Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Blog and Media Roundup - Sunday, March 7, 2010; News Roundup
Topic Started: Mar 7 2010, 07:40 AM (224 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/6595798/article-Drugs--weapons-charges-filed?instance=crime_log

Drugs, weapons charges filed
03.06.10 - 07:51 pm
Drugs, weapons charges filed

DURHAM -- Durham Police Department officers from HEAT 1 (High Enforcement Abatement Team) and the DPD Selective Enforcement Team served a search warrant Friday morning at 1518 Ruffin Street.

Two people -- Kizzy Ann Boyd, 33, and Jermaine O. Bennett, 33, both of 1518 Ruffin St. -- were arrested and charged with trafficking and possession of drugs, possession of a weapon of mass destruction (sawed-off shotgun), possession of drug paraphernalia and maintaining a dwelling for the sale of drugs, according to police.

Bennett, who was already on federal probation, was also charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Investigators confiscated three assault rifles, three handguns, one sawed-off shotgun, 214.5 grams of cocaine, 34 Percocet pills, 14 Klonopin pills, a samurai sword, drug paraphernalia and ammunition.

Boyd and Bennett were each being held in Durham County Jail under $1 million bond.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/6595408/article-A--50-000-lesson-from-Duke?instance=editorial


A $50,000 lesson from Duke
03.06.10 - 06:24 pm
Duke University's tuition just crossed the $50,000 mark. The UNC Board of Governors and the General Assembly had better do something.

Not to bring tuition down, of course, not that they could: Duke, as a private university, has the right to operate like any other part of the free market. If the price tag isn't a deterrent -- and Duke reports ever-spiraling numbers of applications, so it clearly is not -- then the university is free to charge what it will.

The $50,000 threshold isn't noteworthy for its shock value; Duke admissions officials aver that most students don't pay the university's sticker price. It's important because it's the latest in a series of signals that Duke intends to grow through the recession.

And perhaps the tuition bump is the responsible choice. As the Ivy League has seen, a university that depends lives off of interest from its endowment is at the mercy of the financial markets. Duke and its endowment are young enough to still rely on tuition to help fund the university's strides in research, faculty and student experience.

It's a strategy that the General Assembly needs to adopt. The UNC governors are rightly concerned that the legislature might help itself to new funds that the UNC system is raising through modest tuition increases next year. We encourage them to keep fighting.

That money ought to be reinvested in higher education. Duke is far from the only university that sees the recession as an opportunity to gain ground in academia's constant competition for the brightest students, the best academic reputation, the most grant funding.

The UNC system has earned a national reputation for excellence because taxpayers paid dearly for it, including a $3.1 billion bond act in 2000. It was a brave investment, signaling that North Carolinians will stand by our public universities.

It has paid off in a national reputation for excellence.

We have spent too much time, money and effort to risk backsliding into the ranks of "good enough" regional universities.

It is counterproductive and irresponsible for the General Assembly to consider appropriating tuition money for any use beyond the universities' gates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-stumbled-across-blog-talking-about.html

Saturday, March 6, 2010
I stumbled across a blog talking about the Ben Roethlisberger accusation
First, I took issue with some of the commentators who seemed to assume his guilt: Comment 35: Pierce H. Says: How many of these guys have to be falsely accused of rape before you all stop assuming they’re guilty based on nothing more than the say so of some anonymous woman and before a scrap of evidence is admitted at trial? Remember Jerome Bettis? We won’t even mention that lacrosse team that was hung out to dry for a year (by a D.A. who was disbarred and a woman who was just arrested for attempted murder). But by all means, go ahead — rush to judgment, blame the guy who might just be the victim here, and convict him in the court of last resort, the blogosphere. Because some women nobody knows anything about, accused him. Pathetic!

Among others, commentator Jen in Comment 68 said this: You say we shouldn’t rush to judgement against Ben based on a lone accusation, but this isn’t a lone accusation. This is the second accusation. Why don’t we see the same multiple accusations against other high-profile athletes? With a pattern of accusations forming, it makes you wonder. I am not saying I think he’s guilty, I’m just saying that you have to consider the fact he might be guilty, and not dismiss his accuser as a “whore” or “slut” outright.

I agree that the evidence that has been made public in the first accusation (never filed a criminal complaint, waited over a year, friends who said she told them it was consensual, etc.) doesn’t seem to substantiate the woman’s claim. However, the circumstances of this accusation are different (immediate reporting to police and immediate medical treatment).

Then, me again, in comment 80: It is simply not fair to make any assumptions about the accused or the accuser here. But it is well to note that this nation has a long and shameful history of rushing to judgment based on an accusation and assuming men and boys committed rape when it later turned out they didn’t. The reputational harm they suffer often destroys their lives. If Ben Roethlisberger were your father, son, husband, boyfriend, or brother, you’d want everyone to treat him as exactly what he is — presumed innocent.

Let’s take Jen’s astounding refutation of my comment: “. . . but this isn’t a lone accusation. This is the second accusation.” Aside from making me want to bang my head against the wall, I would add this: yes, Jen, we now have a second accusation — in a wholly separate, distinct case. The first was an accusation in a civil, not a criminal, case about which you, yourself, said “the evidence that has been made public in the first accusation . . . doesn’t seem to substantiate the woman’s claim.” Yet you are content to take that admittedly shaky accusation which has not resulted in even an adjudication of civil liability, coupled with this one about which NONE OF US knows anything about, to find a “pattern of accusations forming.” The dark and sinister innuendo concocted from such a weak brew is breathtaking.

I note in passing that the Scottsboro Boys had a “pattern” of accusations against them, too. Theirs is among one of the most shameful injustices in our history. Gerald Amirault also had a “pattern” of accusations against him — the palpable injustices against him in Massachusetts became a campaign issue in the recent election where the Democrats lost John and Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

But you need not go back very far if you’re searching for atrocities when it comes to false rape claims; you just need to recall recent news stories, which are reported in hushed tones because it’s a subject too politically incorrect to talk about out loud: The testimony of a false accuser in New York sent an innocent man to prison for a twenty year term based on no other evidence than her say so. Finally, the false accuser found religion, recanted, and he was released after four years of — you guessed it — the worst kind of prison atrocities. She was sentenced last week to three years in prison and landed on the front page of the New York Post.

This week, a serial false accuser in the UK named Gail Sherwood was sentenced to two years imprisonment. A woman’s group protested the fact that charges were even brought against her. Also this past week, a false rape claim at Penn State ignited a panic. When it turned out there was no rape, the university used the incident as an occasion to warn everyone to be careful of rapists. Go figure.

At Hofstra University recently, a student falsely accused four young men of gang-raping her in a dormitory bathroom. Based solely on her word and nothing else, and despite their strenuous denials, the young men were immediately arrested with bail set high enough to insure they wouldn’t get out. Only then did police bother to review the video evidence to find that she lied. She recanted, they were released, but she, of course, was not sentenced to any jail time. The poor thing lied because she didn’t want her boyfriend to know that she had willingly engaged in group sex.

Another New York girl recently accused three teens of rape, and even after she recanted, one of the teens spent months in prison.

In Richmond, California earlier this year, a 17-year-old girl’s rape lie landed the suspect, her boyfriend, behind bars for three days because she was angry at him for something. Weeks later, a 15-year-old girl falsely cried rape in the same town.

At Loyola U. recently, a student falsely claimed she was sexually assaulted by three fellow students. And a 32-year-old woman recently falsely accused three younger men and a juvenile male of raping her at a party. In Florida recently, a fifteen-year-old girl falsely accused four 17-year-olds of forcibly raping her. Another boy sits in jail over a rape allegation made by the same girl just the previous month.

Have you heard about the black woman who recanted her previous claim that she’d been gang raped by seven white men now serving prison sentences? Even Al Sharpton wants that recantation taken seriously — and that will tell you something. What about the group of four men cleared of gang raping a 21-year-old woman after they claimed she invited them back to her apartment and engaged in consensual sex? Or the 25-year-old woman who falsely claimed, in graphic detail no less, that six men (including her boyfriend) gang raped her? Or the 16-year-old schoolgirl who had the temerity to falsely accuse six of her male classmates of seriously sexually assaulting her multiple times over several hours on a playing field? Or the 25-year-old hairdresser who falsely claimed five men raped her, but her lie was uncovered when it was discovered that a phone camera had caught her in the act of having enthusiastic, consensual sex with two boys (yes, boys)? And I could go on and on.

Is Ben guilty? I have no idea. And neither do you. If it turns out he’s not, will all you who are rushing to judgment promise to come back and talk about that? You see, the initial rape report is big news. The fact that the accusation turns out to be false or that there is nsufficient evidence to bring charges is often grudgingly reported. When three University of Arkansas players were accused of an alleged rape incident at a fraternity, a local television station actually broke into the station’s regular programming to provide a four-plus minute breaking news report about the accusation. Needless to say, when the prosecutor decided not to bring rape charges against them, there was no similar coverage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/07/372655/step-it-up.html


Published Sun, Mar 07, 2010 02:00 AM
Modified Sun, Mar 07, 2010 06:34 AM
Step it up

The state is moving with all deliberate speed to fill empty positions in the probation system. Emphasis on the deliberate. The delay in filling jobs is ridiculous, and the state Department of Correction has no obvious excuse.

The system is a mess, because of a shortage of officers. And to some degree, because of the low pay, it's no wonder. Probation officers start at a salary of $35,337. However, given the state of the economy, and North Carolina's double-digit unemployment rate, if candidates for these jobs (over 100 are open) can't be found now, when will they be found?

Yes, some officers have been hired, and officials have made offers to about 40 applicants. But the taxpayers deserve better service.

A News & Observer series in December of 2008 showed that 580 probationers had been convicted of intentional killings from 2000 to 2008 while they were on probation. Two men charged with the 2008 murder of UNC-Chapel Hill student body President Eve Carson (whose campus memorial garden just opened) were on probation but hadn't gotten much monitoring.

The delay in hiring officers is not acceptable, and Gov. Beverly Perdue should demand that the job get done or people be found who can do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://justice4nifong.blogspot.com/2010/03/nc-media-able-to-dish-it-out-but-cant.html

Saturday, March 6, 2010
NC media able to dish it out, but can’t take it
An interesting article by Anne Blythe appeared in the March 2, 2010 edition of the News & Observer titled, “Media protest call for reports on Carson case.” It states how media companies across the state of North Carolina are fighting attempts by federal defense attorneys to have media outlets in North Carolina hand over copies of everything published about the Eve Carson homicide case. The defense contends that media in the state have saturated the public with such adverse publicity against Carson’s accused killer, Demario Atwater, that it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial within the state. They are seeking to have the federal capital murder trial held in the neighboring state of Virginia.

Sixty news organizations have been subpoenaed by the defense to produce copies of all related newspaper articles, letters and editorials, and copies of TV and radio broadcasts. In response to the request, news organizations teamed up to quash the subpoena. Raleigh attorney Amanda Martin, representing the News & Observer argues that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to comply, despite the fact that a man is facing a death penalty if convicted. Obviously, the media’s convenience and bottom line are more important than whether or not a man, who is fighting for his life, has the benefit of a fair trial.

What makes this issue so pitifully hypocritical is the fact that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does the media respond when they are subpoenaed by the defense in a capital murder case? They whine about the inconvenience of a reduced staff and hardships in the current economic times… and they do so to stonewall Atwater’s defense team in the federal case. But, that is not the overriding reason. In my opinion, the media are trying to dispel any notion that their reporting on the Carson case was in any way, shape, or form, biased. But it was.

For example the media constantly showed images from the ATM camera depicting the defendants withdrawing cash, allegedly using Eve Carson’s bank card. Evidence against the defendants in the Carson case is repeatedly played across television screens throughout the state. This is a prime example of the prosecution trying a case in the media. Only this time, they’re being called on it by competent federal defenders. Although former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of trying the Duke Lacrosse case in the media, the fact is that he did not. To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media. Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants. It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients. However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team.

Of course, the media in North Carolina has been biased in its reporting on the Carson case, and a change of venue should be granted to assure that justice is served. A change of venue was not granted by Wilson Judge Milton Fitch in the case of James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson’s attorneys filed a motion to have the case moved from the city of Wilson (racially divided due to the irresponsible actions of the local law enforcement, prosecutors, and media), it was denied by Fitch without explanation. This unreasonable action by the judge was an obvious harbinger of things to come, and most likely prompted defendant Johnson to accept an Alford plea for the charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime… although he did, but his three day delay in doing so was not fast enough).

Nowhere is media bias more blatant than in the attacks against Mike Nifong, and they began in the early stages of the Duke Lacrosse case. WTVD ABC-11 News was instrumental in laying groundwork for a so-called motive for Mr. Nifong’s prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case… the ridiculous claim that he pursued the prosecution for political gain in order to win the election for Durham district attorney. The rigged poll they used stated that Nifong was in a virtual tie with Freda Black, and that a large black turnout favored Mr. Nifong. It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary. It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race. Yet, the media put it out there, and Mr. Nifong’s detractors used it.

One of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks played on the public by the media, however, has to do with their embracing the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” by Attorney General Roy Cooper. They universally used it as a basis to proclaim the three Duke defendants as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “wrongly accused,” “not guilty,” “exonerated,” “cleared of criminal charges,” etc. However, the use of these adjectives to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants is legally, technically, and factually wrong! The attorney general does not have the legal authority to make such pronouncements of “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence.” Gregory F. Taylor, who was found not guilty by a three judge panel referred by the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission, is, on the other hand, “innocent,” or “not guilty,” and terms such as “exonerated” and “cleared” are appropriate and applicable.

MSNBC’s senior legal analyst Susan Filan has fabricated a statement about Mr. Nifong, and CBS has written headlines that falsely put words in Mr. Nifong’s mouth. Just a few of the more egregious examples of biased reporting by North Carolina media.

At least Demario Atwater is getting what appears to be competent representation by his defense attorneys in his federal case. That cannot be said about the representation Mr. Nifong received before the North Carolina State Bar. Unfair media bias against Mr. Nifong should have been brought to the fore in his defense against the trumped up ethics charges. His attorneys (David Freedman and Dudley Witt from Winston-Salem) seemed more dedicated to appeasing the unregulated North Carolina State Bar and the media than presenting an aggressive no-holds-barred defense of their unjustly disparaged client.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

abb
Mar 7 2010, 07:59 AM
http://justice4nifong.blogspot.com/2010/03/nc-media-able-to-dish-it-out-but-cant.html

Saturday, March 6, 2010
NC media able to dish it out, but can’t take it
An interesting article by Anne Blythe appeared in the March 2, 2010 edition of the News & Observer titled, “Media protest call for reports on Carson case.” It states how media companies across the state of North Carolina are fighting attempts by federal defense attorneys to have media outlets in North Carolina hand over copies of everything published about the Eve Carson homicide case. The defense contends that media in the state have saturated the public with such adverse publicity against Carson’s accused killer, Demario Atwater, that it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial within the state. They are seeking to have the federal capital murder trial held in the neighboring state of Virginia.

Sixty news organizations have been subpoenaed by the defense to produce copies of all related newspaper articles, letters and editorials, and copies of TV and radio broadcasts. In response to the request, news organizations teamed up to quash the subpoena. Raleigh attorney Amanda Martin, representing the News & Observer argues that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to comply, despite the fact that a man is facing a death penalty if convicted. Obviously, the media’s convenience and bottom line are more important than whether or not a man, who is fighting for his life, has the benefit of a fair trial.

What makes this issue so pitifully hypocritical is the fact that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does the media respond when they are subpoenaed by the defense in a capital murder case? They whine about the inconvenience of a reduced staff and hardships in the current economic times… and they do so to stonewall Atwater’s defense team in the federal case. But, that is not the overriding reason. In my opinion, the media are trying to dispel any notion that their reporting on the Carson case was in any way, shape, or form, biased. But it was.

For example the media constantly showed images from the ATM camera depicting the defendants withdrawing cash, allegedly using Eve Carson’s bank card. Evidence against the defendants in the Carson case is repeatedly played across television screens throughout the state. This is a prime example of the prosecution trying a case in the media. Only this time, they’re being called on it by competent federal defenders. Although former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of trying the Duke Lacrosse case in the media, the fact is that he did not. To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media. Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants. It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients. However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team.

Of course, the media in North Carolina has been biased in its reporting on the Carson case, and a change of venue should be granted to assure that justice is served. A change of venue was not granted by Wilson Judge Milton Fitch in the case of James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson’s attorneys filed a motion to have the case moved from the city of Wilson (racially divided due to the irresponsible actions of the local law enforcement, prosecutors, and media), it was denied by Fitch without explanation. This unreasonable action by the judge was an obvious harbinger of things to come, and most likely prompted defendant Johnson to accept an Alford plea for the charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime… although he did, but his three day delay in doing so was not fast enough).

Nowhere is media bias more blatant than in the attacks against Mike Nifong, and they began in the early stages of the Duke Lacrosse case. WTVD ABC-11 News was instrumental in laying groundwork for a so-called motive for Mr. Nifong’s prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case… the ridiculous claim that he pursued the prosecution for political gain in order to win the election for Durham district attorney. The rigged poll they used stated that Nifong was in a virtual tie with Freda Black, and that a large black turnout favored Mr. Nifong. It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary. It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race. Yet, the media put it out there, and Mr. Nifong’s detractors used it.

One of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks played on the public by the media, however, has to do with their embracing the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” by Attorney General Roy Cooper. They universally used it as a basis to proclaim the three Duke defendants as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “wrongly accused,” “not guilty,” “exonerated,” “cleared of criminal charges,” etc. However, the use of these adjectives to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants is legally, technically, and factually wrong! The attorney general does not have the legal authority to make such pronouncements of “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence.” Gregory F. Taylor, who was found not guilty by a three judge panel referred by the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission, is, on the other hand, “innocent,” or “not guilty,” and terms such as “exonerated” and “cleared” are appropriate and applicable.

MSNBC’s senior legal analyst Susan Filan has fabricated a statement about Mr. Nifong, and CBS has written headlines that falsely put words in Mr. Nifong’s mouth. Just a few of the more egregious examples of biased reporting by North Carolina media.

At least Demario Atwater is getting what appears to be competent representation by his defense attorneys in his federal case. That cannot be said about the representation Mr. Nifong received before the North Carolina State Bar. Unfair media bias against Mr. Nifong should have been brought to the fore in his defense against the trumped up ethics charges. His attorneys (David Freedman and Dudley Witt from Winston-Salem) seemed more dedicated to appeasing the unregulated North Carolina State Bar and the media than presenting an aggressive no-holds-barred defense of their unjustly disparaged client.
It would seem to me that Nifong's defenders do their friend no good by associating him with Demario Atwater's defense team's tactics. I suppose, in their pathetic attempts to deny that their hero tried the case in the public, that they conveniently forget Nifong's demonstration on national television in an interview how CGM was supposedly grabbed in a chokehold by the players. That and his many assertions about the players and their actions were part of a plan to poison a potential jury pool - not just locally but nationally.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2010/03/did_danziger_bridge_police_cov.html

Did Danziger Bridge police cover-up reach into court?: James Gill
By James Gill
March 07, 2010, 6:00AM

Perhaps Michael Lohman was an even more diabolical operator than we thought.
Until he admitted masterminding a cover-up, Lohman had never been publicly implicated in the police shootings of unarmed citizens on the Danziger Bridge just after Katrina.
danziger.jpgThe Times-Picayune archive

New Orleans police arrest a man on the Danziger Bridge on Sept. 5, 2005.

Lohman, who retired as an NOPD lieutenant shortly before pleading guilty in federal court late last month, seemed to have played only a peripheral role, albeit one that helped the seven shooters beat state murder and attempted murder charges in 2008.

State district Judge Ray Bigelow dismissed the case, finding that assistant DA Dustin Davis had failed to keep grand jury testimony secret. Davis had allegedly shown a portion of a transcript to Lohman as the NOPD supervisor who had rushed to the bridge right after the shootings. Lohman had an unblemished record, and his word was not to be doubted.

However, considering that Lohman had all the while been busy falsifying reports and fabricating evidence, it now begins to look fishy that he was the policeman who came forward to derail the case with tales of prosecutorial misconduct.

Davis is now an assistant U.S. attorney in Miami and cannot therefore comment on a pending prosecution. But the other assistant DA who worked the case, Robert Culpepper, is no longer in the prosecution business. Culpepper, who was at the meeting where Davis allegedly showed Lohman the transcript, says it just didn't happen.

It was just a ploy to get Lohman's men off the hook, and it would have worked if the feds hadn't later decided to take up the case.

As to why nobody contradicted Lohman at the time, Culpepper said that neither he nor Davis expected Bigelow to throw the case out, and thus saw no percentage in starting a row with a veteran, well-respected officer.

By the time Bigelow did dismiss the indictment, Culpepper and Davis had both been out of the DA's office for several months.

In ruling that grand jury secrecy had been violated, Bigelow said the evidence of a violation was "clear" and "uncontroverted," and prosecutors decided not to pursue the case further.

But Culpepper, who has just returned from a stint with the Army in Afghanistan, says he would have been happy to testify that Lohman had never been shown the transcript.

Bigelow also found that Davis had indicted some of the officers on the strength of testimony they had given the grand jury under a guarantee of immunity. Culpepper said that the information used to bring indictments was already known from other sources, but Bigelow decided that prosecutorial missteps left the case in ruins.

Lohman has not been available for comment since his guilty plea, but that may be no great loss considering what a liar he has turned out to be. He is evidently a very cunning fellow, but, if he did manage to scupper the state case, he may have wound up hoist by his own petard.

He, after all, was not a defendant in the state case, and his integrity was unquestioned as prosecutors prepared for trial in Bigelow's court. He just happened to be the ranking officer the cop/suspects had reported to. It was natural he should be consulted in the investigation, and, when he said he had seen part of the transcript, there was no obvious reason to doubt him.

Eddie Jordan was DA at the time, and, on his watch, any suggestion of a prosecutorial screw-up was instantly plausible.
Had the state trial gone ahead, it is by no means certain that Lohman's crimes would have come to light. The grand jury indicted only the cops who left two dead, and four wounded, on the bridge. Only when the feds took over did the focus shift to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The conspiracy was so elaborate and protracted that Lohman's loyalty to his men evidently blinded him to any concern for justice or public safety. He knew from the beginning that this was "a bad shoot" but concocted stories to hide the truth like a born criminal.

He could not help the shooters in the end, but did manage to sacrifice himself on their behalf.

James Gill is a columnist for The Times-Picayune. He can be reached at jgill@timespicayune.com or at 504.826.3318.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply