Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 18 - Full

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


At 9:21 AM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KC Johnson's latest article:

Twenty Questions

At 9:54 AM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Question re hearing coming up on 9/22. Are any of the motions going to be decided that day or have oral argument on them or is it just a scheduling conference for motions a setting a trial date?

Will the motion to supress the photo array I.D. require an evidentiary hearing or can it be decided on the papers?

At 11:46 AM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few words from Judge Horton on the Scottsboro case (one of the last judges not to be swayed by political considerations) :

"History, sacred and profane, and the common experience of mankind teach us that women of the character shown in this case are prone for selfish reasons to make false accusations both of rape and of insult upon the slightest provocation for ulterior purposes.

". . .This tendency on the part of the women shows that they are predisposed to make false accusations upon any occasion whereby their selfish ends may be gained. . .

"The Court will not pursue the evidence any further. As heretofore stated, the law declares that a defendant should not be convicted without corroboration where the testimony of the prosecutrix (i.e., accuser) bears on its face indications of improbability or unreliability and particularly when it is contradicted by other evidence. The testimony of the prosecutrix (accuser) in this case is not only uncorroborated, but it also bears on its face indications of improbability and is contradicted by other evidence, and in addition thereto the evidence greatly preponderates in favor of the defendant."

(And from the Athens, GA bar to Judge Horton in 1933) :

"It is axiomatic that a democracy cannot exist without an independent and fearless judiciary.The moment the decisions of our judges are colored or influenced by political considerations that moment free governments begin to totter and commonwealths begin to fail."

Judge Horton, where are you now?

At 12:55 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

where is the nancy grace and wendy murphy article?

At 1:03 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is in the Open Board. Here is the link to it.

Nancy Grace and/or Wendy Murphy

At 2:17 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sent an e-mail to Mike Nifong threatening to move to Durham County, since I am retired, just so I could vote ABNVC. This was his response. I thought it was another arrogant statement.

Gee, Bill. Does this mean you are moving down here from NJ just to vote against me? I am flattered. Bad news, though. You'll be stuck with me at least until the end of December.

At 2:25 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, he is not too busy to read his emails and write sarcastic email? He is only too busy to hold a speed trial eh! I hope to god that one day we will be the ones sending him sarcastic emails. Thank you Bill, for sharing Nifong’s response with us; it is very enlightening.

At 3:30 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone in Durham know what happened to John Stevenson from the H-S? He was the original reported reporting on the Duke case, but none of the recent stories in the H-S seem to be written by him?

At 3:58 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it appalling that Nifong would take the time to write a sarcastic response--but maybe not surprising. A servant of the people should be able to just push the delete button.

At 4:06 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Bill said...

I am the Bill from NJ that posted the response I got from Nigong, I found it interesting that I did not include my name or where I lived, in my e-mail to him. So not only did he read it and respond to the mail, he looked up some information on me. I think he wanted to see if I was a voter in NC. He found out I wasn't but still sent an arrogant response.

At 4:18 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, Can he actually find out your name if you didn't sign the email? (Sorry, my technical expertise is not that great...) And your email doesn't automatically come through with your name as some does?

At 4:25 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

4:18 post Yes he can.

I just sent Nifong a letter myself being a rape victim / survivor and all. I just wanted him to know that there is another rape victim who can and will pick CGM's story any story she can come up with apart.

The DOJ did receive my letter last Thursday. Now lets see if that helps.

At 4:30 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KP,So far Nifong seems to only admit to receiving letters from other rape victims who encourage him to keep pursuing the case. we'll see if he acknowledges your letter!

At 4:33 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 4:18 post
Yes, according to the moderator he can, with some simple research. Bus as previous posts have said, what a waste of time, I guess that's why Nifong wants to wait till next spring to go to trial. He is too busy answering e-mails. I am a retired police officer and have never seen such police misconduct. Gottlieb turning a report in 4 months after the incident, if that's the case, that is when a prosecutor is suppose to seek an indictment, when the investigation is concluded of close to it. What a disgrace.

At 4:36 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous k.p. said...

If Nifong does reply to me he might have only two words and they wont be good bye.

At 4:45 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back on Nifong finding out it was "Bill" who sent the email. If Bill doesn't have his name as part of his email address, wouldn't Nifong have had to go to Bill's ISP and get his name from them? And wouldn't Nifong need a court order for that? Or is it easier to link an email address to a name than I realize?

At 4:59 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He must have some access to ISP's or Bill had sent a previously e-mail and included his name and where he was from. In that case Nifong must have one giant database, for all the e-mails he receives. Someone needs to know that, because the other day Durham reported that they needed to update their computers. Apparently Mr. Nifong is using it to save e-mails.

At 5:01 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

Mr. Nifong seems to have a lot of time on his hands these days to find out Bill's name. He must be desperate for votes.

BTW,I understand it was his brithday on September 14th. Did anyone send him a birthday card???

At 5:03 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your name should not be easy to get unless it is recorded on the email you sent. But, your location is a different story. Your location can be identified through your IP number, and your IP number is recorded on each email you send.

In short, for Nifong to find out where you wrote from is easy. But, to find out what your name is, unless it was recorded on the email you sent should not be easy. That should be very difficult to do. Perhaps, he has experts or hackers working on this.

What a crazy notion! Spending money and effort to identify who is sending him emails? This is not the behavior of a normal man. But than again, who said Nifong was normal? He is a lunatic.

At 6:47 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Durham does seem to be getting weirder and weirder!
Texas Mom

At 8:14 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this a new piece

Very strong

Accused Denied Due Process in Duke Lacrosse Case

At 8:19 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only it is new, but it appears to have been written by a feminist. That's a huge plus. But, I may be wrong on that, we should do more research on the author.

At 8:46 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

I just read the article and I found it interesting, the facts of the bill of rights seems o.k.
At the bottom of the page it does say that the person who did this article is a feminist, and it also sounds like she is on our side. I could be wrong. I read the post just above this and I did not write it, even thou it sounds like me.

At 8:55 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't understand why Nifong would respond to me by my first name. I did retire from the Marines as a SgtMaj and was stationed in NC for two years, while on active duty The police alway picked on us so called Yankees, Nifong is doing the same thing. I thought the legal profession would have come forward to the 21at century by now, but apparently it has not, Nifong is still living back in the 19th century The cops are the same the DA's are the same and they still go after Yankees. Nifong is a disgusting DA, and an absolute disgrace to the American Judicial System. He is the reason we have a Constitution.

At 9:26 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The article is very interesting. I know I have heard of Wendy McElroy before--has she written other articles about this case? I certainly don't understand what 8:37's point is--McElroy is on the side of the lax players, not on Nifong's.

At 9:53 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I googled Wendy McElroy and Duke lacrosse--she has written extensively on this subject, and as early as April was questioning the facts and the motives of both the DA and the AV.

At 10:45 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am the mother of a Duke lacrosse player. I had contacted Wendy McElroy in May after she wrote articles supporting the Duke three and the rest of the lacrosse team. She is a feminist and supports the lax team. In May she said the allegations were totally false.

At 11:41 PM, September 19, 2006, Blogger NDLax84 said...

Militant feminists like Bennett & Hopper would probably say McElroy is a feminist like Benedict Arnold was a patriot.

This quibble notwithstanding, the piece is immense.

At 12:04 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous CHIN said...

Saying is:

Ship sail better on calm sea!

At 2:04 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Below is the link for KC Johnson's latest post. This post is written in response to an article by Duke Professor Karla Holloway.

The Travails of Karla Holloway

At 7:58 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I emailed Nifong in April asking if he really met with the NBPP leader 'to discuss the evidence in the case' after refusing to meet with the defendants to discuss evidence. I did not get a response.... hmmmm

At 7:59 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Links to new motions...

Walter Abbott

At 9:31 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

The Wendy McElroy article is very good and only proves that the supporters who believe in the innocence of the LAX players are not all the same.

At 10:07 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see what is provided in response to the second motion--which asks the DA to name specifically the time the offense allegedly took place, the bathroom in which it allegedly occurred and the sex acts each defendant is alleged to have committed. To legal experts: will the judge rule on this motion on Friday, and how long would/should it take for DA to hand over that information (or course, one would think it would be only a matter of 5 minutes to type it up and copy it, as he most certainly knows the answers to those questions already!!!)

At 10:23 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read Karla Holloway's "article" -- I'll comment on the so-called substance of the piece in a moment. First, however, it continues to amaze me that someone with such terrible writing skills is teaching at the college level. The structure of this piece suggests that it is more of a blog entry than an academic paper (an "essay", as Holloway describes it). It is replete with personal musings and the sort of angst-ridden psycho-babble more generally left to individuals battling their own demons via talk (or in this case blog) therapy. The fact that she credits not one, but three, individuals, Robyn Wiegman and William Chafe "for their generous and careful reading and response to early drafts of this essay" and Janet Jakobsen "for her intuitive and tremendously helpful review" makes me even more concerned, because it is apparent that this sort of incoherent rambling, possibly in undergraduate term papers, is actually receiving widespread encouragement from the Duke professoriate rather than extensive treatment with a blue pencil. Have none of these folks ever heard of editing and revising? A word of advice to all four -- the thesaurus is not always your friend. If you have something worthwhile to say (the real question here, evidently), spit it out. Cloaking insecurity and self-conscious race-induced paranoia in the guise of scholarly discourse and abstruse theory doesn't cut it. It only serves, in my view, to highlight that, in the words of Gerturde Stein, "there is no there there." Only, unlike Gertrude Stein, I'm not talking about her hometown having changed.

On to the "substance." First, when I was in college I studied at Barnard for a year -- while there I took a course with the legendary feminist Catherine Stimpson. Dragging her into this debate by suggesting that her comments -- on what are clearly references to "fan" culture -- have any bearing on this case may have scored points with The Barnard Center for Research on Women, which published this claptrap. It does Ms. Stimpson a disservice, however, to take her remarks on another subject completely out of context. Too bad that the folks at the Center failed to see this suck-up job for what it was.

Second, if Prof. Holloway feels the burden of "representing" her race on the CCI to be that onerous, don't waste time on hand-wringing -- quit. Do everyone who wants to have a serious conversation on the issue a favor. Frankly, I've been a vocal critic of the university's handling of the case from the outset, but when they try to engage a diverse group of educators in this dialogue, would Prof. Holloway have us believe that she and her compatriots of color would be satisfied to be left out of that discussion? They would see that exclusion as a disrespectful snub, and rightly so. Then what would you suggest, Prof. Holloway, about the proper approach in this matter? Not enter into dialogue when you clearly perceive problems that you believe need to be addressed? You can't have it both ways. If you're not part of the solution, you truly are part of the problem. As with the discussion of the status of women at Duke that was examined by a committee appointed during Pres. Keohane's tenure, Prof. Holloway would have us believe that appointing individuals that are members of the group alleged to be adversely affected by university culture to a committee to examine that culture puts the burden on those individuals to "fix" the problem. Suggesting that this puts these individuals in the hot seat while the miscreants who caused the problem to begin with are left off the hook misses the central point of any such exercise. It is precisely BECAUSE they represent the aggrieved group that their presence is thought to be invaluable to such an examination of the circumstances that need to be thoughtfully considered and, if necessary, corrected. That seems elementary to me. Then again, I live in the real world, not the self-proclaimed victims' sanctuary Prof. Holloway has constructed for herself as she evidently finds the real world far too precarious a place to inhabit. Perhaps it's time for a sabbatical.

Third, after wading through this morass of tortured syntax, I have come to the conclusion that Prof. Holloway is attempting to suggest that engaging in sports -- all sports -- is synonymous with white male oppression in general and brutal treatment of black women in particular. Consider the ethnic demographics of the average college or professional sports team today. Consider the number of outstanding female college athletes competing today. The statistics in both instances clearly belie whatever false impressions Prof. Holloway would choose to leave with us. I don't dispute the suggestion of a culture of entitlement that our society has come to associate to a degree with high-end athletics. Who hasn't heard of the term "dumb jock"? However, conflating the issues associated with that stereotype with the issues of racism and sexual violence that Prof. Holloway, the Group of 88 and their supporters would have us believe are present in this debate smacks of its own kind of insidious prejudice, one that it is perceived as being politically incorrect to challenge, and that is a dangerous direction in which to take this conversation.

The real issues here are:

1) a troubled woman with a difficult past who couldn't face the increasingly swift downward trajectory her life was taking and chose to accuse three innocent people of a heinous crime rather than looking at her own drinking, drug use and unfortunate choice of sexual lifestyle as the real crisis in her life;

2) institutional irresponsibility on the part of Duke University, in particular by its colossally unimpressive current president, Richard Brodhead, for ignoring discontent within the Durham community caused by its pushing 25% of its students off-campus to fend for themselves with local law enforcement; and, last but certainly not least,

3) local political corruption on a spectacular, theatrical scale unmatched by anything I can recall seeing in the last 40 years. This is truly the big story to come out of this whole debacle, and will be the fodder of debate, articles, books and movies for years to come. The actions of DA Nifong, of certain members of the judiciary in their failure to hold the DA and his investigators and their own court staff accountable to the rule of law, of certain members of the Durham Police Department, like Gottlieb, Chalmers and company, who utterly failed to comply with recognized police procedures in a criminal investigation, but instead affirmatively obstructed them, and of local government officials like Messrs. Bell and Baker, to name a few, who have been complicit in the police misconduct in this case, all under the watchful eye of a local media that seems not to have a clear idea of their mandate to provide a consistent, objective account of what has been going on in the case, taken together represent for me, an attorney of 25 years' standing, a pathetic low in the annals of American jurisprudence.

Prof. Holloway has, by her earlier writings and by her latest effort, done absolutely nothing to advance this debate in a productive manner, but instead has served only to further obfuscate the real issue here -- three demonstrably innocent young men are being railroaded through a corrupt legal system right before our eyes, and stunningly, we're virtually powerless to do anything to stop this juggernaut. Remember Chicago in 1968 -- "The whole world is watching." Let us hope that such vigilance will continue to result in more and more outcries from respected individuals of good will of every profession, political persuasion and ethnic background, all of whom smell a rat in this case -- one that, if left to feed on this garbage, will continue to erode what is left of decent and ethical government in Durham, North Carolina and beyond.

At 10:31 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was reflecting on Dr. Holloway's take on the lacrosse case, as well as the view of many other black people, who seem to condemn the players regardless of the evidence when I had an epiphany.

Carl Jung , the 19th century psychiatrist, believed in a "collective consciousness" and "ancestral archetypes" that influenced our personality and our view of the world. Modern psychologists have also given credence to the theory that encoded in our DNA are certain personality traits. One example is that Western civilization values the individual whereas Asians value connectedness with society. In other words, a white American may instruct his son, "Stand out from the crowd," while an Asian dad might say," The nail that sticks up gets pounded."
These are very different ways of viewing the world. I know African -American people (and Hillary Clinton) are fond of repeating the African saying, "It takes a village to raise a child." I, who am white, am not sure I agree with the saw. Anyway, what I am getting at is that the perceptions of Dr. Holloway (a black female) may be so entrenched in her DNA and also colored by her environment ( growing up black and studying black lit.) that it is VERY difficult for her to grasp an individual's rights, as we define them legally. Obviously, it is ironic that she, who specializes in African -American Literature (especially the funeral rituals of black Americans), is teaching at the law school. Our laws are based on English law, which was created by white men who had a DNA blueprint that varied from Mrs. Holloway's. I do not mean this statement as a racist comment, but it is a theory psychologists have put forth about the basis of personality and thought patterns. I feel that perhaps if we understand that some people's thought process is widely divergent from the way Anglo-Saxons think, it is easier to understand how they dismiss evidence and also how they do not value an individual's rights as the US judicial system requires us to. I believe their thinking patterns may reflect a deep ancestral personality pattern that long ago helped its particular tribe survive. Again, I am not excusing what Karla Holloway has done, but I am trying to figure out how folks can ignore the rights of individuals, unless those folks are outright dishonest people. I am trying to discern how educated people can think in so radically different a way from the mainstream, and this theory of a personality blueprint that is passed down through heredity makes some sense to me.---Duke Mom ( not a psychology major) lol!

At 10:42 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:31 poster--You raise an issue in point #2 which warrants more discussion on a national level. Colleges across the country have cracked down on drinking on campus and as a result have pushed students, parties, and drinking off-campus--into a far more dangerous setting. This is much more than a Duke issue--it is truly a national issue. At Duke, the steps which pushed the parties off-campus were taken by Pres. Brodhead's predecessor, Nan Keohane. Even if Brodhead disagreed with those steps, it would have been virtually impossible in 1 year (or even 10) to reverse that PC move. No one is willing to admit they'd like MORE drinking on campus--even if the realistic alternative is a bigger problem. Unfortunately, while I admire the goals of MADD and certainly agree with stiff penalties for DUI, they have affected change across the country (the raising of the drinking age to 21) that has resulted in promoting the very behaviors they wish to curb--excessive drinking and and driving after drinking.

At 10:53 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see a much clearer and simpler explanation to Ms Holloway's mental block. She pushed the "being black" agenda all of her life and got away with it. In fact, she got nicely rewarded for it. Now, she thinks this is again one of those routine cases. So, she is not compelled to do anything differently. In summary, she does not give beans about the fact that 3 innocent people's lives hang in the balance and that she may not get away with all this crap.

That’s where she has gone wrong. Unlike in the past, now there are people paying attention. There are people reading the stuff she spits out. She has done us a great favor by writing this essay; she has revealed herself to be a fake scholar and an opportunist, and nothing else.

I suspect Holloway's climb to the top ends right here, on a minor note.

At 11:06 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Herald Sun had two articles one on the bond system. This article was done because of all the press durham has been getting.

The other is Duke puts worker on leave due to probe. They don't say the reason for the leave.

the links are:


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

Can someone email Holloway's "essay" to Brodhead to make sure he sees and reads it? A link to KC's latest should also be sent to Brodhead.

From one English teacher to another, I wonder how he would rate Holloway's "essay". I don't want to send it because I am too involved with Duke. There has to be someone out there who doesn't have any ties.

At 11:34 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shoot me for this is you must, but I actually think that, if Ms. Holloway didn't take such extreme stances, SOME (not all) of her points would have some validity. She almost completely lost me when she wrote about "the student and the other young woman who were invited to dance under false pretense and then racially (at least) abused." There are valid points she could have made about the lacrosse players (and probably many men) devaluing the character of strippers--leading to what most accept were some unacceptable comments that led to the early termination of the dance, and the arguments that ensued. She could also have allowed that the "young women" themselves behaved in a way that facilitated the devaluation of their character. And while it seems to be accepted that some sort of racial comment was made during the evening, her leap to stating that the women were "racially (at least) abused" further weakens her credibility.

That she would see only women and African-Americans as the victims of this is telling. Besides the three wrongly accused young men, everyone on Duke's campus is a victim to some extent. If anything she should celebrate the fact that she has been asked to serve on the CCI committee--that would suggest that her message has been heard, and maybe with undue emphasis, according to some. If this is such a burden to her, then she, in fact, is part of the problem she laments. Gender/racial issues certainly can't be solved unilaterally.

She could have discussed legitimate issues surrounding entitlement of athletes. That was a problem when I was in college, and certainly it still exists. It is as much a societal issue as anything--it starts when children are young and the best athletes are treated differently, and it persists through the professional ranks. There are certainly many examples of great athletes who have not abused their entitlement at Duke and elsewhere, but to ignore the problem at Duke, especially in the wake of this incident, would be foolish. Too bad her essay didn't approach real problems with some degree of balance, it could have started a useful dialog.

At 11:40 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone have Ms. Holloway's email address?

At 12:25 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Karla FC Holloway
William R. Kenan Professor of English Office Location: 304 F Allen
Office Phone: 919-684-8993
Email Address:

At 1:19 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To: 11:15AM post
I e-mailed the article by Holloway to Broadhead.

At 2:46 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just checked the "60 Minutes" web site, no mention of the Duke story, but three other and Andy Rooney. Do the people at "60 Minutes" know something we don't know. If so who leaked it to them or perhaps Nifong didn't want to be embarassed just weeks before the November election.

At 3:02 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous WJD said...

Cash Michael's told me via e-mail that the Duke Case, that is suppose to air on Sept 24, on "60 Minutes" is being pushed back a week, to October 1, because of the Sept 22 court date.

At 3:13 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3) local political corruption on a spectacular, theatrical scale unmatched by anything I can recall seeing in the last 40 years.

Excellent paragraph summary; and well- worth quoting.

At 3:27 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Cash Michael's told me via e-mail that the Duke Case, that is suppose[d] to air on Sept 24, on "60 Minutes" is being pushed back a week, to October 1, because of the Sept 22 court date."

October 1 is not set in stone, but when the expose airs, Nifong will wish he was unknown. The Duke case was not tentatively scheduled as the season opener for months because CBS wanted America to know that the case is pending.

Michael J. Gaynor

At 3:51 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As long as the 60 minutes piece airs before the election.

At 5:57 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Nifong's wife is also deranged.

Defense Trying to Taint Jury Pool

Um, yeah right, Cy.

At 6:22 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Herald Sun Vote book: This is what Nifong said about his third priority. Is he kidding? He has done everything immoral, unethical and most likey illegal to stall this case until after the election. I hope Judge Smith will have the courage not to allow this farce and the Nifong stall tatics to continue! Judge Smith all we need is one man of courage, Let it be you.

"A third top priority is the streamlining of our Case Management System to reduce delays in getting criminal cases resolved in Superior Court. While the District Attorney's Office cannot solve this problem alone (most delays are, in fact, sought by defendants"

At 6:39 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How desperate is Nifong going to get, drag his wife into the case. File a motion based on hearsay. I remember him telling us that he was a great lawyer and that they wanted him off the case because the defense lawyers were afraid of him

At 7:08 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

above I agree

At 7:16 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's Nifong going to drag into this cas next his children?

At 8:28 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am too grumpy to be a major fan of JF's poetry but I did find this one about Mrs Nifong hilarious

New York on the Line

Poor Mike, I think he needs a permanent change in venue.

At 8:30 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nifong went crying to the judge, make them stop. If Nifong's wife didn't want to stay on the phone for an hour she should have just hung up. She sounds like a bigger wiener than him. I could be wrong

At 8:40 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above poster is right she is a big loser. I usually don't even talk to pollsters. She has to be a loser or she was set up. Now let's bring her into court and have her testify about her notes and the phone call

At 8:55 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Nifong and wife are cracking up. See KC's latest:

Cracking Up?

At 9:00 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nifong's wife didn't say in her affadavit what she answered.

For the survey to have taken an hour, she must have gotten into a big, whining pathetic defense of her thug Husband.

I hope she recorded it, too. We need to hear that.

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

Moved from elsewhere. Thank you poster for bringing this to our attention. Moderator

Orin Starn's letter is posted on the H-S website today with a dateline of September 20th.

Sounds like they decided to resurrect it after all the controversy about its disappearance. I wonder why they don't have an editorial note reflecting its initial publication date?

At 10:18 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is most interesting about Nifong's motion?
a. He knew about the survey on August 25th
b. Such surveys are normal when a jury pool could be tainted by a DA trying to win an election
c. The defense was able to file a response within a few hours, yet Nifong has not been able to file any responses to the defenses motions in 5 months
d. All of the above: Nifong must be incompetent.

At 10:27 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

I too received a call the other night about a research survey. The Caller ID said it was a call from Alabama. It took 10 seconds for me to say "No interest" and hang up. Who would stay on the phone for an hour? Who has an hour to stay on the phone? This just gets more and more bizarre.

At 10:33 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding 9:00 poster who suggested recording the phone conversation. The call originated from NY. I am not an attorney. Within the state of NY, no notification is required to tape a phone conversation. However, interstate follows federal rules. You must have the approval of the other party to record the phone conversation.

At 11:08 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

I started a topic on the open board about our expectations as parents for a university "looking out for its students" I invite folks interested in that topic to come over and post.

At 11:21 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's H-S Editorial Meeting.

I also filed a complaint with the Attorney General about Nifong's use of public resources to conduct his investigations of emailers.

It's illegal of course.

Taking a page from the Bob Ashley playbook, Mike Nifong and his wife have apparently been conducting background investigations of anyone who sends Mr. Nifong email that is critical of his job performance.

It is of course a replay for Nifong when he investigated all of the signers of the Check petition several months ago.

Only problem is that Mr Nifong and his wife Cy Gurney, also a state employee, have apparently been using state resources, databases, computers and time on the job to assemble their enemies list.

At least when Bob Ashley does his google searches, he is just a non-government weasel doing the bidding of the town's elite.

The Nifong's illegal behavior follows close on Mayor Bill Bell's use of cease-and-desist letters from his lawyers in an attempt to quash criticism of his real estate double-dealing.

We are now seeing the ossified Durham elites cracking under the strain of public scrutiny.

It is clear that the Durham power structure (and the Herald-Sun) had hoped to use race-baiting and class envy in the Duke case to gain political cover for their corrupt and incompetent leadership

That has failed.

And as the dump burns and murderers roam the streets, Bill Bell, Patrick Baker, Mike Nifong and the city council have been revealed for what they are.

Petty, corrupt, and incompetant tyrants who abuse their public offices for their own self-preservation.

At 6:32 AM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke Chronicle Editorial on Durham police:

Questions plague police tactics

At 7:19 AM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

I sent Nifong an E-mail the same day as the one we are talking about. He has not replied to me.

What Nifong doesn't want to reply to a rape victim, is he ashamed he might hurt my feelings.

At 10:00 AM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See the below letter to the editor from the N&O pointing out another case where Durham justice allows a murderer to escape on low bail. This Durhamite is afraid, indeed.

Durham Mommy

At 10:19 AM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

To the 11:21 poster. While the rest of us were thinking how outrageous the behavior was, you focused on the legal aspects and did something about it. Thank you.

At 10:25 AM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

To the 10:00 poster. Yes, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Brodhead, time to wake up!

At 10:30 AM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When it comes to poisoning the Durham County, North Carolina jury pool, District Attorney Michael B. Nifong knows what to do and he does not want anyone trying to undo his work after he is through.

Durham County Jury Pool Toxicity Must Be Checked - September 21, 2006

At 10:59 AM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess we should all be thankful that Mr Nifong is on the watch for unfair influencing of the jury. If he had done nothing after his wife was called only 300 folks would have even been aware of the questions being asked.

Since he filed his motion everyone who reads the front page of the News and Observer or Durham Herald now has seen the questions. This shuold give even a leger number of jurymembers a chane to reflect on this entire disaster.

We should all be thankful to Mike for making sure that most of Durham has had a chance to reflect on the questions being asked

At 12:34 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think it was a coincidence that they called Cy Gurney? Her name is in the directory. But out of all the citizens they could have sampled, they called her? Once she responded who she was, why wouldn't the caller stop the questioning? It is all very odd.

At 12:53 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is an odd coincidence that they called Cy, but if the surveyor was truly doing a random survey and they were not given a list of "do not calls", they would not have known she was Nifong's wife unless she divulged that information.

At 12:58 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Nifong is using this whole thing for CYA.

As a excuse to take political cover.

It is very revealing that he would expose his wife publicly to benefit himself.

That's the egotistical Mikey we all know so well.

At 2:14 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know it's hard under the circumstances, but can we take a break from comments such as "Cy Nifong certainly fits in the freak show that is Durham, NC."

I live in Durham and I believe the following: the LAX guys are innocent, Nifong is paranoid, unethical and incompetent, Durham cops are corrupt or at the very least inept, and Duke/Durham relations are a mess (thanks to presumptions, miscommunication and missteps on both sides).

Do I fit into the "freak show" too? Please don't paint such a broad stroke on an entire community.

At 2:51 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above: The offending comment was removed. Let us try not to make blanket statements about people or towns. That is what got us here in the first place.

Pointing out the shortcomings of Durham is okay and we have all been doing it. But calling it a "freak show" is going a little too far. Let us use better language. I know we can do better than this. Thanks.


At 3:14 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous CHIN said...

Saying is:

Do not destroy forest when one tree filled with snakes.

At 3:24 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is just another example of our faculty acting childish and unprofessional. What an incredible disappointment.:

At 3:51 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above: They are afraid that if they get to know these kids better and see what they accomplish, they may like them. And, that is obviously a "no" "no". This is what we are dealing with. I say Brodhead gets tired of these "no" "no" guys soon and gets some sense into his head. His life will be so much less complicated if he did that. Take my advice Brodhead: ignore Starn, Wood, Lubiano, Holloway, and a few others and you will get your life back. Continue to support them and your each day at Duke will be a struggle.

At 5:11 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There have been a couple unanswered questions directed towards those with trial law experience about whether the judge will issue decisions on the motions before him tomorrow (including the most recent motion asking for specifics on when and in which bathroom the alleged crimes occurred.) does anyone know what we should expect?

At 5:35 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Duke Lax parent this all has become more than a frustrating situation. As we have all found out, it is really hard to fight LIARS !!! Cannot imagine how Nifong and Gottleib fall asleep at night. The emotional damage they have caused is to the entire team cannot be measured. The NERVE of Nifong to be upset with the polling considering what we have all gone through for 6 months!! Can only hope that KC's repeated articles and what we hope will be a just and favorable "60 Minutes" report will help keep the families sane until REAL justice is done and these bogus charges are dropped !!!

At 5:52 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what time the case comes before the court tomorrow?

At 6:08 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel the frustration of the Duke Lax parent above; it seems unbelieveable that this is still going on. I feel for all of you, parents, athletes, friends-and those of us who aren't any of the above, but care about truth and justice.

Lots of thoughts have been roiling around in my addled brain lately, not only about Nifong's Hoax, but about the state of higher education. Reading the article about Professor Haagen's suggestion crystallized the thoughts I've had- Duke IS NOT in the kid business. I'm not sure many "highly ranked" schools are. I know that there are professors who ARE in the kid business- my children have been the fortunate recipients of their teaching at three very different universities. However, if one looks at the ACTIONS of Duke's administration (not their WORDS) and looks at the ACTIONS of the Group of 88, who do they seem to benefit? In my opinion, certainly not the students nor the student body as a whole. They seem far more concerned with their own positions rather than the best interests of the students.

Universities have become like federal agencies- their first and foremost interest is in their own continued existence. Duke is not unique in this. In some ways, I think that it is worse at schools that are HYPS wannabes, but that is only a guess. Throughout all of this horror, the students (even the poor, sick AV) have been used for someone else's agenda- Nifong's election, Kim's bid for money, the Group of 88's promoting themselves, the Duke administration's desire to keep itself from civil liability, etc. ad nauseum.

I feel so discouraged that our system of education is so flawed that it is no longer about educating young people. The Duke Lacrosse players and every other student at Duke has been used these past months. What a travesty.

At 6:32 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A travesty indeed....

At 6:37 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the duke professors....several of us (including KC and little anonymous me) have made it a long-term project to try to dialogue with the faculty, both good and bad.

I can say there are actually quite a few supportive faculty members, even in the pot-banging English Department (although Cultanthro remains a vast wasteland of bigotry).

Now the next step will be to get them to be a little more brave and try speaking out publicly.

It has been like pulling teeth but things are finally starting to move on that front.

At 6:54 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has been like pulling teeth but things are finally starting to move on that front.

You can tell them for me, that it is too little and too late for that.

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
--Martin Luther King

At 6:59 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

does anyone know what we should expect

In Durham?

(insert file of my insane laugh here...)

The judge may hear the motions tommorrow, but may not issue rulings on them until later (a week? a month?)

How ludicrous that we even have to hope that this time we have a fair and honest judge. (I once thought that all judges were fair and honest, weren't they?) And that we have to hope that this one is an exception to the general N. Carolina rule?

Pray hard. . .

At 8:03 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KC Johnson is keeping up quite well with the Duke Group of 88 and their friends. Here is his latest:

Celebrating Ignorance

At 8:05 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Lucky "D" said...

It is sad that people like Commander Nifong think only of today. When God calls us back, Nifong will still be the DA of Nifong County burning in his disaster.

At 8:28 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Out Joe said...

There is a picture, seen many times before, of Das Nifong in the Johnsville News today. I am sorry to be unkind, but he just looks like he would have very bad breath. Maybe from the B---S---he is postulating.

At 9:45 PM, September 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the young men and their families, the Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann families, this is still about you and your struggles. We haven't forgotten you. My son, a senior, says that you are all on the minds of many Duke students even if they seem to be going about their daily routines. Be strong.

At 4:12 AM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re Cy Gurney's alleged phone call - Perhaps she got word that a survey was being done. Wouldn't that be a kicker if the survey had already been completed before September 11, the day she claims she got the call.

At 8:37 AM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that is certainly worth looking into...seems like timetables in the Nifong household are different than yours and mine!!

PRAY for these LAX families.

At 8:57 AM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

Is anyone going to be able to get to the court hearing today? I would really like to know what happens.

At 9:27 AM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it true that joan foster will be at today's hearing? That is wonderful---we can get the truth of what transpired. The local newspaper reporting is horrible...

At 11:51 AM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The N&O has an early review of today's hearing.

At 12:11 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Duke Street Bank Robbed" read the headline in Section B of The Herald -Sun, today. "Credit union branch within sight of police headquarters" read the second headline. "For some criminals, the presence of police doesn't deter them," Kammie Michael, the police spokesperson, said.

Now, isn't that telling? Don't you think the presence of police would deter most criminals in most places? "According to police,the suspect is described as a black man with a dark complexion who is in his 40's or 50's. He was wearing a yellow T shirt with a white shirt over it and blue jeans. He also had on a camouflage cap with the flaps pulled down."

WEll, they certainly have a good description of him. What are the chances he'll be caught? Why are criminals so brazen in Durham? Are Durham criminals getting more brazen because of this lacrosse hoax? If you were a criminal and you heard about this lacrosse case and you were smart enough to figure it out and realize how inept/foolish/ corrupt the police and DA are, would you not hear opportunity knocking? I feel Durham citizens are going to be vulnerable to a crime wave, and I feel that it is a result largely to the fact that there are a bunch of thugs and fools in charge. Yes, Durham Mommy, I think your fears are valid.-----Duke Mom

At 12:16 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"According to police,the suspect is described as a black man with a dark complexion who is in his 40's or 50's."

Was this a description of Mayor Bell as the city council voted another $80,000 for his private firm?

At 1:48 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am disappointed to read that the judge today did not require the dA to give the defense the specific information about what time and in which bathroom the crimes are alleged to have occurred. That is information the defense clearly needs, and I can't think of a reason the prosecutors shouldn't have it already available. How will more time allow them to figure out which bathroom was used, and what the tine window was??? Maybe they need to find out the details of Collin's alibi before they can nail down the timeframe of the alleged rape?

At 2:04 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Defense team should not reveal CF's alibi until the trial? Nifong can only create his timeline based on the whereabouts of the FAs. At this time he only knows RS's timeline. Once Nifong commits to timeline CF's alibi has the potential to destroy the DA's entire case.

At 2:14 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

I am very disappointed in judge Smith, Nifong should have been held in contempt for now handing over what he has as soon as he gets it.

The defense should not have to jump though legal hoops, to force Nifong to give it up. I really thought this judge was fair I guess I was wrong. Time to write the DOJ again.

At 2:19 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

As quoted in today's Newsobserver: "Nifong said that the State Bureau of Investigation could produce much of the information the attorneys want and that a private lab used in the testing could, too, but that the process could cost the state $4,035."

Nifong didn't seem concerned about the cost when he ordered double testing of the DNA of 46 players.

Can someone please explain how is the defense supposed to put on a defense when they don't know when or where this "crime" occurred?

At 2:52 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Latest in the hearings:

Nifong is now claiming that the rape was only 5-10 minutes, but won't say with any more specificity about what time it occurred.

At 3:23 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

Excellent comment by FODU Spokesperson Jason Trumpbou, in today's H-S.

"Every day some new piece of information comes out that seems to undermine the case," said Jason Trumpbour, a Duke law school graduate who teaches law at the University of Maryland.

Trumpbour also is a spokesman for an organization -- not affiliated with Duke University -- known as "Friends of Duke." The group feels the university has received much unfair publicity, worries about the welfare of the three accused players, and wants the university administration to speak up in support of a fair trial for them.

Trumpbour said he and fellow Friends of Duke believe Nifong is going ahead with the prosecution with little evidence to support the charges, and they favor a special prosecutor to handle the case.

At 3:33 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(09/22/06 - DURHAM) - Three Duke lacrosse players took five to ten minutes to rape and sexually assault a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a team party, and not the 30 minutes she originally described to investigators, a prosecutor said Friday.
"When something happens to you that is really awful, it can seem like it takes place longer than it actually takes," District Attorney Mike Nifong said.

Nifong's comments came as Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III denied a defense request that prosecutors provide a detailed accounting of the alleged assault, including the exact time, place and type of sexual act the accuser said each defendant committed.
Kirk Osborn, who represents Seligmann, said the defense needed the so-called "bill of particulars" because the accuser has told several different versions of the alleged assault, and his client has a right to know which version prosecutors will present at trial. In search and arrest warrants issued early in the investigation, police stated the accuser told investigators she was assaulted for 30 minutes.

Nifong said he is not required to state the exact time of the alleged attack, but offered that authorities believe it took place between 11:30 p.m. on March 13, when the accuser arrived at the party, and 12:55 a.m. on March 14, when police arrived and found no one at the house.
"Out of his client's whole life, we have given him an hour and a half that he has to account for," Nifong said.

The timing is crucial to Osborn, who again pledged Friday to present an alibi defense for Seligmann. He said the then-sophomore made eight calls on his cell phone between 12:05 a.m. and 12:14 a.m., when he called a cab company for a ride. The cab took Seligmann to an ATM, a fast-food restaurant, and finally back to his dorm at 12:46 a.m.
"When is the exact time this occurred, because we have accounted for our time," Osborn

"We're providing in good faith what we can in these circumstances," Nifong said. "Despite the feelings of some people, this is not the only case in Durham."

At 3:44 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These latest links have now been added to our Links page:

DA: Alleged Attack May Have Lasted Minutes September 22, ABC11TV
Defense in Duke lacrosse case complains DA slow to share evidence September 22, AP
Defense: DA Dragging Feet In Duke Lacrosse Case September 22, WRAL


At 3:45 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nifong says they are providing "in good faith what we can" and that "this is not the only case in Durham." This is his excuse for not being able to narrow the timeframe down (from 11:30 to 12:55) and for not being able to tell the defense which bathroom was used? That is information he MUST know by no, unless he plans to make it up later, so it would take a few seconds to pass that information over to the defense. It is unbelievable that the judge allowed this. I would love to hear, from someone who was there, what the judge's exact position on this was.

At 4:50 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Professor Plum said...

Greetings all. Plum here. Back from an engaging and delightful holiday and very much surprised that this travesty in Durham is continuing. I wonder how much this hoax has cost? Not in terms of dollars, but rather in terms of the damage it has cost the integrity of the judicial system in North Carolina.

At 4:52 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i hate to say it but by playing to ct of public opinion defense by showing that av timelien coudln't have been true-- they may have allowed da to change the story- da always has the advantage --they can change the story up to last minute as no civil discovery in criminal case - nfong is a piece of work.

At 4:53 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Welcome back Prof. Plum. It is nice hearing from you again. Did you really think this will go away while you were on vacation? You must be an optimist; I wish some of that optimism would rub on me too.

At 5:01 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it incomprehensible that the DA said the "crime" took place in 5 or 10 minutes. If I wasn't so outraged, I would be laughing. What he accused them of could not be accomplished by three boys in 5 or 10 minutes.

At 5:18 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

I just thought I would tell everyone that I received a phone call from the NC Attorney General's office. We spoke for over an hour about Nifong.

At 5:18 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to the sarcastic prof plum remark -- I agree with posting the before it- a dishonest da will always change the story if defense gives away their story - da in a criminal case always has the advantage - they can keep changing the story cause the only thing that will matter is what av says on the stand IN COURT - i am on the side of the boys and do not think for one minute they did it but do think defense should not have revealed the alibis so soon -if nfong had the av say the 3 minute rape story on stand and then they presneted seligmann photos nfong woudl hae been in hot water at trial - now he can change story THIS IS WHAT DISREPUTABLE PROSECUTORS DO - its sad but noone really knows what goes on in the criminal courts of america and that is why so may many many innocent people are in prison - there is no civil discovery in criminal courts and that gives the da a tremendous advantage no sworn testimony --oh yes she meant 5minutes she was just so truamatized it SEEMED liek 5 minutes yea bull but hey no deposition so no prior inconsistent statment testified to under oath

At 5:24 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now with Nifong's 5 to 10 minute time line statement, he must be drinking the same water as Georgia Goslee and Wendy.

At 5:30 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess Nifong thinks they could assault her in 5 minutes because they are athletes! Maybe it occurred while Reade was on the phone!

I would like to know if the judge ruled unfavorably on the defense motion to require the DA to tell them exactly when and exactly which bathroom--or whether the judge simply hasn't ruled on that motion yet.

At 5:31 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above -- More likely he has been listening to Georgia and Wendy. That's why those two would not keep their mouths shut. They were trying to help Nifong. Well, it seems to me Nifong will need much more help to get out of this hole. Let us see if Georgia and Wendy's advice will be good enough.

At 5:59 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The judge told the defense to refile the motions, so he hasn't out rightly deneined them

At 6:02 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has Niphong said enough - guessing about the amount of time it took to rape her as opposed to her own testimony - to be considered a witness?

I'm so glad I'm no longer a North Carolinian. Your governor should hang his head in shame about the "public opinion" cost that this case is inflicting upon the honor and credibility of the state. Niphong made those harsh, ill-advised, and idiotic statments today because he can.

At 6:26 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every so often, I think to myself, "Okay, NOW it will be over and the young men will be exonerated"....then, Durham "justice" rears its ugly head and the hoax keeps going. I keep feeling as though I'm in a Fellini film, but it isn't. I cannot imagine what the Evanses, Finnertys and Seligmanns are going through, if I, an univolved observer, can feel so discouraged.

However, as Joan has reminded all of us, I'll keep showing up with my clippers and push mower. I'll leave it to FODU, Joan, Liestoppers, K.C., JinC, Johnsville, Gaynor and Cash to analyze the facts, expose the inconsistencies,and counter the lies, because I don't have their intellectual prowess. But I'll keep showing up, if for no other reason than to let the families know that we're ALL here and to let Nifong, et. al know that WE ARE ALL HERE! My little patch of falsehoods will be mowed down, because discouragement only lasts a short time and I'm here for the long haul!
Texas Mom

At 6:26 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beth Karas told Catherine Crier that the judge relaxed the gag order so it now only pertains to attorneys. Good.

At 6:31 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re a couple of the most recent comments -- I too have supported the strategy of calling Nifong as a witness, as he has so interjected himself into these proceedings as to be an appropriate candidate. As for the revelation of Reade's alibi, it was not Kirk Osborn who initially revealed it -- my recollection is that is was one of the attorneys for the unindicted players who released the information. After that, Osborn et al. were forced to defend it publicly vs. having the opportunity to keep it close to the vest like Collin has been able to.

While DAs with integrity will use the revelation of an alibi to test the veracity of the witness, however, in this case Nifong has used Reade's alibi evidence to manufacture a completely new theory that undermines his defense. The part that kills me is that this outrage continues despite being played out on a national stage in what passes for a court of law, and we are powerless to stop it.

At 7:01 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These are not all rich kids. Reade's disclosure of alibib might have been to get Nifong to back off Reade after looking at the evidence. In violation of ethics rules, he refused. Had he done so and believed Reade, then Reade's legal bills would have stopped. By now they are crushing his family. Reade's lawyers could not have forseen the dark heart of the beast.

At 7:01 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have come to believe that many, many people would benefit from a brief history lesson, especially since the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case began almost to the day on the 75th anniversary of another important criminal case, perhaps the most significant in all of American jurisprudence with respect to civil rights and the rights of the accused. I’m referring to the ‘Scottsboro Boys’ Rape Case in Alabama, which began on 25 March 1931. The parallels between the Duke and Scottsboro cases are striking almost to the point of exactness, yet the lessons of so many years ago have seemingly been forgotten — that is, if they had ever been learned at all.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The case begins in an ugly, racially charged brawl on a freight train between a large number of black youths and a smaller number of white men. The white men lost, and were tossed from the train.

DURHAM, 2006: Following a house party, the case begins in an ugly, racially charged argument over money in a residential neighborhood between a large number of white youths and two black women hired to perform as strippers at the party. The black women lost the argument and left the property.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: In the aftermath of the brawl, a dragnet at the local railroad yard results in the detention of a number of people, including many of the black youths from the brawl and two lower class white women.

DURHAM, 2006: In the aftermath of the argument, police take into custody one lower class black woman. She, along with a second lower class black woman, had been among the principals in the earlier argument.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: Facing possible charges, one of the white women claims she had been gang raped by 12 negro youths, some of the youths who had participated in the earlier brawl.

DURHAM, 2006: Facing possible charges, the black woman taken into custody claims she had been gang raped by 3 white youths, some of the youths who had attended the party.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The other white woman changes her initial story. She eventually claims that both she and the original accuser were gang raped.

DURHAM, 2006: The other black woman changes her initial story. She eventually claims that she believes that the accuser was gang raped.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The two white accusers were examined by a doctor, who declared that both women exhibited genital symptoms “consistent” with forcible rape.

DURHAM, 2006: The black accuser was examined by medical personnel. Law enforcement officials afterwards declare that the examination revealed that the woman exhibited genital symptoms consistent with forcible rape.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The two white accusers were allowed to “identify” their attackers exclusively from among the black youths apprehended at the railroad yard.

DURHAM, 2006: The black accuser was allowed to “identify” her attackers exclusively from among photographs of white youths who had attended the party.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: One of the accused youths was charged despite having provably been elsewhere on the train at the time of the alleged rape.

DURHAM, 2006: One of the accused youths was charged despite having been provably elsewhere at the time of the alleged rape.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The accused were charged despite the finding that semen taken from the two accusers was found to be non-motile. This would be consistent with a finding that the semen was deposited long before the alleged rape supposedly occurred. Also, charges were brought despite the fact that the accusers were found to lack evidence of non-genital injuries consistent with their allegations. NO physical evidence therefore existed to substantiate any allegation of rape.

DURHAM, 2006: The accused were charged despite the finding that possible semen and other samples taken from the accuser yielded DNA that differed from that of the accused and from everyone else thought to have possibly attended the party. Also, charges were brought despite the fact that photographic evidence from the night in question demonstrates that various bruises and non-genital injuries sustained by the accuser were evident BEFORE the alleged rape occurred. NO physical evidence therefore existed to substantiate any allegation of rape.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The case was prosecuted in a community where whites held all political power, and where blacks were deeply resented. The prevailing attitude is best summed up in the trial judge’s instruction to the jury: He told jury members they should very strongly presume that "NO white woman would voluntarily consent to sexual relations with a negro."

DURHAM, 2006: The case is being prosecuted in a community where blacks hold the balance of political power, and where whites, especially well-to-do whites, are deeply resented. The prevailing attitude is best summed up in an opinion widely echoed by various observers: It has been opined that since the accused (or their friends) had allegedly asked specifically for BLACK strippers to attend their party, the clear presumption should be that the accused acted with premeditation in planning an eventual rape.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The case was prosecuted by a politically ambitious District Attorney who shamelessly played to racial prejudices prevalent in his community.

DURHAM, 2006: The case is being prosecuted by a politically ambitious District Attorney who shamelessly plays to racial and social prejudices prevalent in his community.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The NAACP, the supposed premier advocacy group for the black community in the U.S., initially declined to grant legal or financial assistance to the accused, or to lobby on their behalf, or on behalf of fair trial procedures in their case. The organization feared a possible public relations backlash in the event the accused were convicted or proven guilty of the crime.

DURHAM, 2006: Both Duke University, where the accused attended school, and the mainstream media were apparently quick to accept the accuser’s story, and to vilify the accused. For its part, the University precipitously fired the lacrosse coach, cancelled the entire season, suspended a number of white team members from school, and took other prejudicial actions injurious to the accused and their team mates. The American Civil Liberties Union, the supposed premier civil rights advocacy group in the U.S., has so far remained silent on the case.


SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The two accusers were eventually found to be common prostitutes and women of generally low morals.

DURHAM, 2006: Both the accuser and the other woman, by virtue of their employment as personal "escorts," would appear to be common prostitutes, and are women of generally low morals, having each been convicted of serious crimes. Moreover, the accuser had made an apparently false accusation of gang rape against THREE males 10 years earlier.


The Scottsboro defendants were all quickly convicted and sentenced to death. This happened more than once, in fact, since their convictions were three times overturned on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court. Though none was ever executed, the last defendant wasn’t released from prison until 1950. The case was recognized as a watershed event even at the time, so I’m positively amazed that it has been forgotten in our OWN time, when we so casually pride ourselves on how far we’ve come as a society in upholding justice, civil rights, and the rule of law. The last of the Scottsboro defendants, Clarence Norris, died in 1989 at age 76.

The Scottsboro Case wasn’t a cause celebre because the defendants were such fine, upstanding citizens — they were far from it. It was a cause celebre because judicial practices as applied in their case were patently UNFAIR, and offered them no legitimate opportunity for a legal defense. This is exactly what we see today in the Duke Rape Case. In fact, the cases so closely, so exactly touch upon the same issues that anyone who can appreciate the injustice of the one, MUST acknowledge the injustice of the other. If the Scottsboro Case was a travesty of justice, then the Duke case is a travesty of justice. I’ll go further: If the Duke case embodies a legitimate application of due process, then the Scottsboro Case did equally so, the defendants were justly convicted, and by right should have been put to death. Now I ask, who DARES to argue this last point? Any prosecutor who is unaware of Scottsboro or who cannot see the parallels to the current day, does not deserve to try a case anywhere in the United States of America.

-- SteveDinMD

At 7:14 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous WJD said...

Maybe not, I am going to file a complaint with the NC Attorney General's office about the e-mail I sent to Nifong and the response. Apparently he did a back round check on me in order to find out who I was and where I lived. All that at taxpayers expense, what a job. That's why he is dragging his feet, he is too busy checking out e-mailers, he keeps saying that the Duke case is not the only case in Durham, but checking out everyone who e-mails him should not be one of his jobs.

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

Has the date for 60 minutes been moved back a week? Catherine Crier thinks it is pushed back to October. Beth Karas told her she had not heard that. Anyone know?

At 9:18 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have come to believe that many, many people would benefit from a brief history lesso

Excellent summary! I would hope that you might submit this somewhere so that it might also find a place in some of the print media.

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

"Out of his client's whole life, we have given him an hour and a half that he has to account for," Nifong said.

Nifong is trying to shift the burden of proof to the defense. I sure hope one of those defense attorneys raised a legal objection to this comment today. The client does not have to account for anything and for Nifong to imply they do, verbally, before a judge, in an open courtroom hearing just shows what an idiot of an attorney he is and how little respect he has for actual justice. Makes me sick!!

At 9:29 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:01pm SteveDinMD:

I agree with the earlier commentator. Your contribution is very good. It needs to be more widely disseminated. Thanks for the analysis and the history lesson.

At 9:32 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

I spoke to the A.G. for North Carolina today and someone from Durham N.C. will have to file a complaint they will not listen to an out of towner.

He said no one has come forward with one. I spoke to him for over an hour I had a lot to tell him about Nifong and his mouth.

At 9:51 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the attorney general from North Carolina said that, he is not telling the truth.

At 9:53 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above - We need one brave soul in Durham N.C. to send a complaint letter to A.G. Roy Cooper's office. Let us give them a test and see when the complaint is submitted by a Durham N.C. resident what they will do. Let us give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they will act. Please one brave person, come forward and file a complaint.

There are sample letters everywhere on this site. Just pick one up and modify it. If you need help to prepare a letter, start a new topic in the Open Board, and ask for assistance. You will get a letter together in no time. Thanks for your brave action, in advance.

At 10:04 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:01 poster. Your analysis was superb. Please send it to other blogs who support the lax players. It needs to get out there. Try johnincarolina, and

Also how about sending it to the Attorney General in NC and Elizabeth Dole.

At 10:07 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KP, I was told by sources I trust who reside in NC, that they filed an ethics violation on Nifong. Does that go to the Bar Association rather than the AG?

At 10:10 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

10:07 post I would send it to both and then I would sit down and write to the DOJ the letter I did is not enough.

At 10:44 PM, September 22, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

Calling all brave souls

Our friends at Liestoppers have simplified things. A printable NC State Bar Grievance
Complaint form is available on their website. It's way at the bottom on the right side under the section called Legal Ethics Research.

For serious cases, the entire grievance committee meets quarterly. The next meeting is Oct.

Also aren't attorneys who are aware of these violations required to report under Rule 8.3??

At 1:50 AM, September 23, 2006, Blogger NDLax84 said...

Re: 6:31:

however, in this case Nifong has used Reade's alibi evidence to manufacture a completely new theory that undermines his defense.

Not at all. Not in the least.

At 8:56 AM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re ND's last comment: Not sure if you're serious or kidding. My point was that since the half hour timeline was too problematic for Nifong, he's now changed it -- and the FA's story in the process -- to try to compact it down to a shorter time frame consistent with Reade's more abbreviated presence in the house. IOW, the entire thing happened between 11:30 and 12:05 (which, based on the neighbor's statements about seeing the woman arrive late, around 11:50, after the series of phone calls back and forth about her whereabouts, after which the two women talked outside for a couple of minutes before entering the house, and the photos of the 2 women dancing between 12:00 and 12:04, seems less likely his target time --although he may arrest the neighbor next to co-opt him!) Alternatively, he's going to posit that Reade managed to participate in this so-called event while he was talking on his cell phone for 9 minutes, from 12:05 to 12:14, before he left the house. A bit Clintonesque in its imagery, but in the world of Nifong, anything's possible, including this event taking place in a tiny bathroom with that many people in it -- sounds more like Twister to me. Almost forgot -- Reade could still have been participating in this so-called rape while he was walking down the block to meet the cab bewtween 12:14 and 12:19, thus defying the space-time continuum once again.

Despite his typically sarcastic and unprofessional remark that Reade only had to account for an hour and a half out of his entire life -- as if the law required him to do so! -- Nifong can no longer rely on excluding the cab driver as an alibi witness, since his attempt to railroad that poor guy failed and he was acquitted.

Therefore, the window for this to have happened, despite Nifong's statements to the contrary, cannot extend to 12:55 am, because Reade can prove he was not physically at the house after 12:19.

Am I missing something here -- if Nifong wants to go with this latest asinine theory that he's got the right three guys, that Reade is one of them, and that "it all happened so fast," this seems to be the only construct he has to work with.

At 8:58 AM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The police have already destroyed evidence in this case :

"...the "highlight" of the Duke Hoax hearing came with the announcement by the prosecution that the recordings of all Durham Police Department radio calls for March 13th and 14th had been destroyed.

It seems Durham Police Department tape use policy calls for tapes to be reused after 60 days. So, even though tapes were requested in April 28th motion by the defense,
and ordered by Judge Stephens on May18th, the prosecution now maintains that the tapes were destroyed on or after May 13th, just five days or less before Judge Stephens’ order. Yep, we believe that!

The defense indicated that they could call all the officers to testify as to their recollection of those radio calls. This was met with the assertion that the police could not be expected to recall their radio communication with accuracy at such a late date. LieStoppers can only wish that all police officers had the same “amazing” memory and recall powers as Sergeant Gottlieb does!"

At 9:31 AM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Postponing comment for now on the breathtaking revelations in the previous post -- wow! we would, of course, have gotten all of this at once instead of in bits and pieces if the judge had permitted these proceedings to be televised -- I just read William Anderson's latest post at KC Johnson's blog this morning:

"Another Nifong statement that was in the Herald-Sun absolutely floors me:

"If he [Seligmann] can't provide for every minute in his alibi, it means the alibi is not airtight," Nifong said. "But if I had to speculate, I would say this whole event probably took about five minutes, 10 minutes at the outside. If [Seligmann] wasn't there, he doesn't have to worry about it."

"Doesn't have to worry about it." Nifong is making a statement that there are no wrongful convictions in North Carolina. The Discovery Law came about precisely because of a wrongful conviction and prosecutorial misconduct.

As far as I am concerned, the "justice" (sic) system in North Carolina exists to cover the behinds of state prosecutors, judges, and the police.

William L. Anderson"

"If [Seligmann] wasn't there, he doesn't have to worry about it." HE DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT????!!!!

This offhand remark is almost verbatim what Kim Roberts said about these kids at the outset.

What an absolutely stunning statement, coming from the very prosecutor who indicted him in the first place. The arrogance and inflated sense of superiority and self-importance of this flaming nut is staggering.

I'd love to see the H-S URL for this.

At 10:04 AM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

This is what I told the A.G yesterday that Nifong's senes have taken a leave. There is no way on earth this all went down in 5 to 10 minutes I know this from experience.

Judge Smith is in Nifong's pocket, I could have told the defense that Nifong was going to pull something like this.

If I knew how to reach the defense lawyers I would help them out as to what I have been through.


<< Home