I think one of the things that people worry about - and understandably so - is the possibility that this could turn out to be a situation similar to the Duke lacrosse incident. Yes, that could be a possibility, but very unlikely IMO. First off, Michael Nifong was scum and obviously did what he did for politically motivated reasons. We found out after the fact that he actually withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and therefore violated law. I've heard of nothing to indicate that this prosecutor has done the same thing or has the a similar motivation. People are upset that he chose to pursue this case and that is fine, but it does not mean he has unethical motives or has withheld evidence. I'm sure there was a great deal of discussion in his office whether to move forward with this case given the public outcry and attention it would receive and that it was not the result of one single, rogue prosecutor looking to advance his career. Yes, sadly there are prosecutors out there like Nifong, but the vast, overwhelming majority of state and federal prosecutors are very decent, honorable people. I've had the pleasure of working with numerous of them. I've also had some of them decline to move forward with my investigations because they did not feel I had uncovered sufficient evidence (at least to that point) or even because they simply did not feel the crime was sufficient to prosecute at a federal level. Don't smear this prosecutor simply because you don't want this coach prosecuted and hope/believe that he's innocent. When - and if - we find out the prosecutor had sinister motives or was involved in some type of prosecutorial misconduct, then by all means rip him to shreds. But at this point, it's way, way premature.

Both NBC and ABC national news, covered this event just now. ABC news reported, a gathering at the Football field for Coach Stinson is being held tonight.

 

Hopefully from this incident, something positive can result from this tragedy and not have another student-athlete or coach, ever be in this same situation again.

Both NBC and ABC national news, covered this event just now. ABC news reported, a gathering at the Football field for Coach Stinson is being held tonight.

 

Hopefully from this incident, something positive can result from this tragedy and not have another student-athlete or coach, ever be in this same situation again.

 

I saw it on NBC. Very very sad for the family, but sad as well for the coach. I just find it hard to believe that there is any criminal wrongdoing here.

This is so sad for everyone involved. It's every parent's worse nightmare. I can't think of any coach who would want to cause harm to their players.

I guess for those of you that set through the 1hour and 2 hour classes to get a degree in physical education and said at the time I am not going to be a doctor why should I have Kineseolgy, Anatomy, Physiology, Physiology of activity, conditioning and biomedics, strength training and conditioining, periodization for all sports are seeing the effect of being able to defend yourself on the stand. Today so many times coaches are hired by site based councils that do not have a clue, so guess what many coaches do not have a clue as well. This is pobably not the case with Mr. Stinson, but it should raise questions about the entire coaching profession. In 1991 I was a college coach on a Division I staff (affirmitive action hit) 2 minority coaches were placed on every college football staff in America no matter their qualifications, and many good coaches left the profession in other words qualifications did not mean anything just the color of one's skin. This is just another example of how our society has let those be in charge without the background to do so. I wish Mr. Stinson, the family, and every coach in America the best. Without teams and team work are society will diminish even more.

 

This is not a racial issue, and noone, to my knowledge, has questioned Stinson's qualifications. He was a starting center for Louisville in the early 90's and later played a few years with the New York Giants so this was not his first rodeo.

I don't disagree with your first paragraph, if that is indeed the way this thing plays out.

 

But please - please - understand that it is NOT at all unusual or wrong for there to have been an indictment without the defendant's testimony. In fact, it would be far, far more unusual to actually hear from the defendant during the grand jury. (I have testified dozens and dozens of times in front of the grand jury on my cases and do not recall a single case in which the defendant testified). Obviously the grand jury did hear some evidence that was compelling enough to make them believe that it was appropriate to move forward with charges. It doesn't mean there is enough to convict someone or that the defense won't ultimately be able to refute the prosecution's evidence, just that there was probable cause at this point to believe a crime was committed. I cannot speak to the issue of an autopsy. It does strike me as odd, but until someone knows the real facts why one was not obtained, it isn't accurate to ascribe it to some type of misconduct or underhandedness on the part of police or the prosecutor's office.

 

Noone ascribed the lack of autopsy to misconduct on the part of the police or prosecutor's office. I also have not claimed maliciousness or criminal behavior on the part of the prosecutor. I have questioned the impartiality of the prosecutor.

I think one of the things that people worry about - and understandably so - is the possibility that this could turn out to be a situation similar to the Duke lacrosse incident. Yes, that could be a possibility, but very unlikely IMO. First off, Michael Nifong was scum and obviously did what he did for politically motivated reasons. We found out after the fact that he actually withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and therefore violated law. I've heard of nothing to indicate that this prosecutor has done the same thing or has the a similar motivation. People are upset that he chose to pursue this case and that is fine, but it does not mean he has unethical motives or has withheld evidence. I'm sure there was a great deal of discussion in his office whether to move forward with this case given the public outcry and attention it would receive and that it was not the result of one single, rogue prosecutor looking to advance his career. Yes, sadly there are prosecutors out there like Nifong, but the vast, overwhelming majority of state and federal prosecutors are very decent, honorable people. I've had the pleasure of working with numerous of them. I've also had some of them decline to move forward with my investigations because they did not feel I had uncovered sufficient evidence (at least to that point) or even because they simply did not feel the crime was sufficient to prosecute at a federal level. Don't smear this prosecutor simply because you don't want this coach prosecuted and hope/believe that he's innocent. When - and if - we find out the prosecutor had sinister motives or was involved in some type of prosecutorial misconduct, then by all means rip him to shreds. But at this point, it's way, way premature.

 

You seem to be very preoccupied with criticism of the prosecutor. Noone has ever said, or implied, anything that anywhere comes close to analogizing this to Mike Nifong. Dave Stengel is a competent Commonwealth's Attorney and has served the public for many years. I simply question his partiality in this particular case, I think it was a mistake not to permit defense testimony on this occasion, and if there was exculpatory evidence that was not presented, I think it was a mistake not to present it. No more, no less, and just my opinion. I have never done anything close to equate Stengel to Nifong and knowing Mr. Stengel, would be shocked if anything like that came to light.

 

Now, if there are any blood samples, from EMS to hospital to corner's office, that are known by police or prosecution and they show something that might indicate a reason why no autopsy was performed, that is something that is sticking in the back of my mind . . .

You seem to be very preoccupied with criticism of the prosecutor. Noone has ever said, or implied, anything that anywhere comes close to analogizing this to Mike Nifong. Dave Stengel is a competent Commonwealth's Attorney and has served the public for many years. I simply question his partiality in this particular case, I think it was a mistake not to permit defense testimony on this occasion, and if there was exculpatory evidence that was not presented, I think it was a mistake not to present it. No more, no less, and just my opinion. I have never done anything close to equate Stengel to Nifong and knowing Mr. Stengel, would be shocked if anything like that came to light.

 

Now, if there are any blood samples, from EMS to hospital to corner's office, that are known by police or prosecution and they show something that might indicate a reason why no autopsy was performed, that is something that is sticking in the back of my mind . . .

 

Never said you did equate him with Nifong, but I have seen it discussed in various blogs.

 

My impression from the following quote is you not only questioned the prosecutor's impartiality, but his honesty. I'm assuming the comment referencing his honesty was done sarcastically. Perhaps I misintepreted?

 

Here, the defense offered to present the Coach's version of the case. Its a landmark, never-before-been-done-in-this-country indicmtent. Why not hear from him? Because someone, in all likelihood your honest prosecutor, told them they didn't have to and didn't need to, that's why. There is your open and honest grand jury process.

Never said you did equate him with Nifong, but I have seen it discussed in various blogs.

 

My impression from the following quote is you not only questioned the prosecutor's impartiality, but his honesty. I'm assuming the comment referencing his honesty was done sarcastically. Perhaps I misintepreted?

 

It was made sarcastically, but perhaps a bit too strong. Stengel was quoted in the article, and once on TV, as saying that he didn't have anything to do with it and left it totally up to the grand jury, and I just have a gut instinct that that is not entirely forthright.

It was made sarcastically, but perhaps a bit too strong. Stengel was quoted in the article, and once on TV, as saying that he didn't have anything to do with it and left it totally up to the grand jury, and I just have a gut instinct that that is not entirely forthright.

 

And again, not to beat a dead horse, but this quote?

 

No, I stand by my statements questioning the independence and integrity of this particular prosecution.

 

I do not wish to put words in your mouth, truly I do not. But my very distinct impression from a statement like this is that you are going beyond questioning the man's impartiality and accusing him of some type of misconduct.

Noone ascribed the lack of autopsy to misconduct on the part of the police or prosecutor's office. I also have not claimed maliciousness or criminal behavior on the part of the prosecutor. I have questioned the impartiality of the prosecutor.

 

The comment I was referencing was this one:

 

It really bothers me that the mother said they made it a criminal case "to make a point." The only point being made here is that you can blatantly disregard normal criminal investigative procedures such as autopsys and pretrial statements from the defense in the name of dragging a man's name through the mud.

 

And I won't claim that you implied or stated this, but anyone who claims that the prosecutor intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence that may have prevented this indictment is indeed claiming prosecutorial misconduct - obstruction of justice and violation of federal civil rights.

Everything you say is correct, but in a case such as this, a first nationally, why would you NOT allow the coach to testify? Why would you NOT present the exculpatory evidence? If the intent was, as the "he did not make a recommendation" comment is clearly attempting to convey, that the JCCA's did not wish to have a dog in the fight and just wanted the grand jury to act independently, why would you not give them those things? They clearly bear upon probable cause. No, I stand by my statements questioning the independence and integrity of this particular prosecution.

 

Being as familiar as you are with the process, then you KNOW that the Grand Jury itself - determines if it cares to hear testimony from a witness or not. A prosecutor can request or suggest all they want to hear the witness - but in the end it is totally up to the G/J.

When he "did not make a recommendation" - I took that to be as to a charge.

 

By questioning the "indenpendence and integrity" --are you impugning the Prosecutor or the Grand Jury ??????????

To answer the above posts, I offer the following:

 

http://lrc.ky.gov/KRS/072-00/025.PDF

 

My interpretation of that statute seems to indicate that an autopsy of Max was required by Kentucky law to be performed by the coroner.

 

When the coroner did not conduct an autopsy of Max, this law seems to require that law enforcement submit the matter to the Commonwealth's Attorney, pursuant to this statute:

 

http://lrc.ky.gov/KRS/072-00/020.PDF

 

At his option, the Commonwealth's Attorney can do this:

 

http://lrc.ky.gov/KRS/072-00/445.PDF

 

Here are some definitions to guide us:

 

http://lrc.ky.gov/KRS/072-00/405.PDF

 

This is extremely urgent in the case of a child under 18:

 

http://lrc.ky.gov/KRS/072-00/410.PDF

 

Law enforcement, the county coroner, and the Commonwealth Attorney are all tied up in this particular set of laws. It seems clear to me that not one but several subsections of the law are covered by these statutes, and particularly the one describing the death of a child under 18. When no autopsy is done in those circumstances, I think there are grounds for questioning the integrity of the motive for prosecution.

 

If it turns out later that facts surface that make me wrong, I will get on here and withdraw my statement and apologize.

 

Right now, something doesn't pass the smell test.

The comment I was referencing was this one:

 

 

 

And I won't claim that you implied or stated this, but anyone who claims that the prosecutor intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence that may have prevented this indictment is indeed claiming prosecutorial misconduct - obstruction of justice and violation of federal civil rights.

 

No, I'm not. Merely errors of judgment and the integrity of motive to prosecute. Not criminal acts or even civil negligence.

This story is on ESPN right now.