An Open Letter To Michael Nifong

Bill Anderson:

Hello, Mike. Had I written this open letter last summer, I doubt you would have heard of me, but my sources in Durham (and they are good sources, Mike) tell me that I pretty much am on your enemies list. I’m glad I could accomplish that feat, but from what I can tell, that list is getting longer while we speak.

However, in this letter, I come to you in peace. I’m offering you advice, good advice, I might add, and if I were you, I would take it. Don’t get me wrong. I really hope that you not only lose your law license and your job, but since you were trying to take away the lives of three young men who had committed no crimes, I do hope that you have the opportunity to do a stretch in prison, or at least have to face that horrifying prospect. After all, there are people in this country who belong behind bars, and you are one of them.

But even though I want you to go to prison, I am going to offer you advice that I think very well not only could keep you out of what Lew Rockwell calls the crowbar motel, but also could save your career. Think about that, Mike. I am trying to help you keep your law license, your freedom, and maybe even your job, so you need to listen to me.

The first and most important thing is that you need to drop the kidnapping and sexual assault charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans. I mean drop the charges the way that Duke University receivers drop passes at crucial times during a close football game. Those charges need to disappear, and fast, for if you insist on pushing them forward, it only will get worse for you.

As I give you this advice, let me caution you not to listen to people like Wendy Murphy. She has been on television championing your cause, and wrote this abomination of an op-ed for USA Today that declared your dropping the rape charges, but keeping the others, to be a "brilliant move." Trust me, Mike; you don’t want Murphy being your only cheerleader, for I can give you a list of law-abiding and respectable people who would refuse to spit on her grave only because they hate standing in long lines.

No, listen to me. Dropping those charges leads to my second point. For the past nine months, you have been telling the world you had a great case. Last spring, while reading something by your political allies, I saw where you had a "mountain of physical evidence" that pointed toward those three men having committed what the black journalist Cash Michaels called a "brutal rape."

As you know, that mountain never was on your side; it was on the other side. My guess is that you had that figured out the minute you spoke to Brian Meehan of the DNA lab last April (before you secured the indictments against Reade and Collin), as he gave you the bad news that the only thing DNA was going to do would be to further discredit Crystal and, by definition, your case.

That is when you made your biggest mistake. You lied, and then tried to cover the lie, and when you were caught, you gave a litany of excuses that rivals anything John Belushi would have given in one of his movies. Despite Murphy’s contention that you simply were trying to protect the "privacy" of the unindicted lacrosse players, reason tells the rest of us that you were not too worried about protecting people whom you publicly had labeled "hooligans" and "rapists."

Mike, I can assure you that Judge W. Osmond Smith III was not taken in by your various excuses that range from "I didn’t know" to "the dog ate my homework" to "no harm, no foul." Maybe another judge might have looked the other way before this case became The Story nationally. When the Los Angeles Times is writing editorials calling for your head on a platter, you have to understand that this no longer is a Durham case. It is a national case, and you cannot stuff that thing back into your little jurisdiction.

Thus, literally everything you bring into that courtroom on February 5 is going to undergo scrutiny from every news outlet and every legal analyst in the country, not to mention overseas. Believe me, that is not something you want to happen, as the outright dishonesty of your "evidence" is going to be hung out for the world to see. It is one thing for that to happen in the current arena dominated by writers and talking heads, where nothing official has happened.

However, once you put this dreck before a judge, and the court gets to see exactly what your "evidence" really is, you are going to be in much more trouble than you are now. At this moment, you still are guilty only of "bad judgment." If you walk into that courtroom with your witness in tow, your "investigators," and your "medical evidence" (or, better put, your medical non-evidence), at that point you are going to be seen as the D.A. who has perpetrated a fraud. At that point, Mike, you will have openly committed a crime for which will make you vulnerable to spending time in the crowbar motel. That is fraud, Mike, and I am using that term in the legal sense.

There is a way out. You can go to the courthouse today – right now, I urge you – and make the following declaration:

I am announcing today that I have dropped all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans. There will be no further charges, and no more investigations of the alleged events that occurred on March 13 and 14, 2006.

At the time the accuser made the charges, my conversations with police officers led me to believe there had been a rape and sexual assault of the woman in question. As a prosecutor, I was duty-bound to investigate and the information that police gave me was of the type that required me to pursue this case and seek the indictments.

However, after further examination of the charges, I no longer can conclude that they are credible, and if I am not sure myself of the credibility of the accusations, by law I cannot further pursue this matter in a court of law. From the start, I have made it clear that this office takes rape allegations seriously, and we will investigate those allegations.

I do regret any actions I took which might have appeared to be overzealous, but at no time did I act against the letter or spirit of the law. While I take responsibility for mistakes that I might have made during this episode, let me assure all of you that those mistakes were made in the pursuit of what I thought was a just course of action.

Granted, about everything I have written for you is a lie, but since you already have lied repeatedly as an officer of the court, one more lie won’t hurt you, especially since it will have been told in the course of your ending this legal fraud. After all, you did not make the initial rape allegations; it was a woman with a history of drug abuse, prostitution, and mental problems (she was hospitalized in 2005 for those). She was trying to keep from being involuntarily committed to a mental institution when she made the charges, and that hardly was your fault.

But if you drop the charges with the above declaration, you have something you can bring to the representatives of the North Carolina Bar Association, who already have summoned you to appear before an investigative body. You can claim you were trying to make sure that a possible rape victim who is black and poor would receive justice. You can claim you were overzealous, but sincere in your actions.

(You might even try to repeat some of the acting talent you showed when you demonstrated on national television the alleged choke hold that the accused put on the woman. You sure were convincing when the cameras were on you.)

If the members of the legal cartel – I mean, your fellow attorneys of this august body – act within their usual scope of things, you might just get off with a reprimand, provided you have not tried to bring a lying accuser, lying police officers, and anyone else who would be torn apart by defense attorney, into a court of law. If you go that far, you can bet that the authorities will have no choice but to throw you to the wolves.

Remember, there are prosecutors in North Carolina who tried to get someone executed, even though they had exculpatory evidence in their possession (which they failed to give to the defense of Alan Gell). They got off with bare reprimands, and both of them are gainfully employed in the law. You might want to speak to David Hoke and Debra Graves about how to grovel in front of the Bar Association investigative committee, so that you, too, can get your free get-out-of-jail card.

Above all, Mike the key is dropping these charges now. Take my advice, please. I may not like you, but I believe that it would be best for everyone involved if you were to punt, including you. If you refuse to take my advice and continue this fraud, then people who have some authority over you are going to dismiss the charges, and then they will deal with you. Mike, you have an opportunity to see that this humiliating experience does not happen, and I recommend that you take the proper course of action today.

MICHAEL B. NIFONG, Attorney, Defendant.

Who's got time for reading fiction these days?

Read the entire Complaint of the State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission, here.

Read KC's initial take, here.

Read Liestoppers, here.

Read the News and Observer, here.

Read WRAL, here.

Read CBS News, here.

Read ABC News, here.

Read NBC News, here.

Read FOX News, here.

Read TalkLeft commentary, here.

CAUTION: Delusional, sociopathic drivel included.

Read Free Republic commentary, here.

The criminal case against the lacrosse players is all but over. Obviously, the disciplinary complaint will be amended or supplemented, and the coming US Justice Department filings will also include additional charges of obstruction of justice, prosecutorial abuse and criminal fraud, all in violation of the defendants' civil rights. To save a flagging primary campaign (and $30,000.00 of his own money), Nifong annointed himself chief criminal investigator to further the frame. He calculatedly refused to interview the other liar, despite being already possessed of strong evidence of the Duke players' non-involvement in her hallucinatory claims. He rigged the "can't miss" "line up" for the other liar, and handed these young men up for indictment based solely on "identifications" she then made, despite his knowledge of the exculpatory evidence. Most shockingly of all, he conspired with the DNA lab director, Meehan, to hide the exculpatory evidence.

So comfortable in "Justice as Usual" in Durham, he really had no idea what particular hornets inhabited the nest he trained his Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle upon.

Idiot.

He is going to be disbarred. He is going to jail.

Let the games begin.

"MICHAEL B. NIFONG, Attorney, Defendant" has such a lovely ring to it, doesn't it?

It's Time, Crystal.

It's time, Crystal. Time to grow up. Time to acknowledge that you can't go through life using other people. It's time to stop the destruction of others' lives to shield yourself from the consequences of your own poor choices. It's time to think of the Babe, wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger. It's time to reflect on the faces of your own two children. Time to palm your belly and feel your coming third. It's time to see them on trial for their very lives because a fellow human being with a dead conscience chose to spew fantastic lies about them in a hazy grab at self-preservation. It's time to put yourself in the shoes of Mrs. Evans. And Mrs. Finnerty. And Mrs. Seligmann. It's time, Crystal. Time to reclaim your humanity. Time to find your conscience. Time to exhibit character, honor, integrity. It's time to stand before the cameras and admit to the fantastic lies so clearly already proven. Time to stop hiding as Cousin Clyde lies on your behalf some more. Time to tell those cameras all about Mr. Nifong. And Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Gottlieb. And Mr. Himan. And Big C. And Mr. Baker. And Mayor Bell. And "Doctor" Olatoye. It's time for the truth, Crystal. You may even avoid a prison sentence. Hell, your pals at Fox have already all but annointed you Nifong's "victim." Once you raise your hand, swear your oath, and lie from the witness box in open court, however, you will have comitted a felony. Become a convicted felon, go away. Go far, far away. For a good long time. Has Mr. Nifong made that clear to you? Think of the children, Crystal. Yours. And Mrs. Evans'. And Mrs. Finnerty's. And Mrs. Seligmann's.

It's time.

Neff: "Moron Talk"; Nifong's Lies To Court

Pressure on Nifong in Duke case
Misstatements may cost him his career

Joseph Neff and Benjamin Niolet, Staff Writers

DURHAM - To press forward in the Duke University lacrosse case, District Attorney Mike Nifong must rely on scanty evidence while deflecting serious questions about whether he broke the law or violated the ethics rules governing prosecutors.
Nifong has acknowledged that the case now hangs on what the accuser says from the witness stand in a hearing scheduled for February. Meanwhile, pressure on Nifong continues to build.

The State Bar has received multiple complaints demanding that he be disbarred. A congressman has called on the U.S. Justice Department to investigate him. And when the case returns to court, Nifong might have to explain repeated misrepresentations to judges about what evidence he had and why he did not disclose it all, as state law requires.

Nifong dropped the rape charges on Friday, but felony charges remain pending against three former members of the Duke University lacrosse team: David Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; Collin Finnerty, 20, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J. They are charged with attacking their accuser, an escort service dancer, at a team party last March.

Nifong did not respond to a request for comment last week, and he declined to come out of his office on Friday when reporters asked him to talk about the rape charge dismissal. He has told The News & Observer that he would not discuss the case outside of court. But on Thursday, he granted The New York Times a three-hour interview, the newspaper reported Saturday.

In May, Nifong gave the defense a 12-page report disclosing that DNA taken from the accuser's body did not match that of any member of the lacrosse team. He did not disclose that DNA from unidentified men had been found on her body and underwear.

In the New York Times story, Nifong acknowledged that he should have turned that favorable evidence over to the defense. And he said withholding that information was an oversight -- he thought he had already turned it over.

That was Nifong's third explanation why he did not turn over the evidence. At the start of a court hearing Dec. 15, he told a judge that the first he knew about the favorable evidence was two days earlier, when defense lawyers filed a motion on the matter.

At that Dec. 15 hearing, a DNA expert hired by Nifong, Brian Meehan, testified that he and Nifong agreed to withhold test results showing that DNA from the unknown men had been found. After Meehan testified, Nifong told reporters that withholding the test results from a written report was a conscious decision to respect the players' privacy rights.

"We were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud," Nifong said. "His report made it clear that all the information was available if they wanted it and they have every word of it."

But Nifong has bigger problems than his conflicting statements to reporters.

Since May, Nifong has repeatedly misrepresented his actions in filings and in face-to-face dealings with judges. Nifong has repeatedly said that he disclosed everything about the DNA evidence.

Federal and state law and state ethics rules require prosecutors to hand over all exculpatory evidence -- evidence that might indicate a person's innocence -- in a criminal case. Nifong acknowledged to The New York Times that the DNA tests results were "potentially exculpatory."

The misrepresentations began in May.

ON MAY 18, NIFONG FILED A NOTICE saying he had handed all evidence in his possession to the defense. He knew of nothing else favorable to the defendants, he wrote.

At a hearing that day, he told Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Stephens, "I've turned over everything I have."

But Meehan, the DNA expert, testified Dec. 15 that Nifong knew in April that Meehan's lab had discovered genetic material from unknown men on samples taken from the woman's body and underwear.

ON JUNE 22, NIFONG TOLD JUDGE STEPHENS in a hearing that he and Meehan had discussed only the contents of a report that was turned over to the defense.

Defense lawyer Joseph B. Cheshire V sounded skeptical at the time: "It's very difficult for me, although I take Mr. Nifong as an officer of the court at his word, to believe that there was no discussion at all as it relates to that testing."

Testifying on Dec. 15, Meehan said at least 33 times that he and Nifong discussed the results or agreed to keep them from the lab's final report.

AT A HEARING SEPT. 22, defense attorney Bradley Bannon pressed Nifong for more details of his conversations with Meehan.

Nifong again said they discussed only the contents of the report. "We did not ask any questions because the information was there in the summary [Meehan] had given us," Nifong said. "It was pretty clear. [Meehan] provided that to us. We looked over it. And we didn't have any questions about what was there. There's nothing really to provide."

Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III, who has been assigned to the case, pressed for a clear answer to Bannon's question: "So his report encompasses it all?"

Nifong answered haltingly: "His report encompasses ever -- because we didn't -- they apparently think that everybody I speak to about, I talk about the facts of the case. And that's just, that would be counterproductive. It did not happen here."

Smith repeated his question: "So you represent there are no other statements?"

"No other statements," Nifong said. "No other statements made to me."

ON OCT. 27, SMITH SIGNED AN ORDER THAT STATED: "Mr. Nifong indicated that he did not discuss the facts of the case with Dr. Meehan and that Dr. Meehan said nothing during those meetings beyond what was encompassed in the final report of DNA Security, dated May 12, 2006. The Court accepted Mr. Nifong's representation about those meetings and held that there were no additional discoverable statements by Dr. Meehan for the state to produce."

These in-court statements crumbled on Dec. 15, when Meehan testified that he discussed the results with Nifong and they agreed to withhold them from the report. "We agreed with Mr. Nifong that we would report just the stuff that matched so that it would, so the report was limited in its scope," Meehan said.

The delay getting the information to the defense probably won't have much impact on the charges, said Richard Myers, a former federal prosector and assistant professor of law at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Law. A judge would have to consider whether the delay was harmful to the defense; the likely remedy would be to give the lawyers more time to prepare for trial.

But Judge Smith may consider whether Nifong intentionally misrepresented his actions. Lawyers have a duty to be honest with the court, Myers said.

"The judge is going to have to decide for himself -- 'Has he been truthful with me, and was it an honest oversight?' " Myers said.

The judge could hold a lawyer in contempt, refer the matter to the State Bar or remove a prosecutor from the case for an actual conflict of interest, Myers said.

Meehan hired a lawyer to defend the actions of his lab. In an interview, the lawyer, Fred Antoun, said the defense lawyers were wrong to demand a report with all results included. The results could be found in the roughly 1,800 pages of technical documents that a judge ordered them in September to produce; the defense received them in late October.

"That is a childlike complaint," said Antoun, who practices in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. "The DA did hand it over; it just wasn't written in moron talk."

Antoun defended Meehan's partial report on several grounds: Reporting all the tests would result in a massive report that no one could understand. It would violate the privacy of the players, whom Antoun kept referring to as "soccer players." And listing all the test results would sully the reputation of the accuser, he said.

Antoun is not licensed to practice in North Carolina, where the law requires experts to write up a report of any test they perform.

Oz, This Is Too Easy

(And it needn't wait until February 5th.)

After months of "no comment," Mikey's begun flapping his gums again. In a three hour interview with Gotham organists David Barstow and Duff "The Sports Reporter" Wilson, Nifong proves himself but a cornered rat flashing teeth in a desperate and doomed last-ditch attempt to avoid being bludgeoned to death. The nut really is unhinged.

Last week you heard sworn testimony from the principal of Doctor Nick's DNA Lab & Sanitation Services. You will recall his unequivocal statement that he and Nifong affirmatively decided back in April not to include the scientifically confirmed presence of DNA from five men, in and upon the panties of the other liar, in the "final" testing report Nifong provided to the defendants' attorneys. You also heard, of course, that none of that DNA was from any of the three defendants to this continuing farce.

You will also recall Nifong lying to the court, on May 18th, when he filed the following perjurious statement: "The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant."

You will also recall Nifong lying to you, just last Friday, when he told you that "[t]he first I had heard of this particular situation (his non-production of what should have been case ending exculpatory DNA evidence) was when I was served with this particular motion" two days before he lied to you.

I'm sure by now you've read the latest New York Times spin, wherein Nifong lies again, stating that he didn't realize that he hadn't turned over those (exculpatory) DNA testing results simply because the sheer volume of the underlying material "wasn’t something I was concentrating on." What a crock. He knew what that voluminous data showed. He knew it showed that five guys had left their seed in and upon the clothing of the other liar, in close temporal proximity to the infamous lacrosse team party. He knew that none of the lacrosse players were any of the five seed donors. He knew, thus, that the other liar's statement of having not had consensual sex for a week before the party was, well, a lie. He knew all of this before he presented Seligmann and Finnerty, and, later, Dave Evans, to the Grand Jury for indictment. AND HE CRIMINALLY CONSPIRED WITH DR. NICK TO BURY IT.

Suddenly, NOW, Nifong (tah DAAAH!) has a cartoon lightbulb go on over his head. Suddenly, NOW, he dispatches his bad check investigator to suddenly, NOW, ascertain from the other liar that "she could no longer be sure what had penetrated her." Suddenly, NOW, he opines that "since there is no scientific or other evidence independent of the victim’s testimony that would corroborate specifically penetration by a penis, the state is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense."

Well, Oz, you see what you are suddenly, NOW, presented with: The opportunity and, indeed, the necessary obligation to dismiss these spurious persecutorial charges, NOW.

Nifong seems to think you are a fool. He seems to think that you are stupid. He seems to think that you are a patsy or, at least, a Durham judge. He seems to think that you would be duped into allowing him to channel Bill Clinton, quibble over how one defines "lineup," and pervert the currently scheduled February 5th hearing upon the defendants' forever pending LINEUP "Identification" Suppression Motion into a de facto opportunity for the other liar to point her accusatory finger at the three men who have had their faces plastered all over all manner of media for, by then, eleven months, to justify his vindictive march forward.

You're not stupid, Oz. You know that Nifong's dismissal of the rape charges today, upon the non-reliability of the other liar, renders her "identifications," whose incredible nature had been surgically dissected previously in the defendants' joint motion, all the more unreliable. The evidence before the court is incontrovertible. There's no need for a hearing to be held. You must be personally affronted by Nifong's playing you for a fool. You must be incensed by his perjuring himself to your face in a transparent attempt to save the sheepskin his JD was printed on. You must be disgusted by the disrepute his shameless unethical conduct has imposed upon the bar and Courts of Durham County and North Carolina.

Hail all counsel in front of you on Tuesday, the day after Christmas. Suppress the "alleged identifications." Dismiss all charges. Extend to the wrongfully accused the heartfelt apologies of the Great State of North Carolina. Hold Nifong in criminal contempt. Have him removed from your sight in handcuffs. Submit your findings of fact and conclusions of law to state bar disciplinary authorities, and USAG Gonzales. Sleep well at night.

When Did You Know It Was A Hoax?

The first time I heard Kim's 911 call.

Comfortable Liar

March 23, 2006:

"The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim."

("Attachment For Application For Nontestimonial Identification Order," affiants David Saacks, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, and Investigator Benjamin Himan.)

April 7th:

DNASI completed testing DNA extractions from Mangum's panties' stains, and rectal and vaginal swabs. Negative for the presence of DNA from any lacrosse player.

April 10th:

Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan, drive to DNASI and discuss testing with Meehan. Leaving that meeting, then, they had to know of the negative results of testing completed on the 7th.

April 11th:

MIKE NIFONG, DURHAM, NC, D.A.:

A lot has been said in the press, particularly by some attorneys yesterday, about this case should go away. I hope that you will understand by the fact that I am here this morning that my presence here means this case is not going away.

MIKE NIFONG, DURHAM, NC, D.A.:

Duke University Hospital is the best trauma center in the area. This nurse was specially trained in sexual assault and I would just point out that my conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke Hospital.

MIKE NIFONG, DURHAM, NC, D.A.:

It's important to remember that there are 46 members of the Duke University lacrosse team who were asked to submit to giving samples for DNA testing and only three of those people are alleged to have been involved in the assault so until we identify all three of those people that means that some of these young men are going to be walking around under a cloud where innocent people are being thought that perhaps they are guilty just because of their association.

MIKE NIFONG, DURHAM, NC, D.A.:

She was grabbed from behind so that in essence somebody had an arm around her like this which she then had to struggle with in order to be able to breathe and it was in the course of that struggle that the fingernails, the artificial fingernails broke off. Now, as you can see from my arm, if I were wearing a shirt, a long sleeve shirt or a jacket of some sort, even if there were enough force used to press down to break my skin through the clothing there might not be anyway that anything from my arm could get on to those fingernails. So, again, whether or not there would be any evidence would depend on exactly the situation. Were the fingernails actually in contact with the skin or were they in contact with clothing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:

Within the last couple of years, a white female was assaulted allegedly by a black male, a black student at Duke was going to his work study job, the police grabbed him, put him in jail, and later said oops, sorry, mistaken identity, but you met the profile. Those lacrosse players met the profile, why weren‘t they arrested? Now, what is the differences? Is it the billion-dollar a year operating budget of Duke which can buy anything and everyone?

MIKE NIFONG, DURHAM, NC, D.A.:

You are asking me why in a city where a black man was wrongly arrested because he was mistaken for somebody who might have committed a crime why haven't we arrested a whole bunch of white men knowing that only three of them could have committed the crime and the fingers are pointed at 46. My answer to you, sir, my answer to you is, sir, I don't want to arrest the wrong person in any case. I only want to arrest the right person and I want to convict the right person and I don't want anybody who did not commit a crime to be arrested or put on trial. That's my answer, sir.

April 11th:

Nifong meets with Mangum for, he says, the only time. But they didn't discuss two rounds of negative DNA testing. In fact, he says, they didn't discuss the case at all, what with Mangum still being so traumatized, and all.

April 13th:

DNASI completed testing DNA extractions of Mangum's rape kit pubic hair comb. Negative for the presence of DNA from any lacrosse player.

April 13th:

Kirk Osborn attempts to meet with Nifong to proffer factual proof that his client, Reade Seligmann, could not possibly have participated in the crimes alleged. Nifong tersely rebukes Osborn, by proxy:

"I’ve known the guy for 25 years," Mr. Osborn said in mid-April. "I went over and thought surely he’d listen to me on it. And he sent some messenger out and said, 'I saw you on the TV saying your client was absolutely innocent, so what do we have to talk about?' He wouldn’t even see me himself."

April 17th:

Seligmann and Finnerty are indicted. Nifong elected not to arrest the suspects identified by Mangum at the rigged April 4th photo lineup. Had he done so, the defendants would have been entitled to a probable cause hearing, to be conducted within fifteen business days of their arraignments, or first appearances, before the bench. At such a hearing, the defendants would have had the opportunity to examine the state's "evidence," cross-examine its witnesses, and present exculpatory evidence. Nifong wasn't interested in such petty matters. The Democratic primary was little more than two weeks away. A probable cause hearing scheduled following arrests made on any day after the 4th would have, in all likelihood, been conducted after the primary. Nifong could not have that, inasmuch as his slim hopes of defeating Freda Black rested exclusively within his ability to charge three white Duke lacrosse players with the heinous crimes alleged before the primary, so as to satiate the bloodlust of a majority of Durham's black voters. Thus, despite Mangum having "identified" four extremely dangerous, sexually depraved thugs on April 4th, Nifong let them walk the proverbial streets of Durham for two more weeks before presenting charges against them to a grand jury.

April 20 or 21:

Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan, drive to DNASI and discuss testing with Meehan. Leaving that meeting, then, they had to know of the negative results of testing completed on the 13th.

May 12th: Meehan submits DNASI's "final report" to Nifong. It is woefully deficient, as set forth within counsels' December 13th motion.

May 15th: David Evans is indicted.

May 18th:

MIKE NIFONG, DURHAM, NC, D.A.:

The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant [Seligmann].

December 15th:

Mr. Cooney: Did Nifong and his investigators know the results of all the DNA tests?

The Witness: I believe so.

Mr. Cooney: Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?

The Witness: I believe so.

Mr. Cooney: Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of you and the district attorney?

The Witness: Yes.

***

Meehan's testimony differed from a statement Nifong made at the beginning of today's hearing.

MIKE NIFONG, DURHAM, NC, D.A.:

The first I had heard of this particular situation was when I was served with this particular motion on Wednesday.

And we were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud but at the same time his report made it clear that all the information was available if they wanted it and they have every word of it.

***

District Attorney Mike Nifong told a judge during today's Duke lacrosse case hearing that he was unaware of DNA that did not match the accused lacrosse players until this week, when defense lawyers included the information in a motion.

The head of a private lab that did the testing said he had discussed testing results with Nifong at several meetings.

Brian Meehan, head of DNA Security, the private lab that did the testing, said the evidence of other DNA was not included in the final report given to Nifong and defense lawyers because of privacy concerns and because he was not asked to provide that.

"Mr. Nifong specifically wanted us to say if the reference specimens matched any of the evidence. That's what we gave him."

***

KC:

Meehan, Nifong and Exculpatory

DSI

The Perry Mason Moment

More Meehan

More From Meehan

Meehan: DSI Doesn't Follow Its Own Procedures

***

Now, I'm not a Wizard or anything, but, when Meehan testified today that he and Nifong conspired agreed not to include, in the original "Final" Report provided to defense counsel, documentation of the presence of the DNA of multiple males, none of which was a lacrosse player, so as to, um, "protect the privacy of lacrosse players who weren't implicated in the case," why didn't OZ begin to inquire from the bench, perhaps like this:

Q: Excuse me, Mr. Cooney, if I might. Let me understand this, Dr. Meehan, you wanted to "protect the privacy of lacrosse players who weren't implicated in the case," is that what you just said?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Is that what you meant to say, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, you and Mr. Nifong discussed the test results on several occasions, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And the first round of testing at your facility was concluded on April 7th, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And that testing fully ruled out both the accuser's boyfriend and any lacrosse player as contributors of DNA in the vaginal cavity, rectal cavity, or upon the panties of the accuser, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: That same first round of testing at your facility was positive for the presence of the DNA multiple male donors in the accuser's vaginal cavity, anal cavity and upon her panties, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: By the way, did you know that the accuser had previously given a statement wherein she indicated that she had last had consensual sexual intercourse a week before the date on which the rape kit specimens were collected?
A: No, I didn't know that, Sir.
Q: It's true, she did. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, yeah, Mr. Nifong met with you personally at your facility with Investigators Gottlieb and Himan on April 10th, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: By the way, in addition to the meeting in your offices on the 10th, you also spoke to Mr. Nifong numerous times by telephone, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And discussed the testing results, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: In fact, the testing results was the subject matter of all of your conversations with Mr. Nifong, correct?
A: What do you mean?
Q: Well, Mr. Nifong had retained your firm to perform forensic DNA tests, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: You wouldn't be talking to him then, for example, about the last night's Little League scores, right?
A: Right.
Q: Now, you discussed the April 7th test results with Mr. Nifong at that meeting on the 10th, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And you told him that testing was negative for lacrosse player DNA, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You also told him that there was, however, the presence of DNA left by multiple other males in the accuser's vagina, rectum and on her panties, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: So, sir, would you please tell me what you meant when you said your agreement with Mr. Nifong not to include the positive results was to "protect the privacy of lacrosse players who weren't implicated in the case?"
A: What do you mean?
Q: I mean, sir, that none of the lacrosse players were implicated in the case by any tests performed at your facility, correct?
A: Their DNA was not present, correct.
Q: So, in fact, sir, there were no players whose privacy needed protecting, at least as concerns the results of testing at your facility, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Because not one lacrosse player's DNA was found, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: But Mr. Nifong had particular instructions for you regarding what he wanted your final reports to reflect, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: I believe you've told us that he only wanted your report to indicate if there were any MATCHES between DNA material retrieved from the rape kit specimens and the samples provided by the players and certain other individuals, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And you knew, when Mr. Nifong made the request, that what he was requesting was in contravention of the very reporting protocols of your own facility, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: But you did it anyway, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Because you really wanted to be involved in this case, correct?
A: Correct. The customer's always right, right?
Q: Now your facility concluded testing upon the pubic hair comb that was made part of the accuser's rape it on April 13th, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And you spoke to Mr. Nifong about those test results, as well, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Which, incidentally, were likewise 100% negative for the presence of DNA contributed by any lacrosse player, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And you conveyed these results to Mr. Nifong by telephone shortly after they were concluded, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Same day?
A: Maybe. We don't keep any logs of telephone calls.
Q: Well, you told him the results before you met with him in your office again on the 20th, correct?
A: I don't remember, sir.
Q: Certainly you conveyed the results of the testing concluded on April 13th when you met with him personally on the 20th, right?
A: Right.
Q: There were no lacrosse players whose privacy needed protection from the results of that latter round of testing, either, right, because that testing did not, itself, implicate any lacrosse player, correct?
A: Huh?
Q: There having been no lacrosse player DNA found, no lacrosse player's privacy interest needed to be protected, wouldn't you agree?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Madame Clerk, on what days did Mr. Nifong present Mssrs. Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans to the Grand Jury for indictment, again? I see.

Bailiff, kindly place Mr. Nifong in handcuffs and escort him from the courtroom. Case dismissed.

::..Gavel..::

Substantive Joint ID Suppression Motion Filed

Neff must have a cot in the clerk's office.

Read it, here

Bad Faith

In his concurring opinion in Younger v. Harris, 471 U.S. 37 (1971), Mr. Justice Stewart noted that

The questions the Court decides today are important ones. Perhaps as important, however, is a recognition of the areas into which today's holdings do not necessarily extend. In all of these cases, the Court deals only with the proper policy to be followed by a federal court when asked to intervene by injunction or declaratory judgment in a criminal prosecution which is contemporaneously pending in a state court...

The Court confines itself to deciding the policy considerations that in our federal system must prevail when federal courts are asked to interfere with pending state prosecutions. Within this area, we hold that a federal court must not, save in exceptional and extremely limited circumstances, intervene by way of either injunction or declaration in an existing state criminal prosecution. Such circumstances exist only when there is a threat of irreparable injury "both great and immediate." A threat of this nature might be shown if the state criminal statute in question were patently and flagrantly unconstitutional on its face (citation omitted), or if there has been bad faith and harassment - official lawlessness - in a statute's enforcement (citation omitted). In such circumstances the reasons of policy for deferring to state adjudication are outweighed by the injury flowing from the very bringing of the state proceedings, by the perversion of the very process that is supposed to provide vindication, and by the need for speedy and effective action to protect federal rights.

The Court's restatement of long embraced deference to a sovereign state's freedom to prosecute criminal matters unencumbered by federal meddling (save in those exceptional circumstances summarized by Justice Stewart) came to be colloquially known as "Younger Abstention."

On Monday, we learned of North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones' formal written request for federal investigation of Mike Nifong's conduct in furtherance of the Duke non-rape case.

Yesterday, counsel for Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans jointly filed a stunning motion detailing how DNA Security, Inc. (DNASI), the forensics laboratory retained by Nifong to conduct further testing upon DNA samples after SBI testing turned up nothing inculpatory against any player, failed to disclose its findings of what should have been hoax-ending exculpatory evidence in its "final report" to Nifong, dated May 12, 2006. Particularly, the report, um, failed to mention that

DNA Security identified DNA from multiple males in the accuser's anus, in her pubic region and on her panties. Enough of that DNA existed for DNA Security to conclude that none of it matched the defendants, their teammates on the 2006 Duke University Men's Lacrosse team, or anyone else who submitted a DNA sample in the investigation.

Further, when DNASI, despite aggressive protest, was compelled by court Order to submit its entire file to the defense in October, counsel discovered that it had failed to follow its own Reporting and Documentation policies. The motion makes clear how DNASI failed, in numerous instances, to even describe particular items of evidence examined, or to set forth the results of each DNA test performed. In fact, "despite performing DNA tests on over a dozen evidentiary items, DNA Security only reported its analysis of three of those items."

On the heels of these last two most interesting days, then, let us take a fong look back at bad faith, harrassment, official lawlessness, perversion of process, the need for speedy and effective action to protect federal rights, and the reasons why Younger Abstention is inapplicable to the case at bar, shall we?

Spring, 2006: Erstwhile Traffic Court Dictator-For-Life and Dog Control Officer Nifong is in the fight of his political life. He badly trails Freda Black in the Democratic primary race for District Attorney. This will not do. Nifong can't stand Freda Black. Considering that he fired her one day after being appointed interim D.A., in 2005, the feeling is mutual. If he loses to his former officemate, he's out of a job. What to do? What to do? Why, loan his sagging campaign THIRTY THOUSAND ($30,000.00) DOLLARS, of course!

March 14, 2006: Crystal Gail Mangum got an idea. An awful idea! CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!

March 16th: Mangum is shown a first photo array, as police attempt to have her identify the perpetrators of her awful idea. "This is harder than I thought", she complains, failing to identify anyone.

March 17th: Mangum, allegedly "too traumatized" to discuss the case with Nifong nearly a month later, on April 11, is back at the Platinum Club, stripping, pole dancing, and giving "clients" the private, "VIP" treatment three days after allegedly having just endured a brutal gang rape. A former co-worker alleges that she then boasted that she was going to "get paid by the white boys".

March 20th: The other stripper with Mangum at the lacrosse party tells Investigator Benjamin Himan that she was in Mangum's company for all but five minutes at the time in question, and that Mangum's awful idea is a "crock of shit."

March 21st: Mangum is shown a second photo array. She, again, cannot identify anyone as an assailant.

March 23d: Despite, or because of, the foregoing, Durham County's "Minister of Justice," Mike Nifong, had an awful idea of his own, and personally commandeered the investigation. On this day, his chief assistant prosecutor, David Saacks, Esq., and Himan, submitted perjurious representations to Nifong's ol' buddy Ron Stephens, in their joint Affidavit in Support of the D.A.'s request for an Order that all white members of the 2006 Duke Men's Lacrosse team submit to photography and cheek swabbings for the collection of DNA. Ol' buddy did not disappoint. Complainant can't identify her assailants? Fuggedaboudit. Modern science would now do that for her, or so the Minister of Justice shortly later promised.

March 24th: The Raleigh News & Observer "breaks" the "victim's" story to the Triangle community, and the nation.

March 24th: Nifong formally assumes the role of lead investigator of Crystal Gail Mangum's awful idea, directing Sgt. Gottlieb and Officer Himan to report directly to him.

March 26th: Mangum is videotaped pole dancing at the Platinum Club. Good old Precious.

March 27th: The 2006 "Minister of Justice" tour begins, with Nifong confidently awaiting SBI DNA test results while slandering the entire white membership of the 2006 Duke Men's Lacrosse team for an adoring camera.

The district attorney's office said team members deny the accusations, but admit there was underage drinking at the party. Otherwise, they are not cooperating with authorities.

Nifong, who said Monday that he himself will prosecute the case, said authorities may apply for more search warrants in the case and that more charges for aiding and abetting may be possible against partygoers.

"There's a good chance if someone had spoken up and said, 'You can't do this,' it might not have happened," Nifong said.

March 28th: The tour revs up; Nifong continues to unequivocally assert that forthcoming DNA results will solve the case.

March 28th: SBI Serology Agent, Rachel Winn, determined that the oral, vaginal, rectal and panties swabs and smears taken of the accuser as part of the initial Rape Kit did not show evidence of semen, blood or saliva. Accordingly, if curiously, she did not forward these items to the SBI DNA Section for further testing.

March 29th, et. seq.: Nifong, oh-so-coincidentally, commenced to minimize the importance of DNA testing and results, as the Tour cranked into over-drive. During this phase of the tour, Nifong outrageously and repeatedly violated Rule 3.8(f) of the state Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit prosecutors "from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused."

March 31st: Nifong ordered Gottlieb and Himan to conduct a third photo identification session with Mangum, this time showing her only photographs of the white members of the 2006 Duke Lacrosse team. This brainstorm assured that any individual(s) Mangum pointed to would be members of the suspect pool. That nice Mr. Nifong set up for her "a multiple choice test with no wrong answers." This Nifongian procedure violated all state, city and Police Department norms existing to insure that a suspect is accorded procedural justice, in flagrant violation of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8, comment 1.

April 4th: Mangum participates in the rigged photo lineup. She identifies four men as her attackers, including Reade Seligmann and David Evans, both of whom she did not recognize in the photo arrays of March 16 and 21, and Collin Finnerty, whose physical characteristics did not remotely comport with her own descriptions of her assailants to Himan on March 16th.

April 4th: After meeting with Nifong to report the results of the rigged photo lineup, Investigator Michelle Soucie contacted Dr. Brian Meehan of DNASI to see what his lab might do and charge for additional testing of evidentiary items in the case. Per Soucie's notes, Meehan went through the type of testing available and offered to "possibly adjust prices because they would really like to be involved in the case."

The Democratic primary was less than a month away.

April 6th: Mangum's "driver," Jarriel L. Johnson, gives a lengthy written statement to DPD, memorializing in comic detail her rather busy 'appointment schedule' over the three days preceeding the lacrosse team party.

April 7th: DNASI completed testing DNA extractions from Mangum's panties' stains, and rectal and vaginal swabs. Negative for the presence of DNA from any lacrosse player.

April 10th: Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan, drive to DNASI and discuss testing with Meehan. Leaving that meeting, then, they had to know of the negative results of testing completed on the 7th. Unless they didn't.

April 11th: Nifong meets with Mangum for, he says, the only time. But they didn't discuss two rounds of negative DNA testing. In fact, he says, they didn't discuss the case at all, what with Mangum still being so traumatized, and all. They talked about her kids. Gottlieb, Nifong says, is mistaken in his belief that, at 2:00 p.m. on April 11, "the victim and District Attorney Nifong met with one another and discussed the case." Nifong, Nifong says, is mistaken in his belief that he did speak with Mangum about the case on April 11th.

April 13th: DNASI completed testing DNA extractions of Mangum's rape kit pubic hair comb. Negative for the presence of DNA from any lacrosse player.

April 13th: Kirk Osborn attempts to meet with Nifong to proffer factual proof that his client, Reade Seligmann, could not possibly have participated in the crimes alleged. Nifong tersely rebukes Osborn, by proxy:

"I’ve known the guy for 25 years," Mr. Osborn said in mid-April. "I went over and thought surely he’d listen to me on it. And he sent some messenger out and said, 'I saw you on the TV saying your client was absolutely innocent, so what do we have to talk about?' He wouldn’t even see me himself."

April 17th: Seligmann and Finnerty are indicted. Nifong elected not to arrest the suspects identified by Mangum at the rigged April 4th photo lineup. Had he done so, the defendants would have been entitled to a probable cause hearing, to be conducted within fifteen business days of their arraignments, or first appearances, before the bench. At such a hearing, the defendants would have had the opportunity to examine the state's "evidence," cross-examine its witnesses, and present exculpatory evidence. Nifong wasn't interested in such petty matters. The Democratic primary was little more than two weeks away. A probable cause hearing scheduled following arrests made on any day after the 4th would have, in all likelihood, been conducted after the primary. Nifong could not have that, inasmuch as his slim hopes of defeating Freda Black rested exclusively within his ability to charge three white Duke lacrosse players with the heinous crimes alleged before the primary, so as to satiate the bloodlust of a majority of Durham's black voters. Thus, despite Mangum having "identified" four extremely dangerous, sexually depraved thugs on April 4th, Nifong let them walk the proverbial streets of Durham for two more weeks before presenting charges against them to a grand jury.

April 20 or 21: Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan, drive to DNASI and discuss testing with Meehan. Leaving that meeting, then, they had to know of the negative results of testing completed on the 13th. Unless they didn't.

May 12th: Meehan submits DNASI's "final report" to Nifong. It is woefully deficient, as set forth above and at length within counsels' December 13th motion.

May 15th: David Evans is indicted.

It is appropriate here to note that, following Mangum's initial accusations of March 14th, Chief Investigator Nifong never sought to have the "second dancer," Kim Roberts, i.e., the universally described lucid one of the pair on the night in question, look at any photo arrays. He never sought to have her interviewed regarding Mangum's statement implicating her in the assaults and robbery alleged to have been perpetrated. He never sought to have Mangum's "other driver," Brian Taylor, interviewed. He refused the players' offer to submit to lie detector testing. He refused to view the results of lie detector tests all three defendants, nonetheless, submitted to unilaterally.

Once faced with the realities of DNA testing, he hinted that Mangum's imaginary attackers might have worn condoms, despite Mangum having expressly stated 1) that they did not, and; 2) that at least two fiends had ejaculated in her mouth and rectum. He floated the rumor that Mangum may have been given a date rape drug, when chemical testing had confirmed that no such thing had occurred.

Throughout the summer and into the fall, Chief Investigator Nifong parcelled out discovery like breadcrumbs, railed against such "frivolous" defense requests as those for Mangum's cell phone records and the complete DNASI file contents, wasted the court's time with meritless motion practice, was at the helm when material, relevant audiotaped evidence was destroyed despite prior Order that it be preserved, and otherwise generally acted like the narcissistic sociopath that he surely is.

In the face of the facts disclosed in yesterday's defense motion, it is now crystal clear that Nifong intentionally and willfully perpetuated an unjust persecution largely of his own creation, immeasurably damaged untold numbers of lives, wickedly stoked the fires of racial mistrust and divisions for selfish aggrandizement, obstructed the administration of justice, most likely in affirmative conspiracy with DNASI's Dr. Meehan, all to the great and immediate harm of the defendants, with no concern whatsoever for their constitutional due process rights as citizens of this country. His only concerns have been 1) winning election to serve for six more years as Durham County's "Minister of Justice," and; 2) self-preservation, or as lengthy a delay of the coming disembowelment as he might secure. The man is pure evil. What ya gonna do, Oz? What ya gonna do, Gov? What ya gonna do, Alberto?

Kill it. Kill it now.

Mr. Jones and Me

In a December 7th letter released with Joe Neff's piece in this afternoon's on-line Raleigh News & Observer, North Carolina Third District U.S. Representative Walter B. Jones (R) has requested that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales launch an investigation into D.A. Mike Nifong's prosecution of the Hoax to

"...determine if it constitutes prosecutorial misconduct and has denied these students their civil rights as U.S. citizens under federal law."

Over the past several months, many of my constituents and a growing number of mainstream media outlets have raised serious questions about the accuser’s allegations and Mr. Nifong’s prosecution," Jones wrote. Jones highlighted two particular issues which have been brought to his attention:

"First, Mr. Nifong directed the Durham Police Department to knowingly violate suspect identification procedures for police personnel in North Carolina," Jones continued. "These procedures require that during any suspect identification process, a suspect’s photo must be shown with those of non-suspects. Mr. Nifong not only directed that this not be done, he also directed the police to tell the accuser that she would only view photos of Duke lacrosse athletes who were at the party. By doing so, Mr. Nifong ensured that the accuser could not make a mistake no matter who she identified because she would inevitably identify Duke athletes."

"Second, throughout the investigation Mr. Nifong repeatedly made prejudicial statements to the media. His statements clearly violate the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct which prohibit a prosecutor in a criminal case from making extrajudicial statements that ‘heighten public condemnation of the accused’ or, if disseminated via public communication, have the ‘substantial likelihood’ of prejudicing the proceeding," Jones wrote. "Mr. Nifong’s statements ranged from labeling the Duke players "hooligans" to falsely stating that they refused to cooperate with his investigation. Mr. Nifong also continually proclaimed his personal opinion that a sexual attack had occurred and that he believed the accuser. Furthermore, what is perhaps most concerning is Mr. Nifong’s public admission and representation in court that he’s never had the accuser tell him what she alleges occurred that night; Mr. Nifong has stated it was unnecessary to hear her version."

"Mr. Attorney General, many of my constituents have expressed concern to me that the facts outlined in this letter are indicative of prosecutorial misconduct. I urge you to look into these matters to ensure that Mr. Nifong’s actions have not illegally denied the accused of their civil rights as American citizens," Jones concluded. "After all, if the American people cannot trust those who they’ve empowered to pursue justice fairly, then hope for this democracy is lost."

In other news, Cash Michaels is still a buffoon, and "Poetic Justice" remains an ignorant racist.

-------------------------------------------

Added 5:14 ET:

Quasimodo has posted a list of NC Senators and Congressional Representatives, with their fax numbers and e-mail accessibility, at the Liestoppers message board. He has also supplied a simple letter that may be cut and pasted for easy transmittal to all NC congressional officials, and your own.

Do it!

Epiphany: Crowley Atones

On November 13th, the Durham Herpetic Scum published this ignorant drivel from Duke earth sciences professor, Thomas Crowley. The piece, and its writer, were immediately, and justifiably, assailed throughout the blogosphere. The outpouring of derision was so voluminous, in fact, that Liestoppers was moved to give the good professor his very own spacious cubicle of infamy, entitled "Crowley's Box of Rocks," found about half way down the right margin of their homepage.

Today, the Herpetic Scum published the following letter from Professor Crowley, entitled Lacrosse Retraction, which states, in its entirety, as follows:

On Nov. 13, The Herald-Sun published an "Other Voices" piece by me concerning the Duke lacrosse case. I have subsequently been informed of errors in that letter. In particular my blanket statement about behavior of the lacrosse team was neither fair in general nor applicable to the particular case now in dispute. I apologize for this and any other errors.

The response to my letter has made me more aware of the intense emotions that are associated with this case. These tensions can only be bad for campus-community relations, and I strongly support any efforts to reduce them. Finally, I sincerely hope that lessons learned from the lacrosse case will be applied to future cases in order to lift the standards of justice for all in Durham County.

The writer is a professor at Duke University.

THOMAS J. CROWLEY
Durham
December 1, 2006

It is important that Professor Crowley's atonement be memorialized here, considering both that, upon very good information and belief, the Herpetic Scum has had it in its possession since the day after Thanksgiving, and that it will almost assuredly be deleted from public view upon the Rag's own pages in the very near term.

Professor Crowley, you are to be commended, Sir. I trust that your turkey, or crow, tasted simply delectable last Thursday. Cleansing one's conscience has that effect. It takes an open mind to hear. It takes courage to stand up and publicly admit that you were wrong. It takes strength of character to fight the powerful forces of injustice. It takes integrity and humility and a teacher's soul to painfully volunteer your conversion to your student charges as a guiding example of what education truly means. If only Duke's president and "culturally" retarded faculty possessed the same.