Nifong said something to the effect that some lawyers in the court room today are disappointed that their clients did not get indicted so that they could soak up the media spot light. He then said he couldn't indict everyone to satisfy them. That ranks right up there with the most petty things I have ever heard a lawyer say, let alone a district attorney.

Test results are not yet back. What is this all about, anyone?

I'm glad unprofessional comments from a supposed minister of justice make you laugh out loud. That says something about you.

Anyone ask about information on the AV's phone? Or was there any mention of the 12:26 phone call?

Furthermore, if there was consent provided as some have suggested to look at the records on or around March 23, where is the consent form that FA signed? It would have to be produced wouldn't it?

I think it would be reasonable for Nifong to get home addresses of people he thinks may have been at the party

Why? Are they witnesses?

Is he going to call them to testify? As to what? What about all the ones who weren't there? That FA didn't see?

Why doesn't Nifong have to state who are the witnesses that he will call and what testimony he believes these persons will provide.

Unless he can do this what good does it do to give him home addresses unless his real purpose is a fishing expedition.

Once Nifong identifies his witnesses then he can get their addresses to serve a trial subpoena. This whole thing is out of order. These players have been threatened with violence and they shouldn't have to give out their families' addresses and expose them to violence without reason.

Yes, they are witnesses. Whether he calls them to testify is a different matter.

Bob, Nifong had prostate cancer and it doesn't take five years to recover. Fishy.

In 1994, Jim Hardin, Durham's district attorney at that time, made Nifong the chief assistant in the office. Five years later, Nifong was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He missed months of work for surgery, radiation and hormone therapy.

In a 2005 interview, Nifong said that after beating back cancer, he wanted to spend more time with his family -- his wife, Cy Gurney, and his teenage son. Nifong also has an adult daughter from a previous marriage.

At the Durham courthouse, Nifong moved to traffic court, where he began negotiating pleas with lawyers in a small office just outside a courtroom. He was there until 2005, when Hardin was appointed to a judgeship. Gov. Mike Easley appointed Nifong to fill the top job.

Under Nifong's rationale why not get the address of everyone in Durham?

Anyone remember the federal statute invoked regarding getting this kind of information from college students?

If he's just now awaiting results of a blood test, then he's definately still fishing for something, anything, that will support his "position".

If there's a burden that Nifong has to meet here, wouldn't it be something pretty negligible like reasonable suspicion or belief?

He didn't put anything into his original motion, but maybe that's standard practice in Durham

I just won't be that surprised if the judge finds that Nifong met whatever minimal threshold he needed to meet.

I don't know the NC rules of criminal procedure, but my strong suspicion is that he won't have to provide that kind information until much closer to trial. Anyone know better and care to enlighten me?

I've also heard the rumor it may be a mitochondrial DNA test on the pubic hair, though the remark applies in that case as well.

It's not standard practice under the FERPA law and apparently it's not standard under NC law either. Did you listen to the hearing and the arguments that pointed all this out?

Meanwhile, can one of the lawyers out there enlighten me why Nifong gets to call anyone he wants as a prosecution witness, even though presumably there are many of them the defense would want to call as defense witnesses. Does the one exclude the other?

If they are called as prosecution witnesses does that mean the defense can't question them about what it would like to for purposes of its case, but only cross-examine on questions raised by the prosecution

The case isn't at that phase yet. I don't know the NC rules of criminal procedure, but my strong suspicion is that he won't have to provide that kind information until much closer to trial. Anyone know better and care to enlighten me?

You have yet to state why Nifong needs this information, and why the police cannot find the potential witnesses to talk to them if this is what they desire to do.

Can the police legally do this --- question potential witnesses they know to be represented by counsel without going through counsel?

And if they can when acting on their own, can they do so if being directed by Nifong, or more to the point, can Nifong legally direct them to do so? They tried this before early on, and there was some discussion, but no court ruling.

"We're not trying to investigate them," Nifong said. "We are not trying to say there are crimes that we want to prove they are guilty of. We want to be put in a position to call them to tell the jury in Durham what they observed go on that night when this took place."

Did you see the WRAL feed? Butch didn't look to steamed up. I wonder what you think that says about him?

That might be too much for even a previously-sympatico Durham juror to swallow.

Question: is there any legal hitch that would prevent Nifang from indicting substitute scapegoats in the event that one or more of the current defendants gets off the hook based on alibi evidence?

...Many in Durham believe this was a set up from the beginning and/or that complainant was drugged......Nifong knows his constituency, and he knows his courtroom...

This is an excellent point, Marcus. Perhaps even the teflon Nifong could not survive that. I like that, the "Teflon Nifong." How do you do the little copyright symbol again?

Think the Nifong children will get their own show, "Growing up Nifong"?

If DA Nifong drops charges against Reade Seligmann and goes fishing for a player without an alibi, my prediction is that the national media will flay him alive.

While you might think that the defense counsel are being sychophantic, they are trying to protect their clients by not alienating the guy in the black robe.

Nifong will never let this go and there are too many potential jurors who have already decided on a guilty verdict for 'pay back'. I worry about a hung jury and Nifong vowing a retrial.

I just learned that in a letter published in the Durham newspaper last month, a Duke professor urged Nifong to administer a lie-dectector test to the AV. Nice idea, but fat chance!

During the investigation, a controversial e-mailcame from the address of a team member which told teammates that he planned to tell authorities that a crime had been committed and that he knew who had done it and would turn them in. The young man denied that he had sent it, and defense attorneys believe that it was an attempted setup by police, who wanted to make the lacrosse team members nervous. The e-mail bore the subject 'sorry guys' in the subject line, and contained this message: 'I am going to go to the police tomorrow to tell them everything that I know.' The player said he was in class at the time the message was sent, although he still could have sent it from any number of wireless devices. But the source of the e-mail should be traceable. The police surely had his password and had the means and opportunity to cause mischief.