Comments on: Nifong Hasn’t Interviewed the Accuser Yet

By: michael

michael — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:07:02 +0000

To be fair, we all know that memory, like a fine cigar, improves with the passage of time :-|

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:43:11 +0000

October 30 roundup...

Your tax dollars at work: $24.2 million for two 17-year-old trespassers burned by high-voltage electrical wires six feet above the top of an Amtrak train that they had climbed. The one who received "only" $6.8......

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:02:47 +0000

Why his not talking to the "victim" about the nature of the supposed 'crime', would surprise anyone is a large question mark in my mind. After all, it's been clear from nearly the outset, that this entire case was not based on facts.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:33:58 +0000

I actually have heard an explanation that makes sense and fits the facts. If Nifong interviews the accuser, then any notes he makes about the conversation become discoverable by the defense. They get to look at the notes also. So by not meeting with her, he is keeping such items out of the hands of the defense.

But think about that mindset a bit more. Is his duty to get a conviction (i.e. any dirty trick is fair as long as you don't step over the legal line) or to see that justice prevails? By taking an action that makes it a little more likely he gets a conviction and depriving the defense of a tool to make it a little more likely that if their client is not legally liable that their client is falsely convicted, Nifong has answered the question. He is not going down the "Lets discover the truth and then go from there", but "Lets hide the truth if it makes it more likely I can get a conviction".

And people wonder why the so many in the south really dislike the dregs of the democratic party that are left down here.

By: just me

just me — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:09:05 +0000

I can't imagine the DA hasn't once talked to the victim about that night at this point.

I don't believe him, maybe he personally hasn't spoken with the victim, but I am not swallowing the idea that nobody in the office has interviewed her about what happened.

I think he knows his case is not only weak, but is falling apart.

By: Eneils Bailey

Eneils Bailey — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:59:08 +0000

Over time, Nifong started referring to his pending case as sexual assault rather than rape. This may indicate that he considers his case very weak and getting weaker as time passes. The recent interview on "60 Minutes" with the victim's partner seems to have further weaken his case. At this point seems to be some bad behavior on the part of the "victim" and the accuser players on the night this incident took place. I am sure he will have his plate full if he plans to make Durham crime free by prosecuting bad behavior at college parties.
Nifong and his staff need to get this case on the docket, present the evidence and let a jury decide. I think at this point he is trying to delay the case, hoping these young men will cope a plea to a lesser crime and allow him to save some face.
In the end, if Nifong has no more evidence than he has now, he should be held to civil and criminal charges for abusing the power of his office.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 05:35:23 +0000

This is really surprising. Nifong says back in March that he will personally be prosecuting the case and now he says he hasn't interviewed the accuser 7 months later. And all of this after repeatedly saying he believes a rape has occurred. A couple of Nifong quotes (pre-primary of course). Here is right after the DNA came back negative. ""I'm not saying it's over. If that's what they expect, they will be sadly disappointed," Nifong said Monday night. "They can say anything they want, but I'm still in the middle of my investigation. ... I believe a sexual assault took place."" and Asked whether the DNA tests hurt his case, Nifong said that cases are often won on eyewitness and victim testimony. "The absence of DNA doesn't prove anything," Nifong said. In March "The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done," Nifong said. "It makes a crime that is, by its nature, one of the most offensive and invasive even more so." and also in March The district attorney’s office said team members deny the accusations, but admit there was underage drinking at the party. Otherwise, they are not cooperating with authorities. Nifong, who said Monday that he himself will prosecute the case, said authorities may apply for more search warrants in the case and that more charges for aiding and abetting may be possible against partygoers. "There’s a good chance, if someone had spoken up and said, 'You can’t do this,' it might not have happened," said Nifong. -- WRAL, March 27, 2006. In April District Attorney Mike Nifong was adamant Tuesday as he told members of the community -- and a national TV audience that tuned in -- that he still thought a Durham woman was sexually assaulted at a Duke University lacrosse team party. In May "I'm confident a sexual assault took place in that house," Nifong said, echoing a statement he made earlier on in the investigation. "If I didn't believe her, then I would not be basing any of my decisions on what she said." At the end of July Nifong also said there was evidence he hoped to have in the case, such as DNA, but that it didn't pan out. "There were things we hoped to have in terms of evidence that we ended up not having," Nifong said. However, Nifong said that he stands behind the case. "I have not backed down from my initial assessments of the case," Nifong said.