Friday, December 29, 2006

The Reaction

The lead editorial in the New York Daily News—whose editorial board has a centrist, center-left bent—states, “It has become plainly obvious that a gross miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated against the three Duke University lacrosse players who were charged last spring with raping a stripper at a raucous house party.”

Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans, the editors assert, “are the targets of an irresponsible prosecution by a race-baiting, politically craven district attorney.” After reviewing the mounds of exculpatory evidence and the district attorney’s procedurally “outrageous” behavior, the Daily News concludes: “Yes, there was a crime here. And Nifong committed it.”

The editorial page of the Charlotte Observer opens with a cartoon lampooning Nifong’s habit of “hiding the evidence.”

The N&O quotes former state Supreme Court chief justice Burley Mitchell, who termed the complaint “truly extraordinary.” He added, “From the time I was Wake County’s elected district attorney until I was chief justice, I can’t recall the Bar filing a complaint against a district attorney for pretrial publicity.” And former Nifong associate Lisa Williams (who earlier in the case offered pro-Nifong remarks) predicted, “I feel like this is the first shoe. And the second shoe is coming.”

The Herald-Sun, which at long last has discovered the existence of Jim Coleman, features the Duke law professor offering a blunt analysis: “I think that early in the case, his conduct clearly violated the rules. I don’t think any explanation he makes can fly.” He predicted that the DHC would find Nifong guilty and sanction him. ““Mike Nifong used to have an excellent reputation among lawyers,” Coleman noted. “For some reason, it seems he lost it on this particular case. It’s too bad it’s come to this.”

Both Coleman and Duke spokesperson John Burness also demanded that Nifong step aside.

106 comments:

Anonymous said...

At last our rat of DA is drowning and now the circling sharks are coming in for the kill.

Yesterday the blood letting commenced with the NC State Bars actions! Now we require the Federals to come for the crooked cops that aided this hoax from day one.

Someone in Nifongs or DPD offices must be seeking a lifeboat soon and will let us all now how deep the festering was?

Its awfully quiet from the Durham enablers to day....I wonder why ?????

Anonymous said...

I think it is time for one of the 'enablers' to cut a deal.

Anonymous said...

I am sure at least some of the enablers read this blog. Cutting a deal (but with whom) would be good advice.

Anonymous said...

Nifong two DPD "investigators" where with him when he went to the DNA lab twice. They ran the rigged lineup, the testified before the grand jury. Baldo, doctored his notes. Linwood (Da investigator) claims that the DR (stripclub owner) never called to change his affiavate. Phone records are easily checked.

How long before one of them runs to a Fed DA to avoid jail?

They have to see whats coming.

Anonymous said...

Lets not forget Meehan wants to stay out of jail. And he's not part of the Durham mafia. He's the weakest link.

Josh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

One dukie has enrolled in Hofster in NYC. His father saids he is not sending his son back to Durham.

Josh said...

Does anyone know if and when the two younger accused will be able to restart their studies at Duke (if they still want to), and also if the captain of the team who was charged (who did graduate) has been re-offered the job he lost?

bill anderson said...

Compare the Daily News to the silence and enabling of the New York Times. Even now, the Times is trying to save its boy. Talk about cravenness.

When newspapers around the country are weighing in like this, no North Carolina politician can hide. I would especially think that the Democratic Party in North Carolina is nervous, since all of the central players in the hoax are Democrats.

(James Coleman, too, is a Democrat, and he has stood against the tide. But his party -- and the Republicans, for that matter -- mostly has kept silence.)

All it will take is for one prominent Democrat to denounce Nifong, and then the cascade will begin. I liken it to Joe Lieberman's speech on the Senate floor in 1998 that denounced Bill Clinton's conduct in the Lewinsky case. Right after that, others joined in, breaking their silence.

Now, what Nifong did is infinitely more serious than Clinton's dalliances with Monica in the Oval Office. Clinton was doing what many other politicians do; Nifong, on the other hand, has committed offenses that go to the very heart of justice. I predict that the silence from other politicians will soon be over.

Victim in Massachusetts said...

10:36 Duke will only allow Collin and Reade back on campus if and when the charges are dropped or they are found not guilty.

But if I were either of them I would think twice about going back to Duke.
Remember they will still be on campus with 88 professors that don't like them, a president without a back bone and entire city of AA that might want to still carry out their own form of justice.

If they were my boys I wouldn't allow them within a mile of Durham.

KC Johnson said...

In his 60 Minutes interview, Reade Seligmann said it was very unlikely he would return to Duke.

I certainly understand why: I cannot imagine what it would be like to see your own institution's professors behave as Duke's faculty has done in this case.

Anonymous said...

If Nifong actually believed in his case, he would withdraw. None of the facts would change and an able prosecutor from the attorney generals office would take over. If he had facts, such a move would enhance the possibility of a conviction both because and independent reveiw by a credible source would quiet the media and because the new prosecutor would have credibility with the jury that Nifong lacks (the change of venue motion would certainly be granted given the state bar complaint).

Attorneys routinely make this type of decision, at least ethical ones do. If a Judge does not like a particularly attorney, the attorny is duty bound to decline a case in front of that Judge, or at least give the client an option. If you lose a trial, even if you did a great job, it is incumbent upon you to tell the client to at least consider getting an objective look from an appellate specialist.


But Nifong can't withdraw because he has no facts and the case is about him and has always been about him. So, the fact that he has not and will not withdraw despite obvious conflicts and loss of effectiveness (in the most important case of his career he didn't read the underlying documents) is absolute proof that he doesn't care whether he wins or loses the case, as long as he protects himself.

Roux said...

If Nifong did this once he's probably done it before. I wonder how this may affect any convictions that he has had? Although, many of his actions are suspect the withholding of lab evidence is extremely troubling.

Roux

bill anderson said...

That is a most excellent point. Remember, he falsely claimed to the NY Times that the central strategy of the defense was to demonize him.

False! The defense presented the facts, and then when the prosecution declared that facts do not matter, then they filed complaints.

It is extraordinary that attorneys would even do what they did, and remember that the defense team is composed of highly-respected, and very capable and experienced lawyers. Had they been filing frivolous claims, they would have placed their own law licenses in jeopardy.

The courts look askance at attorneys personally attacking prosecutors and judges. They simply cannot do it. That they did tells me that they REALLY had a case against Nifong.

This is a time that requires clear thinking. K.C.'s instincts are on the money here, and he is not given to exaggeration. Read his other work; he is ALWAYS restrained in how he approaches his subjects, and that has been the pattern here.

Thus, when he predicts disbarment for Nifong, he is not simply wishing out loud. He understands the underlying patterns of this case and where they will lead.

All of us are indebted to K.C.'s work, and that includes other prosecutors. He has given them a way to deal with problems in their profession, and to give them a platform by which to cull out the worst of the bunch. Now, I would like to see some hardcore housecleaning of ALL prosecutorial staffs, but that is not going to happen.

Thus, I am happy with this most important development, because for now it is a greater victory for justice than I ever thought would happen.

Anonymous said...

I think Reade and Collin are much better off not returning to Duke. Duke's behavior is used as one of the reasons in a change of venue motion. Those professors are not going anywhere. And never mind Duke is in Durham where Nifong is still a DA, and Durham is full of people supporting Nifong (as evidenced by him being elected). I hope that Reade and Collin transfer to another school and move on.

drinkof said...

I have a small bone to pick with the wording in the introduction of the WSJ piece. In it, you stated that "He was badly behind and out of campaign money ..."

Any reader who's followed political stories reads this as 1) running behind with the voters and 2) running low on cash.

On the Duke LAX case, any reader is going to look carefully for bias; you'd have to be a fool not to with all the nonsense that's been floated. By using a phrase such as 'badly behind', particularly in contrast with 'out of campaign money', you clearly imply notable voter discontent. As you also know, it's just not credible that there would have been, without scandal or other factors which would have broken into the press, any notable erosion in general voter support. Incumbents almost always win in these situations, and the clear implication that the Durham voting public was leaving Nifong at that point in time just didn't make sense to the reader who knows that, at this point of a campaign, 99% of voters haven't given it a thought. There would have been no polls (again, who would pay?) or other such. This begs for (and got, in my initial reading) misinterpretation.

After reviewing the excellent blog post on this (from October) it's clear that it could have been accurately stated:

"He was out of campaign money and his support was eroding ..."

'Behind' implies the voters. 'Support', to the reader following local politics, implies the usual suspects who give you dough, put up signs, hold fundraisers, etc, IOW, the usual local political suspects. That phrase would have been much more accurate, and much less likely to invite misinterpretation.

Anonymous said...

I understand the outrage against Nifong; he has dug his own grave and should pay his fair share of the consequences. My problem is Nifong makes a politically correct scapegoat to let the angry, knee-jerk, race-baiting left off the hook. They jumped on this case when it was a "poor, black girl against three rich, white guys." It seems to me that letting the angry left hang this on Nifong entirely, and not on the lying, complaining witness who filed the complaint that ruined four lives (and counting), is a grossly insufficient resolution. Nifong fed the flames of the Take-Back-the-Night crowd, the printers of wanted posters and the p.c. mob mentality that was afoot in both the poor and ivory tower corners of liberal Durham; but please remember, they were already present when he came on the scene. He was an opportunist, not the inventor. Without the lying stripper, none of us ever hear the words "Mike Nifong" in our lives.

Anonymous said...

drinkof, maybe you should do a little research yourself. One of the people running against Nifong in the primary was Freda Black. She had high name recognition because she participated in Michael Peterson's trial.

Anonymous said...

Well, what do you expect? Quite a few have already declared that Precious is a victim of Nifong. Not that I feel sorry for Nifong, mind you.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what the deal is with Nifongs pension? Does he need to take office on 1/2/07 to ensure
receiving it or part of it?
I must avoid being vindictive, but where are the pot bangers, gang of 88, Bob Steel and Brodhead now?

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

At this point, the FA would be smart to hold her own press conference and come out against Nifong. She should tell everyone he basically held her captive and when she wanted the charges dropped he refused. She could say all she wanted was to stay out of jail that night.

It would be the path of least resistence for her. No way is this thing even going to trial.

Anonymous said...

"where are the pot bangers, gang of 88, Bob Steel and Brodhead now?"
They are in Durham, of course.

drinkof said...

"One of the people running against Nifong in the primary was Freda Black. She had high name recognition because she participated in Michael Peterson's trial."

Misses the point. I'm not saying he was a shoo-in, far from it. The $ gap alone (which KC outlined in the October post) would have been difficult to overcome.

I'm saying the choice of phrase 'badly behind', especially when combined with 'and out of campaign money' clearly implies (in standard journalistic conventions) that he was behind with the voters, which he was not. 99% of the voters didn't know or care at that point. It was a misleading phrase, which could have been better written as "he was out of campaign money and his support was eroding ..."

Josh said...

I think that if either Collin or Reade did decide to finish their studies at Duke they would be received well by the majority of the students and faculty. I'm sure most of the dukies have long since swung their mindsets over to the "this is a hoax/travesty".

I think they should stand tall and go back.

As to the 88 I'm sure there are quite a few who are thinking of ways to apologize. Most of them at the time felt it was a good bandwagon to jump on. Now they are thinking of how to jump off without garnering too much attention.

Anonymous said...

They can stand tall without going back. If I was one of them, I would never go back. Not if I was treated the way they were. No way.

Anonymous said...

Drinkof:

Nifong WAS behind with the voters. He won the primary over Freda Black by a couple of hundred votes. She was prepared to contest the results, but Democratic party officials talked her out of it.

Nobody knew who Nifong was; Black had a national reputation thanks to the successful prosecution of Michael Petersen. (Nifong was working the traffic court while she was on that case.) Nifong's handlers promised to deliver the election if he would spearhead the Duke hoax.

Want to continue to argue sematics and split hairs in the face of that information?

Anonymous said...

I am sure Colin/Reade know that the Group of 88 does not speak for the majority (or even a significant minority) of the student body. The Group of 88 are your typical Marxist academics who spend their days playing around with unnecessarily ornate language to describe simplistic leftist "thought". Viewed as fairly harmless and a phenomenon known to students at all colleges, and not indicative of their students in any real way. Harmless that is, until something like this happens and the stage they are given is amplified.

Anonymous said...

To drinkof. Misleading? Yet you claim 99 % of the voters did not know or care at that point. Care to provide numbers for that interesting statistic? How do you know how many voters knew or cared? KC blogged extensively about the primary and Nifong's campaign contributions. Go back and look at those blogs.

Anonymous said...

You are right...Reade is most likely not returning to Duke. It is my understanding that Yale is waiting for him.
Collin...last we heard is returning. The players cannot wait to have him rejoin the team. They would love for Reade to also return but he has made another, understandable, choice.
They will miss him.

Anonymous said...

I am confused about one thing - in most states when an investigation by the bar is started - the person being investigated would get a letter saying essentially - hey someone complained - here's why - we are investigating this. Is this done in NC? If yes - when was the letter sent/recieved and what change in conduct was made by Nifong? Perhaps one reason for the filing would be that he had changes his conduct for awhile then there was a reported 3 hour interview with the NYT.

Anonymous said...

Collin's father had already said Collin likely won't return to Duke as long as Nifong is the DA.

Anonymous said...

To Nifong.... this could be another way out for you. Go to the FA and ask her to take a lie detector test ask her if she was assaulted or detained if she fails the test , this could be your way out.

Jack Straw said...

It would take a lot of brass to go back to campus knowing you are a target for local PD and any liberal prof who has an axe to grind and a point to make - after all, didn't the Group of 88 say their statement was all about the culture of drinking on campus and not really about a brutal gang rape?

Can anyone confirm Yale offered Reade admission? If they did, it would be the first decent thing I have heard of Yale doing in about 150 years. I can only imagine the howls of outrage from Yale's own narrow-minded teachers of race and class victimology.

Anonymous said...

Reade decision to to return is understandable. People in Durham threatened his life.

What Yale's interest in Reade makes clear is that the whole idea he was a thoughtless out of control jock is slander. He can go anywhere he wants, everybody thinks he is a super guy, he has no detractors, and all he did was have a beer and leave.

dl said...

KC. I have been following your blog for the past few weeks. You've done a great job exposing what is an absolute travesty. I've taken two things away from this entire episode.

1) There needs to be serious reform in our legal system in protecting the rights of the accused. Had these boys not had the financial resources they have they would have most likely ended up in prison. This means re-evaluating things like rape-shield laws and the consistent violation of 4th ammendment rights that seems to be a prominent feature of the drug war.

2) There is significant intellectual rot in the academy in this country. I read your article on the higher ed website and was stunned by some of the comments. Not that they disagreed with you, but the tone and lack of intellectual substance of the rebuttals. For someone like myself, who is not directly involved in the academic world, I don't tend to focus on the problems in our universities. This lack of critical thinking skills exhibited by the professors at Duke and those who commmented on your article makes it hard to believe that they are imparting the necessary skills on our young people today so that they can succeed once they arrive in the "real" world.

Keep up the good work. You've done a great service with this blog.

Anonymous said...

I mean not to return.

Anonymous said...

To durkof, maybe it's bets to admit a mistake when you make it?
"Polls taken by Nifong’s opponent, a former assistant D.A. named Freda Black, showed Nifong, whose name recognition was marginal, running considerably behind her."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060904fa_fact

JoeH said...

From the NY Daily News opinion piece, “After reviewing the mounds of exculpatory evidence and the district attorney’s procedurally “outrageous” behavior, the Daily News concludes: “Yes, there was a crime here. And Nifong committed it.”
I think it would be safe to add the following line to this analysis, “aided, abetted and encouraged by the Duke 88 and the voters who returned him to office.”

Anonymous said...

To 12:42


Yes, the comments regarding defenders of the Duke three are soft intellectually. In particular, the assertion that this is a new issue and that nobody cared before white defendants were arrested. It is simply not true. Wrongful convictions have been an important discussion point in the legal profession and at large for decades with many reforms. This case is critical because we all can see it as it happens, because of the internet and because of Nifong's idiocy. So, when people write about this case with the stilted, thoughtless stereotypes we have seen, they reveal the absence of any foundation on these issues.

Anonymous said...

I will try to post the link (about Nifong being behind in the poll) again.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060904fa_fact

Victim in Massachusetts said...

12:03 Why would Collin and Reade return to Duke? Their very lives would be in danger from other students on the campus, just read the duke chronicle.

Some of the student have printed stories of what they would like to do to them.

Maybe the families should get the stories and sue the pants off of thous students.

Reade already has several death threats on him. If I were there parents I would not allow them back to a university like Duke.

Anonymous said...

Nope, the link keeps getting cut off.
The article is in the New Yorker and it's called
BIG MEN ON CAMPUS
The lacrosse furor and Duke’s divided culture.
by PETER J. BOYER
Issue of 2006-09-04
Posted 2006-08-28
The wrong spelling of drinkof's screen name was not intentional.

Anonymous said...

Is it Yale or is it Princeton?

Anonymous said...

Wouldnt it be ironic if the alleged victim sued Nifong or the State of North Carolina for slander. "Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex". He is blatently describing her as being promiscuous based solely on the fact that she is an exotic dancer.

Anonymous said...

Any time that a candidate for political office, particularly an incumbant, has to put $30,000.00 of his own money into a compaign, that campaign is in serious jeopardy. Regardless of the stauts of the polls and/or the results of the primary election, if the people who Nifong would be dealing with as the district attorney are not "donating" to his campaign, then his campaign has serious problems.

Anonymous said...

To ViNC and others:
The postings on the Chronicle website are not indicative of the views of the student body at all. Almost all of the students were completely behind the lacrosse team well before I graduated in May and they most certainly are now. Many of the professors that are a part of the Group of 88 probably realise that they made a mistake, but are simply unwilling to admit it. Yes Duke did not handle the case perfectly in hindsight (firing the coach is my primary point of contention), but as a Duke student myself, I admire Duke for sticking to it's presumption of innocence while the rest of the world was falling at Nifong's feet. Duke is a wonderful school whose reputation is being damaged by a small number of knee-jerk professors, several disgruntled Durhamites, and a self-centered DA. Any bright, intelligent student or parent who does not consider Duke is making a mistake. Here's to hoping this case ends will all deliberate speed and Nifong get's the punishment for this lie he perpetuated.

Anonymous said...

Duke stuck to the presumption of innocence? Care to explain how Duke did that?
This is what Duke's president Brodhead said.
"If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough," he said. "Of the things that have pained me about this episode, one of the greatest ones is all the publicity that this has brought, unwished to Duke University and, indeed, Durham."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/157148/
It doesn't sound to me like much sticking was going on.

Kemper said...

KC,
Just had lunch with my Bar friend, my original thought that the current complaint would be amended to include the new charges, was wrong. New charges will be filed by the Bar against Nifungu, they are in the works now. He also gave me his copy of the original complaint against Nifungu, send me your mailing address, it's yours!!
Happy New Year!!
Kemp

Cedarford said...

Victim in Massachusetts - But if I were either of them I would think twice about going back to Duke.

Plus, it would be really, really awkward if Finnerty and Seligmann were suing Duke for tens of millions for defamation of character. Searches of their residences without warrant. Threat of physical harm by Duke students/employees creating the vigilante poster. Conspiracy to violate rights by ordering the accused only to use the Duke lawyer in early stages and not discuss matters with their parents. And perhaps suing the Gang of 88 directly.
*********************
Drinof - Great analysis in the absence of facts!
Unfortunately, the facts are polls showed Nifong was 20 points behind the more well-known Freida Black. Until Nifong got the race card out and played it with the Duke case. And being down 20 points a month before the Primary, out of campaign money, and 30,000 of your own bucks at risk against a far better known opponent who prosecuted a famous case IS "Waaaay Behind", Drinof. In any race.
*******************
Hope KC puts up his Higher Ed article here. It was really good and I hope hints at how his book will address this case...not focus on incorrect The One Man as Source of All Evil meme, but see how this arose from dysfunctional university and societal systems and organizations led or influenced by a number of badly flawed people.
*********************
And I'd hate to have the skank whore escape her just desserts by her or liberals with melting hearts supporting her on her possible new assertions of her "victimhood", how mean Mr. Niphong misled this "shy honor student and Navy Vet". And her need to keep her privacy intact and "be there for her young children"...
I don't support any of that. I want her name and face plastered in every media as a false accuser, I want her prosecuted under law. I want the whole system that protects false accusers along with true accusers totally overhauled.

duke09parent said...

1:37,

See the March 25th press conference and all Brodhead's public statements since for presumption of innocence language. Generally the criticism, including mine, of him has been the failure to do more since it became clear that evidence supported innocence, not just presumptions.

Thanks 1:30 for speaking out for your school. Nifong may be gone by the time anyone from this year's applicant pool has to decide (May 1?). For those of you who can't forgive Brodhead and think other comparable schools have better leadership, best wishes and good luck to you.

I would support Reade and Collin's choices whatever they may be. There are good reasons to come back and good reasons to go elsewhere. It would be an intensely personal choice for them. The mention of Yale is new and the lacrosse coach there is probably salivating just at the chance to get a real Div. I player. Princeton was mentioned before for him, is the class of the Ivies in lacrosse and not a bad school after all.

Anonymous said...

Is this the Houston Baker who was at Duke and one of the infamous "88"?

http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/iGxZW8

Anonymous said...

1:01 PM "He is blatently describing her as being promiscuous based solely on the fact that she is an exotic dancer."

Actually he has DNA evidence to
support that.

Anonymous said...

1:52-

Yes it is.

Anonymous said...

Prosecution witness could tesify for defense in motion filed today.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/526538.html

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

I am dying to know the opinion of everyone in Nifong's office regarding this case and how they view him deep down. There is no way in hell they all support him. It would be impossible. The office has over 30 people working in it, certainly some of them are ethical deep down, even if they are afraid to admit it publically and risk losing their job. I actually feel bad for any of them who are not involved in this case and have never agreed with Nifong. They are guilty by association.

Additionally, think of what a fool they will look like when they put Durham DA's office on a resume.

Anonymous said...

How about a job recommendation by Nifong. lol

Anonymous said...

OK folks. It's here. The clowns in Durham who have supported and enabled two criminals---Mike Nifong and Crystal Gail Mangum---have designed their shabby little talking points already.

Just a moment ago, I went back into KC's recent archives to check something and quite by accident came upon a post left for me on the (Durham "Justice") thread.

Since I am pro-choice, I answered a question from a poster......saying that IMO the false accuser's baby should be aborted.

Well.......please go over and read the post to me on the thread.

Nifong supporters are now saying that he will be destroyed because he dared to be courageous and bring white men to justice for harming a black woman......that white people would not allow a black person to get justice against them.

(You can't make this BSh!t up.) LOL!

Durham is full of this mentality. It is a disease. Ingrained insanity.

Just sit back and watch. This is now the defense Nifong's supporters will use.

Without a doubt, these Duke 3 would never have gotten an ounce of justice with a Durham jury.

Debrah

GS said...

The Bar has done what the judge should have done months ago when the defense filed a motion to remove Nifong from the case.

The judge lacked the moral character to act even after the meehan issue.

What a sad comment on the law.

Anonymous said...

So how long before Nifong begins to blame demon rum for his legal violations and enters alcohol rehab?

FMW

Michael said...

"Prosecution witness could tesify for defense in motion filed today."

These defense attorneys are sharp.

Don't know if they need it or not
but it would be really interesting
if they also called Nifong to testify
on their agreement to withhold
exculpatory evidence.

Josh said...

I guess I'm biased because I went to Duke (class of '92) and it was such a spectacular place to go to school. I was probably sheltered from the likes of the Duke 88 being an engineer. There was plenty of political banter going around between students and faculty, liberal this, conservative that, I always chalked it up to part of the education you need to be in the "real world."

I have not heard anything about Reade Seligman getting any offers specifically from any other school. People have mentioned Yale but a web search turns up nothing about it. Any links?

Anonymous said...

Durham has just elected Nifong as DA. Just that alone seems like a very good reason to me for Reade and Collin to not go back to Duke.

Richard said...

The following is from the official website of the Durham DA’s office. If you want to know how Nifong could have screwed up so baldly just read his own resume. He is incompetence personified. In order to get a job as a lawyer he had to take an unpaid position in the Durham’s DA office! He is a career hack. Why the governor appointed him to be the DA is anyone’s guess. I won’t be surprised to learn that one of the Governor’s advisors has been fired.

http://www.tiny.cc/ZC5hb

A life-long resident of North Carolina, District Attorney Mike Nifong was born in Wilmington, where he graduated from New Hanover High School. He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on a Herbert W. Jackson scholarship, graduating Phi Beta Kappa with an A.B. degree in Political Science in 1971.

Although he had decided on an eventual career in law while still in high school, Nifong worked for his first year after graduation from UNC as a teacher of mathematics and boys’ physical education in Southport. This was followed by a three-year stint as a social worker with the New Hanover County Department of Social Services in Wilmington before he finally enrolled in the University of North Carolina School of Law in 1975.

It was during this period of time that he began his involvement with youth baseball, a passion that has continued for more than three decades.

Upon graduation from the UNC School of Law and admission to the North Carolina Bar in 1978, Nifong sought a position as an Assistant District Attorney on the theory that it would be the best ticket to what he foresaw as a career in litigation. Initially unable to find such a job within the geographic confines of his search area, he volunteered to serve as an unpaid attorney with the District Attorney’s Office in Durham beginning in October 1978. That choice proved to be fortuitous, as District Attorney Dan K. Edwards, Jr., quickly secured funds to pay him on a full-time per diem basis.

When a vacancy finally occurred in a permanent ADA slot in Durham in April, 1979, it was offered to Nifong. He has been there ever since. By June of 1979, he had worked his way up to Superior Court, where he amassed a record of more than three hundred felony jury trials (nearly a quarter of which involved homicides) over the next two decades. In the years since 1999, he has experienced a decrease in courtroom involvement and a corresponding increase in administrative responsibilities and policy development.

In the course of his career as a prosecutor, Nifong has worked for three different District Attorneys, serving as Chief Assistant under both Ronald L. Stephens and James E. Hardin, Jr., both of whom now serve as Superior Court Judges. He was appointed District Attorney for Durham by Governor Mike Easley on April 18, 2005, and was sworn into that position on April 27, 2005.

Mike Nifong lives with his wife Cy Gurney (a regional coordinator for the Guardian ad Litem program), son Bryan (a student at Riverside High School), and dog Tillie (an Australian Shepherd) in a quiet neighborhood in northern Durham County, just across the street from the Eno River State Park. An adult daughter, Sarah, lives in Charlotte.

Anonymous said...

i want some props--Arthur Browne, Brooklyn Prep '69, my classmate, wrote that op-ed in NY Daily News. He's the op-ed editor, and 1 of the many people i've contacted about this shitorama

props to cedarford, kemper, BA, and KC

12:03: the 88 got on a "bandwagon"?

sorry, methinks not: the sad story about black studies, beyond its intellectual irrelevance, is that it serves as a magnet for racist blacks--it's that simple--so what houston baker did was what comes naturally--as a society, we need to seriously address the the death of "black studies," especially at universities that r trying to attract world-class scholars

i find it laughable that anyone would make the argument that disbarment alone is sufficient punishment for nifong--think of what this doofus has "accomplished": he should serve a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment for obstruction of justice

the crystal mangum problem: how to punish the prime mover?

KC is correct when he observes that suing penniless sleazeballs is futile--however, i disagree with his comment that her support by nifong will enable her to avoid perjury and false-report charges

i'm not a lawyer, so i'd appreciate some feedback on this aspect of the case, including a discussion of how to amend the rape persecution laws

jc

Anonymous said...

I hope I might be permitted a rather long comment. I have not before entered the conversation on this blog, and I probably shall not do so again. But I have learned a great deal here about this particular “case”, one that raises many questions of general relevance to American higher education. The blog places it focus on the questions of justice and injustice as they relate to individuals, but of course there are many wider implications. Among the institutions most severely damaged by all this is Duke University. I understand the need for circumspection and prudence in official administrative statements, so that I have not been surprised by the banality of the institutional press releases; but surely at least some of the members of the Board of Trustees are aware of the gravity of a situation so desperate that it can be addressed only by the most forceful measures—beginning with the resignation of the president—and even then with little hope of quick success. Certainly it cannot be remedied by a dog-and-pony show before various metropolitan alumni clubs.

Two parts of the “crisis” need to be recognized. The first is that a truly unsavory aspect of “campus life” has indeed been revealed by this episode. That a prominent group of students at Duke think that an appropriate mode of recreation is an Animal House party featuring excessive drinking, boorish behavior, and an obscene performance by hired sex workers is hardly flattering to the image of an institution claiming high intellectual purpose and a noble role in the service of the nation and the world. Having for many years been a professor at such an institution, however, I am entirely prepared to believe that that was exactly what happened. Nor did I doubt that one or more drunken student probably suggested “using a broomstick” on one of the hired women or that another one had used the word “nigger”. The “cotton shirt” remark also has a sad ring of truth about it: so perfect an instance of drunken adolescent “wit”. That is because I have personally known of parallel incidents at my own university and others like it. I would ask readers of this most intelligent blog not to forget entirely the vile incivility of the evening. Reade Seligman says that he left early because he didn’t like the party’s tone, and because it was “boring”. His mastery of bland euphemism suggests a possible aptitude for a successful career in the higher echelons of academic administration.

One way to avoid being thought a bunch of hooligans is not to behave like a bunch of hooligans. Under the reported circumstances of certain undisputed facts I was also, sadly, prepared to believe the disputed ones. Nor do I blame District Attorney Nifong for believing them at first. I myself believed them at first. Many elements of the story were fantastic, but no more fantastic than, say, McFadyen’s e-mail, which was right there on the screen in front of me. Since one of Mr. Nifong’s greatest faults has been leaping to conclusions in public, I shall restrain my own unpleasant hypotheses concerning his motivations. But the time for indulging the criminal allegations in this case has now long since passed. With them is passing Mr. Nifong’s hope for the rescue of his reputation for honor and professionalism.

One has to feel sympathy for President Brodhead. He didn’t hire the strippers, and he didn’t make wild prosecutorial statements. He had to deal with a mess not of his making, but that is exactly why he makes the big bucks. He has failed, and that is the second aspect of the Duke crisis. He didn’t do anything wrong exactly, except that he failed to do the right thing. President Brodhead had a private meeting with the team leaders. I hope he chewed them out in a memorable fashion. I hope they apologized abjectly for the disgrace that their appalling entertainment had brought upon their institution as well as upon themselves. But I presume that they also looked Mr. Brodhead in the eye and told him that the story of gang rape was, to borrow a term of art already introduced in this di scussion, a crock. He would have had the opportunity to question them on their claim of innocence in whatever fashion he chose. I would hope that would not have been in the pseudo-judicial style favored by the army of amateur Perry Masons populating various websites devoted to this case. I would hope that he would have asked them to speak sincerely on their honor as fellow members of a community of learning. However his personal investigation was conducted, the moment it was concluded, he should have made a very strong public statement. He should have been able to say flat out that they were innocent of the criminal charges. He had actually conducted a more thorough investigation at that point than had the office of the District Attorney, after all. But let us be realistic. A president must be prudent. The prudent thing to say would be that he now had very strong reason to believe that the men were innocent. The distinction between flatly stating their innocence and articulating a belief in their innocence was perhaps demanded by prudence. Naturally such a statement would have implicitly impugned the reported testimony of the accuser and it would have implicitly criticized certain actions of Mr. Nifong, but it would not have been focused on those outsiders in no way subject to his authority. Its explicit burden would have been that when absolutely forced to the issue, the President of Duke was prepared to give public support to some Duke students of the sort whose merits, promise, achievements, and virtues are constant themes of his institutional propaganda, his recruiting efforts, and his fund-raising brochures. What he did instead was to say that in American every defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, while making the largest possible gestures of accommodation to intemperate members of his faculty who were perfectly willing to state that the students were guilty of a whole range of crimes, different in their magnitude but unified in their theme. These crimes included playing lacrosse while white, former habitation in the privileged enclaves of sybaritic Long Island, matriculation at the notorious Delbarton School, and of course vaginal, anal, and oral rape.

There is indeed an ugly “climate” at Duke University, and potential students would be wise to ask themselves whether it seems conducive to their educational aspirations. Do they really want to be part of an institution at which large numbers of the faculty are predisposed to regard them as enemies in the class war? And one of the few advances of the contemporary Left with regard to primitive Marxism is to have added the categories of “race” and “gender” to that of “class” as analytical tools for the investigation of their special reality. There are more than forty members of the men’s lacrosse team. Every one of those men must surely have been taking at least three or four courses during their years at the university. Even assuming a large degree of overlap, there surely must be two or three hundred professors who have taught members of the lacrosse team. And since Duke is one of those places that takes just pride in the individual attention it can afford to give to every student, some of those hundreds of faculty must surely have come to know some of the lacrosse players and even, perhaps, one of the three made notorious by indictment? Why is it that not a single faculty member has come forward with a public statement in support of a student? After all, eighty-eight faculty were happy to join in a statement of congratulation to their persecutors. One of the greatest rewards of being a college professor is the mutual respect and affection that develops between teachers and students. Over a long career a professor who truly cares for his or her students will develop a rich network of abiding friendships. How thrilling it is to see one’s old students—and especially the kind with the abilities needed to gain admission to an elite school—triumphing in what Cecil Rhodes called “the world’s fight”, working hard to leave our troubled world a better place for their having passed through it.

My advice to potential college applicants is that they seek out a place where there is demonstrably a “climate” of mutual respect between faculty and students. In such a place you must expect a great deal of professorial opprobrium if you behave like jackasses, hire strippers for your drunken parties, write obscene e-mails, utter racial insults, and so on. On the other hand if at such a place you tell a professor on your word of honor that you are not a rapist, the professor might well be inclined to believe you.

Anonymous said...

In a motion today, the defense, said they may call Meehan as an expert witness.

How bad of a case is it for Nifong, when your own witnesses are being called by the defense?

Anonymous said...

Professor Anderson needs to write an open letter to the Duke 88 along the lines of his Nifong open letter. I would hope the role of Dr. Houston Baker would be detailed. I would be happy to email it to Dr. Baker with copies to all members of the Vanderbilt English Department and Chancellor Gee. Baker should learn he can run but he can't hide from his despicable actions in this affair.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer: anybody been able to locate a copy of the 90+ page about using Meehan as a witness forthe defense? No doubt as we wonder what is going on, KC is doing his homework on this for his next posting. As an aside, I wonder if the defense attorneys in this new motion are laying out a road map for the state bar regarding Nifong's DNA (mis)conduct.

Anonymous said...

It's Karma. I know it sounds silly, but I believe people always pay for the evil they do.
Nifong's bill was past due. Now it's time to pay.

Anonymous said...

Please look at the photos of this party. It did look boring. I've seen photos of some other college stripper parties and there were a lot more things going on than a bunch of men sitting in orderly fashion watching a show.

bill anderson said...

To 3:14:

There is much to agree with in your email. From what I can tell, the party was not quite the drunk-and-sexfest as has been described, but you and I both know that some college parties include activities that are beyond the pale and certainly beyond what we wish to discuss here.

Given that, I think you make good points, and the whole episode has given me much to think about in my own relationships with students. As I watched members of the Duke faculty engage in vicious, dishonest conduct, I had to look at myself and ask whether or not I give students what the duties of my office require.

Thus, I can say that I did learn a good lesson from watching others engage in perpetrating a wicked fraud. And while my place of employment is not elite in any sense of the word, my duties to my students are no different than are the duties that Peter Woods has to his students.

Perhaps what Woods did was more grevious than anything else, for he went after certain individuals and said things that apparently other students in the same class said were not true. How the man can keep his job after saying what he did is beyond me, and it tells me that Duke University believes that it is open season on students.

bill anderson said...

Re the Gang of 88:

I am going to revisit them soon. By the way, from what I know of Houston Baker, he had no business ever writing the letter he did, believe me. Let's just say that other faculty members at Duke have written me and I know some things about Prof. Baker that are not savory.

For legal purposes, I will not write about them, but suffice it to say that I believe Baker is evil.

Anonymous said...

to 3:14

appreciated your well-written analysis of case from what i assume to b a serious scholar's viewpoint

the vulgarity of the party is worth commenting on, but as someone who enjoys naked females, i must cavil with your finding fault with the boys strictly on that level

i'd appreciate your feedback on this:

u say that u wouldn't advise students to attend Duke because of weak leadership and the 88

last i looked, princeton was ranked the #1 undergraduate institution in the US, yet it has 1 of the largest black-studies programs in the country, including the overpaid numbskull cornel west (did u read the brilliant Leon Wieseltier's evaluation of west's scholarship in the "New Republic"?)

believe your best point is the failure of richard brodhead to manage a sticky situation

if he were working for me, i'd fire him on the spot

jim clyne

Anonymous said...

From:
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/526538.html

Prosecution witness could testify for defense

BY ERIC FERRERI, Staff Writer
Attorneys for three former Duke University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting and kidnapping a stripper now want to use one of the prosecution's witnesses as their own.
Attorneys for defendants David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann filed notice today of their intent to use Brian Meehan, head of DNA Security in Burlington, as their own expert.
At a hearing Dec. 15, Meehan testified that he and Nifong agreed to leave exculpatory information out of a report summarizing test results. The lab testing found genetic material from unknown men on the accuser's body and underwear.
"Dr. Meehan's testimony will be used to impeach the credibility of the accuser's responses to questions from investigators and hospital personnel in which she detailed her activities in the days and weeks leading up to the alleged events in this case," the 93-page filing reads in part.
The move made sense to James Coleman, a Duke University law professor and outspoken critic of Nifong's handling of the case.
"[Meehan] would be a more credible witness because he was hired by the state," Coleman said today. "I don't think the prosecution would call him as a witness, given there's nothing he can say that would be helpful to their case."
The filing comes a day after the N.C. State Bar accused Nifong of violating ethics rules by giving numerous media interviews shortly after the alleged assault occurred. The three men had faced rape charges, but those were dropped by Nifong last week after the accuser told an investigator that she was not certain she was raped.

Anonymous said...

if the above is true, PRECIOUS SHOULD NOT B GIVEN IMMUNITY FOR HER TESTIMONY

jc

Anonymous said...

To Professor Anonymous 314.

As a parent I agree with you completely. The reason any parent would choose a "big buck" institution would be the personal association with great professors. My children attended Duke, UNC-CH and Univ Georgia. Only at Georgia did any of my kids find the professors you describe.

theman said...

Are you people kidding, Mr. Nifong will skate right through this stupid complaint, he will be found to have done nothing wrong. The prosecution will continue and the hooligans will spend years in jail for what they did.

bill anderson said...

My wife is a Georgia grad, too. We have to play them each year in football, so once a year she is evil. (She came in with Herschel Walker's class, which were the glory years of Georgia football, when they went 33-3 in the years Herschel played.)

hman said...

To 3:14
It is clear from the timeline of this story that Duke officials learned very early that the rape allegtions were extremely weak. The police told them so before Nifong got involved. As the PC crowd and parts of Durham became increasingly vocal, they decided to publicly make lots of noise about how sympathetic they were toward rape victims and people of color and wanted to distance themselves from the students - in part because they felt the kids were not in real danger from the allegations. So Brodhead feels justified in saying (for example) "Whatever they did was bad enough." They thought they were being clever - appease the angry crowds by bashing the kids while believing that they would soon be exonerated.
Gasoline on fire. Nifong saw a green light and ran with it.
Brodhead et al thought that doing a little bit of evil would be OK because they could fine tune the flow of events. After all, they are smarter than the simple folks outside their ivory towers.

Anonymous said...

Professor 3:14:

As a Duke parent, I was dismayed by your letter, but I also thoroughly appreciated your honesty about the ineffectual leadership of President Brodhead vis a vis the "rape."

An occasional poster on this site, JC, refers to Bradhead as a "bitch." I know that is not a scholarly characterization, but it is shorthand for your analysis of his "inaction."

Anonymous said...

the latest document from the defense about Meehan testifying for them can be found at WRAL.com. it is only about 5 pages, not 90+.

Anonymous said...

Folks,

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned this...

Re the Group of 88, take a look at page 19A in today's Raleigh N&O, a great piece written by Rick Martinez. Here's a teaser quote from his piece:

"If this case is dropped, and many a legal expert says it will be, Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann are owed a huge public apology, especially by those Duke faculty members who used ugly allegations against the young men to attack a culture of racism and sexism that exists in their cloistered minds but rarely exists in the real world."

Kudos to Rick Martinez for having the bravery to scribe the truth.

Anonymous said...

sorry, ricky, the 88 should b 1)fired, or 2) ostracized, or 3) ignored

apologies r like assholes

u know that 1?

jc

Anonymous said...

That Mary Katharine Ham is an uncompromised hottie!

I think I'm in love

jc

Anonymous said...

JC, who is Mary Katherine Ham??

CF said...

Now..to put pressure on the Duke Board of Visitors.
I do not have a complete list but here's what I found about the 7 appointed this year:

I cannot find a complete list--here are the 7 appointed this year:

Durham , N.C. -- Seven new members of Duke University ’s Board of Trustees were announced Wednesday by Robert Steel, chairman of the trustees.

Thomas C. Clark of New York City and Litchfield County, Conn., Robin A. Ferracone of Los Angeles, Kenneth W. Hubbard of Greenwich, Conn., David M. Rubenstein of Washington, D.C., Robert S. Saunders Jr. of Durham, Alan D. Schwartz of Greenwich, Conn., and Anthony Vitarelli of Marlton, N.J., began their terms on the 37-member governing body on July 1.

“Our new trustees bring valuable experience from the business world and a commitment to Duke University ,” Steel said. “As the trustees work with the faculty and the administration to help Duke achieve its aspirations in the university’s long-range strategic academic plan, ‘Building on Excellence,’ we firmly believe that the counsel and insight of our new trustees will prove invaluable.”

Clark, a 1969 graduate of Duke, is division president and managing director of U.S. Trust Company, N.A. He joined U.S. Trust in New York City in 1978 and has held a variety of positions there.

Clark, president-elect of the Duke University Alumni Association, has been active in the banking industry. He was founding chairman of the Private Lending Roundtable of the Risk Management Association and chair of the private banking division of the American Bankers Association. He has served as chair and board member of several not-for-profit organizations in the New York City area and nationally.

While a Duke undergraduate, he was an Angier B. Duke Scholar, a Navy Scholar, a varsity swimmer and president of the Glee Club. Clark has served in many volunteer roles for the university, including as president of the Duke Club of New York .

Ferracone, a 1975 graduate of Duke, is a worldwide partner at Mercer Human Resource Consulting, a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. At Mercer, she leads the Human Capital Advisory and Information business. She was formerly the chairman and co-founder of SCA Consulting, which was acquired by Mercer in October 2001.

Ferracone has more than 25 years of consulting experience in such areas as value management, performance measurement, workforce strategies and compensation design. She has authored numerous articles, is quoted frequently by the media and is a frequent presenter for organizations that include The Conference Board and the CFO Business Week Forum. She has testified before the U.S. Congress on presidential compensation.

At Duke, Ferracone has served on the university’s Trinity College Board of Visitors since 2001 and was a member of the Regional Campaign Council from 1999-2004.

Hubbard, a 1965 graduate of Duke, is an executive vice president of Hines, an international real estate company. He joined the firm in 1974 in Houston and is responsible for the acquisition, development and management of commercial and mixed-use projects in the northeastern United States .

Hubbard has served Duke in many volunteer leadership roles, including the university’s Trinity College Board of Visitors from 1994 to 2000 (chair 1999-2000) and the Arts & Sciences Campaign Committee from 2000-04.

Hubbard is a trustee of the Urban Land Institute, a member of the National Real Estate Advisory Council of the Trust for PublicLand, and a board member of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute. He formerly served as a trustee of the Greenwich Country Day School (1985-1991) and the Loomis Chaffee School (1994-97).

Rubenstein, a 1970 magna cum laude graduate of Duke, is a founding partner and managing director of The Carlyle Group, a global private equity firm.

He served as chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments in 1975-76. From 1977-1981, during the Carter Administration, Rubenstein was deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy. He has also practiced law in New York and Washington , D.C.

Rubenstein is a board member of the Institute for International Economics, Freedom House, Johns Hopkins University , the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, several performing arts groups, the visiting committee of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Advisory Committee of J.P. Morgan Chase.

Saunders, a 2000 summa cum laude graduate from the College of William and Mary, is pursuing a PhD. in physics at Duke.

At Duke, Saunders has been active in several student activities. He has served two terms as president of the Graduate and Professional Student Council. During his tenure, he sponsored a Graduate and Professional Student Life Task Force to examine the student life issues facing graduate and professional students. He also has focused on student health care, serving on the Student Health Insurance Advisory Committee for five years, participating in the Student Health Advisory Committee, and researching the student health models from other peer institutions.

Saunders is currently finishing his dissertation examining image quality metrology for medical imaging devices. After graduation, he intends to explore a career in science policy.

Schwartz, a 1972 graduate of Duke, is president and co-chief operating officer of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., one of the leading worldwide investment banking and securities trading and brokerage firms. He is a member of the firm’s executive committee and sits on the board of directors. In addition to his firm-wide responsibilities, including involvement in corporate strategy, Schwartz is the firm’s senior investment banker.

At Duke, Schwartz is the former chairman of the Fuqua School of Business’s Board of Visitors and serves on its Athletic Advisory Board. He has served on Fuqua’s board since 1986.

Active in numerous professional and civic organizations, Schwartz serves on the boards of directors of American Foundation for AIDS Research, St. Vincent’s Services, NYU Medical Center , The National Mentoring Partnership, NYC Partnership and Robin Hood Foundation.

Vitarelli graduated summa cum laude from Duke in May with a bachelor of arts degree in public policy and economics. For the past two years, he has served as president of Campus Council, Duke’s residential student governance organization. He also co-founded the Duke University Greening Initiative -– an interdisciplinary sustainability advocacy organization that raised more than $300,000 and helped shape Duke’s environmental policies.

In 2004, Vitarelli was awarded a Truman Scholarship for his leadership, dedication to public service and academic promise.

Vitarelli will spend this fall working for a small microfinance non-profit organization in Santiago , Chile , that helps entrepreneurs start small businesses. He will then transfer to Washington , D.C. , for the spring to work at the Chilean Embassy. He has deferred admission from Yale Law School and will enroll in the fall of 2006.

GS said...

Even his fellow DAs smell blood.

The North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys said Friday the prosecutor at the center of the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case should recuse himself.

7 DAs signed it.

Anonymous said...

6:17

check out the video on today's postings

i'm not sure, but i think she's the women's lacrosse coach who came out early on in support of the 3

if that indeed is she, i "salute her"--to borrow a phrase from "Gladiator"

jc

Anonymous said...

sorry 'bout that

Googled her: she's an editor and blogger now associated with the Heritage Foundation

she graduated from the U of Georgia in '02

y is it that so many smart people i know either graduated from maryland or georgia?

jc

Anonymous said...

How pathetic is this?

The German faculty has 7 members, while the AAAS has 14--double!

I guess they'd rather study hip-hop than Goethe.

How many Duke students know who Thomas Bernhard is?

Didn't get a chance to check Chinese dept., but I'd guess that's even more pathetic.

Duke Mother For Academic Integrity

Tryptich said...

Forgive me for being entirely unimpressed with Anonymous Professor 3:14's prolix apologia.

Despite clothing himself/herself in a blanket of moral superiority, the good Professor just cannot help from casting stones at the lacrosse players - of course it was *perfectly* understandable that he would think they were guilty. After all they were at a party with beer and boisterousness and strippers ... *surely* they used racial slurs and *obviously* they suggested broomhandle sodomy. Like the 88, Prof 3:14 is wedded to the idea that a terrible ugliness took place at the house party rather than a prosaic non-event duplicated on campuses across the country. And the Prof's snarkiness belies his/her inability to take the point of post to its logical conclusion ...if the players should have been believed that they didnt rape the 'victim' then they should be given the benefit of the doubt on the all the other allegations of using racial slurs, etc. that the Professor seems to be so willing to believe.

The more I think about this case, it seems more and more as if the rape actually took place against the three players. They have been raped. Mentally. Emotionally. Psychologically. Their good names. Their reputations. Their standing in the community - all gone. Apparently this is ok per the good Prof. - he blames the real rape victims for the crime of being American college students having strippers at a party. Why of *course* the deserved it! Right Prof?

Note the good Prof shows not a trace of remorse for jumping to the same conclusion as the 88 that the Lacrosse players were guilty, just 'regret' ... mostly of the self-serving kind. How can he or she possibly feel sorry for Brodhead, and/or apologize for Nifong? What a load of manure. Like 99% of his/her "community", our Anonymous Professor sat quietly by while Brodhead set his own kids up (attempting to aid the prosecution in obtaining statements without the benefit of counsel or consultation with their parents and shamelessly playing up to the race-baiters). Prof 3:14 also sat quietly by while Nifong played to the rabble with his grossly unethical and prejudicial comments. Why didn't Prof 3:14 speak out?

Prof 3:14's attempt to shield Broadhead from all the opprobium he richly deserves - regardless of the fact the Prof finally (!) has reached the startilingly obvious conclusion that the boys should have been believed - frankly shows that 3:14 is just as much a part of the problem in Durham as Broadhead or the 88.

Shame on you. Shame on Durham. And shame on Duke.

Anonymous said...

7:01

i like your post, but think you're being a little bit hard on the Professor (assuming he is)

i may have misread his post, but i am certain he called for brodhead's [how perfect a name is that? broad head] firing

as a manager, i agree with him: page 1 is firing his ass--immediately

as to his description of the party...so what? not important because the facts are finally coming out

i think the most powerful--and persuasive--points he made was the administration's cowardice in this matter: Brodhead sided with the black racists, not the students

YOU R ABSOLUTELY CORRECT: the boys were raped--unfortunately KC Johnson et al do not want to address this issue, 1 of the most fundamental issues this travesty has unearthed:

1. y r we not discussing the antimale rape-shield laws?

2. y not discuss the fact that there's no law in Amerika to describe the devastation Crystal Mangum caused the boys

3. how to punish CGM

jc

Anonymous said...

Bill A - Did the gang know Baker was leaving for Vandy when they signed their statement? Looks like Houstom has a "shelf life' with his hopping around schools. He will "get" vandy just as he did Duke and UofP. Looks like he is on a downward spiral.

Anonymous said...

4"24 I disagree - One goes to Washington University St Louis to get into Chicago MBA program, etc.

Anonymous said...

Allow me to make an obvious point:

Same circumstances at Princeton, same consequent debacle

need to address the core problems: subsidizing unintelligent racists; feckless administrators; ridiculous antimale rape-shield laws

Duke, you are not alone

Princeton '01

Cedarford said...

Anonymous Prof of 3:14 denounces student partying as the root cause of non-brutality, non-rape. The lesson being, I guess, that less parties and alcohol will result in less non-rape, non-brutality incidents.

Anonymous prof also counsels not to be crude to strippers. While most of us agree that "nigger" is pretty extreme, I know of no "rule" that if a black initiates tossing racial epitaths around, whites responding similarly become the "real racists" - even though many on the Left's PC havens swear it is impossible for a racist black to be racist or a man-hating feminist display gender bias because they are certified Victim Group members.

I also see massive hypocrisy in yesterday's college students from the 60s and 70s emerging from their post-toga, free love parties, their drug and booze hazes gone - to demand current students avoid behavior absolutely banal in comparison to went on in the Gang of 88's college days.

Anonymous said...

Most of the Gang of 88 are pretty old. Older than most leftover hippies.

They were probably greasers or beatniks.

Anonymous said...

I agree with someonw who said Rick Martinez wrote a good column in the N&O today. Lots of columnists are now closing in on Nifungu from all sides.

Hehehehe

Anonymous said...

3:14 Really enjoyed your Posst and hope that you will return again. We are all getting an education on KC"s blog - at least I am. Loved your Cecil Rhodes quote - my mother said that also " just try to make your little corner a better place". Please come again.

Anonymous said...

I read the Duke Chronicle everyday and their blogs for months. I have never seen anyone threaten either Colin or Reade. in any event, neither man should set foot in NC again, let alone Durham or Duke - I have seen Reade threatened by black folk. whatever their leanings, no other University has done as the gang of 88 - Choosing Duke over the Ivies was not a good decision.

Anonymous said...

Ann Coulter said "Not being drunk and alone on the street at 2:00 AM will greatley reduce your chances of being raped or murdered." "Not having strange women taking their cloths off in your house will greatly reduce your chances of being accused of rape" This is the real world.

Ted in Durham said...

A little late, but further response to drinkof:
Nifong faced considerable opposition in the primary from both Freda Black, and from Keith Bishop, a well-respected african american lawyer, but relative newcomer to Durham politics. Before Nifong's grandstanding over the Duke case, he did NOT have the very important endorsement from the Durham Committee for the Affairs of Black People. Bishop got the nod, however contrary to most races in most years, Nifong had a much higher percentage of the black vote than other candidates who did not receive that endorsement. One could easily surmise that support was due to his posturing and remarks regarding this case, as he had no other notoriety, especially after serving in traffic court immediately before being appointed interim DA.

I think if not for his media/NCCU open house/interviews and grandstanding over this case, Nifong would not have won the primary. Bishop would have taken a lot of votes from Nifong, and Freda Black had strong support, and eventually only lost by some 900 votes if memory serves.

In the general election in November, Nifong did receive that endorsement, and received quite a high percentage of the black vote, which he needed, as the two other options, Monks (chairman of the Durham Republican party in an ill-conceived effort) and Lewis Cheeks (really only a placeholder for 'anyone but Nifong' as he had said he wouldn't take the position but would have the Governor appoint a new DA) together received more votes than Nifong.

Tryptich said...

9:48 ... and, of course, not electing Democrats to important positions like District Attorney will greatly reduce the chance of blatant prosecutorial misconduct.

drinkof said...

"Nifong WAS behind with the voters. He won the primary over Freda Black by a couple of hundred votes. "

This just doesn't make any sense. If Nifong won the primary, he was not demonstrably behind with the voters, leave aside 'badly behind'. How can winning by any margin equate with 'badly behind'? This doesn't mean that he had it sowed up, he obviously did not. It doesn't mean that gaining electoral advantage was not his motive, the WSJ piece and detail from this blog provide good support for that conclusion. But ahead is not behind, much less 'badly behind'.

"To drinkof. Misleading? Yet you claim 99 % of the voters did not know or care at that point. Care to provide numbers for that interesting statistic? How do you know how many voters knew or cared? KC blogged extensively about the primary and Nifong's campaign contributions. Go back and look at those blogs.

Actually, I did review those and don't find anything specific which addresses this point. But it should be noted that, in my view, I would of course not be able to find support for that 'statistic', because (unless I'm mistaken, and nobody has cited solid contrary reference yet), no polls had been take at that point in time, particularly not polls available to Nifong. I'm betting that nobody can find any such support, and that includes KC Johnson, and me, and you. It was simply too early, especially in what was then a garden variety race; Black being passed over by Easley when it was time to nominate a new DA is hardly the kind of thing that brings attention in any DA race anywhere from the overwhelming percentage of the voting populace, extraordinary circumstances (which were to come, but were not in place as yet) exempted.

To durkof, maybe it's bets to admit a mistake when you make it?
"Polls taken by Nifong’s opponent, a former assistant D.A. named Freda Black, showed Nifong, whose name recognition was marginal, running considerably behind her."

I was able to find the link, and it does imply (though doesn't state) that the poll was taken prior to the party / accusations. I would seriously doubt that would be the case; real polls (as opposed to PR polls, or push polls, all of which would come much later, just before an election) are expensive, and are not commonly commissioned that early in a race, unless the potential candidate is wealthy and has money to burn. I don't think Ms. Black was in that position. I'm not saying the timing implied is impossible, just unlikely.

Your citation also assumes that Nifong knew the results of Ms. Black's poll, as otherwise it could not provide foundation for his motive. Even had the poll been taken at that early date, why would the Black camp share expensive, confidential polling data with Nifong? That wouldn't conform with normal procedure in any campaign, much less a normal, local campaign for DA, as this was before the incident.

At the end of the day, this is not a huge point. The author's sentence construction implied, in common journalistic convention, that Nifong was badly behind with the voters, and there's little way Nifong could have known at that point n the campaign, even were it true. He should have said something along the lines of "He was out of campaign money, and his supporters were abandoning him' or 'He was out of campaign money and his support was crumbling', either of which would have made his point clearly.

This doesn't take away from the good work he's done here or the general point of the WSJ oped, but it was misleading and, therefore, stood to take away from those otherwise sound conclusions.

By the way, from the New Yorker article, this is simply insane ...

'“What you saw there was the lay of the land,” Orin Starn, a Duke professor who specializes in the anthropology of sports, recalls. “The fact is that it’s the basketball coach, Coach K, who’s the most powerful person at Duke, and in Durham, and maybe in North Carolina—much more powerful than the college president himself.'

I have no opinion on who the most powerful person at Duke is, but K as maybe the most powerful person in North Carolina? Somebody has sipped the kool-aid, yes?

Anonymous said...

Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;…

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;…

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

thomas said...

I think we need to coin a new term here, "fema-racist. Lets face reality the boys lives are being ruined by the DA because they are white and the supposed victim is black. To me Nifong is acting in a racist manner. Secondly the boys are being are ruined by DA Nifong because they have the same skin color as his wife, children and momma. To me that is effeminate behavior.It does not matter how angry he acts I beleive that his behavior is fem-racist