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.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie

Readers Note: If you are not familiar with the contents of

Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14

Sceptical’s Response To "Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14"


Sceptical Says Nifong Knew Before Mar. 23

I encourage you to read those posts before reading the one below because it presumes readers are very familiar with the contents of the three posts I just cited and linked to.


On June 15 Sceptical posted "WITNESS TAMPERING, KIM (ROBERTS) PITTMAN & MIKE NIFONG" at Liestoppers Meeting.

The essential element of that post was sceptical’s carefully reasoned conclusion Nifong knew about the Duke lacrosse (DL) case by Mar. 22, 2006.

Since skeptical posted, no one among the disparate group which posts at LM has questioned sceptical’s conclusion; while a number have put up posts based, at least in part, on sceptical’s conclusion Nifong knew on Mar. 22 of the DL case.

As regards my certainty Nifong first learned of what became the DL case on Mar. 14, the same day Crystal Mangum made her false charges, skeptical and others remain - well – skeptical to say the least since I’ve not offered “proof” for my certainty.

I’m confident that “proof” will emerge.

And there I’m content to leave the matter for now.

I appreciate the time and attention skeptical and others spent reading my posts.

I’ve profited from reading sceptical’s posts and those of others as well as the comments here at JinC.

And we’ve all now seen how the Nifong copier “discovery” story implodes under the weight of the evidence of its utter absurdity.

What intelligent person with a reasonable amount of knowledge of the many means by which information and misinformation about the DL case was widely and publicly disseminated throughout Durham between Mar. 14 and Mar. 23, 2006 ( for example, in 2 news stories in the N&O and 2 news stories in The Chronicle) believes - -

Mike Nifong, a DA who had reason to be informed of the case by virtue of his office and a need to be informed because he was locked in a tough primary election battle, went those entire 10 days without ever learning anything about the case until he “discovered” the signed NTO sitting on his office copier?

The Duke undergrads were all reading about the case on Mar. 20 in The Chronicle. But Nifong didn't know?

Back in May 2006 outside the Durham County Courthouse, David Evans warned us we’d all been told “some fantastic lies.” He was right then.

If Evans came back to the courthouse today and said, “You’re all still being told some fantastic lies,” he’d be right now, too.