Thursday, August 30, 2007

Morning Session Highlights

Highlights of the morning session:

At times, the goal of Nifong attorney Jim Glover appeared to be to put everyone in the courtroom to sleep. "Wandering" is a charitable description of his questioning style. It didn't help that Brad Bannon knew the basic facts of the case so much better than Glover did.

In the most emotionally charged moment of the morning, Brad Bannon eviscerated Glover’s claim that the multiple male DNA found by Meehan was “not significantly exculpatory.”

Bannon responded, “That’s absolutely false.” He then paused before adding, “And you know it.”

A critical item from the Himan testimony: the officer offered much more clarity on the April 21 meeting between Nifong and Meehan than we previously have heard. Meehan told them, Himan remembered, that he had discovered DNA from four unidentified males.

This revelation would seem to have strongly damaged Glover’s other line of defense—that Nifong couldn’t have been expected to have remembered what Meehan told him, because he took no notes. Himan, it seems, had no trouble recalling this important fact.

There were at least two occasions in which Glover almost seemed to imply that Nifong never should have moved ahead with the case after the SBI returned its DNA findings, noting that the SBI lab showed that there was no semen evidence “to support this story that she told.”

Finally, Glover portrayed Nifong in such a way to provide a further reminder that this man never should have been a prosecutor:

Nifong, said Glover, “simply didn’t pay any attention(!)” to what was in the DNA Security report, since he had “developed a habit of not paying much attention to the details and specifics of what was in these reports.” Glover concluded, “What he did in this case was what he did in other cases.”

This statement was nothing short of astonishing.

140 comments:

Anonymous said...

"This statement was nothing short of astonishing."

Not really. It is simply how Nifong had behaved his entire career in Durham. He never had a client, or a boss that would have held him to better or fired him. Welcome to the career prosecutor from Podunk.

Newport

Debrah said...

They are doing replays now on Court TV; however, the best live coverage is on channel 256.

Anonymous said...

It's not really astonishing--it's the only story he could come up with that can even attempt to explain what happened. The truth obviously wasn't going to keep him out of more trouble.

Debrah said...

Some fellow attorneys analyzing the case on Court TV are saying that they think Nifong has some psychological problems.

Even a black prosecutor with a long beard--the tip of which is dyed red--???--(certainly no rightwing guy)--said that Nifong should definitely go to jail.

Another attorney who got his degree from Duke said that he's ashamed of his alma mater over this.

It's pretty much accepted that Nifong is insane.

Anonymous said...

LOL! And Nifong's is paying for this defense?

Anonymous said...

So why are they afraid to say exactly how many different men contributed to Crystal's bank?

Why is there such an aura of protection around her? Could her children be related to someone important in Durham?

Debrah said...

Ooops!

The objectivity couldn't last for long.

The same black prosecutor is now talking about the black female "victim" in the lacrosse case.....

...blah...blah...blah.

Talk about insanity!

Steven Horwitz said...

It would be a shame if the lesson from this whole fiasco is "Nifong was nuts" (even though he might be). As people like Bill Anderson have pointed out, prosecutorial abuse is fairly rampant the US judicial system, and Nifong was one of the few to get caught.

Getting the lesson away from the "personal" toward the "structural" is a really important piece of the story here. I hope the talking heads can get there.

Gary Packwood said...

Glover concluded, “What he did in this case was what he did in other cases.”
::
How many people are sitting in state prison today in North Carolina because Nifong "did what he did in other cases" and should we expect those prisoners to seek a new trial?

As for those Durmites who have already served their time, does Nifong have a guard posted 24/7 at his home?
::
GP

Michael said...

He may have a personality disorder but he doesn't appear to be insane to me.

Thanks for going through the trouble of live-blogging this. Doing all of the travel on your own dime has to be expensive and time-consuming.

Anonymous said...

Why only 30 days in jail and a $500 fine if he is found guilty of criminal contempt?

rrhamilton said...

Steven Horwitz said...
It would be a shame if the lesson from this whole fiasco is "Nifong was nuts" (even though he might be). As people like Bill Anderson have pointed out, prosecutorial abuse is fairly rampant the US judicial system, and Nifong was one of the few to get caught.

Getting the lesson away from the "personal" toward the "structural" is a really important piece of the story here. I hope the talking heads can get there.

8/30/07 2:17 PM


It would be a shame if the diversity-racists can shift the focus of this case to a tale of "widespread prosecutorial abuses".

This case happened for one reason: The lying "meta-narrative" that claimed that -- as some point in the mysterious mists of the past -- there was a time when white men commonly raped black women. The lying blood libel against white men was the gasoline that fueled Nifong's prosecution and for so many -- smart and dumb -- people to believe that "something happened".

We will avoid future Tawana and Crystal hoaxes if we can teach ourselves and then younger generations that at all times in American history -- now, during Jim Crow, or during slavery -- the incidence of white-on-black rape was always extremely rare and was always less than the incidence of black-on-white rape.

Anonymous said...

KC, great job as usual. We can only hope that a small amount of justice is done. Whether or not Mr. Nifong may be have some kind of personality disorder, but it doesn't matter. The NC system let him practice for a long time, he should have been stopped along time ago if that is the case. Since he was beleived to be competent enough to start this fiasco and had the help of the corrupt police department and judicial department to keep going, whatever small win this session garners is better than nothing. Personally, I would have liked to see him serve the amount of time he was going for with the three guys. That would have been justice.

Debrah said...

The judge looks like Wilford Brumley....(sp.?)

Debrah said...

Ms. Jean isn't exactly riveting.

Kind of reminds me of Nancy Grace in appearance.

no justice, no peace said...

Steven Horwitz, inre: "...prosecutorial abuse is fairly rampant the US judicial system, and Nifong was one of the few to get caught."

Would you characterize prosecutorial abuse more or less rampant than intellectual abuse within the AAAs and Women's Studies programs?

Anonymous said...

Is KC sitting in front of the camera on the WRAL feed?

Anonymous said...

Non probabtive and preliminary...
Not true and you know it Mikey.

Anonymous said...

no justic, no peace. what is your point? Intellectual differences aren't even in the same time zone as legal abuse. The consequences of a classroom idealogy dispute is a grade or dropped course.
The consequences of a prosecutor aggressively pursuing false accusations is prison time or death row. Instead of always looking at the narrative, look at the facts.

inman said...

The fact that Nifong memorialized in his own writing the ghosts that now haunt him is so very apropos.

Contemporaneous documentary evidence.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "...The consequences of a classroom idealogy dispute is a grade or dropped course...."

Oh really? Or maybe a rogue DA attempting to placate race/gender/class warfare frauds at the expense of three innocent men in order to get elected...

Debrah said...

TO 3:00PM--

No, I don't know where he is.

I have asked for a vogue moment, but we all know his modesty.

:>)

Anonymous said...

Motion to dismiss -

DENIED!

Gary Packwood said...

no justice, no peace 2:54 said...
...Steven Horwitz, inre: "...prosecutorial abuse is fairly rampant the US judicial system, and Nifong was one of the few to get caught."
...Would you characterize prosecutorial abuse more or less rampant than intellectual abuse within the AAAs and Women's Studies programs?
::
It is difficult to compared prosecutorial abuse with intellectual abuse.

If you are intellectually incompetent because your field of study is bogus then abuse is not an option. There is nothing there to abuse.

You just can't polish a tur* no matter how hard you try.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Thanks for blogging on the hearing, KC!!!!

Here's hoping that the judge goes beyond the 30 days and gives him 60!!

duke2009mom

Anonymous said...

You honkies has nossin betah to dos dan to bash Mike Nifong?

Honkies be so's preediktible!

Anonymous said...

Well, one thing is for certain. A good lawer understands what Glover understands . . . a good defenxe is one that puts everyone to sleep. You know it . . . Mikey's only chance. (Oh, I know defense is mispelled, but don't you think defenxe is so cute.)

Steven Horwitz said...

Sorry folks, I ain't takin' the bait.

Lots of factors made *this* particular instance of prosecutorial abuse particularly bad and especially newsworthy, and therefore got him caught. My point was only that it's hardly the only such case and, independent of one's diagnosis of the problems of academia, such abuses continue and need to be addressed.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone noticed that customers viewing KC's book on Amazon might also be interested in:

Duke
www.collegegear.com . Your source for Duke merchandise

and

Obama for President
BarackObama.com . Join us!

Anonymous said...

In addition to this Blog it seems the best coverage and analysis, like past trials, hearings etc., can be found online at www.wral.com, simulcast.

As we've all learned throughout this ordeal, the MSM and Shout TV always have the worst coverage, news and or analysis.

gs said...

I love how they read the section of Nifong's letter to the bar saying "If I did something wrong the Judge would have charged me.".

The judge must love that one.

james conrad said...

lol, took the judge a whole 10 seconds to deny the motion to dismiss. i cant figure out why this man simply doesnt give it up and plead for mercy, the heeing and hawing is just gonna piss everyone off, judges and future juries alike

cathyf said...

Well, it seems that he's committed to the if-you-can't-outsmart-em-then-outdumb-em defense as I thought. Although it's not exactly a hard prediction -- what else could he use as a defense?

Debrah said...

Oh, no.

That obnoxious Meehan creep again.

inman said...

Am I hearing Meehan's voice quivering or is that just how he talks all the time?

Anonymous said...

WARL Live - I usually can view the simulcast, but it's not working. Anyone else having a problem???

Anonymous said...

I bope he gets years in jail for what he did and for exploiting the feelings of a certain population.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think that Meehan was in cohoots with Nifong?

Anonymous said...

thanks for updates on hearing and on tv commentators

Lewis Maskell said...

3.29 I'm also getting nothing but a black screen from the WRAL cast. Overloaded I guess.

inman said...

He gets pretty nervous. ... hmmmm ... Wonder if he thinks he has some exposure?

Perhaps he's worried that the victims would like to own a DNA company?

Anonymous said...

http://www.wral.com/news/video/1759161/

I'm watching it online.

Anonymous said...

I meant cahoots..
I wonder who much he got paid...
Glover is an embarrassing pain... I hope he works bona fidae

Anonymous said...

Debrah - Please let us know when Nifong takes the stand. I don't have the patience to listen to Meehan....

Anonymous said...

3:31 - I had been watching on courttv - tolerable coverage, but then it switched to Star Jones interviewing the DC Madam. Can't seem to escape the world's oldest profession today!

Bannon's testimony has been added to the archive.

3:29

Anonymous said...

Meehan sold the company, but works for the owners

Lewis Maskell said...

anon 3.32 - yep that's where I'm trying to watch it. But not working. A little irritating, so I am contenting myself with watching what I missed earlier.

Anonymous said...

Debrah wrote" Ms. Jean . . . Kind of reminds me of Nancy Grace in appearance."

complete insult to Ms. Jean!

Anonymous said...

Meehan just stated that most are not accostomed to DNA testing. So why would someone who is not used to DNA would be able to understand 1800 pages of information without a final report--unless you were trying to hide it in plain site.

Anonymous said...

I got it by clicking on Channel D in one of the little boxes along the bottom of the screen.

Anonymous said...

the defense: blah, blah, blah,

Anonymous said...

Meehan seems to be more direct in his answers than he has been in the past...

BDay

Anonymous said...

is he found guilty yet?

Anonymous said...

Is Nifong's fate going to be decided tonight?

miramar said...

It appears that we have gone beyond the "I'm not dishonest, just incompetent" line of defense Nifong used during the State Bar hearings. At this point, it seems to be "He's not dishonest, he's clueless, and always has been."

It must be karma, since this is the same Mike Nifong who once stated, “If I were one of those [defense] attorneys, I wouldn't really want to try a case against me either.” Now his only possible salvation is to insist that he was too dumb to understand what he was doing.

Anonymous said...

i dont know how i'll live tomorrow without this man going to jail no later than tonight.

Anonymous said...

Is this criminal going to the Chair or not?!??

curious monchichi said...

Hi All - I was wondering if anyone knew if the families were attending this trial?

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

miramar, GOOD catch on the “If I were one of those [defense] attorneys, I wouldn't really want to try a case against me either.”

Their only hope is to portray Mikey as the Forrest Gump of the legal trade.

If he went to a mind reader, would he get half price???

cmf

Anonymous said...

I don't get the reason behind all of this testamony from Meehan. I thought the point of this hearing was about Nifong not telling the defense about the DNA of the five men Magnum slept with and lying to the judge about when he knew that. These details do not seem relevant to that at all.

Anonymous said...

looks like the defense is going to claim that maybe the 4 DNAs were incomplete and did not match the 16, so of course it would not have been included in some kind of summary

Anonymous said...

I meant the 16 points they use. The defense stated "what if only 8 matched?"

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
http://www.wral.com/news/video/1759161/

I'm watching it online.

8/30/07 3:32 PM


Thanks for the heads-up.

RRH

Anonymous said...

I am sorry, but does anyone remember a time in this country when people were held accountable for their actions? Crystal Gail Mangum lied AGAIN (!) about rape charges and in doing so, ruined no less than four lives (and with near certainty, many more in family and friends), but Roy Cooper (elected Democrat) will not prosecute her because he needs the black vote to run for governor (to become a more powerful elected Democrat) .....
ERH, I meant to say because "she's not mentally well and might even believe some of the things she is saying. Yeah, that's the ticket..."

To borrow a phrase, "that's absolutely false (pause) and you know it!"

Now Nifong's (elected Democrat) apologists are saying that what he did was somehow excusable because he is bipolar, or has some other personality disorder.

Can you imagine the uproar if people who are persecuted by leftists and democrats used the same defense available to democrats and leftists with they get persecuted? If Dave Evans called a press conference and, instead of proclaiming his innocence and predicting the gutting of fantastic lies, said "Yes, something DID happen in there, but I have mental issues" would the left be this understanding?

I think we all know that question answers itself.

Anonymous said...

I thought they found 5 other men for sure and that was what was withheld purposely. They did not disclose all they knew when they knew it. It seems pretty clear.
Meehan is a worm. The court is sympathetic to Nifong. Finally getting to the meetings of this case. He's going to build a time line of responsibility for when things were known.

wfr said...

"An erratic witness at best."

Anonymous said...

Is it me, or is Nifong's attorney giving every criminal that he has ever put away perfect grounds for appeal? All an attorney would have to do is claim that Nifong never paid attention to the details and the specifics of the case, so how can the courts possibly uphold his client's conviction?

Anonymous said...

this lawyer is amazing! I thought they were not to ask a question if they did not know the answer! I have counted a bunch of times that Meehan has said no, or not completely, or that's not exactly correct.

Is he doing this pro bono?

Anonymous said...

It's becoming very boring.. just listening to Meehan.
What's the point?

Ralph Phelan said...

"“What he did in this case was what he did in other cases.”

This statement was nothing short of astonishing."

Gotta quibble with your language, KC.

I think the word you want is "appalling." After watching Durham all this time I find such a statement barely even startling, much less "astonishing."

And it's really the only thing the lawyer could say if his defense strategy is "Nifong didn't knowingly lie." That's also why he's pretty much conceding that the case should never have been prosecuted. The implicit claim is that if Nifong had been paying enough attention to notice the exculpatory evidence, he'd have handed it over and dropped the case. But since he was asleep the entire time he's not responsible for anything that happened. To have a crime you must have "mens rea", and to have "mens rea" you must have a "mens."

It's a rather desparate defense strategy, and inherently insulting to the defendant, but what else has Nifong got?

Anonymous said...

is Duke a state school?

Anonymous said...

The court system in NC so far has been less than stellar, there probably are people wrongly in prison right now. Both court TV analyst offered to go down and help!
They believe NIfong is fried, lets hope after all this boring discussion from this worm. I hope the guys go after him and his company next.

Anonymous said...

oh my gosh! Meehan just described pubic combing for debris! Yuk. From a woman who may only bathe once a month --dried semen.

Anonymous said...

To 4:25

When Duke hired Broadhead, they told him they wanted it to become the "Harvard of the South", he thought they said the "Howard of the South."

Anonymous said...

Oh GOD, not Meehan again -- this guy can only provide the opposite of evidence.

Fortunately, I think J. Smith knows exactly what Nifong did, apart from all this off-topic blathering by the defense, and that Smith will dispense justice as he sees it. I hope that it will include some prison time.

Anonymous said...

Ok, physical torture can now be outlawed, because listening to this testimony is so painful that I would gladly give away State secrets to make it stop =)

BDay

Ralph Phelan said...

Steven Horwitz said...
It would be a shame if the lesson from this whole fiasco is "Nifong was nuts"
...
Getting the lesson away from the "personal" toward the "structural" is a really important piece of the story here.


(1) Even if he was nuts, the fact that a sociopath practiced as a prosecutor for 30 years without anyone saying "boo" is still a "structural problem."

(2) Please apply the above insight to the Group of 88 and academia as a whole.

Anonymous said...

Even you folks that hate NPR might be interested in today's Diane Rehm show on prosecutorial misconduct. See

www.drshow.wamu.org.

She interviewed Barry Scheck among others.

NPR addict

Anonymous said...

You give J.Smith alot of respect, I hope he is deserving. I'm getting the feeling Nifong's lawyer is boring like a fox. Lots more objections flying now.

Ralph Phelan said...

"no justic, no peace. what is your point? Intellectual differences aren't even in the same time zone as legal abuse. The consequences of a classroom idealogy dispute is a grade or dropped course."

That used to be the case. This time, the consequences included increased intensity of legal abuse, and death threat from street thugs. All of a sudden intellectual malpractice has moved up in importance in my view.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
To 4:25

When Duke hired Broadhead, they told him they wanted it to become the "Harvard of the South", he thought they said the "Howard of the South."

8/30/07 4:32 PM


LOL, excellent

Ralph Phelan said...

" My point was only that it's hardly the only such case and, independent of one's diagnosis of the problems of academia, such abuses continue and need to be addressed. "

My point is that both are important, both continue and both need to be addressed, and they are similar in structure as both involve self-regulated professions (academia and the law) failing to regulate themselves well.

Anonymous said...

RRH 4.12
my pleasure

anon at 3.32

Anonymous said...

Meehan is a complete jerk, I really hope they go after him next. He is letting Nifong off the hook now.

Anonymous said...

Nifong is going to get off. Meehan just said no to the question did Nifong ask him to exclude any profiles in his report. That is the crux of the complaint.

rrhamilton said...

I don't know why this lawyer can't question his witness w/o leading questions. That said, I think, more than most who have expressed an opinion, this case is not a "slam-dunk".

The charge is that Nifong mislead the court as to what Meehan had told him (about the other DNA matches). All this Meehan testimony is to try to elicit all the statements made by Meehan to Nifong, for the purpose of determining what, if any, statement that was made to Nifong that Nifong could've/should've made known to the defense. This is a lot closer case than we would like to see.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Hamilton. Nifong is going to get off

Steven Horwitz said...

I'll treat academic abuse as equivalent to prosecutorial abuse when faculty have the power to lock people up for 30 years.

Bad ideas and wasted money are problems, but the barrel of a gun and the jailer's key are a whole different ball game.

(And yes, there are structural problems in academia.)

Anonymous said...

4:59 PM
"Meehan just said no to the question did Nifong ask him to exclude any profiles in his report. That is the crux of the complaint."

----

true enough, Meehan has given multiple statements, attempting to deny the plain meaning of what he said before Judge Smith, namely that in fact Meehan and Nifong "agreed" to omit [crucial, exculpatory] evidence from the report.

Nifong was (God help us!) the legal "expert" in that conversation, since Meehan was (in addition to being obfuscatory and brain-dead) a total newbie in this kind of court case. The omission was Nifong's decision and responsibility, far more than it was dumbass Meehan's.

All of this is clearly apparent from the context of the entire situation, and from from the totality of Meehan's wildly conflicting lies and meanderings.

It is true that someone looking to get Nifong off the hook can point to specific Meehan statements as exonerating. But, I hope that Smith is smarter, and more honest and responsibele and courageous than that, in his evaluation of the facts.

gs said...

For the contempt charge, it does not matter if Nifong told Meehan to leave the evidence out or not, only that Nifong knew about the evidence.

He is in contempt because he know about the evidence and told the court there was no other evidence and no other discussions about the evidence with Meehan.

Anonymous said...

That was my point Steve horwitz, nicely said.

Anonymous said...

Meehan @ Bar hearing was simply practice for Meehan & Nifong, and they knew it. It parameterized the contexts of law & ethics in this case. Today's results: Unethical, yes. Illegal, no.

Anonymous said...

Following up my my own (5:11) post, it is also clear that Nifong lied to Judge Smith, regardless of the extent to which Nifong controlled Meehan's report.

Nifong is guilty.

Duke1965 said...

Anonymous 4:59 said,

"Nifong is going to get off. Meehan just said no to the question did Nifong ask him to exclude any profiles in his report. That is the crux of the complaint."

The issue of whether asked Meehan to exclude any profiles in his report is NOT the crux of the case (this contempt hearing), and in fact has nothing to do with this hearing. Hamilton is right.... the only issue before the court is whether Nifong INTENTIONALLY (not negligently) lied to the court about what Meehan told him regarding finding DNA from individuals other than the reference samples. It's those specific statements by Nifong that are at issue here.

I do agree there's a fair chance Nifong will be found not guilty.... the standard here (beyond a reasonable doubt) is much higher than the standard at the bar hearing.

Anonymous said...

Thank you gs , not being an attorney do not understand the nuances. I hope you are right. It was totally disingenuious that Meehan or Nifong would care at all about the players privacy or futures. These two are no better than dirt.

Anonymous said...

I thought I understood these issues, but now I'm completely confused and will wait for Dr. Johnson's column.

But I always enjoy reading RRH's comments since he is a lawyer.

(3pm -- I found that the Explorer Browser works better, but if you move the window, the screen goes from black to active.)

AJ

Anonymous said...

Could it be that what Nifong said was ONLY include the 46 and if there are any matches. Hint, hint, DO NOT include any other DNA information.


Anyway that would prove that he was trying to keep the information away from the Duke lacrosse lawyers.

Anonymous said...

to the lawyers:

Would it be better for the City of Durham if Nifong lost? That way they could blame Nifong as the reason they went astray?

cp

Anonymous said...

AJ

"Dr. Johnson"?

That reminds me of something, that.

LIS

RODOLFO

KC, je t'aime--je'aime.

No justice, no peace said...

Inre: "...Even you folks that hate NPR..."

I don't hate NPR, but I do despise being forced to pay for it.

Where's she broadcasting from Qitmo?

Er ah, I meant to say thanks, I'll try to catch the broadcast later this evening.

Inre: Brodhead thought they said, "Howard of the South"...nice, very nice.

Does Howard have a Women's Studie program?

Anonymous said...

Steve,
The logic of your 5:08 post eludes me. While the 88 did not have the prosecutorial power that Nifong had, they were indeed a substantial contributing cause of the lynch mob mentality that resulted in an increased likelihood that the case would proceed to trial and the very real possibility of a rape conviction by a Durham jury (assuming that the defendants' certain motion for change of venue was denied). Moreover, if the case had, indeed proceeded to trial, I have no doubt that Nifong would have attemted to call certain of the 88 as witnesses for the prosecution (under strenuous objection by the defense). And I have no doubt that any such 88ers so called (if allowed) would have been more than happy to offer testimony against their own students. What would they have said? Forget the Listening Statement for a moment, how about the irrational, public rants of Chafe and Baker? Great fodder to stoke up a predominantly black jury. But for the Herculean efforts of a capable defense team, and the courage of public commentators like KC, the scenario I envision isn't a stretch. The defense team and the pro-lax player bloggers exposed the hoax and the falsity of the substance and context of the 88's smear job. The fact that the University quickly and quietly paid untold millions to settle the defendants' claims against the University speaks for itself as to the misconduct of the 88 and other University officials. Is this type of "academic abuse" really different in kind from Nifong's prosecutorial abuse? Perhaps after the resolution of all claims against the City and Nifong, we will have an objective measuring stick for comparison: the amount Duke paid to shield its faculty from litigation vs. the amount the City pays through settlement or judgment. Yes, I know that we don't know for sure what Duke paid, but even it was merely the defendants' legal bills (I suspect it was much higher) that would still be at least 3 million dollars. A "token" settlement? Hardly. Stay tuned!

One Spook said...

gs @ 5:11 writes:

"For the contempt charge, it does not matter if Nifong told Meehan to leave the evidence out or not, only that Nifong knew about the evidence.

He is in contempt because he know
[knew] about the evidence and told the court there was no other evidence and no other discussions about the evidence with Meehan."

YES! Thank you ... absolutely correct!

I was beginning to think that, apart from a few commenters, all we had was daytime TV watchers commenting.

One Spook

AMac said...

Steven Horwitz --

On prior threads, I've appreciated your insights on faculty governance and on the realities of academic politics. Posting under your own name makes your reflections more valuable.

You're one of a small number of academics that has publicly disapproved of the actions Group of 88. That the specifics of your opinion are not the same as 'most' DiW commenters is neither here nor there. More importantly, you've contributed to the dialog.

Intellectual diversity is to be preferred over groupthink.

> Getting the lesson away from the "personal" toward the "structural" is a really important piece of the story here.

Yep.

Anonymous said...

KC banned the smartest person on the blog, AMac. Debrah's silly rantings now seem to predominate.

I don't visit as much as I once did, but I hope the Fong gets sent to prison.

Trinity '74

Debrah said...

To 6:14PM--

Tom, stop drinking so much and you might develop a better attitude toward life.

You are one duplicitous clown. Like a gossipy matron.

Debrah said...

So "Trinity '74" is lamenting that an impersonator who tried to destroy this blog was banned.

And says that he was smart.

Yeah, that's why he got caught and was banned.

LOL!!!
LOL!!!

inman said...

4:15 just prompted a thought.

I've always thought that part of due process in connection with an alleged crime was the opportunity for a defendant to assert insanity or mental incompetence or whatever. After the arrest or indictment. The courts go to great length to address this issue in many cases. Although I'm not a lawyer, I'd bet there are stacks and shelves full of books and journal articles on the subject -- from a forensic, legal, psychological and psychiatric perspective.

So..yes...why is Mangum not being indicted for false arrest (and whatever else she is guilty of)???

Why is she being given a free ride? Isn't the Attorney general somewhat out of line by not indicting and the letting the court decide? This sounds like a conflict between the judiciary and the executive branch of NC government. Who in the judiciary has stood up to be counted?

Anonymous said...

to Trinity '74

I too liked this blog more a while back. I'm glad of some of KC's vetos, but I no longer visit or even add to the conversation. I see the sitemeter is gone.

Debrah's ranting turned a bit mean. Maybe meant to be funny, but wasn't even clever. (About Richard Jewel).

I enjoy KC a lot and even though I can't stand Scott Kauffman, it's easier to challenge in his blog(sometimes harshly), without some of the none sense that seems to over-represent most of the comments here lately. KC has defenders there too.

I hope KC comes my way to a book signing. I know it will be #1.

cp

inman said...

Steven @ 5:08....

The Inquisition was the equivalent of academic abuse under a cloak of theocracy. Learned people of the time tortured and abused under the guise of accepted wisdom.

A bad academic theory widely accepted as fact (for perhaps political reasons) is much more damaging than a 30 year prison sentence for any single person (or group of persons)--(however despicable one views the notion of imprisoning innocents people). For a bad theory can affect millions over a very long period of time.

For example, "global warming" and its consequences are theoretical and there are academic arguments on either side. But life on earth as we know it may very well hang in the balance. Academic scientists motivated by agendas unknown and unrecorded may very well be considered substantially more abusive than a single rogue prosecutor.

So, I beg to differ with you conclusion.

inman said...

Debrah,

I never sign my name as "Trinity '74" ... even when I'm inclined to post anonymously...I sign as "inman"...

... my way of asserting blog integrity.

Trinity '74 is someone else.

Anonymous said...

Sweet, little luscious Debbie,

Trinity 74 posts here occasionally.

I recognize the sig. Notice that no Duke Moms or Dads post anymore?

Debrah said...

To "inman" @ 7:07PM--

Then my guess is that it is Polanski.

He always liked to brag about himself using his Sybil characters.

No one else here has called him the "smartest" poster.

Apologies if you are for real.

Anonymous said...

Dukes Moms and Dads have much more SERIOUS things on their minds than the drivvle this blogsite sometimes sinks to.

Prof. Johnson does an admirable job of elucidating some issues and perspectives that are worthy of serious consideration.

But this site is going seriously downhill as far as commentators go.

Except for the attorneys who let us into their deliberations on the posts, and help to clarify issues and opinions, some others seem to be primarily concerned with idle chatter between themselves.

That actually has limited appeal.

Debrah said...

To 8:14PM--

Sorry to let the secret out....but the world doesn't revolve around just "Duke Moms and Dads".

If it did, we wouldn't have needed someone like KC Johnson to help bring justice along.

Get with the program. And stop dissing like an aging sorority sister.

Anonymous said...

RRHamilton --

"We will avoid future Tawana and Crystal hoaxes if we can teach ourselves and then younger generations that at all times in American history -- now, during Jim Crow, or during slavery -- the incidence of white-on-black rape was always extremely rare and was always less than the incidence of black-on-white rape."

Except that we have no convincing evidence for such a statement. The lacrosse players were 100% innocent of the charges against them, but their innocence does not transfer. I won't mince words; it was disgusting to watch racists declare that when the alleged victim is a black woman and the alleged rapist is a white man, guilt can easily be determined from no more than the races involved. It's no less disgusting to watch you declare that in the same circumstances, innocence can easily be determined from no more than the races involved.

Debrah said...

I want to issue a warning that Polanski is on the premises.

inman said...

rrh @ 8:29

I've listened to the arguments on both sides of the issue...that the incidence of white raping black is important or that guilt is not a function of race.

Here's my take. RRH ... if only 1 of 10,000 cases of rape involve a white perpretrator and black victim and if 9,999 of 10,000 involve a black perpretrator and a white victim ...

... the extent to which the next rape is a function of race is independent of history ... just as a coin toss -- heads or tails -- does not depend upon the previous toss.

Now, that's my hypothesis. And the consequence of that hypothesis is that each reported case of alleged rape must be evaluated on the basis of fact and not on the basis of historical bias or historical statistics or cultural predisposition.

With all due respect, the notion that race is a factor in determining innocence or guilt is simply not tenable.

Your comments indicating otherwise are becoming most hollow.

Anonymous said...

Deborah

There is no evidence that "Polanski is on the premises."

What is your beef with him, anyway?

I've been posting here long enough to recognize a "Polanski."

He stopped posting here when he was banned. That's obvious.

Debrah said...

TO 9:24PM--

You're being deliberately naive or stupid.

Polanski?

No one else would come to his defense.

LIS!

Anonymous said...

inman at 9.07

Of course every rape case has to be investigated by following evidence. However, detectives do make some assumptions as to who might me possible perps. If Precious had claimed 3 white 70 year males had raped her and made threatening slurs, they would certainly not taken her accusations very seriously.

It's that kind of PC mentality that has the airports in such a mess. I'm a very short, very tiny, older, white female, . Not on any terrorist profile. But I guess I was the 50th or whatever person to go thru a line, and I got the whole treatment. I was "searched" along with some poor guy in a wheelchair, that had tinkled in his pants. The poor man was was crying. But they could say "We are not biased, see we are searching EVERYBODY"

The eveidence is overwhelming that women that are murdered, are murdered by someone in their life--partner, husband, etc. That's were they always start. No reason why PDs cannot use stats as a starting point. I mean, really, when was the last time a "dancer" in Durham was raped at one of her performances? And if she lied once, why could they use that information to cast doubts? They had plenty of time to gather all that before going to the grand jury.

rrhamilton said...

Anonymous said...
RRHamilton --

"We will avoid future Tawana and Crystal hoaxes if we can teach ourselves and then younger generations that at all times in American history -- now, during Jim Crow, or during slavery -- the incidence of white-on-black rape was always extremely rare and was always less than the incidence of black-on-white rape."

Except that we have no convincing evidence for such a statement. The lacrosse players were 100% innocent of the charges against them, but their innocence does not transfer. I won't mince words; it was disgusting to watch racists declare that when the alleged victim is a black woman and the alleged rapist is a white man, guilt can easily be determined from no more than the races involved. It's no less disgusting to watch you declare that in the same circumstances, innocence can easily be determined from no more than the races involved.

8/30/07 8:29 PM


First, there is ample evidence of what I said. Google Diane M. Sommerville for starters. And take the Hamilton Challenge -- offered here several times, but never taken: Find the last time white men were convicted of gang-raping a black woman. Maybe you can find a more recent case than I have. (Note: FBI stats, which increasing obfuscate the real color of interracial crime, indicate that there are between 1,200 and 3,000 black-on-white gangrapes annually.)

Second, you have seriously mischaracterized my argument by saying it is that "innocence can easily be determined from no more than the races involved." More on that below in my reply to Inman.

inman said...
rrh @ 8:29
[actually 2:48 PM]

I've listened to the arguments on both sides of the issue...that the incidence of white raping black is important or that guilt is not a function of race.

Here's my take. RRH ... if only 1 of 10,000 cases of rape involve a white perpretrator and black victim and if 9,999 of 10,000 involve a black perpretrator and a white victim ...

... the extent to which the next rape is a function of race is independent of history ... just as a coin toss -- heads or tails -- does not depend upon the previous toss.


I'm not sure what you mean by "the extent to which the next rape is a function of race". But let me go out on a limb here and try to analogize your example: If 1 of 10,000 car-jackings is done by Amish women and 9,999 of 10,000 car-jackings are done by non-Amish men, then there is no reason to think that the next car-jacking wouldn't be done by an Amish woman? It's just a coin toss? Doesn't that sound silly?

I'm not saying that white men never rape black women, I'm saying that the lying metanarrative that postulates a history of "some point in the distant past when white men commonly raped black women with (at least near) impunity", is a blood libel that created "the steam" behind the false prosecution of the Laxers.

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

Inman

The point that Hamilton was making is that the DPD should have profiled the allegations.

1. fat, ugly whore thug with a smelly fish tale
2. upstanding citizens with solid alibis
3. stats that show that white-on-black gang rape is virtually nonexistent

The whore's entire story was ridiculous, and hamilton is correct to state the obvious.

M. Simon said...

no justice, no peace said...

Would you characterize prosecutorial abuse more or less rampant than intellectual abuse within the AAAs and Women's Studies programs?

Would you rather be abused by a prosecutor or by a member of the Angry Studies cabal?

gwallan said...

@inman 9:07 PM

You are absolutely correct that the statistical history has no bearing on future individual rapes.

It does, however, cast some doubt on the Anger Studies "narrative".

Anonymous said...

I don't know what other posters here think, but isn't it strange that a supposed historian refuses to delve into a lot of the most important aspects of the case?

1. Investigation of Cooper's reasons for refusing to prosecute the whore.
2. Investigation into who is financing the whore, and what the whore is up to (is she still sucking bamboo for a living?).
3. Whore enablers among the legislation--federal, etc.
4. Anti-lying-whore legislation?

In sum, what does a moral society do with its lying whores?

M. Simon said...

I do not believe Nifong cared about the player's privacy.

I think they knew who the "excess" DNA matched. Or at least one "important" person who it matched.

I believe there is a contract out on Nifong contingent on his silence.

Why do I believe this? Human nature.

M. Simon said...

In sum, what does a moral society do with its lying whores?

Give them a big bed and make them lie in it.

M. Simon said...

I have detected a number of posts here that appear to be in Mr. P's style.

I even came across a Jamil Hussein in the last day or so.

In any case - I think one of the secret motives in this case and the topic has come up off and on in the comments is that what we are seeing is only the surface of the action.

We could start with some obvious questions. Who are the fathers of CGM's children? And a host of other questions that follow from that. Like is she receiving child support from some one? Some one would have to follow he money.

A client list from the week before the LAX party might be unfortunate.

Didn't they screw up her cell phone so call records from it couldn't be received?

inman said...

9:39

On one level, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

But on another, I have to ask if relying on statistics doesn't lead one to the notion of "profiling"... (my tongue is firmly planted in cheek)

100% of the 9/11 attackers were islamic men, but we cannot assume that islamic men should be scrutinized as potential adversaries. Otherwise, we are profiling.

__________________________

My view....we should adopt a national policy of xenophobia and question everyone who does not have 100 year old bona fides. And if those new to this country are truly adherents to American ideals, then we can welcome them with open arms.

But if newcomers cannot assert allegience to what our nation holds dear .... affirmatively assert allegience ... then they should not be allowed the blessings of a liberty purchased with the blood of our forefathers.

I welcome all who hold dear the gift of liberty and freedom.

All others are my enemy.

Anonymous said...

Inman

I have not the slightest idea what you just wrote.

inman said...

RRH @ 10:09 states:

"I'm not sure what you mean by "the extent to which the next rape is a function of race". But let me go out on a limb here and try to analogize your example: If 1 of 10,000 car-jackings is done by Amish women and 9,999 of 10,000 car-jackings are done by non-Amish men, then there is no reason to think that the next car-jacking wouldn't be done by an Amish woman? It's just a coin toss? Doesn't that sound silly?

I'm not saying that white men never rape black women, I'm saying that the lying metanarrative that postulates a history of "some point in the distant past when white men commonly raped black women with (at least near) impunity", is a blood libel that created "the steam" behind the false prosecution of the Laxers."


Your analogy regarding the Amish is simply a diversion. Even if the statistics supported a non-Amish man, the facts would still need to be determined without reference to the man/woman and Amish/non-Amish distinction.

With that said, I do agree with your characterization of the metanarrative and the blood libel, for I have yet to hear a reasoned and fact-based account of the so-called White man's lust for black women's flesh. My sense is that there is only limited factual support for that assertion, that the limited support is often emotionally based, and that it is simply a convenient assertion for those espousing a black racist agenda.

I'd be delighted to hear unqualified evidence to the contrary.

inman said...

11:11

I'm not sure to what you reference.

Anonymous said...

Inman

You can't be sarcastic, and then serious. I don't know what your position is, so I can't riposte.

Anonymous said...

So, inman, do you mean

America, love it or leave it?


from 9.39

Anonymous said...

to inman 10.59- you said:

But on another, I have to ask if relying on statistics doesn't lead one to the notion of "profiling"... (my tongue is firmly planted in cheek)

100% of the 9/11 attackers were islamic men, but we cannot assume that islamic men should be scrutinized as potential adversaries. Otherwise, we are profiling.
:::::

I'm not sure why profiling needs to get a bad rap. It can be, but let's look at Isreal. They are the masters at profiling at the airport and it has been 100% safe--say what you like.

They profile in the prisons. I visited Lompoc Federal prison in CA years ago as part of an academic project. The prison was divided into high and minimum security. Guess where they put white collar felons?

The minimum side was about 80% white and the max side was 80% black. The minimum side did not wear uniforms (which scared me-what if we had a lock-down? How would you know the good guys?)
The max side wore uniforms--profiled as more likely to try to escape and have riots, etc.

9.39

Anonymous said...

to inman

Another myth about black getting harsher sentences, that was not the case at Lompoc.

The max side had muderers, robbers, aggravated assault, etc.

The minimum side had spies, drug lords, income tax evaders, embezzlers, etc. the sentences on the minimum side seemed to be about 10 years longer that the max side.

9.39

Ralph Phelan said...

anon 5:11 pm

"It is true that someone looking to get Nifong off the hook can point to specific Meehan statements as exonerating. But, I hope that Smith is smarter, and more honest and responsibele and courageous than that..."

Don't hold your breath. He's a North Carolina judge.

Ralph Phelan said...

steven horwitz said:
"I'll treat academic abuse as equivalent to prosecutorial abuse when faculty have the power to lock people up for 30 years."

A lot of Duke faculty were eager to do anything they could to help. That's playing rough. There must be consequences ... consequences other than the rewards they have so received from within academia.

If academia can't punish them then outsiders will have to, and we will be asking whether practices and institutions you hold dear are part of the problem. If holding people accountable for wrongdoing is compatible with tenure and academic self governance, start doing it already. If it's not, I'm going to consider holding people responsible the more important value.

inman said...

Anon@11:11 wrote:

"Inman

I have not the slightest idea what you just wrote."


I don't have the slightest idea what inman wrote either. Good grief ... that guy's thoughts can sure get random and sluggish. One of these days, they'll probably grind to halt.

Anonymous said...

Inman - Your need a breatherizer gadget attached to your computer with a pass/fail result.