Readers Note: If you haven’t read Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie posted this past Sunday and the posts to which it links, I strongly encourage you to read those posts.
The post which follows this note presumes you know their contents.
Therefore, it contains no introductory background information or citations of sources and explanations of inferential reasoning which can be found in Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie and the posts to which it links.
On the thread of Nifong Copier "Discovery" Story: A Fantastic Lie Jim in San Diego asks in part:
…[W]hy is it essential to any issue whether Nifong knew on Mar 14th, or March 22nd?In response to Jim and others who no doubt agree with him, I offer the following:
It is a prosecutor's continuing duty to indict and try only those who are guilty. Once N knew these boys were not guilty, whether the 14th, 22nd, or some much later date, he was still obligated to drop the case.
Joe Neff’s Apr. 2007 copier “discovery” story – the same story Nifong testified to at his State Bar trial in June 2007 - has Nifong first learning of the DL case AFTER the “toxic” NTO was signed on Mar. 23.
If the Neff-Nifong story were true, it would mean Nifong knowingly had nothing to do with the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed.
That would be huge because the documentation presented to the court to justify its issuance of the NTO is indisputably a frame-up document.
That being the case, if we believed the copier "discovery" story, we’d have to agree the frame-up was well underway BEFORE Nifong was ever knowingly involved in it.
Think about the implications of that.
Who would have the authority and drive to knowingly push through the court a “manmouthly unconstitutional” NTO request based on documents attested to by police investigators which were laced with fraud?
Why would anyone in the DA’s office go along with the NTO request?
Especially why would anyone in the DA’s office go along with such a request without first “checking with the boss?”
The same people who pump the Neff-Nifong “discovery” story say the answer to those two questions is: because a Durham Police Sargeant and a rookie investigator asked the DA’s office to go along with it.
Certainly others were involved in the frame-up attempt besides Nifong; and some of them may very well have engaged in framing activities before Nifong did.
But to claim as Neff and Nifong have that Nifong wasn't aware of the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed is an absurdity for the reasons I've cited in previous posts along with others I've no doubt overlooked or failed to mention.
On the other hand, if Nifong knew about the NTO at any time BEFORE it was signed, that’s huge for a number of reasons.
Here are two of them:
1) It means not only is Neff’s Apr. 2007 story bunk, but Nifong’s June 2007 testimony at his State Bar trial is false.
2) Since Neff cited Nifong's chief ADA David Saacks as a source for his copier “discovery” story;
and since Saacks has never as far as I know publicly disputed what Neff reported,
we have to ask whether Saacks in fact witnessed Nfiong’s “discovery” which Nifong may have staged to deceive Saacks as to his prior knowledge of the DL case;
or whether Saacks in fact told Neff a falsehood in order to cover-up the fact Nifong knew of the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed.
As I’ve said now in a number of posts, I have no doubt the copier “discovery” story is a cover story which at present is essential to helping sustain the ongoing cover-up of the frame-up attempt.
I'll soon post again on this very important aspect of DL case.