Thursday, June 25, 2009

An Essential Duke Frame Cover Story

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?

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.
In response to Jim and others who no doubt agree with him, I offer the following:

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.

That's unbelievable!

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.


sceptical said...

Good explanation of why it is important to know when Nifong knew about Mangum's charges.

Another important question: Even if Nifong knew about the charges before March 23, when did he start to DO ANYTHING about them?

Say he learned about the incident from the N&O (March 18, 19)or Chronicle stories (March 21,22), or from his wife Cy. He may not have acted on his knowledge until
later, however. We do know he talked with Capt. Lamb about taking the case on March 24.

The real issues are: did he know about, help write, or direct the lying NTO application; did he approve the "deal" with Kim Pittman on March 22;and was he involved with the plan to trick the lacrosse players to appear before the Durham police without counsel?

These are some of the events which happened before March 23. Depositions of Gottlieb, Himan and others would be able to answer these questions (if Judge Beaty does not dismiss the civil auits).

Anonymous said...

JinC -
Glad that you are still posting. I will have more to say in a few days when I get caught up on all there is to read. Made it to GB without a mishap (except got lost twice because the local tube station was closed and so became disoriented). Seminar starts tomorrow and still have reading to do. Went to Osborne House on Saturday - if you have never been you must go the next time you are in England.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Nifong should have been aware of the case prior to his ”discovery” of the NTO on the office copier on March 23 due to the cursory coverage in the press, the expected briefings by the DPD of their activity and the general courthouse “buzz” makes perfect sense. The only counterpoint is that Nifong was extraordinarily lazy and utterly incompetent. In spite of his incompetence, however, I agree that others would have made him aware once it was clear that the case was not going to be dropped and it could be useful to him politically. March 16, when Levicy spoke with Himan is the earliest date for the case to have met that threshold.

I disagree that the copier story is critical to the cover-up.

On the contrary, I find the fact that none of the other Durham defendants has claimed that Nifong was responsible for the case from the beginning to be the strongest evidence that Nifong’s copier story is largely true, implausible as that may be.

I believe that the copier story strengthens—rather than weakens, as you suggest—the theory that a frame (or at least a decision to conduct a fishing expedition with a meritless case) was already underway. The easiest excuse for the Durham defendants is to blame everything on Nifong. Inexplicably, they have not done so.

As a result, the Durham defendants may be forced to explain why:

1. The DPD did not assign the highest profile sexual assault case in its history to its special sexual assault crime unit, but rather to a newly assigned sergeant and a rookie investigator.

2. DPD officers made no attempt to conduct a credible investigation for ten days (or longer) from the time Crystal alleged rape on March 14 to Nifong’s first involvement on March 24 (or to his initial briefing on March 27).

3. The DPD failed to supervise the activities of the investigating officers during this pre-Nifong period. The DPD clearly had this responsibility before it was ceded to Nifong on March 24.

4. DPD officers and lawyers and the District Attorney’s office did not question the decision to seek a blatantly unconstitutional NTO without Nifong’s involvements.

5. David Addison made his first highly inflammatory comments regarding the case on March 24, three days prior to Nifong’s initial briefing.

Particularly without Nifong to blame, these activities suggest senior sponsorship. Junior officers do not possess the influence to take these actions without support. An attempt to blame Nifong for these early “mistakes” could partially deflect suspicions that someone more powerful was involved.

Those who try to expand Nifong’s involvement exaggerate his importance. I continue to believe that the frame (or at least a decision to proceed with a meritless case) was already underway without Nifong. Although someone in the DA’s office ultimately must have been willing to prosecute the case (if it went that far), Nifong himself was not a necessary participant.

I believe that Nifong was selected as the scapegoat in the event that something went wrong. Nifong was not part of the elite and thus was easily sacrificed. His political needs and general incompetence made him a willing dupe.


JWM said...

To sceptical,

I'm in agreement with what you say, especially this:

"Another important question: Even if Nifong knew about the charges before March 23, when did he start to DO ANYTHING about them?"

To cks,

Good hearing from you. I'll post on the main page responding more fully to you on July 4.

To JSwift,

I hope sometime down the road you'll agree that what I'm about to say here, and what I'll say in a day or two on the main page, both showed a proper respect for what I’ve no doubt are the comity and truth-seeking which led you to comment.

That said, I take issue with a number of things you say.

For instance, you say you "believe that the copier story strengthens—rather than weakens, as [I] suggest—the theory that a frame (or at least a decision to conduct a fishing expedition with a meritless case) was already underway."

But I've never “suggest[ed]” anything like that. I believe the contrary.

As I said in the post: “the documentation presented to the court to justify its issuance of the NTO is indisputably a frame-up document.”

To all three of you: Thank you for your comments.


Anonymous said...

Somewhat off topic, but anyone who wants to understand some of the deep underpinnings of the DL fiasco should take the time to do a little reading on agitprop, or as it was called on the other side, political action. In particular, read about the post-WWII, cold-war struggles over election results in Italy, Greece, France, etc.

Understanding history informs understanding the present, and there are inescapable parallels to today's domestic politics. In particular, the notion that public opinion can be strongly shaped by relatively few strident voices, and that highly impure motives are often behind orchestrated campaigns to do just that, and recognition of the tactics employed in such a campaign cast things in an entirely different light.