[Jezebelle]

You brought up the details voluntarily. I simply asked a few questions to fill in a couple blanks. But if you don't want to answer questions, I suggest you not bring up your personal experience to begin with. It's kind of Nifongish to only want to tell certain parts of the story.

You made a claim that corruption took place, but you didn't specify in any way what form that corruption took. It simply sounds like things didn't go your way until the very end, and you attribute that to corruption. That's an easy charge to make, but if you have nothing to back it up, it's just hot air.

I've already said I believe you, so there should be nothing traumatic about our discussion that you didn't bring on yourself voluntarily.

Nothing you've said is "evidence". It's opinion based on your view of your own unfortunate episode and this case, and your opinion consists of broad, sweeping statements, nothing more. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but please, don't try to pass it off as fact or evidence of being rampant throughout the country. There are thousands upon thousands of criminal prosecutions every year. Two cases do not make a national crisis, especially when one of them was primarily a civil case.

BTW, I was not asking you out of amusement, simply the need for clarification on the corruption claim that you made and still haven't backed up. But that's fine.

[Fido969]

You can't read my case file, but you have plenty of information about the Duke case. And I said that the Duke case bears out, based on information YOU have, all of my complaints I have about the court process.

And Nifong is not some out-of-control Lone Ranger. He is a lot closer to the "mainstream" of the legal system than the court apologists are comfortable admitting. The apologists will say that this is an isolated incident, and when the case is over they will say "See - justice was served! Everything is OK now!"

Others of us know better.