Sunday, November 19, 2006

Sunday Items

Last week, Herald-Sun editor Bob Ashley published a personalized memoir of the election, in which he spent 723 words saying remarkably little. He did blast the sometimes “venomous” critics of his legal mentor, Mike Nifong, and mused that it seemed unlikely that opinions about the merits of the lacrosse case would change anytime soon.

Ashley contended that the outcome of the election ensured that the lacrosse case would go forward: “Whether the case is eventually tossed out on procedural grounds or proceeds to a jury trial, I’m glad it will be resolved in the judicial system, not at the ballot box.”

I recall little or no distress from Ashley, however, at Nifong’s manipulating the case for success “at the ballot box” in the run-up to the primary: the editor’s concern about the intersection between politics and the judicial process has been quite one-sided. Those awaiting the Herald-Sun to demand that the “minister of justice” adhere to city regulations and the guidelines of the state bar will have, it appears, a very long wait.

Ashley’s assertion was also a little hard to follow. If the case has merit—as Ashley has consistently maintained, even as nearly 10 percent of his subscriber base has evaporated since his pro-Nifong crusade began—it would seem to me that any prosecutor would pursue charges. Or was Editor Ashley implicitly conceding that only a “minister of justice” as ethically challenged as Nifong would continue with such a procedurally tarnished case?

The latter, it would seem: a trial, proclaimed Ashley, “has a chance of reassuring many in the community who indicated by their votes Tuesday that, with or without doubts about how the case has proceeded, they want to see this resolved in a rational fashion.”

Ashley has, at last, revealed his basic agenda: the purpose of a trial is not to satisfy justice; or to try only those for whom probable cause is established; or even to uphold standards of legal ethics. The purpose of a trial is, instead to “reassure” an unspecified segment of the minority of Durham County residents who cast ballots for Nifong.

How, shall we say, reassuring.

---------

Duke earth systems science professor Thomas Crowley has talents that extend beyond his unusual skills at legal analysis. His CV, for instance, includes among honors and awards the following item: “Winner, Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences NCAA Basketball Pool.”

Crowley should consider himself fortunate that Duke’s new student behavior code doesn’t apply to professors. Among its draconian provisions is a total prohibition on all forms of gambling, “with the exception of the state lottery. A person/organization is guilty of gambling if he/she/it operates, plays, or bets at any game of chance at which any money, property, or other thing of value is bet.”

Certainly NCAA basketball pools would fall under the provisions on the code. Look for arbitrary enforcement of this rule in March: the provision gives the administration the grounds for targeting virtually any student or group of students that are out of favor.

---------

The curious practices of the Durham Police Department continued this week, after a freelance photographer demanded an internal affairs inquiry. The photographer claimed that a Durham officer roughed him up when he was photographing a crime scene on November 3. A magistrate dismissed all charges.

The photographer was arrested for “abusive language.” If this constitutes a crime in Durham, I wonder why the DPD failed to arrest Mike Nifong this summer, after the “minister of justice” unleashed a public, profanity-laced tirade against a lawyer representing an unidicted lacrosse player.

According to the Herald-Sun, the arrest “resulted in about $500 in damage to the car” of the defendant. (For reasons that the story failed to explain, the arresting officer threw the photographer up against his car.) A spokesperson for the Durham Police said the department wouldn’t conduct an internal affairs investigation of the incident.

How, again, reassuring.

--------

In the Duke 2005-2006 yearbook, the section on the men’s lacrosse team has five paragraphs. After opening with a paragraph on the season, the yearbook contains the following four paragraphs on the case:

The Blue Devils had jumped out to a 5-1 start when allegations of rape, robbery, kidnapping, strangulation and racist remarks arose after a March 13th party held at an off-campus house leased to captains of the team. As the investigation began, the team continued to practice, defeating rival University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 11-8 and losing to then third-ranked Cornell 7-11.

Protests ensued as various media swarmed the campus. Some billed the incident a “perfect storm” of race, class, gender and town-gown relations. On March 22nd, 46 members of the lacrosse team were ordered to give DNA samples and a search of the off-campus house was conducted. Athletic Director Joe Alleva suspended the Blue Devils' next two games. He cited the team’s irresponsible behavior of under-age drinking and hiring two exotic dancers, both of which the team acknowledged had occurred at the party. University President Richard Brodhead then announced the further suspension of the season until the case was concluded.

On April 4th, head coach Mike Pressler resigned. Coach Pressler was a three-time ACC Coach of the Year and the 2005 USILA National Coach of the Year. He led the Men’s Lacrosse Team to a 153-82 record, 3 ACC Titles and 10 NCAA Tournament berths in 16 seasons at Duke.

Since then, at least one player has been suspended and three players have been indicted for 1st degree forcible rape, 1st degree sexual offense and kidnapping. The court date is May 15th. The initial DNA tests returned negative, although results of a new round of tests are still pending. A committee asked by President Brodhead to investigate the conduct of the lacrosse program has recommended that the team be reinstated for the next school year. The members of the team's junior class have all stated that they will remain at Duke for their senior year.

No mention of the Group of 88’s statement. No mention of the dubious nature of Mike Nifong’s conduct, or the torrent of criticism that Nifong has received. No mention that the inquiry occurred during a tightly-contested primary in which Nifong desperately needed to win the black vote. No mention of the Durham Police Department’s official policy of disproportionately targeting Duke students. No mention of Reade Seligmann presenting an alibi that included an ATM video of his someplace else at the time of the alleged attack. No mention of Richard Brodhead’s appalling remark, after the arrest of Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, that “If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough.” No mention, even, that the players had strongly maintained their innocence.

In fact, no mention of anything negative about anyone except for members of the lacrosse team, despite the significance of this contextual information. And people wonder why the Brodhead administration has received criticism for throwing the players under the bus.

--------

North Carolina Central has a community service requirement, whereby students must perform between 4 and 11 hours of community service per semester, depending on their overall courseload. The guidelines state that students who fail to perform their community service will be blocked from registering in the following semester.

In a follow-up on the accuser’s status as a “student,” a poster on the TalkLeft boards noted that while the accuser is listed (p. 80) as performing 15 hours of community service in the current academic year, she has no community service hours listed for any other year. This anomaly raises the question of how the accuser previously was able to maintain full-time status.

I should note that it amazes me, given FERPA requirements, that NCCU places this information on the web.

---------

espn.com reports that the NBA just fined Houston Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy a total of $25,000 after Van Gundy publicly complained about . . . poor officiating regarding the Rockets' center, Yao Ming. This time, however, Van Gundy cited not "phantom calls" but instead that the officials tolerated "reckless" behavior that produced "mayhem." The coach added,

It just irritated me. The whole game irritated me the way he was officiated. 'There was no contact,' [officials said] yet there was blood streaming down his arm. They tell you there's no contact and you're watching blood flow, unless he's so self-hurtful he's taking his own nails to his skin and ripping it open to draw attention to himself, you have to ask yourself, 'What am I seeing? Why can't what I'm seeing and he's obviously feeling and seeing be seen?'

Readers are invited to speculate on how Group of 88 member Grant Farred will interpret this comment in his widely expected sequel, Phantom Calls, II: The Duke Faculty’s Rush to Judgment.

---------

Group of 88 member Alex Rosenberg has struggled to offer a convincing rationale for his decision to sign the so-called “listening statement.” To the New York Sun, he made a blatantly sexist comment about Duke female students; in the Duke Chronicle thread, he put forward a new rationale, suggesting that he signed to express his disgust with excessive drinking—even though the statement contained no mention of alcohol use by students.

Rosenberg’s responses generated strong criticism from Chronicle readers, prompting the professor to recently post an item wondering why no one had defended the stance he took. (I can’t imagine why . . . ) He added, however, the following paragraph.

As Johnson seems to have discovered (I have no idea how...in the defendant's discovery process?), Reid [sic] Seligman [sic] was a student in a class I taught a few years ago. It was a small class and I got to know Mr. Seligman pretty well. We had lacrosse as a common interest (I studied at Hopkins and taught at Syracuse for years--two centers of the game). Based on my acquaintance, I cannot believe Reid Seligman guilty of the rape charges lodged against him.

(As I have noted on several occasions, I learned that he taught Seligmann when Seligmann’s transcript was included in a defense motion, which appeared online.)

Anyhow, it’s good to see Rosenberg do now what he should have done instead of joining the Group of 88’s public denunciation—defend a student that he’s taught who’s both of demonstrably high character and demonstrably innocent.

Given the high profile that the Group of 88’s statement received, I hope that Rosenberg will strive to make his faith in Seligmann’s innocence as widely known as his earlier condemnation.

Hat tips: S.D., J.R.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

Duke's professors continue to be embarrassing. The alumni need to replace the trustees and the university administration. Brodhead's silence is deafening.

Anonymous said...

Thank you. Someone finally wrote about the yearbook. A LAX family member contacted me about that when the year book came out. I could not believe the filth in that yearbook. How would you like to had sent your non-lax kid to Duke for 4 years and come home with that as a momento. And the yearbook refers to 5/15/06. Why?

I suggest a yearbook bonfire!

Anonymous said...

The yearbook is a P.O.S. I was on the student government and we have tried to to cut their funding for YEARS. Unfortunately our government is about as useful as the one in Washington. (i'm republican, please no comments) It's publishers are an incestious (sp?) group of losers that post pictures of their friends and do little to document the memories of the current year.

Joe T. said...

Can't have it both ways. I've already decided Rosenberg has no credibility, so his opinion that Seligmann is innocent, based on his association with him, carries no weight with me. If he said Seligmann was innocent because of the ATM photos and DNA evidence, that would be more legitimate.

Anonymous said...

joe t. makes a good point. Who cares about the opinion of a man with so little credibility?

mtwain said...

Where does Duke find these professors? What an embarrassment! And why do the rest of the non-88 Duke professors remain silent? Do they not care about this miscarriage of justice?

Anonymous said...

I know this doesn't hit one of the topics covered in KC's latest post but it does touch yesterday's post.

If Nifong has such a strong case, why doesn't he turn it over to a special prosecutor? That way, he and the community get their trial, and the lax supporters get their wish to see the "evidence" independently reviewed.

Everyone's happy.

WINDBAG

Anonymous said...

The yearbook commentary is a disgrace. What do they plan to do for the 07 book, write a sequel? As to the accuser's community service, it's obvious she has been servicing the community for a long time.

Anonymous said...

why is everyone so concerned with punishing left-wing faculty with their typical POVs? other academic, legal etc communities all over the US share the views of the 88

what one should be concerned with is the ability of the left-winger to express a well-written, rational argument--IMO, duke's affirmative-action contingent, beginning with houston baker, have demonstrated that lots of good money is being wasted on mediocrities

i see little creative analysis about this case on this site--nifong is but 1 problem here--to protect the innocent in the future predators like precious need to made an example of--why isn't anyone calling for dear precious to be prosecuted? the underclass doesn't want to go to prison, but they will surely engage in thuggish behavior when they know society will tolerate it

KC, don't hyphenate ly adverbs when you create compound adjectives (eg, "tightly-contested)

Anonymous said...

The yearbook write up is unreal. Who wrote that? It sounds like something a reporter at the Herald-Sun would write.

P.S. That is not a compliment.

ec said...

I agree with 12:37. Especially these two paragraphs:

what one should be concerned with is the ability of the left-winger to express a well-written, rational argument--IMO, duke's affirmative-action contingent, beginning with houston baker, have demonstrated that lots of good money is being wasted on mediocrities

i see little creative analysis about this case on this site--nifong is but 1 problem here--to protect the innocent in the future predators like precious need to made an example of--why isn't anyone calling for dear precious to be prosecuted? the underclass doesn't want to go to prison, but they will surely engage in thuggish behavior when they know society will tolerate it


I do not mind a certain portion of all university professoriate being liberal. I think it adds to a university education. One certainly grows out of it once they leave the setting and begins to experience the real world. What we have in academia now is not liberal, but extreme, intolerant Marxist ideology. They self-select their own types and the social science departments are filled with these idiots. What 12:37 astutely adds is that this ultra left is compounded with mediocre minds thanks to AA and other quota systems seeking "diversity".

The second paragraph of 12:37's needs to be brought to the fore as well. That being false prosecutions and severe penalties for such people who blatantly disregard the system.

Anonymous said...

The Herald Sun editorial editors, including Ashley, certainly aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. The level of their writing ability is on par with a high school paper on a good day.

Along with their inexcusable consistent support of Mike Nifong and the corrupt Durham Police Department, none of the editors seem to have even a fundamental understanding of economics.

Recently, one of these editorial dullards wrote a piece about how George Bush had brought the price of gasoline down just in time for the November elections. LOL!

Anyone who doesn't understand that this scenario would be impossible is most certainly an uneducated fool.

Therefore, it is perhaps out of stupidity or ignorance, or both, that these HS editorial editors shine the boots of Nifong with every word.

No wonder people have stopped subscribing to that biased and unethical rag.

ed said...

Hmmmm.

1. I thought Broadhead's position was that Duke University wasn't in loco parentis of it's students?

Isn't that the justification for trying to undermine the LAX players legal rights?

And yet now they're banning gambling by students? I assume from the wording that this ban is year-round rather than just on campus. So if a students goes to Las Vegas for a weekend of craps, this would justify banning the student?

How is possible without in loco parentis?

Anonymous said...

The problem with the 88 is not that they are left wing. I, personally, don't care about that. The problem I have is that they rushed to condemn the players and presume them guilty, trampled all over their due process rights, and used this "event" to further their own political agendas. It is a big problem when professors act this way towards their own students.

Anonymous said...

I will tell you why we should be so concerned with the group of 88 because they are our children's professors. To think they have had some of these lacrosse players in their classes and know them personally and can not stand up for them is incredulous.

Joe T. said...

Anonymous 2:03 : Yes, left-wing is fine. Universities should be presenting all types of views to its students. What's wrong is left-wing dishonesty in a case so serious. For example: I might be teaching a course about the abuse of Native Americans by the U.S. cavalry, and take the point of view that it came about because of European belief that Natives are savages, but I'm not allowed to accuse three modern cavalrymen of a crime when the scientific evidence says they're innocent, just because I wanted something to make my teachings more relevant. Time for those 88 to state "I was wrong in this case." Will we ever see that?

bill anderson said...

The problem is not the leftism per se of the Duke faculty. What is different today is the outright politicizing of the academic curriculum. Furthermore, these faculty members regard people only in abstract terms and do not see them as individuals.

Take Karla Holloway's "white innocence means black guilt" statement. In the real world, it makes absolutely no sense, but in the abstract, politicized world of a Karla Holloway, it has meaning. When translated into the real world, it means: "David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann MUST be convicted of rape because they are part of an oppressive and politically incorrect social and racial class of people.

In Karla World, things like evidence, DNA, and the like are part of the oppression. The players are guilty, should go to prison, or maybe even be killed because politics demands it to be so.

Furthermore, I would say that most if not all of the Evil Gang of 88 pretty much thinks in those terms. These are not people who can do anything normally. Literally every choice they make from where to shop (I'll bet most of them stay away from Wal-Mart) to things they purchase, to the television shows they watch, everything is governed by political implications and the love of power.

Now, to most of us, this is a pretty pathetic way to live, but that is life on many college faculties. Thus, when the Duke faculty became aware of the charges, they sensed a power vacuum and went to work.

The other thing that is important to remember is that we are dealing with the politics not only of rape and race, but also of what Shelby Steele calls "white guilt." I would say that while Richard Brodhead is not the kind of political radical that one sees with the Evil Gang of 88, he does live in a world of "white guilt" and acts accordingly.

Anonymous said...

response to bill:

appreciated the post, but i have to take issue with shelby steele's "white guilt"--this is total nonsense--whites and asians don't feel guilty because problematic populations aren't succeeding--the controlling relationship bedtween whites and blacks is FEAR of blacks and of being called a racist

eg, if i were to argue that the worst thing that ever happened to the US was slavery, all would agree--but if i were to qualify it in present-day terms by arguing that blacks, on average, tend to be a horrible drain on society (eg, transfer payments, crime, affirmative action, lowering standards at elite institutions, etc), everyone would call me a racist

it's called the american dilemma--let's open the window on this

Anonymous said...

It isn't the left-leaning views as much as the PC agenda. Being PC means breaking everyone down on the basis of race, gender and class and then evaluating everyone through that prism.

From a PC viewpoint the three indicted players are total losers. They are white, male and from generally well-off/privileged backgrounds. The accuser is very PC as an African-American woman from an unprivileged background. Acquitting such un-PC defendants of a crime against a very PC accuser would be a blow to the PC agenda and for people afflicted with the PC mentality, that just cannot happen. They aren't interested in facts or evidence. Gender, class and most of all race, is where it begins and ends for them.

Anonymous said...

6:47, well said

i'd agree that the 3 are losers--mediocrities who'll make money on Wall Street but never contribute anything extraordinary to society--think they were poorly coached by their lawyers for "60": they didn't convey the gravity of the predator's slander

just because they're intellectual lightweights does't mean they're guilty, however

they just aren't likable--at least to me

Anonymous said...

7:46 - I think you missed my point. I said they were losers from a PC viewpoint because they are white, male and well-off.

Since I don't subscribe to the PC agenda, I don't feel that way and I don't judge people on those terms. The players are clearly good athletes and I think they are good students as well. Reade Seligmann's transcript shows him to be a good student and Dave Evans was on the ACC academic honor role. I don't know about Finnerty's college grades but he was an honor student in high school. They don't seem mediocre to me. I'm not sure what your problem is with them but I don't share it. To be totally honest, you sound jealous.

TombZ said...

Beautiful comment 7:46. What an incoherent A**hole, just what we need.

You don't know any one of these kids and you surely are not much of a judge of character.

So, what was your point?

Anonymous said...

Dear 7:46 pm. What did you contribute to society? Do tell. I am sure it must be something.

Anonymous said...

In regards to 6:47's comments I wonder how well the AV would have come off if she had showed her face on 60 minutes. I don't think any amount of coaching would bring that off.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe T. said...

Mr. Anderson: You describe that well, the way certain politicizing leftists place no value on the individual. The Duke 3 are just symbols to them instead of people. Those kinds of leftists, if given the power, would probably be as murderous as Hitler, Mao, Stalin...

bill anderson said...

Indeed, the biggest supporters of the worst dictators and mass murderers of the 20th Century were the university "intellectuals" of the United States, Great Britain, and Europe. I would urge all of you to read the book "Political Pilgramages" written about 25 years ago by Paul Hollander that gives details about how U.S. intellectuals were unrelenting in their support of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, and Castro.

That these men were responsible for the execution and starvation deaths of millions of people did not bother them in the least. Either they dismissed the claims as "conspiracy theories" or they insisted that the building of a "new society" requires brutality in the short run.

Compare these people to the Evil Gang of 88, and you can see the resemblence. Once someone dismisses the humanity of someone and sees him or her solely through a political definition, then the stage for more political mass murder is being set.

I do not hold back at all in my condemnation of this element of the Duke faculty. These are not good people, by any stretch of the imagination, and anyone who literally tries to railroad innocent people into prison just to satisfy his or her political urges is not someone with a shred of decency.

Both K.C. and I are horrified at the conduct of many on the Duke faculty. Yes, we understand the background of their thinking, but that does not make it any more acceptable.

Joe T. said...

Mr. Anderson: Thanks for the suggestions of the book. And, yes, I do see how much the Duke 88 mirror those examples you mention. And I'm not trying to be rabble-rousing or over-dramatic saying that. I honest-to-God (or honest-to-goodness, since I'm not too religious) see them as those kinds of malicious people, somehow trying to convince themselves and each other and the rest of us that they are the "good" ones. (And before anyone calls me a reactionary conservative, I'm far from it. I'm as untraditional as they come, situationally, sexually, philosophically, and in just about every other way. But I'm sure going to stand up for the falsely accused).

Anonymous said...

K.C., I don't know why you would associate the administration with the yearbook entry. At most colleges, and I would think Duke too, the yearbook is written by the student staff of the yearbook without significant faculty involvement.

Georgia Tech Rape Victim said...

A string of skillfully executed rapes occurred in the early 1960s by an upperclassman living on fraternity row at Georgia Tech where the bond of Greek brotherhood remains every bit as unshakable today as it did in the sixties. I was a virgin, set up in advance (twice!) by a person I trusted. I was drugged. My life was derailed, but I would never tell (jeeze, it was the "sixties"). I could not even confront the rapist. To confront the rapist would mean acknowledging to myself that "rape" actually happened. Even worse, the second scenario was "gang rape". Nobody can imagine what I went through ... depression, anger, repressed memories, and flashbacks for 43 years. This monster belongs behind bars for the malevolent tactics he used to dehumanize me and other unsuspecting women. Instead, he golfs, plays gin and sips scotch at the club. And with much arrogance, he recently said to me (after I finally confronted him), "Is this some kind of joke?".
As with any rapist, lies the incessant need to overpower, but Jim Dickinson's single most compelling reason for the degradation of women was this:
"the constant and overwhelming struggle to convince himself that he liked girls (in that way), and to prove his masculinity to the brotherhood"
Aww, the good ol' days in Atlanta! Dodd Stadium, the Varsity Drive-In, Hank & Jerry's Tavern, Witts Inn, Aunt Fanny's Cabin. Such innocence! Date rape drugs didn't exist back then? Wrong! How about Special K. Frat members robbed animal clinics to get their hands on magical drugs.
Now then, if this could happen to a so-called nice girl from a traditional family in an upper-class neighborhood, you can bet that date-rape was a huge weekend draw on fraternity row. Their only prerequisite? Make sure the girl wasn't too smart. I believe that not "all" the brothers participated, yet "all" operated under a veil of secrecy -- all in the name of brotherhood and bonding.
Thank you for the opportunity to post this comment. Anyone can contact me at georgia_tech_rape@yahoo.com.

huesofblue said...

The idea that all 88 of these faculty members are raving lunatics is a little over the top.

Aside from three unfortunate sentences in the listening statement that presume "something happened" and give a pat on the back to the protestors, the listening statement is pretty tame. The brunt of the statement goes to student complaints of widespread racism and sexism on campus. Given the shocking nature of the allegations against the players at the time and the DA's adamance about the players' guilt, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the faculty members who signed it. I'm sure some are raving lunatics, but suspect more saw the "silence" and "lack of cooperation" from the team as the equivalent of OJ Simpson's low-speed chase in the white Bronco. In hindsight, I would hope that most of the 88 would feel some regret. And I think it's pretty bad that none have come out to say as much re their rush to judgement. But with a handful of exceptions, that's where most of their sins end. To heap condemnation on the 88 to the same degree as Nifong strikes me as a bit agenda driven itself.

Just because they're university professors that signed onto a PC statement (that their academic departmrnt was sponsering), doesn't mean they'D support Stalin or want to see innocent people out to jail for being upper-class white males. Yes, some of the 88 have made ridiculous and public claims about the accused students. But assuming that all of the 88 share those views is a bit like assuming that all of the LAX players are klansmen because of comments that one of them made under exceptional circumstances.

Anonymous said...

To 7:46

Your do NOT know these guys...they are the best. Polite, respectful and yes they DO contribute to society. READ!!! The lacrosse team as a whole have contributed to MANY community sevice projects in Durham. Most of these boys have done community service since back in middle school, as guided by their parents and continue to do so, in Durham TODAY!! No one has to convience them. They understand 'giving back' is just part of being a citizen these days.

Am SO tired of hearing that these are bad kids. Anything but...I am SO tired about reading about racism. They are NOT racist! It was Nifong that made it into a racist issue for his own political gain.
Intelligent lightweights...don't think so. You should be so luckly to have all the quality traits that these players have.
The subject here is justice. Unfortunatly that is NOT something Durham seems to have. It is a disgrace that the NC Bar and Attorney General have not stepped in. The travesty here, worse than the Duke 3 HOAX, is that the citizens of Durham fail to see the big picture here and how it is ultimately going to effect your own.You have been played, big time with all the lies.
A DUKE Lax Mom AND SO VERY PROUD OF IT!!!

AMac said...

GTRV 8:05am,

Thanks for writing. You should know that most readers' here have taken sides against the Durham D.A. and with the three men accused of rape because of the:

(1) Overwhelming evidence of abuse of police and prosecutorial powers, specifically in violating the Due Process rights of the accused, and

(2) Overwhelming evidence that the crime of rape did not occur, and thus that the three indicted men did not commit it.

These are not pro-rape or misogynistic stances. No sensible person believes that rape is not a problem, or that rapists should not be punished.

A hypothetical question: as you struggled to deal with the injustice and evil done to you, would it have given you closure if a crusading prosecutor had railroaded a conviction of a John Doe for your rape--if this John Doe had never set foot on Georgia Tech's campus and could not possibly have been the actual assailant? I hope not, and expect not. The point of Due Process is to protect society from such abuses. This is why the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax has attracted such attention.

As a corollary, how will a police/prosecutor team that works to convict the innocent perform in terms of identifying the truly guilty, and ensuring that they are convicted? Unsurprisingly, the evidence from Durham is, "not well at all."

Georgia Tech Rape Victim said...

Hypothetically speaking, no. The conviction of an innocent man would be tragic, and would not bring me closure. Actually, there IS no closure to having been raped. Wait! I can think of one appropriate penalty -- "the removal of the rapist's vital organ without anesthesia in a grand arena with thousands of on-lookers". (sorry)

As far as the lacrosse team's guilt or innocence, the prosecution has yet to begin. So let's sit tight and see what happens. Certainly, the accusations will have a life-long effect on the accused and their families. If innocent, that is indeed terribly sad.

Anonymous said...

re 1:02 am

dimwit moderator: i note u deleted a funny characterization of precious the predator last night, but y don't delete an entry by a supposed rape victim who names her "rapist"--better delete it or u may be liable for libel

Anonymous said...

duke mom 9:11

your grammar is appalling:

the verb is "affect"

"effect" is a noun

AMac said...

GTRV 10:32am --

> As far as the lacrosse team's guilt or innocence, the prosecution has yet to begin. So let's sit tight and see what happens.

You are like many others with a righteous cause in imagining that the Durham prosecutor and police are your allies as they continue their blatantly illegal and unethical conduct. If, after reading this blog, you can't understand why you are mistaken--and, clearly, you can't--there isn't anything I could add that would convince you otherwise.

One of the remarkable aspects of this hoax is that your point of view is so widely and so adamantly held.

Anonymous said...

expecting rational arguments from the cognitively challenged:

don't hold your breath--1 of the rules of "multiculturalism" (better known in the real world as black studies) is that rationality and quality are eurocentric concepts that demonize the black man--so it is not surprising that many in the black community honestly believe that sean combs and oprah are just as important as bill gates and stephen hawking--i'm not kidding--they argue that alice walker is just as important as shakespeare--just another reason why the cognitively challenged be kept out of elite institutions

Anonymous said...

1:02 AM, I agree with you that it makes no sense for KC to blame Brodhead for the comments about the LAX case appearing in the Duke yearbook. However, this is not the first time that KC has taken a cheap shot at Brodhead, and I am sure it will not be the last. I find it interesting that when you called him on it, he did not respond to your comment and made no attempt at all to justify what he had said. This tells me that he knew that the comment was garbage before he posted it, but that he just went ahead and posted it anyway because he enjoys taking the cheap shots.

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.02am:

I know the normal procedure at most institutions, but it is inconceivable to me, given the specifics of this case, that the wording of the yearbook material wasn't cleared with the administration.

Imagine, for instance, if the yearbook staff had planned an item saying that Nifong had exploited the case for political purposes, I rather doubt the words would have been allowed to appear in print.

To the 11.40am:

I apologize for not responding to the 1.02's comment more rapidly; I try to monitor comments, but occasionally have other duties to which I have to attend.

I invite you to reread the post, which says "Brodhead administration," not "Brodhead."

Georgia Tech Rape Victim said...

(Anonymous posted the following comment at 7:46):

>You do NOT know these guys...they are the best. Polite, respectful and yes they DO contribute to society.<

Okay, so they are respected pillars of the community with sterling reputations. Just like the Kennedies and Clintons, right?

To AMac: Truly, I see your point regarding the Duke situation! I'm trying to stay on middle ground here and remain objective. Remember, I was a victim of the frat culture which thrives on male dominance and agression.

Georgia Tech Rape Victim said...

i meant "aggression"

Anonymous said...

KC, do you have any evidence to support the idea that the commentary about the LAX case appearing in the yearbook was cleared by the administration? If not, then why did you state so unequivocally that the commentary proves that the administration has thrown the LAX players under the bus without indicating that this is really just pure speculation on your part?

Anonymous said...

For posterity, by adding the jaded editorial in the Duke Year Book, Duke University has sealed its fate. It will forever be rememebered for the tremendous errors in judgement, racist comments and rush to judgement of 3 innocent young men. When this case is finally over and the young men's names have been cleared, all the Pro Nifongers, Nifong, DPD, the accuser, the Duke 88, and the ani-truth talking heads, will be
proven to be the unintelligent, racists, pot bangers who used the Constitutional rights of these young men to push their own agendas and self worth. This case will be study for many years to come. It will be picked apart and the evil doers, enablers and aiders of this hoax have sealed their fate in history. Everyone knows these boys are innocent, a false accusation guided by a manical DA and hate filled people.

KC Johnson said...

To the 2.00:

You're right: I should have noted that the item was either (a) cleared by someone in the administration; or (b) an organization housed in the Duke Office of Student Affairs effectively ceded from the University office in which it was housed, and was allowed to publish unchecked material on an issue in which the university's legal office was, by that point, involved. I guess option (b) would suggest that the Brodhead administration is characterized by monumental incompetence--a flaw that, whatever else can be said of the administration, I have not previously detected.

Either conclusion, I should note, affirms the point that I made in the post.

Joe T. said...

Isn't it beside the point whether the Duke 3 are nice guys or jerks? No people should be falsely accused of a crime, whether we like them or not. Break that rule, and society will fall into chaos.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bill anderson said...

Does this troll know Collin Finnerty, or is he just referring to the DC incident? As we already know, the person who brought the charges was not gay, nor did anyone say that Finnerty was engaged in "gay bashing" that night. It was an argument in a bar, and no one even was touched.

The credibility of Precious speaks for herself. It is interesting that the people who know her best are the ones who are speaking out against her, while the ones who do not know her are her biggest defenders.

In the case of the Duke 3, the people who know them best are speaking out FOR them, and people like the previous troll who have never had an inkling of contact with any lacrosse player is the one most vociferous in his condemnation. I think this tells us what we need to know about the character of the people involved in this case.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

To the GT rape victim:

There is no evidence of a rape having occurred at all...especially by the three accused. The only DNA in her, was her boyfriend's.

I'm sorry for your ordeal, but a false allegation, such as this, harms all real victims like yourself.

Shold those accused "sit tight" while the DA desperately seeks to prove a crime took place? The rush to indict here is unforgiveable, especially by REAL victims.

Anonymous said...

To JoeT.You are correct, it is besides the point if they are nice guys or jerks. But those of us out there that know these players, take offense to the DA and some bloggers saying bad things about them when they have NO idea what they are talking about.
Perfect..no..good guys...yes.
Make a mistake...obviously..
again...justice is the point. Clearly that has not happened in this HOAX.

Georgia Tech Rape Victim said...

Anonymous said this: "I'm sorry for your ordeal, but a false allegation, such as this, harms all real victims like yourself".

You are NOT alone ... a blogger from another site told me the same thing.

The LAST thing I want to do is associate myself with the "accuser" in the Duke scandal. It's just that I'm so anxious to get my story out on ANY blog that is remotely related to fraternity rape.

I'm jumped the gun.... sorry!

But Anonymous, you made another comment in reference to the Duke players that riled the hell out of me, as follows:

"Perfect..no..good guys...yes.
Make a mistake...obviously.."

What in the world does that mean???
Are you eluding to a "lapse in judgement" or an "indiscretion" and, if guilty, blame it on youth -- forgive and forget?
GTRV

AMac said...

GTRV,

What is 'special' about the Duke lacrosse rape case is that it is possible for people who were not present to come to firm conclusions about what felonies did or did not transpire. The "no crime" narrative is detailed, internally consistent, and comports with the facts that have been made known through discovery, reporting, and leaks. In contrast, the D.A.'s changing stories are illogical and contradicted by established facts at many points.

You probably understand that no reader here can make a meaningful judgement on events that you describe from your past. In your own journey, I hope you find closure, and a measure of peace.