Monday, August 07, 2006

The Accidental Outcry Witness

There has been so much spin that has come out of the District Attorney’s office, the Durham Police Department and the nonobjective media over the past several months that it has been very difficult to decipher what cards, if any, they have held to support their persecution of the Duke Three. With every statement issued by Mr. Nifong or one of his lackeys, great care must be taken to read between the lines to ascertain the precise meaning of the particularly careful wording chosen.

We have come to learn that hints of toxicology reports indicating the employment of a date rape drug really means that Kim Robert hinted that her dance partner was impaired. We’ve also learned that in order to state that one’s “reading” indicates some conclusion one must not necessarily have had possession of what was read. We’ve been taught that no condoms might mean maybe condoms and that vaginal tearing is just Wendy Murphy's way of saying diffuse edema.

We’ve been informed that a brutal assault leaves no marks and that DNA testing will exonerate the innocent unless they lose the lottery. We’ve learned that a crock really is a pot to cook with or just another name for opportunity. We’ve learned that short and chubby is just another way to describe 6’3” and lean. We’ve learned that gay bashing is really shadow boxing, kicking in the butt doesn’t leave a bruise, that it takes an awful long time to retrieve DNA from a broom and that a towel in THE bathroom is just another way of say a towel outside another bathroom. We’ve learned that John Stevenson doesn’t discourse with readers and that Andrew Cohen prefers not to trifle with disguising his lies as spin.

We’ve learned that $60 acrylic nails are only $5 press-ons. We’ve learned that it’s ok to be the only one with DNA where the drivers park but criminal to have it in your bathroom trash can. We’ve heard tales of immaculate spit and nail washing. We were taught that prosecutors are not bound by ethical constraints at all times and that ATM’s lie. We’ve seen that harassing cabies is cool and rewarding probation violators is even better. We’ve learned that the right to counsel is for wimps and innocent people don’t need lawyers anyway. We’ve heard if they were innocent they’d ask for a speedy trial. Until they do. Lie detectors work the same way too, didn’t you know?

Of all that his been spun our way of the past several months, the most entertaining of the tales spun is the delicate spin, as told by Peter Baker, Linwood Wilson and other members of the nasty bunch, that a story really hasn’t changed even if it appears to have continually evolved from police report to medical report and back and forth again. For a while, it appeared that this pitch was going to be that the false ones story had not really changed but rather that it only appeared to have change becuase it was being relayed by third party police officers and medical professionals.

We have assumed for some time that at some point the inconsistencies would have leveled off and the tale would have some single, consistent, finely edited ready for prime time version. We expected that this point of consistency would have begun with the accusers first, or perhaps only, written version of events. We assumed that this written version would have been molded to coincide with the affidavits used to secure warrants, with the story of the other dancer or at the very least with the words of Mike Nifong subsequent to that imagined moment of consistency.

It appears that we were wrong.

From the details provided in Mr. Neff’s article yesterday we see that the written statement given by the accuser nearly one month after the non-event is every bit as bizarre as the versions that preceded the final cut. To think that the long awaited final version of events would be the 3 attacker and 3 accomplice version that we saw noted earlier was simply perfect for the conclusion of this bizarre drama. To see that this final edition includes not only six culprits but also a witness just outside the door, seemingly for the duration of the entire event, is simply too perfectly absurd. This written version seems to expand significantly upon the version used to acquire the search warrants and also seems to contradict Mr. Nifong’s assurances that there were only three imagined assailants.

The biggest contradiction, however, appears to be with none other than Nifong’s star date rape drug hinter, Kim Roberts. It is with great anticipation that we wait for the spin on how Ms. Roberts being outside really meant inside but outside the bathroom door and how Ms. Roberts waiting in her car for one or two of the Lax players to help a passed out on the back porch dreamer really equates to helping Adam the Short carry the accuser to the car after helping to dress her.

To learn that Ms. Roberts is now an accidental outcry witness is perhaps the biggest surprise. Someone really should have told Ms. Robert’s that she would be starring at trial as the first outcry witness before she gave all those interviews saying she “can’t say a rape occurred - and never will.”


Anonymous said...

That is a Great Article!

And to think Nifong refused every attempt by the Defense to look at exculpatory evidence.

He needs to be removed from this case & investigated!

Anonymous said...

Nikki said, "What happened girl, did they hurt you," I said yes, and she said that she would get help for me [just as soon as she had the chance to prank call 911, drive around for a bit and then find a Kroger cuz you know just cuz you call 911 and didn't ask for help immediately after being asked to doesn't mean you really weren't asked to you it just means you wanted to talk to someone while driving around thinking of where to take the hurt girl. It's nice to have someone to talk to while looking for a rescue Kroger. You can always find help and more Icehouse at the grocery]

Anonymous said...

By "spin" do you mean like when Himan says in an affidavit that KR told him the boys were from the baseball team when really she said lacrosse all along? Or is it like when Himan says in an affidavit that the SANE report he has not yet seen says whatever he wants it to say even when he says it says the opposite of what it really says? What do DPD officers have in common with four year olds? They both get a pass it they cross their fingers while lying. How can you tell Nifong is lying? His lips are moving.

Anonymous said...

Wake me up when Nifong is in jail.

Anonymous said...

Nifong has forfeited forever any reason to be believed or trusted. That is intolerable in one given the unchecked power a NC district attorney enjoys. Nifong must go.

Anonymous said...

In the past 15 years, we have seen a pattern with prosecutors in North Carolina. In Edenton during the 1990s, prosecutors fabricated "child molestation crimes" that any reasonable person knows were the product of a witch hunt. We saw prosecutors who knew Darryl Hunt did not commit rape and murder nonetheless scheme to keep him in prison. We also know that state prosecutors engaged in what can only be attempted murder in withholding vital exculpatory evidence in the Alan Gell case. None of those prosecutors who wasted the lives of innocent people and wasted millions of tax dollars has had to pay anything at all of consequence.

Today, we see Michael Nifong manufacturing crimes and then pursuing a dishonest and malicious prosecution. Like his predecessors, we can be sure that the "justice" system of North Carolina will do what it can to continue this farce, and then protect Nifong, helping him to "save face."

Bill Anderson

ME said...


(Indiscretions or Outright Lies?)

1) Nifong affidavit, before the DNA evidence came back negative: “The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim.”

2) Nifong April 11: “I would not be surprised condoms were used.” This statement made despite having the Duke medical reports in hand wherein the complainant clearly and repeatedly said no condoms were used.

3) Nifong’s Mar 31 videoed “chokehold demonstration” after the complainant, in at least one medical exam interview, had indicated that she was not choked and after Nifong’s Mar 30 CBS video interview where he did not list the charge of Felonious Strangulation (that charge was previously dropped by Nifong).

4) Nifong’s statements with regard to a date rape drug being ingested by the complainant despite the fact that he knew he nor the DPD nor anyone at Duke Medical ordered a toxicity screen to be performed on the complainant which would prove or disprove the presence of a date rape drug. Further, he made the date rape drug statements despite the fact that he knew (or should have known) that the complainant was drinking (and may have been taking Flexeril) in the late hours of March 13.

5) Nifong’s “Blue Wall of Silence” and “Duke Daddies can buy them expensive lawyers” statements regarding the Duke Lax players made immediately after the three team captains voluntarily provided: DNA samples, written statements and hours of interviews, the names of the people at the party, volunteered to take polygraph exams, and assisted in the gathering of evidence in their house (all without benefit of council).

6) Nifong said, as late as Mar 30 or Mar 31, he was unaware of the identity of the individual that placed the 911 call on Mar 14. The Durham Police Department knew the identity of that caller on Mar 14.

7) Nifong’s statement on Apr 11: “My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke Hospital.” (This statement made immediately following the release to the public that the DNA evidence failed to match any Duke player.) This statement made notwithstanding the fact that Nifong had the following in hand at the time: all of the Duke medical reports, the Jarriel Johnson narrative of the complainant’s activities leading up to March 14, the DNA test results, the knowledge that the DNA was positive for an (possibly) unknown person at the time. It is not possible for Nifong to have based his “conviction” on the Duke medical examination given the evidence he had in hand at that time.

8) This following Cheek’s announcement that he would not run for DA’s office: Nifong said Cheek, former sheriff Roland Leary and state juvenile justice official Ed Pope had visited him to offer unsolicited advice "on a matter that had arisen during the campaign on which they had an opinion with respect to how it should be handled. …” Listeners assumed Nifong was referring to the Duke Lax Case. Upon hearing the Nifong comments Leary said that the meeting "had nothing to do with the lacrosse matter. We're not magicians or soothsayers. At that time, we had no way of knowing the lacrosse matter was going to happen. …” Leary said this, of course, because the meeting occurred prior to the March 13 Duke Lax incident.

9) Nifong has never told the public of the complainant’s recantation of the rape allegation.

10) Investigator Himan (under the supervision of Nifong) included the following (false) sworn statement in a probable cause affidavit issued March 23 in support of an Identification Order that compelled 46 members of the Duke lacrosse team to give DNA samples and submit to being photographed: "Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience."

It is impossible for the subpoenaed medical records and interviews to have been in the possession of Himan or Nifong on March 23 because the Duke medical records (obtained by Himan via Himan’s subpoena) were not printed by Duke Medical until March 30 and Himan did not pick them up at Duke Medical until April 5. Further, the Duke medical records released to date are entirely inconsistent with Himan’s statement in the affidavit. (Note: the same probable cause language was included in a later March 27 probable cause affidavit.)

Footnote: Most, if not all, of the above falsehoods have been reported earlier by a number of reporters and commentators. The above is meant to be a ready reference compendium of the apparent DA Nifong falsehoods to date. They do not include the manifold rogue DA unethical extrajudicial public comments, other systematic violations of NC Bar Ethics Code 3.6 and 3.8, possible prosecutorial misconduct and violations of procedural norms.


LieStoppers said...

ME - Thank you for taking the time to write and to share this excellent post. With your permission, we will repost in a more prominent and readily available spot on our blog. Please advise if this is acceptable. Keep up the fine work at the N&O blogs, too!

ME said...

LieStoppers, at your pleasure.


with shameless self-promotion emu said...

Hey LieStoppers, I just posted the following at your “N&O Correction” post below:

LieStoppers, are you suggesting the following scene in the Durham Theatre of the Absurd may have played out?:

Jarriel’s Big Whoops

(scene set April 6 sometime shortly after 7:25 pm somewhere in the bowels of the DPD)

Investigation flunky (and somewhat dimwitted), DPD Investigator Benjamin Himan: Hey Jarriel, I just read your account of the day you spent with your friend the Precious Serial Dater. Pretty interesting stuff. But there’s one thing I think we need to clarify.

Driver extraordinaire (and our scene hero), Jarriel Johnson: What’s that?

Himan: Well, let’s talk about that date planning strategy session you had on the 12th with the Precious Dater.

Johnson: Umm, OK.

Himan: Are you sure the date planning strategy session didn’t take place a week earlier?

Johnson: Uh huh.

Himan: OK, well let’s try this. Have you ever heard of Moezeldin Elmostafa?

Johnson: Nope.

Himan: Jeez…Well then let’s talk about your buddy Brian Taylor.

Johnson: Yeah, Brian’s my bro. He’s my business partner and we share lots of things. You probably know he fills in for me and drives the Precious Dater when my phone gets an Icehouse bath.

Himan: Yeah, yeah, I know. Here, take a look at this. (Himan shows the soon to be served arrest warrant for Taylor.)

Longggg pause….Johnson: That’s not good.

Himan: Nope, it’s a real pity…but Brian is a real hardhead. Now, let’s get back to the date of your last date planning strategy session you had with the Precious Dater. Are you sure the date planning strategy session didn’t take place on Sunday the 5th instead of Sunday the 12th?

Another longggg pause….Johnson: Wait, now that I think about….just give me a chance to check my date book. Yeah it’s right here on my cellphone.

(scene closes with driver Johnson furiously scribbling the “Whoops” version of March 12th events)

an EMU Production

ME said...


Proof positive that Cash Michaels is the latest fan and regular reader of LieStoppers. How can a make such an audacious claim you say.

(With shameless self-promotion that may be the equal of EMU) I refer to a post I made a few days ago at the LieStoppers August 4 “Warning—Cash Michaels Alert” post where I included the following commentary: (One further side trip here though—Hey Cash, if you’re reading this, why don’t you write an article on the BALD cop Blinco’s affair and stir the pot a bit there?? That pot wouldn’t be a “crock.”)

And what happens…Cash does indeed stir the pot with: Duke rape cops probed in racist attack by Cash Michaels

Two White Duke rape case investigators are suspected of having taken part in an alleged racist assault on a Black restaurant cook at a sports pub recently, and are being investigated by both the Raleigh Police Dept. and their own Durham Police Dept.

Raleigh police detectives reportedly questioned at least 5-6 Durham police officers July 24 in connection with the incident. While they conduct their criminal probe, the Durham P.D.’s Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) is conducting a separate inquiry.

Ironically, while the Durham officers in question don’t have to answer any of the Raleigh P.D.’s questions per their constitutional rights, they are required to answer IAU’s questions, or face dismissal. And while Durham IAU has access to details of Raleigh P.D.’s investigation, Raleigh is shutout of IAU’s fact gathering, which is protected under state personnel laws.

There’s much more at:

Take that N&O…if you won’t address the elephant in the room, Cash will.



Hat tip to an anonymous LieStoppers commentator at the aforementioned “Warning—Cash Michaels Alert” post at 5:34 pm

ME said...


Is it possible Cash is a reader of my commentary as well? (See my comment just above and the Cash Michaels article link.)

He addressed the DPD Code of Conduct in his article. I covered the same in my earlier N&O post at:

07/27/06 at 14:41


Durham Police Chief Chalmers:

"We have a strict code of conduct and we expect every member of our department to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times," Chalmers said in Saturday's statement.

With regard to the conduct of Sgt. Gottlieb, Officer Clayton and Investigator Griffin Jr.:

Some may be interested as whether or not the following violates the Durham Police Department Code of Conduct:

1) Idly standing by while fellow DPD officers assault a citizen.
2) Failure to summon or render medical aid to a citizen that has been assaulted by fellow DPD officers.
3) Leaving the scene of an assault committed by fellow DPD officers against a citizen.
4) Failure to immediately inform the appropriate supervisor of an assault committed by fellow DPD officers against a citizen.

Further, some may be interested as to whether or not the Durham Police Department Internal Affairs will investigate the above four noted possible violations of the DPD Code of Conduct.


And Cash concluded his article by expressing his concern that Judge Titus has deprived the Duke Lax defendants of their civil liberties. I covered the same topic extensively at the LieStoppers Aug 4 “Cohen Tells Another Whopper” post, my Aug 4 commentary at 2:43 pm:

Mr. Cohen,

It is frightening that there could be such a disconnect between the truth and what you print above. I encourage you to refer to the following in order to be more educated on the topic to which you post:


As I was preparing this post (which at that time started below with BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES) I came across the following Andrew Cohen post that is directly related to the content of my post below:

Cohen’s post is so full of blatant lies and misinformation that I will not try to deconstruct them here. Instead, I refer you to the LieStoppers “Cohen Tells Another Whopper” Aug 4 entry wherein LieStoppers addresses the Cohen nonsense:

Editor Sill, the Cohen piece is a direct consequence of the local media’s failure to print the truth!!


MaryinNJ, thank you and with regard to your comment at 7/31/06 at 13:10 above about the Judge Titus Order, I would like to revisit a subject that is near and dear to me – basic civil liberties.

[Snipped for brevity. See the remainder at my LieStoppers commentary Aug 4 at 2:43 pm]