Not only that, but the woman shoplifter, Lisa Hawkins, was arrested on July 9, after police conducted a warrantless search of her home (she was on probation), turned it upside down, and declared they had found “stolen goods”.
She has 127 prior arrests. She will now be dependent upon DA Nifong for the disposition of her case(s).
She will be under tremendous pressure to reach a deal and implicate Elmostafa. If Elmostafa has only a bench trial (no jury), from what we have seen of the relationships between the DA and the judiciary, his conviction may be considered a near-certainty.
Then in turn he will be pressured to change his testimony about Seligman.
Thus the blatant Durham witness intimidation continues unchecked.
Durham cannot reform itself. Only the immediate and highly visible presence of the FBI may work some changes.
FBI field office in N. Carolina :
charlotte.public@ic.fbi.gov

Submit a crime tip to the FBI :
https://tips.fbi.gov/

From the Dept. of Justice site :
“E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.

Quis custodiet ipso custodies According to the criminal complaint, Dunsavage around 6 a.m. on July 15 was on duty in uniform and driving a marked unit when he conducted two traffic stops, Avello said. Dunsavage allegedly took both drivers’ wallets…

http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/471043.html

This is just ridiculous. Does Nifong not realize, that even if he intimidates ElMostafa into silence, there is still plenty of evidence to support Seligmann? Nifong can’t intimidate the ATM photos (showing Seligmann AND ElMostafa’s taxi) or dorm cards, can he?

Your right about the time, and Cheesehead, I suspect you were a jock a long time ago, times, unfortuately have changed. But these are nice kids and if they went outside, they would be discret, remember they already had a ticket at the house for loud parties. Check the old posts, my son told me the boys said Crystal showed up screwed up and the whole story is about her not working and the boys not paying. They assumed she would just go away,it never occurred to them she was CRAZY. The lesson here, why do you pay a hooker? Not for the sex, but for her to LEAVE.

I’d like to know what Nifong and the DC attorneys said to each other in their telephone calls,
and what was said to Judge Bayly by the DC attorneys before the case (judicial misconduct?)

The Finnerty assault charge certainly didn’t warrant the resources that were expended on it and it definitely makes one wonder why Finnerty’s case was given all the extra attention and effort. Hmmmmmm. Conspiracy theorists might actually have something with this one.

This number does not include police officers involved in arrests, etc., but only those actually involved in the prosecution.

There are some cases which used more personnel; but the great majority fits into the 3-6 number.
These cases involve such crimes as carjacking, murder, rape, violent physical assault, theft, etc.

The OJ Simpson trial, by way of making another comparison, used a prosecution staff of three attorneys plus 10 more staff support and attorneys, for a total of 13. That case involved a lengthy jury trial and mountains of complex evidence, and they went up against the “dream team” for the defense.

The Finnerty trial was for a misdemeanor, and involved only, at most, an allegation of shadowboxing. For this, the DC attorney’s office felt it necessary for the prosecution to use a staff of 17 attorneys and support staff.

Congratulations therefore are due to the DC attorney’s office for setting a record in the allocation of resources for the prosecution of a misdemeanor, one which will be hard for any US attorney’s office in the future to excel. (Perhaps we ought to send them a Guinness World Record plaque. . .)

From a public policy standpoint, however, it was ill advised since its effect was to punish Mr. Finnerty for having been the victim of a false criminal accusation and malicious prosecution in Durham, NC.

Since the Durham prosecutors seem to have done their utmost to get arrest, jail, or get convictions for everyone possible (the taxi driver, the AV’s ex-husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, Evans, the police chief’s daughter); one might be pardoned for assuming cooperation here between DC and Durham to achieve the same result for Finnerty.
And that would appear to rise to the level of something else :

“(Conspiracy) is generally established by a number of indefinite acts, each of which, standing alone, might have little weight. But taken collectively, they point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy.”

If the Durham prosecution is malicious and part of a shakedown (of Duke, the players, or anyone else), then DC is now an accomplice to that.

if I were the President I would wait a few months then dismiss the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

There is a quicker remedy than that. DC is a federal jurisdiction. The President can simply commute or pardon the offense, wiping the conviction off the books as unjust.

SteveDinMD: Actually, it would have made better strategic sense to rather have accused the player from the LEAST wealthy families. They would have been the easiest to have convicted since they would have been extremely limited in mounting their legal defense. It would have better served the interests of the False Accuser, as well. Her best chance for a payday would be in filing suit against Duke Universtity, since none of the players — even those from wealthy families — likely owns much himself, and criminal convictions would be the surest route to proving civil liability.

SteveDinMD: The procedural mechanism would be a hearing or hearings on admissability of evidence. At some point I expect the defense to file a motion to hold the photo array identification of the accused to be inadmissable. I would suggest they also move to hold in-court identification by the accuser to be inadmissable, as well, since she has demonstrated absolutely NO independent ability to identify anyone in this case. Assuming these two motions are granted, the judge could be expected to grant a third motion by the defense to dismiss all charges, since there would then be ZERO evidence (dubious or otherwise) against the accused.

SteveDinMD: I take it, then, that you endorse both the process and findings of “fact” in the Scottsboro case. Is that correct?

SteveDinMD: Legally defined, “assault” is the placing of another in immediate apprehension for his or her physical safety. It includes the expectation that one is about to be physically injured. According to the least favorable testimony against Mr. Finnerty, it was alleged that he was throwing “fake punches” toward his accuser, and that he was being verbally abusive. Verbal abuse is generally considered “free speech,” protected in accordance with the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. If the alleged punches were known to the accuser to be fake, then they fail to rise to the standard of causing “apprehension.” Finnerty should therefore have been acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.

Was the prosecution legitimate? In a technical sense it probably was because revocation of a diversion agreement is at the sole discretion of the prosecutor. From a public policy standpoint, however, it was ill advised since its effect was to punish Mr. Finnerty for having been the victim of a false criminal accusation and malicious prosecution in Durham, NC. The D.C. prosecutors should be ashamed of themselves. Seeing this travesty, if I were the President I would wait a few months then dismiss the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Unjust prosecutors should never be tolerated.

Cheers,
Greg

P.S. La Shawn doesn’t like the word “p!$$ed”. Just FYI.