| Legal nonsense implodes on itself; the NTO | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 8 2010, 09:45 AM (260 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Nov 8 2010, 09:45 AM Post #1 |
|
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-lineup-is-not-lineup-and-suspect.html TUESDAY, MAY 01, 2007 When A Lineup is Not A Lineup and A Suspect is Not A Suspect (snip) "It would not be a lineup if you simply asked the accuser if she recognized anyone from the [lacrosse] party," according to [Patrick] Baker. "You have suspects and nonsuspects." To each of the forty-six suspects, the non-testimonial order signed by Judge Ronald Stephens states:
In his affidavit requesting the NIO, the Durham Police Department's Inv. Benjamin Himan swears for each of the forty-six suspects: “I have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person named or described on the reverse committed the offense.” (snip) Contradicting Baker's erroneous perspective, North Carolina law offers no provision for non-testimonial identification orders of non-suspects. The statute reads:
Clearly, each of the photographs was obtained for the sole purpose, as described by DPD Inv. Himan and ordered by Judge Stephens, of inclusion in photographic lineups. Further, the photographs were secured based on the sworn assertion of DPD Inv. Himan that each of the forty-six subjects were suspected of committing the crime that never occurred. Baker's contention that the non-lineup lineup included both non-suspects and suspects appears to contradict the assertions made by Inv. Himan that each of the forty-six subjects of the NIO were suspects. Certainly, it defies logic that any one of the forty-six players could have simultaneously been both a suspect and a non-suspect. Had anyone of them not been a suspect, as Baker suggests to support his fragile claim that the lineups were acceptable, Inv. Himan's sworn statement must be false. By clinging to Defendant Nifong's illogical claims, Baker creates an argument that implodes upon itself. To support Nifong's lineup and absolve his police department's complicity, Baker has created an argument that requires him to admit that Inv. Himan deceived Judge Stephens into believing that each of the forty-six men were genuine suspects. (snip) If by no other measure than the simple fact that the procedures employed by his police department led to the wrongful indictments of three factually innocent men while allowing an obviously fraudulent accuser and a politically motivated rogue prosecutor to perpetuate a Hoax of monumental proportions that ripped his community asunder and left little confidence in the integrity of the police department he oversees, Baker must know that the lineup he defends had no investigative merit, no integrity, and no possibility of a result other than the indictment, arrest, and prosecution of innocent men. POSTED BY LIESTOPPERS AT 12:21 AM |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 8 2010, 09:46 AM Post #2 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






9:14 AM Jul 11