Comments on: Duke rape accuser changes story again

By: MF

MF — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:15:45 +0000

Remember that when all of this was hot, Nifong was in a contested battle for reelection. It was his “stick up for the poor black girl raped by rich white guys” perception at the time that got him the extra black votes he needed to get reelected. Ever since then, it’s all been about his trying to save face. He’s known since the case first started (almost certainly within days, if not hours of the first accusations) that there was no case whatsoever. He just milked it for the goodwill in the black community and general name recognition provided by the case. Now, he’s simply trying to find a way to avoid criminal prosecution and/or getting fired from his position.

Nifong is not a fanatical zeolot. In my view, he is a calculating, power-grabbing person who will do anything to achieve his goals.

By: Concerned father

Concerned father — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:57:57 +0000

Who cares about the legalities of a criminal trial. I’m sure Nifong knows how to manipulate to law to get out of what he’s done.

The best way to get Nifong, city of durham, and NC is by a civil suit, or multiple civil suits where the burden of proof is less and these boys could receive in restitution multi-millions, which is probably the only way elected officials will learn not to crucify innocent boys with sexist stereotyping.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:42:40 +0000

Mr. Nifong’s conduct is quite easy to understand: he wanted to keep his job, and this was the only way he could come up with to do it.

He dosn’t hold any hatred for the accused or love for the accuser, they were just convnient tools.

I haven’t looked up the legal definitions, but prosecuting someone for personal reasons (whatever those are) that have nothing to do with the case would probably fit “malice”.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:50:43 +0000

Dorothy Rabinowitz’s excellent book No Crueler Tyrannies documents a phenomeon that, in my opinion, applies to the Duke Case.

People will believe crazy things. The lady in Massachusetts who was charged with tying a child to a tree, and sexually molesting the child in front of the whole school. And get this, nobody reported it at the time! That story was believed by many in the community.

I suspect that Mr. Nifong believe that he has to protect the accuser from something that exists in that part of the brain that handles religious devotion. We as a society have to work hard have less of this perverse religion and more rationality.

Mr. Nifong is a fanatical zeolot. Calling him an idiot does not help.

Ms Rabinowitz’s book really is terrific.

By: TC

TC — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 05:32:22 +0000

“Being an idiot isn’t a crime, or we’d have a hard time seating a Congress.”

No doubt there, and as most are also attorneys as well? Self explanatory.

“The real question is whether this is mere idiocy, or malice.”

To mention but one item, he went into a grand jury with intent get indictments, and provided only PART of the evidence for them to make a decision!

given what the GJ was and asked to indict, most reasonable persons would do so, given all the evidence he had in his possession?, Nobody of sound mind and body would have voted for indictments!

By: Kent

Kent — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:03:47 +0000

Being an idiot isn’t a crime, or we’d have a hard time seating a Congress.

The real question is whether this is mere idiocy, or malice.

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:02:09 +0000

There’s certainly civil liability at the state level: for malicious prosecution. Usually, that means “you prosecuted even though you knew defendant was innocent.” It’s tough to show because it goes to state of mind.

As far as criminal liability, I don’t know, though the Congressman from the area was calling for DOJ intervention. There are criminal charges related to civil rights violations at the federal level.

That probably won’t happen. Anyone from NC know if the governor or the AG can fire him?

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:21:37 +0000

and why is it that Nifong can’t be charged with a crime? I’m not a lawyer so maybe I just need some education to understand why a guy like Nifong can’t be held responsible for being an idiot.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:23:24 +0000

“Maybe”?!?

By: TC

TC — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:09:39 +0000

Here http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ a very good source for up to date and in depth info on crimefong!