From what we've been able to gather, his situation is grim, and if the charges stick, he may well lose his license.Â K.C. Johnson has a lot more posted on this.In the Durham paper, two letter writers astonish. The first suggests, correctly, that other cases and other people who were later proved to be innocent didn't get nearly this level of attention, which is true.Â However, she then suggests that their difficulties are limited to "...an indictment and a few hours in police custody."
This is patently absurd.Â These young men and their families are millions of dollars in debt and are being put in the position of having to prove their innocence.Â The responsibility lies on the state to prove their guilt, not the other way around.Â Ms. Hensley is woefully uninformed.
And the second letter suggests that the families and players shouldn't sue Durham but rather simply move on.Â That's their decison to make, of course, but in light of Nifong's downfall, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't be angry, and, at the least, wish to recoup their live's savings.
But beyond that, although many people in Durham declined to vote for Nifong, the voters in fact put this man in office when enough evidence existed to suggest that maybe he wasn't the right guy for the job.Â Unfortunately for those who opposed him, Durham employed him, and the city will have to bear the consequences of that unfortunate decision.