bad "past personal relationships" vs bad "past professional relationships". Matter of perspective I suppose....
I was merely pointing out that Freda was fired for something that was supposedly done under Hardins watch. I supported Jim Hardin and trust that hed have done the right thing. Yet he didnt fire Freda.
Speaking for myself, I will not support a prosecutor involved in the railroading of ANYONE. Leon Brown or the duke players Leon Brown spent 13 months in jail awaiting trial while DNA and hair found on the accuser did not match the DNA Brown willingly provided (sound familiar?). Prosecutor Tracey Cline told the jury that her evidence will be sufficient to convince them that Brown was the rapist. Brown was completely acquitted of all charges. Oh, but thats not all. the jury foreman described the trial as a waste of time saying [w]e all wondered what we were doing there." The evidence was nonexistent. We're very comfortable with the decision we made. I can't understand why that man spent a year in jail when there was no evidence whatsoever against him. It made no sense to us. Where's the justice?" Pretty extraordinary comments from a jury dont ya think?
Check the campaign finance reports for Nifong in 2006 (or any DA campaign for that matter) most of his contributions are from lawyers. This points to a very serious flaw in the system lawyers donating to the campaigns of the prosecutors -- are they trying to buy favors? This practice should be stopped just as it was for Judges. In the meantime, it is entirely legal for any lawyer to contribute to a DA candidates campaign. I suspect youll see lawyers have contributed to Clines campaign too once her campaign finance reports are filed that is. Youre right, it is against the law for any business (etc) to contribute to a campaign but the legality of Claytons contribution (if in fact there was one) would depend on which bank account the contribution was drawn on a personal account or a business account. As far as I know, copies of the checks are not available to the public so Im skeptical of your claim. If you think shes breaking the law, give Mike Ashe a call.
Actually, Nifong fired Freda as his very first action after he was appointed to the office by Easley (you know, the appointment he received on the condition that he wouldnt subsequently run for office, check the archives). I do recall Nifong trying to name a new rule the Black rule typical Nifong, arrogant and spiteful. Did you support Jim Hardin? Do you wonder why Hardin didnt fire Black if her actions warranted? I also recall Nifong charged three men with a crime that never happened.
Cline didnt need to supervise Nifong to have known what was going on in that office. Many, who didnt work in that office knew what was going on. Cline was, by her own admission, part of Nifongs inner circle. She advised PD on the NTO, she told Ben Himan shed reviewed the case file (and told him PD had done a good job!), she sat alongside Nifong at the Prosecutors table for at least one of the lacrosse hearings and attended several others, she was the lead prosecutor for sexual assault cases. Was she totally unprepared at those hearings? Did Ben Himan lie? Did she advise PD to issue an NTO without asking about the case?? Give me a break.
That's not the way any organization works Cline had an ethical, moral and professional responsibility to speak out. I dont buy the I was too busy with my own workload BS. I have a more-than-full time job myself -- but I knew what was going on in the case by June/July of 2006. MANY, many people have heavy workloads but they knew what was going on too all one had to do was pay attention. I give no one in that office a pass they should have done what was right.
Sorry to say the lacrosse controversy is not dead. Perhaps if someone from inside that office HAD said something done something it would be dead. Instead our city is faced with three civil lawsuits (available online if you care to read them). Not dead not by a long shot.
Have YOU looked at the campaign finance reports at the SBOE? I have and maybe you should have another look. You should also go back and read the articles about owning the DAs office. Nifong made many statements about people wanting to own the DAs office not just about Jerry Clayton about people whod have absolutely nothing to gain by owning the DAs office. Those claims as well as the claims about job promises if so and so wins are garbage as are Clines claims of receiving threats when she filed for the election (seriously, would someone really make email threats to someone in the DAs office and the office do nothing about it)?
Youve obviously fallen for the real rhetoric being thrown around in this and the Nifong campaign. Go read some of the articles you, yourself, reference. Read at the SBOE. Whose telling you these stories and why do you believe them? The Indy was wrong about Nifong and their wrong again.
I havent heard the rumor about the photo of Nifong/Cline in the H/S must be the one with her sitting at the prosecution table at one of the lacrosse hearings.
We can agree on one thing boycotting the H/S. but thats another story.
Thanks Mike Kell ...
Yep, I'm from Durham too...
Cline is lying about the Duke case and her involvement. She'll likely be called to testify in the upcoming civil suits that will cost the Durham tax payers dearly... Personally, I'd vote for a Nifong tax -- assessed to those that endorsed and/or voted for him in November ... but I digress... Cline will be called to testify as to her involvement (imo), will she get caught lying under oath... or once again will the Durham DA's office be disgraced (or both).
If you're going to base your decision on Durham DA's job on personnel/personal rumors -- do a little digging you'll find some on Cline too.
"Is Candidate Cline now asking the citizens of Durham County to believe that even though Nifong planned to prosecute the case alongside her, and even though he told Mangum he would be working very closely with her, and even though she was the offices expert on sexual assault cases, and even though she was the offices highest-ranking African-American and woman in a case charged on race and gender lines . . . that she and Nifong never spoke about the details of the case, and that she knew no more about the details of the case than what appeared in the paper?
If so, is Candidate Cline calling Ben Himan a liar? After all, in cross-examination from Lane Williamson at the Nifong ethics hearing, Himan said that Cline told him that she had read over some of the case file."
read the whole story here:
Re: Your endorsement of Cline:
"Saacks corroborated Cline's account under oath during Nifong's criminal contempt hearing."
Says who? I was there, there is no transcript (yet). My memory is that Saacks testified that he was not involved in the drafting of the NTO, the officers spoke to Ms. Cline about the order but was out of the office the following morning and unable to review/sign... Saacks briefly reviewed and signed in her absence.
Remember Ms Cline was the lead prosecutor in charge of alleged sexual assault cases... it makes sense that the officers would have consulted with her ... her claims to have not provided advise would make her derelict in her duties may be correct -- but should she have provided advise that lead to an unconstitutional order?
Cline is quoted as saying transparency is what is needed in the DA's office. Yet she first denied ANY involvement or knowledge of the Duke case and denied ANY involvement in the unconstitutional DNA sweep of 46 Duke lacrosse players. Now Cline says she "advised" Durham PD to write up the order (NTO) for DNA ... One would think, a lead prosecutor would want to know the details of a case to determine if probable cause exists ... before advising the police to go forward with such an order. One would think....
To obtain a non-testimonial order for DNA, authorities are supposed to have probable cause and a reasonable suspicion that the subject of the NTO could have committed the crime. Was there probable and reasonable suspicion to obtain DNA from 46 citizens when the alleged crime involved only 3 and police had solid evidence that some of the 46 were out of town and not at the party??
Cline also agreed publicly that attorneys have a duty to report unethical conduct among their colleagues but says she lacked insights into what Nifong was doing. "I didnt have any personal information about what went on in the lacrosse case, other than what the media reported, she said. But. Officer Ben Himan testified, under oath, twice repeating the deposition is available online) that Cline told him she had reviewed the lacrosse case file -- offering her opinion that she believed the police had done a good job (?). Was Officer Himan lying?
At the DA Forum last night, Mitchell Garrell brought up this lack of transparency on Cline's part. Asking people to read the testimony of Officers Himan & Gottlieb, x-DA Nifong and David Saacks - their testimony does not support Cline's claims. Someone is, well, not being very transparent. Someone is mincing words and wiggling around much like your endorsed candidate (Nifong) did in 2006.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation