifong.
I understand that view and as I said, it probably would be mine. But I know people are different and people with a lot of money are often motivated by making money.
I could also imagine someone whose kids escape this mess would figure if Durham elects this guy they deserve him and parents of Duke students who are too stupid to learn the lesson of this and continue to send their kids to Duke and Durham also deserve what they get. They might well want to spend their money other ways than in Durham or in the court system going after a loser like Nifong. There is a large supply of them out there.
Again I could see either point of view among the parents.
SUNDAY,
OCTOBER 01, 2006
The Fluffer That Wasn't
In today's much anticipated Fong Fluffer that wasn't, Ben Niolet of the News and Observer offers a front page article entitled, "At Center of Duke lacrosse case, a stormy DA who likes to fight." Mr. Niolet's article examines the man behind the hoax and while he does offer some words of appreciation for Mr. Nifong, he also enlightens us as to the mood swings, gamesmanship and lack of substance that characterize the menace to justice and his current obsession.
Most notably, Mr. Niolet confirms that the Hijacker of the Hoax has never spoken directly to the accuser about what she alleges transpired that evening.
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....Although Nifong has never heard the woman tell her story, he believes her."
As incredible as this may seem, we now have confirmation the Mr. Nifong's theories, which have ranged from long sleeves to condoms to date rape drugs to a five minute attack, have not come from the words or statements of the accuser but rather from the menace himself.
[end excerpt]
Oh yea..! Real important ! And unhearalded ,to say the least!
Its amazing how a hot headed incompetent manages to survive (and thrive, even) in a corrupt beauracratic environment...I mean, he was no shining eagle , and he got demoted, and yet here he is again...a travesty..
Letter to Voters - http://mikenifong.com/pdf/LetterToVoters_Nov.pdf
Campaign donations to Nifong - http://mikenifong.com/campaignsupport.php
Nifong Kick-off Rally today, October 1 - http://mikenifong.com/campaignrally.php
And a visit from a familiar face (hint: Come Get Some!) http://mikenifong.com/kickoff/kickoff10.php
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.