I must say I am pleasantly surprised that this review is a real review, and not a re-write of the publisher's talking points that have appeared other places. Good job on catching the essence of what isn't in the book: either new information or independent analysis. Thanks for being an objective, dispassionate reviewer.
By the way, I met Durhamres in person last night at the DA forum, so I know that one isn't a robot and does live in Durham. That only leaves one other poster, and she is from NC. So who exactly is from Texas or Illinois or wherever?
The robots don't live in Durham, but some of us real people do. Come on by; I'm the lacrosse coach/physicist living on Knox.
If it were to be true that Cline is the best qualified, and I do not believe that is the case, we are surely in trouble. She is the only candidate who has had a jury forman, a judge, and her fellow ADA's call her honesty into question. And for good reason, NONE of which has to do necessarily with the lacrosse case!
That's just the 'exclamation point' that seals the deal.
I went to the DA forum last night and they didn't have time for submitted questions from the audience.
It was clear there were questions about Cline's competence PRECISELY in handling a large case load, PRECISELY about her "justice for all." Just go to news.google.com and search on "Cline dismissed charges" and you can read the archives how SHE wrote the wrong case number on a dismissal form resulting in severe molestation charges being dropped. The "excuse"? Large case load.
Ask Hon. Orlando Hudson about how he felt Cline was wasting court time and resources trying to bring murder charges against a man who had a deal with the police to cooperate that forbid those charges.
Ask Leon Brown, a Black man Cline prosecuted for a rape the victim said (and DNA said!) that a white man committed, or ask the jury foreman in that case who took the rare step of publicly stating after the verdict, "They had no evidence, none. This was a complete waste of our time."
Cline's problem is general incompetence and dishonesty. It's not the lacrosse case, but that is a symptom.
I am surprised the INDY endorsed Cline. I knew you were a fluff publication, I just didn't know you were that uninformed and uninvolved in Durham.
Since it is clear Cline served as second chair in several hearings, because NO ONE is that good with photoshop we know she was there from the picture, then shouldn't the INDY ask bluntly: did you come to court unprepared because you have said you didn't know anything except what was reported in the media, or did you lie about how much you actually reviewed the case notes? You can't have it both ways.
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