Share your thoughts on the Duke lacrosse case.
Search
Duke lacrosse case
DNA results in April
Submitted by ncjade on January 25, 2007 - 6:31am.
When the bar told Nifong on Dec. 20 that it was investigating withheld evidence and false statements, Nifong said he knew of the DNA results in April and May, the complaint said.
» reply
Read the complaint
Submitted by jurydoc on January 25, 2007 - 9:26am.
Those of you who are arguing about what he knew when need to read the original complaint filed by the bar. It is available in PDF format right after the article. Beginning with statement 202 in the complaint, it indicates Nifong's first meeting with the private DNA lab occurred on April 10 and in statement 203 indicates they discussed the results of the tests and the fact that they did not implicate any lacrosse players. In statement 210 it indicates a second meeting took place on April 21 between Nifong and the head of the DNA lab after additional testing had been completed which also found no link to the, by then, indicted lacrosse players. When the official "report" was delivered to Nifong is irrelevant since not only did he already know the content, he had conspired to keep out the content that he knew had exculpatory value.
Whether or not Nifong withheld evidence for political reasons is speculation. What is NOT speculation is when he knew the evidence existed. The statements in the complaint are supported by a sworn affadavit from the director of the crime lab.
» reply
ews the complaint
Submitted by just_an_oldman on January 27, 2007 - 1:20am.
It is very unusual that a bar would file charges against a distrcit attorney. As to the complaint by the bar, They are after all attorneys and as such have at the very least a suppossition that they will prevail. Just as so many D.A. have done in the past (the spagetti theory..throw it against the wall and see what sicks). it will be a true test of the judical system as to the outcome.
» reply
I hope the so-called
Submitted by winstoncotton on April 11, 2007 - 12:17pm.
I hope the so-called "victim" will get her butt sued and criminal charges filed against her for making false allegations.She and Nifong should be held to the full extent of the law.She thought she had the winning lottery ticket and Nifong was going to make sure it paid out.Hopefully,Al Sharpton,Jesse Jackson along with the black panthers can start a defense fund for her.I not sure how much these "ole' rich white boys" will be able to get out of her.I wonder if the tax paying citizens can get reimbursed for keeping her up in seclusion all this time.Duke University and some of it's professors should be ashmed of themselves.Politaclly Correctness ruled the day for them instead of using rationale judgement and for the FACTS to come out....Sad ...Sad....How are these fine young men are going to get their reputations back??? Not withstanding the stress and hell they have gone thru.
» reply
What about Dick Broadhead??
Submitted by joevial on January 25, 2007 - 9:28am.
He fired the Coach, ended the Lx season and had the players proven guilty without a trial.
Why isn't the Duke Alumni outraged with his behavior? Shouldn't he be the next to go, right behind nifong?
» reply
First of all, the coach was not fired, he resigned in the wake not only of the criminal investigation, but the party itself which was not the first in allegations of out of control lacrosse players. The coach had been warned to rein in his players.
There WAS underage drinking among the players, there WERE strippers hired and there WERE racial slurs witnessed by non Duke witnesses at the party. Regardless of whether the rape and sexual assault charges "stuck" apparently there was enough in the mind of the President to accept the coach's resignation.
» reply
Alright fine.....
Submitted by walkermr on January 25, 2007 - 4:22pm.
Let's say I am off on the dates. Why would Nifong request for ANY information be excluded from the report?
» reply
These young men should not be punished a minute longer - all charges should be dismissed. All of us have been college age and even though they did not use good judgement in their choice of "party entertainment", I am sure they, along with many other young college students, have learned a valuable lesson from all of this. By the way, are there any Duke Law Graduates on the Prosecution Team? If not, there should be.
» reply
I think the option for the
Submitted by OldTimer (not verified) on January 25, 2007 - 10:11am.
I think the option for the LX coach was resign or be fired. All things considered, if no rape and no sexual assault and no kidnapping took place, then this party was no different than most of the fraternity parties held every weekend on most college campuses. The "forced" resignation would then be somewhat prejudicial in my opinion.
» reply
You're the one who doesn't care about facts.
He won the Democratic primary against Freda Black on May 2nd, 45% - 42%. Here is an excerpt from the Fox News website reporting on the primary results in a May 3rd story:
"In unofficial results, Nifong had 45 percent of the vote, with challenger Freda Black close behind with about 42 percent. There are no Republicans running in the general election, and Nifong needed only 40 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff."
He was not elected to office until the general election was held in November. Subsequent to the primary, another candidate could have filed to run against him, and well might have had it been known at the time that he had a poor case that he was trying to buttress by conspiring to withold exculpatory evidence, which evidence he knew about no later than May 12th when the report was delivered to him, and probably earlier based on coversations he had with the lab director. From the same Fox news story cited above, the following appeared:
"There is slight chance Nifong could face a challenger in November. Unaffiliated candidates have until June 30 to submit petitions signed by 4 percent of registered voters in Durham County, or about 6,300 people, to win a spot on the fall ballot. Write-in candidates must file petitions by Aug. 9."
Thus, either an unaffiliiated candidate or a write-in could have mounted a campaign against Nifong, and such candidate's chance of success could have been mightily improved had the weakness of Mr. Nifong's case, and his conspiracy to withhold exculpatory evidence been known and publicized at or about the time the DNA report was provided to him on May 12th. Thus, Mr. Nifong still had more than sufficient motive to want to withhold the exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense and to conspire with the test lab to aid in such action in order to secure his election, which - again - did not occur until the November general election. You are either ignorant or disingenuous in saying he was elected on May 2nd.
Thus, your fimsy "rebuttal" is totally, completely and IRREFUTABLY lacking in merit.