(Welcome visitors from Court TV and Friends of Duke University. I post often on the Duke lacrosse case. See here and here. Enjoy your stay JinC. John)
_____________________________
(Full disclosure: I live in Durham and support Louis Cheek for DA. John)
Just after 3 p. m. today, June 30, I spoke by phone with Durham County Board of Election Director Mike Ashe.
Ashe said attorney Louis Cheek’s supporters today turned in “in the neighborhood of 10,000” petition signatures. Cheek needs just over 6,300 verified signatures to get his name placed on the November ballot as an unaffiliated candidate for DA.
Cheeks supporters are confident he’ll have more than the required number of verified signatures.
That’s bad news for DA Mike Nifong who until recently expected to have no opposition in November.
But the news got worse for Nifong.
Republican Steve Monks had also sought to have his name placed on the ballot but Ashe said his supporters turned in petition signatures “in the neighborhood of 5,000.”
So barring a write in campaign by Monks or someone else, Nifong very likely will face Cheek in a two way race.
__________________
A few thoughts:
It’s unlikely Monks will launch a write in campaign. Such an effort would have almost no chance of success. It would be seen by most people, including most Republicans, as a “spoiler” effort. Monks would come third in the race. He’d damage his prospects for future public office
I don’t have any reason to believe Monks is thinking about a write in campaign. I mentioned the possibility because many of you may be wondering about it.
I gathered some signatures for Cheek and was struck by how intense many people are about seeing his name on the ballot.
Nifong, the Energizer.
But Cheek is much more than just a “Not Nifong” candidate.
He’s a well-regarded attorney and experienced office holder who currently serves as a Durham County Commissioner.
I’ll soon say more about the DA race.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Duke lacrosse: For Nifong the news was bad, then got worse
Posted by JWM at 4:41 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Read this analysis by an attorney and legal expert on possibly even worse news for Nifong. Based on Nifong's statements at his numerous early press conferences, he may have given up his own immunity to prosecution. Here's the link: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060630_spilbor.html
Thank god - we're not going to split the votes between "breathing and thinking" and "politicking!"
-AC
By Michael J. Gaynor
Duke Case: Does The Prosecutor Need Prosecuting
June 30, 2006 06:44 PM EST
Perhaps the nightmare for the Duke Three and their family and friends will end soon after all. On June 30, 2006, NBC's TODAY and MSNBC's Abram Report broadcast short and long versions of Dan Abrams' interview of Kevin and MaryEllen Finnerty, the parents of Collin Finnerty, the member of the Duke Three who had not let the public know that he had alibi evidence, including cell phone and dormitory access records (as Reade Seligmann quickly did) or he had passed a polygraph (as David Evans quickly did).
It turns out that Collin Finnerty has alibi evidence AND has passed a polygraph! "He has numerous eye witnesses every step of the way, every minute of the night," Kevin Finnerty said. And Kevin Finnerty announced that EACH of the Duke Three had passed a polygraph test. From USA Today: "The FBI will give lie-detector tests to hundreds of state and local police officers assigned to terrorism task forces across the country as part of a new effort to battle espionage and unauthorized information leaks." FBI Assistant Director Charles Phalen: "There is no more powerful tool in our tool bag" than polygraph tests. Curiously, polygraph testing apparently has not been used in connection with the Duke case. Why not? Could it be that the accuser, ex convict Crystal Gail Mangum, would not pass? Is it too much to expect that a person accusing another of kidnapping, rape and sexual assault pass a polygraph test BEFORE a prosecutor obtains an indictment? Is it too much to expect that indictments that appear to have been hastily obtained and unwarranted under all the circumstances be dismissed UNLESS the person accusing others of kidnapping, rape and sexual assault is given and passes a polygraph test? Especially if the accuser has a criminal record. The three co-captains of the Duke lacrosse team all volunteered to take a polygraph, but their offer was declined, because the prosecution wanted DNA samples instead. At the start, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong apparently believed the accuser and wanted to win convictions based on virtually incontrovertible DNA evidence. That was fine with the Duke lacrosse players, who brushed aside legal advice about challenging a court order requiring DNA samples and hastened to provide their DNA samples. From Newsweek: "The order had come, signed by a judge, requiring that the Duke lacrosse team give DNA samples. The prosecutor was trying to identify the three players who had allegedly raped an exotic dancer at the house rented by three of the team's co-captains on the night of March 13-14. All 47 players had gathered in a classroom near the lacrosse field to hear their lawyer, Bob Ekstrand, tell them what they needed to do. Ekstrand was about to tell the players that they could appeal the order as 'overbroad,' too sweeping in its scope, when the players got up and started heading for their cars to drive downtown to the police station. (The team's one black player was not required to go; the accuser, who is black, claimed her attackers were white.)" Mr. Nifong should have wondered about the credibility of the accuser when the DNA samples were eagerly provided, or at least when the DNA found inside the accuser was determined not to have come from any of the Duke lacrosse players but from several other males. And the DNA results should have led Mr. Nifong to conclude that the indictments should be dismissed. But, Mr. Nifong, for whom the black vote was decisive in his Democrat primary win last April, still has to face the voters in November, and pretending that he has a case may seem preferable to admitting an egregious mistake. The key question now is not whether any of the Duke Three are guilty of any of the charges against them--they are not--but whether Mr. Nifong is reckless and stubborn, or worse. Mr. Nifong should be polygraphed. Ironically, he may be one who should be prosecuted.
There is a small window for Duke students to register to vote. They have to be living in Durham 30 days first (classes start Aug. 28), and must sign up no later than 25 days before election day on Nov. 7.
If they turned out in considerable numbers it could change the election.
Post a Comment