Despite Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong’s admitted 50-plus interviews, his recent three hour interview with the New York Times, his numerous statements in pre trial hearings, his multiple motions filed with the court, his in-court responses to several defense motions, multiple statements from the accusers' family, many public and police statements by “outcry” witness Kim Roberts, multiple statements, written and oral, by police investigators and spokespersons, and the release of several statements, written and oral, by the accuser to the police, Murphy continues to put forth the false assertion that we have only heard from defense attorneys.
“For nine months, we've heard only from defense attorneys in the Duke case, and they've refused to release certain evidence.”
To continue, Murphy incredibly asserts the Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants rights rather than punished for violating them. Bizarrely, Murphy contends this reward is deserved because Nifong has refrained from releasing some unknown, and non-existent by most all accounts save hers, evidence against them. Despite Nifong’s admission in his dismissal of the rape charges that he has no evidence other that the faltering word of his pseudo-victim, Murphy pretends that he might yet have something hidden in further violation of discovery statutes. Considering that he had no qualms about hinting at evidence that did not exist and leaking distortions of the scant “evidence” that did, it takes a huge stretch of imagination to believe that the DA without a conscience would, in consideration of the defendants, hold something back.
“Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong may have eyewitness statements from the defendants' friends and photos of the incident. If so, Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants' rights by not leaking the type of evidence that could help him personally respond to criticism.”
“The Wilmington Journal reported last June that a cousin of the alleged victim said she'd rejected offers of $2 million from Duke alumni to back out of the case.”
Additional considerations, that Murphy puts forth as supportive of her argument are equally unfounded. She contends, falsely, that the police lineup was not unfair by suggesting that the exclusion of non-LAX party attendees, and in the inclusion of the two players who have since proved to have not been in attendance, makes it fair. Ignoring the fact that the procedure, which violated DPD policy and the recommendations of the NC Actual Innocence Commission, was dictated by DA Nifong as a last gasp effort to manufacture an excuse to bring charges against someone - anyone, Murphy approves.
“The photo lineup was not unfair. Not all party attendees were players, and many players were not at the party. Thus, it is false to say there were "no wrong answers" the accuser could give in making identifications.”
“Nifong is criticized for not speaking to the victim about the case, but his reliance on responsible others is proper. It protects him from being removed from the case as a "witness." Many law enforcement, forensic and legal professionals support the prosecution and have not backed off despite the hype.”
“Everyone learned last spring that DNA in the rape kit did not match that of the defendants. Information "held back" involved other men's DNA. This constitutionally protected private information should never be disclosed unless a judge deems it relevant. The defense argued that the evidence provides an alternative explanation for the victim's vaginal injuries, and the judge agreed.”