Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 19 - Full

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

136 Comments:

At 10:14 AM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A couple of observations that come from a reading of the latest N&O article dated 9/23:

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/489883.html

DA gets to wait on his theory

"In addition to a new stack of written evidence, Nifong gave the lawyers some new details about the case. He said in court that the woman says she was assaulted vaginally and orally and that someone assaulted her rectum with either objects or body parts."

Now we're going in the direction of objects, since we have no DNA to prove anal penetration by way of body parts. Just keep making it up as you go along, Mike.

"I would ask the court to take judicial notice that when something happens to you that is really awful, it seems to take longer than it actually takes."

For the non-lawyers reading this, taking judicial notice of something means that the court permits certain material to be taken as incontrovertible evidence, i.e., uncontestable fact. While this typically happens with something indisputable, such as the fact that on a given day sunrise was recorded in the Almanac at x time, it hardly refers to something as disputed as a witness's recollection of the timeline in a case. This is just another attempt by Nifong to bypass the rule of law by manipulating the system to accomplish indirectly what he can't accomplish directly. Either that or he's just an idiot misusing legal terminology.

"When defense lawyers spoke, Nifong occasionally sighed, rolled his eyes, laughed quietly or rubbed his temples."

This is why we need TV in that courtroom. This disgusting display of sarcasm, unprofessionalism and schoolyard bully tactics may be overlooked by the judge, but voters need to see this jackass for the immature and unprofessional lout he really is. Rule number one in Trial Advocacy class is to show respect for the court and the proceedings or face possible comtempt of court charges. This type of conduct wouldn't pass muster in a grade school class in front of a teacher, so why is it acceptable in a court of law conducting a serious proceeding where 3 lives are on the line?

"The judge also ordered the lawyers to abide by the rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers in North Carolina. The order replaces one issued by a previous judge that applied the rules -- and specifically the ones regarding statements to the news media -- to witnesses in the case. Judge Smith said he would make no judgments on the previous statements by lawyers in the case, but now that he was assigned, the lawyers should remember that cases are tried in court."

This paragraph leads me to believe that the ridiculously overbroad and unconstitutional gag order originally set in this case by Judge Titus has quietly been laid to rest. Witnesses are free to speak once more, and if he wants the "lawyers to abide by the rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers in North Carolina," then that means they are back to their responsibilities set forth at the outset of this case, which means that they are free to respond to any garbage spewed by Nifong that may prejudice their clients. If I'm correct, that's a step in the right direction.

Finally, in a column to the right of the article, there is a piece entitled How Many? It discusses the question of how many interviews Nifong allegedly granted in the early days of this farce. It says:

"When one of the defense lawyers said that Nifong gave 50 to 70 interviews about the case, Nifong said he wanted to set the record straight. He checked his schedule and it showed that he actually gave more like 15 to 20 interviews. He said he had many conversations with reporters, some just to say that he would not comment on the case.

But the number 50 came from Nifong himself.

In a March 31 interview with a News & Observer reporter, Nifong was asked "How many interviews do you think you've given?"

"In excess of 50," Nifong said."

Maybe he'll next ask the judge to take judicial notice of the fact that "when something happens to you that is really [the most incredible political opportunity in the world falling right into your lap], it seems to [consist of more interviews] than it actually [does]."

I can only hope that my belief that Nifong is in way over his head and is way out of his league is ultimately borne out in subsequent, more substantive, court proceedings that can now take place because the trial judge has been assigned to hear the case and can hear and decide pre-trial motions. He should be able to grant a motion to exclude the photo IDs, for starters, and gradually reduce this case to zero, since that's how much evidence there is -- zero.

 
At 11:31 AM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Lucky "D" said...

Greetings. Does anyone know if Judge Smith has other cases on his docket at this time and has he set another date for the next round of motions?

 
At 11:54 AM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the next hearing is Oct. 27

 
At 12:35 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/09/duke-hoax-hearing.html



From a LieStoppers' perspective, 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.

 
At 12:51 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading about the hearing yesterday I am stumped by the judge's refusal to grant BOP (Bill of Particulars) to the accused. Some have commented that he is not denying them this information but rather delaying it to a future hearing. Regardless, I don't understand how 3 innocent young men can face the fight of their lives without knowing just what it is they are accused of and where (which bathroom). It boggles the mind! Do any of you have more specific knowledge of this ruling?

 
At 1:16 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the previous post -- could someone who attended the hearing let us know what the judge said specifically on this point? Did he give a reason for denying the motion? Did he postpone consideration of it until another date? It would seem that while the defense is most certainly allowed to cross-examine the FA in this case, they are also entitled to more than a floating, indefinite and ever-changing and evolving account of what happened, where it happened, and when it happened.

In addition, I remember that back in May, Kirk Osborn was successful in getting Judge Stephens to agree to have all proceedings in this case recorded stenographically -- good call. Are those transcripts available anywhere so we can find out for ourselves (our right as members of a free society concerning a public hearing) exactly what was said in its entirety at the hearing?

 
At 1:46 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A friend of mine who is in law school said at least they can refile it (BOP). The person did not attend the hearing.

 
At 2:12 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from the Links page
--------------------------

In the 9/23 H-S there is a letter to the editor entitled "Questions for Brodhead"

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/index.html#772133

I read all the way to the end of the piece, ostensibly a letter to Brodhead, which strongly criticizes him for reinstating the team and the players themselves for bad behavior, only to find at the end that it was written by none other than Kim Brummell, the self-proclaimed "co-founder and treasurer of the Citizens for Mike Nifong Committee."

Here it is, complete with an incomprehensible attempt to insert a modifying phrase in one paragraph. Kim not only needs a new candidate -- she desperately needs an editor.

"I have several questions about Duke University President Ricahr [sic] Brodhead's recent role in Duke athletics. Why did Brodhead reinstate the Duke Lacrosse team? These young men are possible witnesses to a rape, sodomy and kidnapping.

There are even reports that these men used racial slurs during this tirade.

Playing any sport is a privilege. What have these players done since March 14 to earn that privilege? Brodhead allowed lacrosse player Ryan McFadyen to return to Duke and the team. McFadyen sent an e-mail about killing strippers.

The words he used in midst [sic] of sexual assault allegations are not to be taken lightly at all, nevertheless cute. [? -- calling all editors!] It was way too soon to reinstate a team with a history of behavior problems. The Duke lacrosse case is still pending trial [sic] and these guys are out trying to play games. Some lacrosse supporters have the nerve to say that DA Mike Nifong is dividing the community. These players' racial taunting, abuse of alcohol and disrespectful behavior speaks for much divide [sic]itself.

The writer is co-founder and treasurer of the Citizens for Mike Nifong Committee.

KIM BRUMMELL
Durham
September 23, 2006

 
At 2:14 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from the Links page
---------------------------

In today's H-S -- several good letters from Durham residents complaining about the issue of low bail for dangerous felons and the city's lack of response to them:

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/index.html#772133

"Courts should set high bonds for all felons" and "Residents want changes in the judicial system". Makes you feel even better that Nifong is personally handling all aspects of the Duke case, including discovery, as of now. As he says, "This isn't the only case in Durham." So why are he and his cohorts ignoring these other serious matters being raised by their own citizens? It certainly isn't because he's racing to conduct the Duke case in a speedy, timely manner. So what's the explanation?

 
At 2:27 PM, September 23, 2006, Blogger James said...

The reason he denied the motion is because the prosecution doesn't have to lay out its 'strategy'. Note, I do not ascribe to that view. Basically the judge said that they would learn the timeline when Nifong presented it. The problem is that if Nifong doesn't include a timeline in his opening statements and/or puts the AV later on in the witnesses then he can get the defence to cross-examine them and then nifong can pull out his timeline (whatever that is). That is, Nifong could put on the AV last and make the defence case look weaker because they cross-examined witnesses in a way that was focused more on some other timeline, etc. Then Nifong can pick one of his many timelines.

Remember Nifong is now a psychologist. He's saying that the AV probably remembers it as being long and so 5-10 minutes is his guess. Yah.

Nifong lied to the court again. He 'checked his schedule' and said he only gave TWENTY INTERVIEWS. By his own admission to the N&O on a prior date, however, he gave FIFTY. (at least he's still not there yet)

So he affirms again that he is a liar.

The police tapes were written over despite a pending motion to produce them. Yes, Nifong made no effort to preserve them while the matter was pending (not reported by N&O).

Gag order was modified so now we can listen to the players on 60 minutes (hopefully).

Nifong was informed of this survey in August - Ms Blythe continues to ignore that in her reporting.

Oh Nifong being a jerk again: Defence "we would never knowing call [nifong's wife who uses another name]' Nifong: "She'd like to be a part of any future survey".

 
At 2:28 PM, September 23, 2006, Blogger James said...

I hate to say it but H-S is heavily biased against the defendents. Specifically the editor. At least their circulation has been falling since the editor was installed a few years back...perhaps they will drift into obscurity.

 
At 3:10 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A lawyer said to me that the judge should, at the very least, impose sanctions on Nifong for not preserving the Durham PD tapes, since there was a motion pending requesting them. Question from me- isn't this destruction of evidence?
Texas Mom

 
At 3:18 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Lucky "D" said...

Re: Texas Mom above.

Yes, I would believe that would be destruction of evidence and "obstruction of justice" But, we know King Nyfong is above the law and probably has no clue how to spell obscure words (at least to him) like, honor, integrity, honesty and decency.

 
At 3:29 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

This Kim Brummell person is a joke:

"There are even reports that these men used racial slurs during this tirade."

"racial taunting, abuse of alcohol and disrespectful behavior speaks for much divide [sic]itself".

Sounds like she's talking about Gottlieb and the cops at Blinco's the night the cook was assaulted.

 
At 3:40 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kim Brummel is running the "People for Nifong" organization. That pretty much tells us who he is.

 
At 6:07 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new timeline, the way I see it, is better to defend.

We can assume for instance that a 'rapee' is not going to hang around after being raped, so naturally, the rape occurred last thing before the dancers left. We also know it had to happen BEFORE the first 911 call about the racial slurs at 12:53 am (why Nifong chose to end the timeline when the cops arrived makes no sense given we know the time of the 911 call and both sides have stipulated the call occurred after the dancers left. So that pinpoints the alleged rape at exactly around 12:35-12:45 am followed by about a five minute effort of helping CGM to the car and three minutes to drive away and dial 911.

That is much more easy to defend than 12:05 to 12:35 am. For sure, that rules out Reade. If Collin's alibi is airtight, it should rule him out too. And their alibis will discredit CGM so that the accusation against Dave need not even be defended.

Val

 
At 6:29 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from above (after editing the link)

Article in Duke Chronicle

 
At 6:32 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:07 I hope you are right. This assumes a Durham jury will actually pay attention to what the alibis will say. What if they ignore it all?

 
At 7:06 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can someone please send a letter to the editor of the H-S in response to Brummell's most recent letter? Please question whether she's really a Durham citizen. At last check she wasn't registered to vote in Durham but was registed in Oxford (where her previous letters are penned from). She only began penning letters as a Durham citizen after filing w/ Victoria Peterson to campaign on behalf of Nifong. Letters to the editor can be submitted here: http://www.heraldsun.com/tools/letterstoed/letterform.cfm?sendLetter=letters

or emailed letters@heraldsun.com

you must include your name, address, phone, & email address and the limit is 250 words (or the H-S will edit your letter before publishing).

 
At 9:24 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those interested in finding out more about Kim Brummell, her web site is as follows:

http://www.realityhasspoken.com

She apparently is a "poet, author and inspiring screenwriter working towards a degree in Criminal Justice."

An example of a Kim Brummell poem is found at

http://www.asininepoetry.com/hack/141

 
At 9:50 PM, September 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kimberly Guilfoyle reported on the last court conference. Nothing about the lifting of the gag order. Concern that the defense is unethical. Kimberly said the prosecution is "digging in."

Why does she still have a tv show? She's no longer the First Lady of San Francisco.

And how would even a "push poll" of 300 taint the jury pool?

Of course, keeping the survey script secret plays into the hands of the diehard Nifongistas.

 
At 1:06 AM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the post about Kim Brummell's poetry stylings:

Judge for yourself whether she is in the same league with Joan Foster:

http://www.asininepoetry.com/hopin/671

"CLOCK STEADY TICKING

by Kim Brummell

THE clock is steady ticking,
tick, tick, tick.
Two boxers throwing heavy punches,
like a heavy brick, brick, brick.

The clock is steady ticking,
tick, tick, tick.
A baby is about to be born,
real quick, quick, quick.

The clock is steady ticking,
tick, tick, tick.
The lottery ball is rolling,
take a quick pick, pick, pick.

The clock is steady ticking,
tick, tick, tick.
The ice cream cone is melting,
take a lick, lick, lick.

The clock is steady ticking,
tick, tick, tick.
Only twenty-four hours in a day,
time waits for no one, so you better not delay!"

 
At 7:35 AM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above-My 7 year old could have written better than that. Does she publish in the kid poet's section pretending to be 12? Or, does she write with the grown ups?

 
At 8:01 AM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Professor Plum said...

I generally don't criticize poetry since it is an expression from a person's heart. But, Ms. Brummell ought to take ENG-101 over again and learn how to write meteristically accurate poetry that makes sense. Poetry written for the mere hope that some of the words rhyme is like attempting a goal after the game is already over.

Sorry.

 
At 9:08 AM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

Re Ms. Brummell: "poet, author and inspiring screenwriter working towards a degree in Criminal Justice."

The accuser was supposed to be working towards her degree in criminal justice too.

 
At 9:53 AM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Ms Brummel is "aspiring" to be and "inspiring" screenwriter....

 
At 12:09 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding Nifong's claim of 15 media interviews vs the "50-70" publicly claimed prior, it is meaningful insight into his tactis of duplicity;

"have approximately 15 interviews noted on my calendar "

When this statement is brought up at Nifong's disbarrment hearing, he will have a bulletproof defense - that, physically he probably had only 15 media interviews written on his calendar - though it is no reflection of the barrage of interviews he actually gave.

Its lawyer speak of the most cynical form - and I do not know how the Durham community could trust this poor excuse for a man any longer.

TW

 
At 12:23 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is going on in Durham in the way of campaigning for the DA's office? Are there any ad campaigns for the ABN/Cheeks candidate? Given the evidence we read here that Nifong is close to the edge sanity-wise, I would question whether he could maintain his composure if he faced much campaign publicity....

 
At 12:29 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It appears Ms. Brummell had to pay to have her book published and even then doesn't hold all rights to it.

:O

 
At 12:34 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Out Joe said...

When a man loses any sense of integrity and ethics in his occupation, he has been in that occupation too long to know it. So it is with Nifong!

 
At 2:41 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:23 pm -- I heard an active campaign will be launched by the "Recall Nifong" group soon. This will involve putting up signs and taking ads in the local newspapers, etc.

Those Durham residents who did not contribute to the "Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek" so far, please do it. Go to their website, and you will see the links and information on the donations. That group will need all the support that can get. Please donate financially, but also volunteer to help out with all sorts of activities that they must be planning to carry out in these coming weeks.

 
At 3:09 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW Nifong and Ashley are reported to have become close friends over the months that they have coengineered this hoax

-----------------------
A miniaturist fillets John Stevenson and the Herald-Sun (The onging sulfurous sewage problem at Pravda)
-----------------------
In today's editorial note, I recommend a must read for
those of you of staff interested in careful media analysis:

Herald-Sun: We Conceal, You Decide

KC Johnson, whom I have never met, starts from an independent yet nearly identical impression of yesterday's H-S propaganda and spins out in nuch
finer detail just _why_ Stevenson is a corrupt and deceitful writer.

An analysis that demonstrates the cost to Ashley and his crew of becoming the official house organ of the corrupt Durham establishment.

I will now dolly back to the fetid, big picture at your newspaper & point out that while Ashley was distracting his readers with knee-deep coverage of
rubber duckies...

NandO's Biesecker revealed a fascinating story of corruption (and possible criminal behavior) in Durham's water department.

http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/489783.html

A story that _actually_ impacts the quality of life of Durham citizens deeply (as well as costing them 10's of thousands of tax dollars).

Bob Ashley's program of concealment and complicity in civic corruption (from Bell to Baker to Nifong) is the very image of bad journalism.

One doesn't need to be Hugo Chavez to sense the devil in your midst.

Root him out.

 
At 4:00 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW Nifong and Ashley are reported to have become close friends over the months that they have coengineered this hoax

"That day Herod and Pilate became friends--before this they had been enemies."
(Luke 23.12)

 
At 4:06 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a hard time believing that everyone involved in this is evil. I think Nifong wanted to believe that the rape occurred because it was going to help him politically (or maybe he thought if he didn't believe it, and act on it, it would hurt him politically.) Then he took some a public stand and couldn't back down. Maybe that is evil, given his resposibility to work for justice.....But why would the editors and the journalists at the H-S be part of a plot? Is it because they are friends of Nifong, or because they are biased against Duke students? Part of me wants to believe that it can't be pure evilness--that there must be some way to encourage them to provide coverage that is more even-handed...

 
At 4:41 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then he took some a public stand and couldn't back down. Maybe that is evil, given his resposibility to work for justice.

Trying to deliberately convict someone you know to be innocent, rates pretty high on the evilness meter.

Trying to convict someone you know to be innocent, in order to please the crowd, rates pretty high on that meter, too.

Going along with that effort, in order to gain some sort of political favor or support from someone else, or popularity with the crowd, also rates near the top of the scale.

 
At 4:45 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What he is putting these boys and their families through ranks pretty high on the evil-meter in my opinion. All to the glory of Nifong....

 
At 5:11 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To gc at 9:08am, yes, the accuser was reported to be a criminal justice student at NCCU. Perhaps during the period March l3-14, she was doing her "lab work".

 
At 5:47 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Info on RN-VC:

http://recallnifong.blogspot.com/

Donate by mail or fax

Donate by credit card here

 
At 6:44 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a bit off topic but were Richard Brodhead and George W. Bush classmates at both Andover and Yale for the same time period?

 
At 6:53 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the Group of 88 Hypocrites writes in the Washington Post. Regardless of your feeling on the first issue, remember what these families have been through and his willing involvement...no advancement..of their emotional torture.


The Beam in Your Own Eye?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...=emailarticlepg


"Can't the United States see that when we allow someone to be tortured by our agents, it is not only the victim and the perpetrator who are corrupted, not only the "intelligence" that is contaminated, but also everyone who looked away and said they did not know, everyone who consented tacitly to that outrage so they could sleep a little safer at night, all the citizens who did not march in the streets by the millions to demand the resignation of whoever suggested, even whispered, that torture is inevitable in our day and age, that we must embrace its darkness?

Are we so morally sick, so deaf and dumb and blind, that we do not understand this? Are we so fearful, so in love with our own security and steeped in our own pain, that we are really willing to let people be tortured in the name of America? Have we so lost our bearings that we do not realize that each of us could be that hapless Argentine who sat under the Santiago sun, so possessed by the evil done to him that he could not stop shivering?"
Ariel Dorfman
adorfman@duke.edu

Dear Professor Dorfman,
Can't you and the rest of the Gang of 88 see that when we allow innocent people to be railroaded by a DA, it is not only the accused and accuser who are corrupted, not only true rape victims who are contaminated, but also everyone who looked away and said they did not know, everyone who consented tacitly to that outrage so they could sleep a little smugger at night, all the citizens who did not march in the streets by the millions and demand the resignation of whoever suggested, even whispered that indictment before investigation, assumption of guilt over innocence is acceptable in our day and age, that we must embrace it's darkness.

Are we so morally sick, so deaf and dumb and blind, that we do not understand this? Are we so fearful, so in love with our own agendas, that we are willing to let Collin, Reade and Dave and their families be mentally tortured in the name of our personal agendas? Have we so lost our bearings that we do not realize that each of us could be one of those hapless young men persecuted by a ruthless, reckless DA, with the sanction of 88 "intellectuals," innocent young men so possessed by the evil done to them...that they could not stop shivering?
A. N. Onymous.

 
At 6:55 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a bit off topic but were Richard Brodhead and George W. Bush classmates at both Andover and Yale for the same time period?

No, they graduated about twenty years apart (Bush '41, Brodhead '64).

 
At 6:57 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My bad. George W. Bush did go to school with Brodhead :

http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=15802

(from 2001)

The president graduated in the same class as Yale College Dean Richard Brodhead. With both showing a penchant for Sterling Memorial Library, and its comfortable couches, Bush said he and Brodhead had a mutual understanding.

"Dick wouldn't read aloud, and I wouldn't snore," Bush joked.

 
At 6:59 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Phillips_Academy_in_Andover

Andover Class of 1963:

* Richard H. Brodhead -- President, Duke University
* George W. Bush -- President of the United States

 
At 7:02 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent opening to send an email request to the White House--Bush ought to be both aware, and concerend.

 
At 7:29 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush will not get involved with this mess. If democrats are making fools of themselves why would he (or any other Republican) jump in to save them? IMO, the current situation works fine for Bush and I do not expect him to do anything about it (nor, any of his friends).

 
At 11:15 PM, September 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree completely regarding Republicans becoming involved in this case. North Carolina is a one party state and has been for decades. That is the reason that it's all about the Democrats. There are no Republican to speak of in Durham County and only a few more in NC. Both Dole and Burr are probably working toward changing that, but they can't tell Democratic Gov. Easley or the Democratic state DA how to behave. Much as you Yankee Democrats might wish, you can't blame Republicans when North Carolinians vote knee-jerk for Democrats like Niphong, Easley, etc.

 
At 7:42 AM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Latest from William Anderson:

Nifonging the Standards of Justice, Part II

 
At 8:41 AM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just read Bill Anderson's latest article noted above. A must read.

 
At 9:26 AM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judge Smith is making all the wrong calls.

 
At 9:30 AM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

William Anderson's article is
THE BEST I have seen written on the subject.

Thinking back, I seem to recall that one of the attorneys possibly Eskrand?? (not Chesire, Smith or Cotter), may have mentioned something about Seligmann's alibi and that he wasn't there. The arrested player's attorney was furious that any remark was made. Although it was nice for us to know of Reade's alibi, it probably would have been better if no one including Nifong know of it. I hope it doesn't harm him.

 
At 9:34 AM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

Who could have imagined we would be seeing a 'kangaroo court' in our lifetime?

 
At 11:02 AM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It says all we need to know about the North Carolina justice system, that we have to keep hoping this case has finally found an honest judge. . .

 
At 11:42 AM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was wise for the world to know Seligmann's alibi; otherwise, this sham would have been believed by most everyone who only heard the accusations and Nyfong's gleeful speculations. Seeing the taxi driver, the ATM receipt, the list of cell phone calls showed the world the exculpatory evidence, which Nyfong refused to see. I am sure the defense lawyers felt and reasonably assumed that the DA would dismiss the case once confronted with Reade's alibi. What they didn't count on was that this awful man knew all along the boys were innocent and didn't care. It is a joke to him. He almost single-handedly created the case. No one, who is an honest broker, would have believed the psychotic rantings and ravings of a felonious dissembler and experienced prostitute, with no evidence to back up the claims, over young,academically gifted students at Duke University who have clean records ( yes, clean records despite a beer underage. C'mon.). Only an evil man who himself is vindictive and lawless would have pushed this case forward. Cronyism is rampant in that department of justice. The police are in cahoots. To me, Nyfong et al are terrorists. They have used their positions to wield power against their enemies. It is Reign of Terror.

And yes, this is political! Nyfong wanted to win the primary which would guarantee his election in the fall. I know many of you think that voting for Cheek is the answer. I say Cheek is too weak -willed, when he says he won't serve if elected. What sort of cop-out is that? I feel that the student body should be urged to vote for the Republican, Monks. Even if Duke's student body is composed of diehard liberal Democrats, they need to wake up and smell the coffee and see that Nyfong the Democrat is going to throw Duke kids to the wolves just for his own gain. They may want to vote for a Republican this time! And who in his right mind would want this silly Governor to appoint a mess like Nyfong again. Where has Easely been during all of this? Silent. No, a vote for Cheek is useless.

 
At 11:52 AM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

Re: 11:42 poster. I agree with you that it is good that the world saw Reade's alibi (esp. the ATM photo) to expose the sham. It certainly made me believe even more so that the search for truth and pursuit of justice was critical. But I don't know if it helps him from a legal standpoint while Nifong is trying to figure out what timeline works for this case.

I think RN-VC has a better chance of winning than Monks. More people signed Cheeks petition than voted for Nifong. A vote for RNVC is a vote against Nifong.

 
At 12:06 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monks is not on the ballot.
He is a write-in candidate, and a republican. Frankly, I think he is a spoiler, and nothing else.

 
At 12:15 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Seligman alibi exposed early, it was a huge success in 'court of public opinion' - it was instrumental in indicating his innocense and the deceit of Nifong.

Whether it will be to his advantage in 'court trial' remains to be seen - but on balance I expect the early exposure will serve his benefit in the end - IMO

 
At 12:37 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There has been much debate on this site about the wisdom of exposing the alibis. It seems the right course was followed--exposing one but not both. Exposing Reade's has definitely helped in the court of public opinion--most of the country has not followed the case closely enough to understand the rest of the problems, but having an alibi is an easy thing for all to understand. However, keeping Collin's alibi secret prevents Nifong from working around it (clearly the reason he will not give timeline.)So I hope those who would criticize Collin's defense strategy will think hard.

As far as the election, one thing is for sure--if the anti-Nifong vote is split between Monk and Cheeks, Nifong will win. The earlier poster should not worry about Cheek's qualifications since he won't be serving. But it is virtually impossible for a write-in candidate (Monk) to win an election. Durham voters need to follow the direction urged by the RN-VC campaign.

 
At 12:47 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, by his own admission, Mr. Monks had some other obligation during the week he should have been collecting signatures to get on the ballot.
As a result, Mr. Monks did not get on the ballot. If Mr. Monks was serious about running, he should have been more serious about collecting signatures and getting on the ballot. He didn’t-he shouldn’t blame others for his own failure. And now he wants to run as a write-in candidate. Asking a predominantly democratic county to vote for a write-in republican candidate who just recently moved to Durham is a bit much, in my view.
I don’t think it’s going to happen. And splitting the votes between Cheek and Monks only allows Nifong to win. I would stick with RN-VC.

 
At 1:25 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't own this blog, but may I make a few suggestions.

#1 IGNORE. Certain people like attention whether it's negative or positive.

#2 Careful when you don't post as anonymous. Certain people like to refer to you in their articles, simply because you may disagree with them on a small point. (It has happened to me.)

#3 Don't sweat the small stuff. In a case this complex, we can not agree 100% on everything. Let's together focus on the BIG PICTURE. It's the best thing we can do to help Collin, Dave and Reade.

Thank you.

 
At 1:28 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

12:37 poster I agree with you, Collin's lawyers should stay quiet, this makes it extremely harder on Nifong. His lawyers are doing the right thing, wait until trial and hit him "Nifong" with it and watch Nifong really make an even larger fool of himself.

 
At 1:32 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my opinion, the only way to kick Nifong out of DA's office is to vote RECALL NIFONG - VOTE CHEEK.

 
At 1:35 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

above well said. Now that we know Reade'a alibi, lets just wait to hear Collin's. His lawyer's are doing the right thing by not talking.

Wait until the trial and let the lawyers hit "Nifong" with Collin's, I also think it was smart for all of us to hear about Reade's alibi. I hope this nightmare is over for soon for David, Collin and Reade.

 
At 4:10 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from the Links section
--------------------------------
Three letters to the editor in the 9/24 Herald-Sun:

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/

1) Durham residents should elect the next DA -- showing support for a write-in campaign for Steve Monks;

2) A campaign mistake -- lambasting ABN/VC volunteers for putting flyers about the campaign on the windshields of cars of parishoners at the Aldersgate United Methodist Church -- says ABN "took advantage of unsuspecting people inside a church."

Leaving aside whether that is an accurate description of someone leaving a flyer on your windshield (they must be pretty thin-skinned), the writer goes on to note that "Mike Nifong is a friend of mine and has never and would never do something like this -- he certainly has more integrity than that. He had my vote in May, and he certainly has my vote again on Nov. 7th. You can count on it!" I'll let that last comment speak for itself and only add how scary it is to hear someone voice that opinion at this point in the case.

3) Gottlieb rocks -- (I'm not making this up)-- it's probably better if I just quote the letter in its entirety:

"I want to offer a word of appreciation for the way Durham police officer, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, has conducted himself. He was accused by a whole host of defense lawyers for the indicted lacrosse team members of targeting Duke students in [sic] taking them downtown in handcuffs. It is later revealed that Gottlieb was simply doing as his boss had told him to do based on the problems the Duke students were causing in the community.

When two veteran Durham police officers were fired recently for attacking a cook at a Raleigh bar, I discovered that it was Gottlieb who called in to the Durham shift chief to report the attack shortly after it had happened.

Gottlieb could have claimed that he didn't see anything. He could have attempted to shield his fellow officers as best he could, but he chose to do the right thing and he chose to do it immediately.

The Gottliebs of the world are difficult to find these days. Folks who do what he did are often vilified. But it is folks like him who provide the glue to hold our society together.

I think Gottlieb is one of Durham's finest. He's one in a million. The lawyers have picked the wrong guy to go after.


LARRY BUMGARDNER
Durham
September 21, 2006"

I have two reactions to this letter -- first, you could drive a truck through all the holes in his story about Gottlieb, and they've already been recounted, so I won't go into them here, other than to say again how scary this is that he has this kind of support and that the community this writer represents clearly has no love for Duke students in general. Second, the last sentence is very cryptic -- is he suggesting that there is another target in Durham that is worthy of pursuit by the defense lawyers? Is this a veiled reference to Nifong?

 
At 4:51 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/09/troops-on-field.html

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2006

Troops on the Field


We will be patient, yes, but we will NOT give up. We must "work." There is SOMETHING very much in our power to achieve in this case: the defeat of Michael Nifong in the District Attorney's race. I am no political writer, but I will say this over and over till November. THIS is something we can make happen. Beth Brewer of RN-VC has the troops on the field. More voters signed Lewis Cheek's petition than voted for Nifong. This is one evil we can grab by the throat and throw into obscurity. It just takes each of us doing whatever we possibly can. Write, post, rabble-rouse... sign up new voters, drive to the polls. Put up a campaign sign, give what you can, All those of you who care, who are seething with outrage...PLEASE...get involved. Seldom in these frustrations in our lives, does life hand us a road map to satisfaction; to a possible resolution. This is one of those moments. I'm dreaming of a phone call for Nifong this November, the very one he most dreads: "Mike...YOU LOST." Are you dreaming of that too?

Let's make it happen.

 
At 5:00 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Corrected link for 4:51 PM post above:

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/09/troops-on-field.html

 
At 5:23 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was sent to the North Carolina Attorney General, but I don't hold out much hope he will listen or respond.

I am writing to complain about DA Michael Nifong, Durham County District Attorney. I sent him an e-mail I asked in the mail why he was withholding discovery from defense lawyers in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. I further stated I would vote "anybody but Nifong vote Cheek. I never mentioned my Name or the State where I lived, but somehow in his response he used my name and state of residence. Here was his response: "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." I know that I listed both on my profile page on America on Line, but how does Mr. Nifong get away with looking me up, on company time and how far did that lookup go. I am sure being a quasi law enforcement agency, he has the county resources to look up e-mail addresses or he could simply be a member of AOL. Since his e-mail was time stamped 12:52PM 9-19-2006, then he was probably at work using county equipment on county time. Add to that the fact that his answer was sarcastic and arrogant. I really never expected to get an answer from Mr. Nifong and I was quite surprised and flattered that he did answer me. I know that in his last court appearance and in previous ones, that he has told the court that his office had more cases then the Duke case, as a retired P/O, with 25 years of service, I am certainly aware of that, but he seems to have time to answer e-mails from out of state e-mailers and do research on the e-mail addresses. I have been told you cannot do anything unless Mr. Nifong has done something illegal, how about abuse of government computers, resources, time and taxpayer money, in the use of those resources. I want to thank you in advance for listening

 
At 5:44 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Bill from NJ said...

Sorry, but the above post (5:23PM) is from Bill from NJ

 
At 5:49 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, thank you for sharing your letter with us. Let us see what comes of it. Even if nothing comes of it, thank you for fighting a good fight.

 
At 6:20 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: 4:10 pm post above regarding the letter to the editor from Mr. LARRY BUMGARDNER.

As do some who post to this board, Mr. Bumgardner is writing to the HS as an active member of the "Trinity Park Pan Bangers" and Alice is often presiding at their meetings. So his agenda is clear; there has been no change in the Trinity Park Association agenda.

I dare say Mr. Bumgardner may wish to better spend his time preparing for the defense in his forthcoming libel suit.

 
At 6:26 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding putting the flyer on windshields. I was told beforehand by a RNVC organizer that this is done all the time at Black churches in the Durham area.

 
At 6:29 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gottlieb is one in a million. The writer is right about that.

 
At 6:42 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, I join poster 5:49 p.m. September 25 and say "thank you" for taking time and writing this letter to the AG's Office. Thanks for sharing it with us as well.

 
At 6:59 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The evening addition of N&O

Court Date Postpond for Former Police Officers.

newsobserver.com/102/story/490676.html

I wonder who stepped in?

 
At 7:08 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gottlieb is one in the million? Well, that's a relief.

 
At 9:50 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Baumgardner is a professional pest.

Mark Gottlieb is a racist thug. Always was, always will be.

 
At 9:54 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you're in a letter-writing mood, you might pen a page to

Garry Frank
Davidson Couny
PO Box 1854
Lexington, NC 27293-1854

He's the President of the NC District Attorneys Conference. (sorry, no email)

Do it. One paragraph, one page, five minutes of your time, 39 cents. One hundred letters from all over the country will have impact.

(You may help these guys not have to spend 5 months in trial, or even worse.)

 
At 10:12 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above: please check the spelling on the address. Is that Couny or County. I don't want to send my letter to the wrong place.

 
At 10:33 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: 9:54 post Great idea. For some of us that need a little encouragement, if someone could link a form type letter that people could add to, sign and mail, you might get a lot more letters. Just a suggestion.

 
At 10:58 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that Couny or County.

It's "county".

if someone could link a form type letter that people could add to

You don't really need to say very much; even just "Nifong???" might work.

Normally I don't like form letters, because they lessen their impact when recieved ('just a letter-writing campaign'). But...

Dear ____
Perhaps you can make a little statement criticizing Nifong? Just a press release. (Not supposed to 'ethically'? Well, you're not supposed to sit by and passively watch a lynching, either.)

The news media, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the SBI, and everyone else is doing their best to look the other way until after this is over. ('Don't want to get involved.' 'Maybe later.' 'We'll wait till the process is completed'.) If these three were of any other ethnic or social background, and were deprived of their civil rights the way these players have been, Attorney General Gonzales would already be in Durham in front of the cameras, holding a presser. But they're not, and he's not, and the guys are still facing crooked justice in the Banana Repbulic of Durham. . .


Not elegant. But passionate. . .

 
At 11:01 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

Kim Roberts Just got 120 days house arrest, I repeat Kim Roberts 120 days house arrest, for probation violation.

 
At 11:41 PM, September 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frank's email is:

Garry.W.Frank@nccourts.org

 
At 12:58 AM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please do not send anything resembling a form letter. Officials totally ignore such letters as "mobs organized by a couple of people". If they receive tons of individual comments, they just might listen. It doesn't have to be fancy. Just express your doubts about Nifong, the lack of evidence, Gottlieb's "notes", the SANE report, etc, etc. Read back through the comments if you need inspiration (or go visit Liestoppers or Durham in Wonderland). There is so much to choose from!

 
At 10:06 AM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Kim Roberts. She had 5 probation violations. Nice to know the old double standard is alive and well in Durham.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/490682.html

 
At 11:44 AM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the column in The Chronicle. It sounds as if he believes in lynchings by mobs. Gee, what student didn't get accepted to Duke in order for this kid with limited reasoning skills to get in? And a senior, no less? Very surprising. Yes, disappointing!

 
At 12:32 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from 9:14 am (link corrected)
----------------------------
For Duke parents and alumni reading this blog that may wonder why many of us are so concerned about our belove university, look no further than a column written by a Duke senior in the Chronicle today.

A case for violence

What lesson has this Duke student learned from the lacrosse case? He advocates a return to vigilante violence against accused rapists. If there was any doubt about the imperative for FODU's campaign and the need for courage in challenging the Group of 88 and their allies, this article should end it. If these professors continue to teach Duke students, then the level of thought and perspective in the article is what we can expect for years to come.

 
At 12:45 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the article mentioned above. I am ashamed to be a Duke parent and I am scared for my kid who is in Duke. The author of this article sounds like a very disturbed young man capable of harming other people. He should be removed from campus immediately and he should seek psyhiatric treatment. It is people like him who can justify violence in their heads that eventually turn into murderers and rapists. He has all the symptoms of a criminal in the making. If I were his parents, I would be very worried about him. But, for now, I will restrict my worries to my own kid who happens to be on tha same campus as this lunatic.

As to the editors of the Chonicle who thought this was acceptable material to publish, I am out of words. I do not have anything to say.

Two questions to Brian:

1. How do you select who to punish? Those you suspect are rapists, those who you do not like and can easily accuse as rapists, those who have done something bad to you, or those who you simply do not like?

2. How far do you go with your proposed punishment? Break a leg, punch them in the nose, rape them or muder them?

 
At 12:51 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I interpreted Brian's column to mean that many rapes go unreported and no one (and especially no males) seem to care. While he talked about violence he also said he recognized that there were problems with that as a solution. Sometimes people make an extreme point to get others to think about an issue--that's how I interpreted his column. And certainly while the current case illustrates that there are times when an accuser lies about a rape, we all can't ignore the fact that it is far more common for rapes to go unreprted and unpunished.

 
At 1:40 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brian Kindle's column is unsettling. Once you begin a lynch mentality, it usually ends with mob bloodlust.

Note where the DukeLax case started out and where it is today - an out-of-control justice system in Durham trying to sate the mob instead of delivering justice...

Walter Abbott

 
At 1:41 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As to unreported rapes, who the heck knows how many there are? Some girls claim that they were raped to their friends because they are embarrassed that they let the guy have sex with them when they were under the influence, etc. They lie, but it a lie that protects their psyches. Some will let themselves get into compromising situations and by the time they yell "STOP", it's a wee bit too late. This is not real rape! I tend to be a bit skeptical about the numerous folks who use the pot-banging incident to "out" themselves to the world as the victims of rape. I think that if a woman were really a victim of rape, she much more likley would find a counselor to speak to than use the march as a way to open up. Some girls get attention, sympathy, and revenge by claiming they were raped. I feel that women who are truly raped and did not have any complicity in it will go to the police or at least some authority figure. Now, some females who have found themselves having sex that was unintended, call it date-rape but still "rape." Many girls have been the victims of guys who lose control, but often the girls realize that they contributed greatly to the situation and feel that they are not totally innocent in what transpired so they hesitate to call it a "rape." They say nothing. I am not sure that this situation of calling "rape" at everything does not devalue the awfulness of "real rape" which is a violent attack on a woman who has not provoked it. Often, real rapists not only have intercourse, but also sodomize, beat, strangle, etc. and the girl ends up dead or close to it. --- BTW,I am a female writing this.

 
At 1:57 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Lucky "D" said...

There are many reasons Nifong should be disbarred (and possibly jailed and sued) because of his handling of this case.

One of the most tragic things that could happen is that, once "true rape" victims see the defense carve up the false accusers, "true victims" may be reluctant to come forward in the future. That would really be an injustice. But, then again, isn't that what Nifong is all about?

 
At 2:17 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert Steel has been nominated by George W. Bush as Undersecretary of Finance.

 
At 2:35 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert Steel has been nominated by George W. Bush as Undersecretary of Finance.

Well, given what he said before (April 7--although I grant that was a bit early in the hoax), may I hope that his integrity might make him consider making another statement about the situation?

(from his April 7th statement)

As President Brodhead has noted, we need not -- and will not -- wait on the resolution of this case to address broader issues that range from the social culture of our students to difficult questions involving race, class and Duke’s relationships with its Durham neighbors.

Race, class, and Duke's relationships with its Durham neighbors had absolutely nothing to do with the false accusations of a bi-polar woman trying to avoid confinement in a mental ward.

The trustees recognize and deeply regret how the current situation has cast a cloud over the many wonderful people who comprise our campus and the larger community of Durham. We are especially grateful to Mayor Bill Bell and Chancellor James Ammons and many others in the Durham community and at Duke for their wise and statesmanlike leadership during this troubled time.

A salute to mayor Bell? Whose skills seem to include raking in money from the federal trough for his own corporations?

When all of the facts are in, Duke will be judged by how it responded to the challenges before us.

How about an apology for the rush to judgment, and a lack of support for Duke students caught up in a criminal hoax? A really, tough, forthright statement?

But I'm not holding my breath...

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

Robert Steel has been nominated by George W. Bush as Undersecretary of Finance.

It might be nice if Steel, as head of the Board of Trustees, contacted Newsweek and demanded that they print a retraction of their infamous "Sex, Lies, and Duke" story, and admit it was all a hoax.

And that if they do not do so, the Board of Trustees will commence a lawsuit on behalf of Duke, the reputation of which has been slandered--to which the affected students can join.

 
At 3:10 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I applaud the 80 or more professors who already volunteered their time to support Duke athletes. I am appalled that Professors Nijhout and Hain distributed a parody of Mr. Haagan’s program to involve Duke professors with varsity sports teams. It is a rude, sophomoric act. Once again, all that brilliance at Duke is just too much for rest of us humans who like to play and/or watch sports.
My daughter was a lacrosse player all through high school and was also on three other varsity teams. She played one sport or another from age five. She learned to stay away from nicotine and drugs of any kind. She did drink and was roundly disciplined by her coach and her parents. She learned to be comfortable in a body that was more lean than shapely, that it’s OK to out run boys, practice does improve performance, and a healthy body is a work of art.
When my tomboy began showing athletic ability, I admit I would have preferred a little dancer with pink ribbons. I watched her bloom from the sidelines. A hat trick in an important game brought tears to my eyes as she lifted her stick high and ran into a huddle of blond ponytails.
I am indebted to the men and women who spent time developing her athletic abilities and sense of team spirit. In my daughter’s school, the highest honor was the award for contributing to the spirit of the team. If only the professors at Duke knew what it’s like to stick together when you’re behind or up against a bigger opponent. If only Broadhead know how to take a student aside and with his hand on his shoulder guide him through a tough quarter.
Congratulations to Mr. Haagan and the Duke faculty members who are willing to take up their slack. They are truly team players!

 
At 3:18 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I happen to know Bob Steel and he is a very good person. His inital comments on the incident were wisely crafted to stem what was a volatile community situation. Even though I am confident these boys are innocent, and i am appalled at the mishandling of our justice system, the fact remains that racial tensions were inflamed by the early accounts, and that the Trinity Park neighborhood had long been justifiably upset by the behavior of most, if not all, of the Duke students living in the neighborhood.

 
At 3:42 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:10 excellent comment! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with us.

3:18 You say, Steel's earlier comments were justified. What do you think about his recent silence. In your view, is it time for him to perhaps say something? Or should he remain silent? I would be curiuos to know your take on this. Thank you.

 
At 3:58 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:42..I'm sure Bob Steel is being advised by Duke's attorneys. While I would love to see the university speak out in defense of the players, I don't know that that is the trustees' job, and I am withhold judgment since I have not heard what the attorneys have advised. Certainly Duke has had to be very careful from the beginning, for the sake of all the students including the lacrosse team, not to inflame the already heightened tensions, and to be clearly and publicly not interfering with an ongoing investigation. Do I wish they would speak out now? Absolutely--but I do not have the benefit of their information, nor do I completely understand the circumstances they face.

 
At 4:20 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:42 - You got to be kidding...

Walter Abbott

 
At 4:21 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the 3:18 poster - do you know of any positive action in favor of Duke and the wrongly accused that the administration or trustees are taking, perhaps behind the scenes?

Without the benefit of that knowledge, I am still extremely angry at Duke's response and continuing silence - but hopefully there is something I don't know about.

 
At 4:24 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MY BAD MY BAD. The "you got to be kidding" should be directed at the 3:58 poster.

Walter Abbott

 
At 4:25 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could not agree more on the blurring of the definition of "rape" these days. Real rape is a violent crime- more violent than sexual. It is about dominance and anger, not sex. I think that information has been forgotten in all the "date rape" stories.
On Bob Steel demanding a retraction from Newsweek- No media is going to print a retraction on this hoax until it has come to its conclusion. I sincerely hope that the judge throws out all of the charges against the Duke 3 and puts Nifong (disbarred) in jail. It is more likely that the case will go to trial to be exposed as the travesty and waste of public funds that it is at that time.
It has to end, though, before any of the MSM print or talking heads will admit they were wrong (if they ever do). It would be premature for them to admit anything yet as none of us know how it will end. The MSM is still thinking that Nifong has evidence up his sleeve that will show the world that his version was correct all along.

 
At 4:51 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beautiful posting 3:10. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Can someone please enlighten us about what Haagan is doing. I'm in the dark about it.

Thanks.

 
At 5:14 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 3:58 Poster- I'm really sorry, usually I prefer to give others the benefit of the doubt. HOWEVER, having seen the cowardice of Duke's administration over seven months, I cannot help disagreeing with you. I repeat- most "elite" universities have only three interests 1) to advance in the U.S. News rankings 2) to increase the endowment 3) to avoid civil liability. Had Broadhead shown ANY courage, this hoax might not have escalated in the manner in which it did.
Texas Mom

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

Walter Abbot: I am 3:10, and I thought you meant 3:58. I forgive you fully. No problem.

4:51 are you asking whether we know what Haagan is doing beyond what was revealed in the Chronicle article today? It may be a little early to know exactly what he will do. If you have not seen today's article, there was a link to it here. Go 10-20 comments up and you should see it.

I too am very curious to find out how that initiative will work. In my opinion, it has the potential to make a real positive impact on briding the big divide between the academics and the athletics at Duke. I am glad someone thought of taking this initiative. I hope it helps alleviate some of the tensions between those two camps.

However, Wood and Starn are lost causes and should be ignored. They should not be involved at all in the pronouncement of the sucess or the failure of this initiative. Actually, it will be a good day for Duke if they both left. They are doing more harm there than any good. It is clear now, no question about it. I suspect they fight against this initiative hard and dirty.

 
At 5:24 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

kim roberts on house arrest!!

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28993478&postID=115902062706229669

 
At 5:36 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the state cut her time overnight from 120 days to 60days. I wonder who had his hands in that?

 
At 5:45 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous John Edwards said...

If anyone would like to write the judge Smith, I have his mailing address.

Hon. William O. Smith III
Courier Box 25103
P.O.Box 790
Yanceyville, NC 27379

 
At 5:54 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone has John Edwards' (the senator from NC) address? I want to write a letter to him.

 
At 5:57 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hon. William O. Smith III

Is he in this case? (The judge in the Lacrosse case is Osmand Smith. )

 
At 6:05 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

His inital comments on the incident were wisely crafted to stem what was a volatile community situation.

Why does everyone these days seem to want to take Pontius Pilate for a model?

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibilty."

Well, history doesn't think too much of Pilate's politics. . .

Even though I am confident these boys are innocent

So was Pilate.

 
At 6:14 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:57 post Yes, that is for the judge in the lacrosse case.

 
At 6:16 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I would love to see the university speak out in defense of the players, I don't know that that is the trustees' job

Isn't it the job of every decent human being to speak out to stop injustice?

Isn't it even more the responsiblity of those who are the trustees to speak out in defense of their students?
(Aren't they in the 'kid' business?)

Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.
Holocaust Museum, Washington, DC

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” Elie Wiesel

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

"and to be clearly and publicly not interfering with an ongoing investigation"

How about complaining about the presence of the NBBP? The threats to the defendants? How about calling for the FBI and federal marshals to insure the civil rights of the accused? (Was that too much to do, also?)

nor do I completely understand the circumstances they face.

Their moral character is certainly facing a difficult challenge. All the rest is just empty air compared to that.

 
At 6:21 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous John Edwards said...

To: 5:57 Post
Willim O. Smith is the Judge for the Duke case. He uses his middle name and goes by Osmand Smith. His full name is William Osmand Smith III.

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

Above post I think we need to yell as loud as we can, I am getting nowhere with the DOJ and no one wants to make any changes down there but the students of Duke U. and all of us.

 
At 6:27 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is my web site: http://oneamericacommittee.com/splash/

 
At 6:38 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am making a contribution today to the Committee to Recall Nifong- Vote Cheek. Support Beth Brewer and her fellow crusaders who are working to defeat Nifong in the upcoming election. Their website is recallnifong.com and has information about contributions.

 
At 6:41 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous John Edwards said...

Sorry here is my site:http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/08/1443245

 
At 7:26 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's Homecoming this weekend at Duke. I wish all three boys would go to it. I think they should hold their heads up high and stand with other lacrosse team members of both teams by the two Duke girls who are trying to register kids to vote. I think it would be a photo op. They should stand tall and proud of who they are. Duke is their school,too, even if they are suspended (unfairly), and a low rent hooker from Durham, who lied about them, should not wield the power to keep them from coming to town for homecoming. Of course, I think they should have their parents with them at all times! I think the sight of the three innocent kids and the hordes of kids that I am sure would surround and comfort them would give the administration pause. The administration wants to pretend this is over. They have washed their hands of it! I think the boys should stand tall and make Brodhead cringe.

 
At 7:30 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Edwards, the ex senator, is on the faculty of UNC-CH. You may be able to get the address from them. I think he lives on a large land tract off Jones Ferry Road in Chapel Hill. He also has a home down at Figure Eight Island.

 
At 7:37 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One America Committee's phone is :202-955-4511. This is the committee to help John Edwards run again. They will know his address surely. However, John Edwards will not be on side of the boys-- I would bet.

 
At 7:48 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(found on another board, but worth repeating)--

This is an election year. So, here's an email survey to send around to your congressmen and all congressional candidates :

"Hi,

Here are two hypothetical questions being asked of all Congressmen and Congressional candidates. (Results of those who respond will be posted on the Internet, by name and district.)

1) Do you think the FBI should be sent to investigate KKK intimidation of potential jurors and witnesses, and death threats made against defendants in criminal cases?

2) Do you think the FBI should be sent to investigate the beating of black civilians by off-duty drunken white police officers, especially if they use racial epithets like "N---r!" and "boy!"?

Thank you for your response.

Sincerely,"



Try the following to get email addresses :
http://www.emailcongress.net/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
http://webcom.com/~leavitt/cong.html

One click can do a lot to help.

 
At 8:02 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

7:26 Post: I agree with you. I think they should show up for the weekend and stand with their teammates and friends. That might send the message to Brodhead loud and clear. Just keep their parents close by.

Collin, Reade and David don't give CGM what she wants, and that is to turn everyone against you. It's not working. I beleive in the three of you.

 
At 8:20 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:41 poster -- Is it a joke you are posting under the name John Edwards or is it just a coincident?

Also, someone said John Edwards the senator might not be on the side of the boys, I say let us find out. That would be very useful information to have. If he decided to run for office again, I was going to volunteer to work in his campaign. So, it is very important to me to know where he stands on this issue. Let us ask the question.

 
At 9:01 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous John said...

Just posting my e-mail address, remember vote Edwards. I may run again.

povertycenter@unc.edu

Just make it: Attn: John Edwards

John

 
At 9:16 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Thank you. You will definitely hear from me tomorrow, and you better answer because I am one of your biggest fans. However, I want to hear what your view is on this case. I hope we share the same sentiments, or at least, we are on the same wavelength. Have a nice evening, until tomorrow.

Huge John Edwards fan

 
At 9:40 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It amazes me how everyone rises to 3:58's bait every time.

She is a PR flack for the university whose comments are always the same:

"You have no right to speak against Duke administrators because you don't have inside information on the self-imposed hell that [Brodhead/Burness/the Trustees/Professor Holloway] is going through. You cannot, must not and never, ever, ever should blame the Duke Adminstration for their behavior"

Uh-huh.

 
At 9:57 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Point well taken.
Texas Mom

 
At 10:38 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

If Kim Roberts violated the terms of her probation, why isn't she back in jail serving her 6 month sentence?

 
At 10:46 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Out Joe said...

To above. Because she needs to be out of jail until after the election in case King Nifong needs her.

 
At 10:53 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am 3:58. I don't believe I have ever defended Holloway or Burness. I don't know why someone is so sure I am a "she." I have done everything I can to support the lacrosse players--I have contributed, I have written letters on their behalf, I have supported them in correspondence with people I know who are involved with key boards at Duke, and I have suggested to those people that I would like to see Duke support the players. That fact that I am not as critical of Broadhead and the Board of Trustees as some does not mean I agree with every action they took or every statement they made--I don't. It certainly doesn't make me Pontius Pilate. To me things are not always black or white. I don't believe it's right to condemn someone if you haven't walked in their shoes, and I happen to believe that Brodhead and the trustees have had to deal with a lot of things that we, from the safety of our computers, cannot fully comprehend. It's very easy when we are writing from anonymous positions, with no responsibility to anyone, to "know" what should have been said or done. But, having served in public office, I know that it is quite different when you are accountable to someone for your words and deeds (and yes, I do realize they are accountable to the three players, too, so no need to point that out to me.) I fully accept and respect that many of you strongly disagree with me on this, but the lack of tolerance for opposing views surprises and disappoints me. I'll try to keep my views to myself from now on--but I will continue to do what I think is right in supporting the players who have been wrongly accused.

 
At 11:09 PM, September 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It certainly doesn't make me Pontius Pilate. To me things are not always black or white. I don't believe it's right to condemn someone if you haven't walked in their shoes, and I happen to believe that Brodhead and the trustees have had to deal with a lot of things that we, from the safety of our computers, cannot fully comprehend.

Moral choices are always easy.

Aren't we taught from childhood that surrendering an innocent victim to satiate an unruly mob is unjust and never to be done?

That if we were a governor and had that choice, then the right option to pick is to send in the troops, scatter the mob, and burn the town, before giving up the innocent? (We have a terrible example which provides us the proof of that.)

But you can't make those choices if you haven't first decided the grounds of your morality.

 
At 3:43 AM, September 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Must read from KC Johnson:


http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/m-nifong-revisionist_27.html

 
At 8:03 AM, September 27, 2006, Anonymous gc said...

To 3:58/ 10:53 post:

Although I do not agree with Brodhead's actions, I was NOT the poster who referred to Brodhead as Pontius Pilate.

We need people like you who believe in the innocence of the players. We will probably never agree on things 100%, but we need to know what others are thinking. This is a great board for that. Please continue to post and let us know your thoughts. Besides, we really don't know who is advising Brodhead and people can change over time.

 
At 10:00 AM, September 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-773380.html

If Gov. Easley refuses to stop this travesty of justice can we at least pressure him to name a potential successor to Nifong?

 
At 10:04 AM, September 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A lot of things are not black or white but whether the boys committed the crimes they are indicted for happens to be one of those things which is black or white. We are not talking about a Kobe Bryant case here which was difficult to discern! Personally, I felt Kobe was guilty but also felt that a jury should acquit him because it was not a clear cut case. It could have been consensual sex! ( I also felt Mike Tyson got a raw deal since it is hard to prove rape when a girl goes to his room at 2:00 am in the morning and knows his reputation.)

ANYWAY, in this case ALL the team members said NO SEX was involved! Brodhead heard that from the mouths of those students-- DUKE students. He has seen the exculpatory evidence like the rest of us! NO DNA from boys! No, Mr. Poster, I do not think you are Pontius Pilate, but I think you are caught up in that vague world where politicians want to have it both ways. No, Dr. Brodhead was wrong! Now, is the time for the man to be a man and admit he was duped! Stop defending him. He helped cause this mired mess!-- He is part of the problem for these boys, not part of the solution!-------Duke Mom

 
At 10:29 AM, September 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Liestoppers:

"It has become quite clear to us that this Hoax is not about an accuser’s day in court, but rather about Nifong’s day in court."

This is so true. Nifong has wanted to get back into the courtroom for 7 years. He just had to use 3 innocent young men and the Durham community to do it.

 

<< Home