Replies

As I understand his "defense," it boils down to a few elements.

1. I don't recall a meeting.

2. I was distracted and couldn't give my full attention to the case.

3. Other people who were helping me weren't reading the material, they were just copying it. It's their fault, not mine! Oh, I know I was the lead investigator, but why do I have to do everything?

4. Never, and I mean NEVER, did I expect such a spirited response pre-trial. It's simply not fair to the prosecution when people have the means and the will to fight for their freedom.

5. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that the test results didn't implicate any of the defendants. However, in my professional opinion as a prosecutor, that doesn't mean it was favorable to the defense, so I didn't think it was necessary to let them know about it.

"I can only report that I have no recollection of that meeting and that I have no documentation or other evidence that I ever attended such a meeting,"

I just showed that quote to my husband; after his head stopped spinning, he said, "Well, maybe THEY don't remember the party, so let's drop this whole thing."

That's just a ridiculous statement on his part; notice he is flat out denying the CRIMINAL charges.

"For me, this case was an eyewitness identification case, one in which I was looking for DNA evidence that either corroborated that identification or refuted it," Nifong said.

And yet we get:

But Nifong said he did not see the test results as necessarily favorable to the defense. "They neither suggested that no assault took place nor that the assault was committed by someone else," Nifong said.

And most preposterous of all:

In one of the letters, Nifong said he feared the bar was "looking for a prosecutor" to punish for the misdeeds of other prosecutors whose misconduct has recently come to light and who have gone largely unpunished.

That isn't going to exactly make them happy, you think?

He said he had never before encountered such determined pretrial resistance. "A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals -- most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina, have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial."

I bet the mothers LOVE that remark. How dare them try to defend themselves.

As has been said before, if I had had a case in front of him, I'd be combing through my case.

Point 5 should be expanned as Nifong also claims he knew the defendants would get the underlying data, although Nifong argued against them getting it in court accusing the defense attorneys of a witch hunt, and thus he did not need to disclose those results to the defense in a report. Basically Nifong is saying that you get discloture only if you are rich enough to pay for your own expert to examine the data.