Crystal Mess

I Say We Knock Her Block Off!

2008-10-06T22:47:00.003-04:00

"Joan Foster" Eviscerates Robert Steel

2008-02-22T11:16:00.003-05:00

I’ll admit to having been fascinated by the Scott Peterson trial…this seemingly “normal” young man with his pregnant lovely wife. How did those last horrific moments come about? What did he say? What did she? What was in his mind as he watched her die? I would wonder how he rationalized snuffing her life and the life of his child? If one could ever get the truth from him, what would he say? What was he thinking? How does someone like this form a personal defense… even to his own self?

Nowadays I think this same way about Robert Steele and Dick Brodhead. What’s the emotional and moral make-up of folks like this? I’ll confess I’ve never met either of them. I bet they are charming at cocktail parties and impressive in their insular little world, okay…fine. But everything I ever needed to know about either of them, I learned , if true and accurate, in the written summary of the third lawsuit.

Let’s start with Steele. Jason Trumpbour relays a conversation with Steele that just might be the most stunning moral indictment of the current Duke leadership to date. Now, stay with me here. Trumpbour tells us Steele felt it would be best FOR DUKE if Collin, Reade, and Dave…WENT TO TRIAL. Best for Duke. Say that again: “BEST FOR DUKE.” If convicted, he shrugged, “it would all be sorted out on appeal.”

Who thinks like that?

What kind of man thinks like that?

I can’t even type that without stopping to take a deep, outraged breath. Imagine you are the Finnertys, or the Evans. Or the Seligmanns. Your child, your boy, already scourged, and branded, and sullied by an outrageous LIE, would best serve the University’s interest by going TO TRIAL, perhaps being convicted of a felony and imprisoned in some hellhole. This is the measured, moral opinion of the chairman of the Board of Trustees at his school. It would be BEST for Duke for your INNOCENT child, your ravaged family to endure a TRIAL. And let’s remember the backdrop of this time: the Black Panthers, well represented , no doubt, in our prison system, shouting at Reade “You’re a dead man walking!!!” Sure, Chairman Steele, let it all be sorted out on appeal.

BEST FOR DUKE. He can pull these three young lives out of the equation, discard them, and focus on what’s BEST FOR DUKE.

Wow! That Chairman Steele!…he gives new definition to being a “company man.” And Brodhead, the subservient, self-serving lackey. Duke parents and alumni, you can’t say from here on, you don’t know the quality and moral compass of your leadership!

So what does that say about how Steele ( and his willing sidekick Brodhead) perceive the worth, the humanity, the reality of the lives of Collin, Reade, and Dave? Are they expendable for the PR purposes of Duke? Is it much more INSTITUTIONALLY important in the mind of Chairman Steele to prop up a life-destroying LIE so that Duke appears even-handed and sensitive to Durham’s homegrown strippers and lap-dancers? In lock-step with Durham’s cracker-jack, dump-burning governing entities? Supportive of the “castrate” sign- carrying, racist- diatribes of its activist professors? Why Chairman Steele should have just run a spot on local TV and made his message plain:

“ Hi, I’m Bob Steele, Chairman of the BOT of Duke University and I approve this message:

In the best interests of Duke University, to show our inclusiveness and reverence of even drug-addled, mentally ill prostitutes; our fear of our activist faculty; our guilt-fueled submissiveness to the local political intelligentsia; and our heavy duty P.C. credentials …. we will aid and assist D.A. Nifong in railroading three innocent students of ours and besmirching for life the reputations of their teammates. We and our employees will accomplish this by ignoring and/or suppressing or even ALTERING when we must any exculpatory evidence to the contrary. Like the local newspapers, we will also try to level the playing field, by ravaging the “histories” of these young men to try to bring them down to a level where the Lap-dancer /deranged former felon /and prostitute will appear their moral “equal.” To that end, we will empower commissions to uncover anything and everything negative that we might hand the media to envelop these boys in that stain. We will opine that “whatever they did was bad enough.” We will cancel their season and start a “Mea Culpa” progression around town, mournfully apologetic for having these young privileged men in our midst. We will turn our eyes away from any and all violations of OUR OWN conduct codes as long as the objects of these violations are these young men of the wrong race and income group. We will refuse to meet with their terrified parents or read the defense files that might force us to confront their ABSOLUTE INNOCENCE. We will look on mute while our faculty radicals ravage them in print from ad to op-ed over and over again. Proclaim them “farm animals” and let our silence speak approval.

We will do all this in the best interests of Duke University. To send to the world and our student body, through our actions, a moral imprint of what the leadership of Duke University considers the new expediency, the new righteousness. Here is our blueprint for what’s really important for those who aspire to assume the helm of any business. It’s not people, it’s not the lives of three young men or the reputation of forty-plus others. It’s PR and PC. Public relations and Political Correctness. It’s IMAGE. It’s that thin layer of false veneer we’ll protect NOT with OUR LIVES OR LIVELIHOODS, oh no! But those of OTHERS!

It’s protecting our bottom line and our top guys at the price of those we consider expendable. The Coach, the kids. In the business world we can kick the small investor and the retiree to the curb in the holy name of our corporate interest; at Duke, it’s three white students and their white coach. That’s our lesson for the leaders of tomorrow: it’s BETTER FOR US if these three nothing, nobody, non –protected species kids go to trial… so-o-o-o, let’s help it happen. If convicted….Gee Whiz, no Biggie…it will be settled out “on appeal.”

How does that sound to you, Alumni and parents? Do you like what you hear from the top? Am I wrong? Okay, you give me another way to interpret those words between Trumpbour and Steele. Look at your child before you do. Think of HIM as Chairman Steele and his Lapdog Brodhead’s sacrificial lamb. “If convicted, it can be sorted out on appeal.”

“YOU’RE A DEAD MAN WALKING” they shouted at Reade.

I’ve really tried to think of an alternative take on Chairman Steele’s words. Not to excuse or defend him but just because they astound me. I don’t know people who think like this. Maybe I don’t move in the proper exalted circles.

Thank God.

How can the best interests of Duke trump three real young lives? How can the best interests of Duke require the suspension of all logic and common sense, the suppression of evidence, the submission to the mob? How can the best interests of Duke under the current leadership be only about artificial IMAGE…not about its students, not about the rule of law, and dear God, especially….” not about the truth?”

No parent or alumni can say “move on” until they can confront the awful reality of those unanswered questions. Until they absorb the consequences of the cold fact THAT THIS IS THE MINDSET of those who still remain in power at Duke.

I'm reminded of the last powerful scene in the first Godfather movie: the bereaved newly widowed sister, waving the newspaper describing the Mob hits , pointing at Michael Corleone, besseching her sister-in'law to face it all..."THAT'S your husband! THAT'S your husband!"

That's your Chairman of the BOT.

That's your President of the once esteemed Duke University.

“Honey, you can’t leave” … until all you "Move-On Minions" confront the enormity of what was done to these kids.

Chuck Cooper and Dave Thompson React to Duke Crying

2008-02-21T20:25:00.006-05:00

Said Pamela Bernard, Duke's vice president and general counsel, "if these plaintiffs have a complaint, it is with Mr. Nifong. Their legal strategy - attacking Duke - is misdirected and without merit."

Plaintiffs' counsel, Charles Cooper and David Thompson, watching Miss Bernard's remarks:

God Help Me, I Do Love It So.

2008-01-14T02:01:00.006-05:00

APB: Who is "Dukeblues44?"

2007-10-20T15:32:00.000-04:00

Mike Gaynor, at the Liestoppers Forum:

DIW comment: "The Ryan M. e-mail...was sent anonymously to the Durham police on 3/27/06 from the following e-mail address :Dukeblues44. We know, from Himan's deposition, that Nifong was receiving information on the case from a woman who worked in his office and whose husband was with the Duke police. This e-mail address sure sounds like a moniker for a Duke cop."

Plenty of people surely know who's email address is or was Dukeblues44@gmail.com.

At least some of them also want the real abuse that followed the Gang Rape Lie not to be repeated and to be fairly compensated.

It only takes one.

Please identify Dukeblues44.

Communicate it the way you feel most comfortable.

I don't hide.

Michael J. Gaynor
95 Darrow Lane
Greenlawn, New York 11740-2803
(631) 757-9452 (tel)
(631) 754-3437 (fax)
GaynorMike@aol.com

Tortmaster, Hero of the Hoax

2007-10-13T19:18:00.000-04:00

A long, long, loooooong time ago, the only reason to visit talkleft became the opportunity to read the consistently excellent analyses of a single voice of reason among many, many vapid blowhards.

Tortmaster.

His utter vaporization of the "Listening Statement" Revisionists in today's Chronicle warrants re-publication in full, in as many fora as possible, as the student athletes' attorneys hone their Bowie knives for jungle conflict. Tortmaster's painstakingly thorough evisceration of the ad, which exemplifies the "critical thinking" of 88 lucky coffee house poets and assistant librarians, begins shortly past mid-scroll through the comments page accessed by the above link, at "2:31 AM EST." It continues uninterrupted through six consecutive posts, the last timed in at "3:30 AM EST."

It reads, in its entirety, as follows:

Let's look at the Listening Ad, but first let's look at it in context. It was drafted mere days after the alleged rape became public knowledge. Was it rash to jump on a bandwagon that was only 12 days old?

Keep in mind that even eventually disbarred attorney Mike Nifong would not indict anyone for the alleged crime until 12 days AFTER the Listening ad was published. Any conclusions about a "social disaster" did not even have enough time to become properly gossip-based yet.

There were the protests, including the "castrate" banner, the potbangers marching up Buchanan Boulevard, and, of course, the wanted posters depicting the faces of the lax players. Not pictures of the eventually-indicted players, but pictures of all the players.

The context includes the fact that local media had begun to focus on the Lacrosse team. A week before the Listening ad came out in the student newspaper, the News&Observer ran an editorial by Ruth Sheehan presuming guilt and presuming a lacrosse "wall of silence," with her "we know you know" piece.

The context also includes the fact that the Listening ad's author, Wahneema Lubiano, chose to publish it in the school's newspaper. What better way to cause harm to students than publish something about them in the student's own newspaper? Who better to publish it than gobs of faculty and whole university departments and programs?

The context also includes other editorials written by the Gang of 88, including the infamous one by Professor Chafe with the Emmett Till comparison. He wrote the following in the Duke Chronicle a week before the Listening Ad:

"Sex and race have been intertwined since the beginning of American history. They remain so today, throughout America and here at Duke. The events that occurred on Buchanan Boulevard two weeks ago are part of a deep and troubling history."

But Lubiano also had an editorial published in the News&Observer in which she wrote in May 2006:

"An anger is surfacing against aspects of everyday life at Duke, an anger that is playing out in the aftermath of the accusations against the lacrosse team and responses to those accusations. The changes at Duke that critics want to see are coming more sharply into view as a result of struggle in this moment of spectacle."

The Listening ad author wrote that "[a]n anger is surfacing ... in the aftermath of the ... accusations against the lacrosse team ...." She wrote this in a paper with a printing of 167,891 copies each weekday in the Raleigh-Durham area.

The context also includes what the author of the Listening ad thought of the ad herself. As reported by ESPN, "Lubiano knew some would see the ad as a stake through the collective heart of the lacrosse team."

The context of the "Listening ad" included some lacrosse students sleeping in cars to avoid public consternation or worse, staying over at the homes of anonymous friends or even leaving the state.

On March 30, 2006, a few days before the publication of the Listening ad, the News&Observer printed a story which included the following subheading and copy:

"TENSION BUILDS

The case, which erupted last week when police took DNA from all but one member of the team, heightened tensions between the city and Duke, a private university sometimes accused of walling itself off from a community with blue-collar roots.

The incident has sparked outrage on and off campus about classism, racism and sexual violence. The woman, an N.C. Central University student and employee of an escort service hired for the party, is black; she told authorities that her attackers were white....

Frustration over Duke's response continued Wednesday.

Wednesday's Take Back the Night rally, planned months ago, drew nearly a thousand people. Students and residents walked nearly a mile from East Campus to the landmark chapel on West Campus, chanting, 'Hey, hey, ho, ho, all rape has got to go.'

Ignacio Adriasola, an art history graduate student, had a sign taped to his shirt: 'It isn't what Duke has, but what it lax,' using the shorthand word for lacrosse.

Jean Leonard, Duke's sexual assault support services coordinator, welcomed rally participants from Duke, NCCU and Durham Technical Community College. TV trucks from national media outlets rumbled nearby. 'Tonight is about more than a great media story that the nation has great interest in,' Leonard said. 'Tonight is more about healing.' "

(capitalization of subheading added).

As you can see, the context included an atmosphere of heightened worry; Duke administrative staff and students alike were on the record presuming guilt. Tension was building. The national media had arrived at last! This was all BEFORE Lubiano published the "Listening ad."

Approximately a week prior to the Listening ad, the students' lawyers were already concerned about prejudicial pretrial publicity. A March 30, 2006 News&Observer article had the following headline: "Lacrosse players' lawyers object."

Eventually, Mike Nifong is disbarred, in part, for his prejudicial pretrial public statements, and the defense lawyers cite Duke faculty in their Motion to Change Venue. Of course, such a motion is filed when a party believes that it cannot receive a fair trial in that particular venue.

On the "Diverse" Education website, it is posted:

"The [Listening] advertisement gained additional prominence when, in the fall, the defense attorney for the lacrosse players requested a change of venue, citing the advertisement as evidence of Duke faculty bias against the players."

About a week before the publication of the "Listening ad," every literate person in Durham (and some who just watched television news) knew that the BIG DAY was approaching. Mike Nifong had publicly said that DNA results for the case would be available on or about April 10, 2006. On April 1, 2006, the N&O printed an article proclaiming:

"District Attorney Mike Nifong said Friday that no charges will be filed in the investigation of a report of rape at a Duke University lacrosse party until at least the WEEK OF APRIL 10. He also said he won't release DNA results that had been expected next week.

The tests, which are comparing the DNA of 46 lacrosse players with samples taken from the accuser as well as from towels, rags and rugs in the house where the party was held, COULD BE COMPLETED NEXT WEEK, Nifong said."

(emphasis added)

Now, anybody riding the backs of presumptively innocent students for his or her political agenda would know that APRIL 10 was an important day. If the DNA came back negative, the sane response would be a dismissal of claims (especially given the alleged 30-minute violent gangrape by 3 Division I athletes).

In other words, if hay were to be made, it had better be harvested fast. In a mass e-mail to other professors, Lubiano directed her colleagues to review the Listening ad quickly, sign on and hurry up: "We're trying for Thursday (04/05) if we can do it; if not, then next Monday (04/10)."

Thus, not only does it appear that Lubiano whipped up the "Listening ad" in record time, she did so as quickly as possible in case the boys were ACTUALLY FOUND TO BE INNOCENT.

The best context of all, of course, is the author's interpretation of her own handiwork. In this case, Lubiano unequivocally stated in her e-mail to colleagues that,

"African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle ABOUT THE LACROSSE TEAM INCIDENT." (emphasis added).

So, it seems that Lubiano's admission against interest proves that the Listening ad was about "the lacrosse team incident." But she went further and signed up not just 87 other colleagues, but also whole university programs and departments, including the following:

Duke University's African-American Studies
Duke University's Romance Studies
Duke University's Social & Health Sciences
Duke University's Franklin Humanities Institute
Duke University's Critical Studies Program
Duke University's Art Department
Duke University's Art History Department
Duke University's Latin American Studies
Duke University's Center for Documentary Studies
Duke University's Women's Studies Program
Duke University's Program in Education
Duke University's European Studies Program

The "Listening ad," taken in context, heightened tensions on campus, aligned a huge number of professors, departments and programs against the lacrosse players, was raised in a Motion to Change Venue to protect the students and joined such other recent disparaging editorials as Sheehan's and Chafe's.

To say the ad was not about the lax hoax is to ignore the ad's author, the timing of its publication, and even the first line of the ad. For those who have not seen the "Listening ad," it can be found at Johnsville.blogspot.com.

At the top of this "PAID ADVERTISEMENT," it provides: "Regardless of the results of the police investigation ...." This is stated without previous mention of any event deserving of a "police investigation." The author was obviously referring to the Duke hoax investigation.

In the same paragraph, Lubiano describes "this moment's extraorinary spotlight." Again, an obvious reference to the Duke rape hoax.

The next paragraph, which is just one sentence, claims that "[I]t is a disaster nonetheless." The author appears to be describing BOTH what happened at 610 Buchanan and other perceived acts of racism at Duke (and elsewhere).

The next one-sentence paragraph states that "[t]hese students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves."

THAT is a prejudgment. The words used were "WHAT HAPPENED to this young woman ...." The author could have used words such as "what was alleged to have happened." Lubiano mentioned in her e-mail that she had made drafts of the piece, so she had time to edit the language. It is also instructive to note that the Listening ad sets an early emphasis on "shouting."

The next paragraph appears to be a quote, but there are no quotation marks or attribution. This is a continuing problem in the advertisement. "We want the absence of terror.... Terror robs you of language and you need language for the healing to begin." As stated previously, the author was obviously discussing the hoaxed rape allegations and generic perceived racism. Which would the reader perceive as more likely deserving of actual "terror"?

The next paragraph again appears to be a quotation mark-less quote, but this is attributed to the Independent (but no particular speaker). Significantly, this quote appeared approximately 3 days after the Duke rape hoax became public knowledge: "This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists ... It's part of the experience." (ellipses in original).

The author is apparently conveying that rape (or is it just the generic perceived racism) is as abundant as ipods about campus. Since I am an American, I read the ad left to right and top to bottom, the context leads me to believe that rape may be as prevalent as fast food at Duke.

After three unattributed apparent quotes, there is this: "... I am only comfortable talking about THIS EVENT in my room with close friends. I am actually afraid to even bring it up in public. But worse, I wonder now about everything.... If SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS TO ME ...." (emphasis added).

What do you think "this event" means? The Duke hoax, of course. No other specific event is alluded to in the least. Also, consider what the apparent quotation implies: The speaker has nothing to fear if there is just an investigation of students who are presumed innocent, but she does have something to fear "if something like this happens" to her. Something like what? A rape, of course, a prejudged, juried and executed rape.

After another unattributed quote, there is, in the center of the Listening ad, in giant eye-catching print, "WHAT DOES A SOCIAL DISASTER SOUND LIKE?"

After two quotes attributed only to the Independent (and not a person), the ad goes on to provide: "... no one is really talking about how to keep the YOUNG WOMAN herself central to this conversation, how to keep her humanity before us ... she doesn't seem to be visible in this. Not for the university, not for us." (emphasis added).

It seems strange to me that everyone quoted by Lubiano was a poet. In a poetic way, the author inserted this "quote" in the ad to apparently get the university to support the "invisible" woman and not the university's students.

The next unattributed "quote" also seems to be egging on the University and the community to strive to achieve greater success in arresting someone. Consider how this "quote" attempts to elicit action while it, at the same time, prejudges the case and prejudices the lacrosse players:

"I can't help but think about the different attention given to WHAT HAS HAPPENED from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black but participating in a different sport, like football, something that's not SO UPSCALE." (emphasis added).

"What has happened" refers to the Duke lacrosse hoax, and the author appears to be saying, that he or she wants arrests now! The "different attention" is the lock-up of the offenders. Finally, the use of the "so upscale" language prejudices the boys in a classist way.

The next unattributed "quote" again appears to egg on the university to take action about the Duke rape hoax. The "quote" provides:

"And this is what I'm thinking right now - Duke isn't really responding to THIS. Not really. And THIS, what HAS HAPPENED, IS A DISASTER. THIS IS A SOCIAL DISASTER." (emphasis mine except last sentence).

Use of the word "this," of course, refers to the Duke rape hoax. So do the words "what has happened." Even a feeble-minded person would conclude that an investigation is not a disaster, but a rape would be. "This" rape "happened." That is a prejudgment.

The remaining substantive portions of the "Listening ad" provide additional clues as to the motivation behind it, including use of the date "March 13th," which could only reference the date of the fake gangrape.

Lubiano notes at the bottom that "[t]his ad, printed in the most easily seen venue on campus, is just one way for us to say that we're hearing what our students are saying."

This raises a couple of issues in my mind: (1) it is a "Paid Advertisement," which means that faculty felt it was so important that they spent their own money on it; and (2) the implication is that entire departments and programs at Duke University also paid for the advertisement, which as described above prejudged the students as guilty of "this" and "what happened."

Then, Lubiano goes on to write the following: "We're turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait."

- "[T]urning up the volume" is akin to the "shouting" described earlier in the ad. In context, this is at a time when the local and national media have already turned up the volume, when potbangers and 1,000-person domestic violence protest marches were roaming Durham.

- "[T]urning up the volume" and "shouting" do not seem to be the best way for university professors to achieve a measured response or dialogue.

- "[I]n a moment" again refers to the fake rape and its warm afterglow.

- "[I]n a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait" refers to waiting on due process and court hearings. Lubiano and the Gang of 88 are telling their students NOT to wait for due process. Join a lynch mob, see the world.

Next, the Gang of 88 compliment the potbangers and protesters, leaflet spammers, wanted poster hangers, castrate banner holders (one for each side of that HUGE banner) with this: "To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for NOT WAITING and for making yourselves heard." (emphasis added).

- Lubiano and the Gang of 88 are lucky some crackpot did not take "individual[]" action.

-"[T]hank you for NOT WAITING" is positive reinforcement for judgment rushing and the perceived university-sanctioned elimination of due process.

Finally, the "Listening ad" concludes with a list of all the university departments and programs aligned against the lacrosse students. I can just imagine a lacrosse player reading the ad and thinking, "We didn't do it, but the African & African-American Studies Program, the Psychology Department and even the Franklin Humanities Institute believe we did, and they want us arrested."

A website address is given because of "space limitations" in listing all of the faculty signatories, which lends weight (in numbers) to the charges and instructions contained in the ad.

My problems with the "Listening ad," which are many and varied, do not include the allegation that the ad's author is dumb. Far from that, I think the ad was well-crafted to tacitly, yet obviously, refer to the rape as basically well-established fact.

It was also surgically designed to extract as much marrow as possible from the bones of Duke University. The Gang of 88 chose that moment to press an advantage and "negotiate" their demands with the university. Some of my problems with the "Listening ad" include the following:

A. Using what was essentially gossip (triple hearsay at best) to stir up an already tense situation.

B. Using this gossip to extract demands from the University.

C. Providing negative pre-trial publicity against their own students.

D. Failing to reflect, soberly, on the ramifications of their actions (lynching their own students)(ignoring due process)(the propriety of basing demands on gossip).

E. Implying, in a crafty way, that it was the institutional belief of a large faction in the University that rushing to judgment was condoned.

F. Implying, in a careful way, that it was the institutional belief of a large faction in the University that a rational approach to days-old gossip was "making collective noise" rather than waiting to allow due process protections to attach.

G. The shoddy scholarship involved.

H. Attacking and attempting to alienate 46 of their own students.

I. Painting themselves into such a corner that they could not later apologize and acknowledge their misdeeds.

J. Providing intellectual support to a false prosecution.

K. Prejudging and convicting their innocent students.

L. Compounding their error with a subsequent "Clarifying Statement," editorials, letters to the editor, articles, "Shut Up and Teach" forums, etc.

M. Bringing the University into disrepute.

_________________

Based upon their power play, the Gang of 88 were able to extract a number of concessions from Duke, including, among other things, the elevation of the African & African-American Studies Department, the appointment of a Diversity & Equity Officer, numerous committee investigations, including the infamous Campus Culture Initiative, various benefits for faculty and students involved in the protests or "Listening ad" and, most significantly, a chilling of speech on campus, causing other professors and administrators to refrain from denouncing the obvious hoax (and the actions of the 88).

These are my opinions only. MOO! Gregory

The End.
__________________

Blog Hooligan

vs.

Tenured Dook "Professors"

Too funny.

And John Burness responds, "For what?", when asked if the University would apologize to the indicted players, post-exoneration.

Keep gearing for trial, Duke, as the 88 begin simultaneously stitching the world's largest wallet while singing, "We Shall Overcome."

The Circle Jerk Continues, Easley Fondling Saacks

2007-09-06T20:43:00.000-04:00

Mike Easley was the Attorney General of North Carolina in 1998 when his subordinates, David Hoke and Debra Graves, framed Alan Gell. Despite their egregious conduct, Hoke and Graves are still putting people in prison. Alan Gell is still a nobody. Mike Easley is now the Governor.

Ron Stephens was Durham County District Attorney in 1993-94 when his subordinates, Mike Nifong and Mary Winstead, sought to convict Timothy Malloy of bogus rape charges after Winstead "accidentally" altered and erased portions of not one, but two (2!), audio cassette tapes crucial to the defendant's case. Winstead now works with Hoke and Graves. Tim Malloy is still a nobody. Mike Nifong thought he could impose Durham Justice on Somebodies. Bad thought. He's going to jail tomorrow and is going to pay for the sins of his mentors for the rest of his miserable life. Ronnie Stephens? He's now a judge.

Jim Hardin was Durham County District Attorney in 2002 when Tracey Cline sought to convict Leon Brown of bogus rape charges although the only DNA recovered from inside the alleged victim belonged to her white cousin, the man she'd initially identified as the perpetrator. Brown, who is black, languished in jail for a year awaiting trial, after Hardin had personally given the cousin full immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony against Brown. The jury foreman considered the case a complete "waste of time," adding, "we all wondered what we were doing there. The evidence was nonexistent. We're very comfortable with the decision we made. I can't understand why that man spent a year in jail when there was no evidence whatsoever against him. It made no sense to us. Where's the justice?" Leon Brown is still a nobody. Tracey Cline is still a nobody. Jimmy Hardin? He's now on hiatus from his judgeship, after having been pegged by Easley to act as interim Durham County District Attorney following Nifong's disbarment.

Mike Nifong was Durham County District Attorney on March 23, 2006 when his subordinate, David Saacks, submitted a perjurious affidavit to Judge Ronnie Stephens, in support of a non-testimonial order for the taking of photographs and DNA samples of all forty-six white members of the Duke men's lacrosse team. As I wrote, here, the affidavit, co-executed by KC Johnson's other not-so-bad guy, Investigator Benny Himan,

"alerted Stephens to "medical records that were obtained by subpoena" indicative of Mangum having "signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally." As you, of course, now know, medical records had not yet even been printed, let alone obtained by law enforcement authority, at the time Saacks and Himan swore to the lies quoted, and said records, once obtained, contained no memorializations remotely tending to substantiate Saacks' and Himan's contemptible perjury. Accordingly, the photographs Mangum viewed when making her sham "identifications" of April 4th should never have been ordered to have been taken in the first place. The unconstitutionally ordered photographs were then "used" by Nifong and Mangum and Gottlieb in what is quite probably the most procedurally tainted and flagrantly unconstitutional "lineup," ever."

In a very large way, Saacks kick-started the entire mess.

Today, Governor Easley tapped Saacks to fill the seat vacated by Nifong. As properly observed by my buddy and hoax hero Bill Anderson, in a 5:36 p.m. comment left on KC Johnson's thread,

"Let's see, the "best" choice is someone who ordered the NTO that was a fishing expedition based solely on race. In other words, Durham now has a "new" prosecutor who helped to create a hoax, eviscerated constitutional rights, and bears a lot of responsibility for what happened.

Furthermore, where was Saacks when his boss and the police were breaking the law? Oh, he was supporting the lawbreakers.

Saacks belongs in jail, not in an office where he can send people to jail. I understand K.C.'s point, given the dregs that washed up on the governor's list, but once again we see that when it comes to supporting criminality, no one outdoes the State of North Carolina."

What a joke. North Carolina Good Ol' Boys Politics. A sad, sorry, despicable joke. It's not funny, though, for the Nobodies.

Roll, Benny, Roll!

2007-09-06T09:59:00.001-04:00

This are the extent of my notes. I would hand things to Investigator Himan, and he would file them. I did take notes to organize myself and to help Investigator Himan organize the investigation just on my board. And I have a board in my office, it's a, dry-erase board. And, for example, Investigator Himan would say, "I need to have someone look at different things, how we can get a hair analysis done," And I would put my name next to that. And then he'd say, "I need a background done for this person." I would assign someone to do that if he wasn't going to do it. He'd say, "I need a court order to get e-mail records," put his name next to that, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I had asked him and was under the impression that he was taking photographs of the board, and when we finished that we would clear it. That wasn't done. And I apologize for that.

DPD Supervisor of Investigations, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, 4/19/2007

***

Q: You've been a member of the Durham Police Department for [nearly] twenty years, correct?
Q: Before being offered, and accepting, that job, you were required to attend police academy instruction and training, correct?
Q: In fact, you had to be certified as having successfully completed such training before starting your employment with the DPD, right?
Q: In other words, you could not be hired as a Durham police officer until having passed that professional course of training, correct?
Q: That professional training included instruction in the appropriate and acceptable ways of interviewing witnesses, no?
Q: And, "witnesses" includes crime victims, suspects, and third parties with information relevant to assist in your investigation of a crime, doesn't it?
Q: And you passed that training, of course, didn't you?
Q: You were also trained in the manner in which to make and keep notes of witness interviews, correct?
Q: Passed that training, too, right?
Q: And that training instructed that you, whenever possible, make your notes contemporaneously, that is, at the same time as, your conversations with witnesses, isn't that so?
Q: In fact, writing down witness statements at the very time the statements are made is the favored practice, is it not?
Q: An officer who writes a witness statement into his notes at the time the statement is being made is an officer using good and accepted practice, isn't that true?
Q: Well, an officer writing his notes of a statement at the time the statement is made is not doing anything wrong, is he?
Q: He's not going to be reprimanded for that, is he?
Q: Because, if you're writing down a witness statement at the time the statement is made, you are following the favored practice taught to you all the way back in the police academy, correct?
Q: I'm sure you strive, every day, to perform your job according to the proper procedures you were taught all the way back in the police academy, don't you?
Q: Because you want to do things right, right?
Q: Because you're a good officer?
Q: Your training also taught you that you should take great care to write down witness statements in your notes as accurately and completely as possible, correct?
Q: You've been trained to record the witness' statements in writing as the witness is speaking, correct?
Q And to ask the witness to repeat or clarify a particular statement that you want to memorialize perfectly in your notes, right?
Q: You were trained, in fact, to use quotation marks to connote written notes that record exactly what a witness said, were you not?
Q: And that is your own custom and practice, isn't it?
Q: So, if a witness interview note written by you includes matter framed by quotation marks, you are indicating by the quotation marks that that is exactly what the witness said, fair?
Q: If it's in quotation marks, it's not your own summary or impression of what was said, it is what was said, right?
Q: Verbatim?
Q: And it is, of course, your custom and practice to include in your interview notes any and all information that you deem relevant, or important, to on-going investigation, isn't it?
Q: I mean, you'd never not write down information given by a witness that you felt was important to solving the crime, right?
Q: So, you always do write down any and all important information told to you by the witness you're interviewing, correct?
Q: What do I mean? I mean, information that you, in the course of your investigation, and in consideration of your training and experience, feel is important to the case?
Q: You don't "leave out" any important stuff then, agreed?
Q: That's very important to the conduct of a thorough criminal investigation, isn't it?
Q: It's very important to justice-minded criminal investigation, isn't it?
Q: What do I mean? I mean that you know, from your training and experience, that your notes of witness interviews are often used by the District Attorney's office in the prosecution of defendants charged with the crimes you've investigated, isn't that so?
Q: You know, from your training and experience, that you might expect to be called as a witness at a criminal trial to read your investigative notes to a jury, correct?
Q: In fact, you've testified to juries in open court "X" times, haven't you?
Q: And you know, from your training and experience, that your notes of witness interviews are often introduced in open court as evidence in criminal trials, correct?
Q: You know, from your training and experience, that trials of crimes charged often occur long after, sometimes years after, the alleged crime and your investigation of it, don't you?
Q: And, knowing that, you always make sure that your contemporaneous notes of witness interviews are as full and complete and accurate as possible, correct?
Q: To help refresh your own recollection when you are called upon to testify about events long past, correct?
Q: Because your own memory of, say, investigating a purse theft would be sharper and more accurate at the time you spoke to witnesses shortly after the theft occurred than it would be, say, three or four years after its occurrence, fair?
Q: And you'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that the purpose of a criminal trial is not exclusively to secure a conviction against an accused?
Q: You'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that the dual purpose of a criminal trial is to see that, both, the guilty are convicted and that the not guilty are set free?
Q: In other words, to insure that justice is served?
Q: Which is, in large part, why it is your own custom and practice to make your notes of witness interviews at the time of the interview, or as quickly as is reasonably possible for you to do so, correct?
Q: So that the jury will have a record of witnesses recollections of a particular event at a time shortly after the event occurred, correct?
Q: Because, in your experience, the recollections of witnesses tend to change over time, do they not?
Q: In fact, it has been your experience that witnesses memories of particular events fade with time, hasn't it?
Q: Yes or no: Do you mean by that answer that, in your experience, some witnesses' memories have actually improved over time? Um-hum.

[Seek court permission to have 3 pieces of scrawl marked for identification]

Q: Now, your job also requires you to make and keep comprehensive reports of all information developed during the course of investigation, does it not?
Q: A typical such report, as opposed to witness interview notes alone, would include all relevant information you have developed pertaining to a particular investigation, fair?
Q: The report might be added to from time to time as an on-going investigation proceeds, correct?
Q: It might also include investigative information developed by other officers working on the case, correct?
Q: It would include information, for example, about the scene of the crime? Personal observations upon canvassing an area? Complaining witness or witnesses? Injuries? Personal property damage? Evidence secured from the scene? Eyewitnesses? Descriptions of suspects? Contact information -- addresses, phone numbers, and the like? Witness interviews? Fair? Anything else?
Q: Good and accepted practice is to type information already secured onto the report as soon as is reasonably possible, correct?
Q: What do I mean? I mean, if you're sitting around the station, having already secured the name and address of a suspect, and fellow officers are out in the field trying to secure the identity of a second suspect, it would be good and accepted practice for you to type the name of the suspect you've already identified onto the report, wouldn't it?
Q: There's nothing in Departmental Regulations or police academy training instructing that you should not enter the information you already possess, is there?
Q: There's nothing in Departmental Regulations or police academy training instructing that you should wait for fellow officers to complete every phase of on-going investigation before you type information you already possess onto the report, is there?
Q: In fact, the favored practice is to type information onto those reports as soon as possible after the information is received, isn't it?
Q: Even if further investigation is on-going, right?
Q: Because if information already received is recorded in a timely manner, there is virtually no possiblity that the information will be accidentally misplaced or lost, right?
Q: Most of this is pretty much just common sense, isn't it, Sergeant?
Q: And it happens, on occasion, that you interview a witness with another officer, doesn't it?
Q: And the other officer contemporaneously makes written notes of the witness' statements, as well, correct?
Q: Because, like you, he or she has attended and passed police academy training, correct?
Q: Because, like you, that other officer has learned the DPD's accepted, proper procedures, correct?
Q: Because, like you, he strives every day to do his job correctly?
Q: Because, like you, he strives every day to follow proper and favored procedure, correct?
Q: Because he's a good officer, right?
Q: In fact, all officers conducting investigations for the Durham Police Department report to you, don't they?
Q: Because, since February, 2006, you have been the Department's Supervisor of Investigations, correct?
Q: In fact, it is your responsibility, in that role, to insure that all officers follow good and accepted practice and procedure in the conduct of their investigative and reporting duties, correct?
Q: If an officer was unacceptably late in filing reports of information developed during the investigative course, it would be your job to talk to that officer, correct?
Q: It would be your job to order that officer to timely file his report, correct?
Q: It would be your job to monitor his conduct thereafter, and see that your order has been carried out, correct?
Q: It would be your job to impose reprimand or punishment, possibly including termination, if the officer continued to disregard your order and proper Departmental practice, correct?
Q: But you haven't had to reprimand or punish officers under you for untimely report filing since you became Investigations Supervisor, have you?
Q: Because the Durham Police Department only employs good, competent officers, doesn't it?
Q: Okay. Now, on those occasions when you and another officer interview a witness together, you compare your own notes with those of your brother officer soon after the interview, don't you?
Q: And you expect, even before comparing your notes with those of your brother officer, that his and yours will memorialize similar, if not exact, information, correct?
Q: And, as concerns particular information contained in the comprehensive report, the particular officer who developed that information is typically the officer who types it onto the body of the document, correct?
Q: There is space provided on the formal report for the investigating officer to type in statements secured during witness interviews, correct?
Q: The information typed in that space on the formal report would include all of the important information included in your original notes of the witness interview, correct?
Q: And since you always include any and all important information stated by a witness in your hand-written notes, you simply have to type onto the formal report the entirety of what you've previously written down when interviewing the witness, correct?
Q: And, in the event that a witness was interviewed by you and another officer, that officer's hand-written notes would also be transferred to the formal, typed report, correct?
Q: But there shouldn't be any significant or important difference between his report entry and yours, should there?
Q: Because you interviewed the witness together, right?
Q: Heard the same statements at the same time, right?
Q: And, following good and accepted police procedure, you both took notes contemporaneously, that is, at the same time the statement was being uttered, correct?
[Insert 633 additional questions, here.]
Q: Now, there are Departmental regulations, are there not, setting forth the time by which information previously collected is to be typed onto the formal report, correct?
Q: Well, have you, in your lengthy career, developed a custom and practice that you strive to follow regarding the time between your conduct of an interview and when you type your notes of that interview into the formal report?
Q: Okay. Is it fair to state that the formal, typed report is to be filled in within a reasonable time following the collection of the information that is to be memorialized upon the body of the report?
Q: What constitutes a reasonable time?
Q: Well, I understand that circumstances of a particular investigation, or of an officer's personal life, might vary the definition of "reasonable time" a bit from case to case but, certainly, you'd agree with me that the passage of four months between investigation undertaken and typing the investigative results into a formal report is unreasonable, wouldn't you?
[Insert 897 additional questions, here]
Q: It would be particularly unreasonable when counsel representing an individual or individuals indicted for the crime under investigation have demanded your report for months and months, wouldn't it?

[Seek court permission to have neatly-typed, single-spaced, thirty-three page "Report" marked for identification]

Crystal Mess, August 25, 2006

***

Where are Gottlies' real notes?

Do it, Ben.

Citing Chafed Taint, Hardin Seeks Criminal Probe

2007-09-05T22:10:00.000-04:00

Democratic Durham politico Jim Hardin today asked Attorney General Roy Cooper's office to investigate whether current or former government officials should face criminal prosecution for their handling of the Duke non-rape hoax. The request is, apparently, hoax-specific, and does not seek determination of Hardin's own criminal misconduct, or not, during his first stint as head of the county railroad. In response to questions regarding the timing of today's request, and its seeming betrayal of long-time loyal lap dog, Mike Nifong, Hardin replied, "I tried. I really, really tried. But I just can't take the whiskers."

Michael

2007-08-14T21:13:00.000-04:00

What have I got to do to make you love me?
What have I got to do to make you care?
What do I do when lightning strikes me?
And I wake to find that you're not there?

What do I do to make you want me?
What have I got to do to be heard?
What do I say when it's all over?
And sorry seems to be the hardest word.

It's sad!

So sad!

It's a sad, sad situation!

And it's getting more and more absurd.

It's sad!

So sad!

Why can't we talk it over?

Oh it seems to me

That sorry seems to be the hardest word.

What do I do to make you love me?
What have I got to do to be heard?
What do I do when lightning strikes me?

What have I got to do?

What have I got to do?

When sorry seems to be the hardest word?

It's Nifong Time!

2007-07-20T21:56:00.000-04:00

[Click photos for high definition images]

After an exhausting first day of hearings, DPD Conduct Committee Chair Willis Whichard (seated, left) and panel advisor Wade Barber (seated, right) unwind over a few pints of Nifong Ale and a friendly game of "Go Fish." City Manager Patrick Baker (seated, center) offers strategic pointers to Barber, as Herald Sun Editor Bob Ashley (tamping one-hitter) and Aurelia Sands Belle (in drag) look on. Sergeant Mark Gottlieb (far left) is not taking notes. Former da Gruppenfuehrer, Linwood Wilson (passed out on bench, background) awaits his turn on the karaoke stage. Tillie (foreground, right) seems undisturbed by all the sound and fury. She knows it's back to business as usual in Durm.

The Outlaw, Mikey, Wails.

2007-06-22T16:15:00.001-04:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANE-In-Training Levicy: Damn you, Counselor. You promised me that man would be decently treated.

Counselor Joe: He was decently treated. He was decently fed. And then he was decently shot. That man was a common outlaw, nothing more.

Dooooo it!

2007-06-16T19:11:00.000-04:00

Der NiFuhrer: Hm.

Adjutant Schaub: Why so glum, Mein NiFuhrer? It's really not so bad.

Der NiFuhrer: I'm...uh...I'm going back downstairs now. I shall be in the bedchamber with Frau NiFuhrer. We are not to be disturbed.

Adjutant Schaub: Of course, Mein NiFuhrer.

The Big Lie Nifong Told

2007-06-16T08:30:00.000-04:00

June 15, 2007: Says he learned (that notice of non-lacrosse player DNA found during testing was not Meehan's report) on Dec. 13 when the defense filed motion for discovery. “I got the motion and I read over it and my first reaction was a variation of ‘Oh, crap!’”, the information was not in there “in a direct form.”

Um...

April 10, 2006: Meehan called Nifong to let him know that initial results were done the morning of April 10. Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan arrived in Burlington that afternoon--for a 2-hour meeting.

Meehan: "We reviewed all of the data that we had to this point in the case." Also provided an interpretation of the tests.

"We went through--specifically went through all the results from this case with Mr. Nifong."

Nifong asked questions in that meeting--despite earlier suggestions he had not done so.

[Nifong, who said he didn't take any notes during his meetings with Meehan, is taking notes during Meehan's testimony today.]

Meehan says that he was "sure" he would have told Nifong that multiple unidentified DNA in the rape kit at the 4-10 meeting--or seven days before indictments.

Q: Is that exclusion 100%?
Meehan: Yes.

Meehan says he went over this information with Nifong on April 10: he knew that no DNA matches to Seligmann or Finnerty.

April 10, 2006: Himan: At meetings with Meehan, gave updates on what they had found and what these findings meant. April 10 meeting: no DNA from any Duke lacrosse players on the rape kit. Says there was additional male DNA at either the 4-10 or 4-21 meeting--subsequently concedes this information was provided by Dr. Meehan on April 10.

After 4-10 meeting says tests had no matches to lacrosse players, Nifong says he wants everything (not just SANE kit) brought over to DNA Securities for testing.

On ride back to Durham, Nifong says that the fingernails evidence can be used to indict Dave Evans. Nifong was the person who made this decision.

Meehan at May 12 meeting: "He had a final report ready that day." Meehan goes through the written report--the entire report--at the May 12 meeting. Himan believes that Nifong was engaged at the meeting--asked some questions--though doesn't recall which questions Nifong asked.

April 17, 2006: Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty indicted.

May 15, 2006: Dave Evans indicted.

"Joined At The Hip" ... Fills Me With The Urge to DEFECATE!!!

2007-06-15T23:12:00.000-04:00

QUEEG: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I assumed command of a badly-handled ship. I tried to bring in into line. Lt. Maryk opposed me from the first. Maybe he thought I was crazy to keep trying.

Lt. Cmdr. Challee: Was your ship on the verge of foundering when you were relieved?

QUEEG: A typhoon is an extreme hazard, but the ship was riding well. Lt. Maryk went into a panic. He believed only he could save the ship. Ensign Keith, a disloyal officer, combined with him against me. It was bad luck for them. I bear them no malice. I'm sorry for them.

Lt. Cmdr. Challee: No more questions.

The Bench: A word of caution, Mr Greenwald. The defense will try to challenge the competence of Captain Queeg. Nevertheless, all the requirements of military respect remain in force.

Lt. Greenwald: During a period when the Caine was towing targets, did you ever steam over your own tow line?

Lt. Cmdr. Challee: Objection! The defense outrages the dignity of this proceeding. The prosecution believes the report of the psychiatrist closes the case.

Lt. Greenwald: But it is up to you naval officers to judge the captain's performance. And I must review that performance.

The Bench: Objection overruled.

Lt. Greenwald: Did you steam over your tow line?

QUEEG: I'm happy to dispose of this particular slander. When we were towing the target, I saw some anti-aircraft bursts. I turned to avoid them.

Lt. Greenwald: You turned in a full circle.

QUEEG: My unreliable helmsman failed to warn me about that.

But I saw it and reversed course. We didn't steam over the tow line.

Lt. Greenwald: Did nothing else distract you?

QUEEG: NOT THAT I RECALL

Lt. Greenwald: Weren't you reprimanding a seaman for having his shirt-tail out, while the ship turned 360 degrees?

QUEEG: That only took two seconds.

Lt. Greenwald: The morning the Caine escorted attack boats to the beach, didn't your orders include dropping a dye marker?

QUEEG: I DON'T RECALL.

Lt Greenwald: Did you drop a dye marker?

QUEEG: I DON'T RECALL.

Lt. Greenwald: Didn't you steam ahead of the attack boats, drop a dye marker ... and retire, leaving the boats to make the beach on their own?

Lt. Cmdr. Challee: The question is abusive. Cowardice is a serious charge.

Lt. Greenwald: Sir, may I make one thing clear? It is not the defense's contention that Commander Queeg is a coward. We assume that no commander of a US naval ship can possibly be a coward. If he commits questionable acts, the explanation must be elsewhere.

The Bench: You may resume your examination.

Lt. Greenwald: Were all your officers disloyal?

QUEEG: I didn't say that. Only some were disloyal.

Lt. Greenwald: Mr Keith and Mr Maryk?

QUEEG: Yes.

Lt. Greenwald: You wrote this report on Mr Maryk one month before he relieved you. Do you recognize it?

QUEEG: Yes, I do.

Lt. Greenwald: Please read your comments on Mr Maryk.

The Bench: The court can't hear you.

QUEEG: "This officer has improved in performance. He's consistently loyal, courageous and efficient. He's recommended for transfer to the regular navy."

Lt. Greenwald: Did you turn your ship upside down searching for a phantom key?

QUEEG: I don't know what lies have been sworn to here, but a key did exist!

Lt. Cmdr. Challee: The witness is understandably agitated. I request a recess.

QUEEG: I don't want a recess!

Lt. Greenwald: Did you conduct such a search?

QUEEG: Yes. My disloyal officers failed me, and the key couldn't be found.

Lt. Greenwald: Wasn't this whole fuss over a quart of strawberries?

QUEEG: The pilfering of food is a very serious occurrence on board a ship.

Lt. Greenwald: You were told that the mess boys ate the berries. There was no key.

QUEEG: The key was not imaginary! I don't know anything about the mess boys.

Lt. Greenwald: Have you no recollection of a conversation with Ensign Harding? Didn't he tell you that the mess boys ate the strawberries?

QUEEG: I remember he was grateful for his transfer. His wife was ill.

Lt. Greenwald: Do you know where Ensign Harding is now? He's in San Diego. He can be flown up here in three hours if necessary. Shall we have him testify?

QUEEG: No, I ...

I don't see any need of that.

Now that I recall, he might have...

said something about mess boys.

But I questioned many men, and Harding was not the most reliable officer!

Lt. Greenwald: The defense has no other recourse than to produce Ensign Harding.

QUEEG: There's no need for that. He'll only tell you lies! All the officers were disloyal. They were always fighting me. If the crew wanted their shirt-tails out, they'd let them. Take the tow line ... defective equipment. But they began spreading wild rumors about my steaming in circles -- and then "Old Yellowstain." I was to blame for Maryk's incompetence. Maryk was the perfect officer, but not Queeg. But the strawberries ... Ah, that's where I had them! I proved with geometric logic that a duplicate key to the icebox existed. I could have produced that key. They were protecting some officer ... Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory. If I've left anything out, just ask me specific questions ... and I'll be glad to answer them ...

one by one.

Lt. Greenwald: No further questions, sir.

The Bench: The court is closed.

Roll Away The Dude...

2007-06-13T01:35:00.000-04:00

Some come to laugh their past away.
Some come to make it just one more day.
Whichever way your pleasure tends
If you plant ice, you gonna harvest wind.

"Welcome to Durham: You Know We're Fucked!"

2007-06-12T22:00:00.000-04:00

Two Pigs in a Poke

Blog comments praising Widdle Benny Himan for bending Nifong over today make me want to puke. Suggestions that the saga has just found its latest hero could not be more retarded. Benjamin Himan is just another Goober punk with a badge looking to save his ass. Perhaps the solemn ceremony of resting one hand upon a bible while raising the other and swearing his oath to tell the truth brought home to Benny that a perjury rap atop his other coming problems would be a bad thing. Perhaps, OJ-style, he's already "forgotten" his prior perjury in this case.

Let's look back with clear-lensed glasses, shall we?

Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally.

Benjamin Himan
Signature of Affiant

SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME

Date: 23 March 2006

RONALD L. STEPHENS
Superior Court Judge

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

Now Benny says that he, Gottlies and Nicissist met on March 27, 2006, and discussed the various, um, problems of establishing probable cause of the crime of rape against...anyone. Crystal's inconsistent stories about the alleged assaults. Crystal's inconsistent stories about her own alcohol ingestion at the party. Kim Roberts' repudiation of Crystal's cry of rape. The complete cooperation of the residents of 610 North Buchanan. The failure of any party attendee to cooroborate Crystal's lies. Crystal's inability to identify her alleged assailants in the initial photo array. Nicissist concedes: "You know, we're fucked."

Benny now says that he, Gottlies and Nicissist rode back from Doc Meehan's office on April 10, 2006, knowing full well that no DNA from any lacrosse player had been turned up and that the presence of male non-player DNA had been confirmed.

Benny now says that so deep were his early reservations about the allegations, and the absence of any proof, that he expressed them to his superiors, Captain Lamb and Lieutenant Ripberger, in conference call with Nicissist.

Benny now says that he stood by as Nicissist chose which photos were to be included in the April 4, 2006 power-point photo array.

Benny now says that after the 4.4 photo line-up was conducted, Nicissist ordered investigation into Crystal's pre-party activities to determine whether the alleged "vaginal edema" might have come from another source.

Benny now says that when Gottlies and Soucie told him that Nicissist insisted on proceeding to indictment despite all of the foregoing, he exasperatedly asked, "With what?"

Benny now says that he met privately with Nicissist to convey his misgivings about proceeding to indictment upon such a dearth of evidence.

Benny now says that he was so concerned about not indicting "somebody that shouldn't have been indicted" that he worked late into the night before the first two indictments were handed up trying to unearth exculpatory evidence.

He is so full of shit. Benjamin Himan was one of two people to testify to the grand jury that indicted Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. He was the only person to testifiy to the grand jury that indicted Dave Evans.

Benjamin Himan a hero? My big black ass. A hero would have put principle before paycheck and blown the whistle loud and long. Benjamin Himan actively obstructed justice and furthered its perversion. Benjamin Himan should be in jail.
-------------------------------------------

"Nifong's attorney, David Freedman, says the da made inflammatory statements he now regrets but he never intentionally tried to withhold evidence."

Himan's testimony exposes that pap for the mockery of justice that it is.
-------------------------------------------

"Right now, you've heard the direct testimony," Nifong's attorney, David Freedman, said after the hearing. "I believe there's a lot more information the investigator has to add on cross-examination."

::..snicker..::

We always knew Himan would sing first and loudest. Go ahead, Davey. Ask away.
-------------------------------------------

Oh, and Durham, that nauseating sucking sound you hear? That's the Duke3 Shop-Vac emptying your coffers.

D1 Weekend Roundup

2007-04-17T21:50:00.000-04:00

Duke 7, UVA 6 (OT)

Emotional Win Caps Emotional Week

Brad Ross (10, Jr. M) fires a pretty behind-the-backer (top photo) that beat Wahoo keeper Kip Turner high to the off-stick side (bottom) at 2:19 of overtime.

Wow. What a game. I had it pegged as a one goal OT win for Duke. I also envisioned each team scoring as many goals as the final total put up by both. Why the baseball score? Was it the inspired hustle of both teams' LSMs? Tough rides? Swarming defenses forcing rushed shots from poor angles? Nah. Seventy-four shots. Thirteen goals scored. That, my friends, tells the story. Goaltending. Duke's Dan Loftus and Virginia's All-American, Kip Turner, each played out of their minds. UVA opened the game on fire, capitalizing on costly Duke turnovers, winning three of 4 face-offs, and dominating most of the first quarter. If Loftus isn't in some other-worldly zone during the first fifteen minutes, it's UVA 6, Duke 1. Because he was, the stanza ended with Duke trailing by a single goal, 2-1.

Duke seemed to quell any remaining pre-game jitters in the second, much more evenly-contested frame. UVA had a slight edge in ground balls and clears and, not surprisingly, held a 5-2 face-off advantage at halftime. Both defenses and LSMs were nasty, and it looked for a time as if the contest might devolve into retaliatory chippiness. Each team fired nine shots. Each scored only one goal. Turner recorded six saves; Loftus, four. Halftime: 3-2, Visitors.

Duke did everything it could to evidence its superior determination and drive for the win in the second half. They actually won five of 8 face-offs. They took eighteen of 23 groundballs in the third quarter; fourteen of 22 in the fourth. They cleared a perfect 12 for 12 after halftime. They took twenty-four shots to UVA's 9 over the last two frames. Kip Turner, however, was God, particularly in the fourth quarter, as he made five stupendous saves under unrelenting pressure as Duke sought to salt it away.

Remember that scene in Rocky I when Apollo puts the challenger down for what will surely be the count and turns to egg on the adulation of the crowd? Remember the look on Apollo's face as he turns back towards the ring and sees Rocky up on his feet again, motioning with his hands for more? That incredulous, what-more-do-I-have-to-do look? I suspect Duke felt about the same as time ran out in regulation. Turner was that good. Brad Ross' election to go behind-the-back on the foot of the crease for the game-winner was a very, VEH-ry good one. They were just not going to score on Turner by more...conventional...means. As the ball sailed over his left shoulder, I felt elation and sadness simultaneously. Elation for Duke. After the week that was, it was pre-ordained by the Fates to conclude this way. Sadness for Turner who, abandoned by flagging and out-hustled defensive mates, singlehandedly sent his team into sudden-death. He clearly deserved a better fate.

Post-game, nearly the entire Duke team signed the brim of my step-son's Duke Lax baseball cap. Each player came out of the locker room with a smile and engaging kind words for the youngsters who gathered for their scrawl. They were kind. And polite. And giddy. And happy for the chance to make a kid's day. Gentlemen, all.

Retired to the Washy Duke from the stadium, where Mike Kell, Phil Wood, LSC, Beth Brewer, Cheri and I reveled in the victory...er...VICTORIES!...with scores of parents, players and Coach Danowski. Too funny as new parents were introduced to our circle and handshakes came around to me.

"And which Liestopper are you?"

"I'm NDLax."

"NDLax...OOOOOoooooooooooooooooooh! C'mere you...!"

My humble thanks to all of them (you know who you are!) for their own kind words...and too many rounds of Laphroaig.

Nothing else happened in D1 this weekend.

Open the pod bay doors, Hal.

2007-04-07T20:36:00.000-04:00

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

"Basically, I'm A Harmless Nut."

2007-03-26T23:18:00.000-04:00

Crystal Gail Mangum, habitual liar. Spawn of habitual liars. But one of an extended family of habitual liars.

God bless you, KC Johnson.

Lara Setrakian, Agendist Poseur

2007-03-16T18:32:00.000-04:00

Lara Setrakian just before impact.

Last June, the Washington Post's "chief legal correspondent," Andrew Cohen, moron, pushed me down the road to Blog Hooliganism. Rarely since then has my intelligence been as offended as it is today, on reading this hot steaming pile of op/ed-cloaked-as-news. Mortimer Stevenspin's sycophantic odes in the Herpetic Scum have never chafed me so. Ditto, Trash's trash. Mortimer's a longtime Durham ham-and-egger whose mortgage depends on stroking the age-old contacts who feed him the tripe he writes for a dying small-time rag. Trash is just a racist hater. They're both buffoons, whose easily spotted brown-tinged biases make reading their crap a laugh.

Duke Lacrosse Accuser Not Answering Investigators' Key Questions, on the other hand, is vexing not so much for the tired old Crystal-apologist mantra it ultimately seeks to advance, but for the disingenuous manner in which, and by whom, it is presented in the guise of straight news. Penned by 25 year-old Harvard grad, Lara Setrakian, the article opens with a banner leading one to assume that the content beneath it will drop the other shoe on Pleasure Ryde's ugly melon head.

Setrakian can write straight news. At Harvard, she personally undertook to create a campus Armenian Society, an exaltation of homogeneity likely to raise the eyebrows of 88sters like former CCI co-chair, Karla Holloway. This is the same Lara Setrakian who lamented of Guantanamo detainees:

"Every person who's there has a story, and those who were held unjustly deserve that their story be told, every single one of them," she said. "The Platonic ideal for me is we would tell the story of the people whose lives were stolen, for some period of time, in error."

After quickly dispensing with the premise of the banner in its first eleven lines, however, Setrakian proves herself just another pot-banger, and the piece lays down an insideously evil drumbeat. Forget about the first eleven lines. AG Cooper says Crystal is cooperating, after all. A Durham "victims' rights" advocate opines that perceived non-cooperation with the new prosecutors is but the natural consequence of Crystal's mistrust of the system, it having beaten her up so badly, to date. Too funny. NiFong is going to lose his license for her.

"Even just with the vicious attacks on the Web and her picture on TV. … The trauma, the lack of trust that anyone's going to be there for you, fear of being alone — all of that could contribute to someone's reluctance to talk."

Yeah. Then again, the "someone" at issue might for the first time be being asked the types of questions she should have been asked by The Gang That Couldn't Frame Straight. Maybe she knows that truthful answers to these fastballs will undermine the veracity of the seventeen other stories she's already told. Maybe she realizes that these questioners are giving her a preview of what cross at trial would be like. Maybe, perhaps, she's just an unscrupulous liar who got nothing more at Buchanan than ripped off by her fellow dancer, and who finally gets that she cannot tell one more lie.

Remember this? On the pole. Three days after being brutalized. Happy St. Patrick's Day.

The trauma...

I note that the pictures accompanying this butchery are those of Colin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and Dave Evans. The article is about Crystal Mangum, Lara. Why not throw up her mug?

But wait! There's more! The Durham "victims' rights" advocate is utilized by Setrakian to remind that

the accuser's changing recollection of that night [does] not necessarily make it less likely that an assault had taken place.

She explains:

"[Assault victims] don't clearly remember the event right away. It's not unusual and it doesn't mean they are lying," Oettinger said. "When people have been through a trauma — a car crash is a good analogy — it can take them time to reconstruct the facts in their minds. Plus, sexual assault is uncomfortable for anyone to talk about."

Setrakian continues:

An accuser's reluctance to tell her story may not necessarily mean her alleged attackers are innocent. Nonetheless, it could seriously undermine the criminal case against them, especially in absence of compelling physical evidence.

***

Victims' advocates caution that even if accusers opts out of telling their story to investigators, ultimately deciding not to pursue the case, that in itself is not a declaration of alleged attackers' innocence.

By the end of the article, you've forgotten the banner. What Setrakian apparently wants us to take from Crystal Mangum's refusal to cooperate with Cooper's office is that this has been so, so hard on her. The poor thing, victimized by blog hooligans. Forced to dance in far-away towns. No one could blame her for not wanting to subject herself to more...trauma. And, most of all, always remember the names and faces of Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty. For, even if Crystal decides that "in the end, it isn't worth going forward. That doesn't mean a crime didn't happen that night."

In my humble opinion, these fuckers are sick.

Disgraced Nifong Should Resign Now

2007-03-03T22:52:00.001-05:00

In 2002, HALT, An Organization Of Americans For Legal Reform, undertook the first comprehensive evaluation of the legal profession's system of self-regulation in ten years. Of fifty-one "Lawyer Discipline Report Cards" issued (one for each state and the District of Columbia), the State Bar of North Carolina ranked fifieth in the nation. Only North Carolina and Pennsylvania flunked outright, each then receiving an overall grade of "F."

In 2006, HALT again issued Report Cards on lawyer accountability. In the interim, overall performance of the Pennsylvania Grievance Committee leapt to fifth best in the country. North Carolina? Fiftieth. The NC Bar received "Incomplete" grades in the categories of "Adequacy of Discipline Imposed" and "Promptness" because it failed to provide data related to those categories to the American Bar Association. Actually, it failed to provide the data because it doesn't even keep records or statistics attending such insignificant issues. Incredibly, despite the pig circus staged by the Bar in the aftermath of Hoke & Graves v. Gell, the NC Grievance Committee somehow did manage to raise its overall grade, to a pitiful "D."

The criminal misconduct of David Hoke and Debra Graves during the prosecution of Alan Gell would have resulted in the state-sanctioned murder of an innocent man but for the heroic perseverance of Mary Pollard and Jim Cooney. Hoke and Graves were ultimately "tried" for their unconscionable behavior before the NC State Bar Grievance Committee. They made out quite well, thank you very much. They are still practicing law, still prosecuting cases for the State's Attorney General, still wielding the full armament of the State's power to deprive individuals of their personal liberties, and their lives. Criminal charges never followed. Incarceration was never really their concern.

Why?

No one cared.

Okay, okay, Gell cared. His mom cared. Bill Anderson cared. Thankfully, so did his appellate attorneys and Joe Neff. But, really, a poor, red neck petty criminal wrongly convicted of killing a poor, red neck pedophile in a poor North Carolina town? Ho Hum. Woefully insufficient to wake the drive-by media. Woefully insufficient to warrant ink in newspapers outside Bertie and contiguous counties. Woefully insufficient to spur the Bar to abandon the usual business of protecting its own, particularly those ensconced in the mail of State Prosecutorial Power.

Well, people care now. Rich white male power rules. Good thing for the sons.

Now, the whole world is watching.

The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!

The whole world is watching and waiting to see if the State Bar will yet again thumb its nose at the Constitution; The Canon of Ethics; The Disciplinary Rules; The beyond-a-doubt evidence of a criminal frame-up orchestrated by an avaricious agent of the State solely for personal gain. The whole world is watching and waiting to see the State Bar try to save Good Ol' Blues Brothers Band Boy Nifong.

Hee hee hee hee.

Nah gah doit.

Can Governor Mike Easley, he of, um, higher political aspirations, allow the citizenry of forty-nine states to point at his as the one break-away Banana Republic of our Union? The one sovereign tobacco field where the Constitution simply doesn't apply? Of course not!

Wouldn't be prudent.

That's not to say Nifonging doesn't happen daily throughout the country. It does. But the whole world isn't watching the other forty nine states. The whole world is watching Mike Easley's. Why? Because Mike Easley personally appointed an immoral, sociopathic liar to be a State's "Minister of Justice." He didn't know it at the time, of course. But he's still fucked. The other forty nine governors must hit their knees every night, look heavenward, and exclaim, "Thank you, Jesus!"

Can the State Attorney General's Office risk exposing itself and, by extension, the State itself, to incalculable civil damages for further perpetuating a wrongful prosecution that never should have been brought nearly a very long, very wrong, year ago? Shirley, you jest.

Do you wonder at all whether Easley and Cooper, or minions on their behalf, have had double secret communications with the Grievance Committee of the State Bar? Me neither. Does anyone think it odd that Easley kept his trap shut for months and months and months and months and months as Nifong built the Hoax but now just can't stop yammering on about how he was LIED TO by that duplicitous little prick? I don't. Easley knows what's heading Mikey's way. Damage Control Central, we got an off-schedule train comin' two miles out.

I feel sorry for the North Carolina Bar. I really do sympathize with the Gentleman's Club. Were it not for that damn Crystal Mangum and her fantastic lies, business might have continued as usual in North Carolina. Durham railroads might have forever run on schedule. Durham problems might have forever commanded merely Durham solutions. But Defendant Nifong had to go and fuck it all up by picking on the wrong families. What a dumbass. If he weren't an egomaniacal, narcissistic sociopath possessed of but Tar Heel intellect, he would have thought through the potential consequences of picking on the wrong families. But he's not, so he didn't, and now, hell, everything's gotta change. The Bar and the State must, at least, convey the appearance of giving a damn about that silly piece of parchment deteriorating under bullet-proof glass in Washington. What with the whole world watching, and all. Nifong gives them that chance.

So, the disgraced Defendant Nifong should resign now. Because of the blog attention devoted to the Duke Hoax, millions of people, myself included, now know of the Gell Frame and the Bar's essential sanctioning of it. The Bar simply cannot act, or fail to act, in Matter of Nifong as it did in Matter of Hoke and Graves. It has made clear that it is going to bend him over. Stick a fork in Mikey's law license. He's done. Continued petulant defiance only hurts his position on the end of the plank, but he's just not wired to appreciate it. He's too stupid to see that he would be better served looking for another job, now.

Irving Joiner and Al McSurely, on behalf of the NCNAACP, should talk to the defendant and demand his immediate resignation. His continued presence at the helm of the Durham County D.A.'s office is a grave threat to all innocent defendants of color compromised by lack of the financial means to retain counsel and experts capable of deciphering a sham prosecution.

Ruth Sheehan, Cathy Davidson, Karla Holloway, Wahneema Lubiano and NOW's Bennett and Hopper should also demand an audience with the defendant to urge that he step down. His perpetuation of the Crystal Mess, Mangum's "fantastic lies," has immeasurably set back the interwoven causes of militant feminists and the "group rights" reverse racists, as well as the struggle of real rape victims to be accepted as truthful when reporting crimes of sexual violence.

His staff most of all should demand Nifong's disappearance, forthwith and forever, from the halls of the Durham County Judicial Building. His unscrupulous character paints each and every one of them, and the good work resulting from their collective efforts, with an unfairly colored brush. Well, each and every one except those guilty of complicity in furthering the Hoax. Maybe Big C and Saacks can talk some sense into him.

Terrapins Stationed

2007-03-03T09:37:00.000-05:00

Blue Devils Double Up Rival Terps, 14-7

Matt Danowski led the way with six goals and an assist.

Terps' Take

If ya can't go to college go to State!

Photo Gallery
--------------------------------------

Off to ND/Cornell. Hope to see some of youse LongGuylanders there.

The NDLax GOTW:

2007-03-01T21:03:00.000-05:00

4

-vs-

8

Sat. March 3, 2007, 1:00 p.m.

George W. Hewlett High School, Woodmere, LI

Shuttle Bus Information

Stop by and say "Hi!"

Welcome Back!

2007-02-25T15:16:00.000-05:00

Blue Devils Too Much For Dartmouth, 17-11

6,484 fans, and Dick Brodhead, take in triumphant return of Duke Lacrosse

Too much talent. Too much speed. Too much depth. Too much lost.

Big Green never stood a chance.

Zack Greer, Jr. A, led all scorers with eight points (6/2).

2007 Tewaaraton Trophy winner Matt Danowski (heard it here first), Sr. A, the slickest, sickest attackman in the country, also had the hat and dished four assists for the victors.

Never Forget.

Never Forget.

Coach John Danowski, on lasting memories from the day: "I think I'll have two: The locker room and the giddiness and happiness; and standing on the sideline waiting for the national anthem, looking into the stands and seeing people recognizing these men for what they represent."

DI Note: 'Cuse, The Hop and Maryland all lost this weekend. UVA has already been brought back to earth, hard. Expect to see Duke ranked third in this week's media poll, behind Princeton and Georgetown. Too early to put stock in rankings, but look for this Blue Devils squad to be in the final game on Memorial Day.

Where da white women at?

2007-02-13T23:31:00.000-05:00

***

ANOTHER DISASTER

Every day another page gets printed
A picture taken through a dirty lens
It's been fun
But maybe now it's over
The candles melting fast at both ends

(There's a road with no signs
And I'm going soon)

It's a wonder just how many people
Thought the truth was easy to defend
But in the poison wind we'll breath much different
Watch the enemy become the friend

It's another disaster
It's the devil with laughter
All the faces in plaster
Everything's going faster
It's another disaster

Only dreams and water dance below us
Shining up against the walls of stone
Find another picture lost in wreckage
As broken pieces find their way back home

It's another disaster
It's the devil with laughter
All the faces in plaster
Everything's going faster
It's another disaster

It's another disaster
It's the devil with laughter
All the faces in plaster
Everything's going faster
It's another disaster...

~The Samples

What Really Happened In Durham:

2007-01-25T08:58:00.000-05:00

The Emperor Has No Clothes

2007-01-23T00:34:00.001-05:00

YouTube*

O'Reilly Editor: Can you tell me if you feel bad about prosecuting these players?

Tillie: Help me!

O'Reilly Editor: Will you come on the O'Reilly Factor?

Tillie: Help!

Emperor da: I've asked you to leave my property!

O'Reilly Editor: I'm leaving.

Tillie: Help! Help! Help! Help! Help!

O'Reilly Editor: What do you feel about the Duke case, now that it's falling apart?

Emperor da: I believe I've said on many occasions, to anybody who ask, I've spoke about the Duke case only in a courtroom.

::..snicker..::
-----------------------------
*Thanks, "Gotfong?"

Steve Miller Rocks!

2007-01-23T00:34:00.000-05:00

Want to feel good about Duke? Watch this (Stephen's remarks begin about 3:40 into the clip). I first lauded this young man for his Chronicle article entitled Presecution, here. If Brodhead be characterized by timidity, Stephen Miller is characterized by zealous commitment to, um, right. What a breath of fresh air amidst all the pseudo-intellectual fart gases hovering over Duke's campus since April.

"Characterized By Timidity"

2007-01-22T14:25:00.000-05:00

In a recent e-mail exchange speaking to mutually ambivalent feelings about attending their upcoming 20th Reunion, my wife's friend attached the following letter, reprinted with permission, written by her dad, to Dick:

***

16 January 2007

Mr. Richard Brodhead
Office of the President
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708

Dear Mr. Brodhead:

While I recognize that being a president of a major educational institution is a very difficult undertaking and that you are new to the job, your handling of the lacrosse "case" has been extremely poor - - characterized by timidity, by implicit support of racially motivated professors and students, by disregard for the rights of the accused, and by appointment of Bowen and Chambers to report on Duke’s handling of the situation.

At the time of your appointment of Bill Bowen, I noted that the Duke administration was not trying to get an arms-length and objective report on the matter. How could they by appointing someone who is notoriously anti-athlete and extremely liberal? Bowen’s bias is known well beyond the confines of Princeton University (from which I graduated), so I can only conclude that you must have known and wanted what you were going to get.

There are so many aspects of the "case" which have smelled badly for so long that it is incredible to me that you have waited for such a painfully long time to attempt to salvage something of your tattered reputation by offering to readmit two of the students and by appearing on 60 Minutes. You have willingly participated in a sequence of events which has caused great harm to the players and their families, a wonderful coach, a great team, and a great university. You tolerated outrageous comments by Houston Baker and others, and you did nothing to stop or tone down the 'lynch mob' behavior of so many students who had, like you and more than 80 professors, prejudged the players' guilt. In addition, you totally ignored the reputation, past record, and verbal contradictions of the 'victim' and the abhorrent and illegal actions of a rogue district attorney whose conduct had indicated very early that there was significant doubt about the guilt of the accused and if a crime had even been committed.

The families of the wrongfully accused players and the discharged coach have ample reason to sue you, Nifong, and Duke University (among others) for the harm and personal suffering they have endured. Whether they do or not, I suggest issuance of an immediate and full public apology for your and the university’s part in this shameful episode is in order. And you should censure those members of the faculty who "distinguished" themselves by their incendiary, racist, and outrageous comments/behavior. Your actions and inactions have soiled Duke and yourself. The situation requires prompt and visible remedial action. I hope you are up to what are the necessary and decent things to do.

Yours sincerely,

Robert W. Burks

***

This is, of course, but one missive hitting Dick's desk in volume approaching that delivered to Kris Kringle's trial near the end of the original Miracle on 34th Street. I suspect it is representative of the sentiments displayed in the overwhelming majority of sackloads received.

Thank you, Mr. Burks, for your voice, and the courage to be heard.

HoohooHoohoo!

2007-01-17T10:11:00.000-05:00

I can't wait, Robin.*

Oh, Howard, you know this just means there isn't a snowball's chance in Durham of that hearing actually occurring on the 5th, now, don't you?

Killjoy.

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

* Defense lawyers last week sent subpoenas to Durham police investigators who collected evidence. The subpoenas, signed Jan. 5 by an attorney for Finnerty, were filed in the Office of the Clerk of Durham County Superior Court on Tuesday. The subpoenas require investigators Richard Clayton, Mark Gottlieb, Benjamin Himan and Michele Soucie to be available to testify during the Feb. 5 hearing.

The defense also sent a subpoena to the accuser. She was in Nifong's office Thursday when it was served, according to court files.

STFU, Dude.

2007-01-17T00:45:00.000-05:00

***

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Paula, I spoke to the victim's cousin yesterday, sat down with her, and she does believe that the Duke lacrosse players sexually assaulted her cousin. But at this point, she and her cousin believe that the district attorney has made so many mistakes, justice for them may not be possible.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED "FEMALE": I feel, I should say, that he used this as an opportunity to get re-elected, and I think it's unfortunate not only for my cousin but for the people of Durham, the black people of Durham who've been -- we feel duped. He went on television and did interview after interview, and led us to believe that he was going to, you know -- my cousin would be vindicated. And now I think the case has just become like a laughing stock. But I believe in my heart that she is not the type of person to just fabricate this story.

CARROLL: How do you think race played a role in the way that this case played out?

UNIDENTIFIED "FEMALE": Initially, I felt, as everyone else felt, that it was an issue of privilege and underprivilege.

CARROLL: When you hear all of the race -- the racial rhetoric that seems to be circulating surrounding this case, what does that make you think?

UNIDENTIFIED "FEMALE": It's unfortunate that it's turned into race. But it's always been there. It sensationalizes the story. You know, it's got class and it's got race in it. And I think from day one, a lot of people felt that these were privileged young white boys, who felt like they could treat these young women, strippers or not -- I think they had the mentality that they were superior to these young women. And I think that's unfortunate. And I think that that's just the world we live in.

CARROLL: How do you think this case is ultimately going to play itself out, now that it's in the hands of the attorney general's office?

UNIDENTIFIED "FEMALE": I think honestly, and I bite my cheek when I say this, that eventually the other charges will be dropped. Because to me, I think that with Nifong, the things he's done, and the mistakes he's made, eventually the other charges will be dropped and my cousin will be labeled -- not that she already isn't -- you know, this lying, manipulating, troubled young woman, which is so far from the truth. It is so far from the truth. But I think people want to make this go away.

CARROLL: If you could sum up at this point how your cousin is feeling at this point, how would that be?

UNIDENTIFIED "FEMALE": She no longer wants to be public enemy number one in this situation. You know, I think pretty soon she's going to start speaking out. And she has representation now.

So I think, you know, some things are going to change. I think in 2007 she's going to have to, you know, pull up her bootstraps and get out here and stop letting people kick the dirt on her and slay her name.

***

Bring it on. I love depositions.

Say it, Brother!

2007-01-17T00:32:00.000-05:00

***

ZAHN: Reverend Peterson, I see you shaking your head no. But there are a lot of people I've talked to in the community that said, you know, "Give me a break."

How many black players would have been -- they would have been treated, they think, much worse than these white players by the legal system. And they also say, "What's the deal with these guys hiring a stripper? And a black stripper at that?"

REV. JESSE LEE PETERSON, FOUNDER & PRES., BOND: There was a rush to judgment because it was a white on black situation. In this country whenever it's a white on black situation or police on black situation, they always come out of the woodwork. You have Jesse Jackson coming out and promising this girl a scholarship, not even knowing the details. They didn't even wait for the details. The new Black Panther Party coming out and, you know, just making all kind of -- type of threats and things like that.

There's a double standard in America today. White folks don't have a chance. Blacks can do what they want and say what they want. And it's primarily because not all, not all, not all, but most black people are racist toward white Americans today. And this was a good example. This girl's a stripper...

ZAHN: You talk to Reverend Sharpton, you talk to Reverend Jackson, as I had on this show, as we've done a lot of things on race, and they'll say, "But wait a minute. What are you talking about? It's whites who have the economic power in this country."

PETERSON: You have to realize that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and others have used racism in order to further their own careers. When Dr. King was assassinated, they took a message of forgiveness and character and they perverted that message to hatred and judgment. And you now have young black people believing that white Americans are racist toward them and they have no justified reason for that.

ZAHN: Come back to the issue of why you so fervently believe that these white players were victims of racism.

PETERSON: Because you have -- they were accused before even finding or discovering the evidence, the proof that this had happened. Had that been reversed, had it been black men accused by a white woman, the story would totally be different. They would have to wait and find out. But because it's white on black, before the evidence was even proven -- here this woman is a stripper, she had children out of wedlock. Apparently, she just had another baby. But that doesn't matter. Character doesn't matter. These guys were victimized, not the woman.

ZAHN: We've got to move. We've got just ten seconds for a final thought.

BRENT ZOOK: You know, one of the most striking things about this is that she has lost her humanity.

PETERSON: She never had any.

BRENT ZOOK: That's a problem. In the media she's never been seen as a human being who's obviously in a lot of pain, guilt or innocence aside. There's something that happened to her in her mind...

PETERSON: Way back before this.

(CROSSTALK)

PETERSON: Why don't they show her face. Why don't they reveal who she is, as they're doing with young men? She's not a victim.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: ... that has historically been the case with all rape victims. We don't reveal their...

PETERSON: Well, they should put this woman in jail.

ZAHN: Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, Gail Dines, Kristal Brent Zook. Some very strong opinions here tonight.

To Whom Mrs. Seligmann Referred:

2007-01-16T23:59:00.000-05:00

14 December:

STAHL: But, don't you think there are people who are going to think it's a hoax, no matter what?

KATHY SELIGMANN: You know what? I believe you'll never change those people's minds. And what's so sad, to me, is I almost get the feeling they're disappointed that something didn't happen. You don't have to feel sorry for our families, you don't have to pity these boys. We'll be okay. What we're asking, for justice's sake, look at the facts.

***

16 December:

ZAHN: I have talked with a number of people today who think that it was the players who got a really raw deal here. Gail, I know you don't agree with that perception at all.

GAIL DINES, PH.D., SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR, WHEELOCK COLLEGE: Absolutely not. I think this woman has been hung out to dry by the media. I think questions about her morality, her emotional stability, her psychological stability, which is what happens to women in rape cases and especially to women of color. I think what this case is about is not only sexism but racism. And this is a perfect example of how sexism and racism come together and basically make her the disappeared of all of this case.

ZAHN: What difference would it have made had she been white? How differently do you think this case would have been handled?

DINES: That's a really good -- I don't think they would have suggested that this woman was somehow deserving of this violence as much as they have. There's no question that all women by the media are basically hung out to dry when they -- they even call her the accuser, instead of the victim. So just the way that they've turned her into somehow a perpetrator against these males...

ZAHN: But you have to admit she has not helped her case by the varying accounts she has apparently given members of the legal community, most recently, folks in the district attorney's office.

DINES: Let me say what happens when a woman is sexually abused in some way, then there is a large degree of trauma. And what we know from study after study is when you suffer a sexual trauma, you can't discuss everything that happened clearly. There are memory lapses. You are confused. That's the very nature of trauma.

A.J. Donaldson, "Columnist"

2007-01-16T23:49:00.000-05:00

People pay Paula Zahn? Money?

***
From tonight's joke:

ZAHN: A.J., is it -- do many of the blacks you talk to feel like they were used by Mike Nifong, and that he played the race card to be reelected as a district attorney?

A.J. DONALDSON, COLUMNIST, NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER: Well, first, I -- I would like to say that the younger people, of course, are militant, but not militant in a sense that they don't have any sense with their argument.

For instance, they want it to go through. They want to see the process. And, when a student says "for the things that are done in the past," they're only talking about the examples. For instance, I see our piece last night.

You saw Zikaila (ph) and Alexis (ph) from Milwaukee (AUDIO GAP) inequalities in the media are portrayed. They are not saying that we want these men convicted. However, they are saying, we want to see a fair and -- and fair and speedy trial, the way anyone should be treated.

***

ZAHN: But -- but aren't those ... racial stereotypes that are prevalent in society as a whole?

A.J. DONALDSON, COLUMNIST, NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER: Well, I would say the media propaganda-ed the issue, but reality pervaded it into the American streets and into North Carolina Central University and other black communities.

You see reality when you feel as though Duke University is a privileged university, but, at the same time, North Carolina Central University is being portrayed as the less fortunate university in the media.

And, then, in some cases, and amongst people, you know, echoing from ear to ear, saying that, you know, North Carolina Central University, less fortunate.

No, we're not less fortunate. We may have less fortune. And that's what's being pervaded in not only the media, but in the consciousness of the people that walk around the Durham community and the people that see it from a distance. They don't understand.

***

You're so right.

Brad Bannon: Great Lawyer. Great Person.

2007-01-14T00:36:00.000-05:00

This says it all. About the sham that is NC State Bar Grievance "trials." And about Brad, a young man courageous enough to decry it. Now, if he'd only return my phone calls.

As North Carolina State Bar Member 24106, as an officer of the various North Carolina courts in which I have appeared, as an attorney for Alan Gell, and as a deeply concerned citizen of this State, I am writing to you about what I can only describe, at best, as frustration regarding the prosecution of the above-referenced case by the Office of the Staff Liaison to the Grievance Committee of the State Bar.

As I am sure you all know, the defendants in the above-referenced action, David Hoke and Debra Graves, were members of the Special Prosecutions Section of the Attorney General’s Office in 1996, when that section assumed exclusive responsibility of prosecuting State v. James Alan Gell from the office of local Bertie County District Attorney David Beard. Mr. Gell had been indicted in Bertie County the previous year for the shotgun murder of Allen Ray Jenkins, based largely on accusations made by Crystal Morris and Shanna Hall, who lied to police on numerous occasions about their knowledge of the murder before finally admitting their involvement but then implicating Mr. Gell as the shooter. There was absolutely no physical evidence linking Mr. Gell to the murder, and he consistently denied involvement after waiving his right to counsel and voluntarily speaking to police. In the days and weeks following the murder, in fact, police interviewed 17 disinterested witnesses who reported that they saw Mr. Jenkins alive after the last point in time when Mr. Gell could have killed him (i.e., Mr. Gell was indisputably out of the state or in custody on an unrelated felony larceny charge).

By the time Mr. Gell’s case went to trial in February 1998, Mr. Hoke had been a judicial clerk, research attorney for the Administrative Office of the Courts, and a member of the Special Prosecutions Section of the AG’s Office for ten years. Ms. Graves had been a judicial clerk and a member of the Appellate Section and Special Prosecutions Section of the AG’s Office for the preceding ten years and had taught appellate advocacy as a law professor. They were not fresh out of law school, and they were not strangers to criminal litigation. Each had been a lawyer in North Carolina for over ten years, and, between them, they had 15 years of experience in Special Prosecutions, widely regarded as the top criminal prosecution unit in state government. By contrast, Alan Gell was an indigent defendant who had been shuffled among five different court-appointed attorneys and whose final lead counsel at the time of trial had only been involved in the case for three months. At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Gell was convicted and sentenced to die, and Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves sent a letter to Mr. James J. Coman, then director of the SBI, celebrating the death verdict and praising the work of the SBI team, led by Agent Dwight Ransome, which helped them achieve that verdict.[1] Mr. Gell’s direct appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court was unsuccessful.

During post-conviction proceedings, while Mr. Gell resided on death row awaiting his execution, his appointed post-conviction counsel discovered that the State of North Carolina had withheld the statements of numerous witnesses who saw the victim, Mr. Jenkins, alive after the last point in time when Mr. Gell could have killed him, and the State also withheld the tape recording and transcript of a conversation secretly recorded by the lead investigator, Agent Ransome, in which Alan’s co-defendants and chief accusers, Crystal Morris and Shanna Hall, profanely discussed their involvement in Mr. Jenkins’ murder, sought information from another person in the conversation about his knowledge of the ongoing criminal investigation, and conceded that they had to “make up a story” to evolve with the course of the investigation.

In December 2003, over the objection of the Attorney General’s Office, the Honorable Cy Grant summarily granted Mr. Gell’s Motion for Appropriate Relief and ordered a new trial based on the State’s blatant violation of Brady v. Maryland in failing to disclose the witness statements and the taped conversation, especially in light of two court orders requiring them to do so: one entered by Judge Grant himself in September 1997, and one entered by the trial judge in February 1998, after the trial had started.

After Alan Gell was granted a new trial, my senior partner, Joe Cheshire, was appointed first chair to represent Mr. Gell at the re-trial. I worked with Joe, Mary Pollard, and Jim Cooney on preparing and trying the second trial. In that capacity, I saw everything in every file that ever existed in Alan Gell’s case. The case went to its second trial in February 2004. The witness statements and the taped conversation figured prominently in the defense (indeed, they were certainly not the type of evidence the second trial prosecutors wanted to present to the jury, even after a full re-investigation of the crime), and the jury specifically requested the tape before rendering a verdict of not guilty after less than three hours of deliberations. Mr. Gell had spent nearly ten years in prison, over five of those years on death row, awaiting his own execution and watching many of his fellow inmates (the only friends he had at the time) walk to their deaths.

Before I go any further in this letter, I want to make a few more things clear. First, I am not an expert in State Bar prosecutions and had, until this past week, attended only one such prosecution in the past for a client of my firm who was a defense attorney against whom the State Bar vigorously sought disbarment for allegedly shoplifting a garment from a local mall and then testifying at his misdemeanor criminal trial that he was innocent. I have rarely seen a capital murder prosecution in criminal court be more competently or vigorously pursued than the State Bar pursued the disbarment of that attorney before the DHC. Second, I met Debra Graves in 2001, when she (on behalf of the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of North Carolina) and I (on behalf of my senior partner, Joe Cheshire) represented co-defendants in a federal FEMA fraud case in the Eastern District. I found Ms. Graves to be an excellent lawyer and advocate. I benefited from working with her and reviewing her work in that case, and I was extremely impressed with how she managed to obtain a dismissal of charges against her client. Third, I have never met David Hoke; however, I was aware that he is the number two person in North Carolina’s court system and, in that capacity, assigns Superior Court judges to try cases, including death penalty cases. The reason I knew that is because he in fact assigned the judge who presided over the retrial of Alan Gell: a retrial which was only necessary because Mr. Hoke himself had withheld evidence of Mr. Gell’s innocence at the first trial. Finally, I am not writing this letter on behalf of anyone but myself, and no one is responsible for the content of this letter but me.

This past Thursday and Friday, I watched as the North Carolina State Bar prosecuted Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves for their conduct, which led to Alan’s wrongful imprisonment and near execution and, ultimately, to the grievance against them. The grievance alleged that they had knowingly made misrepresentations to the court, failed to turn over exculpatory evidence as ethically required of prosecutors, failed to adequately supervise non-lawyer conduct upon which they relied to meet their legal obligations, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

I have been a criminal defense lawyer for seven years now. It is all I have done. In that role, I have seen many prosecutions in many courtrooms about many alleged wrongdoings, ranging from traffic offenses to capital murder. I have never seen a case as weakly prosecuted as I saw at the State Bar on Thursday and Friday. In fact, it made me wonder why the Bar bothered to file a grievance in the first place: not because I thought the grievance lacked merit, of course, but because I saw very little effort to actually prosecute it.

The Bar’s entire case was in the form of exhibits entered under a consent agreement after opening statements and then about 20-30 minutes worth of excerpts read into the record from two of those exhibits, the depositions of Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves. The excerpts read by the State Bar prosecutors seemed to raise a number of factual issues relevant to the prosecution, including the contentions of Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves that:

1. They understood District Attorney David Beard, whose office was in charge of the prosecution during the initial investigation but ultimately referred the case to Special Prosecutions because of a conflict of interest, to have an open file policy, which, in turn, absolved them from responsibility to respond to the first court order to produce exculpatory materials or verify that it had been complied with;

2. After entry of the second court order to produce specific exculpatory evidence, they again did not review their entire file but instead relied upon Agent Ransome to do so; and

3. The secretly recorded conversation—in which the State’s star witnesses, who had already lied to police about the case and would continue to lie to police about the case, profanely talk about making up stories to go along with the evolving law enforcement investigation—was not “exculpatory,” although it may have been “impeaching,” but impeachment material is not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady.

Nevertheless, the Bar called no live witnesses. They did not call Dwight Ransome either to acknowledge his failure to produce the statements or to refute the defendants’ contention—critical to their defense of negligent rather than intentional misrepresentation—that he failed to do so. They did not call David Beard to testify about his communications, if any, with Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves regarding discovery and the existence of (hence reasonableness of Mr. Hoke’s and Ms. Graves’ reliance upon) an open-file discovery policy in Beard’s office at the time.[2] They did not call a criminal law practitioner or expert in criminal procedure to establish that impeachment material is indeed exculpatory within the meaning of Brady and that prosecutors have a duty to disclose such exculpatory material to the defendant even without a specific request.[3]

And, of course, they did not call Mr. Hoke or Ms. Graves to confront them under oath before the panel about a number of unanswered questions and contradictions raised by the very excerpts the prosecutors read into the record. Again, as a criminal lawyer, I cannot imagine any case I have ever tried where the prosecutor would not have jumped at the opportunity to compel the defendant to testify and confront the defendant with previous contradictory or demonstrably disprovable statements on the subject matter of the prosecution. Moreover, the prosecutors knew that the hearing room was packed with highly reputable character witnesses prepared to testify on behalf of the defendants, from Superior, Appeals, and Supreme Court judges to the top trial prosecutor in the Attorney General’s Office.

Under those circumstances, I was stunned when I heard the State Bar rest its case after introducing some exhibits and reading 20-30 minutes worth of excerpts from depositions. No word from Dwight Ransome about whether he was, in fact, to blame for the failure to disclose the statements after the second court order. No word from David Beard about whether, in fact, it was reasonable for Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves to presume he had an open file discovery policy and therefore abandon their duty to review the file once it came to Special Prosecutions and Judge Grant issued the first court order to disclose exculpatory evidence. No word from Maynard Harrell, Mr. Gell’s lead defense counsel at the first trial, about Mr. Hoke’s deposition assertion that he “knew” Alan’s lawyers had the benefit of open-file discovery. No word from anyone on Alan’s second defense team, particularly Mary Pollard, who first obtained the full files in post-conviction and discovered the withheld evidence. No word from anyone in the legal community or general public to testify about the impact that Mr. Hoke’s and Ms. Graves’ failures have had on the legal community and the perception of the legal profession by the public. No word from Alan Gell—whom the State Bar never once even contacted about the prosecution—to talk about the very real impact of the alleged misconduct in the case. Nothing.

It is therefore not surprising to me that the panel had to leave the room and confer for a while before denying the routinely (and ordinarily quickly) denied motion to dismiss that always comes from the defense at the end of the prosecution’s case.

Then, by contrast, Jim Maxwell, a very talented advocate, put on a formidable case. Although he certainly didn’t need to, given the failure of the prosecution to put on a case at the hearing, Mr. Maxwell called his clients. Ms. Graves presented the first live glimpse of the defense for her and Mr. Hoke. It was basically this:

1. When the case was referred by District Attorney David Beard to the Special Prosecutions Section of the AG’s Office, Mr. Hoke was assigned first chair, and Ms. Graves was later assigned second chair;

2. When Mr. Hoke was first assigned the case, he received a file from David Beard’s office which he, and later Ms. Graves, used as their “working file”;

3. At some point, Mr. Hoke learned of a witness whose name he didn’t recognize from his “working”/Beard file, which prompted him to order the entire SBI file from the SBI records department; however, when that file arrived, Mr. Hoke never made an effort to compare the two files;

4. When Judge Grant entered the first order for the State to produce Brady material in September 1997, Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves took absolutely no action to comply with the order or verify that it had been complied with; instead, they just assumed that the defense already had everything in the prosecution file, because they assumed David Beard had an open file discovery policy, and they assumed that David Beard’s file had everything from law enforcement in it, and they assumed Mr. Gell’s attorneys had taken advantage of the open-file policy;

5. When Judge Meyer entered the second order for the State to produce Brady material in February 1998 (as the trial began, and after Mr. Gell’s first trial lawyer renewed the Brady motion because of an eve-of-trial newspaper article quoting a witness who claimed to have told police that he saw the victim alive after the last point when Mr. Gell could have killed him), they again failed to review their entire file and instead relied on Agent Ransome to review it, after which he gave them the statements of only 8 of the 17 witnesses who saw the victim alive after the State’s alleged date of death, 4-3-95, the only time when Mr. Gell could have committed the murder[4];

6. Two days later, as jury selection was under way, Agent Ransome gave Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves the statement of a ninth witness who saw the victim alive after the last point when Alan could have killed him; however, Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves again did not comply with their legal and ethical duties to personally review the file to make sure that Agent Ransome had given them all of such statements; and

7. Regarding the secretly recorded conversation among the State’s two star witnesses and the initially suspected shooter in the case, Ms. Graves stated their opinion that the tape was not exculpatory; that it might have been impeaching; but that they were not required to turn it over under Brady, because impeachment material is not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady.

In addition to that testimony, Ms. Graves also quite honestly, honorably, and candidly admitted in both her deposition and her live testimony that it was wrong for prosecutors to be expected to put on a defense lawyer’s hat to define “exculpatory” and that it was ultimately her responsibility to make sure the entire file was reviewed and the material was turned over. Still, she did not offer any kind of apology to Alan Gell for the years of his life that were obliterated because of her and Mr. Hoke’s failure in that regard. At the conclusion of her direct testimony, she was barely cross examined. I think maybe five questions were asked of her.

Mr. Hoke was then called to testify. He repeated many of the points listed above. Although generally stating that “no one” was “more sorry” than he and Ms. Graves for their failures to disclose the witness statements, he never acknowledged (nor was he challenged by the fact) that Alan Gell and his family might be more sorry, and he never once offered an apology to Alan Gell for that failure. He stated a number of times that he “knew” David Beard had an open-file discovery policy, and he “knew” that Alan’s attorneys (all five of them over the course of the nearly three years leading up to trial) had taken advantage of it. He admitted that Agent Ransome had failed on at least two occasions to give him all of the statements of witnesses who had seen the victim alive after 4-3-95, but he stated his absolute confidence in Agent Ransome’s abilities, even today. He stated multiple times that impeachment material for the prosecution’s star witnesses is not exculpatory within the meaning of the Brady rule. With great conviction, he testified that he and Ms. Graves would “never” seek to hide information from the defense, yet he acknowledged that he did not turn over the transcript of the secretly recorded conversation of the co-defendants even after they testified at the trial, because Alan’s first trial defense lawyer did not ask him to (again quite a bizarre assertion, given that Mr. Hoke’s and Ms. Graves’ concealment of the taped conversation and transcript meant that Mr. Gell’s attorney could not have known about it). Again, the cross-examination of Mr. Hoke was minimal, and by far the toughest questions (which is to say, tough at all) posed to Mr. Hoke were posed by the panel chair, Stephen Culbreth.

At the conclusion of Mr. Hoke’s testimony, a number of character witnesses were called for Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves. Among the first were Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Martin and recently retired Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr, who now runs the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law. Despite the fact that Mr. Hoke had repeatedly stated that impeachment material is not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady and that he and Ms. Graves did not turn over the tape because no one specifically asked them to, the State Bar prosecutors did not take the opportunity to ask Chief Judge Martin or Justice Orr, both of whom have served for years on appellate court benches presiding over innumerable criminal cases and the latter of whom is now in charge of an institute for Constitutional Law, about Mr. Hoke’s erroneous testimony that impeachment material of a prosecution’s star witness is not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady. Nor was such a question asked of character witness (and top North Carolina trial prosecutor) James J. Coman when Mr. Coman made similar assertions about Brady, even referring to State v. Soyars in the process. Nor were Mr. Hoke’s and Mr. Coman’s representations about the degree of impeachment value of the taped conversation challenged by simply playing the tape in the hearing, even after Mr. Coman acknowledged that hearing the tape was much worse for Ms. Morris’ and Ms. Hall’s credibility than reading a cold transcript of it.

Thankfully, the State Bar prosecutor at least read language from State v. Soyars in his closing, which clearly states that (1) impeachment material is exculpatory within the meaning of Brady; and (2) such exculpatory evidence must be disclosed by the prosecutor even without a specific request.[5] Brady was decided in 1963. Giglio was decided in 1972. Agurs was decided in 1976. Bagley was decided in 1985. State v. Wise was decided in 1990. State v. Soyars was decided in 1992. Thirty years of precedent. The laws, duties, and responsibilities of prosecutors regarding identification and disclosure of exculpatory evidence were not novel or ill-defined concepts when Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves attended law school. Nor were they novel or ill-defined concepts during the collective 15 years they worked in Special Prosecutions before the first Gell trial. So it was baffling for me as a criminal lawyer to watch the number two person in charge of North Carolina’s court system, who worked in the Appellate Section and Special Prosecutions Section of the AG’s Office for over a decade preceding his prosecution of Alan Gell, and the top criminal trial prosecutor in the AG’s Office state repeatedly under oath in 2004 that impeachment material of a prosecution witness is not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady, and the State had no duty to disclose it absent a specific request. I was even more baffled by the State Bar prosecutor’s utter failure to cross examine anyone about those erroneous assertions of law or, as I will mention later, the suggestion by Mr. Maxwell throughout the hearing that the defendants should somehow be excused from knowing those fundamental rules of criminal procedure because the first Gell trial was one of the first capital cases they had ever tried.

After the testimony of Justice Orr and Mr. Coman (who was Agent Ransome’s boss and head of the SBI during the first trial of Alan Gell, and who did a very honest and honorable job as lead prosecutor in the second trial of Mr. Gell), Mr. Maxwell called a number of equally highly respected members of the judiciary as character witnesses. One of those members, a Superior Court judge, told the panel that “everyone” on the Superior Court bench was appalled that Mr. Hoke had been put through the grievance process.

In the face of that, the State Bar put on no evidence in rebuttal. They put on no evidence whatsoever to support the complaint’s allegation that Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves had knowingly made misrepresentations to the court in 1998 when they handed over only 8 of the 17 witness statements. In fact, in closing argument, the Bar conceded that no such evidence existed, which essentially stripped the panel of authority to make such a finding.

After deliberating, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission panel understandably determined that Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves had not knowingly made false statements to the court; after all, there had been no evidence or argument to that effect presented at the hearing by the State Bar prosecutors. However, for their “honest mistakes” of intentionally failing to turn over the secretly recorded conversation; unknowingly failing to turn over the other witness statements; and failing to adequately supervise a non-lawyer (Agent Ransome) upon whom they relied to comply with court orders, they were found responsible for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. The panel then asked the lawyers representing the State Bar and the defendants for sentencing arguments. The lead State Bar prosecutor was barely on his feet for a minute. He basically said that there wasn’t a lot of precedent for this type of case and that the punishment should be somewhere between a censure and a stayed suspension. That was it. There was absolutely no evidence or argument presented regarding aggravating circumstances, despite the obvious existence of evidence from which the panel could have found them.

As I am sure you all know, Section .0014 of the Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina State Bar governs Formal Hearing in DHC matters. Subsection (w) clearly states: “If the charges of misconduct are established, the hearing committee will then consider any evidence relevant to the discipline to be imposed, including … evidence in aggravation … of the offense.” Subsection (w)(1) lists such evidence, including:

(G) Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

(H) Vulnerability of victim;

(I) Substantial experience in the practice of law.

Of course, the panel could only “consider … evidence” if it was submitted. Even after the charges of misconduct had been established, and even after the panel chair asked the lead State Bar prosecutor for a punishment argument, he made no effort to argue any aggravation.

Regarding the acknowledgment of the wrongful nature of their conduct, by my observation of the defendants’ testimonies, only Ms. Graves came close to acknowledging the wrongful nature of her conduct when she conceded that it was her responsibility to review her file in a death case. Beyond that, the defendants refused to acknowledge the true wrongful nature of their conduct, i.e., that they violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and that their violation was responsible for putting an innocent man on death row.

Regarding the vulnerability of the victim, could anyone have been more vulnerable than Alan Gell? He was an indigent criminal defendant who had been incarcerated and shuffled among five appointed attorneys for three years, facing prosecution by the top prosecution unit in the State of North Carolina with the full support and resources of the top law enforcement agency in the State of North Carolina. (Again, see the enclosed letter.) As a criminal defendant, Alan Gell and his attorneys were completely at the mercy of Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves in terms of looking at the prosecution’s file to identify and disclose exculpatory material, which included impeachment material. Indeed, although the law did not require a request to trigger the prosecutors’ duty, Mr. Gell’s attorneys had twice made such a request, and two different judges had twice ordered such disclosure. But Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves either ignored or relied on an unreliable non-lawyer to comply with the orders, when they were the only ones who had the ability to make sure the order was satisfied. How much more vulnerable could the victim have been?

Finally, there was a near constant refrain by Mr. Maxwell that Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves had only been involved in one or two capital cases at the time they prosecuted Mr. Gell. Without a doubt, Mr. Maxwell sang that refrain to suggest mitigation in the form of “inexperience in the practice of law,” Section .0014(w)(2)(F), or at least to refute aggravation in the form of “substantial experience in the practice of law,” Section .0014(w)(1)(I). But not once did the State Bar prosecutor remind the panel of testimony that had come from Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves themselves: each had been practicing law for a decade at the time of the Gell trial (including judicial clerkships which had to have focused at some point on Brady issues), and they had, between them, 15 years of experience in Special Prosecutions of criminal cases. The number of capital trials was patently irrelevant. In every felony criminal case, Brady rules apply. How many capital cases does a prosecutor need under his belt before understanding the importance of reading his own case file, knowing fundamental criminal law concepts like the definition of exculpatory evidence, and appreciating his exclusive duty to identify it and disclose it to the defendant? Of course, the defendants and their learned character witnesses were never asked such questions, and the State Bar prosecutors did not pursue the issue at sentencing.

By contrast, as he had throughout the hearing, Jim Maxwell made a much more thorough and impassioned argument for his clients, citing law and facts. He then cited several mitigating factors under Section .0014(w)(2) that he believed to exist under the facts. Again, the State Bar prosecutors did not rise to rebut his argument or to raise an argument about aggravating factors. Not surprisingly, the panel then gave Ms. Graves and Mr. Hoke the lightest possible punishment that could be imposed under the circumstances. In handing down that punishment, the panel found all of the mitigating factors that Mr. Maxwell had listed, as well as the fact that the defendants had obviously “shown remorse” for their conduct.

With all due respect to the panel, I have no idea what they meant by the defendants showing remorse. In my mind, showing remorse would be accepting responsibility for one’s own conduct and apologizing to the victim of that conduct. Apart from Ms. Graves’ concession that it was her responsibility to review her entire case file in a capital murder prosecution (a concession Mr. Hoke never made), neither one of those things occurred at that hearing or ever. In his testimony, Mr. Hoke never once acknowledged that his failure to simply look at his entire file in a capital prosecution led to the wrongful incarceration and near execution of an innocent man. Neither Mr. Hoke nor Ms. Graves nor anyone on behalf of the State of North Carolina has ever apologized to Alan Gell or his family.

In fact, numerous times throughout the hearing and during breaks in the hearing, I heard Mr. Maxwell and supporters of Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves insinuate (if not outright state) that the only reason Alan Gell is free is because of the attorneys and resources of the firms that represented him at the second trial. First of all, that belief is false. Alan Gell is free because he finally received a fair trial, the jury finally got to hear the entire truth, and his second trial prosecutors did not cheat. Second, that suggestion is insulting, not only to Alan Gell, but to the entire concept of our justice system. It is the type of belief one would expect from people uneducated in the law and ignorant of fundamental concepts of American justice, not respected members of the bench and bar who took an oath to uphold the United States and North Carolina constitutions when they became lawyers. And, of course, the sentiment went absolutely unchallenged by the State Bar prosecutors, who took the same oath.

After the decision was announced, Alan Gell immediately left the hearing room. I followed him. He was so overcome with emotion that he had to escape the media into the bathroom. I spent time in there with him as he struggled to compose himself. He said things to me in there that he later said to the media. He lamented the fact that the State Bar had never contacted him or his family to notify them about the hearing or discuss it in any way. He said that he tried to introduce himself in the hallway to the lead State Bar prosecutor, but he was basically dismissed. He said he didn’t understand why the panel found that Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves had shown remorse, when neither one could look at him, let alone approach him and apologize to him.

I am not writing this letter to gratuitously insult any one person. I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves earned every outstanding character endorsement they received during the hearing. As I wrote earlier, I don’t know Mr. Hoke, and what I knew of Ms. Graves before the Gell case is completely consistent with the outstanding character references she received from the witness stand on Thursday and Friday. Rather, I am writing this letter to memorialize how terribly wrong this whole case has been, and how bad this whole system can be, from beginning to end, especially for indigent defendants who are wronged by powerful people. I am also writing to express my frustration at the failure of the State Bar to really do anything about it.

It was all wrong from the beginning: from the initial scenario where Mr. Gell went through five court-appointed attorneys over three years and suffered a death penalty because of unethical prosecutorial conduct and reckless law enforcement conduct; to the post-conviction process where the Attorney General’s Office failed to concede obvious error by its own office and fought Mr. Gell’s request for a new, fair trial; to the State Bar prosecution, which appeared to lack even the most rudimentary commitment to success, especially when the challenged conduct put an innocent man on death row, threw North Carolina’s entire criminal justice system into question, and led to a fundamental change in the law of state criminal procedure to try to avoid such miscarriages of justice in the future.

Practically speaking, Alan Gell had no real recourse regarding the years of his life that were taken from him, except for the State Bar’s investigation and prosecution of the people whose conduct took those years away. We as lawyers know that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suit, and law enforcement officers enjoy qualified immunity, which is only slightly less bullet proof. The State Bar exists as a regulating body to protect the public from misconduct by lawyers. By my estimation, the State Bar failed miserably in that duty in this case. The reprimand, acknowledged by the panel chair to be the least possible punishment that could be rendered under the circumstances, sent the clearest of messages to the legal community and the citizens of our State, any of whom, at any time, could find themselves wrongfully charged with a crime: in the most serious of all criminal prosecutions, prosecutors can (a) fail to read their file, (b) rely on unreliable non-lawyers to comply with their own life-or-death, court-ordered, legally-prescribed duties in a case, and (c) perform life-or-death roles in cases (such as identifying and disclosing exculpatory information) under fundamental misunderstandings of criminal law that operate against the accused, and they will suffer only nominal punishment. And, in the case of one such prosecutor, he will get to continue running the State’s court system and assigning judges to preside over those very same types of cases.

But it is not necessarily the result that bothers me, so much as the failure of the State Bar prosecutors to vigorously pursue any other result. After all, the panel can only make a decision based on the evidence and arguments before it. I am also appalled by the absolute failure of the State Bar to include—or even acknowledge—the victims in the process. I can only imagine what Alan Gell must have been feeling during deliberations when the lead State Bar prosecutor was socializing with character witnesses for Mr. Hoke and Ms. Graves without acknowledging the presence of Mr. Gell and his family. Cleary the lead State Bar prosecutor believed what Mr. Maxwell said in his opening statement: that this case had nothing to do with Alan Gell or his innocence.

Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The Rules of Professional Conduct do not exist in a vacuum or in some theoretical universe where form is glorified over substance. They exist in the real world, because lawyers operate in the real world, and, when they operate unethically, they hurt real people in real ways. Sometimes a civil claim is lost or some money is misappropriated; here, a man was imprisoned for nearly a decade for a crime he did not commit and was forced to contemplate his execution for five years while watching his friends go to their deaths. His family was forced to visit him on death row. When the lawyers whose conduct resulted in all of that suffering were finally called to answer, I believe the victims deserved at least a phone call from the State Bar about that.

Throughout my experience in the Gell case, I always deferred comment about the prosecutorial and law enforcement misconduct that led to Mr. Gell’s first conviction until I got to hear their side of the story.

Now that I have heard it, and now that I have seen what little the State Bar did to challenge it, I am even more disheartened by the sad state of affairs in our system of justice, and I am committed to the concept of a death penalty moratorium, which is why I am sending copies of this letter and its enclosure to my representatives and leaders in the General Assembly in the hope that the moratorium issue will be reconsidered in the next session.

Prosecutors who don’t read their file and who fail to adequately supervise non-lawyers upon whom they rely to meet their life-or-death responsibilities. A senior SBI agent who twice failed to comply with prosecutors’ court-ordered requests to hand over all evidence of innocence in a death case (and who, as I understand it, has never himself been called to answer for that). Highly placed officials in our system of justice who recite fundamental misconceptions of criminal law which work to the detriment of the accused. And, now, a State Bar prosecution that appeared to take the path of least resistance to challenge any of it.

How in the world can anyone believe that we should be executing people under these circumstances?

Bradley Bannon

North Carolina State Bar No. 24106

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

[1] I have enclosed a copy of that letter.

[2] In fact, upon information and belief, Mr. Beard voluntarily contacted a staff liaison for the Bar after reading press accounts about the complaint and the defendants’ response regarding Mr. Beard’s conduct, but his comments were either not passed along to the actual prosecutors of the complaint or were ignored. When Mr. Beard contacted the lead prosecutor to follow up on that communication last Friday morning while the defendants were still presenting their case, he was told that what he had to say was not relevant to the State Bar’s prosecution and that the State Bar therefore did not want to bother him.

[3] See, e.g., Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); State of North Carolina v. Wise, 326 N.C. 421, 390 S.E.2d 142 (1990); and State of North Carolina v. Soyars, 332 N.C. 47, 418 S.E.2d 480 (1992), among many others.

Quoting Soyars directly: “Defendant has a constitutional right to the disclosure of exculpatory or favorable evidence. ‘Impeachment evidence, ... as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule.’ United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985); see also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). ‘This rule applies regardless of whether there has been a specific request for the evidence.’ State v. Wise, 326 N.C. 421, 429, 390 S.E.2d 142, 147 (citing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 853 (1990)).”

[4] Coincidentally, although the SBI file contained the statements of all 17 witnesses, Agent Ransome only produced the statements of interviewees he had re-interviewed after the state settled on 4-3-95 as its theory regarding date of death and Agent Ransome had informed those interviewees of that “fact” before then asking them if they made a mistake in their earlier interviews.

[5] See Footnote 3.

We're Watching You

2007-01-12T11:49:00.001-05:00

NCAG Roy Cooper showed up today to confirm that, upon Defendant Nifong's recusal request, his office has agreed to take over the prosecution of the Duke Frame cases. He said all the right things, about the need to focus not on how the cases got to his office, but where they will ultimately go from here. He spoke of the need to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of the Durham County D.A.'s case files, conduct interviews of Crystal Mangum, other witnesses, and investigators [Hi, Mark! Hi, Linwood! Hi, Ben!]. He pledged that the actions of his office will be spurred exclusively by what the facts show to be the truth, and that "blinders" will be worn to shield the investigation from taint by "external pressures" [Hi Whiners! Hi Blog Hooligans!]. He played Solomon [Did you watch, Mikey?], noting that the transfer does not necessarily mean, either, that there will be a trial or that the cases will be dismissed. Sound good so far?

Unfortunately, he went on to note that the matters have been assigned to the Special Prosecutions Section of his office, where two lawyers, Jim Coman and Mary Winstead, will have primary case management authority. Coman and Winstead. Hoo boy. Cooper's vesting chief prosecutorial authority in these two is potentially a bad thing. A VEH-ry bad thing.

To understand why Coman's appointment is most troubling, one must have a working knowledge of the case of Alan Gell, a man wrongly accused, tried, convicted and sentenced to die for the 1995 murder of Allen Ray Jenkins. Gell spent ten years in jail for the crime, much of it on death row. The only problem? He didn't do it.

Jenkins' rotting corpse was found on April 14, 1995. A troubled teenage girl, Crystal Annette Morris, who ultimately pled guilty to second degree murder for her role in the killing, claimed that she was present when Gell shot Jenkins to death on April 3, 1995. April 3d was the only date on which Gell could have committed the murder, since he was proven to have been out of state on April 4th and 5th, and incarcerated in a North Carolina jail on unrelated charges from April 6 through the 14th, the date on which Jenkins' dead body was found.

Morris' version of Gell's "involvement" changed eight times between her first police interview, on the day after Jenkins' body was discovered, and her testimony at trial in 1998. One such version was captured in a tape recorded telephone conversation with her boyfriend, in which she intimated both her involvement in Jenkins' killing and the plan to frame Alan Gell. Morris was corroborated by her best friend, Shanna Hall, who also ultimately pled guilty to second degree murder for her role in the crime.

Additionally, seventeen people, including the decedent's brother, neighbors, friends and town acquaintances, had given law enforcement personnel statements setting forth their recollections of having seen Jenkins alive between April 7th and 10th (while Gell was incarerated).

How could Gell have been convicted, you ask?

After SBI and Aulander police authority had decided to deem April 3d the date of the murder, based solely on the stories of Crystal Morris and Shanna Hall, the two lead investigtors re-interviewed those acquaintances who had claimed to have seen Jenkins' alive as much as a week later. As Joe Neff reported it,

Still, (SBI Agent) Ransome and (Aulander Police Chief) Godwin had a problem. In each of Crystal's versions, the murder occurred April 3. But the SBI and the district attorney files had statements from 17 people saying they had seen Jenkins alive after April 3.

The next day, July 28, Godwin and Ransome set out to clear up the discrepancies. They went to Ahoskie and re-interviewed four witnesses who had seen Jenkins buying gas, fish and a meal on April 10.

Ransome and Godwin informed each witness that Jenkins had died April 3. Each one then gave a new statement to the effect that they were not sure of the actual date, just that it was in early April.

Armed with the revised statements, Godwin and Ransome returned to Aulander to look for two key witnesses -- Jenkins' next-door neighbors, Bobby and Mary Hunt.

The two officers found Mary Hunt at her job at Farm and Home Gas Co. at the corner of Main and Commerce.

Ransome later dictated a report from this interview: "Hunt was re-interviewed because it was learned that Allen Ray Jenkins had been shot and killed on Monday, April 3, 1995. Hunt stated that she last saw Jenkins on Saturday morning, April 1, 1995."

Mary Hunt did not learn the contents of this report until a reporter showed her a copy in October 2002. The Hunts are clear on their story: She last saw Jenkins on Saturday, April 8, six days before his body was found. She was sitting in her office, waiting for the clock hands to hit noon so she could go to lunch, when she saw him stop at the traffic light outside her window.

"Oh, no," she thought. "He's getting ready for another party tonight."

The next day, April 9, Bobby Hunt saw Jenkins cooking fish in the back yard with some friends. Bobby Hunt went to bed early, as he did every Sunday. He needed to be at work at the Food Lion in Williamston at 5 a.m.

A grandson and his friend were playing when he went to bed. About 10 p.m., Bobby Hunt was awakened by a loud rumbling sound. He went out and told Mary to quiet the children down.

She told her husband she was the only one there. The children had left an hour ago.

All that week, the Hunts noticed that Jenkins' kitchen light was on constantly, shining into their bedroom.

The Hunts, who still live in the brick ranch house at 301 Lombardy St., are just as certain that the kitchen light was not on for two weeks, and that there were no quiet weekend evenings before Jenkins' body was found.

And the grass: Jenkins mowed his lawn twice a week, and the grass had not gone unmowed for two weeks. It would have been much higher.

Shown the SBI file stating she last saw Jenkins on April 1, Mary Hunt shook her head at Ransome's report.

"This is not right," she said. "That's wrong there. I didn't say April first. He must have put that down wrong."

Mary Hunt's comments came seven years too late for Alan Gell.

Between his arrest and first trial, four different attorneys were assigned to represent the indigent Alan Gell. Suffice to say, none of them did anything. Well, the first two did accept positions as prosecutors, one in the Bertie County D.A.'s office. Because of the conflict of interest created by Gell's former lawyer taking a job with the very office prosectuting him, the matter was transferred to the office of then-Attorney General, Mike Easley, and headed up by David Hoke and Debra Graves. Hoke and Graves ignored a 1997 Order to turn over all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel. Disturbingly, these two are still with the AG's Special Prosecutions Section, along with Coman and Winstead.

Shortly before the commencement of Gell's trial, on February 2, 1998, his fourth lawyer, assigned to the case but three months earlier, read a newspaper article speaking of the existence of witnesses who had seen Jenkins alive as late as April 10, 1995. The attorney, Maynard Harrell, immediately asked the trial judge to order Hoke and Graves to turn over any exculpatory witness statements contained in the prosecutors' files.

Joe Neff:

The prosecutors replied that there was none. Some witnesses had said they saw Jenkins after April 3, prosecutor Debra Graves said, but they were mistaken.

"Ransome talked to those witnesses a number of times, and the dates change from time to time," Graves said. "There was nothing exculpatory about that information, and consequently we did not provide it."

At Judge Meyer's insistence, however, prosecutors handed over statements by 10 people.

All had been re-interviewed after April 3 had been established as the date of death, Meyer said, and all said they were unsure when they last saw Jenkins.

But "out of an abundance of caution," Meyer let the defense lawyers read the statements.

So on the first day of trial, the state finally gave Gell's lawyers reports of people who said they saw Jenkins alive after April 3.

But only some. All but one of the statements were from people whom Police Chief Godwin and SBI agent Ransome had re-interviewed after telling them Jenkins was killed April 3.

Like all defendants, Gell had the constitutional right to evidence in law enforcement files that could prove his innocence or cast doubt on the truthfulness of witnesses such as Crystal and Shanna.

Whether intentionally or inadvertently, the prosecution team did not turn over the statements of Donald Hale, Jenkins' lifelong friend who said he chatted with him April 7. They also did not provide the account of Willie Hoggard, his across-the-street neighbor who said he saw him that same day; and that of Ricky Alan Odom, who told police he talked with Jenkins about roofing his home on April 7; and that of Jenkins' brother Sidney, who said he had honked at him in town on April 8; and Edward and Margaret Adams, who saw him April 9.

The state did not hand over the tape recording of a phone call involving Crystal Morris, the state's key witness -- a conversation with evidence that Crystal was fabricating her account of the murder. And the state didn't turn over its numerous reports of Jenkins' interest in young girls and payments for sex.

The late production of the witness reports put Harrell at a disadvantage. The trial had begun, and the lawyers were in court all day, with little time to chase down people who might help their case.

On February 25th, the jury took less than one hour to convict Alan Gell of first degree murder.

Neff:

During the sentencing phase, Harrell put Gell's family and friends on the stand. Pleas for mercy, however, are best accompanied by remorse, and Gell continued to maintain his innocence.

Prosecutor David Hoke called for death in a powerful closing argument that was more sermon than summation. He hammered at Gell for ambushing Jenkins in the sanctity of his own home.

Hoke reminded jurors of the words of Gell's pastor, who testified that Gell had never acknowledged wrongdoing or shown remorse.

Gell interrupted Hoke. "I still deny the charges," he blurted out.

This gave more fuel to Hoke, who asked jurors to think about how important it was for them to feel safe in their own homes.

"Look at that feeling of peace, joy, comfort in your own home," he said. Contrast it to the act done "at the hands of this man who has not yet acknowledged any sorrow."

He addressed the jury, calling each member by name, and then:

"From the Old Testament and the Book of Numbers, anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer upon the testimony of witnesses. You've heard the testimony of witnesses. ... Now, they might argue to you the New Testament changes all that. No, it doesn't. Jesus didn't come to destroy the law or the prophecies of the Old Testament. He came to fulfill them.

"Listen to this in Deuteronomy. 'Cursed is the man who kills his neighbor secretly and all the people shall say amen. Cursed is the man who kills an innocent person for money, and all the people shall say amen.' It's time to sentence this man, a murderer, to die, and let the people of Bertie County say amen."

The jury needed just two hours to reach a conclusion: death.

As ironically noted by Mr. Neff, "getting sentenced to death was a lucky break for Alan Gell."

As a death row convict, Gell became entitled to two attorneys, paid by the state, to review the entire case -- both the conduct of the trial and the conduct of police and prosecutorial authority in building the investigation and the case against him. Enter Mary Pollard and Jim Cooney. To make this long, tortured story just a bit shorter, suffice to say that Pollard and Cooney undertook the admirable leg work work not even contemplated by any of Alan's prior counsel.

Pollard immediately realized that the date of death was the crucial issue in the case. She contacted Dr. M.G.F. Gilliland, the forensic pathologist who had testified for the prosecution at trial that Jenkins' was killed in a loosely framed window between April 3-8, 1995. Gilliland's testimony was, obviously, a linchpin on which the jury hung its hat in deciding the guilt of Alan Gell. Because ambient temperature, more than any other factor, determines the rate at which a corpse decomposes, and because there was no data given to her regarding the temperature of Jenkins' home in the time between his murder and the discovery of his body, Gilliland told Pollard that she could not more precisely estimate the date of his demise.

Pollard and Conney set out to get that data. A forensic anthropologist, mechanical engineer, and entomologist were retained. Their conjunctive work, which is nicely, if grisly, summarized by Mr. Neff, here, led to the conclusion that Jenkins was killed on either April 8, 9 or 10, 1995. The assumption, accepted by the trial jury, that he was killed on April 3, 1995, was "so unreasonable as to be nearly impossible."

Pollard and Cooney took their experts' test results and conclusions back to Gilliland. Mr. Neff:

For two decades, Gilliland, like Marks and Arends, has worked with the state, helping police and prosecutors. She still has the intensity and focus that cowed Gell's lawyers during trial. But now, in the case of N.C. v. Gell, she is no longer focused on the defense lawyers.

Sitting in her office recently at Pitt Memorial Hospital, surrounded by books, papers, microscopes and files, Gilliland recalled a pretrial conference in January 1998. The prosecution team was there: SBI agent Dwight Ransome, Aulander Police Chief Gordon Godwin, and David Hoke and Debra Graves from the Attorney General's Office.

Gilliland asked about the initial medical examiner's report, which noted that Jenkins was last seen alive on midmorning April 8 by a neighbor.

That person was mistaken, one of the team members said.

"That information had been withdrawn," recalled Gilliland.

Gilliland said she assumed this meant that the neighbor -- one neighbor -- had retracted the statement.

That assumption was demolished when Gilliland met with Gell's lawyers.

She learned that law enforcement had statements from 17 people who saw Jenkins alive after April 3 but had not shared that information with her.

"Seventeen people, that's a clue, that's valuable information," she said. "I would rely on that kind of information."

Gilliland has reviewed the work of Arends, the entomologist, and Marks, of the Body Farm. She is in full agreement with them about Jenkins' time of death.

She rifled briskly through her file folder, extracting some of the withheld statements.

She held up the one from Willie Hoggard, the across-the-street neighbor.

"He lived there 25 years, and he saw [Jenkins] in his truck, and he knows the man very well; he last saw him on the Friday, which is the seventh," she said, rattling the paper. "He's alive on the seventh; he's not decomposing in his house."

She moved on to the statement of Ricky Alan Odom, who told police he talked with Jenkins that same day about putting a roof on his house.

"A job, the man says, he looks at the roof on the seventh," Gilliland said. "That is not having maggots working on your remains."

Gilliland did not attend the trial and did not hear Crystal Morris testify that Gell stood in the bedroom and shot Jenkins in the hallway.

"No, no, no!" Clearly, she said, the killer shot from the hallway into the bedroom.

Crystal Morris "may have intimate knowledge of who was shooting," Gilliland said. "It may have been herself. It could have been somebody else, I don't know -- that's not something that I have information about. But with all of this together, I have better information to when it happened and when it did not happen.

"It did not happen April 3, 1995."

Gilliland is rock certain: The murder occurred while Gell was in jail, probably on April 8 or 9.

"That doesn't mean that poor Mr. Jenkins wasn't killed. It just means that this man didn't do it."

Once the Attorney General's Office was made aware of this frame, and the prosecutorial misconduct of Hoke and Graves, it immediately moved the court to set aside the guilty verdict and free Alan Gell, right?

Um, no. After a thorough reinvestigation, Jim Coman advised Cooper that the matter should be tried again! Coman tried the case himself. He lost. Joe Cheshire sat first chair for Alan Gell at the re-trial. He was assisted by Jim Cooney, Mary Pollard and Brad Bannon.

Hoke and Graves were ultimately tried by the Grievance Committee of the State Bar for their egregious prosecutorial misconduct in the failure to timely provide Mr. Gell's original defense counsel with exculpatory Brady material to which they were absolutely entitled -- conduct that directly resulted in Mr. Gell's wrongful conviction and near execution. In my next post I am going to set forth, in its entirety, Mr. Bannon's letter to the the State Bar regarding his observations of that proceeding. It is a must read. Apparently, this "trial" was nothing but a smoke-filled room, a pig circus, an "old boy" JOKE.

Jim Coman testified on behalf of his office mates at the Bar "trial." Under oath, he said, in direct contravention of precedent settled since 1972, that his pals weren't obligated to turn over impeachment evidence to the defense. (See, Hoke and Graves decided to deem the taped phone call of Crystal Morris, wherein she implicated herself and spoke of the need to frame Gell, merely "impeachment" material, as opposed to "exculpatory"material, because, while it might have "embarrassed" poor Ms. Morris, it did not directly prove Gell's innocence. Kinda like the Nifong-Meehan conspiracy. But different. Snakes, just the same.)

In September, the state's senior prosecutor was in an unusual place: the witness stand. And what he said has caused quite a stir among lawyers around the state.
Jim Coman said under oath that the state Attorney General's Office had a policy of withholding a certain type of evidence helpful to defendants. As he described it, the policy would violate 30 years of U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Coman now says, however, that his testimony was incorrect. Even so, one prominent law professor said that the prosecutor's September statements may open the door to challenges of numerous convictions in cases tried by the attorney general's staff.

Coman was testifying at the State Bar about the character of two proteges, David Hoke and Debra Graves. They were charged with breaking ethical rules by withholding favorable evidence from former death row inmate Alan Gell. The evidence included a taped telephone call in which the state's star witness said she had to "make up a story" for police.

Hoke and Graves didn't have to turn over the tape, Coman said, because it wasn't "exculpatory"; it didn't prove Gell's innocence.

The tape could have been used to "impeach" the witness, or undercut her credibility, Coman acknowledged. But he said case law didn't require impeachment evidence to be turned over to the defense.

Handing over impeachment evidence has been law since a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision. But Coman went on to say it wasn't just his opinion, it was the policy of the Attorney General's Office.

An odd policy

"The prevailing view when I was there the first time, both under Judge [Lacy] Thornburg and Attorney General [Mike] Easley and now Governor Easley," Coman said, "was that just because something embarrassed a witness or might be impeaching to them, did not in and of itself, unless it went to being exculpatory, was not something we had to turn over."

In a recent interview, however, Coman backed away from that description of policy and said his September statements were not correct -- not on the case law, and not on the attorney general's policy.

"I was not very precise," he said. "My use of the term 'impeaching' or 'impeachment' ... would have not been accurate."

It's impossible to know how many times the Attorney General's Office has failed to turn over impeachment evidence, because the material would be in closed files. Coman and Attorney General Roy Cooper said that the department's policy was to obey the law, and that there was no written policy on impeachment evidence.

But in several known cases, lawyers for the attorney general did not hand over impeachment evidence or resisted opening files as the law required:

* In 1993, Hoke, the lead prosecutor in Gell's 1998 trial, was admonished by a trial judge for not turning over impeachment evidence at a murder trial. Hoke told the judge he didn't turn it over because it was "impeachment evidence, not exculpatory evidence."

Questioned by the State Bar under oath, Hoke testified that leading up to Gell's first trial, he thought the tape was impeaching. He did not hand over the tape, he said, because he didn't know impeachment evidence must be produced, despite the previous courtroom lecture.

* While Gell was on death row, the attorney general continued to fight his bid for a new trial long after the withheld evidence surfaced. Those claims of withheld evidence had no merit, the attorney general argued, and Gell should proceed to execution.

* Charles Munsey got off death row in 1999 because the Wilkes County prosecutor withheld impeachment evidence that the state's star witness, a jailhouse informant, was never in Central Prison, where Munsey supposedly confessed to him.

During the trial, a deputy attorney general, Dale Talbert, advised the local prosecutor that prison officials said it was nearly impossible for the witness to have been in Central. Talbert told the local district attorney that the prison officials said it was virtually impossible that he was at Central because there was no record showing that.

* From 1996 to 1998, the Attorney General's Office vehemently fought a new law giving death row inmates access to the complete case files of prosecutors and police. Special Deputy Attorney General Barry McNeill -- the state's leading death-penalty lawyer -- said at a statewide meeting of prosecutors that there was no need to open all law enforcement files, and that his office would help prosecutors ward off attempts to do so.

The state Supreme Court upheld the law, leading to new trials for at least six death row inmates.

Bad news for AG?

Rich Rosen, a law professor at UNC-Chapel Hill and a death-penalty opponent, predicted that Coman's testimony would cause trouble for the Attorney General's Office. "We've got a statement under oath," Rosen said. "I think anyone prosecuted by them in the last 20 years has a right to ask to reopen their files."

Beginning in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that prosecutors must hand over evidence that is favorable to defendants. That first decision involved evidence of the defendant's innocence. Later decisions included impeachment evidence.

Gell was convicted in 1998 of murdering a retired truck driver in Bertie County. The withheld evidence led to a new trial; in February a jury quickly acquitted him.

Among other evidence, prosecutors withheld the taped phone conversation, in which the state's alleged eyewitness to the murder talked about how she had to "make up a story" for police, evidence that she was prone to lie to law enforcement.

A formidable witness

Once Gell won a new trial, Coman became deeply familiar with the case. He led the reinvestigation and advised Attorney General Roy Cooper to retry Gell. He was the lead prosecutor at the retrial.

When Hoke and Graves were first investigated for misconduct, Coman filed a sworn affidavit with the State Bar in support of them. In that written statement, he said he wouldn't have given the evidence to the defense, either.

Coman was a formidable witness: a career prosecutor, former head of the State Bureau of Investigation and the state's senior deputy attorney general for law enforcement and prosecutions.

Hoke and Graves were reprimanded for withholding the evidence and bringing the judicial system into disrepute.

Coman said he was using the word "impeaching" as "embarrassing." The legal definition of impeach is the same as in Webster's dictionary: "to discredit."

Coman said he was thinking about how the tape from the Gell trial was embarrassing and humiliating for the state's witnesses.

"I wasn't thinking in terms of how it was defined in the case law," Coman said. "I was thinking only in terms of this transcript, this tape, and that it portrayed the girls in an embarrassing, humiliating position."

Coman's testimony, and Hoke's, will likely be fodder for the special State Bar committee set up to review the Hoke and Graves matter.

The N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers labeled their testimony "misleading" and a "blanket misstatement" of the law. Brad Bannon, one of Gell's lawyers at his retrial, wrote that Coman and Hoke gave a patently false recitation of the law as a defense for the prosecutors' misconduct.

Gov. Mike Easley was attorney general from 1993 to 2001, when his staff tried and convicted Gell. He declined to be interviewed. So did Lacy Thornburg, who was attorney general from 1985 to 1993 and is now a federal judge in Asheville.

Coman said the Gell case is the only one in his 20 years at the Attorney General's Office where evidence was not handed over as required.

Roy Cooper, who currently holds the office, said he has insisted on a very open policy.

"Attorneys have been instructed to be as open as possible and turn over as much evidence as possible to the defense," Cooper said. "It is in the best interest of a fair trial and helps criminals from getting guilty verdicts overturned."

Cooper said his lawyers would review cases prosecuted by the Attorney General's Office before his term only if challenged in court. He said his staff had no intention of independently going through files to see whether impeachment evidence had been withheld.

Poster "KP" had this to say about Coman today, at FODU:

I just heard who they have picked to handle the case. One of the two AAG's I have spoken with and he is not a fan of the defense team and he made that pertectly clear to me in a call that lasted for more than an hour twenty, back on Sept 22.

I filed a complaint with them back on Sept 21, 2006 and they called me back on the 22. I still have his number on my cell phone at home. The only lawyer he didn't talk about was Mr. Smith for fear of being sued. It looks like we are not going anywhere, anytime soon.

By the way the AAG I'm speaking of is James Coman.

***

Mary Winstead, Coman's assistant on the Duke Frame assignment, used to work with Mikey at the Durham County D.A.'s office. In the course of her prosecution of one Timothy Malloy for a 1992 rape, Winstead "accidentally" voiced over portions of not one, but two casette tapes bearing recordings of telephone answering machine messages crucial to Mr. Malloy's defense, some time in the year and a half between their creation and pre-trial discovery, during which time the tapes were in the exclusive possession of the state. She was removed from the case. Mikey tried it. Without those pesky audio tapes.

***

Roy, buddy, you may have blinders on.

We don't.

Upon Further Review...

2007-01-12T11:49:00.000-05:00

I have decided to delete last night's post wherein I published link to Crystal Mangum's property records maintained at the official website of Wake County. Although clearly already "public record," I have, with a night's sleep and consideration of divergent opinions, come to embrace the belief that further publicizing Crystal's home address does not serve to further any of the just ends that I, in writing Crystal Mess, have always sought to promote.

I Have To Laugh!

2007-01-11T19:10:00.000-05:00

In a 10:12 p.m. comment to this JinC post back in September, I loosely explained the trial lawyer's tactic of "shotgunning." The shotgun approach to evidentiary presentation is a revered old friend of crafty litigators possessed of formidable advocacy skills...and an atrociously weak case. Done well, shotgunning is art. The ultimate art of deception. After all, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Here, I speak not of brilliant intellect, but the brilliance of truth.

Another axiom of trial practice is that, "Good cases makes good lawyers." Indeed, it is expected that an advocate armed with the strength of dispositive facts will be able to shoot them, with scoped rifle precision, to score "bullseyes" at verdict. By natural extension, it is also said that, "Winning weak cases makes great lawyers."

I'm sure that Defendant Nifong has developed capable courtroom skills during his twenty eight years toiling in the bowels of Durham. I'm also sure that he knew early on, clearly by April 10th, that the alleged "Duke Rape case" was atrociously weak. In fact, he knew then that the accuser was wholly incredible, that there was no favorable disinterested eyewitness, that the scientific and forensic evidence wasn't there, and that this case was all but un-winnable. All but un-winnable but for that particularly nasty shotgun pellet called "Race Bait." See, Defendant Nifong fancied himself a great trial attorney, the proverbial cock o' the walk. Armed with a narcissistic, borderline personality disorder and the complicity of Hometown Players Titus and Stephens, Defendant Nifong was positive that he would be able to pull it off. He thought he'd simply shotgun his way through the gauntlet of discovery. He'd shotgun his way through a jury selection at which he'd seat as many of Durham County's stupidest, most hate-filled, pitchfork wielding racist Whiners as he could. Then he'd shotgun his way through trial, and blow up the target bearing Dave's, Reade's, and Collin's faces at its center. The other thing I'm sure of, however, is that Defendant Nifong had absolutely no idea just whom he had decided to fuck with, nor the strength of their resolve.

Defendant Nifong, you're not in Durham any more. Not the Durham you've known, anyway. No quick and dirty dispositions with the likes of Bourlon and Monks and L.R. "Lee" Castle today, tough guy. No more Ronnie and Kenny to guard your six. You're in the big time, now, Douche. You're bad! You're Nation-wide! Hell, you're big in Japan.

Which is why I have to laugh.

You actually thought you could shotgun your way through the Seligmanns? The Finnertys? The Evans's? Thought you'd blow away this team of defense attorneys, support staff and investigators? You really do seem to be certifiably insane. Too funny.

I'm sure you've read the defendants' latest motion. I bet you're re-reading it with Linwood right now. Isn't it is a thing of beauty? That, Defendant Nifong, is good lawyering. I hesitate to call it great, what with you and Crystal and Linwood all but handing them your heads on a silver platter. This shotgun approach, Defendant Nifong, is not art. In fact, I am struck by sudden mind's eye loop of the classic scene from The Odd Couple, in which a crestfallen, apron wearing Felix (Jack Lemon) bemoans Oscar's (Walter Matthau) lack of appreciation and culinary ignorance:

Felix: It's not spaghetti. It's linguini.
Oscar: Linguini?
Felix: Ha! You didn't even know that's linguini! It's not spaghetti. It's linguini!
Oscar: Linguini? [Throwing plate of linguini against the kitchen wall, where it momentarily sticks before starting its inexorable ooze to the floor]
Now it's garbage!

Oh, how my wife laughed when she read this

While the accuser now claims that “Adam” and “Matt” were both of the names used by Reade Seligmann, she provided vastly different descriptions for “Matt” and “Adam” on March 16: “Matt was heavy set with short hair and weighs 260lbs to 270lbs while “Adam” was “short, red cheeks, fluffy hair, stubby face with brown hair. Significantly, she also described “Brett” as “chubby” and claims that she saw a picture of him in the house. Similarly she now claims that Dave Evans is “Adam” and “Brett,” even though she gave two different descriptions for Adam and Brett on March 16. In short, the accuser has provided three different descriptions for what she now claims are only two men. Of course, if the SANE interview was truthful, then Dave Evans (as “Dan” who is really “Matt”) is “Matt,” “Adam,” and “Brett,” which means that the accuser has given three different descriptions for the same person . . . [and] if the accuser’s December 21 statement is to be believed, then “Dan” and “Brett” are the same person; yet in her written statement of April 6, she claimed that she was beaten by both Dan and Brett, and never informed police that it was the same person.

and this

According to the accuser’s most recent telling, she apparently spoke with someone at her father’s home for 7 minutes during the time that she was planning her nude dance routine, during the time that she was dancing, and then as she was fleeing to the car. In addition, the accuser was apparently talking with someone on her cell phone at the time that she was walking back into the house and being “kidnapped” into the bathroom. She finished her last conversation at the time the rape was beginning. None of these facts has ever been mentioned in any statement that the accuser has given to date in this case . . . [while] at the height of the sexual attack now claimed by the accuser, Reade Seligmann was having a telephone conversation.

and this

Since Dave Evans had a “5 o’clock shadow” in the picture the accuser was shown on April 4, and since her response was that he “looks like him without the mustache,” her claim now that a “mustache” is not a “mustache” indicates that her statement on April 4 is, again, no longer reliable.

and this

To believe the accuser’s present claim that her vagina was wiped with this towel, that her face was wiped with this towel, that Dave Evans was wiped with this towel, and that the floor was wiped with this towel, would require the belief that this towel could wipe away all DNA from her attackers on the accuser’s body, but leave the DNA of other, unknown males. It further requires the belief that the accuser’s face and vagina could be wiped with this towel, but leave no trace of her DNA on the towel. Further, it requires the belief that the floor could be wiped with this towel, but that it would only wipe Dave Evans’ DNA, leaving Matt Zash’s DNA behind on the floor. Finally, the towel, while apparently obliterating any DNA left behind by the alleged attackers on the accuser’s body, somehow contained only one of her attackers’ DNA, despite her multiple claims that two of her attackers penetrated her rectum and vagina with their penises.

and this

Since, at this point in time, Dave Evans can be one, two, three or even four different attackers, Reade Seligman can be one or two different attackers—and Collin Finnerty is an unidentified attacker—the accuser is now free to say that any of the Defendants did any act or all of the acts that she claims happened without regard to her previous statements or interviews. In short, by claiming that any one of the Defendants could be any or all of her attackers, the accuser has now created the equivalent of a “do over” in an attempt to try to make sense of her prior conflicting statements.

and this

Rather than attempt to identify her attackers as Matt, Brett and Adam, the accuser used the names of the Defendants in her most recent telling of her story. Specifically, the investigator noted that ‘Inv. Wilson asked [the accuser] to tell him whose names the guys were using on March 13, 2006 since she knows their real names.’ The State has repeatedly represented to this Court that no substantive discussions of this case took place with the accuser from April 6, 2006 until this last interview. The fact that the accuser now “knows their real names” indicates that she has learned their names from the extensive publicity that this case has received, publicity that has necessarily included the Defendants’ faces as well as their names. It cannot be known at this time with any reliability what else she has learned from this publicity. This, in turn, means that the accuser’s present recollection of who allegedly attacked her and how, has been irreparably tainted by this publicity and weighs strongly against any in-court identification by her of the Defendants.

and this hilarious little nugget of "oops" that slapped Liestoppers in their collective faces. Don't you know about strippers, dude? It's all about the shoes.

Oh, how we laughed when we read this

Was it a penis, or . . . “object”?

“I couldn’t say 100% that I saw them use their penis but it was certainly something.” LW 12/21/06 notes at 4.
“I believe it was their penis.” Id.
“It felt like a penis.” Id.
It penetrated me vaginally. [1]
It penetrated my butt. [2]
It did not use a condom. [3]
It raped me. [4]
It had sex with me for about two minutes in my vagina. [5]
It got frustrated because it couldn’t come. [5]
It had sex with me for 5 minutes. [6]
It then went into my anus for 2 minutes. [6]
I think it ejaculated. [7]

But was it a penis???
Alas, “I can’t say 100% that it was a penis that was used….” LW 12/21/06 notes at 4.

FOOTNOTES
(1) Collin Finnerty "is the guy who assaulted me . . . . He put his penis in my anus and my vagina." Transcript of April 4 Powerpoint Identification, 1/11/07 Motion at 11 (Discovery at 1838). "At that point Matt then moved around to her front side where he penetrated her vagina.” Gottlieb Notes, 1/11/07 Motion at 11 (Discovery at 1817). "Matt had her legs and Brett was behind her and put his private part in her anus and in her vagina. . . . ." Himan's Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 1208).

(2) “That’s when Adam came around back and put his private part in my butt." Sane Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 539).

(3) “Adam said yes you can and then that was [when] Matt put his private part in me and did not use a condom." Sane Interview 1/11/07 Motion at 11 (Discovery at 538).

(4) “She stated that Brett was behind her and was the first to sodomize and then to rape her. She stated that Brett ejaculated . . . ." Gottlieb's Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 1817).

(5) "Matt started having sex with me in my vagina and he got frustrated because he said he couldn't come, He [sic] had sex with me for about 2 minutes in my vagina. . . ." Accuser's Handwritten Statement, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 810).

(6) “Brett had sex with me in my vagina he stopped after about 5 minutes, then he put his penis in my anus for about 2 minutes." Accuser's Handwritten Statement, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 810).

(7) "Matt had her legs and Brett was behind her and put his private part in her anus and in her vagina. She stated that she thinks he ejaculated . . . ." Himan's Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 1208). “She stated that Brett was behind her and was the first to sodomize and then to rape her. She stated that Brett ejaculated . . . ." Gottlieb's Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 1817).

We both just laughed and laughed. As I sat on the couch staring at her back as she read and laughed , she turned over her shoulder and said, "This sounds like a bad Woody Allen screenplay." And, hoo, boy, when we considered just how you'd feel being likened to Woody Allen, did we ever laugh and laugh all the harder.

Then, we read this

Meehan says writing an incomplete report violates his own firm's standards. "It was an error in judgment on my part. … It certainly was a big error," says Meehan. He says his firm wasn't trying to hide the information and that it released it when it was asked. But his client's behavior irks him, he says.

Nifong took six months to tell the players' defense attorneys about the other DNA, as required by law — and during that time, Nifong filed a court motion that stated he was not aware of any potentially exculpatory evidence.

The fact that Nifong withheld the information and knew it before he indicted their sons has outraged the parents of the accused. "You felt like someone hit you with a baseball bat. … It was almost too much to bear, as we sat there," says Kathy Seligmann, whose son, Reade, is among the three indicted players. "And [Nifong is] sitting 10 feet away from us."

It enraged Mary Ellen Finnerty, mother of Collin Finnerty, another indicted player. "I think [I felt] one of the strongest feelings of rage that I've had … I literally had to turn to my husband, because I was shaking from my head to my toe, and say, 'Hold me down,'" recalls Finnerty. Adds Seligmann, "And we had to hold on to each other because when you sit there and put two and two together and realize that it was calculated … set up to make these boys appear to be guilty of something they didn't do"

and stopped laughing.

Thankfully, Mrs. Evans' immediately following quote brought smiles back to our faces:

When asked what they would say to Nifong if he were in the room, Rae Evans, the mother of indicted player David Evans, says, "I would say with a smile on my face, 'Mr. Nifong, you've picked on the wrong families … and you will pay every day for the rest of your life.'"

May you both rot in hell.

Munchfest '07

2007-01-05T22:41:00.000-05:00

Good evening ladies and...germs. I'm Miss Ann Dry, and I'd like to welcome each and every one of you without a Y chromosome to Munchfest '07! We've got a real full carpet for you here tonight, so let's get right down on it! Please put your hands together for Miss Kim Curtis! Kim's been very busy writing this year and I think you're going to just love the fruit of that labor as she debuts for you tonight her very personal re-working of a Janis Ian classic! Kim Curtis, ladies and...germs!

I call this At Edens C

I learned the truth 3/23
Cro-Magnon men in class with me
Two silent cowards hiding lies
My God, what if they are the guys?
The valentines she never knew
A Monday night, her stolen youth
The multi-cul-tur-al abuse
At Edens C, I'd seen the truth

So those of us with blood-red faces
Well-schooled in the social graces
Cheered banging pots outside the home
Invented guilt over the phone
Cathy asked of their grades with me
I said, "They think they've got a 'C'"
But it isn't all it seems...
At Edens C.

A brown-skinned girl in fuck-me-pumps
Whose name means nothing to those chumps
Said, "Pity, please, the ones who serve
I never get what I deserve."
Our poor-relationed hometown queen
Forced to fulfill her children's needs
With company so unsavory...
From Edens C

Remember, those who win this game
Don't need to care about the pain
Inflicted on good families,
Her dubious integrity
Who cares if it just wasn't true
They're only symbols of payment due
Which exceeds accounts received...
From Edens C

To those of us who know the pain
Of drawing six figures with disdain
For some of those whose names we call
Helmeted thugs who play with balls
It really had to be this way
You think I'd let them get away
With dreams intact and conscience free
Those rich white young "studs"...
From Edens C?

We all play the game and when we dare
To cheat the sons of millionaires
They wield their power like a bone
Surprise! Surprise! I should have known
They called to say, "Come dance with me"
Is it so wrong to be PC?
I guess an ugly girl like me can get fucked...
By Edens C

Underneath The Bunker, The End Is Nigh

2007-01-04T17:23:00.000-05:00

Why did Der NiFuhrer cancel all appointments today and closet himself inside his closed office? Enquiring canaries want to know.

Der NiFuhrer: Hm.

Adjutant Schaub: Why so glum, Mein NiFuhrer? It's really not so bad.

Der NiFuhrer: I'm...uh...I'm going back downstairs now. I shall be in the bedchamber with Frau NiFuhrer. We are not to be disturbed.

Adjutant Schaub: Of course, Mein NiFuhrer.

Ham Sandwich Indicts Nifong

2007-01-02T20:17:00.000-05:00

Last Friday, Mary Katharine Ham released the wickedly ironic and darkly humorous Tour Of Things That Did Not Happen In Durham. Actually a "HamNation" production, drawing upon the talents of her mom, dad, and brothers, this short (2:58) satire is must viewing for Andrew Cohen and the other two extra-terrestrials yet in need of a "Talk To Me Like I'm Three Years Old" tutorial of non-events in Durham over the last ten months.

Today, dad Jon Ham, who's been chiming in with pithy Hoax-Frame commentary for some time now, grabbed the family camcorder in the hope of memorializing Defendant Mike Nifong standing, chest out, chin square, hand raised in Boy Scout salute, while swearing to uphold the laws of the State of North Carolina and the Constitution of the United States. Alas, Jon was deprived of the opportunity to record the historic moment, as was the rest of the media and the public at large, because, as Defendant Nifong explained, "I scheduled it at 8:00 knowing full well the courthouse opened at 8:30."

Captain Bill Wrenn, of the Durham County Sheriff's Department, told a WDTV reporter that he had been told "no" when he had asked if he should let people into the building in advance of the historic ~~farce~~ ~~sham~~ ~~puke-inducement~~ ~~travesty~~ ~~tragedy~~ swearing-in ceremony. Asked who had told him "no," Captain Wrenn replied, "I asked Mr. Nifong."

Defendant Nifong was finally found, not in his 6th Floor office hard at work fighting crime, but, sitting in a 5th Floor courtroom flanked by his ~~mommy~~ wife, the Stepfordian Cy Gurney, and mortified son, Bryan. Jon was able to get this absolutely mesmerizing video of Defendant Nifong under siege from a clearly agitated press corps. "Mesmerizing" in that sort of way one might become rapt on starting to look at a jungle disease book. You get sicker as you go along but you can't stop.

Gone was the trademark cocksure smirk. Defendant Nifong appeared dispassionate, subdued, anesthetized. He can still think up a lie, though, and think it up quick. Pressed as to why the media and public were not permitted to witness the swearing in of a public official, Defendant Nifong explained that

"there are ceremonial ceremonies, and then there are 'let's do this so we can get to work' ceremonies...because we had to be at work at 8:30...As I've indicated, you know, there's ceremonial ceremonies such as the one we had when I was appointed to this office back in 2005 but, now what we have is an office with twenty-one lawyers, all of whom have previously been sworn in, so the ceremonies are over. We have to get sworn in so we can get back to work...this was not a media event; this was an event that was required of us so that we could get back to work and do our jobs."

Just chew on that for a while. Go ahead. Take your time. It tastes real bad and you just can't swallow it. Poor Mike. Poor Cy. Poor Bryan. What should have been the crowning moment of his career became but an embarrassing "necessity" that he had to lie about. Foisting yet another public deception off on his poor staff. Sick. Explain to us again the relevance of the other twenty one previously sworn lawyers in your office, working on the floor above, whose need to get to work necessitated the closure to the public of a fifth floor courtroom. Please, do explain that again. This guy has "truly gone fishing."

Scarily, Defendant Nifong affirmed that he is looking forward to what he "can do next," feigned pride in "a lot of good that has been accomplished in the eighteen, 20 months since I've been the District Attorney here," and vowed "to do a whole lot more."

Bloggers beware: He WILL spit on your burgers.

Defendant Nifong then went fully Queeg, and displayed the true depth of his psychotic, delusional, borderline personality disorder with narcissistic overlay:

"Obviously, as witnessed by the fact that you're all here talking to me, when there's so much other stuff going on, is...Durham has some healing to do and I need to be a part of that healing process and I need to have something to do with what, how, how, we move forward from the events that have brought you all here because you're not here today for a swearing-in, you're here today because of the things that happened during the course of the last year." [Poor Bryan chewed gum tensely and appeared to stare at his shoetips as Dear Ol' Dad loosed this rancid stream.]

Asked if he felt he was a part of the problem in Durham, Defendant Nifong continued:

"No, I don't think I'm part of the problem. I feel I have assisted in revealing the problem, um, and, you know, if we get to the point where it appears my presence, um, in an investigation or, and so on, in, in anything like that is a hindrance, then we can deal with that at that time."

Craaaaaazy!
Over the rainbow,
He is craaaaazy!
Bars in the windows.

The time is now, Defendant Nifong. Where are the Feds? Get him out of there.

The best scene of Jon's video is its last. As a reporter smugly, or timidly, I'm not sure which, offers, "Sorry, Mrs. Nifong," Defendant "Elvis" leaves the building and the camera lens swings towards the front of the courtroom. For the first time it is revealed that, even as his destruction is being forever recorded for Bryan's future therapists, Defendant Nifong still maintains an odd Svengalian hold over the administration of justice in Durham. Four judges stand in the well, appearing to be awaiting their own swear-ins, as Senior Justice Orlando Hudson sits, silently waiting, on the bench. WTF?

Truly, cinema of the absurd.

Where's Your Mallet, Mikey?

2007-01-02T09:21:00.001-05:00

Gaynor to Ashley Cannon: Did you tell your colleague and friend A.D.A. Phyliis Trachese that Mr. Nifong told you to lie?

You are so done, little man. And I am laughing my ass off.

Exclusive Photo of Nifong at Swear In Ceremony

2007-01-02T09:21:00.000-05:00

Poultry.

Happy New Year! You Dig.

2006-12-31T17:21:00.001-05:00

You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.

Happy New Year! Proceed.

2006-12-31T17:21:00.000-05:00

Wanted in fourteen counties of this state, the condemned is found guilty of crimes of murder, armed robbery of citizens, state banks and post offices; the theft of sacred objects, arson in a state prison, perjury, bigamy, deserting his wife and children, inciting prostitution, kidnapping, extortion, receiving stolen goods, selling stolen goods, passing counterfeit money, and, contrary to the laws of this state, the condemned is guilty of using marked cards and loaded dice. Therefore, according to the powers vested in us, we sentence the accused before us, Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez (known as The Rat) and any other aliases he might have, to hang by the neck until dead... may God have mercy on his soul.

Proceed.

Happy New Year!

2006-12-31T16:16:00.000-05:00

Get three coffins ready.

Tony Soprano, You Kill Me!

2006-12-29T13:45:00.000-05:00

Tony's latest, greatest satire.

INTERVIEW: Nifong on Nifong

On the Evidence in the DUKE Rape Case:
If the only thing we ever have in this case is the evidence, then we wouldn't have a case.

What was your motivation in pursuing these players?:
The circumstances of this prosecution indicate a deep motivation to win election.

On the Copious amounts of DNA found on Crystal:
It doesn't mean nothing happened, it just means something was left behind.

On appearing before the State Bar:
My presence here means this case is not going away.

On investigating others on the prosecution side:
It is important that we not only bring the Rogue DA to justice, but also that we lift the cloud of suspicion from those investigators who didn't get caught yet.

On a impending Federal Investigation of the Prosecution:
It had been my hope to face all these charges at the same time, but the evidence available at this moment does not permit that.

On the media coverage:
The Bar is trying this case in the Media.

On why the United States Justice Department hasn't intervened yet:
They don't want to go up against me.

On the rush to convict the players in the Media and Durham:
The contempt that was shown for the defendants, based on their race was totally abhorrent, It adds another layer of reprehensibleness, to a prosecution that is already reprehensible.

On why he hasn't answered the charges from the State Bar yet:
My guess is that some of this stonewall of silence that we have seen may tend to crumble once more charges start to come out.

On why Durham stood in solidarity and ignored this miscarriage of Justice:
It is a case that talks about what this community stands for.

On how fast the Bar should proceed to disbar him:
This is not the kind of activity we condone, and it must be dealt with quickly and harshly.

On whether he would have done anything differently:
The information that I have does lead me to conclude that a railroading did occur.

On the seriousness of his illegal actions:
This is not a case of people drinking and it getting out of hand from that. This is something much, much beyond that.

On whether he had accomplices:
We're talking about a situation where had somebody spoken up and said, 'Wait a minute, we can't do this,' this incident might not have taken place, he said.

How did Crystal look when Linwood talked to her last week:
Her general demeanor was suggestive of the fact that she had been through a traumatic situation.

On his interpretation and reading of the legal Motions filed against him by the Bar:
My reading of the report would indicate that some type of assault did in fact take place.

On the universal support he's received from Durham Leaders:
It just seems like a shame that they are not willing to violate this seeming sacred sense of loyalty to team for loyalty to justice.

On calling the players reprehensible hooligans:
The slurs involved are relevant to show the mindset of those involved in this particular crime.

On whether Gottlieb or Linwood will admit criminal wrongdoing:
It has been a disappointment to me that nobody has stepped forward.

On looking back on his actions and handling of this case:
When I looked at what happened, I was appalled. I think that most people outside this community are appalled.

Has one single document filed in the case by the prosecution been truthful?:
To my knowledge, no one has done that yet.

On whether the Feds should bust down his office door today and start confiscating Evidence:
Obviously, any delay would give an opportunity for somebody to clean up.

What is the effect of future additional charges against him:
Anytime you have a victim who can identify his assailant, then what you have is a case that must go to the jury.

On why he indicted even after the DNA came back negative:
I'm not going to allow Durham's view in the minds of the voters to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke NOT raping a black girl from Durham.

Looking back, what Campaign slogan should you have used, thruthfully:
The reason you should vote for me for DA is I would rather WIN than do the Right thing.

In light of the recent revelations, should Collin Finnerty have his curfew lifted and be able to visit bars and nightclubs?:
An alleged victim’s intoxication might make him a more credible witness.

What does he anticipate his lawyer's first public statement to be?:
Lawyers are always saying that people are innocent.

Some in the media are still defending you. They have serious questions about your guilt. Would you take a lie detector test and release the results to the media?:
My guess is that there are many questions that many people are asking that they would not be asking if they saw the results.

Why these guys?:
One would think that these players would be your first choice for unprincipled prosecution (in Durm).

The Nut Didn't Fall Far From The Tree

2006-12-29T12:56:00.000-05:00

Is it any surprise that manipulative, opportunistic, lying parents raise manipulative, opportunistic, lying children? I think not.

In a single, important thread at Liestoppers' discussion forum, "Tony Soprano," yet another tireless (and very funny) exposer of The Frame, takes down

Greta van Enabler

Clyde Young

and Crystal Mangum's manipulative, opportunistic, lying parents.

From the thread:

PLEASE VIEW THIS FOR YOURSELF BEFORE THE VIDEO IS TAKEN DOWN!

http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

(Go down the Page under 'Greta Investigates,' and the Title is 'ASTOUNDING NEWS') Click on that. After a short AD plays, in the Upper Right, there's a Related Videos sections -- CLICK ON Part 2 (PT 2). Make sure it's PART TWO.

At approx the 1:55 mark, Jakkii is asked about her source again, and Jakkii gets flustered and says she's not going to reveal her source and Jakki says: "This person finally said, off record, that she was pregant and she was due in JAN... - DECEMBER"

She momentarily closes her eyes and moves her head when she slips and says JAN ! ... Which would be the real due date!

In this same interview (Part 1 Vid), Jakii says, "she was Raped and NINE Months later (tilts her head widens eyes for emphasis) the Implications are Astronomical."

The Cousin continually - and Greta picks up on it - hits on the 9 months - Exactly 9 months - and she mentions the IMPLICATIONS of that being huge. She tells of how Crystal's Mother is DEVASTATED by the Birth (Rape Baby).

Greta asks her at one point, earlier, about the Due Date, and Cousin Jakkii doesn't answer - and Greta starts speaking and fills in the silence, after the Cousin's Pause or reticence.

THIS WAS PLANNED, CONTRIVED, and PREMEDITATED!

Jakkii says that not ONLY does she believe she was Raped - but she believes that "She was held against her own will." Coincidentially, that's one of the other charges!

THIS FAMILY IS STILL THINKING ABOUT $$$$$

These people have been thought to be unsophisticated fools but they have successfully manipulated the media many times in this case - and look for it to continue.

THE FAMILY was the only source for this BIRTH story (9 months to the day). THE FAMILY. Are the above statements, including Jakkii POINTING out the sinister "implications" of the timing of this Birth - just coincidences? And why has no one in the Media caught this or got the family's number by now?

***

The Family made every one of these claims:

A Neighbor told the Father that she heard screaming and crying for an extended time the night of the party. The Father supposedly went door to door - yet the Media had the house staked out that day and never saw him.

The $2 million Dollar offer to dump the case and run (bad judgement in turning that down).

The woman reported the previous gang rape and beating immediately when it happened - and the Family drove her to the Police station and went in when she made that report. Police records state otherwise

While some in the Family told the media the harrowing details of her previous gang-rape, beating, and kicking in Creedmore - the Father said they didn't do anything sexual to her.

The Father claims her took her to buy a can of Pop and a twinkie when Brian Taylor says she was modeling lingerie at his apartment. well, I don't recall what they were shopping for - a rosary, maybe? The timing of the Father's statement to witnessing her condition before the party was curious also as he made it when the subject of her being slipped a Date-Rape drug hit the news. He was, in effect, vouching for her condition.

The Mother has flown to visit with CIVIL Laywer, Willie Gary.

They told of a terrible beating and bruises, swelling, and scratches - and a leg out of joint that the Doctors and Nurses did not find.

They claimed to not know of her dancing or even how she made money - and later made contradictory remarks in this regard.

They came forward, right on time, and explained why there was No DNA, she was attacked with a broom. This is a statement made on Rita Cosby's show:
ACCUSER‘S FATHER: "Well, they used a broom on her. If they used a broom then there wouldn‘t be no DNA."
The Broom ejaculated all over her, evidently, if we are to believe Crystal's story. The Family also told Georgia Goslee that the woman was still recovering from this brutal broomstick attack some 8 weeks after the party.

The Mother stated that the DNA testing was purposely manipulated in favor of the Duke Players.

The Father, at first, said he saw her that morning after she was released and that he didn't know anything was wrong with her or that anything had happened. In 48 hours, he totally changed his tune.

The Father told the AP reporter, when she informed him of the reason for her visit - that he didn't know anyting about it and that he didn't know anything was wrong. He didn't know she was a Dancer either.
Crystal tearfully told the N&O that she knew she had to report the Rape for her Father - and that he was at the hospital with her that night. In the same interview, she later provided another reason why she knew she had to report the crime (because some men don't think it's serious to make a woman have sex with them!)

Crystal said, according to the N&O that she had never danced for a group before and that she didn't want to enter the house because she was scared. Rita Cosby reported on the radio that Crystal was a veteran of the North Carolina Strip Circuit and had been doing it regularly for at least 5 years. And then there's her arrest stemming from her criminal actions at a Strip Club where she danced.

The Father, of all people, said that no one would believe Kim Roberts -
because she changed her story!

The Family claimed the Crystal was held against her will and prevented from calling them or visiting them. However, the Father said her saw her at a Stop light, and she didn't say much. He said she was with a friend. Various media have stated that they spotted Crystal driving in her neighborhood - right by her house.

The Mother told Essence Magazine about the woman's stay in a Psych ward in 2005 and about the Previous gang-rape by 3.
Anonymous family members and Jakkii claimed that Essence wined and dined her and took it out of context.

Who Fears the Truth?

The N&O reported, "at one point, the WOMAN threatened to drop the case if her family continued to talk to the media, he said."

The Family stated that the woman would stop and start screaming at the sight of white men in the street. However, we found out that she had no problem going into the dark basement of a mall to a satellite office of the DPD with Mark Gottlieb. Later, Linwood Wilson would interview her alone. I wouldn't walk into a secluded basement office with Gottlieb or Linwood.

The Father told Rita Cosby, on camera, that his daughter told him "that she thought she was going to die." He has also said that she told him that she thought they were going to kill her.

The Father told Rita Cosby that she couldn't call for help because they "snatched the phone out of her hand" and "told her that she wasn't going to call nobody."
Photos and cell phone records say differently.

The Family has offered varying stories on why the woman is in hiding. Death threats, to hide her condition (pregnancy), and they've offered Crystal's suffering from ulcers as evidence of the attack. They also said the woman suffers from frequent nightmares.

The News and Observer was forced to print that "in some cases, the father has contradicted his own statements."

No less than two Lawyers have admitted being advisors to the family - Mark Simeon and High powered Civil attorney Willie Gary.

So, it seems that the Father has jumped in and played Johnny-on-the-spot at least three different times.

* When he found that she had stated he was at the hospital with her and he had told the AP differently - he came out with a new story.

* When photos came out showing that she appeared to be calm and smiling, and the lawyer he appeared with on Rita Cosby (Simeon) had been appearing with his other clients to state their belief that the woman was slipped a rape drug, he took the airwaves (with lawyer in tow) and vouched for her condition right before the party. He also told of a conversation with her where she sounded fine and he could tell that she wasn't drinking.

* When the DNA results became public showing no DNA on or in Crystal, matching the players, he, again, went on Rita Cosby and told of a harrowing roomstick attack (explaining the lack of DNA). He stated the broom was the reason why there was NO DNA from the players.

When the many varying versions of Crystal's story hit the news, her Family told a Magazine reporter that the woman was a mental wreck from the attack. They told of her stopping and screaming in the street at the sight of a white man.

The Police themselves totally debunked the $2 million dollar offer that Jakkii has been promoting in the media, however, Jakkii got on the air and offered it up again in the last 2 weeks.

Jakkii has also offered her knowledge that the woman was slipped a date rape drug by the players recently - even though case documents state otherwise. Jakkii claims to know the specific drugs the testing would and would not detect.

And this list isn't complete or inclusive ... So don't ask me why these people are still given a forum where they are unopposed to forward lies and tripe, especially in the light of the coordination and timing of their statements along the way.

THE BEST QUOTE OF ALL:

The Father told Rita Cosby that the team "don’t have no conscience whatsoever."

An Open Letter To Michael Nifong

2006-12-29T07:53:00.000-05:00

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.

Are You Looking To Save Your Ass?

2006-12-28T22:22:00.000-05:00

Are you a potentially complicit Assistant District Attorney or Durham Police Officer? Perhaps you're an honorable public servant who's mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Do you know the real 411? Is your name Saacks? Himan? Gottlieb? Maybe your name is Kammie Michael. Or Big C. Is your name Brian Taylor? Or Tammy Rose?

We'd like to talk to YOU!

Drop us a line. One operators are standing by!

MICHAEL B. NIFONG, Attorney, Defendant.

2006-12-28T20:49:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-12-25T21:15:00.000-05:00

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.

God Bless Us, Everyone!

2006-12-24T11:45:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas to Collin, Reade, Dave, their families and loved ones, and all who have rallied to their side to expose and defeat the lies, deceit and tyranny.

God bless you, KC, Bill, Mike G., Phil, Joan and the entire Liestoppers crew, Joan Collins, Tony, Neon, Photios, wts, abb, kbp, Tortmaster, Joe Neff, Johnsville, JinC, LaShawn, lskinner, emmy954, weezie, Quasi, Jason T., sic semper tyrannis, Kethra, Kemper, krddurham, nonimouse, rodnreg, Sydney Carton, twaddlefree, wagstaff, wingedwheel, legions of Freepers, and each and every one who has devoted so much of their time and talent to dismantling the frame.

Looking forward to a joyous New Year!

Collin To Duke: Buh Bye, Dick

2006-12-24T11:15:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas

L.I. JOCK'S ALL DONE AT DUKE

NO RETURN TO DA'S DOMAIN

By FRANK RYAN and ERIC LENKOWITZ

December 24, 2006 -- Duke lacrosse player Collin Finnerty - free of a rape charge but still on the hook for a sex offense and kidnapping - has no plans to return to the university as long as the same North Carolina DA remains in office, his father said yesterday.

"As much as we like Duke, it would be hard to send Collin back into Durham with Mr. [Mike] Nifong as the lead law-enforcement official," Kevin Finnerty, of Garden City, L.I., said a day after his son and two teammates were exonerated of raping a stripper.

"Collin would love to be back at Duke," the elder Finnerty added. "He has a lot of friends there. It was a great experience while he was there."

Though Collin remained mum regarding legal matters, he did say "it's been good" to start the Christmas weekend free of the top charge.

The rape charge against Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and Dave Evans was dropped after investigators failed to match their DNA with samples taken from the victim.

They remain charged with a sex offense and kidnapping for the March 13 incident at a Durham party. Those charges could land them in prison for more than 50 years.

Finnerty's dad said he is disappointed that Nifong is pursuing the case based solely on the victim's word and without any physical evidence.

"We are happy with this charge being dropped but we are extremely unhappy with what we are facing," he said.

After hearing word of the dropped charges, the Finnertys celebrated at their home with some close friends.

Collin had a couple of buddies over and "won't be up for a few more hours," Kevin said.

He said his son has kept busy this fall by taking classes at Hofstra.

He has not played lacrosse there because the school requires its athletes to be full-time students.

The family has not decided yet where Collin will go if he opts not to return to Duke.

"We will cross that bridge when we come to it," Kevin Finnerty said. "As parents, it's hard."

He said his son has been in constant touch with Seligmann.

"They had been good friends on the team, and they still are now," he said.

At Seligmann's Essex Fells, N.J., home, a neighbor said the family was away, adding that everyone on the block was pulling for him.

"We're all really happy that the charges were dropped, but we're not surprised. He's always been a good kid and a good athlete."

Stephen A. Smith? Well, I Guess He's Better Than Cash

2006-12-24T10:52:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the bandwagon, hypocrite.

May:

So Flagrantly Stupid, So Selfish, So Conspicuously Aloof

I never believed the day would come when we’d see an educational institution so flagrantly stupid, so selfish, so conspicuously aloof. Evidently it’s Duke, supposedly one of America’s more honorable institutions of higher learning.

A few days before losing in the NCAA Division I women’s lacrosse semifinals on Friday, members of the Blue Devils team told the world they would wear wristbands with the word innocent emblazoned on them during the game, in support of three Duke men’s lacrosse players indicted on rape charges stemming from a March 13 team party.

These 18-, 19- and 20-year-old women evidently were either ignorant or insensitive to the fact that there were 94,635 rapes in the country in 2004, according to the FBI. Or they weren’t aware that rape is one of the most underreported crimes, which one would think should heighten any female’s sensitivity radar.

Let us, instead, focus on Duke University, a renowned institution of learning, the same institution presently giving Jim Carrey’s depiction of Dumb & Dumber a serious run for its money.

The word innocent was going to be sprayed on wristbands, and Duke said it planned to do nothing about it. It planned to do nothing even though that declaration was going to be made public, in an NCAA-sanctioned venue, by representatives of the institution, and Duke practically condoned it with no regard as to how this may look.

To think, once upon a time, academic institutions were held in high regard, a transitional haven for those moving from their teenage years to adulthood. What are we to think now when it’s clear that even at places such as Duke there’s an absence of common sense?

It’s worth repeating that the three men who have been accused - Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans - are innocent until proven guilty.

The rape accusation by a 27-year-old, African American female student at North Carolina Central University, moonlighting as a stripper, hardly proves their guilt, which will be decided by the courts. But it also doesn't let anyone off the hook, regardless of the "No Excuse-No Regrets" motto or the "45, 13, 6″ jersey numbers of the accused men that the Duke women’s lacrosse players decided to wear.

After learning about the wristbands, John Burness, Duke’s vice president of public affairs, said: "They don't clear those things with us ever. We're not sitting here looking over people’s shoulders quite that much."

That is not only negligent, it’s hypocritical.

The same university that begged the nation to avoid rushing to judgment, that during the Final Four had employees intercept questions directed at the Duke women's basketball players - seven of whom are black, by the way - turns a blind eye and deaf ear away from 31 female lacrosse players - 30 of whom are white - clearly trying to swing the national pendulum in favor of the accused.

Perhaps, at some point, it would be wise to inform these ladies about the FBI’s rape statistics. If they sat down and talked with law enforcement officials, two things would be learned:

The numbers are much worse than what's actually reported.

Females ignorant to that fact can't possibly assist in alleviating this problem.

What we're sure about is that Duke should not be oblivious to any of this. Certainly not when it was found, over the last 51/2 years, to have had 52 disciplinary incidents at a rate that was accelerating, according to the New York Times.

There were strippers, alcohol and disorderly conduct at the men's lacrosse team's party. How anyone who wasn't there could possibly think they know anything is beyond me. But that's why we call them kids.

The adults at Duke are an entirely different matter.

"Any attention we got for the wristbands paled in comparison to having the media staked outside of our practice and the girls' dorms," Duke women's lacrosse coach Kerstin Kimel told reporters after the team’s loss Friday. "Of watching your friends be arrested; watching your fellow students not support fellow students; watching professors not support students."

She left out a few other possibilities, but we don’t need to go there.

Then again, she's working for an institution that allowed a bunch of kids to nearly run amok in a public venue with Duke’s name on their jerseys, bringing more unwanted attention to the deficiencies of a university deemed nearly perfect before a woman huffed and puffed and blew its house down by screaming "rape."

Considering these latest signs of negligence, who knows what else is possible?

***

Christmas Eve:

Injustice has spoken in the Duke lacrosse case

When prosecutors dropped rape charges on Friday against three Duke University lacrosse players - all white - accused of attacking a stripper - who is black - we heard about it on television and the news wires.

There was no hype to speak of. No uproar worth mentioning, despite valiant efforts for attention by defense attorneys. No news conferences rife with ministers lamenting the moral schism that hinders progress in this supposed mosaic called America.

Predictably, there was no sign of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, either.

Perhaps there should have been, though. For once, maybe the tide should be turned. Maybe mea culpas, tinged with hyperbole and accentuated by self-promoting individuals who have appeared to shed their titles as activists eons ago, should be placed on the front pages, apologizing to the three who were accused: Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

Not so much for presuming their guilt before all the evidence came in. Mainly for using it to promote a black cause without giving a damn.

We have serious problems all across America, but nothing compared to the kind that exists in the black community, and the perverse pleasure it evokes from those who watch from afar.

On more than a few occasions, when something insidious occurs involving an African American and a white person, race is automatically attached. Time is turned back. And the issue that provokes the very reflection that permeates our thoughts as a people potentially ends up wasting our time, dividing black and white America even further.

We still don't know what happened to this 28-year-old from North Carolina Central University. All we know at this moment is that she was hired to perform at a party on March 13, that she accused three men of raping her in a bathroom.

We know that all the players immediately maintained, unequivocally, they were innocent - and that, as of Friday, the district attorney, Mike Nifong, has some serious explaining to do, possibly even to the North Carolina Bar Association.

Questions regarding Nifong should range from DNA evidence's being withheld from defense attorneys to evidence that DNA testing arranged by the prosecution at a private lab concluded that genetic material from several men was found on the stripper's underwear and body - but none from the players.

Now we've learned that the rape charge was dropped after this stripper told investigators she was no longer certain whether she was penetrated vaginally with penises as she had claimed earlier. Yet Nifong has not dropped kidnapping and other sex charges.

The black community has a bigger problem: Ourselves. Our sensibilities. And, primarily, our judgment.

Specifically from those who claim to be leaders in our community.

There is systematic disenfranchisement in America, but there's one form that exists that has nothing to do with white America.

As my friend and colleague, Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star, astutely pointed out in his column on AOL Sports weeks ago, black people are contributing to their own disenfranchisement every single day.

Drugs are one reason. Ignorance of self, of one's history, is another. But so is a lack of genuine appreciation for those who came before us and what they endured to get to this point.

You want to fight?

Rodney King was worth it because we saw the beat-down the Los Angeles police department put on him on videotape years ago.

Sean Bell, an unarmed 23-year-old murdered hours before his wedding day when New York police sprayed his vehicle with 50 bullets weeks ago, is worth it.

A stripper claiming she was raped by Duke students, suspect in ways crystallized by DNA findings, is worth an investigation by the proper authorities and even some media coverage.

But an issue like this is not worth another referendum on race relations.

Enough already. It's time to wake up!

Long before we learned about race, we were taught morals and decency. We were taught not only to judge folks by the content of their character but to have character if we were to ever sit in judgment of anyone.

We will fall as a people if we don't start reminding ourselves of this quickly. We'll languish in self-inflicted purgatory. And, unlike our ancestors, we won't be a position to garner sympathy because we won't have any excuses.

Black America will have no one to blame but itself and those we allowed to lead us, operating with impunity on the strength of our ignorance and indifference to what they do, purportedly, on our behalf.

It's time for a morality check. By every one of us.

Don't look at the white man. This is a black man talking to you.

Duff Benched, Times On Offense

2006-12-24T10:10:00.000-05:00

December 24, 2006
DNA Witness Jolted Dynamic of Duke Case
By DAVID BARSTOW and DUFF WILSON

DURHAM, N.C., Dec. 23 — The moment that may have changed the course of the Duke lacrosse rape case came in a packed courtroom two Fridays ago.

On the stand at a pretrial hearing was Brian W. Meehan, director of a private laboratory that performed extensive DNA testing on rape kit swabs and underwear collected from a stripper only hours after she said that she had been gang-raped by three Duke lacrosse players after performing at a team party in March. Mr. Meehan’s tests on the swabs and underwear had detected traces of sperm and other DNA material from several men.

But his tests had found something else, too: none of that DNA material was from the three players, or any of their teammates.

Mr. Meehan had promptly shared this information with Michael B. Nifong, the Durham district attorney. Yet his summary report — the one that would be turned over to the defense — mentioned none of this.

It was an awkward omission that Mr. Meehan struggled to explain under withering cross-examination from defense lawyers. At one point, he was forced to admit that the incomplete report violated his laboratory’s own protocols.

Finally, a defense lawyer asked Mr. Meehan if the decision not to report complete test results was “an intentional limitation” arrived at between him and Mr. Nifong.

“Yes,” Mr. Meehan replied.

The courtroom, packed to standing room capacity with supporters of the players — who have always said they were innocent — erupted with applause.

On Friday, a week after Mr. Meehan’s testimony, Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charges but said he would proceed with kidnapping and sexual offense counts. Whether Mr. Nifong’s decision was directly related to the DNA revelations is a matter of dispute, but both sides agree that the testimony revealed much about the current state of this prosecution.

Perhaps more than anything else, that testimony added substantially to the already long list of questions about the accuser’s credibility and Mr. Nifong’s judgment. The woman had told investigators that before the party, she had not had sex for about a week. How, then, to explain the DNA?

And given her description of a brutal gang rape, how could the most sensitive DNA test available fail to find even a single incriminating cell? Finally, why had Mr. Nifong failed to disclose this information for so many months, and repeatedly told the judge that there were no such results?

Looking back, defense lawyers describe Mr. Meehan’s testimony as a moment that opened a window on the tactics of a prosecutor they say is all too willing to trample state law and ethical duties to get a conviction. In the most unvarnished terms, they accuse Mr. Nifong of deliberately hiding test results — results they say further confirm their clients’ innocence. What’s more, they say that Mr. Nifong’s decision to recast his prosecution on Friday is a cynical attempt to sidestep damage from Mr. Meehan’s testimony.

Mr. Nifong said the defense attack on the DNA report revealed a ruthless strategy aimed at vilifying him and intimidating a victim of a brutal assault. “The whole point was the vilification of the district attorney, I believe,” he said during a three-hour interview in his office on Thursday.

Still, Mr. Nifong conceded he erred in not providing all of Mr. Meehan’s test results to defense lawyers months earlier than he did. “Obviously, anything that is not DNA from the people who are charged is potentially exculpatory information,” he said.

Although Mr. Nifong has taken heavy criticism in news accounts, it is not yet clear whether this error will matter much to the person who counts most: W. Osmond Smith III, the presiding judge.

Trial judges in North Carolina have broad authority to impose sanctions when prosecutors violate discovery rules. The state’s criminal discovery law requires prosecutors to share test results, regardless of whether they were delivered in writing or orally. Likewise, the North Carolina State Bar puts the onus on prosecutors to “make timely disclosure” of evidence that “tends to negate the guilt of the accused.”

If these rules are violated, the judge can dismiss charges or hold lawyers in contempt. In extreme cases, North Carolina law allows a judge to remove a district attorney from office for “willful misconduct.”

But the severity of the sanction often turns on whether the error was innocent sloppiness or a deliberate attempt to conceal evidence.

Mr. Nifong insists it was innocent, but defense lawyers are scouring transcripts of hearings and other records to build a case that Mr. Nifong’s error was in fact a calculated strategy to withhold or at least greatly delay the release of crucial evidence. Joseph B. Cheshire of Raleigh, a lawyer for one of the players, said he intended to take “specific legal steps” to seek sanctions or Mr. Nifong’s removal from the case.

It was already clear from a state laboratory report in April that none of the lacrosse players’ semen, saliva or blood was found on or in the woman or her clothes. Mr. Meehan’s firm, DNA Security, was hired by the district attorney in April to conduct more sophisticated testing.

The laboratory’s summary report described only one finding of significance: It concluded that DNA extracted from false fingernails found in a trash bin was consistent with the DNA of David Evans, a co-captain of the team and one of the defendants. Mr. Cheshire, his lawyer, has called that DNA analysis weak, saying the nails could have been contaminated by used tissues or other items carrying the players’ DNA.

The report failed to mention any results from other items tested, including the woman’s underwear, and it did not reveal that unknown male DNA had been found on them.

As Mr. Meehan and Mr. Nifong now agree, the two discussed all of DNA Security’s main findings, including those that were omitted from the final report, during two meetings in April.

Defense lawyers point to court hearings in which they repeatedly pressed Mr. Nifong to reveal all the evidence he discussed with Mr. Meehan during those two meetings.

According to transcripts of those hearings, Mr. Nifong repeatedly told Judge Smith that there was no evidence discussed during those meetings other than the test results reflected in the DNA Security summary report.

On June 22, when questioned by Brad Bannon — the discovery expert on the defense team — Mr. Nifong denied that Mr. Meehan and he had talked about anything else he had to disclose to the defense.

“The report itself they have,” Mr. Nifong told Judge Smith.

At a hearing on Sept. 22, Judge Smith asked: “So you represent there are no other statements from Dr. Meehan?”

“No other statements,” Mr. Nifong said. “No other statements made to me.”

Defense lawyers also point to a court filing Mr. Nifong signed on May 18, when he gave the defense some 1,200 pages of evidence records, including DNA Security’s 10-page report. “The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant,” Mr. Nifong said in the filing. “Should we learn of the existence of any such material or information in the exercise of due diligence, we will notify the defendant.”

Mr. Nifong acknowledged in the interview this week that he was keenly aware of the test results Mr. Meehan had omitted from his report when he signed that court filing on May 18.

He denied, though, any effort to hide the results or delay their release. He has long been known locally for giving defense lawyers open access to his evidence, even before a state law required that. And, he said, even if the test results should have been turned over months earlier, the defense still had the evidence well in advance of any trial date — which had not yet been set.

“So it’s not like this is something we discover on the fourth day of a five-day trial and say, ‘Oh, by the way,’ ” he said. “I mean, that’s not what’s going on.”

But given the volume of evidence in this case, he said he simply did not realize that he had failed to turn over the DNA results in question. “It was not something that I specifically noticed,” he said, “because if I specifically noticed it I would have dealt with it.”

On Thursday afternoon, the volume of evidence was plain to see in his office. Next to his desk, a small conference table was overrun with documents and court filings related to the case. More boxes of documents were stacked on the floor and on chairs.

“When you’re going through these pages,” he said, “and you’re numbering them and making copies, you’re not reading and understanding what’s on every single page.”

Still, Mr. Nifong’s recollection appears to conflict with Mr. Meehan’s on one crucial point. Mr. Meehan recalled that they agreed not to publish the results of unidentified male DNA in the report; but Mr. Nifong said that did not happen.

“I didn’t say, ‘Include this, don’t include this,’ ” Mr. Nifong said. He added: “I said, you know, ‘Publish the positive results,’ in other words, publish what you found. If you make a connection with something, if the evidence seems to be probative, that’s what should be in the report.”

More broadly, Mr. Nifong said, trying to explain his failure to disclose the DNA tests sooner, he had other work to attend to.

“You know, it’s not the only case I have right now,” he said. “I have two. The other one’s a quadruple homicide. If you ask me, to everybody but a reporter for an out-of-town newspaper, the quadruple homicide is probably the more significant case.

“But because we have some of these other sexy issues here,” he added, “you all are flipping out over this particular case, which is not the most significant case in our office. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t get attention. What I’m saying is in the overall pecking order of things, it’s not the most important thing that we’re doing.”

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

2006-12-24T10:03:00.000-05:00

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.

Merry Christmas,

2006-12-22T17:15:00.003-05:00

Love,

Mike Nifong

Oz, This Is Too Easy

2006-12-22T17:15:00.002-05:00

(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.

Dan Abrams: Release Crystal's ENTIRE April 6 Statement

2006-12-22T17:15:00.001-05:00

In light of today's shenanigans from the both 6th floor and the New York Times sports reporter cum enabler, it would be the height of journalistic irresponsibility not to release each and every word commended to writing by the false accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, on April 6, 2006. Publish it in its entirety, now.

E me re: our mutual friend.

And For My Next Trick...

2006-12-22T17:15:00.000-05:00

April 11, NCCU:

"Anytime you have a victim who can identify her assailant, then what you have is a case that must go to the jury, which means, in this situation, a jury will get to evaluate the evidence," Nifong said.

Nifong said he was not daunted by the DNA results reported Monday. He said 75 to 80 percent of sexual assault cases produce no DNA evidence.

"DNA results can often be helpful, but, you know, I've been doing this for a long time, and for most of the years I've been doing this, we didn't have DNA," Nifong added. "We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them."

"It doesn't mean nothing happened," Nifong said. "It just means nothing was left behind."

December 22, Nifong court filing:

"The victim in this case indicated that, while she initially believed that she had been vaginally penetrated by a male sex organ ... she cannot at this time testify with certainty" that it occurred, Nifong wrote. Since such penetration is one of the elements the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a prosecution of a charge of first-degree forcible rape, "the State is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense," he continued.

***

Wow. Just in from a day of last minute Christmas shopping and this is what I find on my return. I'll have deeper analysis following ability to digest this, but preliminarily, let us not forget that it is the state that bears the burden of proving each and every element of the remaining crimes charged against each of the defendants. Nifong's ability to do so, or not, succeeds or fails exclusively with the credibility, or not, of Crystal Gail Mangum. Which is to say, he fails. Her inability to "testify with certainty" ::..snicker..:: that anyone's penis penetrated her vagina (forgetting, momentarily, "Adam" (Reade) allegedly ejaculating in her mouth, and Collin, allegedly, sticking it in her ass), actually strengthens the pending ID Suppression motion. My take is that Nifong is playing balls-to-the-wall No Limit Hold 'Em, all in, hoping to force a quid pro quo agreement from the defendants not to pursue civil claims against him and the County in exchange for dismissal of all charges. Fuck him. Call his bluff. Make him bleed.

Nifong v.08

2006-12-19T19:38:00.000-05:00

I once had wealth, power, and the love of a beautiful woman. Now, I only have two things. My friends and...uh...my thermos.

Nifong To Be Disbarred?

2006-12-19T15:23:00.000-05:00

Kempermanx has been shouting for weeks, to anyone who would listen (I have), that the State Bar would act on Nifong before Christmas. Here's the latest.

So let it be written. So let it be done.

Ho. Ho. Ho.

2006-12-19T11:43:00.001-05:00

The Needle And The Damage Done

2006-12-19T11:35:00.000-05:00

From FODU, Law Professor John Banzhaf discusses potential civil damages exposure for Nifong, Durham County:

Duke Rape Case Could Create Major Civil Liability
Not Only For DA Nifong, But Also For Durham County

As the rape case against three Duke lacrosse players continues to unravel, and instances of apparent prosecutorial misconduct multiply, it appears increasingly likely that the accused students will be able to recover civil damages against the county and perhaps also the district attorney, says the public interest law professor who has successful orchestrated legal actions against several major governmental figures, including former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew.

"Although prosecutors generally enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for violating the constitutional rights of defendants, there are instances -- and this may well be one of them -- where that immunity doesn't apply," says Law Professor John Banzhaf. Moreover, Durham County, NC, does not have absolute immunity, and so the county could be held liable for millions of dollars in civil damages even if District Attorney Michael Nifong is protected from law suits, notes Banzhaf.

"Generally, district attorneys --acting within their narrow role as prosecutors -- have absolute immunity, and cannot be sued even if they violate a defendant's constitutional rights intentionally, in bad faith, and with malice. This means that, even if it can be proven that Nifong engaged in gross prosecutorial misconduct in prosecuting the students while knowing they were innocent, and did so wrongfully and only for political purposes, he might not be held civilly liable."

On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out an exception when a prosecutor is acting not as an "advocate" performing functions intimately connected with the judicial phase of the criminal proceeding, but rather as an "investigator" or "administrator." In such cases he enjoys only a qualified immunity, and can be held liable if his misconduct violated clearly established legal standards of which a reasonable prosecutor would have known.

Under this so-called functional approach, actions taken before probable cause is established make the prosecutor an "investigator," entitled only to qualified immunity. After probable cause is established, a prosecutor may be acting as either an "investigator" or an "advocate," depending on the function being performed, and thus the function being performed after probable cause has been established determines whether or not absolute immunity applies.

For example, since only qualified immunity applies to functions such as providing legal advice to the police and cooperating in police investigative work, prosecutors who conspire with police to fabricate evidence during the preliminary investigation, or made false statements of fact in an affidavit supporting an application for an arrest warrant,
may enjoy only qualified immunity -- and thus be held liable. It would also appear that granting numerous interviews with the media is outside the protected role of an advocate, especially if the information goes far beyond what is stated in official court documents, and includes even name calling.

Even if Nifong is found to be shielded from civil liability by absolutely immunity, such immunity does not apply to the county which he represents, so Durham County, NC, could wind up being civilly liable even in Nifong escapes liability. Considering the emotional suffering -- not to mention the legal and other out-of-pocket expenses -- this criminal proceeding has subjected the defendants to, a jury could award a very significant verdict to compensate them, says Banzhaf.

Congressman Walter Jones [R-NC] has called for a federal investigation to determine if Nifong's actions constituted prosecutorial misconduct and denied the students their civil rights. In his letter to the Department of Justice, he spells out allegations which could make Nifong personally liable:

“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.”

Since all these actions occurred during the initial investigatory phase, Nifong cannot claim absolute immunity with regard to them, notes Banzhaf.

More recently, the head of a private DNA laboratory said under oath that he and Nifong agreed not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape, even though this violated the protocols of his own lab.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Rules of Professional Conduct governing N.C. lawyers, require prosecutors to give the defense all favorable evidence. N.C. law goes further by requiring Nifong to hand over all evidence. Since these actions appear to have involved investigation and administration -- rather than the prosecution of the case -- Nifong may likewise not be entitled to absolute immunity with regard to this action.

PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School

When Did You Know It Was A Hoax?

2006-12-19T11:20:00.000-05:00

The first time I heard Kim's 911 call.

Ashley? He Just Went Along For the Ride

2006-12-19T09:28:00.000-05:00

The depth to which Bob Ashley will sink is now confirmed to be the ground floor of the bunker. Ashley, editor in chief of the dying Herpetic Scum, again proves himself the Eva Braun of the Hoax with an editorial today that would read for laughs on SNL's "Weekend Update." In its entirety, with my impressions in brackets, the joke reads as follows:

Allow judicial process to work

The Herald-Sun
Dec 19, 2006

There is immense pressure building in the Duke lacrosse case. The pressure is to toss out the rape charges against three players, and it's coming from the players' families, their defense lawyers and their many supporters on campus and across the country. It is directed against anyone who thinks the case should be decided in a court of law, not the court of public opinion, and it has two basic targets -- the accuser and District Attorney Mike Nifong.

[Three, Bob. Three basic targets. Nifong. The cowardly liar. And shameless brown lipped media shills, like you, who continue to offer readers the Kool-Aid. Goebbels had nothing on you, Ass.]

Let's consider the case against Nifong. There is no question the DA has made mistakes in handling this hot potato of a case. He said things he shouldn't have, such as calling the players "hooligans" and wrongly predicting DNA tests would implicate them.

[No. He wrongly predicted DNA tests would implicate them and then indicted them anyway when his prediction was proven unfounded. He should go to jail for what you try to slough off as a mere mistake in judgment.]

He gave too many media interviews at the start, a mistake he has corrected by falling competely silent except in court. Now the defense lawyers have made up the slack, taking every opportunity to spin their case in public.

[No. He continued making incendiary public remarks designed to enflame the passions of Triangle blacks and prejudice the community against the players after he knew:

a) the players were not implicated by DNA testing, and;

b) five other "rapists" still roamed free.

Defense "spin," as you call it, that is, the ethically mandated and zealously pursued obligation of counsel to attempt to correct public prejudices against their clients arising from the persecutor's spin, has consisted only of the release of factual information derived from official records provided by the persecutor during discovery, or other independently corroborated sources.

See, "spin" would be the seeking of indictments against demonstrably innocent individuals. "Spin" would consist of:

a) affirming one's belief in an accuser one had never spoken to, while;

b) rigging an "identification" lineup for an accuser who had failed several earlier attempts to identify anyone as an attacker, and making sure she knew that this, last, time it was very "important" for her to finger three individuals. Any three would do, because;

c) it was necessary for political expediency to indict three men so fingered (The fourth? Fuggedaboudit!), after DNA testing confirmed that the never-spoken-to accuser was in sexual contact with at least five men in close temporal proximity to the alleged crime, none of whom was one of the men against whom indictments were sought.

That you would cast the word "spin" as an aspersion upon defense counsel should itself be a crime.]

One serious problem for Nifong is his inexplicable use of a lineup in which the accuser was asked to choose the assailants from a group of photos that included only lacrosse players. That flawed process led her to identify the three players who are now indicted. Such a fundamental misstep may well come back to haunt Nifong.

[He's ruined.]

And as we learned in court Friday, the director of a DNA lab in Burlington at first withheld results showing the accuser had DNA from other men -- not the lacrosse players -- in her underwear and on her pubic hair. The defense is trying to imply a conspiracy existed between Nifong and lab director Brian Meehan to keep the results secret. But those alleging prosecutorial misconduct have to deal with a simple fact -- Nifong did turn over the data. Defense lawyers' only real complaint is that they had to fight to get it.

Nor did Nifong explain the information sufficiently, defense attorney Joe Cheshire complained. "We had to try to discover what it meant," he said. Sorry, but we don't think a judge will dismiss the case because Nifong didn't provide Cliffs Notes.

[No. You lying fuck. Lab director Meehan confirmed that he and Nifong did criminally conspire to keep the results secret. Remember, you lying fuck, when defense counsel first asked for the lab's complete file, including all tests and results (as the lab's certification and internal protocols demanded), Nifong read a letter of protest from Meehan into the court record and accused counsel of seeking to engage in a "witch hunt." Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think?]

Of course, Friday's DNA revelation was as much about the accuser as it was about Nifong. We may find the results disturbing, but let's remember what we're supposed to know about rape cases. Rape is still a crime even if if the accuser was provocatively dressed or if she was a stripper. Rape is still a crime if the accuser had consensual sex with other people. We know she is not a paragon of virtue. But that does not rule out rape.

[No. The accuser told authorities that she had last engaged in consensual sex a week before the lacrosse team party. Considering Meehan's lab found that she'd been iced by at least five guys, from swabs taken of her on the very evening of the party's occurrence, her statement is a scientifically demonstrable lie. Upon the particular facts of this case a rape is most certainly ruled out.]

The biggest elephants in the room are still sitting there -- the accuser's charges and the players' presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

[Despite your yeomanlike efforts to eviscerate the latter.]

Yes, there is information that may cast doubt on whether a crime was committed. But is it enough to outweigh the accusation?

[Yes.]

That's for the courts to decide.

[Yes.]

There have also been instances of, at a minimum, prosecutorial sloppiness.

[You're nearly a laugh.]

But are they enough to toss the case?

[Yes.]

That's for a judge to decide

[Yes.]

as part of the judicial process

[Yes.]

which should be allowed to work.

[Yes. This, of course, does not equate to a trial of the demonstrably innocent defendants. The judicial process will have been shown to work only when

a) Oz tosses the persecution, on motion or of his own accord;

b) Nifong has been stripped of his license to practice law;

c) Nifong has been sentenced to federal prison after having been found guilty of obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy to deprive the defendants of their civil rights to due process of law;

d) Nifong is found personally liable for compensatory and punitive damages owing to the three defendants;

e) Crystal Gail Mangum goes to jail for criminal fraud.

As they lead your Perpen Fuhrer away in handcuffs, Bob, don't forget to mouth, "I've always loved you."]

You DICK!

2006-12-19T01:34:00.000-05:00

DICK Brodhead, December 18, 2006:

"As I told Ed Bradley during a 60 Minutes interview last summer, given the concerns that have been raised, when it goes before a judge and jury the DA's case will be on trial just as much as our students will be. In the meanwhile, as I have said before, our students must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise."

They're not your students anymore, pussy.

What Did Mayor Bell Know, And When Did He Know It?

2006-12-19T01:10:00.000-05:00

April 11, 2006

GRACE: OK. I want to go now to our special guest. Mayor William Bell is joining us. He is the mayor of Durham, North Carolina. Sir, thank you for being with us.

MAYOR WILLIAM BELL, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA: Good to be here, Nancy. Good to see you.

GRACE: Tell me about the forum today. What did it accomplish?

BELL: Well, I think it gave the public an opportunity to express their concerns, ask questions. What we've said all along, we want to make sure the legal process is thorough, that an investigation is thorough, and no hidden agendas. It gave the public an opportunity to hear from the chancellor of NCCU, myself as mayor, one of our other colleagues on the city council, two of the students from NCCU and Duke University, and of course, the DA, Mike Nifong.

GRACE: Mayor, NCCU -- is that where the forum was held?

BELL: That's right. Chancellor Ammons had called me the day before yesterday and asked if I might be able to come to a public meeting that he was having and to be in Duke Auditorium, and indicated later that I would be one of the panelists. He had also raised some questions with me, and I suggested that he might speak to the district attorney. I called Mike Nifong and suggested that he call the chancellor directly. He did, and as part of that, the chancellor invited him to be part of the panel, and he accepted and he was there today.

GRACE: Now, NCCU -- is that where the young lady, the alleged victim, goes to school?

BELL: I`m sorry. I`m taking too much advantage -- North Carolina Central University, NCCU, is a predominantly black school in Durham, North Carolina, a state-supported school, and that is the school where the young lady who was the alleged victim attends.

GRACE: Mayor, maybe I`m out of style, but as I recall prosecuting rape cases, a lady comes in, she has the rape kit done. There`s sign of vaginal trauma. She's disheveled. She makes an outcry. The facts here are allegedly that she has bruises about the face and the throat, that her fingernails had been torn off, that she leaves behind her pocketbook, her cell phone and her money, including one shoe.

Well, typically, you go make an arrest, especially when you have an eyewitness identification. Then, before trial, you get your DNA results. What's the hold -- up, Mayor? Does that concern you, that an arrest has not been made?

BELL: That does not concern me. And let me say again, I have confidence in our police force in doing their investigation. And I have confidence in the DA. Mike is not someone that just came to this office. He`s been in this office almost 30 years as an assistant DA, so he knows what has to be done, and I'm sure he`s taking appropriate steps to make sure that, one, we don't want to jeopardize any individual's rights in this case, be the ones that are alleged to be suspects or the victim herself. So I think he's taking the appropriate steps...

GRACE: Well, Mayor...

(CROSSTALK)

BELL: ... we'll get through the legal process.

GRACE: Mayor, today...

BELL: I'm listening.

GRACE: And I'm all on -- I'm all on the district attorney`s side here. I'm listening to what he has to say. I'm open. I'm anxious. I'm willing to learn more. But he also pointed out that, walking around are these young men, who are actually innocent, that have this cloud hanging over them. Well, what about the young lady?

BELL: Well...

GRACE: Why are we so concerned about everybody but her?

BELL: No, that's -- quite the contrary. In fact, if you had been at the forum, you would have seen that that was one of the things that the students spoke very much about. And I can tell you that the chancellor of NCCU, in a meeting that I attended with he, President Brodhead and some other African-American members of this community, spoke very, very emphatic about that, that there's a victim, we shouldn't forget that there's a victim, who's a young lady. And more important, she's a mother and she's a student. So she has not been forgotten in this whole process.

GRACE: Mayor Bell, what has been the most difficult thing for you to wrangle with during all of this?

BELL: Quite frankly, probably the more difficult thing is the fact that we've got so much of the national media coming in here not giving a clear -- a true picture about what the city of Durham is all about. Durham is a city of about 210,000 persons. It's the fourth largest city in the state of North Carolina. It's a city where the Research Triangle Park is home to Fortune 500 companies like GE, IBM, GlaxoSmithKline, and et cetera. We're a city that transformed ourselves from tobacco, textiles into a city of medicine. And we have an economy that's doing well. We have a very rich African-American heritage in this community...

GRACE: Well, Mayor -- Mayor, no one is...

BELL: Don't stop me, Nancy...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: ... what a great city it is. It's a fine city.

BELL: It sure is.

GRACE: But I'm concerned, sir, about this particular case.

BELL: And let me tell you, we're concerned about it, also. And if we focus on that -- that's what we want to do, not focus on other negativities that the national media has portrayed about the city of Durham, North Carolina.

Exhuming McCarthy (A New American Tragedy In Three Acts)

2006-12-17T21:33:00.000-05:00

ACT I

APRIL 10, 2006

Lightning splits the black sky outside the window of the cluttered office of DR. ALFONSE MEPHISTO-MEEHAN. Upon a workbench lining the back wall, strange colored liquids burble inside large beakers connected by coiled tubing. Two four assed monkeys pick fleas from one another in a far corner; a single hanging overhead bulb flickers ominously. Thick three-ring binders and other haphazardly scattered papers cover the small desk at which MEPHISTO- MEEHAN sits, muttering, "No, no, no. No." He holds his forehead in one palm, and runs the index finger of his other hand repeatedly from the text of the page in front of him to the PC monitor illuminating his ashy grey face. The door flies open; MEPHISTO-MEEHAN looks up with a start...

[ENTER, INSPECTEUR da and HERR GOTTLIEB, immediately trailed by a flustered MRS. WIGGINS.]

[MRS. WIGGINS] I'm sorry, Doctor, but they wouldn't...

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] It's quite alright, Mrs. Wiggins, I've been expecting these gentlemen. You may go.

[EXIT MRS. WIGGINS]

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da. So nice to see you again. Herr Gottlieb.

[da] Let's dispense with the pleasantries, shall we, Doctor? You said it was urgent. We came straight away. What is it?

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN reclaims his seat behind the desk. da comes around and stands over his right shoulder. HERR GOTTLIEB walks, trancelike, to more closely investigate the four assed monkeys.]

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, it just doesn't make sense.

[da, obviously agitated] What doesn't make sense, Doc?

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, you told me that the victim had been raped by four...

[HERR GOTTLIEB, over his shoulder] Three.

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Oh, yes, right. Three white members of the Duke Lacrosse team. You provided me with DNA samples of all of them. Well, we've run our tests and...

[da] What is it, Mephisto?

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, we've found an awful lot of male DNA...

[da] Excellent!

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, perhaps not.

[da] Perhaps not? Perhaps not what?

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, ummmmmm, as I was saying, we've found an awful lot of male DNA in samples recovered from the victim during the SANE exam. It's everywhere. In her vagina. In her asshole. All over her panties...

[da] Wonderful!

[MEPHISTO MEEHAN] Well, da, perhaps not.

[da] Perhaps not? Perhaps not what?

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, there seems to be a...teensy-weensy little problem with it. Look. Here. [pointing to a line on the paper he'd been scouring before da's arrival] This line identifies the alleles of one of the lacrosse players...a Collin Finnerty...and, look here now [moving his pencil point to a spot on the blue-lit PC screen], these are the identifiable alleles of...

[da] Alleles, schmalleles. Get to the point.

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, look...um...look HERE. This table sets forth each and every semen and epithelial fragment identified during DNA testing of swabs run on the victim's cheek, mouth, vagina, rectum and panties. There's eighteen in total, nine of each.

[da] Eighteen guys?

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, no. Five. Five guys.

[da] Fantastic! This'll put a stop to Cheshire and Osborn's bullshit rants about her "inconsistent stories." Obviously, she was so confused and traumatized by the violent nature of the assault, she didn't even know how many hooligans were having their evil ways with her!

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, it's...it's really not that simple. You see, when the players' DNA samples...here...are compared with those extracted from the victim's body and clothing immediately after the alleged assault...here...

[da] Alleged? Did you just say, "alleged?"

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, yes. Yes I did. They don't match, da. Not one of the eighteen identifiable DNA fragments recovered from the victim belong to the lacrosse players. Negative. Negatory. Whistle clean. They didn't do it, da.

[da] Herr Gottlieb! Did you hear what he just said?

[HERR GOTTLIEB] Well, da, yeah.

[da] Do you know what this means?

[HERR GOTTLIEB] Well, da. It means one of two things. Either she's been lying to us...

[da] Us? Us, Herr Gottlieb?

[Herr GOTTLIEB] Well, da, me. Either she's been lying to me, or there's still five violent rapists out there. Five violent, racist, gang rapists. Five violent, racist, gang rapists who are not Duke lacrosse players. Five violent, racist, gang rapists who have somehow escaped suspicion. Should we head back to Durham so I can grab Himan and re-focus the investigation?

[da] NO, Gottlieb, you idiot! It means that you didn't hear...a...fucking...thing. Got me?

[HERRR GOTTLIEB, breaking into a maniacal grin] Well, pardon me, da, but if I kill all the golfers, they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key.

[da] Good. Gooood. VEH-ry good! And if you are ever asked about this meeting you are going to say...?

[HERR GOTTLIEB] Well, da, I'm going to say... [looking around the room] ... I'm going to say that I was so taken by the sight of four assed monkeys that I didn't really pay attention to your conversation with the good doctor, here, and I don't recall a thing.

[da, gently running his palm over HERR GOTTLIEB's cheek] That's my beautiful Gottliebshen. [Turning his attention back to MEPHISTO-MEEHAN]

You've still got more tests to run, right?

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Well, da, yeah. Yeah, we do. In the next few days we'll be running tests on the extractions taken from the pubic hair comb. Then there's those fingernails. And we still need to run tests on those guys... [running his finger down a piece of paper]...I'm not finding their names here...you know, those other guys. The boyfriend and the drivers. But, da, I thought you said, I mean I've seen you say, on the teevee, you said the lacrosse players did this...

[da] Now you listen to me and you listen to me good, you. A person can rob a bank and never leave a fingerprint; it doesn’t mean they didn’t rob a bank. Keep looking. Keep your mouth shut. I'll talk to you later in the week. Herr Gottlieb, come!

[EXEUNT INSPECTEUR da and HERR GOTTLIEB. MEPHISTO-MEEHAN, the old grey donkey, walked to the side of the window and looked at himself in its reflection.]

[MEPHISTO-MEEHAN] Pathetic. That's what it is. Pathetic.

[CURTAIN]

***

ACT II

April 11, 2006

Office of INSPECTEUR da, 10:33 a.m.

[ENTER, tentatively, CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM, wearing sateen pink warmup pants secured by two rows of snaps hidden beneath striped piping that runs the length of each leg's outer seam, and a matching pink "FUBU" zipper-front hoodie. Scanning the room, she stops, and stares for a long time at an oversized sepia print of Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer. Jolson is flanked on either side by an autographed copy of Richard Nixon's "Enemies List" and a larger-than-life Leroy Neiman rendering of J. Edgar Hoover. A guitar leans against a mock-up electric chair in one corner; a powder blue "FUCK DUKE" baseball cap dangles from a tuning peg. A palm tree sits in the other corner, planted in a silver ash bucket chained to the radiator. Turning towards the burled mahogany desk, CRYSTAL spies the top of da's salt-and-peppered head, ensconced in a pair of hideously large first-generation stereo headphones, bopping just above the the top of a burgundy, fine leather CEO chair, itself turned away from the desk and facing a Garrard turntable with Pickering cartridge, Bogen amplifier, Jensen speakers, Revox tape recorder, and a Stromberg-Carlson AM-FM tuner arrayed along the back wall. CRYSTAL takes a seat, and watches through a glass pitcher on the desktop, apparently filled with grape Kool-Aid, as da's left hand reaches out and slowly twists the volume dial of the old Bogey all the way up to "11." The comically huge headphones, the earpieces of which most resemble shiny chrome Thermos cups, can no longer mute the manic ravings of Warren Zevon, as da begins to sing...]

[da]...I took a little RISK!
Send lawyers, guns and MONEY!
Dad, get me out of THIS!

I'm the innocent bystander
But somehow I got stuck
Between the rock and the hard place
And I'm down on my LUCK!
And I'm down on my LUCK!
And I'm down on my LUCK!

Now I'm hiding in Honduras
And I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns and MONEY!
The SHIT has hit the fan!

Send lawyers, guns and MONEY!
Send lawyers, guns and MONEY!
Send lawyers, guns and MONEY!
Send lawyers, guns and MONEY!
Send lawyers, guns and MONEY!

[As the tune fades, CRYSTAL loudly clears her throat...]

[CRYSTAL] Mr. Nifong, sir?

[da] Sit down, Crystal.

[Spinning around in his chair, headphones still firmly in place, da seems momentarily taken aback to find CRYSTAL already seated before him.]

I think you know why you're here...

[da agitatedly pulls the Kool-Aid pitcher closer to himself, leans forward, places his forearms flat atop the near edge of his desk, entwines his fingers and rests his chin upon teepeed thumbs. Nose against the glass, now, da peers through the dark purple liquid, and continues]

...so I'll do us both the courtesy of not reviewing what happened last month. You're the kind of girl who has a certain...zest for living. The last thing any of us needs now is a lot of loose talk about your behavior.

[The only slightly muted strains of the next track begin to fill the room]

[CRYSTAL] I am so, so sorry, Mr. Nifong.

[da] WELL, I'VE SEEN ALL THERE IS TO SEE!

[CRYSTAL] I don't, I never meant for any of this to happen.

[da] AND I'VE HEARD ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY!

[CRYSTAL] Those boys...they didn't rape me, sir.

[da] I'VE DONE EVERYTHING I WANTED TO DO!

[CRYSTAL, beginning to cry] I was just really fucked up!

[da] HAH! I'VE DONE THAT TOO!

[CRYSTAL] I, I wish I could just wind back the clock...

[da] AND IT AIN'T THAT PRETTY AT ALL!

[CRYSTAL] ...and make everything right. I know I picked those players off of the computer with that nice Officer Gottlieb, but I was just sooooo scared...

[da] IT AIN'T THAT PRETTY AT ALL!

[CRYSTAL] ...and I, I want this to stop now, Mr. Nifong. Please. [Tears streaming down her face.]

[da] NO! IT AIN'T THAT PRETTY AT ALL!

[CRYSTAL] I was just so afraid I'd lose...

[lifting her eyes heavenward, consumed by wracking sobs, CRYSTAL is screaming now, as she palms the Kool-Aid pitcher and hurls it against a filing cabinet. It shatters in a million pieces, its contents splattering them both, as da angrily whips off the headphones]

...MY CHILDREN! I'm just so afraid of losing my children.

[da, shaking beading purple droplets from his tie] You know, despite what happened I'm still convinced that you have many fine qualities. I think you can still become a lady someday if you understand and abide by the rules of decent...society. There's a lot of...well, badness in the world today, Crystal. I see it in court every day. I've sentenced girls younger than you to the gas chamber. I didn't want to do it. I felt I...owed it to them. The most important decision you can make right now is what you stand for. Goodness? Or badness?

[CRYSTAL, daubing her tear-stained eyes] I've made some mistakes in the past. I'm willing to make up for that. I want to be good!

[da] VEH-ry good! I know how hard it is for young people today and I want to help. Just ask my daughter, Sarah. She and I are regular pals. Are you my pal..."Ms. Duke Rape Trial Winner?"

[CRYSTAL, hesitating, the astronomical implications of da's question dawning] Yes, sir. I'm your pal.

[da] How 'bout a Fresca?

[CRYSTAL] Actually, Mr. Nifong, sir, I was really hoping I could see my kids.

[da, gently escorting Crystal towards the door] Don't you worry about them. They're fiiiiine, my dear. They're in a very safe place being looked after by just a terrific gal. Now, you just go wait in the lobby and I'll have an old friend of yours stop by to...take care of you, okay, Honey?

[CRYSTAL] But...

[da] No "buts" now, pal. Go.

[Exit CRYSTAL]

[da sits back behind his desk and presses a button on his inter-office phone] Big C! Come quick, I need you!

[Enter BIG C, at full sprint, before da has cradled his phone.]

[BIG C] You wanted to see me, Massah Mike?

[da] Yes, Big C. I need you to go and get my other suit. You know, the one I keep pressed for return from Hung Jury. And then I need you to set up a meeting with me, my wife, and your mother. You got me?

[BIG C] Yessah, Massah Mike. You want them here this afternoon?

[da] No can do. I have to meet the mayor in a few minutes. Have them both here first thing in the morning. And C?

[Big C] Yessah?

[da] Make her...disappear for a while.

[BIG C] YESSAH!

[EXIT BIG C, heard offstage] Hey, Momma! Come git some!

[da strolls over to his Fender and puts on the baseball cap. He plugs the Stratocaster into a tiny Peavey amp and retrieves the headphones, which have been bass-throbbing all along, from the floor. Putting them on, he begins to play, and sing]

[da] Well I met a girl at the Rainbow Bar
She asked me if I'd beat her.
She took me back to the Hyatt House
I dont wanna talk about it!

Poor, poor, pitiful me!
Whoo!
Poor, poor, pitiful me!
Hot little mamma!
Poor, poor, pitiful me!
Whoo hoo!
Poor pitiful me!

[TRACEY CLINE leans swooningly against the door frame and smiles as da duckwalks the fade-out solo across the room with his back to her.]

[CURTAIN]

***

ACT III

April 11, 2006

North Carolina Central University, 11:02 a.m.

[da MAYOR and INSPECTEUR da chat in the breezeway beneath the bleachers of the packed gymnasium. The mood in the crowd is one of percolating hostility, and growing more agitated by the minute. Scores of television news crews fan out in a loose semi-circle facing the podium where da will shortly address the student body and other invited guests.]

[da MAYOR] You'd better not fuck this up, Mike, or they'll have both of our heads on pikes.

[da, grinning smugly] Do I look nervous to you, Bill?

[da MAYOR] No. No, you don't. That's what worries me. Any word back from the lab?

[da, grinnning smugly] Yes, as a matter of fact. [Holding up his fully extended palm]

[da MAYOR] Five? Oh, my God, Mike. There's still two more unaccounted for.

[da, adjusting the dimple of his half-Windsor one last time] Well, they've still got to run more tests. Don't worry, I'll know more in a couple of days. I've got everything under control. Trust me. I'll let you know.

[da MAYOR, taking da by the shoulders with each hand and hugging him joyously] Well, you'd better, Mr. Scholarship Winner! Now, get out there and save this city.

[A PA announcer is heard addressing the crowd: And now, here he is, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and children of all ages! Yooooooooooour very own Durham County District Attorney...Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiike NiFoooooooooooooooooooongggg!!!!]

[da strides into the spotlights like a triumphant Caesar returning to the Colosseum, as the antsy throng explodes in a cacophony of both applause and jeers. Taking his seat flanked by da MAYOR, da INSPECTEUR makes an opening statement]

[da] 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.

[UNIDENTIFIED QUESTIONER] What about defense claims that DNA tests don't implicate the players?

[da] DNA results can often be helpful, but, you know, I've been doing this for a long time, and for most of the years I've been doing this, we didn't have DNA. We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them.

***

There are many kinds of DNA tests that can be done and it might surprise you or it might not surprise you to know that we are still waiting for the results of some DNA tests that have not been done.

***

The thing about DNA is not only its -- that it can point the finger to who the guilty people are, but it can also tell us who the guilty people are not. 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.

***

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? It doesn`t mean nothing happened. It just means nothing was left behind, which is the case in 75 to 80 percent of all sexual assaults.

***

[UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE] We all know that if this happened at Central, and the young lady was from another school or another persuasion, the outcome would have been different. They would have been in jail.

[da] And I understand that that is a sentiment in the community from some people but I just want you to know that that is not the way I conduct business.

***

[UNIDENTIFIED MALE] Why did the accused rapist get a chance to chill out at the Duke University. The moment that they were accused there should have been an arrest. I want to know why were they not arrested?

[da] The police act too quickly by getting warrants in the case and accusing somebody on incomplete evidence, then the ability to later proceed against the people who actually committed a crime can be impaired.

***

[VICTORIA PETERSON] My understanding from this family this young lady has identified the three men who have raped her. They should be in jail.

[da] Victoria, I will tell you right now that your information is incorrect. And I will also tell you that your comments in this case are exactly what this case does not need right now.

***

[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?

[da] 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.

***

Certainly, I have heard the criticism from many people that if the situation were reversed, I think it`s usually said something like, if this were a white girl and the focus was on the NC Central basketball team, they would all be in jail right now. And I understand that that is a sentiment in the community from some people, but I just want you to know that that is not the way I conduct business.

It never has been. I have been in the district attorney's office for more than 27-and-a-half years. And I challenge you to find a single incident which is well-documented. I have over 300 jury trials. My position on this is very clear. There has never been a case, under me, that the decision was made based on race. And I will tell you that there never will be such a case.

***

I have been criticized by both sides of this case. There have been people who've said that I should have given this case up a long time ago, and there are people who've said that I should have already indicted, moved against somebody with some charges. The fact is that this case is proceeding the way a case should proceed. I am trying to determine exactly what the evidence is that we have to proceed on and to assemble that evidence before anyone is charged. But I -- as I said earlier, I assure you by my presence here, this case is not over. Thank you.

[The arena erupts in tumultuous applause as da leaves the podium. Once back underneath the risers, he is again approached by da MAYOR]

[da MAYOR] You seemed very weak, Mike, in your discussions about the DNA. If you've got testing positive for the DNA of five guys, why not tell them that? Why soft peddle it? It sounded to me like you were telling them that you don't need it. You know as well as I do there hasn't been a sustained rape conviction in a over decade that wasn't corroborated by DNA evidence, so what the fuck was all that "try it the good old fashioned way" bullshit?

[da, smirking confidently] Shhhhhh....Bill, I'm in control and it's being handled. I'll have indictments by next week.

[da MAYOR] You're sure about that?

[da] Oh, yes. Quite sure.

[CURTAIN]

~~[End]~~ [BEGINNING]

Dear Dick,

2006-12-17T20:04:00.000-05:00

-----------------------
Update: 8:31p ET

Shortly after I posted this from an e-mail I received I saw that it is also up at Liestoppers. So, to whomever attribution is rightfully directed...thanks.

Lab Chief: Nifong Said Don't Report All DNA Data

2006-12-16T11:02:00.000-05:00

You go, Joe!

Joseph Neff, Benjamin Niolet and Anne Blythe, Staff Writers

The head of a private DNA laboratory testified Friday that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong agreed last spring not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.
The testimony of DNA Security director Brian Meehan could create difficulties inside and outside the courtroom for Nifong. The district attorney did not challenge Meehan's testimony, but he said after court that he did not withhold evidence. He said the defense could have asked for that material all along.

North Carolina law requires Nifong to hand over all evidence regardless of whether it has been requested. The sanctions for violating this law could include a dismissal of all charges against the three players.

Friday's testimony also will provide grist for those calling for Nifong to be disciplined or prosecuted. A North Carolina congressman recently asked the FBI to investigate the case. And the N.C. State Bar has received a number of complaints calling for Nifong to be disciplined for his public comments condemning the lacrosse players and for directing a police photo identification lineup that violated Durham Police Department policies.

"I tell you, the more you hear about his missteps, the more you have to question whether it's purely a matter of incompetence or worse," said James E. Coleman, a law professor at Duke University who has been critical of Nifong.

In court Friday, Meehan said his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear and body of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March. Nurses at Duke Hospital collected her underwear and samples from her body a few hours after the alleged assault. Meehan said the DNA did not come from Reade Seligmann, David Evans, or Collin Finnerty, who have been charged with rape and sexual assault in the case.

Privacy concerns

Meehan struggled to say why he didn't include the evidence in a report dated May 12, almost a month after Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted. Under pointed questioning by defense lawyer Bradley Bannon, Meehan cited concerns about the privacy of the lacrosse players, the fact that he didn't know whose DNA it was, and his discussions with Nifong at meetings in his Burlington lab.

"Had Mr. Nifong said, 'We want a report on everything,' that is what we would produce," Meehan said.

"You violated the protocols of your own lab," Bannon said.

"Correct ... I don't have a legal explanation for it," Meehan said. "I was just trying to do the right thing."

A standing-room only crowd packed a small courtroom. Reporters and bloggers stood along the walls, friends and family of the accused filled the seats, and a half-dozen lacrosse players and other Duke students sat in the jury box.

The three defendants sat at the table with their legal teams, the first time the former teammates -- Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; Finnerty, 20, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J. -- have been in court together. Charged with rape, kidnapping and sexual offense, they have said that they are innocent and that the accusations are lies.

In April, Meehan told a Durham police investigator that his firm was eager to be involved in the case, according to the investigator's notes. Friday's hearing was not a good advertisement.

Besides acknowledging breaking his own rules, Meehan said he didn't keep logs of phone calls, e-mail messages or notes of meetings. And he failed to report in May that a tiny bit of his own DNA, perhaps a single cell, had probably contaminated one piece of evidence.

"This goes to the credibility of your lab, correct?" Bannon asked.

"Absolutely," Meehan replied.

Not a single cell

After Bannon questioned Meehan for 90 minutes, one of Seligmann's attorneys, Jim Cooney of Charlotte, spent about 10 minutes getting Meehan to summarize his testimony.

"You didn't find anything from Reade Seligmann anywhere in any of those tests," Cooney said. "Not even a single cell?"

"Correct," said Meehan, who then acknowledged the same was true for Finnerty and Evans.

Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted weeks before your May 12 report, Cooney said. If Meehan wrote in the report that Seligmann was excluded, how would that violate his privacy?

"It was a failed attempt to provide a minimal amount of information to the public," Meehan said. "Maybe it could have been done better."

Intentional decision

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

"I believe so," Meehan said.

"Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?" Cooney asked.

"I believe so," Meehan said.

Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of Meehan and the district attorney? Cooney asked.

"Yes," Meehan replied.

At that answer, several people in the courtroom clapped. Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III warned the crowd to be quiet or leave.

Throughout much of Meehan's questioning, Nifong sat slumped forward in his chair, resting his face on one hand or leaning his chin on folded hands.

When his turn came, Nifong was brief in questioning Meehan. The scientist acknowledged that his report was less than the full truth.

"Did you intend to put in less than the full truth?" Nifong asked. "Did anyone ever tell you to conceal or hide any of your results?" "Did anyone ever tell you who you were supposed to come up with results of, who we wanted you to pick?"

No, Meehan replied each time.

At the beginning of Friday's hearing, Nifong made a statement that differed from Meehan's subsequent testimony:

"The first I had heard of this particular situation was when I was served with this particular motion" on Wednesday, Nifong told the judge.

After court, Nifong amended his remarks and said he knew about the DNA results.

"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," Nifong said.

***

Fuck you, Ashley.

Comfortable Liar

2006-12-15T20:32:00.000-05:00

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..::

Dear Crystal,

2006-12-14T22:06:00.000-05:00

Go to jail.

Do not collect 200 Food Stamps.

Go directly to jail.
_____________________________________

Update, December 17

Upon reconsidering the views of people whose opinions I value and respect, including wts, Mr. Duke, and Mike Gaynor, I have decided to replace the "Are you my daddy?" picture.

Substantive Joint ID Suppression Motion Filed

2006-12-14T15:10:00.000-05:00

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

Read it, here