Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 17 - Full

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

133 Comments:

At 2:15 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two good articles to read:

Duke’s Reichstag Fire by William L. Anderson

Press (In)Action by Robert KC Johnson

 
At 4:09 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I moved the long Nancy Grace article from here to the Open Board. It is quite interesting but off-topic. You cannot miss it there. It is under the heading "Nancy Grace and Wendy Murhpy".

Moderator

 
At 5:08 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Recently, there was a particularly vicious and personal attack on Cash Michaels, editor/chief reporter for The Carolinan Newspaper, and staff writer for The Wilmington Journal, just because he raised still unanswered questions about the lacrosse party on the night of the alleged assault in one of his recent stories.

Several other columnists have graciously defended Michaels' right to search for the truth on their blogs and in their opinion pieces (Attorney Michael Gaynor and Prof. K.C. Johnson specifically) but this week, Michaels, in his widely read "Cash in the Apple" column, also weighed in to give his readers a comprehensive view of why it is so important that the Black Press not be intimidated by those who would use hate to castigate and divide.

Here, reprinted in its entirety, is Michaels' 9-14-06 column addressing that concern.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFIANCE – Next week, Sept. 22, the next court hearing in the Duke alleged rape case is scheduled to be held, with the recently appointed permanent judge, the Honorable W. Osmond Smith, presiding now through the end of trial next spring.

That is, if there is a trial.

And then on Sunday, Sept. 24, the CBS-TV newsmagazine “60 Minutes” is tentatively scheduled, according to sources, to examine the Duke rape allegations, and presumably shed light on the numerous problems the prosecution has had, so far, in proving its case.

Ed Bradley is reportedly the correspondent on this one, so it should merit more than passing attention.

For our part here, covering the Duke case – where an African-American exotic dancer alleges that she was sodomized and beaten by three members of the Duke University lacrosse team during a wild, off-campus party last March – has been a journey, and rightfully so.

From the beginning, our coverage of this case, and all of its legal, racial and social ramifications, has primarily been about the criminal justice process, and if it can properly and fairly prosecute the allegations.

If the very serious felony charges of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual offense and first-degree kidnapping are true, then there is the expectation that the prosecution, namely Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and the Durham Police Dept., have the requisite and unimpeachable incriminating evidence to prove their case, and put those indicted, and ultimately convicted, behind bars.

If not, they walk.

That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

So since the beginning, in this and other Black newspapers across the country, we have monitored that process to see if the DA indeed had a case, based on his very public and very pronounced assurances – even after the dramatic failure of not one, but two DNA tests and most recently, a toxicology test – that a racially-inspired heinous crime had occurred, and he personally guaranteed that he would bring those responsible to justice.

Despite all of the failure, the one piece of “evidence” that seemed to balance the scales, namely an investigator’s reference in an April 5 probable cause affidavit to “medical records and interviews” regarding the emergency room rape kit examination of the alleged victim, stated that “the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally…,” and that the forensic nurse “stated the injuries and [the alleged victim’s] behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience.”

For our purposes and reporting, that, and the three indictments handed down by a Durham County grand jury, meant that there should, and would be more incriminating evidence on the way.

After all, the DA did say he could prove the case, so much was expected.

To be fair, much of the major media felt the same way.

But weeks later, when it was disclosed and confirmed through discovery evidence that the actual medical report says no such thing, and the police investigator may have written an untruth in the affidavit that was submitted to a judge to secure a search warrant, it then became necessary to fully examine what we now knew about the prosecution’s case.

With D.A. Nifong’s later public and private admission that his incriminating evidence is clearly not anywhere near as first promised, we began asking tough questions about why, and began reporting an apparent pattern, based on the prosecution and police department’s own notes, reports and public statements, of possible public disinformation and misrepresentations.

To put it plainly, either there’s evidence of a rape, or there isn’t.

Add to that the apparent political ambitions of Mr. Nifong (there is strong suspicion that he may have exploited the case in order to get the Black vote to win the May primary), and the alleged character shortcomings of at least two of the Duke case investigators (one of them involved in the alleged racial assault on a Black cook at a Raleigh sports pub), and that naturally changes the Black press’ perspective on this case.

And that’s where our focus has been these past couple of weeks – why this case is failing, and who is responsible. It is not our job, as journalists, to declare anyone legally guilty or not guilty because that is the duty of a court of law, and no one else.

What has surprised me has been the number of observers who expected that because the alleged victim is Black, the Black press would therefore be unable, or unwilling, to ask tough questions of the prosecution no matter what.

True, the Black press is still supportive of the alleged victim, insofar as protecting her from the many vicious and vile racist attacks that have come from those who see this case as their opportunity to emerge from the shadows and assault the entire African-American community through her.

WE HAVE THAT EVIDENCE, TONS OF IT – emails, phone calls, etc. - so there can be no denial of that.

And the Black press has defended her right to take the witness stand, swear anoath and tell her story to a judge and jury, so that a just verdict in the end can be rendered, whatever the court decides it should be.

But that does NOT mean, and never did, that as we found and confirmed new facts about the case and its evidence, that we would not responsibly report it and ask further questions.

And it also never meant that we would not continue to look at the defense side of the case, and ask tough questions about outstanding issues, from our perspective, about events that allegedly took place during the party that night.

When you educate a community, you have the responsibility to responsibly report what you can determine is relevant and factual. And, of course, when contradictions arise, and with a story like this it’s easy for that to happen, you have the responsibility to address them for all to see.

Our most controversial story, the alleged victim’s cousin claim that an offer of $2 million was made to the accuser to make the case “go away,” only later to have a police memo disputing the claim, is a prime example of such a contradiction.

For the record, while there may have been questions about that, there is no question, based on very reliable sources in the community, that overtures to influence Black leadership to get involved in a “hush money” effort were attempted, but failed.

So when we in the Black press find ourselves, both personally and professionally, under vicious public attack because we rightfully approach coverage of this case with a different, yet relevant perspective for our community, we look at each other and give a hearty, “So what’s new?”

Like so many of our other institutions – the Black church; principled Black leadership in business, medicine, military, civil rights, the arts and government – we in the Black press are used to being maligned by everyone from white advertising agencies to dishonest politicians of all hues who try to use us to corral the Black vote.

We are also seen as the enemy by those in whose interest it is to turn the clock back to a time when all of us were supposed to “know our place.”

The Black press struggles mightily to make ends meet and keep the lights burning, the doors open. We serve unselfishly because without us, our community truly has no voice of its own.

And we endure, because it is in our blood to do so for the community that it is our honor not only to serve, but a community where courageous men and women, parents and teachers, law enforcement and community activists, and yes, visionary young people, do their best to heroically struggle for positive change that impacts everyone, especially those who have given up hope, and whose actions hold our community back.

The fact that the power of the Internet has magnified what would otherwise be very local coverage by the Black press of the Duke lacrosse case, has made the Black press even more of a target by those who know nothing about us or our proud traditions. But they do us proud by continuing to hound and disparage us, because that proves that as tiny as we may be, we are significant enough to scare them, to intimidate them, and to defy them.

Defiance, based on the evidence of history, is what fuels a dynamic and effective Black press. We’ve been hardened since 1827 by opponents more adept and skilled than some of the vile morons who pretend today to lead somebody or something.

Unless they can quiet us, those nefarious forces will just have to suffer more as we continue to confirm, and report what WE see and what WE hear, as the Constitution of this nation allows.

Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the great civil rights leader and true inspiration for all of us here in the Black press, once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

But anyone who truly knew Dr. King - and the Black press still reports the stories of those who did know and work with the man - knows that he never employed unjust means to bring about a just and righteous result.

Those who publicly invoke Dr. King’s words of justice and peace, but hide in the shadows of hate and anger, are being revealed for the cowardly moral failures that they are. Their pathetic glee in their unwarranted attacks on the Black press has exposed them for what they truly are. They cannot, with any modicum of decency now, credibly call for justice on behalf of the Duke indicted, after displaying a complete absence of moral compass in how they’ve viciously disparaged the Black press and this reporter.

In closing we say continue, and see how much more you help your cause. Continue to prove what we’ve known, and have had evidence of for the longest time – that while there are clearly those who believe the three indicted Duke players are innocent and respectfully want them exonerated, there are others who have, and continue to use that cause to further their own hatred and agenda, and could care less who they hurt in the process, including that cause.

BE OUR GUEST, whatever your name is, since you castigate us on the Internet from the hole in which you namelessly hide. The day that you decide to step forward, give your name, and take as well as you give, is the day you may begin to deserve some, if any respect, such a substantive, but pitifully late gesture, deserves.

Neither this reporter nor the Black press have hidden from anyone. Dr. King never hid either. Cowardice is not in our bloodstream.

Commitment to truth is, and you can’t honestly claim that commitment from the shadows.

We gratefully thank those who, while they may disagree with our perspective on the Duke case, have publicly denounced the vile attacks made on us, and have sought common ground and understanding. That is most valued indeed.

In the search for truth and justice, that’s all one can, and should ask for.

Decency.

 
At 5:18 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a link to this article? It would be good to get a link.

 
At 5:58 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please see the "Chronicle" article about an assault on a female Duke student at Belmont apartments, off campus, and the police response- do read the first comment by a Duke parent. (Sorry, folks, I don't know how to link to it.)
Texas Mom

 
At 6:17 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope this link works and helps I just read the story.

This is the second assault on duke females in the last 4 months

www.dukechronicle.com/media

 
At 7:06 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes. "60 Minutes" "loves to skewer public officials," so you are right to be "hopeful it will get the gist of the story right."

There are other reasons too.

The expose may be postponed from Sept. 24 to Oct. 1. The next court date is Sept. 22 and perhaps Judge Smith will decide one or more of the many pending motions.

The sooner, the better, but there will still be ample time for Durhamites to realize that anyone who wants a fair and objective District Attorney should vote for Lewis Cheek as the ABF (Anybody But Nifong) candidate. Democrat Cheek made the ballot by petition while Republican Monks did not. NOW is NOT the time for Monks to be dividing the anti-Nifong vote.

Ironically, Nifong is a millstone around Governor Easley's neck, but he was not the Governor's first choice. Next time Easley will make a better appointment, and for two years, not four. (NOT making a better appointment would be an incredible feat, but Easley still has political aspirations, so he'll find someone qualified next time. Anyone qualified will review the case, recognize that the pending indictments of the Duke Three were improvidently granted, and move to dismiss them.

Michael J. Gaynor

 
At 9:56 PM, September 13, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

Another link for 5:58
http://tinyurl.com/l4unp pasted

http://tinyurl.com/14unp typed

 
At 10:32 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It took Durham police 20 minutes to get to Belmont? Maybe they were waiting for the attacker to kill the Duke student before, arriving there. Prosepective parents, do not send your kids to Duke/Durham; no white kid is safe there?

 
At 11:24 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It took Durham police 20 minutes to get to Belmont?

It's a long drive from Blinco's. . .

 
At 7:46 AM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't miss Jason Trumbour's comments on the front page. He tackles a very important issue.

 
At 8:08 AM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reproduced from DBR site
September 13, 2006


The Anti-Nifong Movement Grows

We're hesitant to tell anyone how to vote, but having learned what we've learned so far about the lacrosse case, we've become deeply skeptical about that and more importantly, about the fairness of the D.A.'s office. If you live in Durham, one of your choices is to get shed of Mike Nifong, and if you think that's the right course of action, then you should visit

Recall Nifong

And a special note to Duke students: as the Chronicle suggested the other day, not only do you have to take a serious look at Nifong's management of the case (and his ethics as well), but if the article about Sgt. Gottlieb is to be believed (and why not ask the students quoted? They'll surely tell you what you need to know), then Duke students are not being treated the same as everyone else is. You are, in fact, being accorded a harsher brand of "justice."

Given the acts of the two men, and that Duke has not particularly challenged this sort of behavior for you, you need to challenge it yourself. Registering to vote would be a great way to put people on notice. You are residents of Durham, and you have a choice. You need not accept unethical prosecutions or bully-boy police tactics.

Register to vote, and use your vote to send a message: Duke students are as much a part of Durham as any other voters are, and will not stand for discriminatory treatment.

Given the closeness of the primary election, and the low turnout for municipal elections, your vote, the Duke vote, could carry the election. You have the power to walk the streets without being scared of the authorities. Now the question is: will you use it?

 
At 9:31 AM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From those who wonder what Durham officials get for backing Nifong ......immunity from prosecution for theft in office might be one BIG reason.

After all, there is big $$$$ at stake

Take Mayor Bill Bell....

-------------------
Mayor Bill steals $186,107 from Durham…and leaves the room.

The Durham City Council is set to hand over 45% of all its entire grant money budget for the last 2 years (a whopping $186,107) to Mayor Bill Bell himself so he can line his pockets

(the Mayor has already looted a whopping $780,000 in government money over the last 10 years).

Bell’s sham development company UDI Community Development Corp appears to be a mechanism to pay him salary so that he can say in office and securing more graft from the city in a cycle of corruption.

Essentially a shell game to cover overt theft in public office.

Aside from Ed Stewart, Bell is the only employee of his shell development corporation which subsists entirely on government funds.

Bell even uses contract services to hide his corp's actual operation from the IRS.

(we do know from a change in IRS rules that Bell uses some of the government cash to enrich personal friends such as Vivian Wan)

The Herald-Sun approvingly celebrates Bell’s theft of city funds then notes in passing that previous grants (including other grafts directly to Bell’s shadow corporation) were largely wasted.

City Councill Set to Act on Developmental Grants

(note the deliberately obfuscatory headline Ashley headline)

This is old-style theft in office by Bill Bell.

A direct transfer of cash from government to a public official.

Bill Bell take in the last years
2000 $75,000
2001 $75,000
2002 $75,000
2003 $75,000
2004 $60,000
2005 $80,000

 
At 9:37 AM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Questions for Cash Michaels or anyone else visiting this site who may know the answer: (1) If Michaels is so certain that "hush money" was offered CGM because of his highly reliable sources, why are those sources not going to the DA and demanding an investigation for obstruction of justice? Also, why would the records of the DPD indicate that this allegation has no merit when, if true, would be a plum landing in the lap of Nifong. (2) If Cash Michaels believes that the accusation against the Duke 3 has no merit, why doesn't he use his influence with the so-called reliable sources in the black community to speak out on the lack of evidence in this case and the obvious fact that CGM blatently accused three innocent young men. We all like to put a lot of our anger over this matter on Nifong and he deserves all of it. However, pressure needs to be placed on the accuser for this horrific lie which has costs this community thousands of dollars, the families of the accused thousands of dollars in legal fees, not to mention the emotional turmoil and of course the community which must now suffer the tensions rising over this matter.

 
At 9:37 AM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you moderator for pointing out the Duke students are treated differently by DPD than other Durham citizens. Regarding the co-ed assaulted at Belmont, could a local please tell us how long should the police response have taken? Thank goodness she had the smarts to go into another room and contact her friends for help. These are scary times in Durham.

 
At 10:19 AM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:37 I think Cash is trying to do exactly what you are suggesting, through his articles. It is not exactly very easy for him to convince all involved over night. I think he is doing his best, and as the case unravels day by day and all the lies are uncovered hopefully he will continue to cover the case.

My comment is completely based on my reading his articles. I do not know him and I have not had any communications with him. Perhaps, I am too optimistic? I hope not.

 
At 10:54 AM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some interesting statictics from KC Johnson:

Some Stats

 
At 12:22 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today in the The Herald-Sun in Section C, the headline read "Durham city worker robbed; another shot at." Apparently,a little north of downtown near Little Five Points a city water-meter reader was robbed by "a slender black male" with a handgun. On South Elm St. between Angier Avenue and Walker St. near the Durham Hosiery Mill, a city street employee was on a trailer working on a backhoe when a man approached, pulled out a handgun, and demanded money. The employee yelled for help and so the robber fired two shots, which didn't hit anyone. The suspect who fled was described "as a dark-complexioned black male in his mid-20's with braids in his hair." City Councilman Eugene Brown said," This is not your usual crime, to attack someone on a backhoe. GEEZ. This is not Fallujah. Or maybe it is. Eternal viglance is what's needed, and probably more police officers."

Do Duke students really need to be spending more of their valuable time and resources improving life in Durham? I do not think they came to Duke for that. I think they came to the university for an education, and unfortunately the university happens to be located in a crime-ridden town that offers little protection for its citizens, its employees, and, least of all, its Duke students. I feel as Friends of Duke University, we should warn students about spending much time in Durham. It simply is not a safe place to hang out. Obviously, the kids who have been there learn this, but naive freshmen might not know. It doesn't help that a clown like Brodhead is encouraging them to do their good deeds in Durham. These talented kids need to stay safe and if this means hunkering down behind the walls of East Campus, so be it. Tell me, who wants his/her son or daughter to be the statistic on the nightly news? Yes, they should vote but otherwise, Dukies need to be very careful about any excursions into Durham other than going to Southpoint Mall.-- Duke Mom

 
At 12:25 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone on thie board know how to reach Robert Steel, Chairman of The Board of Trustees? I am interested in either his email or US Mail address. I would prefer not to go through the Univerity for fear of censorship, but will use that avenue if no other exists.

Thanks.

 
At 12:49 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from the "Letters" section
--------------------------------

How about a foundation to raise money for ads in newspapers, transportation for voters on election day, and daily demonstrations around Durham and Duke University until the November election is over to ensure the political demise of Mike Nifong?

 
At 12:59 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe Robert Steel lives in Greenwich, Conn. I think his mom still resides in Durham.

 
At 1:01 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above: Setting up a foundation may take too long. It may be best to contribute to existing organizations. For example:

1. RecallNifong
2. Duke Students for an Ethical Durham
3. Defense Fund

If you have difficulty donating to these organizations or prefer to provide funding towards specific project (ads in the newspapers, transportation on Election Day, etc.) please send us an email. We can assist putting you in touch with the right people.

 
At 1:12 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:19, if Cash Michaels' actions or editorials are answering the questions posted at 9:37, he waxes in subtlety. It's past time that someone demand that CGM cough up the truth. She has filed a false police report, made a false accusation against innocent people and continues this despicable act with the consent and protection of the DPD and support from the black community and it leadership. This is not a ballet, it's a greek tragedy and we're in the last act.

 
At 1:12 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Found his address as of 2005.

Robert King Steel: 71 Mayfair Lane, Greenwich, CT 06831. (203) 861-2445. robertsteel@gs.com

Godman Sachs # is: (212) 902-8032

Hope this helps.--Duke Mom

 
At 1:18 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

She has filed a false police repor

Or, she has been pressured to file a false police report and continue the case, by the DPD (remember those around her who have been arrested?).

She may have a case of her own against Durham, the DPD, etc.

 
At 2:00 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the blinco's press conference is at 2P EST.

They will fire the two cops that Gottlieb pinned the rap on.

 
At 2:58 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To those who think that 60 Minutes will be fair because they "like to skewer the government," I have a prediction: don't get your hopes too high. 60 Minutes (all of the reporters) are Democrats and they like to skewer Republicans and conservative government officials. This is a Democratic town and they envision Duke students as the children of rich Republicans. I predict that they will cast a favorable light on the Durham police and Niphong. They'll also make Bordhead (Professor Peter-Principle)look like he's just trying his best to do the right thing. I believe 60 Minutes will skewer the students, but I'm just a cynic. What do I know?

 
At 3:48 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Out Joe said...

The upcoming "60 minutes" program, if like most, will be divided into four-15 minute segments.

About all we can really expect from the program is an analysis of where Durham is in North Carolina and where North Carolina is in the United States.

Is there anything in the United States Constitution that allows us to kick NC out of the Union because of their Governor's poor judgement in annointing King Nifong to his throne?

 
At 4:04 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To those who think that 60 Minutes will be fair... ,I have a prediction: don't get your hopes too high.... I predict that they will cast a favorable light on the Durham police and Niphong....I believe 60 Minutes will skewer the students, but I'm just a cynic. What do I know?"

Probably plenty, but not including the 60 Minutes producer working on the expose. Don't expect the Duke Three to be canonized, bu Nifong will wish he had been shot out of a cannon instead.

 
At 4:43 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

Nifong must be happy that the two lying cops he needs to frame the Duke three got off scott free.

Without these two thugs Nifong couldn't even try any case, never mind a rape case.

But Gottiet may still go to jail for falsifing a police report and maybe lying to a grand jury.

 
At 5:58 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John in Carolina gives our friends over at LieStoppers a run for their money today, on the humor department! Do not miss his latest post:

JinC admits problem; vows to seek help

 
At 6:02 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

How convenient that 2 cops were fired. What about the others and Gottlieb? The cook said the instigator was bald and about 6'1". Doesn't bald mean having no hair on your head? Tanner and Lee are not bald. And the cook was quoted as saying in H-S "Tanner and Lee?..I don't think you have the right guys." Baldo, oops sorry I mean Gottlieb is bald.

 
At 6:14 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Cash Michaels said...

Greetings:
Since so many who post on these boards like to guess (badly, I might add) about what I think, and what I might do, without ever emailing me first to at least ask (that is really very annoying), I drop in from time to time on message boards to answer questions and straighten the record out as to my role in covering the Duke lacrosse case.
Why do I do it? Actually the question should be, “Why not?” Not only do I get to engage in sometimes civil dialogue with people who have varying opinions and positions (which sharpens my overall perspective on the case and how I cover it), but I also lend my perspective of what I see, and why.
Many of you have never talked with a member of the Black press before (which is different from talking with a Black reporter for your local newspaper or TV station), so realizing that my approach to this case is different from the major media is something you’re not used to.
I’ve been able to follow the evidence and ask tough questions of both sides because my charge from the very beginning has been to monitor the process, and see what evolves. So just because Dan Abrams and Susan Estrich said something several months ago about evidence means nothing to me. I have to confirm all information I come across to my satisfaction before I put my byline to it.
I’m sure if you were to ask them, they would subscribe to the same.
Now to some of you questions:
Why haven’t my sources on the “hush money” claim gone to the police?
First of all, they really didn’t want to come to me, and didn’t, until I mentioned what the AV’s cousin alleged in our interview, and they figured I knew plenty already. I remembered conversations I had back in April with various ministers, attorneys and activists about how strangers were going over to the AV’s family home, offering everything under the sun. But they never really gave me details.
But in June, after I happened to share the AV’s cousin’s claim with someone who actually called me on another matter, that’s when I was made aware that some of that activity involved people –some with known connections to Duke – who were “floating” ideas of ways that the controversy could be dealt with quickly, with the result being beneficial to whomever stepped forward to get involved.
Everyone approached knew exactly hat was being floated, and wanted no part of it. Because of their positions of leadership in the community, and in some cases, their positive relationships with Duke (the University, along with its subsidiaries, is a major employer of African-Americans in the Triangle), once they said “No,” they wanted nothing more to do with it. In fact, they were angry that someone thought they were for sale, and decided never to really speak of it.
I was amazed that the moment the discussion between us turned to alleged “hush money” offers, they’re voices, to a person, would all of a sudden get whisper soft, and we were on the telephone.
These people are way to solid, and in fact, had no idea who else had been approached (one lived and worked in Charlotte), so the consistency of their stories made it clear to me that there were influence peddlers out there.
Why did the DPD records say that the AV contradicted her cousin?
I’d love to ask her, if I can find her. But while there may be an open question on that end, the fact that those peddlers were out there trying to bait folks, is solid per my sources.
Regarding “If Cash Michaels believes that the accusation against the Duke 3 has no merit, why doesn't he use his influence with the so-called reliable sources in the black community to speak out on the lack of evidence in this case and the obvious fact that CGM blatently accused three innocent young men…” first I think you make the very insulting insinuation that if I snap my fingers, Black people everywhere will instantly change their minds about whatever.
It never has worked that way, and nor should it.
My community, the majority of whom are hardworking parents, clergy, blue collar, executives, artists, military, law enforcement, medical, and talented young people, are thinking people too. My reporting is A source of information, albeit from a perspective they have come to trust (and I hold that dear). Even so, they still have questions, and they want me to ask those questions so there can be know doubt about the picture that’s forming in front of them.
Keep in mind that Black people see this case differently that whites, primarily because of some of the racial slurs alleged at the party. While many beyond the African-American community don’t see that issue as any big deal, “Tell your granddaddy thanks for the cotton shirt” followed by a choice N-word or two, is not something that can be explained away with, “Will Kim Roberts was saying nasty stuff too.”
Though Blacks are well aware of trumped up charges made against Black suspects by authorities, they find it simply hard to believe that those same authorities would pull the same trick on white college kids from a powerful institution like Duke.
That picture has to come into better, clearer focus for us, which is why the Sept. 22 hearing, and hearings subsequent to it, will be extremely important in adding pieces to that puzzle.
Whether the AV lied or not, while clearly the discovery evidence and lack of DNA fail to display anything incriminating so far proving that a rape and beating took place, the judge now in charge of this case is the one who has to make that determination. No matter how people feel or what they think, Judge Smith, with the help of the defense attorneys I suspect, will be the one making the call on that one.
I can’t put pressure on anyone I can’t find, but more importantly, the evidence so far shows that the DA and Durham PD are the ones who pushed and poured gasoline on what never might have become a raging fire.
Whatever she said in the beginning, there is no evidence proving that she pushed from behind the scenes for all of this to happen. In fact there is strong speculation that she may have tried to stop it, and couldn’t.
With the actions of the DA so obvious, that’s where my continued focus will be for now.
I hope that answers some questions.
Anymore questions, write me at cashmichaels@yahoo.com.

Take care.

Cash Michaels

 
At 6:44 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Cash.

One thing, Brevity, my man.

I think we need to send you and Gaynor to the Hemingway creative writing camp,

Otherwise, proceed.

 
At 6:53 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Cash, you do us great honor by posting here. I like to thank you for taking the time to respond to the various questions raised here today by some of our readers. Your explanations make a great deal of sense and they are most helpful.

I will take you up on your offer and contact you via email. I am a little tied up right now, but will communicate this evening.

Moderator

 
At 7:01 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever she said in the beginning, there is no evidence proving that she pushed from behind the scenes for all of this to happen. In fact there is strong speculation that she may have tried to stop it, and couldn’t.

I agree with that. In fact, she may be as much pressured by, and be a victim of, the DPD as anyone else in this case.

 
At 7:07 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cash, I asked the questions. You were kind enough to answer them and I appreciate your efforts. Please be assured that I in no way meant to insult you and I apologize for the offense. My concern is that members of the black community may not be speaking out because of fear, not because they lack conviction. I only felt your influence as a respected member of the media would tend to ameliorate that fear. In the meantime, keep writing. Hemmingway has nothing on you.

 
At 7:34 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brevity may be the soul of wit, and I and even Cash might benefit from time at a Hemingway creative writing camp. But the truth often is complicated and dispelling misconceptions can require more that a few words.

I appreciate Cash posting a lengthy reply to the questions I forwarded to him. The person who anonymously asked the questions is right about Cash being a respected member of the media on whom Durhamites can rely to seek out the truth. A modest one.

 
At 9:00 PM, September 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, according to Police Chief Chalmers, there were no racial slurs made during the assault on Mr. Thomas at Blinco's bar...
That must come as a surprise to Mr. Thomas! Maybe the Durham PD "convinced" him to change his story???

 
At 2:13 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Source: H-S: Sep 14, 2006 : 10:39 pm ET

DURHAM -- Police Chief Steve Chalmers Thursday announced the firing of two of his officers in response to findings of an internal affairs investigation into an alleged assault on a cook at a Raleigh sports bar July 20.

The officers, Scott Tanner, 33, and Gary Lee, 38, have been charged with misdemeanor assault by Raleigh police. Their termination was effective immediately, but could be overturned if they successfully appeal to City Manager Patrick Baker. At the same time, Chalmers announced that the internal affairs investigation had cleared three other officers tied to the case, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and officers Richard Clayton and James Griffin.

The three, though present, "were not actively involved" in the incident, Chalmers said. "Some were in a position to see what occurred, but took no part in it."

Gottlieb -- whose role in the incident has provoked intense interest because he's the supervising investigator of the Duke lacrosse rape case -- was in a parked vehicle and didn't see what happened, Chalmers said.
Chalmers said investigators are confident of their findings. "It was an open-and-shut thing and the statements were consistent," he said. "The only thing we weren't able to substantiate was the racial slur."

Folks, draw your own conclusion!

 
At 8:46 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can a person who has no affiliation with Duke University send Mr. Brodhead an E-Mail or letter, can someone please post a web address or Street Addreess.

 
At 9:20 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More unequiovcal evidence that Gottliebe and Clayton are habitual liars.

Chalmers' investigation is a disgrace. He needs to go back into hiding.

There's a new drunk driving standard for Durham police: We examined their bar tabs and concluded they weren't drunk.

Like all the other work of the DPD in this affair, it breaks newe ground.

And is beyone belief.

 
At 9:40 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a desparate move because without Gottliebe the lacrosse case would have been over for Nifong. In Durham these days, all roads lead to the Lacrosse case. When this is all over, there should be many new faces in Durham!

 
At 9:42 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I strongly recommend that all of Brodhead's apologists on this board read KC JOhnson's reporting today on the role of Brodhead in ACTIVELY putting into motion the witch hunt
that followed.

When it counted Brodhead was not Hamlet. But Judas.

Brodhead needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY.

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

 
At 9:56 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just finished reading the letter referred to above. I suspected as much from the beginning, but am still shocked.
Duke needs a new President, a new Athletic Director, a new Dean of Student Affairs, a new General Counsel, a new Head of Trustees, and a new Head of Public Relations.
If the entire lax team is to blame for the party, etc. so too shall the entire Duke admin.
Unfortunately, these people don't have the morals to resign---they must be removed.

We at FODU need to stay vocal on this and send more letters to Brodhead and the trustees.

 
At 10:12 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like all the other work of the DPD in this affair, it breaks newe ground.

This kind of blatant cover-up, especially of the racial components involved, can be reported to the FBI
for investigation of the DPD and it's covering up of a racial incident involving its officers and the public :

https://tips.fbi.gov/

charlotte.public@ic.fbi.gov

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530

Assistant Attorney General

Wan J. Kim
(202) 514-2151

 
At 10:42 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is time once again to start writing letters to FBI, DOJ, Brodhead, Steel, and Easley to document all the wrongs that have been uncovered in this case. Even if they don't do anything, when the day of wreckoning comes, and it will come, they should not be able to hide behind the "I didn't know" excuse! I urge everyone on this board to put pencil to paper and start sending letters.

If you need help or collabaration with others, you may use the Open Board section of this site and work in teams. This is urgent; it needs to be done. The lives of three innocent people are at stake here! We need to move...

 
At 10:44 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A very revealing article from KC Johnson:

Clarifying the Record

 
At 10:46 AM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is time once again to start writing letters to FBI

The squeaky wheel gets the grease...

 
At 1:51 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin Starn wrote a letter in the FORUM section of the Herald -Sun today entitled "A Grand Show of arrogance by Duke athletics" in which he criticizes Coach K for the rally to support the athletes which was held Monday. However, tucked in all his juvenile,self-righteous babble was a sentence that made me think even this slow-witted sob, Starn, knows these boys are innocent.------"None of this, of course, means that three indicted lacrosse players are guilty," he wrote. Even Starn knows the rape is a hoax. He says he was one of thousands who put Lewis Cheek on the ballot. His actions are saying what? So, why doesn't this man have the masculine apparatus to admit he was wrong instead of continuing his ranting and raving over "drunkenness" and "crass e-mail" on the part of lacrosse boys. What a creep this prof is! Who hired this fool? How does Duke get rid of him? Under what administration were these 88 fools hired?

 
At 2:00 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the link for the article mentioned in the previous post?

 
At 2:08 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record about safety of Duke students, but today in The Herald-Sun, there is an article entitled, "School officials urge caution after off-campus attack." A Duke female was attacked in her off campus apartment called "The Belmont." "The attacker pulled the student out of the bathroom and climbed on top of her...The student was in her bathroom changing clothes when she said the man entered and placed a piece of cloth around her neck." Kammie Michaels said, "The student described her attacker as a black male in his mid-20's with a slim build." Apparently, the attack happened on Monday.

Isn't it sad? Real crimes go unsolved. Thousands are spent on make-believe crimes. The world is upside-down in Durham-- my opinion!-- Duke Mom

 
At 2:50 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Two things:

1. Regarding Orin Starn, he is a warrior in the battle over the role of major college athletics at Duke. If any of you have an opinion on it, you may want to pass it on to anyone who counts at Duke, trustees or whoever, and do it soon. That battle is just starting and another warrior on Starn's side, Peter Wood, is on the Campus Culture Initiative committee and heads the subgroup on athletics. The first CCI report is due December 1.

2. I am quoting a comment from Durham-in-Wonderland which I thought was particularly good.

"Highly qualified students have lots of college choices. Sending one's child to a community with a violent crime problem, where stepping off campus means you are truely on your own, and where the school administration has a penchant for abandoning students in their moment of need has diminshed the value of a Duke education. Until the Adminstration accepts Coach K's premise that Duke is in the "kid business",its reputation will remain tarnished."

 
At 4:20 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cannot find the Orin Starn letter to Herald Sun. Can somebody with access to that letter post a link here? Thanks.

Moderator

 
At 4:25 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Regarding Orin Starn, he is a warrior in the battle over the role of major college athletics at Duke.

He is more a like a warrior in the battle of destroying Duke. A few more letters like today's and Brodhead will start looking for a place to hide. Nobody is scared of Orin Starn; he will nor get anywhere with his crusade. Why doesn’t he move to Armenia, permanently?

 
At 4:27 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And why doesn't he take Brodhead with him> They can recite as much Shakespeare there as they wish; nobody will bother them in Yerevan.

 
At 5:26 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

I couldn't find the duke story mentioned above, but I did find a link to the Duke U. News. You have to request a copy of it.

A Grand Show of Arrogance by Duke Athletics.

Send requests to:

dukenews@duke.edu

This was the best I could do.

 
At 7:10 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Out Joe said...

Let us not forget that, Govenor Measley (yes - Measley) is responsible for appointing Nifong as King of the hill (The DA office, the Police Department and the local judges). When Measley starts his ranting about running for the Senate, he should be made aware of what he has, due to his own incompentence, caused in Nifong County.

 
At 11:20 PM, September 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why has "A Grand Show of Arrogance by Duke Athletics" suddenly disappeared and can no longer be found on either the DHS or Duke News website???????? Please post ASAP if you have it!!

 
At 7:42 AM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

above: I think Brodhead and the gang of 88 might have had something to do with it being pulled, I did request a copy which I have yet to receive.

 
At 9:00 AM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We requested the latest Orin Starn article from Duke News but did not get a response so far.

Moderator

 
At 10:01 AM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More good research flowing from KC Johnson's pen today.

Understanding SANE

 
At 12:13 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

Oh Broadhead can be an activist when it suits him. Not only did he write to the Armenian President, HE ALSO SIGNED A LETTER URGING PAROLE FOR WEATHER PERSON, KATHY BOUDIN. At the time, Boudin's son Chesa was a student at Yale. But he won't do something that's happening in his own backyard. The following is a quote from the Duke Chronicle 2/24/05:

"On June 15, 2003, Brodhead signed a letter to the New York Board of Parole urging the release of inmate Kathy Boudin, who was serving a sentence for a 1981 robbery that left two policemen and a security guard dead. Identifying himself as the Dean of Yale University, Brodhead joined others in saying that an ideal justice system “recognizes and rewards inmates like Kathy who have, undergone profound personal growth, and shown genuine remorse.” The letter said Boudin had “earned” parole.
...

Not only did Brodhead sign the letter, he also spoke about the need for prisons to not be “vindictive.” In a statement to the Yale Daily Herald, Dean Brodhead explained his reasons for signing the letter, even making a comment about The Scarlet Letter:

Said Brodhead: “This case raises in a very deep way the question of rehabilitation, the question whether punishment and suffering can work a change that makes further punishment just vindictive.

Maybe I’m just a man who has taught ‘The Scarlet Letter’ too often, but I thought this was the case this time.”

It’s unclear whether Brodhead had any other reasons for signing the letter. It’s also unclear whether he would ever use his position at Duke to take similar stands."

 
At 12:57 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Friends, I did request the latest Orin Starn article from Duke News as well yet didn't get a response so far.

Duke07 Mom

 
At 1:08 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke07 Mom: It will not surprise me if we never see the Orin Starn letter again. It was probably touching Brodhead in some negative way, and he probably made it disappear.

Yes, Brodhead knows how to act when it touches him. He probably saved a lot of headache for himself. I wish he had done the same for all of us, so we would not be wasting our lives away trying to disprove the biggest lie of the century (perhaps the millennium)!

 
At 3:58 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Purely speculating....

I think we may never see that letter as well. Not because it makes Brodhead look bad per se--but rather because Starn may have crossed a line and the administration may have just had enough. There are efforts underway to bridge the gap that exists between the athletic dept and the academic side of campus. From the headline of this letter....it sounds as though the publication and vast circulation of this letter would have dealt those efforts a serious blow....and therefore intensified the lack of trust and respect between the two groups.

The celebration of Duke Athletics was for the kids and the overall message was outstanding. It was designed to invigorate all of the athletes, the coaches and support staff and as far as I can tell....it did just did that.

My gut is that the admin felt Starn's letter would be highly offensive to the athletes and coaches and therefore have made it disappear.

Again....just speculating...

 
At 4:04 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ref: 1:08 PM, September 16 post, I agree. Thanks.

KC Johnson's article, "Understanding SANE", is well written; you may not want to miss it. This article prompted me to visit the following web site where I read some very good articles. If you have the chance, please visit:
//harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/forensics_talk/2006/
09/duke_rape_case_.html#more.

This is a forensics consulting weblog.Take a look at the following articles:"Duke Rape Case: New Facts Aide the Prosecution?" and "Duke Lacrosse Latest: No Date Rape Drug?".

 
At 4:48 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Friday afternoon I requested the Starn article and I received a reply saying there was difficulty sending a pdf file to me. The sender asked for my fax number which I gave but by the time I read the message and replied, it was after 6 p.m. They weren't refusing to give it to me. We'll see. I gave my home fax number, so I won't see it until late Monday.

 
At 4:55 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above post, If you do get a copy can you please post it in the off topics board? I would really like to know what Brodhead doesn't want us to read.

 
At 5:04 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The letter is in Friday's paper. Where can I fax it so you can get it, Moderator?--Duke Mom

 
At 5:15 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Photios posted this response on TalkLeft:

"... and even though I think they are innocent the University is obligated to suspend them until this is cleared up."

Cleared up by whom? Duke has proceeded in a very unusual way, apparently freezing University disciplinary proceedings until the legal case is disposed of. In a state and a county with no right to speedy trial, and in fact a "case management" system that amounts to a systematic denial of that right, waiting on the courts guarantees injustice to innocent students. At other universities, including my own, university proceedings are independent of any external proceedings, and surely in a case like the present one could and would have resulted in an acquittal and lifting of suspension long before now.

Under our procedures (and I have check this with out university counsel's office) it would be enough to announce to Precious by a certified letter (one copy to her last legal address, the other c/o Mike Nifong) that a hearing is to be held. If she appeared she could be questioned and the questions and her answers taped, with a copy provided to the accused. For that reason alone she would almost certainly not appear. If she failed to appear, university charges could be dismissed.

Excellent point! If Duke's procedures are not the norm, can FODU request that Duke follow the one suggested above for Collin and Reade? Worth a shot...

 
At 5:33 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

Above I would be happy to start that process. Collin and Reade should be allowed to contiue their educations. Nifong just doesn't want CGM to have to answer any questions on tape, because as a rape victim myself, I know that the defense can and would use any and all parts of that tape at the trial.

 
At 6:10 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 4:04 poster:
Read the articles you referred to and they were both excellent, thanks

 
At 7:50 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone emailed me an image of the Orin Starn letter. Thanks friend! I am typing it right now; I am one-third done. I will post it on the Open Board as soon as I am done.

Moderator

 
At 9:18 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is Orin Starn's article which was published and then removed from Herald Sun.

A grand show of arrogance by Duke athletics

 
At 9:24 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! I am stunned by Orin Starn's letter- particularly coming from someone whose current area of "scholarship" is the anthropology of GOLF. This gentleman, from his c.v., went from Haverford to Berkeley (where his father was a professor) to U. of Chicago before attaining his undergraduate degree (guess no school was quite to his liking). Then, he spent seven years getting his PhD in Palo Alto. He must have HATED being at Stanford, since I know of no other university that so well combines athletics and sports. Check out Stanford's athletic department sometime and see the blinding display of Sears Cups- they are RIGHTFULLY proud of their excellence in athletics and academics!

Who put the burr under Orin Starn's saddle? He seems as though he's jealous about something. He certainly seems to engage in the two remaining elitist sports- golf and flyfishing. What a deal to be able to con your university into paying for you to do a study about the elitist nature of golf. Do you suppose he's going to play at Cypress Point? If he really wanted to discuss elitist groups, why not ask his father for an introduction to the Bohemia Grove- or perhaps, he has already been there for an encampment. Hmmm.......

 
At 9:45 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I must confess, I thought Brodhead had the letter removed because there was something in it that touched him personally. I was wrong! He had it removed because either he was going to remove the letter, or his athletics director. He must have decided it was easier to remove the letter. I am now convinced Alleva lobbied real hard to get the letter removed. This is indeed quite embarassing for Brodhead.

At least Starn ackowledges that there was no rape. The offenses he lists for the lacrosse players are offenses that he could list for half of the Duke student body (or any other college). There is no evidence that there were racial slurs. There is only an allegation to that effect. Why is Starn so eager to go along with that alleagation? It suits his purposes. I will personally wait to find out the truth before jumping to any conclusion.

It is safe to assume that the rest of the Group 88 also belives there was no rape and that this whole thing is a hoax. It is just that they love to pursue their agendas. And, if the lacrosse case is a good viable channel for them to use in their pursuit, so be it.

Finally, Orin Starn is clearly jeleous of Coach K –-very jeleous. His proposal is laughable. He knows it too.

 
At 10:57 PM, September 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted at 358 today speculating that the admin had the article removed.

After finally reading it--I still believe it. As to 9:45 pm--I HIGHLY doubt that Joe Alleva lobbied to have the article removed. He wouldn't have that kind of power.

Like I said--I think that the administration and perhaps even members of the academic council are tired of the Starn/Wood types. They are nothing but a thorn in the side of the administration and are doing nothing to help Duke move forward in a positive manner.

As the admin and AC are moving towards an enhanced relationship with the athletic department (translated--coaches will be trying to give the prof's a CLUE as to what it is like to be a DI athlete--i.e. it is an honor and our athletes are not privelaged arrogant jocks, etc) the admin understands that the Orin Starns of the world are going to get in the way.

As for Prof Starn--I say continue to fire away. With every word--his credibility goes down the toilet.

I think I may write an op-ed about why tenure is a joke and that maybe Duke should take the lead in eliminating tenured faculty positions so that they can finally hold some of these people accountable for their unprofessional behavior!!

 
At 2:50 AM, September 17, 2006, Blogger NDLax84 said...

KC Eviscerates Starn

 
At 7:34 AM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KC Johnson responds to Orin Starn:

The Arrogance of Starn

 
At 8:02 AM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-770120.html

If Durham's Police Department can conduct its own investigation (independent and in advance of the legal one), why can't Duke University conduct a hearing to clear Reade and Collin?

 
At 9:41 AM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Much on Brodhead at Liestoppers.

 
At 12:58 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from Links page
---------------------
At 8:34 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous said...

Re the 9/11 article in the H-S in which Coach K goes out of his way not to soil his hands with the innocent blood of the Duke 3:

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-768845.html

"If somebody did something wrong, then hold them accountable, but don't indict everyone. So tonight was about saying to the rest of the student-athletes, 'Hey, y'all are good. Have a great year. Let's keep pursuing excellence.'"

I have said from the beginning that I was extremely disappointed with Coach K's response to this mess. Talk about the 800-pound gorilla -- he's it at Duke, and yet if he can't bring himself to say anything more than the disgraceful line reprinted above, maybe it's time for him to take an ethics course. "Don't indict everyone...to the rest of the student-athletes, "Hey, y'all are good." It's easy to say what's popular -- sometimes it's a lot harder to do what's right. How is that slap in the face supposed to sit with Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann and their families -- he just publicly abandoned them, humiliated them and convicted them by insinuation.

To make matters worse, Joe Alleva, who is salivating to put this disgrace behind him, says "I would rate morale as low in April and May, but I would rate the morale as back to normal and high right now," Alleva said. "I thought we had already turned the corner, but this really does help. It's a fresh start. We're turning the page, and we're moving forward."

How's the oxygen level on Neptune, Joe? Talk about being in denial. How is this about moving forward when they've tossed 3 of their own overboard and gunned the motor? Does he seriously think that he and the entire athletic program (as well as that Casper Milquetoast Brodhead) can continue this charade and not be held accountable for their disgusting treatment of students in their charge? These guys are beneath contempt -- I will never be able to watch that man coach another game without seeing him for the hypocrite, instead of the role model, he has turned out to be.

 
At 4:04 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not all that far away that Duke basketball will be in full swing. Perhaps, the Cameron Crazies could don photo images of the faces of the three accused, like masks, with the word "innocent" painted in blue and white across their chests?---- Well, the kids are way more inventive than I am and could come up with something to make Brodhead cringe. He sits a row back or so at center court. Perhaps, the girls in charge of getting out the vote might want to think of a sort of "spirit week" campaign for their wrongly accused fellow students.

 
At 4:10 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the above poster: I think you are over reacting to Coach K's statements. He cannot state publicly that this is nothing but a modern day lynching, even if that is what he believes. He does not have all of the facts at his disposal nor is he the judge, jury and prosecutor of this case.
Of course all of us here believe that the fact that the case remains in existence is a travesty. He may believe that as well but he can't say it.
As far as morale at Duke, life goes on. Do you want the other 6297 kids to walk around depressed? From what I hear from my son, there is much support for the Duke 3 and when the time comes, that support will be evident.
If Coach K had made a public statement that the Duke 3 are innocent and that Nifong is a disgrace, the immediate response from Durham and from the press would have been, "since when is Coach K king? What arrogance that he would make such a statement!" They would have reamed him.

 
At 4:25 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding Starn's piece--I think we should look at everything he said a little more carefully, and try to take something positive out of it. Obviously he has long held the opinion that good schools should not try to also compete at the DI level-- I disagree, but that is his opinion, he is entitled to it, and it's clear the university does not share his opinion (so who cares??). But he also makes a very clear statement about the absence of evidence and the poor job Nifong did with this case, and we should be focusing on that. This is a clear change of direction--while we might want to see him apologize for past words, let's take what we get and use it as a positive for our cause.

As far as Coach K, please give me a break. The guy has been very supportive of his good friend Coach Pressler. He is doing his job by trying to improve the morale of the athletes still at Duke (how long ago was it that we were also concerned about the rest of the lacrosse team?) there are things that he and others have said and done that the press simple refuses to cover, or that they (for good reason) don't know about. The press coverage affects the rest of the lacrosse team and every other student at Duke immensely. The pot bangers didn't just disrupt the lacrosse players --who had long moved out of their houses, but many other students who lived in nearby house and weren't on schlarships--and did not have the resources to find other housing. I don't blame anyone for trying to keep a low profile and have their lives go back to normal. It doesn't mean they don't care about the three indicted players, or that they aren't continuing to do things to support them.

 
At 4:38 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LIke it or not, there are still many who do not fully agree with us about the complete innocence of the players. Many are coming to suspect that the case isn't strong, and many who believed differently are starting to think this is a hoax. But many are not sure if Nifong has more evidence that hasn't been made public--and they think that we need to "wait for the trial." In many cases, that represents a strong move from their original positions, and we should recognize that change. For those closely associated with Duke and/or the players, making strong public statements could have an unintended consequence of re-invigorating those that wish to use this to further some other agenda. I don't know what Coach K has done for members of the lax team (including the 3) or Pressler behind the scenes, but it IS his job to be concerned about the athletes at Duke now. I think that is what he did in the rally, and I refuse to second-guess him since I don't know all the facts about his behind-the-scenes actions. By the way, those who would criticize the lax players should know that many of them drove up to visit one of the players and offer support in a meaningful way.

 
At 4:43 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Until I read Orin Starn's latest letter, I felt as though Coach K could have spoken out more, and earlier, about the Hoax and about his friend, Coach Pressler. With tenured professors like Starn, the rest of the Group of 88 and Broadhead in charge at Duke, I'm surprised that Coach K spoke out at all. I feel sympathy for Coach K- he has built an outstanding program at Duke and I imagine that he feels a tremendous responsibility towards the players he has recruited. Broadhead's cowardice and p.c. agenda has certainly done a lot of damage to a great university.
Texas Mom

 
At 5:15 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, I'm ready for everyone to call me names for supporting Brodhead. But I wonder how many who think he is so terrible have actually heard him speak? I have. I have heard him describe the issues facing the university in the early days, and the media's reaction. I have heard him describe what he felt he needed to do to protect all the students at the university. I have heard him say that the facts that are known are very different today and point to the fact that the alleged victim's story is probably not true. I have also heard him describe frustrations with the media's coverage--ignoring certain statements he made and selectively covering others. The day the recent NY Times "editorial" broke, he had actually given them another statement, which they refused to cover. Condemning without all the facts is exactly what the media did to the lacrosse team early on. And if one acknowledges that the community could react in a negative way to strong statements, and that such a reaction hurts all students, one must know that there are many things Brodhead must balance, including all the many initiatives and needs of an ongoing university.

 
At 5:26 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, you heard him speak. The Lacrosse families were not so fortunate. He WOULD NOT SEE them. Imagine that.

 
At 5:56 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if one acknowledges that the community could react in a negative way to strong statements, and that such a reaction hurts all students, one must know that there are many things Brodhead must balance, including all the many initiatives and needs of an ongoing university.

Another Pontius Pilate carefully weighing his options and washing his hands of a mess so that the community won't be outraged, is not the sort of example Duke needs.

(I begin t understand why Judge Horton stands out so in history--it's because men like that are rare as diamonds. We honor them, but nobody seems to have the courage to emulate them.)

Whatever happened to, Let justice prevail, though the heavens fall?

 
At 6:03 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hopefully justice will prevail, but it is Nifong (and a few others) to blame for this, not Brodhead.

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

Nifong is actively trying to railroad three innocent young men. Brodhead has done nothing to stop it and in fact, his comments and actions have made the situation even worse. He's implied that at least two of the three are guilty of something. He won't even speak to any of the families - how pathetic. He stabbed everyone in the back and then bailed out.

The current LieStoppers piece on Brodhead says it all. Since I can't improve on Joan Foster's words I'll just encourage everyone to read it. "This is your captain speaking - Bon Voyage"......

 
At 6:32 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard him speak about the lax affair very recently--he definitely did not imply anyone was guilty--it was the exact opposite. If you are making your assumptions based on what you have read in the press, remember how biased it has been.

 
At 6:33 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Starn proposes not just to drop athletics back to Division III (no athletic scholarships, shorter schedules and regional competion only) but to club sports levels. That's a de-emphasis to levels below the University of Chicago, much less the Ivies. Well, no one is going to pay attention to that. It's more laughable than I thought it would be. Starn's on sabbatical this academic year. I wonder if he is doing some guest lectures at other universities, to scout out a new place to work.

 
At 7:22 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 6:32 -Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were indicted on April 18th. On April 20th Brodhead made the following comment - "If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough".

I guess I'm supposed to get excited because Brodhead used the conditional tense - "if" - in his remarks. Sorry, I just can't get worked up about that. The second part of that comment seems to indicate he's prejudged them guilty of some kind of offense. And the comment, as a whole, serves to kick both students to the curb.

 
At 8:18 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Brodhead suspended the lax team and fired the coach, he sent the world and Nyfong the message that he thought his students were guilty; otherwise, why take those actions? When he held prayer vigils with his counterparts at NCCU who thought and said the boys were guilty, he sent the message to the world that he agreed the guys were guilty. When he established committees to look into all the rubbish he said was wrong with Duke, he sent the message that some terrible racist crime against women had happened. He is as guilty as Nyfong. Correction - more guilty! He is paid to be an educator and leader by Duke. If Duke does not cut him loose, then Duke is full of his type of lizard or worse a bunch of incompetent sycophants. People make mistakes. That is why divorce exists! It is time for Duke to divorce Brodhead; he is not the man she thought she was getting. His loyalties lie elsewhere. No, Brodhead apologist, actions speak louder than any glib words. We've seen the man's actions! Brodhead is an unmitigated disaster. Send the guy packing on a long sabbatical.

 
At 9:15 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous friend of Duke said...

8:18--I don't know how well you know Duke (this is "Friends of Duke" right?) or even how well you know the college system in general. But the president has to be accountable to many factions--not just sports teams. The fact is (and please remember I totally support the three indicted players) that the team DID do something wrong by having the party. No, they were not the first group at Duke or any other university to hold such a party and hire a stripper, but it still was wrong. It is the kind of offense that has gotten fraternities and other groups at Duke in serious trouble in the past. It certainly did not justify the terrible charges that have been filed against the players, but it was something that required action. And, if you know anything about Duke, you would know that it was well-known on campus that the lax players, as a group, were as wild as any fraternity, and probably wilder. One trip to Tailgate is all that would have been needed to understand why some have described the team the way they did. Of course, the whole team should not be painted with a broad brush, and there are many great kids on the team (and even the wildest may be great kids) but they did earn themselves a reputation, with the help of the administration at times looking the other way. No one is blameless, and no one should shoulder the entire blame. But there were very good reasons for appointing the committees that had nothing to do with whether the charges had merit or not. And the committees were to look at things besides the lax team--like whether the campus culure itself was a problem (it was determined it was.) I believe that Brodhead's comment about "whatever they did was bad enough" referred to the team as a whole, and related specifically to the party and the racial comments which have been substantiated.

I question whether those who continue to be so angry with Duke and Brodhead are forming their opinions from what they infer from the press--or whether they have more reliable data. Because i know Brodhead is not pleased with what the press has chosen to cover and what they have ignored, and I know what I have actually heard him say--it is not at all what people on this site attribute to him.

I think there are so many things we can and should be doing to help the indicted boys, as well as the lacrosse team and Duke. And I think we SHOULD keep the pressure on the university to speak out in support of the players and the team. but i don't think the non-stop name-calling directed at Duke and Brodhead is the right way to do it. by the way, those who would fire Brodhead because of how they have interpreted certain comments and actions, hopefully have looked at all the things he has done so far at Duke--like the huge financial aid initiative to fund more scholarships for needy students.

 
At 9:21 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:18--I don't know how well you know Duke (this is "Friends of Duke" right?) or even how well you know the college system in general. But the president has to be accountable to many factions--not just sports teams. The fact is (and please remember I totally support the three indicted players) that the team DID do something wrong by having the party. No, they were not the first group at Duke or any other university to hold such a party and hire a stripper, but it still was wrong. It is the kind of offense that has gotten fraternities and other groups at Duke in serious trouble in the past. It certainly did not justify the terrible charges that have been filed against the players, but it was something that required action. And, if you know anything about Duke, you would know that it was well-known on campus that the lax players, as a group, were as wild as any fraternity, and probably wilder. One trip to Tailgate is all that would have been needed to understand why some have described the team the way they did. Of course, the whole team should not be painted with a broad brush, and there are many great kids on the team (and even the wildest may be great kids) but they did earn themselves a reputation, with the help of the administration at times looking the other way. No one is blameless, and no one should shoulder the entire blame. But there were very good reasons for appointing the committees that had nothing to do with whether the charges had merit or not, and had everything to do with the university trying to figure out how to address its own role in creating the culture that led to the party. The committees were to look at things besides the lax team--like whether the campus culure itself was a problem (it was determined it was.) I believe that Brodhead's comment about "whatever they did was bad enough" referred to the team as a whole, and related specifically to the party and the racial comments which have been substantiated.

I question whether those who continue to be so angry with Duke and Brodhead are forming their opinions from what they infer from the press--or whether they have more reliable data. Because I know Brodhead is not pleased with what the press has chosen to cover and what they have ignored, and I know what I have actually heard him say--it is not at all what people on this site attribute to him. and those who would fire him because of how they have interpreted his comments hopefully have also considered all of the things he has done in his time at Duke--like his huge Financial Aid Incentive.

I think there are so many things we can and should be doing to help the indicted boys, as well as the lacrosse team and Duke. And I think we SHOULD keep the pressure on the university to speak out in support of the players and the team. but i don't think the non-stop name-calling directed at Duke and Brodhead is the right way to do it.

 
At 9:22 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry to duplicate--my mistake

 
At 9:23 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have posted a list of 12 intriguing, unanswered questions about the case on the Talk Left discussion board:

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?topic=198.0

Let me know any comments.

 
At 9:42 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

My opinion of Brodhead is based on his own words and the words of the families he turned away , refused to see. No matter what course he had decided to take, decency DEMANDED he deliver his words to the family in person. No leader would hide behind his lieutenants.His treatment of these families was shameful.


"Brodhead would not meet with us."

These are families facing the crisis of their lives, their sons at risk, their world unraveling. Uncertainty, fear, confusion, and despair were the order of the day. These are members of the extended Duke family to which Brodhead is the "Father" figure. A good "Father" may have stern words or opposing positions that he feels he must deliver. He may have to disappoint or debate his family or flock. But not SEE them? Not deliver those words in person, face to face, with whatever grace he can muster? Incredible. It takes my breath away.

 
At 10:01 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

above 9:23p.m. post, I just read your list and I can help you add to it. I can add a lot more to it. I have been watching this unfold ever since the rape charge borke.

If the Moderator will set us up on the off topics board you and I can compare lists, in the morning.

 
At 10:53 PM, September 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

that the team DID do something wrong by having the party... It is the kind of offense that has gotten fraternities and other groups at Duke in serious trouble in the past.

Did any other team have their season cancelled, and their coach fired?

And, if you know anything about Duke, you would know that it was well-known on campus that the lax players, as a group, were as wild as any fraternity, and probably wilder.

Odd, I didn't see anything about their doing drugs, or having a meth lab, or being a mecca for cocaine sellers, or carrying guns, or stealing car parts--just too much beer and loudness. Not commendable by any means, but not worthy of Sing-Sing, either.

One trip to Tailgate is all that would have been needed to understand why some have described the team the way they did.

What--they wore costumes and drank too much beer. If you think that was horrific, you have led a very sheltered life.

I believe that Brodhead's comment about "whatever they did was bad enough" referred to the team as a whole, and related specifically to the party and the racial comments which have been substantiated.

What racial comments that have been substantiated--something about a cotton shirt? What provoked that comment, btw? Who turned the conversation that night to racial matters in the first place?

I question whether those who continue to be so angry with Duke and Brodhead are forming their opinions from what they infer from the press

It would be nice if Brohead chastised the public for forming their opinions of the laxers from what they infer from the press.

I think there are so many things we can and should be doing to help the indicted boys, as well as the lacrosse team and Duke.

So can I. And the Duke admin., the Duke faculty, and the Duke law faculty are not doing them.
(Keeing silent is NOT what I have in mind.)

And I think we SHOULD keep the pressure on the university to speak out in support of the players and the team. but i don't think the non-stop name-calling directed at Duke and Brodhead is the right way to do it.

Banging pots seemed to work before.

by the way, those who would fire Brodhead because of how they have interpreted certain comments and actions, hopefully have looked at all the things he has done so far at Duke--like the huge financial aid initiative to fund more scholarships for needy students.

By the way, those who would throw the laxers under the bus hopefully have looked at all the things they have done so far at Duke--like the most money collected for Katrina relief, their academic record, their coaching of inner-city kids, etc.

 
At 12:03 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous joan collins said...

I don't think I'll be writing a Profile in Courage piece on Brodhead anytime soon.

 
At 1:07 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do appreciate if someone from this board explains the meaning of the following. Thank you in advance.

"White innocence means black guilt. Men's innocence means women's guilt. These capacious categories, which were in absolute play the night of the team's drunken debacle, continue their hold on the campus and the Durham community.", Karla FC Holloway, William R.Kenan Professor of English, Law, and Women's Studies, Duke University.

Source: www.barnard.columbia.edu/sfonline/
sport/holloway_02.htm

 
At 8:14 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

Police OK'd Duke crackdown this is in the N&O today?

the last part of the story will alarm everyone who fears for anyone at Duke.

"Chambers said Thursday that he had read the Chronicle story but didn't see any reason to change his opinion that Gottieb is a good officer." "If what they say is the truth," the police chief said of the students "then they should have field a complaint."

Now no Duke student is safe in Durham!!! With cops like that someone needs to call in the FBI, and get those police officers looked at.

Maybe Duke students might file a complaint but we all know that dirty cops stick together and the only place there complaint would be filed is in the trash can.

 
At 8:53 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Brodhead
The question is simple: Are there more talented leaders out there in academia?

Re: Faculty
Are there more talented professors out there?

Answer to both is the same: Undoubtedly!
Let's go find them.

 
At 9:04 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do appreciate if someone from this board explains the meaning of the following :
"White innocence means black guilt. Men's innocence means women's guilt.


See William Anderson's essay
about how it is now considered more important to judge people according to what group they belong to, than by what they individually may or may not have done :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson133.html

"The Duke case presents, in a microcosm, a clear picture of life in a future United States in which the Politically Correct world of the college campus becomes the legal standard for everyone. That is a world in which all events are viewed through an extremely abstract prism in which there are only "group" or "collective" rights, and where all individual rights are destroyed..."

IOW, the players must be guilty because the world-view of the PC feminist crowd requires that all white male players must be guilty (just as the world-view of the nazis required that all Jews must be guilty).

A Jew in nazi Germany could not have been found innocent of a crime, because it would upset the world- view of the nazis that all Jews carried within them a corrupted nature. A male white player cannot be found innocent today because it would upset the world-view of the feminists that all white males carry within them a corrupted nature.

Hence, Finnerty is guilty in DC; and all three players are guilty in Durham. It remains only to complete the formality of a trial to ratify these beliefs, held like a church ritual in which the creed can be recited, and confirmed.

 
At 9:09 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading Orin Starn's letter in the Friday September 15, The Herald Sun and overlaying that on the articles that exonerate Officer Gottieb, one thing is very clear: this case isn't about justice. Prof. Starn used a common technique among left wingers which was to claim credibility - "I signed the Lewis Cheek petition" - then in the last paragraphs give his real reason for writting the letter. There in a frontal assault, he condemned a group of activities that represented those vile human emotions and attributes of striving for excellence - both personal and orporate, victory/defeat, discipline, sportsmanship, competion, co-operation, leadership, and worst of all PLEASURE, all of which are by-products of college athletic. Oh, yeah, and lots and lots of donations - that nasty capitalist endevor to spend one's own money as one sees fit. Ah, yes, those things that the Extreme Left Wingers detest most.

I haven't said anything new, have I? So why doesn't the Left just give it up and accept defeat? Oops, that would mean admitting they were wrong and that the case should be dismissed. They'll never do that. They never have.

 
At 10:03 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 10:53 poster:
rather than take my comments out of context and tell me why I'm wrong, why don't you try to at least consider my points in context? I certainly did not suggest that the lacrosse players did anything worthy of Sing-Sing--in fact, my point was the opposite. But, if you didn't know it, other groups HAVE faced serious repurcussions for infractions similar to the party--some fraternities have been kicked off-campus indefinitely and students have been suspended for a semester for similar drinking violations (for those groups that IS comparable to having a season canceled), although there are a couple groups, including the lacrosse team, who seemed to have gotten a "free ride" with respect to these types of activities over the last several years. I haven't heard of anyone being caught with a "meth lab" so I don't know how that is relevant--maybe you have some facts I don't. And the lax players' "performance" at Tailgate was more than costumes and a few too many beers. If anyone got that drunk on beer, I would be surprised, and the lacrosse players at the Tailgates I attended were the most visible, the most outrageous and the most appalling (and I have not led a sheltered life, but thank you.) My point was not that this behavior justified the current situation. I have three sons who have not been angels themselves, and have had to suffer consequences for bad judgment(sometimes fairly and sometimes not.) My point was that this behavior (the party and the Tailgate reputation) DID justify the university taking a look, not only at the lacrosse team, but at campus culture (i.e., EVERYONE), which is what they did by appointing the committees. Perhaps you are one of those who blame, and rightfully so, the university for allowing the party culture at Duke to get to where it was last March. Certainly if this episode did NOT cause the university to examine the campus culture, they would have have irresponsible. so why blame them for establishing committees to do just that? Or do you just want to blame duke for everything that happpens?

 
At 10:26 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Certainly if this episode did NOT cause the university to examine the campus culture, they would have have irresponsible. so why blame them for establishing committees to do just that? Or do you just want to blame duke for everything that happpens?

How about a committee to examine the police arrests of Duke students? It was the policy (admitted now by Chief Chalmers) to deliberately arrest students. That gives them an arrest record, and perhaps a misdemeanor conviction; and there is no doubt that they were subjected to unconstitutional searches, harassment, and individual threats.

The university evidently made no effort to protect their students' rights; nor, as far as I can tell, did it even criticize these police methods.

University policy with regard to forcing drinking off campus seems to have been tailored by a regard for civil liability, not for the students' best interests. In effect, the university deliberately washed its hands of whatever happens to the students off campus, so long as the university itself will not be held liable. Parties on campus naturally were forced to be more reserved; parties off campus lack restraint. Was that a concern to the Duke admin. when it forced the party scene off campus?

University concern since the lacrosse incident seems to have focused entirely on apologizing to the surrounding community for an event which never happened. It would not be remiss now for the university to apologize to the three students for not having considered them innocent until proven otherwise; and for having reacted precipitously with complete disregard for their civil rights.

 
At 10:29 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

To 1:07 a.m.: I'll give a shot at interpreting Holloway's paragraph. I did have to look up capacious: "capable of containing a great deal".

One doesn't have to subscribe to the notion that black women never lie about being raped by white men to see that some folks find it hard, even in the face of facts, to disbelieve a black woman from NCCU in favor of white men from Duke. Some folks want the story to be true in order to confirm their world view. In fact in this case if the boys are innocent (as I believe), a black woman is guilty of making a false report of crime to police.

The part I found most pathetic about Holloway's essay is the hair shirt she put on about how tough it is to be on university commmittees to talk about campus culture. Oh please, you love it!

Oh, to the guy who says Starn's statement of support for Cheek is a leftist tactic, please grow up Limbaugh wannabe. (Sorry, I'm acerbic today.) This is not a left/right dichotomy. I'm left on most things and think that CGM lied about that night and that Nifong rode the wave to primary election victory. Hopefully the tide (to mix metaphors) has changed.

 
At 11:58 AM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

the DPD introducted an out for CGM so she would not have to go the psychiartic hospital for being a danger to herself and others.

The DPD planted the seed of a rape and she ran with it. By the way CGM was given a pregnancy test while at the hospital, this is only done with either blood or urine, to check the hermone levles.

The DPD used hair to test for drugs why?

Now knowing what we already know lets see who Nifong thorws under the bus.

 
At 12:47 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you missed this article when it was first published, on September 7 on the ESPN Magazine, you do not want to miss it now. It is very informative and full of insights. Here is the link:

Months later, unanswered questions haunt Duke

 
At 2:01 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Friday, I requested a copy of the Orin Starn letter published in Herald Sun from Duke News. My request was made late in the afternoon, and it is quite possible their office was already closed. Today, I got a response from Duke News. They sent an image file (photo) of the Starn letter -- quite readable.

Moderator

 
At 2:04 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know for a fact why the Starn letter was pulled from the Herald-Sun? I do not believe the university was responsible--they haven't censored anything else, I don't believe they would start now. But I'd love to know if someone has information, beyond speculation.

 
At 2:07 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous jim said...

On the drug tests: just a guess. Traces of chemicals will stay in the hair until it is cut off. The body clears blood and urine. The idea of a date rape drug was a Nifong hopeful afterthought. By the time he had that thought, the drug would have been cleansed from the blood and urine, but could be lodged in the hair. So he cut some hair and sent Gottlieb looking for a lab to test it. But, not surprisngly, it came back negative.

 
At 2:42 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous K.P said...

2:07 post my point was, that the hospital did get either blood or urine. "If" they were thinking of all possibilities they would have checked either one of those first than did a hair sample.

Not put the horse in front of the cart. If any drugs had been taken they would be in the sample they tested for pregnancy.

 
At 5:26 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry I messed up my 2:42 post, that last part should benot put the cart before the horse.

 
At 5:26 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More evidence today from N&O that Nifong is hiding discovery in violation of the law.

There is no other conclusion at this point than that Nifong _never_ wanted to discover what happened.

From the first moment of involvement in this case.


Employee kept notes of interaction with accuser

 
At 5:41 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

unfortunately, the fact that Nifong still has not turned over all the discovery evidence only lends credibility to the argument some make that we need to wait until the trial. If people know Nifong has evidence we haven't seen, it's easy for them to believe that evidence could actually be damaging to the defense. maybe that is Nifong's strategy.

 
At 5:50 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought there is law in NC that forces prosecuters to make all evidence available to defense. If they are not enforcing this law, as it appears ot be the case in the Duke lacrosse case, why do they bother to have a such a law on their books? How is it that Nifong is getting away with breaking that law? Does having a law in NC mean anything, or do they just go with the spurr of the moment -- whatever the prosecutor can get away with? If the defense was violating a law, any law, we would probably be hearing about it from many shouting from the rooftops. Where are those now?

 
At 6:02 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to hear from those with criminal law experience in other states as to whether, in other states with discovery laws, the DA is able to withhold so much evidence without being held accountable by the judge. Is it typically up to the defense to figure out what evidence the DA should be providing and then ask for it specifically (as the Duke defense attorneys have had to do), and when the DA doesn't provide evidence readily, as the law dictates, is it up to the defense to seek a remedy through a motion, or can/should the judge be proactive?

 
At 6:09 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone have a copy of today's motion filed in Durham Co by Brad Bannon?

Regarding the previous posts on discovery, it all comes down to who knew it and when did they know it. To hold Nifong and the DPD to ethical standards "ya gotta PROVE they have them". Not easy to do if you don't have access to their files. WB

 
At 6:47 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

K.P. Good letter. For some reason, I couldn't post on the Board but I wanted to let you know that you did a good job for taking the first step.

 
At 7:18 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above6:47 post Thankd I'm doing what I can to help.

 
At 7:47 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Duke Mom from S.C. said...

Blacks have lots of power, too few use it, though some of Duke’s black athletes may have awaken to and now understand real black power. Once upon a time it was called individuality as opposed to “group think.”

 
At 8:02 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On discovery, if Nifong had information helpful to him, he would have disclosed it by now, as required by the law. To spring it at trial would result in the evidence being suppressed, a mistrial declared or the case dismissed, plus he would personally be in trouble for violating the law and ethical rules. If he has information helpful to the defense and doesn't disclose it, admission at trial is not his concern. He still runs personal risk and the risk the case could be tossed out or a conviction overturned for prosecutorial misconduct.

 
At 8:41 PM, September 18, 2006, Blogger Duke Parent 1 said...

6:47 I added a new topic on the Open Board: "How to use this board". In it, I explain the basic steps involved in posting and replying to posts. I hope it will be of some help to you and others.

You may want to give it another try. If you still have difficulty, let me know where the problem is. We should all be able to post there. It is not really that hard. Thanks.

Moderator

 
At 9:05 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Depending on what the employee Ms. Wilkes has to say, I hope she doesn't have any outstanding warrants!

 
At 10:22 PM, September 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A new member of the Trinity Park Talaban Comes to the Fore

Meet Elgin Mellown, the bitterist Emeritus Professor in Duke History (in his own words)

In his only academic output in the last 20 years, Duke English Professor Mellown pens his 500-word opus Thanks, Durham Police!!

That will be a big hit at the next MLA meeting.Definitely, a new low for the hate-mongers of Trinity Park

---------------------
Thanks, Durham police

I hope that the Durham police officers who arrested
Duke students for noise and alcohol violations in the
autumn of 2005 realize how grateful most of us in
Trinity Park are to them.

Their actions gave us the hope that we might once
again have a peaceful, family neighborhood in which to
live.

And we hope that these officers or their successors
will also remember that every September brings a new
crop of students who want to live off-campus and who
appear never to learn from the experiences of their
predecessors.

Please, Durham Police Department, continue to defend
our neighborhood.

ELGIN W. MELLOWN
Durham
September 18, 2006

 
At 12:50 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if people who live in the projects are grateful that the DPD is keeping Trinity safe.

 

<< Home