Posted on 12/18/2006 4:44:22 PM PST by abb
I thought Nifong suffered from erectile dysfunction ... or is that electile. Perhaps both. ;o)
Incalculable damage.
Wonderfully refreshing. Thanks for posting.
"Then they will all make lots of $money$ as they appeal every case that Nifong or that lab ever came in contact with."
That's the bad news.
The good news is that he spent most of his time in traffic court, didn't he?
I'm not painting all LE with the same brush, I don't think CG is either.
It's typical HS gloss to leave out any mention of DNA found inside the accuser. They didn't mention anal, oral, or vaginal findings.
"And as we learned in court Friday, the director of a DNA lab in Burlington at first withheld results showing the accuser had DNA from other men -- not the lacrosse players -- in her underwear and on her pubic hair."
Notice that little "at first" the writer slipped in there. It wasn't "at first." It was supposed to be "forever." The defense had to file a motion that Liefong objected to in order to get it.
I have mentioned to you in the last couple days that the Meehan thing makes a case for obstruction of justice and appears to be actual criminal conduct, that an extensive investigation should be conducted and that we then would hear the legal community, specifically former prosecutors, begin to speak of obstruction charges. I was wrong. Of all people, Hammer brought it up on Greta's show last night. He said Nifong's conduct of withholding the full results was outrageous, ILLEGAL, and enough to remove him from the case. A few minutes later, in total disgust, he said that between the DNA results issue and the line-up issues (as to Nifong telling the police to violate their own policies), it's looking like Nifong was trying to obstruct justice and that the whole thing is just outrageous.
I wasn't pointing this out to you as a defense of Hammer, but rather that chatter among your "insiders" about actual criminal charges against Liefong have been started (in a small way) by Hammer, of all people.
He is mentioned in the same paragraph as smoking and guns, so you know he's toast to the liberals.
From what I read about LIEfong, his career had been seriously sidetracked a few years ago and he was relegated to traffic court, more or less. Then he suddenly found himself bumped up to acting DA with the chance to be elected to the real DA's position, and his ego went maniacal..... hey, what a chance to cement the black vote in Durham for a left-wing charlatan posing as a DA, just frame a few white boys....
This case should be thrown out with prejudice (never to be brought again), this LIEfong DA needs to be disbarred and prosecuted, and every race-hustling pimp who jumped on this without knowing the facts, including the charlatan Duke U. officials who threw these kids to the wolves without evidence, should suffer severe professional and personal disgrace.
I don't think Vann is slow. I don't know about unimaginative. When he was talking on Greta last night (Greta wasn't there - a non-lawyer, Martha, sat in for her) he was trying to answer Martha's question by explaining the mechanisms in their criminal procedure by which the current motions as to the line-up, the DNA debacle and the motion to preclude Mangum from identifying the suspects in court would lead to the unraveling of the case - die of its own lack of substantive evidence, and that a judge cannot just fismiss the case on a simple motion to dismiss. He was trying to give a legal explanation to her answer, but she wasn't getting it at all. Her follow-up questions made that clear. There was no context in which he would have had an opportunity to go on about what the judge or the defense could further do creatively to dump the case because he wasn't asked an open question. It was a technical question that Martha asked (even though she probably didn't realize it was a technical question).
Anyway, Vann said he just cannot imagine that the judge won't throw out the line-up identification and it's quite possible he won't allow the in-court identification. If that happens, he said, Nifong would have to dismiss. Vann also said that it isn't likely the judge would remove Nifong from the case, and that doesn't surprise me, given NC's prosecutorial structure established by law.
I think it's inaccurate to consider him slow or that he's not seeing what Liefong is doing. Rather, he's reflecting what's possible or not under NC criminal procedure law which, as I've said before, is a scary thing in itself and often incomprehensible by other standards we see in other states. He also explains how NC courts have handled matters at issue in this case in the past.
LOL! :> :>
Very, very well said!
"According to Garry Frank, president of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, however, other district attorneys have also expressed concerns about Nifong's conduct.
'It's premature to comment while the court is still contemplating," Frank said. "I think the conference will adress this at some point.'"
This what I've been hoping for - a drumbeat started by the legal community in the region.
Although not in my excerpt, the article was more about what UNC Chapel Hill law prof Kennedy said about the whole Meehan lab thing, and he doesn't have his facts right. He thinks Meehan and Nifong tried to hide the results of the DNA testing as to the three boys, but that wasn't it. It was the finding of DNA of other, unidentified, men that they withheld. Jeanine Pirro made the same mistake on Greta last night. Vann corrected her.
People, especially lawyers, should really get their facts straight before they comment publicly. Doing otherwise simply gives ammunition to the other side to undermine the argument for an investigation into Nifong's conduct. If someone takes position "A" that Nifong should be investigated and prosecuted, and that position is supported by Fact A, and Fact A is erroneous, then position "A" is undermined, even if the fact is corrected because it lessens the impact of the corrected fact.
No.
Nifong and his accomplices should be thoroughly and completely investigated and then arrested and charged with at least obstruction of justice, assuming the evidence bears that out, which I think it will. I fantasize about the Nifong perp walk.
Taking the action you advocate makes us as bad as Nifong because it's essentially the tactic he is using on the three boys - abandon justice altogether.
Nifong's support in the national and now even local legal community is beginning to crumble. That was his last bastion of protection.
Just give it time.
When the Duke lax team becomes competitive again has absolutely nothing to do with this subject. Perhaps your remark was an attempt at sarcasm? If so, it missed its mark because lax competition isn't remotely related to prosecuting Nifong.
Note to self: Don't post to, or reply to, people who really don't have a clue.
ML/NJ
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.