# Lying whore. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153 "2006-04-10T22:26:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 82
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1621 "2007-01-12T23:29:12Z")
[QUOTE=Geobabe] News: [Nifong has asked to be recused.](http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2791514) [/QUOTE] Well well well. All that is left is for the AG to appoint another prosecutor. I wonder how long it will take him to determine that this case is BS, and how long after that he drops the charges. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2007, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1622 "2007-01-13T00:01:17Z")
More stuff! After meeting with Mangum for three hours Friday, Nifong served her with a subpoena compelling her to testify at the February 5th hearing. His only witness. His _only evidence_, as he has freely admitted, has to be forced to testify. > **[Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News...](https://www.foxnews.com/)** > > Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from FOXNews.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2007, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1623 "2007-01-13T00:45:45Z")
Even more stuff! That seems to contradict other stuff! Is Nifong insane? He claims that Mangum still wants to pursue the case. What the hell was the subpoena about? Is it a formality? Do DAs normally subpoena complaining witnesses? > [@](#): > > If the attorney general’s office agrees to take the case, it will remove a prosecutor who has been a lightning rod for criticism. The district attorney’s request also indicates that the accuser still wants to press ahead with the case. From the New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/sports/12cnd-duke.html?hp&ex=1168664400&en=03e2c8fad0bd02a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/sports/12cnd-duke.html?hp&ex=1168664400&en=03e2c8fad0bd02a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2007, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1624 "2007-01-13T01:20:43Z")
> [@](#): > > “The decision by the university to readmit the students, especially just before a critical judicial decision on the case, is a clear use of corporate power, and a breach, I think, of ethical citizenship,” former dean Karla Holloway wrote to Duke’s black faculty caucus. “Despite our judgments about the prosecutors own lack of principled conduct, it is not ours to become the judge or subvert the process.” How does Duke acting in accordance with the presumption of innocence “subvert the process?” If we admit that the whole prosecution “process” has not been the least bit “principled,” why on Earth would we want/need to avoid subverting it? And since when is it the job of Duke to piously exalt form over substance? How does Duke’s admissions decision “subvert” the judicial process in any way, dumbfuck? She is furious for one and only one reason: Duke has ceased its gratuitous punishment and ostracism of the victims. She \*\*liked it \*\*when they were being punished and ostracized gratuitously. Nasty bitch, that one. > [@](#): > > David Freedman, a lawyer hired by Nifong to represent him before the bar, said Friday a preliminary hearing on those charges is set for January 24 in Raleigh. The bar has also scheduled a hearing for May 11. > > Freedman criticized Nifong on national television in the early weeks of the case, saying the prosecutor had made “potentially unethical statements.” He told The News & Observer of Raleigh on Friday he regretted the remarks. Even his own lawyer thought he was an unethical sleaze (till he started getting paid). I really hope new charges are added on Jan. 24. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2007, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1625 "2007-01-13T01:44:40Z")
. . . and the new lawyer loses no time distinguishing himself as an idiot: > [@](#): > > “He feels, as a result of the accusations against him, that he would be a distraction and he wants to make sure the accuser receives a fair trial,” attorney David Freedman told The Associated Press. “He still believes in the case. He just believes his continued presence would hurt her.” Hey dumbfuck, is stupid contagious from your client? “Make sure the accuser receives a fair trial?” Problem is **Lying Whore Crystal Mangum is not (unfortunately) on trial.** The prosecution is not (cannot be) about the accuser – it’s about the guilt or innocence of the suspects (who are presumed innocent). He’s got it just as backward as his dumbfuck client Nifong. Nifong’s quote about Lying Whore Crystal’s desire to go forward with the case shows what a moron he is. WTF does her desire to go ahead (or not go ahead) with the case have to do with anything? “Well, I can’t quit because my LW complainant doesn’t want me to.” If the case is meritless (and has any case ever had less merit?), how the fuck do you even ask whether the accuser wants to go forward with it? What about the obligation to use independent prosecutorial discretion? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1626 "2007-01-17T07:59:38Z")
[http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/](http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/) > [@](#): > > **An Open Letter to the Duke Community** > In the spring of 2006, the Duke community was rocked by terrible news. We heard that a woman hired to perform at a party thrown by our lacrosse team had accused members of the team of raping her. Neighbors, we were told, heard racial epithets called out at the woman as she departed the party. The criminal proceedings and the media frenzy which followed are perhaps beginning to wind down. For us at Duke, the issues raised by the incident, and by our community’s responses to it, are not. > > In April, a group of Duke faculty members published an advertisement in The Chronicle. The ad, titled “What does a Social Disaster Sound Like?” was mostly a compilation of statements made by Duke students in response to the incident and its immediate aftermath. This ad has figured in many discussions of the event and of the University’s response. It has been broadly, and often intentionally, misread. We urge everyone to read the original ad, available at [http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm](http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm). We have. Some of us were among the ad’s signers. > > The ad has been read as a comment on the alleged rape, the team party, or the specific students accused. Worse, it has been read as rendering a judgment in the case. We understand the ad instead as a call to action on important, longstanding issues on and around our campus, an attempt to channel the attention generated by the incident to addressing these. We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence. > > As a statement about campus culture, the ad deplores a “Social Disaster,” as described in the student statements, which feature racism, segregation, isolation, and sexism as ongoing problems before the scandal broke, exacerbated by the heightened tensions in its immediate aftermath. The disaster is the atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus. The ad’s statement that the problem “won’t end with what the police say or the court decides” is as clearly true now as it was then. Whatever its conclusions, the legal process will not resolve these problems. > > The ad thanked “the students speaking individually and…the protesters making collective noise.” We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence. > > There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character. We reject all of these. We think the ad’s authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real. We also acknowledge the pain that has been generated by what we believe is a misperception that the authors of the ad prejudged the rape case. > > We stand by the claim that issues of race and sexual violence on campus are real, and we join the ad’s call to all of us at Duke to do something about this. We hope that the Duke community will emerge from this tragedy as a better place for all of us to live, study, and work. Well, I’m glad they care about “students . . . whose suffering is real.” Oh, wait, they **weren’t** talking there about Seligmann, Evans, or Finnerty. I guess they forgot – their “suffering” pales in comparison to the anguished rape fantasies of the poor women’s studies majors or whoever the fuck they think their referring to . . . . Dumbfucks. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1627 "2007-01-17T10:06:31Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] [http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/](http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/) Well, I’m glad they care about “students . . . whose suffering is real.” Oh, wait, they **weren’t** talking there about Seligmann, Evans, or Finnerty. I guess they forgot – their “suffering” pales in comparison to the anguished rape fantasies of the poor women’s studies majors or whoever the fuck they think their referring to . . . . Dumbfucks. [/QUOTE] This is clearly a case of CYA. The original ad thanked the protesters for their involvement. Among other things, some protesters held up huge signs saying “RAPIST” and “CONFESS” and my personal favorite, “CASTRATE.” A professor is currently being sued for grade retaliation. This professor had referred to her students (LAX players) as enablers of rape. If the case falls apart the way it seems it will, the administration and some faculty members could be on the line for millions in damages. [K C Johnson’s take.](http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1628 "2007-01-17T11:15:40Z")
K.C.J. is as usual on point and super-timely. I don’t know about CYA. As K.C. points out, several of the original 88 have drifted off – and they have recruited new converts to this sinking ship! I also am not sure about the realistic possibility for personal liability for any of those faculty fuckers. City of Durham – definitely. Nifong – God, I hope he and his children (if any) are slammed with such a civil judgment that they spend the rest of their lives begging outside of a Circle K for ninety cents to buy a Slim Jim. Duke: more borderline. But, as you point out, the retaliation claims (which are by players other than the defendants) might pose different issues. Reason I’m skeptical about the CYA hypothesis: because this follow-up is just so damned . . . coyly arrogant and non-contrite. Other than one or two token and opaque references to the presumption of innocence, there is nothing truly apologetic or remedial here, and no mention of the gross miscarriage of justice (nor the stupidity of those who, in Durham and here, believed Lying Whore Crystal). It really recapitulates the early-2006 attitude of “Even if nothing happened, that’s all the more reason that Lying Whore Crystal Mangum and the race-baiters among the Durham black community and the Duke women’s studies world ought to be given center stage and forgiven for any regrettable embarrassing circumstances, because their suffering is real and paramount regardless of the boring pesky facts.” When I am, rarely, forced to write a CYA memo by work circumstances, I do a Hell of a lot better job of seeming contrite and distancing myself from the original, now-untenable position than this crap . . . . Of course, none of these people are very smart, which I guess is the point. Remember, the Duke economics faculty came out against this stupid cabal, and I’d wager you there are precious few science profs., but plenty of English dept., women’s studies, sociology, and Ethnic Studies savants, among the signatories. Nah, I tend to read this more as an “F You” memo to their critics. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1629 "2007-01-18T00:45:13Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] K.C.J. is as usual on point and super-timely. I don’t know about CYA. As K.C. points out, several of the original 88 have drifted off – and they have recruited new converts to this sinking ship! * * * Nah, I tend to read this more as an “F You” memo to their critics. [/QUOTE] You may be right. FWIW, here are a couple of links that address the issue of liability. The first one includes pictures of the rally that the Group of 88 thanked. > **[Is Duke Liable? - LewRockwell](https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/01/william-l-anderson/is-duke-liable/)** > > DIGG THIS Even though the criminal case against the three Duke lacrosse players has not yet been deep-sixed, the lawsuits against Duke University have begun. The family of Kyle Dowd, a lacrosse player who was graduated last spring, filed against the... [http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5701](http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5701) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1630 "2007-01-21T19:16:58Z")
[http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070121/D8MPEI900.html](http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070121/D8MPEI900.html) Nifong’s lawyering up. WTF? Why would an innocent person need a lawyer? Right? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1631 "2007-01-21T19:51:05Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] [http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070121/D8MPEI900.html](http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070121/D8MPEI900.html) Nifong’s lawyering up. WTF? Why would an innocent person need a lawyer? Right? [/QUOTE] Especially one who said this on the Abrams Report, April 19. > [@](#): > > You had a district attorney coming out and making potentially unethical statements, saying he believed a crime occurred, which he should not do. He should not be commenting on the evidence. He took an adversarial position from the start. > > ``` > We had a situation recently in Winston-Salem that could have been racially divisive represented, Wake Forest, black football player, white female student. If the D.A. who was actually a former Duke lacrosse player himself, Jim O'Neill, had taken the position and come out strong like Mr. Nifong had that something definitely occurred and sort of played the race card, it would have been very racially divisive . . . > > It's not the D.A.'s job to get a conviction. It's the D.A.'s job to make sure justice is done, to make the truth is found out and rather than rushing and doing indictments two weeks before the primary is held, he should carefully—and because once you charge someone with offenses like this—I do a number of sex offenses—once the charge is brought, that's something that will tar these two students the rest of their lives, whether the charges are dismissed, whether they're acquitted, there will always be questions about that and it's just a D.A. should take his time and make a careful determination and look at all of the evidence and if he hadn't taken such a strong stand, he would have been able to view this evidence and the timeline beforehand before making this—going to the grand jury. > > ``` More here. [Durham-in-Wonderland: A Lawyer for Nifong](http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/lawyer-for-nifong.html) ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1632 "2007-01-22T01:52:16Z")
I was watiching the 60 Minutes interview with the parents of the accused. All of them say basically the same thing. “When will it end???” My question is why not demand your constitutional right to speedy trial??? The government filed it’s charges so long ago, they cannot claim to be unprepared. If I was one these kid’s defense attorney, I couldn’t _wait_ to get this in front of a jury. There’s no way in hell the prosecution can convict. There has been too much change in the accuser’s story. She has a history of mental illness and medication. There was an improper ID from the photo array. There’s no DNA evidence linking the accused to anything. There IS DNA linking other, unknown individuals. 2 of the accused have good alibis for the original time frame of the accuser’s story. If the accused demand a trial, wouldn’t the State fold? I mean, they know they cannot win, right? Right? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1633 "2007-01-22T09:16:46Z")
[QUOTE=spooje] I was watiching the 60 Minutes interview with the parents of the accused. All of them say basically the same thing. “When will it end???” My question is why not demand your constitutional right to speedy trial??? The government filed it’s charges so long ago, they cannot claim to be unprepared. If I was one these kid’s defense attorney, I couldn’t _wait_ to get this in front of a jury. There’s no way in hell the prosecution can convict. There has been too much change in the accuser’s story. She has a history of mental illness and medication. There was an improper ID from the photo array. There’s no DNA evidence linking the accused to anything. There IS DNA linking other, unknown individuals. 2 of the accused have good alibis for the original time frame of the accuser’s story. If the accused demand a trial, wouldn’t the State fold? I mean, they know they cannot win, right? Right? [/QUOTE] The problem is that the prosecution is back to square one now that Nifong has been recused. The new prosecutors have to go over all the evidence and conduct their own interviews. There was a hearing scheduled for February fifth, to determine the validity of the photo ID, that will probably be postponed. The accuser was going to have to testify at that hearing, and many feel that she will refuse to do so. My guess is that all charges will be dropped once the prosecution has finished its perusal of the evidence, which, given Nifong’s new theory of the events of March 13, consists entirely of Mangums’s testimony. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1634 "2007-01-22T17:10:17Z")
[QUOTE=spooje] My question is why not demand your constitutional right to speedy trial??? The government filed it’s charges so long ago, they cannot claim to be unprepared. If I was one these kid’s defense attorney, I couldn’t _wait_ to get this in front of a jury. [/QUOTE] The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is, IIRC, applied differently in different states (usually by statute, I think). For instance, my friend the assistant DA has I think 180 days to get a case to trial following indictment. But a number of things can stop the clock ticking. One may be delays occasioned by defense counsel, into which category would probably fall evidentiary motions such as the ones theke guys have been bringing to find out exactly what enormities Nifong has committed and then suppress the bogus “evidence” such as the lineup. As much as you are right that any intelligent jury should see through this, there’s always a chance of a jury going haywire (especially with the racial politics that has been injected here – would you bet your life that it was impossible for a heavily black jury in Durham to “send a message” by convicting even if they were convinced Lying Whore Crystal Mangum was lying? Note the recent defiant posture of the Duke faculty – they’re still “standing behind their principle,” whatever that is, and won’t come out and call the Lying Whore a liar, and they have Ph. D.s, which your average juror won’t). No, you can’t let your guy go out before a jury if there’s any way to stop it – and here there are a number of ways to do that. What should have happened, of course, was that charges were never brought, as a result of the prosecutor’s inherent discretion not to believe bogus allegations. Because Nifong is a dumbfuck, that didn’t happen. Perhaps the new prosecutors will be marginally less dumbfucks and will throw this piece of crap out after a decent interval. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1635 "2007-01-24T14:48:41Z")
The state bar has added ethics charges to its complaint against Nifong. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16786991/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16786991/) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1636 "2007-01-24T14:58:50Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] The state bar has added ethics charges to its complaint against Nifong. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16786991/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16786991/) [/QUOTE] What a scumbag. I am not sure these charges cover all his misdeeds, but I hope they will suffice to get him disbarred. Yet as Durham In Wonderland still reports, there are (unbelievably) still some supporters of Nifong and Lying Whore Crystal. > **[Durham-in-Wonderland](https://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/)** > > Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014). I don’t even know if the OP has checked in in recent months, but he was attacked for the title of his post, and I even said (early on), something to the effect that I regretted the harshness of his post title and did not buy into it. OP, I apologize. Crystal Mangum is lying. She is a whore. Nifong is lying. He is a whore. Sorry, man. I await the similar apology from all the others who attacked you. Crickets chirp. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1637 "2007-01-24T19:55:31Z")
Here’s the amended Bar grievance paper. > **[New Ethics Charges For Nifong](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/new-ethics-charges-nifong)** > > JANUARY 24--Mike Nifong, the embattled North Carolina district attorney who recently stepped down from the Duke rape case, was hit today with new ethics charges related to his botched handling of the They don’t even go into the phony lineup. But they slam him. Re-reading the chronology (including his brazen lies to the Grievance Committee itself after the initial filing in December) makes you shake your head at just what a disgrace to the law this dumbfuck is. Will he be disbarred? Hard to say. Certainly he should. He should be sentenced to serious jail time. I’m not holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1638 "2007-01-25T01:05:02Z")
I can’t believe the withholding of the exculpatory DNA evidence is not illegal enough for disbarrment at the least, and jail at the best. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1639 "2007-01-25T01:47:23Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] I can’t believe the withholding of the exculpatory DNA evidence is not illegal enough for disbarrment at the least, and jail at the best. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] unethical, not necessarily criminal. however, the disbarrment is certain still on the table, since they’re also chargin him w/lying to the court and the Bar investigators (Specifically that he’d turned over all evidence w/potentially exculpitory evidence. Certainly DNA samples that specifically exclude the defendants would routinely be considered potentially exculpitory evidence. not sure how he’dclaim otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1640 "2007-01-25T05:31:28Z")
Apparently, the new prosecutor, Jim Coman, basically did the same damn thing as Nifong when he retried former death row inmate Alan Gell in 2004. Easy enough to look up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=81) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=83)