triangle.com | Home

Your location is ...   [change] Share your photos, news and more!  [sign in or register]
Search

Duke lacrosse case

administrator

Share your thoughts on the Duke lacrosse case.

Average rating
(4 votes)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Waccamaw

He withheld evidence,

He withheld evidence, willingly or not, that the defense rightfully considers exculpatory.

He had motive to put his political reelection before the jurisprudence of Durham county. 

On this basis, he ought to be considered deeply for disbar.

 

We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.

well said

as a attorney a big NO is lying to the tribunal (court).

He did that

if your beloved duke

if your beloved duke lacrosse team is so innocent than have all players summit to a dna test it would be a shame if they all know who raped this women and said nothing because something happen that night and you can't spin that

what an absolute lack of logic

Have you not been paying attention? There are plenty of news articles saying;

From the Article " Motion says lab withheld DNA findings" Published: Dec 14, 2006

"A laboratory hired by the prosecution in the Duke lacrosse case found DNA from unidentified men in the accuser's body and underwear but none from the defendants"

 and

"The tests revealed no DNA evidence from any of 46 lacrosse players then suspected in the case"

 There was only one Lacrosse player not tested, and he was the only black player on the team, who was not there that night at all.

So based on your statement the something that happened is, the untested black player did it and the rest are covering up for him??

Stick with the facts, and not your opinion. The facts show nothing illegal happened, and no crimes were committed by the laccrosse players.

The only crime that night was Crystal Mangum lying to police and starting this whole mess.

Already elected, no political motive

Nifong was elected on May 2 to a four year term as Durham County District Attorney.  The report defense attorneys are claiming was missing "exculpatory" "evidence" wasn't even delivered to Nifong until May 12.

Therefore your "motive" premise is totally, completely and irrefutably lacking merit.

A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan

yeah right

He may have not received the report until May 2, but he spoke with the lab supervisor a week before the report was delivered.  That was when he told him not to include it.  That's the issue.  Information was withheld from the report which we didn't find out until the supervisor was on the stand, under oath.

Therefore the "motive" premise is totally, completely. and irrefutably valid.

Nifong NOT elected in may

Judy

In response to your post that Nifong was ELECTED to Durham DA in may, you are worng.  He won the DEM primary in May and was elected to DA in in the General election in Nov.  Please get your facts straight before you post.

You don't have your facts straight

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.

you don't care much about facts, huh?

walkermr - "He may not have received the report until May 2"

 Nifong was ELECTED on May 2.

The report wasn't delivered to Nifong and Defense Attorneys until May 12.

walkermr - "but he spoke with the lab supervisor a week before the report was delivered."

 A week before May 12 is after he was elected.

walkermr - "That's the issue."

No, that is not the issue because you're off on your dates to sell a political motivation behind the contents of a report that are delivered AFTER Nifong had already been elected to a 4 year term as Durham County District Attorney.  The contents of a report delivered on May 12 AFTER you've been elected to office on May 2 have no bearing on an election that had already occurred 10 days earlier.

It had already been made public by Nifong a month BEFORE the election that the SBI Lab found no DNA from blood or semen on the specimens taken from the victim during the rape kit exam.

I'm sure you're feeling stupid for not checking the dates of the election against the date of the report and you should.  So should everyone who has wrongfully accused this prosecutor with WAILS of trying to frame up 3 college students for "political reasons" when nothing could be farther from the truth, reality, plausible believability or the facts surrounding the election.

What you're trying to do with "motive" here is much like trying to convince a jury that someone who won the lottery on May 2 held up a 7/11 for the $50 in the cash register on May 12 for "financial reasons".  They may have held up the 7/11 on May 12 but they sure as hell didn't do it for "financial reasons" any more than Mike Nifong did anything concerning that report for "political reasons".

And just wait until you find out that the "evidence" you're wailing about isn't even "evidence" because it's not even identifiable traceable DNA or "exculpatory" or "potentially exculpatory" of anyone about anything.

Therefore, the "motive" premise is totally, completely and irrefutably lacking merit and is 100% invalid.

"A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan

Election Dates - Get them right

Judy

In response to your post that Nifong was ELECTED to Durham DA in may, you are worng.  He won the DEM primary in May and was elected to DA in in the General election in Nov.  Please get your facts straight before you post.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <br /> <br> <a> <em> </em> <i> <blockquote> </blockquote> <strong> </strong> <b> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <div> <span> <font> <center> </p> <img>
More information about formatting options