Duke Rape DA Nifong Is a Liar

A fine review of the case in an article in the Charlotte News & Observer (via Drudge) makes the case against Nifong rather succinctly:

He called the players hooligans and said he abhorred the gang-like rape accompanied by racial slurs. He disparaged rich Duke students whose daddies could hire expensive lawyers to get them out of trouble. He told reporters that DNA tests would tell precisely who was involved in the attack.

And Nifong made a series of factual assertions that contradicted his own files: He suggested the players used condoms; he accused the players of erecting a wall of silence to thwart investigators; and he said the woman had been hit, kicked and strangled.

The medical and police records show that the victim had said no condom was used, that police had interviewed three players at length and taken their DNA samples and that the accuser showed no significant bruises or injuries.

So he is simply a bald-faced liar. There are few things more abhorrent in our society than a prosecutor who lies in order to gain a conviction. The state wields no greater power against the citizenry than its ability to put people in jail. In this case each of the accused faces decades in prison if convicted. Abuse of this power should be the #1 concern of the citizenry, not, say, whether high school football coaches should be saying prayers before a game, as the NY Times reports today. Terrible injustices happen all the time, of course, particularly with rape, but usually it's due to incompetence or laziness or basic flaws in our process (particularly for rape). But outright subterfuge is hopefully rare. This Nifong should be investigated by the State of NC immediately - he should be at a minimum disbarred if the facts in this article are verified. The rape case of course should be dismissed out-of-hand.

And where is the Times on this case? They seemed to lose interest the less and less it appeared there was a real crime to investigate. Back in the late 80's the Times was instrumental in exposing the Tawana Brawley hoax, publishing a 6,000 word expose (link if you have Times Select) that ended the controversy once and for all. This N&O article is good, but far from the kind of comprehensive analysis the Times could muster. Perhaps they're working on it - it was after about a year of reporting the Brawley case as a presumed crime before they exposed it as the hoax it was, and that was in their backyard - we shall see.