The Nifong Watch

How much longer will DA Mike Nifong continue his charade of a case against the Duke Three?  TIME magazine has joined in:

Now that the North Carolina State Bar has filed a 17-page, 41-count ethics complaint against District Attorney Michael Nifong's handling of the Duke rape case, there's a different kind of New Year's countdown taking place in Durham: when and under what circumstances will Nifong leave office.

The Dec. 28 ethics charges are expected to be expanded when the state bar's grievance committee meets again Jan. 18. Like a grand jury, the committee meets periodically; the current ethics charges stem from its most recent meeting in October and cover public statements Nifong made about the case last March and April. At its next meeting, the committee will deal with revelations from a Dec. 15 court hearing in which the state's DNA expert admitted he and Nifong agreed to keep secret from the defense early DNA results showing no Duke lacrosse player could be implicated in an attack upon one of two exotic dancers hired for the March 14 house party.

"That was a shocker. That was huge," says one defense attorney. So much of a shocker, in fact, that on Friday, defense lawyers filed a motion asking that the state's DNA expert be granted the status of a defense witness if a trial occurs.

Blogger and professor KC Johnson continues to be the must-read on this topic.  However, for those scoring at home, among the mainstream media we have seen recent editorials from the LA Times, the Washington Times, USA Today and the Daily News criticizing Nifong, as well as a guest piece in the WSJ by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor; there is the ethics charge filed by the NC State Bar Association against Nifong; and there is the public letter from the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys calling on Nifong to step aside.  KC Johnson rounds up the last 200 hours here.

That said, Mr. Nifong still has defenders!  My favorite is Wendy Murphy [bio], who offered this on Dec 27:

For nine months, we've heard only from defense attorneys in the Duke case, and they've refused to release certain evidence. The prosecutor cannot reveal evidence without risking sanctions (such as dismissal of charges) for tainting the jury pool. The defense lawyers are not subject to similar punishment, which is why they can speak more freely. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't be skeptical about what they're hiding.

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong may have eyewitness statements from the defendants' friends and photos of the incident. If so, Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants' rights by not leaking the type of evidence that could help him personally respond to criticism.

"[E]yewitness statements from the defendants' friends"?  We have seen accounts of the evening in question from the police reports released by the defense, from the second dancer, and from the members of the lacrosse team, including the accused.  One point is not in dispute - the accuser and the second dancer showed up together and were not accompanied into the party by a third friend or acquaintance into the party.  Unless the accuser has befriended a member of the lacrosse team subsequent to the night's events last March, Ms. Murphy is engaging in wishful thinking here.  [Ooops!  An alternative theory is that when she writes "defendants" she means, well, uhh, "defendants", i.e., the lacrosse players.  I can not quite recreate the brain freeze that led me to read that as "accuser", but I will leave the balance of this paragraph in place as a cautionary tale.]  And why not - isn't the holiday season a time for dreaming about what might be?  I imagine this eyewitness friend clothed in flowing silks, dramatically riding up to the courtroom steps mounted on a unicorn.  Regrettably, Ms. Murphy does not share her vision here.

Everyone learned last spring that DNA in the rape kit did not match that of the defendants. Information "held back" involved other men's DNA. This constitutionally protected private information should never be disclosed unless a judge deems it relevant. The defense argued that the evidence provides an alternative explanation for the victim's vaginal injuries, and the judge agreed.

Huh?  Ms. Murphy falls a bit short of explaining why the defense and the judge were only apprised of this in an October discovery filing, rather than April.  Nor does she note that it was not Mr. Nifong that brought this relevant evidence to the judge's attention.  Oh, well.  More from Ms. Murphy:

Days later, the prosecutor withdrew the "rape" charge, which under North Carolina law consists only of penile-vaginal penetration. Other penetration crimes are covered by the remaining equally serious "sexual offense" indictment. This may have been a brilliant move, because with no rape charge, the victim's sexual past is irrelevant — and the cause of justice is spared a salacious and distracting sideshow.

I'll bite - if withdrawing the rape charge was "brilliant", why did Nifong wait until December to do so?  Why didn't he withdraw the charge in April and save himself the trouble of conspiring to conceal evidence with the DNA lab?

Stick a fork in Nifong; he's done.  Right, Ms. Murphy?

Enough - show me a dead horse and I'll be ready with a stick.

Comments

[clarice]

As I recall, Murphy made her reputation as a prosecutor in the notorious Falls River case. Spare us , please, these folks who teach law and comment on it with no appreciation of dur process or the rules of evidence or logic.

[clarice]

***duE**

[Xrlq]

The scary part is that Murphy was a prosecutor, too, and unlike Nifong, doesn't even face ethics charges. In the long run, her jihadist rants will go a lot further to undermine the justice system and give prosecutors a bad name than a disgraced, soon-to-be ex-D.A. ever can.

[lonetown]

This case, the Scooter Libby fiasco and the Tom Delay judicial mugging do not speak well for our systems of justice.

They show a very unhealthy mixture of politics and law.

[jean]

If the 3Lax players parents hadn't hired really good and expensive lawyers 3 innocent young men would be going to jail. That is very frightening to me.I know nothing about the Falls River case.After Wendy Murphys defense of a dishonest prosecution maybe that case needs a review.

[clarice]

Jean--I misnamed it--it was the Fells Acres case.
Here's a bit about this most abusive prosecution.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:EWFiiTcgtGwJ:www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/witch/mp-fells.html+fells+acres+case&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3>Fells Acres

[clarice]

The WSJ's Dorothy Rabinowitz extensively covered this awful case. A compendium of those articles is here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/search/exec/htsearch.cgi?words=amirault&db=db&where=oj>Fells Acres

[jean]

Clarice, thanks I do remember the WSJ series on that case and what a farce it was.

[clarice]

I don't know if Wendy prosecuted that case. She subsequently went into private practice with the prosecutor after both left the DA's office and she did file an amicus brief in that matter defending the junk science "recovered memories" theory. She may also have prosecuted the equally appalling Souza case which also relied on "recovered memories" from troubled accusers.

Anyone who defends "recovered memories" and the kind of coaching of child witnesses in those appalling day care cases is someone who is not worth listening to.A modern day witch hunter.

[jean]

so you have one quack defending another quack, and the people hurt are the innocent defendents. Do you know if anyone has pulled together in one place the many accounts of prosecuters abusing their power. It would be interesting reading .Probably frighting too

[Bob]

I won't go into my normal rant about lawyers here, But Murphy is a good example of how the legal system in this country has turned it into a sport... win at any cost and screw "fair play".

"Days later, the prosecutor withdrew the "rape" charge, which under North Carolina law consists only of penile-vaginal penetration. Other penetration crimes are covered by the remaining equally serious "sexual offense" indictment. This may have been a brilliant move, because with no rape charge, the victim's sexual past is irrelevant — and the cause of justice is spared a salacious and distracting sideshow."

Looks like it's 1rst and Goal!

[Jane]

OT: A friend of mine took me to the room where the memories were 'recovered'. She was an elected official who served in the DA's office when Fells Acres was prosecuted. It really was a sham, and that was obvious from simply seeing the room - altho at this point I can no longer recall why.

Mrs. Amarault and her daughter were housed at MCI Framingham the only women's prison in MA. The Framingham District Court has jurisdiction over the prison. At one point, early in my career I was at FDC for some reason and saw these two women who looked like they stepped out of Talbots waiting on the bench that served as the women's dock. I asked who they were. I was told they were the infamous Amaraults who without question ruled MCI Framingham. I believe that continued to the day of their release (Mrs. Amarault died shortly after (or before) her release.

I can't remember if Wendy was involved in the Fells Acre case altho I think she was. But she would have been a very new prosecutor at that time, so if she had a role it was probably an inconsequential one.

[clarice]

Actually, the defense is calling Meehan as a witness, so this "brilliant" strategy is a flop.

The problem in this case, like Fells Acre and so many other outrages (including the Kolbe Bryant case) is that ideology is being used to overturn centuries of common law about evidence--law built on logic, common sense and experience. People like Murphy out of stated concern for "victims" have persuaded courts and the public to ignore those rules, indeed have argued that rules like statutes of limitation, the right to consider conflicting accounts by accusers untrustworthy, and the discounting of testimony which is the product of repetitive suggestive coaching of young children are not worthy of being followed. They are pure and simple witch hunters and everytime they succeed, justice fails and truly innocent people suffer.

[Paul Zrimsek]

How long until we hear about the lacrosse players forcing the dancer to have sex with clowns and robots in the magic room?

[clarice]

Paul, I'm surprised Nifong has been holding back on those details!

[jd watson]

I don't understand how dropping the rape charges renders the DNA evidence irrelevant -- doesn't the DNA evidence contradict the accuser's statement that she didn't have sex the week preceeding the incident, and is therefore material to her credibility?

[Gary Maxwell]

JD

Consider that the "alledged victim/false accuser" gave graphic testimony which stated that Reade S forced her to perform oral sex on him. Thus her current story of "I dont know if I was penetrated with a penis" is not reconcilable with her prior testimony. Thus the defense will ask her if she is lying now or lying then ( or in this case BOTH). Sorry to be so graphic but Nifong should have dismissed all of this long ago so the only thing to discuss was his conduct. He would have had the benefit of being seen as coming to the right decision belatedly. Now he is going to get disbarred. Can you serve as a prosecutor without a law license anywhere in the US?

[Gary Maxwell]

wENDY mURPHY shows up a lot on Fox. I guess when they cant find anyone else to say something outrageous and stupid, she gets the call.

[Tom Maguire]

If the 3Lax players parents hadn't hired really good and expensive lawyers 3 innocent young men would be going to jail.

I am going to have to disagree - maybe the PR battle would be going differently but I think any reasonably competent attorney would have prevailed in this case. E.g., it was hardly rocket science to file for discovery, for example. And eventually, the evidence speaks for itself.

I don't understand how dropping the rape charges renders the DNA evidence irrelevant -- doesn't the DNA evidence contradict the accuser's statement that she didn't have sex the week preceeding the incident, and is therefore material to her credibility?

I agree. Presumably the prosecutor will want to suppress all of her statements and his own original indictment, although how that is possible I can't imagine

[jean]

Mr.Maquire I hope you are right.I'm afraid if the parents didn't have the resources an attorney from Durham would have been hired. After watching the Woody character on Fox I,m not sure how aggressive most of the local fellows would have been. Even if they were aggressive would they have the staff to follow up as needed. I do hope you are right

[Daddy]

Professor K C Johnson on his Durham in Wonderland blog has also done a very thorough job attacking the intelligence and motives of the group of "88" Duke Professor's who recklessly jumped on this guilty bandwagon early and often. I find it interesting that of those 88, 85 are professor's in the Humanity's; ie English, Sociology, African American Studies, etc, and only 3 are in the hard Sciences. I wonder if this tells us that Science types are less interested in this stuff, or intelligent enough to wait for reliable data before formulating conclusions.

[sam]

Daddy:

"I wonder if this tells us that Science types are less interested in this stuff, or intelligent enough to wait for reliable data before formulating conclusions."

The two formulations are not exclusive. Precisely because they are are scientific, they are willing to let the facts speak. Humanities programs in general are the dregs of academia, contentless and valueless. (English may have have some value, if they stick to studying good literature. Others are worthless.)

[clarice]

Many of the signers are untenured..all vioated the schools ethics rules and still the Board of Visitors remains on the sidelines.

[clarice]

**violated**

[cathyf]

Anyone who defends "recovered memories" and the kind of coaching of child witnesses in those appalling day care cases is someone who is not worth listening to.A modern day witch hunter.

But as Jeff has explained to us many times, anyone who can't "recover" memories weeks after events when it first becomes clear that the events are significant is guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury.

[Specter]

TM,

The problem with most of these types of cases, especially when they involve accusations by children, is that the general feeling of many (if not most)defense attorneys is that it is pointless to fight.

Instead, time and again, the recommendation is to accept a plea even if you are innocent, and take the consequences. Unfortunately, that path costs over $10K and an innocent person goes to jail, makes the "list" - maybe forever, could have their own children taken, broken marriages, pays restitution, and everything else that goes with such a "deal". And that doesn't include the civil actions that inevitably follow......

So - the lesson becomes that the selection of the right attorney is essential - and the really funny thing is that that attorney might not be someone who is well known; not someone who is considered a great defense attorney. But not only that - you need to have a boatload of money.

[PaulL]

Lonetown said:

****This case, the Scooter Libby fiasco and the Tom Delay judicial mugging do not speak well for our systems of justice.

They show a very unhealthy mixture of politics and law.****

Another clearly political prosecution was that of Rush Limbaugh for pain pills. Any liberal would have been praised for his courage for checking into rehab and no charges would have been filed. He'd have received puff pieces on news magazine shows.

There was a lot of prosecutor shenanigans in that case with the privacy of medical records and doctor-client privilege falling by the wayside. Heck, it was so obviously bad that the freakin ACLU filed a friend of the court brief for Limbaugh.

By the way, the actual criminals, the suppliers of the pills, were given immunity in order to hook the "big fish."

[billy missle]

I'll only jump in here to wish you all a happy new year..esp. Clarice & TM.
I'm not touching this subject with a 10 foot pole. Well ok..just this one little thing..It would appear there is no DNA evidence on these lads..I would think the innocence project and mr. barry s. would be all over the news decrying this injustice.
If only OJ was so lucky..ok that's it..I'm out of bonehead statements for 2006 and need to save a few for next year :) ...
Oh and Tom, Congrads on Rutgers this year..What a fantastic bowl game..you should be proud!
Kind regards,
Bill Schueller

[clarice]

Thanks, Bill.Happy New Year.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy is a case in point.

A liberal Democrat politician who was driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs got preferential treatment by senior police officials and a complete pass by the MSM.

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ TM

I think I disagree Tom.

I think having the right lawyers, or at least *effective* lawyers, is very important. First off you need lawyers that aren't more interested in maintaining a good relationship with the DA's office than in your defense. This in particular can be difficult.

Consider how reluctant lawyers are in criticising errant judges. Why? Because regardless of the negative impact on you, the lawyers still have to go back to that judge's courtroom for other clients.

And that is what I think explain's not just Woody Vann's conduct on FoxNews but also why the primary contributors to Nifong's campaign, prior to the indictments, were lawyers that represented clients in court cases brought by Nifong.

What you need are lawyers good enough that they won't either fear later court cases against that prosecutor *or* who are good enough to face that prosecutor on any terms and be strong enough to win.

Additionally the in-court examination of Meehan wasn't planned but impromptu, off the cuff so to speak. So you also need a lawyer capable of rapid improvisation when necessary. And I don't think anybody would argue that the cross-examination of Meehan was extremely important as it was the highly effective cross that forced Meehan to incriminate not only himself but Nifong.

And you also need lawyers that have internal fortitude to withstand the potential negatives in such a case. It may seem a no-brainer to defend the LAX players against the popular black antagonism. But such cases can also proove to be long-term political suicide for lawyers looking to further careers outside of the law. And even within the law as popular sentiment against a lawyer could prove fatal to ambitions towards judgeships.

So I really don't agree that any lawyer would do in such a case.

[Silence Dogood]

Can a legal type help me with this, I am still a little confused with the following statement by Murphy presented in the post and am inclined to disagree:

"Days later, the prosecutor withdrew the 'rape' charge, which under North Carolina law consists only of penile-vaginal penetration. Other penetration crimes are covered by the remaining equally serious 'sexual offense' indictment. This may have been a brilliant move, because with no rape charge, the victim's sexual past is irrelevant — and the cause of justice is spared a salacious and distracting sideshow."

My understanding is that this the case is EXACTLY the opposite of what she states. With the rape charges still being prosecuted (if it were a joint trial of charges for that and sexual assault) the rape shield laws of evidence would explicitly NOT allow her sexual history to be be brought in or brought up in court, however, once the rape charges are dropped the rape shield evidenciary laws no longer apply and her sexual histor could and would be brought up by any defense attorney who is doing their job worth a damn? N.C.'s evidence laws may be different from the Federal one's and the majority of states as far as rape shield law evidence is concerned, but even if they don't Murphy is still wrong because that means the evidence could and would be brought up either way. Just because Murphy doesn't want it to be relevant it doesn't change the admissability of the evidence or the arguable relevance...am I missing something here or did she skip evidence in law school? I am not and attorney, but for certain reasons and painfully familiar with criminal evidence rules and I read that segment several times trying to see what I had missed. Anyone?

[Shivv]

Silence, while I don't have any law experience besides the year of Con. Law I took as an undergrad, I think I have a half-way answer to your question.

My guess is that without a rape charge, Nifong would argue that semen left in the woman's vagina is irrelevant because none of the players are charged with having left it there. Even using that justification though, I have a hard time believing that it would ever be excluded. It is obviously relevant in the sense that it provides a plausible explanation to the accuser's injuries and is exculpatory to the defendants.

As far as the "rape shield laws" go, I would assume that it stretches to include the sexual offense charges still pending.

[sylvia]

I am still amazed at all the outrage this case gets in the media. Does anyone think for a moment if the accused were not wealthy young white men, anyone would give a darn about this case? I constantly hear the sarcasm against being interested in murder cases against young white female blondes. Somehow, because it's rich young white men, it doesn't merit the same silence as does the murder of the blondes such as the murder of Natalie Holloway, but instead is front page news, marked with much pious outrage. Think about all the poor young men out there who would never get the same coverage.

I do see a LOT of sexism in this coverage. I see the idea constantly floated about from the beginning by "experts" that because there was no DNA that means the accused are innocent, when we know that MOST rape case leave NO DNA. Then this new outrage over the DNA results supposedly being muffled is strange. Murphy is right when she said we knew months ago that there was no DNA from the accused in the victim, so what's new here? Who cares who the previous DNA belongs to. Whether the woman had sex with a highschool football team beforehand has NO relevance to this case. Then the insistence in the beginning that because the Lacrosse players wouldn't say that there was any negative information, then it had to be so. Do you think people would assume the same if say a black highschool football team gave the same exculpating testimony about gellow teammates, and the case would then just be dropped?

I'm not saying that the accused are guilty and there does, after time seem to be a lot of weaknesses in the case. My complaint is that the media defense is twisting the facts in trying to reach that conclusion, and has from the beginning, before any facts were really known. It just goes to show you it's still good to be a rich white man in today's society.

[Daddy]

TM,

Professor Johnson's latest, "The Wendy Murphy File" 31 Dec 2006, expertly chronicles Murphy's egregious behavior throughout this case. But in the comments of one of his previous posts, "The Prosecutor is Guilty," we find another seasoned talking head, prognosticator Lawrence O'Donnell apparently also continuing to engage in buffoonery.
As a true Plameholic I'm still holding my breath for that secret list in Larry's coat pocket of the 21 other conspirators Fitz was gonna' indict back on Fitzmas Eve of 2000 whenever. Nor can I forget his astutely memorable prediction that Lieberman, after losing the Democratic Primary, was absolutely going to drop out of the race and Lamont would sail in as the next Senator from Connecticut. Now I read (I didn't catch the show) that last night on the McGlaughlin Group, when asked his opinion on the most overated story of 2006, Larry responded: The Duke Rape Case. "Let it play out" he said. "There's no need for examining it day to day."
The shows full transcripts haven't yet come out, so if Larry didn't actually continue his record of saying totally stupid things on television, I apologize in advance.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Sylvia is amazed by some of the outrage this case gets in the media; she clearly doesn't remember how it came to be heavily publicized in the first place.

[Bob]

sylvia you have issues! If anyone is looking to find a "case" against these 3 young men, it would be you. Do as PZ says and go back to the beginning of this sordid ordeal.

"It just goes to show you it's still good to be a rich white man in today's society."

...that may in fact be true, but it doesn't mean these "rich white men" are guilty of anything other than bawdy behavior!

[jean]

ed thank you for your comment on the need for an effective lawyer. I agree. Sylvia you state "we know most rapes leave no DNA" This part of we knows no such thing. If you could please provide some facts to back up your statement

[Jane]

BTW if anyone cares, the Fells Acre case was prosecuted in 1986. I'm pretty sure Wendy Murphy graduated from law school in 1987, so she could not have been involved in that trial.

[Sue]

Wendy Murphy makes my teeth itch, to borrow a phrase from Clarice, but I think this was misunderstood...

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong may have eyewitness statements from the defendants' friends and photos of the incident.

The friends she was referring to would be friends of the 3 lacrosse players, not the accuser.

[clarice]

Yes, Jane..I think she was too young to have played a part in the main case, but as I noted she filed an amicus brief at a later date supporting the prosecution. The chief prosecutor and she were law partners after they left the DA's office.

[Jane]

Who was the chief prosecutor Clarice? I did a search on that and all I could find was Harshbarger who never tried a case in his life.

[clarice]

Per a quick google, Jane--Larry Hardoon was the lead proseccutor.
I recall reading a piece which indicated Murphy may have been the prosecutor in the equally preposterous Souza case but am not sure if that is true.

[clarice]

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ is the cite to the evisceration of Muurphy, something way overdue IMO.

[Other Tom]

Sylvia, where's your evidence that these young men are "rich?" Regardless of their wealth and their race, I think your point is simply invalid. Cases of abuse by police or prosecutors regularly spark widespread outrage regardless of the defendant's class, race or gender. See, e.g., Rodney King or Emmitt Till.

[Jane]

Hmmm I know Larry Hardoon. That firm is famous for hiring people they think have "names" as "of counsel". In fact I had a long discussion with Wendy about Clinton in those offices. I didn't realize she worked there - I thought she was visiting the same person I was visiting who was another token "of counsel".

[Jane]

Sheesh, I'm not a fan of Murphy's politics but that website is a little over the top in her condemnation of her as a talking head. Under those standards every talking head would be disbarred. She's an advocate, and she does the same dumb stuff every advocate does. And that's why she gets air time.

[clarice]

I think the bar shouldn't get involved, but really the use of false, exaggerated tales by hired "talking heads" on both sides is a practice I wish would evaporate. It seems to me that gladiator sport and commentary are two different things and it is a disservice to viewers to present utterly false commentary as if it were true. If people want to use her, clearly mark it as entertainment, not information.
I have forwarded Johnson's comments on to the two FNC programs who often use her. Enough with all this phony blathering to fill air time.

[Specter]

sylvia,

I'll take this away from your ramblings - you are obviously prejudiced against "rich white men."

While I would agree with you that minorities do not get a fair shake in our system (see my post above about how much it costs just to take a plea - a real case will run into hundreds of thousands of dollars), it is not due to racism. It is due to the exorbitant amount of money it costs to have an actual defense in a case. So - no matter what race you are, if you have the bucks you can fight charges. Otherwise you end up taking a plea.

BTW - another tactic used by prosecutors is to delay until someone runs out of money to fight. I know some of you will immediately think "right to a speedy trial", but in some states that is only a right if you motion for it - and it takes time to get into the position to do so. "Discovery" is not automatic - things are held back by prosecutors all the time. It takes a lot of checking and subpoenas just to find out what hasn't been turned over.

[Jane]

the use of false, exaggerated tales by hired "talking heads" on both sides is a practice I wish would evaporate.

Oh on this we do agree. I just don't think that we serve ourselves well tamping down free speech with the threat of prosecution.

I do admire Murphy for creating a name for herself despite a very small resume. It runs in the family. Her husband made a kajillion dollars right out of law school hopping onto the class action train.

[maryrose]

False info is bad no matter who is shilling it.
Witholding info like NiFong did is deadly.

[jean]

jane I understand Ms. Murphy has a right to free speech. Doesn't her employer have an obligation to confront her if she is not telling the truth?

[clarice]

Jane, what a great example of damning with faint praise! LOL

[Jane]

Jean,

Who is her employer in that regard?

[Jane]

Clarice,

Yeah, I know. I feel badly badmouthing someone who I actually know - but I've never equated Wendy with any particular accomplishment. She reminds me a bit of a Gloria Allrege wannabee, and I can't stand Gloria Allrege (nor can I spell her name.)

I do remember in the elongated "discussion" we had about Clinton, she was woefully out of her league (and everyone here knows that I'm not the brightest bulb on the planet), and it was clear she was quite used to dealing with people who didn't follow the facts closely. Her rhetoric here reminds me of her rhetoric then.

[jean]

ok call me naive,but if Ms. Murphey is on CNN or Fox or MSNBC spewing lies don't the stations have an obligation to call her on the lies? I would assume some of their viewership believed her.Aren't the network responsible in some part?

[Walter]

Jane,

I believe it's spelled All-rage.

[sylvia]

"Cases of abuse by police or prosecutors regularly spark widespread outrage regardless of the defendant's class, race or gender."

Okay, I'm not excusing bad behavior by prosecutors by any means, no matter who the accused are. But I think the barrage of male attention to this case from "serious" media and bloggers is VERY telling. Everytime I want to discuss the latest female murder, I am sneered at by men. "How often do you follow cases or care about all the minority women who are murdered all the time?" they laugh and dismiss talking about the murder of "blonde" women as supremely unimportant, unworthy of serious discussion and the female equivalent of a soap opera. Such murders barely are mentioned in the "serious" media, and are relegated to the crime shows as second rate gossip subjects.

So now is my time to ask the same question to the males who have suddenly found painfully keen interest in a minor case of an aggressive prosecutor that probably happens all the time to poor men in this country "How often do you follow cases or care about minority men who are wrongly accused of rape?" I laugh and dismiss them with a wave of my hand.

Turnabout is fair play, no?

[Jane]

I believe it's spelled All-rage.

Perfecto!

[Jane]

Jean,

An opinion is not, by definition, a lie. It's a guess, and some are better than others.

The hardest thing for me to ever get used to in a Courtroom was that lawyers made stuff up.

But think about it. You are a prosecutor. You cannot know what really happened in any particular case, so you create a scenereo that comports to the evidence. And trust me, the defense does the exact same thing. A smart lawyer tells the guy he is defending to not tell him what happened, so he can keep all his options on the table.

Now think of a person like Murphy whose job is not to prove, but to persuade. She is hired to give an opinion for the prosecution. Someone else gets hired to give an opinion for the defense. By definition the opinions cannot be the same.

Rather than fire those people, the remedy would be not to report opinion. But that would put every major newspaper and other media out of business.

If people can't tell the difference between opinion and fact, and many can't, well those are the breaks I guess.

[clarice]

Fair enough, Jane. But as K.C> has demonstrated beyond doubt, she has made repeated assertions of fact which are utterly false. I regard that, as he does, as over the line. Unless the nets feel it's a good idea to misinform their viewers on a regular basis about FACT, I see no reason to continue to use her.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I just got a mental picture of the two cut-out guys from the Guinness ads saying "Dismiss the charge if you don't have any evidence? Brilliant!" "Brilliant!"

[jean]

thanks Jane .

[jean]

Ahh Thanks Clarice I hit send before I finished my thought, but you did a much better job then I would have anyway

[jean]

Sylvia I don't understand why you think only males are upset about the unjust treatment of the Duke LAX player. I'm sure if you will read back on the post you will see many are from females. I know I spell Jean with a J not a G

[Specter]

sylvia,

Part of what you are talking about is nonsense. How many of the cases you are talking about have made national headlines with such obvious misconduct by a prosecutor? Like I said before - it is obvious you have some very large prejudice towards men, and in particular "rich white men." Maybe you just know the wrong people?

[Jane]

Unless the nets feel it's a good idea to misinform their viewers on a regular basis about FACT, I see no reason to continue to use her.

Well that's fair. Altho you have greater faith about what the "nets" care about presenting to their viewers than I do.

[clarice]

I doubt that, Jane. I know they want eyes. Period. Still, when the lies are so clear and repeated, they might consider searching elsewhere.

[Gary Maxwell]

Sylvia

Sounds like you have issues to me. And if you are getting barraged about posts about whilte blonde females let me suggest two things. Stop visiting those liberal sites that consider race to be fair game for discriminating against someone, and stop all the posts about Greta and Nancy Graces favorite topics. IE broaden your horizons. At least one of the falsely accused and presumed innocents is the son of a firefighter. How does that fit into you very well polished view of the case?

[sylvia]

"Part of what you are talking about is nonsense. How many of the cases you are talking about have made national headlines with such obvious misconduct by a prosecutor?"

See, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Do you think that the Duke players were the only ones in the last few years who received bad treatment from prosecutors? Look at all the rape convicts who are freed by the Innocence Project all the time - they were all wrongly accused and I doubt they received ideal or even fair treatment from their prosecutors as well. We know with common sense similar things happen practically all the time in this country, yet I never hear a peep about those cases. But somehow the NYT and the Washington Post and other major media feel the need to talk about THIS case all the time. Why? Is it because of sex and (at least perceived) class of the accused?

I'm not saying it's wrong to get upset for the lacrosee players. I'm just saying that it shows there is still a double standard in this country - where personal or local crimes or mistreatment against women and children are not considered "real" news, but alleged mistreament of rich white men is.

If you don't agree with me- point out one case of prosecutorial abuse in a case against poor black men in the last fews years that made the national media.

[sylvia]

"stop all the posts about Greta and Nancy Graces favorite topics. IE broaden your horizons"

Case in point. To be interested and saddened by the brutal murders of women and children is to have "narrow horizons". Who cares about them, right? But three young men from a notoriusly raucus frat hiring strippers, accused of rape - now THAT is serious stuff! Sorry - for a moment I almost lost my priorities there.

[Gary Maxwell]

The fact is that you only care about them because they are women. Period. Its quite telling about you, not society in general. Prosecutors rarely go to this extent, otherwise the Bar Assoc would be awash with complaints, but feel free to point out another case where both the BAR and the fellow State prosecutors both weigh in if I have missed it I will gladly agree with you. But I am betting you cant. And you sound like Wendy Murphy with a small case of a conscience.

BTW the boys are not members of a frat. They do play a NCAA sport which is quite different, but dont let the facts stop your rant. And what about the fact that one of the boys Dad is a firefighter. How about at least acknowledging both your ignorance and your glaring bias?

[sylvia]

"The fact is that you only care about them because they are women. Period."

You have not understood anything I have said. I was talking about the double standard, apparent on your vehement reaction. Oh well, I've tried...

[MayBee]

where personal or local crimes or mistreatment against women and children are not considered "real" news, but alleged mistreament of rich white men is.

But this case became news when it looked to be a crime against a woman. People rallied in the streets for her. Jesse Jackson went to NC to speak on her behalf. It became a story of prosecutorial misconduct against rich young men after more facts started coming out.

[clarice]

You took the words out of my mouth, MayBee. Sylvia, scroll theu the archives and find Tom's first post on the case--It was the NYT piece accusing the rich frat boys of taking advantage of a poor Black student who danced to make ends meet.

[Jane]

The fact is that you only care about them because they are women.

That's not what I'm reading. I think what Sylvia is saying is that we have the worst justice system in the world...except for all the others.

I think people get railroaded all the time, and I'm including victims in that equation. Overzealous prosecutors, corrupt defense attorneys, it happens. The Duke case IS outrageous, but there are lots of outrageous
cases. And sometimes, maybe more often than not, justice gets done.

Money counts, which is the reason to work hard and have some.

Oh and the Bar association is rife with such complaints, but most get ignored.

I will tell you that the majority of opposing counsel I deal with are ethical and honest, and a pleasure to deal with. But I'd venture a guess that about 10% are about as sleezy as everyone says they are.

[Paul Zrimsek]

No, I think what she's saying is that you, Clarice, Jean, Maryrose, Cathy, and Sue have got to quit paying so much male attention to this case.

[maryrose]

Am I the only person who is shocked by the morally bankrupt behavior of this woman throughout the day that this event occurred? She was sleeping with multiple men, taking drugs, drinking etc... Who was watching her children? The local Panera is hiring I'm sure. Why can't she get a real job and now that the minimum wage is going to be raised she can earn an honest living and start to set a good example for her children. This whole lawsuit is a ploy to make some fast money on the backs of these lacrosse players and NiFong played right into her hands. Both should be prosecuted for their own illegal bhavior.

[clarice]

She's a very troubled person--but I place the larger blame on Nifong. It's his job to sort out this stuff, and, remember, she didn't claim she'd been raped until she was afraid they'd revoke her probation.

[Rick Ballard]

Maryrose,

Hookers are actually behaving in the same manner all over the US this evening. I don't see anything shocking in her behavior at all. Sylvia has a point concerning the fact that whores and their bastards are hurt and killed all the time without much remark in the press but news by definition is about the unusual rather than the common.

The case is of interest only because of the affinity felt by Nifong for Precious. They both inhabit a moral vacuum where like speaks to like. The young idiots were drawn as moths to the flame by a similiar circumstance - they are almost certainly innocent of criminal conduct but their moral stature is little higher than that of their accuser and her accomplice DA.

If Duke has a 'Stupidest Man On Campus' award, every member of that fraternity must be considered to be in the running.

[clarice]

Happy New Year, Rick. I've missed you.

[Rick Ballard]

Happy New Year, Clarice. The same to all JOMers regardless of political persuasion.

[topsecretk9]

Rick...SO GREAT to read you!

Happy New Year Mr. Ballard!

[topsecretk9]

It became a story of prosecutorial misconduct against rich young men after more facts started coming out.

Rush to judgment or lack of investigation serves to corrupt the judicial system no matter what socio-eco quarter one comes from. Thought justice is pretty dangerous.

And that really is the bottom line.

Jesse Jackson, he just exploits these things solely to line his own pockets and to maintain relevance...in fact, I blame him just as much as Nifong and Precious.

[Specter]

sylvia,

Happy New Year. And to everybody here!

You obviously did not read my posts. I talked specifically about the fact that this is happening all the time - that people are being railroaded by corrupt prosecutors. I welcome the publicity because it starts getting people aware of the "Law & Order" and "Shark" reality that our justice system is spiraling down into. That kind of "publicity" is necessary to raise the awareness of society so that changes and safeguards can be put into place.

Instead you grab onto a sentence like I just proved your point. This particular case is not about sex. It has gained in exposure because of the unethical conduct of the DA. It is sooooo obvious that you have a bias against men. I feel bad for you - it must be terrible to go through life with such a chip on your shoulder....

[topsecretk9]

I talked specifically about the fact that this is happening all the time - that people are being railroaded by corrupt prosecutors.

And well Specter, not to get too off topic, but it's the same in civil suits as well. I mean trial lawyers will take any claim as long as the plaintiff is willing to pay.

[Tom Maguire]

From Sylvia:

But I think the barrage of male attention to this case from "serious" media and bloggers is VERY telling.

Uh huh. I'll pass that along to La Shawn Barber.

As to the larger and more subtle issue - why don't we pay more attention to the cases no one has heard about? - I'll hazard the guess that I, for one, have not heard about them.

If you don't agree with me- point out one case of prosecutorial abuse in a case against poor black men in the last fews years that made the national media.

The wilding case in New York City.

As to the subtle distinction between accuser and defendant - ouch. Fixing that is a New Year's resolution.

[topsecretk9]

But I think the barrage of male attention to this case from "serious" media and bloggers is VERY telling.

Uh Huh - too!

mean, I am "drawn" to it because the whole premise sucks primarily ,and I am a mother of a male! So scrub me from your "telling" template, Sylvia.

I pay attention to NEWS, NOT the gender of the news provider - it really makes no difference to me who the mouth piece is.
----

BTW

I had a big wonderance - I am fielding walkie talkie calls from boy's ding dong ditching (ground rules are limiting so time is of the essence) -- in the Libby...I really, really think one of the reporters expected to quash is Calabresi (may be spelt wrong)...we know he was in contact with Wilson before Cooper talked to Libby or Rove, but interesting will be the premise of M.Cooper's "War against Wilson" article, especially in light of his credibility problems.

Specifically, how did/does the TIME team come up with a war against Wilson or a "War" premise for an article period? Based on what we know Libby said? Calabresi, because what the One that lies always said to him.

[Daddy]

For what its worth I think I'm probably the last post of 2006, being that it's 10 minutes of midnight here in Alaska. It's quite cold out (6-F) and the snowplowed snowbanks out in our mountainside cul-de-sac are above head level, but still our muck-lucked neighbor kids are launching rockets from the middle of the street. Happy New Year everyone and thanks TM for a great year of Blog Posting. Time now to bundle up and go outside and get stupid---Whoopie!

[topsecretk9]

Noopy Hap Year Daddy...I was surprised at the firework lit off here, and I refrained because my neighbor is such a ninny pickins nanny wort! ( I.e. a-##*^&()

[sylvia]

"As to the larger and more subtle issue - why don't we pay more attention to the cases no one has heard about? - I'll hazard the guess that I, for one, have not heard about them."

Okay- that's what I'm saying. We HAVEN'T heard about them. Why? Logic tells us that this cannot be the only case similar to this - in fact in reports I've heard about the Innocence Project, it was usually a misidentified subject in a rape case who got wrongly convicted, usually poor and black. Yet somehow - when those cases were in progress, it didn't make national news - but this one did. And that is because the element of class war in this case that grabbed the attention of the "serious" media in the beginning. As to women who are also interested - that is beside the point. Women can hold the same double standards as men, as they are influenced by the dominant attitudes around them.

And besides, again, I'm not saying it is wrong to be interested in this case - I think it should get attention. I'm just saying that it reveals the hypocrisy by certain parties to show such keen interest in this case when the case does not meet the apparent standards they have set for themselves to consider a newsstory significant. The "serious" media regularly scoff at pursuing stories of murder against women and children as non-important news stories because as they explain, in the grand scheme of things they don't effect national/international news and because they also do not merit attention because there are so many "minority" women who are murdered as well, so no need to focus on just the class and race of "blondes" being murdered.

See what I'm saying? By their own criteria - that this it is not a story that effects national news and that such situations also happens to minorities so why focus on this case of "blondes" (so to speak, ie rich white kids)-this should not be a story picked up by the serious media. Yet here we are with the BeltwayBoys and the WaPo breathlessly examining every twist and turn of the case- when those same outlets would rather die then talk about the Natalee Holloway case. In fact I've heard some of those same commentaters actually laugh and scoff with great sarcasm at the idea about talking about that "non-important" case (such as Neil Gabler on Fox). Unless someone can illustrate to me why this is not a double standard - I will stick with my point.

[Jane]

Sylvia,

The case is being hyped by the lawyers, as it should be, I guess, in service to their clients. They simply achieved what lots of people would strive for in the same position.
Your issue seems to be with the media - why they picked up on this particular case, and I think you have outlined the reasons. It sells.

You really can't legislate what sells.

Here's to 2007!

[sylvia]

Yes Happy New Year to all. '07 - I can't believe we are this far in the single digits of the second millenium already. Although I can't wait to get into the "Teens", because there is no good handle to lable the first decade of a century. Maybe the "singles". Could we say "well the singles was a good decade"?