Posted on 01/14/2007 4:25:09 PM PST by Howlin
Comments here!
I think what Mrs. Evans may have been referring to, and I could certainly be wrong, is a theory that some women who are promiscuous have been abused by men earlier in their lives. I also think that Mrs. Evans was being as kind as she could be to Crystal, which is one of the marks of true class, at least IMHO. She didn't want to add fuel to the fire by saying anything that could stoke any more resentment.
I do agree with you that Crystal is a willing participant in this hoax, especially since she wants to move forward with the charges even though Nifong has been removed. However, I think Mrs. Evans was trying to make the point that Nifong blew this case up out of nothing, purely for his own selfish desires. Nifong didn't care who got chewed up and spat out in the process, as long as he could get re-elected, and get his "precious" pension (pardon the pun).
" played the cut of the President saying that the Iraqi people owe America a debt of gratitude."
Did I hear correctly that Pelley asked the President if he owed the Iraqi people an apology ?
I am in Long Beach Ca. and our cable is showing CSI instead of 60 minutes. We have Charter Communications service. Very wierd!
Nifong is a not very bright fool. He ensured early national media coverage by going on TV some 70 times in the month following the case starting. He should have known that the media would initially take his side. But when the truth came out as it certainly did, the media would turn on him. He lied to them and they are very angry.
OH and as to Nifong never talking to the so called victim. It is very common for a Prosecutor to attend a meeting where some detective interviews the so called victim. Then the prosecutor can claim in court that he never talked to the victim let alone coached him or her on how to answer questions.
Like many others Nifong followed the rules that apply to cases where there is not much publicity.
He believed the old saw that says a prosecutor can do no wrong. That is true only as long as the public is on the prosecutors side.
Nifong need to learn that it does not matter what the law says a prosecutor can do. The only thing that is important is what the Judge and disbarment committee say the law says. He is toast.
Oh...I hope it was played in context...otherwise it could sound like HE is bringing the subject up...if you know what I mean...
I don't trust ABC radio news much...they are pretty lefty biased.
Since Nifong didn't indict the third player until May, for two months all of the lacrosse players (except for the one black member of the team) and their families didn't know if they would be indicted or not...so all the other parents went through what these parents are going through but for a shorter time.
"How do you know Nifong did not interview her? Why would you believe a thing he says?"
Actually, I don't believe a thing Nifong says. My conclusion that he didn't interview her until much later is not based on anything he said, but is instead a reasonable inference from the timing and sequence of various events in the case, as well as the suppositions of others whose judgment I trust.
"Do you seriously entertain the idea that Nifong or his office did not after the state lab found no Duke player DNA on her go to her and demand, explain this Ms. 'They Did Not Wear Condums!' Do you seriously entertain the idea that Nifong or his office did not after the state lab found DNA from four to seven other men on her and demand, explain this Ms. 'No Sex for a Week before the Party.'"
Yes, at this juncture I do seriously entertain those ideas as at least a possibility. I also think Nifong is in equally serious ethical trouble either way. In other words, there are many ways to act unethically as a prosecutor. That we may disagree, at this point, as to the precise manner in which that occurred is of little concern to me, as we're both in complete agreement that disciplinary action is warranted.
"Nifong probably personally and the DPD and his investigator at his direction most certainly asked her about all these problems with the evidence."
To paraphrase your initial response to me: "How do you know?"
"He was trying to win an election not commit professional suicide. He has lied to the press. He has lied in open court."
Agreed.
"Why would you believe it just because he says he did not interview her. He said that because he does not want to be arrested for this frame job. But it is just one more lie in this hoax."
As I just explained, I do not believe Nifong didn't interview the accuser "just because he says he did not interview her."
I prefer to think of them as dinosaurs, and we small mammals on Internet forums are starting to eat their eggs.
There's a lot of truth to what you're saying, FWI, but your final analysis is a little bit off. Nifong did labor for 25 years in relative obscurity. But when this case landed in his lap, he was already the DA. He already had his ticket to power. He had already been in the spotlight for several years.
As they say, with great power comes great responsibility. Despite the fact that his battle for re-election was just months away, he had a duty to see that justice was done. When that DNA test came back negative, he should have dismissed all the charges.
Yes, it might have cost him the election; but in the long run, even if he lost, he could have ended up as a prominent defense attorney, or as a judge. He would have been respected for making the tough decision at the cost of his own ambitions. Now he's going to end up as a synonym for "abuse of power."
Fair enough. I think he is too big an egotist not to get in her face when the DNA results came back. But we may never know.
I don't think I've read a transcript of it. Do you know where it can be found?
Please see my response to JLS' comments.
You can bet Reuters and the lefties will make hay with that - scumbags.
Nope, ABC did good! LOL.....they played the entire clip. Her statement about owing an apology and his response.
I read them. I'm cool with it.
I didn't read the transcript, but yes I did gather that the decision to depart from the NC photo line-up guidelines was made by Nifong.
Nevertheless, I don't believe that a failure to conform to state guidelines, if that failure does NOT rise to the level of a U.S. federal constitutional violation, would give much added weight to a federal civil rights claim for damages against Durham.
If the photo identification IS found to be a violation of the US Constitution, then yes that would of course greatly help the defendants in succeeding on a claim for damages for violation of federal civil rights.
And of course a failure to conform to the state guidelines may in and of itself be sufficient for a North Carolina court to exclude the photo identification, and a court could then easily further conclude that an in-court identification would also have to be suppressed, in which event the case would almost certainly have to be thrown out on that basis, but I don't know the answer as to whether a North Carolina court has the power to exclude a photo ID solely on the basis that it did not conform to the state guidelines.
Nifong was a social worker, do not forget. If he had a typical caseload, surely he came across one or 2 manics or schizophrenics.
They are liars by nature of the disease. And they believe their lies.
HE SHOULD KNOW THAT!
Because he should know that, it was imperative to follow up. Once he learned her past history (medical) he should have realized, like it or not, her medical history was very relevant.
As it stands, a ruthless DA used a mentally ill woman, the black community, and 3 innocent boys and retain his power as DA.
F'in hooligan
I missed the 60 Minutes show.
Any DUKE information on this thread?
A little........LOL.
A smidgen....
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.