Monday, June 18, 2007

Reflections on the Hearing

After five days and more than 40 hours in the courtroom, the star of the Nifong hearings was Disciplinary Hearings Commission chairman Lane Williamson. Alternatively witty, incisive, and blunt, Williamson kept the hearings on track and consistently asked of witnesses questions—off the top of his head—that got to the heart of the case. His asking Mike Nifong whether Nifong accepted the findings of the AG’s report produced perhaps the most dramatic moment of the hearing, as the DA paused for several seconds and then preposterously claimed that “something” happened.

Williamson’s closing remarks—which he delivered extemporaneously—combined eloquence with moral outrage. He opened bluntly, describing the case as a “fiasco” (a critique prominently quoted in every paper’s article of the hearing except the New York Times). What caused the misconduct that marred the case from the start? “It seems,” Williamson noted, “that at the root of it is self-deception arising out of self-interest.” He and his fellow panelists could “draw no other conclusion that that those initial statements that he made were to forward his political ambitions. But having once done that and having seen the facts as he hoped they would be, in his mind the facts remained that way in the face of developing evidence that that was not in fact the case. And even today one must say that in the face of a declaration of innocence by the attorney general of North Carolina, it appears the defendant still believes the facts to be one way and the world now knows that is not the case.”

Williamson made clear that even though Nifong, in his testimony, had described Crystal Mangum as the “victim” no fewer than eight times, “the victims are the three young men to start with, their families, the entire lacrosse team and their coach”—all the way up to the justice system itself. In a line that could have been directed at the Group of 88, he noted that “those who made a rush to judgment based upon an unquestioning faith in what a prosecutor had told them were made to look foolish and many still do look foolish.”

Finally, in a critical finding for any future civil or criminal case, Williamson explained that “the case we have here is a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct. So in addition to this being a deterrent to any prosecutorial misconduct, I would say that this should be a reminder to everyone that it’s the facts that matter.”

The State Bar’s prosecutors, Doug Brocker and Katherine Jean, did a remarkably effective job. They mastered the intricate details of a case that by now is extremely complex. Both asked questions in a straightforward, dispassionate manner—despite the outrages of the case—thereby allowing the “facts” that Williamson deemed so critical to dominate the proceedings.

Brocker’s cross-examination of Mike Nifong was a masterpiece. At the end of his direct testimony disgraced DA had just delivered a tearful resignation, seeming to use his son as a prop designed to increase sympathy. Brocker responded with a precise series of questions to which Nifong unpersuasively responded with increasing evasiveness. In effect, the cross-examination exposed the “factual” Nifong to all, setting the stage for Brocker’s brilliant description of Nifong—Durham County’s “minister of injustice”—in his closing statement.

Nifong’s attorneys, Dudley Witt and David Freedman, had a nearly impossible case to try—their client’s ethical violations had, after all, all occurred in public, and Nifong had given so many different explanations for the DNA concealment that he appeared to be lying.

That said, Witt’s performance stood out as abysmal. His cross-examination of Himan seemed to have as its sole purpose further sliming the players without challenging any of the very damaging items that the officer had related about Nifong’s performance. And his closing argument (a term I use loosely in this context, since the statement had no argument) seemed to perform the almost impossible task of further alienating the DHC panel.

Witt and Freedman also used their witnesses in a peculiar fashion. After spending the first three days of the hearing implying that their client's defense would be that he believed, as of March 27, that a rape occurred, they put Tara Levicy--whose story appeared to change every time Crystal Mangum's did--on the stand only after Nifong had self-destructed in his testimony. Even then, their questioning of Levicy was so amateurish that the feminist zealot wound up helping the prosecution, thanks to Katherine Jean's cross-examination.

Then, for character witnesses in a case that involved allegations of Nifong having withheld evidence and treating Duke lacrosse players according to different procedures than all other residents of Durham, Witt and Freedman put on the stand former DA Anthony Brannon, who reminisced about the good old days when prosecutors routinely withheld exculpatory material, and Judge Elaine Bushfan, who convicted Dave Evans for the very same noise violation of which Dan Flannery previously had been acquitted.

In his final remarks, Williamson singled out two witnesses. He noted that Marsha Goodenow of the Mecklenburg County district attorney’s office had appropriately described the real functions of a prosecutor; he added that the panel had found Goodenow “to be a very persuasive witness.” Williamson also referenced a comment of Wade Smith’s—that Nifong’s statements took the case out of the courtroom and into the public—that several other witnesses and lawyers for both sides also mentioned.

Four Phase One witnesses stood out to me—two for good reasons, two for bad. Brad Bannon’s testimony was a tour de force—intellectually compelling, witty (Linwood Wilson isn’t a law enforcement officer, “but he has a badge”), and often passionate. If the DNA breaker alone had been the only witness in the case, there would have been enough evidence to convict Nifong.

Reade Seligmann’s testimony was so powerful that it appeared to break even Nifong, who announced his resignation when he followed Seligmann to the stand. (Nifong had not told his staff or assistant district attorneys that he planned to resign; they learned only by watching his testimony.) Seligmann’s composure, raw emotion, and critical facts (the discussion of Nifong’s refusal to consider his alibi, the horrific experience of the May 18 hearing) were unanswerable. Nifong’s attorneys didn’t even try to cross-examine him.

On the other side, Brian Meehan brought evasion to new levels, so much so that virtually everyone (including the panel) was mocking him by the end of the hearing. That Brad Bannon explained how DNA is relevant to criminal cases in two minutes more clearly than Meehan did in two hours gives a sense of Meehan’s incompetence. The figure that Lane Williamson labeled “Mr. Obfuscation” also might have opened himself up to a perjury charge, since Meehan said something very different under oath last week than he did in the December 15 hearing.

And, of course, Nifong’s performance as a witness combined the self-pity, evasion, and defiance with which anyone who has followed this case has become intimately familiar.

Among the print media contingent, Aaron Beard from AP, Joe Neff and Anne Blythe from the N&O, and David Graham from the Chronicle provided the first-rate coverage that everyone has come to expect. As for Duff Wilson, he, too, provided the level of coverage that everyone has come to expect from the Times in this case.

Finally, it’s worth considering two cautions expressed by Jim Cooney in the post-hearing press conference. Though the case ended as it should—with the AG’s declaration of actual innocence and Nifong’s disbarment—this was a very close call. First, the defense demanded and then closely examined Meehan’s underlying DNA data not as a matter of course but only because the DNA was the only evidence even remotely implicating Brad Bannon’s client, Dave Evans. Had Mangum picked a lacrosse player other than Evans, the DNA conspiracy might have passed unnoticed. Second, the State Bar’s grievance committee voted to charge Mike Nifong with ethics violations by a mere one vote, with grievance committee chairman Jim Fox casting the tie-breaking vote.

As both Cooney and Joe Cheshire remarked, the hearing is not the last we’ll see of Nifong; a sanctions motion is expected to be filed this week. But the five days did provide much high drama, while thoroughly exposing both the ethical and the legal corruption that guided Mike Nifong’s behavior over the past 15 months.

196 comments:

Anonymous said...

Kudos to KC. The live blogging from the hearing was the culmination of great coverage over the past 15 months.

Anonymous said...

KC, great job.

I have a suggestion--how about a Top 10 list of the Fongster's quotes at the hearing.

The "joined at the hip" one is my personal fave.

Anonymous said...

Anything that began with "To the extent I" belongs up there.

Anonymous said...

K.C., I don't know how you do it (such boundless energy), but I do know that your scrupulous attention to detail and your unrelenting search for the truth are a source of admiration - if not inspiration - to everyone who reads your blog (well . . . maybe not everyone, certainly not to Brodhead and his minions).

Anonymous said...

KC, excellent post. You have done a tremendous service to us all during the hearings with yout live blogging. I do not know what we would have done without that. I agree with every point you made in this post mortem.

Anonymous said...

KC, I thought Duh Wilson's last article was less biased than his previous handiwork. I suspect he's been hanging around here, getting himself an education in how to be a real journalist. :-)

Thanks for all your hard work, Professor. You da man!

Anonymous said...

I would add David Evan's passionate statements to the hilight reel.

The quiet crescendo with which he called out Nifong's last lies ('something happened') had me out of my chair.

Breathtaking.

Anonymous said...

P.S. KC, when you make lots of money on your book, I hope you will treat yourself to a two bedroom place. Maybe even a two bedroom with den.

Anonymous said...

By the way...

Just to clear up this point Nifong made when he said (words to the effect of) "something happened that night.... something must have made them scatter like that once the police arrived".

Dave Evans has very clearly and publically stated that they told everyone to clear out and empty the house because they were in fear of getting another noise violation from the police.

For Nifong, clueless to the end, to infer (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary) that "something happened" to Mangum is tragically comical.

Anonymous said...

Ditto, KC.

I loved the "Who cares about Nancy Grace?" comment, too.


gotc

Anonymous said...

You did a great job, KC. Thank you. Hope you had a good time here, and that people you met treated you well. You deserve no less.

Anonymous said...

Here's the quote:

Standing in his living room, Evans was worried that the cops would show up. The commotion was enough to disturb the neighbors. Evans had recently been cited for a noise violation; the Durham police were trying to crack down on rowdy parties that sometimes spilled out of the houses rented by teams and fraternities on the edge of campus.

Evans, who had been on the phone to his girlfriend, hung up when he heard Roberts's last comment. Shooing some freshmen away, he retreated to a neighboring house rented by other players. He was worried about the police showing up and citing him for another noise (or public-drinking) violation.


[URL=http://]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18110003/site/newsweek/page/4/[/URL]

Anonymous said...

KC is so wonderful.

Anonymous said...

KC-

Be careful-early posts may lead to upset biorhythms and a pay cut!!!

Thank you again for the invaluable service you have provided to those of us who are not on the scene. It

With respect, admiration and gratitude

A proud Duke lacrosse grandparent
G. Holman King
Granbury, TX

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

As for timeless quotes, Witt takes the cake "Didn't click" - well duh! "Nifong is a very truthful guy." Suuuure... The whole "Nifong being Nifong" defense - that was a sure winner. Sheesh - with a defense like that, who needs prosectors?

Anonymous said...

Yes, 10:23, Duke is a state school. Thanks for asking, again. Nifong is your father. Happy father's day. May the farce be with you...

jamil hussein said...

Who were the state bar grievence committee members who voted against the hearings (ie who made everything in their power to protect Nifong)?

Their names should be published.

Anonymous said...

I had a couple of other impressions. First, I saw a video (WRAL) of the Finnerty's walking and talking to the press. They seemed carefree and casual with Mr. Finnerty getting off a good one-liner about having finished school awhile ago. I hope the hearing gave them a sense of closure and they can go on with their lives.

Two, I think the hearing showed a lot people in N. Carolina comitted to a fair judicial system. It was good to see.

Lastly, in the video of the defense attorneys after the bar tial showed two things to me. One, good attorneys dedicated to their clients and the system. Two, abunch of guys with a visceral anger for Nifong and what he did to their clients and the N. Carolina justice system.

LarryD said...

Fiasco, Anon 10:23, Fiasco.

And while I'm sure the gang of 88 want to "move on" and people forget thir role as enablers and cheering section for Nifong's railroading of three innocent men, and their displays of bigotry, I for one won't.

Last I heard, Duke's enrollments and fund raising were both seriously impacted, and not in a positive way. Duke University needs a good house cleaning, and it's pobably going to have to start with the Board of Trustees.

fmfnavydoc said...

KC,

Your work on this blog has been nothing short of outstanding, Sir! I know that this has not ended, and I'm sure that you will continue to follow this case as it winds its way through the civil and criminal court system.

Lloyd said...

KC,

a most excellent job in your coverage of not only this trial; but of the whole case to date. I am extremely thankful to you and others like you who have played a very important part in bringing the truth to light. May God truely bless you.

Anonymous said...

I thought nifongs "character" witnesses had the best line.
All three said nifong was "known for his integrity and truthfulness"

hardest i laughed in awhile.

Anonymous said...

The complete, live televising and webcasts of the hearings them self was crucial to the public's understanding of what Nifong did and the appropriateness of his punishment. The seating in the court room was effectively expanded from dozens to millions. Getting unfiltered information stands in stark contrast to the lies Nifong told the world a little over a year ago. While the world heard the results of AG Cooper's findings - innocence - they did not see the process by which the investigators came to that conclusion. In the hearings this past week, the facts and the process were on display. And as Lane Williamson pointed out, there was no testimony that contradicted the AG's finding: the three players are innocent.

bill anderson said...

K.C.,

A great job. I was both listening to the testimony and following your live blogging, and you did a great job.

And your line about the coverage from Duff being what one would come to expect was priceless. Great job.

jamil hussein said...

The complete, live televising and webcasts of the hearings them

I agree. Gang88 wanted also to have a discussion about the case, so let's have it. Let's have gang88 to answer critical question about the case on TV so we can discuss it. Somehow I feel they are not interested in discussion anymore..

Anonymous said...

Actually, Duff Wilson's article did quote the word "fiasco".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/us/17duke.html

It's in the 8th paragraph.

Jamie said...

A truly remarkable job, Prof. Johnson. What an example - but I hope that you don't demand that your students work as hard as you do.

Anonymous said...

I know this sounds weird but I'm glad that Crystal Meth picked two students who had perfect alibis. Would have been a grand slam had she picked the student who was in Raleigh at the time of the party. Is she gonna be on the Maury Povich show to determine her newborn's paternity?

Anonymous said...

Can we now change the mantra from "the system works" to "the system functions" or even "the system exists and consumes resources"?

Thanks for all your outstanding work, KC, the world is a better place!

Anonymous said...

In the face of the compelling evidence of Nifong's malfeasance, the names of all those on the NC State Bar Grievance Committee who attempted to shield Nifong from investigation should be made public.

We need to know the names of the rats who would continue to support political corruption in North Carolina.

Anonymous said...

KC,
Bravo -- what a great public service!

Maybe your blog and the entire hearings should be required reading/viewing at Duke. I just looked at a couple of surveys (I know they are not scientific) at the Duke Chronicle and they are informative. 66% do not feel the athletes should have been given an additional year of eligibility and 71% do not agree the AG should have dismissed the charges on the 3 students. Wow! So the hate continues.

Anonymous said...

Don't pay attention to chronicle polls. They are not scientific.
I don't think they mean anything at all.

Anonymous said...

Here's Levicy's appearance before the panel. I missed her testimony and have been trying to find it.

Drab.


Levicy_Schmevicy

Debrah

Anonymous said...

I was talking to two Duke law grads the other day, actually right around graduation time, and they, of all people, really didn't think the Nifeman had done anything particularly bad. Amazing. Oh well, they were headed to Wall Street, so their complete naivete regarding the criminal justice system won't matter. But what dimbulbs - did they not realize that it could have been them given their status as "rich, northern Duke students" and the anti-Duke bias of the DPD?

First they came for the Lacrosse players, and I did nothing...

Anonymous said...

And if you want real DRAB, the leader of Nifong's fan club of "honesty", Kendra Montgomery-Bilnn, is the queen.

Very strange women--Blinn and Levicy. Intelligent, but way off-center.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

The system righted itself. The Chairman of the Greivance Committee cast the deciding vote that got the system to start righting itself. Back up systems that were never designed or intended to make this kind of correction worked extraordinarily. Bloggers filled in the gaps in information that the media left open. Last, and most, Lane Williamson is a wise man who did the right thing and made sure the system righted itself.

...you can’t do justice in the media, you can’t do justice on sound bites. The way to arrive at a determination of the facts is to hear in a fair and open proceeding all of the evidence and then for the trier of fact to determine what the facts are.

Let us all remember the wisdom of Lane Williamson. In the future it will serve us well. Let every journalist burn that into his or her consciousness. Let every citizen remember that when we see or hear of some event that tugs at our heart or strikes our conscience.

Walt in Durham

Andrew said...

Thank God for attorney's like Chesire, Cooney, Bannon and Smith and KC Johnson for righting this terrible wrong. Without their intelligence, energy and persistance, three innocent young men could be rotting in jail while the Minister of Injustice preens himself in front of the media.

And shame on Brodhead and the Group of 88 who have yet to atone for their sins. I hope there is a day of reckoning for them too.

Anonymous said...

"Let every journalist burn that into his or her consciousness. Let every citizen remember that when we see or hear of some event that tugs at our heart or strikes our conscience."

And when that doesn't happen again, we're right back where we started. Are journalists and citizens part of this "righting" process?

No, a falsely accused person is better off putting their faith and resources into Brad Bannons, Joe Chesires and Lady Luck.

Michael said...

Professor Johnson: that was an excellent
and insightful summary of the trial --
so well written -- thank you so much.

Oh my gosh, I did not know that the
Grievance Cmte vote was decided on a
tie-breaking vote cast by the Chairman Jim Fox.
The ethics charges filed by the State Bar
were the one and only thing that finally
started the process of derailing this freight train.
Prior to that, it was abundantly clear that
Nifong and Linwood Wilson were
intimidating witnesses left and right in
attempt to frame the boys in the absence of
evidence.

Nifong and Wilson deserve jail time, absolutely.

Anonymous said...

Gottlieb is going down also. I would hate to be in his shoes! He was a main player.

Anonymous said...

KC> Look forward to the book> It should be mandatory reading for every upcoming senior in high school and their parents before they choose where in the country they want their children to spend the next 4years.

Some of the comments on this piece are shocking with regard to the Duke students reaction to this whole event.

It is disingenuous for any college age student not to be sympathetic ie: partying label since they all party. Anyone in the target demographic should be very empathetic to what happened to these three, it could have just as easily been any three from Duke. I don't understand how students weren't more engaged in outraged and support once the real facts started coming forward.
I think the G88 and media effect though not provable, had a very deliterious effect on the whole campus thinking and it still exists.

It's a no brainer that neither should go back to Duke. I'm glad for those who do have to go back that at least Mr. Nifong won't be around. They only have the police, their professors and the communtiy to worry about now.

I've learned alot on your watch, wish I could take a constitutional law class, I think anyone who gets a chance to have you as a teacher is very lucky.
Thanks again.

Anonymous said...

"It is disingenuous for any college age student not to be sympathetic..."

Most people do not care about other peoples' misfortunes, and this is exactly what the really evil people exploit.

That is what makes the work of Bannon, Cheshire, Cooney, and also KC, BA and others so damn remarkable.

If everybody really cared that much, we wouldn't be here.

Anonymous said...

Can we please find out who voted against the ethics charges on Nifong. That is shocking. Is that public record anywhere?

Anonymous said...

KC,

Lane Williamson, whom you described as eloquent, witty, and incisive, also stated that Duke University was a victim of this fiasco. Was there some reason why you left that out of your account of his remarks?

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

Gottlieb rewrote his initial report based on a meeting with (in)SANE nurse Levicy. Levicy's testimony revealed the meeting never occured.

PixiePets said...

I watched the case unfold on TV during the week. I went to the court house Friday afternoon, and managed to get a pass about 3:30pm (after a 2 hour wait). To assure I would get a seat on Saturday, I was on the court house steps by 5:00am to get one of the "possibly less than 10" (as we were told) available passes. I was determined to be there when the Nifong got disbarred! I also had the pleasure of meeting KC in person. He sat 2 seats down from me, and I must say....I've NEVER seen anyone type that fast, with just 2 fingers (I swear, he was faster than the court reporter)....LOL! KC was busy busy busy, typing away the ENTIRE day, to make sure all you bloggers stayed up to date with what was going on in the court room. I assure you, that everyone reading Durham-In-Wonderland had as much detailed information through his blogs, as you would have gotten, sitting there in the court room (beside him) yourself. KC, I have to say, I was absolutely amazed at watching you sit and type all day in the courtroom (hour after hour after hour after hour.....) Thanks for ALL your hard work and everything you have done! :)

Anonymous said...

This blog has been a great source of information, so thank you KC.

One question: Can someone tell me what the story is on this whole "the party ended early" assertion?

That seems, from what I've read here, to be one of the reasons Nifong in his gut kept pursuing the case even as evidence mounted that he had no case. Said that by the time the cops arrived, the place where the party had been held had been cleared out, which raised suspicions that "something must have happened" there. Can someone who followed this more closely flesh this out? I can see where that would potentially raise suspicions, but it's not like the police arrived immediately either, right? Thanks.

-- Tony in Charlotte

Anonymous said...

I am not sure what you even mean by "party ended early?" When do you think it was supposed to end?
It ended by 1:00 am, I wouldn't call that "early."

Anonymous said...

How did Levicy's testimony reveal the meeting never occured?

rrhamilton said...

Something I posted over at the Duke Chronicle website:

Let me say something that everyone knows: Duke has already paid millions to Coach Pressler and an unknown amount to Kyle Dowd. Duke will be paying more millions and perhaps tens of millions of dollars to get out of this.

The only question: Will it be millions or tens of millions? I think than hinges on whether Duke will tell the truth and take responsibility for its conduct. It did not do this in the Pressler and Dowd cases. It simply paid for silence. I have the feeling that the other victims of Duke's perfidy will not be bought off so cheaply.

The way I see it coming down is this: If Duke wants to come clean -- by cleaning its own house amid a flood of apologies, it is likely to have to pay only millions in a settlement. But if Duke wants to maintain the "Blue Wall of Silence", then it will pay TENS of millions.

Duke has made it abundantly clear to all plaintiffs' lawyers that it will pay almost any amount of money not to have to see Richard Brodhead, Karla Holloway, Grant Farred, and Wahneema Lubiano on the witness stand under oath. Plaintiff lawyers are many things, but stupid and merciful are not two of them.

R.R. Hamilton

Bella said...

Thank you KC!!! Your dedication to this case has been extraordinary. Already ordered the book, can't wait to read it!

Anonymous said...

CGM did ID the player who was in Raleigh and the cops just went right past it, knowing he wasn't there. Watch the tape...

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

Excellent summary Professor Johnson.

I for one greatly enjoyed Ms Jean incredulously asking each of the Nifong character witnesses is it your testimony that Mr. Nifong today has a reputation in Durham for honesty? And when that was answered yes, mockingly saying no further questions.

I too think Williamson was very good, but he was too kind in his final statement to Nifong. At best it was self interested self delusion. There was plenty of evidence starting with the uncontested "we're f'ed" statement at his first police briefing to suggest Nifong knew exactly what he was doing the whole time. He was not delude but arogant and uncaring.

Anonymous said...

KC Lawyer Williamson noted that aside from Nifong, no one else had testified under oath. I don't know that she changed her story and neither does anyone else. All that is hearsy information. We have no evidence she is a "female zealot." Producing a little play is not proof of feminanazi. If you believe in innocent until proven quilty for those boys, why are you not according the same courtesy to Nurse Levicy? This constituational right is not just for the Lax team. Her testimony must be believed unless some one proves she lied on the stand. Like lawyers and courts, not other nurses and writers. This is shameful.

Anonymous said...

I just read a legal analysis posted on the Chronicle web site. The condensed version was that the G88 are individually exposed and may be in for some real listening in civil suits.

It will be very interesting to see the strategy for who to go after and when.

I think we will next see the Judge cite Nofing for contempt for his acts on 15 Dec 06. Also, the investigation of the police is coming up. Somewhere along the line, someone is going to flip. I hope the new DA cleans house -- it will be very telling who is appointed here!


Willsin and Goatleeb are clearly in play -- hope they saw something happening this past week...

Anonymous said...

Duke has a policy, long before this incident, that people accussed of a felony are suspened from the school, Hard to beat that. Dowd was paid ^60,000. No one knows about the coach. Both Dowd and Pressler had legimite action - not so sure about the guys.

Anonymous said...

Levicy will have her day in court -- as a witness or defendant. She seems to be blaming Goatleeb -- he has zero credibility and doesn't take notes, so she may prevail on this point. All depends on the evidence, as it rightly should.

Michael said...

to 1:07:00 am,

among other things, I think Prof Johnson is
basing his "female zealot" characterization on
Ms. Levicy's comment that
"rape isn't about ejaculation, it's about power"
This was her reply to a question about why
she believe a rape occurred even though there
was no semen present in Ms Magnum

i am sure that phrase was beat into her head
by female zealots that taught her in college

Anonymous said...

Minister of Injustice

KC used the words in November
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/thank-you-steve-monks.html

LieStoppers' Joan Foster in January
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/01/in-out-for-hoaxland-2007.html

LieStoppers' Beth Brewer on 6/10/07
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/search/label/RNVC

Perhaps Mr. Brocker was reading the blogs... Perhaps it's just that great minds think alike :) -- Brocker's closing argument was outstanding. It felt as if someone was finally, after all these months, speaking loudly and in court in support of the accused and their families.

rrhamilton said...

Andrew said...
Thank God for attorney's like ...


I'm aware of only two English words whose singulars end with "y" and whose plurals are "ys", instead of the normal "ies": Monkey and attorney.

Not sure if there's a connection.

Anonymous said...

KC, your blog is the best. I appreciate your hard work and dedication. I will miss waking up to you every morning - guess I could put your book under my pillow... Hubby won't mind....



MTU '76

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: 1:11

Dowd also got specific performance. That is Duke agree to change his grade to a pass. That is fairly unusual in civil suits. So I would say he got a good bit more than whatever money damages he accepted.

Anonymous said...

Well rape is about powere and dominance - goggle rape and read the experts.

Anonymous said...

"...the State Bar’s grievance committee voted to charge Mike Nifong with ethics violations by a mere one vote, with grievance committee chairman Jim Fox casting the tie-breaking vote."

Are the names of the members of this committee who voted to give Nifong a pass part of the public information??

I think it would be well worthwhile to ask those idiots what the hell they were thinking. Get them on record right now, along with the potbangers, Jesse, the pinheads with the "Castrate" banner and all the rest. And of course, Broadhead.

Anonymous said...

1:36 AM
There was no rape. However, I'm certain that False Accusations are also about power and dominance. Google is only a search engine for the WWW, which is 92% crap. I got his number by Googling.

Anonymous said...

K.C.,
Excellent work, simply amazing all that went on to keep the false charges going. Although the DA was removed and Williamson restored some credibility, I'm still keeping clear of NC for awhile.

Has there been any word from the NC congressional delegation?

Anonymous said...

1:56 Use the search engine of your choice - Read what the experts write about rape -

Anonymous said...

Thank you KC.

The point you made at the end of your post, that Nifong and his group might have gotten away with their railroading if a few small factors had been different, is chilling. I hope you stress this angle in your book.

becket03 said...

I notice Debrah has posted the Levicy testimony, which I watched yesterday on youtube.

Levicy was scared out of her mind on the stand. The doleful, grim expression on her face and the fear in her heavy lidded eyes betrayed the dread she was feeling, although she managed to control her voice fairly well.

As it turned out, she needn't have been so worried, since no one tried to nail her to the wall. Undoubtedly, though, she's very unhappy that her face is now out there in the public, which I believe she's raised in the past as a major concern.

As for being nailed to the wall, her ordeal has only just begun. The next time she's on camera giving testimony, she'll be at the mercy of Joe Cheshire and company, and those guys carry the lastest model automatic nailguns from Black & Decker.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving "feminist zealot."

beckett

Anonymous said...

Levicy is lovely - very professional in manner and demeanor. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Gottlieb wrote that Levicy and he had a meeting on 3/21, He quoted some comments that would be inappropriate if she had made them..
Under oath in a court of law, she stated she had one phone call on 3/16 and an interview in January, 07 - ten months apart. Gottlieb, to the surprise of no one but Nurse Levicy's distractors, lied about the meeting and her comments. They are claiming she lied and committed perjury,
No lawyer in the court room challanged her statement of the two interviews - no perjury charges and in the words of Mark Twain - " The report of meeting between NIfong, Gottlieb, Himan and Levicy have been greatly exagerated. No meeting - no comments - no crucification.

Anonymous said...

4:22 AM
There was no rape. However, I'm certain that False Accusations are also about power and dominance. Google, Yahoo, MSN, Alta Vista, Ask Jeeves, DogPile, Lycos, Inktomi, Ask.com, ChaCha are only search engines for the WWW, which is 92% crap. I got this number by Googling.

Mark said...

1:36am =4:22am =Nifong...to the bitter end..."something happened in that bathroom"
Yes, use the search engine of your choice to reveal the feminist meta-analysis of sex, even consensual sex, between a man and a woman is considered to be rape.
Something happened in that bathroom =
All men are potential rapist...to the bitter,bitter end.

Anonymous said...

If the powers that be have any sense this blog will receive a Pulitzer Prize.

Anonymous said...

KC deserves the iron *ss award for blogging on this case every day for more than a year and giving us a blow-by-blow account of the hearing. What an heroic effort! Many thanks.

Anonymous said...

my guess is nifong will drag out resignation and will put in for 5 years overtime and 5 years unused vacations etc to tune of at least 400k.

Michael said...

re 1:11

It's so easy to make accusations today that maybe that policy should be reviewed.

The three Minnesota Gophers that were accused spent the weekend in jail and were suspended from their team amidst a media frenzy. They were subsequently released though the police said that they would continue the investigation. Then after that, nothing. No media. No stories. Nada.

Seems like college campuses are ripe places for hoaxes.

miramar said...

Witt's and Freedman's performance was so amateurish that it made me wonder how much they really prepared for the hearing. It made me think that they told him, Mike, we charge $250 an hour and we don't see any chance of saving your law license. Maybe you want to save your money for the civil and criminal cases. After all, you had to borrow $30,000 just to get reelected, and you will probably have to sell your house to stay out of jail, so this is no time to be blowing your money.

Who knows, maybe they read KC's blog and decided to throw in the towel.

Anonymous said...


Michael said...
to 1:07:00 am,

among other things, I think Prof Johnson is
basing his "female zealot" characterization on
Ms. Levicy's comment that
"rape isn't about ejaculation, it's about power"
This was her reply to a question about why
she believe a rape occurred even though there
was no semen present in Ms Magnum

i am sure that phrase was beat into her head
by female zealots that taught her in college


And I'm pretty sure that, unlike me and others who may be reading this, you have zero first hand knowledge of being raped.

Anonymous said...

The attorneys for the 3 students have done such a wonderful job so far. I hope they continue and get someone from the outside to do the investigation of the DPD. Maybe there was no organized conspiracy, but there was at least the looking the other way when it came to their silence of the way the PD treated students in general.

I know he brings a lot of bagage, but Mark Fuhrman was what got the ball rolling to the eventual examination and conclusion that lead to Kennedy cousin being arrensted and convicted of the M Moxley murder. He is such a meticulous investigator and was able to uncover evidence that was about 20 years old.

There are still a lot of people who need to "pay" for their part.

No justice, no peace said...

11:53 inre: lack of Duke students/alumni following/understanding the situation...

Pre-purchase K.C. Johnson's book on Amazon and give it out as a gift. They need to know what happened and when it happened.

Consider what Duke alumni are directly receiving from Duke, then you will quickly realize it is the filtered non-active spin from Brodhead and the administration.

What they need to consider is EVERYTHING that was said by the administration, the faculty, and the Board. They need to consider what was NOT SAID. And then they need to understand the context of when those actions and inactions happened in relationship to the events surrounding the hoax. That will get their attention.

Any with ties to Duke and our criminal justice system should receive a copy of the book.

Personally I would have reservation hiring any graduate from Duke that didn't have some understanding to discuss the situation. I would not hire any that took the "something happened" position. Those that don't have an opinion may be mis-interpreted.

Anonymous said...

Any one taking bets as to when Mike Nifong actually resigns?

bernie said...

"As for Duff Wilson, he, too, provided the level of coverage that everyone has come to expect from the Times in this case."

Nice one, KC. Many thanks for the great service of intelligently and objectively pursuing this story from the very early days.

Anonymous said...

KC, you should be nominated for and win both a Pulitzer and Nobel Peace Prize. Your coverage of this case has been outstanding.

Lane Williamson was nothing short of "brilliant" in his summation of the case as a "fiasco". He was very thoughtful in expressly including Coach Pressler as one of the victims in this case. The prosecutors for the state bar of North Carolina in the hearing were outstanding and should be lauded for their hard work and effective presentation of the facts in a compelling fashion. Also, the witnesses for the prosecution, in my opinion, were all knowledgeable, forthright, and extremely credible (except Officer Himan) and they too should be thanked for having the courage to see that justice prevailed. Brad Bannon is a hero and is fully deserving of any awards the ABA or North Carolina State Bar might give him or for that matter, any other awards he might receive for his heroic work.

Now that this phase of the "fiasco" is over, it seems there are still some critical outstanding questions:

1. Mr. Nifong seemed to despise if not outright hate Duke lacrosse players and probably Duke students in general. Is that true for any other current Durham assistant DAs or Durham county judges? Is that true for any or all members or officers of the Durham Police Department? What steps or plans will be taken or made to eliminate or at least lessen the apparent animosity and tension that exists between Durham, the Durham DA's office, and the Durham Police Department against Duke University students? Given the current Durham environment for justice, would you send your son or daughter to Duke University?

2. How does this ruling by the North Carolina Bar Disciplinary Committee impact Mr. Nifong's annual pension amount? If no impact, then does it take a criminal conviction against Mr. Nifong to negatively impact his pension? Does Mr. Nifong earn pension credits for his time served as DA after committing ethics violations in this case? It seems these calculations and numbers should be made available to the public.

3. What obligation or legal duty do the news media and internet information providers, e.g. Google, Yahoo, etc., have to update their records to properly reflect the "innocence" of the three accused? If there is no legal duty, should there not be some Federal and State legislation requiring news media and internet information providers to update their data to reflect accurate information for those found "innocent" or "not guilty" in posted criminal matters? This would not restore reputation completely, but it would sure help.

Just some initial reactions and questions for serious consideration.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Nifong seemed to despise if not outright hate Duke lacrosse players and probably Duke students in general. Is that true for any other current Durham assistant DAs or Durham county judges? Is that true for any or all members or officers of the Durham Police Department? What steps or plans will be taken or made to eliminate or at least lessen the apparent animosity and tension that exists between Durham, the Durham DA's office, and the Durham Police Department against Duke University students?

That will take a lot of effort on the part of a lot of people.

Dukies' reputation for arrogance, sexual aggressiveness and drunken behavior in the community is not entirely undeserved.

I lived in the Durham area for 5 years, have no stake in the various rivalries in that area but got some inside views on the role of the universities in the Triangle.

What Nifong did to the LAX players is reprehensible. But he got away with it in part because there WAS a history of bad behavior by some Duke students, especially (but not limited to) jocks.

jamil hussein said...

If the powers that be have any sense this blog will receive a Pulitzer Prize.

Pulitzer is reserved for far-left activists only (ie exposing national secrets that hurt Bush admin). Honest reporters need not apply. New York al-Times is a prime candidate for it this year (e.g. for its reporting of lacrosse rape case in the context of race, class and gender). People like Gang88 are sitting on the committee.

New York al-Times got Pulitzer for its reporting on Soviet Union in the 1930's. Soon it turned out that NYT "reporter" was a fraud (surprise!) working for Stalin. This has been going on ever since.

Anonymous said...

Tony in Charlotte--
See the earlier post on this thread, which explains that, after hearing Kim Roberts threaten to call the cops in her argument with a few players outside, Dave Evans got everyone to leave. He had already been charged with a previous noise violation and did not want to get another one. (I'd guess he was also concerned that any partygoers under 21 leave before they could be cited for underage drinking.)

June 17, 11:53 PM--
Please don't think for a minute that the polls on the Chronicle website reflect the views of Duke students. Anyone at all can vote--it's not necessary to be a student or even to have any connection to Duke, and recently (needless to say) a lot of people with no connection to Duke have been reading the Chronicle. In addition, people can vote repeatedly.

As for the remarks of three law students, well, they are three students among over 12,000 undergrads and graduate students. Based on what I have heard from my daughter (a rising Duke senior) as well as what I have read in the Chronicle and other news sources, there have been many, many students supporting the lacrosse players--some from early on, many more after the late spring and summer's revelations made much clearer even to casual observers that the players were innocent.

Some of this support has been active--the voter registration efforts of Students for an Ethical Durham, for example, or the "Social Disaster" petition on Facebook--while some has been less so. But it would be very wrong to think that more than a small minority of the Duke student body (especially of the undergraduates) remain hostile to the lacrosse team.

Jeff said...

@ beckett

"Levicy was scared out of her mind on the stand. The doleful, grim expression on her face and the fear in her heavy lidded eyes betrayed the dread she was feeling, although she managed to control her voice fairly well."

I agree with your assessment that she was quite frightened, but people who have done nothing wrong get scared testifying. I was in a civil case where 90% of the witnesses sounded as though each had been accused of murder. I do not think you can read much into what MAY have been no more than stage fright.

@ 1:07 AM

"If you believe in innocent until proven quilty for those boys, why are you not according the same courtesy to Nurse Levicy? This constituational right is not just for the Lax team. Her testimony must be believed unless some one proves she lied on the stand. Like lawyers and courts, not other nurses and writers. This is shameful."

It does not work that way. It is not true that her testimony must be believed. Juries are SUPPOSED to evaluate the truthfulness or not of testimony. It is not true that you get to escape examination by asserting innocence.

No one sensible is saying that Levicy was a criminal. It is not clear to me that she even committed a tort. What she has been accused of, by other nurses, is failing to act professionally. Now this may or may not be so: an accusation is not a verdict. The question is whether the accusation has enough merit to warrant examination by a competent body. That is what due process means.

I have seen some idiots say that because DUMC has not seen fit to sanction her, the accusations must be false. Well, that is perfect NONSENSE. She was an agent of DUMC, acting within the scope of her apparent authority. If she committed a tort, then DUMC is on the hook due to vicarious liability. DUMC is not a disinterested party.

Personally, if I was on a jury where Livicy testified in as wooden a fashion as she did here and if I also heard that among her experiences as a SANE nurse was her participation in the investigation of the Duke rape hoax, I would give her testimony no credibility at all.

Finally, there are no constitutional protections for the court of public opinion. I believe OJ murdered his wife, regardless of what the law says. So long as Levicy's defenders hide behind such silly arguments, the longer those who know something about the case are going to have suspicions about her professionalism.

No justice, no peace said...

12:06 The entire Williamson comments are listed in an earlier post; earlier Sunday, two or three blog entries below.

"I want to say something about who the victims are here. The victims are the three young men to start with, their families, the entire lacrosse team and their coach, Duke University, the justice system in North Carolina and elsewhere. And indeed prosecutors — honest, ethical, hard-working prosecutors throughout the nation — as we’ve heard through anecdotal evidence are victims of this conduct. And in particular the justice system is a victim of the way this was taken out of — this Mr. Smith testifying — taken out of the courtroom and put in the hands of the public and not only the public in general but into a media frenzy unprecedented in anyone’s experience."

If you are suggesting that KC is not presenting a complete look at the events, I'd suggest you've not been paying attention.

If you are suggesting Duke is ONLY a victim, then I'd suggest you really haven't been following the events or that your moral compass need calibarting.

Anonymous said...

I think all the history of arrests of the Dukies has to have a close examination. There are some reports that they would be arrested for "noise", but if the PD got a call that was similar, but from a permanent resident, they would not be ticked or arrested. There was often a double standard on how students were treated by some in the PD. It would be a mistake to just look at the arrests without examining all 911 calls coming in and seeing how they are treated. I remember being a young married professional in a college town. My husband and I would have parties and when the PD would come out, they would see we were all homeowners and permenent residents-- and never once got arrested or ticketed. The PD would just tell us to keep it down. We would start going to the neighbors before a party and inviting them, or telling them we were going to have a band. We even invited some to the officers to join us after their shift. I will tell you that because we were all 25-35 years old, they gave us a bye. No way would they have done that for undergards.

Stats can say whatever you want them to say. They need to be defined.

Anonymous said...

rrhamilton/Andrew at 1:28 AM


(WAY OT)

"monkey" and "attorney" (and, for that matter, the word "key" and its permutations) end in -ey. Only words whose singular end in a consonant + y change to -ies in the plural. One exception is "money" --that too changes to ies, e.g. "monies," although "moneys" is also correct.

As an English teacher, I listened to how people SPOKE during the hearing (I also noticed that there is a typo in the AG's report, but nevermind). Lane Williamson was magnificient. I was delighted Reade didn't say "like" in every sentence. Witt was borderline idiotic; at least Freedman spoke coherently.

Everone will laugh at me, but is also bothered me that Nifong said, "We're f***ed." That's not the kind of language I expect from a DA in a professional meeting. I KNOW many people in many contexts use that word, but I still think that it's not a word to be used in professional situations. Words matter, and that choice reveals much about the speaker.


gotc

Anonymous said...

You're describing Sgt Gottlieb's policy, I think. Has it been established that that was the general PD policy?

IMO such a policy has SOME justification. Homeowners and permanent residents have a stake in the community and can be expected to get pushback / suffer consequences when they abuse the community.

That isn't the case for students, who have little to lose because they'll just move on anyway (and don't even have a financial investment in the house/street where they happen to be at the moment.)

Now, this does not justify any abuses on the part of the PD. But it does suggest why such a policy would and could be applied and not be INHERENTLY unfair.

Anonymous said...

I thought Ms. Levicy was lovely, too...about as drab as the young Meryl Streep...at least in the video. Her testimony was completely neutral on the issue of her professionalism. Because Mr. Nifong's lawyers did not use her very effectively for his defense, it was not necessary to delve into that issue. If Ms. Levicy had made statements to the police that strongly supported Ms. Mangum's accusations, I expect Mr. Witt and Mr. Freedman would have cited them in this hearing. Ms. Levicy was Mr. Nifong's best possibility of a strong defense, and the fact the defense lawyers were not able to use her to much effect tells me they perhaps had very little about which to question her. Perhaps more on that issue will surface at a later time.

This breathtaking and unprecedented reversal of injustice by the NC State Bar relates very directly, I believe, to Professor Johnson's insightful, fact-based, daily essays, penned as a fastidious historian absorbed in the thorough documentation of history in the making. Pretty heady stuff. Thank-you, Professor Johnson.

Observer

Anonymous said...

I just did a quick Google search and to my surprise--Durham in not this nice and quiet little place where the PD can spend their time discussing what a menance to the greater society these students are when you look at the big picture. I'm a senior citizen and don't want to live in a rental part of town with a bunch of undergrads living next door. But that being said, one of the site that gets its numbers from FBI stats gives the 4 year stats of Durham as averaged (2000-2003) 27 murders, 78 rapes, 753 aggavated assaults, 1791 violent crimes. Their clearance rate for those years it 34%. So, they are not solving most the of serious crimes--but they are emphasizing that those terrible studnts are urinating and drinking and making noise? I'd feel better if the PD could solve and pick up some of the rapist and murderers! Good grief!

UBG said...

Hey anonymous 4:22 AM, your right! It's interesting what you can find with Google on the subject of false allegations.

An alarming national trend: False Rape Allegations

False Rape Allegations.pdf (right click >"save target as")

About Half of Rape Allegations are False, Research Shows

Research Shows False Accusations of Rape Common

Justice For Warren Blackwell

Anonymous said...

You guys just have to watch this one.

Unimaginably hilarious!

Rubberband_Nifong_Man

Debrah

Mad Hatter said...

Thank you K.C. for all that you have done for everyone involved in and following this Hoax. Durham-in-Wonderland will be sorely missed by many when you "shut down the printing press."

Anonymous said...

Ms. Levicy was not enjoying her 15 minutes of fame.

Anonymous said...

Lesson Learned..if you get charged with a crime, mortgage your house and any other asset you can to get the best attorney possible.

For as good as these lawyers are, and good for them for the occasional pro bono case they take to make it seem like they are just doing all the right things, they dont talk to you unless you can pay the big retainer. That is fine and the cost of getting the best in anything, but it is very frustrating that it takes money to give you the best chance at truth because those in power want to win no matter whose lives they are playing with.

Its a lesson we shouldnt believe in the system because it only works for those with money. If you think this was Nifongs first frame job, you are stupid. The others he framed were probably forced into a plea because most people, even innocent people, would plea to something that gives us only a couple years in jail if we are facing 30 years and our lawyer cannot get the information that shows we are innocent.

If you are ever on trial for anything, you simply do not want a jury so people plea rather then face trial.

Its great that the truth came out and the rich kids with the great lawyers are free, and while hopefully this changes just a little the future of the average person charged with a crime, it is a reminder that justice is not for everyone.

rod allison, detroit said...

After grilling Nifong about Linwood Wilson not taking a recording device to his December interview with Precious, he casually asked Nifong if one of the objectives of the interview was to learn what she had found out about what the defense was saying.

Did Nifong ever squirm at that one. It was a rhetorical question since Williamson already knew the purpose was to change the story to adapt to what the defense had shown.

Nifong knew that Williamson knew this, and he knew that Williamson knew he knew.

There was no way for Nifong to talk his way out of it. He looked like he was going to wet his pants

Anonymous said...

TO Observer--

Sorry that you might have been stung by my accurate analysis of the unprofessional drone Tara Levicy.

No big deal. My standards for what is "lovely" perhaps are different from yours. Such is the mixture of life!

BTW, Meryl Streep is an incomparable actress; however, I have never seen her as "lovely" or "beautiful" by any stretch of the imagination.

I am most in awe of her ability to inhabit characters so effortlessly and assume multiple accents like a true polyglot.

Very talented woman, but like Levicy, very ordinary even in her earlier films, IMO.

I must confess. It's easy for me to describe Levicy candidly because I also believe her to be an obfuscating feminist who enabled Mike Nifong.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

10:10, Joe Cheshire has a really outstanding record of pro bono work over several decades.

And, he's the one pushing hardest to use this case to clean up the DA / legal system in NC so that it isn't necessary to have wealth to get fair treatment.

And, honestly - there ARE a lot of clean, good DAs. And then there's scum like Nifong.

Mike Lee said...

I thought Mike Nifong was shameless and selfish to the very end. How anyone could use his son in order to try to garner sympathy is beyond me.

I couldn't help but wonder (as Nifong shed tears in the courtroom) how many tears were shed up to these as a result of this man's actions?

I would imagine a lot. And the sad truth is that almost all of them were not necessary.

mb said...

"The three Minnesota Gophers that were accused spent the weekend in jail and were suspended from their team amidst a media frenzy. They were subsequently released though the police said that they would continue the investigation. Then after that, nothing. No media. No stories. Nada.

Seems like college campuses are ripe places for hoaxes."


True. Eugene Kanin at Purdue studied false rape allegations and found that about half of all rape allegations were demonstrably false. People who say false allegations of rape are extremely rare are either misinformed or deliberately lying.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard any more on the second Duke Rape Case where a white girl was alledgedly raped by three black men at a black fraternity party?

Survey Team said...

This blog has been very stimulating and well done. It's interesting to read through comments and details of the case to see how the people feel. In a survey done by Brogan & Partners Convergence Marketing 49.2% of the North Carolinian respondents supported disbarring Nifong. Also, more than double the amount of Caucasians supported disbarring Nifong than African Americans. You can read about more results at our blog

Anonymous said...

But what if she's not "an obfuscating feminist" who enabled Mike Nifong. Why believe Gottlieb and Nifong? We really do not know her exact role in this mess.

Anonymous said...

Wilson's reporting has become characteristic of the NYT. They seem to have a group of Jayson Blairs working for them. If this paper doen;t get its act together and stop its political biased or unreporting it will not continue to be the paper of record. In many ways, it is not the paper of record now, and that is because what it says is happening is not the reality of what is happening. This paper might do a better job and could have done a better job and can do a better job reporting on the reality of the Muslim world let alone reporting on what has happened in Durham. Remember, the World Trade Center is gone. Many of the people working for the NYT just don't get it, nor do they seem to understand Durham, Duke, the Group88 or themselves either. It makes no sense to read what they have to say about anything. They are biased in favor of some unreality that only they know the truth.

Anonymous said...

I was struck by the irony of Nifong's "something must have happened" remark. Nifong insisted that he still believed there had been some sort of assault or intimidation of Mangum, because "something must have happened" to cause the partygoers to disperse so quickly.

How many times did the defense lawyers request a judge to order Nifong to certify that he had read his case file? Yet over and over again, the judges refused. Now we know that, if only Nifong had actually read the file and become familiar with his own evidence, he would have known what it was that caused the partygoers to leave so abruptly (Kim's threat to call the police, and Evans' fear that the police would cite him with another noise violation if the partygoers were still around when the police showed up).

Of course, even if Nifong had read the file, that's no guarantee that he would have comprehended what he read. He still had the option of using the "yes, I read it but I didn't understand what it meant" excuse -- as he did with the DNA report.

Anonymous said...

Kendra Montgomery-Blinn is a real three-bagger.

Anonymous said...

10:28
No, and you won't hear anything more about it by the media unless someone makes a big stink and draws attention to the double standards. It might be worth doing in light of what the lacrosse team endured.

Ralph Phelan said...

The bar said:

"It appears also to be an aberration in the way justice is handled in North Carolina. "

Oh really?

Given that three judges had a chance to discipline Nifong for his out-of-court statements, and none did,

Given that a substantial minority of the Bar disciplinary committee voted against charging Nifong,

Given that three days into the hearing NC judges were *still* willing to stand up and swear under oath that Nifong *currently* has a reputation for honesty,

How is anyone supposed to believe that?!?!

Anonymous said...

True. Eugene Kanin at Purdue studied false rape allegations and found that about half of all rape allegations were demonstrably false. People who say false allegations of rape are extremely rare are either misinformed or deliberately lying.

------------------------

This is the ONLY study to ever find such a high rate, and in science, if your results can't be replicated they aren't worth much.

I have a strong suspicion that the unnamed midwest college town was Madision...

You might be familiar with Madison, a town where the police brow beat a rape victim into recanting her story...yes, saying she lied...only to find later on a DNA match from--you guessed it--a convicted rapist.

She recieved a settlement, an apology and a change in the way the police department handled rape cases as as result of her civil suit.

Soo, something tells me, that in a town where the police threatened a rape victim to such a degree she recanted her story, it might not be surprising to find a high degree of "false" claims.

The Kamin study is the only study ever to find such a high rate, and the study itself isn't even available on line only the abstract. Worthless.

Decades of DOJ statistics, dozens of surveys and studies as well as a recent large scale survey by the British government ALL find between 3% and 10% as the false rape level.

The rest of it is from the woman hating men's rights fringe groups who think every woman should be treated like a liar and that date rape is a myth.

Ralph Phelan said...

10:28
Earlier this week I also had the thought "what if everything she supposedly said is a lie made up by Nifong/DPD/Wilson". It's certainly a plausible enough hypothesis.

To test it, I searched for her name on KCs site. I found multiple occasions on which she was directly quoted in the press as saying "Yes, their summary of my testimony is accurate".

Feminist enabler.

Anonymous said...

Eugene Kanin, a retired sociologist, published that claim in 1994... Perhaps, stats/info on rape has changed in over a decade.

I'm wondering how many of you claiming that people--women--cry rape falsely are women?

The name calling on this blog doesn't speak well for those who read KC Johnson. He seems to keep name calling to a minimum. Why don't the bloggers who read him?

And how deep are Duke's pockets? University pay out for all kinds of stuff to keep out of the media.

Anonymous said...

Why are you so quick to assume that Kamin's claims are accurate? Because it suits your politics?! Why are you going on about this? Where will it get you?

Anonymous said...

I think the value of this case is the wake up call demonstrating the collusion of the race pimps, pc hacks, and the MSM.

We need to hold these scoundrals' feet to the flames if we are ever going to restore integrity to our colleges, media and politics.

This garbage was started in the 60's by the left and it has poisoned the social fabric of this country.

Anonymous said...

That's exactly the kind of name calling that doesn't further discussion. As if the left of the 1960s is the left of today. As if left is a monolith. Any more than the right.

All kinds of people tell lies and do things that tear at the social fabric of society. Some of them, like Scooter Libby, seem to tell really silly lies.

Anonymous said...

If only NC had more judges like Lane Wimmiamson, the opportunity for future Nifongs would be diminished. As it is, the judges--especially those in Durham--are nothing more than stuffed scarecrows who can be manipulated by racist manipulators like Nifong. Now, let's all get ready for round two where we are sure to see more crocodile tears from Mikey and Cy. Wonder if Freedman and Witt will be available as the 'Fong's counsels.

ubg said...

Hey anonymous 10:55 AM, thanks for bringing up the subject of the "date rape myth".

Compare that article with what happened to this taxi driver falsely accused of rape.

Anonymous said...

UBG, your link is not to a "date rape myth" but to a DRUG RAPE MYTH, either you aren't too smart or you are trying to mislead people. There is no survey, statistic or piece of research that disputes the fact that the overwhelming majority of women are raped by someone they know almost 70%.

Not sure what the taxi driver story has to do with anything, false rape claims happen, OBVIOUSLY, duh, or there would be no 'Durham in Wonderland' blog...

They are not common or anything close to a majority.

Anonymous said...

The majority of women are NOT raped by someone they know. The majority of women who are raped are raped by someone they know, perhaps. Be careful what you type--the difference in meaning can be huge.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we can agree that there is first time for everything. I am 61 and was raised at a time and place when life was "safer." I lived in a burb of Los Angeles and our family NEVER locked out doors. I mean this is one of the biggest cities in the state of CA. When a neighbor's house was burglarized, the police did not say--it must be an inside job, because no one has ever burglarized a home in this neighborhood. So, as far as rapes are concerned, since we want to agree that an accused is not guilty until proven, we have to assume that maybe it did not happen or if it did, he did not do it.

My son went to a military academy and the best advice he ever got was not to date another cadet. EVER! His sophomore year his best friend was accused of rape. The female cadet was pregnant and was allowed to leave school whole. (Once you accept a scholarship and commision to a military academy, you cannot leave without repayment or a good reason. I know-- my son tried.) His friend lost his commission, was explelled, his parents had to pay mega thousands of dollars to the academy for the scholarship. She dropped the charges (dna- baby was not his)and he lost his life. He never went back to school or finished college. My son is now in law school. And all the guys he kept in touch with have turned out great. All the cadets that are accepted into a military school have to be the best of the best. Maybe fake reporting of rapes doesn't happen often, but look at what can happen if only once.

Anonymous said...

Oh I agree, a false rape report to me is worse than any other kind of false crime report for the very reason that it feeds the myth that women lie about rape at the drop of a hat. This lying whores false rape claim has set the entire cause of getting justice for real rape victims back at least 20 years.

Look at what happened in CA recently? Two girls witnessed a male having sex with a 17 year old, passed out with vomit all over her face who had to be taken to the hospital due to alcohol poisoning. No charges. Common sense tells me that if you are too drunk to wipe vomit off of your face you are too drunk to consent to sex, go figure.

Unless the woman who makes a claim of false rape can document that she is mentally or emotionally unstable or she is a juvenile she deserves a stint in jail [short], community service dealing with real rape victims [long], repayment of ALL of the man's legal bills, lost wages, etc. and a decent amount of probation as well as court ordered mental therapy.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that for a long time, it was assumed that anyone who was raped "deserved" it.

The woman in questsion in Durham appears to have been unstable. The DA or someone else involved should have recognized this issue and never pursued the case.

I'm a university professor and guess what? Male students sometimes do all kinds of things to female students they shouldn't. And sometimes they bother female faculty. Not all of them, of course. Probably a small minority. And mostly, little is said, because accusers don't want their names smeared.

If your daughter/sister/wife/mother were raped, I suspect many of you would be more sympathetic than you seem to be.

Anonymous said...

Debrah, 10:01

Straight Gangsta! LOL!

Anonymous said...

12:22 Do you mean we do not sound sympathetic to a liar?

I have a son and am very sympathetic. I also have a daughter, and cannot even concede that you would want sympathy for her if she ruined another person's life. Logic?

Anonymous said...

12:22

It all depends on what a person's perspective is on false rape...those who believe false rape is a HUGE problem, at least half of all reported rapes dont' have any sympathy for rape victims because they assume they are lying.

If you believe, as with other crime victims, that a rape victim should be believed unless and until there is evidence that indicates her story is or may be false, then you are going to have another perspective on 'rape victims' in general that is more sympathetic.

Anonymous said...

As if the left of the 1960s is the left of today. As if left is a monolith.

The left is worse now. They didn't have their pc kapos in place back then. They weren't as entrenched in college campuses with their divisive victim garbage studies. And, the media wasn't the lame lemmings that spew the left's agenda like they do now.

They've morphed into every fabric of this culture sucking logic and reason out of our public forums.

We've got Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton instead of MLK. Tell you, anything.

Anonymous said...

To 12:22 re:sympathy

Did you know that for the rest of their lives, the accused and arrested will have to answer the following in every application they fill out: Have you ever been arrested for a felony? or some language similar to that. Then they have one line to "explain". You talk about a red flag. I worked in HR and there is no way my institution (elementary school) would have considered such a candidate. What if the person got off on a techinicality? We had enough first time sex offenders in our school district history.

Anonymous said...

I never fail to chuckle at the idea the MSM media is controlling the country.

How did we get into Iraq?
How did Bush get away w/gutting environmental regulations?
How did Bush get away with gutting worker safety laws?
How did Bush get away with gutting food and agricultural inspections and regulations?
How did we lose billions in Iraq to fraud and theft?


Answer: The all-powerful MSM was too busy covering Natalee Holloway, Paris Hilton and Laci Peterson to be bothered with such trivial matters.

becket03 said...

Jeff:

I do not think you can read much into what MAY have been no more than stage fright.

I'll concede that it may have been simply stage fright. After all, she was on a large, intimidating national stage. But the possibility also must be left open that she was afraid (more accurately, in my view, panicked) because she was aware that probative inquiries into her performance and actions might tend to reflect poorly on her professional abilities and display her biases.

It's been noted here that Levicy claims she only had contact with police on March 16, 2006 and Jan 7, 2007. If memory serves, KC himself has written that Levicy had more contact than that, and that she was a willing mainstay in Nifong's case against the boys.

This is an important issue that needs to be sorted out. Without Levicy's strong endorsement, cited by Nifong as recently as this past week, the case against the Duke 3 collapses even further, and the criminal and civil cases against Nifong become much stronger.

beckett

Anonymous said...

12:40

Aw, poor baby, just wait, then the democommies will take over soon and the world will be a happy place. No more war, free everything for everybody, and no more corruption in government. Go back to spinning your utopian socialist fraud fantasies... and work for the take over by our nanny state overlords.

Anonymous said...

12:39

There is no inconsistency is treating rape victims like every other victim and believing them UNLESS there is evidence to show they are lying and recognizing that false rape claims do happen and they are among the most devasting false charges that exist.

Its also true that a lot of men DO get off on technicalities, a lot of guilty men are acquitted, for crying out loud, a case in Philly where a man had been accused of raping and drugging 3 women [acquitted], accused of raping and drugging 7 women [acquitted of all but 2 lesser charges] and he goes to trial for another rape and drugging. Common sense tells me that 11 women in 3 states are not all false accusers, but the guy has gotten away with it so far.

There are also ways I am sure that a man who was truly falsey charged can avoid these things...getting a letter from the DA or police, etc. stipulating the woman recanted or was found not credible.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if Nifong is paying the tab for his legal defence?

Bernie said...

Whether it is 7% or 50%, false allegations exist and a genuine effort has to be made to ascertain the facts. The more outlandish the claims, the harder the authorities need to dig to determine the facts. In this case, there was a clear rush to judgement, a judgement that benefited a narcissistic prosecutor in an election that he was in danger of losing. We should try to stay on story here.

Anonymous said...

To 12:44 Re:last paragraph

You really mean it? An person who was falsely accused should walk around with a letter in his wallet for the rest of his life? Even with all the info he had, Nifong still thinks something "happened."

I prefer that there is some kind of legislation to wipe clean the arrest record of anyone in similar circumstance as the Dukies.

Anonymous said...

Don't you assume the LAX players' records will be expunged? You act as if false accusations of rape are the rule rather than the exception and as if this is the only kind of crime in which there are false accusations.

As someone who actually teaches on a college campus, I can tell you that at least some of your paranoia about the left being entrenched in university campuses is silly. Unless, of course, "left" to you is someone who opposes the war in Iraq, would like environmental laws, thinks that the present administration has made the world less safe. I would simply identify people like that as having common sense. And, yes, of course, there are REDs under the beds!!!

Anonymous said...

12:54

"Similar circumstances" to Duke is a rarity, most false allegations are uncovered by the police during the investigation phase and there is no trial. I have no problem wiping the record clean in cases where evidence shows it was false. But these cases are extremely rare, most times the case isn't provable..so who can say for sure. Being branded a false accuser when you are a legit victim is pretty horrific as well.

However, you can't assume that every person who is acquitted of a rape charge is factually innocent...there are many cases where men are acquitted and go to commit more sex crimes...

Not everything in life is fair and not everything can be completely fixed. There will always be some people who think 'something happened' in this case and that white society colluded to take justice away from the lying whore...you can't change that, we can only do the best we can,.

Anonymous said...

Debrah,

We can agree to disagree on Ms. Levicy's appearance, which is irrelevant anyway. Besides you are about the last person with whom I would a squabble--we've been commenting on this case and trying to encourage the forces for justice too long to quarrel now. I definitely was not stung--just surprised by your assessment.

On the issue of her professionalism, I think that is still a question. I had expected to see something that would influence my thinking on that in this hearing. But instead of confirming my thinking that Ms. Levicy played a critical role in the hoax by being unprofessional, her testimony seemed completely inconclusive on this issue.

Observer

Anonymous said...

To 12:59

I actually do teach at a college. I was an elementary school teacher many years ago, and know teach Ed courses. I said nothing to imply that I think rape is the only offense that carries false accusations. The problem I was outlining spoke specifically about rape--because that is what are subject thread is. Also, When we discuss criminal records, drugs, speeding, bad checks, etc. they do not eliminate students from seeking an undergraduate or graduate degree in the field of education. Rape does. My sister is also a retired professor in the field of nursing--in her field, felony arrests dealing with drugs, distribution of drugs, etc. eliminate candidates to the nursing dept.

Anonymous said...

1:23

All kinds of criminal accusations/convictions eliminate students from seeking jobs in education. Depends on your state. True.

rrhamilton said...

to gotc at 9:37 AM

From a fellow "grammar-Nazi", thanks for the English lesson. In Nifong's partial defense, I think Himan said he was paraphrasing Nifong's remarks as, "You know, we're fu*ked". You could check his testimony on this, but that's how I remember it.

mb said...

"The Kamin study is the only study ever to find such a high rate, and the study itself isn't even available on line only the abstract. Worthless."

Not worthless - just because you don't have web access to the peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean the study was "worthless." As for the city, I'm not sure why Kanin, a professor at Purdue, would go all the way to Madison when his own town is a college town. If/when you read the article, the reason he chose the town is because they kept very good records, they treated all alleged rape victims with the seriousness they deserve, and he could identify unambiguously those claims that were indeed false. The study was a very good one, you just don't like the findings. Further, this isn't the only study to find these kinds of high rates of false allegations: The U.S. Air Force conducted a study on rape in the military during the post-Tailhook days and to their great chagrin they found that 60% of all allegations of rape were false. Like it or not, the good data is clear re. the unfortunately high numbers of false allegations of rape.

Just like we should consider men to be innocent until proven guilty, we should consider a woman alleging rape to be truthful unless she's proven otherwise. However, we still need to recognize that false rape allegations are real, serious and not uncommon problem and the only way to deal with them is to prosecute false accusers and punish them harshly. As we can see from this case, false allegations ruin lives, yet currently false accusers are almost never prosecuted and thus they little incentive not to lie about rape.

Anonymous said...

"As someone who actually teaches on a college campus, I can tell you that at least some of your paranoia about the left being entrenched in university campuses is silly. Unless, of course, "left" to you is someone who opposes the war in Iraq, would like environmental laws, thinks that the present administration has made the world less safe. I would simply identify people like that as having common sense. And, yes, of course, there are REDs under the beds!!!"

I'm not sure your position in the academy makes you more or less qualified to judge bias within it. But in any case, I'd judge "left" views as being pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, anti-war, anti-tax-cut, altogether supporting most Democratic positions, etc....and any poll of the nation's academic faculty reveals strong majority support for almost all those views.

That doesn't make those positions wrong. It does, however, mean that "debate" in academia often devolves into a context between the vast majority of people who hold those reasonable (if maybe incorrect) left views and the radical leftists discussed on this site. That is a problem.

Anonymous said...

A true or false rape accuser is never "branded." Calling the police and reporting a crime does not produce a criminal record on the caller. Having the Dukies record esponged would do nothing to the accuser(s). The AG has said they are INNOCENT.

Anonymous said...

1:36

I guess it depends on your perspective. The views you describe as left wing strike me as middle of the road. I would suspect that any number of the LAX players and their families hold them.

The opposite seems to be to be rather extreme. Frightening, even.

And, why wouldn't someone who is in academe have a good idea of the views? Do you believe that only people outside of an institution have a good idea of the views within the institution?

Anonymous said...

MB,

Kamin never says what college town he did the study in, I know of no information that supports your contention that the town treated rape victims 'seriously'

You are taking the air force study out of context, AND, the military has been downplaying rape for decades, which is why they keep on getting called before Congress to explain why nothing ever changes, why women who report rape are drummed out of the service, treated like whores and generally not believed.

Like I've said over and over, you guys cite the same couple of studies and out of context data and quotes, what's next, Linda Fairstein saying that half of rape claims never happened, a statement she has denied making?

The balance of research does not support your contention, this is why you have to keep bringing up the Kamin study, the only one ever to find such a high rate, and taking the military study percentage out of context. You disregard DOJ statistics, much more useful since they can be studied over decades becuase they tell you something you don't want to hear: less than 8% of rape complaints are false.

Anonymous said...

"You act as if false accusations of rape are the rule rather than the exception and as if this is the only kind of crime in which there are false accusations."

Of course there are relatively few false rape reports. But they do happen, we don't know for sure how many there are, and that's why the presumption of innocence and certain procedural protections that were ignored in this case by Nifong and his academic enablers are so important. Regardless of whether commentators on this blog "act as if" we believe something you find objectionable, that is the real lesson of this ordeal.

"There is no inconsistency is treating rape victims like every other victim and believing them UNLESS there is evidence to show they are lying and recognizing that false rape claims do happen and they are among the most devasting false charges that exist."

Yes, yes there is an inconsistency there. A mangled, dead body is evidence that points towards murder, which we can presume was not consented to. Missing money is evidence that points towards unconsented-to theft. Barring injury or witnesses, neither of which happened in this or many other rape claims, where is the prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed if a woman accuses someone of rape? People are somewhat more likely to consent to sexual activity than to consent to being murdered or stolen from. So yes, by believing an alleged rape victim up front, you are signaling that false rape allegations are less devastating or less likely than other false allegations. You are not holding rape allegations to the same burden of proof to which we all hold other crimes–i.e., presenting some objective proof that a crime in fact occurred. And besides, we emphatically do not automatically believe accusations as to WHO stole or murdered. Sadly, however, in rape cases often believing that an alleged victim was raped morphs right into believing her claim about who raped her.

This alone is a reason to treat rape prosecutions differently. It doesn't mean you can defame the alleged victim, but it does mean you don't start out by believing her or accept as given that a crime happened.

Anonymous said...

1:42

So if you had a student that was Pro-life, pro-military, pro low taxes, you would label him/her frightening? Wow! So much for being inclusive and open minded.

Anonymous said...

"I guess it depends on your perspective. The views you describe as left wing strike me as middle of the road....The opposite seems to be to be rather extreme. Frightening, even."

Well yes, that does depend on your perspective. But we have polling data, and in all those issues listed, there's somewhere between 30%-70% on each side of the issue, and some people often end up on the same side of multiple issues. I'd describe the people who reliably take the conservative side, on the questions where they have 30% support all the way 70% support, as "right." The ones who take the liberal positions, "left."

Is that an unfair characterization? Again, this says nothing about whether any of these views are right or wrong or "scary" even. It's only a commentary on how they track with American public opinion.

And from the "perspective" of public opinion, the academy is one big debate between the left and the far left. Even if you fall on the left side of the specturm, or center-left, or mainstream, or whatever--that's a problem.

Anonymous said...

1:45 PM

I get it. You are kidding, right?

Old ladies and little girls consent to sexual activity. Also women on the street at night.

Ralph Phelan said...

"The problem is that for a long time, it was assumed that anyone who was raped "deserved" it."

No. That *was* the problem.

*Now* the problem is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Anonymous said...

1:52

Being on the left side of the spectrum is a problem? What about being on the right side? Not a problem, right? Right.

Anonymous said...

Ok 1:42 if that list is of middle of the road, what beliefs would you consider liberal left-wing?

Anonymous said...

What is pro-military?

Anonymous said...

I don't consider liberal to be left.

But, I think of left as pro public transportation, pro child care, pro birth control, pro environment, pro eucation, pro justice for all.

Anonymous said...

1:45

Sorry, your logic is flawed. Missing money could have been 'given away' not stolen, a person dead of a gunshot could have killed themselves or died accidentally, a person accused of an assault could be the victim and was defending themselves, 'stolen' merchandise in the house could be part of an insurance scam.

Rape is already the most underreported violent crime and the most difficult to prosecute, why would you want to add to the stigma by institutionalizing a policy of making them and them alone "prove" they are victims? The rape victim is already put on trial and basically has to "prove" she was a victim in the courtroom, why extend this to the investigation?

Rape victims should be treated the same as any other self-identified victim...investigate, treat them with respect, if they become suspect and their story falls apart, so be it.

Again, your viewpoint is predicated on an assumption that most claims are false, why else would you advocate for an actual victim of a horrible, often life shaterring crime be treated automatically as a liar?

Ralph Phelan said...

"I guess it depends on your perspective. The views you describe as left wing strike me as middle of the road."

Yes, views that seem liberal-to-leftish to the rest of society look "middle of the road" from the perspective of academia. (And up above you arrogantly describe your beliefs as not just "middle of the road" but also "common sense.)

You're kind of proving our point for us, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

I assume that most people (even you?) consier the views they hold to be common sense. Otherwise, why would they hold them? Do you consider yourself arrogant? Or do you just call names?

Ralph Phelan said...

"If your daughter/sister/wife/mother were raped, I suspect many of you would be more sympathetic than you seem to be. "

No, I think I'd be even *less* sympathetic towards *false accusers* if I knew a *real victim*. How the #3!! do you get from sympathy towards real victims to sympathy towards self-interested liars?

Anonymous said...

One of the issues on the blog that is rather interesting is the assumption of some that they can't disagree with other without being rude and attacking.

Maybe I am wrong, but adults, including teachers, probably meet lots of people who have different views than they do and do not penalize them. Maybe not. How would a left wing physic prof. know if his student was pro-life or pro-military? This might come up in Mendelian genetics, but not in many physics classes. Also not in Spanish or archeology and so it goes...

Anonymous said...

Polls show most of the country is against the war, overwhelming majority of the country believe global warming is man made and favor environmental protections, majority, depending on the question wording, are pro choice.

Polls also show majority of Americans want lower taxes, are against race based entitlement programs,are for the death penality and want criminals punished harshly, believe welfare does more harm than good and do want illegal aliens getting a clean slate.

Seems pretty common sensical to me.

Ralph Phelan said...

I recognize that there are areas where intelligent people of good faith can disagree. Sometimes I'm puzzled that what seems so obvious to me doesn't seem obvious to others. But I don't label people who disagree with me on debatable and issues as "frightening" or "lacking common sense".

Ralph Phelan said...

"adults, including teachers, probably meet lots of people who have different views than they do and do not penalize them. "

Except of course if they're Duke faculty.

Anonymous said...

6/18 at 9:02 said
"No one sensible is saying that Levicy was a criminal. It is not clear to me that she even committed a tort. What she has been accused of, by other nurses, is failing to act professionally."
snip

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/04/understanding-levicy.html

Please go back and read the excellent review of Levicy's role in the Hoax by Kethra. It is professionally written and dispassionately describes, in a most objective manner, the perceived failures of Levicy as a SANE, as a woman, and as a human being. After reading this analysis who wouldn't condemn Levicy? I have provided a digest for your perusal:

Kethra, the guest essayist said:

"Ms. Levicy committed on the worst acts an RN and a SANE can commit—

Ms. Levicy stepped out of her required role as an impassionate forensic examiner and into the role of a feminist with an agenda.

She made stated conclusions not based on an evidence based practice based on her own personal agenda and skewed world view.

she was untruthful.

Ms. Levicy continues this interjection of personal beliefs

Ms. Levicy’s glaring ignorance

To add to her own presentation of just how ignorant of basics she is,

she apparently slept through in Nursing 101.

in her zeal to be a big bad forensic nurse, misrepresented to lay persons the true facts in this case.

Ms. Levicy’s actions were unconscionable, unprofessional and the inherent sign of an incredibly biased person and nurse.

She alone, is responsible for the start of this witch hunt

By not telling the actual facts,

by “embroidering “the true patient findings

by her sheer ignorance

her sheer ignorance

her sheer ignorance

by her glaring egotistical

she sent the police down the trail of deception.

she almost put 3 innocent men in jail.

This nurse needs to turn in her license

Until she can learn compassionate investigation and the difference between right and wrong, she should have no part in nursing.

I am guessing she missed the required ethics portion of Nursing"

Anonymous said...

I don't think the person you are referring to said anyone lacked common sense. I think the person thought people of a certain view had common sense. That's different. Nuance is important.

Anonymous said...

In re: Ralph P's posting
Or the Bush Justice Department!

Anonymous said...

Pro-military

Allowing ROTC to be on campus. They do not kidnap students, they just offer information. Students take it or leave it.

My son was an officer in the Army, and got his undergraduate education at a military academy. He paid back by military service. When he left the got an MBA to the tune of $83,000- and had to listen to a lot liberal "garbage." I was furious, not only was he paying over 40K per year, but there were all the gate keepers that would not have awarded him a degree if he waivered from their company line. He is now in law school and having to keep his ideas underground due to the intimidation of his law professors. Why go Ivy League? You get a better job.

Anonymous said...

Kethra was wrong on almost everything she posted.

Reposting it makes it even clearer that Kethra is as off her rocker over emotional as she accused Levicy of being.

What happened to all of Kethra's predictions? Levicy was unqualified..guess not. Levicy committed 'fraud' by signing [allegedly] in the wrong spot...guess not. Levicy wasn't qualified to comment on the pelvic exam because she didn't perform it...guess not.

Sheesh, you guys would be better to forget the name of Kethra rather than bringing her up again.

Anonymous said...

2:13 Agree - Vegas

Anonymous said...

2:12 my youngest got his MBA from Chicago. A hot bed of liberals. He is a Conseratiave Republican - says politics never came up.

Anonymous said...

No proof she was not Professional -only Ketha's hysterical rants. BTW, 1n 84 hour certification course does not make one a Fornsic Nurse. You fail to note that other nurses disagreed with Ketha completely. Bring on the civil suits, Nurse Tara/

Anonymous said...

The worse thing we RNs can do is kill somebody - WTF Never has Ketha substantiated her libel comments.

mb said...

Anonymous 1:44PM: You said "Kamin never says what college town he did the study in, I know of no information that supports your contention that the town treated rape victims 'seriously'"

If you actually read the article you might.

From Kanin (Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1994): "This city was targeted for study because it offered an almost model laboratory for studying false rape allegations. First, its police agency is not inundated with serious felony cases and, therefore, has the freedom and the motivation to record and thoroughly pursue all rape complaints. In fact, agency policy forbids police officers to use their discretion in deciding whether to officially acknowledge a rape complaint, regardless how suspect that complaint may be. Second, the declaration of a false allegation follows a highly institutionalized procedure. The investigation of all rape complaints always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects. Additionally, for a declaration of false charge to be made, the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false. The police department will not declare a rape charge as false when the complainant, for whatever reason, fails to pursue the charge or cooperate on the case, regardless how much doubt the police may have regarding the validity of the charge. In short, these cases are declared false only because the complainant admitted they are false. Furthermore, only one person is then empowered to enter into the records a formal declaration that the charge is false, the officer in charge of records. Last, it should be noted that this department does not confuse reported rape attempts with completed rapeso Thus, the rape complainants referred to in this paper are for completed forcible rapes only. The foregoing leaves us with a certain confidence that cases declared false by this police agency are indeed a reasonable--if not a minimal reflection of false rape allegations made to this agency, especially when one considers that a finding of false allegation is totally dependent upon the recantation of the rape charge."

"You are taking the air force study out of context, AND, the military has been downplaying rape for decades, which is why they keep on getting called before Congress to explain why nothing ever changes, why women who report rape are drummed out of the service, treated like whores and generally not believed."

I don't believe this is true. In fact, from everything I've seen the military takes sexual harassment, assault and rape very seriously.

"Like I've said over and over, you guys cite the same couple of studies and out of context data and quotes, what's next, Linda Fairstein saying that half of rape claims never happened, a statement she has denied making?"

I don't know who Fairstein is, but like any good scholar, Kanin reviewed the literature and had this to say: "Widely divergent viewpoints are held regarding the incidence of false rape reporting (Katz and Mazur, 1979). For example, reports set the figure from lows of 0.25% (O'Reilly, 1984) and 1% (Krasner et aL, 1976) to highs of 80-90% (Bronson, 1918; Comment, 1968) and even 100% (see Kanin, 1985). All of these figures represent releases from some criminal justice agency or are estimates from clinical practitioners. The extraordinary range of these estimates makes a researcher suspect that inordinate biases are at work."

"The balance of research does not support your contention,"

What literature? Citations please.


"...this is why you have to keep bringing up the Kamin study, the only one ever to find such a high rate, and taking the military study percentage out of context. You disregard DOJ statistics, much more useful since they can be studied over decades becuase they tell you something you don't want to hear: less than 8% of rape complaints are false."

Except that you're wrong. Kanin wrote in his conclusions: "In view of these factors, perhaps the most prudent summary statement that is appropriate from these data is that false rape accusations are not uncommon."

I don't disregard DOJ stats, however, I recognize that they often are misused by people with an agenda. For example, the DOJ keeps track of arrests, not convictions, so when people cite them for numbers relating to "crimes" those DOJ numbers aren't accurate. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Duke LAX 3 are in the DOJ database under "rape" when in fact we know full-well that no rape occurred. Further, re. false allegations, we see that as is usual for false accusers, CGM was not arrested - let alone prosecuted - for filing the FA, therefore, as is the rule with false allegations of rape, this case was not counted because it never entered the database. That's why I don't trust DOJ stats as they relate to, among other things, false allegations of rape. The only way to really get a handle on the frequency is to do a study like Kanin did. But in the PC environment that grips academia, such studies are very hard to come by - they just don't fit the "metanarrative."

rrhamilton said...

1:36 PM said, I'd judge "left" views as being pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, anti-war, anti-tax-cut, altogether supporting most Democratic positions, etc

1:42 PM responded, The views you describe as left wing strike me as middle of the road.... The opposite seems to be to be rather extreme. Frightening, even.

1:52 PM replied, [F]rom the "perspective" of public opinion, the academy is one big debate between the left and the far left. Even if you fall on the left side of the specturm, or center-left, or mainstream, or whatever--that's a problem.

1:54 PM retorted ...
1:55 PM parried...
1:57 PM rebutted...
2:01 PM rejoined...
2:05 PM questioned ...

Why don't you people have the courage of using your names? Or if lacking that courage, at least use nom de plumes?

rrhamilton said...

Ralph Phelan said at 2:07 PM, quoting some one else, probably the anonymous professor...
"adults, including teachers, probably meet lots of people who have different views than they do and do not penalize them. "

Except of course if they're Duke faculty.


A short story from my college days, circa 1980: A philosophy professor of mine said in class, "Americans are anti-intellectual". I immediately shot back, "That's because intellectuals are anti-American".

The stunned look on his face told me that he had never heard this argument before, but I'll give him credit: After some thought, he agreed with what I said.

Today at most universities, I think I would be thrown out of class -- or at least ridiculed in class -- for my obvious political-incorrectness.

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

Good lord, "offering" the complainants in a rape case a lie detector?? You must be joking. Most states now ban the practice of demanding a woman who alleges rape take a lie detector test for very good reasons, they are not reliable as evidenc and severe emotional distress often results in 'inconclusive' results. Same reason it is not admissable in a court of law.

I gave you an example of Madison, which got the complaining witness to say the charge was FALSE because they threatened and intimidated her even though it was later proven w/out any doubt she was a rape victim. I'm sure the Madison police at the time figured their department had a great record on rape.

There is ample evidence in terms of Congressional testimony, surveys of military personnel over several years, and individual case histories and even military leader's repeated acknowledgements and recent huge changes to the way they handle sexual assault that clearly document the military's history of NOT taking rape seriously and punishing the accusers. Seems doubtful the military in 1985 had a handle on the real facts of rape.

The Air Force Study you speak of actually found a 27% rate of false rape and then took what they saw as the similarities of these cases and created a checklist, gave this to a panel of 3 people who then reviewed the case file and came up with the 60% false rape...COMPLETELY UNSCIENTIFIC PROCESS, 3 people reading a case file, who were they? what experience did they have with rape? I know of one case where the chaplain said he thought the accueser was lying because she didn't look him in the eye when she recounted details of the rape.

I have posted the citations on this board previously many times, I am always told the same thing: The survey doesnt' count, the British Goverment study is 'biased' the sample is self-selected, DOJ records aren't useful...and any number of other excuses that seek to dismiss the balance of the research on rape.

I believe you are wrong about DOJ not keeping track of convictions, that doesn't even make sense, that the Department of Justice doesn't keep a record of arrests vs. convictions? The DOJ stats are based on what the police report and how they catalog a rape report.

The Kamin study is an anomally, if you have to reach all the way back to 1918 for a study on false rape allegations, you are desperate! Victorian attitudes about sex and rape have no place in a modern discussion, sorry.

DOJ statistics for the last 25 years.
British government review of 3,000 rape cases.
Multiple college surveys over several years showing constant 20% rate of rape, reported rape, resolution.
Multiple military surveys over the last 3-5 years showing similar rate of rape, reported rape, resolution.
Anecdotal prosecutor statements about the difficulty in prosecuting rape cases.
Jury studies on jury prejudices and acceptance of rape myths and how it affects their deliberation
College studies on acceptance of rape myths and how it affects view of rape complainants
Data from rape crisis centers
Court transcripts and proceedings demonstrating manner in which rape complainants are questioned/discredited
British/Australia/New Zealand surveys on rate of rape, reported rape and resolution.

I'm sure there are many more specific studies, but this feels to me a lot weightier than One study from Purdue and One Air Force Study also from 20 years ago taken out of context.

Anonymous said...

After all is said is done, what everyone seems to be missing here is quite obvious, at least to me. From the time Joe Cheshire got involved and became the defense's media face, that irked the crap out of Nifong, and that is what made it personal. Once that happened, Nifong lost his grip on his sensibilities, and his vehement dislike (or worse) of Cheshire permanently scarred his thinking process, to the extent that the damage was done by the time he realized he was fucked. My understanding from Durham insiders in the know is that Nifing had it out for Cheshire, and vice versa, since their days in Traffic Court, when Nifong had his own little fiefdom and Cheshire didn't play by his rules so nicely. The years of hostility finally culminated with this, and now you can understand why Cheshire seems so driven to punish Nifong, even after all of his half-hearted mea culpas, which were only designed to make his son think he isnt such a dick. Cheshire must feel like the king of the world when he is home sipping his bourbon this week.

Ralph Phelan said...

" In fact, agency policy forbids police officers to use their discretion in deciding whether to officially acknowledge a rape complaint, regardless how suspect that complaint may be."

Wouldn't that tend to inflate the number of false claims recodred?

Anonymous said...

I may be wrong, but isn't Joe Cheshire one of the most successful defense lawyers in the state of NC, meaning he is likely MUCH, MUCH richer than Nifong and would have no need to try and punish him.

I agree that Nifong's hatred of Cheshire motivated his irrational treatment of this case, but not sure it went both wasy.

Don't forget, Cheshire is the ONLY ONE who wanted to go forward and question Meehan, becuase he may have been the only one who really had Nifong's number.

Seems Joe was right about Mikey all along.

Anonymous said...

PS,

The discussion of false rape studies and the ongoing liberal/conservative snarking is O/T.

mb said...

ralph phelan asked: " In fact, agency policy forbids police officers to use their discretion in deciding whether to officially acknowledge a rape complaint, regardless how suspect that complaint may be."

Wouldn't that tend to inflate the number of false claims recodred?"


Sure. I would think that decent police personnel would be able to use their judgment in such cases, but the feminists have been busy browbeating police with "women never lie about rape" so the police have to bite the bullet and treat every claim as legit, no matter how preposterous the story. That's probably why the rates of false allegations are so high, the cops can't exercise their common sense when taking a complaint in an alleged rape case. It's similar to Nifong's "no drop" policy, so even if you get an obvious liar like CGM they can't drop the case and thus increase the likelihood of prosecuting false rape allegations.

But the other person is right, this is getting quite O/T.

Jeff said...

@ 2:07

"No one sensible is saying that Levicy was a criminal. It is not clear to me that she even committed a tort. What she has been accused of, by other nurses, is failing to act professionally."

RESPONSE

"Please go back and read the excellent review of Levicy's role in the Hoax by Kethra. It is professionally written and dispassionately describes, in a most objective manner, the perceived failures of Levicy as a SANE, as a woman, and as a human being."

And the criminal acts are? The tortious conduct is? Just what are you disputing? It seems to me that what Kethra is saying, quite persuasively but without any opportunity for rebuttal, is that Levicy acted unprofessionally. I agree that a prima facie case of her unprefessionalism has been made, but all that means is that investigation by a competent body is called for.

I for one am not ready to deprive someone of their livlihood or subject them to public shame and obloquy just because someone on a blog has made some seemingly sensible accusations. Nor am I ready to give the person accused a pass because no one has bothered to examine their conduct.

So what exactly is your problem with my position? That I do not think Nurse Kethra got the word of God on Sinai? Or that I think Nurse Levicy's actions should be reviewed by a competent and impartial body? Perhaps you are in favor of lynch law like Nifong?

Anonymous said...

Kethra's review is not dispassionate, it is a hysterical rant that only occasionally touches on a real issue. Most of Kethra's ranting was wrong: the SANE nurse is able to talk about the contents of the exam she witnessed even is she did not conduct all of the tests, the whole idiocy about who signed where was, well, idiocy, the idea about her violating HHPPA was always wrong and stupid, the idea that she isn't supposed to answer questions from the police about an ongoing investigation, also wrong and silly. The idea she 'pretended'she did the pelvic, also dumb a pointless rant of Kethras.

The one thing she did do that was outside of protocol and a big problem--fail to administer a toxicology screen--barely was a blip on Kethra's screen.

Anonymous said...

I know you folk don"t get it but a toxicology screen FIVE hours after admittance to the ED is almost worthless, The folk, you should be hammering are the Doctors who saw her for five hours, before Nurse Levicy entered the scene. None of know, if Crystal refused the test.
Hysterical rants is par for the course from the Ks. The answers to the under oath testimony:
She perjured herself - a statement unsupported by any attorney at the hearing - eves Witt and Freedman,
Criticized for reading the record before answering questions, because of course - Nurse PP is always prepared when she take the stand.

Anonymous said...

I think you're wrong about the toxicology screen, it can detect blood alcohol and the presence of most drugs, legal and illegal, they don't leave your system within 5 years, in fact the only drug I am aware of that is undetectable in a few hours is GHB, the date rape drug, and thats 8 hours, so by any account it was a huge failure to do no toxicology test. IF Mangum refused thats one thing, if it simply was not done for some reason, that is a big, big problem. The tests are done to protect victims.

Anonymous said...

"It all depends on what a person's perspective is on false rape...those who believe false rape is a HUGE problem, at least half of all reported rapes dont' have any sympathy for rape victims because they assume they are lying."

Ohh, dear, I see some typos there. You won't mind if I fix them up for you, will you?

"It all depends on what a person's perspective is on false rape...those who believe false rape is a HUGE problem, at least half of all reported rapes don't let their sympathy for true rape victims blind them to the fact that selfish and evil people will try to steal that sympathy under false pretenses, and must be distinguished from those who truly do need and deserve sympathy."

There, fixed it for you. I do recommend copy-editing before you post in the future, though.

Anonymous said...

The reason Levicy's "rape is not about passion or ejaculation but about power" is so widely (and corrected) ridiculed is not because it's false, but because in the context where it was offered, it was a complete non-sequitur.

Picture this: An alleged crime victim says he was shot in the leg by a mugger. Someone asks the doctor who did the examination "how can he have been shot in the leg? There's no bullet wound in his leg!" The doctor, who is known to feel strongly about muggers, retorts "not all muggers use guns, you know! Most of them are quite happy to use knives as long as they can still mug decent folk in the street!" How is that relevant to the question that was asked?

Levicy seems to have believed that her duty was not that of a SANE nurse, to report medical findings, but that of a "victim" advocate, to try and tailor the medical findings to the accuser's story.

Anonymous said...

"I know of no information that supports your contention that the town treated rape victims 'seriously'"

Well, duh, of course you don't, you've already told us that you've taken no good look at the Kanin study. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

Anonymous said...

"Old ladies and little girls consent to sexual activity. Also women on the street at night."

Let's see, which of the three was Mangum? I guess she could be spending her nights out on the street, when she isn't in hotel rooms demonstrating vibrators in front of couples or swinging on dance poles at strip clubs...

Pointing out individual circumstances which are found in some cases which make those cases credible and trying to apply that to all cases including the many which do not meet those circumstances is a very empty argument.

Anonymous said...

Jeff @10:08
And 10:52 and 9:28

You should read the whole essay by Kethra, it was published right here by KC.
The link is up thread. KC also had a three part story all about Levicy that
said she played a big part of the Hoax.

Kethra said Levicy tried to put three innocent boys in jail for 30 years.
That goes way beyond calling Levicy unprofessional.
Kethra said:
"She alone, is responsible for the start of this witch hunt."

Kethra said Levicy actively participated in framing these boys.
KC hasn't said anything different.

Now tell me, who is the criminal?

Anonymous said...

3:10

I will stick to the original version, thanks.

3:46

No, what I said was the study isn't available in its entirety, when another person kindly posted some more information, including that the police department in the unnamed city routinely demanded that alleged rape victims take lie detector tests that cemented my belief that whatever the city was, it most definitely did not treat rape victims respectfully or 'seriously' other than in 'seriously' trying to discredit and intimidate them.

I also have said, and nobody has yet been able to disprove me, that a SINGLE study that has never been replicated doesn't mean squat in terms of validity, its an interesting finding, nothing more. His findings do not track wiht any other data on false rape allegations, not even the US Air Force study also from 20 years ago, that found a 27% percent rate of false rape and this is in an enviroment that has many motivations for a woman to make a false report [not supposed to have sex at all/no drinking, etc.] that do not exist in the civilian world.

4:06

Finally, Kethra has been proven to be full of it! She made one or two valid points all the rest was hyperbole and/or wrong information.

Jeff said...

"'She [Levicy] alone, is responsible for the start of this witch hunt.'"

That is outright absurd. What was just testified to under oath was that Nifong knew before he talked to the press for the first time that the case was shaky. He was not deluded by the SANE report. He deliberately prosecuted these kids to win an election. Did you happen to watch the Bar proceedings?

"Kethra said Levicy actively participated in framing these boys."

What Kethra is competent to speak to is whether the medical tests were performed properly and the paperwork completed properly. Kethra has given reasons, plausible to me who am not a nurse or doctor, that neither was done right. Those are, in general, not criminal acts. For one thing, the element of criminal intent has not been shown. Furthermore, there has been no competent tribunal to examine what was done or not done and whether it constituted a failure to meet professional standards. I have said that Kethra has provided enough evidence to indicate that such a tribunal is necessary. Are you in favor of convicting people of criminal acts or depriving them of their livlihoods on the basis of comments in a blog? If so, you have as little understanding of due process as Nifong.

"KC hasn't said anything different."

I see. We should dispense with due process because KC has not contradicted someone. Somehow, I REALLY doubt that KC is in favor of imposing sanctions without a proper hearing.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
3:10

I will stick to the original version, thanks."

Where "the original version" is the words that you put in other people's mouths, purporting to explain what those other people believe and feel? That explains a lot about how you obtained your current world-view: by refusing to listen when you heard something that challenged your stereotyping.