Posted on 01/24/2007 6:38:29 AM PST by FoxRun
Just heard via Fox News Alert that additional charges have been levied against Nifong. Charges are that he failed to disclose and/or hid the DNA evidence (that exonerated the 3 players charged).
I guess my only hope is that if anybody is going to see through Nifong's "attorneyspeak", it's going to be other attorneys....
By the way, how is Mrs. LB? :)
Now that is funny.
The huge number of specific instances of Nifong's misconduct in the Bar complaint will, hopefully, thwart any notion of "it was a mistake". There is no "it". Instead, there is an astonishing and damning stream of multitudinous "its" ... which self-serving, lying excuses will only further validate.
Put me down as being in favor of one active thread. It makes for better discussion when we're all together.
Good and than after that I hope the 3 boys sue the living crap out of him. Did you get a load of him in his robe on Fox. I would be mad if I voted to put him in office and realize it was just to work alittle longer so he could retire.
For some reason, your comment reminded me of a line from the movie Evolution. Dan Akroyd, the Governor of Arizona is threatening to throw the assembled (incompetent) group of government scientists in jail. "Not federal prison, with the loose jumpsuits...state prison, with the crotch binders!"
One reserved for Nifong, hopefully?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
LOL Poor Mrs.LB--should I warn her?
The problem with that particular "defense" is that the very specific allegations of the amended complaint will, if properly supported at trial with readily-available evidence from several sources, effectively preclude Nifong from employing any stratagem along the lines of "Well, I didn't mean to do it." For that reason, and due to the likelihood that any trial will be televised, I am beginning to think, as do several others on this thread and elsewhere, that a negotiated consent judgment which involves more than a mere reprimand or censure as the penalty is a significant possibility.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/some-reactions-to-expanded-ethics.html
I thought women didn't lie about rape!
Does Wendy Murphy know about this?
Today's events changed my mind. I'm no longer in the "he'll get only a reprimand" camp. Count me in your group now.
What on earth will his attorneys submit in his defense?
As demonstrated by the link you so kindly provided (not to mention the rest of his excellent blog), Professor Johnson is a very perceptive and extremely thorough historian. He'd make a good lawyer, too, I'd wager. Thanks again for posting the link!
BTW, I agree with the general sentiment over there and the sentiment of the day. The charge that he lied to the bar committee is a sign that they want to bring the hammer down on him.
Indeed -- let the hammer fall! As Mad-Margaret explained to me, (1) lying to the bar committee is even worse than lying to the court (and the defense) or trial-by-media; and (2) while Judge Smith banned cameras from his courtroom for the non-rape criminal proceedings, Nifong's disciplinary hearings will evidently be televised live to a national audience.
I noticed the tick, too. So much for "You can fool some of the people some of the time"...etc.
The attorney is there for one reason. There WILL BE suits against Nifong and these hearings and whatever happens will be used as evidence. So Nifongs attorney wants to know EVERYTHING first hand. He likely will have little to say and negotiating terms of disbarment or whatever is not an option for him. He's just THERE.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=1789&view=findpost&p=7626960
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.