Thursday, March 15, 2007

Nifong Explains The Chokehold

“But let me point out that the evidence that she would present with respect to that particular situation is that she was grabbed from behind. Somebody had an arm around her like this, which she then had to struggle with in order to be able to breathe, and it was in the course of that struggle that the fingernails—the artificial fingernails broke off. Now as you can see from my arm, if I were wearing a shirt, a long-sleeved shirt or a Jacket of some sort, even if there were enough force used to press down, to break my skin through the clothing, there might not be any way that anything from my arm could get on to those fingernails. So again, whether or not there would be any evidence would depend on exactly the situation. Were the fingernails actually in contact with the skin or were they in contact with clothing? ”

Video of Nifong's 3/31/06 MSNBC Interview

"73. Defendant admits that he made statements to a reporter from MSNBC consistent with those statements outlined in paragraph 73 which statements relate to facts contained in the Affidavit* attached to the Application for Nontestimonial Identification Order." (Defendant Nifong's Answer to the State Bar)

*“... She claimed she was clawing at one of the suspect’s arms in an attempt to breath while being strangled. During that time the nails broke off.” - (Affidavit of Assistant District Attorney David Saacks)


Anonymous said...

Don't forget, he never spoke to her.

Anonymous said...

He is good on TV, and a convincing liar. His performance depends on being in traffic court, where no one will put in the time or money required to check out his statements to see if any are facts.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. Nifong never heard from the accuser how she was allegedly strangled. He didn't know how she would describe how the alleged attacker approached her (from behind, from in front, from the side, etc.). He also didn't know which of the many stories she had already told was going to end up being the version she told under oath: the version where she was punched, kicked, and strangled; the version where she was only groped; the version where she was not hit by anyone??? Nifong's statements about the alleged strangulation, like so many of his other statements, were based on nothing more than what he hoped or imagined she would say.

bill anderson said...

Who needs to worry about the truth when one is spinning a hoax? These guys continued to lie and lie, figuring that no one would keep up with everything that they said. Big mistake.

Anonymous said...

Bar rules require lawyers not to make statements about a case unless they have a "good faith basis" (in other words, some actual evidence) that supports the statements. Nifong had no such basis. He was just making it up as he went along.

Anonymous said...

By pointing to the affidavit, Nifong is looking for an out by way of 3.6(b)(2)

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(2) the information contained in a public record;


His comments clearly exceed the information in the public record he point to.

Anonymous said...

Rule 3.6 Comments

[3] The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer's making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.

[5] There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

"But let me point out that the evidence that she would present.."

"Would present"? That means she hasn't already 'presented' it. Which means she hasn't already said it. In other words, he's making it up.

Unbelievable. Right in front of a camera, Nifong is admitting that not only can he not 'present' the facts to justify destroying the lives of three innocent young men, he can't even 'present' the words.

Anonymous said...


That sounds an awful lot like "expected testimony of a party or witness" doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

All these details, all this nit-picking, can't a guy scratch his back while he is explaining the "assault?"

After this interview Nifong went into the Courthouse and met with Gottlien & himan where he suggested how to set up the phony 3rd line up.

Mike forgot in wasn't in the Traffic Court anymore!

Anonymous said...

Can all the tv interviews be put together in a long continous film? The Choke is the best and should start and end the film. Actually, no one has to say anything - just show the film. I believe he did make it up as he went along.

Anonymous said...

The party photos clearly show a room full of young men in shorts and short-sleeved shirts. Nifong's pointing to his jacketed, cloth covered forearm as a reason no DNA was found, is a helpful reminder of the purposefully "misleading" conduct the Bar found so objectionable.

Anonymous said...

Again, 12:26, there was no "good faith basis" for Nifong's remarks. The man is just a bald-faced liar.

Anonymous said...

Alev said:

ABC reporting that the accuser is not cooperating fully with prosecutors.

madder than a hornet said...

Hi 1:45 pm

I read the article you mentioned &thankfully a barf bag was available to me.

They were able to find some "expert" who claims that Crystal might have trust issues with the special prosectors. I hope she does because she should find her pole dancing self in jail for a very long time for making a false accusation. I hope the special prosecutors abide by the law and indict her.

Oh did I mention the 5 tricks she turned on or before March 13? Does NC have prostitution laws?

Anonymous said...

Alev said :

Madder than a Hornet:

Sorry, I posted before I had read the entire article or would have issued a warning.

However, the headline and the actual facts are good news that can't be tainted by the commentary following. Neither accuser nor Kim is talking. Since there is apparently no other "evidence" than the multiple stories of the accuser, I'd guess this means there will be a dismissal coming soon.

I would also infer that the prosecutors were asking about the discrepencies in the accuser's stories. She may have retained counsel.

My guess is that Kim is smart not to talk and has been advised so by counsel. It might have to do with the missing money, and what happened in the car on the way to Kroger's, or some other details of which we're not aware. Going on TV is one thing; what you say during an investigation can land you in jail.

The comments of victim's rights advocates quoted aren't even remotely believeable with regard to this case. Sure, it would be very understandable for a victim to remember more details as time went on...for a while. But here, we don't have the addition of details that basically fit the first story, we have stories with very little overlap at all, and multitudes of outright contradictions. Victim's rights spokespersons are taking true facts about memory (the added details, etc.) and blowing them all out of proportion to the truth. They are shooting themselves and real victims in the foot and that is a shame.

Guy Fox said...

I read the article, and they left out the part where one of the accused did not have a mustache that the accuser claimed he had, and that another of the accused was spotted at an ATM at the time of the alleged attack. Great. Just great. Remind me again why I watch NBC News instead?

Anonymous said...

The Hoax is falling apart. Nifong quotes the affidavit attached in the application for the NTO?

This man is sinking fast! How many people will he take down with him is the only question.

Judge Stephens? How this Hoax working out for you now?

humboldtblue said...

If you're mad at this, check out Drudge report for the post on an ABC story that repeats the same tired mantra after it's come to light that CGM won't cooperate with state invesitigators ... the short version from "victims rights" advocates is the same old tired meme ... "something happened in that house."

wiglaf said...

I read the ABC story. Amazing. I did NOT know that a lack of a guilty verdict does not mean the accused is innocent. Boy. I'm glad I've got "victim"...oops..."accuser" advocates to keep me straight. I suppose, to follow the logic, just because there was no guilty verdict, does not mean the "victim"...I mean "accuser" was lying? Is that true?

Foaming at the Mouth said...

On this St. Patrick's Day let us remember that St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of Ireland, and right into Law School (thence into the DA's Office)!
Foaming at the Mouth

HumboldtBlue said...


To paraphrase Slick Willy Clinton, I guess that depends on what you mean by "innocent."

The one thing all reasonable commenters on this and the other blogs have maintained is that there is a segment of the population that will NEVER believe that those boys didn't do SOMETHING to that woman. Whether it was rape, assault, kidnapping, plagiarism, shoplifting, jaywalking ... you name it ... because we all know ... "something happened in that house."