Nifong to give up more documents to defense (DukeLax)

Durham Herald-Sun ^ | October 27, 2006 | John Stevenson

[JLS]

If Nifong were to be defeated in the November 7 election, his successor might choose to dismiss the indictments; but he would probably be deterred from doing so by the likelihood of criticism for “being insensitive to the right of women and African-Americans.”

No idiot Duke PC law prof, other people are not as self constrained by PC concerns as you and a legit DA could and would drop these charges without giving the slightest concern about your idiot concerns.

[Carling]

I don't see her as credible at all.

That is LIEfong's problem, although at this stage I don't think he cares. All he has to do is inflame local racial tensions even further and he has his conviction.

It will be overturned, but I see a conviction in this case, regardless of facts. That's how little I think of the craphole called Durham. I spent the entire month of July there this summer. Been there, seen it, hate it. Godspeed to those lacrosse players. They need it.

[JLS]

Duke Bombshell -- the second dancer in the Duke lacrosse case shares startling details in an exclusive interview. Monday, only on GMA.

The odds are only 50-50 at best that this will be something we have not discussed here earlier. Remember the big news this weekend was Nifong not having discussed the case with Mangum which we have been discussing since at least 1 October.

[JLS]

So that is another name for the Church of Secular Humanism? :-)

[JamesP81]

These are all good points. Nevertheless, none of them make it OK for the state to destroy someone's financial situation just because they think he committed a crime.

I'm guessing that most FReepers must be pretty wealthy people from what I'm seeing. But for a poor guy like me, 5 grand for a lawyer would pretty much put me in a cardboard box for shelter. The state simply should not get away with something like that due to an honest mistake. It's that simple.

[cherry]

trust me....we'ver not rich.....5 grand would set us back ....

[xoxoxox]

"The odds are only 50-50 at best that this will be
something we have not discussed here earlier."

We have looked many things this past summer
and found much- never yet to be reported in the MSM,
such as ADA Couch, he/she Jakki, and the many
jailings of the FA's friends.

Devastation in this book would be the revelation
that Nikki and Precious were on a DNA collecting
mission from the get go.

[SarahUSC]

Kim's opinions as to whether there was a rape have flip flopped but I actually think her first handwritten police statement was fairly truthful. She left a few things out - the argument about money for one, but I think it was fairly close to the truth.

[ltc8k6]

Did Nifong's wife speak to the accuser?

[pepperhead]

I have given up hope that anything could be "devastating" to the prosecution at this point in time. The DNA didn't do it. Judge Stevens didn't do anything about detectives lying in affidavits. And judge Smith hasn't been any better. If Nifong gets reelected I am afraid I am just going to have to step away from this case for a while. I keep waiting for people to do the right thing and end this mess but it doesn't happen. It is really wearing on me.

[El Gran Salseron]

"I believe someone has explained the penalty for perjury"

Perjury applies only during sworn testimony in a trial, not what she tells the press.

[pepperhead]

The odds are only 50-50 at best that this will be something we have not discussed here earlier.

I think your right.

[ltc8k6]

Perhaps Kim will tell us about Crystal's 12:26 phone call...

That could be devastating info.

[JLS]

I guess Roberts could reveal that the two of them used drugs or drank in the car before going in? I guess she could reveal what they did between leaving the house and arriving at the Kroger parking lot.

[Jezebelle]

Perhaps she resolved her own criminal case for violation of probation and now has a freer hand - shed Liefong's yoke, so to speak.

[Jezebelle]

Kim would not be that difficult to rehabilitate as a witness.

[Jezebelle]

The idiot who wrote that piece made not one mention of any consideration for what these boys and their families have been put through. I know the focus was what will happen next, but he rambled on long enough about PC crap, the election, and so on, such that perhaps he could have squeezed in one note or two about the devastating and life-long impact these boguc charges will have on the boys, their families, and future rape victims.

[Jezebelle]

You'd be entitled to a free attorney, in that case.

Believe it or not, most DAs don't bring charges frivolously or because they "think" someone committed a crime. They bring all manner of evidence to support the charges, and the role of the defense is to test that evidence.

The laws of NC, Liefong's pitiful career and aspirations, racist organizations and weak leadership at Duke and throughout the county made this all possible. The indicting grand jury requirement for threshold felonies coupled with no probable cause/pretrial hearing process and no Sixth Amendment protections are what has allowed this to go on this far. Liefong has no crime to prosecute, and only under such a system as they have in NC could such a non-case get to this point. The real legal issue underlying this that should be discussed separately from the defendants and the anti-white racial biases running Durham and the election and Liefong and Gottlieb and the whole nine yards is the fact that no crime occurred. It isn't that no crime occurred because these boys have alibis, and it isn't that no crime occurred because there is no other evidence against these boys. It's the fact that there is no evidence of a crime occurring at all, and that is the fatal flaw in this entire fiasco.

[Jezebelle]

Same for me.

I think I'm living in America and then I think about this case. I've seen some ugly things happen in the system to be sure, but nothing even close to this. It's astonishing, but NC's system was made to order for this to happen, so I guess I shouldn't be astonished.

[Jezebelle]

True, but it also includes sworn affidavits made under penalty of perjury.

But aside from that, if Kim goes on TV and tells one story and then tells a a completely different story on the witness stand, she can and will be impeached by what she said to the media, so it DOES matter what she says. Kim recently went through her own court case for violationj of probation for not paying her restitution for the embezzlement charge she was convicted of. Looking at her now, my guess is that she got some good legal advice on how to handle this matter as well.