“forgive me if this is repetitive or cross--posted but I have to respond to the latest in the Duke case in light of latest developments including that the defense claims the prosecutor had a secret deal with the DNA expert to hide evidence -- this is all such nonsense –"
“First -- remember that all the information we are hearing is coming from the defense side and spinners --.”
“the prosecution is saying nothing and for that, he deserves prosecutor of the year award. The defense has been attacking and baiting him for months -- and his response has been quiet confidence -- good for him -- other prosecutors should take a lesson.”
“Second -- there is nothing wrong with a prosecutor NOT revealing that a victim had other DNA in her body or on her underpants. Nor is it improper for the DNA lab NOT to reveal the information.”
"New ethics charges have been filed by the State Bar accusing Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong of withholding DNA evidence and misleading the court in the Duke lacrosse case."The amended complaint cites findings from April 2006 that DNA tests found on the alleged accuser excluded all of the Duke lacrosse players as potential contributors."The complaint also states Nifong was told of the test results by Brian Meehan, the director of the DNA company where the tests were performed."According to the complaint, during one of the meetings in April, Nifong and Meehan agreed that the findings would only include "tests for which DNA found on specific evidence match or was consistent with DNA from known reference specimens.""The amended complaint also states that Nifong and Meehan agreed the "potentially exculpatory DNA evidence and test results" would not be provided to defense attorneys." WRAL
“Irrelevant and constitutionally protected private information is often unveiled during rap kit exams -- which is why I have long advocated AGAINST doing any testing without a court order - and I teach those who deal with such evidence not to test the evidence”
“In any case -- if the victim was going to lie maliciously -- why say she was only 90% sure of the ID of one guy? Why would she have inconsistencies in her statements? Her lack of certainty undermines the claim that she made it all up.”
(The prospect of Wendy Murphy teaching “those who deal with such evidence” is beyond frightening.)
“In fact, the guy Seligman who claims his cell phone calls "prove" his innocence actually lends support to the theory that he was the first guy to assault her -- which is what she claims -- and that it was oral -- because he could have assaulted her for the first few minutes -- then thought to himself "I've got to get out of here" -- which explains why he frantically and repeatedly called a cab. who frantically calls a cab to see if they're coming -- in a space of five minutes - especially considering that the guy went to an ATM and a pizza place when he left -- no real emergency there.”“There's been no mention that the victim rejected over two million dollars of hush money last spring -- an offer from a group "on behalf of Duke". She wanted no part of the payoff.”
“and nobody seems to care that despite claims that the prosecutor brought charges so he could win the "black vote", he didn't win the majority of black votes in the primary and more important, he lost a ton of wealthy white votes -- something he surely knew would happen if he brought charges - yet he brought the charges anyway. In short, he easily could have skated into his election by NOT bringing charges as evidence by the "type" of opponent that was propped up to run against him -- a conservative wealthy white guy.”
“It is also important to remember that the defense claims NOW that they wanted to meet with the DA to show him evidence of their innocence -- but the simple truth is - a meeting between the police, prosecutors and defendants was scheduled BEFORE charges were brought and at the last minute, the defense CANCELLED the meeting. Thereafter, the evidence was brought to the grand jury. The defense has no business complaining about not having a chance to show evidence to the prosecutor.”
"The following talking points offer some context and facts about this case in an effort to help support advocates in responding to the media.“Over the past nine months, the public has been exposed to the partial disclosure of factsalong with speculation, misinformation, biased interpretation and strategic maneuveringby the defense. This has led to a distorted public perception of many of the facts in the case. Principally at work in this perception has been the defense attorneys’ strategy ofrevealing only selected portions of the evidence, excluding many important details and withholding other relevant and significant information. This kind of strategy becomes the basis for much of our public information and unfortunately for what we think is the truth in the case.“The current public impressions of the ‘facts’ in this case primarily result from procedural rules that effectively allow the defense to selectively discuss and sometimes distort, certain pieces of evidence, while the prosecutor may not discuss the case at all – not evento rebut false accusations. For example, the defense can disclose evidence that theybelieve is helpful to the defense but refuse to disclose evidence that proves their clients’ guilt.“The same is not true for the prosecution because if the prosecutor reveals the strength ofhis case, the defense can complain that this unfairly taints the jury pool or causes too much prejudicial pre-trial publicity. If the judge agrees, he can punish the prosecutor by suppressing evidence or dismissing the charges.“But when defense attorneys unfairly taint the jury pool against the interests of the victim, there are no similar sanctions against them because a judge cannot punish the accused for the bad behavior of his lawyer.
"For these reasons, the public’s awareness of evidence is almost always favorable to the accused and far from a full disclosure of the truth.”
“In December 2006, the judge handling the case conducted a hearing to determine what ifany DNA material found during a rape kit examination should be disclosed to thedefense. The defense argued they should be allowed access to all information indicatingthe victim had prior sexual contact with men other than the defendants because theyhoped to provide the jury with an alternative explanation for the victim’s vaginal injuries. The judge agreed and ruled that the rape kit results be turned over to the defense.”“The reason for the DNA hearing was for the judge to make determination regarding the release of information on the DNA material.”
“Why didn’t the defense file an appeal to the North Carolina Appellate Court or the NCSupreme Court if they really thought the DA had violated the defendants’ rights?“In fact, if there were any truth to the defense’s claim that Nifong’s handling of the issueviolated the constitution, they would have sought sanctions from the judge that handledthe motion and if they were correct, the judge would have at least criticized the DA, orsanctioned him in some manner, but he did no such thing. And if the defense truly believed Nifong violated some procedure or law, and the judge declined to issue sanctions, they would have appealed to a higher state court in North Carolina, or even to the Attorney General in North Carolina. They did not do so.”
- Despite the accuser’s denial that she was offered hush money, let’s promote the rumor anyway.
- Despite the defense’s motion for a speedy trial, let’s claim they haven’t filed one and pretend that it means something.
- Despite Nifong’s admission in dropping the rape charges that he had no evidence, let’s hint that he has more evidence hidden.
- Despite the defense attorney’s professional, legal, and moral obligations to vigorously defend their clients, let’s say that in doing so they indicate their client’s guilt.
The talking points clearly present the extreme contortions of truth undertaken by Wendy Murphy and the NSVRC, in an effort to encourage fellow advocates to aid in the dissemination of distortions and falsehoods in the interests of prolonging the Hoax. It is apparent that what matters to them is not the realities involved, but rather the opportunity the Hoax provides for giving a voice to a cause they strongly support. A cause that for them is seemingly more important than the foundations of the criminal justice system, which has become threatened by their advocacy. Willing to place lie on top of lie, Murphy again demonstrates that, for her, any means justifies the end she desires, regardless of the consequences her deception holds for those it directly affects.