Lying whore.

[Beadalin]

Check out item #123 in Nifong’s response:

Defendant admits that the initial medical report indicates that the victim advised that a condom had not been used. However, based upon defendant’s experience, he has learned that a complaining witness rarely ever knows whether a condom was used in a sexual assault and as such, he denies any allegations … that his comments were misleading and futhermore, [he] alleges that his comments are consistent with the opinion of the SANE nurse who examined the victim.

God, what a fuckchop.

[Contrapuntal]

@Beadalin

Check out item #123 in Nifong’s response:

God, what a fuckchop.

Especially considering that, upon further review, it is quite within the realm of possibility that the complainant was extremely knowledgeable about condoms, both on and off. And, oh yeah, another defense motion has been filed claiming even more DNA evidence was withheld. This gal was DNA stew.

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/ Scroll down.

[Xema]

Pretty good confirmation today that there’s more than one liar in this case:
DA Mike Nifong, in a 16 Jan letter to the NC State Bar, on the subject of a 10 April meeting to discuss DNA test results:

I can only report that I have no recollection of that meeting and that I have no documentation or other evidence that I ever attended such a meeting.

This despite the purpose of the meeting being tests of evidence in an extremely high-profile case, despite notes from two police officers that he was at that meeting, and despite sworn testimony, given on 15 Dec in the presence of Nifong, from Brian Meehan (head of the DNA lab) that mentioned Nifong’s presence at the meeting.
But there’s more - here’s Nifong later in the same letter, speaking of Meehan:

He also discussed with us the results of the tests he had performed since our April 10, 2006, meeting.

The significance is that the lacrosse indictments came after this meeting, at which (it’s now known) the lab tests revealed that no DNA from any lacrosse player had been found on the accuser, though DNA from multiple other males was found. Nifong is under investigation for unethical prosecution, and thus has a strong interest in avoiding the implication that he proceeded with indictments of individuals whom he knew were not linked to any crime by any evidence.

[catsix]

And people are still calling her ‘the accuser’ instead of Crystal Gail Mangum, the liar who tried to ruin forty six lives.

[Huerta88]

@catsix

And people are still calling her ‘the accuser’ instead of Crystal Gail Mangum, the liar who tried to ruin forty six lives.

Update: Well at least one enabler is still sipping the Kool-Aid and resolving the question in favor of the Lying Whore – check out the comments of women’s advocate Leah Oettinger (beginning on page 2 below):

EXCLUSIVE: Duke Lacrosse Accuser Not Answering Investigators' Key Questions

Amazing. Does someone like that just not realize how much she discredits real rape victims by contuining to give aid and comfort to a whore who everyone knows is lying (indeed, who even seem to be acknowledging as much tacitly by refusing to talk any further to investigators – maybe she’ll eventually plead the Fifth)?

Seriously, does this dumb broad actually believe there is a scintilla of a chance Crystal Mangum isn’t a lying whore? If not, then why continue trying to give her excuses and breathe life into this ridiculous allegation? Is the sisterhood so strong that she fears exclusion from the Womyn’s Study conferences if she says, yep, this crazy whore’s a liar? What is inconsistent with being a strong advocate for real rape victims and at the same time saying, yeah, but this is a lying whore psycho bitch who doesn’t deserve such advocacy? Is she still hung up on the “women don’t lie about rape” dogma when it’s obvious that sometimes they do (and here, did)?

You can quit defending the ditch, Leah, the rest of your platoon retreated six months ago.

[Ponder_Stibbons]

Since this has come back to life, NC AG Cooper, who has taken over the case as noted earlier in this thread, toured the so-called “lacrosse party house” yesterday.

My guess is that Cooper knows full well the case is full of shit, but as state AG he has to put in a good show, so he’ll investigate it thoroughly – which is a good thing. Assuming he eventually drops all charges, he doesn’t want to be open to accusations that he acted too hastily or in reaction to political pressure.

[Contrapuntal]

@Ponder Stibbons

Since this has come back to life, NC AG Cooper, who has taken over the case as noted earlier in this thread, toured the so-called “lacrosse party house” yesterday.

Here’s the *News and Observer *version of the story, from which I assume the AP link was derived. It includes this gem –

Late last year, Nifong dropped rape charges after the 28-year-old accuser changed a key detail of her account of the alleged attack.

The “key detail” being that, upon reflection, she is not sure if, in fact, it *was *a penis that the guy stuck in her mouth and made her suck.

Oh, wait, now that she ponders it a bit further, that guy that stuck a penis/not penis in her mouth never actually touched her. On account of him getting married and all. And these may be modern times and all, and Lord knows a Duke athlete is a hell of a catch, but a girl’s gotta draw the line somewhere. Watching while your buddies rape, beat and strangle a stripper for a half an hour is on *this *side of the line. Actually *touching *the skank? EEEWWWWW!

[Xema]

From Huerta’s link:

“She probably feels very beat up by the system. If you don’t have a sense of trust in the system, then you’re certainly not going to be forthcoming,” said Leah Oettinger, an advocate most recently with the Durham Crisis Response Center. “Even just with the vicious attacks on the Web and her picture on TV. … The trauma, the lack of trust that anyone’s going to be there for you, fear of being alone — all of that could contribute to someone’s reluctance to talk.”

Another thing that might contribute is the knowledge that in fact no crime was committed and all your various preceding statements were outright lies.

As far as I can tell, this entire 4-page ABC News article never goes so far as to suggest the obvious: the best (only?) explanation for all that’s now known is that this case was a hoax from the beginning.

[straight_man]

So, not to hijack, but has this earned a record yet for most-resurrected non-zombie thread in SDMB history. 'Cuz if it isn’t, then, I mean, daaaaaamn.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@straight man

So, not to hijack, but has this earned a record yet for most-resurrected non-zombie thread in SDMB history. 'Cuz if it isn’t, then, I mean, daaaaaamn.

Well, better to have one dragged-out thread than twenty sporadic ones as this story plays out.

[essell]

If someone ever suggests banning RO threads, just point them to these 34 pages.

[Liberal]

I’m not sure this qualifies as RO. There’ve been strong opinions on both sides. A lot has come out about which jaw, the left or the right, people’s knees are more likely to smash. It really isn’t just about one particular delusional bitch who shat upon her own karma. It’s about the serendipity of bigotry, and the surprising ways in which it can manifest.

[wring]

@straight man

So, not to hijack, but has this earned a record yet for most-resurrected non-zombie thread in SDMB history. 'Cuz if it isn’t, then, I mean, daaaaaamn.

well, it should help weed out the drive by comments -we can always demand “did you read the whole thread? we covered that back in the twenties…”

and, no, I wouldn’t call this “RO” thread, since even the OP was suggesting that the news story had it wrong. Had it been a traditional RO thread, it would have had the stance of “rich white boys are racist punks”, not challenging the original take on the story.

[Contrapuntal]

It is worth noting that the LAX party took place over one year ago.

What is an RO thread?

[wring]

Recreational Outrage, you know, where a poster posts a link to some news story about some Sick Fuck Du Jour doing something horrible to children, the elderly, kitttens or puppies.

[Liberal]

@Contrapuntal

It is worth noting that the LAX party took place over one year ago.

What is an RO thread?

What Wring said, plus the fact that Recreation Outrage threads have an MPSIMS quality about them in that no one is likely to come in and oppose the OP. There aren’t many “The child had it coming” posts.

[wring]

@Liberal

What Wring said, plus the fact that Recreation Outrage threads have an MPSIMS quality about them in that no one is likely to come in and oppose the OP. There aren’t many “The child had it coming” posts.

but that puppy was just askin’ for it.

one other point for the RO threads is the opportunity for posters to showcase their own superiority as humans by posting creative torture punishments for the Sick Fuck Du Jour. obviously doing something disgusting to a human is only ok in certain circumstances. but I digress.

[Caridwen]

@wring

but that puppy was just askin’ for it.

one other point for the RO threads is the opportunity for posters to showcase their own superiority as humans by posting creative torture punishments for the Sick Fuck Du Jour. obviously doing something disgusting to a human is only ok in certain circumstances. but I digress.

There have been interesting discussions that have come out of RO threads. It’s not always just about the puppy or Sick Fuck Du Jour but the side issues like the legal system, how it was investigated, etc. That’s one of the reasons Court TV is so popular, it’s less about the crime and more to do with the whole process.

[Contrapuntal]

Things are not looking up for Nifong.

NC State Bar’s response to Nifong.

KC Johnson’s take. Quoted with permission.

Monday, March 19, 2007
The Bar’s Devastating Response to Nifong

The N&O has posted the Bar’s response to Mike Nifong’s memorandum of law to dismiss some of the ethics complaint against him. It astutely describes the Nifong memorandum as asking the Bar “to undertake statutory construction, interpretation of case law, and semantic hair-splitting.”

A basic summary.

1.) Nifong’s defense appears geared more toward possible criminal allegations than to answering the Bar’s complaint that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In its response, the Bar notes that Rule 3.8 requires a prosecutor to disclose all evidence in a timely fashion, and that “a prosecutor’s compliance or non-compliance with statute, constitutional provision, or court order is not determinative of whether disclosure under former Rule 3.8 was ‘timely.’” In other words, Nifong’s memorandum is attempting to prove that the DA didn’t violate the Constitution when he entered into an agreement with Dr. Meehan to withhold exculpatory evidence. Yet he doesn’t even try to address the question of whether his behavior violated the Bar’s rules.

Indeed, the Bar contends that Nifong’s conduct regarding the DNA evidence (along with the arguments presented in his defense) violate the “plain language” of North Carolina law. Under the statute, the Bar’s response observes, “the issue is not whether a defendant is able to surmise—from a massive amount of raw data—whether the expert uncovered potentially exculpatory evidence, but whether a ‘report of the results’ was furnished to the defendant by the State.”

2.) A report is a report.

The Bar’s response dismissed Nifong’s absurd argument that in handing over—months after the fact and under court order—the underlying data from Dr. Meehan’s DNA tests, he was complying with a statutory requirement to hand over a report on all tests performed by expert witnesses of the state.

3.) Nifong’s no-trial rule makes no sense.

The response also dismisses Nifong’s “proposed bright-line rule” that because no trial date had been set, he didn’t have to turn over the exculpatory evidence. As the Bar notes, “This argument conflates the issue of whether a constitutional violation occurred with the issue of whether such a violation is grounds for reversal of a conviction.” Nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct suggest that the rules kick in only once a judge sets a trial date.

4.) Nifong fails his own constitutional test.

In a devastating passage, the Bar notes that Nifong misread a Supreme Court decision—United States v. Argurs—that figured prominently in his memorandum. In Argurs, the Bar noted, “the U.S. Supreme Court carefully distinguished between situations in which the defendant makes either a generic request for exculpatory matter or no request at all, and instances “in which specific information has been requested by the defense,” and that “when the prosecutor receives a specific and relevant request, the failure to make any response is seldom, if ever, excusable.” In this case, of course, the defendants repeatedly requested the DNA material, Nifong repeatedly denied that any more test results existed. Nifong, therefore, violated with Argurs test—the very test his own memorandum had proposed—and with it, violated the Constitution.

5.) Lying to the court ought not be rewarded.

The Bar takes strong issue with Nifong’s argument that because both Judge Stephens and Judge Smith didn’t order him to memorialize his conversations with Dr. Meehan, neither he nor any other law enforcement official had to do so. “It is worth noting,” the response correctly recalls, “that the content of each Order was based on Nifong’s misrepresentations to the Court as alleged in the Amended Complaint. Therefore, Nifong is effectively arguing that he can make false statements to a court which result in the entry of an order, and then use the order that is based on his misrepresentations to claim he committed no discovery violation.” Such an approach would undermine the system of justice.

Nifong, in short, is arguing that his “successful deception of the Court” immunized him from any future ethics charges for his having lied to the Court in the first place.

6.) Nifong is still violating the law.

As the Bar’s response points out, North Carolina law “is unambiguous: Anyone subject to an NTO must be given any report of test results as soon as such a report is available.” Yet as of today, Nifong has never provided the relevant information to the 43 unindicted players, and he certainly didn’t provide it to the three indicted players as soon as the information was available.

In devastating fashion, the Bar concludes that Nifong wants the Disciplinary Hearings Commission to conclude “that it violates none of the Rules of Professional Conduct for him to:

(1) discuss and be keenly aware of potentially exculpatory DNA test results and direct or agree that those results would not be contained in a report provided to indicted defendants and other named suspects, and

(2) successfully and repeatedly deceive courts into entering orders finding falsely that he had had no previous discussions about these potentially exculpatory DNA test results, because . . .

. . . over five months later and pursuant to a court order to compel, he ultimately provided the defendants almost 2,000 pages of underlying data without any report. In essence Defendant argues that, court orders and very specific discovery requests notwithstanding, he had absolute discretion to withhold potentially exculpatory information of which he was fully aware until some unspecified time prior to trial without violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. Defendant’s contention that he was under no obligation to provide the information because no trial date was set necessarily implies that he was also entitled to withhold and never disclose potentially exculpatory information in any case that settled prior to trial. These precepts, if accepted, would apply not only to Defendant but to all other prosecutors and must be rejected.

Unanswerable.

From here.

[HubZilla]

So it appears Nifong is going to be punished. Will Tawana Brawley II also be punished in some way… or will that be left to civil courts?