I got an email about 5 p.m. yesterday from Charns telling me that.
There was nothing more in the email.
Charns was responding to my cell call.
I'm still traveling but will be home tonight at which time I'll send Charns an email thanking him for his update and letting him know I'll call him Tuesday; also that I plan to call Baker starting Monday to get his update on the CrimeStoppers posters and subsequent Durham City actions, if any.
I also intend to ask Baker if the city has learned anything more about the "vigilante poster(s)" distributed at at least one rally on Duke campus, in the Trinity Park neighborhood and, I'm told, others and published on Apr. 2 by the Raleigh News & Observer.
I'm going to keep at it.
John
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Baker did not get back to Charns
Posted by JWM at 11:18 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
John, Forgive this being slightly off topic. This comment was left by Markie on Ruth's Metro blog. It is attributed to Newport at Talk Left. Everyone interested in this case should read it.
07/29/06 at 11:47
Ruth, here's the problem with Nifong and why ANYONE would be better than him:
Mike Nifong got too far out ahead of his investigation before he made up his mind that a rape occurred. He allowed his internal bias against white Duke student athletes, who he hated for unknowable reasons, likely jealousy, and believed the worst about them. He was in a dog fight to keep his job and this case that he could use to his benefit in the election just fell in his lap. He was presented with an accuser that he wanted to believe because of his misguided biases. So what does he do, he takes the bare accusation of a woman that he should have known lacked credibility (he did not vigorously question her to get to the truth) and learns that she had some injuries from Himan's contact with the SANE nurse and that she was screaming and hollering in the hospital and from this he forms an unshakable opinion that a rape occurred. Nifong grew confident. All he had to do was identify the rapists. He was sure the evidence was there; the DNA would be conclusive.
What happens next is that things start to fall apart, little by little over time. Not all at once, but over time. But matters could not wait, indictments were demanded and had to be delivered to the constituency he needed to sway in the upcoming election. The exact sequence is not clear, but he learns over time that the accuser is in reality a prostitute and she was intoxicated and on a powerful muscle relaxer during the relevant time. He learns that the second dancer does not support the accuser's story, calls it a "crock," doesn't know how a rape could have happened as she was with the accuser for all but 5 minutes. He learns that the medical evidence really isn't what he thought it might be, no evidence of anal or vaginal trauma only diffuse vaginal edema that can easily be explained by the accuser's chosen profession and the admitted use of a sex toy in the hours before the party. He learns that at least one of the defendants has an iron clad alibi. He knows the identifications are highly suspect, if not the product of outright coaching, etc. Then he learns that there is no DNA evidence and, in fact, the only DNA evidence implicates not Duke students, but her "boyfriend."
These revelations do not occur simultaneously, instead they come in over time. As each new revelation comes in Nifong rationalizes his decision to proceed with the case against each new piece of damning evidence. He never considers the totality of the evidence because he got so far ahead of a proper investigation when he initially made up his mind. He looked at individual pieces of exculpatory evidence as they came in and rather than reassess his initial opinion he would instead try to find ways to negate these individualized bits of evidence. After all, he had indictments to move forward. A good example of this is when the DNA evidence failed to link the players to the accuser, he attempted to rationalize this by saying well "condoms could have been used." He was sloppy. He made numerous statements concerning the evidence, the condom statement included, that showed that he either did not have the medical reports when he made such statements, or that he just had not read the reports. He did this over and over again as day by day new damning to the prosecution evidence came to light. But, he was trapped, he couldn't back out because he got out in front of his case with his rhetoric; he was sure a rape had occurred because of his own bias in wanting to credit a black victim over white students even though the students were high achievers at an elite university with no history of violent behavior. College student drunken behavior yes, but violent behavior no.
But, Nifong was as stubbornly foolish as they come, he had his heels dug in, and he was trapped by his own beliefs and prejudices, and he needed to win an election. If he had waited and conducted a proper investigation and gathered all the evidence before making up his mind on the case, he never could have proceeded. He would have had the bare accusation of a heavily intoxicated Durham prostitute with absolutely no credibility, who told many different stories, and made fantastic allegations with no evidence to back those allegations up, against the word of 40 some Duke student athletes who said nothing happened and had maintained a consistent story from day one. The case would never have gone past the initial investigatory stage. That is what has happened here and Nifong is not man enough to realize how badly he screwed up this case and he will not make amends. Instead, he will soldier on wreaking further havoc on the lives of these innocent young men, and bankrupting their parents in the process. Nifong is not the type of man to back down from a position as new evidence comes to light, he is a bulldog, the exact opposite characteristic that any man in a position of power over the lives of citizens should have. He has made up his mind, nothing will stop him short of a federal investigation, removal from office, disbarment, or the accuser not testifying on her own behalf.
By Newport on TalkLeft ©
Could the attorney or John in Carolina use the freedom of information laws to compel Baker to turn over records and information related to the case? Shouldn't those who oppose the actions of Nifong and Baker be able to use laws to counter what those guys are doing?
And where is the North Carolina Attorney General?
John, you need to see this one.
ASNE protests reporter arrest
Published: November 18, 2004
Last Updated: November 18, 2004
Printer-friendly version
Mr. James E. Hardin Jr.
District Attorney
Durham Co. Judicial Building
201 East Main Street, 6th Floor
Durham, NC 27701
Dear Mr. Hardin,
On behalf of the American Society of Newspapers Editors, I am writing to protest the recent arrest of Raleigh News & Observer reporter Demorris Lee.
As you know, Mr. Lee was charged with making harassing telephone calls after leaving two voice messages on the home answering machine of an individual from whom he sought comment for a news story. If the facts in this case are as we understand them, it is Mr. Lee who is being subjected to harassment by legal authorities as a result of doing his job as a reporter. Surely it cannot be illegal for a journalist to make a good faith effort to seek fair comment for a news story.
We also find the timing of Mr. Lee's arrest curious. Ruth A. Brown, employed by the Durham Police Department, filed her complaint against Mr. Lee and an arrest warrant was issued on Oct. 22. But Mr. Lee was not arrested until Sunday, Nov. 14, which was several days after he had filed a request with the Durham Police Department seeking additional public records in a case involving one of its employees, Ms. Brown.
Speaking for the hundreds of member editors of ASNE, we condemn this arrest in the strongest terms. Based on the facts as we know them, it is an affront to the First Amendment and constitutes an unwarranted attack on a reporter who was seeking to interview an individual to ensure accuracy and fairness.
We insist that these charges be dropped immediately.
Sincerely,
Karla Garrett Harshaw
ASNE President
Editor, Springfield (Ohio) News-Sun
cc: Chief Steven W. Chalmers
Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr.
http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=5307
abb
North Carolina's prisons should be filling up with Durham prosecutors and policemen/women.
More importantly than where is the AG, is where is the FBI? They are the proper agency to handle this and it should be adjudicated in a federal court.
BTW, what is Nifong's ethnicity? I really don't know anything about him except his total lack of character and integrity. I am just wondering if his actions are for purely political reasons and personal gain, or if he has prejudicial bias based on race or socio-economic group. It really doesn't matter, wrong is wrong, I just wonder how he went sooo wrong.
What would provide cause for the FBI to enter this case? What about the Justice Department?
in cases of official misconduct the FBI is the proper investigative agency for several reasons. Chief among them are the fact that police, prosecutors and local judges are all acquainted with each other and rely on each other in their careers, ergo, they are usually reluctant to undertake any real effort at uncovering misconduct because of the likely loss of cooperation and bon homie in their work and possible involvement in or tacit approval of the wrongdoing or erring party.
Federal court is the place for these cases as it is at least one remove, or should be, from the influence of the local power structure which is being investigated. It is standard in cases of official misconduct.
The Justice Department is the party that would undertake this. The FBI is the investigating agency of Justice.
Case in point, there are many NC officials that can and should have called for an investigation into Nifong's and the DPD's behavior, yet none have done so due to their own political and possibly personal considerations.
If not the governor, then who? If not the Attorney General, then who? If not the legislature, then who? All of these have a duty and the authority to delve into this fraudulent use of state power, yet none have. Who? Those without a personal stake in the outcome.
Would you really expect a fair trial if the party you were opposing was the party to which you had to prove your case?
That is why going to federal court and federal investigators is standard. Example-Re: William Jefferson, how long do you think it would have taken Louisiana authorities to bring him to the bar? Not as long as there is a cow in Texas.
Excellent points by straightarrow. So does there need to be some kind of official request to the Justice Department to get the district attorney's conduct looked into?
I don't know about an official request, but high profile bad publicity of the Federals almost always results in them pursuing their duty, even if reluctantly.
Since the media is in on the fraud, it will take a groundswell of individuals writing and speaking and emailing and phoning to make the Feds aware of their waning reputation and respect.
Post a Comment