Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  August 9, 2007
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Duke Case: Brad Bannon's August 7, 2007 LieStoppers Board Post

My point was NOT that Mr. Bannon did not do brilliant and heroic work (I have thought he did), but that I also thought he knew what to look for, as a matter of reasonable foreseeability in the circumstances and probably from his source(s), but at least from my multiple reports. Those who blithely suggest that I am seeking personal credit fail to think it through. For what? I did not learn to speak DNA or take any risk in reporting what I repeatedly reported. I transmitted a message. It IS significant, however, that there WAS a message to transmit. Unfortunately, North Carolina needs to become much more whistle-blower-friendly and THAT is not coming along nicely yet.

After the much deserved dismissals and declaration of innocence in the Duke case, Brad Bannon registered with LieStoppers.

I agree with LieStoppers poster skeptical that Mr. Bannon's sixteenth LieStoppers Board post should be highlighted, so I set it forth in full below, with comments interspersed.

"1. On May 12, 2006, we received a report from DNA Security that appeared to us--and to every lawyer who has seen it & every expert but Brian Meehan who has reviewed it--to be a final written report that stated the results of all of its DNA testing, which included rape kit findings."

Right. It was deliberately incomplete and designed to appear to be a final report.

"2. We consistently sought the underlying data for the testing, starting with general requests in May and June, and then with the specific requests filed in August, culminating in the argument and order of September 22, 2006, and the provision of underlying data that occurred on October 27 and November 1, 2006."

That was precisely what the defense should have done. Regardless of whether anyone had reported that the data showed the presence of the DNA of several males not white members of the 2005-2006 Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team, the defense should have been looking for it. The difficulty in getting the documents starkly contrasted with former Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong's claim on his campaign website that he practiced open discovery long before it became North Carolina law. The ardent opposition of both Mr. Nifong and Dr. Meehan to production of the documentation should have set off alarm bells in the defense camp. Instead, Mr. Bannon testified during the Nifong ethics hearing, Mr. Bannon thought that Mr. Nifong, as an officer of the court, was too honorable to conceal exculpatory evidence (yet Mr. Bannon simultaneously appreciated that Mr. Nifong was not honorable enough to refrain from making outrageous and highly prejudicial public statements, to consider the exculpatory evidence that the late Kirk Osborn tried to show him or to suppress the impulse to rant at attorney Kerry Sutton that he would castrate Mr. Bannon's senior partner, Joseph Cheshire).

"3. We consistently sought the substance of Brian Meehanís statements to Mike Nifong & investigators during their meetings in April and May. Mike Nifong consistently represented, in pleadings and open-court statements to various courts, that we had received all of the information from those meetings that the law required."

That's for sure.

"4. Putting aside whether anyone on the defense team was or should have been surprised to discover that Mike Nifongís repeated representations about the DNA were false (and/or that DNA Security had violated standard lab protocols, as well as its own labís protocols, by failing to report all of its DNA test results), we had no evidence which would support the request for an evidentiary hearing based on that premise until December. Put another way, the only 'evidence' that may have existed to support that premise before my discovery in November was a 'hunch,' and hunches are not grounds for evidentiary hearings based on the very serious accusation that an officer of the Court has intentionally & repeatedly lied to defense lawyers & multiple judges."

I don't know what evidence of it the defense had or why Mr. Bannon hedged by using the "may have had" phrase. Previously, Mr. Bannon disputed the claim in Coach Pressler's book on the Duke case that he (Mr. Bannon) had a "hunch" about the DNA as well as testified that he did not think he would find what he found. If that's all true, then surely the defense must not have had any such evidence.

"5. We received the DNA Security underlying data on October 27, 2006, and the SBI lab underlying data on November 1, 2006. Once the data from both labs was in our office, I began reviewing it. By the end of the month, I had completed my analysis and memorialized it in a 40-page memo. While I do not remotely deserve the 'hero' label that some have given me for that work (it is, after all, my job), I do know that I reviewed the materials promptly & efficiently and that my approach to the work was (and was ultimately proved to be) absolutely correct. Simply put, no one lost time or money on my DNA work because of the manner in which I chose to approach it."

Once again Mr. Bannon and I disagree (it happens with lawyers often): I believe his DNA work was "heroic." I also think that he should have expected to find what he found, for a plethora of reasons, only one of which was my report, and that if my report did not make its way to him, that was unfortunate and, by me, unexpected and unwanted (and not Mr. Bannon's fault).

"6. Despite what television & movies may lead some people to believe, and despite what some people might believe about the very experienced members of the defense team in the Duke case, we do not ordinarily engage in a detailed, scorched-earth analysis of every type or classification of evidence in a criminal case. Thatís not because weíre naÔve or incompetent or lazy. Itís because taking the same approach to such evidence in every case would be a waste of time & resources, whether the resources are your clientís (in the case of a retained case) or the Stateís (in the case of an appointed case). Any good lawyer knows that each specific case calls for a case-specific approach to the evidence, no matter what type of evidence it is (e.g., 'confessions,' eyewitness identification, witness statements, forensic evidence, scientific testimony, psychiatric testimony, etc.). And, as I have posted before, as any good criminal lawyer would know, and as is often the case with DNA evidence in particular, most criminal cases involve many issues & many types of evidence that are not contested, even if the charge itself is contested. The classic example for DNA testing is an allegation of acquaintance rape. If the defendant concedes sexual contact but maintains that it was consensual, you will readily concede the validity of DNA results that identify your clientís DNA on a vaginal swab. You are not going to waste your clientís money on extensive analysis of the DNA (by yourself or by an expert), and you are not going to waste your time focusing on DNA to the exclusion of, say, developing evidence & arguments to support the consent defense."

Well said. Of course, none of the defendants in the Duke case claimed there was consensual sex (which buttressed the defense case in the courtroom of public opinion) and NOT pursuing evidence that the false accuser was 'the Louvre of DNA" would have been calamitous. Not thinking it might be found remains mind-boggling to many.

"7. But there are obviously cases in which certain types of evidence, including DNA, may be 'contested' issues. The legal teams for Collin and Reade had essentially decided that they would not be contesting DNA issues in the case. And, in fact, Joe & I had not decided whether we would be contesting DNA issues in the case on behalf of Dave. As many of you have noted, DNA Security reported that it found DNA from a single male source on the vaginal swab, indicating that there was not an 'absence of evidence' in the rape kit. Regarding the fingernail conclusion, itís not exactly mysterious that some of Daveís DNA characteristics would appear on items recovered from his bathroom trash can using the most sensitive DNA testing known to man, which can sometimes identify DNA from less than a single human cell. So while there were reasons to embrace the DNA Security report and no real reasons to fear it, Joe & I still knew that the fingernail finding would be used by Mike Nifong not only to try to convict Dave Evans, but to argue the overall credibility of Crystal Mangumís allegation (which involved a struggle with her attackers during which she lost her fake fingernails). Because of that, and because of the differential findings by the two labs about the fingernail mixture, we had reason to explore the reported findings further, and to look beyond the final written reports, which prompted the review of the underlying data from both labs."

Since Ms. Mangum claimed not to have had sex except with a boyfriend for an extended period of time and it behooved the defense to find alternate explanations for her alleged vaginal injuries (whether it be a vibrator, or another person, or more than one other person), not checking the underlying data would have been penny-wise and pound-foolish and left the defendants in hung jury hell instead of declaration of innocence heaven.

"8. So that is where there review began, but it obviously did not end there. If I had put on blinders to everything but the fake fingernail findings, I would have never made the rape kit discovery. Also, if you read the December 13 Motion, we raised other issues about deficiencies in DNA Securityís work that I discovered when reviewing all of the data. Also, we made several other helpful discoveries that, thankfully, never had to see the light of a trial day."

Translation: Mr. Bannon did not expect to find evidence of multiple male DNA and was not "going to waste [his] clientís money on extensive analysis of the DNA," but he did not wear "blinders" and found what he did not expect to find. Dramatic!

"9. We did send the data to an expert when we received it. The purpose of my work in November was to narrow the issues we would focus our expert on. Again, any good lawyer would do it that way, and any good expert would want it done that way (as opposed to a document dump on an expert with a general request of 'Tell me about this'). Finally, any client would want it done that way, because--despite suggestions to the contrary in some posts--that approach ultimately serves the twin goals of saving time & money while making sure the lawyer knows everything he needs to know to deal with the issues if or when they arise in the courtroom. When our focus was appropriately narrowed (and the issues appropriately defined) by my work in November, we provided my memo to the expert, and we met with him in early December to talk about all issues, only one of which was the unreported male DNA in the rape kit. In fact, if we had gone to trial, we would have highlighted significant additional points related to the DNA testing in this case that would not have been as explosive as the rape kit DNA discovery (including the agreement not to put it in the report), but would have dealt with similar issues about the subjective analysis & reporting decisions made by DNA Security (especially in light of the labís protocols)."

There's no dispute that the underlying documentation was a treasure trove for the defense, only whether it should have been expected to be, and I am still affirmative on that (and pleased to receive email from a person {NOT Jennifer N] who was initially upset with me, then studied the matter and finally emailed me that his "mental obtuseness...obstructed [him] from comprehending these very important points you are making"). I too think that dumping the data on a DNA expert with the instruction, "Tell me about this," would not have been the best way to go. I never suggested that and don't know who, if anyone, did. I think that what would have been best would have been to give it to the DNA expert and say, "I suspect that the report (which Mr. Bannon made "crystal" clear in his first point appeared to be final) did not include all the results and that there is DNA evidence of multiple male DNA not from white lacrosse players in here. Please determine whether that suspicion is warranted or not warranted." Of course, a lawyer who mastered DNA might do it himself, and some rookies are better than experienced stars, but relying on an experienced expert is not uncommon.

"10. IMPORTANT FINAL POINT: suspicions & hunches & Michael Gaynorís couple of sentences aside, there was no PROOF of DNA Securityís failure to report the exculpatory DNA findings until we analyzed the underlying data we received on October 27, 2006, and there was no proof of the intentional agreement to omit those findings from DNA Securityís final report until December 15, 2006. Regardless of the standards that exist (or do not exist) in the blogosphere or other realms of commentary for making serious accusations of wrongdoing, there are standards in courtrooms that must be met before a responsible and ethical officer of the court should do so. Responsible and ethical officers of the court who know they will be litigating many issues in front of a judge before a case is finally over do not make accusations without having bullet proof supporting evidence. In fact, such supporting evidence is often called an 'offer of proof.' And standing up and saying, 'We know Nifong is lying, because, well, just look at him, and think about all the bad stuff he said to the press, and we just know Crystal Mangum is a prostitute rather than a dancer or performer, and thereís no way that she only had her boyfriendís DNA in herÖ' well, thatís not an offer of proof. Thatís an offer of suspicion & hunch. When we reviewed the materials that were provided in late October and early November, we finally had the basis of a substantial offer of proof regarding the unreported exculpatory DNA in the rape kit (whether that finding surprised us or not). We basically presented that offer of proof in the form of our December 13 Motion, and we nailed the coffin shut at the hearing on December 15."

LieStoppers poster Mark Rougemont: "I think we can see the difference between proof and hunches and reasonable suspicion and frankly I am surprised by the now added '(whether that finding surprised us or not)' to this. Is that an admission now that maybe they were not 'surprised' as they originally stated? The other part of this that I question is 'suspicions & hunches & Michael Gaynorís couple of sentences aside, there was no PROOF of DNA Securityís failure to report the exculpatory DNA findings'. I would want my lawyer to find the proof (which they did) if they had suspicions and hunches and may[be] even a tip (if not Gaynors "couple of sentences") that there was other DNA missing from the report. So my question is what is the extent that the defense team had suspicions and hunches and/or tips about the missing DNA findings? It appears to me that you are arguing that they had at the very least a strong suspicion about this. If I am misreading your position, let me know."

Prior to Mr. Bannon's post, I wrote the obvious too: "Knowing what the results were was not enough, of course. What was needed was the proof. It was up to the defense to obtain it in the course of discovery and make use of it."

I also promptly praised the December 13 Motion, as follows, in a article titled "As expected, persecution proof detected" (YES, I expected it, as Mr. Bannon and others apparently now understand) and posted the next day:

"What does THAT mean?

"It means that false accuser Crystal Gail Mangum's story of her sexual history in the days before the lacrosse team party last March is as false as her gang-rape claim.

"It means that the joint defense team did some great work.

"It ALSO means that the prosecution did not voluntarily turn over exculpatory evidence, as required under the United States Constitution and North Carolina law.

"That exculpatory evidence was buried in the documentation of the private lab that Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong retained to assist him in prosecuting the Duke case.

"Significantly, in my view, Mr. Nifong and the lab fought hard NOT to provide that massive underlying documentation.

"But, Judge Osmond Smith properly ordered that the documentation be produced and the defense carefully 'mined' it and struck 'gold' that exonerates the Duke Three and exposes Mr. Nifong as the opposite of the 'fair and impartial minister of justice' that a district attorney is supposed to be."

As I privately emailed Mr. Bannon in response to his inquiry email last June: "Your testimony during the Nifong trial that you did not think you would find such results shocked me. I accept it, but why you would have not have expected such results remains a mystery to me. You found out soon enough what Crystal was: an ex-convict stripper with out-of-wedlock children and drug and mental problems who was very active sexually (I put it that way to avoid moral judgment), not exactly the admirable hard working single mom who was stripping for the first time in order to feed her children while studying to get a better job and earning 'grades high enough to qualify for the Golden Key International Honour Society.' Stuart [Taylor] stated at a public meeting that she was a prostitute. As for trusting Nifong not to conceal exculpatory material, given what he did in the case that I learned about and you know about, well, it mystifies me."

To set the record straight (and an inconvenient truth elicits some strange speculations), I asked an emailer to post the following on the Liestoppers Board and he did so:

"I have never posted on the LieStopppers Board, am not registered to do so and would appreciate your posting this to complete and set straight the record:

'Jennifer N: "This is just my opinion but I think Gaynor heard vague rumblings about the DNA but it wasn't anything certain. He put it in his article on the off-chance it was true but buried it in case it was flat out wrong. Now, since he could hardly criticize the defense over something vague and uncertain he has to act like the information was definite and open and shut. I seriously doubt it was though. If it had been the call to Kirk Osborn would have been made."

'First, I don't put things in my articles on the off-chance that they may be true.

'Second, Mr. Bannon himself rightly described my report not as "vague and uncertain" but as "conclusive" in tone. He also said he had not known about it and did not expect to find what he found, because he trusted Mr. Nifong's word as an officer of the court, as of September 22, 2006.

'Greg: "Yes, Jennifer, it might have helped if, in hindsight, Gaynor had called Kirk Osborne. But, without the benefit of hindsight, if you're Gaynor, wouldn't you think that if this information had found it's way to you that it probably would find or had already found its way to the defense team as well? It was evidently not a well-kept secret. And it seems an obvious thing to look for."

'Greg is completely right as far as he went. In hindsight, as I wrote, I wish I had called the late Mr. Osborn, because I had the greatest respect for the way he was representing his client, such as making the motion to remove Nifong in which the other defense teams did not join., and I am confident he would have understood what to look for AND my need to protect a source. But I had been contacted by a member of the Finnerty family and, as that member confirmed: "(1) my practice was to deal with the defense through [her]... , (2) I expressed my surprise about the defense's apparent ignorance of what to expect BEFORE Brad testified that he did think as of September 22, 2006 that he would not find evidence of multiple male DNA.... and (3) my email [to her expressing my surprise that Mr. Bannon had said he did not learn about the multiple male DNA until the fall of 2006, despite my June 2006 articles] did not surprise [her] (after all, I had forwarded my June 20 and June 30 articles directly to [her])." To those who can't read between the lines, that's as clear as I can make it.

'Twaddlefree:

"I am only saying that Gaynor specifically stated he had 'a reliable' source and that we should not attempt to mischaracterize him by changing that to anything else.

"To me, it doesn't matter whether or not the defense had a tip. I think several of us, here, have made it quite clear that there was sufficient cause to suspect Nifong of planting, manipulating, and suppressing EVERYTHING in this case. I think Gaynor believes that, as well."

'First, yes, I believed in June 2006 that my source was reliable and subsequent events support that belief.

'Second, it would be nice if people did not mischaracterize, but some don't like the facts and want to change them.

'Third, I believed back in June 2006 that Nifong was capable of much malevolence, which is why I concluded the SECOND article in which I reported multiple male DNA this way:

"Mr. Nifong should have wondered about the credibility of the accuser when the DNA samples were eagerly provided, or at least when the DNA found inside the accuser was determined not to have come from any of the Duke lacrosse players but from several other males.

"And the DNA results should have led Mr. Nifong to conclude that the indictments should be dismissed.

"But, Mr. Nifong, for whom the black vote was decisive in his Democrat primary win last April, still has to face the voters in November, and pretending that he has a case may seem preferable to admitting an egregious mistake.

"The key question now is not whether any of the Duke Three are guilty of any of the charges against them ó they are not ó but whether Mr. Nifong is reckless and stubborn, or worse.

"Mr. Nifong should be polygraphed. Ironically, he may be one who should be prosecuted."

'Not clear enough?

'Apparently not to Jennifer N, who posted this:

"Well, that's why it doesn't add up to me. If the information was reliable no reasonable person would deal with it the way Gaynor did.

"A journalist wouldn't bury it in their article and a lawyer wouldn't just hope the defense team or a player's relative would read the article and ferret out the relevant sentences."

'If Jennifer N. believes I was writing based on "vague rumblings" and "burying," this is still America and she's free to believe what she wants to believe.

'Jennifer N apparently needs to believe that I had an ulterior motive in writing what I wrote, that I "buried it" (for good measure three times, twice in June and again on September 8) and that, regardless of what my contact confirmed, I could not have reasonably expected that my report would be conveyed to members of the joint defense team. Go to www.disbarnifong.com. Two of my articles are linked on the homepage, a June 2006 article called for protests to the North Carolina authorities and a July 2006 article explaining why Collin Finnerty was wrongly convicted in that unless D.C. assault case. They are there because I was cooperating with the Finnerty family. I was told my Duke case articles in May 2006 (2) and June 2006 (9) were read. Back then, there was not so much in the way of "positive" articles as there eventually would be, thanks be to God.

'As for criticizing the defense, I am mystified by Mr. Bannon's combined obvious brilliance and claimed gullibility and surprised and disappointed if my June articles were too subtle (which I doubt) or fell between the cracks.

'Twaddlefree:

"Yes. And, these are Gaynor's points, too. He won't reveal his source, and seems to think that everyone is demanding that he reveal it. I don't think anyone is, but you are correct, Greg. Obvious, indeed.

"Then again, if by chance Trash was his source, given that Trash wanted only for the boys to be guilty of something and had no desire to assure that defense had the information, then Gaynor would only be exposing his OWN naivete (which he did during the case by believing Trash was really after the truth) to think that Trash would have gotten that info to anyone other than those who could have perpetuated the frame with it, as HE certainly attempted."

'First, not quite everyone.

'Second, I will confirm that neither a member of the defense team or Cash Michaels was my source of the report, and stop at that.

'Twaddlefree:

"Now, he's admitted that he should have contacted the defense directly. That, in my mind, was the ONLY area where Gaynor erred in his arguments. His arguments are valid, and the same positions have been taken on this board (before Gaynor's articles, in fact), with other facts that are not based on any 'source' or the failure to read or get information from some 'source.'"

'Not quite. I wish I had called the late Mr. Osborn, but I thought I was in indirect contact with the defense and that it was appropriate in the circumstances (for reasons that I won't detail)."

As I recently wrote to an emailer who first said that "[t]he whole Brad vs. Michael stuff sent [him] into a spin," then recalled that he read my posts "before KCís website was even a reality, and [I] always made crucial points throughout this whole case that no other journalist considered or had the [nerve would be a better word] to write about" and closed with "keep the heat on": "If you are satisfied with a declaration of innocence by the North Carolina Attorney General, even though there is no federal investigation of civil rights violations, there are no prosecutions of Crystal and the knowing Nifong enablers, there is no apology from Duke and instead there are confidential settlements to protect Duke and the Group of 88, then you are more easily satisfied than I am. The case began with a myth and should end with the truth, not a different myth. I have always wanted openness and needed reform in the criminal justice system and the way Duke operates."

My point was NOT that Mr. Bannon did not do brilliant and heroic work (I have thought he did), but that I also thought he knew what to look for, as a matter of reasonable foreseeability in the circumstances and probably from his source(s), but at least from my multiple reports. Those who blithely suggest that I am seeking personal credit fail to think it through. For what? I did not learn to speak DNA or take any risk in reporting what I repeatedly reported. I transmitted a message. It IS significant, however, that there WAS a message to transmit. Unfortunately, North Carolina needs to become much more whistle-blower-friendly and THAT is not coming along nicely yet.

LieStoppers poster skeptical:

"I find myself in the unusual position of defending Mike Gaynor...

"Gaynor, to his credit, all along argued that the resolution of the case would be in the court of public opinion. He bashed Titus for the gag order because he knew it would prevent the players from presenting their case on '60 Minutes,' and otherwise. He criticized the Finnerty family for not putting Collin more in the public eye. While he had connections to them through Eileen Cornacchia, Collin's aunt, Gaynor had his own opinions independent of them."

When an independent person evaluates facts instead of emotes, that person can find himself or herself defending me, skeptical, scary as it may seem.

Yes, I had my own independent opinions and a great concern that Collin Finnerty would be wrongly convicted in the D.C. case because he was being made to appear to be a monster and keeping his bona fide alibi secret. David Evans made a fantastic public statement about the "fantastic lie" after he was indicted, the late Kirk Osborn was detailing his client Reade Seligmann's alibi and taking the fight to Mr. Nifong in the way his client rightly wanted and at great personal sacrifice that makes him the hero of heroes in the case in my book (figuratively speaking, I'm not writing a book) and Collin Finnerty was not conveying the reality of his innocence and I believed that persons who knew him should speak up for him.

LieStoppers poster Greg: "I remember [Gaynor] criticized (in a very mild way) Susan Lucci -- yeah, that Susan Lucci -- who was/is the Finnertys' neighbor, for not coming out publicly and telling the world that he's a good kid. I've said before I thought that was a reasonable point. This came at a time that these kids were being portrayed as monsters in the media and the hooker, you'll remember, was this soft-spoken, petite, honors student who was stripping to support her habit, er, I mean her kids. By then, the evidence of innocence was already quite overwhelming to those willing to see and Lucci's appearance on behalf of Collin would almost certainly have forced the media to recognize a human side of the defendants and acknowledge the probable case for innocence."

Amen, Greg.

An anonymous Durham-in-Wonderland poster took the time to read my email exchange with my defense contact (posted with permission) and then chided a tired (and tiresome) poster who didn't want to read, but did want to rant. The anonymous poster NOT averse to reading: "I was really irritated with Gaynor because he seemed to make a bit deal about the party and how immoral it was. At a time of crisis, I thought he could have toned it down a little. But....maybe Gaynor was just being consistent in the way he writes."

Good guess! I don't approve of stripper parties, period. No exception for college sports teams, male or female, and there's nothing hypocritical about my position. I recall the line in "The Lord's Prayer" about not leading into temptation and delivering us from (NOT to) evil and therefore I DO distinguish between a co-captain who hosts a stripper party that is made mandatory for underclassmen, some of whom knew nothing about it until they were asked for money to pay the strippers, and bored underclassmen who stayed uncomfortably for the sake of team unity instead of leaving before the strippers came or upon their arrival. To be sure, hosting a stripper party is not a crime, much less a good reason to be framed on bogus felony charges. But it set the stage for the fiasco. Yet another LieStoppers poster: "I attended a party 10 years or so ago with entertainment arranged through a Durham based service. After less than 10 minutes, one of the entertainers feigned offense (at something the other entertainer did), and they both left. I thank my lucky stars that the situation didn't escalate into a situation like this one. It could happen to anyone."

Not anybody. Only those at a stripper party.

Newport:

"Did anybody ever think that Gaynor might not be 'preaching to the choir' and that he might have a message of personal responsibility he is trying to get across. Is that really such a bad thing. Is getting the message out so that people absorb his views and advise their children about the dangers of inviting strippers into your home such a bad thing? Did anyone ever think that Gaynor has a point of view his is trying to express and that he is not a blind cheerleader?

"Why all the attacks on a man who did so much for free for the cause of justice? He wrote articles when no one else was writing them. For some time, he was the only guy out there along with Johnsville. What is his reward for that? Vicious attacks by blind followers? It's not right and like I said I do not agree with everything Gaynor says and I have not been to Mass in years."

Thanks, Newport. And you suspected when you posted that that I would opine that you should go to Mass, didn't you?

Finally, Jennifer N (as in Nifonger)claims that my position is that "they brought the false allegations on themselves by having the party."

Nonsense. LieStoppers poster Emmy964 presciently answered that for me even BEFORE Jennifer N posted the charge: "Not to speak for Gaynor, but I believe what he said about Evans was likely much the same as what Evans said himself! I can't remember specifically the column you are talking about here, but I distinctly remember Evans saying (words to the effect) that the party was a mistake, and as Captain, he should have known better....things went horribly wrong, and like a good leader, Evans and the others took ownership of this to the extent that they accepted that 'they' made a bad decision. And there's just no getting around the fact that No party=No false charges...I hope that doesn't sound like, blaming the victim, because it's not...it's just the old, try your best to not put yourself in situations that might not end well for you (Matt Zash, remember, never wanted the 'ladies' in his house!)!"

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor


Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.


Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2007 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved