Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Facile Assumptions

In the early weeks of the case, we frequently heard that—despite all evidence of Mike Nifong’s improper public statements—the lacrosse players were receiving special treatment because of their race.

  • The Group of 88 ad quoted an anonymous student allegedly saying, “I can’t help but think about the different attention given to what has happened from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black but participating in a different sport, like football, something that’s not so upscale.”
  • Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts wrote, “Imagine if the woman were white and reported being raped by three black members of the basketball team. You’d have to call out the National Guard.”
  • In the (London) Independent, a student at NCCU said, “If the tables had been turned and two white women had been raped by the [NCCU] football team, the whole team would be in jail. They would not be walking around.”
  • Another NCCU student, Spirit Mitchell, told CBS, “If it was a Duke student and it was Central’s football team, the situation would have been handled totally differently.”

Given the political needs that Nifong faced in spring 2006, the situation probably would have been handled differently had the alleged perpetrators been minority football players. But the reflexive assumption by both the Group of 88 and their ideological allies seems off-base (and perhaps, as this perceptive Liestoppers post suggested, wholly wrong). Four recent cases involving allegations of sexual assault against minority football players suggest what could have happened in the Duke case—with an ethical prosecutor and absent racial rush to judgments by the media or faculty activists.


The first case, which occurred just down the road from Durham, was ironically first mentioned in reference to Duke events by Nifong’s now-attorney, then-critic, David Freedman. Analyzing Nifong’s misconduct on the April 19 Abrams Report, Freedman remarked,

Everything has been mishandled from the start. You had a district attorney coming out and making potentially unethical statements, saying he believed a crime occurred, which he should not do. He should not be commenting on the evidence. He took an adversarial position from the start.

We had a situation recently in Winston-Salem that could have been racially divisive—[four] Wake Forest, black football players, white female student. If the D.A. who was actually a former Duke lacrosse player himself, Jim O'Neill, had taken the position and come out strong like Mr. Nifong had that something definitely occurred and sort of played the race card, it would have been very racially divisive.

Instead, he listened to the evidence. He let everyone be interviewed. We were all able to meet in a more congenial fashion and after a careful determination they determined that there was no charges that needed to be brought. Nobody was hurt. Nobody's face was plastered all over the front of USA Today.

Articles from the Greensboro and Winston-Salem papers from October and November 2005 show the fallacy in the Group of 88’s race-based assumptions. After the allegations were made, O’Neill didn’t “throw the whole team into jail.” Instead, he handled the case quietly and fairly. The campus police turned the investigation over to the Winston-Salem police department, which conducted a thorough investigation.

While the investigation was proceeding, football coach Jim Grobe suspended the players from games (though he allowed them to practice), since “we’re going to try to do the right thing; basically, we’re going to try to make decisions that are fair to the kids, that are right for our football team and for Wake Forest.” The players were not suspended from school.

Contrast Grobe’s general attitude to that demonstrated by the Group of 88: “I want to support these kids, but I want the right result and I want things to come out the way they should, and I don't know what that is right now. I only hear one side. You hear a million things. ... I know that you've got to be careful that you don't make decisions too quickly. You’ve got to wait and see how things work out.”

D.A. O’Neill, meanwhile, refrained from racially divisive public comments, or, indeed, from any public comments that suggested guilt of the accused. After several weeks, the police and prosecutor decided that evidence for rape didn’t exist, and they declined to file charges. Grobe reinstated the African-American players to the team; all four played on this year’s ACC champion Wake Forest squad.


The second case occurred a bit to the north of Durham, in Richmond.

In May 2006, four students at historically black Virginia Union (annual tuition of between $13,000 and $19,000) were indicted for raping a white, out-of-state student from the University of Richmond (annual tuition, $42,610). Two of the four played on the football team; one had been quarterback. The five had attended a party, and the woman had left voluntarily with the VUU students.

The case received relatively little media attention. The major Richmond newspaper covered it on the sports pages. The University of Richmond paper provided more detail, but avoided mention of the accuser’s race.

When attorneys representing two of the players were asked about some of the racialist assumptions that black athletes are demonized to a much greater extent than white college athletes in sexual assault cases, they scoffed. “That hyperbole isn’t born out by the facts,” said one. Another noted that the Duke and VUU “cases are being treated differently, that’s for sure.”


The third case occurred last spring, not too long after Mike Nifong obtained indictments in Durham, and, like the Duke case, involved a high-profile athletic program. In late April, Los Angeles police arrested USC backup quarterback Mark Sanchez on suspicion of sexual assault.

Sanchez was shown on tape entering a bar with a fake ID; two witnesses who saw him enter his apartment building later that night said he was drunk. The USC team had a history of brushes with the law and Sanchez himself had been investigated for underage drinking and breaking a window at a fraternity party.

But through the story received considerable short-term play in the Los Angeles media, it never went national. The district attorney avoided inflammatory race-based rhetoric or any other assaults on Sanchez’s personal character; 88 USC professors didn’t take out a public advertisement denouncing Sanchez; and after an investigation, the charges against Sanchez were deemed non-credible. All charges were dropped, and Sanchez was the backup quarterback on this year’s Rose Bowl champion team.


The fourth case, which was just in the news, involved allegations of sexual assault against former University of California running back Marshawn Lynch, who recently announced his decision to turn pro. Lynch is African-American; no articles I have seen mentioned the race of his accuser.

Alameda County senior deputy district attorney Kim Hunter told reporters that the accuser had offered contradictory versions of events, that she had no visible injuries or photographs of injuries, and that another witness (the "Kim Roberts" of this case) contradicted the accuser in every way.

"No one is saying that the victim isn't entitled to the feelings she's having, but I have an ethical obligation," Hunter remarked. "If I don't believe I can prove it to 12 jurors, then I can't ethically charge the case.

Cal-Berkeley is an institution well-known for its left-of-center faculty; to my knowledge not one professor, much less 88, issued a public statement condemning Lynch or expressing support for the keeping the accuser central to the situation.


In the Wake Forest, VUU, and USC cases, each side conceded that some form of intercourse occurred—the only question revolved around consent. In each case, a white woman claimed sexual assault against black or Hispanic football players.

Yet in none of these cases did the D.A. throw the entire football team in jail. Or engage in race-baiting rhetoric. Or pander to the white community. In fact, in all three cases, the D.A. did his job and conducted an impartial investigation. And in none of these cases did the students' own professors engage in a rush-to-judgment public denunciation.

Looking at the case in his backyard, Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist Mark Holmberg correctly concluded, “The Duke/VUU cases may show that columnist Pitts has it backward—that we’re more alert for white-on-black, rich-on-poor crime.” Indeed, it would seem as if the rush-to-judgment crowd was wrong on this assumption as well.


Anonymous said...

Wasn't the post I thought we would read after today's meeting of all involved.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Very nice post making a very solid point. And certainly your comment that given Nifong's electoral needs had the situations been reversed, it certainly been played differently by him, is a point well taken.

Joe T. said...

Boy oh boy. You prove again, with evidence, KC, that the potbangers were all too happy to throw a huge stone which has turned into a boomerang to come back and slam them all in the face.

David Brennan said...

Before this column, the best part about these inane "If the roles were reversed" arguments is that you couldn't possibly be wrong: I mean, nobody can possibly view alternate universes.

What's more, the people who made that "If the roles were reversed" argument obviously were never thinking about the actual facts of this case (as Reade Seligman's mom said on '60 Minutes'), they were only thinking about what they thought other people were thinking.

(I actually think that that's how so many big issues are analyzed: rather than people studying relevent data, they just think about what everybody else must be thinking.) (I hope that doesn't sound crazy.)

Anonymous said...

You forgot one, KC (well, there are probably many, too numerous to mention, but this one is reasonably prominent). El Roberson, an African-American, was the starting Quarterback on the Kansas State football team that was about to square off against Ohio State in the 2004 Fiesta Bowl (a BCS bowl game) in Tempe. Just before the bowl -- maybe even the night before -- El was accused of raping a woman in her hotel room at 4 O'clock in the morning.

Even though the allegations were public by game time, El started at Quarterback and played the whole game. After returning to Kansas State, his coach disciplined him *for violating curfew* by taking him off scholarship for his final semester (his eligibility was up so what did the coach care?) and not allowing him to have a Fiesta Bowl ring.

In this very public case, I never heard any Group of 88 at Kansas State protesting his return to classes. He was also never charged.

Anonymous said...

c'mon KC your opine on Tuesday's legal activity.

Anonymous said...

NC's lack of a constitutional provision for a speedy trial does not negate the US constitutional provision that those charged with a crime are entitled to a speedy trial. It seems to me that any trial date, if there ever is one, will occur well after the one year anniversary of the defendants' indictments. Defense counsel made it clear from the outset that they wanted the case to move along quickly. That obviously has not happened. Today's postponement was not for the benefit of the defense. So, how is the scheduling of this case not a violation of the right to a speedy trial?


Anonymous said...

A lot of folks in turmoil (and losing sleep) are disappointed, tonight.

Many are giving up.

It's a turning point.


Anonymous said...

Hi Twaddlefree and previous posters,

Sure is kinda quiet out here. Where is everybody?


Anonymous said...

One day at a time, as Wade Smith
said. They need to get through
Black History Month at least.

KC Johnson said...

To respond to yesterday's announcement: it's really no news (thus little to analyze).

The defense attorneys already had said the 2-5 hearing was going to be postponed; there's nothing in today's announcement that suggests the 5-7 hearing will (or will not) occur.

In effect, today's gathering was only a bookkeeping matter.

David Brennan said...

RE: The constant delays in the case.

I think it's safe to assume that the defense attorneys are, first and foremost, businessmen. And because it's in their fiscal interest to prolong this thing for as long as possible, you can bet that they're in no hurry to move on with their lives, no matter how much you or I might agree with their positions on the case(and this is especially true now that the defense has got funds being pumped in via donations).

The second thing to bear in mind about the delays - which, to the common man, seem totally insane (the incident occured almost a year ago) - is the ego and pomposity of lawyers and bureaucrats. In the business world (and pretty much everywhere in America), there's this innate push to just get things done. But in the government, where they've no competition and where they're saluted as "Your honor" and "Officer", there's just a psychological tendency to move slowly. I mean, if you think their service sucks (and who the heck doesn't?), what are you going to do....not give them their money? You don't really have any choice in the matter. Pay them their money and salute them or else they'll send men with guns into your home to throw you into a cage.

Anonymous said...

Hey Observer:

Yep, too quiet.


Anonymous said...

KC said:

"To respond to yesterday's announcement: it's really no news (thus little to analyze).

The defense attorneys already had said the 2-5 hearing was going to be postponed; there's nothing in today's announcement that suggests the 5-7 hearing will (or will not) occur.

In effect, today's gathering was only a bookkeeping matter."

Two hours of bookkeeping?

Seven defense attorneys attending to synchronize watches and mark dates on calendars?

All motions have been "stayed until May." That is unreasonable for both defense and SP's and gives the impression that there is "something" to this case.

And you said, "the beginning of the end" how many weeks ago?

I know you read the boards, KC, and I don't believe that you sincerely view many posters there as dim, paranoid crime watchers out for entertainment. There are a number of seriously upset and angry supporters of these boys.

This one needs saving. That is, if the boys and their families still want our support? Perhaps they don't welcome it anymore.


Anonymous said...

The liestoppers article KC cited is a must-read: here.

Also, you can't blame the defense (let alone the lads or their families) for the delay. Nofing made a gigantic mess and it is being carefully, if slowly, defused. Let's just hope that justice delayed isn't justice totally denied...

Anonymous said...

Sorry: here.

David Brennan said...

Anonymous wrote: "I know you read the boards, KC, and I don't believe that you sincerely view many posters there as dim, paranoid crime watchers out for entertainment. There are a number of seriously upset and angry supporters of these boys.

This one needs saving. That is, if the boys and their families still want our support? Perhaps they don't welcome it anymore.

I strongly support your sentiment, but I just want to re-state a point that I made before: nobody who is directly involved actually wants this case to go away.

-The media is getting lots of play from it. (Even Susannah Meadows, the fair-minded 'Newsweek' reporter on the case, has her eyes light up with excitement when she talks about a trial.)

-The defense is getting lots (LOTS) of money from it.

-The prosecution doesn't want a race riot. (Yes, they're more fearful of a riot than passionate about honesty.)

Me and some of my buddies are part of the 9/11 truth movementand one thing I've learned is that it's best for mental health to limit the amount of emotion you invest into things outside of your control. Otherwise, you'll be filled with anxiety.

M. Simon said...

I've been quiet since I have nothing to say.

many posters there as dim, paranoid crime watchers out for entertainment.

That is me.

Plus I'd like to see justice prevail.


This delay is about cooling the marks.

May is finals week. Then comes summer.


Seriously - 90+ days of posts until the next bit of "news". In the meantime Jailfong will be disbarred.

Slim pickins.

Anonymous said...


Are you trying to look like an idiot? Who is giving up? Not the folks who made 168 posts on the "Hearing Postponed" thread yesterday.

I'm pretty sure the only ones giving up are those who think you would be a better lawyer for the accused than are the lawyers the accused actually hired. Who thinks that? Oh, yeah. That would be you and your boyfriend. Well, you can add some 9/11-truth-movement freaks and other tinfoil-hat types in there, too.

texasyank said...

As a USC alum, I remember writing that the Sanchez matter might "make the Duke imbroglio seem like traffic court."

Here: when the story broke.

Boy, was I wrong. A sober-minded USC faculty and community that simply let the investigation proceed--who'd a thunk it?

David Brennan said...

Anonymous: "I'm pretty sure the only ones giving up are those who think you would be a better lawyer for the accused than are the lawyers the accused actually hired."

Yeah, a minimum of 15 months between the date of the alleged offense and the date of the actual trial shows a really aggressive mindset by the defense. They really want this thing over quickly....that's why they supported the prosecution's delay.

But, hey, by government/bureaucrat standards, this thing's moving faster than the Kentucky Derby.

And just to be clear: each defense attorney stands to profit hundreds of thousands - and possibly millions - of dollars off of this. And you think they want it to end? What do you think they are, Communists?

(Also, that was a really insightful response to the Building 7 video, chief.)

Anonymous said...

Carolyn asks:

KC, you explained away another myth of the Gang of 88. Excellent.

But could you please explain why the defense did not protest postponing the Feb. 5 hearing? I know prosecution needs a postponement and defense must agree. But why didn't defense protest? Three months' delay is nearly a quarter million dollars in legal bills for the families - suffering costs higher. Isn't that worth at least a protest?

Anonymous said...

The state of North Carolina is responsible for continuing this travesty and delaying justice. The governor, Mr. Easley, appointed Nifong and remainted silent in face of the frame-up. The attorney general, Mr. Cooper, remained silent and now is running up the legal bills for the players' families. This should lead to one of the largest lawsuits in state history. North Carolina should pay in the seven figures. Justice delayed is justice denied. Now the state is running up its own ultimate legal bill and continues as the laughingstock of the nation.

M. Simon said...


If the state of NC is going to pay the legal bills, why not let the meter run

Anonymous said...

It appears to me that many posters here are disappointed that they have been denied the opportunity, or even pleasure, of seeing/hearing CGM questioned in court.

It also seems to me that many here, who really have nothing personally at stake in this case, are way too emotionally invested in it.

The right to a speedy trial notwithstanding, a three month delay is not excessive. Considering that there's a two month gap between the last court session involving Meehan/Nifong in December 2006 and the now cancelled February 5 hearing; a three-month delay when there's an entirely new prosecution team in place does not seem unreasonable to me.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand all the comments about the defense attorneys letting this case drag on so their fees can grow larger. Where'd that line of thinking come from? What do you think the defense should do? Pitch fits and make demands? Get real.

TC said...

I think that many are disappointed that this hoax is not totally over with by now. Well it's not yet!

When Defendant Nifong handed it over to the AG, it's almost like time stops for awhile! All new people have to make some attempt to get their arms around it for formal court appearances.

Though it would be nice if they would just hang Nifong and then give him a proper trial, that is NOT the way this system works. Doubt it, get involved as a litigant! You all of a sudden discover that a calender is worthless!

Basically we all knew in our hearts that the 2/5 hearing would not take place, we desired it to, but there was no way it could.

I know we all celebrated like the Cubans last summer when Castro got very ill, hoping for...... and then today he too is once again on the TV with some other guy, though he was barely able to move. It aint over till it's over.

This one soon will be over, and we can only hope the real perps will git their dues, some will but far too many will saunter on down the sidewalk banging their pots and pans totally oblivious that they did the same to other innocent folks a few months back.

Seems we will have another time period to wait until ultimate celebration eh? That like tonights dinner shall pass and it will feel so good to have vacated as well!

The Cubans, well they have another one to wait out, or take out, but they too will be able to return and rebuild their country and broken lives as well.

Meanwhile, Nifong is like Captn Hook listening to, Tic Toc Tic Toc........

Anonymous said...

to Carolyn:
What do you mean, "Why didn't the defense protest the delay..." . Because a motion for the delay would be granted by every judge in America. The prosecution has to start from square one and it will take several months to review the case . The defense comes across as reasonable and fair. We'll get justice. So it takes a little longer.

Anonymous said...

An excellent affirmative action article by Heather McDonald.

"After Prop. 209’s passage, UC Berkeley, like the rest of the UC system, “went through a depression figuring out what to do,” says Robert Laird, Berkeley’s pro-preferences admissions director from 1993 to 1999. The system’s despair was understandable. It had relied on wildly unequal double standards to achieve its smattering of “underrepresented minorities,” especially at Berkeley and UCLA, the most competitive campuses. The median SAT score of blacks and Hispanics in Berkeley’s liberal arts programs was 250 points lower (on a 1,600-point scale) than that of whites and Asians. This test-score gap was hard to miss in the classroom. Renowned Berkeley philosophy professor John Searle, who judges affirmative action “a disaster,” recounts that “they admitted people who could barely read.”

The downward trajectory of those students was inevitable, Searle says. “You’d be delighted to find that your introductory philosophy class looked like the United Nations, but that salt-and-pepper effect was lost after six to eight weeks,” he recalls. “There was a huge dropout rate of affirmative-action admits in my classes by mid-terms. No one had taught them the need to go to class. So we started introducing BS majors, in an effort to make the university ready for them, rather than making them ready for the university.” Searle recalls a black studies class before his that was “as segregated as Mississippi in the 1950s.” One day, Searle recounts, the professor had written on the blackboard that a particular tribe in Africa “wore colorful clothing.”

If your not familiar with Ward Connerly's work you should be.

Maybe what's needed is a Prop. 209 styled anti-preference initiative that eliminates the race/gender/class warfare departments?

Bourgeoisophobus said...

Actually, only bad defense attorneys want a case to drag on. Part of what you're paying for when you hire a good lawyer is someone who will try to get a case tried expeditiously. This is why people who have more money actually end up paying less for legal advice than people who have less.

All the defense attorneys in this case are good. If they went along with a delay here or there, they were probably just giving in on the point to let the other side hit one.

Anonymous said...

Affirmative action and faculty hires...again, an excellent article.

The Post-209 Faculty-Hiring Fig Leaf

In the area of faculty hiring, Prop. 209 has boosted the already burgeoning “identity studies” industry. Administrations are busily extending new faculty lines to every last “Institute for the Study of Race, Diversity, and Difference,” on the safe assumption that many of those new hires will improve the campus “diversity” profile. And new identity-based projects are springing up all the time. Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender, created in 2001, is currently bankrolling the “Colorism Project,” for example, to study “discrimination that structures inequality by creating social evaluations based on skin tone.”

Programs once explicitly race-based have been repackaged as “diversity” initiatives. The UC president’s postdoctoral fellowship program no longer says that it is looking for minority and female Ph.D.s but rather candidates whose work will “enhance the diversity of the academic community.” A recently created president’s postdoctoral fellowship is targeted at Ph.D.s working in the fields of queer theory, feminist studies, HIV/AIDS, Latino/a studies, and international migration, for example, in honor of a deceased former fellow whose research explored the previously uncharted territory of how “queer migrants of color . . . have transformed notions of queerness, racialization, migration, and citizenship in the United States...”

M. Simon said...


Anonymous said...

m. simon, thank you sir for the link.

Anonymous said...

IT IS all about race, when the accused are people of color then everyone tip toes around the case to make sure they are not called racists, when the accused are white, forget about it!

Stanley Feldman said...

David Brennan's 12:37 post is total BS and not worthy of a response.

Anonymous said...

The problem is the SP's have to play the PC game.
In the Tawana Brawley case, every action by Brawley was investigated to the Nth degree.
They don't want there to be any questions about their investigation.

Anonymous said...

I really think the non-laywers are reading a lot into nothing as to the delay. Whenever seven lawyers and a judge try to schedule a new hearing date, it is far into the future, if they actually are busy. The Judge has other cases and busy lawyers (not Nifong) have other commitments, trials motions etc. To get the dates to coincide is difficult. Clients always complain but thats the way it is..blame the legal system but dont read much into it.

Also, the AG's office really has to an investigation. They really need to read every page of every document and interview every witness. I wish they could skip that but the whole world, and the voters of North Carolina, are watching. The office may well have spies to political enemies who said they went through the motions. To actually read all the motions, all the material, interview the witnesses, pick apart the statements, walk through alternative timelines, consider the legal theories is a atime consuming process. If it were me, I would say NO DNA, she's a liar, and punt the charges after two weeks but looking at all the evidence is political cover.

huesofblue said...

Delaying the hearing is a good thing. The special prosecutors just got the case, so any motion they could have made to delay the hearing would certainly be granted. Fighting the motion would have been expensive for the LAX players and would have pissed off the special prosecutors. It would have also forced the special prosecutors to focus on arguing the motion instead of on analysizing the case file. Since the defense attorneys obviously want the special prosecutors to drop the case, it's in their best interests to not to be adversarial dicks about a fight they can't win. Instead it seems that the defense is trying to establish a cooperative repore with the prosecution that will let them work togethor to end this nightmare.

Taking a highly adversarial stance from the outset can be really stupid (and expensive) if your goal is a cooperative resolution. I think it was a smart move by the defense.

gs said...


KC on NY Times and DNA

Anonymous said...

KC, I respect what you have done in this case, and you are deserving of all the praise you get, however in this particular posting you don't know what you are talking about, at least as far as USC is concerned. The two main schools in town are UCLA and USC. It might be said that at least 80% of the professionals in LA are grads of one of the two schools, and the police department/DA offices combined with all media are no different. There is a long history here of covering up for athletes and athletic departments that goes back to the Thundering Herd of USC. The athletic departments of both big schools move like lightning to keep things "quiet" any time one of their athletes is charged; the LA Times won't print anything, our TV media---ever in the tank for broadcast rights---says nothing, and the faculties are always aware of the huge incomes derived from big time men's sports. We have an incendiary race problem here that is far worse than any in Durham and had the DA here come out publically in a case like the Duke case the race pimps would have done what the Group of 88 did at Duke. I hasten to add here, that big mouthed Susan Estrich, a law professor at USC and Democratic apparatchick, wrote a scathing denunciation of the Duke players that was published nation wide. She was a card carrying member of the Group of 89, and she would lead a USC Women's Studies Left faculty in the same way as at Duke. The only difference? The football people would have sought her dismissal immediately, no matter the evidence. To sum it up, all colleges are different. All have differing relationships with the outside community, and big time sports athletes are far different than rinky dink lacrosse pansies, none of whom would dare set foot on a USC practice field. Duke could have happened anywhere that the alumni had no local clout; anywhere that a local DA could rabble rouse the local blacks, particularly in LA, and anywhere that the Women's Studies Department has been allowed full recognition.

Anonymous said...

You are completely correct, and this extreme thoroughness when there is no longer probable cause and hasn't been for months and months is maddening. The defense lawyers have performed superbly. I do not believe for a minute they want anything other than the earliest possible dismissal with the clearest language of exoneration possible. And now for the first time the prosecution will comb through the evidence in all its fine detail, interview the accuser repeatedly along with all the other other words for political reasons they will treat this case as if it has merit, even though it has none. Deep breaths everyone...some meditation, perhaps. The case is still on a much better track than it was with Mr. Nifong. But I still believe NC is violating the Speedy Trial requirement of the US Constitution...add that to the long list of violations....and don't move to NC or let your kids go to college there. That's my new policy, anyway.


Anonymous said...

You don't have to be polite about it KC.

Pitts and all the others are not only wrong, they're 180 degrees from reality.

Rod Allison

Anonymous said...

No, non-lawyers cannot understand the delay... but should they? The long wait for the "investigation" seems to them like some jury spending days and days to arrive at a verdict that should take minutes. This long wait is infuriating and worrisome: what if those idiots come back with some crazy idea that ignores all the evidence? It's not like there isn't precedent for that in Durham.

Non-lawyers simply do not buy that it will take months to read and weigh the docs pertinent to this case, and once again they have a point. It won't.

The real reasons behind this molasses-like pace are too obvious, and won't work anyway. Want to minimize the damage to NC's credibility? Too late! Want to placate Durham's Nifong-voters? Good luck! Certain folk want to see somebody white+privileged go to trial+jail. Period. If that doesn't happen, this will never seem like anything but a cover-up, no matter how long it is delayed.

Anonymous said...

I guess we shouldn't worry about sending our kids to college in LA--where everyone is willing to cover up for "alleged" crimes committed by athletes. Hmmmmmmm.....

Anonymous said...

The delay certainly was expected. But I think the real question is not about the next hearing date---in May--but about how long it can possibly take the new prosecutors to decide if the charges should stand. After all, if this event had just happened, and they had to do their own investigation and decide whether to press charges, it probably wouldn't take 5 months. It seems in these other cases KC describes, decisions were made much more quickly. In this case, all the evidence is already available--they don't have to wait for DNA tests to come back, or for searches to be concluded. They simply have to review existing evidence and question those involved. It seems they should already have their decision--or certainly within weeks.

Anonymous said...


You overlook the fact that Susan Estrich was raped while she was a student at Harvard Law School (discussed in one of her books). Also, in late summer/early fall, Estrich publicly denounced the accuser.

bill anderson said...


Great op-ed. I am glad to see that one, and any time you can point out the utter hypocrisy and dishonesty that has been fundamental to the Times' coverage of the Duke case is good. The NY Times, as well as the NAACP, the ACLU and the Innocence Project, have been absolutely shameful in the way they have dealt with this case.

Anonymous said...

Why is it being assumed that the boys legal bills continue at 80K per month? That implies the same amount of billable hours now as at the beginning of the case when affidavits were being taken, motions being written, witnesses investigated etc. I would think that by this point, most of the defense ground work has been laid, and the charges per month are reduced.

Anonymous said...

There. Will. Be. A. Trial. It's all about politics. The AG needs the black vote in any primary race. Blacks may be only 30% of the Democratic vote in NC, as some poster has said; but Blacks and guilt-ridden Whites form a majority of the votes in a NC Democratic primary. Would any of you hire a prosecutor who could not get this case to a jury? No, you would not. Flimsier cases get to the jury every day.

The pluses and minuses of the jury system are on display here. A jury can, in theory, offset the selfish interests of any judge who has to run for office in Durham; but a jury will also likely reflect the prejudices of the community from which it is drawn. Maybe a change of venue will do the trick in this case, but my money is on a hung jury . . . someday.

Anonymous said...

8:35 I'm unsure of your meaning, but if there are steaming piles in both places, then each mess should be cleaned up. Don't you agree?

panda said...

Channel some time to "the larger tragedy" while we wait for the next news (charges are dropped)

Duke needs to do their part in stopping this false propaganda. Thomas Sowell needs to be invited to the Duke Chapel - the center of the university

Thomas Sowell excerpt:

"The current self-destructive misdirection of energies in black ghettoes cannot be explained by a "legacy of slavery" or "racism." For one thing, this level of self-destruction in black communities did not exist half a century ago, when racism was worse and the black population was generations closer to the era of slavery.

Moreover, a virtually identical pattern of self-destructive attitudes and behavior has been found among British lower-class whites, where none of this can be blamed on racism or a legacy of slavery. (See "Life at the Bottom" by Theodore Dalrymple.)

What the two self-destructive communities on opposite sides of the Atlantic have in common is hearing a steady diet of propaganda blaming all their problems on others, and depicting "society" as determined to keep them down, regardless of anything they might do to try to lift themselves up..."

The Angry Studies...Race, Gender, and Class frauds are culpable, whether they choose to realize it or not.

Anonymous said...

"And just to be clear: each defense attorney stands to profit hundreds of thousands - and possibly millions - of dollars off of this. And you think they want it to end? What do you think they are, Communists? "

Actually, I think that they are ethical attorneys. Attorneys are required to represent their client's zealously within the bounds of the law. To delay a case to run up legal bills is unethical behavior.
Of course, I know that some attorney's are unethical. But I think that it is irresponsible to attribute to unethical behavior to these attorneys that is based on nothing more that speculations.
As to the length of the continuance, I believe I read somewhere that the 2-5-07 hearing was scheduled for five days. It is not at all unreasonable that May would be the first five day slot available of the Court's calender that would work for seven attornies. Actually, if they were in fact looking for five days, May is an early setting.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead, the mincing prince of presumed innocence , needs to read this piece and know in the fullness of his core that IT is over .

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:44,

That was a very interesting article. Thanks for the link.


Anonymous said...

"There. Will. Be. A. Trial. It's all about politics. The AG needs the black vote in any primary race. Blacks may be only 30% of the Democratic vote in NC, as some poster has said; but Blacks and guilt-ridden Whites form a majority of the votes in a NC Democratic primary. Would any of you hire a prosecutor who could not get this case to a jury? No, you would not. Flimsier cases get to the jury every day."

I don't see any political gain for the AG to present a flimsy case that will make AG office appear to be incompetant. A trial that has no chance will be perceived as a humiliation to AA voters who think this case must go to trial. At the same time, it would cause a significant backlash from those who want to see justice acheived.
If there is something to try, the AG should present the case. But I see no political benefit in presenting a frivolous case to a jury.

Anonymous said...

I think KC brings up an important point about race and rape. The truth is, that blacks raping whites is not only more common, according to FBI statistics, but that itis patently false that blacks accused of raping whites are thrown in jail immediately or get harsher sentences. I doubt any of the cases he cited included $400,000, for what in the UR case amounted to a violent stranger gang rape.

The truth is, that black athletes who are accused of raping whites or anybody are treated with kid gloves. The first thing you will hear when it's a black athlete charged with a sex crime is about the Scottsboro case and then you will hear about how the defendant overcame such odds.

It is also true that far from throwing these minority players to the wolves when they are charged with a felony, that universities almost always err on the side of protecting and helping their players because they are players in the million dollar revenue generators of football and basketball.

Anonymous said...

I too agree there will be trials.

So many people on the side of the LAX players continue to wait for someone on the side of the false-accuser to have some sort of epiphany and denounce this charade.

Folks, that will never happen.

There are too many people on the false-accuser's side who continue to demonstrate their own 'racism of low expectations'. Certain members of that group are afraid of alienating the black vote in the Democrat primaries. They know the black vote will not leave the plantation during the general election, and too many black "Community Leaders" enjoy their time in the Democrat Party "big house".

These people, including all of the Group of 88/87, have for decades practiced this inherent racism of low expectations against black people. These low expectations are manifested in various affirmative action programs, the creation of victim studies, and their belief, based on their experience, that black folks, if not given what they demand, will automatically burn down their own homes and businesses in some kind of animalistic, savage display of petulance.

Racism against black people? You want racism against black people?

Look no further than those who are perpetuating this fraud and await it in its full "glory" when the trials begin.

Anonymous said...

I think you would be hard pressed to find a 'flimsier' rape case than this one.

Anonymous said...

There isn't going to be a trial becuase there isn't a case. It doesn't matter what the black community wants, the AG is not going to get laughed out of court by everyone but the black community.

I never thought Mike Nifong was going to take the case to trial either. He always intended to end the case before a trial took place. He was waiting for the Nov. elections and then would most likely have dropped the case this Spring due to the new mommy's health problems and the mean defense.

Nifong miscalculated, and the lies and crimes he had to perpetrate in order to keep the case alive beyond November caught up with him faster than he expected. Once he had to turn over the DNA evidence it was only a matter of time.

Nifong may be an arrogant, lying, criminal egomaniac but even he cannot have believed that he could put this woman on the stand with any hope that she wouldn't change her story again right then and there or bank on a jury SO RACIST that they would ignore a parade of witnesses, including african americans, that disputed everything the alleged victim had to say.

Anonymous said...

Just to comment briefly on the actual content of the post--one of the ironies of this case, as compared to the other cases noted by KC here, is that it was vulnerable to being handled differently in part because the case did not turn on consent. As a result, the field of possible suspects could not be narrowed early on to a few individuals--and the entire membership of the team (save one) could be viewed as possible rapists and, at least, accessories to rape, making possible the hysteria that ensued, spurred by Nifong's inflammatory comments and irresponsible press coverage. If a few team members had, actually, had sex with the accuser, and their defense had turned on consent, the case would still, no doubt, have caused a scandal (because, among other things, of the race and class differences between accuser and accused), but the responses of everyone involved would probably have been more measured and the collateral damage to the lacrosse program, the university, and town-gown relations might have been a lot less.

Anonymous said...


It would seem to me the opposite should have occured. In the previous cases there was admitted sex, making rape at least a possibility.

In this case, there isn't any evidence that any sex, consensual or otherwise, took place.

I would think then that condemnation should be more forthcoming when the defendant has admitted sex in a dicey the VUU a ditch with a girl you just met whose throwing up.

Doesn't it make more sense for national hysteria and condemnation in a case where there is at least a possibility a rape took place, rather than a case where there isn't any credible evidence any contact at all occured?

Bill said...

"Alameda County senior deputy district attorney Kim Hunter told reporters that the accuser had offered contradictory versions of events, that she had no visible injuries or photographs of injuries, and that another witness (the "Kim Roberts" of this case) contradicted the accuser in every way."

The defendants on that case are lucky to have such a honorable adversary as Zira herself! The Duke 3, however, seem to be stuck with a rather dogmatic orangutan who cannot let the facts get in the way of the Truth.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Lawgiver, call your office.

jonathon said...

Don't give the defense attorneys a bad rap for a delay due to the obvious need for the new prosecutors to have time to review the facts of record in the case. The defense lawyers, being very competent, very competent attorneys and obviously believe that the interests of their clients are best served by no trial at all-a distinct probability in this case. This approach is likely to result in a complete vindication of the defendants without the risks and costs (including legal fees!) of a trial. It is , in short, a very sound approach to the case!

Anonymous said...

The problem with a dismissal is that the black community and some women's advocates will say she didn't get her day in court. It will give them just enough amunition to perpetuate the idea that the poor blacks got shafted again.

That is why a civil suit is a must, let's put her on the stand and see how her story sounds in the light of day.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe anyone would criticize the defense lawyers for agreeing to the continuance. The new prosecutor will review the file and dismiss the charges, probably before the rescheduled hearing date.

Anonymous said...

Last year at least a half dozen Fresno State football players - who happened to be black - were charged with raping a nine year old girl. The race of the alleged victim was not reported. It was reported for one day on MSNBC and Fox. I haven't heard anything about it since. Are you familiar with this? If so, why didn't you include this example?

Anonymous said...

what makes no sense to me is if the kids wanted to have sex with the FA why wouldnt they just pay for sex? I just assume that this is what the FA does for a living.

Anonymous said...

10:32 am--(I'm 10:26)
Yes, I agree it makes a lot more sense. But unfortunately, little about this case has made sense from the beginning, and I think both "facile assumptions" and hysteria sometimes thrive when less is known about the actual facts (as here, where the team members could only state what didn't happen, rather than being able to provide a version of what did happen).

Anonymous said...

If a person sells her body for sex ,why rape her, especially 3 kids at the same time?

Anonymous said...

I can see where you are going, but it's kind of a facile argument. It's like saying 'he's got a wife/girlfriend, so why would he "need" to rape anyone' when there are gazillions of examples of rapists with wives, girlfriends available for sex.

If the availability of free or paid sex was a determinant of rape then there wouldn't be any rapes occuring outside of places where there were no prostitutes.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with a previous poster who believes that no one from the black community--the bulk of CGM and Nifong supporters--will ever come forward and denounce this charade.

And therein lies the most vivid example of why there is so much negative pathology among the black population. Even the most educated and thoughtful become hypnotized by the prospect of getting off on some form of "cosmic justice".

Nothing....I mean nothing....will ever get in the way of the ingrained desire to want special treatment. No matter that there is no longer---and hasn't been for half a century---a logical need for such special treatment.

This peculiar feature of ever-present victimhood taught to black children from the start remains with them throughout their lives like an albatross around their necks.

It will take more disgusting examples such as the lacrosse case for others to stand up and demand that the black community move into reality......or perish alone in their squalor of malice.


Anonymous said...

If the ridiculously high level of black on black violence isn't enough motivation for the black community to change, why would this case be a blip on the screen??

There is a multi billion dollar industry invested in the black as victim ideology...government funded welfare and education programs, affirmative action programs in every state and college for every profession, black politicians who get elected promising better, bigger entitlement programs.

Reality-based thinking, if it was going to occur, should have occured quite some time ago. Black neighborhoods are full of gang members who prey upon primarily other blacks. Black schools are full of black children raised not to care about a high school diploma or having a baby with no job or means of support or father with either.

It certainly doesn't help that society at large enables this thinking at nearly every stage, up until the last stage...getting and keeping a job and then the minority hire is on his or her own and often then comes face to face with reality, by then it's too late and the easiest course of action is to blame racism and the failure of your school, your family or yourself.

Anonymous said...

re: Anon 11:15 AM

FRESNO 2 men plead not guilty to sex assault on girl 11


Rape charges against juco players latest in string of incidents

Anonymous said...

It is a long-perpetuated myth that rape is primarily about obtaining power over someone. Of course, there are those men who are mentally ill and have almost no social skills, probably impotent in some way physically as well as mentally....and we all have read about such cases where they rape even elderly women or those incapacitated in some way.....however....

.....for most men the pure animal attraction and need for sex is still the driving force.

Any man who would force a woman to have sex with him is most certainly suffering from emotional, psychological, and social problems; however, sex in its purest form is stimulated by raw animal attraction.

We now know that the lacriosse players did not ask for black strippers---no one wanted to do harm to a black woman as many tried to play up in the media.

If the lacrosse players had been racists, they would have recoiled and not allowed the two black strippers to dance----paying each $400 for nothing.

This unbelievable mess was prompted by Kim Roberts saying to a lacrosse player---not any of the 3 accused---that white men have small d!cks and joked that he was having to "pay for it".

The race issue was begun by the black woman. Not the white men.

Most certainly, arguments about paying them so much money for doing nothing brought negative comments as well....which was unfortunate and things were blown way out of proportion by the media....making the lacrosse players look like the instigators.

I believe Kim Roberts' 911 call was a black racist woman's call of revenge. I believe that her partner CGM has mental problems, but not significant enough to misunderstand right from wrong.

These two woman are criminal grifters who, if they were anything but black, would be villified by the entire public with a demand for jailtime for Crystal Gail Mangum.

Every woman in America should be angry about this destructive person's deeds.....and her parasitic lifestyle.

Lastly, there are great looking men and women of all races. Personally, I am atttracted to the swarthy expensive suits. LIS!

Neither of these two women---and most certainly not CGM---rate as good looking. And the personal hygiene would be enough to turn off any normal person.

The mountains of irrefutable evidence of the innocence of Collin, Reade, and Dave aside......

.....I will never believe that any of these guys would have had the desire or have even been able to get it up for such an undesirable act.

And that's that !


Anonymous said...

to 12:31.. those two girls in those cases were not making a living selling their bodies.

Anonymous said...


I'm not sure I get the point of the links to the case about the 11 year old girl.

Surely you don't believe that either an 11 year old is capable of giving consent to sex with multiple adult males or that an 18 and 19 year old male can't tell the difference between an 11 year old and a 15 or 16 year old.

But maybe I missed the reason for the link or how it relates to this case.

Anonymous said...

TO Debra

I agree with you. Take it to another level and ask, how do you find three people like that in the same house?

Anonymous said...

To:12:53 and 12:58
The links were posted in response to Anon at 11:15 AM.
That is all.

Anonymous said...

TO 1:21PM---

It would seem all but impossible.


Anonymous said...

When the Fresno State case was reported, I thought, "Hmmm, this ought to be interesting. Wonder how the press will handle Black accused and white accuser." Well, the coach got the boys lawyers immediately. They weren't villified in the media and I never heard another word about it. The girl was 11 for heaven's sake! (the players were quoted as saying that she looked older!)

Anonymous said...

When it's black on white rape the white accusers always lose. It becomes the 'tragic and long history' of false accusations made by white women against blacks and the tragic history of blacks being abused by the justice system and blacks being lynched by white mobs.

You can't get even an get an all white jury to convict in a black on white rape unless it was violent and a stranger rape. The new mythology is that white women all want sex with black men, but then they are ashamed or fearful of their racist family/friends/husband and so they lie about it.

The case in Utah with a white accuser and several black defendants she lost her case even though the group first lied and said no sex at all took place, one of the guys ADMITTED on the stand that she was out of it, that they were hiding in the bedroom she went to to sleep, that she was semi conscious from drinking and that he knew she didn't want "it"....she still lost the case, too much reasonable doubt...

Anonymous said...

Debrah must be glad that RP isn't on the board much anymore.


Anonymous said...

The joke is, it wasn't RP who was harassing her. That's not his style. Debrah has a screw loose.

Anonymous said...

So many times your posts have moved me to tears. Here is another one.

Anonymous said...


What do you mean when you write "posts moved me to tears"?

Do not understand some English idiom.


Anonymous said...

That poster commenting on Los Angeles doesn't know what he is talking about. The Sanchez stroy started with a swat team arresting him with TV coverage, then was national sport news for about a week. People claim cover ups by the universities, but the fact is that charges are investigated without a bunch of press releases. That's what the poster considers a cover-up.

Anonymous said...

The AG is a democrat. Blacks will vote for him regardless of what happens in this case.

There will be no race riots - Durham perps are too busy chasing crack and whores to concern themselves with rioting. If they come to my neighborhood they will be gunned down - assault rifles are still legal, for now.

The pot bangers have suffered no negative consequences - they are "community activists" in the truest sense of the word here - parasites who sew discord and get paid by the local corrupt government.

The chief of police is a lazy wife beater. The mayor is a stooge. All is as it should be, and yet somehow, the man is still keepin' the bothers down. That and profound immorality and stupidity that has to be seen to be believed. Did I mention the sense of entitlement that goes along with being a former slave? Spend any amount of time here and you will see that laws do not apply to the majority of the populace. It is a urine soaked hellhole.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the case at Notre Dame. A white undergraduate woman at Notre Dame accused four black Notre Dame football players of a gang rape. Two were acquitted of the most serious charges, and the charges were dropped for the other two:

Anonymous said...

The previous link was truncated