Nifong Knows

"If [Seligmann] wasn't there, he doesn't have to worry about it."

- Kim Roberts Mike Nifong

It is difficult to decide whether this comment is frightening, ridiculous or both. Delivered so nonchalantly, this statement from District Attorney Mike Nifong sends shivers regardless of how it is taken. While we all wish there were some veracity to Mr. Nifong’s words, it is clear that this statement holds no truth, and is but a thinly veiled, sarcastic threat upon an innocent young man.

Despite Mr. Nifong’s attempts to invent his own, “New and Improved Hoax,” it remains clear that Reade Seligmann could not have been “there,” and yet he still needs to “worry about it.“ Mr. Seligmann needs to “worry about it,“ quite simply, because Mr. Nifong is determined to make certain that Reade “worries about it.“

Willfully, Mr. Nifong continues to hijack this hoax, rather than admitting that Mr. Seligmann’s absence from the scene of the alleged crime proves clearly that the allegations against Reade are false. Back in the spring, when Nifong spoke of his timeline, and claimed that defense didn’t know what his timeline is, did he chuckle to himself, “Heck, how are they going to know my timeline when I don’t even know it?” For Mr. Nifong and his candidacy, a timeline would have been inconvenient then, and to Mr. Seligmann’s detriment, it continues to be an obstacle to be avoided by the District Attorney.

It is blatantly obvious that Mr. Seligmann’s absence from the scene of an alleged crime demonstrates his innocence definitively. One can only assume that Mr. Nifong either knows Mr. Seligmann is innocent, yet willfully persists with his persecution, or chooses deliberately to avoid acquiring that knowledge.

Ideally, one would expect, an investigation into whether or not a suspect was actually present at the time, and at the place, of the alleged crime he is accused of, precedes indictment. It is difficult to imagine that normal procedure consists of making this determination at trial, rather than prior to bringing indictments. It is frightening to think this might happen to you, and ridiculous to think that it might happen to anyone else. Naively, we expected this just didn’t happen in the America we live in.

At a minimum, it seems like bad business to shrug your shoulders, and blindly bring defendants to trial, when a determination of their innocence could have been made through a competent police investigation months before and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars earlier.

Certainly no one expects financial considerations to be the primary objective of a prosecutor, but one might think that a District Attorney might have some obligation to moderate expenses efficiently. This prosecution has the potential to be the most expensive judicial undertaking, and largest campaign contribution, in the history of Durham County, yet it seems readily apparent that at least one, and likely two, defendants were not even present at the exact time and location of the imagined offense.

On the grander scale of justice, this approach to prosecutorial discretion is equally inefficient. One would suspect that the role of a District Attorney, ideally, would include prosecuting genuine criminals, and exclude willfully or blindly persecuting innocent men. Can you imagine if this had been an actual crime, rather than an invented Hoax, and no effort was made to determine whether the suspects charged were actually present? Would people sit still then, as they do now, as predators roamed free, while innocent men endured an ominous false prosecution at the hands of a District Attorney, who found it politically inconvenient to pursue the truth, or to allow a proper investigation?

DA Nifong’s blasé, “Oh well” is reminiscent of Kim Roberts’ brushing off her shoulders with a shrug and a “Sorry Fellas.” Sadly, this attitude of “No worries” if they didn’t do it seems to not be limited to the DA and Ms. Roberts. Far too many people patiently wait to see what happens next, while rationalizing that perhaps, “They can afford those high priced attorneys, so they’ll be ok,” or assuming blindly that “Nifong must have something.”

It is both of the above mentalities that the DA Nifong preys upon. Even if, to some mild degree, you can come to understand this mind set among an apathetically uninformed public, a profit minded participant, or an agenda serving collection of blowhards, don’t you have to question this Laissez-faire attitude from an appointed Minister of Justice?

It is painfully obvious that there was, and continues to be, no effort on the part of DA Nifong to determine if he is indeed persecuting innocent men. Rather than offering a leveled playing field in the interests of Justice, Mr. Nifong chooses to employ parlor room tricks, while hiding behind the overwhelming demands of the office he is poorly suited to manage. When confronted in court about his delaying tactics, he apologizes, then obnoxiously offers as an excuse for his failure to provide timely discovery in the only case that he personally takes responsibility for, a statement to the effect of,

“You know this isn’t the only case we have to handle.” Try using that excuse at your place of employment, and see how it flies. To make it a proper experiment, be certain to insert a sarcastic, “Despite what some people think…”

As late as May 3, admittedly overwhelmed DA Nifong confessed that he has not even spoken to Mr. Seligmann’s attorney, Kirk Osborn. It’s difficult to imagine that it is normal prosecutorial procedure to avoid defense attorneys who want to lay their cards out on the table for you. One might think that even if a prosecutor were 100% certain that a defendant was guilty, he would still want to peek at the opposing attorneys cards, if offered the opportunity. On the other hand, one might also think that a prosecutor with an interest in pursuing justice might want to make some effort to ensure that he was not accidentally prosecuting the innocent person. What valid reason could any prosecutor have for avoiding evidence, whether it was exculpatory or not?

Not only did DA Nifong avoided meeting with the defense attorneys prior to or immediately following indictment, he also took pains to avoid being exposed to other possibly exculpatory evidence. Bizarrely, he expressed no interest in investigating the accuser’s cell phone, which was later revealed to be helpful to establishing the timeline. Rather than allow a procedurally sound identification process, Nifong instructed that a substandard, or worse, method be employed. Consider as well the failure to interview staff from Durham Access after the night of the non-event, and the curious delay that allowed for the destruction of the police tapes.

What is most bizarre about this entire situation is that Mr. Nifong must know that there is no possible way that Mr. Seligmann could have been present at a time when the Hoax could have occurred. The only possible explanation for Mr. Nifong’s lack of knowledge of this fact can only be that he deliberately does not want to know. Certainly if we have the means to disprove the possibility of Reade being present at the scene time and time again, Mr. Nifong does too. Either he knows and persists, or willfully chooses not to know. Can there be any other explanation?