Sunday, September 09, 2007

Sunday Roundup

The bizarre views of Group of 88 member Kathy Rudy have received national attention, thanks to the efforts of James Taranto’s opinionjournal blog. He first turned his attention to Rudy after this so-called “animal rights” activist could bring herself to describe Michael Vick as doing nothing beyond treating his dogs “very cruelly.” (Of course, Vick actually admitted to executing them in a barbaric fashion.) Rudy’s rationalization? Vick is black.

Here’s Taranto’s latest, from Friday:

Kathy Rudy, who studies women at Duke University, is turning out to provide a rich vein of material. Our item yesterday brought lots of interesting comments from readers. One called our attention to the Dec. 15, 2000, issue of Duke’s Faculty Forum newsletter, in which Rudy, who had just received the university’s $5,000 Alumni Teaching Award, describes the undergraduate class that “was most formative in my academic training.” It turns out to be one in which her teacher went AWOL:

"The setting was the mid-70’s, a small Catholic college in Upstate NY, and rather unwittingly I signed up for a class in something called “Organizing 101.” I was a pretty organized person and therefore thought that maybe I would get a good grade in the class. We started by reading the works of labor, political, and community organizers--people like Si Kahn, Saul Alinsky, Lenin, etc. . . .

"Almost half-way through the semester, the teacher just stopped coming to class. No explanations, no excuses . . . I remember as if it were yesterday the day that one of our classmates came up with the idea that maybe we should use the very techniques we had learned in the first weeks of class! We could organize ourselves, he suggested, and make demands that would get our needs met. Immediately, the class divided, about 2/3 thinking that this was a great way to give the teacher a taste of his own medicine, and 1/3 (the obedient Catholics) believing that we should just continue to show up and wait patiently. . . . Over the next few weeks, we talked the good Catholics into joining us, refused to bargain accept [sic] as a whole, demanded that all of us be given A’s, and asked for double course credit to compensate for the time and energy we spent dealing with this situation."

They got their A’s, though the credit was for only a single course. Her professors who did show up, though, must have been really bad if they were all outshone by the one who flew the coop.

Lots of readers, meanwhile, laughed at Rudy’s statement that “complexifying this equation to include race meant identifying ourselves as white oppressors.” Reader Eugene Dillenberg writes:

"I teach at a major Midwestern university where most students, and large sections of the faculty, generally laugh off the kind of racist/sexist nonsense Kathy Rudy spouts. We are preparing our students to take their places in the world, and we have little time for this kind of childishness.

"But one word caught me up short. “Complexifying”? This is a college-educated person? This is a college professor? My undergraduates know better than to make up words like this. If they try, they get their essay returned to them, with the offending text circled and the grade lowered accordingly.

"If someone knows this little about language, we must wonder what else she knows little about."

Paul Clark adds: “‘Complexifying’?!! Rudy isn’t an English professor, is she? In undergrad, I had an English professor who was not satisfied with the word ‘epiphany.’ He converted it to ‘epiphanic moment.’”

Brian McBrearty finds it hard to take Rudy seriously: "As a white male oppressor let me say that dominating women is easier when they sound like Foghorn Leghorn when trying to sound erudite. She was trying to be serious, but I could not stop my oppressive testosterone-fueled laughter long enough to read the end of her whiny complaint."

Christopher Scalia quips that “‘Complexifying’ is the new ‘strategery,’” and Gregory Taggert asks, “Complexifying? Is that the feminist version of complicating?”

Of course not.

Everyone knows that the actual word is “complexificationalizing.”

---------

It’s worth reviewing the remarkable N&O video of the procession to the detention facility by Mike Nifong and his entourage.

That the convicted ex-DA could feel comfortable being escorted to jail by those who still proclaimed his innocence suggested a man who remains convinced that he did nothing wrong.

Upon Nifong’s departure from jail, the entourage was present to greet him again. Former Nifong citizens’ committee co-chair Victoria Peterson summed up for the group: “We love you here in Durham. The people love you. We support you, and we still support you, and we feel that you are innocent.”

---------

The Chronicle reports that the Arts & Sciences faculty had its first meeting of the 2007-2008 academic year. The gathering had an Orwellian tinge.

[Dean George] McLendon, according to the paper, “advocated mutual trust and respect to rebuild positive relations between faculty, students and the Durham community.”

If a professor uses class time to announce the results of his “research”—that an “ejaculation had occurred” at 610 N. Buchanan (as occurred in March 2006 in one History class)—is such behavior conducive to fostering “mutual trust and respect”? Presumably not—yet such behavior never was addressed by the administration.

Continued the Chronicle,

Steve Nowicki, who was appointed as dean of undergraduate education in June, said he values the pluralism of ideas(!) and values within the Duke community and he plans to utilize them in defining his new position . . . Nowicki said the Duke administration cannot only look to other universities for new ideas because Duke needs to embrace the organic qualities of its own institution. “Diversity is a differential advantage [at Duke],” he said. “We need to celebrate differences while having common values.”

If professors publish op-eds accusing Duke students of “secret racism” for having the temerity to vote in Durham—as occurred last October—is such behavior reflective of a “need to celebrate differences while having common values”? Presumably not—yet such behavior never has been addressed by the administration.

The Brodhead administration has consciously chosen an ostrich-like policy—refusing to address the dubious behavior by fringe faculty in spring 2006. (From the same administration that appointed five committees to explore behavior related to the lacrosse team, this approach could be termed hypocritical.) Unfortunately, the policy of having swept such behavior under the rug renders ridiculous statements such as those of McLendon and Nowicki.

---------

“Spoiler Steve” Monks was back in the news last week, criticizing the City Council for appointing the Whichard Committee. “To go out front,” remarked he, “and say we’re going to have this investigation prior to resolving the civil matter was, in my opinion, potentially financially foolhardy.”

Of course, this is the same “Spoiler Steve” who did everything he could last fall to ensure that the DPD’s corruption would have a chance to send three innocent people to jail. Running as a write-in candidate for DA, Monks focused his campaign entirely on areas where Lewis Cheek was strong, with the obvious goal of splitting the anti-Nifong vote. The Monks effort also produced one of the most bizarre episodes of the campaign, when the Spoiler called a press conference to announce that polling data (which showed him receiving 2 percent of the vote in the N&O’s public poll) indicated that he was the only candidate who could defeat Mike Nifong.

During the campaign, Monks said his goal was to ensure justice for the three falsely accused players. But right after Election Day, he appeared to lose interest in the issue, avoiding any and all public commentary about the case.

Faced with the choice between “Spoiler Steve” and someone like incumbent Diane (“Something Happened”) Catotti, I’d be hard pressed not to favor Catotti. At least she was up-front in her efforts prop up the prosecution and then, after it collapsed, ensure that no one be held accountable for misconduct.

---------

This week’s hypocrisy award goes to sports columnist Mike Wise of the Washington Post, who, in a blog Q&A, recently opined,

I guess I don’t subscribe to the notion that I should bash someone for bashing’s sake. Too many people in my business are into yanking someone’s chain instead of having convictions about anything. Real fans and readers see through that. You can’t slam a person or team non-stop unless they really deserve to be smacked upside the head. If readers feel they already know your destination they won’t take the journey with you.

Yes, that’s the same Mike Wise who used the Duke men’s lacrosse team’s run to the championship game to repeatedlybash” them—even as this journalist didn’t even take the time to interview any of the players or their coach, who were nearby (Baltimore) for the lacrosse Final Four.

---------

The AP’s Aaron Beard had his latest nicely done article, examining the atmosphere surrounding Nifong’s one-day jail sentence. He obtained an especially perceptive quote from Jim Cooney, who noted, “I keep reflecting back to where we were a year ago when we were begging him to look at the truth and look at the facts, and he seemed committed to doing exactly what he pleased. He probably feels like he’s in a lake of fire right now. But if he does, he needs to come to the realization that he set that fire.”

---------

In the N&O, Matt Dees and Joe Neff had a comprehensive summary of the settlement talks. Beyond monetary damages, they note,

The settlement also would require the City Council to pass resolutions urging the state legislature to pass criminal justice reform laws, including mandatory videotaping of identification procedures, recording of grand jury proceedings and creating a state ombudsman position to review complaints against prosecutors and intervene as necessary. And the city would be required to form an independent commission to review residents’ complaints about police . . .

Lawyers who have followed the case closely say the city has three main areas of vulnerability:

* The April 4, 2006, photo-identification procedure, conducted in violation of city policies, that led to indictments in the case. Accuser Crystal Gail Mangum was shown only photos of 46 white Duke lacrosse players.

* Discrepancies between hand-written notes taken by police Investigator Benjamin Himan and typewritten notes submitted months later by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb. Gottlieb wrote in July 2006 that Mangum on March 16 had described three people that fit the characteristics of the three accused players. Himan’s notes, written the day of the March meeting with Mangum, offer three very different descriptions.

* A CrimeStoppers poster released by police shortly after the initial rape allegations. It said a woman “was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.”

---------

The folks at BlueNC, which describes itself as “a community-driven website that promotes progressive values and policies in North Carolina,” might want to take a look at the Dees/Neff article before again writing about the case. As it stands now, the blog’s approach to Durham matters suggests that we may soon be seeing a new organization, “Progressives for Police & Prosecutorial-Misconduct (PP&P).”

In a post that seethed with prejudice, one BlueNC blogger lamented the fate of Mike Nifong, who “has a symbolic 24 hours behind bars—more time that Scooter Libby will ever do for a crime for which Alberto Gonzales should be charged but won’t because Democratic Congressmen are not as vindictive as the parents of rich white jocks.” [So, because Scooter Libby’s sentence was commuted, Nifong should go unpunished for lying to the court?] The blogger complained about the prospects of a civil suit, fuming, “As a Durham citizen, I don’t want to see my taxes poured down a rathole for the actions of a now disbarred DA, which is after all a state office.” [BlueNC appears to be conveniently overlooking the actions of the DPD. By the way, I wonder for whom the Durham backers of BlueNC voted last November?]

Bloger PartieLion continued,

What has bothered me most about the Nifong case is how quickly the defense lawyers brought all of the power of the national media to bear on the case so that it never got sorted out by twelve folks from Durham. [Yes, it was the defense attorneys that “brought all the power of the national media to bear” on events in Durham. In a PP&P exclusive, it appears that Joe Cheshire was impersonating Mike Nifong in the DA’s 50-70 ethically improper statements.] Now it is the vindictiveness of the civil case and its derailing of an investigation that is striking me.

There is something more than Nifong’s action rotten with this case. And that is the determination of the parents not to have the merits of the case, whatever few there might have been, brought out either in a trial or in an investigation of the actions of the Durham Police. [So much, apparently, for the comprehensive investigation by the AG’s office and the State Bureau of Investigation.]

Could it be that the point is not to get justice but to ensure that rich white jocks at prestigious colleges get legal immunity?

So, the PP&P platform appears to be:

1.) Victims of prosecutorial misconduct should stay away from talented defense attorneys, or from filing motions that lay out the improper actions of the prosecutor.

2.) We need to repeal the legislation that allows victims of police or prosecutorial misconduct to sue in federal court, for violation of civil rights.

3.) As another BlueNC blogger noted, the case needed to go to trial, since, “Shouldn’t we wait until the frickin’ trial takes place before we take down the district attorney?”

Perhaps Wahneema Lubiano could be persuaded to serve as honorary president of the organization. And if PP&P activists were really lucky, they could persuade Houston Baker to return from Nashville to advise them. This is the man, after all, who on March 29, 2006 demanded the immediate expulsion from Duke of every member of the lacrosse team. This sort of approach would seem to fit right in line with the civil liberties philosophy of the “progressives” at BlueNC.

---------

Interim DA David Saacks got off to a highly unfortunate start. Asked to reflect on the lessons of the lacrosse case in his first day on the job, he incredibly asserted, “In some respects, couldn’t you even say the lacrosse case showed that our system works? They [the three defendants] never went to trial. The mistakes were pointed out early in the process and were corrected. But the system did work, even if in a roundabout way.”

If what we’ve witnessed over the past 18 months constituted the “system” working, imagine what a broken-down system in Durham would look like?

The unwillingness of otherwise intelligent people to state the obvious in this case never ceases to amaze. Such remarks only increase the need for an airtight civil suit settlement against Durham.

323 comments:

1 – 200 of 323   Newer›   Newest»
Debrah said...

The settlement also would require the City Council to pass resolutions urging the state legislature to pass criminal justice reform laws, including mandatory videotaping of identification procedures, recording of grand jury proceedings and creating a state ombudsman position to review complaints against prosecutors and intervene as necessary. And the city would be required to form an independent commission to review residents’ complaints about police . . .

YES!!!

Demand this before any settlement.

Anonymous said...

"Complexifying" is, in fact, a perfectly good word, at least to a mathematician. It involves taking a tensor product with the field of complex numbers (for example, to produce a complex vector space from a real vector space).

People like Rudy are the hermit crabs of the intellect, taking up residence in structures they didn't build, wrapping themselves in words they don't understand.

inman said...

I continue to be amazed at the comments of people who do not or can not get beyond the rapificationist concept. Black rapificationism and racistisilism are surely an underlyingist issueasification.

I for one, cannot condone the intensificationist hatredolgy that seems to be particulatedely spitoonedly spat upon the issue-endness.

So there.

Anonymous said...

with
Waheema, Houston(gone,but not forgotten), Kathy Ru, mc, BROADHEAD, et al ....
what other plagues can befall DUKE?

one can hope their presence will be elsewhere

one wonders how much DUKE will have to pay to make it so ....

Anonymous said...

Gov. Easley seems determined to make questionable appointments to the DA position. First, he appointed Nifong, then remained silent as Nifong framed the lacrosse players and abused the prosecutorial system. Now he has named Saacks, who promises to be another embarrassment to North Carolina. He's already off to a pathetic start with his disingenuous "mistakes were pointed out early in the process" statement. Saacks needs to be held accountable for signing the NTO order.

Anonymous said...

"As another BlueNC blogger noted, the case needed to go to trial, since, 'Shouldn’t we wait until the frickin’ trial takes place before we take down the district attorney?'”

Demonstrably innocent men SHOULD be forced to trial in order to PROVE their innocence and a VICTIM should have a fair trial. We are, after all, in Wonderland, which has its own rules - we don't need no stinkin' constitution!

Gary Packwood said...

If a new senior administrator at Duke has no job description and promises to use Duke's faculty pluralism of ideas to design his own job description then I will assume that Duke is just now leaving the Renaissance period of history three centuries ago and is now embracing the new pluralism IN ideas.

Modern day economists in China should be fearful of any DukeEngage efforts in South East China organized by Dean Steve Nowicki.

Perhaps this is why he is Dean of ...Undergraduate... Education.
::
GP

Debrah said...

This Sunday Roundup exemplifies why so many of us have relied on our Midnight Rider dah-ling for fast, clean, concise, and ultra-intellengence-to-the-max coverage of the issues at hand....for so long.

A poster from the previous thread mentioned the BlueNC blog...and KC has come up already with a comprehensive analysis of the place.

This is fascinating for me because I would first have to check out the place, read it....then sit back and decide on an aesthetic and emotional level how I want to describe the place....then I would proceed to obliterate it for its lunacy.....perhaps tomorrow. LIS!

KC has sliced and diced the place in moments.

Such Diva madness....inside the Wonderland gates!

Anonymous said...

you all are just upset that people are talking about how vindictive the lax players come off and that $30 million lawsuit is very controversial down here. Nifong is being seen as a martyr by many and the lawsuit against the city is seen as an anti Durham stance by many people here. many people also believe that the lax defense was trying to avoid a trial at all costs to avoid exposure of what their clients did and said that night. people here do not want the city to settle. many people have said "make these m-f's finally go to trial then and have to work to win the money". The amount of money asked was a pr mistake and riding down here with that Oj Simson lawyer was another big mistake!!

Debrah said...

TO 12:53AM--

Sorry if this sounds cruel.......but you are a blooming idiot.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:53 said:


many people have said "make these m-f's finally go to trial then and have to work to win the money".


Great. I can't wait for the trial. It will be so entertaining. I am glad that people in Durham think so too.

Ohhh, man, this is going to be good.

Pssst, nobody tell them that it will be in a Federal court. I wouldn't want them to spoil my fun.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 12:23 writes:

many people also believe that the lax defense was trying to avoid a trial at all costs to avoid exposure of what their clients did and said that night.

I am going to assume you're new to this Blog because no one who has ever read these postings and comments could possibly be as clueless as your comments demonstrate.

The defense exposed EVERYTHING their clients did (NOTHING illegal) and said (NOTHING illegal) that night to demonstrate that these young men should not have been indicited IN THE FIRST PLACE, let alone gone to trial.

Despite your obvious ignorance of the American system of justice, do us a favor and consider the fact that if you had committed NO CRIME that you should therefore be indicited and have to prove that you committed no crime.

The NC AG did an investigation as the Durham prosecutor should have done and concluded that there was NO EVIDENCE of the crime that had been alleged. NONE.

If that is the finding, then under our system of justice, no indictment and no trial is necessary.

That should have been the finding of the Durham DA, but for the many reasons carefully outlined in this Blog over some 18 months now, it was not.

It was not because the Durham DA broke the law, and for that reason he was disbarred, and because he lied to the Court, he was jailed.

What part of "wrongfully accused" do you not understand?

One Spook

Debrah said...

Regarding the odious comments by the ozone sniffer Kathy Rudy, I'd say this woman needs to be focusing her attention on self-help.

With a mug like this: Rudy-does-the-Vick-pound, and a brain to match, I'd say.......charity should begin at home.

One Spook said...

Here are the first thoughts of a very young reviewer of UPI ...

A Critical Review of "Until Proven Innocent"

One Spook

Anonymous said...

To 12:53

This is not a PR issue. We already know what the prevailing public opinion is in Durham ( my former home town). And the big "high powered lawyers" are there to do what lawyers are supposed to do... see to the best interest of their clients, who in this situation happen to have been the VICTIMS.

If there had been ANY moral, law-respecting public officials in Durham who had spoken up in defense of truth and justice, the city might not be in the current situation.

But none apparently did.

So... on with the TRIAL!!!! YES, let's see how these folks feel when the shoe is on their foot. The "accused", but WITH evidence... lots of evidence.

May the Best Lawyers win.

Welcome to town, guys. Choose yourself some real estate, for a good price. If you hold it long enough, it just might become worth something.

BTW, the INNOCENT 3 probably are not staying awake nights and worrying about their lost popularity in your fair city.

It's not about the "feelings" of Durham. Or Nifong's perceived "martyrdom" ( Boy, is that guy some narcissistic nut-case or what!) It doesn't take much to know that there is no such thing as bad publicity as far as Nifong is concerned. He probably believes that after he serves his (LONGER) prison term, he will ride back into town in a parade and be crowned king on the steps of the courthouse.

He was worried about his pension plan. No need to worry, Mike, when those big city lawyers finish with you, you won't have to worry about food, clothing, or shelter for quite awhile.

By the way, I think it absolutely STINKS how he dragged his son alongside him. But then, that's supposed to reinforce the martyr image, right?

Anonymous said...

1.what part of whitewash do you not understand? Cooper did not even investigate the case again; he did not even re-interview the only independent witness who saw the strippers enter the house( Bissey). His report was sketchy and was a farce as was his decision not to prosecute the stripper. Know why he didn't? because the defense wanted to avoid talking about the racist things their clients said and did to this girl and the girl was not as crazy as Cooper alleged. if she was, why was she not committed to a hospital? Can't answer that can you?!!

2.you are the one who does not understand the legal system. An AG CANNOT declare innocence; only a judge and/or jury can do that. All that an AG or a prosecutor can state is that there is not enough evidence to prosecute, period. whar Cooper did was tantamount to a judicial flim flam, IMO. because the Lax pr machine was working overtime, a lot of people forgot civics class and bought this innocence bs but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

3.the pr tide has turned now that Nifong has gone to jail and the greed of the Lax 3 has been revealed. their demands are the talk of the town and not in a good way. most of you all are not even from durham and have no idea what the people down here are saying. it is not wholly complimentary to the players. and bringing the Oj lawyer down here in a limo was a tactical mistake!

Anonymous said...

Oh and all this no evidence stuff is a crock. there was Dna under a fingernail that was a 98% non-exclusion of David Evans; a person pictured with the stripper as she was loaded into her car to leave in the infamous pictures so he did not leave early as the other two allege they did. Oh and the 98% was only revealed AFTER Cooper's statement. Wonder why? since you all are so dense, I will tell you why that little tidbit was not given to the press prior to exoneration. because a 98% probablity on a DNA sample under a fingernail is good forensic evidence and the guy had no alibi, that is why.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 1:49, still clueless about the US justice system, writes:

"most of you all are not even from durham and have no idea what the people down here are saying."

Sadly, we do know what some of the people down there are saying, but if they have an iota of brains they should be saying, in the now-immortal words of Mike Nifong, ... "we're fucked!"

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Correction: the lax players were"f---" until the defense came up with their pr campaign and "the lets get Nifong and smear the girl and defame the black community of Durham" gambit. IMO.

Debrah said...

(2:05 AM) feebly opines.....IMO

Opinions like yours are what keep a place like Durham a top contender for "best banana republic of the United States".

Your challenge now is that most people are fed up with subsidizing this evil and destructive squalor.

haskell said...

anonymous 12:53

Guys, please do not shoot the messenger. There is an important message here. And in the crowd of people carrying signs supporting Nifong. The True Believers are clearly out there. It is my belief that their mode of thought and approach to reality are totally different from those of us raised with rationality and logic. These folks grew up in a third world environment of me first, and the devil take the hindmost. Their leaders are con men. Don't try to argue with them, or reason with them, they are impervious to civil discourse. The huge problem is how to deal with them. I believe we should just write off this generation, and admit current policies have failed. If the G88 are the best products of the last 40 years of social experimentation, then we need to go into rrh's failure mode analysis. I believe our efforts should be focussed on early childhood development.

Consider the parable of the 3 year old boy I saw at JFK airport. "Mommy", he asked, "whey are all those airplanes lined up out there?" "Shut your mouth or I'm gonna slap you", she explained.

Anonymous said...

consider the parable of all the little white boys and girls I see with their mothers holding leashes on them.

Debrah said...

TO 2:33 AM--

Consider that when deluded mentally-ill-perpetual-victimhood-loving louses die.......

...someone in a red dress will always show up for the funeral.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

1. Taranto’s Best of Web Today is the one thing I read in the Journal every day. You can sign up to receive it by e-mail every day.

2. Sorry Professor Johnson, but Saaks has a point and saying it does not suggest he was a bad appointment. As Bill Anderson can tell you, from time to time prosecutors behave unethically. In this case NC in a little over a year brought ethics complaints, disbarred Nifong and removed him from office. Given how RARELY that a prosecutor is disciplined for unethical behavior, I would say the NC system worked better in this case than in most states and in the Federal system? You really can not stop all bad behavior so the test of how a system works is how well you are able to discover it and punish it. For one example, you do know that Ronnie Earl in Texas took the Delay matter to three grand juries in a couple of days to get an indictment and got one of his indictments for a law that had not yet been passed during the time of the alledged crime? And what exactly has happened to Earl?

3. As for BlueNC and their acolyte on this thread. No one really cares what is being said in Durham. We are not interested in gossip. As for facts, the Evans non-exlusion, it was known to not exclude 2% of the population including Evans at least 15 months ago, not after the AG announced his decision and alas unfortunately for you it was not UNDER the fingernail, etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

"you all are just upset that people are talking about how vindictive the lax players come off and that $30 million lawsuit is very controversial down here."

No, we're upset that there are so many willful fools in Durham who even now refuse to comprehend that what Nifong and the Durham police did to frame the lacrosse players was not okay to do because they were white. The Durhamite who complains about "how vindictive the lax players come off" is spiritual kin to that mother who stuck her baby's hands in boiling water, and when they sentenced her to jail time for child abuse, told the judge and the jury "You are so unfair."

Anonymous said...

Hey, 1:57. AS YOU KNOW if you have actually studied the facts of the case, the DNA that was a "98% non-exclusion of David Evans" was found on a fake fingernail that was found in the trashcan in the bathroom in David Evans' own house.

So, let's play a little game. I'm going to take a fake fingernail, and I'm going to toss it on top of the bathroom trash in YOUR house. And then we'll test the DNA that got on that fingernail. If none of that DNA is as close as a 98% non-exclusion, then I'll give you ten whole bucks! On the other hand, if it's a 98% non-exclusion or better, then we'll throw you in jail for 30 years. Hey, doesn't that sound like a good deal to you? Aren't you willing to risk 30 years of YOUR life based on such "good forensic evidence"?

Anonymous said...

the percentage was not known 15 months ago, what was known was that Evans had a partial DNA profile. The 98% part was revealed only AFTER the exoneration and you know it!

Anonymous said...

If the Dna was on a fingernail, the theory that it was contaiminated would make sense but it was UNDERNEATH the nail and that is why the cops were looking for scratches on the players,etc, bozo. Also, the fact that the fingernail happened to have the DNA of one of the players ID'ed is very coincidental; the stripper could not have had detailed info on which one of the young men lived there and also the only DNA evidence linking any of the 3 just happened to be from the one who was pictured in the infamous photos watching her being loaded into the car and leaving therefore had no alibi as he did not leave early. a lot was said about the others' alibis but nothing about Evans. Why? because their own evidence(photos) showed Mr. fantastic lies did not leave early, he was there to the bitter end. he also left his own bed in the middle of the night at 1 am and either fled the scene or else did not answer the door for police because....nothing happened(take your pick, both courses of action do not make sense if you have nothing to hide from law enforcement).

Anonymous said...

1:57

The 98% non exclusion DNA has been in the press for months -- leaked by the prosecution or PD to the H/S....back in April '06. And, it wasn't found UNDER a fingernail -- it was found on a swabbing done from the tops and bottoms of three fingernails that were pulled out of Dave Evan's bathroom trashcan. I guess you also believe that a three person, three orafice brutal gang rape would leave absolutely no DNA from the accused on or in the accuser and no DNA from the accuser in that bathroom?

Oh yeah -- it was a non-ejaculatory event.... except the false accuser said at least one of her attackers did ejaculate (more than one depending on which story you believe) -- in her mouth and she spit it on the floor. Yet no DNA (accuser or accused) found on the floor of the bathroom where she spit??

Durham deserves to be sued -- hopefully it will bring about some very necessary changes in this city and state.

I only hope they can find a way to assess a "stupid tax" on those Durham citizens that continue to believe that "something happened" at 610 N Buchanan that night -- other than a stupid party and a false accusation.

--an embarrassed Durham Citizen

Anonymous said...

12:37. Your insight into this sham of a case against three innocent people, proves the importance of any and all civil suits to come to Durham. You can write as much hatred and BS as you want about the claims of a the false accuser, Crystal Magnum, you can dispute the findings of Roy Cooper, Judge Smith, the NC judicial board who disbarred Mr. Nifong and anything else that has already transpired. It doesn't change the facts of this case. The yankee lawyers coming to town are doing you a favor, the suits will force needed reform to your legal system and help you in the end. Personally, I wouldn't bother, I would just go right to the federal system for all of the civil rights violated and get as much money as I can. The sky is the limit and you all should pay.

Anonymous said...

Um. you forgot the fact that Matt Zash had a fresh semen sample on the floor by the toilet and this was printed in the N and O. You are wrong, the fact that a partial dna profile existed was reported but there was a good deal of speculation about how close the partial profile was on all the main Lax blogs because the number of alleles or % was never stated. We did not find out it was a 98 % non exclusion until after the case was dropped. You are trying to re-write history but it is not working. Just to show you how close it was, on a standard Dna test, about 17 alleles are tested and a 98% non-exclusion means that the profile had 16/17 alleles matching and some bands on the 17th allele on the DNA gel positive as well. The only thing closer is the 100% non-exclusion which is a complete match. Oh and what is underneath a fingernail but the bottom of the nail.

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

One correction to my 4:03 post -- the 2% non exclusion was not reported in April. It was reported in DNASI's 5/12/06 report

"The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%. David Evans cannot be excluded as a contributor to the mixture profile."

The report went on to describe a less than 2% non-exclusion using YSTR testing.

This information was also made available with the defense DNA motion filed on 12/13/06....

Anonymous said...

3:35> Some of us are upset because the amount is too low. It seems this real, factual case against your city, where you are now going to have to pay up has finally got your attention. Of course folks are upset, your taxes are going to go up for a long time, and part of your city's financial sheet is going to have a column for the payments that will be made for maybe a pretty long time. When decency doesn't occur, as happened in this caes, monetary renumeration usually follows.
Glad to hear you all are talking at least, I was beginning to think there was no one left with a brain Durham. Mr.Nifong, the narcissist , doesn't deserve the support he is getting from the motley few.

Anonymous said...

4:25 You speak of Barry Scheck who also happens to be the co-founder of the Innocence Project. Most smart Durhamites are aware of this more recent employ. A project which, by the way, uses DNA evidence (such as the DNA found in the lax case) to free wrongfully convicted individuals.

Anonymous said...

4:15

Um you forgot -- Matt Zash wasn't indicted... and geez, how unusual would it be to find his DNA on his own bathroom floor??

And, take a look at the DNA motion made by the defense on 12/13 -- the stats are there and the DNASI report was available to the media well before 12/13.

UNDER A fingernail is much different than a swabbing from the top and bottom of three fingernails. UNDER A fingernail would imply a scratch -- this finding did not.

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

Did he or did he not represent OJ Simpson, one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in a long time and a perfect example of a rich person buying their way out of something. At least Scheck is consistent in who he represents; if the price is right he will be righ there for you. Please, give me a break. Scheck is just well paid lying scum like the rest of the defense team , IMO.

Anonymous said...

"Given how RARELY that a prosecutor is disciplined for unethical behavior"

Personally I'm not inclined to grade on a curve here.

Saacks is a sick, twisted TYPICAL Law Enforcement official.

Anonymous said...

the defense was controlling the media(specifically Joe Neff of the N and O, who printed anything the defense dictated) and they certainly did not want to publicise the 98% non-exclusion and you have been shown up that that fact was not published in april 2006 as you were saying before. Now you are mentioning Dec which is certainly not April. As to Zash, at one point the stripper said 4 men attacked her and isn't it funny that the semen was found on the exact side of the toilet she said it would be. like a lot of this stuff, is very coincidental.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: anon 3:46

the percentage was not known 15 months ago, what was known was that Evans had a partial DNA profile. The 98% part was revealed only AFTER the exoneration and you know it!

I assure you by June or July 2006, I was discussing the fact that a 2% non-exclusion meant that in Meehan's own very limited reference file there were several DNA profiles that could not be excluded from the fingernail sample.

And just to show you it was not post exoneration here is a link from a 14 December 2006 N&O article that contains the following paragraph:

Meehan also examined DNA taken from the nails found in the trash can. The tests excluded 98 percent of the population, but not Evans, a team captain who lived in the house.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story/521326-p2.html

So it turns out you are pretty foolish doesn't it? I could with enough search find an entire discussion of this during the summer of 2006.

Anonymous said...

Various posters:

pr, greed, vindictive, AG can't say innocent, 98% non-exclusionary, limousine lawyers and whatever all the rest of it is.

Let's assume, arguendo, you're right. Do you know what's going to happen?

The three rich, white plaintiffs are going to slap Durham to the ground. Then they are going to jam a $30 million settlement into them. And then they are going to break it off.

And there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

Got it?!?

Now you have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

4:53 - yeah she said 3 and she said 4 and she said 5 and she said none.. She said Kim was raped, she said Kim helped them rape her, she said all kinds of things. She told so many stories you can take bits and pieces of all of them and try to come up with a believable story but... you just can't do it cause nothin happened.

Do you believe for one minute that 3 or 4 or 5 (or 46) pretty smart guys are going to say -- sure take my DNA nothing happened. Then publically say they looked forward to the results of the DNA testing -- to exonerate them - if they had even touched her? Don't you think, if they'd even laid a hand on her they'd have waited for the results -- so they could claim consensual?

She said she was raped orally, vaginally and anally -- with no condoms for 30 minutes.

Don't you think its amazing (impossible really) that there were no bruises, no anal or vaginal injuries, none of their DNA on or in her (btw as Meehan's DNA proved -- it doesn't take ejaculation to get a cell or two of DNA). Then she doesn't even mention the rape to Kim or the PD at Kroger? She doesn't mention rape until she's about to be locked up at Durham Access.

Spin it twist it anyway you want -- if it looks like a lie and smells like a lie, it is a lie.

Dave didn't get out of bed to run from his house at 1am. The captains' statements given to PD on 3/16 pretty well explain how the party broke up... and where everyone went -- to avoid the police that Roberts told them she'd called as she drove away at 12:53....

Anonymous said...

that is not going to happen as the city is not going to settle. the nearest federal district is Raleigh( where a lot of people feel the same as in Durham) or Greensboro, where a good percentage do also. Also, to sue on the grounds of federal civil rights violation, you have to be able to show a pervasive pattern of such violations and they cannot do so. You can sue the bishop of boston for bastardy but you cannot always win. and to the person quoting about the non exclusion, you maintained it was known and publicised in april, which it was not, which is why you are quoting something you purport was in December. You will also not find one utterance from Cheshire saying it was anything but a partial match; you will not find anything from that defender of husband-poisoners stating that his client David Evans was a 98% nonexclusion as they were consciously hiding this little factoid from the public,IMO.

Anonymous said...

so David did not get out of his bed and leave? So you claim he was in the house and simply did not open the door to law enforcement, which is of course the thing for a good innocent citizen to do; not to aknowledge the presence of law enforcement! What a wonderful idea! I would suggest that to some of my poor friends in the ghetto and the barrio but I kind of think law enforcement would take a dim view of it if they declined to open the door. In fact, the PD would knock their doors down if they did not aknowledge them at the door because they are not rich lax players but I digress... The reports from both duke security and durham PD, which arrived within minutes of each other and reported a deserted house with only a keg left in the front room so apparently the party broke up with some haste. Elmo reported that they were all leaving en masse. Elmo also reported the strippers leaving in the wrong color of car than shown in the photo and reported a full yard at the exact same time the duke security and DPD reported an empty yard and house but I guess Cooper mentioned that in his report but....guess what, his little sketchy report of the facts did not mention any of these major discrepancies in an alibi witnesses report nor was Elmo re-interviewed. So much with how much research Cooper did; Bissey was also not re-interviewed. Yet, we are supposed to see Cooper at his photo op at 610 Buchanon, read the non report, hear his resaoning on not charging the false accuser and think everything is ok and that he did not just cut a deal with the defense to try to get rid of the case, IMO? Everyone is not that gullible here in NC.

M. Simon said...

I believe Rudy has been compactutated.

She should be redestinated.

Before lexifying further.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Inman your comments are so euroditelizing in their emoting complexificationalizingzietlick. It cracksmeup or as your favorite leaderuber might say it ubersminecracka. Ick liebeDuken furzizal . . . .

Anonymous said...

You were trying to claim that the 98% non-exclusion was hidden from the public until after the AG's office declared the boys INNOCENT. You were wrong -- so you change your debate. It wasn't hidden -- in fact it was put out there by the defense themselves.

I said that Dave didn't get out of bed -- cause at 1am Dave hadn't been to bed. Read the statement Dave gave on 3/16 (and the other two captains statements) he explained where he was and why the team left... really not hard to figure out that they were trying to avoid having their coach find out they'd had a party w/ strippers....

Both Elmo and Bissey provided written/signed affidavits -- if the SP's didn't interview them again (have you seen the SP's files?) -- perhaps their statements were believable.... Recall that Bissey came out initially saying he wished he'd called the cops -- and then his written statement (provided before he knew of the existence of pictures and the content of the captains' statments) completely supported what the lax captains reported and what the pictures showed. Gee--maybe somebody was telling the truth.

You're absolutely right, everyone is not that gullible here in NC -- some of us can follow the facts of the case, and figure out that there is no way a three person, three orafice rape in a small bathroom with 3 or 4 or 5 pretty large men -- couldn't have happened without some DNA or torn clothing or bruises or vaginal/anal injuries. So, you actually have to make a story up for Crystal -- after the fact -- to fit the inconsistencies that you can pick out. Unfortunately she was unable to do that -- after many attempts the last of which had her suspended in mid air while being raped (I guess that was to explain the lack of her DNA in the bathroom).

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

The definitive book has been published. Durham will be deconstructed and humiliated. The three young chaps will never have to work again. Poor Mangum, unable to comprehend current developments, is still waiting for those 3 white boys'attorneys to send her a check for a thousand dollars. Or a million dollars. Or even a skillion dollars. Whichever is more.

Anonymous said...

6:28 AM

You are obviously unfamiliar with the long neglected and only recently discovered theory of the Mayan floating penis. This and this fact is one of the many facts of the case which will show that in the bathroom while being suspended in mid-air the victim was sat upon (set upon, put upon, found out about the floating non-ejalautory in the lavatory big . . . er, small penis) in retrospect (annal obsfucation). . . oh, I can't go on with this . . . the young woman was in an embarassing situation and she did what young women in those situations do . . . it is always someone else's fault and she lied her ass off . . . for sure, for sure . . . then everyone else started lying . . . their asses off . . . it's a virus (all mis-spellings are purposeful).

Anonymous said...

Someone seems quite upset that the citizens of Durham will pay a price for Durham's corruption. The only real question that remains to be answered is how much.

I hope that the attorneys representing the young men get a copy of your protestations as further proof in assessing the damages that the young men are entitled to.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should play a round of "Guess the Troll".

M. Simon said...

You know $142 per Durham citizen for all the publicity the city has gotten over the last year and a half.

The kind of publicity that money can't buy.

haskell said...

haskell said, at 12:29:

"Consider the parable of the 3 year old boy I saw at JFK airport. "Mommy", he asked, "whey are all those airplanes lined up out there?" "Shut your mouth or I'm gonna slap you", she explained.

anonymous 2:33 said:

"Consider the parable of all the little white boys and girls I see with their mothers holding leashes on them."

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

bill anderson said...

As I have said before, these "progressives" should be overjoyed because now Durham can raise taxes. What "progressive" does not want higher taxes?

This was a "progressive" prosecution, and Durham was up to the task. That it turned out to be a Big Lie that Durhamites wanted to promote does not change the fact that had it not been for the "progressive" community in Durham and the Triangle, this case never would have gone anywhere.

So, to all you "progressives" in Durham, I say this: Pay those new taxes with pride. You earned them, and you ensured you would have to pay them.

And by all means, continue to wallow in your self-pity. Oh, poor Durham! It was not able to put the "non-angelic" rich kids on trial and throw them into prison. Oh, such victimization.

Yes, Durham. David, Reade, and Collin have twice victimized you. First, they were not guilty, which meant the system victimized you, since you KNEW they were guilty.

Second, they now are going to extract a few more dollars from you hides. Oh, the perils of the "progressive." Twice victimized by those greedy, rapacious capitalists. And all you wanted was just to dispense "justice" to all those evil capitalists. Instead, they come back and bite you again.

Oh, oh. Poor, poor Durham. Such noble intentions. Such poor, undeserving victims.

Anonymous said...

Is Saacks a Communist?

Anonymous said...

People often request, nay, demand, sources here. I wonder at which "major Midwestern university" Eugene Dillenberg teaches (I couldn't find his university affiliation on Google; this surprised me) and I'd love link to the studies that found that "most students, and large sections of the faculty genderally laugh off the kind of racist/sexist nonsense Kathy Rudy spouts." I say studies, because I assume there were two: the first about percentages of students and faculty at his "major Midwest university" laughing off a certain kinds of opinion and the second defining "racist/sexist nonsense."

Also, KC's defenders jump on those who post here who are not properly deferential to Johnson; for lacking civility in their comments to him. Does KC Johnson consistently treat the subjects of his blog with deference or even common courtesy? Maybe not.

In today's posting, Johnson refers to "Spoiler Steve" Monks. I checked the link provided, and since the comments were not highly complimentary, it appears that Johnson was being snarky. Why not simply "Steve Marks" or "Steve Marks, who ran for Durham City Council..."

BTW, KC Johnson's book has dropped to #59 on Amazon, if you still consider Amazon the bellweather of popularity. Any bets that it will continue to drop given that there was a burst of purchasing activity from those who wanted the book and presumably they have bought it?

Before everyone goes on the attack, I'm just noting this in the context of the recent glee when it reached 34 or 36 or whatever on Amazon...

Anonymous said...

Until this happened--the court case--I felt really sorry for the three LAX players. I thought they wanted to get on with their lives in relataive peace and quiet. I guess not.

I find it surprising that so many people who post here find it reasonable for Durham to be sued for so much money. Those young men did not go to prison. They finished/are finishing school. They have gotten a great deal of money.

I am now saving my sympathy for people who were actually falsely convicted of a crime and spent years, even decades, in prison. They usually aren't rich and white and can't afford top trial lawyers. I'd feel a great deal better if some of the money the LAX players want were going to them...

Anonymous said...

7:52

You must not be too good at using Google since I easily found that he's at Michigan State University and has his own web page including his campus mailing address. Maybe you can contact him about his study since you're so interested in it, but you're really not that curious about it, are you?

Jimmy said...

I live in Durham. I know what people say. I also get to look into the dead eyes of people with the intellect of a lizard who will proclaim to this day that something happened in there. The voters would elect Nifey to be their DA tomorrow if possible. Does this make it right? Were his actions correct or legal? He is the only person to spend any time in jail so far, and for all you brain dead neo-Puritans who claim that what the players did was just as bad, keep drinkin' the koolaide. Vote Obama. Keep your blinders on. Do not actually use logic or read anything that challenges your world view.

Anonymous said...

"dropped to #59 on Amazon"

Popularity waxs and wanes. It would be cool to see a kind of technical analysis of how Amazon popularity curves develop over time. Anyway it still seems pretty good for fact-intensive, legal case nonfiction.

This semester, and the next and the one after that will see this book used in college and university courses. I'll bet the book will present a real challenge to the deconstructors. Rich white male facts! Unclean! Unclean!

Anonymous said...

They are getting on but it wasn't what they thought it would be when they started at Duke. They now have to live for the rest of their lives with false accusations and defaming comments forever on the internet. They most likely will never set foot in North Carolina again for fear for their personal safety.
They have to live with being falsely accused and having some as expampled in the poster believing it all happened when it didn't.
Pursuing all avenues of renumeration is what they should be doing.
I have sympathy for them and their families.
It doesn't mean I don't for others unjustly in prison for crimes they did not commit.
Your taxes must be going up.

Anonymous said...

A college professor who doesn't know the difference between "except" and "accept," and who tries to use the word "complex" as a verb. Sad. But then, I guess she fits right in with a place that hires a "thugniggaintellectual" who doesn't know the difference between the words "fearful" and "fearsome."

That's some great education those Duke students are getting.

Celebrate diversity!

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts...

Is ANY Duke student worried about being subjected to the scorn of Durham residents? Not really, they kind of accept it as a given. The opinion of the average Durhamite is not a real concern to the average Duke Student...they assume they are hated based on racial and financial sterotypes.

It is not a real shocker that a party attended by 50 or so people would have a DNA type that is a PARTIAL match to 1 person in 50 92%). Doesn't anyone take statistics anymore?! Does anyone remember if this was an STR match (17 alleles) or a mitochondrial match, which is almost useless in this case?

Yes, Precious IS as crazy as she was made out to be.

ANYONE who had been subjected to what the LAX 3 went through with their own university and local law enforcemen would have NO problem securing a lawyer no matter what their socioeconomic status or skin color. It is called a contingency lawsuit.

Statements like "many" people support Liefong or believe the LAX-3 are greedy are suspect. How do you back this up? I did see the Mikey had as many as 15 supporters, counting blood relatives. As a percentage, I find it hard to believe that a large fraction of ANY population believe any of these statements.

While I might not have rushed out to hire an attorney in any way involved with the OJ trial, wasn't this a case trumpeted as a triumph of justice by the African American community at large? Pick a side, but you cannot have it both ways.

Yes, KC is often acerbic and can turn a sarcastic phrase well. It is part of what makes his work compelling and readable. It is also not surprising that many here do rush to his defense (hardly necessary, IMHO), as they have come to respect his opinion. This is a blog, for God's sake...what of it?

ES Duke 1990

Anonymous said...

To 8:20,

I think the plaintiffs do hope to get on with their lives but not before they make every effort to correct the problems with the Durham justice system so that other obviously innocent people do not suffer what they have. Had Durham gotten busy after the AG's declaration of innocence and addressed these things with candor perhaps the city would not be facing the potential losses it now faces. Instead, we seemed to have business as usual with many misguided folks rallying to Mr. Nifong's defense confidently continuing to twist facts and calling Mr. Cooper's exoneration of the players a "whitewash." Really, the lawsuit seems quite necessary. When the lawsuit is finished, Durham will have had its trial presumably and perhaps be better acquainted with the reality and travesty of what happened there.

Observer

NDLax84 said...

Such remarks only increase the need for an airtight civil suit settlement against Durham.

KC, are you here advocating an "airtight settlement," or did you mean that "For those at the top of Durham government, such remarks only increase the need for an airtight civil suit settlement against Durham"? Please tell us you meant the latter. Because you've been acting psychotically, lately. What the hell? Why?

Anonymous said...

ES Duke 1990--I was responding to comments by KCJ fans who get their knickers in a twist when someone responds with wit at KCJ's expense. That's all.

On a slightly different subject, I don't think large amounts of $ going to private persons--the LAX3--will do much to change Durham (or any place else, to be honest). And what they've gone through, while awful, IMHO pales in comparison to the experiences of the unjustly convicted--especially those who served on death row--who couldn't afford the big-time attorneys.

Anonymous said...

8:51--

Another way to look at it is that she's a head of the curve. Remember when "impact" was a noun? And the verb was "affect"?

Anonymous said...

8:27--

Thanks for the info. How did you find him? I am actually very good at using Google.

And, since I know plenty of people who teach there, I'm going to ask them about his assertion/s. Any bets that there are no studies? I am very interested.

Anonymous said...

It is surprising to me that Durham Nifong supporters are outraged at the possibility of $30 million being paid in damages to Duke players. I didn't think they had enough brain cells to understand what the $30 million is all about! They actually write that it will come out of Durham's budget (the Durhamites tax money) and it is the outcome of the Duke case. I didn't think they could draw these connections. Amazing.

Anonymous said...

PLEASE!



WILL SOMEONE IN SOME POSITION OF AUTHORUTY AT DUKE PLEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEEEE! BRING HIS/HER HEAD OUT OF THE SAND LONG ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS BEING BROUGHT DOWN...

NOT BY THE LACROSSE HOAX...

BUT BY THOSE WHO ARE BEING MADE TO LOOK LIKE FOOLS IN THEIR OBVIOUS AND UTTER INABILITY AND FAILURE TO LEAD???

IF THERE IS NOT A CHANGE OF COURSE AT THIS PLACE I LOVE, DUKE WILL BE RUINED.

BOB STEELE, I AM TALKING TO YOU!!!!

WHEN WILL YOU AND THE REST OF THE BOARD REALIZE THAT YOUR DUTY IS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND NOT TO THE HAPLESS ADMINISTRATION

AND NOT TO THE FACULTY MEMBERS WHO HAVE REVEALED THEMSELVES TO BE LUNATICS????


Sign me,
Just a Duke Parent who is paying the bills

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:15

Both points taken.

KC does has a rabid fan club (including me!) so a little of that is to be expected. As this is an informal setting, my take is that some informal behavior will ensue.

I also agree that there have been many miscarraiges of justice because of lack of resources for the poor. We will have to agree to disagree that a large settlement is both desrved as compensation for the damage and risk to freedom and as a punitive measure to start some reforms.

ES Duke 1990

Anonymous said...

Oh, yes...the trial in Federal court is going to be just wonderful. I hope Durham won't settle and there will be a nice, fat civil trial as well.

While we are at it, you who say that "....and the girl was not as crazy as Cooper alleged" -- if she is not crazy, then let's bring Ms. Dirty Pants to trial on her false accusations. She will have the opportunity tell the world "what happened."

Anonymous said...

re today's New York Post

There's an item on UPI in Sunday's NYP in the Page Six section. It cites the WSJ article written by Abigail Thernstrom (N.B. she's not that "conservative" either), and focuses on UPI's criticism of NYT's crappy reporting.

Anonymous said...

Dear 8:27,

As it turns out I am good at using Google, but KC Johnson isn't good at spelling. I did check Eugene Dillenberg (sic) at Michigan State, where he is an "Ast. Instructor" with an office in A & I Interdepartmental Programs. According to his somewhat dated webpage, he is/was also research associate in the Museum Studies Program.

I found no mention of the studies he presumably should be able to provide the reader with...or, one would think KC Johnson would ask for, given his desire for Facts, Facts, Facts, all the time!

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.32:

I'd urge you to re-read the post; I was quoting, verbatim, the opinionjournal blog. I confess that I do not normally check the spelling of every proper noun in every item from which I quote.

Anonymous said...

9:38

Hi KC Johnson, I don't have to reread it to know you spelled it incorrectly. Your issue what you check and don't check. I was interested in who the guy was & with which university he is associated because he made the overarching claim that you've quoted. I guess I would have thought a good researcher checked proper names (I'm not sure I would have cited an "Ast. Instructor" for such a global claim, but that's your call...), but then you spelled Horwitz wrong, too, didn't you?

Anonymous said...

9:47

The gentle fiber laxatives are on aisle 9 at CVS. Try some; you will feel ever so much better.

ES

inman said...

Reading this thread was quite an education for there are clearly people out there who adhere to the fundamental principal:

If the facts don't support ones point of view, ignore the facts.

Some people just don't want to see truth as being black and white.

(No double entendre intended.)

inman said...

Question: Is it now proper to refer to Nifong as an "ex-con"?

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.47:

If you want to assign yourself to the task of checking the spelling of every name that is included in bloc quotes from other sites or newspapers in the blog, please be my guest.

Anonymous said...

ES at 9:52, Why should I? I feel fine. I think it's hilarious that KCJ and his band of merry men and women can't stand it when anyone points out he made an error. He didn't check the spelling of someone's name he used in a blog post. NBD, right?

WRONG!!! KCJ has to post to explain how it's not his fault; he can't check every proper name. No? Why not? I'd think he'd want to be correct.

Then you come to his rescue with your snark about laxatives. Why that? Because someone noted Saint KC made an error?

You people are hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. I love it!!! Better than HBO any day. You make me LMAO.

Clarencedarrow said...

The suits will be settled out of court and for substantially less than the $30 million. However, Durham is getting just what it deserves. The fact that a sitting Durham judge is still supporting Nifong is scandalous. The corruption and rot within the infrastructure is enormous and it is readily apparent that a large block of the populace vote on the basis of their skin color, alone. This "Jackson/Sharpton" racism has to be exposed and destroyed otherwise we're going to wind up as another Zimbabwe. Victoria Peterson needs to be financially ruined and humiliated. I've come to the conclusion that the facts and lawsuits have to be forced down tthe throats of the racist/revisionists. The public needs to be reminded that the MSM - NYT etc. are not interested in the truth and facts, they have an agenda. The thing you have to ask yourselves , "Why are bigoted/undereducated journalists qualified to tell us how to live our lives?" I've read many articles in trash magazines such as Time and Newsweek written by "journalists" that are so selective in their presentations that the stories in essence are giant lies. In a recent article about Global Warming in Newsweek- the authors and editors even got their basic scientific facts wrong. They stated that plants contribute CO2 to the atmosphere but the amts weren't significant. Everyone knows that plants use CO2 in photosynthesis and one of the byproducts is O2. How can we let morons like this interpret information and tell us how to live? This might sound crazy but I feel that many in MSM are just flat evil. These liars need to be exposed and attacked (i.e. cancelling subscriptions etc.). Money talks especially to socialists.

Anonymous said...

KC, I will be glad to check if you'll lose the bow ties. I mean, you just can't admit any errors, can you? You're too important, right? Or names don't matter, right?

Or is the level of precision that much lower on your blog? I can't imagine that CUP editors would put up w/ a comment like that.

Anonymous said...

"Is it now proper to refer to Nifong as an "ex-con"?"

Yep.

Might be a real conversation starter.

Anonymous said...

10:13

From your intitial post it was obvious you were trolling for attention and that it was a mistake to give you any. Now ends that mistake; best wishes on getting a life.

Anonymous said...

Dear 8:47, No, my taxes aren't going up, but I don't live south of the Mason-Dixon Line, either.

If you were so concerned about these men's privacy, you'd be appalled that their faces are all over UPI. That's not important, is it?

If I'd been they, I would have kept myself out of the lime light once the case was initially settled. But that's a matter of opinion, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

10:18, Cutie pie, Baby doll, I know it's so tough for you when people disagree with you. Methinks you'd'a been happier in some place w/ less freedom of thought. Perhaps, Albania?

You're the troll. I suggest a face job.

Anonymous said...

10:18, you know, where they pull your head out!

When someone can't note that KCJ made a spelling error w/o being attacked, it doesn't speak well for him or his blog.

You would have been better off trying to explain how KC Johnson didn't misspell a name. You know, arguing a point, not attacking.

Anonymous said...

"Or is the level of precision that much lower on your blog"

How did that other guy find it? Are you having trouble keeping up?

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.15:

I've done more than 1000 posts on the blog, so please have at it. I admit that I have not checked the spelling of names quoted in the WSJ, NYT, N&O, Duke Chronicle, and Herald-Sun, nor from most reputable websites.

On the error point, quite to the contrary: when I have made errors I have admitted them, with apologies; when I have made minor errors of fact, I have generally done in-text corrections, with notification of modification by asterisk, following guidelines suggested for blogs by Jack Shafer of Slate.

As to CUP's style: I'd urge you to take a look at the footnotes for my Congress book. I fully admit that I did not check the spelling of people to whom members of the House or Senate corresponded when I did citations. I treated the original source as reputable.

Anonymous said...

10:34

I'm stunned you didn't check your notes any better than that.

And, no, I'll take a pass on your book.

When you are quoting someone in your post front & center who claims to be speaking for an entire group of people, in this case, Michigan State, I'm thinking I'd check the name and maybe verify the claim. But that would take time & might not help your crusade, right?

Anonymous said...

Debraaaaah?!?

Help!

There's been so many trolls this morning and they're like a really ugly red color (maroon) and they're being really mean (they're even saying mean things about bow ties). And they're using dyscognition beam cannons and it's just been AWFUL.

Hurry.

Anonymous said...

First 10:23--I assume the first person tried substituting "burg" for "berg." It didn't occur to me that KC Johnson mispeled proper names. So, shoot me.

Anonymous said...

1:49 a.m. says: " ...An AG CANNOT declare innocence..."

It looks like he did a pretty good job of just doing that! Further, if concerned citizens of Durham don't believe what he did was legal, I am sure they have recourse through their court system to go after him. Pray tell, what are your plans to do so?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NDLax84 said...

By all means, keep playing footsie with your goat taker and ignore my substantive question. After all you have exposed, are you now espousing the "need" for an "airtight" civil suit settlement against Durham? If so, why? One might have thought you'd favor full and complete disclosure and exposure of the corruption, and appropriate career ruination/ criminal consequences for the culpable.

Penny said...

How can we let morons like this interpret information and tell us how to live?

Most journalists aren't the brightest bulbs on the porch. Most of them have no core knowledge in science, economics, law, medicine, history, any relevant field from which they can filter facts and draw intelligent conclusions.

They are a self-designated caste of stylists, purveyors of the modern news product. The best journalists never had degrees in journalism or communications. I can't think of two more irrelvant degrees.

As far as ethics, they rank with used car salesmen and sub-prime lenders in the minds of many in the public. With the internet, they are finally getting the fact checking and feedback they so richly deserve.

It's so apparent in the coverage of the Duke case that the journo sheeple were keeping the agenda driven pc metanarrative intact.

Nancy Grace and her ilk with law degrees that participated in this travesty of justice deserve special vilification.

The only way to change this is to hit them in their wallets. We can cancel subscriptions and contact advertisers with our displeasure. It is happening now. A look at the NYT's stock over the past 5 years says a lot.

Anonymous said...

10:40. Wrong! I, at least, am bright pink!!!!! And I eat people like Debrah for breakfast and I like it. So, leave her under her rock.

Debrah said...

TO 10:23AM--

When visiting inside the gates of Wonderland.....or anywhere else.....always remove your shoes at the door.

The superfluous stench from what you've tracked inside is now contaminating the proceedings.

You don't seem, however, to be a real OCD type. The fact that you've spent such an inordinate amount of time on a missing vowel or a displaced consonant--(mistakes made by someone else and were only quoted for blog purposes)--reveals that you might be orgasmically deficient.

There must to someone out there who is willing to sport a blindfold and take you for a ride.

Anonymous said...

Guess the troll(s)? Probably one of the jerks from Talk Left.

Anonymous said...

Its always refreshing to see strong reasoned debate on a emotional topic:-)

For die hard Durham supporters, I would suggest they should not worry. Durham will have its day in court to prove its innocence. If no civil rights violations occurred, Durham will be exonerated. That seems fair since Durham has been quite satisfied with how the system worked.

For the lax supporters, I believe the one sided publicity has changed dramatically. Other than a few Nifong crazies outside the jailhouse, the lynch mob appears to have gone home to sleep off its hangover. The lawsuits will come, one after another. That is a foregone conclusion. Can Durham settle with all of them? Probably not.

In any case, I guess we will see what happens.

Ken
Dallas

Anonymous said...

4:47 AM
"At least Scheck is consistent in who he represents; if the price is right he will be righ there for you. Please, give me a break."
-------

Really? Please tell us the average assets of the defendants that Scheck represents in his "Innocence Project", and the average fee he earns in all of his many, many "Innocence Project" cases.

If you guessed "zero," you're pretty close. Liar.

It's the rare "OJ" payday that finances his many good, no-pay works, to which he has dedicated most of his career.

Now give us a break.

Anonymous said...

I am not persuaded that any civil action against Durham should be settled, monies aside. I am hesitant about a settlement that requires the city of Durham to correct procedural police/DA deficiencies, as identified by the settlors. I suspect it may be better in the long run for Durham and its taxpayers to pay a much bigger $ cost via a trial, giving them cause to evaluate present and future officeholders in a different light.

A settlement that requires City Council to vote this way or that on stipulated points does nothing to change the Council, nor the thrust of the electorate.

Tom

Gary Packwood said...

Are community leaders in Raleigh and Chapel Hill meeting behind the scenes to develop a plan to establish a republican leadership team to fix Durham before the Research Triangle sinks to the left of its center?
::
GP

Jake said...

This is the first time I've come to this blog after catching the op-ed piece in the Journal which was excellent. I look forward to reading the book.

I did a double-take at first because I couldn't believe there were posts in a comment thread six minutes past midnight on a Saturday. Then I read some of the posts. You guys need a hobby.

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

TO GP--

LOL!

The very neat and orderly progressives in Chapel Hill can't stand Durham. They, like most phony NIMBY Liberals, talk a good game publicly, but you'll never see any of them living near those downtrodden minorities they supposedly champion.

As we all know, the progressive Liberals and the ever-needy and ever-expectant minorities have had a self-serving and phony alliance for decades now.

Mere artifice.

Anonymous said...

In all seriosity, complexifying is a perfectly legitimated word.

Debrah said...

TO Jake @ 11:15AM--

We have a hobby--Wonderland.

And we shall bask inside its gates until the Midnight Rider has taken his leave toward Tel Aviv.

We all love being here and will die just missing it.

Most people with real lives do not have to pretend they still roll around in the throes of torrid love-making every night.

LOL!!!

Relax. Go natural.

Nothing to prove here except the fact that JUSTICE is on the mend.

Such Diva madness!

Michael said...

re: 8:20

[I find it surprising that so many people who post here find it reasonable for Durham to be sued for so much money. Those young men did not go to prison. They finished/are finishing school. They have gotten a great deal of money.]

Perhaps things are just so much more expensive in the Northeast. What value do you place on 18 months of your life? Or your reputation? The folks exonerated by the Innocense Project have not sued. Perhaps they can't. The Lacrosse players can sue and they should to place prosecutors, police departments and cities on notice that railroading innocents whether they are rich or poor is the wrong thing to do.

[I am now saving my sympathy for people who were actually falsely convicted of a crime and spent years, even decades, in prison. They usually aren't rich and white and can't afford top trial lawyers. I'd feel a great deal better if some of the money the LAX players want were going to them...]

From what I've read, the IP exonerees have been given compensation in some cases. It depends on state laws. I'd like the compensation to be uniform. I imagine the settlements require the exoneree to sign away rights to sue the prosecutor, city, police and state.

I'm in the camp that thinks that $30 million is way too low.

Debrah said...

To all disgruntled 88 urchins and their loyal amigos.......wake up and get happy!

Don't waste a sultry September Sunday by being blue.

Wake up sleepy heads and enjoy love merchant Rufus.

AMac said...

The Anonymous Durham Progressive or Progressives who has (have) been throwing things from Durham into the ether has made this thread into an instant classic.

He/she/them has (have) provided one small service in correcting a typo in KC Johnson's direct quote of Eugene Dillenberg [sic] by Jimmy Taranto.

Tarento blogged on 9/7/07 that:

Reader Eugene Dillenburg [sic] writes:

"I teach at a major Midwestern university where most students, and large sections of the faculty, generally laugh off the kind of racist/sexist nonsense Kathy Rudy spouts..."


Note that the WSJ blog editors have corrected the spelling of Dillenburg's name since Johnson's cut-ad-paste from the post.

Rarely has the First Rule of Holes been so sorely missed.

But please, ADP or ADPs, keep commenting--the snarkier the better. It so promotes your worthy something-happened worldview. Or whatever it is that you're peddling this morning.

Anonymous said...

Any decent negotiator will start by demanding (requesting) more than he thinks he can get.

The monetary part of these plaintiffs' demands is quite reasonable, although presumably not altogether inflexible.

As to the non-monetary demands: They must know that it will not sit well for a bunch of Yankee (not to say Jewish) lawyers to dictate local policy -- even if (as here) the lawyers are one hundred per cent correct, and even if (as here) it is in Durham's best interests to agree (not to say comply).

But in my opinion, it would be fair and sufficient if the City of Durham agrees to institute just one, crucial reform.

FIRE GOTTLIEB.

Fire him now. Fire him in disgrace. Fire him with a public statement of the reason, and make it impossible for him to ever again work in law enforcement.

no justice, no peace said...

To the protestor (in this blog) making the noise, thank you for not waiting and making yourself heard.

And this is what I'm thinking right now - Duke is't really reponding to this. Not really. And this, what has happened, is a disaster. This is an ACADEMIC disaster.

Brodhead, Moneta, Dean Sue, Alleva, Trask,and Burness should all be forced to resign, right after Steele resigns.

Surely other BOT members such as the Bass and Nasher families are horrified to forever have their names attached to this ongoing debacle.

Debrah said...

This steaming cauldron of bovine excrement was posted on a previous thread.

I have brought it here for the Sunday comedy strip.


Cash has a rash

Debrah said...

Today's H-S:

Nifong leaves jail after ending sentence

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
gronberg@heraldsun.com
Sep 8, 2007 : 9:31 pm ET

Former District Attorney Mike Nifong left the Durham County Jail early Saturday after serving all but two minutes of the 24-hour sentence he got for lying to a judge during the Duke lacrosse case.

Nifong stepped out of detention at 8:58 a.m. Saturday to the cheers of a 22-person crowd of supporters and questions from a group of reporters nearly as large.

He paused to thank Durham County Sheriff's Office deputies for what he termed "the respect with which I was treated and the respect which I was shown" during his stay in the jail.

The former DA's supporters then ushered him to the corner of South Mangum and East Pettigrew streets, where he climbed into the back of a waiting Volvo and left.

The 113-yard walk was more of a slow shuffle, as the pro-Nifong contingent huddled close around him and shouldered its way through the assembled journalists.

The group's leader, City Council candidate Victoria Peterson, shouted "no comment" whenever one of the reporters tried to ask Nifong a question.

Nifong interrupted her only once, to say it meant a lot to him that the group accompanied him on his way into the jail Friday morning and again on his way out on Saturday.

Peterson -- who was thrown out of Nifong's June disbarment hearing after accosting the mother of falsely accused and now-exonerated lacrosse player Collin Finnerty -- told reporters that Nifong "was only doing his job" and "was innocent" of the contempt-of-court charge that landed him in jail.

She also maintained that the former DA still had a large base of support.

"We love you here in Durham," she told Nifong. "The people love you."

But an unidentified passerby -- a middle-aged man in a white T-shirt who was walking in the opposite direction along Mangum Street -- begged to differ.

"They're hiring at McDonald's, Mike," he snapped to Nifong. "Get you a job. Thanks for costing us millions of dollars."

The man's comment was an allusion to the news that lawyers for Finnerty and the other falsely accused lacrosse players, David Evans and Reade Seligmann, have demanded a $30 million out-of-court settlement to head off a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the city.

The end of Nifong's jail stay on Saturday is not necessarily the end of his legal troubles, as he could be named as a defendant in the upcoming lawsuit and others.

He also could become one of the targets of a state-led criminal investigation into the handling of the lacrosse case.

State Attorney General Roy Cooper is pondering a request that he determine whether anyone who acted "under the color of law enforcement" should face prosecution for actions in the case.

The term would cover Nifong, members of the Durham Police Department who were involved in the case and perhaps others.

The request to Cooper came from Superior Court Judge Jim Hardin, who took over as interim DA following Nifong's disbarment. He stepped down on Friday, and before doing so, asked Cooper to weigh the matter.

Cooper's staff has refused to say whether Hardin specifically asked for help from the State Bureau of Investigation or the appointment of a special prosecutor. Both are things a district attorney can ask for under state law when it appears local authorities can't or shouldn't handle a criminal probe themselves.

The attorney general has yet to make a decision on Hardin's request.

But in April, while announcing that he'd dismissed charges against the players, Cooper called Nifong a "rogue prosecutor." He also said Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann were the innocent victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."

no justice, no peace said...

If it turns out the administration is guilty. I want them fired. But their removal will only bring resolution to this hoax and not the bigger problem. This is much bigger than them and throwing them out will not solve the the (sic) problem. I want the BOT to acknowledge what is going on and how bad it si.

And this is what I'm thinking right now - Duke is't really reponding to this. Not really. And this, what has happened, is a disaster. This is an ACADEMIC disaster.

I never noticed the "the the" typo in the Klan of 88 Listening Statement. I will go to my grave laughing about how illiterate the professional communicators and English professors are at Duke. They had to produce a clarifying statement...too damn funny.

Duke has moved into the lead in the race to the bottom.

Anonymous said...

"And what they've gone through, while awful, IMHO pales in comparison to the experiences of the unjustly convicted--especially those who served on death row--who couldn't afford the big-time attorneys."

True, but there are two kinds of damages. There are compensatory damages, which look at what was suffered by the person who was hurt by the wrongful behavior, and there are punitive damages, which look at how egregiously wrong the wrongful behavior was. If you look at the McDonald's coffee lawsuit (I mean the actual facts of the lawsuit, not the wildly distorted urban legend version) you'll see that the jury awarded the victim fairly little in compensatory damages (less than a mediator had previously recommended McDonald's settle for) and even the compensatory damages, the jury reduced by 20% because they regarded the plaintiff as bearing that much responsibility for the accident. The punitive damages were huge, however, because the plaintiffs were able to show in black and white that McDonald's knew that serving its coffee at the temperature it did would result in serious burn injuries, but had chosen to continue selling it at a temperature higher than the industry standard because they believed they'd sell more coffee that way.

So, yes, you can argue that the players were not as badly injured as if they had actually gone to jail. But if Durham doesn't settle, then a jury is going to be presented with the Durham police falsifying evidence and the Durham DA lying to the court about the evidence and the racist morons of Durham cheering them on -- and then that jury is going to be asked "How hard does Durham have to be punished in order to get the message 'You don't fucking DO this in America'?"

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

haskell said at 2:29 AM ...

If the G88 are the best products of the last 40 years of social experimentation, then we need to go into rrh's failure mode analysis.


Huh?

RRH.

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

12:11

Thanks for that explanation regarding the McDonalds coffee verdict. Even though I still don't agree with it, with the way you presented it it doesn't sound as ludicrous as I previously thought.

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

To 12:11...

I agree with your analysis. But wasn't there a recent supreme court ruling that capped punitive damages at something like a factor of 10 on compensatory?

Maybe my point does not matter. The book states that the families spent $5 million on legal fees, so based on the factor of 10 rule, they could have a damage finding of $30 million sustained.

Debrah said...

TO 12:14PM--

Let me explain it in terms that even you can understand.

Everyone is required to register at their website--giving them the impression that they have LOTS of readers..LOL!!!--in order to view anything,

Most people here don't want to do that, so I make it easy for them by pasting it.

It's not like the N&O which provides a format where mere linking is the order of the day.

kosher?

LOL!!!

The H-S should be paying us for highlighting their paper. Most of us wouldn't be if not for this case.

Debrah said...

TO 12:22PM--


Sweet.

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

11:46 AM

"But in my opinion, it would be fair and sufficient if the City of Durham agrees to institute just one, crucial reform.

FIRE GOTTLIEB."

I am afraid that's not a viable option for Durham at this point. The police department has indicated previously that nothing was done improperly. Firing Gottlieb at this point merely results in another lawsuit (Gottlieb versus the city). Do you believe Durham really wants Gottlieb to start talking publically about what went on?

Ken
Dallas

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

TO 12:27PM--

Say what?

Meow!

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

I am really pissed at 12:11. He/she has gone and put the issue in terms that even the maroons in Durham can understand.

What a pity. I was so looking forward to the trial.

Anonymous said...

Lesson: If you're going to criticize someone else for getting their facts wrong, it's in your own self-interest to make sure you're not the one whose facts are wrong.

Another lesson would be that the intellect of the average poster here is mediocre at best.

Anonymous said...

RE: Nifong's one day in Jail. The Judge did him no favor. Had Nifong had 30 days to contemplate the error of his ways, perhaps he would have emerged
as Hester Prynne instead of remaining Roger Chillingworth. (Broadhead continues his starring role of Arthur Dimmesdale, and yes I know I am assuming a conscience deep down there somewhere).
DAA

Jim in San Diego said...

To Michael

One way the justice system can be affected so poor people do not go to jail when they are innocent is to force changes by expensive civil judgments against officials who abuse their public office. It requires someone with resources to do this for the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Great to read the posts by anon 12:53. Are you one of the 20 pathetic losers that escorted Nifong to jail?

Let me simplify this case for you... Nifong, you, and all the Durhamites that still believe something happened that night are losers, in every imaginable way.
Your city has been exposed to the world for what it is.. a place where a bunch of hucksters can run the city with their own idea of justice. And that is clearly over. You can talk amongst yourselves all you want about how you don't like what's happening down there... but it's totally out of your control now. That's a good thing. And outside of your little cesspool world, nobody gives a damn or cares what you think anymore. Hopefully the good people of Durham (and there are many) will truly marginalize those of you committed to continueing on this destructive course, and build a better version of Durham, a place that's not a Wonderland but a place that's committed to the values most Americans believe in.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
12:11

Thanks for that explanation regarding the McDonalds coffee verdict. Even though I still don't agree with it, with the way you presented it it doesn't sound as ludicrous as I previously thought.

9/9/07 12:21 PM


This is something I've tried to explain to some of the defenders of academia -- and I'm specifically talking about our "other" resident academic, Prof. Steven Horwitz. He says that we non-academic types "just don't understand" because we are not in the profession. I've used the McDonald's case to say that while most laymen have a completely wrong impression of the case, any good lawyer can explain why McD was hammered financially in that case in less than two paragraphs.

Neither Prof. Horwitz nor any other academic who has come here has come close to explaining the complete non-response of their profession to the "tort" (from the Latin word for "twisted") committed by the Duke faculty.

Anonymous said...

1:00 -- please feel free not to read at any time.

bill anderson said...

Anonymous said...

the percentage was not known 15 months ago, what was known was that Evans had a partial DNA profile. The 98% part was revealed only AFTER the exoneration and you know it!
9/9/07 3:46 AM


Sorry, pal. That number was out there in May 2006. I guess you were too busy unfurling one of your "Castrate!" signs to be paying attention.

Actually, it does my heart good to see that the "progressives" of Durham continue to demonstrate that they are as stupid as I thought they were. By the way, a Durham jury will not be haring this case, should it go to trial; it will be held in federal court, most likely in Greensboro, which is a long way from Durham in distance AND mentality.

But in reading the stupid missives from one of Durham's progressives, I am reminded that it was good that Dave, Reade, and Collin did not have to face jurors from that city. Here are people who cannot figure out evidence when it is put up in front of them -- and they seem to believe that Harry Potter actually does real science.

So, Durham, drink to your future tax increases! You deserve them!

By the way, I thought for a second that Houston Baker was the author of those stupid posts, but then realized that not enough words were misspelled to have come from Baker's keyboard!

Anonymous said...

I just finished reading UPI and began reading K.C.'s "Round-up" only to find the denizens of the "bat cave" are still around.

Several thoughts for the day:
1) It is my belief that Nifong is has borderline personality disorder- narcissism- and couldn't possibly entertain the notion that his ways were in error. I think he believes himself to be "the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy." Too bad that Cy and Victoria keep enabling him instead of getting him on some meds.

2) The purpose of the lawsuit is not primarily financial, but rather to expose the corruption of the system in Durham.

3) Durham (as an entity) deserves whatever punitive damages it has to pay. Sorry, individual residents, but it's time to stand up and say that you won't take it any more.

4) Duke is like the "Emperor Who Had No Clothes" and is being exposed for all to see.

5) I'm buying multiple copies of UPI to give to friends and family- a trustee at Wellesley, a law student, a high school lacrosse coach, a high school college counselor, a prep-school headmaster, and the mother of a lacrosse player. Also, I'll request that my local library get a copy.

6) I was shocked and dismayed to read about the "larger issues" of feminist dogma, academic groupthink and legal malfeasance that Stuart and K. C. addressed toward the end of the book.

7) When academic mediocrity triumphs over scholarship, it is time to reevaluate how our tax dollars are spent in support of institutions, like Duke, that are unresponsive to their stated reason for existence. BTW, does anyone know how much federal money Duke receives annually?

TexasMom

Anonymous said...

12:11 and 12:22, re: punitive damages

I know of no legal authority, anywhere, for awarding punitive damages against a public entity. Forget about it.

I don't claim to know exactly what elements of damages are allowed in a federal, civil-rights case. I hope the plaintiffs are allowed full recovery for damage to their lives, emotions and future income, without limitation. But, no government entity will be liable for punies. Which, in this case, is a shame.

Michael said...

re: 1:13

Absolutely.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 1:30 writes:

Neither Prof. Horwitz nor any other academic who has come here has come close to explaining the complete non-response of their profession to the "tort" (from the Latin word for "twisted") committed by the Duke faculty.

BRAVO!!! Well-said!

I have the same concern with some academics, but you expressed it far, far better than I.

To me, this "non-response" of the academics is emblematic of what is wrong in the academy today.

I came to this Blog because I considered KC's effort to be a true "response" unlike many of his colleagues in the academy, and in particular at Duke, who remained silent and do to this day.

And I'm still waiting for some other academics to put forth a decent explanation of the tort committed by the Duke faculty.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

The ONLY way that Duke and Durham will learn is through PAIN.

This is not about money for the 3 men or their lawyers.

It is about finally throwing these freaks to the mat, pinning them down, and sitting on them till the count is over and the match is won and sanity has a fighting chance to be restored to the institutions that have been so damaged for so long.

Money loss is the ONLY PAIN these people understand.

In my mind, the money needs to be WAY over $30 million. Maybe that much per guy? But until it HURTS there will be no lesson.

And actually, there is no reassurance that they will admit their mistakes and sins even then. But they certainly won't forget the price they paid for their willful disregard for justice.

Go for it guys! Ask for everything you can get. Hopefully they will refuse, and you can got to trial after all, and this time it will be THEY who have to prove their innocence.

YES!!!!

PS: The spelling police can take a flying leap today. They would dissect a rose to analyze the chemistry. This blog is not a language course. This blog is for the participants to discuss ideas. I don't expect to get a prof's comment and a grade on this paper, and everybody's thoughts are welcome, even if a word is misspelled. If you try hard, or have a shred of sense, you can still understand the context.

Anonymous said...

most of you all are not even from durham and have no idea what the people down here are saying. it is not wholly complimentary to the players. and bringing the Oj lawyer down here in a limo was a tactical mistake!

9/9/07 1:49 AM


Scottsboro, anyone?

Regards,
Haywood Patterson

rrhamilton said...

The only road that will lead to real reforms in our lifetimes:

"BTW, does anyone know how much federal money Duke receives annually?

TexasMom

9/9/07 1:46 PM"

Clarencedarrow said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Engineering Prof said...

BTW, does anyone know how much federal money Duke receives annually?

They receive a great deal, but the vast majority likely goes to the hard sciences, engineering, and medicine. That isn't going to change anytime soon, nor should it.

Anonymous said...

to One Spook at 2:29,

Thanks, that was me at 1:30. I thought I had signed it.

RRHamilton

Anonymous said...

Obviously the trolls are out in full force. I attribute the uptick in frequency, shrillness, lunacy, etc. to their growing realization that even if they could sell their homes in Durham the prices are falling as I write this post. Turns out--even "intellectuals" and "scholars" have to pay taxes. And their parents must have just finished explaining to them that their tax liability is going to be heading north hard and fast.

I can't wait. I hope they bleed money through the nose. The Duke Lax team will soon quite literally own Durham. I kid you not. You can't make this stuff up.

Anonymous said...


Engineering Prof said...
BTW, does anyone know how much federal money Duke receives annually?

They receive a great deal, but the vast majority likely goes to the hard sciences, engineering, and medicine. That isn't going to change anytime soon, nor should it.

9/9/07 2:43 PM


If the "good" professors want to keep their government dollars, they only need to throw out the bad professors. If they can't do that, then are they "good" professors?

And yes, we taxpayers have a right to determine who gets our money. This is still a democracy, despite the attempts of many elitists to turn it into an oligarchy.

RRHamilton

Locomotive Breath said...

If there ever was a case deserving of punitive damages, this is it. For reference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

Punitive damages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff.

Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. They may be rationalized as preventing under-compensation of plaintiffs, allowing redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system.[1]

Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously invidious. Punitive damages cannot generally be awarded in contract disputes.

Anonymous said...

2:49
"If there ever was a case deserving of punitive damages, this is it. For reference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages"

----

(*yawn*) OK, I agree.

Now show me a legal citation that approves punitive damages against a public entity.

Debrah said...

Seems a few of Mikey's friends have had some free time today--fresh from springing him from the slammer--and have shown up here......screaming.

The confused nobodies are still grieving with their good friend Mikey.......who has now become their very own little Jesus.

LOL!!!

Such good friends.

Anonymous said...

Engineering prof is dead on. Most federal $ goes to hard sciences; particularly the Medical Center. It is money well-spent. One shining light in this fiasco is the good work of our hard science faculty. All Duke alums should be proud of them and separate the "arts" from the "sciences" in this debate.

Duke alum

Gary Packwood said...

Jake 11:15 AM said...

...This is the first time I've come to this blog after catching the op-ed piece in the Journal which was excellent. I look forward to reading the book.
...I did a double-take at first because I couldn't believe there were posts in a comment thread six minutes past midnight on a Saturday. Then I read some of the posts. You guys need a hobby.
::
Technical point Jake.

Blog comments are time stamped by the computer which is hosting this blog and that computer is located in the Eastern United States.

There are bloggers from all US Time zones including Hawaii as well as bloggers from all over the world to include Asia.

Comments get the Eastern United States time stamp.
::
GP

Gary Packwood said...

TexasMom 1:46 said...

BTW, does anyone know how much federal money Duke receives annually?
::
Scientific research grant dollars and guaranteed student loans of course but If you count Medicare dollars that flow into the Duke Hospitals that amount would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
:
GP

Anonymous said...

Just curious, but if the city of Durham settles, wont they require Nifong to be released from personal exposure? I know hes not an employee of the city of Durham, but how many entities can you settle with and still pursue overkill.

If it wasnt about the money and it was about punishing the wrongodoers specifically and forcing them into bankruptcy, then sue Nifong and all the other individuals who did the bad stuff. The city of Durham should not be bankrupted because of the actions of one or two bad apples. This getting money to send a message when you have already been paid tens of millions by Duke is a little overkill. The case isnt worth that much until they would have been convicted and spent time in jail.

By the way, how much did Allen Gell get for what the DAs did to him? Where were all the lawyers for justice then? Helping him set him free was great, but why no civil suits on his behalf. Maybe its because hes just a poor redneck without family who can pursue those remedies through their connections.

This whole case is a sad story on the economic inequality when it comes to justice. If we focused on this case in that sense rather then in a racial white versus black world, we might actually solve some problems in Durham and elsewhere.

Clarencedarrow said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hman said...

To 3:16
M. Nifong was elected DA in Durham well after any good-faith observer could have seen the truth about what he was doing.
A host of City Officials in Durham were obviously enablers of Nifongs criminal activities.
Not one of the responsible leaders in Durham, who were in a position to do so, spoke out against Nifongs blatant die-regard of the Lax guys civil rights.
So, tell us again why the City as a whole should be given a break?

Anonymous said...

3:16

Thanks so much for your comment. I agree completely.

I'm not sure why so many of the people who post here are going after blood. What good will it do any of us for Durham to go down the tubes? We'll all end up paying. And paying. And paying.

There is a viciousness among some of the people who post here that I find alarming.

haskell said...

anonymous 10:34, to KC:

"...And, no, I'll take a pass on your book."

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Anonymous said...

"Can you spell H-y-p-o-c-r-a-c-y?"

Yes, I can, and that's not it :) I enjoy your posts clarencedarrow, but I can't resist this :)

RRH

Anonymous said...

inman @ 12:26 said:

::I continue to be amazed at the comments of people who do not or can not get beyond the rapificationist concept. Black rapificationism and racistisilism are surely an underlyingist issueasification.

I for one, cannot condone the intensificationist hatredolgy that seems to be particulatedely spitoonedly spat upon the issue-endness.::


ROTFL! I needed a good laugh today, and this provided it. My thanks.

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

Unfortunately all of Durham will ultimately be held financially responsible for it's elected leadership.

I only hope Durham citizens have some say in how that financial liability is paid -- property taxes will not result in an equitable distribution.

Debrah said...

TO RHH @ 3:44PM--

ROTFLM-T's-O !!!

Debrah said...

TO 3:42PM--

Cry me a river

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

TO 4:01PM--

We were having some very light fun.

You, on the other hand, are an obnoxious flamer.

Everyone makes typos. The joke was the subject matter of his post.

Anonymous said...

Is "Clarence Darrow" Polanski?

Anonymous said...

That crap about Steve Monks is the spudiest stuff I've ever heard in my life. "Spoiler Steve" ??? Give me a break KC, that's not even creative.

I don't see what was so absurd about someone running for DA who actually was going to take the office.

What kind of sense did electing Cheek make? It was a dumb idea to begin with. Cut the sore losership and hints of conspiracy. Cheek wasn't going to win anyway, and electing someone to DA who says he isn't going to serve is retarded.

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

3:16 asks:


If it wasnt about the money and it was about punishing the wrongodoers specifically and forcing them into bankruptcy, then sue Nifong and all the other individuals who did the bad stuff. The city of Durham should not be bankrupted because of the actions of one or two bad apples. This getting money to send a message when you have already been paid tens of millions by Duke is a little overkill. The case isnt worth that much until they would have been convicted and spent time in jail.


The problem is you have to cut deep to ensure you have excised the cancer that afflicts Durham to its core.

Anonymous said...

4:17--I think you've gone over off the deep end. Yes, punish all the old people, the children, and those who had nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Just because they live in Durham.

Your attitude is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

To the racists and apologists to who continue to support the liars, Nifong and Mangum. The young men were demonstrably innocent, period. Going to trial would is pointless if the evidence possessed proves innocence, and it did. Mangum is a whore, so is Nifong. I pity anyone who lives in that town. It is an uncivilized burg run by racists, like the NAACP and Victoria Peterson.

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

Debrah said...

TO 4:01PM--

We were having some very light fun....

Everyone makes typos. The joke was the subject matter of his post.

---------

4:01 here, and I certainly agree that everyone makes typos.

I would appreciate a joke that was so subtle and humorous as you suggest clarencedarrow was making. But I don't see it here -- you are giving him way too much credit.

Unless there was an incident I don't know about, when Al Gore misspelled hypocrisy.

Clarencedarrow also wrote:

"If you are denying that the media doesn' [sic] lie and manipulate...."

Ugh. I think he meant to say, "If you deny that the media lies and manipulates...." -- or, to be even more correct, "If you deny that the media lie and manipulate...."

But not, "If you are denying that the media DOESN' [sic, caps added] lie and manipulate....."

Don't expend your credibility defending that dumbass. It's OK -- everybody makes a fool of himself, now and then -- it doesn't make him a bad person. But he is a dumbass.

Anonymous said...

3:16

"This whole case is a sad story on the economic inequality when it comes to justice. If we focused on this case in that sense rather then in a racial white versus black world, we might actually solve some problems in Durham and elsewhere."

I disagree - this case is about injustice and the trampling of civil rights. Rich/poor, black/white, male/female -- doesn't really matter. This was a malicious prosecution... Nifong's purpose was financial/political however, Nifong didn't do this alone.

These families have admitted that their sons would probably be sitting in jail had they not been able to hire the best defense attorneys in the area. However, the real story is about our justice system and how ANYONE can be railroaded. Improvements, such as the recording of grand jury testimony; recording of ID processes and interrogations; authority to remove a prosecutor or judge from cases (while avoiding politically based interventions) -- will help all victims.

I don't believe this is about money to these families (my opinion) -- I believe it's about accoutability and change -- to try to make this type of travesty less likely in the future.

Unfortunately Durham and NC don't appear to be inclined to clean up their own problems and money talks.... if it takes lawsuits to get to the truth and effect change -- so be it.

haskell said...

rrh, 12:15. Sorry, my bad. I was trying to recall a thread of several days ago discussing formal analysis of failed systems. You, Bill Anderson, Gary Packwood, One Spook, Steve Horwitz, and several others post thoughtful and informative information. Maybe it was Bill Anderson. Anyway, an analysis of the origins of the G88, something along these lines:

http://dartreview.com/issues/2.3.99/deconduke.html

I have tried to link this for you but get a server error. The article discusses Stanley Fish and Duke English.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 4:19 says:


Your attitude is disgusting.


Do you want some cheese with that whine?

No matter what you say, the law suits are coming. Deal with it. The older folks in Durham should have sounded a warning, and I guess the children will get an object lesson in the consequences of allowing pigs at the trough.

Anonymous said...

4:12 -- once Cheek announced he could not accept the DA's job if elected, the "Cheek campaign" was no longer about Lewis Cheek. It was about removing an unethical DA from office.

Monks knew that a write-in republican candidate couldn't win in Durham. His campaign amounted to pandering to (and stalking) Duke students -- under the guise of wanting justice in the lax case and wanting to oust Nifong. Yet he campaigned only against the Recall Nifong effort -- and not against Nifong.

Monks wasn't qualified on either a legal or managerial basis for the DA's job... although, in my opinion, anyone would have been beter than Nifong.

Had the Recall Nifong effort prevailed, Easley would have been in a position of appointing a DA. Nearly 50% of the current DA's across the state were originally governor appointees. And, gee, where does Durham find itself today -- with a governor appointee.

Had Monks been a man of his word and pulled out of the race when shown a poll that proved he could not win ... the Recall Nifong effort may have prevailed and saved Durham a whole lot of money and turmoil... But no, Monks is no better than some of his democratic foes -- it was all about showing those stupid dems they could not push him around. He's an idiot and Durham republicans need to realize that -- and put forth serious and qualified candidates if they want to make any headway in the future.

Spoiler is too nice a word... imo.

rrhamilton said...

KC said:

Interim DA David Saacks got off to a highly unfortunate start. Asked to reflect on the lessons of the lacrosse case in his first day on the job, he incredibly asserted, “In some respects, couldn’t you even say the lacrosse case showed that our system works? They [the three defendants] never went to trial. The mistakes were pointed out early in the process and were corrected. But the system did work, even if in a roundabout way.”

If what we’ve witnessed over the past 18 months constituted the “system” working, imagine what a broken-down system in Durham would look like?


We don't have to imagine: We can see a broken-down system in Durham. It's called Duke University.

David Saacks is right. KC is wrong on this one. Of all the institutions -- the legal, the media, the academic, the political, etc. -- that failed during the Lacrosse Hoax, only one, the legal one has shown a capacity for self-governance.

The legal system took one of its most powerful officials and disbarred, disgraced, and jailed him. Since KC, the critic of law enforcement, is an academician, I want to ask him: What has his institution done to discipline any of the clearly guilty among its members? KC, tell us what "punishment" your profession has meted out to Karla Holloway, Grant Farred, Houston Baker, and Paula McClain. ... *crickets chirping* ... Isn't it a fact that the guilty in academia have, if anything at all, gotten more powerful since the Hoax -- powerful committee assignments, faculty leadership postions, etc.? If the legal profession responded to the Hoax like the academy has, Nifong would now be North Carolina Attorney General.

And don't try to rationalize it by saying, as Prof. Horwitz has, "Well, when professors can imprison someone for 30 years, then I'll be concerned." First, DAs can't imprison anyone -- that takes (among other things) a judge and a jury. More importantly, it's a prosecutor's duty to try to convict defendants. Just as it's a professor's duty not to join in cheering the mob (and the DA) to lynch their students.

Given the reactions of the different institutions, I would today feel far prouder to be a North Carolina attorney than I would to be a Duke professor. The legal (as you derogatorily put it) "system" showed that it is capable of self-governance; the academy has shown it requires an intervention by outsiders.

RRHamilton.

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

4.19 you said:

4:17--I think you've gone over off the deep end. Yes, punish all the old people, the children, and those who had nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Just because they live in Durham.

Your attitude is disgusting.

9/9/07 4:19 PM
::::::

You know I've been saying that for a long time. The idea of taking money away from innocent people to give it to someone who as not been damaged by them is evil.

My taxes go to people who have chosen not to work, my kids have to give up their academic place in line to someone who has not earned the right to be ahead of them. Not only do I subsidize student loans, I have to pay full tuition for my kids, when we get loans, we have to pay 100% back. Some people want me to pay for slavery reparations. MY FAMILY (though white), WAS NOT IT THE US AT THE TIME!

Yes, I feel punished when money is taken out of my pocket and my elderly parents, my kids, and the rest of us who earn our way and always foot the bill because of our thrift are seen as able to "afford" it.

I hope more keep shouting it from the roof tops.

Michael said...

re: 4:19

Durham will have to figure out how payments are apportioned.

But that's why you elect adults to positions of responsiblity. If you don't, you face liability for the dumb decisions of your workers.

Anonymous said...

Spookey, will you learn to read.

Debrah said...

TO 4:52PM--

Oh, sorry.

I get it now.

You must be that popeyed wonder Diane Catotti.....Nifong's number one fan.....

...who uses a too-tight TJMax sweater to campaign for him.

LIS!

Say hello to Ms. Curtis for us. K?

(And do keep researching your sexual appliances for us. Get back to us.)

Anonymous said...

4.19 whines: "I think you've gone over off the deep end. Yes, punish all the old people, the children, and those who had nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Just because they live in Durham."

Yes, precisely. Just because they live in Durham. You whack-jobs are going to pay and pay big. Next time you pull the curtain and pull your "progressive" voting levers I guess you'll want to think twice about "just how much is this idiot going to cost me in additional taxes/bonds," etc. And next time you see a flagrant railroading of innocents I guess you'll need to think twice about your silence.

As you morons are just beginning to see, injustice can cost you real money.

Anonymous said...

And btw, if I were Holloway, Farred, Baker, or McClain and saw KC's post today or most of the comments from Lax supporters, I would be absolutely thrilled. Most of y'all have swallowed the 88er's post-Hoax-collapse metanarrative hook, line, and sinker: "This case should remind us about how unfair the American justice system is." What bullshit. Find any other justice system in the world that produces less injustice than ours.

You think there should be some fund established for "wrongfully convicted poor people"? OK, there might be 2,000 of them. Since this case was about a false claim of interracial rape, how about instead a fund established to help the real victims of interracial rape? According to FBI stats, there are at least 20,000 of these each year.

RRH

Michael said...

re: 4:51

The defense lawyers already spoke to how tenuous their win was.

If this is the way the system is supposed to work, what would you consider a failure?

That we have so many people cleared by the IP is pretty clear evidence that the system doesn't always work as it is supposed to. Unless you feel that throwing someone on death row or in prison for life or a good chunk of it is a good way to go.

I was just reading the case of Bruce Lavoie who was killed by police in a drug raid. He was sleeping in bed with his kids when they barged in. I think that his wife filed a lawsuit but I wasn't able to find a resolution to that lawsuit in the town of Hudson, NH. The town was already known as being poorly run with a lot of cronyism. Reminds me of another place recently in the news.

Michael said...

re: 5:04

Regarding a fund established to help the real victims of interracial rape: would Crystal be elegible?

Anonymous said...

haskell said...
rrh, 12:15. Sorry, my bad. I was trying to recall a thread of several days ago discussing formal analysis of failed systems. You, Bill Anderson, Gary Packwood, One Spook, Steve Horwitz, and several others post thoughtful and informative information. Maybe it was Bill Anderson. Anyway, an analysis of the origins of the G88, something along these lines:

http://dartreview.com/issues/2.3.99/deconduke.html

I have tried to link this for you but get a server error. The article discusses Stanley Fish and Duke English.

9/9/07 4:34 PM


I'm flattered, but I don't recall participating in that discussion. Any credit you're giving to me for it belongs rightfully to the others you named.

RRH

AF said...

1:49 & 1:57
You are completely convinced that OJ was guilty right????? The DNA evidence against him was 1000 more positive indicating his guilt. You are saying that a little DNA under a fake fingernail indicates guild on the part of Dave Evans. I guess he is guilty of raping her fingernail. In my neck of the woods, that's not the body part involved in a rape. Of course., you're from Wonderland so I guess they do things differently there.
Send OJ up the river--you have just made the supreme argument for his guilt!
Let me guess, you are one of the Piss Poor & Pompous from the BlueNC division of the funny farm, right?????
Take a reality pill or something. You are in the left field section of Wonderland.

rrhamilton said...

Michael said...
re: 4:51

The defense lawyers already spoke to how tenuous their win was.

If this is the way the system is supposed to work, what would you consider a failure?


My answer: The OJ trial. But that wasn't the fault of the lawyers so much as the judge (minor) and the jury (major).

That we have so many people cleared by the IP is pretty clear evidence that the system doesn't always work as it is supposed to.

What system created by man always works as it's supposed to? And don't confuse "wrongly convicted" with "cleared". Ninety percent of "wrongly convicted" people are guily; there was just a problem with their prosecution. I had to show one IP fan that the IP's recent claim to have "exonerated" Darryl Hunt was in fact incorrect: He was not shown to be innocent of the crime, but IP is claiming "exoneration" for him on its website.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 323   Newer› Newest»