Some surgeons use laser instruments to cut and dissolve tissue.
I kept thinking about that as I read KC Johnson’s latest post: “Boasting of Closed-Mindedness.”
If you’ve scrubbed, you’re welcome to join the rest of us who in a few minutes will go into the O.R. to observe KC.
According to the schedule, when we enter KC should be making a few, quick, final cuts into Duke President Richard H. Brodhead’s large spineless area. Brodhead is under general anesthesia, so of course he can’t say anything about Duke lacrosse.
KC will next turn to the patient scheduled for major surgery today, Michael Nifong of Durham, North Carolina. For part of the operation KC will team with another fine surgeon who recently joined us, Jason Trumpbour of Friends of Duke University.
Patient Nifong has been rushed to surgery because of severe credibility problems and hemorrhaging indictments. Most people think Nifong is a hopeless case, but with surgeons like KC and Trumpbour, I guess we can always hope.
Let’s go in.
Look, there’s KC. And Trumpbour will join KC once he's finished putting on his gloves and mask :
Duke president Richard Brodhead—having declined to protest a system in which local authorities refuse to follow their own procedures when investigating his own institution's students—now has publicly claimed that three Duke students will have the opportunity “to be proved innocent” in a situation that “only the criminal justice system can resolve.”Isn't that great work Drs. Johnson and Trumpbour are doing!
In the Alice-in-Wonderland world that is Durham justice, such sentiments, which turn American judicial philosophy on its head, are all too common—as in a peculiar editorial from the Durham Herald-Sun, which praised D.A. Mike Nifong for stating at a recent press conference,“I have not backed off from my initial assessment of the case.” This comment provided a “boost of confidence” to those, like the Herald-Sun editorial board, who support Nifong.
Following up on several posts from John in Carolina, which have raised serious doubts about the Herald-Sun’s journalistic integrity, a recent letter to the editor by Friends of Duke University spokesperson Jason Trumpbour eviscerated the editorial. As Trumpbour noted, the editors “stated that Nifong ‘still believes he has a good case’ and find that significant for some reason. Yet, Nifong apparently lacks the courage of those convictions.
After ramrodding evidence through a hopelessly backlogged SBI crime lab and racing to get indictments before the election, Nifong is now trying to postpone the day of reckoning until next spring. Nifong refused to even look at any of the exculpatory evidence proffered to him by the defense.
This action violated North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8 which prohibits a prosecutor from avoiding ‘pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case.’ In hiding his eyes from that evidence, Nifong abdicated the responsibilities of the office to which he was appointed and should have no further claim to it.”
You can watch the rest of "the operation" here.
I'm sorry but I have to go now. I want to watch some JinC Regulars do out-patient truth implants at the Editor's Blog clinic.
Come over later and watch some of that here.
Before you go, a final word: Blog "medical" ethics require that I tell you KC and Friends of Duke University frequently link to JinC
3 comments:
John,
You are doing heroic work in this case. Like the Edenton "child molestation" hoax, the State of North Carolina once again is going all out to convict people of "crimes" that never were committed.
I truly am thankful for the blogs, without which it would be much more difficult for the defendants to get out the truth. You are keeping the pressure on Nifong, who in my opinion needs to be sharing a prison cell with the Edenton and Alan Gell prosecutors.
I have written a number of pieces on this subject for the Lewrockwell.com website. Lew Rockwell has been generous enough to support me as I go after Nifong and company. Of course, I could not do it without the important information I pick up on the other blogs such as yours.
Bill Anderson
DIRTY DEEDS—BUT THEY DON’T COME CHEAP
(Indiscretions or Outright Lies?)
1) Nifong affidavit, before the DNA evidence came back negative: “The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim.”
2) Nifong Apr 11: “I would not be surprised condoms were used.” This statement made despite having the Duke medical reports in hand wherein the complainant clearly and repeatedly said no condoms were used.
3) Nifong’s Mar 31 videoed “chokehold demonstration” after the complainant, in at least one medical exam interview, had indicated that she was not choked and after Nifong’s Mar 30 CBS video interview where he did not list the charge of Felonious Strangulation (that charge was previously dropped by Nifong).
4) Nifong’s statements with regard to a date rape drug being ingested by the complainant despite the fact that he knew he nor the DPD nor anyone at Duke Medical ordered a toxicity screen to be performed on the complainant which would prove or disprove the presence of a date rape drug. Further, he made the date rape drug statements despite the fact that he knew (or should have known) that the complainant was drinking (and may have been taking Flexeril) in the late hours of Mar 13.
5) Nifong’s “Blue Wall of Silence” and “Duke Daddies can buy them expensive lawyers” statements regarding the Duke Lax players made immediately after the three team captains voluntarily provided: DNA samples, written statements and hours of interviews, the names of the people at the party, volunteered to take polygraph exams, and assisted in the gathering of evidence in their house (all without benefit of council).
6) Nifong said, as late as Mar 30 or Mar 31, he was unaware of the identity of the individual that placed the 911 call on Mar 14. The Durham Police Department knew the identity of that caller on Mar 14.
7) Nifong’s statement on Apr 11: “My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke Hospital.” (This statement made immediately following the release to the public that the DNA evidence failed to match any Duke player.) This statement made notwithstanding the fact that Nifong had the following in hand at the time: all of the Duke medical reports, the Jarriel Johnson narrative of the complainant’s activities leading up to March 14, the DNA test results, the knowledge that the DNA was positive for an (possibly) unknown person at the time. It is not possible for Nifong to have based his “conviction” on the Duke medical examination given the evidence he had in hand at that time.
8) This following Cheek’s announcement that he would not run for DA’s office: Nifong said Cheek, former sheriff Roland Leary and state juvenile justice official Ed Pope had visited him to offer unsolicited advice "on a matter that had arisen during the campaign on which they had an opinion with respect to how it should be handled. …” Listeners assumed Nifong was referring to the Duke Lax Case. Upon hearing the Nifong comments Leary said that the meeting "had nothing to do with the lacrosse matter. We're not magicians or soothsayers. At that time, we had no way of knowing the lacrosse matter was going to happen. …” Leary said this, of course, because the meeting occurred prior to the Mar 13 Duke Lax incident.
9) Nifong has never told the public of the complainant’s recantation of the rape allegation.
10) Investigator Himan (under the supervision of Nifong) included the following (false) sworn statement in a probable cause affidavit issued March 23 in support of an Identification Order that compelled 46 members of the Duke lacrosse team to give DNA samples and submit to being photographed: "Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience."
It is impossible for the subpoenaed medical records and interviews to have been in the possession of Himan or Nifong on March 23 because the Duke medical records (obtained by Himan via Himan’s subpoena) were not printed by Duke Medical until March 30 and Himan did not pick them up at Duke Medical until April 5. Further, the Duke medical records released to date are entirely inconsistent with Himan’s statement in the affidavit. (Note: the same probable cause language was included in a later March 27 probable cause affidavit.)
Footnote: Most, if not all, of the above falsehoods have been reported earlier by a number of reporters and commentators. The above is meant to be a ready reference compendium of the apparent DA Nifong falsehoods to date. They do not include the manifold rogue DA unethical extrajudicial public comments, other systematic violations of NC Bar Ethics Code 3.6 and 3.8, possible prosecutorial misconduct and violations of procedural norms.
ME
John and JinC Readers,
I have updated the list of Nifong Falsehoods (Dirty Deeds). The updated list is available at LieStoppers here:
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/08/our-collective-voice-2-me.html
ME
Post a Comment