« David Sirota: The liberal spin vanguard | Main | Evan Bayh: Abolish the Electoral College »

May 01, 2006


I agree about Nifong, but the irony of the defense asking that he be taken off the case is just too much. Both sides have been manipulating public opinion left and right on this case. The trial will be a sham because all the jurors will go into it with their minds made up.

I have been following this case closely and have seen nothing to indicate that District Attorney Nifong is incompetent. Neither you nor I have all of the information--for the most part, we only have what the defense attorneys have told us, which is clearly one-sided. While one or both of the defendants may in fact be innocent, it appears that Nifong went on the information he had at the time, which was an identification by the alleged victim. While he may in time drop the charges against Seligmann, he is right do be very careful in doing so, and in particular, not to do so in the heat of an election.

In addition, it seems probable that "something" did in fact happen at the party. Nifong may have bought charges in an effort to "smoke out" more information, perhaps in an effort to force the alleged perpetrators to supply more information in a case in which they were "less than forthcoming" regarding information that might be prejudicial to their teammates. In the circumstances of this case, I cannot say this strategy is wrong or unfair, much less "incompetent". While having to handle a high profile case during an election is unfortunate, I do not believe the merits of Nifong's candidacy should be judged solely on the basis of this case.

P.S. I do not know Nifong personally, nor do I have any stake in the outcome. I simply believe the statement that Nifong is incompetent is irresponsible, and prejudges a case where we do not have complete information, to the detriment of the public and the administration of justice.

Alan says, "It appears that Nifong went on the information he had at the time, which was an identification by the alleged victim." In a competently run investigation, wouldn't the DA have looked into whether one of the people identified had a verifiable alibi before securing an indictment?

Instead, we have today's charade--photos of Seligmann at an ATM machine while the alleged rape was occurring.

I'd like to know what was going through Nifong's mind as he saw the photos.

I would like to echo Melanie's reply: the prosecution should have had info on an alibi, unless someone withheld that information purposely. Given the high profile of the case, I wouldn't be surprised, if someone wants to make Nifong look foolish. I don't know what to believe, but I do believe that something is amiss.

The comments to this entry are closed.