Posted on 12/21/2006 11:09:37 AM PST by beckett
CHAPEL HILL - Whether the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case are guilty or innocent, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong should disqualify himself, or be disqualified, from the case.
On Friday, Nifong's own witness essentially accused him of breaking the law. An actual conflict of interest now exists between Nifong's need to defend himself against possible charges of misconduct and his obligation to prosecute the case fairly and effectively.
In court Friday, the head of a lab that Nifong retained to analyze DNA samples testified that he and Nifong intentionally decided to exclude from the expert's report the fact that DNA analyzed from the clothes and body of the accuser did not belong to any of the defendants but came instead from unidentified males.
N.C. General Statute 15A-903 requires that a prosecution expert provide a report of the results of any tests performed and that the prosecutor furnish that report to the defense. Deciding to exclude these results is deciding to violate this law.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
Read KC Johnson's blog for more.
Duke LAX ping.
The DA knew that there was no DNA match to the accused BEFORE he indicted them.
(The DNA tests were so sensitive that they picked up DNA from five other sexual contacts, plus contamination by the lab technician--who contaminated the sample despite the rigorous cleanliness of the lab.)
But somehow we are expected to believe that THREE guys raped and struggled with this woman for ten minutes to half an hour, in a grungy college kid's bathroom, and left no DNA at all?
He should be not only removed from the case, he should be removed from society and put into a jail cell where he belongs.
The tide...it is a turnin.
I hope this Nifong fellow steps in it bigtime. He has ruined the lives of many young men on charges that everyone knows are bogus. This guy deserves to do hard time for what he has put these three young men through.
The RN&O can only produce so much chicken salad. Also, the RN&O did cover how the LAX scandal was hammering Duke University.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/cni_redrum/2006/dec/19/riddle_me_this_batman_why_do_we_reelect_these_people
Nifong is a PIMP.
Plus we are to believe that the accused, who have pictures and witnesses placing them elsewhere, can be in two places at the same time?
The judge who permitted this case to go forward--Stephens--is a buddy and mentor of Nifong. He signed the original warrants--which we now know were based on false info given him.
Yet he still did not quash the warrants; he permitted Nifong to delay discovery and hide evidence; he permitted Nifong to not have to read all the documents in the case,
etc.
He is as much a part of this conspiracy to frame the defendants as anyone else.
The NC bar committee, which has been a paper tiger for years (consider the slap on the wrist given to the Gell case DA--who is now a judge!), may finally have to do some serious work, or look like more of a laughingstock than they already do.
I'm still waiting for that moron Boortz to apologize for the folks he ripped to shreds that came to the defense of the "innocent till proven guilty" kids.
The tide normally turns twice a day! It should have turned that fast in this case - the fact that it has not turned for these past months is an indictment of the negligence of the MSM in investigating Nifongs corrupt prosecution of the hockey team to serve his own political ambition.
I will be the first to admit that although I took an "innocent until proven guilty," attitude when this first broke, I was inclined to believe that where there's smoke there's fire. Now I'm convinced, this has all been smoke.
Boortz and the rest of the media who bought the accusations without any consideration of innocent til proven guilty.
Which also puts in doubt any other case, this human excrement tried.
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.