Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 12:52:56 AM
75132 Posts in 1768 Topics by 359 Members
Latest Member: nic4real
Home Help Login Register
TalkLeft Discussion Forums  |  Topics  |  Duke Players' Discredited Sexual Assault Case  |  Archived Duke Players' Discredited Sexual Assault Case Topics  |  Nifong conduct rebuked early 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Nifong conduct rebuked early  (Read 31387 times)
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

"I thought he was banned permanently too" OM OM OM


WWW
Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2007, 05:19:53 PM »

That was Ekstrand.

Thank you so much, imho.  Ekstrand of the 'Law Scool Leaker' posts by KC.

Heheh, google sure works better when you know how to spell the name right!  lol

While Meadows describes Ekstrand as 'their lawyer', he certainly wasn't that in any official sense.  How was it that he got involved?

Newsweek


Battle Lines Are Drawn Over Duke Rape Charge

4/24/2006

Thomas, Evan

http://p206.ezboard.com/fhackedbannedandlockeddownfrm24.showMessage?topicID=13.topic&index=3

Quote
(Robert Ekstrand, who represents 33 of the players, used a forensics expert to establish the photo times.)
Logged

QT
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2007, 05:22:21 PM »

Quote
They submitted their DNA samples under a court order.

Yes, voluntarily.
Logged
Epublius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1397


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2007, 05:23:43 PM »

We know the players voluntarily gave DNA samples, despite the reports in the media. They did not have to comply with that order at all. Their attorneys could have held it off until doomsday.

So let's keep it straight.

All of the players voluntarily submitted their DNA samples.


The players cancelled the agreed upon meeting with investigators.  They submitted their DNA samples under a court order.


Only Chief Inspector Clouseau Nifong could have 46 "persons of interest" -- most who did not match the descriptions give by the AV -- order DNA test with the declaration that the tests would separate the guilty from the innocent, get the tests back with NO matches of his persons of interest, and then declare DNA wasn't all that important.

Why would he order everyone to be DNA tested if only a few matched the AV's descriptions?  (Hint:  Nifong didn't believe her either, and was rolling the dice.)

Logged
Ready4Freddy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803

Come to the Dark Side. We have cookies.


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2007, 05:26:31 PM »

We know the players voluntarily gave DNA samples, despite the reports in the media. They did not have to comply with that order at all. Their attorneys could have held it off until doomsday....All of the players voluntarily submitted their DNA samples.

And, all PR aspects aside, I still believe that it was a mistake to do so.  Refusing to comply with the Order would have forced hearings that would have been, in effect, probable cause hearings.  I think that move may well have cost them these last 10 months of hell.

The players weren't officially represented by attorneys at that point, apparently - it's unclear exactly what capacity Ekstrand was working in, the Newsweek article notwithstanding.  If he was indeed their atty at that meeting, he f!@cked up royally by not telling them to hold off.

Never ever give up your Constitutional rights because you're innocent. 
Logged
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2007, 05:31:40 PM »

Who expects the Spanish Inquisition?
Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

"I thought he was banned permanently too" OM OM OM


WWW
Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2007, 05:33:41 PM »

Quote
They submitted their DNA samples under a court order.

Yes, voluntarily.

Under threat of up to 90 days in jail for non-compliance. They can get a new order and send them back for another 90 days and repeat until they have served a year. All with out holding a probable cause hearing.
Logged

QT
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2007, 05:46:58 PM »

Ready4 has it right.

The court order was in fact worthless, and they should never have volunteered their DNA.

You have to lay the blame on their counsel, I'm afraid.

No one is perfect, though.
Logged
Ready4Freddy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803

Come to the Dark Side. We have cookies.


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2007, 05:55:56 PM »

[Under threat of up to 90 days in jail for non-compliance. They can get a new order and send them back for another 90 days and repeat until they have served a year. All with out holding a probable cause hearing.

A proper appeal of the Order would have forestalled all you mention.

The appeal would have required hearings that would have had the effect of a PC hearing, but would not have been one per se.  Testimony there probably would have revealed the paucity of evidence.

I'm not saying that refusing to comply would have been w/o it's own bad effects, particulaly PR-wise, nor am I suggesting that it would be a sure thing that it would have stopped this madness early on.

But they certainly wouldn't have spent any time in jail over it...  well, Stephens did sign the Order, didn't he?
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2007, 05:58:29 PM »

IMHO: The players cancelled the agreed upon meeting with investigators.  They submitted their DNA samples under a court order.

The players? In unison? Did they all yell into the telephone at once? Did they individually call the station?

The players did not cancel the meeting. An attorney who worked for Duke University, when he was notified by parents of the players that he did not represent them, cancelled the meeting.

For you to repeat an untruth this long after the fact only speaks to your lack of credibility.

The Cheshire letter demonstrates not only that he was alerted that his racially inflammatory public rants were in violation of the State Bar's ethics codes, but it also commemorated that prior to April 2006 Nifong had already established a policy of refusing to meet with the defense. This demonstrates that Nifong's criminal conspiracy to falsely charge lacrosse students was already under way.

You can pretend to believe that the players didn't cooperate with the investigation, but the rest of us know better.
Logged
Ready4Freddy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803

Come to the Dark Side. We have cookies.


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2007, 06:03:10 PM »

The players did not cancel the meeting. An attorney who worked for Duke University, when he was notified by parents of the players that he did not represent them, cancelled the meeting.

Vitriol aside, BiP, was Ekstrand engaged by Duke to advise the players?  Was there truly an attorney / client relationship at that point?

Looks like Evans, at least, engaged counsel (Cheshire) soon thereafter, w/in 3-5 days, apparently.

Have been trying to piece that all together for a while.
Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

"I thought he was banned permanently too" OM OM OM


WWW
Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2007, 06:18:50 PM »

IMHO: The players cancelled the agreed upon meeting with investigators.  They submitted their DNA samples under a court order.

The players? In unison? Did they all yell into the telephone at once? Did they individually call the station?

The players did not cancel the meeting. An attorney who worked for Duke University, when he was notified by parents of the players that he did not represent them, cancelled the meeting.

For you to repeat an untruth this long after the fact only speaks to your lack of credibility.

The Cheshire letter demonstrates not only that he was alerted that his racially inflammatory public rants were in violation of the State Bar's ethics codes, but it also commemorated that prior to April 2006 Nifong had already established a policy of refusing to meet with the defense. This demonstrates that Nifong's criminal conspiracy to falsely charge lacrosse students was already under way.

You can pretend to believe that the players didn't cooperate with the investigation, but the rest of us know better.

Andy Peterson left a voicemail that the players would not be making the meeting.  Are you saying the players did not authorize him to make that call?  Anyone who didn't want to go along with that decsion could have kept the appointment. Not one chose to show up or reschedule the meeting.  They only showed up when ordered to do so by the court.
Logged

QT
cpamba
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1530


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2007, 06:30:44 PM »

IMHO: The players cancelled the agreed upon meeting with investigators.  They submitted their DNA samples under a court order.

The players? In unison? Did they all yell into the telephone at once? Did they individually call the station?

The players did not cancel the meeting. An attorney who worked for Duke University, when he was notified by parents of the players that he did not represent them, cancelled the meeting.

For you to repeat an untruth this long after the fact only speaks to your lack of credibility.

The Cheshire letter demonstrates not only that he was alerted that his racially inflammatory public rants were in violation of the State Bar's ethics codes, but it also commemorated that prior to April 2006 Nifong had already established a policy of refusing to meet with the defense. This demonstrates that Nifong's criminal conspiracy to falsely charge lacrosse students was already under way.

You can pretend to believe that the players didn't cooperate with the investigation, but the rest of us know better.

Andy Peterson left a voicemail that the players would not be making the meeting.  Are you saying the players did not authorize him to make that call?  Anyone who didn't want to go along with that decsion could have kept the appointment. Not one chose to show up or reschedule the meeting.  They only showed up when ordered to do so by the court.

Are you suggesting that Fong was really, truly interested in justice?  Source?
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2007, 06:42:22 PM »

IMHO, you said that the players cancelled the meeting. Prove it. Andy Peterson on the team? Andy Peterson employed by the team? All the players? Some of the players? When he cancelled the meeting, who was paying him?

Prove it or stop misrepresenting the players.

The players complied with a court order that was so broad that it could have been tied up in court forever if they had preferred. Cheshire's letter shows that Nifong had refused to meet with the defense from before April 2006. You can continue to live in your fabrication. The rest of us know better.
Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

"I thought he was banned permanently too" OM OM OM


WWW
Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2007, 06:43:08 PM »

IMHO: The players cancelled the agreed upon meeting with investigators.  They submitted their DNA samples under a court order.

The players? In unison? Did they all yell into the telephone at once? Did they individually call the station?

The players did not cancel the meeting. An attorney who worked for Duke University, when he was notified by parents of the players that he did not represent them, cancelled the meeting.

For you to repeat an untruth this long after the fact only speaks to your lack of credibility.

The Cheshire letter demonstrates not only that he was alerted that his racially inflammatory public rants were in violation of the State Bar's ethics codes, but it also commemorated that prior to April 2006 Nifong had already established a policy of refusing to meet with the defense. This demonstrates that Nifong's criminal conspiracy to falsely charge lacrosse students was already under way.

You can pretend to believe that the players didn't cooperate with the investigation, but the rest of us know better.

Andy Peterson left a voicemail that the players would not be making the meeting.  Are you saying the players did not authorize him to make that call?  Anyone who didn't want to go along with that decsion could have kept the appointment. Not one chose to show up or reschedule the meeting.  They only showed up when ordered to do so by the court.

Are you suggesting that Fong was really, truly interested in justice?  Source?

Are you suggesting the 40 + players were interested in giving the police a statement?

There were plenty of people asking them to "come forward," and there was nothing stopping them other than their decision to follow the advice of their parents and or attorneys.  That is their right, but that is not "cooperating with the investigation."
Logged

QT
cpamba
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1530


Re: Nifong conduct rebuked early
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2007, 06:45:50 PM »

IMHO: The players cancelled the agreed upon meeting with investigators.  They submitted their DNA samples under a court order.

The players? In unison? Did they all yell into the telephone at once? Did they individually call the station?

The players did not cancel the meeting. An attorney who worked for Duke University, when he was notified by parents of the players that he did not represent them, cancelled the meeting.

For you to repeat an untruth this long after the fact only speaks to your lack of credibility.

The Cheshire letter demonstrates not only that he was alerted that his racially inflammatory public rants were in violation of the State Bar's ethics codes, but it also commemorated that prior to April 2006 Nifong had already established a policy of refusing to meet with the defense. This demonstrates that Nifong's criminal conspiracy to falsely charge lacrosse students was already under way.

You can pretend to believe that the players didn't cooperate with the investigation, but the rest of us know better.

Andy Peterson left a voicemail that the players would not be making the meeting.  Are you saying the players did not authorize him to make that call?  Anyone who didn't want to go along with that decsion could have kept the appointment. Not one chose to show up or reschedule the meeting.  They only showed up when ordered to do so by the court.

Are you suggesting that Fong was really, truly interested in justice?  Source?

Are you suggesting the 40 + players were interested in giving the police a statement?

There were plenty of people asking them to "come forward," and there was nothing stopping them other than their decision to follow the advice of their parents and or attorneys.  That is their right, but that is not "cooperating with the investigation."


Give it up . . . you lost this battle.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here