Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 12 - Full

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


At 9:34 AM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to correct a comment from a poster in the previous thread regarding Lisa Hawkins.

True, she has been arrested over 20 times.
WAY over 20 times.
Lisa Hawkins has been arrested 127 times.


One hundred twentyseven

127 arrrests for Ms Hawkins, career crtiminal.

Otherwise the article was most excellent!

At 10:21 AM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again I see the hand of humorist Dave Barry in this case.

The DA's office trying to intimidate a witness with an "aiding and abetting" a petty theft charge? When the actual perpetrator has already plead guilty?

Hoping for help from the perpetrator to intimidate the witness when the perp has 127 arrests?(oops, only convictions count)

I do want to bring up a couple of serious points on the judiciary in this country on which some posters on the last string are off base:

One suggested that direct correspondence from the public to the presiding judge would or should have and effect on his decision making. The reason an independent judiciary (that is independent of the legislative or popular will politics) is so important in a democracy is to protect individuals' rights against the possible tyranny of majority rule. A judge shouldn't pay attention to letters from the public on what he should or should not do. A judge should be made aware that the public is watching so that he/she won't do crooked things thinking he/she won't get caught, but direct appeals to the judge for a particular action is not appropriate.

The second point is that the wish that an independent judge be from outside the state of North Carolina cannot be fulfilled. This matter is an alleged offense against North Carolina law and the case is in the North Carolina courts. There are protections for the accused common to all states which are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but this is a state prosecution and any judge appointed specially to preside will (and should) be one from North Carolina.

At 10:32 AM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who are wondering why Durham Herald-Sun Editor Bob Ashley is such a staunch supporter of Mike Nifong.

One look back at Ashley's record will answer that.

You will recognize the same streak of totalitarian, paranoid nastiness. Two peas in a pod.

To the Herald-Sun News Staff:

Re: Flashback to 2005: The Indy reports on Bob Ashley's "respect" for his employees and his "condescending, insipid and small-townish" columns

A year and one half into Bob Ashley's tenure, it's worth taking a look back. At how he behaved when he took over. And at predictions about how the quality of the newspaper would likely suffer.

I'd say they nailed Ashley and this pathetic excuse for a newspaper 100% spot-on.

Right down to his "condescending, insipid and small-townish" columns, which have become a defining feature of the new Herald-Sun ever since.

Definitely worth a read, to see how accurately the Indy predicted what has unfolded.

At 1:53 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can anyone help me? I was wonder if there was an address for Judge Titus.

Maybe if we write him enough he will finally stop Nifong. I am a rape victim and I can't stand for Nifong is doing to the real victim's.

Any thought's for e-address or Street address. Thank you.

I think the duke boys are innocent of all the charges against them. and Nifong has some kind of vendetta??
Let's stop him.

At 3:09 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 1:53 PM, August 16 post:

Judge Titus is out of the picture, if I read this right -

In other news, attorneys for the three indicted Duke University lacrosse players met with District Attorney Mike Nifong and court officials Tuesday afternoon to discuss having the case declared exceptional. The designation would attach a single judge to handle the pretrial matters and the trial. That judge would have the authority to set hearing dates and handle other scheduling issues.

After the meeting, Durham Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson said all parties had agreed on a single judge to nominate to state court officials, who must approve the choice. Hudson, who presided over the highly publicized murder case against novelist Mike Peterson, would not say who the nominee was but confirmed that he would not be handling the lacrosse case.

At 3:23 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Judge is already in NIfong's back pocket. BET ME !!!!!

At 4:05 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never bet against a sure thing!

At 4:16 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


re: Hoping for help from the perpetrator to intimidate the witness when the perp has 127 arrests?(oops, only convictions count)

No legal mind am I, which is why I like saying 127 arrests. With a smile, no less.

Considering that many of her appearances should have been in traffic court when Nifong was in traffic court, I have to wonder about those dismissals or "no record"

127 arrests...where does she find the time!

At 4:20 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above maybe Nifong will call the person with 127 arrests into this trial, as a suprise witness, saying she was in the bathroom?

At 4:53 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "60 Minutes" season opener should close the Duke case

Michael Gaynor
August 16, 2006
Michael Gaynor

"60 Minutes" premiered on September 24, 1968. Its website promotes the show as "the CBS News magazine providing a blend of hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news" and "the most successful broadcast in television history." The current plan is for its thirty-ninth season to begin with a blockbuster expose on the Duke case . . .

At 6:03 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above the reason Mr Asley doesn't have all 1800 is because his sources are not of the legal kind. If he can't get them then he needs better sources of the legal kind. just my thought

At 7:26 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason Ashley doesn't have any sources is because he doesn't want any.

He is focused on reporting flower shows, dogs stories and at least one article every day praising Durham politicians.

Ashley is a tool.

At 9:00 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone wishing to email Bob Ashley of the Herald Sun, can at his private email address. I emailed him at his business email address and he responded on his blackberry. Here it is:

This is a text of my question and his answer: Why does the N&O have the first 1800 pages of discovery, along with MSNBC, Dan Abrams and you don't?

Answer:They have sources, we have sources. I can hardly comment on theirs.


Bob Ashley
Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless

At 9:42 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the 4:53 pm post by Mike Gaynor: not sure where he saw this info about the Duke case report, but the season premiere will be on Sunday, September 24th at 7pm, so stay tuned!

At 11:27 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the rumored 60 Minutes Duke story:

I, for one, am not going to set my expectations too high. If it delivers as billed, then it will be a most welcome surprise.

Keep in mind, we're dealing with the same mainstream press that tried to railroad the Duke Lacrosse team in the first place.

At 11:27 PM, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hearing that 60 Minutes will cover this case reminds me of the saying: when the gods wish to punish you, they grant your wishes. Therefore be careful of what you wish for.

At 12:29 AM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 11:27 PM post:

When dealing with 60 Minutes, one should always watch their 6.

(for those in Rio Linda - "watch your 6" means "watch your back"!)

At 1:20 AM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New judge?

From the N&O

Osmond Smith has been a Superior Court judge for 11 years. He lives outside Yanceyville; his home judicial district includes Caswell and Person counties. Smith, 55, graduated from Wake Forest University's law school


Nifong buddy reporter John Stevenson has taken to torturing language to excuse Fong's behavior, From his recent article

'...and critics complaining that Nifong rushed to obtain indictments without conducting an adequate investigation -- and without uncovering apparent flaws in the accuser's story."

What does that last part mean, anyone?

At 8:53 AM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ruth Sheehan attempts lame satire, I respond:

Must have been a bad vacation, huh?

Whenever you gets defensive and cranky, you lash out with poorly written and failure-to-lauch satire like today’s lame attack.

This time against the "alternate universe" of the blogosphere, which of course has been fair more accurate and less libelous than your own column.

I suspect Ruth is angry because of the public characterization of one of the 4 NandO “journalists” by the blogs. They are:

Ruth Sheehan, who has been accused of wildly inappropriate defamation in her columns, and of a gross inability to admit her mistakes.

Ted Vaden, who has been accused of pomposity, being a moral scold and choosing his topics to make Melanie Sill look bad to satisfy a personal grudge.

Melanie Sill, who has been accused of being a tad arrogant and of shading the truth (and praised for her willingness to engage these issues).

Dennis Rogers, who has been accused of being a lazy fossil welfare-king who should have retired 15 years ago.

Apparently Ruth likes one of these people.

But I defy her to disagree with the fundamental judgment on any of the above folks.

The blogosphere usually gets it right. The wisdom of crowds.

And, no Ruth, nobody has attacked Jason Bissey. He appears to have told the truth about what he say and heard. And everybody knows it.

Telling the truth is important, Ruth.

You and Nifong should try it sometime.

At 9:08 AM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am very scepical of any judge that comes from North Carolina!!

I would not watch 60 minutes if you paid me too. They can't get a story right if they tried.

I wonder who they talked to because there is still a gag order in effect. Makes me wonder?

Look at all the stories they have gotten worng in the past few years?

Major stoties at that.

At 9:25 AM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ruth sounds quite desparate; I would not call her article satire. It is simply a piece of rubbish. Yea, she is desparate like the others in her misreable, sorry, little paper.

At 9:29 AM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't the head of CBS News a Duke alum? I think his name is McManus. Can someone either confirm that or set me straight?

At 12:21 PM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Anonymous wondering if McManus of CBS News is a Dukie:

It's a bit better than that.
Nifong soon will go splat.

Read on!

Sean McManus was named President, CBS Sports, in November 1996 and President, CBS News, in October 2005. He is only the second person to hold both Division titles simultaneously; Roone Arledge held both at ABC in the late 1970s and ‘80s.

McManus led the CBS Corporation’s efforts in acquiring broadcast rights to the National Football League in January 1998 and, in November 2004 with Leslie Moonves, re-negotiated the contract to retain the rights for CBS until 2011. Along with Tony Pettiti, he serves as executive producer overseeing all aspects of CBS Sports’ coverage of the NFL, including production, on-air talent, advertising and promotion.

During McManus' more than nine years as President of the Division, CBS Sports has become the year-round leader in network sports television. In November 1999, he led CBS to an unprecedented landmark agreement with the NCAA which extended the exclusive over-the-air broadcast rights, as well as rights to the Internet, marketing and corporate sponsorship, merchandising, licensing, cable television, radio, satellite, digital and home video to the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship until 2014. The 11-year pact is the most comprehensive sports agreement in history.

McManus recently reached a new multiyear agreement with the PGA TOUR to extend its broadcast rights through 2012 and to remain the TOUR's dominant broadcast partner. He also recently extended broadcast rights to the PGA Championship through 2011. In addition, McManus extended CBS's agreement with the United States Tennis Association to broadcast the U.S. Open through 2008, extended the agreement with the Big Ten to broadcast the conference's basketball games through 2010 and extended the Southeastern Conference (SEC) football and basketball agreements through 2008.

Complementing the on-air talent roster that already included Jim Nantz, John McEnroe, Billy Packer and Ken Venturi, McManus was responsible for adding Greg Gumbel, Dick Enberg, Verne Lundquist, Phil Simms, Dan Dierdorf, Lesley Visser, Boomer Esiason, Shannon Sharpe, Dan Marino, Lanny Wadkins, Randy Cross, Armen Keteyian and Clark Kellogg to CBS Sports' announcer lineup.

In addition, McManus led CBS's efforts in securing a partnership with SportsLine USA that created CBS SportsLine, one of the most successful sports Internet sites, and then, with CBS SportsLine and America Online, obtained the exclusive Internet rights to and Super

Prior to his CBS Sports tenure, he was Senior Vice President of U.S. Television Sales and Programming for Trans World International, the television division of International Management Group, the world’s largest sports marketing firm (1987-96).

Before that, McManus was Vice President, Program Planning and Development at NBC Sports (1982-87), becoming the youngest vice president in the history of the network. He was responsible for all programming and was instrumental in the rights negotiations for the Olympics, the NFL, Wimbledon, the Breeders' Cup, the Orange Bowl, auto racing and NCAA college basketball. McManus joined NBC Sports in 1979 as an associate producer assigned to the NFL, Wimbledon, the PGA TOUR, "Sportsworld," auto racing and the Tour de France.

He began his career in 1977 at ABC Sports as a production assistant and associate producer.

McManus is the son of legendary sports broadcaster Jim McKay. He was graduated cum laude from Duke University in 1977 with a degree in English and history.

© MMV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

At 1:01 PM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When does this case go back to court? I missed the date. I want to see and hear the judge this time. Tell the defese how to run its case. Becasue Nifong doen't want the defense to have several pieces of notes and other items. These boys are getting a raw deal and does anyone remeber this name?

Tawana Brawely" we all know how that one turned out. Ten or eleven years ago in Upper New York. If you don't remember her or know of the name put it her name or Al Sharpton through Google really goog reading.

The Rev. Al Sharpton got involved in that one, and got egg on his face. That is why we don't see hime here. He even said that "CGM is lying just to EXTORT money from any she can". Kim Roberts has about 25,000 reasons to lie

At 1:03 PM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Edited by moderator:
In this country we the people are innocent until proven proven guilty?

So why in the case of Reade, Collin and David it is the other way around And we the people are intitled to FAIR AND SPEEDY TRIAL it sounds like that Nifong is trampling all over their constitutional right to a speedy trial!!!

I remember when Reade made his first appearence in court that Judge "Stephen's"? said since they " the defendents" were out on bail they aren't intitled to this procedure.

I remember that clearly and Nifong put a smerk on his face that he even has today.

I am a know bull when I hear it and it is coming from the courts of Raleigh/Durham North Carolina.

As far as them now putting one judge incharge of everything up until the trial sound like Nifong won again.

All the Judge's are in the back pocket of the D.A. no matter what state they come from.

Nifong is going to put all the dirty little cops " yes even the ones that kicked the crap of that cook at the bar." Kim Robert's who has $25,000 reason's to lie. and whom ever else he can find.

There is no way in hell this trial will be a fair one. Needs to be taken out of N.C. and out of Nifong's hands. And not just given to another person in his office.

An outside person, I'll bet Nifong would let another lawyer look at what he has, and that lawyer would tell him Sorry you have no case, and that person would go in to the court and tell the judge "I need to drop the case for lack of hard evidence".

Also don't forget that the Durham cops and Nifong already had there "the players" DNA samples and now they can plant DNA evidence anywhere they want, to try and make there case.

Anyone can say that those samples went to the lab for testing, but what happened, between times those samples were taken and they went to the lab if you say they can't be tampered with your wrong!!

At 1:12 PM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know this has nothing to do with the Duke Case I just thought that you should know that in Detroit MIchigan, U.S District Court Judge Ann Diggs Tylor, has declared that the Warrantless Wiretapping program is unconsitutional and must be halted A.S.A.P this just hit the net in the past 30 - 45 minutes

At 3:51 PM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More CBS-Duke alumni connection:

Rome Hartman was named executive producer for The CBS Evening News with Bob Schieffer on Nov. 29, 2005.

The appointment takes effect Jan. 9, 2006. Hartman, 50, joined 60 Minutes in 1991 as a producer for Lesley Stahl when she joined the broadcast as a correspondent.

He has produced more than 100 reports for the program, a figure
reached by only four other producers in the 37-year history of the program.
Hartman was graduated from Duke University in 1977 with a degree in political science.

At 5:36 PM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just had thought I think you should all think about. Why is Nifong keeping miss Roberts out of going to jail on a probation violation?

What did he promise her?

If that was you or me we would have been in jail right now.

What did he promise those dirty very dirty Detective's?

Now if there is going to be only one judge from now on up until trial I'll bet that the judge will be in Nifong's back pocket in not to long.

Don't forget that 90+ percent of all judges are fomer D.A.'s

At 5:59 PM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you catch this puff piece about Joe Alleva?

Joe says Duke handled things "really, really well."
What a tool!

This guy is incompetent. He let a steroid scandal fester with the baseball team. With the lacrosse team, he had poor oversight before the March party and then dumped Mike Pressler to save his own job.

At 6:38 PM, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just came homw from an appointment. I asked several of these people what they thought of this case in one word they all said VENDETTA.

Nifong hs something against the entire team. He is now going to do, and say anything that he needs to.

Because he can't a member of this team in jail or prison any other way.

Nifong using threats on the team is not very good for anyone to speak to you.

I don't think the Team is covering up anything, they are standing by there teammates, it is because they all know the truth and they are not going to let their teammates be railroad because both of the Dancers have money problems.

It's no different then say an entire police department stand behind a dirty cop "detective" or two.

We all know that no police officer would do that "right".

The people I spoke with say all my logic adds up correctly, and Nifong needs to go back to school and learn to add. 1+1=2 not 1+1=5

At 9:58 AM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a story idea I suggested to Melanie Sill for the new front page at the News & Observer:

It has been more than a month since 6 drunken Durham cops attacked a black man beating him and calling him a N#@*ger

The Durham police department (with help from Raleigh cops) are now clearly trying to cover this incident up.

The victim is on record as saying that the wrong guys were charged.

And the DPD has buried their promised internal investigator.

Why doesn't your newspaper cover this case?

Could it be you are aftraid of a drunken, racist lout like Sargeant Mark Gottlieb?

Or are you just having a hard time finding Durham chief Steve Chalmers (hint: he shows up at council meetings these days, since he read in the NandO that there was free food)

At 10:22 AM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given their well-known Nifongista tendencies, I have to be a little more firm when addressing the propagandists at the Durham Herald-Sun

To John Stevenson:

Take a moment to get your head out of Nifong's casework, and cover this story:

It has been more than a month since 6 drunken Durham cops attacked a black man beating him and calling him a N#@*ger

The Durham police department (with help from Raleigh cops) are now clearly trying to cover this incident up.

The victim is on record as saying that the wrong guys were charged (from some reporting by Ray Gronberg). And the victim's description of the instigator of the attack fits that of Sergeant Mark Gottlieb.

The DPD has buried their promised internal investigation.

Follow up. That is called doing your job.

If you are having a hard time finding Durham chief Steve Chalmers to ask him, he now shows up at council meetings since he read in your competitor (the News & Observer) that there is expensive free food at every meeting

(Hmmm, Stevenson, another story your paper conveniently didn't cover)

Side note: The original story from Gronberg was deleted from the H-S archives:

That was just about the time your Editor ordered ideological reeducation for your newspaper's only actual reporter.

How the Paxton Group managed to find an old Soviet apparatchik and Baath party dead-ender like Bob Ashley to take over as Editor following their 2005 purge is a story for another time.

You can bet, unlike this newspaper, I will do that followup story

At 10:35 AM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could not help myself but think of the Lacrosse case while listening to the Jonbenet Ramsey case on the news. It is interesting how all the commentators are discrediting the man arrested in Bangkok on the basis that no DNA evidence was found. I just kept asking myself, why is it that DNA is a big part of every other case but Nifong would have us believe that it is not important in the Duke Lacrosse case? There is so much injustice and so many inconsistencies in this lacrosse case... And, it seems the NC establishment is watching in silence. When will this shameful act end?

At 10:52 AM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NC Supreme Court chief justice approved the selection of Judge Smith and the designation as an exceptional case.

Is there a reader here who can say if this means there will be an earlier trial date than May? If this goes to trial and lasts 4-6 months (the Peterson case went 6 months, they say) it will screw up the two boys' Fall 2007 semester, too, as well as delay for another year Evans' entry into the training program the NY investment banking firm might let him back into.

Of course, I still think it is likely CGM will bow out ("too stressful for my family") once a real trial date approaches. Therefore, the sooner the better.

At 10:57 AM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nifong rushed to judgement in this case for purely political reasons. The pursuit of justice had/has nothing to do with his motivation(s). Nifong was locked in a difficult campaign for the Democratic Pary nomination for DA. The alledged rape allowed him to reach out, in a politically meaningful way, to a constituency which he felt he needed to win the election; namely the African American citizens of Durham. He did not choose the timing of this alledged incident, but he latched on to it with the enthusiam of a man being tossed a life preserver in the middle of a storm at sea. His appearance at the NCCU forum was a political manuver and was in no way related to a pursuit of justice. Judging by the outcome of the election and Nifong's open bragging about his electoral performance in AA districts, his political strategy was a success. Unfortunately for Nifong there was still an alledged rape case to solve the day after the election.

IMO a person's true character is revealed in times of stress. On this front Mr. Nifong has shown himself to be a man of little character. He has demonstrated an inability to view issues from any perspective other than his own. He has, in verbal and written form, attacked those who would offer alternative opinions of this case. He has demonstrated an intellectual arrogance unsupported by either his resume or experience in the DA's office.

The most egregious error he has made, IMO, he made early in this case. That is, he reached a conclusion (about the guilt of the three young men) without supporting evidence or analysis. Because of this fundamental error he has tried to back into his conclusion. He reversed the process. Conclusions should be reached FOLLOWING anlaysis; not before. Those on this board who come from the empirical sciences will tell you that is a very dangerous approach to anlaysis. It can lead to cutting corners in research. In its worst form it can lead to unethical and intellectually dishonest practices in an effort to support an poorly reached conclusion.

In this case examples would include Nifong's hands on approach to the investigation (highly unusual to say the least); the procedures used to create the line ups; the multiple line ups; his remarks about the medical reports (both his direct remarks and those of his staff); his personal involvement with the reduction in bail for Kim Roberts on the embezzlement charge; and the failure to meet with defense attorneys early in the case. There are other examples but these seem to be the most vivid for me.

Interestingly, the one piece of empirical data that he held out as the cornerstone of his case, the DNA test, showed no matches to any of the 46 Duke lacrosse players from whom samples were collected.

So, IMO, this has been all about a man's desire for political office and not a DA's search for the truth and/or justice. DA Mike Nifong has shown, through his actions and words (not the words or agendas of others but his own actions and words), that he is dishonest. It is that dishonesty that does not/will not allow him to drop this case. His desire to win the November election has driven him since March. In Greek tragedies the fatal flaw of the main characters is often times hubris. That character flaw, it seems to me, is evident in this DA. Unfortunately those caught in his wake are of little, if any concern, to Mike Nifong. If he had any dignity or humanity he would not only resign from this case, he would remove his name from consideration on the November ballot. He does not appear to possess the temperment or intellectual capabiltiy to man the DA's office.

At 11:08 AM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would argue to that 3 words accurately describe Nifong's job performance, in all aspects (not just the Lacrosse case)


I am still betting that Mike and one of his ADAs, likely Ashley Cannon, will be disbarred before this is all over.

At 11:29 AM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another excellent piece from Robert KC Johnson:

"Really, Really Well"

At 12:37 PM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No need to rehash the truths we have about our guys or the untruths Nifong has, let's remember how Nifong got his job in the first place--the Governor appointed him. Let's make sure the Governor has a tough time in his quest for the senate. How about something like, "Governor Easley appointed Nifong--would want him making important decisions for you again?"

At 4:58 PM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The designation of the LAX case as "exceptional" and the appointment of Judge Smith as the only judge are major developments.

Now that the indictments are out of North Carolina's terrible "case management system," the proceedings should go a little faster.

The sooner this situation gets resolved, the better it will be for the players, for Duke, for Durham, and even for the accuser. Nifong is the only one who benefits by delay.

At 6:19 PM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The person who is wondering if Nifong and anyone else in the D.A.'s office could be disbarred after this if over, the answer is yes. I just heard last night that one of the attorny's for O.J.Simpson was disbarred. His name is "Bailey". sorry if I miss spelled the last name. He was a very famous lawyer. Now nothing.

At 6:32 PM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

F Lee Bailey was disbarred for being a drunk and stealing client's money.

I think we would all be better off if Nifong stops putting off his inevitable disgrace and just starts hitting the sauce and stealing Cheetos from convenience stores right now.

(That's in your future anyway, Mike.)

Maybe after he springs her from jail for her perjured testimony in the DA's cabbie frameup, Nifong could take up shoplifting with Lisa Hawkins.

At 10:36 PM, August 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To follow-up on KC johnson's piece.


Reading his work, it is apparent that the AD and Brodhead are the bad guys here, and the only good guy is the full professor at Duke law school (Coleman).

In my opinion, Coleman is honest and courageous (after all, his was the only voice in loneliness, at least for a while). AD and Broadhead are clearly COWARDS, and should resign.

We, as parents, trust universities to safeguard our children when they are away. If our children are at fault, they should be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime. But if they are not guilty, the school adminstration shoudl support them.

Duke administration has failed miserably, at all levels.

At 4:47 AM, August 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This story is pathetic

Mike Nifong is so desperate to perpetrate his fraud that he is driving the accuser over the abyss.

CGM hasn't been seen by her family except at a stop light since April

Look, Mike, we'll make it easy for you. CGM didn't want to be committed to a mental health facility so she made up a fake charge of rape.

And now you are hounding her into a life of the streets. Or worse.

Proud of yourself, Nifong, you're a monster.

At 6:09 AM, August 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This should brighten your Saturday morning:

"I am very pleased at the appointment of Judge Smith," agreed attorney Joe Cheshire, representing Evans. "He is universally respected as one of North Carolina's hardest working and most even-handed judges. I am glad we were able to agree on his appointment, and I look forward to this case now having some positive and secure direction."

At 2:05 PM, August 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many Unresolved Questions

Bloggers have kept the heat on Mr. Nifong and on the media regarding the many open questions regarding the case against the Duke lacrosse players.
Here are a few more relevant but unresolved questions that have been raised:

1) Why did Mr. Nifong and the police release the 911 tape and ask the public about the identity of the caller when they already knew Kim Roberts had made the call?
2) Where was Chief Chalmers and his deputy when Mr. Nifong was directing the police to conduct a photo-ID by the accuser that violated police procedures e.g. no "fillers?" How often does Mr. Nifong direct police investigations?
3) What happened to the accuser's purse and money? At one time the accuser said Kim Roberts stole the money. In the original police search warrant request, it was suggested that there was a robbery.
4) Why is Kim Roberts still free despite having violated her parole by not paying restitution for felony embezzlement? What role did Mr. Nifong personally play in reducing her bond and delaying her parole hearing?
5) Is the accuser still under police protection and how much has that cost taxpayers? How much is the prosecution of this case costing Durham County taxpayers?
6) Why did Mr. Nifong refuse to meet with attorneys for the players before the indictments to hear exculpatory evidence? Aren't prosecutors required by NC statutes to consider exculpatory evidence?
7) Why did Mr. Nifong try to excuse his more than 50 interviews by claiming that such statements are permitted before indictments when no such distinction exists?
8) Who engineered the improper attempted questioning of lacrosse players by law enforcement in their dorms when it was known they already had attorneys?
9) Who sent the fake e-mail to players that one of them was talking to police?
10 ) When will the Durham PD fully investigate the officers involved in the assault on the African-American cook at Blinco's?

At 4:20 PM, August 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: you missed one major thing about the so called "photo" I.D. It also broke the U.S. Justice laws governing the process on the way the line up was done around the country. You are right about it braking the Druham Police Policy's. but the FEDERAL LAWS one more hole for the defense to use. You know what , this case has more holes in it than a barrle of Swiss cheese, and there is a lot of holes here.

At 4:25 PM, August 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above 2:05p.m. I listed the same things you speak of. I listed them on the last gereal topics board. I was able to come up with twenty problems. the ten you speak of and ten more. Please go back there and look and compare notes. I could have listed a whole lot more but didn't have the time or the right paperwork in front of me

At 8:46 PM, August 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey the Durham News section of the N&O today Lewis Cheek wrote an exceptional column about his involvement in the campaign to remove Nifong and his ultimate decision not to was compelling, well-crafted, and best of all had an open invitation for voters to choose his name with the idea that the Gov. will have to put someone else in the position.

I don't have time to transcribe it (toddler past bedtime) but hope that someone with a little spare time and a copy of the article will put it online here...the N&O website indicates it did not have permission to reproduce it online.


Durham Mommy

At 10:24 PM, August 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 8:46 PM post:

Do you have a link or the URL to Cheek's N&O column?

At 12:18 AM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm all in favor of getting this trial moving, but forgive me for asking a stupid question. Why should I trust a judge from Roxboro? If I'm correct, Judge Smith is from Roxboro. Ignore the rest of this if I'm wrong. You see, I'm originally from Durham and the father of one of my best friends was a local - and well respected - lawyer who, many, many years ago, handled charity cases in Roxboro, in particular for black clients. My friend joked that her father was often paid with chickens and bushels of corn. I admire his commitment to community, but will Judge Smith really be divorced from Durham's influence? I certainly hope he is, but why didn't they pick a judge from Yanceyville or Franklin, someone who would be outside Durham's influence?

At 8:58 AM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tried to get Cheek's column but the N&O website says: "We do not have permission to reproduce this story on our website."

At 9:37 AM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: I got the same message when I tried to provide a link to that article. If someone has access to the article, please copy and paste it here as a comment with proper references. Thank you.


At 9:41 AM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do not miss this most insightful and moving essay written by a Duke Lacrosse parent in Robert KC Johnson's latest post. Here is the link:

A Tale of Two Men

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

Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong is a big fish in a small pond, and not very bright. He doesn't necessarily do what's right. And he just did not realize the trouble he was getting into when he seized the opportunity to win the Democrat District Attorney primary on May 2, 2006 by giving credence to that inherently suspect gang rape claim, bringing kidnapping, rape and sexual assault charges against the Duke Three (Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans) and reviling their lacrosse teammates for covering up such non-existent crimes instead of coming forward to do whatever he wanted them to do.

Sean McManus was named President, CBS Sports, in November 1996 and President, CBS News, in October 2005. Mr. McManus led CBS Corporation’s efforts in acquiring broadcast rights to the National Football League in January 1998 and, in November 2004 with CBS head Leslie Moonves, re-negotiated the contract to retain the rights for CBS until 2011. Mr. Moonves chose him to replace Andrew Heyward as President of CBS News.

Make no mistake: Mr. McManus is not a conservative, and not as perception as Bernard Goldberg. Last November, when asked if he perceived a need to address perceptions that CBS has a left-wing bias, Mr. McManus said no and added: "It’s very difficult for any reporter or producer to completely and totally shut out his political opinions, but what I’ve seen at CBS News, people do a darned good job at doing that. I guess if I saw that creeping into our coverage I would have to address it, but I don’t see that in our coverage, I think we have been falsely accused of that at times."

Still, Mr. McManus is a Dukie, He is not brain-dead. He does not have an interest in believing in the Duke rape hoax. He recognizes the Duke rape hoax as the Duke rape hoax and the opportunity it is for CBS News, which needs to seize opportunities to restore its tarnished reputation.

For a multitude of good reasons, Mr. McManus is making sure CBS takes advantage of the opportunity. (How fully CBS takes advantage of it is still to be determined.)

At 11:43 AM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is _never_ appropriate to compare someone's actions to the Nazis.

Unless, it is of course.

For today's Herald-Sun Editorial conference, I included all of the Editors Bob Ashley has worked for in the past, in Charlotte, Kentucky and Tennessee.

To the Truthiness Squad at the Herald-Sun (and
distinguished visitors):

Let's push the envelope a little today and see if we can learn a bit more about Bob Ashley, the Herald-Sun
Editor, and his character and motivation by an extreme analogy.

We all learned about the Milgram experiments in school. Ordinary Americans instructed to deliver reportedly lethal shocks to an unseen test subject, and how they did so in great numbers when reassured by scientists in white labcoats.

What those experiments showed (and they have been repeatedly replicated) is that roughly 80% of us will
accede to great evil if we are told to by those in

Milgram, a Jew, did those experiments in the shadow of
WWII trying to explain in part why the majority of the
German population had participated (often enthusiastically) in the Final Solution. And then fought so furiously to hide their participation when the war ended.

Yes, how hard it is to admit that evil center in ourselves, as shown by the stunning admission only _last week_by the Leftist, German peace activist and novelist Gunter Grass that he had volunteered for the SS as a teenager and lied about it all these years.

The impulse to flatter those in power leading to fascism is deep within us as humans. German, Israeli, Arab, and Durhamite alike.

And all it takes to release the fascist impulse in a community is one or two ringleaders, willing to manipulate facts and fan the flames of hate, race and class division for their own benefit.

In a small but significant way, in Mike Nifong and Bob
Ashley, you are seeing two such ringleaders.

Nifong’s conduct needs no explanation. Except to
state that there is now gathering evidence that the
Durham DA knew he was lying when he made his numerous
now-proven false public statements in March and April. And that he did so explicitly to engage outrage in the black community as an election ploy, as some who defected from his campaign now freely admit.

Nifong's rally at NCCU in August was his mini-Munich.

And throughout the last four months, Bob Ashley has
been Nifong’s Leni Riefenstahl. Always there to excuse and praise, and to keep any substantial
journalism on Nifong’s behavior out of the Herald-Sun’s pages.

In weekly unsigned Editorials, Ashley has repeatedly proclaimed that Nifong is “blameless” for inciting racial animosity and for repeated abuses of power.

All the while in editorials and puff-pieces dutifully transcribed by his news interns, Ashley has praised the great Durham police work which has included illegal lineups, witness intimidation and now suggestions of subornation of perjury.

No, Nifong is no Hitler and Ashley is no Goebbels.

But Ashley is a dishonest manipulator who his staged his paper’s Pro-Nifong media campaign in a calculated bid to win favor with Durham politicians.

And given us all a little glimpse into the hard seed kernel of fascism in an aging and desperately bitter
Editor's psyche.

At 12:07 PM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An anonymous retraction of an anonymous post:

Concerning the 11:43A post above, we print the following correction:

Nifong's rally at NCCU was in April not in August as originally reported.

This correction changes the meaning of the 23rd sentence in that it no longer implies that Nifong was engaged in race-baiting at a pep rally in a gymnasium at a predominantly-black college flanked by Durham's black establishment politicians in August when he was actually on vacation. But was actually doing his race-baiting in April during the heat of his primary election, when he had a black opponent.

Although the meaning and truth of the rest of the post remains intact, we regret the error as it is not up to the standards we expect for ourselves in our anonymous postings.

Thank you for your attention.

At 12:34 PM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:07 poster: Very funny.

I posted the following comment on KC Johnson's blogpost with Mr. Wellington's essay:

I certainly understand Mr. Wellington's disappointment in Brodhead's statements and actions, failing to support or rally behind the team. However, I feel it is grossly unfair to equate what Brodhead has done to what Nifong has done.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that large institutions, and their heads, regularly ignore or sacrifice individuals where the image of the institution is threatened. It is not Brodhead's fear of losing his job that motivated him, it was fear of having Duke's image besmirched.

Institution heads never get out in front of a story, they always react. Brodhead reacted to the story, late coming to him because of poor communication from his administration staff, and studiously tried to steer a neutral course between the university forces pushing for more disciplinary action and those pointing to the positives of the team members' records. I doubt any university president would stick his neck out in favor of students accused of such a heinous crime. Condemn Brodhead for not transcending what university presidents usually do. Condemn him for not coming out for his students once the 1800 pages of prosecutor's evidence was released or even when the DNA results seemingly supported the players' story. Condemn him for not trumpeting the good record of the team. Condemn him for not publicly chastising the Group of 88's inflammatory ad. But don't lump him with Nifong.

Nifong clearly engaged in dishonest and unethical behavior for personal gain. That's a whole different ball of wax.

At 1:37 PM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to see how many of you agree or disagree. Is it me or is almost every person saying the same thing?

That this case is made up and are we the people of the united states" all wrong, the american that have opened up there eyes to this case.

And most important are the motives of the "victim" who appaently can't afford school any longer.

Kim Roberts a convicted felon who needs $25,000 and fast and or M.Nifong. trying to save his own job at what ever cost.

I ask again which one of these person's have the bigger motive?

At 1:39 PM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Condemn Brodhead for not transcending what university presidents usually do. Condemn him for not coming out for his students once the 1800 pages of prosecutor's evidence was released or even when the DNA results seemingly supported the players' story. Condemn him for not trumpeting the good record of the team.

As I posted somewhere before,

1) When you do something wrong, apologize.

2) If your actions caused some harm, try to repair the damage. (If this means Brodhead goes to NCCU to make another speech, then so be it.)

3) If your actions have placed someone in peril, do all you can to reverse that. (Don't stand idly by and wash your hands and pretend that you had then, and have now, no responsibility in the affair)

4) Take Shakespeare's advice and shoot the lawyers. You'll never find your way to moral action by first taking account of whether or not there might be a lawsuit down the road.

5) If they fire you, fine; living with a peaceful conscience for the rest of your life is going to be worth much more to you than all the pension money they could have paid you, and then some.

At 2:30 PM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dukeparent09 re: 12:34 pm comment: If I could be sure that Brodhead was doing what he did back in March/April for the good of the university, I would agree with you entirely. But, I don’t. In my opinion, the measures he took were all designed to protect his own position not the reputation of the university. I am not sure how the timing works, but he could have even been influenced by what happened to Larry Summers. He could have been asking himself "how do I avoid Summers' fate?" Replace the feminist activists with black activists and you could mistake these two cases as being similar. I think it was these types of concerns–personal ones—that was driving Mr. Brodhead’s actions at the time, not the good of the university.

Brodhead clearly wanted to bend backwards to show that he was with the black activists. That is fine, but he forgot or completely ignored the innocence of the three Duke students; He offered them to those groups as sacrificial lambs. That was his mistake. He is probably now wishing that the three will be found guilty so that he (Brodhead) can be proven right. What a sad story! Had he not been such a weak personality and possessed a little more confidence in himself, and in his new position, he could have taken a firmer stand and save a whole a lot of trouble for Duke, Durham, the three falsely accused, and even Nifong who will have to eventually pay for his sins. Now, we have Nifong and Brodhead wishing that somehow miraculously the Duke 3 will be proven guilty so that they can be proven innocent.

This is indeed a sorry situation. Between the two, Brodhead has an advantage. At least, he has not broken any laws. If he wants to he can still redeem himself. All he has to do is to change his stance on the case and move to the side of the “truth and justice”. And there is ample evidence he can site to back that up. Although time is running short, he can still do it. As for Nifong, I am afraid it is too late for him. He is beyond redemption, and he will have to pay for the crimes he committed. Sooner or later, it will happen.

At 9:41 PM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New from KC Johnson - Valuing Procedure. He takes the Duke adults to school - he admonishes the NAACP on its unjust stance - he issues a call to action to the student head of the ACLU @ Duke. You can read all about it here:

At 10:22 PM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"F Lee Bailey was disbarred for being a drunk"

He beat that rap - I couldn't believe it at the time -- just another clue that the legal system is crooked and they all look after their own


At 10:51 PM, August 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the ACLU and KC's fine post, one of the most conspicuous voices that has been absent is the Duke's most famous civil rights professor Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin has never a camera or microphone he doesn't like. So his absence in this case suggests he's a fraud.

A sunshine civil libertarian who only comes out when he suits him and his agenda.

At 12:42 AM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding Erwin Chermerinsky - check out KC's blog. Someone has raised that question.

At 1:59 AM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that school is almost back in session, I will be communicating once again (respectfully of course) with the 88 vigilantes faculty (and their wannabes Orin Starn and Peter Wood).

Any messages that anybody would like me to communicate to them from the blogosphere?

(BTW, way back in May, I mentioned that two of the 88 Duke Professors appeared to be serial plagirists based on a literature review).

I am happy to report that one of those professors is no longer at Duke, and the other had what I deemed a somewhat legit explanations.

My Duke alumni magazine feature "Plagirists on the Podium" is temporarily on hold pending further data collection on that professor.

At 3:24 AM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 1:59 AM post above:

KC Johnson (
reports that Daniel Bowes, student head of the ACLU at Duke, wrote the following:

"as the initial facts concerning the case became clear, it was obvious to the ACLU@DUKE's members that what D.A. Nifong was doing was unethical, inappropriate, and illegal.'

Maybe you could ask Duke Law Professor Erwin Chermerinsky - winner of the 1999 Eason Monroe Courageous Advocate Award from the Southern California ACLU, and described as one of the foremost constitutional and legal ethics scholars in the country - to comment on Daniel Bowes' characterization of the DA's actions.

At 9:33 AM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With Brodhead at the helm, and the Group of 88 basically running Duke, the hesitance of any fair-minded Duke Professor to speak up is understandable. They must fear for their own well being. After all, this crowd proved how dangerous it can be to one’s health and happiness! Perhaps, we need to go a little easy on these professors; although at times I get pretty upset about all this silence myself.

At 10:49 AM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps, we need to go a little easy on these professors; although at times I get pretty upset about all this silence myself.

A judicial lynching is taking place right on their front door, and the victims are their students, and they are letting anything at all keep them from speaking out? (Did they turn in their membership cards in the human race, or something?)

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

At 12:11 PM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they're afraid to speak out, then what good is tenure?

At 1:15 PM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a hearing today?

At 1:21 PM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: No, there is no hearing today. It was put on hold when the case was declared "exceptional" last week.

Do not miss the latest on LieStoppers:

A Hoax Within A Hoax:

At 2:28 PM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Worth a list back to the lies and bigotry on display by the Triangle's academics in the early days of the scandal.

Audio archive

NCCU _law_ professor lies repeatedly in his commentary, claiming a date rape drug was used and make other complete falsehoods

Listen particularly to the interview with Duke Professor Tim Tyson. Every student of Tyson now and in the future should listen to this thug spin his justification for his vigilante prejudice and spread his outright falsehoods.

And decide for themselves whether a judgemental thug like Tyson has any business at Duke.

The duplicitous liar Bob Ashley is everywhere spinning furiously for Mike Nifong (totally inaccurately I might add)

At 10:53 PM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 10:12 PM post:

Outstanding message you sent to Duke History professors!

To all Duke students who read the 10:12 post:

Copy it and email it to your fellow students - especially the ones taking History classes this fall. Also, consider printing it and posting it in appropriate places around the campus.

This would also be in accordance with KC Johnson's theme of the students providing a "teaching moment" to the Duke faculty and administation.

Now get out there and educate the bastards!

At 11:06 PM, August 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor Professor Chafe. Below was his _instantaneous_ response (think he's feeling picked on?)


--- "William H. Chafe" wrote:

> Thanks for your brilliant insights. You mnight try
> spelling the name correctly.

He's not going to enjoy my response. which will arrive fresh with the morning coffee all over the history department.

mmmmmsspelling never falls

At 12:02 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 11:06 PM post:

You nailed him with well-sourced facts. His response was to completely avoid your points.

Round 1 is scored 10-8. Round 2 coming up...

At 12:45 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Round 2:
To: Chafe and his fellow Duke Historians

Re: Professor Chafe falls for a basic ruse of mass market emails (and has a guilty conscience)

I say:

You didn't just fall for the old misspelled name-egomaniac ruse, did you Professor Chaffeee?

(care to deposit $10,000 in my Nigerian paypal account?)

And you're just an angry old man to boot. How disappointing.

My guess is that you recognized that my "brilliant insights" were pretty much on target or you won't have responded as rapidly and as sarcastically as you did (the misspelling of your precious name is at the _end_ of the article, ain't it now, my loyal reader).

No, you're not a bigot like Tim Tyson or a malicious failed academic like Peter Wood.

But, Chafe, you must know that nobody much likes petty, tenured vigilantes who attack and prejudge their students from the comfort of their cush offices

There's a pretty big power differential there, DEAN, in case you didn't notice.

It's called being a bully.

Without the facts in hand.

I, the real historians and the Duke community have only begun to explore the Duke faculty's deplorable conduct in this case.

And that will be a conversation going on all year with your students. And with your colleagues.

But not with you or with your fellow Chairs and Deans who have already shown your character by signing that reprehensible letter.

Don't worry, I'll make it fun. I'm good that way.

The spelling of your name will be the least of your worries.

At 12:52 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These guys are so far removed from the real world that they create their own fantasy life.

Their world-view becomes the world all around them. The criminals and the dangerous people in society are lacrosse players, at some of the better schools, roaming campuses looking for hard working "good people" to violate.

The professors of this ilk are akin to a bird developing on a remote island with no predators. They have no natural defenses and are helpless if they travel from their nuturing environment.

They are sheltered from real life in many ways. What other group or industry has tenure? In many ways, they are privileged more than the students they despise.

Whether it be their long term indoctrination to the liberal dogma or self loathing derived out of their own guilt, they despise certain segments of the populace. Invariably that segment turns out to be free-thinkers, entrepreneurs, and independent, self-made invdividuals - I wonder why?

At 1:18 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Duke Professors that were ever so quick to proclaim the players as guilty - to denounce that class of people as the problem - to pile on and attend the campus protests where the presumption of innocence was burned in effigy - these professors should resign and hang their heads.

Take responsibility for your actions and participation in the mob justice that dominated the area in the spring. This was racism and classism at work and on full display sanctioned by Duke Professors and admininstrators.



At 1:58 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

William H. Chafe in the Duke Chronicle last spring:

At 3:47 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Poster above:

I would suggest that Chafe's writing that kind of incitement on 3/31/06 was tantamount to Nifong pandering to the mob at NCCU 2 weeks later.

Same race-baiting, prettier language.

At 5:29 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In contrast to William H. Chafe, one of the few bright spots among the faculty at Duke is Law Professor James Colemen. From Sports Illustrated:

At Duke Law School the faculty has been buzzing about the case, according to professor James Coleman, who chaired a committee to investigate the lacrosse program.

"You've got a prosecutor playing to race," he says. "It's disgusting. If he's willing to [make race an issue] to go after what he thinks are three white kids with influence, what will he do going against some poor black kid in a case where people are saying, 'You've got to convict somebody?'

To me, a prosecutor who's willing to cut corners in any case is a prosecutor who's subverting justice."

At 7:08 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spotted any "Agendas" at DUKE or elsewhere?

Post them at

At 7:13 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke case heroes and villains
Michael Gaynor Michael Gaynor
August 21, 2006

"Honor and truth and manhood — These are the things that stand, Though the sneer and jibe of the cynic tribe Are loud through the width of the land." Ted Olson, Floruit, 1912, "Things That Endure," Stanza 1. Ultimately, that will prove to be so in the Duke case. Truth (which is anathema to the prosecutor) will overtake falsity (which started first and fast). The accuser will be perceived as a victimizer instead of a victim. The prosecutor, who posed as a hero, will be recognized as a villain, a shameless political opportunist, a zero. The president of Duke University will be exposed as a slave to political correctness instead of a man of courage. And it will be obvious that much of the media was too quick to believe the worst, too determined to be first, too inept to distinguish the genuine from the fake and too slow to correct its mistake.

At 9:19 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to see if CGM would like to take a few classes this term at Duke. Sorry she's not smart enough to. The only classes she could or should take up is how to be a much better liar. Sorry I don't think duke teaches classes like that.

Everyone needs to look back and see this case for what it is. A dancers way of extorting money out of anyone she can. Kim Roberts has $25,000 reasons to lie, and Nifong just wants to keep his JOB. All of the cops have reason's to lie.

When I first heard of this case I stood by the (I know I'm going to be killed for this by the dancer), but as I heard more and more I changed my mind and now and forever will stand with the Men's Lacrosse Team. Sorry CGM.

This female and rape victim knows when she has made a mistake and can admit to it.

At 9:29 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from 10:12 pm last night

The first post of the academic year, emailed to all Duke History Professors, is entitled "A People's History of the Lacrosse case"

To Duke's Historians:

Definitely a bracing back-to-school shocker to listen again to your colleague Duke Professor Tim Tyson in a monstrously racist rant against his own students back in March on WUNC.

It is essential listening for those historians interested in a particular brand of virulent racism and rank idiocy now all too common in academia.

(WUNC’s servers are slow but worth the wait)

Listen particularly when Tyson brands it "probably illegal" for the players to remain silent on attorney’s advice freely when under suspicion for a crime.

(Of course, we know now that Nifong lied when he said players had not cooperated with police. One of the many lies spewed by Nifong and Duke faculty members in those days)

As the hoax perpetrated by CGM and Mike Nifong enters its 5th month, it is worth contemplating the levels of hate and prejudice and just plain lies spewed by many Duke faculty(including several members of this department like Peter Wood).

And to note with astonishment and shame that this was nearly tenured Duke faculty and Deans (like Sally Deutsch) doing the hate-speech with participation of essentially _no_ Duke students.

Indeed, Duke students were among the first to see through the hoax (far faster than national and local media)

To dissect one egregiously hypocritical horror in Tyson’s rant, on the March night in question, the evidence now suggests that one maybe two drunken lacrosse players yelled a racist slur in a fight with one of the two dancers (who got the upper hand by correctly calling them limp dick white boys).

But here in this audio, we hear a stone-cold sober Tyson spew one racist sentiment after another, labeling his own students “white supremacists” and “slave masters” (Even the leftie Frank Stasio tries to talk sense in the racist Tyson as he barrels out of control).

In the calm light of day, Tyson is simply put a poster boy for the irrational hate of the vigilante mob. And a hate monger.

A bully and racist who has no business anywhere near undergraduate students.

And of course he wasn’t alone.

In your department alone, in big and small ways, William Chafee, Sally Deutsch, Laura Edwards, Raymond Gavins, Thavolia Glymph, Claudia Koonz, Kenneth Maffitt, Julie Olcott, Peter Sigal, and Peter Wood joined in on the vigilante action and disgraced themselves in the process.

In future weeks, I will be discussing the phenotype of several of the tenured tyrants above, describing a little about the sociology that would lead a supposedly free-thinking academic to join in the mob.

Facult types to be considered are:

-The “I-ll-sign-anything” luminary twit (e.g. William Chafee)

-The "preppie-little-rich-boy-who-never-grew-up house Marxist" (e.g. Peter Wood and Orin Starn)

(A warning: this baby-Marxist phenotype is almost _always_ indistinguishable from the campus lecher in my experience but we will have to see in Wood’s and Starn’s case)

I will leave it to actual historians like KC. Johnson

and actual journalists like Stuart Taylor

to write their coming books on the deplorable behavior of the Duke faculty.

I will be probing instead the People’s History of the Lacrosse Case

Interacting with students, bloggers and Durhamites to explore the rush to judgment and rabid, race-based vigilante behavior that took hold of the Duke faculty (but importantly not the Duke student body).

That history will be told to successive generations of Duke students so that racist bullies like Tyson and Houston Baker and tenured twits like William Chafee and Sally Deutsch will get the full exposure they deserve

We will not forget the actions of the vigilantes in your midst. Chairman, Dean and emeritus professor, they all behaved like Frankenstein's mob.

And we will not forget.

At 10:37 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liestoppers is sponsering a virtual "Field Trip" today...sort of like bird watching.
It's "Agenda" watching.
Seen any species of Agendi on Duke U. campus?
Please post at Liestoppers and tell us all!

At 5:41 PM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know when the next hearing will be, now that a permanant judge has been appointed? What ever happened to the internal investigation of the Durham officers using the "n" word, looks like the DPD got the big broom out.

At 10:16 PM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those desiring a complete record of such things. Attached is today's editorial letter to the Herald-Sun staff:


To the Truthinistas at DH-S:

In a surprise journalistic development late Tuesday night, it was revealed that the internet personae of Herald-Sun Editor Bob Ashley had now surpassed the actual Bob Ashley in terms of human interest and general newsworthiness.

The surprise at this astonishing turn was greatest among his journalistic colleagues who had worked side-by-side with Ashley for decades, often without being aware of his presence.

‘I was actually stunned to learn from the internet that Bob Ashley was involved in underhanded, nefarious deeds with a rogue like Mike Nifong, including covering up police beatings, false prosecutions and abetting a prostitution ring’, remarked former Charlotte Abuser Publisher Peter Ritter reached by phone from his crypt.

‘Sure the Bob Ashley we all knew in Charlotte was a sycophantic weasel that part fits,’ Ritter mused. ‘But he was also a really, really boring and tedious guy. I can’t see him hanging with the criminal element and doing dastardly deeds. Not at all. Not that butt kisser.’

Longtime Ashley boss David Plankton, CEO of the Plankton Newspaper Group, agreed, ‘Bob Ashley, supervillian? I think you must have the wrong guy. The only superpowers he ever had were the powers of invisibility and the ability to generate declining circulation and ad revenues with a touch of his hand. Ashley, a criminal, no way!’

‘Where is he working these days anyway?’ Plankton inquired of this reporter.

When shown definitive doctored evidence of the duplicitous deeds that the internet Mr. Ashley had perpetrated at one of Paxton’s own newspapers in Durham North Carolina

Paxton reacted in astonishment.

‘All be damned. That little weasel has more of a secret made-up life than John Mark Karr. And you say he still works for us?’

The most serious allegations against the doppelganger Bob Ashley has been the suggestion that he has served as a ‘fluffer’ for controversial Durham DA Mike Nifong since late March of this year.

Photographic evidence has apparently surfaced. However, due to the sensitive nature of such sexual charges, it is the policy of this newspaper to print such allegations without providing any substantiation.

Reached at his office, DA Nifong refused comment but referred the matter to his Assistant DA Destine Couch. “Destine would know about those sorts of things,” he added cryptically as he rushed to arrange bail for one of Durham’s habitual criminals.

The internet Bob Ashley has repeatedly refused to comment for this story.

The actual Bob Ashley droned on at length about something or other but his answer was just too tedious to print.


At 10:56 PM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saying is:

Man spend short time in faulty self-honoring spend long time in
public dishonor.

At 11:19 AM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See the latest from Robert Kc Johnson (link below). This time, he talks to Duke Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky.

More on procedure

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

To North Carolina residents. Go to this link for a printable form to file a complaint against Nifong.

At 2:37 PM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above is there a link for someone who is not a resident of North Carolina to file on Nifong?

At 4:07 PM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The form doesn't say you have do live in NC, you just need to print it out fill it out and have it notorized

At 6:39 PM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following article was published on August 18 in the Newsobserver: Charges dismissed against city official.

An interesting comparison can be made between this case and the Duke Lacrosse case. The Duke case appears to be substantially weaker that the case described in this article. Why not drop the Duke case?

At 6:48 PM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from elsewhere

In today's H-S:

Newcomers' support of Duke is true blue:

An article about incoming freshmen includes several quotes from new students that seem to reflect a general ignorance of the facts of this case and a (mistaken) belief that while the students charged are guilty of those charges, this development doesn't alter their positive view of the university:

"William Coon of Cambridge, Mass., remembered seeing a lot of news vans on campus when he visited earlier this year, but said it wasn't off-putting.

"I applied to a lot of schools," he said. "Duke had the best atmosphere. It was the friendliest school."

Coon pointed out that Duke is hardly alone in the problems department.

"Every college has problems," he said. "Harvard has murderers -- even worse, they have plagiarists."

What young Mr. Coon doesn't realize is that his off-the-cuff remarks about this case, with which he is apparently unfamiliar, have branded these 3 students as rapists when they are absolutely innocent. If his remarks and those of the other students interviewed are any indication of the attitude of the incoming class, there is work to be done to set these folks straight on what actually happened in Durham last year before they arrived. Their complacency is understandable in the sense that they weren't witness to the insanity that took place on a daily basis, but their complacency is also an indication of how many may wish to simply push this case under the rug as an annoying inconvenience in their academic day, while 3 innocent lives hang in the balance.

This "friendly" university hung 3 of his fellow students out to dry without a shred of legitimate evidence. All these students need to keep this fact in mind as they go about their fall semester, an opportunity currently wrongfully denied to Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

At 9:52 PM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nifong's political ambitions have put him in a rather difficult position. Not only does he have to convince a jury that a stripper was raped, he has to convince the stripper that the stripper was raped. Very interesting!

At 10:18 PM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From a July 23, 2006 News and Observer article:

Before moving to Durham in 2004, Chemerinsky spent 21 years in Los Angeles, where he led an effort to overhaul the city charter. He aided leaders as they fought police misconduct and possible government corruption.

At 1:17 AM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Broadhead speaks

"Beyond hoping once again for a speedy and fair resolution to the legal charges, he [Braodhead] also called for the freshmen's help in addressing the larger questions he said were raised about "responsible student behavior and the boundaries of acceptable conduct."

Hey, Broadhead, how about the "larger issues" of prosecutorial misconduct and police intimidation

That too real-world for ya, you ivory tower fraud;

At 3:52 AM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 1:17 AM post above. More Brodhead:

Perhaps Brodhead's single most inexcusable comment during this affair came in an appearance at a Durham Chamber of Commerce meeting on April 20, two days after the indictments of Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty.

WRAL-TV quoted the president as saying, "If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough."

At 7:56 AM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the H-S article cited in the 1:17am post above -- more Brodhead:

"Getting an education "requires that, in the presence of difference, you be willing patiently to teach those who don't yet understand where you are, not to write them off as hopeless or unforgivable and patiently to learn when the needy one is yourself."

Coming from the author of the remarks quoted by the next poster (about how whatever the students charged did was bad enough even if they were not guilty of the charges brought against them), the above remarks seem surreal. He sounds like an evangelical preacher, but he's missing one ingredient -- the compassionate understanding and insight he implicitly attributes to himself. This guy should not be leading a major educational institution.

At 8:05 AM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No matter what he says no matter what he does, Brodhead is "damaged goods". As soon as this case is over, he will be gone from Duke. Otherwise, the healing process will not, can not, start. Duke administration knows that. However, they will do do anything while the case is ongoing. Hence, another reason for Brodhead to wish the case goes on longer and not be dropped!

At 8:20 AM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Much more on Brodhead - see link below.

Dissembling by Robert KC Johnson

At 12:42 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The evidence mounts that Nifong, at best, misled the public, and, at worst, violated NC law in the early weeks of this "case." It is also clear that his early actions and racist characterizations of the case, combined with the ensuing media firestorm, drove the university's reaction. It is naive to think the university could have responded much differently in those early weeks--as it was many across the country (including Duke alums) thought the administrations reaction was not swift or severe enough! It is also naive to think that the university can conduct its own investigation, or declare the lacrosse players innocent while there are still charges pending against them. While we (FODU)are sure the lacrosse players are innocent, and that the charges are false, we must remember that any action the university takes in this case will be used as a precedent in future situations--and it doesn't take much imagination to think of a situation about which even FODU loyalists would disagree. At what point does the university assume a student charged with a felony is not guilty of the charge? Is it incumbent upon the university to investigate every charge and determine its opinion of the guilt or innocence of the student? A university has to have a policy for legal situations, one that does not allow for manipulation by the "real good" friends or the real important ones. As a group concerned about the lacrosse players in this case, we need to understand exactly waht Duke's policy is. Rather than spend our energy bad-mouthing Pres. Brodhead, as "Friends" of Duke University, we should use our collective talents to help the university consider the appropriateness of its current policy, and, if necessary, to suggest a workable policy that would allow it to reevaluate the circumstances facing these boys yet would also be reliable in future situations for students charged with felony offenses. While we should all accept that everyone is "innocent until proven guilty," that doesn't mean that the university should, or could, stand behind every student who has been charged with a heinous crime. Who decides, and how???

While I think many of the criticisms of Pres. Brodhead's early comments can be justified now that we know so many of the facts, we must remember that these facts were kept from him just as they were from us in the early weeks. He HAD to respond to what Nifong misled the COUNTRY to believe was a vicious rape and a racist attack. While I, too, would like to see the university be more supportive of the players, I realize that the university must speak very carefully, and that there are factors I don't even understand that the university has to consider. On the other hand, I believe certain individuals within the university can speak with impunity, and I am very disappointed that tenured members of the faculty have not spoken out about the abuse of power, the rights of the wrongly accused and the corruption of the judicial process.

At 12:52 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The above post is pure apologetics for a spineless leader.

Broadhead has changed his tone with every public pronouncement. Trying to calibrate alumni opinion and please everyone.

That is the sure sign of an administrative weasel

This "FODU" person above is being seduced by delusions of importance, as if somehow Broadhead or Duke is soliciting opinions on their public relation strategy.

Broadhead should now (and should have before) speak plainly and honestly about the situation and not used doublespeak.

Including telling Professor Mark Anthony Neal to get his vigiliante threat letter off of an official Duke University website

By playing all sides, Broadhead has forfeited any moral authority now to tell anyone how to behave.

Shame on you, "FODU"

At 2:29 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To: 12;42 POST: Duke University does not have to declare the Duke Three innocent, incase you don't know, they are now innocent. Under the United States Constitution they are innocent until proven guilty. You just seem to be a Broadhead appeaser, just making excuses for him.

At 2:57 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to compare the actions of Fresno State when some of their football players were accused of rape.

Fresno State advised all of the players to get lawyers; it did not fire the football coach, it did not suspend the football season, it did not assume the whole team was guilty of hooliganism nor did its president apologize to the community repeatedly (at other schools and at the chamber of commerce) for the sins of its football players.

In short, it treated them as though they were innocent and accused, but not convicted.

Surely Duke (which has a law school attached) might have managed that much?

At 3:00 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above 2:29p.m. in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. But not in this case. Nifong came out swinging first, in the court of public opinion.

Last night I was going through my paperwork on this case that I have been researching. Kim Roberts said and I quote " If you didn't do this then sorry you had to go through this." Now she is receiving favorable treatment from Nifong. In return for her FALSE testimony he will not send her to jail.

We all knew she was in this case for the money and no other reason. Just look at the E-Mail she sent to the P.R.firm and she even said all she wants is $$$.

When these charges a proven false and they will be. There will be alot of people going to jail for perjury. Starting with Nifong, CGM and Kim Roberts, and all the corrupt little cops in Durham.

I am not a lawyer but when they " the feds." put those pretty silver braclets on all them I will be happy for every rape victim. We will get our lives back from the likes of Nifong. Sorry for anything misspelled jst rolled in my front door.

At 3:00 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think of the fictional medical researcher who has worked 28 years on a project and in his finale found a cure for cancer.

I think of the fictional grade school teacher, who for 28 years had taught her students honor and respect for our American Flag. Then one of her students of decades ago visits her to thank her and invites her to the ceremony where he will receive The Congressional Medal of Honor.

I think of the fictional city bus driver who, for 28 years drove the same route and is now retiring. As he pulls the bus into the parking lot for the last time, hundreds of people come out to greet him. The old woman who, 25 years ago did not have enough change for the fair - and he paid it for her. The man on crutches who was saved from the freezing cold by the bus driver years ago and the lawyer who forgot his briefcase one cold night after court and the bus driver, remembering where the lawyer got off the bus, took the briefcase to him.

Such fictionally honorable people of 28 years service actually do exist.

Then we have Nifong who has 28-years of fictional service and his last great moment was a hoax.

What a sorry excuse for a man!

At 3:29 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To: 3:00PM post: Broadhead bought into the "court of public opinion", so he obviously does not believe in the Constitution. I think we are both on the same side in this case. I certainly believe that the proverbial "court of public opinion" has turned on Nifong and the crooked cops of the DHD. I am a retired cop and would never have handled this case like this. One thing I never did was commit perjury, a police career is over if you do. Your credibility in court is worthless, therefore you can never pursue another case. According to all the news, Himan lied on an affidavit, that is perjury in and of itself. If I had been the judge he submitted the false affidavit to, I would have been and still be POed at him, never trusting him again. But things don't seem to work that way in NC, especially Durham.

At 3:31 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS to 3:00pm: Broadhead has to take a look at the new "court of public opinion" since he used Nifongs "court of public opinion" the first time around.

At 3:54 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

O.K. I found my paperwork and here are Kim Robert words. Word for word.

Roberts 31, was arrested on March 22. Eight days after the party for braking her probation. She was convicted in 2001.

Roberts, like the accuser a divorced single mother who is black, took umbrage at the notion that she should not try to make something out of her experience.

She's worried that once her name and criminal record are public, on one will hire her.

Why shouldn't I profit from it? she asked. "I didn't ask to be in this position...I would like to feed my daughter.

Roberts said she knows what it's like to sit in jail, and that she would never wrongly accuse an innocent person.

"If the boys are innocent, sorry fellas," she said "Sorry you had to go through this."

But unlike her and the other dancer, she said, they have money to hire the best attorneys.

"If they're innocent, they will not go to jail," she said. But, she added, "If the truth is on their side, why are they supporting it with so many lies?"

Here is where I found this :

Second Stripper Questions Alleged Duke Rape.


At 4:44 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all believe these boys are innocent. And we agree that Nifong abused his power to convince the court of public opinion and to indict. But we don't all agree about Duke's response. Yes, I would love to see Duke find a way to allow these boys to attend class. In this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty--but should Duke (or the college your children attend) allow anyone indicted for a serious crime to attend classes because they are "innocent until proven guilty?" In the Fresno case, with far less media attention as well as a DA who seems to have played by the rules and investigated BEFORE taking a public stand, the administration took a stand that was much more supportive of its students. But how many would want the Fresno boys attending classes with their daughters if they thought they might be guilty? What if a student were indicted for murder, or a rape at knifepoint. Should that student be allowed to attend classes because he is "innocent until proven guilty?" Would we hold the university accountable if an indicted student then committed a violent crime on campus? Even if we can all agree on what should happen in THIS case because we KNOW these boys are innocent, Duke needs a policy it can use going forward. Surely there is enough legal and policy-minded brainpower among the FODU that we can come up with a constructive policy solution to propose to Duke, rather than just vent and criticize.

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

To all the Duke Students and everyone else in Durham, be afraid be very afraid if someon does not start speaking up for these three innocent boys.

"First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."

Pastor Martin Niemöller

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

Duke is not interested in your (or my) opinion.

Duke _as an institution_ is interested only in minimizing their own liability, nothing more.

To assume otherwise is to be naive.

But Broadhead, as an individual, could have shown leadership and behaved honorably.

Including openly discussing the fact that many in the community (and the student body-but not apparently the vigilante leftist faculty) believe that the charges are fraudulent.

And that the Durham and DA police will be held just as accountable for their misbehavior just as surely as the entering freshman are being.

That would have been the appopriate response from a mensch.

But Broadhead is not a mensch but instead an ideologue and a weak-kneed bureaucrat.

He chose not to. Ergo, he should be fired.

At 7:16 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To post at 4;44PM: Everything shoudl be handled on a case by case basis. Had a knife been used and found on the crime scene, that would create a differant situation. Had there been physical evidence, such as DNA, which Nifong promised, that would be a differant case also. He stated that the DNA was needed to exonerate the LAX players who were not involved. Now he states that there was no DNA recovered from the alledged victim. What happened to the alledged exoneration? Now people are getting new trials, because of the lack of DNA, or being released completely. Take a look at the innocent project. People are getting out of jail for mismatched DNA or lack thereof. This a matter of discretion, and this man is not using any whatsoever. I thought he was (Broadhead) was suppose to be an intellectual and an independent thinker, apparently he is not. He should allow these former students to at least attend class or accept some type of computer courses, that they can take. Broadhead is a hardhead, just like Mike Nifong.

At 9:39 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the 7:16 poster,
Broadhead may or may not be an intellectual, not for me to say. However, it is my opinion that he does not qualify as an independent thinker. He is a career bureaucrat, a functionary, who proves the "Peter Principle." Becoming a college/university president is an extremely lucrative job these days and few real, old fashioned educators are elevated to the position. Being the president of a college/university is primarily about the money- fundraising- and increasing the endowment, in part, by advancing in the USNWR annual rankings. The Chronicle of Higher Education occasionally looks at the correlation between advancing in those rankings and an increase in fundraising. Broadhead's first concern is fundraising, his second concern is Duke's liability issues. You do the math. Duke had just purchased the houses in that area- the University was the landlord, thus, the obvious "deep pocket." Deny and disavow, limit the liabllity- that was his strategy.

Check out the new and very ambiguous code of conduct that the kids have had to sign now. There is no definition of acceptable and unacceptable behavior- if it is undefined, it can be a constantly moving target. Is it an offense against community standards to hire a stripper? Is it an offense against the community to drink when you are underage? What are the parameters of acceptable behavior at Duke?? And, WHO decides, the Group of 88?

In my opinion, Broadhead is a coward and not an honorable man. I am, however, afraid that most of academia is beset by the fear and loathing that he personifies.

At 10:55 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As expected racist Durham cop Mark Gottlieb's notes are a complete fabrication.

I stand my prediction that this rogue cop will do time behind bars for perjury before this case is over.

NYTimes report

At 11:04 PM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The deeds of a crooked racist cop Mark Gottlieb

"In Officer Himan’s handwritten notes, the woman described all three as chubby or heavy. Adam: “white male, short, red cheeks fluffy hair chubby face, brn.” Matt: “Heavy set short haircut 260-270.” Bret: “Chubby.” The descriptions in Sergeant Gottlieb’s notes are more detailed and correspond more closely to the men later arrested: Collin Finnerty, 20, a slender 6-foot-3 and 175 pounds with light hair; Mr. Evans, 23, 5-foot-10, 190 pounds and with dark hair; and Mr. Seligmann, 20, who is 6-foot-1 and 215 pounds with dark hair.

Sergeant Gottlieb wrote: “She described the three men as 1) W/M, young, blonde hair, baby faced, tall and lean, 2) W/M, medium height (5’8”+ with Himan’s build), dark hair medium build, and had red (rose colored) cheeks, and the third suspect as being a W/M, 6+ feet, large build with dark hair.”

At 2:02 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is frightening the lengths that Gottlieb and Nifong are willing to go to to convict innocent college kids of rape. They still don't have any evidence but it is scary.

At 4:40 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find all this discussion about Brodhead very interesting and I want to throw my two cents worth into the conversation. Many people on this board may not be aware of this and I think it is important that find out. Last year, the Tri Delta sorority of Duke University had party. A male stripper was hired for the party (nothing unusual about that --it seems this is a very common practice and something that apparently everyone has come to expect). The male stripper performed, and luckily, did not accuse any of the girls with rape. Photos were taken, and the photos were posted on the Face book. The bad news is that someone reported the photos to the Duke Administration and urged them to punish the girls. They had no choice, and they did. The Tri Delta sorority was penalized and could not hold functions for either one or two full semesters. If I understand it correctly, the probation/punishment period is now over.

Here is the question. Many girls attended that party: your daughter my daughter many others. Do we look at these girls dangerous criminals? Do we keep them away from campus? No. They are treated with dignity and respect and their little mishap is something everyone looks back on with a smile on their face. It has become kind of a joke. What is the difference then between the Tri Delta's little stripper party and the Lacrosse party? The answer: one included a lying stripper and the other did not. I cannot see any other difference. Do you?

It is your decision now, knowing that the stripper party was a tradition for years for the spring break, something students came to expect, how many past Lacrosse players are there who attended a similar party in the years past? I would say many. Are they all potential criminals who should be locked up? No, of course not. Then, let us all get off of this "we are so perfect; and these boys are so exceptionally bad; they do not represent the average student at Duke" crap and see the things as they are –especially Brodhead. For better or worst, these kids were doing what all of their peers were doing. It went badly for them because the stripper turned out to be a real piece of work. That is the only extraordinary thing about the spring break party. We may be proud about the fact or we may sad. But, it is there and we cannot erase it just by pretending that it is not.

This is what makes this case so sad. If it was not for the lying/criminal stripper, these guys too, like many before them, could have remembered the night as another crazy Duke night. There is nothing criminal these guys did that hundreds of other Duke students didn't do. Am I saying "stripper parties are okay?" No, they are not okay, but they have been a part of life at Duke (and at other universities) and we all know it. Pretending that this was the “first and only” time it ever happened is being less than honest, and it is wrong. Let us all stop this PRETENSE and HYPOCRICY.

At 6:27 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent dissection of the latest NYT article -


<< Home