Sorry to take so long there, Kemp… took me some time to find a link to the letter.

I don’t think the letter helped him a bit. In fact, it was what, three weeks later that the Bar amended its initial complaint to slam him for the DNA shenanigans and the tangled web of comments to the court over several months? He pretty much threw down a challenge, too, telling the Bar the word on the street has been that it’s been waiting to go on a witch hunt of sorts to make an example of a prosecutor. Well, my little pretty — I think they got you, Mikey. And ToTo too?

But in fact any ‘new’ investigation, of any charges, old or new, would be carried out by the same DPD, DA’s office, judges, etc., as before, with the sole exception being the absence of Nifong.

But Nifong did not act alone; his was not a conspiracy of one.

Ergo this would be simply the same attempt at frame-up as before, conducted by the same group as before, in merely a second attempt to get a conviction (for SOMETHING).

Which would be just as illegal as before (and prosecutable).

Hee-hee!!!

Snips: Durham — In a letter to the North Carolina State Bar, the embattled former prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case complains about how grassroots groups are trying to run him out of office.

“Given his conduct, he doesn’t deserve to be in office,” he added. “I got involved in this case, because early on, it became clear to me that these defendants were not getting a fair trial.”

Read more here: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1221259/

The defendants, I’m afraid, could yet face a long, costly ride to resolution. Ironically, they would likely have been far better off had Nifong NOT recused himself. The case would have been headed for trial in the next several weeks in a form well suited to a vigorous, fact-based defense. Now all bets are off. Who knows what charges they might face, and when? It’s truly astonishing that it could cost millions of dollars to defend oneself against allegations that any idiot could see from the outset were bogus on their face.

What, then, is the likely outcome? I believe that all responsible officials are secretly hoping for CGM to disappear. Frankly, this is a real possibility for her. She’s a prostitute living on the edge, and consequently can’t be relied upon to appear promptly for hearings and/or trial. Her untimely death, too, is far from a remote possibility, and would be a welcome relief for all concerned. I therefore expect the SPs to pursue delaying tactics to let such scenarios develop as they may. If CGM does, in fact, show up for an evidentiary hearing (I estimate some time in late Summer), regardless of how badly mauled under cross-examination, I expect the judge to disallow her photo line-up ID, but nevertheless allow an in-court ID by her of the defendants. Though legally incorrect, such a ruling would be politically expedient and correctable by a jury or appellate tribunal — but probably not on an interlocutory basis. It would also kick the can down the road to a trial (next Autumn or Winter?) by which time CGM again might die or otherwise fail to appear. The SPs, however, face risks in going to trial with the current charges in light of their required due dilligence in reviewing the case file. The SPs would face certain humiliation in court (regardless of verdict) and possible Bar sanctions if not careful.

From the standpoint of professional/political triangulation, then, their “best” recourse might be to modify the bill of indictment to reflect charges less explicitly refutable. Theft, Robbery, and/or Assault & Battery would make a MUCH better case for them to prosecute than the one they inherited. That’s not to say that the allegations would be in any way provable. That’s really not the point anymore. The new set of allegations would have the virtue not being explicitly DISprovable, which is all these people need right now to preserve both their professional reputations and political viability. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. The SPs have demonstrated a willingness to prosecute a provably INNOCENT person in the past, so I hold out little hope that they will break with tradition in this case.

Which brings up the question as to why the black Duke student who was arrested for rape of a white freshman did not get charged with kidnap and sexual assault as the Duke 3 were charged. Has he been expelled? Has the fraternity been forced to shut down?

The suspect arrested in this crime was NOT a Duke student. It has not been reported whether he’s a student elsewhere, but I think I would have heard if he was a NCCU or other local college student.

One member of the fraternity lived in the off campus duplex/apartment at 405 Gattis, but the party was thrown by that fraternity. The house is close to some bad sections of that neighborhood, but the suspect was living elsewhere. It looks like it was a fairly open party and some of the wrong people wandered in. Could happen to anyone, and I wouldn’t hold the fraternity to blame.

However, you’re right that the protesters and vigils are conspicuously absent. You’d think the women’s groups would want to raise awareness in any case of rape, but that hasn’t happened yet. It may be that with the lessons of the Nifonged Laxers, people are waiting for the full story to come out, or it may be that with a white AV and a black suspect, they won’t get involved. I won’t jump to conclusions until the case gets further along.

Seahawk, our gov doesn’t appoint the AG to a cabinet; rather, it’s an elected position. Easley would not have had the authority to choose any particular prosecutors from AG Cooper’s staff, although you could speculate he might have made an informal suggestion in a separate communication after Nifong’s recused himself. And you could speculate Cooper might have listened, giving it some weight because Coman and Winstead worked under Easley when he was AG before becoming gov in Jan, 2001.

But it’s just speculation — authority to appoint the two lies in Cooper’s hands. I would have to check the statute books, too, but I’m not recalling any authority in the governor here in NC to appoint anyone from the judiciary or private bar “to review the case…” as, I suppose, a special prosecutor. The statutory process requires a local level DA to request the AG’s office take over a case when the local level DA perceives he/she can’t proceed with a prosecution.

(At this gawdawful hour, though, I’m not going to do any online research to confirm exactly what the statutes say — the golden retreivers have come back in from their, um, business outside…)

TaterCon

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/548945.html

CHARLIE ROSE: He was appointed by you?

MICHAEL EASLEY: Right now. What’s happened is the prosecution team at the attorney general’s office who I know is very, very competent. They’re looking at it, giving a whole fresh look, and they’ll make a determination. And if it is a good case, they’ll try it; if it is not, they’ll dismiss it and be done with it. But I can tell you, the crowd that has it now is going to do the right thing.

(He could have asked any lawyers or judges in NC
to review the case. He–or his AG–chose Coman and Winstead. That says it all…)

Think that letter is going to help his case?

Kemp

My sincere apologies to the All Star Eddie Johnson who was falsely accused on the ‘net where I got the info from. Also my apologies to all the readers of this blog, and my thanks to you for setting me strait. I can sense your anger and outrage about this false accusation.

But the words “falsely accused” echo ever so loudly in the Duke fiasco where three white players have been “falsely accused” by the black dancer/hooker.

With all due respect, while in Eddie Johnson’s case the truth surfaced that it was the wrong Johnson, it did not hurt his career to the extent that the false accusations by the black dancer/hooker have the Duke 3. These 3 are still waiting to have their charges dropped and get on with their lives. Charges of kidnap and sexual assault still loom over their heads with 20 year prison terms if convicted. And there legal fees are in the three million dollar range . . so far.

Which brings up the question as to why the black Duke student who was arrested for rape of a white freshman did not get charged with kidnap and sexual assault as the Duke 3 were charged. Has he been expelled? Has the fraternity been forced to shut down?

The black dancer/hooker has ruined so many lives with her false accusations. The reputation of a first class University, the Duke 3, the LAX team members, the former coach who was forced to resign, and even though I have no sympathy for him, Nifong may be (hopefully) disbarred. The gang of 88 who jumped to conclusions on the say-so of a hooker on drugs and booz, the President of Duke for his actions expelling the players trying to appease the angry mob that were chanting for his head. She is an embarrassment to Jackson and Sharpton who came to her aid, and all the decent, law abiding blacks of the country. The list goes on and on.

Add to the list victims the hooker’s children who were born out of wedlock. Was two, now is three. What type of life can they expect when they grow up with a mother like her? Probably born with a drug habit. She should be arrested and charged with lying to the police for what she has done. Not going to hold my breath on that one.

So, are you as outraged about the false accusation of the Duke 3 case as you are about my error regarding Eddie Johnson?

I sure hope so.

link