Tuesday, May 30, 2006

General topics 5 - Full

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

147 Comments:

At 2:01 PM, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is an excellent rebuttal to the Weekly Independent article written by Hal Crowther “Sympathy for the Devils?”

Responses to media

 
At 2:12 PM, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Collin Finnerty's bond was reduced to $100,000. This is very good news! This bond is still much higher than murder cases, but let us be thankful for this much!

Does any one know if Dave Evans's refusal had anything to do with his family's financial circumstance or not? The Newsobserver article did not give any details. I suppose, the details are still emerging.

 
At 5:06 PM, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the previous post: Joe Cheshire was quoted in the paper as saying they had not yet made up their minds on whether to apply for the same reduction in bail.

 
At 5:26 PM, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: That is good to know. That means no rejection occured. I am so happy that they reduced these bonds, at least for Reade, and now Collin. It is something.

 
At 5:39 PM, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/27446.html

Anyone who has received a reply from the N.C. attoney general's office stating they are unable to intervene or some such legalese...might consider replying with this link. Tell them it's being read all over the internet.

 
At 6:33 PM, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Let us see how AG Cooper responds (if he responds). This "wall of silence" by the Durham officials will have to be broken at some point. I wonder if they are busy hiring lawyers, and that is keeping them from talking. But, wait a minute, didn't these people say innocent people do not hire lawyers and they do not keep quite? Let us see what will come from behind this "wall of silence". We are all ears Durham, we are all ears, waiting to hear you out.

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

Found Artifact: an unread blog of the Durham Indy Newspaper show the liberal tendency to totalitarianism

Although nobody reads it, the blog of the Durham Independent provides a pristine amber-embedded time capsule of the white liberal witch hunt in the Duke case.

DENT BLOG

In the short space of one month, two white liberals (let's call them "Fiona" and "Bob" since nobody knows or cares who they are) go from foaming, bloodthirsty lynch mobbers to snarky a-holes to semi-apologetic apers of their betters in the liberal MSM.

And then they fall completely silent as Nifong's case collapses in May, strangled by the DA's lies and the city manager's attempted coverup of the police reports.

If anyone ever wanted a portrait of both the totalitarian tendencies and extreme cowardice of rich white leftists, these unnoticed blog entries are the thing.


(Note: The Indy apparently awoke this week from their Nifongian cone-of-silence stupor to hire a down-on-his-luck, failed novelist, faux-Southern NY creaking Stalinist - Hal Crowther - to write a hatchet piece on the Duke case. Trouble was, Mr Crowther was either too lazy or too drunk to read any of the publicly-available documents in the case so got his facts all jumbled.

There is rush-to-judgment journalism (like the N&O and early Newsweek)...and then there is just desperate and sloppy lies in defense of a lost cause (like the Indy's).

Crowther's piece reminds one of articles in Pravda circa January 1991. The inflammatory sloganeering a pathetic attempt to drown out the gathering calls for an end to the reign of Nifong terror).

 
At 10:51 PM, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to the 5:39 PM, June 29th post above I navigated to NC Attorney General Cooper's website and closely read his personal profile (prior to informing AG Cooper about the link describing the discretion the NC Attorney General actually does have with respect to responding to DA Mike Nifong's conduct in the Duke case).

One portion of his personal profile that really struck me as odd was the following statement:

"Roy Cooper and his wife Kristin have three daughters, Hilary, 19, Natalie, 11, and Claire, 9, all of whom attend public schools."

Why the mention of "public" schools ?

To me this supports the theory that in the office of the NC Attorney General the deck is stacked in favor of "public" vs "private" learning institutions when it comes to the application of fair justice (for many political reasons).

Please note that Attorney General Roy Cooper attended UNC Chapel Hill for both his undergraduate studies and law school (just like DA Mike Nifong).

 
At 11:15 PM, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That link--

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/27446.html

blows the idea that the NC attorney general cannot intervene right out of the water.

Yes, he can intervene; there are provisions for it; and the particulars of this case meet those provisions.

Cooper, where are you?

 
At 1:38 AM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you to the poster of the following link:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/27446.html

I hope Attorney General Cooper is closely reviewing the four grounds (described in this article) that would warrant the attorney general's office special prosecutions division handling of this case.

The following is an unusual statute stipulation pointed out in the article:

"Under the statute creating the special prosecutions division, the local district attorney must request state intervention. So North Carolina has established a system in which an ethically challenged prosecutor like Nifong effectively can police himself."

However, the article does address this issue and suggests reasonable scenarios by which Attorney General Cooper's office special prosecutions division could still intervene on this case (despite this obstacle).

Hopefully Attorney General Cooper will be bombarded with requests to review this link. At some point AG Cooper's conscience is going to take over and he is going to do what is right and required by NC law. This will be greatly beneficial to not only the falsely accused lacrosse players and their families but also the citizens of North Carolina who have lost faith in the NC justice system.

 
At 8:02 AM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of us who wrote to the AG will get his "Gee, I can't help" response. I think it would make a statement by replying with the link that absolutely refutes that position. Let him know we know. I entitled my E-mail "Your reply about Nifong refuted all overInternet."

 
At 9:30 AM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

From the N&O Editors blog today. Please help me out and keep posting over there. The powers that be seem to want our questions to go away.


Great Post, NDLax. Unfortunately, Melanie (the Editor) has moved on from this thread and is neither reading nor commenting here anymore. Maryin NJ tried to go upstairs and chat with her but, Melanie, um, put her in her place. So we lanquish here, posing our questions to one another,.waiting for another appropriate thread.


But, welcome..stay and chat for awhile. We notice no coverage yet today that The Great Menace to Stripperdom, Ryan McFadyen, has been reinstated both to Duke and the lacrosse team. Remember that E-mail that 80% of America recognised as a parody of American Pyscho? Gosh, though it's covered in classes at Duke and must have made it to theatres in Durham...no one there seemed to get it. What a flap!! The N&O gave it great prominence, the potbangers had the vapors, and the politicing D.A. rubbed his hands with glee. Ryan was removed for "his safety." The Coach lost his job.

See, the theory was that after witnessing his teammates commit an horrific rape, Ryan decided to go back to the dorm and memorialise it for all time in an E-mail. Never having watched NYPDBlue, he decided it would be fun to see if he could implicate himself. Ah-h-h-h, carefree youth!

Well, he's back. No mention of the decision yet in the N&O or if Nifong has ordered all escort services on high alert.

NDLax, just so you know the status here. ...Melanie says all questions (see above) that can be "documented" have been covered by the N&O.

The City manager is documented right in these pages saying the police report said no multiple stories. The police report we see says otherwise. The N&O doesn't even ask him to clarify. My "need to know" does not extend to ...local guys they know well, I guess.

Questions why the State AG is saying in replies to citizens that he cannot intervene when all over the Internet statues are being linked that say otherwise. (I'll post the link later) Questions about that Crimestoppers poster ....and what exactly did Nifong have in evidence when he ordered the Gang-testing of the team???? In North Carolina, it seems Politics and local papers are blind...Justice has just been blindsided.

Should you pop down here for a supervisory visit,...have a nice weekend, Melanie.

 
At 10:22 AM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently Nifong can be sued in civil court for damages. Normally a DA is immune; but not always :

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060630_spilbor.html

". . .in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor was not absolutely immune from civil liability for false statements made in a press conference and for other pre-trial investigative conduct; in that case, only "qualified immunity" applies.

"The conduct of a press conference does not involve the initiation of prosecution, the presentation of the state's case in court, or actions preparatory for these functions."

 
At 10:24 AM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the rest of that URL

20060630_spilbor.html

:-)

 
At 10:36 AM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is perhaps the remaining puzzle in the Duke case. How did the mild-mannered well-respected traffic court prosecutor becomes the lying, monstrous DA Nifong in a few short months.

The easy (and probably correct) answer is that the power of the office uncovered a deep character flaw in the man that had lain dormant for 20 years.

But regardless, the thinking has always been that the Duke case was an aberration for Nifong triggered by his hatred of Duke and a misguided self-perception as a crusader for the downtrodden.

Advocates of the power-mad DA theory may have additional support in another recent case of Nifong's that shows similarities with Duke case in that it is an apparently racially-tainted prosecution that is being supported by his office (and by NCCU-educated Judge Bushfan) despite no apparent support from the facts.

It is Nifong's charges against the Durham Housing and Community Development Director Mike Barros.

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-748421.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/450793.html

There is a black complainant, who most suspect is a serial litigant and possible shakedown artist who apparently lacks any credibility, charging a white supervisor with random and everchanging acts of intimidation and violence occuring at unspecified times.

It is another case that makes you shake your head at the astonishing inability of this Durham DA to sort out a real case from a fraud.

Durham-style justice or a brain-scrambled malicious DA?

 
At 10:58 AM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes and note the judge in the barros case- bushfan! the evans judge -- coincidence or another case of judge shopping by nfong! me thinks the latter .......

 
At 11:58 AM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the low public opinion of the judicial system in this country, you would think that it could not go lower. Then this! I believe Mr. Nifong's public opinion would skyrocket if he were to just admit he rushed to judgement and drop the case. He would be a hero.

 
At 12:10 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hooray for the person who found that Supreme Court case! Congratulations to Ryan! Yeah for Collin! Perhaps there's some progress. The Finnertys were wonderful on television this morning.

To all of you out there in InternetLand who have college age children. PLEASE go to thefire.org and check out their GUIDE to DUE PROCESS AND FAIR PROCEDURES ON CAMPUS- it is an eye opening read regarding the lack of rights for students-especially at private institutions.

After reading and highlighting the Guide myself, I made my college age son read it. I hated having to burst his bubble of idealism, but in the current culture, naivete is perilous. These days, it is not enough to be minding your own business, you have to be aware of who ELSE is minding YOUR business and what the politically correct answers are.

Sorry to be the voice of cynicism.
Texas Mom

 
At 1:27 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Duke Law Grad said...

Cheek, a moderate Dem., has turned in 10,000 signatures putting him on the Nov. ballot as a write in candidate for DA against Nifong. The Republican (Monk, I think)failed to get the 6,300 needed to get on the ballot. Good news in that the vote will not be split again. In the Dem. primary, Nifong got about 11,000 votes, only 45% of the total, but won becasue two opponents split the majority of the votes. Turnout in the primary was very low, 25,000 voters out of 130,000+ registered (I think, working from memory here). Nifong's campaign manager has switched sides, going to work for Cheek and boasts she has never lost an election. Turnout should be higher in the fall, but will be driven the DA race, most other races are not very interesting. Being the animal he is, it has probably occured to Nifong that the only way to try and defang his opponent is to drop the case. A very dicey calculus at best.

 
At 3:22 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bond for Dave Evans was lowered.

 
At 4:48 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent news about Dave.... Keep it coming. The Finnertys are on Abrahms report right now. They sound quite confident. I like what I am hearing.

 
At 5:29 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am interested in what I have been reading. Was Nifong a "clerk" type lawyer handling traffic citations? Why did he work for the government for 27 years? Likely he could not make it in the real business world. I don't know. I want him to be the one to try this case. Sounds like a water boy getting to be quarterback for a few minutes.

 
At 6:10 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the previous post: I read that Nifong had asked to be assigned to a lesser job (traffic court) for a time because he had prostate cancer. I see his behavior in this case as a way to seal the deal and get himself elected and become the next "Top 10 Lawyer" like his predecessor Hardin did after convicting Michael Peterson several years ago. Talk about delusions of grandeur! Wouldn't you think that having survived cancer you would have a better sense of your priorities and of what really matters in life, like making the moral and ethical decision vs. the politically motivated one? What a disgrace.

 
At 7:35 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

as to gaining priorities after cancer, a lot of people have the reverse reaction....feeling that time is running out and that they need to make their mark before "Game over"

Sic transit gloria.
(for Mike, anyway)

 
At 9:47 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A very dangerous scenario is developing for Mr. Nifong. Should he lose to Cheek in Nov., the new DA will review the case and if he believes he cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, he is ethically required to move for dismissal. Mr. Nifong would not only be out of a job, but likely facing a law suit for malpross (sp?)and a move to revoke his license to practice law. A longer shot would be Nifong himself indicted. By droping the case now he can probably avoid the law suits and the ethics hearings at the state bar. Some steam would come out of Cheek's campaign for DA and he might still win the election. My bet is he will now do some quick polling to see how the fall vote is shaping up.

 
At 10:34 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today has been tremendously encouraging for the Duke case. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for both Dan Abrams' and Sean Hannity's persistance in pursuing the facts in this case.

I have not read every post on this blog and thus I am hoping that someone out there can respond to the following question. Today Dan Abrams mentioned the email that was allegedly sent by a yet to be identified member of the lacrosse team that stated something to the effect that he was going to go public and turn in some members of the team the next morning. I believe Dan Abrams was theorizing that this might possibly be the undisclosed evidence (i.e. smoking gun) that DA Mike Nifong is basing his case on (outside of the accuser's false allegations).

The only theory I have read regarding this email is that the Durham police department generated this email in an effort to scare members of the lacrosse team into providing statements claiming they either witnessed or perpetrated the alleged crimes.

From what I read the owner of the email account (a yet to be identified lacrosse player) from which the message was sent denied sending this email.

I am 100% convinced the accused lacrosse players are innocent. I just want to know if anybody out there can share more information regarding this "mysterious email".

The quote of the day for me comes from Sean Hannity on his FOXNEWS cable show. At the end of the Duke case segment this evening he stated that this case is a "travesty of justice" and that we're going to get to the bottom of it. Those are very strong statements.

Thank you very much for your help.

 
At 11:11 PM, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

regarding the above post:

There is a view that the sending of a faked/spoofed email reportedly from a Lacrosse player is legal for law enforcment is legal and appropriate.

This is nonsense. If a Durham PD or DA official sent such an email that is _conclusive_ evidence of entrapment and will lead to a successful lawsuit for malicious prosecution.

If DPD officer Mark Gottlieb sent such an email (as is alleged), he is screwed and will end up in the poor house before this is over.

 
At 12:09 AM, July 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

IIRC, the player whose computer was used to send the email was actually in a class at the time the email was sent, and has denied sending it.

It was quite possibly sent by the police in an attempt to stampede some of the players into rushing to the DA to offer confessions in return for leniency. (However, of course, no one did.)

It is legal for the police to tell a defendant that his co-defendant, being interrogated in another room, has confessed all, and so he too may as well confess (even if this is not the case). I don't know how sending a phony email compares with that,
so there may be opinions on both sides.

But in any event the ploy failed. None of the players were guilty, and none had anything to confess.

 
At 1:24 AM, July 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no one from lacrosse team going to testify for Nifong because it is past the time he is required, by law, to disclose such person to the defense. Such person can only exist if he has been disclosed and the crowd of defense lawyers has kept it secret, which is very unlikely. Such person, if he exists, apparently can't identify anyone or he would have steered Nifong away from Seligmann (big alibi) and would have IDed Evans early on making it possible to indict him at the same time as the other two. Since the disclosure date has past, Nifong could not use such a person at trial; his testimony would be supressed and Nifong would risk dismissal of the case for prosecutorial misconduct

The entire Duke community should be concerned that Durham police were able to get into e-mail system and fake an e-mail and also to get the disgusting e-mail from McFaden to his team mates. OR someone inside the Duke system actively helped the police.

 
At 1:25 AM, July 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How does one contribute to Mr. Cheek's campaign for district attorney?

 
At 7:46 AM, July 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: We will contact the Cheek campaign and find out how to help. There will be some posts on this in the "From moderator" page very soon.

Moderator

 
At 9:16 AM, July 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the need for an impartial jury :

(from http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/rulebook.html)

Patrick Henry said :

"By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well aquainted with his character and situation in life." Patrick Henry, (Elliont,The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 3:579).

"Patrick Henry also knew that orignally the JURY of PEERS was designed as a protection for Neighbors from outside governmental oppression. Henry states the following, "Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off...This gives me comfort - that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me." (Elliot, 3:545, 546)

(Where do the neighbors of the defendants in this case reside?)

 
At 9:19 AM, July 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another excellent commentary on the need for an impartial jury :

http://www.joebobbriggs.com/jbamerica/2002/jba20020110.html

(partial excerpt) :

"Which brings me to my question: What the hell does "jury of peers" mean anyway? That's what the Constitution says Lemrick Nelson is supposed to have--a jury of his peers. A peer is simply somebody from your own social class.

But in this case, the judge seemed to be determined to put people on the jury who were not only not in Lemrick Nelson's social class, they were in the class of the person he allegedly killed. Wouldn't that make it a jury of the victim's peers?

"This is not the only trial where I've seen this. A white man is accused of killing a black man, and there's an insistence that there be blacks on the jury. A rich man is charged with murdering his wife, and ends up with a jury of poor white women. . .

"So what happened? How did we go from making sure a man was judged by his own class to making sure he's never judged by his own class? . . .

"The idea of putting peers of the victim on the jury is not only perverse, it's mean-spirited. First of all, the Constitution says nothing about it. The Constitution is concerned with the defendant's peers.

More important, the victim is not a victim, in the eyes of the law, until the trial is over. We assume that no crime has even occurred until the evidence is presented by the state.

(snip)

"We don't have such rigid classes anymore, but we definitely have classes. We know we have classes because that's why the victim's family is trying to stack the jury in the first place. They're saying "Our class is not represented." Well, guess what? Their class doesn't have any meaning to the court. The court is concerned with the guy who's being accused. . .

 
At 9:32 AM, July 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who say that convicting three innocent white youths is only giving the white community payback for years of lynchings (and is therefore justice), in fact the very reverse is true.

If it were possible to find the exact persons who conducted a lynching, and then to lynch them in their turn, that would be justice.

But picking someone to lynch at random, a hundred years after the first lynching, is only to validate all lynchings as permissible expressions of race hate.

If you want to erase all the victims of prior lynchings and declare that their murders were permissble, then go ahead and assault those who are innocent now; you will accomplish precisely this.

 
At 10:12 PM, July 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has there been any news about the false accusers cell phone records?

 
At 3:26 AM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Below is a response to the largely incoherent column in today's N&O by golf-playing Marxist Duke professor Orin Starn.

Orin is a little rich kid who has been playing at revolutionary communist politics for the last 15 years, trying, I guess, to rebuild the Berlin wall remotely from Durham.




Orin doesn't like Mike


To little lord Orin:

You rightly take Krzyzewski to task for his mealy-mouthed comments, but refer only briefly to "the perils of preconceptions and snap judgments" made in March and
April.

And who made these "snap judgements", Mr Starn?

Gee, I think it was Anne Allison, your chairperson, and most of the rest of the members of your own Cultural Anthropology department.

Their lynch-mob letter and poster (still on the AfAm
department website) was and is a disgusting public act
of vigilantism and betrayal of their role as educators.

Will your department still be administerinig justice "no matter what the police and courts decide"?

Is there a torture chamber in the basement of the Social Sciences building?

Maybe you can ask Ms Allison when she returns from her 3-month vacation.

And the "preconceptions" continue.

Your Op-ed is more of the same....blame-shifting and
hypocrisy.

You sling unsubstantiated claims of the use of the "n-word" to continue to demonize the accused (who
said the n-word? Was it Dave, Collin or Reade? Or was it Brett? We need a name, Orin Nifong. Otherwise, it is just slander and demonization)

I guess you also just *forgot* to mention that the racist talk that night was reportedly bidirectional, "limp-dick white boy".

Oh wait, you're just a leftist anthropologist, you don't actually have to tell a balanced story, do you? Especially now that you have
tenure.

The behavior of you and felllow CA faculty will not soon be forgotten. I and others will make sure of that.

And as a result you and a huge swath of Duke liberal arts faculty will have _zero_ moral credibility, with your students in the next few years.

You want to see fault and moral failing in this
case....look in the mirror, Mr Starn.

 
At 6:11 AM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Great article here. While some Duke faculty struggle to see past their own agendas..this prof at Frostburg State gets it.http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson130.html

 
At 9:48 AM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Joan Foster, as always. Mr. Orin Starn will need to hear from us loud and clear. Apparently, he is on leave for a year. I bet, it is paid leave too. I am beginning to wonder if these lunatic professors in Duke actually do any teaching. They seem to be on leave, on vacation, playing golf, and fishing all the time. That is, when they are not busy with their lynching activities!

It sounds to me like these guys and gals (the so called "88 outraged Duke professors") have it made real well... This is why they need to spice up their lives once in a while by sending an "Oh! How much we hate Duke" letter to one of the local papers. This is how they get their kicks. Perhaps, Duke should start looking for some real professors who would teach and not play (all the time). President Brodhead, how about some discipline to some of these guys/gals? Or, are they completely out of your reach? Perhaps, their grammar and spelling are so perfect that they are untouchable (by you).

 
At 10:08 AM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The comment above is right on target.

My overall impression of the Duke Faculty of 88 as a group is of crippling laziness and immaturity.

And severely anemic academic or public output

(the entire CulAnthro department is so poor tht it should just be eliminated entirely, Seligmann's major notwithstanding)

There a few exceptions of course, good professors with fine publication records who just seem to have got caught up in the fervor (but haven't not yet apologized to the Duke community, as they must)

And also a few (like Houston Baker) who are transparently malicious scum.

But all in all, it is an extremely 2nd-rate crew of lynch mobbers.

And it should surprise no one that the email responses I have received from them are _entirely_ grade school namecalling and snarkiness.

(in contrast the responses from NCCU faculty have been varied, thoughtful and real)

 
At 11:02 AM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It turns out that misuse of University funds is nothing new to Anne Alison & the CulAnthro department.

Anne Alison violates Duke rules

 
At 11:21 AM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Karla Holloway is one of the "88 outraged Duke professors". She refers to herself as a "victim of the Lacrosse case" when she blogs on the websites in support of the Duke Lacrosse accuser. This is because she apparently associates with the accuser so much that she unbale to see where the accuser ends and where she begins.

Funny, this is how I felt when I gave birth to my child. For the first two months, my motherly instincts were so strong that I felt that way. Women must be biologically wired to have those feelings. However, I have not felt that way about anyone else, not even about my now grown up kid. My question is does Holloway have any kids of her own? Perhaps, what she really needs is to have a child. Then, she may be able to distinguish herself from the accuser, and perhaps she will be able to separate herself from blogging nonsense away from those pathetic websites too. Is that too much to expect from a Duke Professor (who holds a directorship or whatever position it is that she holds)? No; not in my opinion. But this is not so bad yet.

Karla Holloway is now pushing a new pet project of hers: "Giving a name to the pain of losing a child". I listened to her piece on the radio. She begs us all to invent a new word for describing the loss of a child, because she says she failed to come up with one. Professor Holloway, it did not take me long to come up with the word you are looking for. How about "Nifonged" wouldn't that describe the pain of a parent's losing a child and feeling intense pain? Or, in your book, must the lost child always be black? In other words, do you fail to see that sometimes white parents can lose a child a still feel pain?

Karla Holloway, listen to me and listen to me well. We are sick and tired of your nonsense. You are a liar; you are a fake; you are pretending to be something you are not! Credible professors with those "deep" emotions that you pretend to have do not wonder in websites full of hatred (where every third word begins with an "f"). You must be a shallow person to do that, and you must have a lot of extra time to do it with. Duke must be paying you real well for all this nonsense and for all the blogging away in shady websites. When it comes to your question, what to name the pain that a parent feels after losing a child, you are just about the last person on earth to have any legitimacy or credibility in asking that question. You are a fake Holloway; you are nothing but a fake. But, at least, you got your word: "Nifonged". Enjoy it.

 
At 11:35 AM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above two posts (re: Anne Alison). Do we know how the Gang of 88 paid for their full-page ad in the Chronicle? If departmental funds were used for that, Duke will be in real serious trouble. Can someone contact the Chronicle and ask how that ad was paid for --unless we already know the answer.

 
At 1:48 PM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the biggest weasels in town, the pompous Durham-Sun Editor Bob Ashley, has finally begun to turn on Nifong

Put lacrosse case on a faster track

He was Nifong's last remaining die-hard supporter in the MSM.

Which I guess leaves Cash Michaels and Susan Nifong on Mikey's side now.

This is like a slow-motion car accident for the "worst DA in the country"

 
At 1:53 PM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A further sign of the abysmal productivity of the vigilante faculty of 88 (and the Starn, Wood and DiBona wannabes) is how this case now defines most of their internet presences.

...if you put "DiBona Duke" into google, these very pages are now right up at the top. He has no other legacy.

And Karla Holloway even bitches and moans about how running a witchhunt has cut down on her vacation...um I mean research time.

Rightfully, these is how these 88 (+3) vigilante clowns will now be remembered.

 
At 5:53 PM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are the options for ending this case quickly??:
1) DA Nifong sees the light and decides to drop charges (unlikely before the election because he needs his African-American voter base.)
2) The false accuser gets cold feet (possible perjury, false accusation charges)and refuses to testify.The DA has an excuse to pull the plug on the case.
3)There is enough political pressure to appoint a special prosecutor and/or to speed up the trial date.
4) Lewis Cheek wins the DA race in November and requests AG Cooper to appoint a special prosecutor.

I think that Nifong is stubborn enough to go to trial with a flimsy case, so the best we can do is to continue political pressure for a special prosecutor, and strongly support Lewis Cheek's bid to unseat Nifong.

Either way the young men are going to have to wait too long for exoneration.Justice delayed is justice denied.

 
At 7:30 PM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not so sure that Nifong is stubborn as much as I am sure that he has painted himself into a corner. He used this case to get a political position and cannot possibly back out lest his lack of ethics be exposed.

 
At 7:37 PM, July 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe this could be a warning to travelers. Stay away from Durham, NC. Sad! This is America! Not Nifongia!

 
At 8:06 AM, July 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an NCCU graduate, I have never doubted the innocence of the Duke men in this case. It is a horrible injustice and obvious witch hunt. Meanwhile, I am amazed that no one seems to be looking into the atmosphere of cheating, extremely unprofessional behavior of students and staff, and rampant racial discrimination (against non AAs) which is prevalent on the NCCU campus. Also, I am very saddened by the way the DA seems to be ignoring a horrible, unsolved multiple murder in Durham, while pursuing this witch hunt of innocent men. See http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/444574.html.

 
At 8:15 AM, July 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NCCU graduate: Thank you for your kind words. We appreaciate your support and your belief in the innocence of these three young men.

 
At 10:52 AM, July 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been thinking of a way that to resolve this case before trial next year. The governor, as an inherent part of his executive authority, may pardon individuals as a discretionary matter. Remember, Ford pardoned Nixon before there was an indictment. I am working on a letter to send to the governor requesting that he launch an independent investigation pursuant to his pardon power. He can give both sides a chance to reveal the evidence as to both culpalbility and innocence. I will post the letter on this site when I finish it (hopefully later today). In the meantime, I suggest other people start drafting letters.The governor has to realize that there will be a political fallout from doing nothing and letting Nifong proceed.

 
At 11:30 AM, July 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Thank you for your concern and your effort to help out. My question is, if we could get a pardon from the Governor, wouldn't that have the appearance of guilt for these students? We want to prove their innocent 100 percent, and we do not want them to carry the label/damage of these false accusations for the rest of their lives.

What can we do to accomplish this objective? It is not enough to prevent these kids from going to jail for a long time --for a crime they did not commit-- but we have to clear their names too.

 
At 6:02 PM, July 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the previous two posts -- has anyone been able to determine whether the governor, as the individual who appointed Nifong to fill the unexpired term of Judge Stephens, might also have some authority to appoint a DA in case of other situations -- what if the DA were to fall ill, resign, get arrested, etc.? Similarly, if the DA is behaving in a manner fundamentally inconsistent with justice and with the execution of his sworn duties, isn't there some mechanism for the governor to step in and replace him? I am having trouble with the concept that the fox minds the henhouse and that only the DA himself can request replacement. Supposed he were incapacitated? Someone would have to step in.

 
At 7:47 PM, July 03, 2006, Blogger Patsy Mac said...

I am following up on my comment re: governor's pardon. I am an attorney, UNC JD - same class as Nifong (although I don't remember him).

As any attorney will tell you - resolving a case without going to trial is way, way preferable to going to trial. Going to trial will cost the families deep into seven figures and will involve uncertainty for a really long time.

The reality is that it is highly unlikely that a trial will result in 100% exoneration. Given the depth of feelings on both side of the case, the most likely result of a trial is a hung jury. One person, from whatever ethnic group, with a preconceived notion can hang the jury. Then Nifong could retry the defendants. The cost of litigation would be staggering and the three individuals would be stuck in purgatory/hell for a long time.

A pardon would be a great resolution b/c it would end the defendant's criminal exposure and costs. It would not be an admission of guilt and could not be used in a civil trial.

It was politics that created this problem and the way out of this mess is a political resolution. Pressure has to be brought both at the ballot box for Cheeks and on the governor.

 
At 8:13 PM, July 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patsy Mac: It sounds like you have a good point there. It will be desirable to spare a lengthy and painful waiting period for these families and potential financial ruin. What steps do we need to take in accomplishing this objective? It sounds very worthwhile to try, even though there is no guarantee of success.

We will provide all the support we can to the Cheek campaign, provided he decides to run. But, beyond that, we are not sure what to do. Your further advice on this matter will be much appreciated. If you prefer, you can contact us via email: friendsofdukeuniversity@yahoo.com

Thank you Patsy.

 
At 9:48 AM, July 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Help this old man understand something. By the way, I played post-college Rugby and Lacrosse when I was in my early 40's and am now on Social Security. Just a little information to let you know where I am. I did not find any of my Lacrosse teammates to be offensive and they were young guys from Northeastern colleges.

Here is my question: I realize the DA's client is the accuser. But, as a public servant, isn't the DA's client(s) the entire community for which he was elected to protect and serve? If that is true, shouldn't the DA be listening to ALL of the evidence in the case? Seems like I am understanding he will not listen to the boy's explanations. Isn't that grounds for something bordering on official misconduct?

But, to whom is a complaint made? The Bar, The Legislature, another prosecutor? I don't know.

 
At 10:54 AM, July 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can Nifong be booted out of the Democratic Party? If so, what are the consequences for the election?

It might be worth a few phone calls or letters to the NC Democratic Party to tell them that race-baiting, opportunism, and prosecution of innocents for political gain are not consistent with the values of the Democratic Party.

 
At 12:10 PM, July 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the 9:48 am post:
I realize the DA's client is the accuser. But, as a public servant, isn't the DA's client(s) the entire community for which he was elected to protect and serve?

The DA does NOT have a client other than the people of the state and county where he is elected to serve. He is NOT sworn to advance the case of anyone who comes in and files a complaint. If that were the case, private individuals would be able to use the resources of our government to pursue private causes of action against other individuals. That's what civil courts are for, where the penalties do not involve loss of life or liberty. The DA is an officer of the court, and as such has a sworn duty to uphold the law and seek justice, not convictions. It is his departure from this charged responsibility to uphold the law that has resulted in the travesty of justice called the "Duke alleged rape case."

[H]e will not listen to the boy's explanations. Isn't that grounds for something bordering on official misconduct?

One would think so -- then again, having followed the discussion of the bizarre nature of criminal law in North Carolina, I'm beginning to wonder whether it should be renamed the Good Ole Boy state, where inept, lazy and politically motivated politicians, DAs and police officers all scratch each others' backs with impunity and without fear of consequences.

But, to whom is a complaint made? The Bar, The Legislature, another prosecutor? I don't know.

As to the above observation, I've followed the discussion of the limited capability the Attorney General has w/re intervention in cases of rogue DAs with some discouragement, yet I think the concept of continuing to write to him just to wear away at him is a good one. I also maintain that since the governor appointed this DA, he should be able to have his legal staff come up with a mechanism enabling him to intervene to stop the bleeding and get this investigation back on track by appointing someone else.

I also like the idea of contacting the State Bar disciplinary committee. They may be able to pursue an independent investigation of the DA's conduct. I believe that this option was previously addressed on this blog, but I can't remember where.

Finally, perhaps the state legislature does have the authority to enact legislation to change the rules for appointment of DAs. In response to those who would say that you shouldn't change the law for one case, I would argue that this case has merely highlighted a terrible loophole in the existing law that needs to be changed to prevent future meritless prosecutions and abuses of prosecutorial power in which is it virtually impossible to stop a rogue DA from doing the terrible damage that one in his position is uniquely capable of doing. I'm not sure of the appropriate names and addresses for this exercise, but I think it's also worth a try.

As to the 10:54 am post, I'm no expert on election law, but I do not think that the Democratic Party (or any other party for that matter) has the right either to prevent someone from registering as a member of their party or to expel a current member. Sounds unconstitutional to me. Having said that, I think that it's an excellent idea to write to the party leaders to express concerns with their annointed candidate and to express wilingness to support future independent candidates if this is the best that the Democrats have to offer. The prospect of losing their base to principled Democrats who run as Independents should be of substantial concern to them.

I can't emphasize enough how ironic it feels writing about this viiolation of fundamental civil rights on the Fourth of July.

 
At 12:27 PM, July 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the 10:54 am post on contacting the Democratic Party: The following is an excerpt from an article entitled "Ballot Petition Drives Surging" that appears in today's N&O.

Durham County Democratic Party Chairman Floyd McKissick Jr. said the party will not challenge Cheek's petition drive. Instead, party officials said they will wait for Ashe to finish verifying Cheek's signatures, then decide how best to support Nifong should Cheek enter the race.

"It's premature until we really know whether we've got an issue to deal with," McKissick said. "Durham is one of those communities where, politically, it's a little bit unconventional in the way things operate sometimes."

Aside from the fact that the last sentence undoubtedly qualifies as the biggest understatement of the year, perhaps writers (as many registered voters as possible) should direct their thoughts regarding the quality and actions of the Democratic candidate for DA to Durham County Democratic Party Chairman Floyd McKissick Jr.

 
At 7:25 PM, July 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The feeble responses from the 88 Duke faculty lynch-mobbers come in two stripes:

1. Snarky, immature grade-school name-calling (e.g. the gone-to-Vandy creep Houston Baker is a _very_ poor speller of expletives)

or

2. "What did I do?"

The latter from Tom Rankin, the borderline film-maker and Good German vigilante, received the response from below:

--- tsr2@duke.edu wrote:

...Not even sure what your emailing me for.

--- I wrote:

Might have something to do with this:

http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/listening.pdf
http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/supporters.pdf

Might make a good documentary since we have a wealth of public documents that tell the story now:

-Black prostitute gets picked up by cops for being high on flexeril and alcohol and is about to involuntary committed, when...

-She makes up a claim of being raped by 5 men, then recants, then changes her story to 3 men and a woman, then recants, then changes her story....

-The cops don't believe her of course until....

-A group of 70 rich white leftist professors (and assorted African American studies professors) start holding "vigils", banging pots and taking out full page ads in the student newspaper promising vigilante justice against their own students, "regardless of the results of the police investigation"

-Then a politically-motivated DA steps in, does 70 media interviews reenacting fake choking events and various other hysterical race fantasies...

-The rest is history.

Oh, I forgot one little detail....the 70 rich white liberal professors go on vacation for 3 months, repairing to their summer homes.

Leaving their students and Durham to deal with the fallout of their little lynch mob actions.

Remember, Rankin, if you decide to direct this documentary, you will have to get someone to play your bit part in the mob while you insert the leftist agitprop.

 
At 9:34 AM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article about the case management system in Durham appeared in yesterday's Herald-Sun: Judge Lays Down the Law.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-749716.html

Several parts of this article seem to apply to the Duke case:

"Superior Court Judge Kenneth C. Titus...insisted that Durham's so-called case-management plan cannot work unless everyone keeps his or her eyes on the clock.

"I don't want to waste your time. I don't want to waste my time," he said...

The local case-management plan is divided into three distinct phases, called "settings." Preliminary business, including the sharing of information between prosecutors and defense attorneys, is accomplished during the first two settings. On the final setting, defendants generally plead guilty or -- if they claim innocence -- receive a trial date...

"I take ownership of the fact that we need to move these cases in Durham County," he said. "And I don't want criminal defendants sitting in jail longer simply because we can't get around to their cases."

Titus said in an interview that he had no statistics on tardiness among lawyers, although he did describe it as a problem.

The above excerpts tell me that Nifong

a) has now exhausted all opportunities to turn over the so-called incriminating evidence he has intimated all along exists, as Reade Seligman has now had his second setting and there have been no indications from Nifong's office of any material that he needs more time to produce. On the contrary, his failure to produce moved-for materials that should have been included in earlier productions would seem to preclude his ability to use any such material at trial.

b) should be subject to the $100 fine applicable for each instance of tardiness (which in my view doesn't seem limited to being on time for the proceeding but should also apply to delay and obstruction of proceedings in general)

c) should heed the judge's admonition to move cases and not sit on them when lives of criminal defendants hang in the balance.

Nifong is a disgrace, and it's time for the local system, which is intent on holding all practitioners to the same standard, hold him to the same standards as well.

 
At 9:35 AM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following article appeared in the Herald-Sun today: Prostitution Sting Leads to Arrests.

http://www.heraldsun.com//durham/4-749725.html

Does anyone know whether the arrest locations are near North Buchanan and whether we can see if any of the women arrested have ties to the same escort service that either dancer worked for? They may even have the same "boss" and may have information on what was said about the night of the party.

 
At 9:40 AM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re this excerpt from the latest KC Johnson post referring to Prof. Wood's defamatory remarks about Reade Seligman:

That a professor would publicly mischaracterize the personal traits of one of his own students—at a time when that student is facing extraordinarily serious, if procedurally dubious, charges—is beyond belief.

To think that Reade had the chance to go to either Harvard or Princeton and not only turned them down but also signed up for classes in the Cultural Anthro dep't -- including a course with this back-stabbing disgrace -- pains me and I'm not even personally acquainted with Reade. How devastating on a personal level this particular aspect of these pathetic proceedings must be for an idealistic young man to confront, namely, that there are adults in your life that you look up to and honor and that those same individuals will betray you in a heartbeat for no reason. And we wonder why young people become cynical. It's just another example of someone with an agenda and some personal axe to grind taking it all out on the scapegoat lacrosse team. Maybe someone will figure out how to pin the "war on terror" on them next.

 
At 9:57 AM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Excellent article, a must read. It is listed in the Links page, but I am including it again.

Shameless

Just like Joseph Dibona who taught Matt and Dave (they even helped him to write a book which he hopes to publish) and then he stubbed his A+ students in the back, we now see Starn and Wood doing the same thing. What is it with these professors? Doesn't Duke pay them enough, why are they so jealous of their own students? If I had a white, intelligent, and successful son, I would think twice before sending him to Duke. In fact, it is out of the question, I would not send him to Duke.

I think, all this stupidity will backfire on Duke. These professors are in fact damaging the University beyond repair. In a few years, Duke will be a different place.

 
At 11:19 AM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Personally i think Duke will rebound (depending on the outcome of the case)

But the reputations of Professors Wood, Starn and DiBona never will. They are at the ends of their careers and this will likely be their legacy.

The African American Professors among the vigilantes like Karla Holloway have a more complicated relationship to this case by its very nature, which partially mitigates their participation.

(Ms Holloway's ringleading in particular is a much more complicated matter - in part since her own son was a convicted serial rapist and murderer who committed dozens of heinous crimes in his short life before being shot to death several years ago trying to escape prison)

But these 3 rich white leftist professors are simply publicity-seeking malicious and petty demagogues who put their political agenda above human decency and fairness.

Nice.

 
At 2:36 PM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Does anyone know whether the arrest locations are near North Buchanan?

FYI -Most of those recent prostitution arrests were made east of downtown, nowhere near North Buchanan.

 
At 5:08 PM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

If any of you have questions about this case that you wish the N&O would pursue ...please post them in the next few days at the Editor's Blog.
After assigning 12 reporters to a front page story on the Lacrosse team..."The Swagger Started Long ago"..the paper has a strange passivity now. Let's let them "know we know." Here is my post today... supporting other great posters questioning the Editor about the same issue. .
*******
I suggest that those of us who post here make a list of questions about this case that we would like to see the N&O explore. It will stand as a record of sorts and at no time in the future can the N&O plead ignorance to the existance of or their avoidance of these questions.

This is a paper that assigned ,allegedly , TWELVE reporters to uncover every misbehavior and misdeamenor of a group of college students for a front page story. The Editor tells us they uncovered a "pack mentality." Some of us fear we see a pack mentality among the officails, police, press and prosecutor in Durham. We compare the original hard-driving reporting when the "targets" were out-of-town college boys ....to the passive natureof the reporting now. Why? Because it's far easy to target college boys than local cronies in positions of power?

Let's begin compiling our questions and if necessary we will E-mail them to Melanie Sill.

In the future it will be on record that this newspaper was aware of these questions. It will be evident to all that the N&O chose to ignore them.

 
At 7:52 PM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1653541/posts?q=1&&page=1901


Posters on this link are reporting the accuser's ex-husband and current boyfriend have been arrested. Witness intimidation?

 
At 9:20 PM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I had to guess why the Durham PD has had Murchison and McNeill arrested and jailed, it is to put pressure on them to shut up about the rest of CGM's client list.

A list that is reputed to contain several high-level Durham officials (read Durham PD and city council members)

This is also likely the reason for the mass arrest last week of the majority of Durham's other prostitutes.

Of course that info will eventually come out. And Mark Gottlieb may even go to jail before it is over.

{There is at least one Durham Sun reporter who has hinted to me that they know the names and have not been allowed by publisher Bob Ashley to print them).

 
At 9:38 PM, July 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More on Gottlieb in regards to the strikingly similar Seattle rape case posted above:

Of course, both cases demonstrate a compendium of procedural violations that are a virtual "Actual Innnocence" textbook.

-Faulty police photo lineups (the Duke case was far worse and was an explicit violation of DPD rules)

-Faulty witness ID, with subsequent coaching by the DA of the AV to change her testimony to fit the facts.

-Outright manipulation of forensic data (tire tracks versus DNA)

-And of course, arrest and indictment before any real investigation was done

But the most common violation is the use of post-facto police reports prepared weeks after the original interviews which bend the testimony to fit the facts the prosecution will present. This often includes (as it likely will in the Duke case) outright fabrication of quotes by detectives.

This is essentially ubiquitous criminal police behavior in jurisdictions that do not mandate audio/video recording of _all_ discovery interviews.

I have long suspected that this is the reason Sgt Mark Gottlieb has not submitted his report to the court, now 3 months after the fact.

It is a near 100% certainty, that Gottlieb will attempt to twist facts, make up statements and reorient the timeline to fit all the subsequent material that has come out.

In essence, Mark Gottlieb will commit a never-proveable felony (as the Seattle police did in the case above) in an attempt to give Mike Nifong something to work with.

Happens nearly every day in cases across the country. And is the petty crime at which good cops begin to go bad (in the hundreds every year)

The role of the corrupt Durham PD (as a handmaiden to Nifong's political prosecution) is coming increasingly to the fore.

And we now know why. The DPD's coverup of high-level support and patronage of Durham's prostitution businesses is now in full gear.

 
At 7:56 AM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ex-Husband in Jail - he's no angel, probably had a story to sell and Nifong got wind of him shopping a story. He can't do any harm to Nifong in Jail.

Current Boyfriend in Jail - Matthew Murchison. Arrested sometime in spring (after the alleged attack). He's an ex-con and if he ain't talkin' to Nifong, he can sit in jail and he can't hurt Nifong's case in there.

Many sites are now saying that the AV's, False accuser, what have you- best friend (female) named LaJuana has been arrested and is jail unable to post bond. Word from Durham is that she was looking for $25,000 for a story about the False Accuser. One of the Investigators in the D.A.'s office brought her up on worthless check violations and some other charge. Her story is locked up with her now, and certainly no one will pay her now that she's damaged goods.

The D.A.'s office is spending an enormous amount of time and energy on this case. The Woman's family claims that she has been in police protection since mid-March. 2 police men assigned to her full time. I'd like to see the total bill, but we probably never will. The Newspaper people won't do it, that's for sure.

 
At 9:43 AM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Please read all the wonderful questions on this case being posted at the N&O Editors Blog.Thank you to all who are helping. I suggest in a day or so, a group of us copy them and inundate Ms. Sill's E-mail with our requests for investigative reporting on these matters. Later, the N&O can not claim ignorance that they refused to pursue this part of the story.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/

 
At 9:51 AM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you find out why the Boyfriend's in jail, her EX-Husband is in Jail, and her best friend is in jail, THEN
the story will become clear.

This is just the tip of the Iceberg

 
At 1:24 PM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been pondering this aspect of the case for quite some time and can't square it with what I've read about prostate cancer treatment (which Mike Nifong received, and for which he apparently asked for lighter duties in the office while he was undergoing it.) Perhaps someone out there has more info on this, but it seems to me that with the many public officials in recent years that have undergone treatment of one sort or another for prostate cancer, these men of varying backgrounds, age, and job descriptions have for the most part been back at work in fairly short order. I've not yet been able to understand why this would require someone of Nifong's age to have required what by all accounts is a 5-year hiatus from trying major cases and an assignment in traffic court in order to deal with this illness. It just doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that someone who had needed that much time to recover would be the governor's logical first choice for the job to replace now-Judge Stephens as DA. Something seems fishy here. Perhaps this explains his overeagerness to try to prove himself on the job at the expense of these boys. I'm not from the area, but I can't help but wonder what else is going on beneath the surface in Durham in the DA's office and in the police department (where the invisible police chief has never been represented at a microphone by a deputy but instead, in a bizarre turn of events, has been supplanted by the DA himself from the beginning) that, unfortunately, is having such a terrible impact on Reade, Collin and Dave.

When I couple all of this with the information recently posted about all of the peripheral characters/potential witnesses in this case being rounded up by the police, I'm beginning to feel like this is a bad parody of Casablanca -- round up the usual suspects so we can falsely accuse someone of something to cover up something else that is going on. I'm not a conspiracy theory buff, but this is beginning to feel like some sort of larger cover-up.

 
At 2:22 PM, July 06, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

If Nifong were to drop the lacrosse case now, would Cheek decide to not enter the Novenber race? I realize that this would leave Nifong unopposed but is that as important as freeing the falsely accused.

 
At 2:49 PM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to hear about Nifong's high school and college experience with sports. My guess is that he never played any "contact" sports such as football or lacrosse, and that he probably felt bullied, intimidated and jealous of some of these types along the way. His personal feelings about these players, together with the upcoming election, have really effected his professional judgment. To prosecute with these kinds of facts is absolutely absurd.

 
At 3:06 PM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My husband was treated last year for prostate cancer. A week later he flew to Europe for a 10 day work trip. He hasn't missed a beat since. I don't understand the 5 year hiatus either. My husband's brother had a month long treatment. Back to work shortly thereafter.

 
At 3:32 PM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be interesting for someone from the N&O or Herald-Sun to investigate and report on Nifong's employment history.

Specifically, what exactly is Nifong's employment history including number and types of cases tried, etc.

Also, what is the same info for the various Assistant DAs in his office.

It would be rather telling if there are others in the office with better credentials, yet he insists on trying this case himself.

 
At 5:41 PM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of Finnerty attorney's, Michael Cornacchiais, is a specialist in government corruption, he was the chief investigative counsel under Paul Volcker for the investigation of the UN Oil-for Food Scandal and a former US Eastern asst District Prosecutor. Could be just co-incidence as he seems to be with Kevin Finnerty on many occasions and might just be acting as his personal counsel.

IMHO Sort of makes you wonder as those are some mighty big guns to pull out.

Volcker mentions him in this article. http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms...05320%3Cbr+/%3E

GO TEAM!

 
At 6:23 PM, July 06, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

Is this name spelled correctly? I find nothing for Michael Cornacchiais at google and the link does not work for me??

 
At 7:00 PM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael Cornacchia

 
At 10:00 PM, July 06, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/photo.adp?id=20060622182509990013

 
At 10:55 PM, July 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more I read about Nifong, the more I am convinced he is in way over his head. Check out this report from WRAL earlier this year:
POSTED: 4:31 pm EST January 16, 2006
UPDATED: 7:40 pm EST January 16, 2006
DURHAM, N.C. -- Durham County's district attorney says a clerical error is to blame for charges against an accused child rapist being dismissed by his office.
In February 2004, police arrested and charged Norman Brooks in the alleged molestation and rape of Bobby Parker's young daughter. But in September 2005, the charges against Brooks were dropped and the case was dismissed.
"This is clearly the fault of this office," said Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong.
The case was originally assigned to Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline, who was also handling another case against Brooks that was considered to be much weaker than the sexual abuse case. The district attorney's office was planning to drop the weaker of the two cases.
"In the course of entering the dismissal, inadvertently the wrong number was placed on the dismissal," Nifong said.
Then, Cline went on medical leave, and Parker was told that his daughter's case would be reassigned to Assistant District Attorney Jan Paul.
But when Parker called Paul last week, he said she told him that she was not aware of the case.
"I was like, 'Did you lose the file? Why don't you know anything about the case?' I just couldn't understand," Parker said.
Nifong said Paul had been assigned to many cases, but Parker's daughter's case was not one of them.
"Unfortunately, we made a second mistake," Nifong said.
Nifong, however, insists the mistakes will not affect the prosecution of the case. It has since been assigned a new prosecutor and Nifong assures WRAL that it will go before the grand jury for indictment on Tuesday.
Still, Parker has little faith left and wonders if his daughter's case will ever make it to court.
"It's my job to protect her and take care of her and I was thinking the district attorney's office was going to do their job, too," he said.
As for his daughter, Parker said she has been in therapy and is doing well.
Reporter: Julia Lewis

 
At 11:40 PM, July 06, 2006, Blogger yportne said...

Cornacchia now has his own string at courttv, with more pictures.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=88cda5c2d9ccd6ff4c2fe76f3159b417&threadid=269105

 
At 8:44 AM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the previous post -- wasn't Tracey Cline the Assistant DA spoken of earlier at this blog as being one of the prosecutors in that office who pursued a case with very bad facts against someone also likely to be innocent? The cast of inept characters is getting so large, I'm having trouble keeping all of them straight. In addition, I love Nifong's quote: "Unfortunately, we made a second mistake."

Do three strikes mean you're out at the DA's office like they do everywhere else?

Re an earlier post -- I think it's curious that Nifong needed re-assignment and 5 years to recuperate from cancer treatment, especially in light of the poster who wrote about her relatives' experience. I'd be curious about the reports on that decision.

 
At 9:12 AM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this case were not so sad and destructive to innocent people, it would almost be funny. The destruction is not only to the 3 players, but their families and friends who believe in them. Look for an evening soap opera (like the one in the 1960's-1970's) entitled, Durham Place. I wonder who would play Nifong?

Can you imagine what the general public feels about the justice system in Durham? Is there any wonder why most of us don't trust the system? I believe a Federal Civil Rights investigation should be launched or at least requested.

 
At 9:13 AM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

biting commentary :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson134.html

Tawana Brawley II

"The comparison of what happened with Brawley and what has occurred in Durham is instructive, only in that it tells us that players in the press and in the "justice" system have learned nothing in the past 18 years.

(snip)

". . . until the charges are dropped or a jury declares "not guilty" (which I believe will never happen if the case comes to trial), these young men are in mortal danger of being falsely convicted, even though all of the major players know that the state’s charges are false.

(snip)

"If the legal nightmare for Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans really does end, it will not be because "the system works." It will be because bloggers, attorneys and a few heroic journalists made sure that the "legal" system did not work. We can only hope that Tawana Brawley II ends as did Tawana Brawley I: that despite the best efforts of the lying state "justice" apparatus, the truth was exposed anyway."

 
At 11:57 AM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"even though all of the major players know that the state’s charges are false."

That's just galling!

The only reason this case goes on is politics. Everyone knows it is a fraud. But even the judges let it continue because they are playing the legal game.

Where is a Judge Horton to stand up and just put an end to it?

People's lives are being degraded, but all the judges seem to wash their hands of it and pretend it's not their responsibility to do anything about it, they are just playing by the rules.

Yeah, right.

 
At 5:03 PM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Thanks to those of you who posted questions at the Editors Blog at N&O. If you haven't read them...they are amazing! So amazing that Editor Sill returned from her self imposed exile and commented twice today. It is time for Phase 2.


Please copy and paste the questions on the blog into an E-mail and send to msill@newsobserver.com.

This will make the point that these questions about local corruption and this case are NOT going away. If the N&O chooses to ignore ALL these questions and do no follow up reporting, THAT in and of itself will stand as a record of their position in this matter.

Remember, it was persistance that moved her to print the "Nifong lies" story (read the earlier Duke thread on the blog for details) and it will take persistance to move this story again.Please help.

Remember the persistance of the bloggers in the Dan Rather story...finally it moved the Washington Post and the story turned. I do not bring that up in a poltical sense..but only as a template of what our persistance could achieve.

In the past the media chose what stories to promote and what stories to ignore. Blogs make that difficult now.

We might even consider renting billboards in the area and posting questions to Nifong on them....like...

It's been four months, Mr. Nifong. Where are Detctive Gottlieb's notes from April 4 ? What could he be waiting for?

The questions could change weekly...

 
At 5:08 PM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Further to Joan Foster's message above, here is a link on the same topic. This is really the time to apply some pressure to N&O and ask some good questions. We cannot let them stop talking about this case, not after all the harm they caused at the beginning. Now is the payoff time. Please send your questions in.

Questions for the Raleigh News & Observer

 
At 5:21 PM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the last several weeks I have gotten up and expected to see that the charges were going to be dropped. I have been disappointed.

I think that very early in the case Nifong decided that the woman was raped. She said she was and Nifong knew that most of the time victims do not lie about it. Furthermore he probably had heard that the hospital found semen inside her and that there was some evidence of trauma. He was confident that with over 40 players at the party, someone would come forward and tell him she was raped.

Nifong adopted this theory and refused to consider any other. His first big mistake was in not having the three captains take a lie detector test, like they said they would. Those test results might have least made him pause. Instead he went full bore. He also did everything he could to intimidate the players hoping that someone would "flip."

With the election on the horizon he was not in a position to do anything but go forward. Now he can not get out. His hope is that he can get a jury that will convict 3 Duke students of anything regardless of the evidence.

Hopefully she will say she can not testify or something and he will drop the case. I really don't see Nifong deciding that he was wrong all along.

 
At 6:44 PM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Once again, please take time this weekend to go to the Editor's Blog at the N&O...copy all the questions and paste them onto an E-mail to msill@newsobserver.com. You don't even need to add additional comments. Your E-mail will make a statement.

Just a personal note... I have no connection to Duke,Durham, or Lacrosse... nor do I know anyone involved in this case. I am very involved in my own community. Why am I writing and posting on this issue almost every day?I saw Dave Evans speak and I believe him. To to nothing in the face of injustice...implies consent. Not me.

Please help. Thanks.

 
At 8:58 PM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incase anyone has difficulty locating the N&O Editor’s Blog, here is the address. Your questions in this Blog will be most appreciated. Even if we can get N&O to answer a single question, that will be a plus.

N&O Editor's Blog

 
At 11:53 PM, July 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps not many of you are familiar with a young man about the same age as our 3 Lacrosse Players. His name was Audie Murphy. He, at the age of 20, won our country's Congressional Medal of Honor for standing up against overwhelming odds during WWII in Europe.

While it should not be in this country, we are standing against the overwhelming odds of governmental injustice and corruption in Durham, the nation's disgrace.

If I were in the same position as "our 3 guys", I would give all of you my personal Medal of Honor.

Stand the course.

 
At 12:00 AM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Police Chief Chalmers spoke today:
"The main thing that we're trying to do is protect the integrity of the investigation, to present a case that is not biased or has not been compromised," Chalmers said. "Our responsibility is to investigate the case, to protect the integrity of the case, and when the time comes, provide the evidence that we've gathered in a court of law to bring about a conviction."

Evidence?...to bring about a conviction? They must be hard at work "manufacturing" some evidence. These people are beyond corrupt.

 
At 12:17 AM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chief Chalmers doesn't understand. His roll is not to investigate the case and bring about a conviction. It is to investigate the case and bring about justice which ever way.

There should be a sign at the entrance to Durham-"Beware".

 
At 8:16 AM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chalmers is more than a bit rusty on procedure and more than a bit out of the loop on the actual evidence, having been completely out of the picture while Nifong has had a field day chatting up the press and obstructing justice. I know that the story for publication has been that he's been caring for his sick mother. It takes nothing away from that legitimate task to wonder what the hell goes on in Durham that when a police chief's mother falls ill, the police department does not have a deputy police chief to act in his stead to

a) take over the investigations being conducted by the office (and actually see to it that they are conducted!) and

b) be the spokeperson to the media in lieu of the District Attorney.

I've seen a lot of press conferences held in criminal investigations, and yet this one continues to be the only one where consistently the only face of the case to the media has been the DA's instead of the police chief's. This departure from traditional police procedure is astounding to me. Now both of them have issued statements saying that the focus here is on conviction -- shouldn't it first be on gathering all the evidence to see if a crime has even been committed before proceeding? Of course it should -- what a disgrace. These guys make Keystone Kops look good.

 
At 1:08 PM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would you suppose that the Governor who appointed Nifong is a bit embarrassed or do you think the problem goes up that far?

 
At 1:39 PM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would you suppose that the Governor who appointed Nifong is a bit embarrassed or do you think the problem goes up that far?

Who advised him to appoint someone from the traffic court to be the DA?
And what did the governor/the governor's party expect to get from this? (Certainly not the most experienced available DA; Frieda Black was there for that.)

Meanwhile, the governor, who must know that this case is a fraud, and who has the power to intervene, nevertheless lets it run on for political reasons and pretends he's free of all responsibility in the matter, even if that means extreme peril to the innocent defendants. (shades of Pontius Pilate!)

 
At 3:13 PM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As to the previous post: Hear, Hear! I second your statement. I've been saying for some time that Easley appointed Nifong as part of some good ole' boy maneuver (perhaps at former DA and now-Judge Stephens's suggestion) and by now is probably wishing he could take the appointment back. Feel free, Governor, before your state becomes even more of a laughingstock -- I'm confident that there must be some mechanism to intervene in the case of an appointed official run amuck. It can't be that we all have to sit back, wring our hands and bemoan the unlimited power this nut has.

 
At 4:26 PM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

re:
Who advised him to appoint someone from the traffic court to be the DA?

And what did the governor/the governor's party expect to get from this? (Certainly not the most experienced available DA; Frieda Black was there for that.)

--------------
It is said Hardin recommended Nifong on the basis of experience. Well maybe if the worst Durham dealt with was traffic cases. I do not quite buy the "he requested traffic court to recuperate" speil. His offical bios do not mention traffic court. Often the key is in what is not said.

Back to the appointment of Nifong. Maybe the question is being asked wrong. Instead of "why Nifong? maybe one should ask "Why NOT Freda Black?"

Courthouses are no different than any other institution. Office politics and backstabbing. Alliances and enemies.

Nifong had the backing of most of the courthouse crowd. Why not Freda Black? Maybe the answer is in the courthouse dynamics.

It would be very interesting and telling to learn about the courthouse politics in Durham.

 
At 5:08 PM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Let us remember that Rudy Guiliani had prostate cancer. Although his surgery and treatment derailed his Senatorial campaign, it has not required him to lanquish for years in some non stressful career cocoon. This "traffic court" recovery soujourn does not ring true. There is a back story here somewhere.

 
At 9:06 PM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a great blog posting regarding the jailing of people close to the accuser:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015257.html

The author argues the point that, although Mike Nifong has suffered through many damaging revelations in this case, it would destroy DA Nifong's efforts if someone said the accuser confided that she fabricated the entire episode.

Apparently, Tawana Brawley did this in her hoax, and it helped to bring that fiasco to an end.

Therefore, according to this theory, people to whom the accuser might have confided get locked up in jail.

 
At 9:15 PM, July 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, the link to the comment is here:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015257.html#comment-236291

 
At 9:32 AM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the appointment of Nifong over Black: I remember hearing Nifong deride Black during the campaign as an outsider who moved to Durham essentially just to get the DA job vs. his record as someone local who'd been in the office for 27 years (hilarious -- she moves to Durham something like 16 years before the appointment issue just to end up in a contest for this sweet job with a loser like Nifong -- yeah, right). Anyway, the fact that both Hardin and Stephens got promoted to judgeships from this office and that they're likely contemporaries of Nifong's says to me that this is the typical small-town mentality in these offices. You're an outsider if you weren't born there, even if you've lived there for years, and when push comes to shove, the good ole' boy network comes through and these guys whisper Nifong's name in Easley's ear, even though he's been on vacation in traffic court. The governor thinks that in a lower-profile town like Durham nobody will notice such a lackluster appointment and voila!

Shows Nifong's typical vindictive streak (remember the "I've got two words for you: rodeo cowboy" sneer to Susan Filan and his lambasting of Susannah Meadows from Newsweek in that bizarre, agitated 2 1/2 page single-spaced e-mail only 2 hours after her e-mail to him of her impending second article -- guess he's not THAT busy) that his first act as appointed DA was to fire Black. Until he and attorney Simeon agreed to wash each other's backs before the primary, he apparently hated him too.

Add this to the "profanity-laced tirade" (aka colossal meltdown) that the press were witness to on the 6th floor of the DA's office after Cheshire's press conference on the DNA and we begin to get a picture of not only a vindictive man but one on the edge. Guess all this wasn't supposed to happen on Mike's way to superstardom as the hero fighting for "truth, justice and the American way." Oh, I forgot -- that's Superman, not Nifong. He's only fighting for his own reputation. Talk about swagger. Nifong's behavior in so many instances has been like a toddler having a tantrum. His strange and unprofessional conduct make me think that this is about a lot more for him than even getting the DA's job. It's like he's so personally identified himself with the accuser and has so convinced himself that this is his ticket that he can't even see straight. That's the real story here.

 
At 9:33 AM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's OK. Keep them in jail. I believe they are still subject to the defense's depositions. Maybe they will be let out if they agree not to tell the truth. The whole thing about this case is this: "Little Man-Big Gun" theory. The DA is like the red stapler guy in the movie "Office Space". He never made it in real life and now he has a chance to play with the big boys. But, he doesn't have the courage it takes to play with the big guys and admit his miscues.

 
At 9:39 AM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the previous post: while a rational person like you might think he's getting cold feet, don't forget Nifong's bizarre comment to the press earlier on when he said that he thought the defense attorneys were "trying the case in the media" because they were afraid to try a case against me. I sat there with my mouth hanging open watching that press conference. What a lunatic! As I've said before, this is a man who suffers from, among other things, delusions of grandeur. Too bad this isn't dress-up but real life and real lives hang in the balance.

 
At 10:15 AM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See below a good response to the recent Duke Orin Starn op-ed in the Newsobserver.

Jealous of the coach?

 
At 10:46 PM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what time the hearing on the subpeonas is tomorrow (7/10)?

 
At 6:41 AM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Jezebelle said...

I'm trying to decide which is worse: the people and government of Durham, or the people and government of New Orleans? The display and decibel level of black racism and noxious, corrupt government officials from both cities are stupefying yet somehow not surprising in these two bastions of Democrat Party rule.

In Durham, we watch a Kafkaesque nightmare of a runaway train we are trying to stop because we clearly see it headed for total derailment, but all we can do is mouth frustrated warnings. There is no switch we can pull to set the train back on the correct course anymore than we could do anything to stop or divert the thousands of acres of water we watched pour through the failed levees into New Orleans.

The foolish people living in these cities have elected monsters such as Nifong and the Levee Board, and they keep doing it - wreaking havoc on themselves and anybody unlucky enough to step into the voters's respective paths of onward destruction.

 
At 6:56 AM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a real stupid move from Jesse Jackson. Where has he been all these weeks? Hasn't he been following the news? Let us hope he hears from a few people on this most idiotic of articles.

Jesse Jackson's Duke Article

 
At 7:22 AM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's hearings are concerning the personal information that Nifong asked Duke University to provide (names, addresses, access card data, etc.). He should not have access to such data, let us see what the outcome will be. If he wins and gets that data, he will terrorize the rest of the team too. That will be really bad.

 
At 8:11 AM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see who trumps here. As a college professor, myself, I am forbidden by FEDERAL law from even acknowledging to a parent that his or her child is in my class. This is the Federal Individual Rights to Privacy Act. (FIRPA). If the local court requires Duke University to release this confidential information, the University should protest under FIRPA and let the Fed's and the locals fight it out. If Duke rolls over and gives this information without a fight, Heaven help us.

 
At 10:39 AM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FODU, you have a fan at the Durham-Sun. His bounce off the blogosphere to real reporting is a model for Melanie Sill to follow.

Correcting the record, but giving a chance for a deserved slam on Nifong worshipper Mark Edwards

Mr Gronberg:

Thank you for your piece today touching on the NC magistrate system (you continue to be the only local reporter to do any _actual reporting_ on the Duke case and the larger issues it has raised).

You point out again how bizarre Durham justice is.

As might also have been pointed out, the magistrate system is essentially a archaic and corrupt MerryOldeEngland remnant for turning personal vendettas into criminal charges.

In jurisdictions that give any criminal complaint power to this ancient magistrate/JOP system, it becomes a regular and recurring home for shakedown artists and patronage schemes.

Still the parallels of the Barros' charges with the Duke case are strong.

-No complete investigation was done in either case before charges/indictments were handed down. After which, as is seen in both cases, it becomes difficult for the DA and judge to back down and admit error. As a result, bad cases tax an overburdened system.

(While simultaneously undermining justice and becoming a laughingstock by taking these types of bogus cases, Judge Elaine Bushfan publicly moans about how busy she is)

-The Durham PD and DA Nifong have milked the parallel judicial universes at their disposal (Magistrate-District-Superior) to go judge shopping, carry on routine witness intimidation, and avoid responsibility for lousy police work

All in all, I think a more coherent primer on Durham-style justice would be useful to "people from town" as well as your other readers. There needs to be some systemic changes along with the removal of Nifong from office.

As clearly exposed in the Duke case, the local Defense bar (including Nifong financial supporter and Barros lawyer Mark Edwards) are too beholden to Nifong for their livelihood and his capricious dispensation of legal favors and suspended sentences to their clients.

Nifong (and Stephens before him) run a deeply corrupt system, in which folks like Mark Edwards and Woody Vann are his willing accomplices.

 
At 10:49 AM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it funny that Barros' response is basically Deliverance-speak

"you ain't from here, boy, are you?"

When Barros himself is an itinerant public-servant-for-hire who has worked more states than the Carnies.

Welcome to Nifongia.

 
At 11:41 AM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This lacrosse case is just "reparations" by another name. Incompetent whites like Nyfong owe their jobs to catering to blacks, whether the blacks have legitmacy or not. Brodhead is the same. People who can't do their jobs hide behind their liberal shields and throw snowballs. Unless HONEST blacks stand up and denounce the WHITE INCOMPETENTS, this charade and others continue. If Easely were honest, he would do something about this disgrace. His wife works for NCCU as a law professor so guess how much he is going to speak up for the trampled rights of the white boys? Freda Black was fired by Nyfong and Easely appointed Nyfong as DA so do not think that any help is going to come from the Governor's office.

The best advice for Duke is to fire Brodhead and Alleva immediately. Get a new head who can deal with the airhead professors and get Duke on a more serious track. Duke needs LESS involvement with Durham - not more. See what has happened when Duke embraced Durham! It bit the hand that fed it! Nyfong and the town manager are rabid dogs. Stay away from them.

Coak K has to look out for his basketball team and therefore can not get involved directly. Mark my words - if Brodhead is not gone soon, Caoch K will resign in a year!

I hope Finnerty and Seligmann continue their education elsewhere. Durham and Duke are snakepits for them. Hopefully, there is a stand-up college who will welcome them and denounce the treatment they received at Dear Ol' Duke.

Meanwhile, Duke needs to find housing within its walls for all its studnets. It is not safe for any of them to live in Durham. it needs to address the alcohol issues raised . It needs to find MORE suitable types of entertainment and parties so that Dukies do not look to Durhamites for entertainment. And a new policy must be issued that NO STRIPPERS are EVER to be hired to entertain ANY group of Duke students.

And the Chaplain of Duke University should take up the boys'case. So far the Brit hasn't!

 
At 12:51 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And the Chaplain of Duke University should take up the boys'case. So far the Brit hasn't!"

This is disgusting. What's he waiting for? There are his students, supposedly part of his flock. And they are obviously wrongly charged.

"I was in prison and you visited me."
HA!

 
At 2:19 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is NEWSWEEK holding the cover?
Everybody got their pots and pans ready? The wanted posters?

(I don't know if these guys are guilty or if this is just another made-up story. And God knows I've learned not to rush to judgment.
But the media coverage of this is going to be miniscule.)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...LTAM&SECTION=US

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) -- The rape of an 11-year-old girl may have involved as many as 10 men, most of whom are football players at local community colleges, police said.
Police arrested two men in connection with the rape Saturday night, and officials said they identified eight others as persons of interest in the case. Most or all are students at either Fresno City College or Reedley College, police said.

 
At 2:23 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

when is Fresno cancelling their football season and firing the coach?

 
At 3:08 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hope you're not holding your breath! You know, of course that little will come of this except locally in Fresno. No one has heard of the schools involved so there's no elitest angle to play. I have not heard what races are involved either but it doesn't sound like it meets the media's template...

 
At 3:27 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The girl is white. There is a photo of her from the neck down on KNX's website.

 
At 3:27 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The girl is white. There is a photo of her from the neck down on KNX's website.

 
At 4:07 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be careful about this case. Let's not do to them what Nifong did. If they are quilty I am sure everyone on this forum would gladly slam the cell door shut!

Let the Police do a complete investigation!

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

Someone should contact Sean Hannity and ask him to explore this new case in Fresno and see how it is handled.

Also, is there any news on how alumni contributions are doing this year at Duke? When will the fallout from this botched case begin to show?

Is Sterling Wilder the head of alumni affairs? Isn't she relatively new to this position? ( 2 years?) What is her take on all of this lacrosse mess? Her nephew goes to Duke Law School. Her sister is in charge of Duke Libraries. Her dad was the Chem Prof at Duke for years, Pelham Wilder. She is good friends with Bob Steel, another native Durhamite, who is the President of the Board of Trustees at Duke. Surely, she must relay to him any crisis with donations caused by Brodhead's lack of decisiveness and pandering to NCCU. I believe there are many layers of Duke's administration that have caused this nonsensical debacle. And now Duke has hired Judy Woodruff, a former alumna, who is another "politically correct" icon! Geez.

Would this have happened under Terry Sanford?

 
At 4:24 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark my words - if Brodhead is not gone soon, Caoch K will resign in a year!
-----------------------------------
Your moronic words have been duly marked.

Next time, spell it "Coach".

 
At 4:31 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sterly Wilder is an '83 Duke grad and is a Duke lifer. I know times change, but I'd doubt she'd be involved in throwing guys under a bus for partying. She was one of my orientation advisors in my freshman year, and her dad taught me Organic Chem. Both were Duke lifers.

You know, there may be some people who are either a) working under the radar, or b) it's not their job.

 
At 5:00 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SFGate News

Two Fresno college athletes arrested in rape of 11-year-old girl

Monday, July 10, 2006
Fresno, Calif. (AP) --


The rape of an 11-year-old girl may have involved as many as 10 men, most of whom are football players at local community colleges, police said.


Police Chief Jerry Dyer described the case as "tragic" and "disturbing" and said other arrests were likely.

Police arrested two men in connection with the rape Saturday night, and officials said they identified eight others as persons of interest. Most or all are students at either Fresno City College or Reedley College, police said.


Seven Fresno City College football players who were in the apartment complex during the alleged assault spoke with police Sunday, an attorney said.

The victim, a runaway from a group home, went to a Fresno apartment complex Saturday night to visit an acquaintance, said police spokesman Jeff Cardinale. While she was inside one of the units, she allegedly was sexually assaulted multiple times by several men.

The girl then fled the apartment and sought help from a couple on the street who called police.

The victim, who suffered no serious physical injuries, was taken to University Medical Center for an examination.

Mackey Davis, 20, and Eddie Scott, 19, were arrested on suspicion of child molestation with a victim under 14 and oral copulation with a victim under 18. Both were being held Sunday at Fresno County Jail on $100,000 bail.

The rape allegedly took place in apartments that house some Fresno City College football players. Davis and Scott were students at Reedley and may have been in the process of transferring to Fresno City College, Cardinale said.

"We're very much concerned about what's going on," said Ned Doffoney, president of Fresno City College. "Right now we just want to look into what ties there are with the college and make sure that everyone's rights are being respected."

Officials at Reedley College did not want to comment on an ongoing investigation, but said they were collaborating with the police.

Fresno City College football coach Tony Caviglia arranged for seven players to consult Sunday with criminal defense attorney Michael Idiart.

Idiart said the men were worried when he met with them at a college conference room. They described the alleged victim as tall and mature looking although she seemed younger when she spoke.

Idiart said he explained to them that under California law sexual conduct with a person under 14 is felony child molestation.

"Basically, if you involved yourself in sexual activity with this person, you have a problem," he said he told the players.

He said they voluntarily went to the police station after he counseled them to fully cooperate.

Notice the way the Fresno college President Ned Doffney treats his black players; "Right now we just want to look into what ties there are with the college and make sure that everyone's rights are being respected."

Because his accused rapist students are white, Brodhead threw them to the wolves and loudly proclaimed the guilt of the entire team.

Note also that even before an arrest the college and coach have arranged for the black athletes to be counseled by defense attorneys.

Brodhead and his feminazi and African studies professors and the rest of the Duke liberal marxist/racist professors loudly castigated the Duke lacrosse players for consulting with lawyers.

According to a relative who is employed in Fresno law enforcement, the alleged rapists are all, each and every one black.

Wonder what the feminazi professriate of Fresno college will say about this?

I know what they will say "innocent till proven guilty"
"the victim is a slut" "the allegedly rapists are victims of the legacy of slavery and a racist society."

We can expect Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton the Nation of Islam and a black rent a mob bussed in from Los Angeles ranting, raging and pot banging in front of the Fresno courthouse any day now.

Does anyone doubt that there is a double standard of criminal justice in this country?

Jam the Duke, Durham Da's and NC attorney general's fax machines with copies of this article.

 
At 7:10 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.fresnobee.com/home/story/12432671p-13154287c.html

Here is a local newspaper. Fresno PD will handle this a lot better than Durham PD

 
At 8:01 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because I predict that Coach K may wonder about his decision to stay on in light of the treatment of the lacrosse coach by the administration, I have made "moronic" comments? Because I hit the "a" before the "o" on the keypad, I am being corrected by Miss Schoolmarm? Somehow, I must have angered someone greatly by my remarks for "Mr./Ms. spelling guru" to pounce! My point was that I think a number of folks who are connected to the President must have the pulse on alumni' reaction to this fiasco. Furthermore, I believe there will be more fallout by those faculty who are in total disbelief at how poorly the lacrosse incident was handled. These "silent" coaches and faculty do not want to fall on the sword. They see too well how this scuttlebut played out. So, when things die down, they will quietly submit their resumes elsewhere and never let on that it had to do with not wanting to work under Brodhead's management. So, let's see if my prognostications play out. And, I do pray I did not type too fast and misspell a difficult word like "coach" again. Geez!!

 
At 8:06 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note the difference in the way an alleged rape of an 11 year old white child by 10 blacks is handled by Fresno college and the way the alleged rape of a 32 year old black stripper/prostitute by 3 whites was handled by Duke.

The black athletes college rushes to "see that everyone's rights are protected" and arranges legal counsel for the accused rapists.

Duke, Brodhead and Duke professors rushed to convict the entire lacrosse team on no evidence whatsoever.

This case is bigger than the falsely accused Lacrosse players.
It clearly shows the racism of the media and the academic world.
No matter who you are, no matter how innocent you are if a black accuses you and you are white you will be hung by the media.

 
At 10:16 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Y'all may find this blog entry interesting?

Malicious plant in gossip rag?

 
At 10:36 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bayly was not satisfied with the defense response: "I want to let you know I'm going to look into it," he said."

Typical of his conduct all the way through (threatening Finnerty with jail again after he supposedly missed a curfew--although he had permission to do so), strict scrutiny throughout, etc.

Sure sounds like the judge and the DC prosecutors are stretching to find any excuse to put Finnerty in jail.

Hardly impartial.

 
At 7:15 AM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article appeared in last night's online edition of the Herald-Sun: Bloggers Criticize Eze/Barros Case. In it, defense attorney Mark Edwards has a helpful observation about how to change the law on pursuing charges against someone who makes a false criminal allegation: "As things stand, "there are really no ramifications for people who bring false charges," Edwards said, adding that the only thing lawyers and officials can do to discourage malicious prosecutions is to convince the state General Assembly to make it easier to sue the people who initiate them."

While folks are writing to their Assembly representatives about changing the law to curb the unfettered power that rogue DAs like Nifong are capable of exercising, they could mention the need for this legislative change as well.

 
At 7:19 AM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a column in the N&O this morning entitled "Celebrating a Fourth Without much Fireworks", staff writer A.C. Snow writes of his July 4th reading of his own paper:

On the Op-Ed page was still another essay on the Duke rape case. In it, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post wondered why a case with such urgency may not be heard until March. Wondering the same thing, I put the question to defense attorney Joe Cheshire of Raleigh. He explained that North Carolina is the only state in the union that gives the prosecutor sole authority to set a trial date.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1073/story/458845.html

Where is the legislature in all this? I'd suggest a letter-writing campaign to correct this anomaly immediately.

Posted on July 9 (moved to this page from elsewhere)

 
At 10:31 AM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the judge cites wonkette in front of jury in collins case to be used against him -its an anonymous gossip siting page- wonkette wrote an open letter to judge but will jury see that letter? FARCE IN DC

 
At 11:12 AM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's entirely possible that the fix is in between Nifong and the judge in DC.
Finnerty will get sentenced to jail (regardless of the evidence).
He will be taken to the jail and threatened with being put in the general population unless he turns states' evidence against Seligman and Evans.
A white teenager accused of raping a black stripper has good reason to be terrified.
Nifong has nothing else in this case and he needs someone to turn, and Finnerty is the only one he can pressure.
So Finnerty will have the option of saving himself (and condemning his friends) by lying; or giving himself up but saving his friends by doing so.
If that circumstance arises, I think Nifong will be in for a surprise; because some people have beliefs that sustain the inner core of their being; and they won't bend. Not about that.

 
At 12:54 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is it with this Judge? That is the second really stupid remark he has made. He sure doesn't sound very Judical. If he had questions like that he could have asked them quietly, not in open court.

I am getting a bad feeling that the Bang the Pots Network is going all out to try to save the Durham Case from blowing up in their faces! We know it will, but have you see Ted Williams on Greta? He has turned a 180 from a few weeks ago and now wants a trial for this Alleged Victim to have her day in court & so that it won't cause a Racial Divide! Sounds like Cash Williams has got to him!

The pressure behind the scenes must be intense on those who are black or former DAs. This case is such a complete travesty yet we have Susan Filan saying Nifong appears so confident when just a few days she was saying there is no case!

This case goes everywhere!

 
At 2:45 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's my understanding that this is a bench trial in DC (which means that there is no jury and the judge acts as both the finder of fact as well as the finder of law), although I've seen it reported both ways. You'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to report such a simple fact. If it's a bench trial, then it doesn't matter if the judge asks the question because he's the finder of fact. In the case of a jury trial, he wouldn't be asking that question in front of a jury anyway. Sounds to me like his clerk stumbled upon this Wonkette nonsense and told him about it, since the judge doesn't sound too blog-savvy. If it is brought to his attention, he does have an obligation to ask about it, and since he can't seem to rely on his own pre-trial services people (who got Collin's whereabouts wrong in the past) perhaps this was the fastest and most direct way to clear it up. I think it will blow over. I predict that after Jeffrey's friend Herndon came out of yesterday's testimony looking like the drunken compatriot (with a previous drunken altercation outside a Virginia bar) who started a fight with Collin by punching him first in the head after he allegedly sought help from a bouncer (!) and the fact that someone other than Collin was the one who actually hit Jeffrey that the judge will chalk this one up to a scuffle with both sides at fault and dismiss the assault charge against Collin. It's one thing for 19-year olds to take off from the scene of an altercation after underage drinking, but quite another for two 27-year olds to be drunk outside a bar at that hour. The deck is stacked against 18-21 year-olds on this ridiculous underage drinking issue.

 
At 4:26 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

collin convicted

 
At 4:46 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ted Williams... has turned a 180 from a few weeks ago and now wants a trial"

"Susan Filan saying Nifong appears so confident when just a few days she was saying there is no case!"

Its all "street theater". If the guests don't promote controversy the viewer changes channels. Its not my cynicism, its how they conduct their business. Its a shame, but there you have it.

TW

 
At 5:50 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"On July 11, 2006, Metropolitan Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey declared a "crime emergency" in the city in response to a rising homicide rate (the city had logged 13 murders since July 1st, most notably the killing of a prominent British political activist in Georgetown). While the declaration allows for more flexible and increased policing in high-crime neighborhoods, it is temporary and will be revisited following a 30-day trial period. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

Oh yes Justice served alright in DC by the 2 day trial of throwing shadow punches & being drunk! Georgetwon is so much safer now that Collin is on probation for six months. Actually Collin is safer by being ordered to stay out of Georgetown!!

By the way July 11, 2006 is Today!

 
At 8:53 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

From the N&O's Editors Blog..trying every tactic we can these days...


An ode to Miss Melanie

You'll write about probation
And public urination
You'll write about the neighbors they annoyed.
You'll headline the way they swagger..
Those priveleged spoiled DUKE braggarts
But, yikes, you can't take on the DURHAM boys.

You covered Baker in his glory
He swore there was just ONE story
The city council crowned him with complete acclaim!
Now court docs show several versions..
But the N&O can't cast aspersions!
You certainly can't ask him to explain!

Nifong went on TV a-gloating,
Talking condoms , drugs and choking
Now it seems..perhaps the facts don't fit.
You couldn't ignore what looked like fibbing
(or perhaps political ad-libbing?)
But after one little story, better let it slip.

Kim called the tale a "crock"
Gottlieb has writers block
The taxi driver gets the full court press.
The line-ups are sure no-losers
Only LAX-ers for the choosers
But, still the Editor has nothing to address?!!!

Are the accuser's friends in jail?
Do you approve of Kimmy's deal?
Who composted that POSTER plastered about town?
Miss Melanie just shrugs...
And avoids the nasty blogs
She thinks silence will shut our questions down.

But, NO! We exist in isolation.
We thrive on deprivation.
Miss Melanie, we remain here till the day
Either you or SOME news service
Reveals the travesty before us.
Buckle up..this rowdy bunch stands COMMITTED to the fray.

 
At 9:08 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Joan,

that's really GREAT!

I love it! :-)

 
At 10:09 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad someone else is thinking of Collin's safety. The trial in DC, fair, wierd, or not, hopefully made a few things clear to Collin and may save us all from a collective heart attack. He's gotten in trouble in the two worst possible places for him to do so and is now notorious enough to be in danger of being recognized should he fail to walk the line

 
At 10:30 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With respects to anonymous above, who said something to the effect that no-one from the black community was standing up for the Duke players, I beg to disagree. Here is an email I sent to Stepen A. Smith about a month ago.

Hi Stephen,
Have you seen Newsweek or SI this week?
Have you written an apology to the Duke women's/men's lacrosse teams?
Several relevant quotes:

Karen Bethea-Shields regarding DA Nifong and race in the case: "He made it an
issue" and "Why was that important to bring up?"

Butch Williams: "If I ever thought for one instant that one of those boys laid
a hand on that girl, I never would've gotten involved."

James Coleman (full professor at Duke law school and chairman of the committee
investigating the lacrosse program): "You've got a prosecuter playing to race.
Its disgusting."

Get the picture?

As you know, all three of these aforementioned individuals are black, honest,
and smart.

Please Stephen, correct your column. Its not too late. Do the right thing.


The quotes above, as many of you know, are from the SI article last month. Stephen Smith, whose writings I typically enjoy, wrote a particularly nasty, poorly reasoned column about the women's lacrosse team support of the arrested men's lacrosse players about 2 months ago.

 
At 11:01 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Thank you, we appreciate it very much that you wrote this letter to the judge. We also appreacite the fact that you shared it with us here. Thank you for your support. You give us hope.

 
At 11:04 PM, July 13, 2006, Anonymous Marco2006 said...

Dear Guys,

I just was thinking of the Team. It must be rough, but know that there are many people out here doing what we can do. Some of us post on CTV and fight the insanity of the Potbangers and many write letters to news outlets. Some of us are prouding wearing our new Blue Wristbands

You are not alone!

Ciao Marco2006

 
At 11:40 PM, July 13, 2006, Anonymous GC said...

As one eloquent, earlier poster stated, "there are armies of families" behind you. These armies of families extend beyond Duke University, lacrosse, your high schools and your communities.

Many of us are strangers, just regular folks who grew up believing in our justice system and are shocked at how you have been treated. Some of us are hard at work to keep pressure on the media to get the true story out. Please stay strong.

 

<< Home