Posted on 10/27/2006 5:00:15 AM PDT by abb
Nifong to give up more documents to defense
By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun October 26, 2006 9:44 pm
DURHAM -- District Attorney Mike Nifong today will give defense lawyers about 2,000 additional pages of information about the Duke University lacrosse rape case -- the largest single batch of documentation he has surrendered so far.
Nifong turned over some 1,800 pages of information in one previous court hearing and another 615 pages last month.
After they receive today's batch, defense attorneys will have roughly 4,500 pages of documentation about the case that has polarized Durham, brought intense national publicity to the community and sparked a movement to oust Nifong as chief prosecutor.
In addition to paperwork, defense lawyers will receive 3 DVDs from Nifong today. Among other things, they reportedly contain e-mails generated by Duke students and lacrosse players.
The information will be surrendered in a hearing before Judge Osmond Smith, who was specially assigned by the N.C. Supreme Court to shepherd the controversial lacrosse case to completion.
Three suspects in the case, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans, are not required to be present today. They are free under $100,000 bonds as they await a trial that is expected to occur next year.
The three are accused of raping and sodomizing an exotic dancer during an off-campus lacrosse party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
All have professed their innocence.
Other than the surrender of information by Nifong, no major developments are expected during today's hearing.
"I don't think anyone knows exactly what will happen, but I don't believe there will be much to it," said one lawyer, asking not to be identified.
Critical defense motions in the case have yet to be heard, but they will not be argued today.
Among other things, those motions accuse police of misleading a judge to obtain a search warrant, and of devising an unconstitutional photo lineup -- a lineup that allegedly was too suggestive because it included only pictures of Duke lacrosse players.
Several national television pundits, along with a host of Internet chatters, have blasted Nifong for allegedly rushing to judgment in the case and getting the three suspects indicted on insufficient evidence.
In addition, the lacrosse incident is responsible for an anti-Nifong movement in the Nov. 7 election.
Voters are being urged to cast their ballots for County Commissioner Lewis Cheek as part of an effort to recall Nifong.
However, Cheek has said he would not serve as district attorney if elected, meaning the governor would have to choose a replacement for him.
Another anti-Nifong faction is led by local Republican Party Chairman Steve Monks, who is running for the chief prosecutor's seat on an unaffiliated write-in basis.
Monks said in an interview this week that a combined oust-Nifong effort would be better than two fragmented ones.
"It is probable that one of us has to withdraw," he said. "It has to happen. Someone has to be the frontrunner for the anti-Nifong movement. Otherwise, Mike will continue to be DA?. I can't scream from the highest mountain loudly enough that we need a combined effort."
And Charlotte Woods, a campaign leader for Monks, said she had told Cheek "a multiplicity of times" that Monks would withdraw from the race if Cheek agreed to serve as district attorney if elected.
"We have made it plain over and over again," she said. "We've told him and told him."
But Cheek said Thursday that, "Service as DA is not an option for me."
He said he made it clear earlier that responsibilities to partners and employees prevented him from leaving his private law firm
"Nothing has changed," he added.
Meanwhile, Nifong said Thursday that he continued to stand by the rape case, and he denied he was responsible for polarizing the community.
"This particular case has not divided the community," he said. "It has pointed to divisions that already existed. It is a signal to us that we need to address these underlying divisions."
Nifong would not be specific, but he apparently referred to town-gown issues and racial issues, among others.
The accuser in the rape case is black. The three suspects are white.
"Another prosecutor might make the case go away, but he can't make the underlying issues go away," said Nifong.
The district attorney, who has been a prosecutor in Durham for 27 years and head of his office since April 2005, said he wasn't withering under a storm of adverse criticism about the lacrosse incident.
"It's the difference between character and reputation," he said. "Character is what you are. Reputation is what people say you are. As long as you know who you are, you don't have to worry over what people say about you. ?
"I might be better off if I wasn't DA," Nifong acknowledged. "It certainly would be less stressful. But this is a path I have chosen to take in my life. I'm seeing some of the not-so-fun part of the job right now, but you can't take a job and just do it when it's easy and fun. URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-782289.html
I can go back and look and I will, but off the bat, does anyone remember who first reported the email?
Top Suspects off the top of my head:
Linwood Wilson
Mark Gottlieb
ADA Couch (he fits in there somewhere)
Chalmers and/or Baker
Hinman
Nifong by default since it was done for his benefit, even if he did not come out and say...
"We all just cried when we heard it was (son). We knew he couldn't have done it, but our hands were tied."
Typical. I think in future "to Brodhead" may become a verb to describe this type of thing.
" Brodhead has no excuse for being a coward. Nifong has no excuse for being a race-baiting bully. The accusers have no excuse for lying, and race baiting. L.E. has no excuse for remaining silent (and they are)."
That says it plain as day. . .
If Brodhead had any common sense, he would have directed the legal counsel for Duke to conduct an investigation and submit a recommendation to him. He should NEVER had gotten personally involved in the investigation.
There are times in police investigations where some spectacular crime is committed, but the Chief of Police or the Sheriff will not comment on it. They don't want to get subpoened to court to testify because that is what the officers and deputies are hired to do.
refreshing my memory:
According to the warrant:
On 3/27 Gottlieb was contacted by a confidential source who provided a copy of the infamous email.
Do we know for a fact that the email was legit? Or was it a work of fiction?
In other words, "You rich white boys quit exploiting poor women. Exploit rich women instead." (John Kerry??)
Let's see:
1. The Duke community was OFFENDED and said so PUBLICALLY when they thought the lacrosse three had raped Mangum.
2. Brodhead claims IN PRIVATE [That meeting was not open to the public was it?] that he is virtually certain a rape did not happen. Well why isn't he and the Duke community saying that IN PUBLIC. It is a cheap stunt to say that to a bunch of parents who he is trying to keep sending him money.
3. Nifong did not cause the coverage of this case. Nifong reacted to it. Nifong saw the 88 ect and saw a political opportunity. It was created IN LARGE PART by the Duke faculty and Brodhead based soley on their bias world view.
4. Finally a few questions, did anyone ask Brodhead if it is standard Duke policy to advise students being investigated for serious crimes to talk to the police but not their parent nor attorneys? Did any one ask the Brodhead why Duke allowed police on campus to bother student who had obtain representation?
Whoops, left important suspects (who has something to gain?) out
William Bell
The COMMITTEE
For example, last year the feminist faculty members at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania brought male and female strippers to campus to "celebrate sex workers." I don't remember seeing anyone on the Duke faculty condemning that outrage."
LOL - Oh man, wait until THAT gets brought up in a civil trial! Duke players: "Hey, we only did what other colleges do. We invited them to the party to celebrate sex workers!"
The real irony in the statement that Nifong convinced everyone that a crime had committed is that the academy was at one time a place where authority was not just blanketly accepted. And you are right because it fit their world view, the just accepted what Nifong said as gospel.
And as I just said above, it is a cheap stunt to tell a group of parents privately what they want to hear, Brodhead being virtually sure a raped did not happen, but not publically use the clout of Duke to demand that these charges be dropped and these defendants exoerated by a statement of the DA.
The reason they believed Nifong is that they wanted this to be true oh so badly. As you reference, it confirms their world view and give them a case to cite to forever as affirmation that white males, especially athletes, should not be entitled to a college education because of "privilege" from generations ago. To the radical academics, "truth" as you and I understand it is irrelevant to their crackpot theories. The fact that this whole debacle is a pack of lies will mean nothing to them. That is why Brodhead and his ilk keep referring to "whatever they did was bad enough" because as far as they are concerned, white males are a nuisance and no more can be expected of them.
Look at the numbers of males in college today and it is startling how the numbers of males have diminished (I believe it is around 40% now) -- it is an unfriendly and unwelcoming place. Ironically, Duke's ratio of women to men are much better than a lot of schools.
If Brodhead has truly changed his mind, then let him to the honest thing to make up for it :
Go to NCCU and tell those there face to face that there was no rape, the whole thing was a hoax from the start, and that the players are innocent.
He owes his own students this much.
In fact, he can also join in a call for Nifong to be recused, and for the Feds to insure the civil rights of the accused.
Waiting . . .
I was doing a bit more reviewing and saw that the search warrant dated 3/16 mentioned electronic data devices, and memos, etc.
It is very possible they found that email prior to the 27th when Gottlieb said a "confidential source" gave it to him.
Maybe Gottlieb is telling the truth (for once). That confidential source could be anyone.
Who has the most to gain?
When exactly did Nifong take over the investigation.
Who exactly would have access to what was seized on the 16th? Official and unofficial access.
Are there any connections between anyone in the Duke IT Dept and the DA's office? Would they message remain on a server? I truly do not know.
Always more questions than answers.
Nifong and Gottlieb are high on the list, but I cannot discount the Durham Power Brokers.
Nifong took over the investigation.
Baker spoke for Chalmers.
Two very odd actions in the same case.
"sick leave" sometime in July = 30-day residential rehab??
I've heard rumors regarding Gottlieb's whereabouts, nothing substantiated.
Premise 1
Email is discovered prior to the date Gottlieb states in warrant.
The case is in danger of going away because 95% of LE are of the opinion it is a bogus charge.
They have to get it out there.
At that point, who has the most to gain besides Nifong?
White men gang rape poor black woman.
Perhaps the Committee? Didn't the Committee endorse Black?Who else can gain power? Bell? Baker? Durham is corrupt....
Maybe Nifong fought back playing it to his advantage as we saw when he went to NCCU.
Just brainstroming....
He did a Foley.
Or Foley did a Gottlieb??? Which came first the chickenhawk or the egghead?
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.