Thursday, October 04, 2007

Connect the Dots

The Durham City Council is scheduled to meet today to consider the proposed civil suit settlement--reportedly $30 million, plus adoption of a host of procedural reforms to ensure the sort of abuses that occurred in the lacrosse case never recur in Durham. As they do so, they might reflect on what exactly transpired between Mike Nifong and Durham employees:

March 24-March 26: In his capacity as official spokesperson of the DPD, Cpl. David Addison made a series of public statements riddled with false assertions about the case. Addison stated, among other things, “You are looking at one victim brutally raped. If that was someone else’s daughter, child, I don’t think 46 (tests) would be a large enough number to figure out exactly who did it”; “Addison said police approached the lacrosse team with the five-page search warrant on March 16, but that all of the members refused to cooperate with the investigation”; There is “really, really strong physical evidence”; and “We’re not saying that all 46 were involved. But we do know that some of the players inside that house on that evening knew what transpired and we need them to come forward.”

March 27: Mike Nifong was briefed by DPD officers Ben Himan and Mark Gottlieb on the holes in the case. He concluded, “You know, we’re fucked.” He then began his own pre-primary campaign of slanderous remarks. No one from the Police Department ever corrected even one false statement that Nifong made.

March 28: Ben Himan met with accuser Crystal Mangum. He never produced a statement about what transpired at the meeting.

March 28: Police Department spokesperson Kammie Michael e-mailed H-S reporter Brianne Dopart and falsely stated that police not only did not know the identity of the first 911 caller from the night of the party, but that police were certain the call did not come from Kim Roberts.

Michael’s false assertion, acting in her official capacity as the spokesperson for a Durham government entity, left in place the public impression that the lacrosse players had yelled racial slurs at two innocent black passersby on the night of the party. [This item has not previously been publicly reported, but it’s in UPI.]

In fact, Roberts had told police on March 14 that she made the call, and that she had lied in the call; she reiterated both points in her March 22 statement. Michael has never explained why she provided the public with false information.

March 29: Mayor Bell, City Manager Baker, and Police Chief Chalmers met with Himan. Bell urged the police to wrap up the investigation quickly, because, he later said, he feared racial unrest in Durham. This unrest, of course, had been fueled in large part by the false statements of Addison, Michael, and Nifong, each of whom acted in their official capacities when making these statements. (Neither Michael nor Addison has, to my knowledge, been disciplined for making false statement.) In public, Bell had been downplaying all talk of racial unrest, suggesting that it was a figment of the national media.

In an interview yesterday with Ray Gronberg of the Herald-Sun, Bell claimed that he did not pressure police to make arrests and do so quickly: “I felt it was important to get some resolution relative to the investigation, but I didn’t ask them to forget about thoroughness in doing it.” It is not hard to believe, however, that police officers could have construed his remarks as pressure to make arrests quickly.

Reflecting in May 2006 on this and other late March/early April meetings, City Manager Baker asserted to the N&O, “I’ve had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate [Crystal Mangum] changed her story. If that were true, I’m sure someone would have mentioned it to me.” In fact, Mangum never told the same story twice, and therefore changed her story each time she spoke to an officer. Baker has never explained his rationale for providing the public with false information.

On the same day, ironically, Baker and Bell gave WRAL a completely different version of events, admitting that they were told that at least one officer (presumably Sgt. Shelton) believed Mangum lied. Their reaction? Outrage at Shelton’s behavior, coupled with a request that Police Chief Chalmers investigate the information. Linwood Wilson would later assert that he conducted an internal affairs inquiry into Shelton’s conduct.

March 29: Nifong learned from the SBI lab that there were no matches to any lacrosse players. It is unclear when he and Officers Himan and Gottlieb communicated this information to Bell, Baker, and Chalmers. Baker subsequently told the N&O that Chalmers was exercising vigilant oversight: “I know he always has his Blackberry with him and he gets regular updates about the case.”

March 31: Fresh from his March 29 meeting, Himan, joined by Mark Gottlieb, heard Nifong’s demand to run a third lineup, this one violating city policies (confined to suspects; telling Mangum that it was confined to suspects; letting Gottlieb, someone involved in the inquiry, run the lineup). Senior officers in the DPD did not protest Nifong’s move.

March 31: Appearing on MSNBC, Nifong personally demonstrated the manner in which Mangum was “choked” during the “crime.”

March 31: Bell made a donation to Nifong's election campaign.

April 4: The procedurally improper lineup occurred, yielding the only evidence used to indict Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Among the other items from the array was Mangum’s recollection of seeing Brad Ross chatting with Kim Roberts outside the house. But Ross was in Raleigh that night—and his attorneys had provided police with unimpeachable evidence of the fact. Nifong and the police ignored the information of Mangum’s unreliability.

City Manager Baker later told the N&O, “I met with the investigators, and I am satisfied we followed every applicable policy.”

Later that spring, Chalmers, Nifong, and Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge would meet with Baker: all would agree with him that no procedural problems existed with the lineup. Baker later rationalized that the lineup was proper because not all the lacrosse players were suspects on April 4: “That you’re a suspect in the beginning of an investigation for even one day doesn’t mean you’re going to be a suspect in a week or two weeks.” Neither he nor anyone else has ever explained which lacrosse players were not suspects as of 4-4-2006, or how police arrived at that conclusion.

April 5: At City Manager Baker’s request, Gottlieb presented him with a timeline of the investigation until that date. Baker said he wanted the timeline to keep the City Council informed of what occurred.

April 6: Baker withheld the document from the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting. Yesterday, he told the N&O he did so “because his focus at the April 6, 2006 council meeting was the first seven to 10 days of the investigation.”

At the City Council meeting, according to H-S reporter Ray Gronberg’s article the following day, Baker “told the council the Police Department is following its standard procedures for investigating rape cases.” At this point, of course, Baker already had been informed, by his own admission, of the procedurally flawed lineup.

At the meeting, Council member Diane Catotti termed Mangum's allegations “both appalling and horrific.” Catotti later would go out of her way to frustrate any independent inquiry of the DPD's misconduct in the case.

April 10: Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan met with Dr. Brian Meehan, who told them that not only were there no DNA matches to any lacrosse players, but that Mangum’s rape kit yielded matches to at least four unidentified males. This information was withheld from the public until December 15, 2006.

April 11: Hodge informed MSNBC that “I don’t think we would be here if it wasn’t (a strong case).” Hodge has never revealed the basis for his assertion.

The new elements in this timeline (in bold) came from just one document. Can you imagine what will spill out if the city is forced to enter into the discovery process in a civil suit? And what more evidence would federal investigators need of a conspiracy to deny civil rights?

73 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is something wrong with the U.S. Attorney in Greensboro? Why hasn't she opened a criminal investigation into the corruption in Durham and especially in the Durham police department? And where is attorney general Cooper? How can the state of North Carolina allow itself to continue to be a laughingstock? Why doesn't Cooper act? Why doesn't Governor Easley encourage Cooper to act? Why doesn't Easley encourage a federal probe? What kind of weak and pathetic leadership is this?

Anonymous said...

"The new elements in this timeline (in bold) came from just one document. Can you imagine what will spill out if the city is forced to enter into the discovery process in a civil suit? And what more evidence would federal investigators need of a conspiracy to deny civil rights?"

Yes, I wonder about the ability to recover emails and/or text messages between those involved, I am betting those could be for some incredible reading !!! This is why Durham will settle. I believe only a Federal Investigation with all its subpoena power is the only way to have a chance to get close to the full picture of what really went on..

BDay

Debrah said...

What are we going to do?

How can life go on?

When KC leaves for Tel Aviv there will not be such a clear and organized presentation of the facts like the one above.

Like all the ones in the past to which we have become addicted.

I am in love with the way KC writes and organizes this blog.

No one can take his place!

And nothing will be the same!!!

Anonymous said...

All this puts us in mind of the city's motto:

Durham - It's worse than you think

Debrah said...

I predict that we will see evidence that the mayor and others significantly influenced the way the DPD handled this case.

I've been trying to tell you guys how sleazy these people are.

All the while Bill Bell was going on the cable news shows playing down the circus.....he was conferring with and aiding the Hoax-sters.

I remember his appearance on Dan Abrams' show so well.

What a teller of untruths!

Hey, that means he is sure to be re-elected in Durham.

LIS!

Anonymous said...

It's no longer possible to cling to the notion that this was anything other than a frame/conspiracy. No alternate theory has any hope of matching the evidence.

Time for the Feds to bestir themselves.

Anonymous said...

It's important that this case go to trial, so the Durham officials have the opportunity to prove their innocence.

Anonymous said...

I disagree 12:35 This thing unfolded like a flower. The people were always ahead of the case. Had there been a frame, there would have been planted evidence. None of these guys are smart enough to keep a conspiracy going. Nifong knew exactly what he was doing to inflame Durham and win the election through the black vote. Folk like Addison, 88, MSM and others jumped on the band wagon. Neither the DPD bosses or the judges. a host of civil rights organizations stepped up to the plate. Allowing this thing to go on for much to long.

Anonymous said...

If this gets down to the discovery phase, it is my belief that we'll find that Duke University is in this much deeper than anyone ever imagined.

Anonymous said...

Durham can pretty much kiss goodbye $30 million in tax dollars. And that's if they're lucky and the attorneys haven't already jacked-up the settlement offer exponentially.

If Durhamites had any smarts whatsoever (and, clearly, they do not) they would have tried to pre-empt the inevitable and countered the Hoax victims' initial $30 million offer with a counter-offer to pay $40 million. Durham taxpayers just better hope to God the Hoax victims are gracious enough to simply take their money. If this turd of a case for Durham ever gets to a jury (that is, a federal jury, seated in Greensboro), the judgment will force a liquidation of Durham and municipal bankruptcy.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12:51 said...
...I disagree 12:35 This thing unfolded like a flower. The people were always ahead of the case. Had there been a frame, there would have been planted evidence. None of these guys are smart enough to keep a conspiracy going. Nifong knew exactly what he was doing to inflame Durham and win the election through the black vote. Folk like Addison, 88, MSM and others jumped on the band wagon. Neither the DPD bosses or the judges. a host of civil rights organizations stepped up to the plate. Allowing this thing to go on for much to long.
::
What if the G88, and their staff member and student friends were the band wagon and they were all playing Nifong like a French harp?

And speaking of planted evidence, Do you have a theory about who belongs to all the DNA found on/in Precious, bless her heart?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

If the leaked timeline is even remotely indicative of documents yet to emerge, it will soon be literally raining turds in Durham and at Duke soon.

The worm's a turning, folks. It's going to get exceptionally nasty real quick. And I can't wait.

Good luck Durham, good luck Brodhead ;-)

Anonymous said...

One reason this case makes people so angry is that what actually happened was basically a conspiracy of corruptions aimed at leading three sacrificial lambs to the slaughter.

One could draw many parallels to events that deeply resonate with all peoples, other powerful examples of ultimate injustice. Perhaps the lacrosse players weren’t perfect victims, but when you look at what they did and how they handled themselves in very difficult circumstances, they come close. On the other side, we have an abundance of perfect offenders – based not on identity but on character, as revealed through actions.

On top of this, the very institutions that we entrust with so many things in our society behaved in diametric opposition to the way the principles they purport to enshrine dictate.


It is clear that everyone in a position of authority or involved with the case either knew there was no case from the outset, or they believed fantastic lies told to them about the case. Given how all of these same people have been caught telling massive lies to hide what actually happened, and given how many people had close enough contact that they were primary observers, it fractures credulity that they could be unaware.

Further, anyone who has read even just the material from the state’s own discovery file at the time it was made public by the defense, paying attention to the dates, can only conclude that nothing happened and that the DPD and DA knew this. There is no plausible deniability and there is a demonstrated conspiracy to cover up the truth, that continues to this very day. These harms were compounded by the piling on of so many others who chose to accept as fact versions of events that were untrue, who repeated and embellished these lies, who made things up out of whole cloth, and who refused to see.

Nofing alone did not light the pyres, nor did he fool anyone in power in Durham. People knew. We know they knew. Goatleeb and Will-sin were deeply involved, but no less aware than so many others. Durham will settle – let us hope that the momentum continues and someone from outside really gets to the bottom of at least this little corner of corruption. The people who live in Durham pay dearly for the corruption and the lies, paying the settlement would be an absolute bargain if it resulted in less of this.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

1. A VERY important thing for people who want to understand what went on is to remember is at the time covered by this time line is who that WE KNOW had seen what evidence.

2. Those We KNOW had seen all the evidence at some point during this time frame are Himan, Gottlieb and Nifong. Various other officers Shelton and various other investigators had seen some evidence like Mangum that night.

3. NOTICE my list does not include any of the DPD higher ups nor their PR staff. Maybe they had seen the case file and maybe they had not. But people here would be wise to hold their water about Addison and Michael. It is not clear they saw any of the evidence first hand. It is also not clear that the DPD Chief or the Durham elected or appointed official either knew how the lineup was conducted or that such a line up would violate department policy. That is most city managers don't micromanage the police department. As I remember Gottlieb did clear Nifong's lineup style with his immediate superiors.

4. There is nothing inappropriate about Baker or any other Durham official worrying about racial tensions nor pushing the police to complete the investigation. We have NO evidence yet that they pushed for an indictment any indictment. We only know of Nifong doing that and we know Nifong had a very strong electoral and financial interest in pushing for an indictment of anyone no matter who.

5. We finally have a partial view of what Chalmers was doing during all of this. We still have no explannation for him dropping from sight soon after this time line.

6. This time line filled in some gaps. To me it makes no better case for a federal investigation. It provides no new evidence of anyone breaking the law. But there is plenty of previously known evidence like Gottlieb's notes and Nifong's behavior to justify a federal criminal investigation without any new information here.

TUND said...

I've been reading this blog for a long time - have rarely commented since the players were exonerrated, but the above timeline is, to say the least jaw dropping and warrants response. Granted I don't live in Durham, so Durhamites feel free to dismiss my POV, but I simply cannot comprehend how (except for Nifong) each of these individuals are still in a position of public service / community leadership...on the payroll of Durham citizens!!! If this were my community, I would be OUTRAGED...I hope the civil case goes to trial so the rest of the dirty laundry is aired (and no trolls not dirty laundry on the players, who have already been forced to 'prove their innocence' thx to these people). These guys are bad eggs that need to learn a lesson in accountability.

Very impressive work by KC the sleuth connecting those dots.

Ralph Phelan said...

"And what more evidence would federal investigators need of a conspiracy to deny civil rights?"

Non-white victims.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Is something wrong with the U.S. Attorney in Greensboro? "

Check her official bio.

She's a former NC judge - need I say more?

Apparently she almost got caught up in that wave of DOJ firings by the Bush administration that for some reason is considered scandalous. If she's any indication, the scandal is that Bush didn't fire more.

gs said...

All Durham needs to find is man of integrity in this Duke Rape Hoax.


What can't find one?

Anonymous said...

KC's summary is compelling. Where are the Feds? In the law this is "res ipsa loquitor"....the thing speaks for itself. The "thing" in this case is the corruption in the Durham city government, the Durham DA's office, and the Durham Police Department.

Anonymous said...

I thought the fingernails
were the planted evidence.

bill anderson said...

This was a great post, one of the most important and revealing ones you have done yet during this whole sorry saga. We are not simply dealing with civil liability, as great as it is.

No, this is a post that outlines criminal conduct on behalf of the City of Durham. Believe me, the feds have thrown people into prison for much less than what we saw here. (The legal threshold for conspiracy in federal court is much lower than what we might think of as a well-organized conspiracy. Durham consisted of conspirators who could not cover their tracks very well.)

We are dealing with criminals, and in the case of Himan, Addison, Clayton, Soucie, and Gottlieb, criminals who are armed and dangerous.

AF said...

12:51

Either Gary Packwood is totally correct or you are admitting that "Addison, 88, MSM and others jumped on the band wagon" are too stupid to do anything but spout forth the spin of someone else. Which is it?
While I don't think they are totally stupid (dumb for allowing themselves to be played like a drum--not a pot) but not stupid.
I tend to agree with GP, that many of these people were "played for fools" by others. The Klan doesn't get off that easily. No one made them take an unfair advantage of students, lie to advance their causes, or expose their perverted views on everyone.
The question is not whether Duhm pays but rather how much they will pay. Ironically, the longer they wait, the more it would appear they will pay. I don't think erasing a few feet of tape will work for them either. Today, the "paper trail" is much easier to recover.
Thanks for another great post KC.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: DPD "...No one from the Police Department ever corrected even one false statement that Nifong made..."

KC are you aware of any corrections from the DPD since the AG dropped charges and the young men declared innocent and that nothing happened?

no justice, no peace said...

On Monday in Dallas a major federal conspiracy corruption scandal has reached the indictment stage (166 pages).

Several are charged and include a former Mayor Pro-Tem, a former City Council member, a State Representative, a former City Planning Commissioner, a real estate developer, and others.

It involves low-income housing.

It involved generous government tax credits.

It involves kick-backs and influence trading.

This will provide a road map of things to come in Durham as we will see the race card thrown down as a vigorous defense.

The first PR salvos:

1. Developer was working for the poor...

2. Former Mayor Pro-Tem cannot afford competent legal counsel...

3. The former City Council member appeard in a wheel chair...

One wonders how pristine the low-income housing contracts are in Durham?

The novelty of this scandal is the participants (high powered in the minority community).

It is so refreshing that for the first time in MONTHS a scandal does NOT involve the Dallas Independent School District.

The DISD just completed their most recent scandal that involved teachers and administrators illegally using district issued debit cards. Seriously.

One charged $200,000 and there were several others (not isolated). iPods for education.

My property tax bill(s) will hit my mail box this month. There is no state income tax so the DISD, hospitals, city services, etc. are funded by property taxes.

At least I will not, yet, have to pay for the false prosecution of innocent men.

This reads like the joke about the guy who is engaged and writes Dear Abby about whether to ask about disclosure. His family is chocked-full of addicts, theives, con-men, prostitutes, etc. yet he is worried about telling her about the one uncle who supports _________.

Anonymous said...

With the exposure of the timeline and the evidence that the conspiracy reached throughout the Durham city government, it would be a perfect time for US Senators Dole and Burr (RINOS-NC) to finally speak out and demand a Justice Department probe. I'll bet we won't hear a freakin' word from either of them, though.

Anonymous said...

I really think you guys are giving the leadership in Durham too much credit.

It is obvious that they, by and large, are a bunch of rather unintelligent lackies. They have said and done whatever it takes to get along.

Someone once said, if you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said.

From the first lie that either of them said, to get along, they have had to compound the lies to continue to get along.

Racists, because racism is such an illogical mindset, are illogical in their assessment of events. Durham is full of racists from the top on down. The sad thing is, they don't know they are racists. As a matter of fact, they believe they can't be racists, because they are black.

Until we all are just people, working on solutions for people, we will never get along.

Mangums will always appear on the scene. Nifongs will always appear to pander to them. Jacksons will always appear to make the issue about race. Bells will always appear to go along for the ride, all the while thinking they are in charge.

We get what we deserve so long as any of us is willing to believe that any person is deserving of different treatment because he is of one race or the other.


Clearly, you guys ar whipping a dead mule.

Anonymous said...

In any community having a failed public school system where people cannot read, write and process information, you have the making for corruption in local politics. Bell will no doubt be reelected because the Democratic machine wants to keep the population ignorant. None of these revelation of recent days will even be read by most Durhamites, let alone understood. They will march in lock step to the polls in November and cast their vote once again for corruption.

Anonymous said...

I am from Durham, though not a Duke alumnus. There is a lot to like about Durham, but city government is not among the likeable. What we have here is a failure to supervise. Failure to supervise the Sanitation Department that allowed a leaf fire to burn for weeks. Failure to supervise the Sanitation Department's permit status. Failure to supervise the Water Department that allowed its administrator to galavant around the country on city time while lead levels were above normal limits. Failure to supervise the disclosure of those lead limits. And, of most interest to this blog, failure to supervise the Police Department.

In his professional life, Bill Bell's supervision of Community Mutual Bank has lead to it being ordered to cease and desist by banking regulators. That cease and desist order under Bell's leadership has lead to the forced merger with M&F Bank and soon the disappearance of Community Mutual.

Do you sense a trend here? I do. The crux of the problem is Bill Bell. He cannot lead a large organization. He lacks the supervisory skills. He lets chaos reign and then feigns surprise when it comes to light.

Is Thomas Stith the right man to be mayor? I do not know. But, I do know this, Bill Bell is the wrong man to be mayor.

Walt in Durham.

jim2 said...

Chalmers could just possibly be the key.

Here is one possible scenario:

- Chalmers is close to retirement

- Learns some of what was going on

- Offers some protest in a private or semi-private meeting with Nifong, Bell, or whoever

- Is told he can kiss his retirement good-by if he rocks the boat

- Chalmers refuses to cooperate but chooses to stay completely out of it, and instead runs and hides until its all over or he can retire

Chalmers has now retired and the Durhamites no longer have any power over him. Suppose someone like the AG or the Feds approached him with a subpoena and put him under oath?

Would he not be risking his retirement if he refused to cooperate, or perjured himself? What might he reveal under such conditions?

Durham settling, though, would let them avert this.

bubba said...

I wonder if discussions are now going on at Duke, debating if they should pay some or all of the cost of the Durham case. Nothing that comes out if it goes to trial can be helpful to Duke, either in reputation, or in a possible future legal action.

Anonymous said...

Based on a Trustee's comment 6/2006
to a Defense Attorney" We are worried CGM is going to file against Duke" think about the following:
1.Some 3rd party on behest of the
Board of Trustees has paid a substantive amount of money to CGM
over the past 18 months.
2. Richard Brodhead&Robert Steele
wrote an apology to CGM in 2006, neglecting all attempts by the attorneys to provide Duke officials
with relevent information.

miramar said...

KC, do you have any idea how long it took for Nifong or DPD to receive information on CGM's mental problems? Once they knew that she was clearly unstable, their actions would have become even more egregious.

Anonymous said...

KC,

You really raised the bar for blogs and journalism in general. I will never be able to read other sources (after DIW) in the same way. Thanks. And thanks for real time updates on hearings and court proceedings.

redcybra said...

If the Mayor and Council settle, they'll probably not be re-elected, but may avoid criminal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney chooses not to get involved (call me cynical, but it wouldn't surprise me). If they don't settle, it's discovery time and everything comes out. So one big question they have to try to answer is, what will the Feds do? I bet they've been trying to get a handle on that.

Anonymous said...

"But people here would be wise to hold their water about Addison and Michael. It is not clear they saw any of the evidence first hand."

Agreed, we don't know if Kammie Michael knew that it was Kim Roberts who made the first 911 call when she made public statements that the police didn't know who made the call. But we know that someone in the police department knew that, and let Michael make false claims to the public.

Agreed, we don't know if Addison knew that the players he claimed weren't cooperating were actually doing so. But we know that someone knew that, and let Addison make false claims to the public. (And Addison himself is flat-out guilty when it comes to describing Mangum's allegations as if they were factually established. If he's a police spokesperson, he damn well better know the difference between "this happened" and "this is alleged to have happened" and he's fully culpable for slanderously misinforming the public.)

W. R. Chambers said...

I don't know the cast of characters and chronology as well as I should, but to my knowledge what's missing from Durham's handling of the matter is the counsel of a good lawyer.

As someone interested in legal ethics and the law of lawyering, when a lawyer - in this case Nifong - goes wildly off the rails - I always wonder whether there were other lawyers who knew or should have known what was happening and who had a professional obligation to do something to prevent it as it is occurring.

Of course the defense lawyers did that brilliantly. And the North Carolina Bar and Attorney General took decisive and important action.

But were there any lawyers on the government side of the matter who had an obligation to speak out to prevent the misconduct? If so, who are they, what were their positions and what did they do or not do?

Are any of the dots to be connected lawyers who have not already been identified? What about other lawyers in Nifong's office? Was the City of Durham receiving legal advice? Did the DNA lab have counsel? What about the news media? For example, did Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy - both apparently in possession of a law license -have any obligations as lawyers to be more responsible in their public comments about the case? Comments attributed to each of them could have had an outcome determinative prejudicial effect on the criminal trials.

Politcs, especially politics involving elective office, and tabloidism (is that a word?) are often incompatible with responsible lawyering.

inman said...

It just occured to me that the reason a Federal investigation into civil rights violations won't take place is that those groups that have asserted 'ownership' of civil rights, such as the well-known 'civil rights movement' and its progeny, would erupt in flames if an investigation was started. Any investigation would be seen as a political statement and an attack on the 'civil rights' that 'belong' to those who fought for them.

This is an extension of the idea that a white person can be characterized as a racist, but a black person (or whatever) cannot. It is clearly consistent with the idea that Houston Baker can pen and publish a racially motiovated screed (and be rewarded for doing so), but that same screed penned by a white person, with only the word 'white' substituted for the word 'black,' would be universally condemned (especially by the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's of the world). It is also consistent with the idea that, if a 6 whites were arrested for an assault on a single black person and, later, a large group of white people arranged a rally in support of those arrested, the rally participants would be called racists or worse.

Importantly, if the Duke Lacrosse Burning had involved 3 black students, with all other facts being exactly the same the and with exactly the same outcome, does anyone think for a moment that every politician in America wouldn't jump on the Federal investigation bandwagon and proudly proclaim in well-publicized speeches their defense of the concept: "all created equal."

Yes, all are created equal. But immediately after the moment of creation, those to be born of various groups seem to receive added 'civil rights' bonus points.

America has hatched a unique kind of diversity. Yes, we are all endowed with 'civil rights'. But, it depends upon what the meanings of the word "are" are.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if we'll ever see a transcript of this meeting, but it will be interesting to see how HBO dramatizes it (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/725660.html).

Congratulations, KC and Stuart!

Anonymous said...

"March 28: Police Department spokesperson Kammie Michael e-mailed H-S reporter Brianne Dopart and falsely stated that police not only did not know the identity of the first 911 caller from the night of the party, but that police were certain the call did not come from Kim Roberts.

Michael’s false assertion, acting in her official capacity as the spokesperson for a Durham government entity, left in place the public impression that the lacrosse players had yelled racial slurs at two innocent black passersby on the night of the party. [This item has not previously been publicly reported, but it’s in UPI.]"

KC --

I'm not sure what you can mean by "This item has not previously been publicly reported". The fact that Kammie Michael asserted in public that the police did not know who made the 911 call was published in a Joe Drape story in the New York Times, the misleading assertion that the call wasn't from the accuser was published in the N&O, and the fact that these statements are contradicted by Kim Roberts' March 22 statement to police was also published in The N&O. I'm just puzzled -- it seems like you added the "not previously published" note in order to clear up some point of confusion, but I'm actually more confused by it.

UPDATE I'm re-reading and I think I may understand now. Are you saying that in addition to making the misleading statement that it wasn't Crystal Gail Mangum who called, Michael made the wholly false statement that it wasn't Kim Roberts either? If so, you might consider clarifying for those who made the same mistake when they read. Why did no newspaper, even the ones who printed the claim that it wasn't the accuser, print the claim that it wasn't Roberts either?

Gary Packwood said...

Walt 8:10 said...

...I am from Durham, though not a Duke alumnus. There is a lot to like about Durham, but city government is not among the likeable. What we have here is a failure to supervise. Failure to supervise the Sanitation Department that allowed a leaf fire to burn for weeks. Failure to supervise the Sanitation Department's permit status. Failure to supervise the Water Department that allowed its administrator to galavant around the country on city time while lead levels were above normal limits. Failure to supervise the disclosure of those lead limits. And, of most interest to this blog, failure to supervise the Police Department.
...In his professional life, Bill Bell's supervision of Community Mutual Bank has lead to it being ordered to cease and desist by banking regulators. That cease and desist order under Bell's leadership has lead to the forced merger with M&F Bank and soon the disappearance of Community Mutual.
...Do you sense a trend here? I do. The crux of the problem is Bill Bell. He cannot lead a large organization. He lacks the supervisory skills. He lets chaos reign and then feigns surprise when it comes to light.
...Is Thomas Stith the right man to be mayor? I do not know. But, I do know this, Bill Bell is the wrong man to be mayor.
::
Walt, while we have been taking care of ourselves and our families the landscape has changed and I'm afraid the old strong leader model of government is now a thing of the past.

One man or one woman is no longer the solution to system wide problems.

We as voters need to take a closer look a department heads and middle managers in government and determine if they are qualified to do whatever it is they were hired to do.

If Duke has a G88 then Durham and every other city in America has their own Gang who are building their interconnected fiefdom and they pray DAILY that the good citizens will not ask about results.

Results in the Water Department; the Police Department; the Sanitation Department and all other units of government.

You need a quarterly and annual RESULTS report in Durham that is actually read and talked about.

Now is the time for the good people of Durham to start talking about RESULTS with those people who apply for all government jobs include jobs that require the citizens to vote.

Lets just bite the bullet and admit that the strong man/women mayor form of government is not going to work anymore.

More Results and less moral anesthesia associated with being politically correct.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

KC:

It is my understanding (based on information I believe I read on your blog) that Mr. Nifong was not a Durham City employee. If that is so, I assume he is either a county or state employee.

To further tie his actions to Durham’s civil liability, you may want to modify the timeline to include the date that he took personal control of the police investigation – apparently, if I recall correctly, without any resistance from Durham or the Durham DPD.

Thank you for your excellent work over these many months.

Anonymous said...

I live in Durham. Devastating timeline. I think a trial is the only way Durham has a hope of purging the rotten apples from local gov't. I am not confident any reforms agreed to as part of a settlement will have any real effect. I hope I am wrong if there is a settlement....

W. R. Chambers said...

Regarding the liability of taxpayers for the misconduct of government officials, I know nothing about North Carolina law. But I do know of a case in another state in which law enforcement personnel engaged in illegal wiretapping for years. When that came to light, lawsuits were brought agains the both the individuals who were responsible for the illegal wiretapping and the government for which they worked. The individual defendants sought indemnification from the government pursuant to a statute designed to protect law enforcement personnel from personal liability arising out of the performance of their duties. But there was an exception. The government was not obligated to defend or indemnify law enforcement personnel for damages they caused as a result of wilful, wanton or intentional misconduct. In that case, however, for political reasons, the government never raised that issue. As a result taxpayers footed the bill for damages caused by wilful, wanton and intentional misconduct caused by government employees. Taxpayers weren't represented in the case.

In the case I know about, there was a real question whether anyone in the government had any knowledge about what the law enforcement personnel were doing. It might well have been a rogue, secret operation in which case the government could have argued it was not liable.

My only point is that in cases like Durham's, taxpayers, regardless of who they voted for and what they knew, are likely to be held strictly liable (in the sense of having to pay for the wrongdoing) for the wilful and wanton misconduct of government offcials.

Anonymous said...

8:52

You have evidence that some third party has been paying substantial amounts to CGM or are you speculating?

Anonymous said...

Please tell me James Earl Jones will be playing Coleman!

Ralph Phelan said...

inman said...
"It just occured to me..."

They have a saying in Massachusetts for this kind of statement (No, not "Let's not drive off of that bridge till we get to it." That's for a different kind of situation.)

"Light dawns over Marblehead"
Sorry, but are you really just now figuring that out?

Anonymous said...

No wonder why Duke officials kept saying "it is time to move on". No wonder why Durham City officials kept saying, "it is time to move on". They were terrified that their connection to the hoax would be discovered. Duke Officials and Durham elected officials knew from the start there was no merit to Crystal's lies. They gave birth to the hoax, created it and nourished it and fed it to the public as truth and then backed it up with lies and misinformation to the public. And these are the people who are supposed to be protecting the public and Duke is supposed to be teaching the youth. They are pure and simple criminals who should be held legally accountable for their crimes. A criminal investigation is required by the Federal Governement.

Debrah said...

HBO plans Duke lacrosse movie

From staff reports
HBO plans to create a movie based on the Duke lacrosse case, the entertainment magazine Variety reported this week.
The cable movie station has bought the rights to a book about the case, "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case," by blogger K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr.

The book details the attempt by former District Attorney Mike Nifong to prosecute three members of the Duke lacrosse team for raping an exotic dancer at a team party. State Attorney General Roy Cooper eventually cleared the players of all charges, and Nifong was disbarred for withholding evidence.

The movie will focus on "the dynamics of racism and class issues that made this a national story," according to an online report from Variety posted Tuesday.

Debrah said...

KC has to write another book on how a more rabid brand of the race/class agenda is still producing a coverup in Durham.

And it impossible to get the Feds to move on it!

Anonymous said...

Walt in Durham hit it sqarely on the head. Though there are a tiny handful of good people acutally living in Durham (Walt would be one :)) it mostly consists of Duke University and big business offices downtown, where the taxes are much cheaper than Raleigh, Chapel Hill or Cary. The VAST majority of those people don't live in Durham at all, but commute out as fast as possible. Durham is primarily black, poor, crime-ridden, drug-infested and run as a tiny fiefdom of a few powerful blacks like Jaguar Bill, who also run the other criminal enterprises such as "banks," loosely defined.
The working poor work for Duke. The rest are on welfare. Bell and the City Council run it like Oz. If any few of the city's people read at all, it's the HS or the black alternative paper. But the failures of the schools, the city services, and the rest are simply the same criminal neglects and corruption one sees in any city with a black leadership representing a huge uneducated population. Durham will not survive as a city wihtout outside involvement becasue the incompetence and ignorance is too deep.

Debrah said...

Today's H-S:

Lacrosse case 'wasn't going to go away quickly'

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun

DURHAM -- The key question with which worried officials grappled during an early-in-the-investigation meeting with the lead detective in the Duke lacrosse case was how long it might take police to resolve the matter, Durham's city manager said Wednesday.

And the word Investigator Ben Himan and then-Police Chief Steve Chalmers had for them on March 29, 2006 was that it would take a while, City Manager Patrick Baker said.

"The gist was that it probably wasn't going to go away quickly," Baker said, recalling the proceedings of a morning meeting also attended by Mayor Bill Bell and Senior Assistant to the City Manager Reginald Johnson. "There was a good bit of work to do that was left and it was something that probably wasn't going to disappear in a week or so."

The meeting occurred two days before detectives and then-District Attorney Mike Nifong gathered to plan an against-policy photo lineup that led directly to the indictment of three innocent men in connection with a rape allegation that North Carolina's attorney general has since declared false.

Police documented the meeting's occurrence in an investigation timeline ostensibly prepared last year for the City Council.

Baker never distributed the timeline to elected officials because it went into more detail about the probe than he needed to answer questions about why detectives were so slow to serve a search warrant on 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., the scene of an ill-fated lacrosse-team party.

The manager said he took notes on "the things I wanted to get out of the timeline" and returned it to police. Officials considered it an investigative document and its contents didn't surface publicly until The Herald-Sun recently obtained a copy.

A day after receiving the timeline last year, Baker told the City Council that the delay in serving the warrant came because detectives needed time to question the accuser, a 28-year-old stripper.

He also counseled patience, saying during the council's April 6, 2006 work session that it was "best practice to follow our standard operating procedure" instead of "rushing to judgment or meeting someone else's deadline."

Officials went into the March 29 meeting with Chalmers and Himan worried partly about the "grumblings" they were hearing from community members about the pace of the investigation and potential favoritism to Duke University and its students, Baker said.

"The basic question was, 'What's your initial read on this case, is this something that's probably going to go away, is there some substance to it, what's this thing looking like,'" Baker recalled.

Officials were also worried that national media coverage that "was already well into the ugly stage," might inspire racial unrest.

The coverage was exaggerating tensions and portraying Durham as "smaller and poorer with every passing day," Baker said.

Because of that, "There were concerns that people would use this as an opportunity to show out and that might actually lead to some issues," he said.

But by the time the meeting with Himan and Chalmers occurred, Nifong had already given numerous interviews playing up the racial angle of the case. Baker said he never contacted Nifong to ask him to stop.

A second meeting with Himan and Chalmers on March 29 also included the detective's supervisor, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, as well as Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge, a police attorney and the leaders of the Duke University Police Department.

The afternoon session had been pre-scheduled and was supposed to underscore the need for the two police departments to communicate and cooperate, Baker said.

Anonymous said...

Congrats, KC and Stuart! As a proud American capitalist --- I hope you make a ton of profits from this film. I want to be the first to buy UPI film merchandise! Put me down for a lunchbox, ballcap, mug and penset for Christmas presents. Thanks.

Debrah said...

H-S letter:

Stunning admission

Jay Bilas recounts an earlier conversation with Duke President Richard Brodhead in which the president says that he did not want to do anything that would "deny the student-athletes the opportunity to prove their innocence in court."

If this is indeed the comment of President Brodhead, I am stunned. Is it not true that innocence is presumed under our system of justice, and that it is the state's obligation to prove guilt? The student-athletes did not have to prove anything, least of all their "innocence."

The festering sore of the Duke lacrosse scandal, and it is a scandal, is that almost everyone presumed guilt from the get-go, including some Duke faculty who were eager to attack their own students. Many cling to that presumption today. It is shameful.

T.W. MURRAY
Durham
October 4, 2007

Anonymous said...

One of the saddest outcomes of this case has been the fact that no action has been taken against David Addison or Mark Gottlieb and they are both still police officers. They both belong behind bars and yet they are sworn officers of the law who received no discipline despite their actions.

It's disgusting that police officers can act in such a way and face no consequences whatsoever.
Much like Nifong, these men are bullies and cowards.

traveler said...

G-88 Question: Was it ever discussed that G-88 member Charlotte Pierce-Baker is the wife of Houstan Baker? She appeared with Nance Grace on CNN, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ng.01.html.

GRACE: With me is Charlotte Pierce-Baker, a Duke professor and a rape survivor. She`s the author of "Surviving the Silence: Black Women`s Stories of Rape."

P-B: "...And I worry for this victim survivor"

On the G-88 list it only says she as moved on to Vanderbilt?

Michael said...

Why should the city council settle? It's bad electoral politics to give money to the evil lax boys, and with the possible exception of the mayor, none of the council members were likely part of the conspiracy. So they have nothing to hide personally. From an electoral politics perspective, it's better for them to let a jury order the huge damages so that they can whine and protest and say "It's out of my hands." Don't make the mistake of thinking that what's best for the city or the public will trump electoral self-interest.

Anonymous said...

A must-read article follows about how multiculturalism has turned the humanities into a laughingstock (see AAAS at Duke, e.g.)

October 3, 2007
The Humanities: A Laughing Stock?
An excerpt from the new book Education's End, Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life by Anthony T. Kronman, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School (Yale University Press)


By the early 1970s, the humanities were floundering. Ideological rifts were widening. Traditional ways of teaching had lost much of their authority, and there was worried talk of a "crisis" in the humanities. To many it seemed less clear than it had a quarter century before, when Harvard published its famous report on the aims of liberal education, what the humanities are supposed to do and why their doing it is important. In this anxious and excited environment, a new set of ideas began to gain currency. The first idea was an outgrowth of the civil rights movement and is associated with the concept of diversity. The second generally goes under the name of multiculturalism, and reflected the deepening suspicion of Western values provoked, in part, by the Vietnam War. The third, which provided philosophical support for the other two, I shall call the idea of constructivism, though its supporters have given it a variety of other names ("postmodernism", "antiessentialism," and the like). Loosely inspired by the work of philosophers as different as Marx, Nietzsche, and Foucault, constructivism affirmed the artificiality of all human values and the absence of any natural standards by which to judge them. It insisted, in particular, that the values of the West have no inherent superiority over those of other civilizations and are merely instruments of power in disguise that must be unmasked and resisted as weapons of colonial oppression. Together, these three ideas are the source of the culture of political correctness that has dominated the humanities for the past forty years.

Each has something to recommend it. Each has a core of good sense with intellectual and moral appeal. And each draws its appeal from a feature it shares with secular humanism, which also acknowledged the diversity of human values and the need to construct one's life by making a choice among them. Together these ideas have helped to maintain the confidence of many in the humanities that they do in fact have something special to contribute to the work of higher education. They have helped define a new and distinctive role for the humanities, organized around attractive moral and political values - one that fills the void that opened up when teachers in these fields abandoned their role as guides to the question of life's purpose and value in favor of the research ideal. And they have done this in a way that appears consistent with the values of secular humanism itself.

But this appearance is a mirage. Secular humanism rested in a balance between the authoritarianism of the antebellum college and the radicalism of the ideas that have dominated the humanities since the 1970s. It occupied an attractive and defensible midpoint between them. The ideas of diversity, multiculturalism, and constructivism exploded this balance. They extended the main principles of secular humanism in ways that do not improve but destroy
them, creating an intellectual environment as hostile to secular humanism as the dogmatic classicism of the old-time college had been in a different way. Those who have embraced these ideas have not succeeded in defining a constructive new role for the humanities.They have in fact done just the reverse. They have made their own distinctive authority even harder to recover by casting into deeper doubt the values that once sustained it.

At the same time, they have further weakened the humanities' already vulnerable claim to respect, as measured by the modern research ideal. Diversity, multiculturalism, and constructivism are ideas that have failed to gain even a modest foothold in the natural and strong social sciences. That is because they are antithetical to the scientific ambitions of these disciplines and to their programs of research. Only in the humanities have these ideas attracted a significant following and been embraced as pedagogical values. The result has been to make the humanities appear even less respectable from the vantage point of those disciplines that have had the greatest success in meeting the demands of the research ideal - the principal source of authority and prestige in American higher education today.

Today, the humanities are not merely in a crisis. They are in danger of becoming a laughingstock, both within the academy and outside it. Looking to build a new home for themselves, they have instead dug a hole and pitched themselves to its bottom...

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

The belief that diversity is a pedagogical value starts with race and with the claim that race is an important and appropriate criterion for the selection of texts and teaching methods. By endorsing this claim the humanities help to strengthen the legal and political case for affirmative action. But their enthusiastic affirmation of a deep connection between judgment and race - the least mutable, perhaps, of all our characteristics - at the same time undermines the pursuit of the intellectual and moral freedom which the humanities once made it their special business to promote. It subjects the goal of self-criticism to tighter restrictions and makes exhortations to reach it less credible. It strengthens the cynical and despairing belief that we can never see the world from any point of view but the one permanently fixed by our racial identities or escape the gravitational pull of the interests and values these create. The claim that gender should play an important role in deciding what and how to teach has a similarly dispiriting effect, for it too is nearly immutable. And even the idea that ethnicity should play such a role tends in the same direction. Ethnic identity is undoubtedly more fluid and changeable than either race or gender. But to the extent that a person's ethnicity is conceived in terms conditioned by these other factors - as being nearly as deep and fixed as they - even it is likely to seem a discouragingly high barrier to the achievement of the freedom the humanities promise.

These effects are often balanced or outweighed by forces pressing in the opposite direction. Diversity is only one factor that today exercises an influence on the way the humanities are taught. Other, more traditional values limit its reach. But at the margin, other things equal, the effect of emphasizing the influence of race and gender on a person's interests and values is to discourage the ambition to gain some critical distance on them. For the more one stresses the depth and pervasiveness of this influence, the more difficult it becomes to believe that one can ever attain a critical perspective of this sort and the harder to sustain the ambition to reach it. The marginal effect of the endorsement of diversity as a pedagogical value is therefore to make this goal more difficult even to aspire to attain and by doing so to further compromise the standing of the humanities, whose own special authority has traditionally been tied to the belief that the enhancement of one's self-critical powers, and of the freedom they represent, is a goal that is both worthy and attainable.

The pursuit of this goal has traditionally been described as the search for an individual identity of one's own. But the more students are convinced of the futility of attempting to overcome the influence of their membership in groups that determine their values and from which they can never escape, the more likely they are to adopt a goal of a different kind. The more likely they are to see themselves as representatives of these groups and to define their task as that of being responsible advocates for them. When individuals exchange views as individuals, they converse. Their exchange is characterized by the flexibility that is the hallmark of every real conversation. This is true even if their views are different or antagonistic. By contrast, when two people meet as representatives, they speak not on behalf of themselves but of the groups to which they belong. It is to the group, not to their interlocutor or to the conversation in which they are engaged, that their loyalty is owed. Betrayal no longer means faithlessness to oneself and to the conversation but to the group on whose behalf one speaks. The individuals exchanging views cease to be individuals, and their exchange ceases to be a conversation. Its
personal significance for them declines and its political importance as a negotiation increases.

The more a classroom resembles a gathering of delegates speaking on behalf of the groups they represent, the less congenial a place it becomes in which to explore questions of a personally meaningful kind including, above all, the question of what ultimately matters in life and why. In such a classroom, students encounter each other not as individuals but as spokespersons instead. They accept or reject their teachers as role models more on account of the group to which they belong and less because of their individual qualities of character and intellect. And the works they study are regarded more as statements of group membership than as the creations of men and women with viewpoints uniquely their own - with the depressing result that great works that have been unjustly neglected on account of a shameful discrimination against their creators are finally given their due, but only on the condition that they too be treated as representatives, like the students and teacher in the classroom, and not as individuals whose greatness lies in the singularity of their achievement.

For a classroom to be a productive environment in which to approach the question of what living is for, the students in the class must be personally engaged in the conversation. They must feel free to participate as individuals and not merely as delegates whose first responsibility is to the groups they represent. To the extent they are encouraged to see themselves as representatives instead, the first personal question of life's meaning is likely to seem less relevant and even, perhaps, self-indulgent. At the same time, they must be open to the possibility that their own ideas about the relative appeal of the different values around which a human life can be arranged may be changed by their encounter with the ideas of their classmates. And for that to be possible, they must view themselves as participants in a shared enquiry, facing the same eternal questions that every human being confronts and struggling together to meet them. These may seem like contradictory requirements - personal engagement and human solidarity. But they represent, in fact, the two sides of a single experience, for it is only on the basis of their common humanity that students from different backgrounds, racial and otherwise, can ever discover or create their shared investment in the intensely personal question of what gives life its purpose and value. The belief that a person's deepest interests and values are irrevocably fixed by immutable characteristics like race and gender, and that the purpose of classroom instruction is to bring this connection to light, undermines both of these conditions at once. It makes it more difficult for students to venture the personal engagement that any serious conversation about the meaning of life demands by encouraging them to adopt the less challenging posture of representatives instead. And at the same time it makes it harder for students to accept the notion of a common human solidarity that transcends the experience of the particular group to which they happen by fate to belong, whose own more limited life forms a horizon beyond which they can never in any meaningful sense aspire to reach.

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

I recommend Brad Pitt to play KC!!!

cathyf said...

In fact, Mangum never told the same story twice, and therefore changed her story each time she spoke to an officer.

Do we really know that? What evidence do we have of what Mangum said? We have Tara Levicy's story. We have Himan's story. We have Gottlieb's story. In fact, the only evidence that we have that Mangum ever claimed to have been raped at the party comes to us as hearsay from people who are known to have lied extensively and systematically thoughout the whole case.

So how do we really know that any one of those hearsay witnesses reported as Mangum's story was in fact Mangum's story and not their own inventions? How do we know that Mangum communicated anything coherent enough to fit any reasonable definition of "story"?

You know, the simplest and most straightforward explanation for why Levicy's story differed from Himan's story differed from Gottlieb's story is that they were Levicy's, Himan's and Gottlieb's stories and not Mangum's.

You know, when we deal with people we tend to assume that what we are hearing is the truth. Then, if later this or that thing is shown to be a lie, then we go back and modify our knowledge on the subject to reflect that new showing. But I think that we have to go much further back, and say that any "knowledge" which is based upon uncorroborated testimony of any one of the known liars in this case is an unknown.

Did Mangum really tell Levicy that she was raped? Did she volunteer it, or did Levicy invent the rape angle and ask Mangum if she agreed? Did Mangum actually agree? Was she coherent enough to agree? Was she simply so incoherent that she didn't disagree?

Same questions with Himan and Gottlieb. Both of them were told that Mangum had said that she had been raped before they met her. Did they ask any questions of Mangum which would allow them to independently verify that Mangum believed that she had been raped? Or did they immediately move into investigating who had done it? When coming up with the (ever-shifting) timeline of the evening, how much coaching was there?

Going back to the original statement:

In fact, Mangum never told the same story twice

In fact, I don't think that we can say with any confidence that we know that Mangum told the story even once. The whole point of all of these police and prosecutor procedures is fundamentally to ensure that when prosecutors bring a case it is based upon the actual experience(s) of the victim(s) and any other witness(es), rather than something trumped up and cobbled together out of police and prosecutor imaginings.

All of those procedures were violated in this case. Fundamentally, we don't know anything which is dependent upon the uncorroborated testimony of proven liars.

Anonymous said...

A Durham Access Nurse asked Crystal "Were you raped?" magnum answered "yes". That is why Crystal wound up at DUMC and not in the detox Center. People should become familiar with the facts befor posting.

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

How do you cast Victoria Peterson?

jim2 said...

12:57 -

You are incorrect, though perhaps you had simply forgotten that the AG investigation did indeed meet with and interview the alleged victim.

From the report by the NC State Attorney General Roy Cooper:

"In meetings with the special prosecutors, the accusing witness, when recounting the events of that night, changed her story on so many important issues as to give the impression she was improvising as the interviews progressed, even when she was faced with irrefutable evidence that what she was saying was not credible."

inman said...

I think Halle Berry should play Whaneema Lubiano and the script could embellish the facts and make her Brodhead's 'love interest'.

And I'd like to see Ellen DeGeneres "play" Kathy Rudy. And Nicolle Kidman could be cast as Kim Curtis...on second thought --no -- that would represent a grade reduction.

How about Whoopi Goldberg as Houston Baker?

Karla Hollaway could be played by that transvestite from "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" -- you know, the Lady Chablis.

Mark Anthony Neal --> either James Earl Jones or Gary Coleman. It depends on how big a part he plays.

Brodhead --> John Hurt since Brodhead hurt as well.

Nifong --> Anthony Hopkins (complete with a Hannibal Lecter appetite)

Gottlieb --> Robert De Niro (also speaking in toungues a la "Cape Fear")

Himan --> Joe Pesci, and driving a convertible police car

Judge Stephens --> Bill Murray or Jim Belushi or some other comic figure...wait Judge Stephens could play himself

....

Casting is gonna be a bitch.

Anonymous said...

"I recommend Brad Pitt to play KC!!!"


Brad is too metrosexual; my vote goes to Christian Bale (the unfortunate "American Psycho" connection notwithstanding.) Like KCJ, he could make any bowtie look good. ;)

Anonymous said...

Opinion of a HS reade:

Stunning admission

Jay Bilas recounts an earlier conversation with Duke President Richard Brodhead in which the president says that he did not want to do anything that would "deny the student-athletes the opportunity to prove their innocence in court."

If this is indeed the comment of President Brodhead, I am stunned. Is it not true that innocence is presumed under our system of justice, and that it is the state's obligation to prove guilt? The student-athletes did not have to prove anything, least of all their "innocence."

The festering sore of the Duke lacrosse scandal, and it is a scandal, is that almost everyone presumed guilt from the get-go, including some Duke faculty who were eager to attack their own students. Many cling to that presumption today. It is shameful.

T.W. MURRAY
Durham
October 4, 2007

Anonymous said...

As Crystal has never made a public statement after the NO interview - her speaking part would certainly be small.

Anonymous said...

I recall someone gloating on another thread about the drop in UPI book sales at Amazon.

Watch what happens to those sales when the HBO movie is shown. Watch what happens to those sales if HBO and Thomas Dunne Books release a new edition of the book as a promotional tie-in for the movie.

Harvard managed to live down Love Story (also written by a college professor), but I'm not sure that Duke will ever live down Until Proven Innocent. Now the great viewing public will know it forever after as "that awful place that tried to destroy those three athletes." (And heaven help Duke if Zac Efron plays one of them.)

Aside: It's going to take one gutsy actress to portray Crystal Magnum, and I salute her courage in advance. Hollywood is a timid town.

Anonymous said...

I believe it was J. R. R. Tolkein (Lord of the Rings) who coined the term eucatastrophe to describe the moment of sheer joy at deliverance from evil that occurs in certain kinds of stories. A good example is the climax of Lord of the Rings itself, when the Ring is destroyed and good things just start piling on.

Does anyone else sense an approaching eucatastrophe in the Duke case?

Of course, one man's eucatastrophe may be another man's (or city's or university's or G88's) catastrophe...

Teddy Bear said...

Bubba and Anon 1:04 re Duke's involvement in Durham's settlement.... You are right on...Having already spent millions to cover this up, Duke's investment goes out the window if City does not settle before discovery. One can easily imagine the vitriolic and perhaps racist(lets get those white boys) emails floating around between the 88,enablers and administration..let alone evidence of Duke's involvement in the police investigation. Duke has no choice! Too bad..so sad.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone remember this?

Duke President Suspends Future Lacrosse Matches Pending Investigation
[Originally Posted: Mar 28, 2006]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/156192

Quote from story:

>>>>>The call for action in regard to the allegations against the lacrosse team has spread off campus and into the community. In addition to ongoing protests, columnists for both The Durham Herald-Sun and the Raleigh News & Observer called on the school to cancel the rest of the team's season.

So did Durham Mayor Bill Bell.

"I think the fact that they canceled games showed good wisdom," Bell told WRAL Tuesday. "I SUGGESTED THAT I THINK THEY SHOULD CANCEL THE REST OF THE GAMES FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON. I THINK THAT, IN ITSELF, WOULD MAKE A STATEMENT -- NOT ONLY TO THE PERSONS INVOLVED, BUT TO THE COMMUNITY." [Emphasis Added]<<<<<

[End Quote]

Nice to know he wasn't presuming guilt, rushing to judgment, or anything like that. Would the Mayor have said these things if the allegations had been made against AA Duke students (e.g., members of the football team or historically Black fraternity)? [Answer: Yeah, right.]

To the lawyers out there? Are the above statements further “proof” of intention to deny the players their civil rights? More “evidence” for the civil suit? I'm not a lawyer but those statements didn't look good to me at the time and still don't.

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