Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Peter Neufeld's hypocrisy
Topic Started: Oct 22 2010, 10:23 PM (364 Views)
Quasimodo

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/
Quote:
 


When Justice Is Skin-Deep
Posted on Apr 26, 2007

By Marie Cocco

(snip)

“We found that in 50 percent of our cases there was serious police or prosecutorial misconductthat’s what you had in the Duke case,” says Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the project and one of Miller’s lawyers. “Hopefully more people will now want to try to prevent that kind of prosecutorial arrogance and indifference to truth.”




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)


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
comelately

Quasimodo
Oct 22 2010, 10:23 PM
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/
Quote:
 


When Justice Is Skin-Deep
Posted on Apr 26, 2007

By Marie Cocco

(snip)

“We found that in 50 percent of our cases there was serious police or prosecutorial misconductthat’s what you had in the Duke case,” says Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the project and one of Miller’s lawyers. “Hopefully more people will now want to try to prevent that kind of prosecutorial arrogance and indifference to truth.”




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)


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. :bunn:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
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?


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504EFD61E30F932A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

COLLEGES; Lawyers for Duke Players Say DNA Evidence Clears the Team
By DUFF WILSON and JULIET MACUR

Published: April 11, 2006


[ONE YEAR WASTED; and this case could have been stopped on April 11, 2006.
And Neufeld had the power to stop it IMHO]


(snip)

Another defense lawyer, Wade M. Smith, called on Nifong to drop the case.

''Perhaps this community can begin to heal,'' Smith said at a news conference with other lawyers on the steps of the Durham County Criminal Justice Center.


(snip)

Nifong said most rape cases did not depend on DNA testing. ''I'm not saying it's over,'' he said Monday night, according to The News and Observer. ''If that's what they expect, they will be sadly disappointed.'' Nifong, who is running for re-election, spoke at a candidate forum.

Peter J. Neufeld of the nonprofit Innocence Project, an expert on DNA testing, said that in general, an absence of DNA evidence did not necessarily mean there was not a crime. ''There have been thousands and thousands of men who have been convicted in the United States of the crime of rape without DNA and without semen,'' Neufeld said.

(snip)


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?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo


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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

For the record:

Quote:
 

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

(snip)

The day after the results of the first round of DNA tests were turned over to defense attorneys and announced to the public, Neufeld downplayed the results. On April 11th, the New York Times wrote:

"Peter J. Neufeld of the nonprofit Innocence Project, an expert on DNA testing, said that in general, an absence of DNA evidence did not necessarily mean there was not a crime.

"There have been thousands and thousands of men who have been convicted in the United States of the crime of rape without DNA and without semen," Neufeld said."


It’s possible to believe that the New York Times pulled one small piece of Neufeld’s statements to support the Hoax, but Neufeld continued with the same theme in later interviews. On April 23rd, after the indictments of Seligmann and Finnerty and after information about Seligmann’s alibi had been revealed, the Washington Post wrote,

“Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project says, "There's an old saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

This was a rather strange statement for someone who is the co-founder and co-director of an organization whose sole mission is to use DNA testing to free wrongfully accused people. How many innocent people have been convicted by jurors who believed “the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence?" Is there any statement that is more inconsistent with concepts like “presumption of innocence,” “burden of proof,” and “beyond a reasonable doubt?"

Even after Nifong finally turned over to the defense attorneys the selective results of the second round of DNA tests, which showed no DNA matches linking any lacrosse player to the accuser (and, in fact, showing semen from the accuser’s “boyfriend," though not disclosing matches to at least four other unidentified males), Neufeld continued to give quotes apparently supporting the false prosecution. On May 15th, the day Dave Evans was indicted, ABC News reported,

"The truth is if you speak to crime lab directors, they will tell you that in only a relatively small number of cases is there any DNA evidence," said Peter Neufeld, co-founder and co-director of the Innocence Project, which uses DNA to free people wrongly imprisoned.

"In rape cases, there is an expectation of DNA. But like many expectations, often it is misplaced."


How can these statements possibly be justified coming from the co-founder and co-director of the Innocence Project? How can they be viewed as advancing the causes of the organization? Aren’t they almost verbatim what countless government attorneys have argued on appeal opposing motions for new trials on the basis of DNA evidence? Why would Neufeld repeatedly give such statements to the press, making them publicly available to be cited against his organization in future court arguments? Why has Neufeld not come forward after all that has been revealed to express regret for his public erroneous “reverence for prosecutors and the police” that was used by the press to downplay the dramatic and early revelations that the accuser’s story was a lie and Nifong's prosecution was a hoax? Shouldn’t one expect a different reaction from the Innocence Project? Shouldn’t one expect such an organization to be vigilant against an abuse of prosecutorial power? Doesn't its mission require no reservations about advocating for innocent defendants, no matter who they are or what the New York Times says about them?

How truly disappointing and disconcerting that the only thing Neufeld said about the Hoax that turned out to be insightful and relevant is that “many expectations” are often “misplaced."


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)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

How it works when DNA experts don't deny the reliability of DNA testing:

Quote:
 
http://arkansasnews.com/2010/02/06/special-prosecutor-says-case-closed/

Special Prosecutor Says Case Closed

February 6, 2010

By Robbie Neiswanger
Arkansas News Bureau • rneiswanger@arkansasnews.com

FAYETTEVILLE — The special prosecutor appointed to investigate the incident involving three Arkansas men’s basketball players accused of rape at an on-campus party last summer has determined that no charges will be filed in the case.

H.G. Foster, who was appointed to the review the matter in November, filed a letter with Washington County Circuit Judge William Storey Friday morning indicating that the case was closed. Foster made his determination “based on the UA Police Department investigation, tests and reports of the Arkansas State Crime Lab and other information developed in the case.”

“It is my finding that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of a criminal charge,” Foster wrote.

(snip)

The players involved said they were “unfairly portrayed and placed in a false light” during the past five months. Britt and Bryant took and passed a polygraph examination in December, while voluntary DNA samples “conclusively” proved they “did not commit the acts of which they were accused.


What if Peter Neufeld had gone before the MSM three times to disparage the relevance of DNA testing in this case?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Sign NOT to be found at the Innocence Project?



"Innocence knows no color."







(MOO)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Quasimodo
Oct 24 2010, 10:13 AM
How it works when DNA experts don't deny the reliability of DNA testing:

Quote:
 
http://arkansasnews.com/2010/02/06/special-prosecutor-says-case-closed/

Special Prosecutor Says Case Closed

February 6, 2010

By Robbie Neiswanger
Arkansas News Bureau • rneiswanger@arkansasnews.com

FAYETTEVILLE — The special prosecutor appointed to investigate the incident involving three Arkansas men’s basketball players accused of rape at an on-campus party last summer has determined that no charges will be filed in the case.

H.G. Foster, who was appointed to the review the matter in November, filed a letter with Washington County Circuit Judge William Storey Friday morning indicating that the case was closed. Foster made his determination “based on the UA Police Department investigation, tests and reports of the Arkansas State Crime Lab and other information developed in the case.”

“It is my finding that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of a criminal charge,” Foster wrote.

(snip)

The players involved said they were “unfairly portrayed and placed in a false light” during the past five months. Britt and Bryant took and passed a polygraph examination in December, while voluntary DNA samples “conclusively” proved they “did not commit the acts of which they were accused.


What if Peter Neufeld had gone before the MSM three times to disparage the relevance of DNA testing in this case?
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply