Posted on 01/13/2007 11:03:36 AM PST by Peach
Press conference scheduled for 2:30 regarding Nifong's request to be excused from Duke case.
FNC will carry live.
I'm sure they have to dispose of these multiple felony indictments in a way which at least can have some semblance of process.
Well, heck. THAT makes me a day behind.
As far as this case goes I think there should be two and only two alternatives.
Option One - Nifong is forced to try the case - him and no one else. As the sworn testimony piles up the judge should then direct a verdict of not guilty for all of the defendants followed immediately by having the sheriff deputies and bailiffs arresting Nifong and all witnesses for the state on Federal Civil Rights Charges.
Option Two - Nifong is allowed to pass of the case to one of his subordinates only if he becomes a witness for the defense - a witness that is hostile to the prosecutors. All of his testimony is immediately compared to his public pronouncements leading up to the case and all differences become articles for a follow on trial dealing with Federal Civil Rights violations.
Nifong and others, both associated with this case and not, must learn in public and at great personal expense that there is no my bad for the behavior they demonstrated over the last several months. Failure to punish Nifong and his staff will only encourage such actions.
But, since a Judge is a mature form of Lawyer and a Lawyer is a juvenile form of Judge (to describe the current Judicial Incestuous Relationships correctly) I dont have much hope of this happening.
Or if the accuser has pulled the stunt before, it may never be known. Also, someone may have seen the accuser elsewhere but cannot come forward because the identity is kept secret.
You really have laid out most of it. The conclusion is inescapable...THIS IS NOT A VIABLE CASE. These two State Prosecutors - no matter what their past - know that, if we and almost the entire world know that. They will not prosecute this case.
These guys were so po'd at the MSM.
Prosecutor Mary Winstead said she accidentally erased a small portion of both tapes while she was listening to them in preparation for the trial. Somehow her voice and that of a detective ended up on one of the tapes, she said.
The tapes were taken from an answering machine belonging to a friend of the woman who reported the rape early April 25, 1992.
Thanks...I've been busy today and your update helps.
I agree. I outlined the process. You review the evidence. You review all the evidence. You speak to Mangum and to see what you think yourself. You drop the charges.
Clearly these charges can not be sustained. There can be no doubt about that. If there is no more foundation for them than we have seen so far, in the interest of justice you must make the statements about the unreliability of the IDs andlack of evidence that any crime was committed.
If there is more, then you dismiss without the statements I outlined. But if there is nothing more, you need to be an adult and admit what Nifong did in the name of the people of NC.
Right that is an example of people who might not know to come forward because the public does not know who is making the accusation.
That was good to point out. I would suggest to also point out, mistakes have been made in EVERY war we have ever fought, even those we won. And one more thing: the President held all blame to himself for any mistakes and put NONE on the troops. He said the troops had done everything we had ever asked of them (and I would add, more than we asked).
While I agree that the new prosecutors have to review the state's evidence to confirm that the physical evidence is indeed 100% exculpatory, I'm not sure the prosecutor would have to review all the defense evidence. Given the complete lack of physical evidence, the only "evidence" the state has in the case is the identification by Precious. At best, she is so totally confused about events and so inconsistent in her statements of who did what that even if she were attacked there would be no reason to believe she hadn't confused her attackers for other partygoers.
I can't really see anything the state could bring to the table to challenge the motion to suppress the ID; some of the changes in Precious' statements suggest strongly that she's been coached. If the new prosecutors don't want to be seen as dropping the case, they could simply wait until the Feb. 5 hearing, wait for Precious to make a fool of herself on the stand (I think the defense goes first, since the hearing is to consider their motion), and then say "enough is enough". I'd suggest arranging for video of the hearing if possible (to be kept under seal for as long as the judge deems appropriate). Depending upon how things go, releasing video of "Precious" on the stand could be priceless for showing people--even liberals--what a farce this case is. To be sure, that would only really work if the defense attorneys took a low-key approach, but the December version of events is so farcical that I can't see Precious being able to respond reasonably to even the mildest of questioning.
Are you saying she has long legs?
I wish you could have seen their faces. Grim, resolute. Once they got the facts.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/531764.html
DURHAM - District Attorney Mike Nifong's newly hired attorney criticized the prosecutor's early handling of the Duke lacrosse case on national television.
David Freedman of Winston-Salem, one of a handful of lawyers in North Carolina with a sizable practice defending lawyers battling State Bar complaints, said Friday that he regretted comments he made on MSNBC's "The Abrams Report" in April.
"My opinion was just based on media reports," Freedman said. "As an experienced trial lawyer, I should know better than to base my comments just on what I read."
Freedman said Nifong contacted him recently after the Bar charged Nifong with violating ethics rules during interviews early in the case. A preliminary hearing is set for Jan. 24.
During an April 19 segment of "The Abrams Report," Freedman, a criminal defense lawyer, had this to say:
"Everything has been mishandled from the start. You had a district attorney coming out and making potentially unethical statements, saying he believed a crime occurred, which he should not do. He should not be commenting on the evidence. He took an adversarial position from the start."
(snip)
The changing stories, the withheld exculpatory evidence, etc.
Wonder if Durham has any idea what it looks like to the rest of the country.
He is now caught in the web.
In the Malloy or ' Blue Chips ' case,
the woman was a hooker- never identified
to this day. Nifong took over the case from
Winstead. The alleged assault took place
on Hillsborough Rd. Near Kroger?
This area is a well known criminal hangout.
Central territory. 1992 places it at time
of the DPD call girl ring scandal.
Why do I get the feeling we've descended
further into another ring of Dante's purgatory?
"I tend to agree with Crawdad that a black female special prosecutor will be appointed."
Black, female, whatever. I don't care if they appoint a purple androgenis prosecutor, special or ordinary.
If there is evidence of a particular offense, charge for that and proceed to trial.
Otherwise, assuming there is no evidence, drop the matter, and apologize to the boys/men and their families. Any legal fees incurred by then for their unjustified involvement should, of course, be reinbursed.
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.