From http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/01/
fox_news_michael_reagan_and_sean_hannity_blame_democrats_for_haditha_massacre.php
FOX News’ Michael Reagan And Sean Hannity Blame Democrats For Haditha Massacre
NewsHounds June 1st 2006
Surely if there was any marginally believable way for FOX News to accuse Congressman John Murtha of having personally murdered innocent Iraqis in Haditha for the sake of political gain, Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan would have done so last night (5/31/06) on Hannity & Colmes. They are clearly so desperate to change the subject away from what actually happened in Haditha and the likely cover-up that followed, that they can’t say enough bad things about Democrats in general and John Murtha in particular.
It’s pretty clear from the questions Alan Colmes asked and the ones he didn’t that there’s some kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about a discussion of the events at Haditha on FOX News, or at least on Hannity & Colmes. Just as Hannity and Reagan tried to make the story about Murtha, Colmes tried to make it about Bush. Playing a clip of Bush saying that anyone who had broken the law would be punished, Colmes said it was reminiscent of Bush’s comments about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity and questioned Bush's sincerity.
It was a good point but hardly the leading one about this story. While every new fact and allegation in the Duke rape case is discussed, analyzed and rehashed nightly, there has been very little discussion about what actually happened at Haditha and/or the cover-up that may have followed. Not discussed last night was this heartbreaking but thought-provoking report about differing statements from two children who survived. There was absolutely no discussion of the alleged cover-up.
Reagan told Colmes he (Reagan) didn’t care what the president said about Haditha. “The issue is John Murtha and the people on the left… What John Murtha is doing is in fact, besmirching the marine corps, besmirching what’s going on over there and trying to make Iraq into another Viet Nam which it is not. Those men are going out there and dying each and every day and you people and people like you (meaning Colmes and other liberals) are finding guilt before innocence.”
With dramatic Hanctimony, Hannity asked Reagan, “Why is there this unwillingness to even give the benefit of the doubt to the people that are protecting our most basic liberties when the facts haven’t even been established yet? Why is there this impulse among the left to do this, like Jack Murtha saying ‘they’re killing people in cold blood?’”
Predictably, Michael Reagan was ready to take that cue and pounce. “Well, that’s what’s so outrageous to me. And just to take this position that, in fact, you know, find the Americans are wrong, find that the marines are wrong before all these facts in fact do come out… We do know that insurgents – every one of us on this program know (sic) that insurgents hide in homes where innocent people are. They don’t mind that innocent women and children are killed by collateral damage so they can use it as a ploy to recruit more insurgents. And they know that the liberal left in this country will use the same issue. And that is a terrible thing.”
Democratic “strategist” and FOX News contributor Bob Beckel made a half-hearted argument. As he usually does, Beckel seemed more interested in pointing out where he agrees with Hannity than in arguing with him (though Beckel had one great moment when he confronted Hannity for his hypocritical rush to judgment defending "rich, white boys" in the Duke rape case). “I said at the outset I think we ought to wait until the facts are in.”
Hannity pounded on the desk with bullyboy fury. “You don’t have the moral courage to speak out and say, ‘Jack Murtha, be quiet until this is finished.’ Why?”
Did Beckel say that Hannity should have the moral courage to speak out and say that killing civilians must be investigated, even if it doesn’t reflect well on the commanders? Did he say that the real cowards were those trying to make the issue about Murtha instead of Haditha and/or the conditions our troops are fighting under? No. Once again, Beckel tried to appease. He said Murtha’s statement that the marines killed “in cold blood” was “a terrible use of words. I think that the best thing that could happen here is that - these other marines in this area right now are probably in greater harm’s way because this story is beginning to get out.”
“Because of Murtha,” Hannity said. “And people like him.”
11 comments:
David Evans seem to be a man of integrity and courage to speak out against the claims against him. The stripper seems well armed with all the powers of “victim (i.e. mass public sympathy, militant feminist groups, female “victims” advocate groups, racists groups from the NBPP, Je$$ie Jack$on, NAACP, and many individuals from NCCU, etc.
Why isn’t the possibility that the stripper made a false claim been investigated?
Why is DA Nifong trying to “stonewalling” the stripper’s cell phone from the investigators which may show that she was on the phone at the time she made up the story of rape.
a. Stripper possibly made a false claim of rape by three boys in 1996.
b. Stripper made a false claim of kidnapping in 1998
c. Stripper charged with larceny, auto theft, and trying to kill a police officer in 2002
d. 1st round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team.
e. 2nd round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team
f. DNA proves stripper had sex with boyfriend/pimp and two other men around the time she was dropped off at the party, which accounts for the “rape kit” evidence of recent sexual activity.
g. The bathroom is absolutely and completely devoid of any evidence of a rape. Where is her DNA? Urine, blood, vaginal fluid, saliva, or tears?
h. Many people’s DNA were found under her nails but none from the innocent lacrosse boys. The only DNA that has a partial link to one of the boys was found on the top surface of the fake nail.
i. She lied about losing her fake finger nails in a desperate struggle in the small enclosed bathroom, but pictures show that she removed her nails before inadequately performing her routine. No scratches were found on any of the innocent lacrosse boys’ bodies. No DNA of any lacrosse boy was found under the nail.
j. The 2 innocent boys she “eeny meeny miney moed” to be her rapists weren’t even at the party the time she claimed the rape occurred. She claims that she’s 100% sure, but she told her father that she’s not sure.
k. The DA is trying to suppress the stripper’s cell phone which may contain records of her being on the phone at the time she claimed she was suppose to be being raped by boys who weren’t even there.
The Duke lacrosse girls have worn “innocent” arm bands to show their support for these boys and for hope in a system that is suppose to protect the innocent from malicious prosecution.
These awesome women aren’t only taking a stand for the victims of this rape accusation, but for all real rape victims everywhere. These women should be recognized as future leaders of victims’ rights and advocacy.
District Attorney Mike Nifong is a disgrace to his job:
A responsible DA would have stated at the beginning that “there is an investigation, and it would be inappropriate to make any further statements right now. Since the beginning Nifong proclaimed that he will prove the entire lacrosse team is guilty for aiding and abetting a gang rape inside a small enclosed bathroom. Nifong encouraged racist and sexists political groups to paste these boys’ pictures with hate slogans all over their school, and hold daily hate protests by thee groups claiming these boys are rapists.
a. The boys cooperated completely with the police until Nifong began acting out his hidden political agenda.
b. The first batch of DNA came back with conclusive for no match to any of the lacrosse boys.
c. The crime scene was completely void of any DNA evidence of any gang rape.
d. The boys that Nifong charged has an air-tight alibi and wasn’t at the party at the time the stripper claimed a rape occurred, and he refused to see this evidence before destroying his life.
e. The second batch of DNA came back with no conclusive match to any of the lacrosse boys.
f. Partial material was found on top of a fake finger nail, inside a waste basket full of DNA material from the boys who lived in that house.
g. The third boy indicted went down to the police department for questioning without counsel, helped with the investigation by identifying all the other boys at the party, offered to take a lie detector test, willingly volunteered a DNA sample, and past a lie detector given by a top senior experienced FBI agent. The stripper said is 90% sure if he had his mustache, but he has never had a mustache, which makes it 0% sure. DA Mike Nifong refused to see this evidence and instead decided to destroy another innocent boy’s life.
h. The stripper’s body was completely void of any sign of a sexual assault (except for signs of recent vaginal and anal from her boyfriend). The alleged crime scene was completely devoid of DNA.It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, sweat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen... especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?
i.
Investigator Mark Furman reviewed the lie detector test completed by the FBI on the 3rd boy unfairly indicted for a rape that never occurred. Mr. Furman stated that the boy not only passed the lie detector test, he passed with flying colors, but even without the test, this boy’s resume of helping the police with the investigation is impeccable.
DA Mike Nifong gave the second stripper a deal to change her story to support the false accusation of rape, and he wouldn’t revoke her probation from a previous conviction of embezzling $25,000 from her empolyer.
Lets not forget about the taxi driver who is now under arrest for driving one of the boys in his taxi cab at the time the stripper claim he was supposed to be in the bathroom being raping her.
Nifong needs to face a federal grand jury for his abuse of power and his part in destroying these boys lives.
Unfortunately, that was not the end of Nifong’s lies. He told Newsweek that it would be likely that toxicology tests would show that Mangum had been given an alleged "date rape" drug (supposedly by the lacrosse players), which was responsible for her condition. However, neither the police nor Nifong had ordered any toxicology tests. In other words, Nifong made a claim to Newsweek that he had to have known on its face was a lie.
(Someone I respect very much has known Nifong for many years and says that he is not dishonest, but rather has backed himself into a corner. This was a "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t" situation, he tells me. While that might be true, Nifong also has done enough things that strain his credibility.)
Lest I let Nifong off with just telling a few whoppers, there is even more. On the day after the alleged attack, police came to the house where the party was held and the occupants, including Evans, showed police around, retrieved material for them and even went to the station and spent three hours talking to police without attorneys being present. Soon afterward, Nifong publicly claimed that the lacrosse players were "putting up a blue wall of silence" and were purposely covering up a "crime." Moreover, he threatened to charge the other players with "accessory to kidnapping, assault, and rape" charges unless they came forward.
Shortly thereafter, Nifong hinted to the press that at least one player was willing to turn state’s evidence. He based his claim upon an email that allegedly one player had sent to his teammates. However, it turned out that the email was a fraud, and, according to the attorneys who represent the players, the fake email almost surely had been concocted by the police. So, we have Nifong implicated in another falsehood.
William L. Anderson, Ph.D.
Frostburg State University in Maryland
Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser Mentioned No Condoms Were Used
It seems the defense keeps finding more to support their side of things, with each new piece of information they get. Now from that stack of 1,300 papers, they have discovered that the stripper accuser mentioned no condoms were used. No condoms and…
The stripper’s body was completely void of any sign of a sexual assault (except for signs of recent vaginal and anal from her boyfriend). The alleged crime scene was completely devoid of DNA.
It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, sweat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen... especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?
When investigators questioned the stripper after DNA tests on the semen found inside her vagina and rectum didn’t match any of the Duke players, the stripper admitted to having had sex with at least three men around the time of the alleged rape. The stripper named her boyfriend and two men who drove her to Duke.
When questioned, the “drivers” said they would drop her off at several places, including hotel rooms.
It appears that the stripper has sex with men for rides to her strip shows…Nasty!
Blind to evidence
On Monday, May 15, a Durham County grand jury handed up a third indictment in the nothing-short-of-notorious Duke rape case. This latest indictment charges the lacrosse team's captain, David Evans, with first-degree rape, first-degree sexual assault, and first-degree kidnapping.
The charges against Evans are identical to those handed up last month against fellow players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Still, this final indictment does come as a bit of surprise. As I detailed in a prior column, the cases against Seligmann and Finnerty appear quite weak. As I'll discuss in this column, the case against Evans may be even shakier. It's true that the grand jury did return indictments against Evans, and previously against the other two. It's also true that the District Attorney, Mike Nifong, is forging ahead -- seemingly undeterred.
But Nifong's judgment has been poor all along- and the old adage that a D.A. can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" shouldn't be forgotten. Without defense attorneys there to test the prosecutor's evidence via the invaluable process of cross-examination, weak evidence can be made to look pretty convincing. It's not the grand jury's fault; it's just the reality that if you only hear one side, you tend to believe it.
At least a ham sandwich has some weight to it. As I'll explain in this column, the Evans indictment - like the two that preceded it - does not. The very evidence that may have convinced the grand jury - accuser identification and new DNA evidence - is just the kind that will ultimately fall apart when defense attorneys finally do get to cross-examine the witnesses presenting it.
The Mounting Evidence in Favor of Defendants' Innocence
All three defendants in the Duke lacrosse case have unfailingly and repeatedly proclaimed their innocence - Evans doing so most eloquently, on behalf of all three men, in a brief public comment following his being formally charged.
In fact, in a highly unusual move, newly indicted defendant Evans went to so far as to volunteer to take a lie detector test at the direction of law enforcement. When the D.A. refused, Evans enlisted a top polygrapher to administer the test anyway. He passed.
Thus far, the defense camp has come forward with a host of seemingly reliable, exculpatory evidence -evidence that will be admissible in court, and that is likely to sway a jury. I'm not talking about, maybe, kinda, sorta, or could be, exculpatory evidence either. I'm talking about weighty evidence - receipts, photos, phone records, alibi witnesses, an absence of DNA, and now actual DNA - that directly supports the defendants' claims of innocence.
A plethora of proof supporting a defendant's claim of innocence - not just the government's failure to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- is a rare pearl in the practice of criminal defense. It should cause the D.A. to reassess his case.
The Problems with the Accuser's "Identification" of Evans
In my prior columns, I discussed the problems with evidence against Seligmann - who has strong evidence supporting an alibi - and, to a lesser extent, against Finnerty. The evidence against Evans is also weak, maybe even more so.
Evans reportedly was not initially indicted, with the other two, because the accuser couldn't identify him with certainty (only with "90 percent certainty," in her words) from a photo lineup. Ten percent doubt sounds like a lot like reasonable doubt to me - and perhaps, at least initially, it sounded that way to D.A. Nifong too. And if the accuser herself has reasonable doubt, how can a prosecution go forward?
The accuser's lack of certainty is even more worrisome in light of the fact that the photo lineup was grossly biased. It included only Duke lacrosse players - meaning that the accuser had no choice but to select a Duke lacrosse player if she were to select anyone at all. And this photo lineup was apparently the sole means of identification for all three defendants.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the accuser is reported to have said that Evans's photo "looks just like [one of my assailants] without the mustache." According to Evans's defense lawyer, Evans has never worn a mustache. And party photos support this contention.
For all these reasons, the accuser's identification testimony is likely to be destroyed upon cross-examination.
The Problems with the New DNA Evidence
Besides the accuser's testimony, prosecutors also presented to the grand jury the results of a second round of DNA testing.
Readers may recall that the first round of DNA testing was, if anything, exculpatory: There was no DNA match whatsoever linking any of the forty-six lacrosse players whose DNA was taken, to the accuser.
Following those results, D.A. Nifong reportedly hired a private lab to re-test certain samples. In so doing, the new lab found a possible connection between defendant Evans and the accuser's discarded fake fingernail, found in the trash bin inside the bathroom.
To begin, it's awfully odd that the fake fingernail found its way into the trash bin in the first place, if a rape really occurred, and if the fake fingernail broke off during the victim's struggle, as she claims. No victim would clean up after her accusers; she would flee the scene. And if a culprit had the presence of mind to clean up -- realizing that the fake fingernail might be evidence against him -- surely he wouldn't just drop it in the trash can in the very room where the rape occurred, for police to easily find.
Significantly, too, defense attorneys claim the DNA material was found on the front of the nail -- not on the underside, where it would logically have lodged had the accuser scratched and clawed at her attackers as she claims.
But even putting these points aside, the DNA connection to Evans is weak. To begin, this isn't remotely close to the kind of "match" you may be familiar with from CSI - the kind where the odds of a false positive are infinitesimally small. Indeed, "match" here is a misnomer. All that can be said is that the DNA is "consistent" with DNA voluntarily supplied early on by Evans.
Shocking? Hardly. Evans lived in the house, and therefore may have, from time to time, blown his nose, swabbed an ear, or otherwise disposed of DNA-laden waste into that very trashcan.
Moreover, it was reportedly Evans himself who fished the fake nail from the garbage, voluntarily handing it over to police and maybe, just maybe, shedding some skin cells in the process.
As for direct evidence of sex, there is none; none from any of the forty lacrosse players, that is.
While the second round of DNA testing proved that semen was found inside the accusers vaginal cavity, spokespersons close to the defense are confident the source of the semen is the accuser's own boyfriend.
In sum, after cross-examination, there is little, if any, chance that a jury will give weight to this DNA evidence. It clashes with the accuser's own story, and it's as fully consistent with Evans's innocence as it is with his guilt.
The D.A.'s Unusual Hostility to Even Viewing Defense Evidence
Defense lawyers have repeatedly implored District Attorney Nifong to meet with them and to examine the evidence that favors the defendants. But Nifong has said no - with an attitude that boils down to, "Talk to the hand."
That's unusual. More often than not, prosecutors are quite open to exchanging - or at least being entertained by - the defense's evidence. After all, it provides them with a valuable preview of what the defense's case may ultimately look like in court. Prosecutors are legally required to turn over certain evidence to the defense, but no obligation runs the other way. And since the defense goes second, prosecutors may not be able to effectively counter defense "surprises."
For prosecutors, meeting with the defense is thus typically a win-win situation: If they are convinced to drop the case, then that's embarrassing - but far less than as a loss at trial would have been. If they aren't convinced to drop the case, they've gotten a precious new edge at trial. And either way, both the reality and appearance of fairness to the defendants are enhanced.
Giving a defendant a lie detector test, in contrast, isn't a win-win situation: It may hurt prosecutors' case if the results are released to the public. (Lie detector results are rarely - if ever - admissible in court.) But at the same time, a lie detector test - while risky, and far from perfect - is likely to get prosecutors closer to the truth, which is supposed to be what they are after.
As noted above, in this case, Evans claims Nifong refused to give Evans a lie detector test. (He ultimately took one himself, and passed.) In my professional experience, a prosecutor's refusing to administer a lie detector test to a defendant is nearly unheard-of. The defendant's answers - and the lie detector's response to them - may provide the prosecutor with a road map to what his vulnerabilities on the stand may be.
Just as meeting with the defense previews the defense case for prosecutors, administering a lie detector can preview the defendant's testimony, as well as his on-the-stand demeanor, showing prosecutors what kind of a witness he will be. (Confident? Nervous? Shifty? Solid?)
I can't help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves - surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused's innocence?
If There's A Card Up the D.A.'s Sleeve, the Law Requires Him to Play It Soon
Some pundits have suggested that the only explanation for the District Attorney's pressing on in the light of strong evidence that the defendants are innocent, is that he has a card up his sleeve. If so, then he needs to show that card, pronto.
The discovery statutes in North Carolina - as in most states - do not allow prosecutors to play "hide the ball." This is a judicial proceeding, not a magic show. So D.A. Nifong will have to reveal this evidence sometime before trial.
He ought to opt to reveal it right now - to give the defense a chance to counter it. When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it's wrong to just let the case go to trial and "see what the jury says." These three young men's live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper.
D.A. Nifong should listen to the defense, and should drop the case unless he has strong evidence supporting the accuser. Moreover, if he does have such evidence, he should show it to us now. The defendants have been forthcoming - especially Evans, who volunteered to, and then did, take a lie detector test. The prosecution should follow their example.
As for Nifong, he is accountable for his actions.
Post a Comment