Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 13 - Full

This page is full. Please go to General Topics - OPEN to continue with your comments.

161 Comments:

At 8:28 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent dissection of the latest NYT article -

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/08/enough-from-duff.html

 
At 10:23 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to remind everyone that a pro-Nifong suckup at the NYTimes (the execrable Duff Miller) has now just reviewed the entire prosecution case, submitted to the court as required by NC law, and found only a made-up post-facto report by the chief investigator as support for the rape allegations.

And this without any presentation of defense or exculpatory evidence.

The Gottlieb report looks to be an entire fabrication with numerous instances of outright false reports of testimonial facts and fusion of data from police reports and 3rd-hand press accounts.

Even in the brief excerpts reported by the NY, examples abound:

-Gottlieb report of CGM's detailed description of her "attackers" (typed by Gottlieb in July and curiously matching those indicted precisely) is contradicted by the contemparaneous written account by Himan, which and does not match those indicted.

-Gottlieb's post-facto interview with the SANE nurse includes inappropriate (and possibly faked) elicited statements from her not in her original report. This was an apparent attempt by Gottlieb to bolster weak medical testinomy by inserting inadmissible interpretative comments into the rape kit testimony.

(This manipulation by Gottlieb is critical to his intent since when Gottlieb wrote his report _in July_, Nifong and Himan were already in trouble for inaccurately characterizing-in their reports and to the Press- the contents of the medical reports _before_ they were even released to the Durham PD).

-Even the last line in the NYT piece, apparently from Gottlieb's report, is a probable fabrication.

It quotes:

'The case file says, "She stated she has never had any offers from anyone to drop the case, nor will she accept."'

which seems to be a faked post-facto fusion by Gottlieb of Himan's fragmentary note on an interview with CGM that nobody had attempted to bribe her.

...with Cash Michaels published 3rd-party interview with "Cousin Jakki" in which the line "she said she would never take a bribe" is mentioned.

When your chief investigator, Mark Gottlieb, has now been shown to be capable of falsifying reports, tampering with witnesses and faking quotes it is not going to be pretty for the Durham PD.

A much bigger problem for the DPD is that if Gottlieb was willing to fake testimony and file false reports in this case, it has probably been his routine practice over the last 12 years.

If I were a defense attorney in any case in which Gottlieb provided testimony over that period, I would be reviewed his work to find the falsehoods and fakery that will be there and filing an immediate appeal.

 
At 10:47 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes and surprisinigly Drudge put thsi piece of garbage on his website - i think we have to respond!

 
At 11:14 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Gottlieb truly fabricated parts of his report in order to bolster the prosecution's case after the weaknesses of that case had been pointed out by the defense, then Collin Finnerty's lawyers were very wise to have kept the details of his alibi quiet. We know the prosecution is busy trying to find some holes in Reade's alibi (or create a timeline for a rape that could somehow fit anyway) so why give them the opportunity to do that with Collin's alibi as well?

 
At 12:25 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I told everyone that Nifong and the stinky "Durham" cops would fabricate amd manipulate there reports. Looks like the NY post might just get this one right.

It only took how long for that detective to sit down and do it?

The only reason the report is done now is because he is not going to jail. Just Yet. He the "cop" is just sucking up to Nifong for not going to a grand jury. But it is coming if not by Nifong maybe the Feds.

 
At 12:41 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Instead of Collin Finnerty or Reade Seligmann, Joan Collin of Garden City, New York (where Collin Finnerty lives) lauded David Evans, who hosted the unfortunate party, as a profile in courage and "a true hero": "Ernest Hemingway defined courage as 'Grace under pressure.' What better evidence of this than Evans' inspiring and courageous speech to the press on the steps of the Durham County Jail on May 16, 2006....Prior to turning himself in to authorities, Evans stepped directly into the spotlight of this spectacle and faced the glare of the cameras of the press. His parents...proudly stood behind him. In a moving show of support and confidence, all the senior members of the Duke Men's Lacrosse Team stood beside him. With poise and self-confidence, and without notes, Evans made an inspiring speech professing his innocence and that of his fellow teammates, Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty. He said he and his attorney had tried to cooperate fully with police investigators and the district attorney's office. He had provided DNA. He had passed a polygraph test. With all the noise made by the potbangers and others, and with all the ink spilled by professors and the media, nothing communicated the truth more clearly than Dave Evans' adamant declaration: 'I am absolutely innocent of all the charges that have been brought against me today...Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty are innocent of all the charges brought against them. These are all lies, fabrications, and they will be proven wrong."

Joan Collins was right: "nothing communicated the truth more clearly than Dave Evans' adamant declaration."

Silence does not effectively communicate innocence. David Evans very wisely personally let the world know he was not the monster he was charged with being, and without detailing his alibi! Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty should have done the same sooner.

If Collin Finnerty's alibi is as solid as Reade Seligmann's (and it is), Collin Finnerty's lawyers were not necessarily wise, much less "very wise to have kept the details of his alibi quiet." there is a tactical advantage in doing so, but it does not necessarily compensate for the harm flowing from the public perception that the lawyers are trying to avoid the conviction of a guilty person instead of pursue the exoneration of an innocent one wrongly (and wrongfully) prosecuted.

Despicable DA Nifong demonstrated the weakness of his case in harassing the black taxi driver alibi witness and trying to devise a timeline to which Reade's alibi would not apply. Whether Reade's alibi was publicly detailed as a conscious strategy or the result of an accident, it did him a world of good and partly compensated for his silence.

In Collin Finnerty's case, there was silence and no detailed alibi, plus an unrelated assault prosecution in the District of Columbia that was reinstated and pursued (successfully) because he was presumed to be guilty of crimes in Durham. In July, he was convicted (without testifying), even though astute legal observers concluded that his legal team had shown ample reasonable doubt. Theoretically, that's supposed to avert conviction. But if you are perceived as a leper (or a lecher) in the courtroom of public opinion, don't count on it, even if you are innocent and the sweetest guy in the world.

If the sophomores had stood up promptly, proclaimed their innocence and exhibited confidence instead of fear, the deplorable Duke case might have collapsed sooner than it will and they would be moving on with their lives instead of still trapped in a case that costs time and energy as well as money and keeps the media occupied and defense lawyers putting lots of billable time into the noble cause of making sure that three innocent young men are only delayed and distracted instead of destroyed. Maybe The New York Times is trying to prolong the case in order to sell more newspapers!

 
At 12:58 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. It Reade and Collin talked, the case would have been dropped?
Give me a break.
Clearly Nifong does not care about evidence. Why would he drop the case if Reade and Collin talked?

 
At 3:37 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is ludicrious is that the baseless Duke case not only was commenced, but still continues.

When DA Nifong is convicted of an egregious abuse of power for pathetic personal political purposes and the Duke Three are exonerated of the pending criminal charges in the courtroom of public opinion, out of self-interest (and self-preservation), the North Carolina establishment, including the Durham establishment, heretofore supportive of Nifong as one of their own, will deem Nifong a dangerous liability to be removed from office and the indictments that were wrongly and wrongfully sought and obtained will be dismissible as improvidently granted and in the interests of justice (and making the establishment look better). So long as the courtroom of public opinion thinks there may be have been a rape at the party, the nightmare will continue. The issuance of the gag order craved by the NAACP of Durham on July 17 (the same day Sergeant Gottfried's notes which appear to solve some prosecution problems finally were produced to the defense) and defense defensiveness prolong the inevitable, which should be hastened instead of delayed.

Of course, there are some who want to delay the inevitable, if not avoid it, for various reasons.

 
At 3:38 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that it's silly to say that Collin and Reade should have said anything at all. Obviously, any alibi witnesses would face Nifong's Gestapo (Baldo) and their henchmen (N&O and NYT). Nifong misjudged this case- he expected a plea bargain- and CGM expected to get a monetary settlement from the boys' families and, more importantly, Duke. Nifong will hang on to this hoax until after the election and then say that the poor girl is too intimidated to testify. This is a "game" to both Nifong and CGM- it's no "game" to the boys and their families, whose lives are being devastated by all of this. Nfong is also trying to avoid being sued after this is all over- and he'll do ANYTHING, use ANYONE, to get what he wants. Isn't there ONE HONEST PERSON in the Durham PD who is not afraid of Nifong and Gottlieb?
Texas Mom

 
At 3:51 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Nifong owns the Durham PD and no there is not one honest person over there anymore. They are all w****s for Nifong. They will say and do anything he wants them to. That is why we need to keep up the pressure on him. sorry for any misspelled don't have my glasses on.

 
At 3:55 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Texas Mom is on target, or close, as to Nifong and the accuser.
Her plaintive plea--"Isn't there ONE HONEST PERSON in the Durham PD who is not afraid of Nifong and Gottlieb?"--might be more effective if more people realized that the case is baseless and Nifong ultimately will fall. There is a price to the tactical advantage of trial by surprise by the defense. It protects alibi witnesses from harassment as long as possible, but it leaves doubt in the public mind as to whether the client is innocent and looking to be exonerated or really guilty but in a position to have skilled lawyers help them avoid conviction with guile and smoke.
America wants the innocent exonerated and the guilty convicted, and it wants to be sure that only the innocent are not convicted. Ironically, it can be better to appear to be innocent than to be innocent. And defending the innocent as though they are guilty is a favor to the guilty and a disservice to the innocent (although police corruption and prosecutorial abuse make it seem to be the way to go).

 
At 4:33 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

watch the Tucker show on MSNBC at 6 ET--Dan Abrams is on and he rips the NY Times for giving so much credence to Gottlieb's "after-the-fact" report, and not more consideration to the actual, on the record statements that Gottleib distorted.

And I agree Collin and Reade were correctly advised not to speak publicly. Too much can go wrong, very few could handle the pressure and the cameras the way Dave did, and EVERYTHING they said would be twisted or manipulated by the DA and then used against them.

 
At 4:49 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I agree Collin and Reade were correctly advised not to speak publicly. Too much can go wrong, very few could handle the pressure and the cameras the way Dave did, and EVERYTHING they said would be twisted or manipulated by the DA and then used against them."

Did I miss it? Did Nifong twist and manipulate everything David Evans said against him?

Or is that performance still the stellar success I remember?

I think it was, is and ever will be.

It's what is expected in the home of the brave and the land of the free.

Not shyness, slyness and timidity.

 
At 5:16 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Lucky "D" said...

Dave Evans' address for this circumstance will be, in-time, considered to be the equivalent of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in his circumstance. But, Lincoln used notes, Dave used his heart.

 
At 5:52 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the 4:49 post:

"Did I miss it? Did Nifong twist and manipulate everything David Evans said against him?

Or is that performance still the stellar success I remember?

I think it was, is and ever will be.

It's what is expected in the home of the brave and the land of the free.

Not shyness, slyness and timidity."

While I appreciate the admiration for Dave Evans's remarks, I hardly think it's appropriate to characterize Reade's and Collin's behavior as "shyness, slyness and timidity." Whose side are you on? These words can only cause them and their families, who have already been so much maligned and distraught, further pain and anguish. We must respect their decision and support them, period.

Re the 3:55 post:

"[D]efending the innocent as though they are guilty is a favor to the guilty and a disservice to the innocent...]

It's not up to the innocent to prove their innocence, however much the American tabloids and the cable media crave it. Let's let their legal representatives continue to do the fine steady work they have been doing -- the truth will soon be obvious, and the trial judge will (finally) be able to hear their motions and hopefully begin to dismantle this travesty.

 
At 5:56 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the 12:41 and subsequent posts on the subject of Collin's defense not being made public and the boys not appearing in public to defend themselves: Reade's alibi evidence has been tortured beyond belief in an effort to fit a round peg into a square hole and discredit it. His alibi witness has been harassed, intimidated and now falsely charged in an old case based on miraculously recently discovered evidence. Collin's attorneys are right not to fall into Nifong's hands and unleash his unethical investigators so that they can fabricate still more false evidence against these boys by trying to pick apart his defense.

From the outset, it's been clear that Nifong is not playing with a full deck and that his police team are a bunch of incompetent Barney Phyfes who are out of their league or in bed (figuratively speaking) with the FA and her fellow dancer. They are also in his pocket, especially now that Gottlieb is facing an investigation into his dustup at Blinco's and so must be more compliant than ever with Nifong's insane quest for a conviction at all costs in this case.

If Nifong had conducted this case properly from the beginning, there would be no case now. Because he refused to meet with attorneys offering to share exculpatory evidence and because he either stood by while his officers fabricated evidence for a warrant or affirmatively participated in this outrage by lying about evidence to gain an indictment (and a primary win), he has forfeited the right to be dealt with even-handedly by the defense team. To do so at this point would be to commit professional suicide and to hand their clients over to the NC prison system. They are right to keep Collin's evidence private so that Nifong, Gottlieb, et al. can't tamper with it.

Moreover, I stand behind their captain Dave Evans's spirited defense of himself and his fellow players. His eloquence has been unmatched in this case, and they have no obligation to submit themselves to any more public ogling and scrutiny. I'm sure that they're stressed enough, plus they have absolutely no obligation to declare their innocence. All of us, from the DA to the police to the defense bar to the public should be doing so on their behalf based on that document called the U.S. Constitution.

What a disgraceful operation -- I feel sorry for the citizens of Durham that their public officials (including the likes of Bell and Baker) are such a despicable bunch of crooks and thugs.

 
At 6:36 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did Gottlieb go to school to learn about investigating crimes. We had a chief investigator when I was a police officer who was there for about 2 years. His big accomplishment was that he charged the same person twice for smoking on school grounds. Gottlieb is a disgrace to his community and to the DPD, but then again, was he really in charge of this investigation or was Nifong.

 
At 7:21 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A reminder that racist Durham cop Mark Gottlieb based the fabrications in his faked police report on data available in July 2006.

With no access to defense investigative reports.

That is a problem for Gottlieb. Once you start lying to build a case, things become very complicated when new data emerges.

 
At 7:21 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This afternoon now MSNBC general manger Dan Abrams guested on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show (easy for the MSNBC GM to do), where the Duke case is rightly referred to as the Duke rape hoax, to rebut today's attempt by The New York Times to buttress the politically motivated prosecution at least to the extent of having sufficient cause to obtain indictments of the Duke Three.

It was delightful to watch the son of New York Times attorney Floyd Abrams blast The Times for presenting an opinion piece as hard news, insist that the evidence available when the indictments were secured did not support them, and expose the Times article as terribly flawed and deceptive. Dan did not go so far as to question Nifong's motivation, but Dan has come a long way from his initial belief that the gang rape claim was plausible, as a result of studying the evidence in the case, and further enlightenment may come if he studies the politics of Durham, North Carolina in particular and North Carolina in general.

"Dave Evans' address for this circumstance will be, in-time, considered to be the equivalent of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in his circumstance. But, Lincoln used notes, Dave used his heart."

The Gettysburg Address was not initially appreciated to have been great. David Evans' brave and bold (albeit not quite Lincolnesque) speech was. And it is prime evidence of the wisdom of the innocent behaving as though they are innocent.

"I stand behind their captain Dave Evans's spirited defense of himself and his fellow players. His eloquence has been unmatched in this case, and they have no obligation to submit themselves to any more public ogling and scrutiny. I'm sure that they're stressed enough, plus they have absolutely no obligation to declare their innocence. All of us, from the DA to the police to the defense bar to the public should be doing so on their behalf based on that document called the U.S. Constitution."

(1) David Evans' co-defendants never tried to match his eloquence. Advantage, Nifong.
(2)"[T]hey have no obligation to submit themselves to any more public ogling and scrutiny. David Evans was not under such an obligation. He was under the impression it was the right thing to do, and he was right. Doing more than the minimum can be better than just doing the minimum.
(3) The presumption of innocence is rebuttable, of course. In the Duke case, the defendants actually are innocent. A DA's duty is to be objective and fair, NOT to declare those he has indicted innocent (unless he so concludes in evaluating the case, in which case he should move to dismiss the indictments of the innocent).

"It's not up to the innocent to prove their innocence, however much the American tabloids and the cable media crave it. Let's let their legal representatives continue to do the fine steady work they have been doing -- the truth will soon be obvious, and the trial judge will (finally) be able to hear their motions and hopefully begin to dismantle this travesty."

The saying, "The operation was a success, but the patient died," springs to mind. The sooner exoneration comes, the better for those under indictment. Fortunately, Nifong indicted innocent young men whose innocence will be demonstrated by NBC and CBS, despite The New York Times. That will facilitate dismissal of the indictments..

 
At 7:47 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am beginning to get really sick and tired of this argument that keeps coming back every other day -- probably by the same person, over and over again, like a broken record!!!!!!

Leave Reade and Collin alone. Can you do that, or are you incapable of it? What type of sickness are you suffering from? What do you gain by attacking these kids? What do you want from them? Don't they have enough on their minds already?

 
At 8:02 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

when the hard-core lefties at Slate begin turning at the NYTimes and its Nifong Propaganda, things are not looking good.

This Duff Miller puff-piece is turning into another pyrrhic victory for Mikey. And has exposed Miller as the DA's lackey.

'Nifong, who attended with an aide, also refused to comment on the story. "I've read it," he acknowledged with a smile.'

Slate's attempt at balance

 
At 8:37 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To those who claim that Cash Michaels hasn't abandoned Nifong's side should read his current article

Evidence

That leaves two pro-Nifong hack, partisan journalists Duff Miller of the NYTimes and Bob Ashley of Durham-Sun as the only ones left in the Nifong-Gottlieb fraud camp.

Ashley has already been discredited as a corrupt Durham government PR flack and Nifong fishing buddy. Duff Miller is next.

 
At 8:45 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a retired police officer, I can't remember writin a note or a report without a date on it. When Sgt. Gottlieb stated that he had 3 pages of hand written notes and then type up 33 pages and states that is from memory, what gives. Now it is 4 months after the supposed rape, where the Duke Three (victims) are already indicted and he types a report that has identical or close to identical descriptions of the suspects. Himans notes were first produced in the beginning phases of the case and certainly contradict Gottliebs. It looks to me like Gottlieb, looked at all the evidence and statements and made up his report. I remember, had I had to write a report, I was always taught to get it done right away while all the facts were still fresh. To me Gottlieb waited until the Duke Three were indicted so he could slant the report. Apparently Gottlieb and Himan, were not talking to the same person, when they got their descriptions, from Crystal. I wonder if they were in the same room with her. Even if I had not completed a report, I would have to turn into the DA, anything I already had. The only conclusion I can draw is that Sgt. Gottlieb is the smartest man on the DPD, to remember 33 pages of facts, with 3 pages of hand written notes.

 
At 8:55 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me clarify, Mark Gottlieb is a dishonest rogue cob.

He will commit perjury on the witness stand in this case.

Our responsibility is to not allow him to get away with it.

 
At 9:05 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above 8:55 p.m. don't forget they don't like cops who are under arrest, in prison. The inmates would just love to see the cops that put them there. Talk about fresh meat. and whom ever said that he {the cop} turned in a 33 page report from just three pages of hand written notes, he must have a real good memory. I hope it is that good when and if this case comes up for an appeal.

 
At 9:38 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gottlieb's memory is soooo good that even when drunk and missing his shirt, he can still remember to pin the rap on his fellow officers.

Do worry about Mark Gottlieb, when he goes to prison for perjury he will just join a white supremacist gang for protection.

 
At 10:18 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 7:47 PM, August 25, 2006 poster who wrote:

I am beginning to get really sick and tired of this argument that keeps coming back every other day -- probably by the same person, over and over again, like a broken record!!!!!! Leave Reade and Collin alone.

Hear, hear! This jerk wants us to believe that he knows how to run this case better than the defense team.

Is this guy a criminal defense lawyer, or has he ever prosecuted criminal cases?

Has he ever practiced criminal law in North Carolina?

 
At 10:44 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just won (quite nicely)a 4 year civil suit against the man (and his company) who built our house. It all came down to the paper trail. During the depositions, the builder presented a thumped up "specifications sheet” that lacked both date and signatures. We had signed and dated the original, but he had lost it and had not given us a copy (we learned from that mistake). Under oath, he stated that the phony sheet was a copy of the original. Unfortunately for him, the details on his sheet had too many inconsistencies. It was thrown out and we won. Of course it wasn’t that simple, but that pretty much covers the result. The Gottileb (whatever sp?) will face the same scrutiny and more. Personally, I’m glad the NYTimes published that article. It answers the question of what does the prosecution have absolutely = nothing. This case will come down to evidence. Paper talks.

 
At 10:52 PM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree, this was a major misstep for Nifong and Gottlieb to fabricate testimony and make up details.

It will come back to haunt them.

Thanks Nifongista Duff Miller!

Your attempt to paper over Nifong's fraud backfired.

 
At 12:28 AM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excerpt from KC Johnson's latest:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-bad-times.html

On the DNA front, the Times duo does everything it can to help out Nifong. The authors toss in this odd sentence:

"Outside experts say it is possible for a rapist to leave no DNA evidence."

Who are the "outside experts" who contend it is possible for three men that the accuser said didn't use condoms and who violently raped her "to leave no DNA evidence"?

 
At 1:34 AM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the 60 Minutes expose.

1. Does Gaynor know for a fact that the final editing has been done?

2. What is his basis for saying this will blow the Duke case out of the water?

 
At 8:46 AM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my opinion, Michael Gaynor's statements about the 60 minutes are causing more damage than doing any good. I wish he would stop making these speculations. I doubt very much that CBS showed him what they have. By making all these unqualified statements, he is forcing the CBS editors to “clean up the piece” and make it a CBS piece rather than the "case breaker" that Gaynor wants us desperately to believe we will get. I worry about Gaynor, in which planet is he operating?

 
At 8:46 AM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Outside experts say it is possible for a rapist to leave no DNA evidence."

And what are the odds that THREE rapists can leave no evidence?

That THREE rapists can struggle for half an hour with their victim, sexually assault her in every possible way, and still leave no DNA in her, on her, or even in the room where the "rape" and struggle happened?

This should be laughed out of court.

 
At 9:56 AM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above: If you are anywhere else, it will be laughted out of court. The question here is will it be laughed out of court in Durham. And, what if it is not?

 
At 10:43 AM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many of us could not read Lewis Cheek's August 19 article published in News and Observer due to online access problems. Thanks to a Durham resident who was kind enough to send us a hardcopy of the article we recreated it.

Decision not to run for office was a professional one by Lewis Cheek

Thank you Durhamite friend for your contribution.

Moderator

 
At 11:10 AM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Politics of the Nifongistas

Although their numbers are dwindling considerably, the Pro-Nifong propagandists in the MSM are an interesting breed.

There are only 2 currently pushing their pro-Nifong dreck on us, Duff Wilson of the NYT and Bob Ashley of the Herald-Sun, and both have a similar agenda.

Here, we see Duff Wilson's
self-penned "biography":

It is notable for two things:

-A clawing self-promotion that borders on delusions of grandeur (is there any award Duff hasn't put himself up for?)
-A self-image as a crusader that revolves around getting people in trouble with the cops. (i.e., I'm telling Mom, you're gonna be in trouble)

Accuracy and a balanced worldview are sacrificed in an attempt to righteously target the evil villain.

That's fine. But Duff never even seems to get his facts right.

Apropos of the Duke case, even Duff admits in his chosen hit-parade of journalistic gotchas that one case was dropped by the cops "for lack of evidence" and others failed in the courts.

Lords knows how many misfires and outright frauds Duff has perpetrated that never even made the list.

Duff's politics could thus be described as a granola-left-wing version of state socialism.

Use the public as a angry mob to help marshall the power of the state to crush citizens who you demonize for their evil actions.


The basic scheme of Duff's worldview is choose-a-hero-choose-a-villian-and-get-the-cops-to-arrest-them

Sound familiar?

It is no wonder that Duff would be attracted to a authoritarian thug like Nifong.

And a propagandist like Duff obviously fits in well with his upper-West-side limousine liberals masters at the NYT.

Just as long as he stays in "sports", ankle-biting jock miscreants and not Mayor Bloomberg.

(there is no evidence that Duff actually follows sports, but that doesn't matter at the NYT)

I have already commented previously on Ashley's happy-talk state socialism.

It is the burned-out, corrupt, bitter-old-man version of Duff's politics.

The end-stage of a liberal propagandist.

Duff, behold the craven, jabbering figure of Bob Ashley.

That's your future, Dorian Gray.

 
At 11:32 AM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with much of what the poster at 12:41 PM, August 25, 2006 said--a more vigorous public defense (whether mounted by the players themselves, or by spokesmen or attorneys) might have proved useful in the public arena.

But I quibble with the following assessment :

In July, he (Finnerty) was convicted . . . if you are perceived as a leper (or a lecher) in the courtroom of public opinion, don't count on it

If Finnerty was convicted because of public perception, then the judge in the case ought to come down off the bench, for allowing himself to be swayed by mob sentiment.

But there remains a strong suggestion that this conviction was a foregone conclusion anyway (like the conviction obtained for Evans for 'noise violation', and the charges against the cabbie and against at least five other potential witnesses in this case).

It had everything to do with Durham, and nothing to do with DC; and Finnerty could have been Gandhi and St. Francis rolled into one, and still have been convicted.

 
At 12:01 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If Finnerty was convicted because of public perception, then the judge in the case ought to come down off the bench, for allowing himself to be swayed by mob sentiment."

We agree. Unfortunately, a terrible public perception insidiously affects prosecutors and judges, consciously or unconsciously. That's why it helps to have the media with you rather than against you.

Collin Finnerty never should have been prosecuted, much less convicted, in the District of Columbia But he was prosecuted and convicted, because he was indicted in Durham and the bogusness of that indictment was not promptly demonstrated.

Fox News commentator and DC lawyer Bernard Grimm (who praised David Evans to the skies for standing up for himself and his co-defendants) blasted New York lawyer Michael Cornacchia for not letting the local lawyer handle the DC case completely. But, it was not a jury trial case and Mr. Cornacchia speaking in court did not lose the case, regardless of his choice of suit or cologne (for which Mr, Grimm mocked him, perhaps unfairly). An erroneous, but widespread perception of guilt, particularly in the District of Columbia, not dispelled by Collin Finnerty and his team of lawyers and advisors did that. It was not fair, of course, but it was foreseeable. And I believe it was avoidable. Collin Finnerty is not a rapist, a racist or a gay basher, and the truth about him and his family should have been trumpeted, even at the risk of it being deemed immodest.

If Collin Finnerty's alibi had been documented like Reade Seligmann's, would he have been convicted? Or would the pleas agreement have been voided?

Judge Bayly treated Collin Finnerty like a public menace. Monitoring curfew and fixating on imaginary violations.

When the Judge dismissed all the defense witnesses and swallowed the story of the complainants (hardly altar boys), he was blind to ample reasonable doubt.

And that Judge all but branded Collin Finnerty with a scarlet A for alcoholic in the sentencing, exiling him from Georgetown as though he actually endangered the good people there. It was ridiculous, but it happened, because most of the public was laboring under a misperception as to what kind of fellow Collin Finnerty is.

 
At 1:07 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If Finnerty was convicted because of public perception, then the judge in the case ought to come down off the bench, for allowing himself to be swayed by mob sentiment."
The judge in the DC trial made comments (while sitting on the bench!) that referred to a lefty blog's entry regarding Finnerty's case. He most definitely was influenced by mob sentiment- better yet- by blog sentiment!

 
At 1:58 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Collin Finnerty's alibi had been documented like Reade Seligmann's, would he have been convicted? Or would the pleas agreement have been voided?

Unfortunately, I think so--because the plea agreements should never have been voided only on the basis of a charge. The presumption under which the law operates is "innocent until proven guilty".
DC ought to have worked under that presumption and at least waited until the Durham charges were settled.
So the entire process was flawed
from the start (and the trial ought to be voided just on that basis alone).

When the Judge dismissed all the defense witnesses and swallowed the story of the complainants (hardly altar boys), he was blind to ample reasonable doubt.

If he was that biased to begin with, he should never have been the judge to hear the case. Another reason to cast out the trial verdict.

It was ridiculous, but it happened, because most of the public was laboring under a misperception as to what kind of fellow Collin Finnerty is.

But the judge ought to have been strictly impartial; if he let his preconceptions be determined by what he read in the newspaper--and worse, if he let his sentence be determined by what he perceived as public expectations for this case--then his verdict ought to be voided.

 
At 2:37 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nicholas Stix blast NYT story on this link http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/25/ny-times-to-duke-rape-hoax-victims-drop-dead/

 
At 2:58 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am in agreement with the poster who suggested that Mr. Gaynor is doing more harm than good by hyping the "60 Minutes" story. Does anyone know him so that he might be politely asked to refrain? Also, it seems to me that we do a greater disservice to the boys and their families by dissecting over and over again Dave's alibi, Collin in DC and his attorney's silence about his alibi, and Dave's speech. Let's get off the boys- I don't think it's helpful.

If you have a concrete suggestion for action, why not email FODU privately? That way, anything that might be helpful can be transmitted to the families without posting it to the whole world. I have done so, in the past, and have been asked to keep my own counsel at times. I'm not one of their attorneys, so I don't know what may or may not be helpful. And we all just want to help to get this idiocy over with!

Just a thought.

Texas Mom

 
At 3:04 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous WJD said...

To: Texas Mom, I don't know Michael Gaynor, but have talked to him on the phone. I believe he read the FODU blog so he will probably get the message. Or you can just google his name and get his e-mail address.

 
At 4:00 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Texas Mom's position is identical to "let's just wait for the trial"

(A show trial that likely will now be held largely in secret thanks to the urging of attornies Wade Smith and Mike Nifong)

The corrupt Durham lawyers boy's club is what made this sham happen in the first place.

Without a doubt, let's-just-trust-the-lawyers will reelect Nifong and raise the probability of a conviction.

 
At 4:03 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Kerri a rape victim said...

Texas mom, I agree with you. Everyone needs to get off the "boys" backs. I hate that word now!! Lets try exactly what they are young men.

We should be trying to find a way to get Nifong out of office and those dirty cops, who will do and say anything for Nifong. Because they " the cops owe him one" Nifong for not sending them to jail. We all need to call for Nifong to be disbarred.

And I read that the new judge might not let cameras in the court room. So much for Collin, David and Reade getting a fair chance at a trial. I knew it would just be a matter of time before Nifong had this judge in his back pocket.

We need to write the judge now and force him to keep those cameras on for every last hearing pre trial and all, up till the time of the handing down of the verdicts.

The ACLU will not come to the aid of Collin, David and Reade. Because they are in the corner of the so called "victim". It is people like us who can force the system to work correctly. I could never make what happened to me right, but I feel I can help, even in some small way here.

 
At 4:12 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above: Michael Gaynor's email address is:

GaynorMike@aol.com

You are welcome to write to him and point out that he is not being helpful. However, please be careful in doing so. You may not want your name and the contents of your email to be the subject of his next article. He will do it in a heart beat, and with no hesitation. And, his language is not going to be flattering. So, if you decide to write to him, do it with care. Just a thought.

 
At 4:19 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 4:00pm poster above: You say it is not a good idea to trust the defense lawyers, if I am reading your message correctly. But, you do not say what we should do instead. Can you tell us, in your opinion, what we should be doing?

 
At 4:32 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We should be going after each and every element of support in the local community and nationally for Nifong and the corrupt elements among the Durham police.

You compromise Nifong, his office and corrupt cops like Mark Gottlieb and you will end this case.

You will also end Nifong's career, which is the more important long-term goal for the community.

Closed hearings benefit Nifong (and the corporate snakes among the defense lawyers)

To quote Mikey, this is a "Durham problem" and the defense, DA and judges are all on the same team trying to hide the faults and corruption in the cozy system they have created.

In that regard, Wade Smith and Kerry Sutton are every bit as corrupt as Nifong.

 
At 4:43 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are misinterpreting my comments, if you have the opinion that I am advocating "just wait for the trial." I do not believe that there should have been indictments, much less a trial! I do believe that taking action is essential to keep the young men from being railroaded in Durham. However, I am not certain that ALL of the conversation on the different blogs is necessarily helpful. One person on Liestoppers or TL suggested that, by documenting the holes in the prosecution's case on various blogs, bloggers actually HELPED Gottlieb in his attempt to fabricate information to cover up those problems- the law of unintended consequences.

I do not suggest that anyone stop blogging or post in a particular manner. I simply think that focusing on the young men who have been indicted is not helpful. Focus on Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, CGM, Kim, Simeon, Destine, NC Bar complaints, the N&O, Melanie, Ruth, whatever.

I'd like to know how Duff Wilson got access to the discovery. If Nifong really DID supply it, why doesn't the judge hold him in contempt for violating the gag order? There are lots of questions still to be answered; and hopefully, a motion to dismiss, to be applauded.

Texas Mom

 
At 4:47 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read on lie stoppers blog that Tom Baven from Real Clear Politics. that Nifong was the source that leaked the 1850 pages of discovery to the NYT. I thought there was a GAG ORDER in effect, including Nifong. I guess this just go to show that the NC justice system is broken. That's why no camera's are allowed, it would just show all the corruption in Durham. If Tom Baven right, and if so Nifong should be charge with contempt of court and put off the case by the new Judge on this case.

 
At 4:56 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget that NYT has some experience in disclosing or disclosing their sources --think Valery Plame. Why do you think they will tell anyone that Nifong (or his conduits) were their source for the garbage they printed? Have they lost their minds?

 
At 5:03 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Gottlieb's fabrications in his report were the most helpful thing to happen to the defense all month.

Gottlieb and Nifong may be able to spin a useful idiot like Duff Wilson but they have just walked right into a huge civil suit against Durham and Gottlieb personally for malicious prosecution.

And, I am sure, left a huge paper trial in the process.

It is a truism that rogue cops and DAs always go further than they have to in their frameups.

Gottlieb crossed over into criminality.

And it will cost him.

 
At 5:26 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above: You are right Gottieb(?) just walked into the mother of all lawsuits. If he is as stupid as I think he is his career in law is short so short.

I downloaded a form to have filled out and signed to have Nifong disbarred. If I have to I will leave my home state of Massachusetts and go put in an apperance down there and sit there until one of two things happen.

1. The judge drops the case or,the verdicts come in.

2. The state of NC sets a date for a hearing to have Mikey disbarred.

 
At 5:26 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Every day, I visit this website, and I am always impressed and encouraged by the wonderful, insightful posts I read here. You know the truth and you articulate it beautifully. To all of you I ask a special favor.

The Liestoppers website has begun to draw an amazing amount of "traffic," This means comments posted there in support of Collin, Reade and Dave are being widely read and widely linked. Please continue to post here, another pro-LAX favorite...but visit Liestoppers as well.

AND POST!

Post everywhere you can! Here, Liestoppers, everywhere! Take a few minutes each day and speak in a few places on behalf of these boy!

Months ago, with little interest in this case, I watched Dave Evans speak.

I thought of my own son. I thought of the utter frustration of any family subjected to this appalling abuse of power. I considered my own limitations. What could I do?

Well,I could post one something,... somewhere every day...in support of these boys. And I have. As many of you have.

But now we have loud voices like the NYT and the AP arrayed against us.

Time to redouble our efforts.Time to post everywhere you can.

Be loud. Be visible. Be vigilant.

Let Dave and Collin and Reade and their families know we are standing firm . holding fast and appearing on blogs everywhere!

Some serious bloggers are laying in wait for that old Grey Lady. Shuffling along with her lame story, she can hear our footsteps now.

 
At 5:34 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FODU is the old Gray Lady of the anti-Nifong movement.

Liestoppers is the Murdock tabloid.

DurhamWonderland is the National Review

(Oh, and the NY Times is Pravda)

 
At 5:59 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Use them all.

What a strange comment.

With all the media forces arrayed against these boys, you would choose to offend those who stand with you, and speak in unison.

My point was to re-double our efforts.

Yours was to alienate a friend.

Was that spoken in the spirit of advancing the task we have before us or simple to amuse yourself?

I know other good friends here will read and understand.

 
At 6:15 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ummm. (head scritching)

Ohhhh, it's that old estrogen versus testoterone strategy thing again.

I happen to love the Murdock tabloids.

(without Rupert, 2-newspaper towns would have disappeared completely and Homer would have no Duff beer)

Oh yeah, and Crystal Mess is the Penthouse of the anti-Nifong movement.

That better.

Carry on, Carrie Nation.

(we'll be in the back of the room with the spitballs)

 
At 6:30 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

NDLax ,is that you?

You should have identified yourself...for two reasons.

One,my friend, I would have read your post in a completely different manner.

Two, as the author of one of the most excellent take-downs of that hideous NYT piece..in any case...I would have forgiven you anything. It's a must-read.

But I do think you need the smiley faces.

 
At 6:47 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous WJD said...

Whoever leaked the 1850 pages of discovery, to the NYT, should be charged with contempt. If as Tom Baven, from Real Clear Politics reports, that Nifong or his office leaked it, then he should be charged with contempt. The judge should go one step further and remove him from the case.

 
At 6:56 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joan foster at Liestoppers wrote...

I would ask our readers to do this service...for Collin, Reade and Dave.

Hold your nose and jump into those hell-holes of hate and post a word of reason and support for the boys.

Be sure to leave them links to this blog and our comrades in the blogosphere listed to your right.

We've seen blogs bring down the mighty before. We're waiting here, you NYT propaganda puppets.

BRING IT ON.


http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/08/turning-opinions-into-facts.html

Post your comments here:

http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=31

 
At 7:08 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I for one can't believe that it took Gottlieb over three months after the indictments, to type up a report. Not just in this case, but how many other cases has he been so delinqent, in submitting reports. Does it normally go that way in Durham, charge someone, indict them, then after the exculpatory evidence comes out in public, you type up your report to fill in the defense gaps. Just indict someone with no physical evidence, just the word of one person. I guess I could walk into Nifong's office and report that John Doe just took a shot at me with his shot gun and he would indict on my word. Where was the invisible Chief of the DPD in all this, he should have been all over Gottlieb, to get that report submitted. Mike Nifong the leaker and Gottlieb the perjurer should be doing time, not persecuting people.

 
At 7:14 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Joan Foster @ 5:26 PM, August 26, 2006:

I posted the 6:26 PM post above, and I just saw your 5:26 PM post. Oh well, it can't be said too often!

Now, to the one or two people at FODU who have NOT sent your contribution to Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek: Go here and do so immediately.

Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

 
At 7:50 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mitch Gaynor has been a great friend, and if he has made any mistakes, they are mistakes of being passionate about this case.

We've all made mistakes, and who knows what effect they may or may not have had.

All we can do at this point is keep on trying. But let's not end up squabbling among ourselves; let's change as many minds as we can, and raise the public's awareness of this as much as we can; and as someone else said, go into the blogs where people are still certain of the guilt of these guys, and try and pry open a few closed minds (there are readers there too, who don't post, but who will read what you write).

 
At 8:17 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above: That's the spirit! I agree entirely.

Having said that, please tell your friend, as politely as you can, to stop attacking the sophomores. He should also stop making rude comments about their family's supposed wealth. That is hardly an issue here. This case has to do with a very serious false rape allegation. It has nothing to do with how much money a family has or does not have. Similarly, the number of bathrooms in anyone's house is not a significant statistic. These types of attacks should not be coming from a friend, and I do believe that he is a friend! Let us leave these cheap shots to our foes. We should all be attacking the villains of the case (Nifong and Co.) not each other.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

 
At 9:00 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Kerri said...

I just watched Fox news and the NEW JUDGE has said there will no longer cameras for the rest of pre-trial, and he will decide later if he will allow them at time of trial. I knew Nifong would get to him. Is there anyway we can start firing off letters to the judge, to let him know that there is a lot us upset with him? Can someone send me the address to this judge. I will be the first to fire off the first letter. Not only to see what is going on in that courtroom, but to insure that these YOUNG MEN NOT BOYS need us to watch over them even from our homes. This is not right what this judge if he can even call himself that now is doing to Collin, David and Reade.

One more thing does anyone know how Reade Collin and David are doing?

 
At 10:45 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read the H.S. article about no cameras/recorders in the courtroom and noticed the mention of a possible rental charge to the county if a federal courtroom is used. AS THOUGH this hoax hasn't ALREADY cost Durham county taxpayers enough money!!!

 
At 11:21 PM, August 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re Mitch Gaynor's criticism of defense strategy:

Are you doing this with the approval of the Finnerty family?

No hedging - either you are or you are not.

 
At 12:41 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re Mitch Gaynor's criticism of defense strategy:
Are you doing this with the approval of the Finnerty family?


I'm not Mitch, and I wouldn't know, but I don't think the Finnerty family has said anything at all one way or the other. (And can't now, due to the gag order.)

I suppose if they didn't like the legal advice they're getting, they'd have gotten other lawyers.

(Just a guess...)

 
At 12:53 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AS THOUGH this hoax hasn't ALREADY cost Durham county taxpayers enough money!!!

When the Durham people voted for Nifong, they should have known this was what they would be getting.

 
At 12:56 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AS THOUGH this hoax hasn't ALREADY cost Durham county taxpayers enough money!!!

Not to mention the hundreds of man hours of work that could have gone into solving real cases;

the thousands (or hundreds of thousands) spent on accelerated (and duplicate) DNA tests (on 46 players!);

the expense of two hearings; etc.,

 
At 1:01 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it is a truism that rogue cops and DAs always go further than they have to in their frameups.

Gottlieb crossed over into criminality.


They may be counting on Nifong to cover for them. But, OTOH, he could always drop them over the side and say he was misled by the investigators--after all, it wasn't Nifong who penned the request for warrants, or who is (as far as we know) responsible for Gottlieb's report.
A DA relies on his police investigators to bring him the evidence, right?

 
At 1:06 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought there was a GAG ORDER in effect, including Nifong.

Bring it before a judge in Durham, and he'll rule that Nifong was correct in his remarks, and that you are in contempt of court for bringing up the issue.

Next case!

 
At 1:37 AM, August 27, 2006, Blogger NDLax84 said...

JOAN FOSTER:

Re: your 8.26.6:30p:

Nope. Not me. I'd like to think my work comparable to something a bit more tawdry than Penthouse. Y'know, like The National Enquirer.

I never post as "anonymous."

Thanks for the kudos. Right back atcha!

(Prior deleted because I misstated the time of yours to which I am responding.)
1:34 AM, August 27, 2006

 
At 3:01 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The NY Times star witness in the Court of Public Opinion, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, is cross examined at Liestoppers in an entertaining and revealing narrative by Tony Soprano of Court TV board fame. Don't let the style fool you into thinking it's simply fun reading. This article is comprehensive, and backed by linked news sources.

Teaser: It seems that Gottlieb may have been responsible for an auto accident that caused about $7,000 worth of damage - and did not get so much as a ticket.

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/08/tony-soprano-channeling-sam-spade.html

Additional discussion and discovery here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1690672/posts

 
At 5:20 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hot off the press:

http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/479650.html

As Sam Spade might say, "Last night was a lousy night for Sgt. Gottlieb. His morning looked like it was going to be worse."

 
At 7:53 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Real quick comment -- leave Wade Smith and Kerry Sutton alone -- the last thing we need is to be excoriating Collin's attorney and an attorney for one of the other players -- they are working FOR these kids! Don't give the other side any ammunition!

 
At 8:36 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unlike the garbage printed in NYT, Joe Neff today writes the following:
----------------------

Smith [Finnerty lawyer] was troubled by the lack of handwritten notes from Gottlieb, who produced only two pages of handwritten notes to accompany his 33-page typed account. Those two pages, taken on April 27, described a search for a lab to conduct hair analysis.

"This is a pristine white document that fell out of the sky four months later," Smith said. "Where are his notes? How can you interview the most important witness you've ever interviewed in your life and not take notes?"

See full article at
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case

 
At 9:18 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Michael Gaynor said...

"Mitch Gaynor has been a great friend, and if he has made any mistakes, they are mistakes of being passionate about this case.

"We've all made mistakes, and who knows what effect they may or may not have had.

"All we can do at this point is keep on trying. But let's not end up squabbling among ourselves; let's change as many minds as we can, and raise the public's awareness of this as much as we can; and as someone else said, go into the blogs where people are still certain of the guilt of these guys, and try and pry open a few closed minds (there are readers there too, who don't post, but who will read what you write)."

I appreciate the perceptive post, but I have never used the name Mitch or been called Mitch.

To the anonymous poster who posted this:

"Mitch Gaynor's criticism of defense strategy:

"Are you doing this with the approval of the Finnerty family?

"No hedging - either you are or you are not."

Hedging is not my style.

Sometimes yes or no is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I'll go with that.

I did not know any Finnerty family member until last May, by which time I had written three articles on the case, the last of which led a family member to reach out to me.

I am not now and have never been
employed or retained as an independent contractor by any Finnery family member.

I am free to express my views, and each member of the Finnerty family is free to agree or disagree.

I have long believed that defending the innocent as though they are guilty is not necessarily doing the best by the innocent.

I also have long believed that when a prosecutor is out of control and the local and state powers do not do what they should in the circumstances, failing to appeal to the court of public opinion is a mistake and Americans want persecuted defendants to speak to them directly on occasion instead (as David Evans did, so effectively).

I have commended defense attorneys for what I believe they did well (such as the motion to modify the gag order) and criticized them for what I considered bad strategy that played into DA Nifong's hands and postponed (but did not prevent) his day of reckoning).

If by the Finnerty family you mean Kevin Finnerty, I'm sure he is not receptive to my criticism. That should not be taken as a statement that all family members think the defense strategy and performance has been perfect. And the gag order (which the lawyers did NOT publicly challenge immediately, as they should have)inhibits any possible witnesses from communicating with me.

Since the FODU moderator de-listed my Paging Susan Lucci article and, insteadof re-listing it, challenged me to write elsewhere if I would not fall in lockstep with defense strategy, I will be writing a piece that probably will be up at RenewAmerica.us by Tuesday.

 
At 9:49 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After Neff's stinging rebuke of the NY Times fraud Duff "Judi Miller" Wilson

We will now see Durham Police Sergeant Mark Gottlieb fabricate some new old hand-written notes and then "find" these notes in the next month.

Before this case is over, we will see Mark Gottlieb behind bars for perjury, evidence tampering and obstruction of justice.

 
At 10:19 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A letter today to the NYTimes Management, and the head of the Paxton Newwspaper Group and 50 of his closest employees

-----------------------

Dear Sirs:

In today's News and Observer, Joseph Neff puts the post-facto mysterious police report by Durham PD Sergeant Mark Gottlieb in its appropriate journalistic perspective.

Neff: Cop says....

It is a stinging rebuke of the NY Times fraudulent reporting this week by Duff Wilson, who is apparently another Judy Miller albatross to be hung around the Times' sinking reputation.

Duff: Nifong told me to say....

But where is the Herald-Sun in all of us?

Durham's flagship hometown newspaper is nowhere to be found.

Ashley, the Nifong-Bell sycophant, too timid now to pen his keening, moralistic defenses of police abuse and prosecutorial misconduct.

His reporters all busy off interviewing cookie-baking grandmothers and merit badge-winning cub scouts while the story of the year passes them by.

Paxton, you're really getting your money's worth from the old weasel Bob Ashley, ain't you?

Bob's even a failure as a propagandist.

 
At 10:27 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Michael Gaynor above: If you read my email again, you will see that I do not say "you have to be in locksteps with the defense attorneys". I say, "stop insulting the indicted kids, it is the last thing they need right now and they cannot speak up even if they wanted to because of the gag order". There is a huge difference between the two. I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth --however advantageous they may be for you, they are not my words.

Furthermore, I asked several people to read your Susan Lucci article and provide feedback to me before I removed it from our list of recommended articles. I received the same response from all reviewers. They said the article was insulting to the indicted students and had no business being on our list. As the moderator of this site, I believe I have the duty and the right to decide which articles to put on that list. Please note that there are many good articles written on this subject every single day. We cannot possibly list all of them—there isn’t enough space. So, I have to be selective. Is something wrong with that?

For the last time, I want to iterate on this. This case is about three falsely accused Duke students. This case is NOT about Michael Gaynor and it is NOT about "Paging Susan Lucci." Can we all work with this principle? Is that too much to ask?

Moderator

 
At 11:25 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Moderator. and thank you for all the time and effort you put into this site and helping the three falsely accused young men.

 
At 11:29 AM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please, no more squabbles! We're on the last yard, one more to go and it's a touchdown, the opposing quarterback is about to throw his helmet down--and now the team needs a time-out to fight among themselves?

There's a ton of work still to do--this case has a million holes in it, and the media and public still need to be informed about these.

 
At 1:52 PM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read too about the judge not allowing cameras in the courtroom. I do hope he changes his mind before the actual trial. I say this because I watched the OJ trial's proceedings everyday. Had I not done so I may have thought that OJ was innocent based on what I heard Greta Van Sustern say each evening. Newspeople can put a spin on every fact presented. Before I started watching the trial, I liked OJ( the persona I thought was OJ) and thought he may not have committed the crime. After seeing everything the jurors saw, I knew he had done it, and I realized that jurors are cherry-picked and that justice is not always served.
Therefore, I feel that cameras are a necessity in this trial of these innocent young men!!!!

On another note, I want to say as a mother of young men---- that it is not always in their best interest to speak up publicly or to try to defend themselves when wrongly accused. Unfortunately, I had to learn this from personal experience. One of my sons (not the one who went to Duke) was falsely accused of breaking the Honor Code at his high school. Someone thought they had seen him with two others smoking pot. All three were suspended immediately. My son vehemently denied it. He stuttered and became quite agitated when defending himself to the administrator, who later said that his nervousness implied guilt. ( She even made me doubt my son's word.) All three were made to have expensive drug tests done immediately. The other two boys who confessed also had positive drug tests. My son's was negative-- even for cigarettes! So, he did not have to go to counseling etc. But, the suspension remained on his school record-- that same record that goes off to colleges. I asked it to be expunged. It was not. I did not get a lawyer as so many of my litigeous friends suggested because I had another child at the school, and I did not want all that bad feeling to be directed at his sibling. So, I did nothing more.

I am telling you this long, personal tale sort of like the narrator told his tale of the albatross in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Not everyone can express himself as Dave Evans can. He was stunningly impressive! ---- My son was innocent but in trying to express himself he became so frustrated and nervoous that he may have appeared guilty to those who wanted him to be guilty. And if someone has accused you of something, that perosn does not want egg on his/her face by admitting he/she made a mistake. So, I am saying that Collin and Reade are wise in following their lawyers' advice. And, please think about these boys and what their mental state must be!! My son was not the same person for at least a year after his being wrongly accused. He was bitter and depressed. And, I could not blame him for it. Perhaps, because of his experience (though miniscule in comparison), I follow the developments of this case and feel so immensely for these young men and their moms, dads, and siblings. In the long run, they will be stronger, but in the short run this abuse at the hands of the criminal DA and Durham police is a BITTER pill to swallow. Hang on, Guys!!! The truth will exonerate you, and you will become famous for your courage and grace under pressure.

 
At 2:33 PM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous rape victim said...

I think the judge made a very bad and dangerouse move when he said no more cameras. Nifong was hoping for this, because he doesn't want all of us to see what an ass he has made of himself.

Sorry to keep saying this, Now that we can't see and hear the hearing these wrongfully accused young men wont get a fair trail.

We can't all go down there and pack that courtroom. Like the people of Durham, and all the little Black Panthers who just want to cause trouble.

So much for the rights of the accused. Now we can all be concidered guilty before proven innocent. Thanks North Carolina for messing up the lives of the rest of the country.

 
At 3:42 PM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is Joe Neff toiling away at the N&O when Duff Wilson can't begin to scratch the surface of this mess? Neff's latest piece is clearly more the stuff of investigative journalism. Someone should e-mail the article to Wilson so he can see what his article could have looked like.

The quote from Wade Smith is brilliant. His comment and that of Joe Cheshire the other day say it all about the lengths that these desperate men will go to to cover their asses and hang on to their jobs.

Re the 1:52 pm post -- I totally agree with your statement "as a mother of young men---- that it is not always in their best interest to speak up publicly or to try to defend themselves when wrongly accused." In Herman Melville's novel Billy Budd the main character is wrongly convicted of murder because he could not effectively defend himself due to a speech impediment. Her son's case is all too painfully real, and the aftermath of his case, and the toll it took on him (and the sadly familiar lack of support from his school), should be a cautionary tale for all who keep insisting that Collin and Reade should have spoken publicly. Did anyone focus on their faces in their only televised court appearances? Collin looked lost and nervous, while poor Reade was so nervous and unfamiliar with all the proceedings that he inadvertently walked over to Nifong's table to sit down at first. Of course, that might have been at least partially due to the death threats he had just received from the member of the New Black Panther Party outside the courthouse who then sat in the front row of the courtroom cursing at him. (I still don't understand why that guy wasn't arrested on the spot for menacing -- what he did is not considered free speech -- it's criminal conduct, yet no law enforcement official lifted a finger, and this took place on the courthouse grounds and in an actual courtroom!)

Bottom line -- these kids are dealing with sinister forces far removed from your average legitimate prosecution, and I think their attorneys are doing the right thing to protect them from any public scrutiny. The Durham establishment is so corrupt that they will stop at nothing -- nothing -- in order to convict these kids. We've already seen the lying, race-baiting tactics of the DA and the bold-faced witness intimidation of the cabdriver. Then there was the arrest of the wrong cops (vs. Gottlieb), even after the detailed physical description provided by the Blinco's cook, who himself questioned the arrests made in that case. Now we've seen the absolute fabrication of 33 pages of phony evidence by the lead detective tailor-made for Nifong to convict these three wrongly accused young men. Collin and Reade should stay as far out of the public eye as they can -- the less ammunition they give these creeps, the better off they'll be.

As for the exclusion of cameras, perhaps the judge will confine his ruling to the pre-trial phase so as to get an initial handle on this circus, but I did find the presence of cameras at the earlier hearings gave me some real insight into just what an ass Nifong is, between his highly inappropriate and unprofessional laughter at Osborn's arguments to the judge about Reade's alibi and his questioning the need for turning over cell phone records of the accuser. He clearly hasn't had a lot of experience in the real public eye, and these episodes showed him as the clown he really is. In fact, whenever he gets in front of the camera, he generally tends to make a fool of himself. It would be helpful for the rest of us to see exactly what transpires in that courtroom.

Could someone with local knowledge weigh in on the status of cameras in the courtroom in this jurisdiction in general and when it is considered appropriate to exclude them? Perhaps the judge is thinking that this will prevent any public airing of the accuser's name (as if anyone in America doesn't know it yet, kind of like the judge in DC saying that Collin can apply to have his record in that mess expunged after 6 months, as though anyone in the country won't remember what was done to him in that case.)

 
At 3:55 PM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

I think I know how Nifong is going to convict these young men. He is going to use the rape shield laws. If he does there goes all of Reade's alibi. Look it up for yourselves. I did. I wanted to see if the same law apply everywhere, from state to state.I think that is why the judge wont let us see and hear what is going on now. I now have ZERO FAITH IN THE SYSTEM.

 
At 4:05 PM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the 8/27 N&O article by Joe Neff: How is it that the amazing Gottlieb can recall in such remarkable detail his conversation of March 21 with nurse Tara Levicy when federal privacy laws prevent him from being able to have had access at that time to the medical records and observations of such an exam, which had taken place a week earlier? In addition, how is it that "the victim had [swelling] and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally", yet "[t]he Duke Hospital medical records make no mention of blunt force trauma. The sexual assault examination form has a section where the examiner is told to "Describe all signs of physical trauma." Levicy wrote that the woman had two nonbleeding scratches on her right knee and a nonbleeding scratch on her right heel.

Under "Physical Examination," the nurse noted diffuse swelling of the vagina. The nurse left all other parts of the pelvic examination section blank, including the line for a rectal exam."

If she was raped anally, why is there absolutely no hospital record (only Gottlieb's belated notes) attesting to any evidence of that event?

As for the descriptions of the alleged attackers, how is it that if Gottlieb had such detailed descriptions of these individuals early on, no photos of Collin Finnerty were even shown to the FA the first few times she was shown photos? And if Gottlieb typically relies on his "memory" in addition to the recollections and notes of fellow officers, how is it that their recollections of the descriptions and of her "bruises" not only don't correspond to his, they flat-out contradict his? Tha part of his "report" that really got to me was the part about how "tears fell freely from her eyes" while she was interviewed. This is not how police notes read -- ever. It's the stuff of bad pulp fiction, not police notes.

If Gottlieb's and Nifong's noses get any longer, maybe even Duff Wilson and Georgia Goslee will be able to see them.

Why in God's name is this "case" still around? The corrpution and incompetence in Durham public life are sickening.

 
At 4:56 PM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But, the suspension remained on his school record

That suspension is really a black mark against the school, not your son. (Maybe, though, he will now get out of it a great sympathy for others who have been wrongly accused.)

And Finnerty's "conviction" is a blot on the record of the court that put it there, not on Finnerty. (It should be the court that wants to get it expunged.)

 
At 4:59 PM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why in God's name is this "case" still around? The corrpution and incompetence in Durham public life are sickening.

I agree. The judges there have done more to disillusion the public in the legal system than anyone I can imagine.

And Durham is coming off looking like a banana republic.

 
At 7:52 PM, August 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This may be lame, but I am a retired police officer. I went to court once on a speeding ticket I had written to someone. The ticket was over 4 years old and I could not remember writing the ticket or the person that recieved it. This person ended up in court after the 4 years and I just couldn't remember issueing the ticket. How did I testify, I told the court I don't remember issueing this ticket, the defendant was found not guilty, of speeding, but guilty of failure to appear. I can't believe that Sgt. Gottlieb, with 3 pages of notes, typed 33 pages of notes, relying on his memory. He probably submitted a false report, now will he continue with perjury in court? Durham PD and DA are giving the entire state of North Carolina a black eye.

 
At 1:05 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the above poster: It's not lame at all. In fact, it is helpful to all of us here to hear the perspective of a current or former police officer. Your jurisdiction may not have been like Durham, but there are procedures everywhere that are generally acknowleged to be proper (or improper depending on the action). Please continue to comment. I, for one, am interested in your opinion. I also find it laudable that you testified to the truth (you simply didn't remember) instead of fudging it to get a conviction.

 
At 1:43 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Michael Gaynor at 9:18 AM August 27, who wrote:

If by the Finnerty family you mean
Kevin Finnerty, I'm sure he is not receptive to my criticism.


That seems to go beyond simply not having their approval.

Is it fair to say that you are acting against Kevin Finnerty's wishes?

 
At 2:05 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke Students,

I sincerely hope that you will take a minute or two to think about Collin and Reade while attending your classes on Monday morning.

Collin, Reade, and Dave, please know that great group of people (parents, grandparents, Duke graduates, very many professionals, your friends, and your supporters) from all over the country are deeply concerned about you and support you. We stand behind you, your families, and your teammates. We will continue to do so till our "Duke Three" are exonerated.

Duke07 Mom

 
At 2:09 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A 9000 word piece of over-intellectualized garbage from Peter Boyer in the New Yorker today that shows once again what arrogant, effete, spoiled pricks Richard Broadhead, Orin Starn and Peter Wood are.

If there is anyone on this board who defends President Hamlet Broadhead (except lackey/troll Dean Burness) after reading this article, heaven help 'em.

BIG MEN ON CAMPUS

 
At 2:43 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Duke07 Mom at 2:05 AM, August 28, 2006:

Well said. The only thing to add is register to vote:

http://www.lib.duke.edu/reference/virtual/voting.htm

then vote Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek!

 
At 3:21 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check this out. It is a graphic of the three players, and a side by side comparison of Himan's account vs Gottlieb's. Keep in mind that Himan's account is contemporaneous, while Gottlieb's is from his recollection several weeks or even months later. We weren't told exactly when they were written down.


http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story_graphics/20060827_dukelacrosse.jpg


The fact that Collin Finnerty was not in the first two lineups supports Himan's version, rather than Gottlieb's.

Note also that according to the N&O, Gottlieb's tardy notes are in conflict with two other contemporaneous accounts:


1. The medical record.

2. The police photographer, as well as the photographs.

 
At 7:56 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it disingenuous that the New Yorker article and the Duke administration have such "issues" with sports and academics coexisting. First, Duke's nationwide recognition began as a result of the success of its basketball program. When I graduated from college in 1971, Duke was considered a good school, but not a great school. National television coverage of the basketball team increased the visibility of Duke and helped increase the number of applications as students looked for institutions to which they could apply instead of the increasingly competitive Ivies. BTW, the Ivy League happens to have originally been formed as an athletic association. Duke would not have the prominence that it has today, if it were not for its basketball program.

Stanford seems to be able to balance athletics and academics and is rightfully proud of its record in winning the Sears Cup. Williams, also a Sears Cup winner, is no academic slouch among small schools. Princeton, Penn, Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth recruit heavily in various sports and, while they do not offer athletic scholarships, they do have generous need-based aid available to qualifying students.

When did it become fashionable to villify athletes? Who would you rather rely upon to protect your back in battle- Broadhead or Dave Evans? Who has shown courage in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax? Whose behavior smacks of Neville Chamberlin? When did women, as a class, become victms? I thought the point of feminism was to empower women, not to make us victims of our chromosones.

 
At 9:31 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting...Herald Sun article on arrests for prostitution over the weekend- all were Hispanic. Is the DPD eliminating the competition for Centerfold, Allure, and Bunnyhole?

 
At 10:00 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

in response to 7:56a.m. we females only let ourselves become victims. I no longer am a victim but a survivor. I do not work in a field that cheapins me to the level of CGM and miss roberts. I am an athlete. and I concider myself and "athletic supporter" nice joke first thing in the morning. but for real I am an athlete.

 
At 11:17 AM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given the last week of summer, this week's online Herald-Sun Editorial meeting has morphed into Nature programming
---------------------

Subject: "Tracking the slippery weasel Bob Ashley"

To: Mr Paxton and employees:

Your weasel in Durhan, Bob Ashley, always the reactive invetebrate responds to my weekend criticism by cranking up his pro-Nifong propaganda operation today.

Publishing not one but two mentions of a mythical "pro-Nifong" citizens group

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-764670.html
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/index.html#764199

And a tangentially related faux-outrage editorial about the Eze case (which we have highlighted as a parallel abuse of power related to Nifong's prosecutorial abuses).

For irony value, he titles the Eze editorial "City employee abused the courts" (Heh, heh, see he's not talking about Nifong)

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-764207.html

Note that Ashley pens his editorial of outrage AFTER the charges are dismissed. Once it is clear that Ashley is on the right side of those in power (read NIFONG).

-On the trail of the malicious, dishonest sycophant we all know as Bob Ashley.

 
At 12:51 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Sorry, 2:09, I read the New Yorker article and still support Brodhead generally. I offered up my criticisms and support of his actions several general topics volumes ago and more recently in a mild disagreement with Mr. Wellington's essay which I posted a week or so ago. The New Yorker article just reinforced my criticism then of forcing Pressler out, and Brodhead virtually admitted that was a mistake.

I also got an impression from the piece that there is a significant faction of the Duke faculty that wants Duke to retreat from Div. I sports and be more like Yale, Penn and Harvard instead of Stanford and Northwestern. I think Brodhead is on the side of trying to do both top notch academics with Div. I sports. This group, to the extent it agrees, may need to be ready to enter that debate.

My son, who was looking at Yale and Princeton as possible destinations (he was eligible for them based on his record) decided to go early admission to Duke because he liked it and its sports atmosphere better than the others. He played sports in high school but not well enough to compete at Div. I. So, no doubt Duke's combination of high level sports and academics does attract students who could go elsewhere.

 
At 1:02 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A man who "admits his mistakes" by obliquely quoting King Lear (to make sure nobody has any idea what he is talking) is and will be of new use to anyone.

Brodhead is a weak, spineless cipher.

In every respect, Brodhead reminds me of Gordon Gee, who was one of the most corrupt, weasely and careerist college presidents in modern history.

College Presidents get paid so much, it is right to expect more of them than just mewling and cowering.

Fire Brodhead and hire someone with spine, vision and an ability to speak in clear sentences.

 
At 1:26 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Brodhead apologizes, and says, "I was wrong", I will consider that he has begun to show some character.

He should come out and forthrightly say the students charged are innocent, based on the DNA results; and declare that any further prosecution of them is a travesity.

(so what exactly is it that's holding him back and tying his tongue?)

 
At 1:34 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the 12:51 poster--I still support Brodhead even though I also disagree, in hindsight, with some of his decisions. But none of us were faced with the avalanche that he faced. I also think the New Yorker article was a fairly unbiased informative account of the events--and certainly puts Brodhead's decisions in perspective given the flow of information at the time.
It's so easy to second guess every thing that happened--the defense strategy of silence, Brodhead's decisions, etc., but this was a period of time when things were happening very quickly--new information, much of it highly prejudicial at the time, was coming out daily, political groups, including professors and radical groups were taking active, aggressive stands, etc. I would love to see people who really care about this redirect their efforts from criticizing past decisions to looking for ways to help given the circumstances today. we can't change the past.

 
At 2:17 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does any one here know if anyone has filed a complaint against Mike Nifong with the NC Bar for prosecutorial misconduct? He is the real villian in this case.

 
At 2:31 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's so easy to second guess every thing that happened

When Fresno state had rape charges levelled against their football players, the college made sure they got legal counsel and had a good defense.
Their coach was not fired, the president did not make 'mea culpa' speeches all over town on behalf of the school, and the professors did not line up to sign a manifesto of condemnation.

Those faculty and that administration acted responsibily, with a full readiness to support the civil rights of their students.

That's what should have been exepcted of Duke--they even have a law school on the campus.
Sorry, but Duke--administration and faculty--failed; and are still failing by keeping silent.
This is the worse travesity of justice since the Scottsboro case; and afterwards, all we will be able to say of the Duke admin, faculty, and law school was that they kept utterly silent, when they weren't condmening.

I would love to see people who really care about this redirect their efforts from criticizing past decisions to looking for ways to help given the circumstances today.

Easy. Let Brodhead demand the charges be dropped since the students have been cleared by DNA.
(Is he afraid to speak out so clearly?)

Let the law school faculty speak on
the ludicrous photo ID, the arrest and intimidation of witnesses; let them call for the FBI to intervene;
let them call for a federal investigation of all the corruption in Durham.

Let the students hold a moment of silence at every athletic event until the falsely accused are freed.
(Two of them are missing this year--because of those false charges.)

I could go on . . .

 
At 2:32 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 1:34P: The way for Duke to help circumstances today is to fire Brodhead.

It sends a clear message and gets Duke a fresh start.

It's that simple.

 
At 2:41 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe 2:31 doesn't understand. While we believe the lacrosse players are innocent, the ONLY way DNA would actually clear them is if the DNA came back with a match to a different perpretator. There might be SOME statement that Brodhead could/should make due to the absence of evidence, however, I am sure he has legal counsel advising him, on behalf of Duke, as well. Let's move on, and do our best to get rid of Nifong (who IS the real culprit) and clear the players.

 
At 2:49 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DNA did come back positive-- to her boyfriend-- a known criminal. Where have you been?

 
At 2:51 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has Brodhead read King Lear? Isn't that the story of a father who would not believe his own daughter when she told the truth?

I think Brodhead is more like The Music Man. He is a likeable phony.

 
At 2:54 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DNA match to boyfrien still doesn't legally clear them as it was acknowledged that sexual activity with boyfriend occurred a week before. Yes, I believe that defense will argue successfully that it is very unlikely that three men raped her and left no DNA, but experts have said time and again that the absence of DNA is NOT proof a rape did not occur. Where have YOU been?

 
At 2:56 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the ONLY way DNA would actually clear them is if the DNA came back with a match to a different perpretator.

Nonsense. There's no known way in for THREE individuals to struggle with and rape in every possible manner a woman for thirty minutes in a confined space, and leave no DNA in her, on her, or even anywhere in that tiny bathroom. Not in the universe we live in.

Someone else's DNA was found in her; that proves the accused did not have sexual contact with her, and this other individual did.

People are freed constantly from prison and charges on that kind of info (Alan Newton, Darryl Hunt--who spoke at Duke law school about wrongful convictions and the need to "do what is right", even if it means you lose a case.

see : http://www.law.duke.edu/features/2004/hunt.html

I guess the Duke law class slept through that one. . .

 
At 3:00 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sure he has legal counsel advising him, on behalf of Duke, as well.

So he is more afraid of a lawsuit against Duke than he is that three innocent students might get railroaded to a conviction?

 
At 3:15 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Brodhead believes that any attempt by him as president publicly to influence the Durham judicial process will be counterproductive. He's probably right.

So, don't expect any public pronouncement of anything from his office other than the presumption of innocence language he's been putting out for some time now.

Oh, and the reference to Shakespeare was from Othello, not Lear.

 
At 3:18 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

for 2:49 and 2:54 posts the boyfiend had sex with her within the past 72 hours before the party. One of the drivers had sex with her that night. She also preformed for a few people using a sex toy, about an hour before she went to the party. Her boyfriend has been in jail before. Becasue he can't keep his hands off other people.

 
At 3:19 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous WJD said...

FOX legal analyst made this statement on DNA. ""No prosecution has been successfully made since the onset of DNA where DNA actually proves innocence and this prosecutor, I'm sure, ought to know that."
See comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203035,00.html

 
At 3:28 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brodhead believes that any attempt by him as president publicly to influence the Durham judicial process will be counterproductive. He's probably right.

He certainly didn't feel that way when the case first broke. And he has unquestionably added to the presumption of guilt when he fired the coach and suspended the players and rushed off to NCCU to apologize (for what, if they were presumed innocent?)

Therefore, he personally has a moral duty to help derail this legal lynching. Speaking again at NCCU and declaring his belief in their total innocence would be a start.

 
At 3:33 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would really like to know the dimensions of that bathroom? Bucasue Collin is 6'3"? Reade6'1"? and David 5'10". and she must stand about 5'6" not counting the six inch heels she was wearing that night. My bathroom is about the size of a walk in closet. If I ever had a seizure in there I would be killed in a heart beat. No room to move around. I do have seizures. I have been raped in some of the worst ways you can think of and for someone to say that there would be no DNA left behind should not be in the field of medicine.

 
At 3:37 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No prosecution has been successfully made since the onset of DNA where DNA actually proves innocence and this prosecutor, I'm sure, ought to know that."

Alan Newton :
By: Leonard Greene, Special to BlackAmericaWeb.com

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/newton713

"It's been one stop after another for freed inmate Alan Newton, who was released from prison last week after 22 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.

"... Newton, a former bank teller from the Bronx, is adjusting to life on the outside after DNA testing cleared him in the vicious rape and beating of a Bronx woman whose shaky identification sent him away for nearly half his life.

"DNA from Newton that was compared to a sperm sample recovered as evidence after the rape showed conclusively that Newton had nothing to do with the brutal attack.

(sounds like innocence to me...)

Darryl Hunt :

"New DNA tests linked another man, Willard Brown, to Sykes’ rape, and he admitted to her murder, saying he acted alone."

(sounds like innocence to me.)

“The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim.”
–DA Mike Nifong

 
At 3:38 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New from KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland blog:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/08/times-open-letter.html


Times Open Letter


I sent the following email to Times executive editor Bill Keller and news editor Jill Abramson. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no response was received.

 
At 3:39 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The presence of her boyfriend's DNA does not exonerate the Duke players. Her sexual activity the weekend before doesn't either, although it should damage her credibility and explain the trauma (if judged admissable under the Rape Shield Law.) Certainly the absence of any DNA match to the players is very strong evidence for the defense, but does not constitute LEGAL PROOF of innocence. If this goes to trial, the defense will bring in an expert to testify to the low probability that three men could violently rape someone and leave no DNA evidence, and the prosecution will bring in its expert to say it could happen. The jury will have to decide. And convicted rapists have not been freed because of the absence of DNA, but because actual DNA was found that did not match EITHER the convicted or an admitted consensual sex partner (e.g., the boyfriend.)

I'd like to know the size of the bathroom, too.

 
At 3:56 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Certainly the absence of any DNA match to the players is very strong evidence for the defense, but does not constitute LEGAL PROOF of innocence.

Legal waffling. The possibility of a rape leaving no DNA is astronomically small. That assumes condoms, the briefest of encounters, and poor testing. (The DNA of the salesclerk who handled Jon-Benet Ramsey's underpants was still on those pants many months and washings later.)
The odds against of THREE men STRUGGLING WITH and RAPING in every concievable way for half an hour (and without condoms)and leaving no DNA is so impossible as to make the odds out of this universe (physically impossible).

The jury will have to decide.

The jury will consider white privilege, Duke, perceived athletic hubris, and the ethnic and social background of the players. The evidence will be secondary.

Our jury system is broken, because juries are no longer constituted to represent the peers of the defendants, but the peers of the supposed "victim". They are no longer a safeguard against wrongful conviction.

And convicted rapists have not been freed because of the absence of DNA, but because actual DNA was found that did not match EITHER the convicted or an admitted consensual sex partner (e.g., the boyfriend.)

They have been freed because their DNA was not found in the victim, but someone else's was. That's been enough for the courts.

 
At 4:10 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would really like to know the dimensions of that bathroom?

According to the AV's statement to Officer Shelton, FIVE assailants took her into the bathroom and raped her.
(Still no DNA, though. . .) That would make for a total of six inside there.

Must be one of those deluxe bathrooms from a large-sized, California ranch house.

 
At 4:13 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They have been freed because their DNA was not found in the victim, but someone else's was. That's been enough for the courts."

No,they have been freed because the DNA belonging to someone else who actually committed the rape was found--not the boyfriend's DNA, not a consensual sex partner's DNA, not NO DNA. Please understand I AGREE with you that the absence of DNA evidence is strong evidence and proof enough for me, but it does not constitute legal proof that this didn't happen. Put together with everything else, the defense surely will make a motion for dismissal (the faulty line-up may be the defense's strongest reason for dismissal.) But we can't be naive enough to think that a jury, which is likely to be predisposed to believing the AV and not the "rich" boys is going to necessarily see the evidence, especially the DNA, the same way we do.

 
At 4:20 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that lack of DNA, does not prove innocence, but that is not the point. The point is no DNA creates a reasonable doubt, suspects do not need to prove innocence, just create doubt. On the other hand had there been DNA, that would overcome any reasonable doubt. I would also like to know how big the bathroom was?

 
At 4:30 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brodhead will never issue any public statements of support for his students. He is a risk-adverse weasel who, according to this article, clearly feels _himself_ to be the victim of this debacle.

He also clearly excuses the vigilante conduct of his own faculty and has _NEVER_ asked for the vigilante letter by Professor Mark Anthony Neal to be taken down from Duke's own website.

Duke07 spare us your defense of Brodhead. He is a coconspirator with Nifong in this sham.

 
At 4:44 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No,they have been freed because the DNA belonging to someone else who actually committed the rape was found--not the boyfriend's DNA, not a consensual sex partner's DNA, not NO DNA.

How do we know whether the sex by another person was consensual or not? The point is, another person's DNA was found, and no DNA by the accused was found.

And to repeat: there is no way in this physical universe of ours that three men can struggle with and gang-rape someone for thirty minutes and not leave any DNA. Neither is the world flat. Only prejudice could make anyone even consider either of the two above conjectures.

 
At 4:49 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would also like to know how big the bathroom was?

I have heard (unverified) that could contain two people. It's a small "second" bathroom of a small (1400 sq. ft.) house, built several decades ago.

 
At 4:51 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My vote for the most pathetic and meaningless article on this case was published today by Jon Pessah on ESPN's website.

Months later...

It is a monument to moral relativism and absence of analysis.

 
At 4:52 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The house was apparently built around the turn of the 20th century. Small second bathroom (can fit approximately 2)

 
At 4:58 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am glad I now have people thinking about the size of that bathroom. CGM said she was choked and beaten. She also said something to the effect that Kim Roberts stole her money $2000 and helped in the rape. I want to see Nifong get around this. But like any good rat he and all of the crooked cops in Durham will.

 
At 5:01 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the size of the bathroom is critical and I have always been surprised that people like Dan Abrams didn't discuss it. Also think the missing white shoe (and purse) are significant. Somebody has/had those.

 
At 5:01 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The DA in Colorado is not going to prosecute Karr ( even though he confessed) because the DNA doesn't match! So, if the DA in Colorado can realize she was "had" by the lies, rantings, and ramblings of a mental crackpot, why can't the DA in Durham realize he was "had" by the rantings, ramblings, and lies of a hooker. The difference-- race.

 
At 5:02 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Though I can't find a citation, I am told that Maryland v Bloodworth held, "...the presence of DNA from someone other than the defendant was taken as absolute proof that the defendant did not commit the rape." Strange how the boyfriend's DNA hung around for 3 days but NONE from the 3 Duke men after a brutal 30 minute rape (oral, anal, vaginal) without condoms. The search warrant return included the bathroom rug and swabs of the bathroom, no AV DNA found. I have heard retired judges and criminal lawyers on the cable circuit say that the absence of DNA in fact proves innocence here, not just raise a reasonable doubt. I have heard no expert, judge or criminal lawyer say that a rape, as described by AV, could happen without DNA being left. So Mikey, there may have been a rape, just not the guys you indicted unless: they put down a plastic sheet on the floor and AV didn't notice, they wore condoms and AV didn't notice, (even orally), they wore gloves while beating and choking her and AV didn't notice, and oh yeah pigs do fly.

 
At 5:04 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do I hear Nifong having a heart attack yet. If this rape survivor can think about the size of the bathroom and the size of the four people involved in this drempt up rape, I'm real good. The only way Nifong could have a heart attack is first to have a heart. When Nifong first started talking, he said he had received some letter from some young rape victims who didn't report it. He said he was not going to listen to anything else. Well he keeps his word.

 
At 5:09 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:02 I liked your last part. becarful what you wish for. I hear the Durham Cops like to fly. "they are pigs".

 
At 5:13 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Jim said...

For Brodhead to speak out would be counter productive..... In what way? Anger the local politicians and race baiters. Put off a community that largely lives from Duke's existence. So a great University and its president are to sit mute in the face of prosecutorial misconduct (see FODU open letter to Brodhead for chapter and verse)that should be objected to even if the men were guilty, and mute in the face of DNA (or lack thereof) that proves innocense. No institution will long be considered great, no matter how many virues it has, unless courage is among them.

 
At 5:26 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 5:12 p.m. One doesn't deserve respect, one earns it. How sad, after 25 years of service, and presumably earning respect, that Mike should blow it all forever. Two of dozens of episodes: public descriptions of the alleged crime (e.g. choke hold) that are supported no where in his own file, and having a snit over the dog board people who signed Cheek's petition. Good material for Saturday Night Live and other comedians if it weren't so sad, sad, sad. If he loses, history will see him as one who tried to put innocent men in jail for personal political gain. If he wins, he will be reviled for having sent innocent men away to do hard time for political gain. A disgusting selfishness.

 
At 5:28 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree with the poster above.

And further that university that harbors spoiled, preening tenured thugs like Orin Starn and Peter Wood is a disgrace.

In many, many ways, Duke has been exposed as a 2nd-rate institution by this case. The presence of so many embittered, malicious tenured tyrants in the liberal arts is certainly right up there with the things that need to be fixed ASAP.

(now we will hear from the apologists like Duke07)

 
At 5:29 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: 5:12 above. I don't want to criticize the poorly educated ("him and the etc"- probably should have been "he and the etc").

Nifong has not given 25 years of public service - it appears that he was a demon in disguise - his 25 years was for Nifong, not the public. Sorry!

 
At 5:41 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this response to trollery and bathroom discussions would be better off over at CTV boards.

Not very productive and just brings out the loons (Petersen and company)

 
At 5:55 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like 5:12 and 5:41 are the same Nifong supporters - or the same person but with better use of the English language. But, let's not let their (her/his) incompetence distract from our positive posts. Over 45 years of service - right!

Al Capone would have served a similar number of years if he hadn't died in prison. Great comparison, though!

 
At 6:17 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would suggest to the moderators that if the trolls here persist. That you simply publish their IP addresses.

And then we move on from there.

 
At 6:42 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:07 post I would like to thank him "right" it sound to me that he called kim roberts and CGM in to the police department and he let them type that report. The only way a report can be that detailed is if you lived it or made it up. Here lets make him the new chief of police Durham.

 
At 6:53 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only trying to stir up controversy, Nifong and Gottlieb belong in jail, not in public service. I have never seen such perjurious and incompetence in my life. Both should be serving time, not serving the public. I just can't understand why Nifong or the DPD are not investigating the escort service CGM worked for, they seem to be making arrest of others in Durham, basically in the same business. I remember reading that there was a police department in some state, I don't recall where, where the police paid for a service and once performed, they made the arrest. They have since stopped, that type of investigation, they had to many volunteers. I also read that these escorts get $200.00 dollars per hour, mostly cash, how much dose she report as income. Where is the IRS on this case? Nifong, Ashley and Stevenson are in bed together, the only decent reporter in Durham is Nash from N&O. I guess we should throw Gottlieb into the same bed with the first three. One thing about Himan, maybe he was just following orders, he at least took notes, when they interviewed CGM, and his descriptions were honest. Remember that Himan is new to the corupt investigators of DPD and his boss is Gottlieb. I just want to know who runs the DPD the Chief or Nifong?

 
At 7:27 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's possible that the posts lauding Nifong and Gottlieb are sarcasm. Even the potbangers don't go that far.

In any event, these threads sure are filling up fast these days, what with all the blogs and such that have sprung up. Remember the days of "Friends of Duke Lacrosse" when it seemed like we were one of the few voices crying in the wilderness?
IMO, we now largely own the internet on this issue.

 
At 7:27 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not sure if I can link his blog here because of its name but NDLax has some thoughts on the Brodhead "mess." Suffice to say, he's not a fan.

 
At 9:44 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The cab driver's trial is tomorrow, Tuesday August 29.


Trial date set for Duke lacrosse witness (from August 15, 2006 N&O article)


Moezeldin Elmostafa, 37, appeared briefly before a Durham County District Court judge who set a trial date of Aug. 29.


http://dwb.newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/story/2992299p-9419145c.html

 
At 10:08 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 7:27 PM, August 28, 2006 poster:


Crystalmess skewers Brodhead:


http://crystalmess.blogspot.com/2006/08/belief-of-it-oppresses-me-already-you.html

 
At 11:08 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given the last week of summer, this week's online Herald-Sun Editorial meeting has morphed into Nature programming
---------------------

Subject: "Tracking the slippery weasel Bob Ashley"

To: Mr Paxton and employees:

Your weasel in Durhan, Bob Ashley, always the reactive invetebrate responds to my weekend criticism by cranking up his pro-Nifong propaganda operation today.

Publishing not one but two mentions of a mythical
"pro-Nifong" citizens group

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-764670.html
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/index.html#764199

And a tangentially related faux-outrage editorial about the Eze case (which we have highlighted as a parallel abuse of power related to Nifong's prosecutorial abuses).

For irony value, he titles the Eze editorial "City employee abused the courts" (Heh, heh, see he's not talking about
Nifong)

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-764207.html

Note that Ashley pens his editorial of outrage AFTER the charges are dismissed. Once it is clear that Ashley is on the right side of those in power (read NIFONG).

-On the trail of the malicious, dishonest sycophant we all know as Bob Ashley.

 
At 11:12 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A strong student column today in the Duke Chronicle
Persecuted

The only omission is that he didn't encourage students to register to vote and vote for Cheek

 
At 11:24 PM, August 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor Mikey claimed today to the AP that all he ever hears is positive feedback these days about his performance as DA.

Seems to be angling for some additional mail to read.

michael.b.nifong@nccourts.org

 
At 1:14 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: 4:30 PM, August 28, "Duke07 spare us your defense of Brodhead. He is a coconspirator with Nifong in his sham." and 5:28 PM, August 28, "now we will hear from the apologists like Duke07."

I posted so many comments supporting Reade, Collin, and Dave yet, never ever defended President Brodhead in my messages. Can you check 12:51 PM, August 28 and 3:51 PM, August 28 posters and see the "names"/"identities" one more time? Thanks.

I agree with 11:12 PM, August 28, poster. The student column titled, Persecuted is great. Let's remind the students to visit the following web sites to vote:

http://www.lib.duke.edu/reference/virtual/voting.htm

then vote Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek!

 
At 1:29 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:54A

That sounds suspiciously like a Nifong campaign ad.

Do the numbers, a Duke student's vote would count astronomically more in Durham than it would in a statewide race anywhere.

Including Rhode Island.

In my experience, most pot-bangers are all noise and no follow-through.

Most far lefties don't even vote.

 
At 1:41 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yup, yup, sorry, sorry.

That was uncalled for.

It is Duke09Parent who is the Brodhead apologist.
(prolly hoping for a tuition discount for loyalty - too late for ya, huh)

It would just be sooo much easier if everyone remained Anonymous (except Michael Gaynor)

 
At 3:33 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To poster at 12:54:


As much as one might want Duke students to line up en masse and vote against Nifong, I make two points:


1) There were Duke potbangers out there, and their opinion may not have changed.

So what? No one ever said they would. It's all the more reason for Duke students to register and vote to Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek, numnuts.

2) There are several closely contested races in the home states of many Duke students - would you rather bounce Mike Nifong out of a DA job over a trial he'll likely lose, or would you
rather...



Stop the tape. It's real simple. Get behind Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek or get lost!

 
At 8:12 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Stop the tape. It's real simple. Get behind Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek or get lost!"

I'd love to see Nifong lose the election. but there are all sorts of people supporting FODU and the three lacrosse players, and not all of them share the same opinions about every element of the case. Do we really want to alienate those friends of the Duke three who don't totally agree with us on every issue, or who might not want, for some reason, to make the ABN campaign their priority? Certainly they could still be helping "the cause" in another way.

Also,one of the first things that convinced me that this was a hoax was the fact that, when the charges first came out, no lacrosse player claimed "consensual sex." Dan Abrams made a big deal out of this initially, because had ANY sexual activity taken place EVERY respectable lawyer in the country would have insisted his client get out front with a consensual sex claim, rather than a total denial (which, as Abrams said, was very risky if any sex took place.) If any sex had taken place, certainly someone would have been terrified their DNA would show up somewhere. Yet not one of the young men protected himself by claiming something consensual had happened. If I were on a jury, this would be almost all the evidence I needed. But after Dan Abrams brought this issue up early on, no one has discussed this important fact, and I think it needs to come to the forefront again.

 
At 8:14 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The tone of the last day's comments has deteriorated sharply from what has been the average tenor of the remarks posted on this site to date. Before this blog loses its reputation and credibility, let's all take a deep breath and stop the harsh criticism of each other. Let's all tone down the rhetoric directed at other commenters and save our energies for the thoughtful and focused analysis of the important issues in this case for which this blog has become well known and resepcted. I come here for information, not to read the kinds of uncivil exchanges more characteristic of other blogs and of the lunatic fringe elements of this case.

 
At 8:43 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Above Poster:

It's called a troll attack. (i'll let you guess by who)

On a lighter note, guess who was released from jail on Monday?

HAWKINS, LISA, FAY

Now, that wouldn't have anything to do with perjured testimony in the cabbie case today, would it?

Let's ask Mike Nifong and his corrupt stooge Assistant DA Ashley Cannon

 
At 9:23 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As some of you have already guessed it, there was a troll attack on our site yesterday. This will not be tolerated in the future.

Moderator

 

<< Home