Sunday, April 01, 2007

Sunday Roundup

Among the low points of the University’s response to the lacrosse affair was an April 20 “Conversation on Campus Culture,” President Brodhead’s first campus appearance after the indictments of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. At a gathering that Dean Sue told attendees would combat the campus “culture of crassness,” the only faculty member to speak was Mark Anthony (“thugniggaintellectual”) Neal, who describes himself as “the nigga that gonna intellectually choke the living s- -t out of you [his students].”

Most people might struggle to understand how such a figure could be uniquely qualified among the Duke faculty to combat a “culture of crassness.”

A few days ago, Liestoppers forums revealed that one of the students asked to speak at the panel seemed—like Neal—to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. Senior Dinushika Mohottige recalled that “throughout her undergraduate years, she facilitated and developed dozens of dialogues on identity and social-marker based oppression.”

Mohottige has a special role in the lacrosse case. She is, to my knowledge, the only person to publicly admit that, on March 29, 2006, she distributed the vigilante posters with the players’ photos around campus. She said she did so because

I’m so outraged by how heinous the crime was. But more than that, it’s the lack of compassion the lacrosse team has shown for the victim. I’m sure this incident will bring to light a lot of the privilege issues that exist on this campus. This story is a wake-up call for the university.

Most people might struggle to understand how such a figure could be considered someone whose guidance would be useful in improving “campus culture.” To reiterate: Mohottige had publicly admitted that she distributed the vigilante posters three weeks before she was invited to join President Brodhead at his first post-indictment campus appearance.

Mohottige has given no indication of reconsidering her opinion: a few weeks ago, she convened a panel discussing “the historical and modern-day experience of coercion that African American and Latina women have faced.” I asked Mohottige whether she had learned anything from her actions last spring; she did not reply.

---------

Mohottige distributed her poster at the “Take Back the Night” march at Duke. Last week, the Herald-Sun had an article noting that more than 700 people joined Mohottige at the 2006 event. But this year, fewer than 50 attended.

The decision of Mohottige and like-minded activists to convert last year’s march into an anti-lacrosse jihad obviously had consequences no one expected when the potbangers were riding high. But the Women’s Center official who coordinated the event, Sheila Broderick, refused to attribute the small turnout to a backlash against the group’s decision to back a claim that proved fraudulent.

Broderick offered other, more novel, explanations: an earlier-than-usual daylight savings time(!), perhaps. Or a rally then occurring to urge Duke women’s basketball coach Gail Goestenkors to remain at the school.

An ideologically charged event for activists who have refused to admit they got things wrong last year, or standing up for a women’s athletics program? It seems that Duke students last week made their choice.

---------

In today's “truth-is-stranger-than-fiction” category, Duke actually gives out a “Karla F.C. Holloway Award for Service to Duke.” The program does not indicate whether passing along fifth-hand, slanderous gossip about Duke students is considered “service to Duke,” though the 2006 winner, Wintta Woldemariam, was part of the rush-to-judgment minority of Duke students. In late March 2006, she announced, “I think this is very much a wake-up call, if not to the surrounding community, just to the people on this campus, that this type of thing is not acceptable.” Woldemariam did not define what she meant by the phrase “this type of thing.”

---------

Another great column from Bill Anderson, calling for reframing the central question of the case: Since, Anderson notes, “three young men, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, have lived with these false charges for 11 months, so the question really should not be ‘When will the charges be dropped?’ Instead, it should be, ‘Why were they filed in the first place?’”

As he has throughout this case, Anderson persuasively argues that the police had to have known that the accuser’s allegations were false given the dearth of physical evidence. Therefore, he contends, items such as Sgt. Mark Gottlieb’s “straight-from-memory” report, or SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy’s ever-expanding conception of what happened to the accuser represented the Durham equivalent of the police planting evidence to convict innocent people.

---------

Kathleen Eckelt has a timely and thorough review of the newly released March 16, 2006 police photo of the accuser. The photo’s lack of bruises, she notes, forms part of a pattern in this case—a lack of evidence to confirm the accuser’s myriad, mutually contradictory tales. “You have to look at the type of rape that supposedly happened and exactly what occurred,” Eckelt argues, and the evidence that this case featured (the lack of DNA, for instance) didn’t correspond with what would have been expected.

“On the surface,” Eckelt observes, “it looks like a photograph of a normal, NON-INJURED female . . .

If she has been beaten around the eyes, you would expect to see redness and swelling almost immediately, no matter what race the person is. While bruising can’t be dated, it still goes through the normal progression of reddish to blue/purple to yellow/greenish in color. This can take days up to two weeks, depending on the type of bruise, where it’s at, and how deep it is. It’s not uncommon for bruises to take a day or two to start to show up.

Bruising at times may be hard to see on a dark skinned person. The key word is MAY. I’ve had plenty of dark skinned patients with bruises showing - often when they haven’t come in right away . . . Redness, however, shows up right away. I’ve never had any problem seeing redness on dark skinned patients. Due to the body’s inflammatory response syndrome, this type of injury should be apparent to the SANE examiner, if the patient came in early enough . . .

Two days after such injuries as claimed, I would expect to see more than just bruised, swollen eyes. In fact, I would not expect to see two identically bruised, swollen eyes - as was described by the accuser’s father.

I would expect to possibly still see some swelling and redness. I would expect to see abrasions and lacerations caused by fists. I would expect to see bruising start to develop. In the sane exam, I would have expected to see hemorrhaging in the white of the eyes and petechiae; probably a busted lip and eyebrow. If the fist (s) that hit the accuser wore a ring, there should have been a patterned abrasion left on the accuser.

. . . I see nothing, in this particular photo, that I would classify as an injury . . . I have not heard that there was any diagram sheet. This is important. No diagram sheet, no injuries!

Eckelt is on target, once again.

---------

Salon brings unfortunate news of the latest hire by FOX News, Rachel Marsden, who, author Rebecca Traister suggests, made a false allegation of rape in the 1990s. Traister suggests that this record colored Marsden’s bizarre views to the Duke case. When asked by a colleague what should happen to the accuser, given her filing of fraudulent charges,

Marsden had jumped in with unusual speed, pooh-poohing possible repercussions for the woman who claimed she was raped by members of the Duke University lacrosse team a year ago. “Charges are laid, charges are dropped,” said Marsden. “It happens all the time. Unless she can get charged with mischief and they can prove she lied, then no, [she shouldn’t be punished]. That’s the process and the process works.” But, argued [her colleague, Greg] Gutfeld, “Don’t you think that being accused of rape is as bad as being raped? Those guys’ lives were ruined!” Marsden bit back, “Let’s give it 10 years and see if their lives were ruined.”

FOX—especially Sean Hannity—has done good work on this case. It’s distressing to see the network bring on board someone who seems to have no problem with people filing false allegations.

---------

NCSPIN, a North Carolina political talk program, has passed along speculation that Mike Nifong will resign as DA, as part of a settlement with the Bar. The site pointed to Hampton Dellinger, Mike Easley’s former legal counsel, as a likely replacement.

I’ll believe it when I see it: Nifong’s tactics have suggested someone intent on carrying his case through to a disciplinary proceeding—and all-but-certain disbarment—rather than entering into some sort of plea deal.

---------

There is an outside chance, meanwhile, that Nifong might not last as DA until his scheduled June 12 disciplinary hearing. The Winston-Salem Journal reports that NC Senate Democrats are moving forward with a bill to grant Governor Easley authority to suspend DA's that the Bar has accused of professional misconduct.

Having decided to go down with the Nifong ship, the Herald-Sun opposes the measure. It notes that the State Bar has called up Nifong on ethics charges, indicating that the system is working as it supposed to. So, in the H-S universe, the system is working well when one of the state's five largest cities has a DA that the State Bar has publicly accused of ethics violations, breaking three North Carolina laws, and violating the U.S. Constitution.

Remarkable.

110 comments:

Anonymous said...

when the system is really working no one will read the Herald Star

Dodi said...

Re: comments on Nifong's possible resignation. I would like to hear the take of some of the attorneys in the audience, but it seems to me that since Nifong is likely going to be sued by the defendants, then he would not want to have his disbarment on the record. Wouldn't it be much better for him to voluntarily give up his license and then claim (disingenuously) that he did it for the good of the city, so that healing could begin, etc.?

Gary Packwood said...

K.C. Said...
...An ideologically charged event for activists who have refused to admit they got things wrong last year, or standing up for a women’s athletics program? It seems that Duke students last week made their choice.

Thank You for reminding us that students are after all, what this is all about ... and they have good minds and know how to make a choice.

I needed to hear that again and ....I will sleep better tonight...because of what you wrote.

GP

rrhamilton said...

I'm glad you found the "Karla F.C. Holloway Award for Service to Duke." As I said in a comment about it a few hours ago, my nomination is to courageous members of the Duke Chronicle staff who helped fight the injustice led by Holloway.

But maybe that's because I'm a Journalism grad (BJ (yes, BJ), Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1981). So, I'd like to hear other students that KC's readers would nominate for this award.

Anonymous said...

Rachael looks like teacher rapist Debra Lafeve in the picture (whats with the black leather?). Her history in Canada of false accussations is horrid. Sad to see Fox do this also, but even Greta is getting out of control with her accussations. Ted and Bernie - what dopes/

rrhamilton said...

dodi, I'm an attorney, but I don't know if this will help, re. suing Nifong:

One of the first questions a lawyer will ask is, What is the likely level of damages (a/k/a "money") that can be recovered from the defendant? I don't have any reason to think Nifong's rich, so you have to look at his Errors and Omissions Insurance. My thought is that he doesn't have much E&O.

The idea that he resign before disbarment or other disciplinary action is taken against him is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether he'll be sued and the likelihood of the success of such a suit.

Anonymous said...

He may not be rich, but hopefully the families will get whatever he has. Sorry to say - OJ/s NFL is immune to lawsuits and probably Nifong's is as well.

rrhamilton said...

KC says:
Another great column from Bill Anderson, calling for reframing the central question of the case: Since, Anderson notes, “three young men, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, have lived with these false charges for 11 months, so the question really should not be ‘When will the charges be dropped?’ Instead, it should be, ‘Why were they filed in the first place?’”

That's not the first question at all. The first question is: Why did CGM accuse the lax players in the first place? And no, I don't mean to lead to the "because she wanted to stay out of the drunk tank" answer. Look at the facts: She had the DNA of 5-7 OTHER men in her sexual areas. So, if her motive was nothing more than avoiding a night in the drunk tank, why not blame one of those 5-7 men (or all of them!) for rape? Why ... Why would she blame men for whom she KNEW there would be no DNA evidence and thus face charges herself for lying to law enforcement? Is this the meta-narrative at work? Did she know how many at our elite institutions WANT to believe such a story?

Anonymous said...

I agree that Sean Hannity has been very good with his coverage of this travesty.

Unfortunately, since the overwhelming majority of what he says are extremist, blind ideology with embarrassing, unconditional support for all things GW Bush, his valid commentary on other issues is essentially worthless to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Joe T. said...

Just my opinion: even though I'm a little more right-wing and conservative, I almost hated seeing Sean Hannity taking the correct position in the Duke case. I consider him such a boob otherwise, that I didn't even want him on my side. But, then, I guess even the biggest dope (like Hannity) can see the obvious: I also agreed with him when he defended the man who was arrested for running back into a burning house to save his dog.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

1. I would not think that Fox would hire someone widely thought to be a rapist who got off on a technicality. So it is curious that they would hire someone who is widely thought to have made a false rape accusation.

2. I suspect when cornered Nifong will cop a plea. That has been his life, that is what he knows.

3. Finally being wrong a year ago about this hoax is nothing to be ashamed of. This time last year I was following my Gators in the NCAA tourney and knew nothing about this case. It is just amazing that none of the idiologues at Duke understand that a simple admission of being wrong not even an apology would really make them look big rather than small as they look now.

Anonymous said...

THE CASE AGAINST BRODHEAD

I have long believed that President Brodhead is one of the chief villains of this piece, and deserves to lose his job over his behaviour in it. The best case for this view is made by Brodhead himself, in his open Letter to the Duke Community from 5 April 2006.

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2006/04/rhbletter.html

I have just re-read this odious letter and encourage others to do so as well, lest we forget. It is a total and utter disgrace. While he covers himself by pointing out (in passing) that the investigation into the alleged events is on-going, the letter and its initiatives only make sense on the assumption that a violent, racially motivated rape occurred. The entire history of racial and sexual violence is piously invoked as an appropriate context for interpreting the allegations. Concerns are expressed about "deep structures of inequality in our society" and "the systemic racial oppression we had hoped to have left behind us". Far from dampening down the flames of controversy, Brodhead threw gas all over it with these lurid and histrionic remarks that, in retrospect, seem utterly inappropriate.

This is followed by a rash of initiatives: the forced resignation of the lacrosse coach, the summary suspension of the lacrosse season, the CCI, an investigation into the culture and practices of the lacrosse team under Professor Coleman.

What this letter does is document Brodhead's early decision to throw his weight behind the growing campaign to crucify the three accused Duke students. In effect, it says: "Look, they're guilty. They're on their own. I'm throwing them to the wolves and saying all the right things about racism and sexism to boot". At least Pontius Pilate tried to defend Jesus to the braying mob before handing him over and washing his hands.

I am aware that Brodhead has his apologists, some of whom occasionally contribute to this blog. Nothing wrong with that. But they are mistaken, and I invite them to re-read his open letter before responding. I for one cannot see how it can be viewed as anything other than a sufficient basis for his dismissal. Perhaps, if he had disowned it, accepted it was unfair and unwarranted and premature, and publicly apologised, something might be said for him. But he hasn't, and won't. It's too late now anyway, even if he did. Brodhead's letter is an act of gross professional misjudgement and moral irresponsibility, with more than a whiff of cowardice about it.

Nifong's fate is now in the hands of the state bar, the courts and the state of NC. May they mete out a severe punishment and show no mercy as they do. Justice requires nothing less. But there is plenty of blame to go around, and much of it belongs at the feet of President Brodhead. I regard his open letter as WORSE than the Gang of 88 advert (vile as that was), given his pivotal position in this affair and his status as President of the University.

It is now time for everyone interested in justice and concerned for the welfare of Duke University to turn their attention to the President's office. Justice will not be done in this affair until Brodhead is the former and disgraced President of Duke.

Anonymous said...

dodi,

I suspect you need to hear from bankruptcy attorneys and marital property attorneys as much as you do personal injury or tort lawyers.

Relevant questions might include: (1) can Nifong's pension be reached by creditors whose claims are based on slander or violations of constitutional rights (or whatever else may colorably be asserted against Nifong)? (2) what assets owned by Nifong's wife are immune from attacks by those same creditors?

If Nifong can protect his pension and his wife's assets by filing a bankruptcy petition, then he may want to draw out the bar proceedings as long as possible so he can stay in office and maximize his current salary and future pension. The only question might be whether, over the entire term of disciplinary proceedings (which I think I have read include a lengthy appellate process in the courts), he will incur legal fees faster than he earns the sum of current salary plus the discounted value of pension rights.

Also, absent a deal with the bar, resignation will not stop the bar proceedings. At this point, I doubt seriously that the bar would settle for anything short of disbarment.

Finally, I suspect Nifong's lawyers have some decent strategy in mind; although from what we have seen, they are keeping any such strategy close to the vest. For all we know, Nifong and his lawyers know he will lose and are simply trying to keep legal fees as low as possible, consistent with their goal of delaying the final decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court (or whatever court makes a final decision).

rrhamilton said...

2:17 said, of Pres. Brodhead's letter:
The entire history of racial and sexual violence is piously invoked as an appropriate context for interpreting the allegations. Concerns are expressed about "deep structures of inequality in our society" and "the systemic racial oppression we had hoped to have left behind us".

I submit to you that the history is a lie. Or worse, the reverse of the truth. According to my research (admittedly limited) blacks currently rape women at a rate of 40-times that of whites raping black women. But here's the surprising thing: Even in slavery days (before 300,000 white men died to free them in one of the most unique events in world history), blacks raped white women more than the reverse! (For an explanation, think of the people involved: the white slaveowner, his valueable property (slave), and some "trailer-park" white girl. Where are the incentives for convicting and imprisoning/executing the slave?)

And as for "systemic racial oppression" that Brodhead mentions, that starts at the admissions office at Duke, doesn't it? If Duke is only 60% white, that means that nearly every white Duke student has an "aborted twin" who was denied admittance solely because of race. And no, this isn't "payback for the days when blacks weren't admitted". A study at the Univ of Texas law school found that, but for the quota on whites, only ONE black applicant would've been admitted on his merit alone. That's in a class of 500 entering law school students. More whites are excluded by white-quotas in one year alone than the number of blacks who were excluded in the entire history of segregation.

Cedarford said...

JLS - I would not think that Fox would hire someone widely thought to be a rapist who got off on a technicality. So it is curious that they would hire someone who is widely thought to have made a false rape accusation.

Not really, they cut paychecks to Wendy Murphy every month, for starters.

FOX is no paragon of virtue past a core of real professionals that a few "FOX blondes" like Megyn Kelly actually belong in. Outside that, it's tabloid land of angry good-looking bitches (Coulter, Murphy, Malkin, Marsden), pompous enablers of the likes of Wendy Murphy - Bill O'Reilly & producers, good-looking but stupid men (Hannity, Shepard Smith, Doucy), plain-Jane predictable gossip mongers (Greta) specializing in good looking white women dead or missing, and stupid good-looking fembots reading teleprompters (Kimberley Gylefoil, Gretchen, etc...)

Despite about a half-dozen incidents of the big ugly in Canada in her young adult years, 100's of perjurous statements, Marsden capitalized on her fame and good looks and ability to manipulate events cleverly. FOX is the latest to suck her up as a prize ratings package.

If a good looking serial killer-rapist like Ted Bundy could beat the rap like Marsden did, maybe he could be at least have worked as a color commentator. After all, OJ still had million dollar offers for books and memorabilia. We now have an ex-stripper, gold digger junkie dead of an overdose who is supposedly worth several million on just her "image rights".

The Muslim terrorists got at least one thing right about the West and why they want none of our filth from various media polluting their societies. We have become very immoral, in love with the purient, and in love with celebrating people who become famous by disgracing themselves and dishonoring their good names. This is a recent phenomenon in the West. Yes, Muslim lands have their own problems and glorify their own set of perverted things like suicide bombings - but don't have TV shows and movies that ridicule moral people and elevate immoral ones..

There is no public Muslim version of Marsden, OJ, Britteny, Anna Nicole Smith. They are a private family disgrace in Islam.

In Islam, a Crystal Gail Mangum would be denounced as a vile, lowest of the low type woman - family told to shut her in a back room or kill her...not allow her in public with decent people. She definitely would not be suing for millions or signing book deals as Mangum is likely to after charges are dismissed and she starts her media tour. Nor would her lies have ever been believed in any other land outside afflicted nations deep into what the West has become in the last 25 years in glorifying so-called "victims" like Mangum..

***************
Joet - Just my opinion: even though I'm a little more right-wing and conservative, I almost hated seeing Sean Hannity taking the correct position in the Duke case. I consider him such a boob otherwise, that I didn't even want him on my side.

I agree 100%, as a conservative. The guy is such a blindered dope. It's like telling some commonsense liberal that his fellow liberal Ward Churchill got something right...just so you can see the liberal cringe..

**************************
Dinushika Mohottige is a born in USA 2nd gen Sri Lankan Tamil. Pot-banger Manju Ramejdran is 2nd-gen Tamil, too, I believe, from the mainland. Subcontinent elites tend to be socialist, vehemently resentful of white colonial privilege - but not so resentful they will not gladly immigrate into the heart of white privilege and oppression in an instant if given the chance.

Maybe, like with Londonistan and it's radical Muslim 2nd gen descendents of Muslim immigrants - there is a family duty to hate the West and attack the evil white man when given the chance. (Though Tamils and Arabs and Paks are Caucasians, too.)

bill anderson said...

Any sympathy I might (emphasize "might") have had for Brodhead is gone. The very idea of honoring the worst enablers of the Hoax is repulsive and demonstrates that the top people at Duke University are utterly dishonest.

Given the culture of political correctness that permeates higher education today, one might not have been surprised at what happened at Duke last year after the initial charges were made. However, with a year of hindsight under our belts, it is just abhorrent that Duke University would continue to rub the lacrosse faces noses in the dirt by honoring the worst of the worst in promoting the hoax.

The only thing I can guess is that Duke University wants to be sued by the players and their families. I have dealt with some families whose loyalty to Duke is very deep, and they still are reluctant to sue.

From what I can see, Duke is telling their most loyal alums to go to hell.

Shouting Thomas said...

Let's hope that this is the end of those loony Take Back the Night rallies.

In New Paltz, NY, near my home, these are (at least) yearly events. The local newspapers send out a reporter who must be a functionary or cohort of the women's studies department. This reporter dutifully describes the march through the streets in heroic terms, often with teary eyed quotes for "victims" who were "courageous" enough to stand on the podium and state that they suffered rape or sexual assault. The reporter never makes any attempt to ascertain whether these allegations are true.

Letters to the editor in the wake of these marches report that the protesters walk through the streets screaming obscenities, threatening onlookers and sometimes vandalizing property.

Crime statistics in New Paltz, by the way, do not support the notion that women live under duress in an atmosphere of sexual assault and rape. In some years, no sexual assaults or rapes are reported in New Paltz.

Anonymous said...

Regarding civil suits, most plaintiff's attorneys always ask potential clients two questions:
1)Are you hurt?
2)Do you need money?

If both can be answered 'yes', they take the case.

Both questions can definitely be answered in the affirmative in this case.

Bakerman said...

RE: "Why did CGM accuse the lax players in the first place?"

From the vantage point of the "street," it was a clever, if not spontaneous calculation ("RAPE!") - Duke has the money, they'd pay off, and she'd slip away satisfied and completely re-unoffended.

Yet, from the vantage point of the same street, she couldn't know Nifong would grab hold of her to underwrite his election. She, a gift from God.

To say she got more than she bargained for would be an understatement. Once Nifong became involved - the case, a quick settlement, and her life went out of her hands.

Aside from screaming RAPE in a crowded frat house, her future testimony - while handcuffed to Nifong - will make very popular pay-per-view theater.

More, a resourceful lawyer could make the case that she was held by the Durham DA against her will – literally, kidnapped.

Once again proving that true crime is always stranger than fiction.

Anonymous said...

1:27 am;

Fox News has hired Mark Furman and Oliver North as commentators. Both have had trouble telling the truth while under oath in court.
That a news organization would hire individuals with so much veracity baggage is stunningly in its calculated lack of neutrality.
They are more about heat than light.

Tall T

Anonymous said...

Correction: 9:58am
That is supposed to be 'stunning' instead of 'stunningly'.

Tall T

Gary Packwood said...

Shouting Thomas 7:47 said...

...Let's hope that this is the end of those loony Take Back the Night rallies.
___

Thanks for your comments. That was a real learning experience for me and important for all of us to know about.

The Take Back The Night event is sponsored by a national organization with the same name...

http://takebackthenight.org/

It must be funded by an endowment.

More importantly, the organization has set as its purpose...the creation of an enemy while pretending ...that they offer support.

We may want to think about asking for an investigation of this organization via the IRS as not a true non-for-profit organization...with an educational purpose.

If you have no problem with 'the night' in your community, why are people educating others to 'take back' ..the night.

That does not sound like a proper education purpose worthy of tax exemption ...to me!

Thanks for your great comments.

scott said...

"Dinushika Mohottige distributed the vigilante posters with the players’ photos around campus. She said she did so because 'I’m so outraged by how heinous the crime was. But more than that, it’s the lack of compassion the lacrosse team has shown for the victim. I’m sure this incident will bring to light a lot of the privilege issues that exist on this campus. This story is a wake-up call for the university.'"

I wonder if Mohottige will ever take time to reflect on the fact that the incident she became "so outraged by how heinous the crime was" turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by the "victim" [not accuser, not alleged victim] the lacrosse team had the unmitigated gall not to feel compassion for. My guess is not one damn minute.

She's right about one thing -- this incident brought to light a lot of the privilege issues that exist on this campus. Like the privilege of some people engaging in a rush to judgment about a situation before the facts are in and never having to say they were wrong or express regret. Like Mohottige, they simply move on, and none of the stink they created is attached to them.

This incident is a wake up call for the university, alright. We now know it has a craven, posturing president, and a large group of students and faculty willing to jump on a bandwagon in a false crusade to address "broader social issues." Broader social issues, my ass. These people were out to get someone they hate -- white, male athletes. There had been no attempt to address broader social issues on Duke's campus prior to March 2006. Let's see, what happened that month to give rise to all the sudden interest in broader social issues? Oh, yeah, now I remember -- it was telling the lie about a rape that never happened by the tag team of Mangum and Nifong, ably assisted by members of the DPD, the media, and useful idiots like Dinushika Mohottige.

rod allison, detroit said...

One of the best reporting moments thus far was when Fox showed up at the home of a couple of the Idiot88.

It was a "welcome to the real world" moment, and niether came across very well.

Best of all was when they showed up at Nifong's house. They caught him outside of the courtshouse where he thinks he is all powerful, the same as they do with judges who make outrageous rulings with no accountability.

Nifong, also, came across as a total loser.

It was great to them smoked out of their sheltered environments.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: rrhamilton

Why Mangum blamed the X, Y and Z at the Duke lacrosse party:

1. That was the last place she was.

2. There was a commercial dispute at the party.

3. She did not know for sure whose DNA she had on her.

4. Possible racial bias on her part and a sense of entitlement.

5. You are making an assumption that Mangum understands DNA. She likely does not.

As for Bill Anderson's question, the players were indicted because Nifong wanted them indicted for political purposes. It has little to do with the DPD. That a DA can find an investigator or two to cooperate with what he wants is hardly surprising. The DPD did not push this case, Nifong did.

Anonymous said...

Kimberly Guilfoil is so angry, untruthful and mean spirited, I watched Nany Grace for an hour. She seems to have toned her act down. Gueraldo is disgusting -see him just "beam" when a
"quest" condems the latest person in Geraldo's crusade. Sean is very tame in comparison to the competation.

Anonymous said...

For someone with better recall of the details: When the FA was taken to the detox center, did SHE come up with the rape allegations, or did someone at the detox center ask her if she'd been raped?

KC Johnson said...

The accuser was asked by the person at Durham Access--a violation of the center's policies, which are supposed to prohibit prompting questions.

jamil hussein said...

Unfortunately, since the overwhelming majority of what he says are extremist, blind ideology with embarrassing, unconditional support for all things GW Bush,

ah, our BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) friends from dailykos/Gang88/pelosiland. I'm sure you enjoy New York Times and AP reports. You know, sometimes these news reports are not totally fabricated or forged (like sports results).
Standing for the right things (whether Duke hoax or war on islamofasists may not be popular in pelosiland but it is the right thing to do. I'm always amused to see Fox bashing from dailykos wackos (like the Dailykos campaign to prevent Fox News to host the Dem presidential primaries and show it). It has clearly proved to be the most reliable news channel. For the New York al-Times folks the truth means the exact opposite of the truth.

MTU'76 said...

Anon 11:36

Please see the LINEUP MOTION page 4 item #4. The Access nurse asked the rape question.

TruthHurts001 said...

When considering the lack of outrage among the mainstream media in covering this Hoax...let's face it, the blogs have carried this story...

ANY figure in the mainstream media who has honestly confronted the despicable behavior of Nifong, Crystal, Durham's black community, the NAACP, the Gang of 88, etc...

Deserves credit for his courage and integrity, and that includes Ed Bradley AND Sean Hannity, whether you like them or not.

Jamie said...

President Brodhead has attempted to excuse his conduct early on by claiming he couldn't have known the reality, Nifong seemed so certain, etc., etc. Brodhead implies he did what any right-thinking individual in his position would have done, given that set of uncertainties. His critics have, he implies, the unfair advantage of hindsight.

Wrong, unacceptable: it should not have taken foresight to withold judgment. "Presumption of innocence until proof of guilt" isn't some kind of optional mindset, to be implemented only if the circumstances and politics suit you. If you don't understand that, then whatever you may be, you are certainly not University President material.

Brodhead openly and repeatedly cast his lot with the rush-to-judgment crowd, and although he disowned Nifong later, even now he is still too craven -- or else still too much of a knee-jerk white-guilt agendist himself -- to disengage from the 88.

After this case broke, "whatever they did do was bad enough" Brodhead did not react as though there was uncertainty about the LAX team's guilt/meta-guilt. White and privileged though they were, the LAX players weren't Brodhead's kind of people, they weren't his constituency, they couldn't help Brodhead's career, and so he sacrificed them on a gamble. Fine: but now he doesn't want to pay the price of having lost that gamble.

That price should be his job.

Anonymous said...

rrhamilton @ 02.49 said: "If Duke is only 60% white, that means that nearly every white Duke student has an "aborted twin" who was denied admittance solely because of race. And no, this isn't "payback for the days when blacks weren't admitted". A study at the Univ of Texas law school found that, but for the quota on whites, only ONE black applicant would've been admitted on his merit alone. That's in a class of 500 entering law school students. More whites are excluded by white-quotas in one year alone than the number of blacks who were excluded in the entire history of segregation".

At the risk of straying off-topic, it is worth noting that it is mostly Asian applicants, not white applicants, who lose out to black applicants admitted under "affirmative action". And white applicants are disproportionately favoured by legacy and sports admissions, both of which are forms of "affirmative action".

Anonymous said...

No - The access CLERK asked "Were you raped?" A minimum wage employee - not a Nurse. Why did she do it? Because she is a minimum wage employee and wanted to be somebody in the process. Her job was to get name, nuber and any insurance information.

Anonymous said...

It is important to re-read Brodhead's open letter of 5 April 2006 now to see that his subsequent claims that he didn't now how weak the case against the accused then was is a deception. The fact is, he knew NOTHING, and therefore should have reserved judgement. It was his ethical and professional obligation. Instead, he pre-judged the case, as his letter clearly demonstrates. It is obvious from his letter that he believed that a heinous, racially-motivated sexual attack occurred. The time to be circumspect was then, not now. His letter of 5 April should constitute his resignation letter from the office of President.

Anonymous said...

Re: KC Johnson's: "The accuser was asked by the person at Durham Access--a violation of the center's policies, which are supposed to prohibit prompting questions."

I guess the improper asking of that question could be called the "slip-up that launched a thousand farces."

jamil hussein said...

The fact is, he knew NOTHING, and therefore should have reserved judgement. It was his ethical and professional obligation. Instead, he pre-judged the case, as his letter clearly demonstrates

I definitely agree. Brodhead should be fired for this. Total lack of judgement (and leadership and following university rules) that has damaged the once great institution.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead's April 5th letter goes out of its way to play up the racial dimension to the case in the most shameful and inappropriate way. Is it the job of a university President to exacerbate racial tensions, particularly when (as in this case), he had no way of knowing if any crime had even been committed? Utterly irresponsible.

Anonymous said...

The Asians are lovely, well mannered and have such brilliant minds , that it is an honor if they choose to attend any school.

Anonymous said...

The supine Duke Board of Trustees should re-read Brodhead's 5 April letter 1 year later and ask themselves if he is really fit to continue in his present role. THe answer to that was apparent on 5 April 2006. Now it should be blindingly obvious, even to the Board. Their duty here is clear. Yet they will not act. So why have a Board? What does the University President have to do before the Board asks for his resignation? A lot more than the coach of the lacrosse team did before he was thrown out.

Anonymous said...

What DOES it take to dislodge a Duke President? Lack of ethics? Lack of professionalism? Lack of sound judgement? Obviously not. Perhaps a false accusation that he raped a black woman is the only thing that would do it.

Anonymous said...

This is funny, I must admit.

What's the big deal?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Anonymous at 2:17: You've nailed the 'Case against Brodhead'.

Anonymous said...

With respect, I think Brodhead nailed the case against himself. His letter (5 April 2006) says it all.

Anonymous said...

RE: "Why did CGM accuse the lax players in the first place?"
Just my opinion, CGM is not the brightest bulb in the cabinet. She thought if she answered the rape question, "yes," that she would be dismissed, back out on the street -- no harm no foul -- and everything would end there. In spite of her criminal history, she still failed to grasp what the accusations could lead to, even WITH an ethical DA.
Enter Nifong. NOW, CGM is up against the wall with a political hack has has to play along. I am sure she would just like the whole thing to go away and that being questioned by the SPs is not her idea of a good time.
Just me, and I know there are many who disagree, but she didn't have the intellect to understand the ramifications, especially if she was blitzed out of her skull the night in question.
Once she said "yes," it was a series of missteps by everyone else involved, let my Nifong. THAT SAID, everyone needs to pony up and suffer the consequences for going along with the hoax -- the media, the university, the group of 88, CGM, the DPD, Broadhead, EVERYONE! But Nifong, especially, needs to serve some SERIOUS jail time. "Who's your DADDY???" LOL
cf

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

People - it's April 1st and we all need a laugh! Mosey over to Liestoppers for a hoot!

Anonymous said...

We live in Durham (Fuqua grad) and took our family to a Duke lacrosse game. A pleasant day, but strange. The Duke students are enjoying the game yet noone voices justice for three lacrosse players. HEY DUKE STUDENTS- IT'S ABOUT YOU, YOUR CLASSMATES, YOUR PATHETIC PRESIDENT, AND YOUR LOUSY PROFESSORS.

panda

Anonymous said...

1:46 I agree and think the beginning of the entire hoax was just that simple. Seeing that people with numerous advanced degrees could not stop this snowball, how was poor Crystal to do it?

Cedarford said...

Fox News has hired Mark Furman and Oliver North as commentators. Both have had trouble telling the truth while under oath in court.
That a news organization would hire individuals with so much veracity baggage is stunningly in its calculated lack of neutrality.
They are more about heat than light.

Tall T


The general consensus is that Ollie North got the better of the career multimillionaire liberal lawyer Arthur Liman, who appeared to say in hearings that the safety of America was irrelevant, only The Law mattered. North was of course the inspiration of Jack Nicholson's character of the Marine on the Wall. Unlike Jack, Ollie flat out admitted he lied for the good of the country, and the People did indeed side with North. They wanted him on that Wall, keeping them safe. Just like FDR flat-out lied to Congress for over a year about his daily violations of The Law, the Neutrality Act, covert aid to Britain involving anti-Nazi activities.
Another factor that turned things in the witch hunt was that is was becoming quite evident from the rocks being overturned that Israel was in it up to their necks arms brokering hugely profitable deals with Iran. The more Liman pressed, the more grief he began getting about embarassing Israel. And the message from the powerful Israel Lobby was sent out to donors to tell the Democrats to back off lest they harm Israel in trying to "get" Reagan. Which they did...enough so that along with polls showing the Dems had overreached against a popular President (much like happened with Clinton in the Lewinsky Saga) Iran-Contra wrapped up as a "Show Trial".
Special prosecutor Liman blundered further when he immunized North for telling the truth at Iran-Contra hearings...then prosecuted anyways on what Liman thought was a slick loophole. He got convictions, but they were overturned on prosecutorial misconduct later.

North has no criminal record. His lies, like FDRs, were not for his personal advantage but done in discharging his duty as ordered.

He is now a much admired and respected figure in Marine Corps history. He Kept the Code. Always Faithful.(Semper Fi) Willing to sacrifice himself to protect the nation and his commanders safe. When he does his frequent visits with troops, he is welcomed as a true hero by the men.

Liman is admired only in certain lawyers circles. Much like Kenneth Starr.

*******************
Fuhrman is an even nicer case. He was entrapped in court on "nigger" with Fuhrman saying he never used the word - in his mind believing that he was being asked if it was in performance of his duties or casual conversation. The trap was sprung that he used the word in talking with a scriptwriter in what could be "authentic dialogue" - and was taped by the writer trying to make fictional scripts.
Remember this was 1994. The same time that Quentin Tarantino had his Oscar-winning 75+ "nigger + niggah + niggaz" in Pulp Fiction script done. More n-words than Fuhrman.
While the race card worked, Fuhrman got his revenge. He bagged a Kennedy for major hard time in jail. The jury and the race card playing slickness of Team OJ, prosecutor ineptitude - is blamed far more than Fuhrman for OJ walking. He is a very-well regarded author, screenwiter, and commentator making massively more money than he used to.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12.40 said...
...It is important to re-read Brodhead's open letter of 5 April 2006 now to see that his subsequent claims that he didn't now how weak the case against the accused then was is a deception. The fact is, he knew NOTHING, and therefore should have reserved judgement.
---
I see that letter as saying something just a little different.

Broadhead is functioning as the institutional Monarch and as such he does not need the facts. He needs only the information that is given to him...and the support of his constituency.

I suspect there are many on campus who see themselves as members of the monarchy and I'm sure there are many graduates who see themselves now as members of the invisible but powerful monarchy in the USA.

Are post-modern deconstructionist the new American monarchy?


If you listen closely you will hear the Ivy slowly growing out from Broadhead's office and up the cathedral walls at Duke.

Beautiful green Ivy will little spirals that eat privileged white male athletes ...for breakfast.

GP

Cedarford said...

Anonymous 2:17 did a nice refresher with President Broadhead's APR 5th letter. As others have noted, his actions and pledges, his loading up his committees with African American and Leftist activists, all his race discussions, his charges of rampant Duke misbehavior assume something happened.

The key lines, to me, are these:

If the truth of the allegations is upheld, it will call for severe punishment from the courts and from Duke’s disciplinary system. This university has cooperated and will continue to cooperate to the fullest to speed the ongoing investigation by the police, and I pledge that Duke will respond with appropriate seriousness when the truth is established.

Everything Brodhead said was predicated on all his measures and promises being in place to prepare for when the TRUTH of the player's guilt was established.

He also promised that Duke's own investigation for serious disciplinary measures would commence as soon as DPD's investigation was done.

Again assuming guilt would be discovered.

Yeah, I think Brodhead showed his colors once more. (Up at Yale, he is notorious for destroying the career of a Professor falsely accused of murder by throwing him to the wolves.).

Anonymous said...

To Bill Anderson

Why did Precious make the false allegations in the first place, and why did she conveniently finger the white students?

My guess is Precious:

1. doesn't like white people
2. is a stupid sociopath
3. was trying to avoid confinement

Anonymous said...

REPOSTING to correct typos. Sorry, I don't know how to edit on a blog. :-(
RE: "Why did CGM accuse the lax players in the first place?"
Just my opinion, CGM is not the brightest bulb in the cabinet. She thought if she answered the rape question, "yes," that she would be dismissed, back out on the street -- no harm no foul -- and everything would end there. In spite of her criminal history, she still failed to grasp what the accusations could lead to, even with an ETHICAL DA.
Enter Nifong. NOW, CGM is up against the wall with a political hack and has to play along. I am sure she would just like the whole thing to go away, and that being questioned by the SPs is not her idea of a good time.
Just me, and I know there are many who disagree, but she didn't have the intellect to understand the ramifications, especially if she was blitzed out of her skull the night in question.
Once she said "yes," it was a series of missteps by everyone else involved, led by Nifong. THAT SAID, everyone needs to pony up and suffer the consequences for going along with the hoax -- the media, the university, the group of 88, CGM, the DPD, Broadhead, EVERYONE! But Nifong, especially, needs to serve some SERIOUS jail time. "Who's your DADDY???" LOL
cf

Anonymous said...

Broadhead could be doing something now--namely calling on the AG's office to drop this POS case.

The AG's office owns this case now. They've had it for a while. The responsibility for it continuing is now solely theirs.

I suspect their strategy is simply to wait for the suppression hearing for which CGM will not show, and then simply acquiesce when the judge tosses the charges. It's BS. Utter BS.

Here's to hoping Cooper's career is toast as a result of this.

Anonymous said...

I remember Ollie saying "Bin Laden was a great threat to America." At the time, no one knew what he was talking about. We know now. I agree with the assessment about Furham being set up. Will never forget F Lee Bailey's "Marine to Marine." Great theatre. Furman is an excellent writer. My only complaint is his stance on Anna Nicole. I can't imagine where that is coming from. Some of the public and almost all of mSM is refusing to believe the stats on drug overdose. and people being responsible for themselves. America

lm said...

What I wonder is Broadhead's first thought upon hearing about the accusation would NOT be

"Wait a minute - while I might believe that one Duke student may be an aberration, I simply cannot believe that our stringent admissions process and impeccably high standards could miss 46 bigoted rapists/hooligans who cover for rapists!"

How could the board and alumni not see this as an incredible lack of faith in the very fabric of Duke - its students? What does that say about Broadhead's assumptions about the quality of person that Duke admits, educates, and then turns loose on the world? Does he believe they are all capable of the worst sort of criminal behavior?
Great PR for the university and its graduates.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that Brodhead is more cynical than that. He saw that powerful constituencies and interests were lining up against the accused, and he was desperate to be seen to be taking a tough and decisive stand. He is the "leader" of the Duke community, and must set an example. It was really the EASY option for him at the time. It is evidence of weakness, NOT strength. Unfortunately for him, the case collapsed and his decision publicly to pre-judge the case has blown up in his face. The difficult option for him last spring would have been to stand unflinchingly for the presumption of innocence and reserve all judgements about the case until the courts had ruled. THat's what a leader would have done. He failed the leadership test and should suffer the consequences: dismissal.

Anonymous said...

One fascinating aspect of this imbroglio has been how it has exposed who has power/influence at Duke and who does not. It is pretty obvious now that (at least under Brodhead), students and alums are little regarded, whereas noise-generating politically correct faculty and special interests have disproportionate influence. Larry Summers at Harvard found this out the hard way, and perforce resigned. It has also shown the Duke Board of Trustees to be place-holders for the President. This pattern of admin/faculty vs students/alums is standard in US higher education. Duke is not exceptional in that respect is Brodhead. Normally the college/university president's sympathies lie with admin/faculty (to the left), but he/she plays a more neutral mediating role between the competing interests. Brodhead has shown little inclination to play that role in this case. He took his stand at the outset and has not shifted. I am guessing that he is much despised by alums in particular, a feeling that is no doubt mutual.

Anonymous said...

to 4:46 re "disproportionate influence"

In the real world, blacks and other "minorities" have relatively no influence--they are not first-rate engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs--but at the "University" it's all about pretending.

Pretending that victim studies programs are "worthy," pretending that the Karla Holloways at Duke are intelligent and worth listening to--never mind paying.

Indeed, this so-called influenc is a metanarrative. I'm sure Microsoft executives are dying to hire mediocrities like Holloway to evelop their algorithms.

Political correctness is playtime.

Can we all suck our thumbs, and get on with it?

Anonymous said...

Even when poor Orin Starn attempts to rehabilitate himself a little with his dreary column last week, the nuts for whom he carries water cannot be appeased.

Serious pathologies need serious illumination.

Poor, poor hapless 88 Orin.

Can't we all just get along?

Rules for blackness

Debrah

Anonymous said...

K.C. it looks like you are going to have some competition on the book writing set. I heard through the grapevine that K. P. on the FODU board is also planning to write a book. Looks like there will be lost of reading material after this frabricated crime.

Anonymous said...

Who the hell is KP?

Anonymous said...

2:34 pm

I was referring to 2 specific things. Perhaps I should have elaborated more.
First, Oliver North made the claim that a $15,000 security system installed in his house was not paid for by defense contractors as alleged. He claimed that the cumulative results of emptying the change out of his pockets nightly added up to the $15,000 dollars in question. Thus, he had no banking records to reflect that the money was actually his. This was shown to be untrue.
Mark Fuhrman claimed on the witness stand that he never said the word "ni--er" (I am not going to completely spell out a racial epithet here). This was proven to be untrue.
I was not trying to establish a meta-narrative regarding Arthur Lyman, Quentin Tarantino, Jack Nicholson, FDR or anybody's patriotism. Nor am I concerned with the career upswings that resulted from their respective pieces of self-promotion. That Ollie North is admired by Marines is completely irrelevant. After all, Irving Joyner is admired by fellow NAACP members.
Similarly, the fact that Mark Furman 'bagged a Kennedy' (as you put it) is something I fail to understand. As I recall, both Mr. Furman and Dominic Dunne were given lots of face time on Court TV to offer their 'expert commentary' on a crime that happened in Connecticut in 1975.
My thesis here, and in my prior post, is that a NEWS organization damages its credibility by hiring known prevaricators as expert commentators.
If you believe that Fox News supports your value system, by all means watch it. If you believe Fox News appeals to your sense of patriotism, go ahead and salute it.
If you believe that Mr. North and Mr. Fuhrman were set-up and only lied as part of their duty or were victimized, that is fine, too. I am not here to challenge your view of the world. But I do believe that your political zeal is misdirected in this context. Liars are liars, whether you agree with them or not.

Tall T

Anonymous said...

Cedarford: Nice job clearing up the Ollie North and Mark Fuhrman cases!
On CGM's accusation: To add to the other excellent comments about her motivation (intoxication, lack of intelligence, revenge, sense of entitlement,etc), don't forget that many years before (10?) she had made a very similar accusation- 3 guys raped her supposedly. That case just went away when no evidence surfaced and the accuser went on with her life. Perhaps she thought this would work out the same way.
Also, my understanding is that Durham Access is more than a drunk tank. I believe that it is a facility for dealing with serious drug/ alcohol and mental illness situations (rehab). She would have feared a long time stay (no income = make her pimp furious) and the possible loss of her children.

Anonymous said...

In regard to Anonymous @ 12:57 and Nifong's pension. Unlike O.J. Simpson, Nifong's pension can be taken if there is a legal judgment against him because there is no Federal restriction precluding an alienation. O.J.'s NFL pension is a private pension and is protected by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Nifong's pension is not covered by ERISA because it is from a governmental agency and is exempt from ERISA. In summary, Nifong's pension can be had!!!

Anonymous said...

Given that back in 1994 a privileged wealthy ex-pro football player cut up a young man who was just returning eye glasses left at a restaurant, and effectively decapitated his wife in the entryway to her condo.....and got away with it, Mark Furhman or anyone else saying that they had never uttered the now comical "N" word is pretty much a silly issue.

Furhman was trying to impress a ruddy looking woman from the NC School of the Arts who was trying to write a script about the gritty street life of crime and law enforcement.

His display of bravado which he thought would be a private exchange was turned into a manifesto of his attitude of the world by Cochran and Bailey in order to create a diversion from the murderer they represented.

BTW....as far as Furhman's actual career as a cop, there were numerous black residents who spoke up for him....saying that he always kept the crime down in their neighborhood, was respectful and helpful.

Face it, if the OJ trial were taking place in 2007, things would be quite different. This country has seen and learned a lot from the so-called "victims" in our midst since then.

I wish the "N" word was the only thing that we hear from the bigots.

Perhaps there needs to be a "C" word for cracker.

Perhaps there needs to be a "W" word for wop.

Perhaps there needs to be an "S" word for spic.

Perhaps there needs to be an "H" word for hymie.

Perhaps there needs to be a "CH" word for chink.

Perhaps there needs to be a "G" word for gook.

What is so effing special about the godforsaken "N" word?

The thought of it makes me sick. The utter fear produced in non-black people from this word is hilarious......all the while blacks use it with abandon.

Sick.

We all remember when an elected local official in Washington, DC used the word "niggardly" during a discussion a few years back. This word means parsimonious or stingy.

He was forced to resign because the word sounded too much like the "N" word.

This is how far things have descended on the intelligence level out there. Many are so uneducated and stupid. Yet they are in positions of authority.

This madness has to be obliterated one way or the other.

Debrah

Georgia Girl said...

I'm confused (as always). Why do ya'll "hesitate" to say the word Nigger on this site? I mean there are plenty of references to that word, but nobody actually SAYS it. Is it illegal?

Also, isn't it every bit as insulting to be called a "redneck". Far be it for me to have an opinion in this room.

That said, doesn't everyone agree that CM is a liar, a sick person?

I really don't understand what new revelations your posts are supposed to convey.

Lastly, I remember a comment RUD made, something like this: the lax team was a simmering pot of water about to boil over. Now think about it: music blaring all night, urination on lawns, garbage, etc. (this is what neighbors reported). GRANTED, it could have been any other men's campus organization, but it wasn't.... it was the lax team.

Didn't the whole situation just boil over?

Georgia Girl said...

Debra, you beat me to it!

Anonymous said...

Only uneducater, poorly mannered white trash use that word.

Georgia Girl said...

oh, okay.... in lieu of that word, we just say "N...."? Do I have it straight now?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Debrah - took your link to read:

"I teach at N.C. Central University, which provides me with a remarkably different perspective from someone at Duke. I see daily how the continuing assumptions of white supremacy mold and shape my students during their public school years, so that by the time they reach me many -- if not most -- of them view themselves as intellectually inept."

Geez. I guess that makes me a white supremacist for thinking the real reason you can't read, write or do math is because you didn't study?

By the way, the NCCU professor is disingenuous for describing her arrogant, self-pitying bilge as 'different' from the Gang of 88.

Anonymous said...

It was as Sebastian Junger might tell you, "a perfect storm".

The lacrosse players are no different than any other group of male athletes on any other university campus in this country.

The difference is the racial climate in Durham.

The difference on that March night was that the young men didn't get what they paid for.

They requested white or hispanic dancers. No one wanted to do "harm" to some black woman as many salivating black journalists tried to pass off as a story early on as they became orgasmic at just the thought of the juicey story they were trying to concoct.

Mangum and her partner were seasoned working girls who knew that they had a group of wet-behind-the-ears white boys to play as fools that night.

When Kim Roberts began the racial taunts about the size of a white man's member......and a group of guys who had been drinking and partying answering her taunts--(actually, only one lacrosse player argued with her and he was not one of the accused)---the trouble began and made things ripe for wild fabrications.

Revenge.


Debrah

Anonymous said...

Carolyn---

Orin Starn of the Gang 88 is working hard to make himself over. He's writing little op-eds right and left.

The NCCU guy didn't think that he had effectively sucked up enough, I suppose.

I'd like to see the one Starn wrote for the Herald Sun last year. It was about a thousand word rant against Duke athletics and the lacrosse team.

Wish I could find a link to that one.

Debrah

gak said...

KC Johnson said...
The accuser was asked by the person at Durham Access--a violation of the center's policies, which are supposed to prohibit prompting questions.

Apr 1, 2007 11:53:00 AM


KC or anybody else:
Could you please direct me to something that could explain in detail just exactly what is involved in being committed to a detox/rehab unit like Durham Access? I have heard that it is a mandatory 3 days, in only one place, nothing else gives details.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the change in colour of miss Mangum's eyes. In the yearbook she has brown eyes, on the police photo her eyes are bue. Is it contact lenses? Is it some disease? Would Reiter's disease explain the phenomenon?

Georgia Girl said...

okay fine ... and? so?

Where does all this rehashing leave us?

MTU'76 said...

Debrah and Georgia Girl and Carolyn so well said. A whole swig of straight rye whiskey got sprayed all over my monitor, it was grand.

Anon at 7:18, you mean white trash like my friends Wanda and Tammy down at the washateria who are so uneducated they don't know how to spell? And so its a display of a high education to spell nasty words? Are you s - t - u - p - i - d or what?

Debrah its OK to say penis.

Anonymous said...

MTU--

LIS!

I had much rather just say d!ck.......as in Brodhead.

:>)


Debrah

Georgia Girl said...

There's absolutely no need to get into the dregs here...

There's GOT to be some mutual ground for which we ALL must strive.

Georgia Girl said...

By the way, folks ... do ya'll realize that there's only a handful of people on KC's site who choose to be "named"? Most everyone remains an ANON. Why is that?

MTU'76 said...

RE GAK @ 7:40

Based on my experience on the locked ward (no dear, not as a patient) where I worked in the late 80s: People who were determined by two others (a doctor & a relative, the police and a doctor etc) to be a danger to themselves or others met the only criterion for involuntary admission.
Typically a patient needing involuntary admission was not in much shape to answer detailed questions, they needed to be protected from themselves and/or the drugs ingested. Detox initially is a medical issue: preserve life. I would pump a patient for information about what substances were used but our 2 page intake questionnaire was never a priority. There was a question about sexuality but it was not as specific as 'have you been raped?' And anyway, all the intake stuff would slide until the patient was stable. The law requires a hearing within 3 days to determine if the patient should be committed for another period of days or not. Just remember, it is a locked ward for those who are considered a danger to themselves or others. They do get better. I was never aware of a policy restricting certain questions at admission. We had our repeat patients and I wouldn't be surprised if Crystal was a well known patient at Access.

Oh sorry GAK, you only asked for a link, well google involuntary admission and you will find what you are looking for. You might also look at detox protocols. All facilities like Access would follow the same involuntary admission process and legal requirements.

Anonymous said...

I just did a google on Mark Anthony Neal and that guy is stark raving crazy.
My Lord. What has Duke come to?
This idiot has a career talking about rap cds and his "culcha" of being black.
Who the f**k wants to pay almost 50k to listen to a pos like Neal?
If Brodhead isn't fired for keeping people like this at Duke, he should be.

TruthHurts001 said...

My thesis here, and in my prior post, is that a NEWS organization damages its credibility by hiring known prevaricators as expert commentators.

Perhaps, but that's probably an oversimplification.

Public perception of the prevaricator in question, along with the nature of the prevarication for which he is known, will factor heavily in whether or not he can ultimately earn back his credibility with the public.

In the case of North and Fuhrman (and perhaps Bill Clinton too), their specific lies obviously did not permanently erode their believability as media commentators.

MTU'76 said...

"Nealz da bomb, niggathugintellectual, ya unnastan wat ahm sayin?"

Anonymous said...

I'd like to find someone on this earth who is not a prevaricator.

If he's a goodlooking man with some stamina and taste, I might marry him.

Walter Dellinger's former client, the domestic doyenne Martha Stewart, was sent to the slammer for prevaricating.

Actually, what she did is what the big boys do every day on Wall Street and they just slide.

Debrah

jamil hussein, AP said...

Must see TV.
Horowitz's work is crucial for the future of American universities. I'm curious if KC is still against it (after witnessing firsthand the destruction and indoctrination by Duke Profs and New York Times).

academic freedom

Description: At the National Academic Freedom Conference in Washington, DC, David Horowitz and Cary Nelson debate academic freedom at American universities. Mr. Horowitz's new book, "Indoctrination U.," argues that liberal professors force their political beliefs onto students, at the expense of providing a democratic education.

Anonymous said...

Georgia Girl - this word you keep using "ya'll" - what the hell is that supposed to be? What is that a contraction of? With what words did you start? Do you have any idea how to use standard English?

Anonymous said...

Georgia Girl, there are some pretty obvious reasons for posting anonymously that are kind of ordinery, actually. One of them applies to me. There's no privacy on the Web. Sometimes it is the *ideas* that count so anonymous is okay. And most of the time who knows if the real-sounding names some people use are really their actual names, anyway?

Anonymous said...

if you can't figure out what ya'll is/means, you need to get out more. welcome to the internet and blogging. no rules here.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 7:40 said:

...Could you please direct me to something that could explain in detail just exactly what is involved in being committed to a detox/rehab unit like Durham Access? I have heard that it is a mandatory 3 days, in only one place, nothing else gives details.

I am quite familiar with ACCESS Centers as I have prepared studies for organizations that fund ACCESS centers.

You first need to know that ACCESS is the new buzz phrase in health care. ACCESS almost always means helping women and children find ACCESS to health care. And we are talking about women who are battered. And yes, the see men.

The Office of Student Affairs at Duke and the Office of Student Affairs at the AAB University in Durham will know the people very VERY well at Durham Access.

This particular ACCESS Center's claim to fame is that it is open 24 hours per day.

If any patient walks into the ACCESS Center and is acutely ill or injured, they call 911. There are no exceptions.

Usually a physician will need to sign off on anything that is related to detoxification treatment.

There are usually Registered Nurses at an Access Center but not physicians and... I'll let you imagine that fight.

The three day rule you are talking about is a product of socialized medicine in Europe, not the USA. In the USA you get care based on your needs, your insurance coverage (Medicare and Medicaid Included) and how many days the ACCESS Center can provide services to you free of charge if you have no money.

Funding organizations see ACCESS Centers as the Camels Nose Under The Tent Flap. They seem innocent until they open their doors and then become money sucking monsters.

There is no end to Access Centers. They are everywhere.

In Texas and New Mexico, the hospitals allow the Access Center to operate until they are broke and then close them down or they take them over.

The next question is why the Durham Access Center is not a Federally Qualified Health Center. I not bother making you read about that issue.

The same logic holds true for why you don't see The Duke Medical Center involved with these Access Centers.

Anonymous said...

David Horowitz is doing the work of the angels.

I admire his relentless determination. People like him are the only chance anyone has for changing the horrific conditions on university campuses.

In the fall of 2001 he spoke at Memorial Hall on the UNC-CH campus. Of course, this was to be a "controversial" speech that evening. James Moeser, the chancellor and resident organ player from the 60's generation--(a stiff pipe organ must have been all the rage with the hippies at that time...LOL!!!....think a balding Clay Aiken in commune regalia)--was too much of a wuss to show up to greet Horowitz as is the way things are usually done.

It was an eerie night and I attended on the spur of the moment. What I experienced was a heavy dose of Richard Brodhead's current roadhouse show at Duke.

In the U.S we think free speech and respect for the rights of others is a given; however, attending that evening, I have never felt so "invaded" and "stalked".

There was a group of black UNC students who had organized---as usual---in order to create a spectacle and disrupt Horowitz's program.

But the real show from these troublemakers was before the lecture began. This group of protesters were stalking those of us in the audience to see if they could find someone to approach for an argument.

I suppose I kind of stood out with my Morrocan jumpsuit and cape---an Urban Explorer garb---and as I stood exchanging courtesies with a policeman and thanking him for his presence, a very large woman student in the form of Mr. Barber of the NAACP came close to me....listening to my every word and then proceeded to follow behind me until I took my seat. She sat down directly behind me and began asking me why I was thanking the policeman.

I must tell you.....people have been put in jail for less unprovoked harassment than this woman was throwing my way.

She and her group were determined to start some kind of "event" for the newspapers....to bring attention to themselves.

I ignored her at first. Then after explaining to her that this was not Iran and that she should discontinue her stalking mode, she finally got up and joined her friends after much coaxing from one of her buddies.

I think she got the vibe that if she kept bothering me she might get ahold of a bigger bitch than her previous victims.

I had a chance to chat with some of the students in the audience and they said that they have to deal with this type of overt harassment all the time.

There was one very seriously sweet student--a black guy who came to hear Horowitz and was apparently conservative politically. He took refuge near me because I think he felt he might left alone by the rabblerousers.

It was a moment right out of the third-rate film "A Handmaid's Tale" (circa 1990)....the one that was filmed in Durham at the old Michael Peterson mansion with Faye Dunaway and Robert Duval....where everyone was forced to live a robotic life with no free expression.

It was the first time in my life I have ever experienced such a moment and it has stayed with me.

For a few years in the 80's I was living in Roppongi and in Akasaka, Tokyo. I flew to Seoul, Korea for a week once and I got the same feeling there a couple of times when the black helicopters flew overhead in the afternoon at the downtown Hotel Lotte.

The environment on university campuses today is nothing to joke about.

Our very freedom of speech---of life---is at stake.

Debrah

Gary Packwood said...

Debrah 11:11

Great comments. Thanks. I have been wondering about the ends and outs of those meetings.

We are told over here in Texas that the organizers of such events are being told that they must go back and adopt the old Civil Right Era ...meeting model.

That is what you experienced. I know it well.

The 'Bigger Bitch' logic worked in the '60's and I guess it will work again :-) I love it.

All of this is still just amateur hour until you attend a large meeting of environmental terrorists. Them folks is armed!

GP

Gary Packwood said...

Hook 'em Horns 12:29

At this point in time I just have to stay with the Bloggers as the best and brightest...with KC at the head of the list.

I just hate to imagine what would have happened to the three guys if they Bloggers were not around.

You might have missed the Video but at the Moms March in Durham a month or so ago, one older women said she would not have know about the Moms March or the problem itself if it were not for the Bloggers.

Got to love the older woman and her honest statement of appreciation.

GP

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

In regards as to why Crystal cried rape that night at the detox center, my understanding is that this wasn't the first time she'd been taken to a mental health facility. Only a few months earlier, in late 2005, Crystal had been committed by her family for depression and bipolar. She was released with the warning that a second commitment meant not only a much longer stay, but this time her kids would be taken away. Thus, on March 14, when Crystal was brought to a mental health facility - i.e., the detox center - she freaked. She had to come with some excuse for her erratic behavior. The reason Crystal cried rape is because detox centers are not equipped for rape 'victims' - those must be taken to a hospital facility. Crystal's lie served its purpose. It got her out of the detox center, which was all she wanted.

Who could have realized that lie would then serve so many other purposes? The SANE nurse's feminist agenda, Gottlieb's hatred of Duke students, Nifong's failing election, the Gang's self-serving politics, the media's hunger for a scandal, etc.

Oh, what a tangled web!

Anonymous said...

Gary--

LOL!!!

You must be referring to Al Gore's enviro-babies.

:>)

Debrah

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 11:44 said...
Gary--

LOL!!!

You must be referring to Al Gore's enviro-babies.

:>)

Debrah
___
Actually I have learned so much here from KC and the Bloggers.

In the last three weeks I have actually been able to use what I have learned here.

So many of the environmental terrorists seemed to be Al's Enviro-Babies until I looked closer and found all kinds of folks who have degrees in the Anger Studies areas...including Al's folks.

I never thought to ask until I was reading this Blog.

All of these folks know each other and they are accustomed to creating mischief.

We have a large port here in Houston and the security people there know these folks with their granny glasses very very well...and they are not amused.

The FBI says that environmental terrorism is the # 1 terrorist threat they deal with.

But yes, Al's Enviro-Babies are here and healthy :-)

Anonymous said...

8:21 Because folks like you are hard enough to ignore the blog, let alone having you stalk me or anyone else at an email address. real name - Jack the Ripper

Anonymous said...

"Thugnigga" Neal is also the size of an elephant. I can certainly see a student saying " OMF - look at the fat guy, but not who is the N&&&&&&? The immense weight of this guy is much more eye catching than his color. People are paying 40 plus K for this guy? Only in America. i believe the 88 are sorry, they have drawn so much negative attention to themselves.

Bakerman said...

RE: “What DOES it take to dislodge a Duke President?”

A student strike.

See: Gallaudet University (for the deaf); Students went on strike in 1988 demanding, and then getting, their first deaf president. At the time, their actions were characterized in the press as “revolutionary.”

The current situation with regard to deposing Brodhead suggests a reverse correlation – wherein Duke’s students would strike for a “hearing” president.

Georgia Girl said...

Debra, your 11:00 was very informative. I had no idea of the environment in the Carolinas in 2001. My daughter graduated from CH prior to that. She never mentioned a storm was brewing. I've learned plenty since reading KC's site, thanks to people like yourself.

Anon 12:53, thanks ... you just confirmed a suspicion I've had about you since March 11.

Anonymous said...

Georgia GKKKL,

I think you have your anonymouses confused, again. Please titrate your meds and stay home and make sure your help doesn't get uppity. Your delusions are nearly as numerous as the people who think you are a f*cking moron.

Georgia Girl said...

Settle yourself! If you spew that venon all at once, you won't have any left for later. Try to have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Venon - once again you fail to use English. Mix in a spell check. Now get back to ridin' in your wagon...

Georgia Girl said...

anon 10:43, certainly I can respect your reasons for wanting to maintain privacy. Like you, I would never use my real name here.

Georgia Girl said...

"venom"... darn, you got me! I'll work on it.

Anonymous said...

Kc The comments left here by GG and her enables are best suited to the TL board.

D.M. said...

KC said...

As he has throughout this case, Anderson persuasively argues that the police had to have known that the accuser’s allegations were false given the dearth of physical evidence. Therefore, he contends, items such as Sgt. Mark Gottlieb’s “straight-from-memory” report, or SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy’s ever-expanding conception of what happened to the accuser represented the Durham equivalent of the police planting evidence to convict innocent people.

As I read it, Bill Anderson's contention does not include the SANE nurse. I haven't seen anything to indicate that the SANE nurse's actions belie any agenda whatsoever. We have documents prepared by this person that describe observations and evidence collection at one point in time. What suggests to you an "ever-expanding conception" of anything at all?

Thanks- DM

Anonymous said...

DM I agree. Nurse Tara is a NOBODY in this case. Gottlieb has lied both verbally and in writings - Of all his lies, why whould we believe the "Consistant with rape..."statement? Although no one thinks vaginal swelling has any meaning, her documentation makes no note of bruising, ripped vagina, open cuts, etc.

Anonymous said...

I was at the David Horowitz thing. It was all depressing. Everyone proved to be an idiot, including David Horowitz.

KC - Did you really link to Clutchcity.net!!?? the Houston Rockets' internet fan message board??

Anonymous said...

I saw David and Cary on Booktv - Horowitz was great and poor Cary outclassed. How about the Professor who thought this was the occassion for his life story? I did not find it depressing-these folk are tearing their tinfoil in public =Thank heavens.