Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 7 - Full

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

100 Comments:

At 8:50 AM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

EXCERPTED FROM http://forums.go.com/abclocal/WTVD/thread?threadID=124368

Said ADA graduated with Precious at Hillside. His Mom sued Duke Medical Center for 30 million dollars alledging negligence in the death of her son.

Her lawyer? Willie Gary

Amount awarded? 2.5 million in a verdict that was overturned.

Judging from ADA's page, he mahy be very familar with the clubs in the Raleigh/Durham area. There is a picture floating around the web of a lower towel wrapped body shot, with a very large shadow.

Top it off, the man did not have enough sense to use a fake name. Like it or not, by nature of his job as ADA, he represents that office in public and private.

BTW-credit to FreeRepublic (I want to know) for breaking this story)\

My opinion: DESTINE IS THE NIFONG-CRYSTAL-WILLIE GARY CONNECTION!

 
At 9:22 AM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that Sgt. Gottlieb is on administrative duty for allegedly assaulting a black cook on Thursday (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/463542.html
maybe he'll have time to complete his written report on the Duke LAX case. It's 4 months after the incident and defense attorneys are still waiting for this statement by the lead police investigator in the case.

 
At 9:28 AM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I knew when I saw the initial report about this case yesterday that someone from the rape hoax would be involved -- talk about a law enforcement system out of control -- it's like the inmates are running the asylum down there!

 
At 9:30 AM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See article in today's Herald Sun:

Has the lacrosse case induced insanity? July 23, 2006

 
At 9:41 AM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is the WRAL report on Gottlieb/Clayton incident:

http://www.wral.com/news/9560358/detail.html

 
At 10:35 AM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the H-S article referred to in the 9:30 am post: is Bob Ashley kidding?

"At the end of the day, perhaps the image of Durham that will emerge is of a community that amid all the sound and fury weighed all of the facts and came to a reasoned judgment."

Shakespeare hit on the most apt description of this case long before Bob Ashley: "It is a tale told by an idiot -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

 
At 11:25 AM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Here's my reply to Ashley:


"Look, I don't know what happened at that house that night. And neither do you. And I wouldn't have done some of the things the prosecutor has done to this point -- he started the media onslaught, after all. And neither probably would you. It is possible that a savage rape occurred. And it is possible that the young men who have been accused are victims, themselves, of an irresponsible accuser. The point is that we don't know. We haven't seen all the evidence, haven't examined all of the testimony, haven't had the privilege of seeing the case unfold at trial the way it is supposed .



Mr. Ashley, I read your words this Sunday morning and I reflect how smug, how easy it is to quote your fellow partner in comfortable detachment, Andrew Cohen, as you both write about this case. Of course, any reasonable person should find no fault with your words but for one glaring exception.Those words, that path you advise...require trust.

You are asking us to trust that Mr. Nifong is an honorable man. For many of us outside of Durham who did not attend his political coffees or get invited to his barbeques, we are left to judge the man by his actions, his words. Night after long night last Spring, Nifong appeared on our TV screen doing choke holds, talking about condoms, date rape drugs, and initially proclaiming DNA would "clear the innocent,"

We judge him now by what we read in sworn court documents. We judge him now by observing the date on the subpoena for the DNA testing which claims anal, oral, and vaginal rape...but actually PRECEDES the receipt of that information by his office.

We judge him by the fact that he refused to look at any exculpatory evidence thay might undermine this desparately needed and desired campaign agenda.

We judge him by highly inflammatory statements that emphasized the racial aspect of this case...that damaged the players chance to a fair trial while enhancing his own selfish political aims.

We judge him by his sarcastic, unprofessional and inappropriate comments offered in the courtroom, that stunningly have gone unchecked by either judge

Yes, Nifong may announce at trial that the Pope was behind the shower curtain and will testify for the prosecution, but ,even given THAT...this despicable past conduct would prevent any trust in this man , in his words, in his "integrity" or in his potential conduct. ( I personally would need to call the Vatican)

Tell us how to trust this Nifong now? Knowing the accuser's credibility would be key , he should have protected his own. HE DID NOT. How do we trust? You answer this , Mr. Ashley, and perhaps I can give your column higher marks.



You are also asking us to trust the Durham police department. It is a fact that they conducted, in violation of standard North Carolina practices., multiple line-ups with only Lacrosse players . It is a fact that the accuser was told ONLY lacrosse players were in the line-up. She was given a multiple choice test with no wrong answers, but you ask us to be confident that this investigation is ethical.

You ask us to trust the Durham police department when it is a fact that the two detectives on the Duke case, Mr.Gottlieb and his cohort Mr. Clayton arrested the taxi driver on an old warrant , asked him if he had anything "new" to tell them about the rape case...and yet let the Chief's daughter gad about with her own old warrants unserved for months.

You ask us to trust the City Manager Patrick Baker is unbiased in this matter. We observed his news conference where he denied the accuser told multiple stories. He said he was monitoring the situation closely. The city council crowned Baker with their unanimous acclaim. We now read sworn court documents that refute Mr. Baker's word. You ask us to trust he, too, has no dog in this race.

You are asking us to trust that the two local papers wil provide unbiased coverage of this story to ensure an untainted jury. "We know you know" that is essential to a fair trial.But many have read the coverage from both papers since the start, and see an apparent hesitancy to take on troubling questions about the accuser, local "escort services, prostitution arrest statistics, and/or possible corruption in high places. These questions dominate the blogs. After your zeal to report every negative detail about the team., your tentative reporting now is odd.

WE have seen this weekend alone, the MySpace ad of the ADA in this case who graduated from the same high school with the accuser. We have seen his affinity for MILF (which I had to look up to ...um-m-m... comprehend) and we have seen his "modeling shots". This is a professional on Mr. Nifong's team adjudicating deadly serious matters. You ask us to trust this man's judgement.

We have read accounts in your paper and others of the suspension of the two detectives on this case for their involvement in a racially charged brawl with an AA cook. We have noticed subsequent ethnic cleasing of the reporting to delete the racial aspects....the exchanging of racial slurs.

So, Sir, you ask us to trust. Just let this go to trial, you say, and justice will be served. Tell me, Mr. Ashley, could you trust the fate of your own son to this sorry alliance. Would you put him in their hands, unchecked, and sleep at night content in their fairness, their integrity, their desire for jusice against their own personal agendas? That is the KEY question here!

Would you trust this cast of Durham characters to provide a judge , a jury WHO WILL BE FAIR? Or will Nifong "judge shop "and sit an OJ jury ...one that reads Cash Michaels' drivel and is eager to convict no matter what the evidence. The comment of that NCCU student resonates again "Because of the past, these guys should go to jail whether they are innocent or not."

Dear God, you ask us to trust.

How easy for you this Sunday morning, with your own loved ones untouched by a travesty like this...to imagine they could never find themselves in a nightmare like this. That one night your own son might not do the stupid thing and attend a party like this. That an allegation alone might not spin him into a nightmare abyss .I'm sure, once upon a time, the Evans, the Finnerty's, and the Seligmann's thought this way too.

How easy for you to eat your Cheerios and turn your attention to the Sports Page and shrug,,,hey, let the trial play out. But, take heed, Mr. Ashley, when good people tolerate injustice, it tends to grow. Do you and those you love live under the purview of the major players in this case. Late at night, do you ever worry a bit...just a little bit...could you be Nifonged next?

 
At 11:36 AM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fantastic letter! I agree completely.

 
At 1:08 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an interesting quote from an article published today in the Durham-Sun that points out that Mike Nifong has made a habit of pursuing false allegations of rape:

Durham PD apparently thinks Precious _was raped by Kim, since she said that first

It features Nifong supporter& Durham lawyer Mark Edwards opining that maybe it isn't a good thing for a DA to pursue convictions on a demonstrably false allegation of rape.


Gee, Mark, do ya think?

From the article:

""But Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline, who handles many of Durham's rape cases, said a recantation wasn't enough to squelch a sexual assault allegation....

"When you have situations involving sexual assault or any type of assault, it depends on how the recantation was obtained and under what circumstances," she said. "Generally, the first statement given to police officers is true....""

 
At 1:49 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the post above:

the statement by Tracey Cline is one of the most persistent feminist myths about rape totally unsupported by any empirical data.

So why is the first statement an accuser makes the correct one?

Because it is the allegation of rape, which is always correct according to ideologues like Ms Cline.

But, of course, if the accuser was making a false accusation (for revenge, for money, for spite), the first statement she makes would be _de facto_ a false statement.

Duh.

Looks like in Tracey Cline, Nifong has found another dangerous malicious ADA who operates solely out of ideological motivations and not based on the facts.

Nifong's collection of professional body builders like Destine Couch and incompetent hacks like Tracey Cline is 3rd-rate Townie justice at its most extreme and laughable.

Tracey Cline drops the wrong case

Can you imagine what it will be like for any lawyer to have taken a job in Nifong's office.

An automatic "DO NOT HIRE ME, EVER
" sign on their backs for their next job.

 
At 2:21 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to recantation, and from personal experience with Domestic Violence, it is the norm... it is called PTSD and the cycle of violence. What I told police first was the truth, and then later I recanted, but in my case there was undisputable physical evidence, so the 'cases' proceeded. There are psychological aspects of the cycle that cause the accuser/victim to recant and I have spent the last 6 years researching it, as I still to this day wonder why I was in such a state... it is similar to what is done to prisoners of war. The danger is to not understand Domestic Violence... the abusers always re- offend and prior to the OJ case got away with it, including murder. Although OJ got away with murder, there have been changes in the system because of that case... such as understanding the psychology of the victim.

For the record, I do believe the Duke 3 are innocent. I see the difference with the false accuser in this case, than that of real victims.

 
At 2:46 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster above:

Freud figured all that out 100 years ago. (and feminists hate him for it, to this day)

People lie, deny the truth or tell the truth for not-so-complex psychological reasons. It is not "PTSD", it is human nature.

And it is rank stupidity to assume anyone (rape victim, false accuser or traumitized sufferer who isn't sure what happened) is telling the truth the first time they open their mouth.

"PTSD" has become sloppy shorthand for "I-don't-know-what-happened-but-since-I-am-the-victim-it-must-be-bad-and-don't-challenge-me-I-am-too-fragile-to-be-held-accountable-for-my-own-actions"

It covers a multitude of victimology, both real and imagined.

From Actual Innocence profiles and a wealth of psych studies, we now know that "actual" memories are frequently invented out-of-whole-cloth and victims end up convinced of things that never happened.

To that degree, "PTSD" is the big lie.

The obvious principles of fact-gathering and applying common sense gets thrown out when it encounters the feminist ideology of rape.

Rape exists and false accusations of rape exist, in equal measure.

As the feminists would say, they are both crimes of power.

 
At 3:14 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To joan foster: That was a wonderful post. Thank you.

I am so tired of people who say that a trial is the only way for the truth and all the evidence to be revealed. I expect no "truth" to come from Kim Roberts or the "alleged" victim. I expect great acting performances. That is something that their chosen profession has given them plenty of practice.

 
At 4:42 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a perfect society, a trial would be the appropriate way for the defendants to prove their innocence. But trials can have unexpected results, especially when racial issues play a role. One cannot ignore the racial aspects of this case. The incident with Gottlieb and Clayton adds another wild card to the mix (alleged white police perps and black victim).

The best outcome for the Duke LAX defendants would be to have the charges dropped-- a trial is too risky (on top of the tremendous emotional and legal costs of a trial).

 
At 6:02 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too have marveled at the number of individuals who say that this lunacy will be best served by being allowed to go to trial so that the truth will come out. They are the ones that bristle at the notion that a trial should not necessarily take place. I think that of all the coverage I've seen on this, one of my favorite observations was made by Mark Fuhrman on Hannity & Colmes. When the question was asked of the panel he was on as to whether there should be an entitlement to a trial, he ticked off some of the other guests by saying "Not necessarily." When someone objected to his denying a fundamental right to the accuser to have her day in court, he said (I'm paraphrasing here) "Nobody is necessarily entitled to a day in court. Whenever a complaint is filed, the first thing the police are supposed to do is investigate the charges thoroughly. Only if they find after an investigation that there is evidence sufficient to warrant proceeding with the case would the accuser be entitled to a day in court. You don't get to make baseless charges and then simply proceed to trial without any evidence. That's just not how it works. You're not entitled to that at all."

It seems to me that in the Alice in Wonderland approach we've seen in this case, we're seeing indictments first, pre-trial proceedings second and investigations third. When I went to law school and worked first for a prosecutor and then for a judge, that wasn't how it worked. There are many hurdles to be cleared before a trial can proceed, the first one being a lack of evidence that a crime was committed. This is the most maddening miscarriage of justice in the United States I can remember taking place in my lifetime.

 
At 6:31 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with one sentiment of Bob Ashley's editorial linked above

If Durham is a decent community, it will find a way to rise above rogue corrupt cops like Mark Gottlieb and narcisstic, race-baiters like Mike Nifong.

The community will find to stop this trial before it does any more damage.

The jury is out on Durham.

 
At 6:54 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An example of some of the crap being posted to the ourheartsworld website. (Of course, they delete opposing comments):

"Your going forward like this to trial is just amazing, and I back you 150%. Your courage is really admirable. Please stay with it and not back out, please."

"I hope you sue the crap out of Duke University when this criminal trial is over, no matter what the outcome."

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

Eyewitness account by the person who was attacked by Mark Gottlieb
and company last Thursday

F* you N*

In interviews, this cook guy seems remarkably forgiving but Mark Gottlieb has almost certainly just ended his sorry career of lazy, corrupt policework and witness intimidation.

Good riddances, creep.

(this _will_ affect the Lacrosse case for sure)

Note to Nifong: Gottlieb is now available for hire as another disgraced ex-cop like Linwood for your bad check division.

 
At 7:55 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was wondering if Joan had notice this in one of the N&O blogs. Check out Friday June 2, 2006 David Brooks and Duke at the Reader's Corner by Ted Vaden. Seems like more nitpicking by the N&O.

I'm not very good with words so I didn't leave a comment. I also wonder if Ted would blow out his blog border if someone responded.

 
At 8:07 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also I can't beleive this article check out Ted Vadan Reader's Corner May 30, 2006 Newspapers and Corrections. I cannot believe this sentence " Good newspapers are forthcoming about their mistakes and quick to correct them."

I'm not sure if others find this crazy coming from this newspaper.

 
At 8:26 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know how to do the research, or I would, but does anyone know who represented Curtis Peeples (who used to own a bunch of Durham "escort" services) when he was charged by the IRS? It might be worth looking into- I assume the information is in the public domain.
Texas Mom

 
At 8:40 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is another article in response to Bob Ashley's editorial in today's Herald Sun:

Court TV Will Have the Answer July 23, 2006 Robert KC Johnson

 
At 10:59 PM, July 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now here's a rather radical response to the infestation of no-talent PC-bullies at Duke like Peter Wood and Orin Starn.

If they won't give you tenure...just start your own school.
New college started by Duke Professor

Maybe the faculty of Founder's College could have as one of its tenets that they won't participate in public vigilante actions against their own students.

 
At 4:03 AM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the most complete account I've read about the alleged assault by White Durham PD Duke rape investigators against a Black man. Read both pages. There are several new details from ABC News--

"Man Says Duke Rape Cop Yelled Racial Slur"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2227472&page=1

 
At 12:08 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good job by FODU spokesman Jason Trumpbour on WPTF Raleigh this morning.

 
At 7:44 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! I just looked at the N&O Editor's blog and Ms. Sill has deleted all of the posts that were there and posted an interesting piece of justification. I tend to wonder if the "exposure" of C. Destine Couch, his mother's lawsuit against Duke, the Willie Gary connection and the questions posed by bloggers, were the proximate cause for the change in Ms. Sill's blog. Is it possible that someone called Ms. Sill and suggested a suit against the N&O if she didn't remove those particular references? I would assume that her new discussion about the Editor's Blog and the removal of all of the previous posts were an expedient and less obvious way to delete references to the ADA. Had she simply removed those particular posts, everyone would have noticed immediately. Thoughts anyone???
Texas Mom

 
At 7:59 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This just got pointed out to me! Somebody made up a wanted poster for Durham. Payback! Let's see how they feel?

http://ww1.pureupload.com/pupload/view/11766

 
At 9:04 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Texas mom: Luckily we backed up the Editor's blog a few days ago. Someone pointed out that this might happen. So, we are only missing what was posted for a fews days. Posts made prior to our backup are in our files. Thanks for pointing out the deletion incident.

 
At 9:07 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:59 poster: Thanks, this is a must see!!! Click on the small photo to enlarge it, once you get to the page.

 
At 9:26 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Here's a link to all 208 posts on the Editors blog:


http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=duke_case_coverage_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1



By the way, that poster is NOT to be missed! Best thing I've seen today!

 
At 9:32 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone else see the paradox in the Duke rape case and the officers suspected of roughing up an AA male? Hodge says he won't release any more names because of personal privacy laws, yet the Duke Lacrosse team has a wanted poster? Sounds like the accusation of the Blue Wall of Silence is a Durham thing....

 
At 9:36 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are there any other message boards in regard to the Duke case? The Court TV message board is a bit oppressive...

 
At 9:55 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are there any other message boards in regard to the Duke case?

Free Republic gets kind of wild and wooly at times, but often they are the first to turn up new info about the case.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=dukelax

or go to the Free Republic site http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse

and search for the keyword dukelax

 
At 10:41 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See TalkLeft for indepth analysis on this case (link included in the "Links to media" page of this site). Sometimes the dicsussions get a little too deep there, but overall I find the best analysis on that board (plus the courttv).

 
At 10:48 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 9:36 PM post re message boards-- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=dukelax

 
At 11:20 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This poster is great! Worth repeating from the 7:59 post:

http://ww1.pureupload.com/pupload/view/11766

 
At 11:22 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the new poster -- I'm not sure I'd have used Woody Vann's photo -- he's caught between a rock and a hard place as far as I'm concerned -- the FA was his client and he has to tread very lightly for ethical reasons because of that connection. Nonetheless, in his most recent appearances on TV he seemed to be saying he was in favor of dismissing the case. I guess overall, while I certainly have been highly critical of every aspect of how this was handled, I'm not sure that the poster sends the right message -- it feels a bit like stooping to their level and I wouldn't want the wrongly indicted players to suffer from any more small-minded prejudice as a result.

 
At 11:37 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To above poster--

I wouldn't overly worry. In my opinion, it's a little bit of comic relief. (I don't think people will take it seriously, and I doubt people will confuse it with a real Durham wanted poster-- at least I hope not.)

To whomever made it, I certainly laughed. Thank you!!!

 
At 3:33 AM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check this out from the Herald-Sun. New information about the investigation into the alleged assault by Durham PD officers outside a Raleigh Bar. Get this-- Durham deputy police chief Hodge says there was another group of Durham officers at the bar who were not involved in the incident and **they did not know that other Durham PD officers were present**. That is absolutely not credible, IMO. Here is the URL-- http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-755378.html

 
At 5:58 AM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The URL at the end of this postoutlines how central Herr Gottleib is to the Duke rape investigation. He handled the DNA evidence. He asked a local NBC station and the Abrams Report about defense photos. Reading the Herald-Sun article in the post at 3:33 AM, July 25-- Herr Gottleib is now apparently one of the prime suspects in the assault investigation. Anyway, the following is brief and informative; and is sourced from various News & Observer articles-- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1670637/posts?page=744#744

 
At 6:41 AM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An informative posting on a hypothetical scenario as to how Nifong could successfully prosecute this case even in the absence of any legitimate evidence:

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=9ad5d1460385732eb72977b69aa2d253&topic=34.msg1395#msg1395

 
At 10:54 AM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://ww1.pureupload.com/public/pview/16050/Web%20Wanted%20Poster%20low%20version.jpg

 
At 11:58 AM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Where is Peter Wood? No space for him?

 
At 11:59 AM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Accumulated ill will in Durham was a factor in fueling this case. I read a post from the press release thread which had this link to an article in the N&O in October, 2005. It reported on various rowdy and disprespectful encounters Durham residents and cops had had with off campus Duke students. It also referred to the court hearing on the mass bust for underage drinking at the beginning of the term that fall.

http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/347947.html

"Some sat in the packed courtroom studying; some agreed to guilty pleas with community service. But a few had top-gun lawyers by their sides, ready to take on the constitutionality of the raids rather than the behavior that led to their court appearances."

Note the tone critical of anyone who would dare to hire a lawyer (even worse a "top-gun" lawyer) to raise a constitutional issue in defense.

I have tried to tell my son to be sensitive to the social context of his surroundings in making decisions on behavior. In this I have not always been successful. When I delivered him to Duke for the first time last fall I read about the trouble and complaints the Trinity Park residents had about rowdy Duke parties. I thought I pointed out those articles to my son. Nevertheless, the day after we left he was at a party in Trinity Park, holding a cup of beer, when the cops came in. This is a kid who was never caught drinking in h.s. and when given the opportunity to drink beer legally in Europe the previous summer, didn't like it, so it was likely something he did to be accepted. I don't find drinking moderately from 18-21 morally reprehensible, so I wasn't bothered by the drink as much as I was by his failure to consider that after all the trouble the Durham cops would likely look to raid parties early in the term.

So the social context of Durham's perception of some Duke students was that they were capable of gross behavior. The perception of Duke in Durham as a while haven of privilege is unfair and innaccurate, but don't most people at Duke know the perception is there? The reference to Duke as the "plantation" cannot have been first noticed after this incident happened. Race is a sensitive issue, so one cannot simply engage in behavior without being conscious of how it might be perceived by others. So, once started in the borderline socially acceptable enterprise of hiring strippers, the boys should have recognized how it might look to others having two black strippers appear to an audience of all white players. I have heard that some players left when the dancers arrived. I guess for them the "danger will robinson" alarms were not drowned by alcohol.

I guess my point is that we can all take lessons away from this awful saga about awareness of social context and the need to ameliorate some of those conditions of false perceptions in our communities.

These defendants have been sucked into a perfect storm of community resentment, politically ambitious prosecutor, reprehensible (though legal) behavior and sexual and racial politics.

 
At 2:06 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the boys should have recognized how it might look to others having two black strippers appear to an audience of all white players.

Well, for what it's worth, they asked for white strippers.

I have heard that some players left when the dancers arrived.

Apparently, those who left included two of those now charged. In the Twilight Zone that is Durham "justice", that didn't do them any good, though.
Even if you weren't there, and didn't utter any racial epithets, and didn't watch the show, you can still be convicted in the press and get your face on the cover of Newsweek (which evidently didn't even bother with the simplest of fact-checking before running a cover story).
And once the media have convicted you, the courts are just a formality.

 
At 2:16 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.shadowuniv.com/excerpts-wb1.html

Notice how often the name Larry Moneta turns up. He is now, of course, Duke's VP for Student Affairs.

 
At 2:39 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Duke09parent: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. What I take away from it is that perhaps, in the future, the Duke parents should educate their kids (especially the incoming freshmen) of all these pitfalls awaiting them in Durham more so than they did in the past. Of course, there is no guarantee that a parent's warning will stop all or any unacceptable behavior. “Social/peer acceptance” is more important to college kids than what parents have to say, but at least, we should try. We have a tough year ahead of us, and we have to be alert at all times as to what our kids are doing in Durham. I cannot wish any of this on my worst enemies, let alone for my own kid or his fiends.

 
At 3:21 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO duke09 Parent:
As the parent of a rising Duke sophomore, I too am concerned about the social, political,and legal context of events in Durham. I am trying to teach my daughter to drink moderately and carefully in the face of reckless binge drinking that is far too common on many campuses, including Duke. I am trying to tell her about the corrupt Durham County justice system so that she stays out of trouble. I am urging her to register to vote. I am suggesting that she get out of the "Duke cocoon" but be safety-conscious off campus. But there is only so much a parent can do-- birds have to leave the nest and learn how to fly and navigate on their own.

Duke Parent

 
At 3:32 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's face it : this didn't happen because the kids hired strippers. It happened because there is a corrupt DA and a corrupt judicial system willing to back him up.

Any other judge in an honest jurisdition would have thrown this case out in five minutes.
Any other PD would have never made an arrest because they would have investigated it first (and not later, after the charges were made).
Any other DA would never have brought charges on the changing
story of a known prostitute, who had used this kind of dodge before.
The only question now is when someone with an ounce of integrity left (and it would only require an ounce) will step in and bring this to an end.

 
At 5:38 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand the concerns of the Duke parents here and am grateful that my son has only a short time until he graduates from another university. However, I would like to speak to several points.

I do think that Duke/Durham are not the norm in the college firmament. Town/gown relationships are frequently a problem for colleges/universities, but the disparities in the socio-economic and ethnic makeup of Durham seem to make Duke seem far more isolated, and far more resented, than other towns and their schools. I do not know the population and economic breakdown of Durham, but, it does seem that students who venture outside of the "bubble" may be more at risk of being targets.

I have harped on this before, but I do think it behooves every parent of an upcoming college student (Duke and otherwise) to buy and read The F.I.R.E.'s Guide to Due Process on College Campuses. I went to college from 1967 to 1971 and colleges were still acting in loco parentis in those days. Liability issues and lawsuits were not a primary concern for college administrators. Like it or not, ladies and gentlemen, nowadays, college presidents are more concerned with their endowments and with liability issues than with education. Given the PC nature of current college professors and their critical thinking skills, I wonder how much "education" is happening on the majority of college campuses today- except for the hard sciences- I do not include them.

Please take a look at thefire.org and at their little book about students rights (and lack thereof)- you can save yourself a world of trouble if you understand what your five figure annual payment does not buy at a college. Kids have no right to due process at private schools and little at public universities- and no one mentions it to the kids or the parents until something goes wrong. I'm not a shill for the F.I.R.E., just someone who learned the hard way.
Texas Mom

 
At 5:48 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

To 3:32 poster:

I think you are seriously misjudging the situation. The system in Durham is not "corrupt" in any sense of being dependent on money from nefarious sources. The DA is not being corrupt, he's being a politician. It's a cynical abuse of power and intellectually (at least) dishonest, but it's not crooked.

No "arrest" was made until after the indictments were returned. I'm not a criminal lawyer but I don't think any judge could derail the process if the grand jury (at the direction of the prosecutor) indicts.

"Any other PD" or "any other DA" or "any other judge" would have prevented this fiasco? You overestimate people. Public pressure from innacurate and biased perceptions is powerful on office holders. The only people who can derail this train from its destination to trial are the prosecutor and the complaining witness. He's dependent on the political process and can no way do anything to drop the case until after the November election. Then he may have committed his mind so much to going forward that absent a turnaround by the accuser it will go forward.

Maybe Nifong will lose, but that seems unlikely. I predicted awhile ago that the accuser will back out but not until close to trial. She will want to avoid more public humiliation and will make some BS statement about how she's deciding not to go forward in order to protect her parents and children.

Unfortunately there appears to be no way under NC law to force an earlier trial date.

 
At 6:30 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a cynical abuse of power and intellectually (at least) dishonest, but it's not crooked.

Well, the DA refused to look at excuplatory evidence. That's unheard of. And the case should have ended right there.

Then,nearly all of the close associates of the alleged victim in this case have now been arrested (her ex-husband, her boyfriend, her girlfriend); the taxi cab driver involved as a witness; etc., and some are still being held in jail.

The case of the taxi driver is particularly telling, since he was arrested on an expired warrant for a charge he has been cleared of; the arresting officers were the two chief investigators in the Duke case (highly unusual in itself); and their first questions to him were about the rape case. He is an immigrant and his immigrant status could now be put at risk. Durham admits to over 10,000 unserved warrants; but suddenly these ones are being rushed to service.

Someone might think this is being done to intimidate the witnesss.The sudden arrest of the Durham police chief's daughter (although her outstanding warrants were long known and the fact that the police chief's daughter had serious problems with law enforcement could not have been a secret in the department) is yet another indication of the atmosphere perhaps being created in Durham.

Then there is the Finnerty matter--an absurd and even clumsy railroading, which also leaves behind it more intimidation of a witness/defendant.

OTOH, though the second "exotic dancer" missed several probation meetings, has made no restitution,
and left the state without judicial
permission, she has been granted to extensions of her hearings, and received no punishment.

All that is unusual, and hardly gives me any confidence in the actions of the DA.
But in the next post I'll give a couple of samples of some other cases Nifong has been involved in.

 
At 6:46 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then there is a series of earlier cases which don't inspire confidence in Durham.

In 2002, when Hardin was DA and Nifong his deputy, there was a rape trial in which DNA samples taken from a man accused of rape didn't match DNA samples taken from inside the victim. Nevertheless, the accused, Leon Brown, was still prosecuted. The victim identified a white man (Brown was black) as her attacker.
But the white man was permitted to turn state's evidence to testify against Brown, and so was given immunity from prosecution.
Result? Brown was held in jail for a year, then tried and found not guilty in about five minutes. The jury foreman criticized the DA for even bringing the case. "There was no evidence," he said. "I can't understand why that man spent a year in jail when there was no evidence whatsoever against him. It made no sense to us. Where's the justice?"
But meanwhile the white man--towards whom all the evidence and identification pointed--went free because of the deal the DA had made with him.

In a later rape case, prosecuted by Nifong, the alleged victim made two calls the night of the incident to a friend and the messages left had "accidentally" been voiced over by a female ADA and a Durham detective. The prosecution tried to argue that they could be trusted to vouch for whose voice was on the tape but the judge agreed with the defense that an expert needed to be called in. Needless to say the suspect was acquited. And--the alleged victim happened to work at a nude bar and Duke Hospital found no injuries consistent with rape, no signs of anal penetration as was alleged nor any physical signs of a beating. (Seem familiar?)

Then there was a scandal in which the Durham PD apparently had blank subpeonas given to them by the DA's office so they had free reign to subpoena anyone they wanted. When the subpoenas were deemed illegal, DA Hardin attempted to not give them up to the court by saying that because they were obtained illegally he shouldn't have to comply with the legal court order because he felt it should not pertain to illegally obtained information. (Hardin is now a judge.)

And there is of course the scandal of the prostitution network being run out of the Durham PD in the 1990s. Considering that there were no arrests for prostitution in Durham by the PD in 2004 or 2005 (unusual in itself), one might wonder if there is still some protection going on.

And those are only the tip of the iceberg. There's lots, lots more.

 
At 7:12 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

I was reading the link provided by the 2:16 poster today. It was a chapter from a book on university abuses of students freedoms and described the "water buffalo" incident and aftermath at UPenn in 1993. The poster pointed out that Larry Moneta was somewhat involved in that controversy. (Here's the link again: http://www.shadowuniv.com/excerpts-wb1.html

In reading another account by the then Pres. of Penn (link: http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0503/hackney5.html)
I was amazed to see that our dear departed HOUSTON BAKER was very involved in that episode as well.

The above links describe it better than I can but apparently a group of black women sorority sisters were celebrating in an archway late at night and several students from inside the dorm began yelling at them to quiet down. Some of the yells were racial epithets. One student yelled, be quiet you water buffaloes, if you want to make noise go to the zoo down the street. The women took offense and complained. The water buffalo guy was the only one who admitted yelling anything and maintained it was not racially motivated or in fact a racial reference at all. Penn had a speech code and the student disciplinary system went into prosecutorial mode. In the end the charges were dropped by the complaining women but it took the student and his advisor going to the press to expose the thing. Houston Baker was the faculty advisor to the complaining women.

 
At 7:38 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Follow up to "water buffalo" incident at Penn:

Baker was identified by the Pres. of Penn as the women's advisor in an article he wrote years later.

The book chapter identified the women's advisor as Zoila Airall from the Divison of Residential Living, who withdrew from the case, perhaps to her credit.

Surprise, surprise, Ms. Airall is currently a VP for Student affairs at Duke, probably reporting to Monetta. Google is amazing.

I don't know Ms. Airall at all and only know what I read in the student newspaper about Monetta, and my overall impression is favorable. Perhaps they are doing an excellent job. Perhaps they learned valuable lessons in the Penn incident that will serve them and Duke well.

 
At 7:54 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks to FODU website for having JinC guest blog today.

On his blog, JinC has made the important point that we are now almost certainly dealing with an official coverup of Gottlieb's action at the Sports Bar (the failure of Raleigh police to issue a report now days after the event is telling).

It will be useful to know the role of Durham city manager Patrick Baker in this case. In the Duke case, he had no qualms about interfering in a police investigation to make sure that the bogus charges by CGM were pursued.

Baker now appears to be covering for Gottlieb (likely because the Durham PD knows well about his previous inappropriate conduct)

 
At 7:54 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My Treasured Friends of FODU:

I must apologize to you, my treasured un-met friends for what might be a meaningless message.

I have a college age son - the last of six. I am an old man but I took a lot of vitamins. I weep at the thought of my child having to live through this problem in Durham that might be America in the opening round.

I am a decorated veteran of the Vietnam Era and had a black roommate in San Antonio in the early 60's. No-one distinguished between Elmer and Me (I am white). Elmer and I went everywhere together - "white bars", "black bars". No problem. Maybe because Elmer was a 6'4" 250lb right guard and I was a 6'1 225 lb fullback on our undefeated 1961 Air Force football team (not college)-real football- on the base level.

But, I don't want my comments to be a racial "bandaid" like it may appear to be.

I am now a retired business man in the path of "Lay Methodist Ministry". I am soon to be able to do what I have been called to do by Reverend Billy Graham in 1955 in Madison Square Garden in New York. Took a while-yes.

I have seen blacks and whites fight over the most insignificant things - mostly ball games. But, now I see Durham being torn apart by blacks and whites over this case.

I am not an attorney, although many in my family are: and I am not a judge and I suspect I would never be one - whilst I have many friends (given my 65.5 years of age) who have been on both sides of the judiciary.

I suppose, as a striving "Minister of Peace" you would expect me to set aside the sword and scabard in favor of "let's wait and see".

No, I am sorry - I don't think we can wait.

There is an inborne feeling in all of us that just kinda says' "Let's get it understood-now"

I cannot make any difference in the Justice System in Durham or in any part of NC. But GOD can.

Sorry, you are going to wack on me - but, the justice system is not working - you can't rely on the DA or the PD, or the Governor -so you have to ask GOD to get in.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I pray everyday for our three guys.

 
At 7:59 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Follow to the water buffalo comments:

It's during Moneta's tenure as VP of Student Affairs that Duke's social life has been pushed off campus and into Trinity Park. The current disaster is a result.

 
At 8:28 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 7:54 poster: Thank you for your heartfelt message. It is good hearing from such passionate friends –albeit unmet. Let me assure you, your daily prayers for our three guys are very well placed. These guys are innocent, and they deserve your prayers and ours.

 
At 8:55 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the N & O has turned a corner. They have a satire poster up on Ruth's Blog. Maybe we finally have reached a turning point with the local press?

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/ruth/index.php?title=wanted_dead_or_alive&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

 
At 2:00 AM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The posters on FreeRepublic found cousin Jakki's Myspace page.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1670637/posts?q=1&&page=901

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=52258514

 
At 3:44 AM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The free republic link above has an excellant discussion of the destruction that Mark Gottlieb's likely arrest and/or suspension will wreck on the evidence in the case.

Gottlieb, now proven to be a rogue racist cop, was behind the illegal lineup and the witness intimidation of the cabbie, of course.

Still unresolved is whether Gottlieb is behind the faked email sent in a LAX player's name during the investigation.

And whether Gottlieb was the one who attempted to interview players without counsel.

I have now idea why Duke hasn't pursued the fragrantly unethical email action legally since this is likely a violation of federal law against hacking into protected networks.

And is certainly (attempted) entrapment.

I long ago predicted that Gottlieb would do jail time before this is over. That now appears more likely from a variety of causes.

Expect to hear about a lifetime of abuses on the part of Gottlieb before this is over.

 
At 9:07 AM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cousin Jakki's Myspace page.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=52258514

Jakki O'Knight is a drag queen

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1670637/posts?page=963#963

Check post 930-these are off of his picture page

 
At 2:32 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This may be a stupid question--who is Jakki?

 
At 2:45 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a second generation graduate of Duke.

I am more than a little saddened by President Brodhead's "response" to the Friends' Open Letter. I was particularly bothered by President Brodhead's use of the term "proved innocent" when referencing his hopes, apparently, for the outcome of the scheduled trial. So much for the presumption of innocence.

More bothersome to me is President Brodhead's disregard for the substance of the Friends' letter. His response is nothing more that a regurgitation of his positions taken months ago. Does his response offer any new perspective?

Now for my rant..... I think President Brodhead is fist, and foremost, a political animal. It can be argued that he is an educator, so maybe his political acumen is second only in its refinement to his academic interests; but not by much. While the accusations of racism, or accusations with racial overtones, should be upsetting to anyone against whom such charges are levelled, can anyone imagine a group more disturbed by such charges than members of academia. Particularly one who spent the majority of his career at Yale? It is not even necessary that such claims be proved. Merely giving public voice to such accusations must have shaken him to his very core. A woman of color has been raped by Duke students and her supporters, and the DA, and the press) are screaming. No matter that these were claims and not facts; that's incedental. I must respond as if the charges have merit. If I do no prove myself innocent of the charges I will lose my bona fides as a liberal member of academe.

President Brodhead is still new to his office. That constituency, on campus, from whom he needs immediate support is the faculty; particularly tenured faculty. The undergraduate student body turns over by approximately 25% each year. The tenured faculty not so much. In my opinion, he calculated the impact to his personal position on campus as being more at risk if he supported vigorously the lacrosse team than by remaining realtively quiet other than to issue politically correct platitudes about the legal process. He chose to placate the members of the faculty (the Group of 88 included) rather than withhold comment/action until more information became available. His instinct was for survival; exemplified in this situation by his choice to curry favor with the faculty rather than place any stock in the lacrosse team's explanation of events. WIth every passing day the team's story becomes more credible.

I think it is interesting how in his response to the Friends' open letter President Brodhead is careful not to accept the growing empirical evidence supporting the three young men's position. He acknowledges its apparent existence but in faint, almost dismissive , terms. Too bad he wasn't as measured prior to his acceptance of Coach Pressler's resignation.

In summary, I am dissapointed, but not surprised, by President Brodhead's response the Friends' letter. President Brodhead's press friendly phrase of "teachable moment" might extend to those of us who have gained insight into the motivations of the man our Board of Trustees deemed fit to lead our University. Survival 1; Leadership and Justice 0.

 
At 2:47 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read the reply from Brodhead
to the letter written by Friends of Duke.

What a weasel Brodhead is. He does not acknowledge certain facts, such ad no DNA evidence. All he will say is that he will not comment on the pending investigation and trial.

It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to all Duke alums and parents that Brodhead is the typical anti white racist liberal that inefests every university and college in this country.

Imagine if it were black football players still charged with gang rape after DNA evidence proved them innocent.

Brodhead would be proclaimining their innocence to the skies.

Make no mistake about it; this case is all about race, race, race.
It is the lynching of white men because they are white.

Does anyone think that the case will be thrown out in prelimenary hearings because of lack of evidence? It won't.

Does anyone think the case won't be brought to trial? It will.

Does anyone think the venue will be changed from Durham to a less black/racist venue? It won't.

Does anyone think the jury will not be 10 racist blacks and 2 feminazi Duke professors? It will.

Does anyone think the pot bangers and preachers will not visit the city administrators and families of jury members to let them know that if the accused are not aquitted there will be a riot the likes of which Durham has never seen? They will.

When this case goes to trial in Durham the preacher/poverty pimp/potbanger community will go threaten, intimidate and harass the jurors and their families so as to make sure the accused are convicted.

Blacks believe in DNA evidence when it proves blacks innocent. When DNA evidence proves whites innocent, blacks cease to believe in DNA evidence.

And how do you think the accused will be treated by the 90% affirmative action black prison guards?

 
At 3:12 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How embarrasing for this judge!!!


Judge Gets Wonk'd
Legal Times
July 17, 2006
D.C. Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr., a conservative courthouse figure known for his bow ties and his deeply held Catholic beliefs, isn't the most likely reader of Wonkette, a profanity-laced blog that describes itself as "Politics for People with Dirty Minds." Nevertheless, Bayly cited the blog last week during the assault trial of Duke University lacrosse player Collin Finnerty. ....But Bayly relied upon an anonymous tipster to Wonkette's "Wonk'd" celebrity sighting features who misspelled Finnerty's name and mistakenly claimed Finnerty had already been convicted. ...Bayly's sleuthing prompted an open letter on Wonkette noting its "Wonk'd" sections involves "very very little editing and absolutly no-fact checking." Bayley convicted Finnerty of the midemeanor charge..."

 
At 3:17 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jakki is AV's cousin. The one who is acting as family spokeperson.

Also the one Cash wrote about.
She is the family member who reported that FODU offered AV 2 mil to quietly go away.

It has been speculated that she was a transvestite.

Turns out she is a drag queen, does shows all over. Not only that, it was reported early on she is the house "mom"for one of the "club".
Bouncer, make up artist, hairstylist, drag queen.

What he does is of no concern to me, except that while he presents herself on TV as a caring family who will not use her last name to protect AV, it seems it is to hide her profession.

Jakki is of the world of AV and the media has chosen not to make that information available.

 
At 3:43 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shame on President Brodhead.

From Bordhead’s response:
“that what the players were accused of was, if true, a heinous act; and that it would be equally unjust to prejudge their guilt in the absence of proof and certainty.”

This is a true statement and the point of this website, but Brodhead doesn’t “get it” because he then says: “This dual message has been at the heart of virtually every public statement I have made on the case.” Not! He’s really lousy at double speak.

“But as you recognize, the University can't go the further step and proclaim our certainty of their innocence.” No, but in the Bill of Rights the fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments all address the significant need to protect the accused from false accusations (5th amendment guarantee of due process which has not existed in this case), mistreatment (5th A. against taking of private property which has come through the extreme expense of having to defend themselves and generally being deprived of pursing happiness including the pursuit of their education at Duke), lack of a speedy trial. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Which makes Brodhead’s next statement spurious: “That requires resolution through the legal system – which is all the more reason why we require the legal system to proceed in a fair-minded, even-handed, and speedy fashion.”

The legal system has failed these boys because the legal system more than even the accuser does is actively destroying these young men. Courage and leadership do not exist in Mr. Brodhead.

Everything after those statements was hog wash, and North Carolinians know about hog wash.
“the University has been consistently critical of the team's conduct on that night (while taking scrupulous pains to distinguish between the acknowledged conduct and the felony charges, which have not been established).” Who does he think he’s kidding?

“It's to move forward – to a just and speedy resolution of the court case, to a proud new future for the men’s lacrosse team, and to an era of increased responsibility and respect among Duke students in general.” Oh, come on! We’re Duke people. We’re not idiots.

My brother is an assistant dean at a large state university and he said that to assemble 88 professors who were willing to make such a vile and united statement against the students is an indication that a cancer exists within the faculty that will not easily be destroyed. This letter is consistent with that statement. Duke has cancer. The question is whether or not it’s terminal.

Nothing is forever. Reputations take time to build, but can be destroyed overnight.

 
At 3:44 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Overall, Broadhead's letter is about as far as you can expect a self-serving weasel like this guy to go in admitting that the charges are FOS.

One appalling part of the letter stands out, though.

He says, "...but we have not confined our censure to this one team....In coming weeks we'll be working to promote responsible conduct among all students"

With nary a work about the disgraceful conduct of his own faculty.

Peter Wood, Anne Allison, Karla Holloway and their vigilante henchpeople are much more deserving of censure for their conduct.

Duke's students don't need censure, they need mature and supportive faculty. And we all know from this case that the quality of much of the faculty in Liberal Arts is awful.

The Duke 88 need to go elsewhere. And Broadhead should clean house of Wood and the rest of these petty thugs.

 
At 3:45 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think cousin Jakki meant us (i.e. FODU) when she made those statements. I think she was referring to some hypothetical unnamed friends. We (FODU) have certainly never heard of cousin Jakki before, or communicated with her on any topic. If she means us, than this is the biggest lie I ever heard. This is just “wishful thinking”.

 
At 4:06 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Since this section seems to be where most of the reactions to Brodhead's response are going, I'm copying my post from the press release string to here:
***************
Well, I drop my grade to Brodhead from a B+ to a B-. I'm sure those of you who have been so critical of him will find his response more of the same, and it is. I guess he's convinced he's taken the proper neutral course and if he's taken a lot of flak for being too lenient on the boys and the team, that's his proof that he's on the right track.

He's mostly right on the neutrality thing, but as Durham's largest employer and biggest benefactor it would not be unreasonable at all of him to lobby publicly for a more expedited trial date.
**********************

I won't rehash my general defense of him from before. I downgrade him for pulling the trigger too soon on Pressler, not publicly criticising the group of 88 for its prejudgment, and not lobbying publicly for an expedited trial date. Otherwise, once he was engaged, he did as well as any university president would.

 
At 4:44 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cash's most recent piece of fiction is pretty hilarious. It sounds like it was written from a rubber room somewhere.

Has Jakki ever spoken to CMG?

BTW, if you have never communicated with Cash directly, I highly recommend it.

By email or in person, he is one of the most cheerfully abusive and comical poseurs you will encounter.

Very entertaining race-baiter, Cash is. And will literally say anything to get attention.

 
At 4:57 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

D.C. Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr., a conservative courthouse figure known for his bow ties and his deeply held Catholic beliefs

Well, if so, the only "saint" he seems to venerate is Pontius Pilate, since he so aptly copied his conduct in conducting a trial to suit public opinion, complete with a verdict calcalated to please lying accusers.

And since he must have known that the defendant in this case was only being tried to placate the hoax in Durham, he becomes thereby an accomplice to all the schemes and chicanery which are going on there.

 
At 5:09 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read Cash's article, I usually stay away from such nonsense. Isn't it interesting how they are expect the rest of the world to prove they did not make a 2 million dollar offer to CGM instead of asking CGM the proof of who and when this offer was made? How very convenient! Unless the rest of the world proves otherwise, we are supposed to go with anything CGM claims.. When did the basic rule of logic go out the window? Are these people for real? And to think that the UNCC professors are also contributing to this nonsense. Having manufactured a lie, they start believing it too. This is beyond funny. This is pitiful.

 
At 5:16 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Fresno had some of its football players accused of rape, it immediately assured that they were represnted by counsel and knew their rights. They were regarded as innocent until there were AFAIK no marches against them, no wanted posters, no faculty letters denouncing them, the coach was not fired and the season was not cancelled.
Now, why couldn't Brodhead have done any of those things, consisent with his position as head of the university?
Did he have to rush off to NCCU to give a speech assuming the guilt of the defendants?
Measured by the Fresno standard, he failed miserably.

 
At 5:35 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps Broadhead would have done the same thing as in Fresno, and more, if the accuser accused the football team.

 
At 5:38 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cash's epistles are transmissions from an African-American alternate universe where facts don't matter.

Before they became completely delusional, folks like Cash used to recognize that they were just making stuff up.

In the 80's, African American polemicists called this type of intentional fantasy black-speak, the _colonized mind_ as a way of indicating that it was the white oppressors who caused them to say such crazy things.

Now in their dotage, Cash and company no longer recognize it as self-parody, and neither do their admiring white liberal yes-men like Bob Ashley, Mike Nifong and Orin Starn (who recently wrote an entire book of humorless colonized mind nonsense).

The unrefutable fantasies of race-baiters like Cash have long ago become their own self-reinforcing reality.

And in the absence of any other voices, Cash's mythic character, Jakki the drag queen/porn artiste/family gossip/supersized spokesmodel, is rapidly becoming the farcical public face of black Durham.

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

we have another posting from that group caling themselves Liestoppers. It's a satire on the Duke 88.

http://www.freefilehosting.org/pupload/view/11187

 
At 7:38 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brodhead may be concerned about a lawsuit. (He should be.)

But that is peanuts compared to the harm he has caused.
He has been an active instigator in Tawana Brawley II.

The only decent thing to do, now that he must know the
students are innocent, is to try to do everything in his power to see that they are vindicated.

Is he doing that?

 
At 8:08 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am disappointed, again with Brodhead.

He should say that the players maintain their innocence and Duke will believe them until there is strong evidence presented to the contrary.

He basically is a just trying to be Politically Correct and as such is Absolutely Wrong.

 
At 8:38 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liestoppers' satire on the Duke 88 is great

I suggest they ask Orin Starn to host it on his website. Please remember, he was _not_ one of the 88 vigilantes, so he should be interested.

 
At 8:46 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a simple reminder to everyone that it has been a week since Mark Gottlieb and RD Clayton attacked a line cook and called him a "nigger" and a "boy".

Unlike CGM, the cook has given four TV interviews where his story has been entirely consistent and totally believable.

There is no serious dispute about what happened that night, and yet the Raleigh police seem unable to file a report.

Just a coincidence probably that Durham city manager Patrick Baker claims he is now "managing" the case.

Or that Liefong is back from vacation.

I say they try to pin the whole on Mostafa.

 
At 8:56 PM, July 26, 2006, Blogger NDLax84 said...

check out my new one act play:

http://crystalmess.blogspot.com/2006/07/buh-dum-bump.html

 
At 9:24 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh...so that's the reason Nikki has to show up in court anyway, even though her case keeps getting postponed.

 
At 10:00 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reply to 8:46 PM, July 26, 2006 post: Yes, when are we going to hear the full story from Raleigh PD? Are they covering up a bad report on Herr Gottleib and the other White Durham PD officers who were alleged to have assaulted a Black cook and used racial slurs?

 
At 10:02 PM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent postive press release from FODU to Broadhead's letter -- using his own words to prompt action!!

Duke needs to reinstate the two indicted players -- pending resolution of this false claim!

And just for fun -- take a look at the latest from Liestoppers on the Duke 88 - link just above.

Have you also seen the Liestoppers poster link above at 7/25 8:55pm?

 
At 2:09 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Three more Durham PD officers were named as being put on administrative duty in connection with the investigation into an alleged assault on a Black cook. Raleigh PD ain't saying nothing-- http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-756063.html

 
At 5:16 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Might as well put the entire Durham PD on desk duty.

DPD can't solve the real crime in their city, like quadruple homicides, and spend their time intimidating witnesses and framing innocent people.

(BTW hasn't Chief Chalmers been on "administrative" duty himself for over a year now. Wonder what he did?)

 
At 6:51 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

good article today on the
FODU letter

It seems clear that Broadhead's refusal to lift the unjust suspensions of Seligmann and Finnerty is related to his fear of his black faculty.

Fear of a pernicious bigot like Professor Karla Halloway who somehow proclaimed _herself_ the victim of the Lacrosse case because she had to serve on a committee is pathetic.

 
At 7:14 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous joan foster said...

Your reply was exactly right..it will enable future dialogue.

Had I been asked to reply, unfortunately..it might have read something like this:

Like Ruth, like Melanie at the N&O , Brodhead is an artful dodger. His wave of the hand dismissing "endless debate" about things done in the past is patently self-serving. He doesn't want to talk about things HE did in the past because his past actions reflect poorly on his leadership and management style. He wasn't a force for reason and restraint at the beginning of this witch-hunt..he was The Hand-Wringer -in -Chief.

Like Ruth and Mel, what he didn't do, what he didn't say ...may be the public's most enduring memory of Brodhead in Crisis. He took not one courageous stand, uttered not one inspiring word, ....he was a little man cowering before Pot-bangers, covering his head. Sputtering for the most obtuse statement...voted the Most Likely to Appease.

Pure and simple, he is paid to be a leader . That's his JOB. Controversy may be uncomfortable for the passive..but it's a "high" for a real leader..it's where he finds his moment, shows his mettle. Brodhead had no "moment." In short, he showed himself most unworthy of the title and trust he holds. But to the present...

.” I am well aware that, after
many weeks of media stories that made it seem almost self-evidently true
that a rape had occurred, recent stories have offered extensive evidence
exonerating the indicted students and questioning the legitimacy of the
case. "

Then, Mr. Brodhead, here's an idea. You use the public platform of your job to trumpet just that....."the extensive evidence exonerating the indicted."and, WOW! " questioning the legitamacy of the case".

You demand a speedy trial and a special prosecutor.

Start TODAY.

You don't meow that you "share in our wish for a speedy resolution"...No!...put on your pants, call a press conference and DEMAND it. And with every demand you cite the "extensive exonerating evidence."

Why? Because you are "aware" of it. In standard English, that means you know it exists. If you know it exists, you have a DUTY to its dissemination. If you know it exists, then you are acknowledging THAT IT IS TRUTH. To stand silent in the face of truth is reprehensible. Sir, you are presently derelict in your duty while you waffle in your deadly neglect of the Truth

. You need not hold back. This is not dinner table converstion at the home of a major donor. Three young lives are at stake. This is your Blinco's moment ...take off your shirt, Brodhead, make a macho move and jump in the fray.

Cite the "extensive exonerating evidence".
Demand a special prosecutor and a speedy trial.

Demand it today and tomorrow... at every public forum, in every written statement, at every faculty tea. Wear the tee shirt for God's sake.

Stand for something.

It's what you get the greenbacks for Mr. Brodhead.

Speak up, put out or get out!

 
At 7:27 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More of the same cowering from Broadhead.

He is more than afraid of the thuggish tactics of his African American studies and Culanthro faculty, Broadhead is abetting it.

Duke is still hosting their vigilante letter on their website.

What does a lawsuit against Duke look like

 
At 8:49 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are 4 interesting comments in the Herald Sun Letters section.

Letters

Dukies fond of Durham
DA ignores alibi
It's all about race
The record is clear

 
At 10:46 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Legal Times article is sarcastic and actually making fun of Bayly i.e. he is supposed to be so religious and honorable yet he is reading a rather scummy blog nad using it in a court ruling -the latter part of which the LT is attacking his judicial skills/fairness. I think he probably cares more about being made a laughingstock in the Legal Times than in the Washington Post as the Legal Times is what most of his colleagues and attorneys who appear in his courtroom would read. (AND Let us not forget appellate judges who would rule on an appeal in Collins case)

 
At 11:16 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is entirely possible that the Wonket blog was tipped off by "the blue wall of silence" in Durham that Finnerty was in DC, then after it was up on the blog, made a phone call to the courts and/or prosecutor in DC for the anonymous tip...

 
At 11:48 AM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nifong strikes again.

the Durham PD have returned Mark Gottlieb and RD Clayton to the street despite their beating of a cook and their use of racial slurs.

As expected, City Manager Patrick Baker and Nifong have whitewashed the incident in a coverup.

 
At 12:03 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What else is new? I am not surprised at all. These guys seem to be getting away with anything they want. So why not do what is advantegous to them and not worry about what the law says. These guts turned out to be quite smart, in their own way.

 
At 12:29 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One wonders, given the morally self-righteous positions staked out by the Group of 88 and President Richard Brodhead when three Duke students were charged with rape, why these beacons of morality remain deafening silent on this alledged racial incident?

Where is the intellectual braintrust of Duke University now? Where is the outrage? The Duke faculty and President have been exposed as frauds. It's easy to pick on students, who really have no recourse. Apparently it's another matter to sqaure off against a group that can fight back. The faculty and the President are like playgorund bullies who back donw when challendged by an equal. What a bunch of cowards.

 
At 1:08 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the Raleigh/Durham cop case,

"Simple assault is a Class 2 misdemeanor, which carries a maximum fine of $1,000 and up to 60 days in jail on a Level 3 conviction -- five or more prior convictions."

After five prior convictions...

Finnerty got 30 days in jail and 6 months' probation for a first offence--yelling back at someone who punched him from behind.

Justice in America.

 
At 1:10 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This message was originally posted elsewhere:

Not Even a Little Funny

A priest, a rabbi, and a nun walk into a bar. They sit down and the bartender tells them that the best joke gets a beer on the house.

The nun looks up, excited, and says, “Your mother is so old, her social security number is 1.”

The rabbi follows, “What do you call a fish with no eyes?” The others look around with anxious smiles on their faces, “A fsh.”

The priest blurts out, “I’ve got one that’s going to slay you. Tonight I’m having some women come to my room to dance and strip for me. I’m planning to kill them, mutilate their bodies, and be sexually satisfied by the whole thing.”

The nun gets her pint.

The priest’s joke, of course, doesn’t work; specifically because it’s not a joke, it’s a threat. And it would be read as even more of a threat if the priest had just come from a retreat where some members of the priest’s, shall we say, lacrosse team, had hurled racist epithets at a pair of women they paid to dance for them and brutally sexually assaulted one of them. In fact, if this was the case, no one in the bar would read the statement as a joke, but an unambiguous assertion of power. Seemingly, there isn’t a setting in the world, whether a barroom, a party, a street corner, a classroom, or a church, where this kind of statement could be understood as appropriate. It does nothing but dehumanize women and sex workers, encouraging violence.

Any bartender with integrity would kick the dude out and ask him to never come back. This type of inhumanity would not be tolerated for several reasons, and the bartender would realize that roughly half of the bar’s most loyal customers were women who could not feel safe in the continued presence of this individual.

It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to get that this would be the only right thing to do.

Apparently, however, having a Ph.D. might make this situation less clear.

In the last week, it has become public knowledge that Duke University, which apparently has neither integrity nor concern for the safety of its students, has readmitted Duke lacrosse player Ryan McFadyen to its “hallowed” halls without sanction. McFadyen, for those who don’t know, wrote an email less than an hour after leaving the now infamous March 13th Duke lacrosse party where he explicitly described plans to kill and mutilate “strippers” for his sexual satisfaction.

For this act, Duke sent him home at the end of the spring semester. In readmitting him, they have stated that he had been asked to leave campus as an act of “protection” against violence or harassment that he might face. No mandatory counseling, no public apology, no punishment, and he will play on the reinstated lacrosse team. Duke officials also stated that the sending of this email, while “given the context of the time” was inappropriate, was not, in fact, disorderly conduct. But here’s the kicker: the administration has affirmed McFadyen’s explanation of the email as a joke made in reference to a scene in a popular movie

A joke?

This raises some important questions. Who has the power to decide whether or not an unrestrained threat is explained away as a “joke”? On whose behalf do we allow such explanations? What would make a threat be so bad that someone in power might take it seriously?

Let’s keep it real: any culture with the ironic gall to call giving something and then taking it back “Indian giving,” not “white man giving,” has a pretty staggering inability to correctly name a phenomenon. A “white lie” is one that isn’t so bad, though we’ve seen the results (cough, weapons of mass destruction) of white men’s lies. So we shouldn’t be surprised that such a blatant threat can be renamed a “joke” as the ruling class welcomes one of its prodigal sons back into the fold.

This, in America, is the ultimate mulligan, a “do-over.” “Wait, wait, you must have misunderstood what I meant.” “You musn’t have gotten the context of my statement.” “Aren’t you are being a little sensitive?” “I mean, I have several Black friends.” “I treat all my employees fairly.” “Our school is very diverse.”

We spend our time focusing on the intent of one white man’s words or deeds, and not the terrorism that they represent for many, many women and sex workers. We talk about the lacrosse players and their ilk as “good guys” gone astray, not about women of color on Duke’s campus and in Durham who have felt accused, exploited, criminalized, and victimized as a result of this action. All of our energy is spent on folks terrorizing others, not those being terrorized.

This is not okay. As the folks with the power to define what is “real”, what is funny, what is terrorism, and who does and does not have the right to safety, wealthy white men wield tremendous power. This power means that Ryan McFadyen can be removed from school for his safety, like the lacrosse team being spirited off campus as this story broke, while women of color on campus faced regular harassment. This power means that the hurt, terror, and fear that his words and presence provoke in women on Duke’s campus does not matter.

Further, Duke students who perceive that they are under “attack” for making “jokes,” having reckless parties, and generally acting like they are the only people on the planet, get affirmed by this decision. Make a heinous threat; someone will re-name it a “joke” and take care of you. Here, “freedom of speech” means the freedom to terrorize, to sow fear. Meanwhile, women will see McFadyen on campus and have terrors of him mutilating them for sexual gratification, no one in power concerned for their safety. But hey, it was “just a joke.”

Ryan McFadyen should be held accountable. He should not get the privilege of representing Duke in the public. He should undergo counseling and face University sanctions. He should publicly apologize and seek to repair the damage he has done and the terror he has inspired. Anything less is an attack on students, faculty, staff, and community members who have ever participated in sex work, or are women of color, white women, identify as LGBQ or transgender, or believe that Duke University is a place that values safety and integrity.

Duke had a chance this time. The fact that it blew it just isn’t very funny.

UBUNTU is a Women of Color and Survivor led coalition in Durham, NC, committed to justice, supporting survivors of sexual assault, and transforming our communities until the day that sexual assault no longer occurs. Those who wish to read the text of McFadyen’s email can at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0405061duke5.html.

UBUNTU
July 27, 2006

 

<< Home