Friday, October 27, 2006

Dereliction of duty?

A little help with this one, please.

Not being an attorney, let alone a prosecutor, I will gladly be put back on the right track, but this guy prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse rape case seems to me to be a candidate a good ass kicking by his boss.

The district attorney prosecuting three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a woman at a team party said during a court hearing Friday that he still hasn't interviewed the accuser about the facts of the case.

"I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We're not at that stage yet."


When does the “interview the accuser” stage begin? Is it before or after hell freezes over?

How in the hell can 7 months have passed without someone from the DA’s office formally interviewing the accuser?

If I’m one of the accused in this case, it would be time to storm the DA’s office with torches and pitchforks.

Seven months. S-E-V-E-N MONTHS and the only thing Nifong has been curious about is whether the still unnamed accuser took Ecstasy the night of the “rape” (probably looking for a supplier) because “that’s all I needed to know.”

Nice investigatory technique. One question every seven months and he should be to the bottom of this case in approximately 20 years.

So much for a having a Constitutional Right to a speedy trial. I’d petition the court to have the case thrown out on those grounds alone. Not to mention the fact that Nifong is a Nilrod.

I like the word, “nilrod”. I’m going to submit it to Webster’s for the next edition.

No comments: