Free Republic

They are the Duke 88. Or Nifong 88. They are the leftists, feminists and fascists — professors all — who signed an ad in the student newspaper in April 2006 that condemned the culture of racism and sexism on the campus. They also bemoaned "what happened to this young woman" in the politically motivated lacrosse case. They have been conspicuously silent since the facts started to overtake the fabrications of sleazebag district attorney Mike Nifong. Nifong has been disbarred now, and the university has reached an undisclosed financial settlement with the three former lacrosse players wrongly accused of raping a...

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 The disbarment of Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong should be just the first step in remedying the gross and cynical fraud of last year's "rape" case against Duke University lacrosse players. Not only is Nifong still liable to civil lawsuits from the three young men whose lives he tried to ruin, and criminal prosecution for his obstruction of justice and making false statements to a judge, there are many other people who disgraced themselves in hyping a lynch mob atmosphere when this case first broke last year. The New York Times, which splashed these Duke students'...

A group of local lawyers all went to dinner least night. Topic was Nifong and the damages NC will pay to the accused. There are questions of sovereign immunity, of course, and other issues but we all agreed that this was only the tip of the litigious iceberg. In the civil litigation that is sure to follow, Nifong is one target, with few dollars, etc. The real targets will be the Duke 88. These are the professors who signed the now infamous letter adjudging the lacrosse players guilty and worse. That letter was then published as a full page ad...

We know about Mike Nifong, and it looks like he's going to get his comeuppance. Yet the question remains: Why would a seasoned prosecutor like Nifong flout the rules in so many ways in the Duke case? Why would he publicly describe the Duke lacrosse players as "rapists" before that had been established in a court of law? Why would he suppress DNA evidence that the defense was entitled to see? Why, in short, did he go so far before the facts were in? One of Nifong's public comments provides a clue. He says he wanted to protect the town...