- 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