Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 8 - Full

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


At 1:21 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from another part of the site

I just discovered your site this morning and I applaud your efforts. Ever since this story broke, I have found myself totally dismayed with how it has played out. I am a former resident of Durham and a former employee of Duke University; I am deeply concerned how the Duke administration has treated the entire Lacrosse team and the wrongly accused players. In order to appease a small and vocal segment of the community in Durham, the administration has chosen to turn their backs on these students. I find President Brodhead's remarks very funny and actions twisted. The treatment that President Broadhead has given the Lacrosse team and the accused players, leaves the impression that these boys are guilty before they can be found innocent.

I give my support to the three Lacrosse players wrongly accused, not as a racist white man, but as a young black man who is unwilling to follow so called "civil rights leaders" in Durham just because they say JUMP!

Kennedy Godette
July 27, 2007

At 1:32 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The substance of Ryan McFadden's infamous email was taken from the book American Psycho. A book that is used in a course taught at Duke. It was an attempted parody. Many folks on campus recognized it as such.

Let's not take the "it's only a joke" line of thinking espoused in your email too far. Unless, of course, you would like to lead a committee to review every syllabus at Duke for PC scrubbing to insure that all humor is acceptable to all people, everywhere. But that might lead to censorship and we can't have that on a college campus. College is for the free exchange of ideas and opinions; even those ideas with which not everyone agress. Certainly you wouldn't deny Mr. McFadden his right to free expression, would you?

At 1:40 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New piece from Robert KC Johnson:

At 1:42 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rayn McFadden's infamous email was a parody of a passage from the book American Psycho. A book that Duke University deemed fit for inclusion in its curriculum. Many on campus recoginzed the similarity between the email and the book and understood it as an attempt at humor. Please note that I wrote "understood it"; not enjoyed it; not accepted it; not agreed with it. So the certitude with which an earlier poster offered their offense at the "it's-only-a-joke" mindset, perhaps should take a breath.

Or, perhaps, the poster would agree to chair a committee to review all literature taught at Duke in an effort to insure that all humor in literature adheres to an as yet undefined code of acceptable universal humor. But wait; that might lead to censorship. We can't have that on a college campus. The college environment is one dedicated to the free exchange of ideas; even those with which me might disagree. Certianly the earlier poster would not deny Mr. McFadden's right to free expression. Or, perhaps, so.

At 1:58 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In his press conference today the DPD chief alluded to Sgt Mark Gottlieb being in the wrong at the wrong time, since he was sitting there drunk watching as his buddies racially taunted and beat up a citizen

Interesting analogy,

The Raleigh police investigated and let Gottlieb off the hook apparently cuz he wasn't the one who threw the first punch and the first kick.

Now compare to the Duke three, where two of the indicted weren't even apparently in the wrong place at the right time.

What was Gottlieb's response?

He framed the Duke 3 by running repeated illegal lineups and arresting material witnesses in an attempt to intimidate them.

Gottlieb is the worst kind of thug cop. That Durham PD put him back on the street is disgraceful.

At 2:38 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Recently, someone asked me “what branch of the government do the police work for?”

A) Judicial
B) Executive
C) Legislative

I said “C”. This is how he responded:

“No, it is B the executive branch. Once the president, governor or mayor signs a bill into law, it is the executive branch that enforces that law.

The separation of powers, that is why the police investigate alleged crimes and prosecutors prosecute crimes. Police are law enforcement officers and investigators, basically officer of the street. DA's are officers of the court, not investigators. The Duke case doesn't appear to be working that way, with DA Nifong injecting himself directly into the investigation and apparently managing same. In a case where the prosecutor, Nifong, is directly involved in the investigation, he could be called as a witness. No prosecutors should be witnesses in cases they are prosecuting. Just from what Nifong has indicated, that he was in contact with the accuser, would be inappropriate, including what he said about the original line up."

Thank you WJD

At 2:55 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheek decides NOT to run.,2933,205906,00.html

At 3:01 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am disappointed Cheek decided not to run. It will be much harder to get rid of Nifong at the ballot box. The Republicans may run a write-in campaign, but those rarely succeed. I hope those more familiar with Durham politics will advise whether voting for Cheek (whose name is still on the ballot) or the Republican write-in would be best. Nifong needs to be stopped.

At 3:15 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: the Post on McFayden's "terrorist" email

This is a quote from the AP wire service report on lifting McFayden's interim suspension from Duke:

"In the course of Dean Bryan's review, McFadyen made clear he had sent his inflammatory email in jest with language largely taken from a book and later film "American Psycho." He acknowledged the joke, especially given the context at the time, was not funny. He also expressed regret for the shame he had brought upon himself, his family, and the university. He accepted full responsibility for a significant error in judgment and acknowledged its inappropriateness with no qualifications."

Ryan did apologize and authorized release of the hearing information as was done in the AP story.

The email was circulate to the team members, not to the Duke community as a whole. That circulation was done apparently by the Durham police or prosecutor's office. The idea that this was a terrorist act is nonsense. It was a gross, unfunny, in poor taste attempt at a joke. It was a mistake and acknowledged that.

Does that group know that Ryan marched in the "Take back the night" demonstration days after the email was sent?

At 3:34 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I, too, am disappointed that Mr. Cheek has decided not to run. However, I predicted as much when he appeared to vaccillate about a campaign. Does anyone else out there smell FEAR? I keep harkening back to one blogger describing Durham as "a bananna republic", and it seems an apt description. With what we have seen so far, it would not surprise me if Mr. Cheek fears for his professional life if he challenges "the powers that be" in Durham. I realize that he has responsibilities to his family and his firm, but I suspect something more. There seems to be a lot of fear in that town. It appears to be quite a cesspool. Surely, ALL of North Carolina is NOT like Durham County!!!
Texas Mom

At 3:35 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The statement from UBUNTU about Ryan McFayden was posted by a troll, as an intentional distraction.

It was orginally from Mark Anthony Neal's blog, which is a font of bad writing, reflexive victimology and empty-headed racespeak.

Professor Neal is one of ringleaders of the Duke 88 who after it became clear that his little vigilante action was a fraud proclaimed that he was "less interested in trafficking through declarations of guilt and innocence"....

than in pontificating at length like a complete blowhard

Neal is a moral imbecile.

Blah, blah, blah...junk writing...blah, blah, blah

At 3:53 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone think that the Governor who appointed Nifong is thinking about the disgrace he has created in Durham? Or is he a part of it also?

At 4:55 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheek choosing not to campaign was indeed a disappointment. However his name will still be on the ballot. The New & Observer article stated that Cheek intends to vote for himself. Electronic fliers are already circulating to encourage voters to vote for Cheek anyway.

Here's one:

At 5:36 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Welcome to our friends from UBUNTU. Our moderator moved their post to general topics because it has nothing to do with President Brodhead’s response to our letter. We are not sure precisely how it is apropos of anything going on our site generally, particularly since it does nothing more than reproduce an article that was posted on their own site about an event that took place weeks ago, but here it is. We will, however, ask that in the future that posters either comment on the content of our site or engage in debate with the other posters and not drag content from their own site over here and leave it on our doorstep like an abandoned child. Otherwise, we might delete it.

I recommended to our moderator that we leave this up for a particular reason. For those who are unaware, UBUNTU censors any posts that in any way dissent from their party line, which seems to be that any women who claims victim status is entitled to recognition as such as a matter of right. UBUNTU promotes what is essentially a belief system. We at FODU have no fear of facts or debate and prefer to arm ourselves with reason rather than sentiment.

While I am here, let me comment on it.

All humor is ultimately based on irony, a contrast between what is expected and what is described. Humor often involves hyperbole as well. Both were present in McFadyen’s e-mail. It was definitely a joke. Whether you think it is a funny joke or not, it is still a joke. Moreover, it was an allusion to the popular mainstream movie American Psycho.

Keep in mind the context as well. Two strippers had essentially defrauded the people at the party of $800. That is what McFadyen referred to when he qualified his message at the beginning, saying, “Based on tonight’s show . . . .” You conveniently do not quote that part of the message. Now, for me personally, if these young men could find no better use for $800, I certainly do not weep for its loss. However, that does explain McFadyen’s newfound disdain for strippers and indifference to nudity.

It is certainly not a threat. In my experience handling criminal appeals for the state of Maryland, most successful murders (or even unsuccessful ones) do not have these features: (1) publicly announcing them ahead of time complete with time and location, (2) carrying them out in a public place such as a dormitory and (3) inviting witnesses to attend. Moreover, the fact that the proposed time of this event had come and gone without incident by the time the message was made public should be enough on its own to clarify the situation.

Then again, what do I know. I have a Ph.D.

At 5:42 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liestoppers have a response for DA Nifong & Cheek's annoucement of not running!

Good for them.. Anybody but Nifong
ABN Campaign

At 5:43 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was astounded to read that the UBUNTU letter is associated with a Duke University professor. The letter was an unveiled threat against the safety of a Duke University student, Ryan McFayden.

Statement of goal: “This type of inhumanity would not be tolerated for several reasons . . .” This can be construed to mean that Ryan McFayden is inhuman and should not be tolerated. That’s scary!
Justification: “Meanwhile, women will see McFadyen on campus and have terrors of him mutilating them for sexual gratification, no one in power concerned for their safety.” The writer declares that an action should take place based upon the perception of Mr. McFayden’s future behavior even though such behavior had been proven by Mr. Coleman’s commission to be inconsistent with his actual behavior.
Threat: “Ryan McFadyen should be held accountable.” While the writer only demands a public apology, the implicit message is that the apology that has already been rendered was not acceptable and therefore a greater punishment is expected than that which is demanded.

If it is true that the letter first appeared in a blog sponsored by Professor Mark A. Neal, then Duke University should investigate the relationship between Professor Neal and the writer of the letter.

It should also investigate the relationship between Professor Neal and any other professor under which Mr. McFayden may be required to take a course or any other academic or social choices that Mr. McFayden is entitled to make in relationship to the free exercise of his choice to attend Duke University.

It appears that the faculty of Duke University is in rebellion against the students who pay to attend their salaries. That’s appalling!

I would guess that Professor Neal has tenure and thinks he’s untouchable. If complicity existed between Professor Neal and UBUNTU then his tenure should be revoked and he should be fired.

A Duke mom - one of Mr. Neal’s employers.

At 6:00 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I actually think that it's a good thing that Cheek decided not to run -- this way, everyone can still vote for him (which he clearly encouraged everyone to do by stating that he will be voting for himself), and when he unseats Nifong, then Easley will be forced to appoint a replacement for him. How will Easley look if he simply re-appoints Nifong to succeed himself when he's just gotten a vote of no confidence from the voters who have elected another candidate that has expressly refused to take office? The whole thing is surreal, but then again, so is this entire case.

At 6:16 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Respect Cheek for his decision. I would not want to take charge of a system so corrupt as exists in Durham. An honest man could not exist. Let's look at the Monopoly Board. Nifong owns the DA office, the Police Department, the adjoining city Police Department, the judges, and the Governor. How can a new candidate honestly dislodge this system? We have all said it time and time again --where are the Fed's in this travesty of civil rights?

At 6:21 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am another employer of Mr. Neal! I agree with the poster two above that Duke should investigate the relationship between Neal and the author of that letter. If Neal had anything to do with that letter, he should be dismissed--tenure or no tenure. I am sick and tired of hearing about abusive Duke Professors who are each pushing their own personal agendas at the expense of their students and who are even willing to harm their students for the sake of their own little petty causes and aspirations. This issue needs to be taken up by all Neal's employers, in a serious way. We need to take our university back from the hands of these low life professors. And, we need to do it now before, it is too late.

At 6:25 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh right, Broadhead is really going to call Dr. Neal on the carpet for making threats against Duke students (which he has).

Prez can't even muster the courage to _ask_ the Duke 88 to take their vigilante letter off of an official Duke University website.

This group of African American professors believes that they are above the law and common decency since _they_ are the true victims. Now and forever.

(You might ask Professor Neal what type of dialogue on race could possibly be productive that starts with the false accusations of rape and kidnapping by a drug-addled prostitute)

At 7:04 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps Brodhead should not be the one dealing with the issue, since he seems incapable of doing it. Brodhead has a boss too. Who is his boss? Who is he accountable to? Let us find out? Let us go to the top. If it turns out that his boss, or bosses, all have the same philosophy that is useful to know. Then it will be clear what to do. Forget about Duke. There are many other good schools. Our kids deserve better than this. Who said that Duke is the only school worthy of sending our kids to? No my friends. What makes Duke Duke is the student body. Take them out and what have you got? Well, let me not get into that. Let us find what the truth is. Then, we act accordingly.

At 7:49 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great letter from LieStoppers, e.g.Anybody But Nifong. How humbled I am by the writings of the people who frequent this and other blogs- who are doing what they can to support these three fine young men. Mr. Cheek was courageous to even throw his hat in the ring- not all "good men remain silent"- as FODU, John in Carolina, etc. continually show me.
Texas Mom

At 8:22 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too was disappointed that Cheek didn't run but I think he did everyone a favor because;

1) He didn't want the job... and somewhere between Nifong's psycho-desire to be DA-for-life and total disinterest, there is the right DA for the job.

2) Cheek isn't a reformer and lord knows Nifong's office needs to be razed to the ground and rebuilt (bye-bye sex addict Destine Couch!!)

3) It could actually be a fun to have an Anybody-but-Nifong campaign.

The prospect of Mikey losing to an empty chair is hilarious and nobody would have to worry about propriety or being "fair" to the thug Liefong.

It should be everybody's first priority to get Cheek "elected" since that is the surest way to justice in this case.

Let's start thinking of cool ways to engage the Durham electorate, particularly the Duke students and end Nifong's reign of abuse.

At 8:54 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To poster @ 8:22 PM, July 27, 2006: Hear,
hear! I'm prepared to donate money to such a campaign.

At 9:03 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Count me in. I will do anything to help.

At 9:08 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous campaign volunteers for a non-existent candidate

It's the perfect Dadaist election.

At 9:12 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least no one can say anything negative about the candidate. That got to be a plus.

At 9:17 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't a dead senator beat someone in a recent election? This is not any different than that. If this is what it will take to get Nifong out of the DA's office, we will do it. Didn’t Nifong want to be famous? Let us make him famous.

At 9:52 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in Durham and just watched on TV Cheek's conference. The reason he gave about the interest of his firm is not convicing, the factor was there before he had the signatures collected. But he is convincing enough that he is not going to and he can not take the job even if he is given the job. I hope he didn't get any threats. I hope also that an attorney with integrity and sensibility will come out to challenge Nifong and serve the people in Durham.

At 10:12 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I was reading somewhere earlier. People were speculating that Cheek was probably threatened by someone, or with something. What a shame... This is what America has come to. Nifong has to go. Durham needs a huge clean-up and only the Durhamites can do it. Nobody else can do it for them.

God help the community there and these three innocent kids. It seems the world has turned upside down. I never thought I would see this in my life time. Does Nifong really think he can act like nothing happened and pretend to be the DA after all this? He is not fit to hold office; he should get out. He screwed Durham in a big way, he will have to pay for it. What goes around comes around; his day will too come.

At 10:18 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anybody But Nifong" -- I love it!!

At 10:26 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster above, there is no need for another candidate, the empty chair campaign has begun.

The theme will be:
"Four more years of this?"

with large billboards across town of:

Mikey happily enscouned between a smiling CGM hoisting a MALT liquor with a flexeril chaser, and Nikki giving the finger to the town. "Vote for Mike, he'll plead out your case for the right price"

Mikey kneeling suggestively before Destaine in his codpiece, "Come and Get it, Durham!"

And little Mikey sitting on the knee of a scowling, gap-toothed Peter Wood declaring "I want your DNA, Durham"

(Don't worry, the empty chair campaign is a well-funded Duke operation- tobacco money mostly- completely backed behind the scenes by Coach K and the Starn family foundation)

As an opener, I have just paid Victoria Peterson $2,000,000 to disrupt Nifong's news conference tomorrow by loudly accusing Mike of outing cousin Jakki/Jack

Nifong's wife will also be denouncing him from the podium (she is doing it gratis, go figure?)

At 11:52 PM, July 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anybody but Nifong (ABN). That's great!

A play on the well known ABC fan (Anybody But Carolina) and ABD fan (Anybody but Duke) and for me (a Kentucky fan, be nice) I'm an ABCD fan... well you can figure it out.

For the record, I'm proudly wearing my Duke Lacrosse braclet!

We need campaign signs for every corner w/ a shadow picture or empty chair! I live in Durham, I'll help put them out (and can contribute funds).

A campaign website. This could be fun and serious at the same time!

I don't think Monks, as a write-in candidate and a republican, has a chance in this democratic county.

Lets do it. Campaign for Anybody But Nifong!

At 12:01 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Worth reposting

Anybody but Nifong! What a great idea.

I play on the well known (to locals at least) ABC fan (Anybody But Carolina) ABD fan (Anybody But Duke) and me well I'm an ABCD fan -- from Kentucky. Don't kill me, I'm currently proudly wearing my Duke Lacrosse braclet!

Anyway, campaign signs for Anybody But Nifong w/ either a shadow picture or an empty chair. I'd be willing to help put them up and contribute to the campaign fund.

A campaign website. This could be fun and serious at the same time.

We need to start now. Get some media coverage and get the word out to the Durham voters. You DO still have a choice. Put your faith in Easley not Nifong.

At 12:02 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry about the duplicate posts above, my first post disappeared for a while then came back (probably user error)...

At 12:54 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheek for non DA

There are several reasons for an active campaign in support of Cheek.

1. There were at least 9800 registered voters who were willing to go on record in support of Cheek. I don't think anyone disputes that this petition was anything but an anti-Nifong referendum.

2. It is reasonable to assume that these 9800+ would cast a vote for Cheek in the November election. Recall that Nifong got 11,168 votes in May, or 45% of registered Democrat voters.

3. Let's say Nifong gets 60% of the vote in the November election. That is not the same as beating an opponent in a landslide. Such an outcome would show that 40% of the voters are so dissatisfied that they would vote to put someone in office who said he doesn't want the job and won't accept it.

4. It would also indicate that a sizeable minority of the jury pool is not buying the rape hoax. Remember potential Durhamite jurors-- YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONVICT. I don't think Judge Titus can stop the blogs and talk radio from beaming that message into occupied territory.

5. I'm not sure how much is spent on a DA race, but it can't be that much. I would think enough people around the country could raise sufficient money to buy radio and TV ads, full page ads in the N&O, etc. It would also be interesting to see what a focused campaign from cyberspace could do.

6. Here is a profile of Durham voters such a campaign could reach:

[According to the latest voter registration figures, Durham County has 27,070 registered Republicans, 24,566 of whom are white. The county has 86,621 registered Democrats, 46,586 of whom are black. So the demographic bloc supportive of Nifong's behavior formed a majority of the Democratic electorate, while those most likely to be alienated by his tactics couldn't vote in the primary. As the director of the Durham County Board of Elections noted the day after the primary, "We had a Lot of irate, irate Republicans who couldn't vote for district attorney."]

Nifong and the Black Vote by Robert KC Johnson

Final point-- I think a defeat of Nifong is still a long shot, but definitely not out of the question. If nothing else, the higher the number Cheek receives the worse for Nifong. If we do nothing and he gets 80%, it's a propaganda victory for the SOB. I'm willing to donate a decent chunk of change to such an effort.


At 1:06 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this close to what you had in mind for a campaign poster?

Thank you for the many kind words and the inspiration that comes with your collective enthusiasm. With hope and effort, we believe we can effect change. Thank you, as well, for listening to our words and thank you for encouraging our efforts. As time goes on we will post here with direction on how you may help ABN stand above the petty tyrant. In the meantime, please accept our gratitude and remember that

ABN is not just anybody, ABN is:
Anybody But Nifong.

At 1:06 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am all for ABN!

I am quite resourceful and can help with many aspects of such a campaign. Count me in. Let us first get a volunteers list established. Let us start tomorrow. There is no time to waste. Let us show America what we are made of...

At 1:12 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poster one above: Yes, that is the picture I had in mind. Brilliant!! We are already rolling.

We should also get a website started. Keep the ideas and suggestions coming in. We will need a campaign manager. I wonder who would volunteer for that. Perhaps, we can get Cheek's manager now that she does not have to campaign for Cheek, maybe she can work with us.

At 1:21 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I made a post to the moderator at FODU asking for them to check out these posts and asking if they can help.

At 6:35 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ABN-Yes! But, we need to make sure the "anybody" vote is Cheek so the votes are not split amongst others - although I don't think there are any others than Cheek. Please correct me.

At 6:55 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As totally expected, it looks like a coverup took place of the racially-motivated fight at Blinco's by Durham cops last Thursday.

As reported in today's Durham Sun,

The right cops not charged

The line cook/AV, Thomas, confirmed that at least one of the cops who instigated the incident (likely Sgt Mark Gottlieb) was not charged.

"Thomas was surprised Thursday to hear that the charges involved the officers they did. "Lee and Tanner? Huh. OK. Check that again and call me back," he said before cutting off a brief interview. "I don't think you have the right guys."

I suspect we will find that City Manager Patrick Baker has a role in this fraud.

Corrupt Durham justice, as expected.

At 7:12 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is likely that we will find that the Durham cops concocted this version of events on the hopes of getting a not-guilty/mis-trial.

Admitting that Lee and Tanner did the kicking and punching since they were not the ones who made the racial slurs or instigated the fight.

The Raleigh cops eagerly went along with this clever "frameup".

"Case dismissed" and all the cops walk, especially the precious Sgt Mark Gottlieb.

At 7:20 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you want to bet that we don't see the Raleigh police leaking the emails and voluminous cell phone records between Gottlieb, Clayton, Tanner and Lee on the night of the incident as they fabricated their story.

At 7:46 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A very interesting comment from one of lawyers of the Durham cops charged in the racial assault last Thursday

"Asked if the lawyers and their clients would speak up to offer their version of what happened, Mason said there's "not a chance in the world" of that happening outside formal channels"

That wouldn't be a blue wall of silence, now would it?

At 8:16 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the Anybody But Nifong campaign, this statement by Nifong should feature prominently on flyers distributed on Duke's campus:

“There's been a feeling in the past that Duke students are treated differently by the court system,” Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong says.
“There was a feeling that Duke students' daddies could buy them expensive lawyers and that they knew the right people."

Any Duke student is a target for Nifong. It's a personal vendetta for him.

At 8:20 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check this out! It seems, Durham residents do not mind when those lousy, no-good, Duke Students shop in their stores and pay for their services. Apparently, their money is good; it is just the students that are no good. If they could just drop the money off, in front of their stores, and stay away from Durham, that would be perfect.

Let us see how Brodhead deals with this one. I bet there will not be bookstore on Central Campus. Why, that will not be approved by Tom Miller, the neighborhood activist.

At 8:33 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clearly, the time is approaching where Duke will have to consider moving its campus

At 9:24 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the 8:20 poster above...come on now! As an actually vibrant business district, 9th St. shop/restaurant owners have a legitimate concern in ensuring they are not too negatively affected by the changes to Central Campus. The owners of those 9th St. businesses are not against Duke Students and the LAX team in particular. They recognize the importance of Duke Student money to their bottom lines and they are trying to preserve their customer base. I have spoken to several of them and they are just as flummoxed by this whole mess as we are.

Please stop imagining overwhelming anti-Duke hostility from every corner and sentient being in Durham.

As a Durhamite, I am frustrated by people (including some fellow Friends who have posted on this board) painting Durham as populated entirely by criminals waiting to pounce on unsuspecting, innocent Duke students. Please recognize that sometimes these over-the-top comments alienate those very Friends on the board whom you need most of all--those here who actually can make a change in this community by voting.

I am fully behind your cause and pray for David, Collin, and Reade (and their families) daily. Do not make the mistake of alienating me and people like me. It is not savvy, to say the least.

Durham Mommy

At 9:37 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Durhamite Mommy: I agree with you entirely. I think, sometimes people get carried away when they are posting on these discussion boards. You will have to excuse some of those over the board comments. I am sure, if those posters just took a minute and think about what they were writing, their comments would be more sensible. We, all of us, have to be more careful when commenting on these highly sensitive issues. Have a good day.

At 9:57 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree. the civic boosting of Durhamites is growing pretty tiresome.

You are cheerleaders for a crime-ridden backwater, presided over by corrupt politicians and law enforcement

Durham Mom, if you are "alienated" that easily by a little criticism of your hometown then you probably aren't up for effecting change.

Prayers are fine, but some action would be preferable.

If not, best to stick with your Durham pom-poms

At 10:00 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Durham Mom:

Your thoughts are poignant. But Durhamites will have the opportunity to change the perception of Durham (however misguided you think it is) on Novemebr 7. If Nifong continues as the DA, folks can assume, correctly it seems to me, that the environment in the upper levels of Durham (City and County) government is odiferous at best.

At 10:00 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If six off-duty white cops beat up a black man, knock him to the ground and kick him while using the "N" word--isn't that a hate crime?

If the local PD doesn't investigate this and tries to dimsiss the whole matter, ignoring both the physical assaults and the use of racial slurs, isn't that a cover-up of a hate crime?
Isn't this exactly the type of thing the FBI civil rights division investigates?
(That these cops happen also to be involved in the lacrosse case does nothing to alter the nature of this incident. It is not relevant here. This incident itself has nothing to do with the lacrosse case.)

At 10:05 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster above:

Please don't criticize Durham cops. You are alienating them. They don't want out-of-towners like the FBI looking into their business.

OK, so just butt out. The good citizens of Durham have everything under control.

At 10:09 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please do not lose sight of why we are here! We are NOT here to exchange unkind words with one another, far from it. We are here to discuss what we can collectively do to help bring justice to Reade, Collin, and Dave. Some of the messages above are borderline acceptable. Please, let us all cool down and compose ourselves. I urge you to use kinder and more tolerant language in your posts. Otherwise, we will have to start removing some posts which will not be a good thing. Remember, Reade, Collin, and Dave -- we are here for them not for any other reason.


At 10:24 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Simply put, Durham residents created this mess by electing Nifong.

They must now repair the situation by removing him from office.

That will resolve the case. EOS.

At 10:38 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny remark about me and my Durham pom-poms from anonymous at 9:57...really good for Team FODU outreach...

Let's see...when did I drop my pom-poms last? Did I fill my Cheek petition with signatures? Check. Did I make my donation to the Truth fund here? Check. Did I attempt to give an interview with the local media here supporting the guys and saying Nifong was to blame for this whole mess? (See first post on General Topics 2 thread.) Check. Do I post on the N&O blogs? Check. Will I be calling Jackie Brown to work on the ABN campaign just as I did on the Cheek campaing? You betcha!

Next time, before you get snarky recognize that your increased snark can actually be fodder for people who say Duke is full of (insert pejorative term here)s who have no consideration for anyone other than themselves.

I have a use for my pom-poms, by the way. I have used them to cheer Duke teams (not the mens' Bball team as I am not rolling in dough, alas) in Cameron and at Wallace Wade Stadium.

Also, watch your comments about prayer, please, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. I'm actually on the ground in Durham working for these guys and justice. Prayer in action, if you will.

Really, get off attacking me and get back to defending the boys.
And thank you to those posters who understand where my heart (and hearts of many Durhamites like me) is.

If you'll excuse me, I have to turn to posting on the N&O blogs while my toddler's still occupied.

Durham Mommy

At 10:39 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an open board where all sorts of ideas are discussed by many people. When posting on other boards, please be sure not to attribute anything you read here as "FODU said this, or FODU said that" unless a comment was included in our press releases. It is more accurate to say "I saw a post on FODU site saying...." or something to that effect. There is a big difference. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.


At 10:42 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Durham Mommy: Excellent response! It stands on its own, nothing further needs to be said.

At 10:43 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are Duke University students allowed to register to vote in the city of Durham? I know that Brown University students can vote in
Providence City Council elections.

What is the deadline for being able to vote in the November 7 election for DA?

Can you imagine Nifong's reaction to that possibility?

At 10:44 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, the Moderator here is now displaying the classic pattern of internet forum hosts.

As their site becomes more popular (and time-consuming for them), they become controlling, worried about the site' rep and overtly authoritarian (the CTV posters can tell you that that happened to Coldwater last week, and she is a pro).

This phenomenon is as predictable as Nifong's next blowdry.

What was once a free ranging and open exchange, covering every conceivable issue that this horrendous case has raised, will now became a stale but pious recitation of Nifong's sins and enthusiastic cheerleading for defense team.

(and with that change will go the reason why this site has become a must-read for DAs, ADAs, journalists and C/R/D supporters in the last weeks, wondering where the next front in the battle is occurring)

Like I said, predictable.

P.S. For the record, I am not on any "team". I see injustice, I comment on it (and act on it).

At 10:46 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

re above: see July 3 post in the "from moderator" section for the answer to your question. I imagine, that there will be more elaboration on this as we get closer to the start of the Fall semester (third week of August).

At 10:49 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster above:

Are you kidding me durham mommy--"Please don't criticize Durham cops. You are alienating them. They don't want out-of-towners like the FBI looking into their business." Yea im sure they don't just as any racist corrupt criminal doesn't want the fbi looking into their business. Is your commet supposed to reassure us or emphasize that things are not right in durham. We watched in horror as you reelected that crook nfong. You have made a laughingstock out of your town not the posters on this board! AS for "good citizens of durham" where were you marching and protesting black panthers being allowed into a ct room to jeer on defendants ?!!!!

At 10:57 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For anyone in Durham who is or can get involve in the ABN campaign, I suggest making part of the message that a Cheek win puts the state AG in the drivers seat to choose the successor. Anyone amenable to persuation may worry about the impact of not having a DA--it's the evil no one knows. So, point out that Easley will select a professional person who will do the job the right way. It's a long shot, but it could happen.

Also, I agree with the sentiments of continuing to build bridges and good will between Duke and Durham. Let's not trash those in Durham who are already friends or those who could be.

At 10:58 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:44 poster: Thank you for your concern about the dilemma that moderators of discussion sites, such as ours, face. We appreciate your concern and thank you for warning us that we have reached a critical point in our existence. We will be sure not to repeat some of the common mistakes that have been made elsewhere. Thank you for your input.


At 11:10 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Moderator:

I don't know who you are, male or female. But, I think you are doing a wonderful job with this site and may God speed the resolution of this disaster in Durham.

At 11:29 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Moderator:

Last navel-gazing post

You have a good structure of this blog to accomodate both control and freedom. The special sections and front page could be closed to public comments and only relevent approved posts copied there, as you do now.

That would leave the general public comments section (may NOT reflect the opinions of FODU) as the one we all use

You could state more bluntly that the opinoins expressed do not necessarily reflect your organization

At 11:38 AM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Very sensible suggestions, we will take them into account. Thanks. Moderator.

At 12:25 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this letter released by Mike Nifong today doesn't convince any remaining fence-sitters that Nifong is a malicious and hateful SOB, I don't know what will.

There should be no hestitation in making sure that Nifong is not only defeated but that he is disbarred.

He is an out-of-control monster.

At 12:56 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This letter proves beyond any doubt that Nifong is a nut case. He is delusional, and he is about to crack up. If this letter does not create a justification for removing him off the Lacrosse case then I don't know what will. This case is obviously much more to him than any other case; it is a personal vendetta... Citizens of Durham, it is time to wake up and smell the roses! Just because Nifong tells you he is out for your best interest it does not mean that he is. To me, it sounds more like his only interest is destroying those that he declares to be enemy -- for one reason or another. This guy is out of control, he needs to be put back in his box. He was doing okay in his box, for the last 28 years. That is where he belongs.

Here is a challenge for you Durham citizens. America is watching, show us where you stand. Show us where you are. November is around the corner. We will be patiently waiting to hear your voice. This tragedy is now fully in your hands.

At 12:58 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like Nifong is getting rattled. If he weren't, he wouldn't be discussing ABN.

By the way, he says he doesn't want the Governor to be the one to decide who the DA is. Isn't that how Nifong got there? I bet the Governor is pounding his head against the wall wondering why?

At 1:00 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In his press conference, Nifong admitted that he ordered the arrest of the cab driver Mustafa on a trumped-up warrant

(BTW the reporters were_awful_ in their questioning, a new low for RD journalism)

At 1:00 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is moving well beyond absurd. It has to be stopped.

At 1:12 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See details here:

At 1:17 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the 10:49 poster. I did not make any comment about Durham police. I don't know who did. As a Durham taxpayer, I am incensed by the officers behavior in this case and in the case of the Raleigh fry cook. Please do not attribute that comment to me.

I make it a practice to sign my posts since I am unwilling to officially log in. You may ask why...I am officially anonymous because like many posters here, I want to protect my family and my loved ones from those criminal forces within my own city I am working to eradicate.

Thank you.

Durham Mommy

At 1:37 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like Nifong just kicked off his campaign against ABN in style, on TV! He is in high gear again, and he is trying to get sympathy from Durham residents. We can expect to hear much more form him in the coming days and weeks. Remember when he was campaigning for the primaries (70 interviews and press conference)?

Well, if he gets the sympathy he is seeking, for a second time, then we will know who to blame. This was all a game of mirrors and a political move (kick off of a campaign so to speak). He has been sitting on a hot potato (no DNA); he needed to get that off his chest. So, he chooses this perfect occasion (the day after Cheek announces he will not run) to off load the hot potato. What he is doing is very clear; use the moment to your advantage. The question is who will buy it, or will any one buy it? I think he is taking a big risk here. But than again, no one claimed that he was not a risk taker. Let us see if this one was worth taking.

At 1:43 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellant post above, Durham Mommy.

We need to keep the pressure on about Gottlieb's pinning the rap on his two junior colleagues (the media is currently ignoring the story)

On another point, after watching Nifong, the inescapable conclusions are that he has extreme delusions of grandeur (on several occasions he flatout stated that the DA's job belongs to him by right) and that he has a deep paranoid streak.

His bizarre attack on Cheek for giving him unspecified "campaign advice" has already been noted above.

These two character flaws are probably the worst combination in a DA.

Specifically because if I were an ADA in his office, I would be afraid to challenge him or do anything he disagrees with.

I think this is a big part of Nifong's poor judgment. He is surrounded by yesmen and yeswomen who only bring him evidence that he wants to hear (while they are not off visiting porn websites)

This jerk justs oozes psychopathology, and he is bringing Durham down with him.

At 1:51 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MSNBC just announced that they will report on the Duke Lacrosse case shortly. If you want to watch, this is the time to tune in (1:47pm).

At 2:05 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just listened to MSNBC report. Nifong appears very much to be in the campaign mode. He is trying to look humble and he is soliciting sympathy from the voters. He is employing the usual political trick: when you screw up you go to the voters, apologize, and they forgive you. And, if they don’t something must be wrong with them not with you. Let us see if this tactic will work.

By the way Susan Filan suggested at the end of her interview that this case should be handled by a jury not by voters. This followed her statement that the defense’s case appeared to be a lot stronger than the prosecution’s. What the hell happened to her? Who has she been talking to? If his son’s life was at stake would she be saying this nonsense? I suppose not. But than again she was a lot better than Wendy Murphy, the wicked witch of the East.

At 2:11 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Filan really meant was that the case should be handled by talking heads.

The only interest MSNBC and pay-for-hire ex-DAs have is in making sure the case goes to trial for their ratings.

At 2:14 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Advice to Brodhead: Take a cue from your DA Mike. Next time, you decide to say something, admit a little bit of guilt, a few small mistakes, and so on. This approach will get you further than proclaiming absolute perfect response. People don’t buy that. You see, they can distinguish between the perfect and the dismal.

At 2:17 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re two above (Susan Filan): I see, so this is really a pocket issue for them. Well, we cannot argue about that, we all have to make a living right. I wish these people would wear a t-shirt saying, "I am on paid service here". Then we will know what to make of their comments (i.e. flush them down the toilet).

At 2:23 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re Nifong's letter:

That's just political hardball, attacking the opponent. I don't think it's a sign of any pathology, just a politician.

BUT it is a sign that he's worried, particularly with the length of the letter. If Cheek was just an annoying mosquito, the letter would just be a single paragraph.

At 2:24 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope Lewis Cheek in particular is prepared to defend himself against Nifong's claim that he participated in a scam to "buy" the DA's office.

Can you say libel?

Durham Mommy

At 2:40 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re two above: So, let us give him some reason to worry even more.

At 2:48 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to dukeparent

I disagree. Nifong isn't a politician, he says so, every chance he gets.

And I agree with him. He has very thin skin, appears motivated nearly entirely by his own vanity and is _deeply_ pathological.

Even in his distress today, he was preening for the cameras like a peacock.

He issued that strange long letter because he actually believes that it was a crime that Cheek would try to pressure him.

(maybe some day after he is disbarred, Nifong should listen to the Johnson tapes or watch Tom Delay in action)

Some have suggested that this is a new thing for Nifong after his cancer diagnosis. I suspect it was latent until he became the boss, and is the hypersensitivity morality of an absolute dictator. He demonizes anyone who disagrees with him.

And that is a very useful feature of Liefong for the ABN campaign.

By the time, he is done with this case, Nifong will have no allies left in Durham except opportunists among the black elite who will use his collapse to their advantage.

At 3:06 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see Nifong cracking up. This letter is just the first sign of it. The AV may be okay come spring, but we may lose the DA. What the heck, I think we can do without him (even though he will disagree).

By the way, we have further proof that Nifong reads the blogs. The ABN concept was only mentioned on the blogs last night. Unless he was reading, he could not have known about it. What is it with the legal people and the blogs? Remember the Wonkette story a couple of weeks ago, here we go again. Blogs ruling the world? What a scary notion!

At 3:14 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 2:48:

"Nifong isn't a politician, he says so, every chance he gets."

You were joking, right? He's a politician AND a lawyer (professional liars both, and I'm a lawyer, so I can say so). He's not a very good one of either, but maybe good enough to win if enough voters or jurors vote their prejudices.

At 3:31 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke09parent: I am with you on this one, I agree.


At 5:12 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nifong is probably kicking himself for not taking the offer of defense counsel to show him the exculpatory evidence. He could then try to figure out how to get around it. Some stuff not in the general public eye regarding alibi or other defense evidence might pop up on the blogs. That would be a reason to assign someone to read them.

At 5:34 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the latest from the Anybody But Nifong group.

At 5:34 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An article complaining about how different white/conservative press treated Duke lacrosse case from Lamar Owens' case at the Naval Academy:

The article complained that the right wing press didn't attack Owens' accuser's credibility with as much gusto as they did CGM's because of the racial difference.

My reply posted to the comments section below the article:

Two big differences. 1) Owens admittedly had sex with the woman but claimed it was consensual. The lacrosse boys said they had no sex with her and the DNA tests backed them up. 2) I give character credibility points to anyone (both Owens and his accuser) who was selected by the Academy. The Duke accuser has credibility problems well beyond just being an escort, and they have nothing to do with her race. I thought it was excreble also to attack her for being an escort, since that status does't permit her being raped.

I am glad Owens was acquitted of the rape charge. I hope he is not bounced from the Academy on the lesser charges, but it doesn't look good. If she was so drunk she could't stay awake while Owens made love to her, perhaps he should have known to leave her alone until she sobered up a little.

Personally, I didn't know the race of Owens' accuser and didn't care. When the lacrosse story first broke, I thought it was possible; I didn't automatically assume boys with their backgrounds couldn't possibly have done it. The facts revealed led me to believe the Duke case is a false accusation. Those who believe that a rape did occur because of their assumptions about the boys' backgrounds and race or because of the background (the student and mother of 2) and race of the accuser should look into their own hearts to root our their racism. And don't give us the excuse that they are entitled to be racist against whites because they've been victimized themselves. That don't wash anymore.

At 5:40 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liestoppers Respond.. Nifong is Shadowboxing! LOL!

At 5:42 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Three points need to be repeated periodically - and have been and should be again and again.
1) We’re defending 3 innocent young men against an abusive DA.
2) Polite, assertive, and intelligent comments are remembered - We’re Duke, aren’t we?
3) We want a speedy trial and full exoneration.

We DO NOT achieve our goals when we:
1) belittle Durhamites who are sympathetic with our cause
2) suggest withholding support form Durham merchants - in particular 9th Street
3) express our opinion with racist remarks or veiled insults and profanity.

We succeed when we use appropriate humor (some of the ABN entries had me LOL!), encourage the Durhamites who participate in this debate - we might even win over our enemies, and share productive ideas such as the ABN campaign. Go for it!

More importantly, remember this is about Duke students - KIDS! - whose futures have been jeopardized and whose families have and will continue to incur huge legal expenses. I was disappointed to note that while tens of thousands of you have checked out this site, fewer than 1000 have even opened the site that offers information about financially assisting the families. I send my son to Duke without financial aide, but I tremble when I think about the burden that this trial will cost.

And for what? Because these boys are guilty of being typical (foolhardy and shortsighted) college students who supported and participated in such student activities as “Tailgate.” Heaven forbid! When President Brodhead demonstrates the hubris of imposing his belief that he can end under-aged drinking at Duke - not all Duke students are under 21 - his ideas have the potential of increasing DUI in Durham, a far greater problem to the community than lacrosse players who lack the sense to hire a “decent” stripper.

Duke just sent out a package that included the Chronicle and other publications many of include stories about the case (but not - no surprise!- the Group of 88).
One thing was clear: we have an uphill battle. Don’t lose site of our goals.

At 6:33 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with the 5:42 poster, and with Durham Mommy. The vitriol that sometimes crops up is totally counterproductive and can make comments, and the cause, less credible. We are all angry at this situation, we all firmly believe that this is a huge miscarriage of justice, but we also would like to affect change. We won't do that if we alienate those who could be supporters (and quite honestly, I have felt somewhat alienated by the tone of some comments, and I AM a supporter!) Also, using derogatory names when discussing Pres. Brodhead's actions, regardless of how we feel about them, is not going to help our cause with him, either. I congratulate the moderator for keeping the site open--for not censoring as many other sites do. But I hope posters will do their best to keep the cause in mind when they write an angry post.

At 10:46 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, first some background on me, just to put my biases out front. I don't live in Durham, nor do I have ties to Duke, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. However, becuase of this, I believe that I can offer a fairly objective opinion on this situation, from a distance.

I was educated at state (ie, not "elite") institutions. But, I've done reasonably well for myself, and, in fact, was offered a position at Duke Medical Center a few years back.
I am also a father of a high school lacrosse player in Bethesda, Md.

1) There is little doubt in my mind that my son would have attended this party, with full knowledge that strippers would be there, as a "team" function. Not that I'm proud of this, its simply a reflection of the actions taken by many (?most?) 20 yo young men.

2) There can be little doubt that the accused players are innocent (no need to go over all the details here).

3) The behavior of the Duke adminstration and faculty is both abysmal and abhorrent. A quality university would take the American ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" to heart. The group of 88 are an embarrassment, but equally embarassing is the fact that very few of the Duke faculty have publicly supported these young men. All of the Duke "family" should be ashamed.

4) From a national perspective, this is a huge, festering sore for both Durham and Duke. As an institution that aspires to national prominence, the longer this case persists, the worse Duke and Durham look in the nation's eye. Durham looks like a hick good ol boy town, and Duke looks like a spineless institution unwilling to support its students.

5) What can be done?
a) The Duke adminstration and faculty should recognize the American principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and stand PUBLICLY AND FIRMLY behind these young men.
b) The Duke Administration and Trustees should do all in their (considerable) power to force a speedy trial for these young men. The longer this wound festers, the worse Duke and Durham look.

At 11:41 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Thank you friend, for a most thoughtful and very well articulated comment. We appreciate your frankness.

Have a wonderful evening.

At 11:43 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: One more thing, please pass the word about this site to other Lacrosse families in your area. We are trying to reach out to as many Duke and Lacrosse families as we can. Thank you for your support.

At 11:53 PM, July 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did I miss it or was it reported where funds for the ABN project should go.

At 12:25 AM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, it has not been posted yet. I suppose people are trying to figure it out.

At 6:29 AM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Potentially important legal developments in this NandO story here


Court officials have taken steps toward having the Duke rape case declared "exceptional," which would allow a single judge to schedule and manage the cases against three lacrosse players.

Durham Trial Court Administrator Kathy Shuart said the parties in the case have agreed in principle to the designation, which would remove the case from Durham's case management system. Instead of monthly court hearings being set, a single judge, who would be appointed by state judicial officials, would decide when to hear motions or call the parties into court, Shuart said.


At 8:33 AM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: The immediate above post. If this is true, it is great. Remember Nifong was insisting on his way and a trial next year. If the case is being referred as noted, that mean's he is weakening in his stance and as one brick from the wall falls, the others will follow.

At 9:49 AM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember that some of the Durham crowd appears to have had a good thing going with underground crime. (The police were operating a prostitution ring out of the police HQ in the 1990s, and that sort of thing may still be going on. There were no arrests for prostitution by the Durham PD in 2004 and 2005. There are other facts which support this thesis.)

Durham has a huge number of gangs, way out of proportion for the next comparable NC city of their size.
Prostitution goes hand in hand with drugs, and drugs and gangs operating freely on the Durham scale usually means protection.
These folks now stand to lose their entire crime empire, which stayed out of the limelight for more than a decade, if the SBI and the FBI and other agencies start poking around.

All that could have continued except for Nifong's forcing this rape case through instead of dropping it. It brings unwanted attention.

So he may still drop the case for just that reason--to make sure the Feds and others don't get so involved that the Durham crowd loses everything.

At 10:04 AM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The statement Nifong made yesterday in his news conference that "he hoped he would have evidence and eventually ended up not having it" is a major admission in his own words to screwing this case. DAs are not supposed to hope for evidence (or manufacture evidence); they are supposed to analyze the evidence they have got. What more do we need to hear from Nifong after this admission? He made our case. He was trying to frame these kids for his own political benefits.

At 10:10 AM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re two above: The question is how likely is it that Feds will start looking at Durham? Is there a real possibility for that, or is it just wishful thinking?

At 11:50 AM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question is how likely is it that Feds will start looking at Durham?

IIRC, the feds looked at Durham in the 1990s to see how the locals were investigating themselves (not very well).

Some of the same names involved then crop up now.

Some of the rulings and judicial practices in some other cases appear bizarre and inexplicable and worthy of attention to see if there are not payoffs being made somewhere.

Then there are clearly as civil rights issues for the players--threats by the NBBP, intimidation, right to a speedy trial, etc. Not to mention a hate crime by white cops beating up a black man while using the "N" word (Rodney King South?).

Plenty of grounds.

At 11:58 AM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: I agree that there are enough grounds for it. Does this happen by itself (I doubt it) or does someone need to make it happen (i.e. file a specific complaint to the feds and request them to do so)?

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

Does this happen by itself (I doubt it) or does someone need to make it happen (i.e. file a specific complaint to the feds and request them to do so)?

snail mail :

civil rights division of the Dept. of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530

Assistant Attorney General

Wan J. Kim
(202) 514-2151

online tips to FBI :

tips to NC field office of FBI :

FBI core values (from their website)

5. Protect civil rights
6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises
7. Combat major white-collar crime

FBI Core Values
• Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States;
• Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
• Compassion;
• Fairness;

At 2:15 PM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like everyone on this blog to read the following news article and reflect long and hard on the fact that in this case, where 4 black men raped a disabled white young girl and video taped the rape a black preacher defends the rapists.

No doubt the black community led by the preachers will soon be holding prayer vigils and passing out copies of "To kill a Mockingbird" and "Soul On Ice."

The ACLU/ADL/NAACP will no doubt provide free legal help all the way to the appellate level

Rape Charges Against Youths Racially Motivated, Families Say

Nancy A. Fischer, News Niagara Bureau, July 27, 2006

[Note: Initial report of the arrests below.]

Lockport—Four teenagers charged in the gang rape of a disabled classmate in May have been released from jail, and family members of the suspects said during a hearing Wednesday that the charges are racially motivated.

“Would we be here if the girl was black, too?” said the legal guardian of suspect Dartain M. Ubiles, who declined to give her name. She noted the victim is white, while the four suspects, all 16, are black.

The woman also said the four—Dontre Woods of Lock Street; Ubiles of Frontier Street, Niagara Falls; Nicholas Smith of Crosby Avenue; and Antonio J. Sheppard of Gabriel Drive—were forced to sign statements at Lockport High School to avoid being suspended.

“They turned [the boys against] each other without involving the parents,” the guardian said.

Detective Capt. Lawrence Eggert said skin color has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

“All I care about is the law. I didn’t know who was black and who was white. For 26 years I’ve worked hard to be fair. To call this a racial issue is ridiculous. This case will stand or fall on its own merit.”

The Rev. Mark Sanders, a Lockport community policing aide and local pastor, said the four boys are themselves victims.

“I think all the facts are not out,” he said. “These boys have already been demonized and tried. It’s wrong to make a judgment before all sides have been heard.”

“They are all broken up,” he added. “They come from good homes. They are athletes who box and play football. These are not thugs from the street. None of them have ever been in jail.” “My heart is broken. Sexuality is a big problem for teens,” Sanders said.

Ubiles’ mother, Katrina, who declined to reveal her last name, said, “This incident should never have gotten this far. They’ve got them scared. None of this is true.”

Sheppard was freed on bail Tuesday. The other three were freed Wednesday on their own recognizance.

The four, who were ordered to stay away from the girl and stay out of trouble as a condition of their release, are scheduled to return to court at 9 a.m. Aug. 30.

Four Teens Charged In Lockport Gang Rape
Nancy A. Fischer , News Niagara Bureau, July 26, 2006

Lockport—Four 16-year-old youths are charged in the gang rape in May of a 15-year-old disabled girl at the home of one of the boys.

Police say the attackers violated the girl and recorded the assault with a cell phone camera.

The charges followed a two-month investigation by Lockport Police Lt. David Barrancotta.

The teens befriended the girl then lured her to the home of one of the attackers May 12, where they took turns attacking her over an hour and a half, said Detective Capt. Lawrence Eggert.

He said the victim and the suspects were students at Lockport High School.

The four charged are: Dontre R. Woods of Lock Street, where the attack occurred; Dartain M. Ubiles of Frontier Street, Niagara Falls; Nicholas M. Smith of Crosby Avenue; and Antonio J. Sheppard of Gabriel Drive.

Two were charged with first-degree forcible rape and three youths were charged with felony first-degree criminal sexual act. A fourth youth was charged with videotaping the attack on his cell phone.

Eggert said the cell phone was confiscated by police, but noted that a 30-second video clip of the rape was erased. He said Sheppard admitted to police that he had taped the other youths raping the girl.

“We’re not sure if the video was widely seen by other people, but we did receive some notification from others that the video existed,” Eggert said.

Kelly Campbell, captain of the Lock Street Block Club, a neighbor of the Woods family, said she was sad about what happened to the girl, but was also sad for the four youths.

“None of these kids would have done this on his own. I don’t think they are that kind of kids, but they made a huge mistake, which will affect their whole lives,” Campbell said.

She blamed both raging hormones and children in the blighted area having nowhere to redirect their energy.

At 2:49 PM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: I wonder how many articles Susan Estrich will write about this case and how many comments Wendy Murphy will make on TV?

At 3:22 PM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I think all the facts are not out,” he said. “These boys have already been demonized and tried. It’s wrong to make a judgment before all sides have been heard.”

OK. I'll buy that; I certainly don't want to repeat any of the mistakes that we've seen so far in Durham.

“This incident should never have gotten this far. They’ve got them scared. None of this is true.”

OK again so far. Maybe there is another side to things; heaven knows we here all know that's a real possibility.

However this doesn't look good :

A fourth youth was charged with videotaping the attack on his cell phone.

And this blows what's left of my mind :

She blamed both raging hormones and children in the blighted area having nowhere to redirect their energy.

At 11:48 AM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know anything about how or when the move to classify this case as "exceptional" where one judge picked by a state judicial body will take place? Or did I read this wrong?

At 12:57 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In all my jurisdictions, when a single judge is selected to stay with a case the rest of the way, the selection is done either by the chief judge of that jurisdiction or self selected with the chief's concurrence. The latter occurs sometimes when a judge has heard several motions and figures it makes more sense to stay on it so fellow judges don't have to get up to speed each time.

Some jurisdictions assign cases to particular judges from the beginning, but not all and Durham apparently is one that does not.

At 1:08 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Follow up to mine above:

The N&O story does say the selection would be done by state judicial officials. This sounds to me like it would not be a Durham judge.

Somebody with knowledge of the NC legal system will have to clarify.

At 1:16 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to be so spastic but the herald sun article (linked here but also on the links to media place on this site)

The article pointed out this may be a multi-month trial. Jury selection in the Peterson case took a month and a half.

My state would try the case in a month, so I forgot how slow some places are. I had hopes the trial could be advanced to December or January and the boys could be acquitted in time for the spring season, but that's obviously not possible.

At 2:24 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Duke09Parent for the above. Let me see if anyone agrees with me on this. Of course, we all know this is a hoax, no need to repeat any of that. But---Nifong admitted wrong the other day and now it appears he (if he is part of the "all parties") is willing to let the case be handled by a judge (likely not a Durham judge) appointed at a state-level. God knows, those state level folks know what trouble this case is in. Does this sound like Nifong knows he has been found out and needs someone to get him out of it?

At 3:38 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Let us hope so. That will save a great deal of pain and anxiety for many of us. I have no relation to this case, but from the day it broke out, I have not been able to sleep at night. Is just isn't right that any young person should be subject to what these kids are going through when 95 percent of America thinks there was no rape. And, the other 5 percent, well most of them are willing to admit what they are really looking for is payback for the black slavery -- I say it is safe to ignore that crowd.

I just hope that, for everyone's sake, Nifong decides to get this hot potato out of his hands. The sooner this case gets out of Nifong’s hands, the better it will be – even for Nifong himself.

At 3:39 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Herald Sun editorial "Cheek says 'no' to challenge, sort of"

Some factual issues regarding Mr Cheek but also contains comments on the lacrosse. I sent the following email to the publisher, editor, managing editor and editorial page editor:

Subject: 7/30 Editorial "Cheek says 'no' to challenge, sort of
Date: Sun 07/30/06 12:26 PM

Since this 'editorial' is not credited as the opinion of any particular writer, I am submitting to all of you the inaccuracies in this "report". If this is an opinion piece, why do you not not state whose opinion??.

Since this is more obviously a 'report' merely published on the opinion page... I would like to see corrections published in the opinion section of this paper - correcting the factual inaccuracies I'll identify below.

As a citizen of Durham, I listened to both Mr. Cheek's and Mr. Nifong's statement in interest. After reading your editorial it did not jibe with my memory of Mr. Cheek's statements so I listened to the full press conference and follow up questions linked at WRAL (

The first factual error in your your 'article': "Yet he still withheld a formal decision on whether he would actually campaign for the office."

When in fact Mr. Cheek stated on several occasions that he would not campaign for the office. Some quotes include "I will not run a campaign." and "I'm not going to have any further connection with the campaign, with the election, with anything after I finish answering questions today.. "

Second, your article implies that Mr. Cheek says supporters shouldn't vote for him after all "Cheek said being district attorney would be too much of a distraction from the business of his Durham law firm, so supporters shouldn't vote for him after all."

When in fact Mr. Cheek said "The people will be able to directly state whether they are satisfied with the status quo. They will state that themselves." "In June the people spoke with signatures on a petition. In November the people will speak with votes at the ballot box."

Further Mr. Cheek says "I want to emphasize to you that what I am saying is that the people will speak. Lewis Cheek isn't going to be speaking. Its up to every individual voter to make up his/her decision on what they might believe is the right thing to do."

Lewis Cheek absolutely DID NOT say that his supporters shouldn't vote for him after all. This is a grossly inaccurate statement (to say the least). He spoke very clearly about what he thought the voters should do. You've done the Durham community a HUGE disservice with your misstatements/lies.

As to the opinions (again, whose opinions I'd like to know):

The article says that 'some people will continue to urge voters to cast their ballot for such a candidate' which 'tends to cheapen and demean the seriousness of the political process'.

While this may be someone's opinion, I say that this is what our political process is all about. Let the citizens of Durham speak. It is obvious (based on the hugely successful petition drive) that as many as 15,000 Durham citizens are NOT happy with the status quo and want an alternative. If that alternative results in letting Governor Easley select a new DA - perhaps that is exactly what should happen. Perhaps Durham voters have more faith in Mr. Easley than they do in Mr. Nifong at this point. I agree that this is not about just one case. This is absolutely about the next 4 years. Does Durham want Mike Nifong for the next four years?

With respect to the Duke Lacrosse case, Mr. Nifong himself caused the media spectacle that portrays our city very negatively. All of the negative media coverage can be pointed directly to him. In local and national media, he demonstrated choke holds, suggested condom use, suggested date rape drugs, stated that no one on the team was cooperating with police, suggested that the lacrosse players should not have consulted attorneys. Do some investigative reporting... I think you'll find that Mr. Nifong and the DPD had evidence AT THE TIME HE MADE THE STATEMENTS that they were false. Yes, the defense team has responded... but only after Mr. Nifong made false claims about their clients in the media. This is their right & their job.

My expectation is that a crime be investigated by the police department BEFORE charges are brought against anyone accused of a crime. The Durham Police Department should then take all the evidence to the DA and request charges. DPD should be allowed to do their job. After all the evidence is in, the DA should review to see if there is enough evidence to move forward. The DA's job is to pursue the truth. How can refusing to meet with the defendants in this case possibly be viewed as a pursuit for the truth? How can these actions by Mr. Nifong possibly be explained away?

Did Mr. Nifong wait for evidence in this case?? No. Is this how you would like a charge against you or a loved one handled? Not me.

I am very disappointed with local reporting. It is the media that can help protect the public against injustice. Yet, local reporting seems to support the political players who continue with this case that should never have been.

I look forward to your corrections and a reponse.

At 4:58 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 3:38 and 3:39 above. You are on target. Here is my take. Please understand, I am an old man, but my blood still runs hot when I hear of predjudice against white or black or any other color of skin. I am a decorated Military Veteran and served with Black Men, White Men, American Indians, and American Eskomos. There is no man lesser in integrity than mine based upon the color of his skin.

Yet, we have a District Attorney, elevated from his "traffic court" position, to the leading Prosecuting Attorney in this case.

I would have thought that the Governor of North Carolina would have done a little more research before he put Nifong into the position of destroying the integrity of the Governorship or the integrity of the judicial system in Durham. So, don't put all the blame on Nifong - the Governor did it. And he needs to fix it! And he can!

At 5:23 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said... has bumper sticker samples available supporting Anybody But Nifong available to print out. My personal favorite is

Vote for Anybody but Nifong!

At 8:49 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re article:

That was clearly the opinion - unsigned - of the Herald Sun.

That is so scary! and I'm a once-upon-a-time Durhamite.

SO: Where can I send my money for the ABN campaign? Money talkes.

Address? Bank acct? Person? Will someone in Durham PLEASE take charge.

At 9:28 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please hold on to your money for a couple of weeks. Don't spend it on anything else, because it will be needed. The campaign to elect Anybody but Nifong is being organized in Durham, but it can't happen overnight. We will keep you posted. And thanks for your support.

At 10:19 PM, July 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a parent of a high school lacrosse player, I have started following this case closely over the past month. I find that this website is filled with up-to-date, useful links, and this comment board is generally respectful, thoughtful, and well-reasoned with their opinions.

But I have a bone to pick.

Why on earth do some people refer to these allegations as a "hoax"? In my opinion, a "hoax" is a practical joke. Crop circles are a hoax. HG Wells War of the Worlds is a hoax.

If it was your child who was unjustly acused, wouldn't you regard these rape allegations as a LIFE-THREATENING FABRICATION, not a "hoax"?

It's not a hoax, it's an abominable lie.

It's not a hoax, it's a fantastic lie.

It's not a hoax, it's a pack of lies.

It's not a hoax, it's an evil, vicious, premeditated fraud.

You get the idea.

At 12:22 AM, July 31, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 3:39 PM, July 30, 2006 post-- Outstanding catch. They are delusional if they think there won't be an active, enthusiastic campaign for ABN. I look forward to full page ads in the Herald Sun, for example.

At 3:32 AM, July 31, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Webster's Dictionary defines a hoax and includes the words fraud and cheat, in addition to practical joke. So--hoax stll works here although some word more in line with conspiratorial fraud is more applicable.


<< Home