Nifong should add the writer of this Herald-Sun article to his defense team.

After opening paragraphs that portray Nifong as the Lone Ranger of Durham, the reporter finally gets around to mentioning that pesky lacrosse case. His spin style would do the Durham PD proud.

“When an exotic dancer claimed in March 2006 that she had been sexually
attacked by three Duke lacrosse players during an off-campus party,
Nifong leapt to her defense — vowing to rescue a downtrodden black
woman and single mother from what he called the racially motivated,
lascivious conduct of wealthy white “hooligans.”

“He promptly succeeded in obtaining grand jury indictments against the
three players on charges of kidnapping the dancer, raping her and
committing another sex offense, even though he had no DNA evidence on
his side.


“It backfired.“

To say it “backfired” implies that Nifong had no control over the situation. It’s funny that there’s no mention of, say, Reade Seligmann’s air-tight alibi, the dancer’s amorphous story, or the illegal April 4 photo “identification” procedure.

I won’t even discuss how Nifong is portrayed as superhero DA (“succeeded”) for obtaining the indictments without evidence. Shouldn’t that be frightening, not admirable?

“Beginning Tuesday, he must appear before a disciplinary commission of
the N.C. State Bar to answer allegations that he made unethical
statements to reporters early in the case and withheld scientific
evidence favorable to the defendants, then lied about it.”

I love the way that this has been cloaked. The “unethical statements” are the statements that everyone will remember: “I’m certain a rape was committed,” etc. They weren’t “unethical” in and of themselves; they were unethical because a DA shouldn’t convict three men in the first weeks of an investigation.

But the spin about Brian Meehan’s December 15 testimony is even better. Meehan, the head of the DNA lab that processed the Duke lacrosse case evidence, effectively admitted to a cover-up scheme with Nifong. In court. Under oath. I’ll give $50 to whoever can find that mentioned in the article. (Hint: you won’t.)

“The State Bar, he suggested, needs to repair its image after taking
virtually no action against two other prosecutors who withheld evidence
favorable to a murder defendant nine years ago, sending the defendant
to prison for years. The defendant, Alan Gell, later was acquitted in a
new trial.

“According to Edwards, Nifong ‘may have to pay not only for his own sins, but also for the sins of those who went before him.'”

This is one of the most patently absurd spin stories in Nifong’s defense that has come out in the entire Duke lacrosse affair. Even if it is true–and even if you believe it–there is a litany of evidence that would condemn the disgraced DA anyway.

It is absolutely amazing that articles like this one can run so late in the Duke lacrosse case. After all the deception and disgrace and misery that resulted from this man, people still rush to defend him.

Please, someone let me know what his redeeming quality is. I cannot imagine what it could be.