LIVE THREAD: 2:30 Press Conference Regarding Nifong's Request to be Excused from Duke Case

FNC | January 13, 2007

[Peach]

Press conference scheduled for 2:30 regarding Nifong's request to be excused from Duke case.

FNC will carry live.

[Jim Noble]

I'm sure they have to dispose of these multiple felony indictments in a way which at least can have some semblance of process.

[onyx]

Well, heck. THAT makes me a day behind.

[Nip]

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 don’t have much hope of this happening.

[gitmo]

Another problem with this is if Jane or John Doe citizen know this person is lying because there were elsewhere or they bragged to them about doing this, the lack of public mention of the person making the claim can cause the not to KNOW to come forward.

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.

[txrangerette]

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.

[Alia]

I was away and visiting at a mil base. Got asked by many WHY the President admitted "mistakes were made". I asked these mil what else they heard via MSM? Nothing. The MSM message and really only "audible" message? "Mistakes were made". I did a quick outline of what the President Proposed Wednesday night.

These guys were so po'd at the MSM.

[Alia]

This has the distinct fingerprints of an incident from many years ago:

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.

[nopardons]

Thanks...I've been busy today and your update helps.

[JLS]

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.

[JLS]

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.

[txrangerette]

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).

[supercat]

1. Day one: Read Mangums various statements. [That should be sufficient, but they will want to do more leg work.]

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.

[Erasmus]

They either better dismiss this case or have some real evidence beyond Mangum's latest tall tail.

Are you saying she has long legs?

[Alia]

The troops I spoke with keenly respect President Bush. I told them what you'd written in your post, and listed the remainder. They were PO'd at the MSM for the same BS politicizing domestically as the same MSM had done about our troops while deployed. A couple of these guys are _just back_. They weren't mad at the President. They had been stunned by what the MSM had reported, and it was the ONLY thing they heard about the President speech.

I wish you could have seen their faces. Grim, resolute. Once they got the facts.

[maggief]

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)

[OldFriend]

I fail to see how this case cannot be dismissed given the improper line up and identification.

The changing stories, the withheld exculpatory evidence, etc.

Wonder if Durham has any idea what it looks like to the rest of the country.

[JLS]

I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other parts. I want to comment point by point.

While I agree that the new prosecutors have to review the state's evidence to confirm that the physical evidence is indeed 100% exculpatory,

Actually they only need to do this to make the statements I suggested. All one really needs to do is read Mangum's various statement to see this case is unsustainable. You need the other evidence to conclude she was not raped or anything else.

I'm not sure the prosecutor would have to review all the defense evidence.

No but I think you will. You want to say the right thing at your press conference. There are only three press conferences you can have after you do your review:

1. It is my judgement this case can be won and I am going forward.

2. It is my judgement that his case can not be won and the charges are dropped.

3. The charges are dropped and it is my judgement that their is no evidence in the case file to support than any crime was committed against Mangum at the Duke lacrosse party.

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 guess someone might go through the evidence and only know the charges can not be sustained in a court of law, but not conclude that they can be sure Mangum was not raped. I doubt it, but I guess someone might conclude that.

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.

Certainly this is how it could unfold if NC does not want to do the right thing even at this late time. If I were the AG, I would certainly tell the peoples whose hands I put this in:

1. that they were to go forward if they believed a crime was committed by these defendants and they could prove it in court.

2. that they were to drop the charges whether they believed a crime was committed if they do not believe they can sustain this charge in court.

3. that if they could not they were to drop the charges and make statements to the effect that there is no evidence against these defendants if they can not be sure a crime was committed or these defendants committed any crime they think might have been committed.

Some times you just have to be an adult. Most politicians and most bureaucrats dont like to be, so your analysis is probably a better prediction than mine, but mine is what NC should do to start to put this travesty behind them. While I want Nifong punished, I would be more likely to visit NC in the future if they publically admit there was not case here rather than punt to the 5 Feb hearing which we know will likely be postponed.

[OldFriend]

There is another factor in this case. The New Black Panthers. While NiFOG did not meet with the accuser, or the accused he did have a meeting with the NBP.

He is now caught in the web.

[xoxoxox]

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?

[truth_seeker]

"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.