Fantastic Lies of the Hijacker of the Hoax

With Stuart Taylor Jr’s bombshell revelation of the existence of a toxicology report which offered a NEGATIVE result for the presence of a date rape drug, the tangled web of deception that has come to be known as the Duke Hoax continues to further unravel. In consideration of the false confirmation of the absence of such a test given just a few days ago by the New York Times and in recognition of interim DA Nifong’s repeated denials, evasive answers and repeated attempts to promote the use of a date rape drug as part of his Theory of the Case, what was already painfully obvious is now even more so.

To paraphrase an eloquent and courageous young man who has been, and continues to be, one of the victims of this Hoax: Reade Seligmann is innocent, Collin Finnerty is innocent, David Evans is innocent and the entire Duke lacrosse team is innocent. Taken a step further, DA Michael Nifong is guilty, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb is guilty and the New York Times is guilty. The extent to which each of these culprits is guilty remains to be seen as does the identity of many additional co-conspirators.

At the very least Mr. Nifong is guilty of deception. This charge, proved once again, has been demonstrated repeatedly on these pages, elsewhere in the blogosphere as well as by the few mainstream media journalists willing to exercise the fortitude required to report what is glaringly obvious to those not clouded by the misimpression that some sacrament of infallibility is attached to the office of District Attorney.

Mr. Nifong’s deception began with the argument presented on his behalf by ADA Saacks to Judge Stephens in the sworn request for mass DNA testing. While apparently keeping his fingers crossed, Mr. Nifong by way of his minion assured the court that DNA testing would inculpate the guilty while exculpating the innocent. When testing did not offer the result he desired, he soon belied his own statement with his own actions and his own further deception as attempted to dismiss the value of DNA testing after previously swearing by it.

Despite the fact that he himself had, on at least one previous occasion, offered in writing that the results of DNA were the basis of exoneration for a suspect in a rape case, Mr. Nifong chose to belittle our collective intelligence by stating, “How does DNA exonerate you?” He proceeded to further this deception by insisting that as many as 70-80% of rape cases were prosecuted successfully without DNA evidence. Of course, the mischaracterization of that statistic is monumental and again insulting to our intelligence. In terms of cases prosecuted since the advent of DNA testing, the percentage of cases prosecuted, in which the accusation is a brutally violent, 30 minute, condom-less, gang rape where multiple perpetrators were alleged to have ejaculated and the only DNA recovered on, in or near the accuser belongs to SOMEONE ELSE, might be far closer to ZERO than to 80%.

Mr. Nifong’s deception continued as he portrayed the crime that did not happen as one motivated by racial hatred. One many occasions, in many venues and with many words, Mr. Nifong created this illusion and used to bait our collective racial sensitivities thus creating a campaign pedestal while hijacking this Hoax for his own benefit. To that end, he perpetrated an additional fraud when clumsily denying his knowledge of the identity of the first 911 caller and requesting, by way of his minions at the Durham Police Department, that this “unknown” person come forward.

Perhaps his most fantastic act of deception within this Hoax he hijacked was the construction and direction of the unconstitutional photo ID lineup which was little more than a game of Pin-The-Tail-On-A Dukie. Let’s not forget that on March 31st, the day he gave the instructions to the investigators Himan and Gottlieb, Nifong could have been armed with the preliminary results of a DNA test that perhaps revealed that a DNA match to any lacrosse player was NOT going to materialize, and perhaps further revealed the accuser had not been truthful with police about prior consensual relations. Perhaps while giving instructions to investigators Himan and Gottlieb, Nifong was also armed with the suggestion that without an identification by the accuser he could not proceed with the case.

Mr. Nifong’s deception was not limited to these whoppers, some of which amazingly persist. Along the way there have been many other tangible expressions of that which is not true or only partially true. Some of these additional exceptions to truth include:

• the leak by his office of the DNA match which turned out to be a partial non-exclusion from a trash can
• the leak of the Ryan McFayden email and the subsequent search warrant despite the fact that McFayden matched neither the descriptions noted by Himan nor those invented by Gottlieb
• the “I’m gonna talk” email followed immediately by violation of the no-contact rule
• the recurring hints that he had more evidence that was not yet publicized
• the hints that the defense was not disclosing some incriminating item(s)
• Minion Sgt. Gottlieb’s fill in the blank notes
• his insistence that none of the evidence as he knows it has changed
• his premature declaration of guilt on March 27
• his attempts to discount the merits of the information contained in Osborn’s motions by stating that within all of them they might hold “one kernel of truth”
• his profession-insulting attempt to misconstrue Ethics rules 3.6 and 3.8 by publicly stating that he was not beholden to the ethics of his profession with regard to these two rules prior to indictment
• His denial that his motives in hijacking the Hoax were election minded
• his continual employment of weasel words, half denials and evasive exclusions of truth.

The latest revealed deception of Nifong’s which was uncovered by the mention of the existence of a toxicology test and the resultant absence of a date rape drug only furthers the conclusion that Mr. Nifong cannot be trusted. Not only is it inconceivable that he was unaware this test was taken on March 14, the only day it could have been conducted, but also it is inconceivable that he could not have known of the results shortly thereafter. Ask yourself: how long do those tests take to process, what possible reason could there by for the results to be delayed until just recently (nearly 6 months after being conducted), why would a prosecutor not inform himself immediately of the results of a test so integral to his Theory of the Case and what ethical prosecutor conscious of, and in respect of, his special responsibilities defined by Ethics rule 3.8 would withhold these tests from discovery for so long?

At this point and without further information, the only reasonable conclusion is that he must have known the test existed and he must have known of the result when promoting a Theory of the Case that contradicted the results of the test. Taking into consideration the delay in revealing the test and the extreme efforts by Mr. Nifong, and his apologists, to disguise knowledge of its existence, it can also only be concluded that his deception was intentional. It appears that while knowing there had been no employment of a date rape drug, Mr. Nifong intended to promote, in the media, the theory that one was used and further was likely intending to argue this same theory before a jury while knowing it to be untrue.

Updated September 2, 2006 11:19AM