Saturday, March 24, 2007

The NIT of DIW

This week featured DIW’s version of March Madness, with brackets including the worst of: op-eds; Duke faculty publications; “news” articles; and soundbites. But, just as in the real March Madness, “bubble” selections exist—items that just missed the cut despite their impressive levels of vitriol, or their gleeful rush to judgment, or their indefensible analysis, or their blatant hypocrisy. Below, then, are the 16 selections for the case version of the NIT.


6) “Physical trauma. You’ve got possible vaginal, anal bruising and tearing. Torn clothing. Torn clothing indicates an attack. Contusions, which is a big word for bruises. Tears, broken nails, which we know we have in this case. She also said in the affidavit that she scratched one of the perpetrators’ on the arm. Look for DNA under that nail, people! Emotional trauma, change in her demeanor, the outcry she makes to the first person. That would be in the Kroeger parking lot.” Nancy Grace, in an April 5 broadcast of her Headline News program, detailing the evidence that she said already was on the books proving rape. Of all the items listed, the only ones that actually existed were “tears” and “change in her demeanor.” Everything else was invented by Grace.

5) “The police and the prosecutor will scrutinize this evidence in exquisite detail, and if they find something is askew, that something doesn't fit in the alibi evidence, they will not hesitate to charge Seligmann with yet another crime. That would be obstruction of justice.” legal “analyst” Lester Munson, dismissing the revelation of Reade Seligmann’s airtight alibi. Liestoppers subsequently revealed that legal “analyst” Munson voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Illinois, facing ethics charges from the state bar.

4) “My initial thoughts were, ‘Wow, what a bunch of ignorant, pompous, misguided young ladies’ . . . It is this type of same condescending and arrogant mindset and sense of entitlement that led to the trans-Atlantic slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow, and ultimately to Washington Duke being one of the biggest tobacco tycoons in the South.” WNCU radio host (and Orin Starn invited guest) Hanif Omar, on the decision of the women’s lacrosse team to wear armbands expressing solidarity with the three players targeted by Mike Nifong.

3) “In the moment when the ad came out, I did not hear from one colleague that there was something wrong with the ad.” Group of 88 leader Wahneema Lubiano, unintentionally demonstrating the “groupthink” atmosphere prevalent among too many quarters of the Duke arts and sciences faculty.

2) We had to stop those pictures [of the players practicing]. It doesn’t mean that it’s fair, but we had to stop it. It doesn’t necessarily mean I think it was right—it just had to be done.” Board of Trustees chairman Bob Steel, explaining to the New Yorker why the school canceled the lacrosse season.

1) “Burn it down.” Victoria Peterson, soon to be Nifong citizens’ committee co-chair, outside 610 N. Buchanan, during the New Black Panthers’ May campus rally.

Articles/Faculty Publications

4) Robert Bliwise, “Spring of Sorrows,” Duke Magazine, May/June 2006. The administration’s “official” version of the springtime events. Bliwise quoted from only one Duke student—an African-American male who, from all accounts, was not representative of student opinion as a whole. He then quoted from four Duke faculty members—Paul Haagen (appropriately, as chairman of the Academic Council) three of the most outspoken opponents of the lacrosse team (Houston Baker, Orin Starn, and Peter Wood).*

3) Wahneema Lubiano, “Whatever Happens, ... What People Are Asking Is That Something Change,” N&O, May 7, 2006. The Group of 88 leader demanded that Duke immediately institute “targeted teaching” (sounds eerily like a “re-education” program) to expose “the structures of racism and the not-so-hidden injuries of class entitlement in place at Duke and everywhere in this country, and without regard to banal and ordinary sexual harassment,” since “we don’t have to wait for working class or poorer students to be targeted by fraternity ‘theme’ parties or cross burnings on the quad or in dorm halls, or for sexual assaults to be attested by perfectly placed witnesses and indisputable evidence.”

2) Karla Holloway, mass e-mail, January 3, 2007. “I will share with you what I have not previously shared publicly . . . It is legally hearsay, but nevertheless speaks volumes to what I think are the intricacies of the event that deserve a legal hearing . . . So what does it mean to readmit students with an indictment for violent acts, without an internal investigation of our own regarding the event? I think it is a choice the institution has made. And it has led to my own that I cannot work in shared good faith at a time when principled conduct matters less than polls and parents pleas.” In her mass e-mail, sent to dozens of colleagues around campus, the then-chair of the CCI’s “race subgroup” passed along fifth-hand, unsubstantiated, slanderous gossip about Duke students. Some might wonder how such a figure could have a prominent position in a committee designed to produce a more tolerant Duke campus.

1) Houston Baker, e-mail, December 31, 2006. The mother of a former lacrosse player e-mailed former Group of 88 leader Baker (now at Vanderbilt) laying out the new developments in the case, and asking if he would reconsider his decision to sign the Group’s statement. His complete response:

LIES! You are just a provacateur [sic] on a happy New Years Eve trying to get credit for a scummy bunch of white males! You know you are in search of sympaathy [sic] for young white guys who beat up a gay man [sic] in Georgetown, get drunk in Durham, and lived like “a bunch of farm animals” near campus.

I really hope whoever sent this stupid farce of an email rots in .... umhappy [sic] new year to you ... and forgive me if your [sic] really are, quite sadly, mother of a “farm animal.”


6) James Zou, “Do Not Vote,” Chronicle, October 20, 2006. After tepidly conceding that Nifong isn’t “the ideal district attorney to serve the Durham community,” Zou urged Duke students to respect “due political and judicial process” by not voting in the November election. He didn’t say in his column how many classes he had taken from Group of 88 members.

5) Claire Dines, “CNN’s ‘Journalism’ is a Fool’s Paradise,” Atlantic Free Press, January 19, 2007. An invited guest on Paula Zahn’s Duke-case special, Dines subsequently complained that she was on only one rather than several show segments—in an essay riddled with factual errors, thereby showing why she didn’t receive more airtime. She did, however, manage to produce one of the most (unintentionally) humorous lines of the case: “I appeared as not just a gullible fool, but even worse, a gullible fool with a feminist agenda.” Hard to argue with that analysis.

4) Lynne Duke, “The Duke Case’s Cruel Truth,” Washington Post, May 24, 2006. The opening sentence read like a bad romance novel rather than a serious legal analysis: “She was black, they were white, and race and sex were in the air.” The columnist then fantastically revealed “the brutal truth”: “It is that the Duke case is in some ways reminiscent of a black woman's vulnerability to a white man during the days of slavery, reconstruction and Jim Crow, when sex was used as a tool of racial domination.” She has subsequently stopped commenting on the case.

3) Al McSurely, “Defense of Lacrosse Team Overlooked Much,” N&O, June 3, 2006. The head of the NAACP’s Legal Redress Committee previewed his error-filled August “memorandum of law” in informing N&O readers that “within five minutes [of their arrival], the men threatened the women with racial and misogynist verbal assaults . . . Some men were caught with their macho entitlement views hanging out and, to save themselves, they have banned together to blame the survivor of their verbal assaults.” McSurely concluded his piece by incredibly asserting that “the NAACP stands for fair play for all parties . . . for justice and community.”

2) “Voters Divided on Lacrosse Case,” Herald-Sun, Nov. 9, 2006. “It appears,” the editorial conceded, “that many more voters than we suspected, and perhaps more than Nifong suspected, have taken issue with the way he has handled the case.” But then H-S editors, ignoring Nifong’s misconduct, asserted that “the best course for all concerned is to continue down the current path to trial. Then, in a truly astonishing statement, the editors asked readers to believe that they now have the interests of the accused players at heart. Since “an upcoming trial . . . is sure to draw major media attention, it would be better for the players to have an opportunity to prove their innocence at trial.”

1) Bob Ashley, “Has the Lacrosse Case Induced Insanity?,” Herald-Sun, July 23, 2006. In retrospect, this op-ed, penned by the H-S editor, served as the launching point of the paper’s decision to extend its editorial bias against the lacrosse players to the news division as well. After hailing the embarrassing op-ed of Andrew Cohen, Ashley insinuated that Nifong had strong evidence hidden in his files” “We’ve tried to consistently remind that all the facts aren’t out, and that the defense attorneys are releasing just what fragments of the total evidence they choose to make public.”

Of course, all the facts weren’t out—Nifong and Dr. Brian Meehan had made sure of that. But Editor Ashley and his ace reporter, John Stevenson, would be asleep at the switch on that story.

*--modified from original


Anonymous said...

An excellent roadmap for the civil lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

I am sorry to see that you did not include Sheehan's column, possibly most outrageous on this whole mess, even among your bubble selections. Her semi-apolgy not with standing, I just don't see why you would continue to give Sheehan who was the worst of the worst at the beginning of this a pass again.

Anonymous said...

You couldn't make this stuff up! It is great to have a record of it all, and to revisit some of the preposterous remarks made on this subject, particularly from journalists and paid "experts". They are rarely held to account for their misjudgements (to use a polite term).

Houston Baker again comes across as the most vile, although perhaps the easiest to brush off. He seems borderline psychotic. But what does it say about American higher education that he went from Duke to Vanderbilt!? Obviously, there's something rotten there too. Alas, it is everywhere, not just Duke. He should be unemployable after his letter and his email.

Anonymous said...


Are you sure Lester Munson lost his license in Illinois?

From is website:

"Munson is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Chicago Law School and is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois."

KC Johnson said...

The Liestoppers post revealed that he gave up his license in 1991. He may have petitioned for its restoration. The issue is how a magazine could have as its legal "expert" someone who had to give up his license in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Nice work, KC. I like your NIT field better than your NCAAs.

The Duke Mag writer you reference is Robert Bliwise, not Bliwire.

Anonymous said...

Did Munson libel the lacrosse players? Do lawyers have an opinion on that?

becket03 said...

To 12:41

Munson had a booze problem. There's no dispute on that point. He was brought up on ethics violations once for failing to properly service a client, promised to do better, and then found himself under a cloud again. The nuts and bolts details have not been published, at least not that I've seen.

After the second incident, he gave up his license to practice law, and that's when he suddenly realized that his calling had always been journalism anyway.

I'm not surprised that he ostentatiously hangs out his Princeton and University of Chicago degrees for all to see, but fails to mention his little problem with the bottle and the effect it had on his law license. But that's the way of the world, eh?

On the Duke case he's been absolutely abysmal, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that he couldn't cut it as a lawyer.

His editors probably saw the same degrees you did and went weak in the knees, scrambling to get him on staff. They should have known, however, that boneheads can be found carrying fancy degrees. In fact, it happens all the time.


Anonymous said...

Seems like a lot of targets for civil suits....defamation of character...among others.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

12:12 says it precisely.

KC, I add my congratulations to you for your excellent and tireless work.

Anonymous said...

Victoria is the least mean and most muttled of this crowd. Nancy Disgrace, Bob Steele and Lester the worst - why, because they really knew better. Waiting for Houston to throw his blight over Vandy.

Chicago said...

The only thing that is inconsistent in this analogy is that teams that make the NIT still MUST have a winning record, not at all the case for the people in these examples.

Anonymous said...

Beckett - good analysis of Lester.

Anonymous said...

KC - Thank you so much for keeping track of both the March Madness and the NIT comments. It is simply hard to believe that so many hateful comments have been delivered with such a small outcry. I think in some ways we grow numb to this sort of hatred due to its repetition and frequuency. Anyone reading your comments gets the opportunity to wake up. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Great parting line about how the prosecution had additional evidence. How many times did we hear this and read this? I thought at the time that the prosecution might be really slow and effectively holding INculpatory evidence back. I never could have imagined holding back EXculpatory evidence. Nifong made fools of a lot of these "journalists."

Anonymous said...

It is a disgrace charges were not dropped yesterday. What a bunch of miserable bastards are nc political hacks. Hope it happens to their kids sometime.

Anonymous said...

You need to add in another "[sic]" to Baker's e-mail rant to the LAX mom.

". . . and forgive me if your really are, quite sadly, mother of a “farm animal.”"

The "your" should have been "you."

Baker is an ignorant fool, and he keeps offering proof of this sad fact over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Has there ever been a town that better deserved liability in a multi-million dollar judgment than Durham?

I mean, Durham residents had a chance to at least mitigate their liability by voting to oust Nifong in either the Democratic Party primary or the general election. That they instead voted FOR Nifong cements their joint liability with him for his offenses.

I only wish there was a way to apportion any judgement against the city of Durham to only those who voted for Nifong. Hmmm, now that I think about it, the city could look at the precincts that voted heaviest for Nifong and take steps to see that the bulk of the revenues needed to pay for any lawsuit judgment comes from those precincts. If the city does this, the voters of the Nifong precincts will have noone to blame but themselves.

nowhere girl said...

KC said, "The issue is how a magazine could have as its legal "expert" someone who had to give up his license in the first place."

Well, you can probably learn a lot about the law through the process of losing your license.

Thanks, KC, for all your great work.

scott said...

The one-sided approach to the story presented in Duke Magazine (an official publication of the university) again demonstrates the monumentally poor judgment exercised by many Duke personnel throughout the Nifong Scandal case.

While there is no excusing the complete irrationality of the other 3 entries in the "Articles / Faculty Publications" bracket. they all fall into the category of one man's (or woman's) opinion and all 3 of the individuals involved have given us much evidence to believe they have deep-rooted problems that are in need of serious therapy.

Bliwise, however, has done what so many "journalists" do in league with their editors, publisher, and the imprimatur afforded by the status of the publication itself. They cherrypick information and arrange it in such a way to ensure that as many readers as possible come away from having read a story with the conclusion that it must be true. The majority of the public has been raised to believe that no "respectable" magazine, newspaper, whatever, would not present a fair version of the facts. And isn't Duke Magazine a "respectable" magazine? Most of its readers assume "of course it is" (who wants to think of themselves as spending time reading a magazine that is not respectable).

So while the facts presented by Bliwise could be true, how fair was it to use Houston Baker, Orin Starn, Peter Wood, and Paul Haagen as being representative of the Duke faculty as a whole? How fair was it to use only one African American student as being representative of the Duke student body as a whole? Since the G88 has made such a big deal about how much race has played a part throughout the Nifong Scandal case, is it possible that this student's heritage could affect his point of view? Wouldn't a respectable and responsible "journalist" have tried to present some balance to that point of view by including views of other students?

Why weren't the findings of the Coleman committee included in more detail? They provided some counterbalance to the one-sided coverage written by Bliwise and approved by his editors, but the meat of the findings were ignored and the brief passage that was included in the story left the reader with the impression that lacrosse players were a clique unto themselves (trying to implant that lacrosse "wall of silence" theory again, Bliwise?).

This article in Duke Magazine was a good example of the irresponsibility and lack of fairness that has been rampant on the part of most in the media and many within the Duke University administration and faculty throughout this case. Bliwise and the editorial staff did Duke a huge disservice in writing this article the way they did. I hope the Duke alumni will keep that in mind the next time they read this "respectable" house organ.

Anonymous said...

Off topic for this post:

Was anyone able to get to Starn's Conference:
Tiger Woods ©: American Empire, Global Golf, and the Making of a Megacelebrity
Including his litle contribution entitled:
“Tiger, Barack, and the Incredible Whiteness of Phil”
I, for one, would love to hear how it went and how well it was attended and received.
I'd also be interested in how the 'issues' presented can be linked to scholarship as I understand it (i.e., the product of research and the orderly synthesis of new ideas or elucidation of knowledge- the opposite of spewing unsupported opinions which tend to restrict responsive thoughtfulness).

rl medicine '75

gak said...

Professor Johnson
I guess all everyone is going to say this one or that one should be listed. This is sort of like the "photo line up" in a way. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Pick one, you can't go wrong. I read on one of the 4 blogs (DiW, JinC, LS, TJN) that Houston Baker was a trouble maker and caused trouble where ever he went. I'm reading the Tenn newspapers to watch for that now. His writings were truly vile, both essay and email.

Jamie said...

Hanif Omar on the women's lacrosse team's armbands:

“My initial thoughts were, ‘Wow, what a bunch of ignorant, pompous, misguided young ladies’...[with a] condescending and arrogant mindset..."

Holy smokes...ignorant, pompous, misguided, condescending, arrogant? Pretty big words. Well, I suppose since Omar believes he can elevate the contemptible garbage that seeps into his head and spills from his mouth "thought", it's not suprising he imagines himself qualified to hurl the rest of those adjectives.

Sorry - that's not thought, Omar: that's lizardly.

You know, like when you set a mirror on the floor and a gecko running by spots its own reflection, then turns all purple in fury at the ignorant, pompous, misguided, condescending, arrogant mindset of that other gecko?

Like that.

another.anon said...

Nowhere Girl:

"Well, you can probably learn a lot about the law through the process of losing your license."

Well, here's hoping Nifong graduates at the top of that class..

Anonymous said...

Sweetmick agrees with JLS who laments KC's failure to include Ruth Sheehan in ANY of his fabulous on the money lists. Sheehan contributed the single most despicable commentary in this tragedy. Months after her so-called tepid backtracking(it was never an apology) she lashed out at the defendants, calling Mrs. Rae Evans "arrogant". Why? Merely because Evans, on 60 minutes, said Nifong had "picked on the wrong families". Sheehan is obstinately and intolerantly devoted to her class war prejudices. That is the definition of bigotry. Sheehan, in her role as a journalist/columnist
is far more dangerous than the entire gang of 88. She can spread her intolerance and enmity towards the Defendants throughout Durham, NC,and the country whenever she desires. The gang of 88 can only spew their hatred to a few captive students in their classes who have to put up with it for only a semester.

bill anderson said...

While I rarely see the tube, I did see Nancy Grace Friday morning for the first time (discussing a different case). I must admit that I lost it when looking at her, and my kids got on my case for saying a "bad word."

Granted, I still was (and am) in a state of heartbrokenness after the Tennessee loss to Ohio State, but I suspect I would have lost it had we managed to beat OSU. She makes me absolutely ill, and I hope that the LAX families sue her into oblivion.

As for the others, it is hard to figure the Top 10 and Honorable Mention in all of this, except that the Ruth Sheehan piece also was an outrage, and she never has properly apologized for what she did. Granted, she has made an about-face, but the damage she did at the beginning was horrific.

I don't say this as an attack on Ruth. She and I have spoken over the phone and via email, and I have nothing personal against her. Yet, it was her stuff, plus that awful piece by Salena Roberts and others that heralded the open season on the LAX players.

rod allison, detrtoit said...

March Madness Baby!

More Prime Time Players than there's room for.

But the National Champions, MVP, PTP, you name it, still goes to the New York Times and Duff Wilson.

A blatant abuse of prosecutorial power, and the most visible such case in our lifetimes, and what did the Paper of Record uncover? They dispatched an "investigative reporter" who lamely tried to prop up the corrupt DA's lie.

It shows you just how far the once great paper at W. 47th St. has fallen.

Anonymous said...

So many depre4ssing aspects to this,but at the top is the inability of so many in positions of academic and political power to admit they were wrong.And so many of the "studies" faculty seem to have sinecures not based on scholarship,but being PC.I know Duke is not an absolute top ranked school,but it's near the top.I can only wonder about the academic worth at less prestigious schools.
Once more with feeling;you've done marvelous work at helping these students.I hope your school is apprecaitive and prod to be asociated with you.
Best wishes,Corwin

Anonymous said...

Simply sizzling!

All the players mentioned above should be unemployable by the time KC's book is published.

Again, I have been taken aback by so many adults in this hoax who think nothing of damaging these young men who are just starting out in life.

What brand of human animal can live with him/herself after making such a choice?

Poor hapless Barney Pfiefe-lookalike, Bob Ashley---who is at his banal best when writing diary entries which are supposed to serve as "columns" talking about himself and his own family---should have a taste of something similar happening to his own offspring.

Then we would see this unapologetic sick human being scream like a skinned rat......and we would see him lambasting the Mike Nifongs out he should have done this entire year with respect to the lacrosse case.

How on earth this fool can be employed at any newspaper in the Triangle where three major universities call home is a mystery to me.

The Herald Sun will go down the tubes if they don't get rid of this self-righteous and clueless moron.


Anonymous said...

KC said, "The issue is how a magazine could have as its legal "expert" someone who had to give up his license in the first place."

At least Nifong has a start now in where he can look for a job after they take his law license. Here he thought he would be unmarketable after all this.

Howard said...

I've been commenting for a month that the 88 and their pals are the ones who are going to sue. They have a clear agenda, they are sure in their morality, white males are the target; they are on a Holy Crusade to end white privilege, racism, and sexism. They ain't sorry for nothin' folks. Their only regret is that the Dukies ain't on trial. I predict that this case will never go away; the feminists and NAACP types won't let it.

Anonymous said...

Could Nancy Grace have said (phonetically) "tares" instead of "tiers"?

Anonymous said...

Now THAT would be funny.

Seeing Wahneema Lubiano and Karla Holloway on the stand spouting their pretentious, incomprehensible mindless drivel.

I could see the judge saying "speak so people understand or I will hold you in contempt"


Gary Packwood said...

Purveyors of Hate in Search of Customers

This week we have been reading the words of those who seek a national system of reparations for the sins of white males who practice sexism and racism.

They choose hate as the vehicle to garner attention for their cause.

Specifically, hate for white male students at a well known university.

Like most advocates of command and control systems of government these writers want to be the ones in charge of this mew system of reparations for victims.

In order to reach their goal of this new add on society, they have been marketing hate under the assumption that there are millions of customers for hate out there who will buy into their dogma and move their cause forward.

They are selling their ideas like iPods, as it were ...and wishing that others will champion the idea of creating a circle of hate at other universities.

Wahneema Lubiano was probably the first person in their group to figure out that they were moving backwards when it because evident that Bloggers had her number ...knew what was happening ...and took action to right the wrong that had been done.

For the future we should assume that there will be more Wahneema's holed up in universities advocating for a reparation based sub-culture using hate as the vehicle to spew forth their ideas like iPods for a new generation of gullible young people.

It will be the Bloggers of the future and not the mainstream press who shine the light on all forms of hate and allow citizens of the USA to make the choice as customers ...on which road they choose to travel.

Thanks KC for helping us work together on this effort to search for the truth.

Greg said...

The records of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission do not indicate that Munson volunatarily surrendered his license in that state. There were several disciplinary actions taken against him (the last in 1991) but he is currently authorized to practice law in Illinois. His complete public record of disclipinary action, which also reflects his active status as a lawyer in Illinois, can be seen here:

I'm not defending Munson's actions in connection with this matter. Just assisting KC with the record. I understand KC appreciates these clarifications.

Anonymous said...

Though I have dutifully read through the NCAAs and the NITs and very much appreciate the work that was involved in compiling them, I would like at this point to see a Academy Awards or some such thing of those that could see this farce for what it was from the beginning. I know the list isn't as long but these people deserve to be recognized for having clear heads in spite of the ongoing public lynching at the time.
It is depressing to see all the hateful things that were said or written about the team and the 3 boys. That people in powerful positions in TV and print media would so easily anoint themselves judge, jury and executioner is reprehensible.

Anonymous said...

i read this in the comments to one of the articles you mention, does this sound accurate?
I have long thought the political theatre of this case is made particularly absurd by the numbers of interracial rape, which show far more black on white crime than vice versa.
"....a guest: Some facts rather than myths.
For some facts an authoritative source would be the FBI whose 2005 statistics shows that while 33.6% of rapes committed against white women are by black men 0% of rapes committed against black women are by white men. Read that again 0%.

becket03 said...

To Greg:

Thank you for clarifying Munson's record. My info came from a Liestopper's post. His license was suspended in the late 80s, according to Liestoppers, and the Disciplinary Commission wrote in its report of 1991, "In October 1989, Respondent discontinued practicing. Respondent has no current intention to return to the practice of law."

The information at Liestoppers appears, to my eyes anyway, to be a bit more complete than the page you linked to.


Greg said...


To avoid confusion here, the page I linked to for Munson's license is the official public record for the status of lawyers in Illinois. I am licensed to practice law in Illinois and I am familiar with how the license process functions in that state. It is an accurate record of a lawyer's license status. The confusion here concerns reference to an order of the Illinois Supreme Court where the court said Munson had voluntarily stopped practicing law in Illinois (which is the order LieStoppers is referring to and which can be reviewed from the link I posted). While it may be accurate that Munson voluntarily stopped practing law in Illinois, that dot equate to or mean Munson voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Illinois. He did not. There is a fundamental legal difference between surrendering a license and not actively practicing law in a particular state. For example, I am also licensed in Washington state and Colorado but I practice in Colorado. Nonetheless, I can return to Illinois at any time and practice law in that state.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous said... 2:12

Yes, I think we traveled those waters several weeks ago.

Someone said that there were more people in the year 2005 who claimed to be abducted by aliens in the US than black women who were raped by white men.

Your source is excellent. They have really good publications.


Cedarford said...

I gotta say, KC, I would NOT be giving the pass you are giving Ruth Sheehan simply because she did a half-hearted mea culpa long after the evidence was overwhelming that no crime was done to CGM.

Hopefully this will be on a list of issues or judgements you and Stuart keep "off to the side" to reassess & reconsider before you two submit your final book galleys.

Look at what Ruth Sheehan did long and hard.

1. She swallowed the Addison-Nifong spin hook, line, and sinker.

2. She started the media lynch mob.

3. She not only enabled others to pile on her lead, she set up the atmosphere where the Group of 88 saw they could gain additional power and influence at Duke from the event - every bit as much as the "potbangers" convinced the Group of 88 it was safe to bash the Lacrosse players.

4. In her later semi-apologia she said part of it was because "She had once been raped" - sort of a way of saying she was "understandably affected" by her own victimhood. Similar to how Nancy Grace claims the killing of her purported fiancee 20 years ago gave her license to twist law to get convictions, then later, to do her own lynch mob justice on TV. And in real lynch mobs, did those who had family or close acquaintences murdered or raped have any more "moral authority" or excuse to put a noose around others necks years afterwards?

5. After her semi-apology along the lines of "I'm plumb sorry we hung that darky who appeared to deserve it, now that the actual killer is known.." - she once again focused on the [paraphrasing] abhorrent and unacceptable behavior of students drinking and hiring strippers and the "arrogance" mother of one of the accused saying payback was coming to Nifong.

Maybe you are being influenced by your focus on the Group of 88. By their refusal to apologize or admit error in any way. As part of that condemnation, you may be consciously or unconsciously holding up Ruth Sheehan as a "noble example to the Duke Profs" of someone who was humble, brave enough - to reconsider...err, somewhat.

KC, from my perspective, apologies or admissions or error are welcome whenever someone makes a mistake, does harm, admits to bad judgement. Because mainly that signals, if sincere, that that person will work to avoid repeating the mishap in the future. But it does not exculpate the person from the act that they are apologizing for. In Sheehans case, it wasn't even a pure apology but more on the lines of "I may have been wrong on a few things, BUT my victimhood, the deplorable things the players did, the arrogant mother....".

And I reject that new maxim in the new American "therapeutic culture" that apologies must signal an obligation to "forgive all, so the healing can start, and the secular progressive sacrament of Closure can be administered" to enable us all to "move on".

rod allison, detroit said...

Well the real NCAA and NIT cost a few people their jobs. Tubby Smith left the high profile/high expectation job at Kentucky - one step ahead of the wolves - for Minnesota, and former Blue Devil Tommy Amaker got the boot from the Maize and Blue of Michigan, my Alma Mater.

Who among the DIW March Madness will lose their job, other than the ineligible Nifong? Duff Wilson might pull a Tubby Smith and end up at another paper, but I don't see anyone else, unfortunately.

The Idiot88 are untouchable. Unlike the basketball and football coaches at these universities, the angry studies professors aren't expected to produce anything or get any results.

Too bad tor Tommy Amaker he couldn't list in his bio several "forthcoming" NCAA appearances and Big Ten titles.

Anonymous said...

Cedarford and Rod Allison:

Two power posts!

Ruth Sheehan has her hands full just being a regular columnist. The quality of writing expected is not there. She's SO not qualified.

She got her job because her husband is from an old-time NC Democrat political family. He's very unattractive and has a chronic speech impediment--stuttering.

One cannot look over the early reporting by the N&O on this case. The editorial page allowed so much that they should not have--Timothy Tyson, Allan Gurganus, and every Gang of 88-esque blowhard who tried to nail the lacrosse players with their mad agendas.

Sheehan had many accomplices.

Thank goodness for Joe Neff.


Anonymous said...

Sweetmick says, we love you KC, you're the king, but as JLS, I, and now the great Cedarford has so eloquently stated, we gotta address the Sheehan factor. This pass you are giving her has gone on long enough. Don't be fooled by the way she panders to you by occasionally posting an article of yours on her blog. How do you spell condescension?
When she called Rae Evans "arrogant" for saying to Nifong on 60 minutes that "you have picked on the wrong families", Sheehan proved to me that her being a rape victim in no way explains her animosity and disdain towards parents who love and will defend their children at all costs.

Anonymous said...

Let it be noted prominently:

The News & Observer has altered their reporting from their initial low-grade fare and has discontinued enabling Mike Nifong and his band of ignorant followers.

The Herald Sun has made no effort to move into this realm of sanity.....and no one expects them to until they are down the tubes.


Anonymous said...

I have to agree, Ruth Sheehan's initial column (we know you know) was so caustic, and out of line with what justice is supposed to be all about, it is hard not to feel shocked that people can treat others in this manner.


Anonymous said...

Sheehan is a terrible writer. Talk about no talent. I don't doubt why she got a job with this awful paper. I think she should be at second for the worst articles awards. Lester flat out lied and should be first up.

Anonymous said...

Do you think that Lynne Duke of the Washington post admits “The Duke Case’s Cruel Truth,” at this point? Clearly, "this is reminiscent of a black woman's vulnerability to a white man during the days of slavery, reconstruction and Jim Crow, when sex was used as a tool of racial domination." And what agenda might this be...? How about this for her new opener; "She didn't get paid, they didn't do anything, and a DA's race and a criminal conspiracy were in the air..." I think she belongs in the NCAA, not the NIT for her professional ethics in exploiting this story.