Posted on 10/27/2006 5:00:15 AM PDT by abb
Monks counts himself in for DA
By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun
October 28, 2006 12:09 am
DURHAM -- Write-in district attorney candidate Steve Monks offered hypothetical statistics Friday to show he might be able to pull more votes in the Nov. 7 election than current chief prosecutor Mike Nifong or County Commissioner Lewis Cheek.
If Cheek threw his support behind Monks, then Monks might capture 52 percent of the ballots compared with Nifong's 46 percent, the statistics indicated.
For such a result to actually occur, Monks would have to get a quarter of the votes that otherwise would have gone to Cheek, he conceded.
In addition, Monks said he would need to draw 15 percent of undecided voters while Nifong drew only 10 percent.
Monks presented the hypothetical situation during a news conference aimed at consolidating two anti-Nifong camps -- his and Cheeks' -- into one.
The oust-Nifong factions are motivated largely by dissatisfaction over his handling of the Duke University lacrosse rape case.
"I have concluded that it is improbable that either Lewis Cheek or I will prevail if both of us stay in the race," Monks said. "The only real question is, who should withdraw?"
Monks said he would step aside if it could be established that Cheek had a better chance of drawing more votes, and if Cheek would promise to serve if elected.
But Cheek, whose name will be on the ballot anyway, has said he would not take the district attorney's job because of responsibilities to his law partners and employees. In an interview this week, he vowed not to change his mind.
So if Cheek won the election, the governor would have to appoint a replacement for him.
"I would not have undertaken this write-in campaign had Mr. Cheek agreed to serve if elected, and I will still withdraw my candidacy if Mr. Cheek publicly agrees to serve if elected," Monks said.
"The idea of 'vote Cheek -- recall Nifong' is interesting," he added. "However, it is unpalatable to me and many other Durham voters. People are very conflicted. Many want to replace the current DA, but they don't want the governor to appoint their DA. They want to vote for their DA."
Monks, a Houston native who has lived in Durham four years, is chairman of the local Republican Party but is running for office on an unaffiliated basis.
A recently released WRAL/News & Observer poll of 600 likely voters showed him at the bottom of the three-way pack, with only 2 percent of the ballots. The same poll gave Nifong 46 percent and Cheek 28 percent, with 24 percent of the people surveyed undecided.
But Monks on Friday unveiled another poll of 1,000 likely voters that he said was conducted by John L. Barker Strategies of Union County.
That poll, reportedly finished before Monks began a media campaign, showed Nifong with 27 percent of the votes, Cheek with 25 percent and Monks with 22 percent. Twenty-six percent of the people surveyed were undecided.
"If the real objective of the Cheek campaign is to replace Mr. Nifong, they will withdraw and support my campaign ...," said Monks. "It is exceedingly important to replace Mr. Nifong. There is reason to get together and unite."
But leaders of the Cheek movement were having nothing of it Friday.
Jackie Brown, a Cheek consultant, said she was so put off by Monks' remarks that she canceled a meeting between the two camps that had been scheduled for Friday afternoon.
"Any further discussions are meaningless," she said.
Beth Brewer, chairperson for the Cheek faction, agreed.
"We're staying right where we are," she said. "I don't think Steve Monks can win. I don't think his campaign will do what our campaign is designed to do."
According to Brewer, too much has been made of the fact that a vote for Cheek would be a vote for an unknown, since Cheek won't serve.
"I believe our governor would not appoint someone who would disappoint us or embarrass him," she said.
Brewer also blasted Monks' hypothetical statistics as meaningless.
"I'm an accountant," she said. "Anybody can go through the numbers and come up with any numbers they want."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-782629.html
Astouding.
And to believe that he did call her to ask her about the Ecstasy and never asked her about the rape is incredulously preposterous.
He is insane. And I am serious. He has a personality disorder, IMO.
I am hard pressed to believe that the citizens of Durham are going to AFFIRM this DA come Election Day.
If they do, in the face of ALL the things we have read and seen published, maybe what people say about Durham is true.
It's ridiculous to say that if you talk to a defendant and he tells you he's innocent you can be called as a witness. First of all, the fact that a defendant tells someone he's innocent isn't evidence. The jury already knows the defendant is claiming he's innocent otherwise there wouldn't be a trial.
Second, discussions between DAs, defense lawyers and defendants go on all the time. For example, plea bargaining is common - even during a trial. According to Nifong one side could call the other - for example the defense could call a prosecutor to the stand and make him tell the jury he offered the defendant a lesser charge. Or the prosecutor could call the defense lawyer to say that he had his client think about pleading guilty to a lesser charge. All plea negotiations are impossible in Nifong's world. The fact is that these conversations go on all the time and they aren't admissable in front of a jury for public policy reasons. The system wants to facilitate cooperation and communication between lawyers.
"I've had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids," District Attorney Mike Nifong said."
This is a fascinating statement. Think about it.
Yeah, it's comical. Liefong has been the lead investigator almost since the case began, but he's never spoken to the start witness.
Okay. Sure.
Maybe the Durham natives whose jobs disappeared due to the changing face of industry there should have learned some new skills instead of just standing there like a deer in the headlights watching it happen.
Video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2134726n
Duke Rape Case Update
H.P. Thomas, an ex-manager at a strip club where the accuser danced, says that two weeks after the alleged rape she performed normally, despite complaining of severe pain to police and hospital staff.
Well I trail you by only a few years and can confirm all you say. And, lord help me, I got the Sgt. Carter reference right away.
"The newspaper does not name people listed on police reports as victims of sexual assaults."
They still can't get it right. Now they're hiding behind the fact that the police listed her as a "victim".
Hoving lived in Durham in the late 70's and early 80's, I have always defended Durham from the critiicism and snobbery from those in Raleigh and Chapel Hill. I've already stopped doing that and if Durham doesn't have the sense to throw out Nifong then I'll have been pushed firmly into the other camp.
ltc, that could explain a lot about the pictures. I just did not remember reading that back in April. It would be hard to believe that with 30 to 40 young men there that at least one video camera would not have been present.
Thank heaven the facts are coming out. These young men will be vindicated but the pain for the families, the community will take a long long time to heal.
My thought when I read that statement was where are her children that someone has to inquire about her seeing them. Sounds to me like she can only see them occasionally. Maybe restricted to certain days of the week and limited hours. Just my thoughts.
And what about the Fonger being a week late in turning over the discovery? What's that all about? Is Smif just gonna sit still and take it?
Forgot the hat tip: Liestoppers.
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.