| Peter Neufeld's hypocrisy | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 22 2010, 10:23 PM (364 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Oct 22 2010, 10:23 PM Post #1 |
|
From the man who at a critical moment did more than any other to bolster Nifong's frame-up attempt and render it believable: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/when_justice_is_skin_deep/
How was "that kind of prosecutorial arrogance" able to get away with it? "Indifference to truth"? What kind of truth is he talking about? Evidence? What kind of evidence? The wrongfully accused have the right to have Neufeld explain the full story behind his dismissal of the DNA evidence which proved them innocent. They still bear the stigma of those false accusations. Neufeld helped craft the atmosphere in which the DNA evidence could be dismissed and Nifong could continue with his attempt to frame innocent persons for a crime which never happened. Neufeld has a moral obligation to undo as much as possible the effect of his words, and to try to repair as much of the damage which those words did, as he can. They are entitled to the full story of how those words came about. (Ball to Neufeld's court...) (MOO) |
![]() |
|
| comelately | Oct 22 2010, 11:03 PM Post #2 |
|
As usual, I am imitating a broken record. Neufeld is a part of the Liberal establishment. His liberal credentials are much more important to him than the freedom (or survival, for that matter) of three lousy rich kids. He has more important things to worry about: hundreds of innocent POOR people that need to be freed from prison. First things first! Whether he would prefer the "Lacrosse Rapists" to be convicted (of course, he knew that they were innocent) is a complicated question. But first things first: since then, I have not given a cent to the Innocence (FOR SOME) Project.
|
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Oct 23 2010, 10:20 AM Post #3 |
|
I recall that Reade got involved with the Innocence Project, doing some volunteer work IIRC. Also, Reade in his speech on the Declaration of Innocence Day said that he wanted to help those who had been wrongly accused, especially those who could not afford to defend themselves against false accusations. Didn't that at least cause a twang of guilt in the conscience of one Peter Neufeld? Can't he at least apologize for his remark in the NY Times article? Doesn't he want to take that back? Edited by MikeZPU, Oct 23 2010, 10:21 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 23 2010, 10:40 AM Post #4 |
|
If he spoke up as to WHY the Times wanted that quote from him, it might go a long way towards demonstrating the lengths that the establishment went in order to gain convictions of persons who were innocent (which is needed to help restore the reputations of the accused). Imagine if he had responded, instead, that given the circumstances (three men in a confined space, etc.), that leaving no DNA behind was an impossibility; and that the DNA tests had proven to a scientific certainty that the accused were innocent? And that the DNA evidence was so strong that if they were already in prison they would have been released? That would have been nothing less than the truth. What effect would that have had on Nifong's attempt to continue his prosecution? And maybe on the press coverage? Instead, Neufeld threw away everything he has spent his career trying to establish, in order to further an obvious frame-up. And I think the falsely-accused have a right to an apology and an explanation, in order to help with restoring their reputations. (MOO) Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 23 2010, 10:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 23 2010, 10:50 AM Post #5 |
|
BTW, he had ample opportunity to clarify his statements if he thought he had been misunderstood or if the reporter had misled him. But for the following year, he remained quiet except to repeat his "absence of evidence is not evidence" mantra a couple of more times. He cannot say that he was merely misunderstood; he said exactly what he intended to say about this case, and he repeated himself. Either he doesn't believe all he has been saying about DNA as a reliable indicator over the years, or else he himself became in effect a false accuser. And he has the moral obligation (which he so often likes to apply to prosecutors and to society in general) to make that right. (JMOO) Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 23 2010, 10:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 23 2010, 01:25 PM Post #6 |
|
So tell me again how after a gang rape in a tiny space and 30 minute struggle, with ejaculation, scratching, etc., the DNA of NONE of the players is found, but the DNA of between five and ten other men IS found and the original suspects are STILL not cleared and those whose DNA WAS found are not charged? Since when is DNA a reliable indicator in SOME cases but NOT a reliable indicator in other cases? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 24 2010, 09:52 AM Post #7 |
|
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/08/nifong-today-attorneys-lesson.html From John in Carolina Aug. 30, 2007 An attorney I was talking with the other day gave me a lesson. The attorney said the public still has no idea “just how extraordinarily important and powerful” the DNA evidence is that DA Nifong and DNA Security Lab director Brian Meehan conspired to withhold from the defense. What follows is a close paraphrase, using a first person voice, of what the attorney then said: ------------------- Suppose it’s 1985 and those three guy are accused and indicted just as they were. Everything’s the same as it is now except no DNA. At the trial it’s only the woman’s word and she’s changed her story a couple of times. But that’s no problem. The prosecution puts expert witnesses on the stand who tell the jury it’s normal for a woman to change her story. I’ve seen cases where prosecutors have told juries that the woman changing her story is one more proof she was raped. Factor in the media onslaught you had against those kids and you get convictions. They’re sent away for life. Twenty years goes by. Now it's 2006 and DNA evidence identical to the evidence Nifong and Meehan tried to hide is brought forward in an actual innocence claim on the players' behalf. That evidence, in and of itself, is enough to set those guys free. Just that DNA evidence. It’s that powerful. It's that important. Not only that, and I could cite the appellate court decisions for you, in circumstances like that states have been directed by the courts to expunge any records of the charges, the convictions, and the imprisonments. The state is supposed to also make formal apologies to the guys. It's all an attempt to “make the person whole;” only you can’t really make a person whole in those circumstances. The state is also supposed to look at the case again. Did the woman lie? Was she drugged and just didn’t know who? Did she just ID the wrong guys? Is she still claiming rape? ( The attorney mentioned that when North Carolina prosecutors seek indictment for rape, they almost always also seek indictments for sexual assault and kidnapping as happened in the Hoax case. Attorneys and judges refer to the practice of linking the three as “boxcaring.” - JinC) If the state believes the woman is confused but still has some credibility or if it believes on some other basis a sex crime was committed against her, it should treat the other men, excluding the driver, whose DNA was found in her as suspects; and then either eliminate them as suspects or weigh bringing charges. -------------------------------- So why would Peter Neufeld disagree with the above, in a case where the DNA evidence COULD NOT BE IGNORED, because under the circumstances, ITS ABSENCE WAS PROOF OF ABSENCE? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 24 2010, 10:02 AM Post #8 |
|
For the record:
Neufeld's opening remark was not just a slip of the tongue. He repeatedly commented before the media that the DNA evidence in the lax case was irrelevant. He knew what he was doing, IMHO. (MOO) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 24 2010, 10:13 AM Post #9 |
|
How it works when DNA experts don't deny the reliability of DNA testing:
What if Peter Neufeld had gone before the MSM three times to disparage the relevance of DNA testing in this case? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 24 2010, 10:18 AM Post #10 |
|
Sign NOT to be found at the Innocence Project? "Innocence knows no color." (MOO) |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Oct 25 2010, 09:04 AM Post #11 |
|
If and when the Civil Trial starts, this case - the summary article above -- should be put right in front of the face of Nifong and all the other perps in the Duke Lacrosse case. Note that the determination of whether to file charges in the Arkansas case took close to 6 months for the attendant investigation to be completed. That investigation also allowed the accused to take a polygraph AS AN INVESTIGATORY TOOL unlike the DPD. There were so many things done wrong in the Duke Lacrosse case that it is abundantly clear that they were done wrong on purpose, and that the major perps knew that Mangum was lying, that there had been no rape. Edited by MikeZPU, Oct 25 2010, 09:06 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:15 AM Jul 11