Sunday, July 01, 2007

Sunday Review

The bitter-enders were out in full force last week. First, of course, was the Tom Ehrich article, contending that even though the Group of 88 was wholly wrong in its rush to judgment about the case, Duke should implement, as soon as possible, the Group’s agenda.

Meanwhile, at Forensics Talk, Kathleen Eckelt rightly critiqued a column by Anne Ream that initially appeared in the Chicago Tribune. “Legal vindication,” fumed Ream, “is not moral vindication,” especially since “we may never know everything that occurred on the night of March 13, 2006, when the Duke lacrosse players threw a team party at an off-campus house.” Ream neglected to say what it is that she doesn’t know, or wants to know. The Attorney General’s report is actually quite comprehensive in providing a party timeline.

Ream continued, “The words and images that came from the residence of the captains of the Duke lacrosse team demand to be addressed, as does the prosecutor’s possibly criminal mishandling of the case. They speak volumes about the climate in the players’ house. So what does our silence in the face of these truths say about us?”

Ream, apparently, has been living in a parallel universe for the past 16 months: rather than silence, there has been more condemnation of “the climate in the players’ house” than perhaps any college spring break party in history.

Ream also faulted AG Roy Cooper for noting Crystal Mangum’s mental problems in his press conference announcing the dismissal. Would Ream have preferred that the state petition the court to unseal Mangum’s nearly 1000 pages of medical records, so everyone could examine her mental health history for themselves?

Perhaps most troublingly, Ream, who founded an organization supposedly is expert in the trauma faced by real rape victims, suggested that Mangum’s behavior was typical of real victims. “That the accuser,” Ream states, “gave conflicting statements to the police is not unusual. A victim’s statements, particularly in the wake of a traumatic attack, can be confused and inconsistent. Memory is resolutely imperfect over time and under the duress of repeated questioning.”

Eckelt’s devastating conclusion: the article is the product of a figure with a “closed, prejudicial mind” and “a hate-filled heart.”


Regarding another bitter-ender, Michael Gustafson takes to task Duke Education professor Joseph DiBona, the first arts and sciences professor (other than Paula McClain, who defiantly said she wouldn’t be intimidated but made no specific analysis) to comment on the case since Duke announced a financial settlement with the three players designed to shield the faculty from potential lawsuits.

In June 2006, as Gustafson notes, DiBona was among the harshest critics of the team among the Duke faculty. He demanded Brodhead’s resignation in light of the president’s decision to reinstate the lacrosse team. Why? “Here [Brodhead] suddenly chooses to ignore the forthcoming jury trial. In other words, it no longer matters whether the team will be found guilty or innocent.” DiBona did not reveal from what source he determined that “the team” was on trial.

DiBona resurfaced in a June 2007 letter to the Herald-Sun. In it, he complained, “We still have not resolved the racial conflicts that emerged over this scandal, nor the issue of sexual exploitation of women, nor how the criminal justice system is held captive by wealth and power, nor how academic priorities are subverted by a dominant athletic culture.” And he still criticized the lacrosse players, though now along different lines: “Let us hear the players, parents, athletic department, university leadership and defense lawyers embrace compassion, forgiveness, and leadership toward making this a better world. We all have a role, and using Nifong as a whipping boy only avoids or delays a realization of our true responsibilities.”

Gustafson pointed to the irony in DiBona’s sudden discovery of forgiveness. “Now that the hoax has been laid bare, now that Nifong's misdeeds have been shown for what they are, and now that Duke has made a settlement so that any actions taken by the administration, faculty, and staff that furthered the baseless prosecution of Mr. Evans, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Seligmann are seemingly free from investigation—now we should ‘embrace compassion, forgiveness, and leadership toward making this a better world.’” The letter, he correctly concluded, “is another unfortunate case of adults not taking responsibility for their own actions over the past 16 months.”


In considering the counterfactuals that might have prevented the hoax from ever emerging, one is obvious: the Durham Police could have listened to Sgt. John Shelton, the first officer on the scene and someone who detected almost immediately that Mangum was lying.

As Tortmaster has noted, “There were so many who were actively evil within the Durham Police Department and the office of district attorney. Then, there were the passively evil, those who would allow injustice to occur without comment. One man did not fit either description”—Shelton.

Yet not only have the police failed to recognize that Shelton was right from the start, but Nifong and several members of the force specifically criticized him, both at the time and in their depositions.

As Tortmaster concluded, “Not only did Sgt. Shelton honestly and correctly report as any police officer should, he also failed to bend to pressures from every side. In fact, by all accounts he railed against what was happening to his police department. Something inside this man would not allow the dishonesty to continue. It is almost ironic that the pettiness of Gottlieb, Nifong and Wilson, in decrying the officer in their depositions, really only shined a light on his bravery, honesty and good deeds.”


At the Liestoppers forum, Baldo has a scan of Officer Himan’s handwritten notes from his March 16 interview with Crystal Mangum. These notes contained the only descriptions she ever offered of “Matt,” “Brett,” and “Adam”—with two of the descriptions bearing no resemblance to any of the people ultimately charged.

By this point, of course, Mangum had given differing descriptions of the “attack” to Officers Shelton (no rape) and Sutton (rape by five people), nurse-in-training Levicy (rape by three people with Kim Roberts as accomplice), and the UNC (rape accompanied by being punched in the face and falling back on the bathroom sink, striking her head).

Read through the (graphic) allegations and consider: how was it possible—given this specific description of an “attack”—that no DNA could have been left behind? Yet for months, Nifong, who had access to this entire set of notes, reasoned that DNA (except for a mixture on a false fingernail that his own expert said likely came from transference) was unimportant, while Dr. Meehan informed the Dec. 15 court hearing that finding no suspects’ DNA in this case could be compared to bank robbers leaving behind no fingerprints.


Today Paula (“no to due process”) McClain assumes command as chair of Duke’s Academic Council. So, for the next two years, Duke’s chief faculty spokesperson will be someone associated with the worst excesses of the Group of 88.


A post on Friday had clips of Group of 88 member Michael Hardt making a variety of off-the-wall comments.

In academic self-governance, departments have more or less free reign in hiring decisions. (The exception comes on “diversity” hires, when an administration essentially mandates the hiring of a female or minority candidate.) So part of Hardt’s responsibilities, as a professor of literature at Duke, is to cast votes on personnel matters, such as who should be hired within the department and who should be tenured.

The roster of full professors in the Literature Department reads like a who’s who of anti-lacrosse letter signatories. Of the 16 full professors, Hardt, Ariel Dorfman, Alice Kaplan, Walter Mignolo, and Alberto Moreiras signed both the Group of 88 ad and the “clarifying” statement. Frank Lentricchia was a Group of 88 member; Janice Radway, Kenneth Surin, and Robyn Wiegman affiliated with the “clarifying” faculty.

So nine of the sixteen faculty members listed as full professors on the program’s webpage signed at least one anti-lacrosse public statement.

What kind of professors would a department with such figures be likely to hire? The Literature website lists seven associate and assistant professors:

Lest it appear Willis and Mottahedeh depart from the department’s race/class/gender ideological norms, don’t fear. Willis describes her specialty as “revealing the contradictions of capitalism in everyday life and discovering utopian content in culture”; Mottahedeh’s most recent publication is entitled, “Female Body as Metaphor.”

The academic hiring process too often yields self-replication. In this respect, the tenured faculty in the Duke Literature program—people like Hardt—have helped bring to Duke professors whose worldviews are as—or, in the cases of Lubiano and Farred, more—extreme than those of their senior colleagues.


Anonymous said...

Duke needs to be renamed to Rasputin the professors are more comfortable with the russian system of judgement than the american

Anonymous said...

What an embarrassment for Duke University! The trustees continue to enable this kind of behavior. Perhaps the trustees believe Duke is immune to market forces. Thanks again to Professor Johnson for putting the spotlight on these characters. A single college professor from Brooklyn College with more courage and vision than in the entire Duke board of trustees.

Anonymous said...

This probably isn't a surprise--The literature department's entire raison d'etre appears to be as a haven for the people whose focus was on using texts only as a pretext to discuss "theory," where many, if not all, of the professors in the English Department focus first on the text, then on context--including, sometimes, theory. (This is not to say there aren't some Group of 88 members in the English Dept., because there are.)

I've always assumed this division has something to do with the tenure and departure of Stanley Fish, who chaired the English Dept. in the late 80's and early 90's and left the university in something of a flap in 1998. But I didn't have any connection to Duke at that time (I'm now a Duke parent) and I don't really know.

Anonymous said...

What I meant by "this" in my 12:23 post was the membership of the Literature Department faculty--I forgot I was responding to a multi-part post.

Anonymous said...

I haven't even finished the end of the article, but one thing is certain. Ream has, through her article, severely impaired her own ability to ever act in court as a victim's advocate or as an expert witness in rape cases. All a good attorney would have to do is to trot her article out and put it side by side with the AG's findings.

Thank you, Ms Ream!


Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

I find it quite interesting that Duke gives literature profs credit toward tenure for writing political essays? For example, I found comments on the web that says Hardt wrote a communist manifesto for the 21st century.

Now I would certainly believe that this would be germane research for a government or political science prof. and maybe even for a sociology prof. But I don't get this type of research for a literature prof.

I belonged to the Society for American Baseball Research for a while and wrote some statistical analysis about the concept of "product of the system" in football. I never listed such things on my annual report nor my vitae. They are not economics. Similarly in my view political philosophy whether well reasoned and written or like Hardt's confused and muddled are not germane to the scholarship of a literature prof. If Duke has somehow ended up with a secondary political theory department rather than a literature department, that is something they could and should do something about.

Michael said...

Hey Anne Ream: not only was there EXTREME
inconsistencies in the accuser's story, there was
NO semen, there was NO DNA from any lacrosse
player on the woman, even when extremely
sensitive DNA testing was done, there wasn't
even any transfer DNA!!!

Do you have a brain? Do you just want to
continue to wallow in ignorance?

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

BTW, I have long thought that Sgt. Shelton was something that Nifong could never overcome at trial. It seems that his doubt by definition means guilt could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And I fully expected the defense to call Sgt. Shelton at trial.

Gary Packwood said...

KC said...

...(Joseph) DiBona resurfaced in a June 2007 letter to the Herald-Sun. In it, he complained, “We still have not resolved the racial conflicts that emerged over this scandal, nor the issue of sexual exploitation of women, nor how the criminal justice system is held captive by wealth and power, nor how academic priorities are subverted by a dominant athletic culture.” And he still criticized the lacrosse players, though now along different lines: “Let us hear the players, parents, athletic department, university leadership and defense lawyers embrace compassion, forgiveness, and leadership toward making this a better world. We all have a role, and using Nifong as a whipping boy only avoids or delays a realization of our true responsibilities.”
Joseph Di Bona is an Associate Professor @ Duke with his Ph.D. earned from UC Berkeley in 1 9 6 7 ...Forty (40) Years ago.

His CV makes mention of a 2005 publication with David Evans and Matthew Zash.

J. Di Bona and undergraduates, David Evans and Matthew Zash. "THE EDUCATION OF TERRORISTS." Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, December, 2005
You just can't make this stuff up.

Kurt Vonnegut would be humbled...even.

Anonymous said...

Sure, there are lots of folk involved with the case. The only ones who are important are Nifong -already punished - Titus and Stephens - who prolonged the hoax by bad judgeship. Nothing was stopping Nifong and no conspiracy to committ anything. Just a rogue DA - aided and abetted by two judges.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: gary packwood

What a great find and as you say, you can't make this stuff up.

Anonymous said...

Yes, very good post, Professor. The insularity of these mediocrities, of course, makes sense. I'd eliminate this "literature" dept in 1 hour. If you want a real laugh, check out the title of Grant Farred's article on Barack Obama. Isn't it great that these well-paid doofuses are "public-yet-insular intellectuals"? You don't have to worry about competency, the needs of your students, Duke's reputation--nope. Remember the "South Park" episode where Cartman drags his mother to the Jerry Springer show? What does Cartman repeatedly yell at his mother? "I do what I want." That's it in a nutshell--these doofuses do what they want, and no one makes them responsible. Check, please!

re Anne Ream: As a recovering sex aesthetician, I must say that this woman is highly sensuous and handsome. Frankly, I was aroused (not that there's anything wrong with that). Anyway, she had at one time a distinguished career in advertising as a creative director.

Ream is a lot like the G88, because, like Cartman, she also gets to do what she wants. I had a difficult time figuring out where this woman was coming from: is she serious when she writes that false accusers "may pay a steep price for the CHANCE TO BE HEARD [on account of the] myth of the false report"? [emphasis added] Hey, Anne, what price did Panties pay?

Yep, according to Ms Ream (how perfect is her surname?), men don't spend enough time "valuing women." Anne, what does that mean?

Her absurd feminist boilerplate echoed loudly when she characterized the lacrosse players as "drunken and leering" at the party. Needless to say, she could have made the same accusation of some men at the ballet or the opera.

KC, I'd get a tape recorder and somehow get Anne in a room with CDR. That would be interesting. This woman needs to be confronted. I have a gut feeling that she's sincere in her advocacy for rape victims, but I'd be curious to know why she cares nothing about men whose reputations and good name have been raped by lying female scoundrels.


hman said...

At times like this it can be helpful to remember that the notion of a "Univesity" actually found the light of day in the Middle Ages. In the meantime we have experienced all sorts of evolutions in the mass media. And the internet sort of put it all into quadruple overdive.
The point is, unless the Professoriate can find a valid basis for their continued existence they will end up like M. Nifong; discredited and destroyed by the toxity of their own bullshit and the inexorable march of information technology.

rrhamilton said...

KC said, Today Paula (�no to due process�) McClain takes the reigns as chair of Duke�s Academic Council.

It's "reins". But in KC's defense this has got to be the most common confusion of homonyms that I've seen in ages: So many here and elsewhere on the web is continually saying "rein" when they mean "reign" and vice-versa.

(I suspect everyone knows this, and I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but just for the few who may have forgotten: "Reins" are what one uses to guide a horse and is often a metaphor for a leadership position, i.e. "takes the reins"; "reigns" is what a monarch does, though the term is often used as an allusion to some other powerful man or emotion, i.e. "confusion reigns at Duke".)

Anonymous said...

Ouch -- he did it again just three sentences later. I think maybe being from a horse culture helps in distinguishing a department having "free rein" (as a horse gets when you want to let it run as much as it wants) versus a department getting "free reign" which is ... I don't know what that is, actually.

R.R. again

Disgusted said...

I strongly suggest readers go to and google the name of this "priest," and then leave comments on EACH AND EVERY ONE of his (at the very least recent) articles. Debauchery, depravity of this order need to be noticed, described, and reminded to people. Remember, this "priest" has people who listen to him and actually believe he would be a man of God! He needs to taste a bit of the bitterness he chose to impart. Help him out!!!

Anonymous said...

KC said, So part of Hardt’s responsibilities, as a professor of literature at Duke, is to cast votes on personnel matters, such as who should be hired within the department and who should be tenured.

I want to apply!

I will write on my application about how I want to see a "government and an economy based on LOVE"! A place where women like Crystal (but way better looking, not that I don't think black is beautiful and whites are the most racist people in history) will dance for FREE ... while reciting the essential elements of dialectic materialism.

R.R. Hamilton

Michael said...

Of course I had to go to the BSA site and read up on the organization. I'd say that the lacrosse players meet more of the requirements of Boy Scouts than Mike Nifong, the DPD bad apples, Victoria Peterson, the Gang of 88 and Mr. Nartay.

Anonymous said...

Not to disagree with RRH, but "reins" usually associate with the other end of the horse.

Joe T. said...

Polanski: "Doofuses" is the best word for it. Very little surprises me anymore. Some priests have turned out to be child molesters, some police officers have turned out to be drug dealers, some medical doctors have turned out to be serial killers. And some learned professors have turned out to be doofuses.

Anonymous said...

anonymous at 3:39 AM: Reins are a type of horse tack. A bridle is an arrangement of straps around the horse's head used for riding and driving the animal.

Don't come near my horse. :)

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

oops, didn't include enough:

Reins are leather straps or rope attached to the outer ends of a bit that extend to the rider's or driver's hands, allowing them to give commands known as rein aids. Reins are used to communicate to the horse or other riding animal. With the reins you can bend the neck and encourage turning, or move them back and ask for a slower speed or a halt.

That should be enough.

Mike said...

Ah. Some people are literally beyond parody, the "intellectuals' mentioned here being the dictionary definition case.

Perhaps I can provide a bit of food for thought from my nearly two decades of police experience, including many years investigating rape and similar crimes. People lie. People of all races, male, female, all ages, for any reason you can imagine, people lie. For anyone to suggest that there is something special about the victims of rape, or any other crime, that renders them incapable of deception indicates only an irrational adherence to a political philosophy and an utter lack of knowledge of human nature.

That said, people also tell the truth, and there are indeed almost always discrepancies between the statements of witnesses in virtually any crime. Even the statements of victims of crime, taken over time, might have minor inconsistencies. And this is where professionalism and experience come into play.

Are the inconsistencies in a victim's statements such that they can reasonably be explained by the vaguries of human memory and perception? Are they such that they do preclude, by their nature, number, and disparity, a successful prosecution? Are they such that they don't meaningfully conflict with the other testimonial and physical evidence? Are they such that a competent prosecutor can successfully deal with them in court? And finally, is the victim going to be, if not a sympathetic, at least a believable witness?

It's also good to keep in mind common police procedure regarding such cases, and the role of prosecutors in such cases. Usually, after the intial reponse by uniformed patrol officers, who take down the personal information of all potential witnesses, deal with any medical care and evidence preservation issues, and conduct preliminary interviews sufficient to establish the basic facts, the case is turned over to a primary investigator--a detective--and any other detectives who will be needed for assistance. The patrol officers all write reports, all of which are forwarded to the detectives involved as soon as possible the following day, usually in the morning.

The detectives, who are usually called out and on the scene of major crimes such as rape, interview everyone in depth, including the victim, doctors, nurses, and witnesses and compare what they get with what the initial officers found. Remember, any competent cop knows that people lie, and amazing as it may sound, some even lie to the police! They understand, in other words, that there is always a chance that a rape victim, or the victim of any other crime, is lying to them and procede carefully. They would certainly interview all potential suspects and carefully check their alibis; failing to completely check and verify or disprove an alibi is a rookie mistake no police agency can abide. No prosecutor wants to be surprised in court, and no cop wants to be made to look foolish on the witness stand.

All handling of evidence, all processing of evidence, all dealing with labs, is normally done only by the police who must maintain an absolute chain of custody of even the smallest bit of evidence or surely lose it on challenge by the defense in court. It is extremely rare for prosecutors to have any role in the investigative part of the process, because that makes them witnesses, and would force them to recuse themselves from the case. Thus the fevered cries of the press that Nifong never interviewed the accuser, showed only a fundamental lack of understanding of the process by the press. The only time that a prosecutor might speak with a witness is after all interviews have long been done, perhaps the day of the first court appearance, to meet the witness, to put them at ease, to answer questions about the process, and to explain how the questioning will go. Prosecutors rarely if ever go beyond that because to do more would rightly open them to the charge of coaching the witness, which disturbs judges and tends not to set well with juries.

In a high profile, major case of any kind, the investigators would probably touch base with the prosecutor's office--they tend to have a close relationship because they work together constantly--to give them the basic outline of the case, but wouldn't deliver a full written report for several days until it was all gathered and put together. No report would contain a statment such as this: "The victim is clearly lying," because it's not necessary. A complete recitation of the facts will make that clear to any competent cop or prosecutor, and certainly to a competent defense attorney. An investigator would certainly give their verbal opinion to a prosecutor, but would not put the same in writing. This is not so as to conceal anything, but because reports should contain the facts and not editorial comments or opinions.

After the first report dump, a prosecutor often has all they need to make a charging decision, but if they want additional interviews (to clarify a point, or perhaps the officers weren't immediately able to find and speak with a potential witness), want to wait for lab results (not uncommon in this kind of case), they put off charging decisions until they have the information they need, information that is virtually always obtained by the police and the police alone. Officers would then send additional, followup reports to the prosecutor as they are completed. Usually, there is no need to rush to make charges.

Oh yes, blood alcohol levels are commonly done as hospital policy for anyone as part of the blood testing process. The police would know the BAC (blood alcohol content) of a victim not long after they arrived at the hospital.

OK, after all of that, do we begin to see some of the potential problems in the Duke case? Clearly the accuser's background (just one factor any competent cop has to investigate and consider), behavior, level of intoxication, and wildly conflicting statements would have been caught at the level of the initial investigating officer, and certainly at the level of the detectives assigned the case. Cops must always be very careful in their questioning of any witness not to ask questions in such a way that they suggest answers, fill in the blanks, if you wish.

I cannot imagine any competent cop suggesting to prosecutors that this case had a hope in hell of being successfully prosecuted, nor would a competent prosecutor, reading the initial reports, which they should have had on their desk within a day or two of the alledged crime, have thought that this case was viable. At least one suspect had an airtight alibi, and I susprised to discover, that the police apparently did not communicate this to Nifong in their reports. If Nifong refused to listen to the alibi but instead referred the defense to the police to investigate and document it, that would have been proper, but apparently that wasn't the case here.

As I understand it, at least some officers did at least suggest that the accuser wasn't credible early on. Certainly when the physical, DNA evidence came back, any competent prosecutor would have bailed on the case. Remember that the decision about who to charge and with which crimes is made, ultimately by the prosecutors, and not the police. Even though the police can make arrests on probable cause at the scene or a crime, for example, prosecutors commonly dismiss, alter, or add charges other than those made by an arresting officer.

If common police and prosecutorial procedure used across the nation was followed, here's what would have happened: After the intial officers made their reports, after the investigators made their interviews and filed their reports, after the DNA evidence came back, just to be sure, the police would have ended their investigation by categorizing the case as unfounded. There would have been no prosecution. This entire process would have been over in a month, at most.

Not quite what happened here, is it? I certainly don't know all the facts, but on the surface, there appears to have been a strange and inexplicable blurring of the functions of the police and prosecutors to the extent that evidence of all kinds would most likely have been tainted and excluded at trial. In addition, Nifong would almost certainly have been surprised in court, something prosecutors avoid like the plague for obvious reasons.

It would indeed be interesting to get a copy of the written procedures of the police department--all competent agencies have them--and see how many were ignored in this case. Then we could ask some more interesting and to the point questions and might have a better idea how all of this came to be.

Anonymous said...

The bitter enders seem to have at least one point in common: they insist that none of the lacrosse players have ever apologized for what the bitter enders keep calling the "drunken orgiastic" behavior of the lacrosse players. This single point is mute evidence that the bitter enders have never read any of the reports which are freely available. It also begs the question of who HAS apologized? All three of the charged players have apologized numerous times. Many, if not all. of the other players have apologized. Fired Coach Pressler has apologized. In short, the only people who have yet to apologize and take responsibility for their actions are the people who tried to frame three innocent young men and send them away for up to thirty years, and the aiders and abetors (sp?). The sheer ignorance of the bitter enders is phenominal, and sadly many of them appear to be educators and religious clerics. Parents: beware what school you send your children.

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

12:36 AM

Most of these people at Duke are so small-minded and bigoted as to be challenged for any sort of jury duty. They themselves are the text and context of their own prejudice with anything they interact . . . arrogance, hubris . . . come to mind or ". . . hit that Duke tar baby . . . again!" They can't help it.

Anonymous said...

12:59 AM

More than Nifong was important in this case. The Group88 created the contest and even the text of the whole affair as the pot-bangers and castrate groups muddled about and roiled public opinion. In short, they were the great lynching mob that drove a tidal wave of horror at these innocent people.

Anonymous said...

I need some help with understanding the illogical.

Seems to me that once Nifong was disbarred, he should have been terminated immediately,thus pay and benefits ceased. However, from what I hear, Mike Nifong is still drawing his salary as DA of Durham County.

What logical reason(s) does Durham County or the State of NC have for keeping him on the payroll? What is the process for terminating him? How much longer will this abuse of taxpayer dollars continue? What mechanism allowed post disbarrment employment to continue?


mac said...


Anonymous said...

4:31 AM

This is an excellent post. Finally, someone who is centered in the "real" world, and who obviously doesn't live in Durham or is not in the English Department at Duke. Thanks.

dave.s. said...

1. How come Duke's settlement with the three gets them off the hook? Couldn't the other 43 players be seen as having some abuse they could sue over?

2. You might want to think about 'rein' versus 'reign'

mac said...

Anne Ream:
So...let's say you and the girls
from work go out to a bachelorette
party that features a male
stipper. You have a few drinks,
make a few choice comments about
"where's the beef" and leave,
bored silly.
On the way home, the driver wrecks
the car avoiding a deer.
She was a designated driver, and
hadn't been drinking. Several of
the women you are with are injured,
but none badly.
Your car nearly crashed into
another car. Not really, though;
nearly: the other car had already
wrecked, moment before you arrived,
and several children were killed.
The driver of the car was looking
for excuses for the cause of their
accident: your car is a convenient
scapegoat. Their driver didn't
even have a license, and was
incompetent. Not only that,
she was using prescription drugs.
Your driver gets blamed.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
shows up, calling for your driver
to be criminally charged, holding
vigils for the "victims" in this.
However, it was shown - (proven) -
that she wasn't drinking.
None of you have broken any laws,
but everyone is saying that
"what ever you did is bad enough."
You ask: "what we did? What did
we do?"
They say: drinking and driving.
It is pointed out repeatedly that
the driver was not drinking.
The accident was not in any way
related to the prior accident,
where the driver's incompetence
killed several children.
The resulting hysteria stimulates
an already-out-of-control
prosecutor to make up wild charges
and allegations, and he runs the
talk-show circuit, not only
blaming your driver, but the rest
of you for your "wanton disregard
for the lives of children."
Even though you had nothing to
do with their metanarrative.
The prosecutor also happens to
be running for election.
He equates your group with child
murderers, molesters and Episcopal
Meanwhile, the office where you
work fires you. They only fire
you and the driver - and one other
individual who wasn't even with
you on the night in question,
based upon a false report that she
was one of the "ringleaders."
"Something happened" follows you
around ever after, even though
the only thing you were guilty
of was having a drink with the
girls and watching a boring
strip act featuring a fat bozo
in a g-string.
"Whatever you did, it was bad
enough" follows you around like
a stinky sock.

mac said...

Hey, Anne!
Howja like them apples?

mac said...

This proves why a lawsuit against
Nancy Grace, John Feinstein
and the NY Times and other Times
writers, Wendy Murphy and others
in MSM. Their myths essentially
gave the lies and distortions
an afterlife, permanent and
Seems as if an asteroid has crashed and
the resulting radiation is causing
masses of people to become
zombies, graves to be emptied,
and otherwise
intelligent people to become
paranoid delusionals, who
wander around chanting a familiar
You can't stop 'em:
they keep coming.

They just keep coming.

mac said...

Hey, KC,
If they're attacking Sgt. Shelton,
he's probably got the goods
on them. Hope he took notes.

Anonymous said...

From Vince
Mike's experienced based comments on common police procedure are excellent. Is the written Durham police procedure available?

rod allison, detroit said...

For people like Ann Ream, rape is a weapon. They use it to acquire moral superiority over their ideological enemies. She tries to postion herself so that if you disagree with her, you condone rape, and you are the moral equivalent of a rapist.

The Holocust and trans-Atlantic slavery are often misused in the same way.

She won't acknowledge the truth about the Duke hoax, because a harmful, false charge is of no use to her.

mac said...

Kathleen Eckelt really takes
Ream to task.
Good article.

Nice to see a professional
correcting the unprofessional
mistakes, prejudices and
misconceptions of someone who
really should know better.

Thumbs up to Eckelt; two thumbs
down to Ream.

GPrestonian said...

Re: Tortmaster & Shelton:

Joseph Neff's article Lacrosse probe has much fodder today discusses Sgt Shelton's treatment by the DPD, and reminds us that Linwood claimed that he was asked by Capt Lamb to investigate Shelton's remarks.

mac said...


Gooooood link - (thanks Joe Neff!)

Goatcheese's explanation that a
date-rape drug causes amnesia...
is this an explanation for Nifey's
intermittent amnesia?

Anonymous said...

“That the accuser,” Ream states, “gave conflicting statements to the police is not unusual. A victim’s statements, particularly in the wake of a traumatic attack, can be confused and inconsistent. Memory is resolutely imperfect over time and under the duress of repeated questioning.”

At the Liestoppers forum, Baldo has a scan of Officer Himan’s handwritten notes from his March 16 interview with Crystal Mangum. These notes contained the only descriptions she ever offered of “Matt,” “Brett,” and “Adam”—with two of the descriptions bearing no resemblance to any of the people ultimately charged.

What Anne Ream doesn't realize is that her argument benefits the players not CGM. If her memory was "resolutely imperfect over time" then doesn't that makes her identification of the 3 players particularly unreliable from the beginning? Especially in the absence of any corroborating evidence (no other witness, lack of DNA) and with the presence of considerable conflicting evidence (pictures, alibis).

Anonymous said...

Excellent post 4:31.
When people do their jobs without hidden agendas, we are more likely to get justice. This brings to mind whether Nifong's immunity in the DA's office would cover him when he performs duties that are clearly not part of his job.

mb said...

And with this, all the world can see what "diversity" in academia really means: Not legitimate, valid intellectual diversity, but rather, diversity of skin color among a majority of women. These people are the epitome of racism and sexism because to them skin color and gender are the most important aspects of a person. And the result? A sea of black, brown, taupe, ruddy and a few white (mostly) female faces, all nodding in agreement to the metanarrative and other inane babbling.

Martin Luther King would be appalled.

fmfnavydoc said...

Just a few words:

Kathleen Eckelt put, what we in the military would call, "rounds on target" about Anne Ream's diatribe over the AG findings in this case...there needs to be more people like Ms. Eckelt out there. Also, the AG could have drug our CGM's mental health history for the world to see, but he did the right thing and let it lie.

Duke's G88 professors are in their own little "wonderland" (KC, please don't take offense). Living in their own Ivory Tower (Duke) they believe that since they are the intellectual and social elite of Durham, that their work is gospel, and that the LAXers are guilty as sin - because they were there. Since they didn't get their way (with a trial for the innocent and a guilty verdict, shutting down of the LAX team permanently, etc...) they are now placing the blame for everything on everybody else, but see no wrong with their actions. When the 'Fongs case unraveled, their view of justice went down the toilet with the case, and now they are bitter, and will continue to use their positions at the school to postulate and pontificate on the case that was...

Sounds like someone needs to make Sgt. John Shelton he new Chief of Police in Durham...he seems to be one of a few people in the department that have some integrity.

One last thing. Does anyone know or remember if alcohol or a drug toxicology test was done on CGM the night she was brought into DUMC?

christoph said...

4:31 Thanks. A very comprehensible primer for those of us civilians unfamiliar with police hierarchies and procedures. I hope it's accurate, because it's very persuasive. Consider a career in writing, if you're not already. (Have you read the book, Blue Blood?)

Anonymous said...

To: Outraged @ 6:42

To answer your questions...

Nifong hasn't "officially" been disbarred, the Bar hasn't issued it's formal report and when it does Nifong will retain his license for 30 days....

Until very recently there was only one NC statue that provided for the removal of an elected DA. NCGS 7A-66 allows a citizen to file an affidavit w/ the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge in the DA's prosecutorial district citing ground(s) specified in the statue as basis for removal.

The NC Bar fairly recently disbarred a sitting judge (Etheridge (sp?) I believe). He was taken off the bench but there was no legal basis to force him from his elected position. Recent legislation (signed in the past 10 days) allows the Governor to removed a disbarred Judge or DA once they've lost their license (and have exhausted all appeals!!). Given that Nifong hasn't officially lost his license, Gov Easley cannot, yet, remove him.

A citizen did file an affidavit under 7A-66 back in February asking Judge Hudson to remove Nifong. Despite the clear language of the statue -- judge shall dismiss the charge or act within 30 days -- Judge Hudson chose to put the affidavit on hold pending the Bar GHC hearing.

To his credit, using the 7A-66 filing JH suspended Nifong (with pay) on 6/20/07. This after Nifong, on 6/19/07, after the completion of the Bar hearing, announced his intention to remain on the job until 7/12/07. However, in a hearing on the 7A-66 that Hudson scheduled for last Thursday, Hudson decided Nifong hadn't been given proper notice (although the NC Superior court ruled that a 7A-66 filing is not bound by either civil or criminal procedure). Nifong has informed the court that he is out of state without access to a fax machine and would tender his resignation effective Monday, 7/2/07 -- Hudson continued the hearing to Monday at 11am -- seemingly willing to allow Nifong to resign rather than remove him as per statute....

NC legislature seems to have taken notice of many problems -- starting with NC Grand Jury procedures (secret, not recorded, no requirement to present exculpatory evidence, DA controlled witness list) to open file discovery and removal of judges/DAs....

Hope this helps.

mac said...

I believe they did a tox.

Anonymous said...

Tara Levicy said she didn't see CGM until 7 am at DUMC. IIRC there was no BAC done but it would not have been an accurate representation at that point anyway- 7 hrs after the supposed crime.

Female Follower of Hoax said...

Joseph) DiBona resurfaced in a June 2007 letter to the Herald-Sun. In it, he complained, “We still have not resolved the racial conflicts that emerged over this scandal, nor the issue of sexual exploitation of women

We're not going to resolve any "sexual exploitation of women issue" because there was none.

Anonymous said...

Mike- thanks for the case walk-through! Very interesting and informative. A question, though: I understand that Nifong was not supposed to be interviewing CGM but shouldn't the DPD have been doing so? The fact that NO ONE sat down with her (unless you count Gottlieb's incomplete and odd "notes")until Linwood Wilson in Dec to get the facts is unbelieavable!

Anonymous said...

I am still wondering why you folks just don't get it. Don't you people understand that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the attack happened? It would have helped their cause a little by providing something concrete to hang their hats on, but they do not need it.

In their world view, all "smart" people know that blacks and women are victims. If Crystal Mangum was not raped by these white men, then she at least has been metaphorically raped by "the system" which is built on white male racist patriarchy. that's the point they want to make. this case only allowed the left wing to personify the attackers instead of relying on a the phantom "white male patriarchy" which cannot be concretely punished, well not yet anyway.

but for all you obama fans get ready. this is what they have in store for you, well, if you're a white male.

i do believe that people have to learn the hard way sometimes. a healthy dose of racism would serve all white people well.


Anonymous said...

"None of them has apologized" is the most oft-repeated "error" of fact since "no one has identified the alleged victim as an honor student/veteran/mother of two, only as a stripper"--when in fact CGM was widely portrayed from very early on as a valiant mom and honor student struggling to support her children by bravely forcing herself to do exotic dancing. (I'm leaving aside "something happened" here, as it's too vague and ridiculous even to bring into the discussion.)

As you point out, these little mantras are one of the key indicators that the people saying them really don't care about the facts of the case, only about the larger issues they want it to represent, whether it actually does or not.

Anonymous said...

Before anyone jumps on me, I put "error" in quotation marks in my 11:46 am post to reflect that, while some people may make these statements in error, others must surely know they are untrue and are thus lying--not to suggest that the statements themselves may actually be true.

Anonymous said...

re Anne Ream

I just emailed her and invited her to respond to posters' questions. Her email address is

To anyone who knows people who make the video spoofs: I've got a good idea for one:

Google "Cartman Whatever, I can do what I want." There's a very funny clip there of Cartman in drag reciting that phrase. I suggest that someone add that clip after all the stupid video this hoax has unearthed--

1. potbangers
2. UBUNTU dancer
3. Brodhead BS
4. listening statement fools
5. Nancy...etc.

Call it"Whatevah, I can do what I want."

Trust me. This will be funny as hell. If someone is worried about copyright infringement, contact me. I know Trey Parker, and he'll definitely give his permission.


Gary Packwood said...

WINDBAG 11:39 said...

...I am still wondering why you folks just don't get it. Don't you people understand that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the attack happened? It would have helped their cause a little by providing something concrete to hang their hats on, but they do not need it.

...In their world view, all "smart" people know that blacks and women are victims. If Crystal Mangum was not raped by these white men, then she at least has been metaphorically raped by "the system" which is built on white male racist patriarchy. that's the point they want to make.
You make an important point but the culture is different on a campus with large number of residents as compared to a campus where students are on campus only to attend classes.

Residential campus' such as Duke present a real challenge for the loopy left.

If you are selling the 'victim' product to residential students, you had best product a REAL victim regularly or you will loose credibility with the resident students.

It is equally important that your 'victim' product include some aspect of sexual behavior.

A good 'dose' of 'victim' and 'sexual' and 'assault' almost guarantees that the rest of the faculty is going to run for cover.

If the loopy left are not managed properly the resident students will begin to think of them as 'jokes' and deserving of being teased. Not unlike kids on their first trip to the local Zoo.

Administrators must always create a culture where the 'telling of the truth' is the first order of business every day and that consequences are swift and severe for creating a victim where there is none.

Anonymous said...


A professor somewhere defined that phrase thusly: Idiotic phrase uttered by spoiled little teenage bitches who haven't the slightest clue what iy's like to live in the real world.

Like your idea, but I'd try to get Butters in there from the same episode. What was that classic Butters line: "Mom and Dad, I promise never to put balls on my chin ever again."

Sheer genius.

Anonymous said...


Butters after Nifong?



rrhamilton said...

Mike, though I'm the 12th or so person to say so, Good job! Excellent exposition on police procedures at 4:31 AM.

KC, it's still not "free reign" that the "departments have". It's "free rein".

mac, good analogy at 7:23 AM, but you omitted the MOST CRITICAL part: the race factor. In a situation as you describe, how can we forget the centuries of white women regularly killing black children with impunity?

As a minor note, you also forgot to mention as part of the sleep-deprivation attacks on Anne's home, the banners enscribed "Mastectomize!"

Anonymous said...


KC may have been making a pun there--as in these parasites have free reign at Duke. They are reigning (see Pauls McClain), and certainly no one else at Duke seems to be challenging thier--uh huh--hegemony.

Yes, props to the cop who wrote that splendid post on procedure. A+


Anonymous said...


I think we agree on more than we disagree, but producing a real victim is one. Please name one real victim black victim of a white man raping a black woman.

Now, going the other direction we just wouldn't have enough room on cyberspace to list all the white victims of black savagry. No somehow this business of racism has a phantom characteristic. There is little concrete evidence yet people speak out against it and fight it all the time.


mac said...


Chief Chalmers:
"Nothing to see here, move along..."

Anonymous said...

What would have been appropriate care for Crystal, is for any of the three Doctors who evaluated her before she was dumped on Levicy and Manly, to have ordered blood work for BAC and Toxiciology screen. Dr Manly could have ordered it herself. What you folks don't get is " The Doctor is in charge of the case." In spite of the touting of this sane gig, they are still nurses and in charge of nothing, except to follow protocal and carry out the Doctor's orders. I am shocked at how this simple exam has been blown up to look like brain surgery. NC Board of Nursing or DUMC has no complaints about Levicy. They are the only folk who count. One telephone call and two interviews - where did the other 5 to 9 meeting go?

mac said...

RR Ramilton 12:45
Thanks for the comment.

I failed to mention the race
of the driver of the car
which killed the children:

She was Maroon.

Anne claimed sainthood/victimhood
because someone spiked her body
rinse with balsamic vinaigarette.

mac said...

Three interviews and four phone calls.

Hi, Tara's Troll!

How's things down there, under
the bridge?

mac said...

Hey, 1:09
Why did Nifong claim that Tara
"guided" Dr. Manley on how to
perform the exam?
(besides the fact that he's a liar?)


Anonymous said...

Mac - reread - you remember the conspiracy to get around the DNA evidence don't you, with 5 to 9 meetings - where are they now? Calling Troll indicates a lack of argument over issues.

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

"Guided" imagery?
What about "guided?"


mac said...

Hey 1:20
Cat got your tongue?

mac said...

Hey 1:20
Who you gonna sue now?

mac said...


Anonymous said...


I have some actor friends who appear on the various manifestations of the "Law and Order" franchise. They tell me that Dick Wolf, the shows' creator and executive producer, initially attempted to portray perps realistically (ie, overwhelmingly minority), but that failed because market research showed that WHITES weren't interested in watching black perps. So Wolf, no fool, changed the show's stories to feature white perps. Check it out. I'm not lying.


mac said...

Hey 1:20
Ya gonna get Roy Pearson as your

mac said...

Hey 1:09
If the doctor is in charge,
why wasn't Dr. Manley called as a

Oh, that's right: she was out
getting lessons from Nurse Tara!

mac said...

Might be time for an update on
Nurse Tara?

Anonymous said...

Mac - We agree. Why was she not interviewed and investigated by the DPD, I think it is obvious that investigation stopped very quickly after the event. I think most of all, two nurses came off spouting the sane gig and folk believed and supported them with no knowledge of nursing or proceedures. In mistaken loyalty, folk still support the idea that the Nurse is the creator of original sin.

Anonymous said...

Mac It is toatally within the range of possibility that Dr Manly inquired " Did I get all the swabs needed?" The "supervision" is interpreted as the exam, when in fact, I believe it was the materials. Why do you think THE NC board or DUMc have not criticized this nurse? I don't think the Hospital was part of a DU settlement.

mac said...

Not so fast:

Remember that Nurse Tara - in her
report - claimed that there was no
DNA "because rape is not about
passion or ejaculation but about

Hmmm> Nurse Levicy apparently
never heard of epithelial DNA.

Nurse Tara stated that Ms. Mangum
didn't know if a condom was used,
but someone put a penis in her
mouth? And she didn't know if
it had a condom on it?

Levicy says - (in the report) -
that CGM stated that "he put his
private part in my butt."
Hmmm. Does Levicy know how AIDS
is spread?
It is easiest to transfer when
blood products are involved.
Blood products are almost always
involved in anal sex (rectal
bleeding, tearing.)

Nurse Tara stated - (according to
the report) - that they wiped
CGM down with a towel. Incredible!
Does Nurse Tara think that would
wipe away semen and epithelium?
(remember epithelium in A & P,
Miss Levicy? Or were you asleep
that day?)

Oh, but I forgot!
This wasn't about sex!
It was about perpetuating a set
of preconceived ideas and a
personal agenda.

Bob H. said...

Hey, mac

You seem to have an exceedingly strong emotional commitment to this case. Just out of curiosity, what is your personal connection? Are you a Duke alum? Or a parent of a Duke student; perhaps a resident of Durham? If you are simply an individual concerned with correcting injustice, helping those who have been wronged, and/or uncovering the hidden agenda of the leftists of academia, well, you must be very busy. But, if all you ever do is post anonymously to this and various web sites, then you really just like to see your lofty thoughts in print. Like all the other villains associated with this fiasco, you are not really accountable for what you say. And, more importantly, if you actually believe in the cause, you are not doing anything of substance about it.

mac said...

If Nurse Tara had stated at some
point - at a reasonable point in
time - that this was all a hoax,
then she'd be off the hook.

How do you know if DUMC isn't
a target of litigation? Are you
privy to that information?

Have you spoken with Dr.Manley?

How about the trolls who claimed
Levicy was gonna sue KC?
Still hoisting that flag to see
if it'll fly?

What I've written is on the record.
It can be found at Liestoppers.

mac said...

Hey, Bob H.
What's that of your concern?

mac said...

Hey, Bob H.
Thanks for comparing me to "all
the other villains in this case!"

Shows where your head is at.

As a matter of fact, I do have
some personal reasons ("thanks
for asking!") But they're none
of your business.

Anonymous said...

I said She should already be suing Nurse's Peggy Perfect - for slander and libel I hope she does. It took nine defense lawyers, five million dollars and thousands of bloggers and DIW, yelling "Hoax" before this thing came to an end = thireetn months later. Yet, you think this 37K a year staff nurse has magical powers.

Bob H. said...

Hey, mac,

You are not alone in your passionate discourse, detailed knowledge and self-righteous certainty, but why not share a little perspective? It would put into context, for all your cyber-naut buddies, why you are so immersed, why you have such detailed information, why it is so important that you post so regularly, so knowingly, on virtually all aspects of this case. So many posters here identify themselves as parents, alums or other interested parties, putting their positions in some context. What are you afraid of ?

mac said...

There are lots of sources
in this case: DIW and Liestoppers,
Bill Anderson etc.

As far as self-righteousness goes?
I may seem guilty of that.
I hope I'm not.

It's my experience with rape -
having been manually raped by
a doctor when I was a child -
and seeing how others in my
area had also experienced the
same treatment, by the same

It is appalling to see three young
men get systematically raped by
the criminal justice system,
by people who wouldn't believe
them, by MSM, even though they had
so much compelling evidence to
back up their claims of innocence.

It's also a terrible thing to see
what Samples has done to real
rape victims. And a terrible
thing to see people like Levicy
use her specialized medical
knowledge - such as it is -
to further perpetuate and enable a

Does that satisfy your curiosity?

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

Bob H. is likely a troll-attorney.
He asks lots of questions that
indicate that he's worried about
his client, and he's worried that
some of us are attorneys.

Don't worry, Bob - (is your friend
named Neal?) - I'm just someone
who has a minor obsession.
Or major.

Who are you?
Or Odysseus?

Polyphemus wants to know.

Anonymous said...

Is Bob H. a communist?

Anonymous said...

No, Bob's a tookus bandit

Georgia Girl said...

Ream, supposedly an expert in the trauma faced by real rape victims, suggested that Mangum’s behavior was typical of real victims ...

“That the accuser (Magnum) gave conflicting statements to the police is not unusual. A victim’s statements, particularly in the wake of a traumatic attack, can be confused and inconsistent. Memory is resolutely imperfect over time and under the duress of repeated questioning.”

NOT SO! A "real" victim's account of events NEVER changes. By that I mean that although additional memories can surface, memories already revealed do NOT change.

Georgia Girl said...

If Ream is an "expert" in rape trauma, I'll kiss my grits

Anonymous said...

As to DiBona, I found his letter to be terrible, too. Basically more of the saint-or-slut line so popular with the G88. (Since the players did not act like "Boy Scouts" then, they can't be "heroes" now). But he said something else in his letter that I have not heard many or any of the G88 say: That in the players' capacity to err, they are "like the rest of us." Hmm. the beginning of a new direction?

Ken Duke

Bob H. said...

Interesting point - use of the term cyber-naut is a code word, indicating the user is a "troll", whatever that means. And Polansky takes an interesting tack: attacking those he dislikes, or with whom he disagrees by making homophobic comments. Nice! See? You all do have a nice little cabal going here.

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

Georgia Girl, esad.

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

So let me see if I have this right. A troll is someone who steers a post off topic, may attempt to undermine the collective position of the regulars, often making pointed, critical comments to a particular individual(s), is generally seen as an interloper to the party. Gee, if that’s the worst name one can be called, if only for breaking up the chest pounding, justice seeking (sic), hang Nifong group think, where every one is quick to pronounce so and so should be sued, arrested, jailed, fired or worse, well…After all, how many can there really be here? A dozen or so? It is the same tone, the same strident, self righteous, condemning diatribe, from one anonymous after another. Have fun.

Anonymous said...

Bob H - You just about have it right. Although, troll is also code for anyone who disagrees with the group sing. The troll stuff is boring, but the last refuge of those without ideas.

Anonymous said...

Bob H--

Disabuse yourself of thoughts that "hang Nifong" is mere "groupthink".

It is a mandate among all who value justice.


Anonymous said...


Now you're making sense. What's your point? I thought the recent thread on Hardt, eg, was quite good. What's bothering you?

I'd like to see more discussion about giving less fertilizer to the Panties of the world. Should what Panties did to CDR be considered a sex crime?

I'd like to discuss why universities feel obligated to give very costly positions to unqualified minority academics.

Bob, life's not fair, and if you don't have the talent you shouldn't be given the "opportunity" to foist your BS on hard-working parents and their vulnerable children.

Bob, do you think AAAS programs nationwide are breeding grounds for antiwhite and anti-Asian bigotry?

There's plenty to discuss, Bob.


Anonymous said...

Awww, Bob, so sad that the mean internet posters are picking on Nifong and his enablers.

Seems like Nifong, and several others, deserve to be fired, sued, reviled, etc.

Perhaps you'll clarify your position or make a reasonable point?

Bob H. said...

Actually, Polnasky, or whoever you are under whatever iteration you choose to be at any particular point in time, I do find such topics as you cite interesting and stimulating subjects to discuss. And from the way in which you phrased your previous post, there may be some common ground. Unfortunately, your regular sniping and pot shots at various posters and characters in the Duke fiasco make it unlikely that civil discourse between you and I could last very long.

Anonymous said...


You must be mistaking me for another poster. The only person on this site I ridicule is Debrah, and it's all in good fun.


Mike said...

Dear Anonymous, et al:

Thanks for the kind comments about my earlier post. Here are just a few additional issues that might be helpful in better understanding how the police and prosecutors operate.

Each and every interview of the accuser should have been done by the police and only by the police, and in this general sequence: (1) The initial responders (patrol officers) speak with the victim enough to understand whether a crime has occurred and who was in any way involved. They document that with their original reports, which are always assigned a unique case number, such as 2007-198, which would indicate that this was the one hundred and eighty ninth case report number assigned in 2007, or quite early in the year in a busy agency. All supplement reports would bear the same case number for reference and filing purposes. (2) The investigator(s) assigned the case conduct an indepth interview of the accuser to expand and clarify matters and to discover any points the initial officers didn't have the time to do (patrol officers and investigators have very different and clearly deliniated functions). (3) Based on developments in the case, such as conflicting statements, new or surprising evidence, etc., the investigators reinterview the accuser as necessary to tie up any loose ends. Each and every new interview or development should be completely documented in a supplement to the original case report.

It is not rare, but it is not common for a prosecutor's office to hire their own investigators, which is a function provided by the police at no additional cost to the citizens. Where such investigators exist, it tends to be a function of prosecutorial arrogance or fundamental distrust of the police, which may or may not be based in legitimate concerns for their work product. In other words, investigators hired by prosecutors can be little more than useful tools in interagency political struggles. Needless to say, such struggles get in the way of the competent administration of justice.

Anonymous said...

"between you and I could last very long"

Well, no. Not with your misuse of the English language.

Anonymous said...

We have neither spell check or editors here. This is more like conversation than writing. Criticizm of english and spelling indicates a lack of ideas.

Anonymous said...

8:24 Agree


mac said...

You could be a troll in the
gay sense.
That is possible.
Tell us, Bob, what's your game?

Anonymous said...

I always made A's in grammar

Bob H. said...

Gee, mac, I would not expect a manual rape victim to resort to gay baiting. People who have had sexual violence perpetrated against them are a bit more sensitive to others, and any differences they may have. Your presumptuousness, and the derogatory way in which you raise the issues, points to your fraudulent persona.

mac said...

Bob calls me out, then runs and
hides. Then he whines about
being called a troll.

No, troll isn't accurate: pussilanimous is the right word.

mac said...

Who are you, Bob?

I'm way past worrying about being
believed. You can call me a fraud
with regard to the abuse if you want
to, but it only shows that you
are a coward who's hiding behind
his anonymity.

C'mon, Bob: who are YOU?

mac said...

A troll is someone who pops into
a conversation, doesn't know
anything about the subject, then
throws in his version of a shit-bomb.

A troll is "someone who intentionally
posts derogatory or otherwise
inflammatory messages about
sensitive topics in an established
online community such as an online
discussion forum to bait users
into responding." (Wikipedia)

Gee, Bob, sounds like you!

Anonymous said...

This post is the typical way Nifong's enablers argue their case--by trying to trash others and use ancillary topics as a way to "win" a point or two.
Sorry, Bob, you are an obvious accidental glob of mucous from Mikey and Cy's tear filled hankies.
That anyone could try to defend Mike Nifong makes you ready for public flogging.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of Nifong's extra assholes he left hanging around his house.

mac said...

Could be that Hardt is lurking
somewhere nearby?

Anonymous said...

I would like to ask about slander charges for Duke employees who continue to say things about the 3 Duke ex-defendands.
Joseph DiBona the Edudcation Professor. Did he slander them? Legally speaking.

Anonymous said...

Could be. Like most every member of the Faculty88, Bob has only a passing acquaintance with grammar.
Could be Houston Baker or the Thug Neal.
"just between you and I"

Anonymous said...

Bob used the phrase "you all", so he's or she's definitely Southern. Gotta be a Nifong enabler.
Where's Vicky P? Could be her.

mac said...

Bob has proven himself to be
"Nobody," not Odysseus, who
was brave and ingenious.

Could have worked for Odysseus
- (and he and his men would have
been all the better for it) -
but that was fable and this is...

Tell us, Bob: An African or European swallow?

Anonymous said...

Bob's "you all" could be troll talk. Guy's probably an alcoholic with a nice buzz going. Who knows? It might be Panties herself.


Gary Packwood said...

WINDBAG 12:57 said...


I think we agree on more than we disagree, but producing a real victim is one. Please name one real victim black victim of a white man raping a black woman.
Yes, I agree.

I was trying to examine the form of propaganda used by the professors that causes some of the Duke students to override what they learned growing up.

Apparently, if Duke professors can convince young students that white men do indeed sexually assault black women then the whole privilege white guilt agenda becomes a piece of cake for them.

Also, I suspect that the professors of statistics and probably economics are surreptitiously teaching students the truth about prevalence and incidents of rape in the United States and the G88 are not aware of their effort to get at the truth.

Anonymous said...

Re: "you all"

Only get worried when they start saying "you-ens" or "you-ens-es".
Then you've got some really deep Nifong enabling. :))

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 8:24 said...
...We have neither spell check or editors here. This is more like conversation than writing. Criticizm of english and spelling indicates a lack of ideas.
Thank You.

Bob H. said...

Describing a troll as one who “trashes others”, tosses in “s#!t bombs”, “"someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics” – you may not like what I have said, or how I say it, but nowhere have I used derogatory or vulgar language. Calling people “glob(s) of mucous” or “Nifong's extra assholes” is not at all becoming of those so-called higher minder posters who think that anyyone who doesn’t march to their tune is a Nifong enabler. You are all quite smugly smart and self assured when this happy band of posters enable each other to new heights of cyber bashing (how brave of you – anybody actually put your name to any of this prose and send it to a newspaper, or the Duke Board, or the Durham City Council ?) But when somebody poses a few uncomfortable questions, the venom flows, the insults, the nasty innuendo, gay bashing, and vulgarities – anything to get this person to leave us to our comfy little chat. You are more like what you claim to detest than you can tell.

Anonymous said...


That topic is one rarely discussed, but it's at the heart of the matter. Usually when you have such a serious legal case, all the factors surrounding the matter can be brought up publicly and discussed, but this is one that wasn't.

Sure, there are some beautiful black women just like there are beautiful woman all over the world, but it's just a fact that most men no matter what race are most often more sexually attracted to women of European descent. Hey, I didn't invent human nature!

I don't think there's any way even one of those 46 lacrosse players would have thought about having sex with those two women. Not remotely. Neither of them was attractive and most upper class white men wouldn't seek out black women anyway just for the heck of it for a party.

There's much beauty in women of color--brown, black, red, whatever, but the actual percentages of black women being really beautiful are slim. It's the same with East Indian women--from India. When you find a beautiful one she's gorgeous, but most of them are as ugly as a stump.

Anonymous said...


My, what a constructive post!

Anonymous said...

There's a whole host of posters here whose identities are well known and who write directly to newpapers, city leaders, Duke administration, etc....
You must be a new enabler who just showed up.
Hey, did Mikey ever write that new song he's been working on?
"On the road again......."

Anonymous said...

You gotta know that if you choose to come to a place like D-I-W to defend Mike Nifong, you're going to get ripped to pieces.
You see, we don't like grown men with the power of the state behind them lying and trying to put three innocent young men in prison.
We don't take kindly to such a person.

Bob H. said...

How can you know this to be true?

Bob H. said...


Please indicate where and how I have defended Mike Nifong? Cite the words in which I have actually defended the man, and his actions, and the actions of law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

Bob H,

Please write something to which I can respond. You've already made your point.


Anonymous said...

That you even vaguely opened the door to understanding Mike Nifong and then proceeded to criticize the people here for sharing distaste for such a person lends itself to a strange mixture of BS and trying to flesh out more Nifong excuses.
The man is a criminal!!! Ask AG Cooper. Ask the NC Bar Committee. If Durham, NC were not such a criminal-friendly place, Nifong would already be behind bars.
You came her to BS and start an argument and you got one. Post what you want and so will we.

mac said...

No, Bob, but you use sensitive
topics to "bait users into

I answered your question because
I suspected that you were too
constitutionally queasy to
respond with any real humanity,
and with any courage. Yup: I was

And I wasn't gay bashing - unless
you are gay. I was Bob-bashing,
because you are a gutless coward.

Since you demand that others reveal
themselves and their motives for
being here, same goes for you.
Who are you, Mr. anon?

Must be an 88. The ones with
tenure hide behind it like it
was a wall, and hurl scum.
Oh, Bob of the Hurled Scum!
Is that you? I thought you were

Hey Bob: which kind of swallow,
African or European?

Anonymous said...

Yeah! I bet he's Bob Ashley slinking into D-I-W.
Go away troll! You are part of the problem!

Anonymous said...

Anne Ream makes an important point that has been lost amid the noise surrounding Mr. Nifong's deplorable conduct of the Duke case. That point is -- there are no clean hands here. If I were the father of one of the falsely accused players, I would be relieved that my son was exonerated and gratified that Mr. Nifong's career has come to a just demise. But I would also be ashamed that my son had participated in such tawdry and nauseating conduct. The Duke Lacrosse players did not commit rape, and did not deserve the ordeal that Mr. Nifong wrongly foisted upon them. But surely we all can recognize that they did nothing to make their parents proud on that unfortunate night.

Anonymous said...

Who is this thinking person? And what are you doing here?

mac said...


Note to self:
Make sure to tell son to look
at the fine print when hiring


Maybe Dad was in WWII or Korea,
and spent some time with...
women who eased the stress
of war?

Maybe Dad went to Vietnam, and did
the same?

Maybe Dad went to Woodstock,
instead, blew his mind, had other
things blown, and didn't seem to
think that the party was anything
but a blip by comparison?

Maybe Anne Reams saw Animal House
one-too-many times, and thinks
it's a documentary? (Maybe Anne
Ream prefers Neidermayer?)

As to your point about the students
doing "nothing to make their parents
proud on that particular night,"

I'd guess that the way they acted,
falsely accused, libelled, treated
with contempt in the year + that followed?
The way they handled things would
make any parent proud.

Bet your kid wouldn't show the same