Tuesday, May 30, 2006

General topics 3 - Full

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

126 Comments:

At 4:14 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While we're at it, someone should thank Dennis Prager for mentioning this case more than once on his radio show, and for taking the position that this appears to be a case of a false accuser.

 
At 4:15 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a liberal, I am ashamed by the moral bankruptcy of the left that not _one_ MSM liberal journalist or commentator is willing to call this case for the sham that it is.

It is a sad day when the inconvenient truth that this woman is almost certainly a liar can only be said by O'Reilly, Prager, Hannity, LaShawn Barber, David Brooks and other conservatives.

A minor exception is TalkLeft Crime, which is doing a great job.

 
At 4:16 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those spouting off about big civil cases are engaged in wishful thinking. About the only act the AV can prove is possibly a racial slur. Based on what is known now, she could be looking at defamation charges, possibly her own criminal case for lying to police, compounded if she testifies under oath. Those who put up wanted posters and otherwise defamed lacrosse team members could be lookng at suits, maybe soon from the lads not indicted. The AV's only leverage is to refuse to testify and get it done in a way that ties in a civil settlement, a very dicey manuever.

 
At 4:17 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mrs. Petersen and her so call super strong case in civil court is a joke. I'm not so sure the people on the lease could be held accountable for poor lighting on the back porch, where that pig stumbling drunk fell down the steps and got scraped up. i think that would fall on the actual owners of the house. I would think the civil case about serving alcohol to underage people would have to be brought by one of the underage drinker themselves, right? That's a non issue. I know nothing about the LAW, but my guess is former Duke Law school grads that are Lawyers now and those students that are still at Duke in Law school are licking their chops. Hungry to eat the lunch of any Lawyers Ms Petersen could pull out of her hat.

st295x98

 
At 4:17 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poster above: If I am not mistaken, Duke University owns the Buchanon house. Perhaps, the university will have to pay a little money to AV for bad lightning in the back porch, although I would imagine she will want more. I wonder how Brodhead will handle a law suit against the Duke University after he declared these 3 young men of being the only villains in the case. He may have to wear that hat himself, and he sure has the money that AV wants so badly.

 
At 4:17 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding a civil case, the Evans don't live in Durham, so the AV would have to sue them where they live or in federal court and get jurisdiction via a "long arm statute". I don't know where the closest federal court is, maybe Raleigh, but even if one is in Durham, its jury pool will be drawn from an area well beyond Durham city.

 
At 4:18 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someome on this site stated the accuser's name, and that message was expunged because of rape shield laws.

I strated thinking about our mission-- trying to keep these innocent boys out of prison-- and it dawned on me that it is illogical NOT to use her name. Bear with me while I explain my thought process.

I am helping these boys financially and in other ways not because I am a sports fan or a lacrosse fan. I am their "friend " for one reason only-- I beleive totally in their innocence. If I thought them guilty, I would not be a part of "Friends of Duke Lacrosse" nor would I help them in any way. I abhor rape as much as any talking head or women's rights group. ( A family member of mine was raped and murdered by a stranger while she jogged in a park. I understand the savagery of rape.)

In this case, I believe NO rape occurred. This episode began as a lie, turned into a hoax, and is now a scam. The woman aka accuser is NOT a victim of these boys. Rape shield laws were desinged to protect the victimized woman from the humiliation of having folks know she was raped. But, this woman was not RAPED-- THIS IS WHAT WE ALL BELIEVE, ISN'T IT? NO RAPE OCCURRED! Therefore, her identity should not be protected.

She has been allowed to hide from the light of day while the boys wear their identities like the Scarlet A! We are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs if we do not expose her and her sleasy drivers aka pimps, escort service owners, etc. Prssure needs to be applied to her and them. They need to squirm.

The best solution is for this case to be dropped immediately. She is the one who must do that! It is not in the boys' best interest to go to trial--that is a crap shoot with high stakes!

I do not think we owe a liar- the perpetrator of the real crime-a false accusation- her anonymity.

I believe our strategy needs to be an attack on this woman. We need to attack her character because she is NO VICTIM. THE BOYS ARE THE VICTIMS! In fact, her behavior hurts genuine rape victims. This woman is an enemy to these boys and frankly to the justice system. NO HOLDS BARRED. Use her name.

Duke Mom

 
At 4:18 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Duke Mom: Please take comfort. The accuser's name is everywhere. Sometimes, I think her name is the worst kept secret in America. In fact, is there anyone who doesn't know who she is? In terms of publishing it on this site, it does not really matter. I am willing to go either way. If it offends some of the readers on this site, to show her name, it can be left out. We need every pair of supporting eyes to be with us. It is a small price to pay. Think of it as a price of peace.

 
At 4:19 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Chronicle April 3, 2006
Friday evening, Durham Police Department officers notified the residents of houses along N. Buchanan Boulevard that there were unsubstantiated threats of gang-related violence targeted at Duke students.

The warning was only one of several recent accounts of threats of violence against students and faculty, including reports of harassment directed at men's lacrosse coach Mike Pressler and members of the men's lacrosse team.

Senior Morgan Gieseke said she and senior Basil Camu were surrounded and verbally harassed at Cook Out restaurant on Hillsborough Road Friday morning around 3 a.m.

The altercation resulted in a physical assault on Camu, who was briefly knocked unconscious, Gieseke said.

She said that after purchasing their food, she and Camu were forced to wait in the drive-thru because the car in front of them had blocked them.

While waiting, a group of men approached their car.

"All of a sudden we heard all this screaming," Gieseke said. "The people were saying, 'This is Central territory.'"

Central refers to North Carolina Central University, where the alleged rape victim is a student.

Gieseke said the men, who looked to be in their early 20s, made comments like "Duke kids aren't welcome here because they're all rapists" and "We don't want Duke kids here at Cook Out because they're going to rape our women."

When Camu put his head out of the window to hear what the men were saying, Gieseke said an individual approached Camu from behind and punched him in the back of the head. After Camu recovered from the attack, the two students managed to leave the parking lot, but they were briefly pursued by the car that had previously blocked them in.

Lt. Sara-Jane Raines, administrative services executive officer for DUPD, confirmed the student's report.

Raines said the students called DPD shortly after leaving Cook Out. The call was then transferred to the DUPD.

"We're assisting in any way we can to identify the perpetrators," she said.

Raines noted that no arrests had been made as of Sunday night.

Police also have yet to find suspects in relation to Friday's threats of violence against houses on N. Buchanan Boulevard. DPD desk officer D. Myatt told The Chronicle Friday that the rumors of violence originated from the magistrate's office, but he added that they could not be traced to a credible source.

Multiple students also confirmed that at around 5:30 p.m. a car drove by 710 N. Buchanan Blvd., and a passenger pointed his fingers-in the shape of a gun-at residents who had gathered on the porch.

"We had been sitting on our porch hanging out, and at least three cars went by flicking us off, saying, 'You'll see,'" senior Bryan Cappelli said. ----

This story certainly went cold quick-- any DNA matches here?

 
At 4:19 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe we can get Newsweek to do a speacial on the topic?

 
At 4:19 PM, June 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an alum, Brodhead's actions were despicable. He threw his own students, coach, and University's good name, under the bus to curry favor with the dingbat DA and local politicians.

As a practical matter, he conceded that every Duke lacrosse player was a rapist or criminal of some type. It is now obvious that there was no rape or sexual assault of any kind and this was nothing more than a high-tech lynching. Brodhead had the unmitigated gall to lecture others, forming these idiotic committees to come to pre-determined conclusions so they can all backslap each other as they taste the most exquisite wine. As far as he was concerned, he was more than happy to offer up three white male students to satiate the crowds and if it means lacrosse is gone, so much the better. Of course, who knows what the dingbat President has done to yield rates for incoming freshman or how long it will take Suke to recover, if it does. Whoe would send their white sons (and our house are double Dukies) to Durham (where they will be targeted) or to Duke (where they will also be targeted).

Brodhead must go.

 
At 4:22 AM, June 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a quick note to say you people are great for doing this. Everybody involved in what I consider this witch hunt must be made accountable, legally and otherwise, to prevent it ever happening again to any other person. -Joe Ty

 
At 9:36 AM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was told a week after the alleged rape that the name of the accuser was spread around in an organized fashion at a Protest/Vigil at NCCU.

Some enterprising people forwarded her name to interested parties and the woman has been receiving MONEY from sympathic people in the black community (including Influencial millionaires). At the same time, I was told the only info they could get was from sources that would only speak off the record. They would not allow anything they said to be used with a name.

I was told that many of the North Carolina (the south in General) media editors have placed limits on publishing/airing anything about the accuser on her friend unless sources are willing to go on the record. The hyper-sensitivity of Race and Rape, I guess.

I inquired about checks and I was told that they doubt anyone would be that stupid. t is all cash donations to the A/v

I had received an odd e-mail referring to some "raising cash" by the accuser and her family yesterday. So, last night I was searching the WEB (including Blogs and student newpapers hoping to find some evidence other than the Jesse Jackson stuff). I did find this last night:

"Our hearts continue to go out to the young lady as she goes through this process. We will continue to do EVERYTHING that we can to SUPPORT her.... We have learned as a result of this situation that there are other students who are victims of sexual assault who suffer in silence and need our moral and FINANCIAL SUPPORT. "
N.C. Central University Chancellor James H. Ammons.

Take it for what it's worth. It's unconfirmed and unverified and a political hot potato.

It reminds me of the Clinton womanizing stuff. Investigative journalists knew about it for years, but they need sources and quotes and they raised the bar for publishing standards PURPOSEFULLY.

 
At 9:36 AM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who want some insight into why the false accuser in this case may have lied. The segment by the world's expert on lying (Paul Eckman) may shed some light

http://www.lcmedia.com/mind423.htm

He says that serial liers are those who "enjoy risk taking" and enjoy putting on over on the police.

Sounds familiar.

He also advocates the use of lie detecter tests in the police investigation; something that would have ended this case up front.

 
At 9:36 AM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Megan Kendall says defenses sources are saying that CGM had sex with the driver the night of the alledged rape.

She also said that the prosecuter claims to have "good news" for their case. We have heard that before.

If anyone gets additional information on this, please provide links.

 
At 9:37 AM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take time to visit www.innocenceproject.org. They work to get mercifully preserved DNA evidence tested years later using new methods. In 14 years, they have gotten 177 men convicted by positive victim ID and other forensic and circumstantial evidence released from prison, based soley on the convicted man’s DNA not matching that found at the crime scene/in or on victim. One founder is Barry Scheck of OJ trial fame. One was released yesterday in Florida, but immediately re-arrested for immigration violations.

Earlier this year, four black football players from Va. State (predominantly black) in Petersburg, VA were arrested for raping a white coed from upscale Univ. of Richmond. Trial coming later this year. No national coverage, in fact, hardly any local coverage!!

 
At 9:37 AM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Innocence Project co-founder Peter Neufeld is a leftist hack, who rushed to the media in this case to say no DNA match still was consistent with guilt.

(Making no mention that Nifong's lineup violated every rule in the Actual Innocence handbook)

My firsthand conclusion is that the Innocence Project is a politically motivated leftist group that is only interested in perpetuating the criminal-as-victim mythology.

Not in acutal innocence.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 
At 1:17 PM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember that some of his supporters and some blacks speaking for groups in Durham have slammed Nifong for remaining quiet lately. They've said he needed to respond as he was letting the alleged victim getting trashed in the media. Some have said on National TV that Nifong needs to leak information and no let this woman twist in the wind.

If you watch Nifong, he responds to the black groups from Durham. Remember the NCCU election conference where young blacks were putting him on the spot for a lack of indictments, speaker after speaker. How many days after that was it the indictments were SIGNED by Nifong?

The indictments were SIGNED by Nifong on the 12th.
The Election forum at NCCU was on April 11th.

Looks like Mike got right to work.

 
At 1:18 PM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to say our children (those of Generation X and slightly older) don't have the "white guilt" our Baby Boomer generation has. Of course a couple generations of school busing has opened the eyes of whites to some hard truths about blacks.

The black community may just find out they spent the last of their moral authority. Parents of the Boomer generation wanted to reach out and right the wrongs of long dead ancestors in this country. Boomers really bought into the program, but I've noticed 30's and younger don't have that mentality.

This may be the last payment on the debt owed to African Americans. It depends on how many people have to be destroyed and bankrupted before the white middle class says, "Enough!"

 
At 1:39 PM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ESPN News had this report recently on the month-old rape charges against USC backup quarterback Mark Sanchez:

USC quarterback Mark Sanchez won't face charges he sexually-assaulted a female student at an apartment near campus in April. Prosecutors called the case a "one-on-one allegation that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Plus, medical exams were inconclusive. The freshman quarterback had been on interim suspension by the school following his arrest.
So. The Sanchez case will not procede for the very reasons mentioned in the above report. But a one-on-46 rape allegation also with inconclusive medical exams will proceed in Durham.

 
At 1:46 PM, June 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am still concerned with the fact that the NBBP was allowed in the courtroom. I certainly hope they will not be allowed in at any future hearings.

There is no purpose in that other than intimidation.
It is the equivalent of allowing the KKK to attend and to intimidate a black defendant (or a white jury) in segregation days.

I would think that any reasonable judge would rule against their presence, or even issue a restraining order keeping them at least 100 yards from the courthouse. Unfortunately, the emotional state of Durham may argue against that.
But that is precisely when a judge
must use his judicial independence and authority, in order to guaranatee a fair proceeding.

 
At 10:07 AM, June 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Tucker Carlson last evening, Wendy Murphy compared the 3 accused lacrosse players to Hitler?

 
At 12:07 PM, June 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not understand what the problem is with women like Wendy Murphy, Nancy Grace, and Georgia Goslee! Do they really think they are doing a favor to other women? No, I am a woman, and I am ashamed to listen to the super unintelligent way these women have been talking on this case. It is as if they are brain-dead.

Come on ladies, wake up and smell the roses. Your little darling girl is not a worthy cause for you to be wasting your time. There are many other women who actually could benefit from your support: the real rape victims, the real crime victims, the starving women in Africa and Asia, the abused women. There is no shortage of women to help, why are you so stuck on this one? Oh yea, this one gets you on TV and the other don't. So, why bother.

 
At 1:13 PM, June 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do some of these (pro-accuser)women commentators feel that this accuser represents ALL women? I feel insulted (and outraged!) to be lumped together with someone who is an "escort" with a criminal record who falsely accused three young men because she didn't want to get thrown into the drunk tank for 24 hours.
Sometimes we women are our own worst enemy.

 
At 4:45 PM, June 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. These female commentators are not displaying common sense nor expecting that women have any responsibility for their own safety. Does the accuser deserve to be raped? No, of course not. But she surely has put herself in many situations (stripping, escorting, having sex with multiple men in a few days,...) that might result in that. But, it did not happen at the party at 610 Buchanan Street on March 13. Please put the pieces together, stop talking about defense attorney "spin" and look at the evidence...there is none! At least none against Finnerty, Seligman and Evans!
Duke Lax Mom '02

 
At 5:55 PM, June 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting information on Brodhead in the new article written by Michale Rubin entitled "Froget the facts". See the "Links and Media" page. It seems Brodhead has a history of jumping to conclusions. How did he end up in Duke? Didn't they investigate him before recruiting? Perhaps, this is what Vanderbilt will be asking about Houston Baker in year or so.

 
At 8:28 PM, June 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If case you missed it in the Links and Media page, here are three excellent pieces all written today:

Forget the facts June 6, 2006 Michael Rubin - National Review
Missing the point June 6, 2006 Robert KC Johnson - National Review
The Scandal of the Conservative Mind June 6, 2006 The Reform Club

 
At 9:49 PM, June 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder why Wendy and Georgia don't sign up with Cash Michaels and Co? The blithering "ministers" of "islam" are the most vile poisonous and idiotic excuses for sentient humans on the planet. Besides al Qaeda, of course. How I hope this nightmare ends and they are all forced to admit that this farce was perpetrated by a low life lying vermin scum of a whore.

 
At 9:29 AM, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kevin Cassese seemed to be saying all the right things yesterday in his news conference. I am so glad that finally someone is standing up for the team and offering support and hope. Kevin indicated his support to Dave, Reade and Collin. It is so refreshing to hear this from a Duke administrator. I hope, soon, we will hear it from others too.

Congratulations to Kevin Cassese! We wish him the best in these coming few months as he tackles this huge challenge. He gives us hope.

Here is a link:
Cassese sees 'new era' for Duke lacrosse June 6, 2006 - Herald Sun

 
At 9:59 AM, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After watching Kevin Cassese, David Evans, and President Brodhead during their respective news conferences, it was surprising to me that 25 and 23 year old men seemed more intelligent, well spoken, and sincere than the actual president of the university. The young men seemed to speak with conviction and authority, while the president came across as weak, rambling, and stumbling over his written remarks. Good luck to Coach Cassese and the rest of the lax team in facing the challenges ahead.

 
At 10:47 AM, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a little taken back by the woman I have seen on T.V. voicing their views on the Duke case. They look like a bunch of bimbos! They are making woman look bad.

 
At 10:50 AM, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is an outstanding discussion of the situation on Duke Basketball Report online today:
When the law is an ass.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com...l/index.cgi?501

 
At 10:58 AM, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster 2 above: Speaking of President Brodhead, check out the article below. He seems most concerned about spelling and grammer. Is he for real? Perhaps, he has a hidden Alzheimers disease and we don't know it. Here are 3 students fighting for their lives, and he is talking about not starting a sentence with “However”. What is wrong with him?

Duke's Lacrosse Team Reinstated After Counseling

 
At 12:11 PM, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best and most comprehensive article written to date on the issue! Everyone must read it.

When the law is an ass - June 7, 2006 Duke Basketball Report (DBR)


href="http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ourcall/index.cgi?501">


or:
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ourcall/index.cgi?501

I wish there would be more articles like this in the major newspapers.

 
At 10:55 PM, June 07, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

Send copies of this article or the link to drudge at http://www.drudgereport.com

 
At 11:39 PM, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm afraid Drudge, like most of the major media, is just going to avoid this case since it has not turned out the way they first reported it.

It would be too embarassing for them to admit they rushed to judgment.

Vindication for the accused is not likely to come from the regular media (sorry to say)

 
At 1:56 AM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually drudge is about as supportive of the team as a gay man's gonna be.

He posted several lax links I sent him. He definitely has been right on this story for the last month

 
At 8:43 AM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will send the link (or try posting) in both drudgereprot.com and ourheartsworld.com. My links may get removed or rejected, but at least, I will make the attempt.

This article in the DBR (When Law is an Ass) is the article I have really been waiting for from day one of this case. It sums up everything nicely, and it is going to make a lot of people think again. Those who rushed to judgment will have to take a second, perhaps a third look at the facts of the matter. I am afraid it will be difficult for those who had jumped to conclusions to reject the obvious truths listed in the article. Yes, you can hide the truth for a while, you can ignore it, but you cannot make it go away!

 
At 9:06 AM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the publication today by the News&Observer of the photo of yet another LAX player with no intention other than to smear him.......

The publication in today's N&O of the Lacrosse "mugshot" of Frederick Krom Jr in today's article by Anne Blythe is one of the lowest chapters in that paper's disgraceful pro-prosecution coverage.

Defense motion to quash

This malicious smear is an obvious & gratuitous attempt to accuse Mr Krom of "something" by implication. And is a continuation of the Nifong-N&O witchhunt on a new front.

In case the morons at the N&O can't figure it out, Mr Krom's lawyer was filing that motion to quash Nifong's despicable attempt to intimidate witnesses by subpeona of behalf of _all_ the Lacrosse players.

And clearly pointing out that this desperation move by Nifong - starting to investigate _after_ he has already issued indictments and "cleared" all the other players - is transparent prosecutorial misconduct.

Mr Krom had nothing to do with the motion or the details of the story in any way.

I think Ms Sill and her editors at the N&O did figure that out.

Based on her paper's past behavior, it is clear to me that the picture was published _explicity_ to aid in Nifong's attempt to intimidate the entire team. And to drag yet one more player into the public shame arena without cause.

And only adds to the growing evidence that Melanie Sill is running a malicious, unprofessional and thoroughly discredited newspaper.

I am sure that the Editor and her public editor stooge Ted Vaden would _love_ to hear from people on this.

ted.vaden@newsobserver.com
msill@newsobserver.com>

 
At 9:58 AM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The heading on the photo in that N&O article

"Frederick Krom Jr. is an object of subpoenas in Durham."

is "witchhunt" personified.

 
At 9:59 AM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Nifong wanted to push the case off until Spring '07 because he needs the time to intimidate the remaining 43 lacrosse players and "other" students? Home info? DukeCards?

Why would any parent want to spend $44,000 to send a kid to Duke University---a school located in a part of the world where you check your rights at the Durham city line?

The "Duke Lacrosse Scandal" is NOT responsible for tarnishing Duke's reputation. Nifong is...

 
At 12:52 PM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sent the following response to Anne Blythe on her article in the Newsobserver.
----------------------------

Dear Anne Blythe,

When I read articles like yours, I feel good. I say to myself, "if this is what they are down to, then they must be really desparate". Thank you, you made my day!

Don't you see? This case is going nowhere, and there was no case to begin with. No matter how much you and Nifong try, you are not going to change the truth. There was no rape, and there will not be one when we are all done and finished. However, you are putting your paper in jeopardy by publishing an innocent student's picture with a very misleading statement under the picture. If I was the parent of Mr. Krom, I would certainly sue your paper and you for slander and for publishing blatent lies about my son.

The sentence under the picture "Frederick Krom Jr. is an object of subpoenas in Durham" is a big lie, and you know it. You are playing with words, but you may also be playing with lives! If I were you, I would be careful about that.

 
At 1:31 PM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Latest news:

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/448437.html

"The second dancer in the Duke lacrosse case told police early on that allegations of rape were a "crock" and that she was with the accuser the entire evening except for a period of less than five minutes."

 
At 6:16 PM, June 08, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

Drudge mentioned the "crock" today as did another Blogger
http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=643

 
At 6:20 PM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4251472

Many more details...

 
At 10:24 PM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The latest revelations on the false accuser's changing stories, her use of flexeril and alcohol, her previous "job" using a vibrator, and discrepancies on the extent of her injuries (all from the motions filed by RS's attorneys) raise an important question-- why did Nifong go ahead with such a shakey case before he even had all the DNA results? Why did he indict first, then investigate later?

The only conclusion I can come to is that he was pandering to his political base before the primary
(an example of which was his appearance at the candidates' forum).

If this is a political case, then Reade, Collin, and Dave are "political prisoners."

FREE ALL POLTICAL PRISONERS!
DROP THE CHARGES NOW!

 
At 11:16 PM, June 08, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Here is the text of an E-mail I sent to Ruth Sheenan of the N&O. I also posted it on her blog..Ruth's Metro Blog at N&O. Please join me in commenting on their atrociously biased reporting. Try the Editors Blog as well...though Ms. Sill has been removing pro-Lacrosse comments today. Pathetic.
"I find those E-mails you received outrageous. Here are some other things I find outrageous…things that you do not deem worthy to comment on:


The court filing today that tells us the police had the second dancer’s statement, attesting that the Lacrosse accuser had never been alone. http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/448437.html before charges were filed.


The egregious use of taxpayers money to test and retest for DNA on the word of a woman whose story was neither consistent or collaborated.


The "vigilante poster" put out by Crime stoppers and sanctioned by the PD stating that a crime had taken place before that alleged crime was fully investigated.


The use of the "Vigilante poster" by the N&O.


The sympathetic piece on the accuser followed by the "swagger" piece on the players, further inflaming the public before facts of a CRIME were clear.


No outrage from you or local editors when an immigrant taxi driver is picked up ...ON A 2 YEAR OLD CHARGE .... BY THE DETECTIVES ON THIS CASE and pressured to renege on the alibi he provided Reade Seligmann.


The lineup ...a multiple choice with no wrong answers. And apparently, court filings say it took three times for the accuser to pick and choose


The way your blog has for many days directed us to a support site for the accused. Never have you mentioned the support site that exists for Reade, Dave, and Colin.


Yes, Reade, Dave and Colin. Three young men you have used your power to malign and smear in the name of political correctness. "But the nurse-in-training said she had redness and swelling CONSISTENT with rape." Tell me, does "consistent with a beating" mean the same if the subject is employed as a rodeo bull rider? Perhaps "consistent with rape "means something different for the general public vs., a escort who has had, by her own admission, numerous clients in a short period. Today’s court filing , as reported PARTIALLY, in the N&O tells us the accuser had an earlier appointment that evening in a motel…with a couple who watched as she gratified

herself with a vibrator. See ABC11News website for details. “ Redness and swelling. No tearing.” Hm-m-m-m

.The unethical D.A. Nifong who abused his power for his own political interest, aided and abetted by you and the N&O. Reminds me of a time of shame in the South, when a black man could be lynched on only a white woman’s word. Now politically correct to do so in reverse. What is the mantra these days , Ruth? A rape victim never lies. Same thinking…different goddess.


So I'm outraged too, Ruth. You have been a lead player in this witch-hunt. Guilty without evidence. That's your standard of justice. You have Old South mentality…couched in politically correct buzz words. The injustice is the same. Shame on you. Joan Foster

 
At 12:12 AM, June 09, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-07-duke-durham-history_x.htm

 
At 12:15 AM, June 09, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/us/09duke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 
At 12:30 AM, June 09, 2006, Blogger st295x98 said...

I want to see the charges drop as much as everyone eles here. But at least wait till next Monday so the Zarqawi death can die down and the Duke Rape Hoax can regain the Front page and headlines of ever TV News Network.
I watched Greta tonight and we got a watered down version. She might be holding back for tomorrow nights show, I don't know. but she left out several of the real Zingers.
Some of the new quotes that are coming out from Stinky Kimmy's statement to the police on the 22nd. "Precious (the AV)," wanted to stay at the party and earn more money". Wanted to stay? i thought she said she was being raped? Why would she be wanting to stay?
The accuser told the nurse that Roberts assisted players in the alleged sexual assault and that the second dancer (kimmy) stole her money and property.
Can this case get any better for the defense? The answer is yes.

 
At 3:36 AM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html

 
At 9:41 AM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder how long it will take Nifong to come to his senses? Also, does he has the option to drop the case? Isn't that a sure suicide for him? Does he has any incentives to drop? In my opinion "no". Does he has any incentives to keep the case open? "Yes", I would think, quite a few.

It will be interesting to see how long this hoax will last? It seems North Carolina is a lawless place, among other things. Aren't there any grown-ups there?

 
At 9:58 AM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two new articles added to the Links and Media page. They make good reading. Here are the links repeated.

Comings and Goings At Duke by KC Johnson

At Duke, innocent until assumed guilty by Sidney Zion

 
At 10:23 AM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New slogan.."SAVE DURHAM/ INDICT NIFONG"

 
At 10:36 AM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Joan Foster above: Thanks for the tips on the Newsobserver blogs (Ruth's Metro and Sills and co). I will send couple of responses to them too.

 
At 10:40 AM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not the first time Brodhead has hung the accused out to dry before a trial. I guess like Wendy Murphy Brodhead doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence?


Van de Velde Sues University Officials

Former Yale lecturer James Van de Velde '82 has added several university officials to a federal lawsuit he filed against the New Haven police in 2001. Van de Velde says that by publicly naming him as a suspect in the murder of Suzanne Jovin '99, the parties violated his civil rights and damaged his career, health, and reputation. His suit names as defendants president Richard Levin, vice president and secretary Linda Koch Lorimer, Yale College dean Richard Brodhead, Yale police chief James Perrotti, and deputy director of public affairs Thomas Conroy.

Jovin was found in the East Rock neighborhood dying from stab wounds on the evening of December 4, 1998; Van de Velde was her teacher and senior essay adviser in political science. Neither he nor anyone else has been charged in the murder.

Van de Velde's name first appeared in the local media as a suspect within days of the murder, but the police never identified him publicly until January 11, 1999, after Yale issued a statement explaining why administrators had canceled his two spring-semester classes. Because Van de Velde was "in a pool of suspects" in the case, the statement said, his presence would be "a major distraction" for his students. Van de Velde's suit says that "as a result of defendants' conduct, he was charged, tried, and convicted in the media, and therefore in the minds of much of the public, without regard to facts, logic, legal standards, or the rule of law."

Speaking for the university, Conroy declined to comment about the suit except to say that "university officials have acted entirely properly throughout the investigation."

Van de Velde now works in Washington, D.C., as an analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency's Joint Task Force on Combating Terrorism. A former dean of Saybrook College, he says he "can't even visit New Haven anymore without feeling enormous pain. All the relationships I built with hundreds of Yale students, alumni, faculty, and administrators were destroyed

 
At 10:46 AM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about "RECALL Brodhead" as a slogan. He has ruined people 's lives and reputations throughout his career. His last statements with his probationary reinstatment of the lacrosse team i.e the "dishonorable behavior on the evening of March 13?" .... Does he condemn the racism of Professor Houston Baker and his fellow travelers on the faculty. This guy should have a better understanding of the word "dishonorable" when he uses it so cavalierly..how about Nifong's misconduct, how about his own condemnation of the team (see his first letter to the duke community when he all but convicts these guys of RAPE).

Once again he could have been a MAN and indicated that he hoped that the prosecutor would carry out his duties in a proper fashion(like having a speedy trial) and that his colleagues in the administration and faculty would act in a fair fashion.

 
At 11:38 AM, June 09, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-how-da-and-some-police.html

 
At 1:30 PM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wonder how Judge Ron Stephens is feeling right now? Did he trust his buddy Nifong perhaps a little too much? Guess Stephens asked NO questions when he signed off on the probable cause search warrant, the DNA request, the torso photos, the indictments, etc.
Two people with such questionable judgment are NOT fit to serve the people.

 
At 6:13 PM, June 09, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

http://elendil.schenkenfelder.com/blojsom/blog/elendil/Politics/National/?permalink=Duke-Lacrosse-Students-Wrongfully-Prosecuted.html

 
At 6:26 PM, June 09, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

From an officer of The National Association of Chiefs of Police
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_21222446.shtml

 
At 9:31 PM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Latest info from filings by CF's lawyers:

http://www.wral.com/news/9350653/detail.html

There were SIX photo lineups before the accuser got it "right."

DROP ALL CHARGES NOW!!

 
At 9:40 PM, June 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least six photo lineups??

http://www.wral.com/news/9350653/detail.html

DROP THE CHARGES NOW!

 
At 11:58 PM, June 09, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15232.html

 
At 10:50 AM, June 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article was posted elsewhere and moved here by the moderator. It is an old article but gives us an intresting account of Durham.

The News & Observer * February 1, 1992

**Police* probe a relief to city SBI will study call girl charge*

Author: JANE STANCILL; Staff writer

*DURHAM* -- Now that state and federal agents are looking into allegations of wrongdoing surrounding the *Durham* *Police* Department, everyone from City Hall to Main Street is breathing a sigh of relief that outside agencies are finally entering the case.

District Attorney Ronald L. Stephens has called the SBI into the investigation involving allegations that a *prostitution* ring operated out of the *police* department and the handling of an in-house probe of the charges. He's asked agents to look at possible obstruction of justice, intimidation of witnesses and even perjury involving the complex case.

"There needed to be someone totally independent to come in and in a professional manner review all of this and make some determination on substantiated facts as to whether things were done appropriately and legally," Stephens said.

*Police* Chief Trevor A. Hampton says he also has asked the SBI -- as well as the FBI -- to enter the case.

On Friday, City Council members said it was time outside investigators came onto the scene. "I think it will raise the comfort level of everyone involved," said member Sylvia S. Kerckhoff.

Others said the *police* department should never have been investigating itself in the first place.

"Hindsight is 20-20," said Mayor Harry E. Rodenhizer Jr. "We were not aware of the first two investigations. But I would have been in favor of an outside investigation from the start." An internal investigation was conducted over five weeks late last year by officers from the force's own organized crime division. That's when allegations of the call-girl operation and other sexual misconduct surfaced, but no criminal wrongdoing was uncovered.

The department's investigation focused on five employees, including Wiley Davis Jr., former career development manager, who resigned earlier this week amid allegations that he falsified his academic credentials to attain his city position.

But some have speculated the investigation may have been compromised from the very beginning. It started out in the department's own professional standards division and then was handed over to the vice officers.

Hampton has said the vice officers may have violated federal laws by making some procedural errors during the probe. But Capt. George B. Hare, who leads the vice unit, has staunchly defended his investigators.

And on Friday, he welcomed the outside agencies into the case. "It will get a fair review," he said. "I have a lot of confidence in SBI and any federal investigations. So far, the chief has been in full control of information presented to the City Council and the public. There are more details."

Meanwhile, officers on the street said morale has already started to rise with news of the pending investigations. During the past three weeks, some officers have said it was hard to concentrate on doing their jobs.

"This has been an explosive issue to everyone," Hare said. "Maybe with the SBI, we can get things back in perspective and get back to what we're supposed to do."

Beginning early next week, several agents will start reviewing documents and conducting interviews at the department.

"I hope it won't take long," said SBI director Charles J. Dunn Jr. "But you never know until you get into it."

Copyright 1992 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: RNOB70363

 
At 4:39 PM, June 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I'm advising the stripper, you know what I'm telling her right now?

Turn on Nifong.

Unless this whole thing is rigged, there's little chance this is going to trial, and little chance after that of a conviction. The only "hope," if you can call it that, would be for an O.J. situation where a jury of blacks seeks to exact retribution for hundreds of years of oppression, etc. But Nifong's not Johnnie Cochran.

If this stipper wants to save face, and maybe make some money, she should say this whole thing was Nifong's idea. He needed something to get elected, and he leaned on her to fabricate this story and stick to it. That's why the story's changed so much--she was drunk and started of with some wild accusations, then focused in on what's now the story after he told her what to say.

Willie Gary's out for a shakedown, and rich lacrosse families are nice targets. But they've got nothing in the way of deep pockets when compared to the State of North Carolina.

 
At 11:04 PM, June 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

please help now..SAVE DURHAM/INDICT NIFONG ( 1 2 3

from http://www.courttv.com

 
At 11:40 PM, June 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The liberals are finally starting to turn on Nifong.(They are his real power base not African Americans)

First one, today, Nicholas Kristoff of the NYTimes lashes out at stereotyping liberals (meaning himself)

Kristoff deserves no credit for cowardly hiding until the case became absurd.

Strongly urge any in NC to file a complaint with the NC Bar against Nifong. Now is the time to turn up the pressure and drive this criminal from office.

 
At 9:55 AM, June 11, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

My goal is to write one letter or E-mail a day to the cast of characters in this travesty. I appreciate the suggestions here and will watch for others. Today I am challenging the empathy impaired Ruth Sheehan at the N&O. rsheehan@nando.com She authored the infamous "We know you know" piece, inflaming her readers with her rhetoric. We need to keep the pressure on these people. I will watch for others suggestions. Thanks. My E-mail below





Ruth, I’m betting you are in the ” Stage One of Parenting”….the Glory Days. No matter what you say on the record, you silently, secretly believe that you can raise your children in such a careful, concerned way… that love and logic and your personally instilled values will armor them against peer pressure. Me too. In my case, I told my college friends my goal was to be a very well educated Mother. I married a man who enabled that dream. Three children. Church every Sunday: he was Senior Warden, I taught Sunday School. I was Den Mother, Room Mother, 4H leader. I read my son A.E. Houseman’s poetry and my daughters’, Edna St Vincent Millay. At night, every night , my husband spent one hour reading to them…the Chronicles of Narnia, the Bible. We bought a house on a lake with a pool, so our home could be where all the kids congregated. We stayed home many a Friday night, so they could “entertain” in a no-alcohol environment. These children were my career and I was nothing if not goal-oriented. One night (.the older two were a junior and senior in high school, the youngest in 8th grade)…an admiring neighbor blurted out that our children , our family was “amazing.” Everyone looked up to us. I can see myself, feigning modesty…a pompous ass with a wine glass in her hand. Mission Accomplished. At this stage, I might have written any of your articles on the Lacrosse case myself.



Stage Two began some months later when my daughter gave MY car keys to an unlicensed driver who was subsequently involved in a hit and run accident.” Incredulous” is not a sufficient adjective here. But there was more to come, Ruth. Because I am not writing the Great American Novel here…I’ll just give you the bullet points, spread across three adolescents and a number of years.

Anorexia (1)

Underage Drinking (3)

Court appearance for underage drinking (1)

And, the coup de gras,…one actual, but blessed brief missing persons report

The perfect son became an angry college student , the beautiful daughter an anorexic, and our baby, the sorority drinker. By the grace of God, they did not fall into a vortex of Fate like these Lacrosse players. At this point, reality was teaching me some hard lessons about my own limitations, about peer pressure, about good kids floundering while they try to find a separate identity. That woman with the wine glass was humbled.



I’m in Stage Three now. The “kids” are three productive, kind sensitive adults. The anger is abated, the anorexia long under control, the drinking , an occasional glass of wine. But on this far side of parenting, I found your early columns very symptomatic of Stage One. You could NEVER, for one second, imagine your own children in that house, your own child responding to a racial slur with a racial slur. Because of that, you should have recused yourself. No one in Stage One can fairly write about this story. Before one piece of evidence was in, when all you had was an allegation, you took out every arrow in your verbal arsenal and went after these boys relentlessly. Because you could never, ever, see your own child in that house, you were empathy-impaired.



With only allegation and no evidence, you wrote “we know you know.” With only allegation and no evidence, you wrote” the silence is sickening.” With only allegation and no evidence, you wrote “Shut down the team.” As the public reads more and more court filings, you seem unable to absorb a alternative theory. You write about the racial slurs as if destroying these boys lives is a fitting result. You post a “Sister survivor website and link”…while your silence on what court filings now tell us about the injuries (or lack thereof) and relevant work history of the escort worker ( not exotic dancer) Please don’t respond that you want to wait to see all the evidence. No one with that position could have written “We know you know.”



Try this, Ruth. The little one at your breakfast table this Sunday, try to imagine him not perfect. See him doing the stupid thing and going to that house that night. On the basis of one allegation, becoming the target of the local newspaper, hate groups, vigilante posters, media assaults, women’s groups, and race baiting militants who threaten violence. “We know you know”…Ruth. Your powerful words, in a widely read column led the charge. This is what you did, with only allegation and no evidence, to those much-loved children of other Moms.

 
At 10:45 AM, June 11, 2006, Blogger Lax Parents '02 said...

Wow! You put all of my thoughts into one powerful document...reading it gave me chills. Please continue to share your letters!! Thanks!
Duke Lax Mom '02

 
At 7:15 PM, June 11, 2006, Blogger Lax Parents '02 said...

Here is a copy of the letter that is going to President Brodhead and the Board of Trustees tomorrow. We are eager to see if we get a response.


Ever since the events of March 13, 2006 involving the Duke Men’s’ Lacrosse Team were reported to the country and the world, we have wanted to contact you and express our assessment of the situation. As parents of a 2002 Duke graduate and member of the lacrosse team, we had a great deal of interest in the events as they unfolded. As each day brought new revelations and corresponding responses from the District Attorney and the University, we became more and more horrified and unable to comprehend what was happening to the young men involved. The outline…

1. A party was hosted by the Duke Men’s Lacrosse Team. After that party an accusation was made. It was immediately accepted as fact and reported to the public without a thorough investigation by either the DA or the University. Why?
2. The answer seems to be simple: it is because members of the lacrosse team have a “bad reputation” as a result of underage drinking (certainly not unusual in the high school and college setting), noise violations (certainly not unusual from homes and apartments around college campuses), public urination (certainly not unusual for it is demonstrated on every golf course and on every highway every day) and open containers (hmm, now that’s a real problem?). Now, really, are these significant concerns? No. Unusual? No. Annoying? Yes. Is this behavior unique to the Duke Lacrosse Team? You might think so from the reports emanating from the University and the press. But the truth is, of course not!
3. The problem was exacerbated because the team hired strippers for their party. Unusual? Unfortunately, no. Gather the statistics from universities around the country. Not only are strippers hired by male organizations but female as well. Again, do we like it? No. Approve of it? No. But is it criminal? Unique? Make these young men the “scum of the earth?” No! No! No!
4. Now, one would expect that the University, en loco parentis, would be trying to guide its “wayward children.” In fact, it seems like it was, to some degree. But as all of us know, guiding teenagers and young adults is often a frustrating job that will show results at a later time (perhaps when the frontal lobe is completely developed). In the meantime, parents, and hopefully en loco parentis, honor and support them for the good they do. The Duke Men’s Lacrosse Team is, and has been, stellar academically, outstanding athletically, accepting of others, generally well-mannered and major contributors to the University and Durham communities. What more do we expect? A little more social self-control? Okay, yes, but that will come.
5. The problem seems to be that no one in a position of authority stopped to consider the facts before condemning the young men and the lacrosse team…still without evidence, only an accusation.
6. Now the problem becomes these young men, and those before them, are characterized as “hooligans.” Uncooperative, lying “hooligans.” This profile has come from the DA and is supported by the University (the President as well as the Group of 88). What a windfall for the media!
7. All of a sudden it is bad to be intelligent, athletic, cooperative, honest, financially stable, productive, giving …especially if “caught” for underage drinking or making too much noise. Because of these characteristics, the young men must be rapists; after all, they have been accused.
8. The fiasco has begun. There is no presumption of innocence from the DA, the University or most of the media.
9. The young men, their families, their team, their University, and the alumni of the University have been tarnished. The city of Durham is in disarray, and old wounds have been brought to the forefront and placed on the backs of the 47 members of the Duke Lacrosse Team.

How could this fiasco have been prevented? The easy answer is if the team had not had the party. Okay, that has been addressed above. The next answer is if CGM had not made her accusation (from all signs, false accusation). But, the correct answer is if the “adults” involved, the DA and the University, had approached the situation with maturity and wisdom. If there had not been immediate condemnation of the lacrosse team, their character and their “blue wall of silence” (meaning their consistent telling of the truth); if the University had not allowed defamatory posters of the lacrosse team to be hung on its private property; if there had been a presumption of innocence as must be afforded all citizens according to the Constitution (5th, 6th and 14th Amendments) of the United States; if there had not been “leaks” from the DA’s office; if there had been understanding, constraint and respect shown by the University for its students (not because they are perfect, but because of their many exceptional characteristics); this would have played out in a much more civilized, appropriate and legal manner. Thus, it would not have been as destructive to the lives of the lacrosse players, their families, the accuser, her family, the University and the city of Durham.

Our interest in this situation is not only because we are good citizens who want justice and fairness to prevail, but also because it affects us personally. We, like many others at Duke University, are not financially privileged. As educators with over 75 years of combined service, we sacrificed to educate our sons at some of the finest schools (Gilman School, Colgate University and Duke University) in the nation. At this time, a portion of our sacrifice was in vein. Our son’s Duke University diploma and his years of service and success as a member of Duke’s Men’s Lacrosse Team have been tarnished, not by the actions (a wild party) of the 2006 lacrosse team but by the inappropriate reactions of the University. Publicizing the minor illegal indiscretions of the team (without putting them in context with the rest of the University or college students in general), not showing any public support for the fine young men involved, allowing the world to believe the vile email was the result of a psychotic student rather than related to a movie that is required viewing in some Duke University courses, and providing the climate that allowed a portion of the faculty (Group of 88) to feel comfortable and unfazed about publishing slanderous/hateful material, this is the travesty of it all.

We hope that soon, you will develop the courage and moral fiber to tell the world the truth about the young men of the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team as well as all those who graduated before. They are a group of typical college students who participate in normal college activities. They party, and sometimes demonstrate “boorish” behavior. But they are not rapists. In fact, they are young men of undeniably exceptional character as demonstrated by their academic and athletic achievements as well as their service to the community, while at Duke University and beyond.

Duke Lacrosse Parents ‘02

 
At 7:45 AM, June 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/449748.html

To the people of Durham: Thank You.

 
At 9:04 AM, June 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke Lacrosse parent '02: Thank you for posting your very timely letter. It is an excellent effort and we are all very appreciative of it. With your permission, we would like to open a new section entitled "Press releases and letters" in this website and publish your letter as a "first" in that section. This way, your letter will get more attention. We also hope that many similar letters will follow. Thanks again, you made us proud.

Moderator

 
At 9:24 AM, June 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke Lax parents '02: Further to my earlier email, if you do get a response from President Brodhead and the Trustees, we would hope that you will share that with us as well. Regards.

Moderator

 
At 9:41 AM, June 12, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

Blogger searvh
http://search.blogger.com/?as_q=nifong&ie=UTF-8&x=11&y=11&q=nifong&ui=blg&scoring=d

 
At 9:55 AM, June 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poster above: Excellent link, I will add it to our Links. I wonder if the reader needs to refresh the search, i.e. is it a static list? Well, with a little experience, we will find out. Regards.

Moderator

 
At 10:35 AM, June 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The News&Observer is reporting that Lewis Cheek, a Durham attorney, is considering challenging Nifong in the DA race. I hope that citizens of Durham will contact Mr. Cheek this week and encourage him to run.

 
At 3:44 PM, June 12, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15285.html

 
At 8:15 AM, June 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The News&Observer is quoting James Coleman, well-known professor of law at Duke, as saying he thinks the NC Atty. Gen. should appoint a special prosecutor in the LAX case because Nifong is no longer impartial.

Coleman, an African-American, was the co-author of the Duke report on the LAX team's record of behavior.

That such a liberal is calling for a special prosecutor show that the tide is changing.

 
At 9:18 AM, June 13, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

The N&O has now published a photo of Frederick Krom Jr. with a caption "subject of subpoena". A poster "Halftruth" does a great job of taking them to task on the Editor's Blog.I posted as well..see below...but please read Half-truth's comments and Ted Vaden,the public editor's, vapid reply. Please add a comment as well...even if it is just a short one showing agreement.

Half truths, your radar is right on, but after months of inflaming local rancor against the team, with only allegation and no evidence, it's deny, deny, deny.

Sadly most people today are "Headline readers". They scan the headlines (or captions) for a quick impression of what's going on. Journalists know this. Headlines are a great insight into the viewpoint (even agenda) of the journalists who write them. After all, the headline or caption is the journalist's personal summary of the "facts" to follow.

Ted Vaden must be suffering from the same Righteous Townie Revenge Virus that effects so many these days at the N&O. Of course, any fairminded person could understand that "being an object of subpoenas" gives the impression that this young man has the Hand of the Law bearing down on him. The "object of subpoenas" sounds so much like "the target of investigation.", doesn't it? Running a photo of him intensifies the subtle smear. People unfamiliar with legal-ese might assume..especially in the context of the "swagger piece" and the "vigilante poster", that these lacrosse players were Durham's equilalent of the Bloods or Crips. To some on this paper, I think they are.
One might have written "Subpoenas filed to stop Nifong". But that would give a different impression, wouldn't it, Ted? All over the internet, on blogs and discussion boards , people are parsing the headlines, the content , the placement and choice of the articles the N&O is running on the Duke case. It would be a fascinating course to teach in Journalism school.Right along with Dan Rather's National Guard story.
After embracing an allegation, with no evidence...a journalistic "ownership" takes over. After commiting to the swagger story, the vigilante poster, the pink-puff piece on the accuser (soft voiced college coed who got an "A" in a hard course.) and one on "Dean's list Kim...they need these boys to be guilty.for their own credibility and conscience. They are invested. The pro-defense stories they print are not coupled with opinion pieces, human interst stories, Ruth's fire, or compelling editorials. After all the fire in the first pro-prosecution reporting , readers can sense the reporting now is flat

In fairness (don't faint Melanie) I have admired this newspaper and you. Till now. Till this story of rape seemed so real and relevant and your cause so righteous, that you came out with your journalistic guns blazing...with only an allegation, and no evidence. Even if Nifong now reveals the Pope was behind the shower curtain and will testify for the Prosecution.....you went too far , too soon. And now, editorial silence.

Lest you chastise me for posting too much or too long, I get up an hour early each day to post somewhere...for Colin, Reade and Dave. You may chastise or delete me. I can copy and post my comments to this paper elsewhere. But I will stay the course till this travesty ends. I don't know these boys, don't care about Lacrosse and have no allegiance to Duke. But silence in face of injustice makes you a consenting co-conspirator. Not me

P.S. Melanie, is the Night Editor who approved this caption and photo ...the same editor who approved the Vigilante poster?

 
At 10:35 AM, June 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good job Joan Foster! I admire your determination. I wrote to Ms. Sills too on the same subject, did not get any response. I suppose that is to be expected. But the caption under the Krom photo is really a sad story. This woman can be sued for doing that, and in my opinion she should be.

 
At 5:57 PM, June 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The report today of the arrest of JJ Redick on DWI charges again reminds us of the role that excessive alcohol plays in leading to bad behaviors by otherwise upstanding young men and women.

The problem of binge drinking, and drinking and driving, needs to be addressed at Duke as well as other universities. Just because everyone does it does not make it right.

The reputation of the LAX team was not enhanced by alcohol-fueled antics. I believe the young men are innocent and charges should be dropped, but some restraint with drinking would be good for LAX players, JJ Redick, and all Duke and other university students.

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

 
At 10:27 PM, June 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

who is this woody vann? he is on greta sustern and he calls himself a defense atty in durham and was quite voacal insupporting nfongs reelection campaign - its a quite frightening town where the defense bar defends a prosecutor run amock - then we learn that woody vann represented the accuser and he is friends with nfong ? also vanns partner is a duke alum? its like a bad scary movie where the out of town visitr happens upon the dark mysterious small backward town where the town is all in cahoots with each other -i guess all duke students are the out of town visitors?????????????

 
At 9:59 AM, June 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

woody vann is mike nifong's best friend....and curiously enough the false accuser's lawyer in 2002, who managed to get her a suspended sentence for stealing a car, leading police on a chase and trying to run down a cop.

Vann is either a fixer, or somebody who is well aware that the accuser in this case has been a prostitute in Durham for over 5 years. Likely with a big thick black book or city officials, lawyers and cops.

Expect to read a lot more about the accuser's Durham sex clients as this case unravels

 
At 12:05 PM, June 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've watched Woody Vann and some of the other members of the North Carolina bar that are called upon to discuss the particulars of legal practice in this jurisdiction and as an attorney have come to several conclusions: first, as to Woody Vann, he will never come out and openly criticize the FA because he once represented her. In my view, that puts him in a rather awkward position even to offer commentary on this case in the first place. Second, having listened to him and to other local attorneys talk about criminal practice in Durham, I've come to the conclusion that North Carolina is a frightening place to be a criminal defendant (even without Nifong's antics) because the odds are so stacked in favor of the prosecution (no speedy trial provisions, no legal requirement to respond to many of the motions filed by the defense, etc.). Third, in light of my second observation and in light of the incestuous small town atmosphere that pervades this case, it strikes me that a lot of these attorneys not involved with the case are reluctant to be too critical of Nifong because they are afraid of reprisals in their future dealings with his office. For example, I'm confident that the lawyers for the indicted players have effectively burned their bridges with Nifong simply by virtue of their able representation of their clients, as Nifong has made it pretty clear that he is a vindictive, stubborn individual with a long memory. Let's hope he won't be in office after this case falls apart so that they can continue to practice there.

Two final observations: one, it never occurred to me when I was taking the oldest of my four children to look at colleges that I needed to be aware of each school's past record of support for students and campus organizations charged with criminal conduct. It also never occurred to me to look into the manner in which local law enforcement dealt with infractions by students at schools in their community. That will certainly change as I take the other three to look at schools in the future! Second, one of my role models has always been St. Thomas More, the patron saint of lawyers. In the marvelous Robert Bolt play "A Man For All Seasons" (which was made into a great movie starring Paul Scofield as Thomas More), More is jailed for not explaining why he won't sign an oath that effectively requires him to endorse the king's divorce and re-marriage. When More continues to outwit the legal scholars who try to get this influential servant of Henry VIII to sign the oath (which they realize will reinforce the king's self-serving position with his subjects), the Crown eventually persuades More's acquaintance Richard Rich to perjure himself and to testify falsely against More in return for the job as Attorney General for Wales. More is eventually wrongly convicted of treason based on Rich's perjury and executed. In a scene that reminds me of Nifong's actions in this case, More confronts his false accuser by saying "Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?" It strikes me as pathetic that this man is willing to sacrifice so much in the way of integrity and justice for personal gain, and for what? "Why Mike, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for the job as District Attorney for Durham County?"

 
At 2:17 PM, June 14, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

My comments, questions for Editor Melanie Sill at the N&O today. Please note comments from others challenging her are beginning to increase.Thank you.

I fear I may at times sound shrill, Melanie ...but that's what many of us are PLEADING for: the same forceful, hard driving reporting,... the same pointed questioning editorials ,and the same out-of-the-park opinion pieces... about THIS story of possible prosecutorial misconduct, as there was against possible rape. We've seen this paper lead the charge. We know you can do it. We can not understand the flat affect now.

There are two different stories here..a allegation of rape AND.....a growing suspicion of spurious misconduct by a corrupt D.A. in a tough re-election fight . Nifongs need to seemingly charge someone ,anyone....and do it fast. You needn't desert one story to investigate the other. Even those who might still believe a rape took place, should take great umbrage with Nifongs outrageous handling of this case. If the accuser is indeed a "victim", he may have victimised her again with his recklessness.

Of course, yes, you REPORTED on the line-up, the lack of DNA . You reported the information in the court filings that tell us ...Nifong KNEW of her multiple stories, ...knew the "crock" comment,...knew the accuser's admission of using alcohol and a strong tranquiliser ,... knew the unhelpful medical report etc, etc. We know NOW from sworn staements that Nifong knew all this BEFORE he pursued this case. REPEAT:BEFORE he pursued the case. Yes, you report these things. Then drop them. Silence. Nothing. "Slow time", you say.

On another board they have taken ALL of Nifong's 70-something media statements and contrasted them to the sworn "written statements " in the court filings. Not gossip , Melanie, sworn statements anyone can read online. I'll be happy to provide the link. It is very compelling, very troubling...almost frightening.Just his statements vs. the Court filings. No commentary. Read that and tell us again ..that this a "slow news time." The apathy to pursue the Nifong story leaves us shaking our heads, asking questions...continually asking YOU questions. Why , why , why is deep investigative reporting..on what many across America increasingly see as DURHAM'S out of control proscecutor...not of interest to DURHAM'S newspaper?

Today I'm not railing about the N&O's past; I'm pleading about the future. PLEASE take on this story. If we are all wrong, led astray by "gossip" ....help your current nationwide audience to understand. Give us an opinion piece , an editorial with all the facts to set us straight.

But if you can not refute in North Carolina law, or show us precedent or common procedure. that Nifong acted in a way that is common and CORRECT, then lead the charge. If you don't .... each time people look at Nifong and question, WHY?...they'll next turn their eyes to the N&O and query, "And, why not?"

 
At 3:02 PM, June 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joan Foster: Very well said, a great response. Let us see if it brings about any change in N&O. Even if it does not, you will be on the record.

 
At 3:17 PM, June 14, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

My "dialogue" with Editor Sill continues at this moment. When pressed about investigative reporting, she replied they are pursuing ......"several angles."...notably the criminal case and "the behavior" of the Duke Lacrosse team. I have just asked her why the behavior of a college Lacrosse team is of more concern to them than the behavior of the prosecutor? Anyone who wishes to jump in over there and help me out...the time is now!

 
At 6:40 PM, June 14, 2006, Blogger st295x98 said...

VOTE FOR LEWIS CHEEKS
Email him and tell him to RUN.

lcheek@durhamcountync.gov

I was just wondering where the Friends of Duke University stood when it comes to the Lewis Cheeks issue of running as a write-in Candidate for Durhams District Attorney in Nov. If you might recall I mentioned this in a post about a month ago, and everyone said it couldn't be done. If the Friends of Duke University are going to stand up for Mr Cheek, I still say that the Duke Students should register to vote in Durham(as A Democrat BTW)sp that they can vote in the Nov. election. They should start registering NOW. 10,000 students would make it a blow out. getting 1/2 of that would would still make it a easy win. 1/4 would be good enough to swing it away from LieFong.

 
At 8:17 PM, June 14, 2006, Blogger st295x98 said...

AND WE ALL THOUGHT COMEDY CENTRAL WAS FUNNY. YOU PEOPLE HAVE TO LISTEN TO THIS. INTERVIEW OF "KIMMY" DANCER #2 AND
JUAN WILLIAMS: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5484069

THIS IS STAND UP AT ITS BEST.

 
At 7:19 AM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Finally , the N&O takes on Nifong. Terrific article today...hopefully just the start. It was contentious at Ms Sill's blog yesterday..thank you to all who posted, and joined the fray. There were new voices and new calls for a story just like this....and finally she responded. Read it all and see.

 
At 8:31 AM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joan Foster: Thank you, you are wonderful. You showed us how to get results!

 
At 8:45 AM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Links to Newsobserver, to two long overdue articles. Thanks Joan Foster.

DA's statements, record at odds

The DA and the documents

 
At 8:54 AM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, while I didn't personally see the following two shows, I've read elsewhere that Bill O'Reilly has publicly called for the DA to drop the case; and MSNBC in a preview referred to the "Duke hoax".

So, if the major media are maybe finally beginning to come around,
perhaps the N & O may realize that it really doesn't want to be the very last media outlet to thoroughly examine the case...

 
At 8:58 AM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joan, Your posts on the N&O blog were terrific. Your hard work and persistence really paid off with a great article.

 
At 9:26 AM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw one of the nastiest articles/comments written on this case in USA Today. Here is the link. I could not figure out how to write to Susan Pons, perhaps someone else can figure it out and let us all know. She sounds real nasty (full of hate for anything Duke).

Duke team shows lack on integrity
June 14, 2006 USA Today
by Susan Pons,
Franklin, North Carolina

 
At 9:39 AM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above post -- Here's the opinion and editorial page URL for USA Today, as well as the directions for how to submit a response to an editorial or letter to the editor:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/front.htm

What's your view?

There are two ways to comment on editorials, columns or other topics in USA TODAY, or on any subject important to you:



• Write a letter to editor@usatoday.com. Please include address and daytime phone numbers for verification.



• Submit an opinion piece to The Forum, USA TODAY’s op-ed page. Please consult our guidelines.



Any submission to USA TODAY may be published or distributed in print, electronic or other forms.

 
At 11:05 AM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Here's my reply. I'll send it along. I also posted at Ruth Sheehan's blog today at the N&O. I intend to visit there often and hope to see some of you there as well. Let's keep pushing.


Dear Ms. Pons, I read your opinion piece: “Duke Team shows lack on integrity.” I think you’re on to something here. May I presume to suggest a few more letters you might write?



Two Canadian tourists were brutally stabbed yesterday crossing the street in Manhattan. I believe a letter on jaywalking is in order.



A bus carrying Sri Lankan school children has been destroyed by a land mine. We need to address parents inability to embrace home-schooling.



A 26-yr old restaurant manager was murdered in Chicago. Will you write about health peril of promoting fast food cuisine, or shall I?



Has anyone confronted Sharon Rocha with the fact Laci’s dog was running around the neighborhood unleashed?



At the moment, three young men are the victims of a baseless sham,… a witch-hunt instigated by a morally corrupt prosecutor out for re-election. With only an allegation ( and one that has multiple changing versions to it) and no evidence, they and their families have been persecuted, prosecuted and subjected to death threats. Please read the two articles in the Durham News and Observer today contrasting D.A. Nifong’s statements with sworn court documents. Currently, the wheels are coming off the justice system in Durham, North Carolina.



That being said, Ms. Pons. I do not approve of college drinking. Gee, do you think we could discuss it another day?

 
At 3:15 PM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best piece of commentary written on the case thus far: see the following article in the Chronicle today:

Apologies Necessary June 15 2006 by Randall Drain

God bless his heart for writing this. He must be a very special young man.

 
At 10:04 PM, June 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was posted after Randell's incredible letter:

Dear Mr. Drain,
Thank you for your courage and your well written letter. I pose the following to people who say that he, Mr. Drain, was operating under 20/20 hindsight while writing this article. What could Mr. Brodhead have done in order to salvage Duke's image in wake of allegations: cancel the season and fire, or force to "resign," Coach Pressler, or allow the season to continue and allow the Coach to keep his job. Canceling the season and firing the coach implies one thing: that even if rape had not occurred, something HAD to have happened that was sexually deviant. When I asked people why they thought "at least something happened," the answer was inevitably "because the coached resigned (keep in mind that is still the official story) and the school cancelled the season, otherwise why would they do that?" If Brodhead had not cancelled the season and had not forced Coach Pressler to resign, that would have immediately demanded that people question what actually happened that night. We have to remember that most people do not read every "news" report on this case or scandal, what they do hear on SportsCenter and read in the USA Today is "Head Coach Resigns, School Cancels Season." Therefore, what Brodhead did was a knee-jerk reaction to media "journalist-entertainers" (Nancy Grace) who will represent their "point-of-view=what sells." People who claim that that would have been ignoring the "victim"-including the 88 professors who called for the expulsion of the entire team-had made up their mind and were and are representing their interests or what their producers are telling them to report. As a Duke student, I know for a fact that if the season was cancelled and the coached fired for their team's hiring a stripper and under age drinking, then every single athletic coach and team is guilty of the same transgressions. Plain and simple, college men and women will act their age. By playing the "middle ground," the administration fed the fire and made it worse. The idea of a great liberal-arts university is to appeal to peoples' intellect, not to assume that media "entertainers" and lose-lipped politicians will have the same effect they had on the self-interested faculty as they "might" have on the greater population. If our (Duke) goal was to let the facts determine the outcome, then we would not have allowed people who had come to a conclusion without the facts dictate our decisions. For an example, before the team was reinstated, the search of "Duke Lacrosse" on google had two returns (first and second): Head Coach resigns under Rape allegations, and University cancels season. If you knew those two things, what kind a conclusion would come to? Brodhead showed incredible negligence and unbelievable stupidity by playing this middle ground and allowing people to choose sides much easier while he could have given the public a simple dialogue: if Duke has not cancelled the season and fired the coach, what really happened that night? He gave them a reason to believe the media and self-interested race peddlers.

 
At 12:17 AM, June 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Explaining the N&O behavior: The liberal impulse towards authoritarianism

We start with the obvious. Anyone with half a brain knew from day-1 that CGM’s story was either a scam or a lie to escape police confinement. And within days it was entirely clear that the DA, Mike Nifong, was out-of-control and involved in pure race-baiting for political reasons.

That was clear to anyone (even a liberal like myself). And equally obvious was the reasons for the smear campaign against the entire Lacrosse team launched from the pages of the News & Observer (thanks to Melanie Sill’s blog, there is no need to review her newspaper’s sorry record in March, April and early May- it is well-documented). The reason for the N&O’s behavior was, of course, reflexive no-nothing, 1-synapse creaking liberalism seeded by hazy mis-remembered scenes of 60’s racial solidarity and childhood latent hatred/ambivalence towards jocks. That’s an old story.

But of course, things got worse for the Nifong crowd in the Triangle liberal media. Within 3 weeks of the incident, we knew from the public record that Nifong had run not one but two illegal lineups, had refused to speak with the team or the lawyers and that he hide exculpatory evidence from the grand jury (we now know he ran at least 6 illegal photo lineups and likely repeatedly lied to the press. And that the Durham city manager and several police officers were also involved in the campaign to “shape” the facts of the case).

But many are confused how white liberals, like the N&O’s Ruth Sheehan and the Durham-Sun’s Editor Bob Ashley, could fall headlong in love with the prosecutorial abuse of Nifong as the case continued to unravel.

(Yes, amazingly, even last week, self-professed 60’s radical Bob Ashley editorialized that Nifong was the _victim_, who “through no fault of his own” was forced to indict the players….and I guess also _forced_ to call the entire team “hooligans” and subpoena their school records after he had claimed they were cleared of any wrongdoing).

Professional race men like NPR’s Juan Williams and Cash Michaels, it was argued, had no choice but to get a lobotomy and start spinning stories about an honor student and a Navy veteran rather than confronting the facts of the cases.

But really, the N&O’s continued Nifong lovefest well into May should be no surprise. One of the most disturbing impulses of liberals, such as Bob Ashley and Melanie Sill, once they have embraced an authoritarian figure is to never admit that they are wrong. Happened in the 30’s where chic liberals embraced the Soviet Union for a full decade after it was entirely clear that Lenin and Stalin had purged millions of people. Happened to Bob Ashley and his tie-dyed friends in the 60’s with their embrace of Mao; long after it was clear that he was one of the greatest butchers of the 20th century.

And the reason it took 3 months for the _first_ liberal MSM commentator (Nicholas Kristoff of the NYT) to have the courage to stand up and declare the case a crock.

One-synapse liberalism means never having to say you’re sorry.

 
At 6:38 AM, June 16, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

What a powerful post! I wish you would put it over at Ruth's Metro Blog. She really needs to read it.

 
At 6:52 AM, June 16, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Today I'm sending Ruth Sheehan my parody of her infamous March 27 column. Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]
06/15/06 at 16:3

All right, Ruth, just this one time I’ll help you. And, yes, I DO have a job, one similar to your own. That said, who better to commiserate on writer’s block. But you’ve got to get this mea culpa composed. Try this:

Dear Readers,

Nifong’s silence is sickening.

Members of the Durham Police Dept. and D.A.’s office: you know.

We know you know.

Whatever happened in Nifong’s re-election campaign went bad. Terribly bad. He rammed a bogus case against three young men into court to win a tough campaign. You know who was involved. Everyone one of you does.

And one of you needs to come forward and tell America.

Do not be afraid of retribution from Nifong. Do not be persuaded that his years in traffic court make him a “good guy.”

If what the court filings say is true….that three young men have been charged with rape based on the following

An ever changing account from the accuser,…. a multiple choice/ no- wrong answer line up,…. 46 witnesses who deny everything ….a crock of a story from Kim,… no DNA, save on TOP of a fake nail in a guys trash can…. and a medical exam more consistent with” Dancing Dates in Durham” than a Knock-down/ Dragged Out Struggle with three guys in a small bathroom. And Nifong's seventy -plus media rock star interviews are not lining up with sworn court statements.

Then the guy responsible for this farce is not good.

This seems an elementary statement, I know.

I can see loyal cops and assistant D.A'’s sitting around their offices convincing themselves that it would be disloyal to turn on their colleague. Why Nifong wanted to keep his job so much…he went just a little over the top. In real life, he has that cute chuckle. He calls his campaign manager and media advisor every week. He shares his strategy for punishing the defense lawyers and going on Nancy Grace with friends. He goes to political church dinners.

At this time in his life, he was just a little too hungry. Hungry to beat Freda. Hungry for a political win. Hungry to be all over cable TV with his fifteen minutes of Fame. It’s a scene straight out of a documentary on the Scottsboro boys…in reverse of course.


The angry threats thrown at defense lawyers now,…they were just…jokes. Ditto for that ridiculously pompous remark to America that no defense lawyer would want to face the great Nifong in court.

After all, he is not just handling traffic tickets. He’s the D.A. A lifelong dream.

And the players. They were rich white Duke kids, for Pete’s sake. Whose parents had big lawns.

I can see you all going down this path, justifying your silence. And it makes me sick.

***********************************************************************
I know, Ruth, it sounds pretty similar to what you wrote before. But why mess with success. And that article had such impact . E-mail if I can help more. Joan

 
At 9:02 AM, June 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A letter to John Hood of the "John Locke Foundation" in response to his comments in today Herald-Sun.

Hood Foundation and Nifong

To: jhood@johnlocke.org

Based on the Durham-Sun article today, I would describe you as one of the most poorly informed conservative blowhards I have read about in a long
time.

Most of the evidence of Nifong's prosecutorial conduct is from public records -not "defense lawyers"-

including the Nifong-designed 6 photo ID sessions that violate the Durham PD's own rules and basic police procedure, the repeated
lies/misstatements to the press by Nifong and the admitted interference of the City Manager into ongoing a police investigation.

You are so wrong on this issue, it makes me seriously
doubt your honesty, and clarity on any other issue.

 
At 9:50 AM, June 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above: We will add the Herald Sun article and your response to it to our “Responses to media” page. Perhaps some other friends would also want to comment on this article .Thank you for pointing it out.

Moderator

 
At 9:21 PM, June 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this thing gets to a jury--in Durham--those three guys are going to get old in jail. Do not under any circumstances underestimate the capacity for the professional race hustlers and their cowardly enablers to see this outcome through. O.J., of course, is the prime example, but look what happened with Cynthia McKinney just today.

You think Nifong is worried? He knows he just has to ride the storm until the day he picks a jury. In the aftermath of the O.J. verdict, one of the jurors went on television and said, paraphrased, "I didn't really pay much mind to the DNA stuff. It was just so far out there, I didn't give it any credibility." Sub in "timeline" or "medical records" or "changed stories" for "DNA," and that's what you'll be seeing as rationale for a guilty verdict a year from now.

There are people in this country, black and white, who are so invested in the cultures of victimhood and grievance that no amount of evidence in the world will overcome it. Moses himself could have appeared in the O.J. courtroom to vouch for his guilt and it wouldn't have mattered. The same willful ignorance will win the day in Durham if this case is allowed to proceed.

 
At 11:37 PM, June 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If any criminal lawyers are reading, a question: Nifong's statements are at odds with the file he turned over at Seligmann's arraignment and defense lawyers have filed motions asking for the records he relied on in making his statements. Can Nifong be called as a witness and put under oath to testify at the hearing? Can one or either side appeal the judge's ruling on these motions before the trial or do appeals all have to wait until after trial?

 
At 1:25 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Posted at Ruth's Metro blog today:
Ruth, your columns often presume some form of moral authority, some well-honed wisdom of what is right and wrong...be it Walmart or awarding scholarships. We are now getting some insight into your own morality, your own standard of values.

Your children will learn when they grow older what the community knows now. That after placing yourself front and center of the witch-hunt, you slink in silence to the back of the mob now. Righteous and raucous, your voice at the beginning of this debacle was one of the loudest. "You're a dead man walking" is shouted to other mothers' sons, ...based in part on your powerful words.

"We know you know."

Any decent person would step forward now and admit...you DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING. But you hide behind fluff and nonsense, cowering behind one "cutsey" column after the next. Go read that powerful, classic play "All my Sons" to see the only anti-hero to compare with yourself.. "Yes, in a way ",that man says "they were all my sons. " Colin, Reade, and Dave.

Readers see your attempts to turn your eyes from your own responsibility. Waaah! I get nasty E-mails! How tragic. Is your child falsely accused of a crime, receiving death threats, facing life in prison? Too bad about the E-mails.

You post links to a website for "Your sister survivor."..but has not the decency to link to one of the many that exist for the boys.

Please do not tell us you are waiting to see all the evidence. You were not waiting when you wrote "We know you know."

Readers will remember your silence now, your inability to write the piece all of Durham and all of America knows you owe us. You are a coward. And in time your own children will know of your shame.


Ruth, the silence is sickening.

 
At 2:05 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! Super comeback! I didn't read her original whiney column but I'm proud of you for responding with intelligent points. She sounds like a classic pot banger. May they all roast in hell.

 
At 3:40 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out the guest columnist in the Duke Chronicle---Randall Drain. I had trouble posting the link.

 
At 3:40 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above post -- here's the URL for the Randall Drain column. Great piece -- I continue to be amazed by how clearly and articulately the students, players like Dave Evans, coaches like Coach Kimel and recent graduates like Randall Drain are able to sift through the nonsense and tell the truth. Their "leaders" (administration and professors) ought to be ashamed.

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/06/15/Columns/Apologies.Necessary-2087398.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

 
At 3:43 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice PR campaign you have going here. And yes I am being sarcastic.

Form letters to elected officials.

Attacking the character of witnesses.

Asking people to attest to the "good" character of lacrosse players they never met.

Sending letters to a state official (the Attorney General)who has no authority to do anything about any of this.

If you believe in justice then let justice be served. A grand jury brought an indictment. The lacrosse players are due their day in court. If they truly are innocent, a jury will determine that. All you are doing is the same stuff you are accusing Nifong of doing - - polluting the justice system. It makes me wonder why.

 
At 3:44 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the 11:12pm poster above:

Try googling Tracey Cline dna durham to see how the Durham DA's office conducts itself.
Recently there have been other instances of DA and prosecutorial misconduct in NC. No surprise there.
And didn't the Durham PD run a prostitution ring in the early 90's? Wonder if that's been cleaned up?

This case should have been THOROUGHLY investigated first. Given the evidence that has been released recently, don't you wonder what the grand jury was told? Were they told about condoms, chokeholds, date rape drugs, the wall of silence, photo IDs? And, of course you know that grand juries only see ONE side of the evidence? Nifong had OTHER options rather than going for grand jury indictments but the timing wouldn't work for him given the election.
Sure, I believe in letting justice be served. Let's start with the DA, his office, the City Manager, the Durham PD.

 
At 3:44 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the 6/15 11:12 pm poster: Unfortunately, because of the clear misconduct of the prosecutor in this case and the limited alternatives available under the law in North Carolina to seek redress for these legitimate grievances, there is no assurance that "justice" will be served in this disgraceful matter. Aside from the clear First Amendment rights of the posters on this blog to say what they like about this case, the fact that this case has been egregiously mishandled (apparently for political gain and, sadly, with no checks and balances to keep the District Attorney accountable) citizens who are witnesses to this miscarriage of justice have had to resort to an old-fashioned grassroots campaign to garner public support for their efforts to seek true justice for these wrongly accused individuals. The fact that numerous law enforcement officials across the country are on the one hand scratching their heads in amazement at the way this case has been handled and on the other hand expressing increasing anger and frustration with the way it has undermined the legitimate work that they do is very telling.

You say "If you believe in justice then let justice be served." That is all that the Duke lacrosse team members, their families and supporters have wanted from the beginning. Had justice been served, however, this case would never have been filed in the first place. The fact that justice is apparently hard to come by in Durham County on this DA's watch is chilling. The efforts of the contributors to this blog and other individuals of good faith who do believe in the rule of law and object to its being trashed in this case are simply their legitimate efforts to respond to a miscarriage of that justice.

 
At 3:45 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a non-lacrosse playing alumnus, I fully support and agree with Mr. Drain's eloquent statements about the shame many alums feel about the way the Duke Administration has kowtowed to the local and national media scavengers by abandoning their own student athletes and acting on a presumption of guilt, I am sure in large part to the racial nature of the case. Poorly informed judgment makers like Houston Baker, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton have not helped to take the pressure off President Brodhead, et.al., but to capitulate to these reverse racist inflamers has only alienated much of the Duke alum family and continues to worsen what has become a public relations nightmare for the University, spawning such journalistic dreck as last month's unflattering Rolling Stone profile of a few select Duke women who, by their own words, have created one big, unfunny joke. Many women I have spoken to, current students as well as successful, proud Duke alumna, were ashamed and embarassed to see such a small representation of rich, spoiled, weak women speaking for them. As a father and a Dukie, I was also disgusted by what these women said about Duke, and more, about themselves and their morals, or lack thereof.

Andrew Rosenberg T84

 
At 3:46 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's NewsObserver: Editorial on gaps in the case -- final paragraph: "Yet it's in the interest of justice to hold the prosecution to high standards of conduct. Nifong may have conspicuously staked himself out as believing in the three Duke students' guilt, but his duty has to be to continue to evaluate the strength of his case against the three, all of whom say they are innocent. If at any point he concludes that the evidence is unlikely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that crimes were committed, his only responsible course would be to drop the charges."


http://www.newsobserver.com/681/story/451509.html

 
At 3:46 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's Herald-Sun -- if the case clearance rate in the Durham court system is now so great (according to Nifong) he should definitely be able to speed up his "prosecution" (or should I say persecution) of this case from its spot on the calendar for next spring.

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-745050.html

 
At 3:52 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please read the following statement from the Attorney General of NCs web site. If you believe, as I do, that this entire situation IS A SCAM, then send a note to this man and maybe he will give Nifong the ass-kicking that he deserves. I know most of us aren't residents of NC, but we can sure make our voices heard at that level. Because when the truth comes out that the DA of one of NCs largest cities botched the arrest and the incvestigation, not to mention the grand jury proceedings, the entire State of NC is going to look really backward and inept. Does this Attorney General want this? Does the Governor of NC want this? I think probably not, and maybe our combined emails can compel them to step in.
http://www.ncdoj.com/default_contactus_form.jsp?sectionid=ag&subsectionid=general

"Welcome to the Attorney General's Web Site
As Attorney General of North Carolina, I am working hard to protect the people of our state from crimes and scams. This web site includes information on those topics and many others that I hope you will find helpful. On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Justice, thank you for visiting our web site.

Sincerely,
Roy Cooper"

 
At 3:54 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could this reparations scheme have anything to do with the Duke Lacrosse case? Wachovia bank has already paid reparations because
slave owners had accounts in banks that later became Wachovia.

Just a thought.

NewsMax.com
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Panel: N.C. Owes Slavery Reparations

A state-appointed commission is urging North Carolina to provide reparations for the 1898 racial violence that sparked an exodus of more than 2,000 black residents from Wilmington.

The 500-page report that was produced after six years of study also said the violence, which killed as many as 60 people, was not a spontaneous riot but rather the nation's only recorded coup d'etat.

"There is no amount of money that can repair what happened years ago and compensate for the loss of lives and the loss of property," said vice chairman Irving Joyner, a professor at N.C. Central School of Law.

The commission did not provide any cost estimates, although compensation advocate Larry Thomas of Chapel Hill estimated that the economic losses calculated today are "probably in the billions of dollars."

Along with compensation to victims' descendants, the commission also recommended incentives for minority small businesses and help for minority home ownership. It also recommended that the history of the incident be taught in public schools.

State Rep. Thomas Wright, a Democrat who helped establish and chair the panel, said the next step is to file a bill in the Legislature with the recommendations. That won't happen before 2007 because the filing deadline for this session has passed.

The 1898 violence began when white vigilantes, resentful after years of black and Republican political rule during Reconstruction, burned the printing press of a black newspaper publisher, Alexander Manly.

Violence spread, resulting in an exodus of 2,100 blacks, the commission concluded. Then the largest city in the state, Wilmington flipped from a black majority to a white majority in the months that followed.

Before the violence, which led to a Democratic takeover from Republicans and Populists, black men in North Carolina had been able to vote for about three decades. But Democrats quickly passed voter literacy tests and a grandfather clause, which disenfranchised black voters until the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

"The growth of Wilmington was stunted as a result of what happened in 1898," Joyner said. "Wilmington has never recovered economically, socially or politically."

Wilmington likely became a "catalyst" for the violent white supremacist movement around the country, with other states taking note, said Lerae Umfleet, the state's lead researcher.

"Jim Crow had passed in a few other states," Umfleet said. "But the whole white supremacy campaign in North Carolina was watched around the country. People built on what happened in Wilmington."

Some previous historical accounts had portrayed the incident as spontaneous, although more recently, historians have described it as a coup d'etat.

"This sets the record straight," Wright said. "Now there is an official document confirming this part of North Carolina's - and America's - history. Nowhere in the United States has a legitimate government ever been overthrown."

2006 Associated Press.

 
At 3:57 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the above post is correct, and there is a link between the Duke Lacrosse case and the Slavery Reparations, then Duke University should be the accused party not 3 kids from North who had nothing to do with tobacco or slavery. See this article:

MLK speakers in Duke discuss slavery reparations 2004

 
At 3:58 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

trianglebizjournal.com

Raleigh/Durham > News >
Poll: Duke's image most hurt by lacrosse case
Triangle Business Journal
May, 31, 2006 Wednesday

by Jeff Drew

Almost half of the readers who took part in the Triangle Business Journal's poll over the past week think Duke's image has suffered the most damage from the scandal surrounding the university's men's lacrosse team.

From May 24 through May 30, readers were asked, "Whose image is most tarnished by the Duke University lacrosse scandal?"

Out of 565 total responses, 45 percent said Duke's image has been the hardest hit. Thirty percent said Durham's image has been sullied the worst, while 25 percent chose the answer "Neither. Who cares?"

More than 20 poll voters' comments singled out Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong as the person whose reputation has been tarnished the most. Listed below is a sampling of our poll voters' comments, which were made anonymously.

"The police department appears inept and the DA appears one sided with no interest in discovering the truth."

"Mike Nifong's image! Why wasn't that a choice? "

"I think it will depend a great deal on how it plays out. If the woman made the story up or blamed it on the wrong people, Durham will certainly have damaged its reputation significantly and Duke will be vindicated, although they will certainly need to be humble about it. If the boys did what they are accused of, or even anything close, Duke will have much to apologize for and will have to take a very hard look at how to incorporate better behavior among all students, rather than rely on the argument that most of the students are well-behaved but there will always be a few troublemakers. All in all, though, Duke has more of a reputation at stake and, so, is likely to be the more tarnished for it, no matter the resolution"

"This is a cheap shot at Duke and Durham. What about the lacrosse team, the accuser, the DA, all of the people out holding candles before they even knew what happened? The media is the group that should have the tarnished reputation for giving all of this a platform."

 
At 3:59 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you seen this article today? This is very troubling...Nation of Islam commenting, and I fear that if they get further involved, there will be serious trouble...perhaps this link should be added to the links section...I hope that people who live in and around Durham will be able to make a strong showing at the courthouse the next time Reade, Collin, and Dave have to go to court...perhaps something can be organized so that fair-minded pro-defense people can get in line ahead of time to fill the courtroom on the day of any hearings, as well as line the outside of the courthouse so as to drown out the racist, threatening taunts from the thugs and lowlifes...I would hate to see them get threatened and harassed again, as Reade did last month...here's the link (hope it works).

http://wilmingtonjournal.blackpressusa.com/News/article/article.asp?NewsID=70042&sID=4n

Concerned Mom

 
At 3:59 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poster above: Thanks. I am adding a link to the above article. I will remove the article from here after the link is added.

 
At 4:01 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following article needs to be read and circulated. If it is a false account, then Brodhead has reason to press slander charges. If it is true, then Duke University's trustees need to take a serious look at his behavior during the past two months.

June 06, 2006, 7:17 a.m.

Forget the Facts
Duke's president has a history of allowing public relations to trump principle.

By Michael Rubin

 
At 4:02 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poster above: Thank you, we listed that article in our "Links and Media" page yesterday. We even urged our friends to read the article and comment on it. It will be interesting to see if a response article from President Brodhead will follow. If the facts are not true, why would Michael Rubin make up a story like that? He could be sued for it. Our operating assumption is that the article is based on facts. We would appreciate comments from others who may be closer to those events.

Moderator

 
At 4:03 PM, June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's about time

Posted by Jon Ham at 11:27 AM
'Durham DA Mike Nifong has gone as deep underground as Osama bin Laden lately as his case seems to be falling apart. Early on he was on more TV shows than Ann Coulter when she's hawking a new book....'



http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=8118

 

<< Home