DISTRICT ATTORNEY ELECTION-Durham Co

terminatrixator said:
From everything I heard, she's a control freak and I wouldn't doubt if she knows he did it and will do everything in her power to cover up for him.

If I had to make an educated guess, by looking into the information on the embezzlement, I think she knew about the embezzlement in advance.

She's seems so much about looks, who has the biggest, the best and looking into her online activity, I think she's into weird "get rich" schemes.

I feel sorry for Kaiden, her husband and his children. Heck I feel sorry for her kids, they all seem to have issues.

She may end up being worse than Jackie Peterson, and that's saying a lot.
I wonder how it would feel to one day wake up and realize that you not only are a liar, a fraud, a possible accessory to embezzlement, and the mother of a murderer, but also that nothing you value actually matters, yourself included.

May the heavens be moved so that Kaiden can be raised in a healthy, loving environment!
 
It sems like now may be a good time to contact the DA office, and see what, if anything is going on with this case, a gentle reminder. Unfortunately the DA has gotten in over his head in the Duke LAX matter, and may want a diversionary case to take forward. It seems like if he looked at all the evidence, that at least he would want to question Raven and take it from there.
 
caffeinatd said:
It sems like now may be a good time to contact the DA office, and see what, if anything is going on with this case, a gentle reminder. Unfortunately the DA has gotten in over his head in the Duke LAX matter, and may want a diversionary case to take forward. It seems like if he looked at all the evidence, that at least he would want to question Raven and take it from there.
From your lips to DA Nifong's ears......Arrest him, put him on trial, throw away the key.
 
caffeinatd said:
It sems like now may be a good time to contact the DA office, and see what, if anything is going on with this case, a gentle reminder. Unfortunately the DA has gotten in over his head in the Duke LAX matter, and may want a diversionary case to take forward. It seems like if he looked at all the evidence, that at least he would want to question Raven and take it from there.
You would hope that he would want something else besides the Duke matter in the press. He's not looking good. This maybe raven's saving grace....the DA.
 
ewwwinteresting said:
You would hope that he would want something else besides the Duke matter in the press. He's not looking good. This maybe raven's saving grace....the DA.
Or, if he looked at it (DA), it maybe a case he could get an indictment on that would stick, and improve his standings...
 
ewwwinteresting said:
I'd vote for that!
Guess I will start writing this week, Nifong, LE, mayor pro-tem, city manager etc., might email the BR in Utah guy too...
should I write or email?
 
I wonder if they have any kind of evidence? It seems that if they had something they would have arrested Raven long ago. I've always wondered if he really played in a soccer game that night or if he did was he actually there the whole time? Did his alibi hold up?

If they don't have enough to take him to trial on and they do it anyway there is a good chance that a jury will find him Not Guilty and they could never try him again. It sounds like LE and the Pros believe they know who did this as they have said they don't believe it was someone who just happened by.

I would imagine it is just as frustrating for them if they believe they know who the killer is yet they can't arrest him and bring him to trial. I wonder if they found any blood in his vehicle or on his clothing? Of course he could just say he got blood on his clothing when he found Janet and then he got into his vehicle because he didn't know what to do next or something.

Did anyone ever hear why whoever Janet was talking to on the phone...a co-worker...ended up calling the police because they thought something happened to Janet? I've always wondered about why they would think something happened to her? Had she talked to her co-worker about problems in the marriage or something that raised a red flag when Janet didn't call back or come back to the phone? The co-worker had a reason for being suspcious. Or were they emailing each other? I can't remember now.
 
..as i recall.....from way back then............it was a bit of a confusing story.............that a friend/co-worker had been instant messaging........(janet left, which is nothing totally unusual, stuff comes up............) then the friend heard of the murder on janet's street............and so on........( go back to ther early pages of this forum for that whole story..)

..i'm totally sure that LE knows exactly who did this crime............but----------are waiting to go to trial with SOLID evidence, after all if they go in now and rav.....i mean ,the supposed guilty party, gets off free ( due to lack of evidence) then b/c of double jeopardy-they cannot try him again.......( and he will indeed be 'free as a bird', forever.)

..i know it has been a long time, and people are getting frustrated ----------but i believe in LE , putting together a GOOD SOLID case.......janet WILL have justice.

..it's sickening that raven has been out biking and partying for the last year, instead of putting a moment in to look for/ask LE about his wife's murder case............now why is that raven ?
 
Bobbisangel said:
Did anyone ever hear why whoever Janet was talking to on the phone...a co-worker...ended up calling the police because they thought something happened to Janet? I've always wondered about why they would think something happened to her? Had she talked to her co-worker about problems in the marriage or something that raised a red flag when Janet didn't call back or come back to the phone? The co-worker had a reason for being suspcious...
From what we've heard from several sources in the past year, Raven was very controlling of Janet - telling her what to wear, how she could wear her hair, who she could talk to, and even what she could eat. I don't know if these things are true or not but I believe that they are, and I believe that Janet probably confided in her friends from work. For them to worry immediately that the murder on Ferrand Drive was Janet tells me a lot.
 
JerseyGirl said:
From what we've heard from several sources in the past year, Raven was very controlling of Janet - telling her what to wear, how she could wear her hair, who she could talk to, and even what she could eat. I don't know if these things are true or not but I believe that they are, and I believe that Janet probably confided in her friends from work. For them to worry immediately that the murder on Ferrand Drive was Janet tells me a lot.
I am thinking it was that way myself wherein he was so controlling, that he was the type of person that would say who she can talk to, what she should wear, and that he was extremely controlling.

I am willing to bet in public he was a good ole boy, but in private he was extremely controlling.

I also believe that Janet had many more friends than The Rave put on, and they knew what an *advertiser censored**hole he was and my thinking is that everyone who heard about Janet's death knew instinctively that it was by murder no matter what story they heard and who is actually behind this brutal murder.
 
terminatrixator said:
I also believe that Janet had many more friends than The Rave put on, and they knew what an *advertiser censored**hole he was and my thinking is that everyone who heard about Janet's death knew instinctively that it was by murder no matter what story they heard and who is actually behind this brutal murder.
I know several people who, upon hearing of her death/murder, said "Oh no, he did it. He (the Rave) killed her." I know that was my first reaction as well, which to me means that just about everybody who knew him knew just how controlling and abusive he was, and felt he was capable of this type of crime.
 
This was posted by Caffeinatd in another section, i thought I would repost here.

Durham commissioner considering write-in challenge to DA
Associated Press
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonlin e/news/local/14800410.htm

DURHAM, N.C. - A Durham County commissioner is weighing whether to challenge District Attorney Mike Nifong through a write-in campaign as critics attack the incumbent's prosecution of three Duke University men's lacrosse players accused of rape.

"I am looking at it," Commissioner Lewis Cheek said, "and ... it means I'm seriously thinking about it. I need to look at it from every angle and think about what is the right thing to do."

Cheek, 55, said he had been recruited to challenge Nifong and that he would decide within about two weeks whether to go forward in the race.

Cheek, a trial lawyer in private practice, was a member of the Durham City Council for two terms and was mayor pro tem for one term. He was elected to the board of commissioners in 2004.

Nifong was appointed as district attorney last year. He defeated two challengers in the Democratic primary last month and faces no challengers in November's general election.

Cheek said he is not looking solely at Nifong's management of the Duke lacrosse case as he considers whether to seek office.

"It goes beyond one case," Cheek said. "It's how you handle the responsibilities of the office and do you appropriately handle the duties."

He did say he believed Nifong had contributed to what has become a contentious environment in Durham.

"Yes, I am disgruntled about what has happened," Cheek said. "My feeling in the way that things need to be approached is that there needs to be a neutral point of view until all of the information is gathered."

In the Duke case, the accuser told police she was dragged into a bathroom and raped, beaten and choked for about 30 minutes during a lacrosse team party that began March 13.

Nifong spoke out early in the case, announcing before charges were filed that he believed an assault had occurred at the house and that team members were being uncooperative with the investigation. He has remained largely silent about the case in recent weeks.

The allegations led a grand jury to indict Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., on charges of rape, sexual offense and kidnapping.

Defense attorneys insist the men are innocent, and the men are each free on $400,000 bail. A trial isn't expected to begin before spring 2007.
 
Since it will be two weeks until we find out if someone is running against District Attorney Nifong, I figured I would look up more information on Lewis Cheek and post here.

Mental health money sought to fight drug abuse
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-740250.html


BY GREGORY PHILLIPS : The Herald-Sun
gphillips@heraldsun.com
May 31, 2006 : 10:46 pm ET

DURHAM -- To kick off an initiative to combat drug abuse, local mental health officials are asking Durham County for more than $500,000 in the upcoming financial year.

The money would fund the first step in an ambitious 10-year plan with a $54 million wish list to address substance abuse in the county.

Wednesday's budget work session was the first time County Manager Mike Ruffin and the commissioners had seen the proposal, which mental health staff finalized only last week. Ruffin will review it and present a funding recommendation to the board at the June 15 work session in which he'll also reveal any revisions to his proposed schools budget.

The $516,300 request -- a 7.2 percent increase for the Durham Center, which manages mental health, substance abuse and developmental disabilities services in the county -- includes money to help recruit, train and assist substance abuse treatment providers, plus money for day treatment programs and supportive housing.

The N.C. Alcohol and Drug Council estimated the cost of substance abuse to Durham County at $250 million in 2003. The Durham Center used to provide substance abuse treatment directly, but state reforms compelled the center to contract with private providers instead. Wright said that led to some improvements, but that three of the six initial providers are no longer operating in Durham and the remainder can't keep pace with demand.

Durham Center Chairman Doug Wright told the County Commissioners an estimated 19,000 people are addicted to alcohol or other drugs in Durham County. Of those, around 7,000 seek treatment, but only 2,500 or so are getting it.

Although substance abuse accounts for 23 percent of service provided by Durham Center-managed programs in the 2005 fiscal year, only 3 percent of allocated funding could be used to treat them, Center Director Ellen Holliman said.

"We still have a long way to go just to see the 7,000 who will actually seek treatment," she said. "This is a very difficult population to serve. We've got to find a better way to engage people quickly."

Part of the plan is to address the stigma attached to substance abuse.

"We're dealing with a disease," Wright said. "The people we serve are not bad folks; they're sick people. ? Stop saying you understand substance abuse is a disease and start funding it like it is."

No funding promises were offered, but there was support for the plan on the board.

"We have to begin somewhere," Commissioner Lewis Cheek said. "I hope we'll take a very close look at it."

Commissioners Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow, who also serves on the Durham Center board, said she wants to see "stronger community involvement" in the planning process.

"The feedback I've gotten is that it hasn't necessarily been there," she said.

The commissioners also were concerned that existing resources aren't being fully used, including space at the homeless shelter.

"I'm not at all opposed to seeing us move forward," Reckhow said. "I want it done right and in as effective and efficient a manner as possible."

During a marathon work session Wednesday, the commissioners also received budget pitches from health and social services staff.

Including federal and state funds, social services represents the largest single chunk of the county budget because it includes Medicaid, 91 percent of which is paid for with federal and state funds.

North Carolina is the only state that requires counties to contribute to Medicaid costs. Durham's share is up 8 percent to $11.7 million in Ruffin's proposed budget.

Excluding Medicaid, Ruffin is recommending a $390,881 increase in county funds for the department. A $516,000 cut the department made from its overhead doesn't quite make up for $590,000 in mandated increases to other public assistance programs the county is required to fund.

The rest of the increase includes salary increases, and three new positions, including two for the call center to enable it to handle more calls.

The health department is set for a $1.66 million increase in county money. The new funding will pay for salary increases, an additional public health nurse, a dental nutritionist and 15 vehicles in the environmental health division, plus a $33,000 to improve the privacy of electronic medical records.
 
Community reacts to N.C. cross burnings
By Tiffany Webber
The Chronicle (Duke)
06/03/2005
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:iRf L8Fmm8BYJ:[url]www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200506/0603l ocal0.html+lew+cheek,+durham+nc&hl=en&gl=us&ct=cl nk&cd=10&client=firefox-a[/url]

(U-WIRE) DURHAM, N.C. — In the wake of last week's three cross burnings, Durham, N.C., has been thrust into the national spotlight. The two questions now on the minds of local residents and law enforcement officials are "Who did it?" and "Why?"

Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation joined Durham Police Department's cross-burning investigation last week, after finger-pointing and accusations had already started in the community.

Governor Mike Easley's Crime Commission announced Wednesday that it is offering a $10,000 reward for information to help identify the suspects of last week's cross burnings. The FBI added $5,000 to the award after the governor's initial announcement. CrimeStoppers issued a $1,200 reward, and Durham County Commissioner Lewis Cheek offered a $1,000 reward of his own-bringing the total reward total to $17,200.

The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that a state can ban cross burning as a means to intimidate; in such instances, suspects are not protected by the First Amendment. North Carolina law bans burning crosses in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.

Although flyers from the Ku Klux Klan were allegedly left at the cross-burning site at the intersection of Holloway and Dillard Streets, investigation officials are hesitant to make any claims about who is to blame.

"Anything is possible," said FBI Special Agent Lou Velasco. "But based on the way they constructed the crosses, I highly doubt it was pranksterism."

Velasco added that the three separate locations-where the crosses were positioned for "maximum viewing and maximum impact"-possibly point to a more organized effort than one mere pranksters could devise.

Thomas Robb, national director of the Knights of the KKK, denies his organization had anything to do with last week's incident, although the group has historically been the culprit of such crimes. Robb told ABC 11 Eyewitness News he believes the KKK's "good reputation" has made investigation officials "quite aware" that the Klan is not to blame.

But the FBI has not eliminated the organization as a suspect. "The KKK is a possibility based on their historical use of the cross," Velasco said.

Some community members, however, do not accuse the Klan of the hate crime.

"I just can't see the KKK coming here and doing that; they are pretty much cowardly. This is nothing but a black neighborhood-it would take a whole army of them," said 49-year-old Durham resident Allan Jones while standing at one of the burning sites. "The hangings, the cross burnings-that's old-school KKK. It's wild to think they would go back to that in 2005."

Regardless of who is to blame, many community members and activists want the nation to know that Durham will not tolerate such actions.

"[We] will not sit back and let these crosses burned in Durham go unnoticed," Rev. Charles Smith, president of Durham's chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said in a statement.

Smith added that the NAACP will communicate with DPD Chief Steve Chalmers and Mayor Bill Bell "to ensure the person or persons responsible will not go unpunished and that this will not happen in Durham or any other city."

Smith added that last week's incident will headline the agenda for the local chapter's meeting with the state president of the NAACP, June 11.

Jones said he thought the response of law enforcement officers also sent a positive message to the community.

"I think this is good publicity-the police and FBI being here. We will not tolerate this kind of mess in this town," he said.

In a statement released this week, Duke President Richard Brodhead said the incident was uncharacteristic of the Durham he has come to know.

"I join with others at Duke and in Durham in deploring the recent cross burnings," he said. "Such symbols of hatred... are anathema to values we hold dear in this diverse and caring community."

Duke instructor in cultural anthropology Susan McDonic, who attended one of three vigils at the cross-burning sites held last week, said she was impressed by how the city reacted to the incident. "The strong community response serves to resolidify my faith in humanity and focus on what is good in the community," she said.
 
Lewis A. Cheek

http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/cannonball. cfm?ID=34&deptPage=Commissioners/LAC/Lewis_A_Cheek.cfm

Lewis Cheek is serving his first term as County Commissioner. He served on the Durham City Council from 1999-2003. He received a BA degree in History and a Juris Doctorate from Wake Forest University. He is a member of several sections of the North Carolina Bar Association and has served as a member of the Bench-Bar Liaison Committee. Lewis is a member of the Watts Street Baptist Church and is currently attending Triangle Presbyterian Church in Durham. He has worked on behalf of the Ronald McDonald House in connection with Duke Medical Center and has acted as the legal advisor for the Volunteer Center of Durham for the past twenty years on a pro bono basis.
Present Board and Committee Memberships:

* Carolina Theater Board
* Durham City/County Committee
* Durham City County Planning Committee
* Hospital Corporation Board
* Lincoln Community Health Center Board
* Public Health Board
* Triangle Transit Authority Tax Board
* Farmland Protection Board

Current Civic Activities:

* Access to Justice Campaign
* Alliance of AIDs Services-Carolina
* Animal Protection Society of Durham
* Association for Preservation of the Eno River Valley
* Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Durham
* Durham Affordable Housing Coalition
* Durham Arts Counsel
* Durham Central Park
* Durham Habitat for Humanity
* Durham Health Partners
* Durham Nativity School
* Durham Public Education Network
* Durham Rescue Mission
* Durham Symphony
* Durham YMCA
* Family Counseling Service
* Freedom House Recovery Center
* Friends of the Durham Library
* Friends of the Durham Youth Orchestra
* Hazleden Recovery Center
* Historic Preservation Society of Durham
* Housing for New Hope
* Operation Breakthrough
* Ronald McDonald House
* SEEDS
* Senior Pharmacist
* Special Olympics
* The Volunteer Center of Durham
* Triangle Citizens Rebuilding Communities, Inc.
* Triangle Community Foundation
* Triangle Land Conservancy
* TROSA
* United Way
* Urban Ministries of Durham

Professional Memberships:

* American Bar Association
* American Board of Trial Advocates
* Association of Trial Lawyers of America
* Defense Research Institute
* Durham County Bar Association
* International Association of Defense Counsel
* North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys
* North Carolina Bar Association
* Who’s Who in America
* Who’s Who in American Law
* Who’s Who in the World
* Who’s Who of International Professionals
 
"Governor Mike Easley's Crime Commission announced Wednesday that it is offering a $10,000 reward for information to help identify the suspects of last week's cross burnings. The FBI added $5,000 to the award after the governor's initial announcement. CrimeStoppers issued a $1,200 reward, and Durham County Commissioner Lewis Cheek offered a $1,000 reward of his own-bringing the total reward total to $17,200."

Not to downplay the crime of cross burning, but why is the award for information on that crime so much higher than the one offered for information regarding the murder of a young pregnant woman?:waitasec:
 
ewwwinteresting said:
"Governor Mike Easley's Crime Commission announced Wednesday that it is offering a $10,000 reward for information to help identify the suspects of last week's cross burnings. The FBI added $5,000 to the award after the governor's initial announcement. CrimeStoppers issued a $1,200 reward, and Durham County Commissioner Lewis Cheek offered a $1,000 reward of his own-bringing the total reward total to $17,200."

Not to downplay the crime of cross burning, but why is the award for information on that crime so much higher than the one offered for information regarding the murder of a young pregnant woman?:waitasec:
Guess someone will have to call Governor Mike Easley and ask....hey how about the Governor's Reward for the one year old case on Janet Abaroa...(I think this is Mike Easley's last year, and I heard rumblings that the Attorney General, Cooper, may be running for Governor, so I think hitting both men up asking for more attention to the case may be a good idea.)
 
Nifong's campaign mangager switches support to Cheek
BY GREGORY PHILLIPS : The Herald-Sun
gphillips@heraldsun.com
Jun 15, 2006 : 10:55 pm ET

DURHAM -- The unfolding story of County Commissioner Lewis Cheek's potential write-in challenge to District Attorney Mike Nifong in November took a surreal twist Thursday when Nifong's campaign manager signed up to head up Cheek's bid to take his job.

Jackie Brown, who managed Nifong's primary win over two challengers just last month, set up a campaign committee for Cheek that plans a mass mailing to voters to get his name on the ballot.

"Women who behave rarely make history. We're getting ready to make history in Durham," said Brown, who claimed no campaign manager has ever won the same election for two candidates in the same year. "This has never happened."

Cheek, who says he was approached about running, said he hasn't made a firm decision to run yet, but needed to get the petition drive started to have a chance to appear on the ballot. His supporters have until noon June 30 to submit the signatures of 6,303 registered voters to make that happen.

"I'm still in the decision-making process," Cheek said, citing the need to weigh priorities including his law practice and his service as a county commissioner. He may not even decide by June 30.

"I haven't set any specific time frame for myself," he said.

Brown said Cheek, for whom she campaigned during his runs for City Council and the County Commissioners, approached her earlier this week about managing his potential campaign for Nifong's job. She accepted Wednesday.

"Durham has been the center of controversy for a long time and I believe it needs some leadership to take it in the right direction," Brown said. "Lewis is a leader; he's a gentlemen."


SEE REST OF THE STORY HERE....


http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-744710.html
 
Wowsa...seems a republican may be throwing his hat in for the race for DA. I don't know if he really truly stands a chance, because Durham is primarily a Democratic City.....

http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/06/22/News/2.Attorneys.May.Challenge.Nifong-2117926.shtml?norewrite200606241358&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com

6/22/06

2 attorneys may challenge Nifong

Katherine MacIlwaine
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper884/stills/1rze86mc.gif
Lewis Cheek, (D)

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper884/stills/uypys29p.gif
Steve Monks, (R)

In response to a recent wave of public concern, two potential challengers have placed District Attorney Mike Nifong's controversial quest for re-election back in the limelight.

Steve Monks, chairman of the Republican party for Durham County, and County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, a Democrat, have both announced their intentions to seek spots on the ballot for November's district attorney general election.

"The folks here in Durham deserve a choice," Monks said. "There's a lot of question in the public at this time about the confidence in [Nifong] and his ability to do his duties."

Monks announced his interest Monday in challenging Nifong, following Cheek, who has not formally confirmed his candidacy but expressed interest in running last week.

Nifong is currently running unopposed.

The district attorney-who has recently received sharp criticism for his public handling of rape allegations against members of the men's lacrosse team before charges were made-won the three-person Democratic primary in May with 45 percent of the vote. No Republican candidates participated in the race.

Click for related articles:
- Complete Coverage: Duke Lacrosse
- Krzyzewski speaks out on lacrosse
- Court date arrives for 3 indicted
-
Alumni Profile: The "Report" on Abrams

Monks and Cheek must each collect signatures from 6,303 registered voters by June 30 in order to have their names on the November ballot.

Regardless of their current party registrations, the challengers will be classified on the ballot as "unaffiliated" if they receive the necessary number of signatures, explained Mike Ashe, director of elections for Durham County.

Ashe, who said that he has not witnessed similar circumstances in his six years as director of elections, added that if either candidate fails to collect the names, that candidate can enter the race as a write-in.

The option requires the challenger to collect signatures from 100 registered voters by Aug. 9.

Monks, however, said he will not continue to pursue the position if he does not collect the necessary signatures by next Friday.

"Durham needs to put this decision to bed," Monks said.

"A write-in campaign would just prolong the suffering," he added.

Both challengers said they considered opposing Nifong on the basis of recent concerns over the district attorney's conduct.

"I had a number of people in the community who asked me to think about it," Cheek said. "They raised some issues to me over some of the things the district attorney had to say and some of the things he had done."

Cheek, who said he had never considered running for the position before the controversy emerged, said the wave of public encouragement was the deciding factor in his campaign for candidacy.

Monks, however, said he contemplated filling the office for quite some time.

He added that debate over Nifong's behavior affects the future credibility of the role of the district attorney and "highlights concern about a bigger picture."

Cheek said the same, noting that the recent controversy has raised general questions about how any district attorney should handle cases in a public arena.

"The issues are issues that go far beyond the Duke lacrosse case," Cheek said. "The district attorney is a representative of the people of the state of North Carolina and needs to approach every situation in a very neutral way."
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
95
Guests online
1,253
Total visitors
1,348

Forum statistics

Threads
591,792
Messages
17,958,940
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top