Exec. Dir. of NC Innocence Inquiry Commission. Was an Asst. DA in Durham County, hired by Jim Hardin, and worked there until April of 2007.

She also thinks he has a great reputation for honesty and truthfulness. Says he was “country before country was cool,” meaning that he was an open-file guy all along.

He used to say in staff meeting “if you have it you give it, that’s what open file is.”

[This is so ridiculous. Most murderers never murdered anyone before the first time they ever committed the crime. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t pay for the one crime, even if they hadn’t ever done it before.]

She says Jim Hardin tried the Peterson case himself because he felt cases that embroil the community should be tried by the DA. When the lacrosse case came up he related it to what Hardin did with the Peterson case. [So, it’s Hardin’s fault now?]

[For a former ADA she doesn’t seem to know the rules of evidence and testimony.]

Says he would never do anything with a case just to win an election. He told her at a campaign event that he wasn’t any longer talking to the media and people were saying that he took the case only because of the campaign. “We both chuckled at that.” She said she told him that “everyone who knows you knows you would never” use a case to win an election.

Said the office had a no-drop policy. Said if they were convinced of a person’s guilt we would take it all the way, even if we’d have a hard time with a jury. [Her background sure sounds very victim-oriented and women’s issue-y.] “Many cases just have to have their day in court.”

Jean: Is he function of your commission to advocate for people who have been falsely accused of a crime? Kendra: Yes. Jean: So you feel that honesty is important in a prosecutor and also turning over evidence when required? Kendra: Agrees.

Williamson asks her about the no-drop policy. She says that in the DA’s office the policy was not to prosecute a case unless the prosecutors firmly believed that a crime had been committed. If the prosecutor wasn’t fully convinced, even if it looked like the case could be won, then they would not pursue the case.

[Says she’s really interested in innocence issues, so why was she not upset about this particular prosecution? Was it because of Nifong’s policy, which made her assume he was completely convinced of the players’ guilt?]

That’s what Williamson just asked her. Now she sounds like Nifong, rambling and qualifying and obfuscating. Finally says she’s been convinced of guilt in some cases and later changed her mind based on new evidence. In those cases she dismissed the cases.

Williamson: Do you feel that was Mr. Nifong’s view all along? Kendra: Yes. Evidence is dropping the rape charge when he found out a penis wasn’t used. And not sure what he would have done later if it hadn’t been taken out of his hands.

She’s dismissed.