Posted on 04/14/2007 2:49:16 AM PDT by abb
It was just so much easier to accept the word of the person in "authority," Mike Nifong, than it was to take an unbiased look at the facts. If we establish a permanent metaphor for irresponsible cable reporting, it will be Nancy Grace. Thanks to Jon Stewart! As for irresponsible reporting in the print media, where does one start?
“Mo money, mo money, mo money.”
There would be if we had a Department of Justice.
It bears asking again and again. How much of the truth did the print media possess? What did they know and when did they know it? And why did they refuse to print it?
LOL - it was another Shep on the bridge moment. I love it when the lil’ feller gets the vapours.
A conscionable national leadership would look at this case and understand the breadth of its travesty. It took the connivance of a LOT of people, people who should have known better. A conscionable national leadership would absolutely call time out, and direct a Katrina level of resources and personnel to Durham to uncover every last bit of corruption. What happened in Durham is a scandal so far reaching that is has rocked the foundations of the legal system and damaged the assumptions that those who hold the power to investigate and incarcerate will do so with justice as their goal, and not a few more dollars for retirement, or another winning case to add to their stack. The image of Stalin style investigations looms hugely out of this horrible incident. The message has to be sent to give a dire warning to those who think it is ok to lie and cheat and wrongly convict if they will get some personal benefit from it, or those who think it is acceptable to choose silence while evil is done to others. But, Durham will go on as before. Oh it will be a bit embarrassed of course, but it will go on.
I think Linwood is a DA investigator, and not an attorney. In any case, he needs to be investigated also!
I think the term monster is the most accurate description of Nifong so far. Spot on!
Well IF this story is correct, I am still left with many question:
1. First I say IF because almost everyone, from the DPD officers who might face crminal liability to all the ADA who might face ethics charges, involved in this case now has an incentive lie and shift blame. So I am highly sketpical about details in this article.
2. Neff completely ignors the most important question. That is how did we go from Sgt Shelton recognizing that he was dealing with a likely lying hooker avoiding involuntary commitment to requesting a blanket order for 46 respectable people to give DNA swabs?
3. If Nifong really first heard about the case when he saw the order at the copy machine, then who pushed it past Sgt. Shelton’s initial correct view of the complaint? Did someone with a political agenda take over a DPD police investigation? Does DPD essentially have a rape Nazi pushing forward cases and wasting appropriated funds no matter how suspect the claim of rape is? Or maybe this is Mangum’s family political connections much speculated on here driving this?
4. BTW, is it reasonable given everything we have learned about Nifong and his personality to believe that Nifong EVER goes to the copier himself? Doesn’t he strike us more of the type that would yell at and order a secretary or even a junior ADA to do his copying?
5. Given the large amount of money that a DNA test costs, is it really believable that Nifong did not ok the request for the nontestimonial order? I know there was much discussion of expense of a second more complicated set of tests at Meehan’s lab. But maybe this is the DPD worry since at that point Nifong was not running the investigation.
So there we have it, the News and Observer missing the real story as usual.
And apparently the reason she could not identify them was why?...........because she was looking at her watch?
That’s quite a gap in the story, isn’t it?
Frankly, I’m not buying the “found it on a copier” story.
If that’s true, that would mean he found it out the same day we did.
No sale.
Yep as much as I like Professor Johnson’s site, over there they will continue to praise Neff and give the N&O a pass. And I understand at this juncture the public is interested in Nifong’s role.
But real investigative reporting would be sketpical of what self interested people say about Nifong’s role. And a real story would be what happened to Sgt. Shelton’s skepticism that led this allegation to be treated so seriously? We know no EVIDENCE caused this. So what was it?
This said, there is one member of the team that has gone unmentioned: you Blog Hooligans. I reviewed the Boards everyday not only for the latest commentary, but also because you did an excellent job of rounding up the media reports (which saved me time) and for the analysis that I saw play out. Many of the posts and observations were critical as I drafted the Motion for Change of Venue; the hyperlinks to original source material helped me reconstruct the incredibly inflammatory coverage of this case as well as the many cowardly acts that were taken against these young men that are detailed in the Motion.
Well done, Blog Hooligan!
Remember the photo of Crystal Mangum standing outside the door, fumbling with her purse? Cooney said that was actually Dave Evans shaving kit.
The entire post. Lots of very good information contained here:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=3047&st=50
JimCooney Posted: Apr 14 2007, 02:01 PM
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 949
Joined: 13-April 07
Thanks for the many kind notes and thoughts. They are appreciated but I also want to make clear that I was a member of a great team and that this result was of a number of great lawyers. I am happy to answer many of these questions, but please do not interpret these answers as any attempt to take credit for what was a joint effort by attorneys that I am humbled to be associated with.
First, the most important answer: Yes, Brad is single and he is taking applications.
Second, we did believe that we were going to prevail at the February 5th hearing. Through the efforts of Doug Kingsbery, we had the leading experts in the country prepared to testify about the “pin the tail on the donkey” line-up created by Nifong. Our hand was strengthened when Linwood Wilson, during the course of the December 21st “interview” with Precious, showed her the same line-up again (apparently so that she could learn their names).
While we would have all welcomed a dismissal at the 2/5 hearing, it would not have been an exoneration. Those who wanted to believe Precious would have claimed that the case was dismissed on a technicality created by high-priced lawyers. Consequently, when Nifong removed himself from the case and turned it over to the AG, we made a considered (and roundly criticized) decision to agree to a lengthy delay until May 7th. We did so because we believed that honest prosecutors, after examining this evidence and what we were able to provide to them, would not only dismiss the case but would do so in terms that would make it clear that our boys were innocent. This was obviously a calculated risk, but ultimately we were confident in the innocence of our clients, in the strength of our evidence, and in the integrity of Jim Coman and Mary Winstead.
By the end of the Special Prosecutors’ investigation, we had no more secrets - - they literally had seen every piece of evidence that we had and they knew what a trial would look like. Some of this evidence is under seal and cannot be discussed; much of it is still not known to the public. However, I think it is fair to say that our case was even stronger than what the public knew. We made the decision to share not only everything that we were required to share, but to share everything that we had because we wanted to achieve not just a dismissal, but an exoneration. While there was risk to this, in the end no matter what happened the basic fact was not going to change: these boys were innocent.
Bill Anderson, however, has made an excellent point - - there was nothing inevitable about this result. At any point in the process, this case could have taken a different turn or twist and we could have easily found ourselves trying it in a courtroom. While I firmly believe that we would have mopped the floor with Nifong (or anyone else crazy enough to try this case), anytime a case goes to a jury there is risk. Even a hung jury would have been devastating to these young men - - we simply made the gamble that we needed to go for more than dismissal, we needed exoneration.
Fortunately, we were dealing with tough,fair and principled prosecutors in the AG’s office. As Wade Smith said so brilliantly, Roy Cooper, Jim Coman and Mary Winstead are everything that Mike Nifong is not. While there was considerable angst in the blogosphere, we had confidence in their integrity.
The defense teams kept in constant real time communication. We had an email network set up and Brad and I talked with each other several times a day, seven days per week. Indeed, my wife, who has never met Brad, sees him as competition for my affection. Shortly after I joined the team, we had a 2 day retreat in which we “war gamed” the case and ultimately designed the “end game” strategy that played itself out in our filings in December and January. Each person to the team brough a different strength and we had remarkable leadership.
This said, there is one member of the team that has gone unmentioned: you Blog Hooligans. I reviewed the Boards everyday not only for the latest commentary, but also because you did an excellent job of rounding up the media reports (which saved me time) and for the analysis that I saw play out. Many of the posts and observations were critical as I drafted the Motion for Change of Venue; the hyperlinks to original source material helped me reconstruct the incredibly inflammatory coverage of this case as well as the many cowardly acts that were taken against these young men that are detailed in the Motion.
One incident in particular stands out. In January, we filed a Supplement to the Motion to Suppress dealing with Precious’ December 21st statement to Linwood Wilson. In it, she claimed that the picture that showed her at the house after 1230 am, was in fact a picture of her going into the house. In the Motion we held back on 2 facts that proved this was not true. The first was that the picture actually shows her holding Dave Evans’ shaving kit; a fact not publicly known (at least until now). The second was that the picture taken just before it, shows her with one shoe. Brad and I knew that Nifong and Wilson had missed this and that we could use it at the hearing to show what a liar Precious was. However, not 12 hours after filing the Motion, someone on this Board had posted the picture and pointed out that she was only wearing one shoe. I remember thinking “Damn, these guys are good.”
In the end, the central fact of this case was that our boys were, and always will be, innocent. No matter how much Nifong smirked about his evidence, or how much Linwood Wilson tried to intimidate witnesses or change Precious’ stories, they could not change that single fact. We always knew that there was no smoking gun because there was no crime; anything they came up with was destined to be wrong and untrue. This was a huge comfort as we went through this case. To paraphrase Dave Evans, they were as innocent on every day of this prosecution as they were on the first and last days.
Finally, the Seligmanns, and particularly Kathy, read this blog regularly and have appreciated the support and outrage that has been shown. During a difficult time for them, they found a great deal of comfort from the comments on this Board.
Jim Cooney
PS - - Joe Cheshire really liked Tony Soprano’s videos.
I think a lot of us hooligans on FR were sure of that!
In light of the “innocent” statement by the A.G., Nancy Grace’s statements are now hysterically funny.
Thanks for bringing his post here. The comments of the attorneys have been very interesting since the criminal charges have been dropped.
Better than Duff Wilson, the New York Times, Nancy Grace and Bob Ashley - that's for sure!
Whoo-hoo! You ain't gonna see THAT in the MSM!
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.