Friday, March 15, 2013

Curious Commentary

[Update: I have retightened comment moderation in light of the off-topic comments.]

A few instances of . . . curious . . . commentary over the last couple of weeks: two items prompted by the settlement of the Carrington suit; the third by continued debate over the OCR mandate for colleges to lower due-process protections for students accused of sexual assault on campus.

The Chronicle featured what could charitably be described as a limited take on the settlement of the suit. Keep in mind: though the paper’s title remains the same, no undergraduates who currently write for the Chronicle were students at Duke during any element of the lacrosse affair, except for the now-all-but-routine promotions of various Group of 88 members to key administrative positions. During the lacrosse case itself, the Chronicle's coverage was unmatched in its excellence among the traditional media.

“As we reflect on this incident in which exotic dancer Crystal Mangum falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape at a 2006 team party,” an unsigned editorial noted, “its place in the broader history of Duke becomes clearer. We can begin to see how it has molded and continues to mold our campus culture to this day. For many people both within and outside of the Duke community, this case continues to define Duke’s identity.” All quite true.

In what ways did the case “define Duke’s identity”? Dozens of “activist” faculty members willing to run rough-shod over the requirements of the Faculty Handbook, exploiting their students to advance their on-campus pedagogical or personnel agendas? An administration so terrified of the faculty mob that the president seemed unwilling or unable at critical points to articulate even a formulaic support for due process? Town-gown relations so warped that the university had entered into a (secret) agreement with the local police to allow for Duke students, and only Duke students, to be prosecuted with the maximum harshness for certain crimes?

No. The lacrosse case “unfortunately had a stifling effect on our administration” by scarring “the administration’s ability to comment on Duke’s social culture.” (Of course, the administration did “comment on Duke’s social culture,” first through Richard Brodhead’s infamous April 2006 campus letter and then through a Campus Cultural Initiative run by some of the most extreme anti-lacrosse voices among the faculty. Does the current Chronicle support any of the CCI’s recommendations, such as reorienting Duke’s athletics program in such a way that would all but certainly require withdrawing from the ACC?) “The lacrosse scandal,” according to the Chronicle, created an “enduring narrative . . . of rowdy, belligerent parties—with sexist and racist overtones—and the entitled students who attend them.”

To the extent this narrative took hold, it’s a development fueled by misplaced initial media coverage, followed by the conscious efforts of Duke’s own “activist” faculty (beginning early on, with William Chafe) to transform the event into a character assault on the lacrosse players to avoid accountability for their own rush to judgment. But this “historicizing,” to use the Chronicle’s word, is of little interest to the current editors. Instead, they worry that Brodhead has been too “shy” in commenting about matters related to campus culture.

A second Carrington‑related item came from Washington Monthly, a publication I read regularly for its quality political analysis. This piece, however, fell well below the publication’s usual standards.

Daniel Luzer, the Monthly’s web editor, informed readers that Crystal “Mangum, a black single mother, got into an argument with several lacrosse players and accused several members of the team of rape.” (Kim Roberts, of course, got into an argument with several lacrosse players; no evidence ever surfaced that Mangum did.) More: “Several players were arrested anyway, none were found guilty.” Actually, the three falsely-accused players received a declaration of actual innocence from the AG, a far different standard that being not “found guilty.” And lest any reader fail to detect Luzer’s spin, he concluded his piece by quoting commentary on the lacrosse players’ character from “one columnist,” who he declined to identify. The columnist turned out Hal Crowther; the quoted column, from the Nifong-backing Independent, might have been the single worst piece of commentary produced in the case.

Luzer appeared uninterested in exploring whether Crowther’s (and Indy’s) seeming ignorance of Nifong’s ethical misdeeds or the criminal case’s non-existent basis rendered less-than-credible their cultural analysis of the case. Indeed, Luzer’s post offered no hint of why, of the hundreds of pieces on the case, he chose Crowther’s as the single analysis from which to quote. Did Luzer find persuasive Crowther’s claim, in the same column, that those who criticized Nifong’s ethical misdeeds needed to “catch a glimpse of your inner racist in the mirror”? Does Luzer agree with Crowther’s characterization, in the same column, of the lacrosse players as “subhuman”? If not, why did he find Crowther credible as a source for cultural analysis of the case?

I e-mailed Luzer to ask if he, in fact, had any evidence that Mangum “got into an argument with several lacrosse players,” and noted that the players were deemed innocent, rather than “found” not guilty. He replied that he didn’t have evidence of his former claim, and ignored the latter point, but was willing to edit his post to eliminate the reference to a Mangum argument. The new post, however, did not indicate anywhere that a correction had occurred. That Luzer initially presented events at the party in an inaccurate fashion that rendered Mangum’s tall tale at least somewhat more credible, by inventing an argument involving her that never occurred, readers of non-cached versions of the Washington Monthly will remain ignorant.

A sense of non-accountability links the Chronicle and Luzer items: Indy seemed oblivious to Nifong’s misdeeds, and published wildly slanted (and in some cases, simply wrong) attacks on the lacrosse players, but still can be cited by a well-regarded publication as a reputable source for cultural analysis of the case. Brodhead’s belated one-paragraph apology was stillborn, and his campus culture initiative misjudged the faults that existed in 2006-7, but Chronicle editors can still yearn for his commentary on campus culture, without any indication or reason to believe that Brodhead learned from his past mistakes.

Then there’s adjunct law professor Wendy Murphy—who, if nothing else, is an expert on making mistakes. In an interview with AJR shortly after the criminal casecollapsed, Murphy justified her performance by citing the structure on TV or cable news programs: she was, she said, booked to argue the prosecution’s side of things. If she had to make things up to do so, it seemed, that was just part of the game.

Surely someone who made things up as much as Murphy did should forfeit all future credibility with the mainstream press. Yet last year, there was Murphy, invited to guest lecture by none other than Poynter, an organization supposedly devoted to good-journalism principles. And a couple of days ago, there was Murphy, an invited columnist for the New York Times’ “Room for Debate” section, opining on the government mandate for colleges to lower due-process protections for students accused of sexual assault.

Even more incredibly, Murphy’s piece was one of two presented in opposition to the government policy—on grounds that campus judicial procedures (in which accused students usually can’t have lawyers, often can’t cross-examine their accusers, and always can be convicted at a 50.1% threshold) don’t do enough to secure convictions.

“Fair and balanced,” Times style.

94 comments:

Daniel Luzer said...

I quoted from Crowther because his characterization of one of the students illustrated a common reaction to the event ("these guys are privileged jerks") even though, of course, being a privileged jerk doesn's mean you committed rape.

Anonymous said...

"I quoted from Crowther because . . ."

He who repeats the slander, commits the slander.

Having taught for years numerous male and female lacrosse players at Duke, I can personally attest that "these guys" (and girls) are some of hardest working, most respectful, and pleasant students on campus.

If you want to see "privileged jerks," go to the faculty lounge. Or observe the goons protesting on the Quad.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

The town and gown atmosphere of distrust and disdain for Duke and Durham continues to grow and solidify because Broadhead and his croonies (including Durham and NC legal and judicial system) all the way to the top of world power and control structure continue to play their malicious and intentional games of creating and maintaining chaos, distrust and distain. The Duke lacrosse case empitomizes the politics of 9/11 in the direct impact on USA political directions through mind manipulation feeding on the fears, prejudices, and willfully and maliciously misinformed understandings of the masses. Create confusion, chaos, and despair in order to create need and support in the form of money and mandates for change. That's all. Ask Broadhead if he even gives a damn? You know he doesn't. The only ethics that Duke has are those that insure it's continued success which depends greatly on it's ability to bend the minds of the many to believe their lies and deceptions. It is amazing to watch the game, comment on the game, be amazed that the game is being played at all, told to shutup or be in fear for speaking out against the game, and continue to watch them play on as if noone has caught on yet. Simply amazing ... and quite entertaining if it were so deadly and destructive a game. oi!

KC Johnson said...

To Daniel:

This explanation is even more puzzling. The issue of whether or not the lacrosse players were "rapists" had nothing to do with the civil suit settlement filed by the indicted players and the ostensible trigger for the WM post. The question was decided more than five years ago, when the AG issued a declaration of actual innocence (not, of course, when "none were found guilty"--a far different, and lower, legal threshold).

Moreover, while I have been critical of some of the MSM coverage of the case, I don't believe it's accurate to suggest that the perspective articulated by Crowther's column (that the lacrosse players are subhuman, that critics of Nifong were channeling an inner racism) was "common." It was extreme even by the extreme standards of the rush-to-judgment crowd.

All that said, we're left with a post that:
(1) inaccurately described the interaction between Mangum and the lacrosse players in a way that made Mangum's rape allegation more credible, and then didn't acknowledge a correction;
(2) continues to inaccurately describe the manner in which the falsely accused players were exonerated in such a way that makes Mangum's rape allegation more credible (being found not guilty simply means a jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt);
(3) uncritically quotes from a vicious character assault on the lacrosse players.

And this structure was chosen as part of a meta-critique of the media's rush to judgment? Hardly credible.

Jim In San Diego said...

Wonderful dialogue here.

Have to thank Daniel also for participating.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

The more common reaction to the Duke Lacrosse Rape crisis was one of total disbelief and distain for the entire charade. All of it. Getting out the black vote was the main purpose of the event. Why do people have to be traumatized into victim mentality mindset in order to feel galvanized to vote, other than the fact that there is usually noone worthy of a vote to begin with.

Anonymous said...

This is a horrifying commentary.

Anonymous said...

To have Duke being the erosion of even more civil rights in the state of NC than they are already responsible for is their true legacy. Funny how Duke law students are the main source for the civil rights lawyer pool in NC, and there is very little, if any, civil rights protections in NC. Something needs to change for the better in NC soon, or it will become hog haven for ground water polution disasters, the possible cause of major earthquakes on the east coast through fracking and oil drilling, etc., on ground not designed to withstand the abuse as is the working plans of greedy power mongers, and the further deterioration of civil and constitutional rights for all Americans. That will be Duke's legacy unless they change their course now, not later. Watching more lies and injustice is what they are preparing people for, just to get them more used to the idea of not having any say against pure evil. Does anyone actually think they will stop their evil ways, or do most agree that the misery they cause to the USA and to the world will continue unabated, regardless of what people say.

Anonymous said...

Even the author of this blog seems biased against innocent until proven guilty, in his assertion that the AG said the guys were innocent being any more than saying they are innocent until proven guilty, which does not seem the same as being proven not guilty in a non corrupt and biased court of justice.

The benefit to Duke by this case can be traced to Obamacare, which Duke made themselves a major player of, and for some reason which remains to be seen other than they decided existing on the medicaid revenue bonanza wasn't profitable to them afterall, they have seemingly failed miserably in NC, and are the major source for abuse, neglect, exploitation, deaths by maliciously intentional malpractice and descrimination, prejudice, and overt and covert utilization of the mentally ill to feed their coffers, their power, control, and manipulation of the minds of the many in the entire world. ObamaCare insured their control of even more of the nation's mentally ill, which has become a system of privatized penal systems and further means to corrode the civil rights of all Amercians.
Even though this is all true, and quite obvious to many, they continue to play the game thinking they can win?
All they have done is created a major mess, and their own demise, a game which they happily play it seems. Perhaps they have turned semi UNC, so they are happily hating themselves???

KC Johnson said...

To the 4.08:

I believe you misunderstood my statement.

I noted that a declaration of actual innocence is a higher standard than being found not guilty (by a jury). That's not being "biased against innocent until proven guilty"; it's simply noting the differing legal standards.

Luzer's implication that the two concepts are interchangeable is inaccurate.

Anonymous said...

Reply to KC:

I personally do not agree that obtaining a declaration of actual innocence from an AG seen hugging on the championship Duke BB team with the prez of the USA after this statement was made is a higher standard then being found not guily by a jury not entrenched in the Durhanm / Duke debacle. No way for that to happen to begin with - preceisely because of the media and players of the debacle own trying of the case in the realm of public opinion and not in the corrupt and broken Durham court system. So I agree that they are not interchangeable, but do not agree that it is a higher legal standard in this case.

Anonymous said...

I can just imagine what it is going to be like when Magnum starts interviewing and vetting jury members for her murder trail acting as her own lawyer against murder charges that supposedly Duke committed. At least the duke guys had lawyers. oi oi and oi

Any ideas how to actually get the maddness in Durham court system to STOP!!!

The whole thing is horrible to watch. I feel like many should sue them just for emotional and mental abuse and trauma that Duke and Durham have put the entire state of NC through, especially those whom were directly indirectly affected by the lies, deceit, corruption, misjustice, and malicious actions of duke and durham / nc justice systems.

Any ideas for lawyers who could assist others who have had and continue to have major problems with this case in its entirety or in specifics?

Anonymous said...

If the AG of NC is the legal representative for state and government employees in NC, than he has NO legal say in the verdict of innocence nor noninnocence in non government employees in this case.

I am not completely sure if the case then went to appeal, but if it didn't go to appeal and back to a court of justice that was just, then the AG's verdict essentially carries NO weight, and the whole trail was a mistrail, including the AG giving a verdict of innocence or noninnocence on the actions of nongovernment employees.
The AG essentially was wrong in giving a verdict at all except as it pertains to the actions of the DA and Durham court system.

Anonymous said...

The AG is derelict in his duty to oversee the workings of a tax-exempt public charity (Duke) and compel it to reveal its financial doings to the public--to include how much has been spent on the lacrosse fiasco and its legal defenses (and what actions by the trustees made those legal defenses necessary);

and whether or not the trustees have failed in their duty of fiduciary oversight.

There is no guarantee he would find the trustees to be "innocent".

However, as a prosecutor, he can certainly declare that he is dropping charges with prejudice. Dropping charges with prejudice effectively means that the accused are innocent and that the charges shouldn't have been brought in the first place; so adding the explanatory word "innocent"
is simply a redundancy (but none the less his prerogative).

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

Any time the "lacrosse scandal" is brought up by friends or collegues, as it happens frequently this time of year, I always correct whoever refers to it as such by saying, "You mean the Nifong-Mangum conspiracy?".

Anonymous said...

Reply to Deklan,

You are giving mangum to much credit for a conspiracy ploy, she seems like a pawn to me. Why do you think she was part of the conspiracy?

I don't think the Duke Lacrosse Scandal is an appropriate reference for the event either, as obviously the safety of many who were or have become rape victims since then has diminished greatly in large part because of this case. The AG should sue them with as much vengence for that alone for the people like he went after facebook to increase their safety standards along the same regards.
Because of Duke, many no longer feel safe in this state or nation due to their seeming support of denegrating everyone basically who stands in their way to huge donations for their charity. Dirty old men trying to take charge of universal health care covering for the head of duke's universal health care raping his own adopted 5year old son of differing color from another country on-line and inviting other men to join in; Duke cops raping others and having news of the event broadcast in graphic detail continuously as if it were a joke; a durham court system with Duke flags flying proudly from the doors of public defendants and at least one main judge on grinning terms with their duke lawyer buddies; the prez of USA who's personal assistant was a Duke BB player (???) - didn't anyone in the whitehouse think there might be a huge perception problem with that given the corruption and deliberate political chaos making that this case epitomizes on the heels of said event where it was widely known that it was in large part a ploy to get out the black vote?

But I agree, it was more than about Lacrosse or Rape. And it was certainly more than about Nifong or Mangum. Neither naming epitomizes the huge lack of whatever it is that is missing in Durham and Duke that could have been singled out and stopped at that time, but wasn't and isn't by the other lawsuits against duke and durham to date.

So, it has to be a name that epitomizes the ongoing corruption and lies and malicious prosecution that is still apparently alive and well in Duke, Durham, and in those whom who lead the way in the same type of unethical chaos politics, regardless of whom is hurt.

Heres an idea: "Duke proves they truly suck even more than any might have thought or imagined" event, which still wouldn't cover how much Durham and others higher up the USA power structure had and have a huge part in the scandal.

Chris Halkides said...

Daniel, Thank you for participating. I grant that among 46-odd players, there could be some who are immature or arrogant. Yet it is important to realize that the three students who were indicted are individuals, not just members of real or imagined group, such as privileged athletes. Each of the two young men who did not graduate (Seligmann and Finnerty) won an award relating to leadership. IMO this says something about each young man's character.

Chris Halkides said...

just to clarify my previous comment: David Evans graduated from Duke in 2006. Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann left Duke and graduated from Loyola and Brown, respectively. Seligmann won a Boston Market Humanitarian Award and Finnerty won the John R. Moller Award. Sorry about any confusion.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, duke lives for their awards don't they? they think it says so much about them. That and how much money, body parts, or stupidity to be one of their human lab rats they can squeeze from their donors.

I personally think it says more about them that they make fun of family members dying when so many people die or have family members that die at their hands.

Do they get an award for that? Do they even apologize? No. They just keep grinning their evil grin, waiting eagerly for their next donor victims.

Anonymous said...

so, what did Seligmann actually do to win the Boston Market (seriously) Humanitarian Award and who is John Moller?

so typical a response from a duke fan given the actual subject of this posts topic of discussion.

Anonymous said...

To C.H.,

It is important for the people at duke and the fans of duke to realize that each one of the people that receive their services are individuals too, and not just another dollar in their pocket, source to awarded whatever for meeting some prized quota, or source for the cotton in their tshirts.

Chris Halkides said...

"Reade's passion for the Innocence Project was easily evident when the Brown lacrosse team first discussed this idea, and his mission became the program's mission. His leadership led the team members to discover that there was something they could do. The Brown lacrosse team created various efforts that have provided financial support to spearhead investigations of several cases." Brown article

"Given annually to the top senior male student-athlete at Loyola who has excelled in areas of athletics, scholarship and character, the award is given to a student-athlete who holds at least a 3.0 grade point average." Loyola article

My point is that it is unfair to label Seligmann or Finnerty a privileged jerk without a reason for doing so. The fact that each won some type of award is evidence that they have good characters. It's not proof; some people who do good things act like jerks. But nothing I have read about either of these two individuals suggests that they are. JMO.

Anonymous said...

I have yet to ever see duke do one thing right without totally negating what they do right without absolutely arrogant, thoughtless, and boastful actions, attitudes, and an overriding inability to not also cause harm and negative outcomes. Ever!

Really horribly sad given you might just have a preemie fighting for its right to take another breath and actually live in their care, or something like that. And duke thinks that having the crazies is just another way for them to get publicity, screaming insults at people who family members have died because they died, and generally causing people to distrust and abhor them when they know full well there is someone out there watching all that who has to depend on them to make sure their preemie baby gets to live another day and eventually, hopefully get to come home.

tell me you get that. do you?

Chris Halkides said...

Mr. Luzer's response to why Ms. Mangum was not charged or sued by the players is worth pondering: "@BL well I think everyone wanted to avoid dealing with the woman anymore, so the DA's office didn't think it was necessary to institute criminal charges against her. And none of the accused had any interest in a civil case against her, since she was poor."

Anonymous said...

The only thing the innocence project has done so far is tear durham apart further, cause the demise of hudson and cline, and totally ignore other people's innocence and right to privacy, fair and equal representation, constitutional and federal and state rights and equal rights under law, respect for their families, their patients, nor for the citizen's of NC in duke's and hudson's court room.

So did the innocence project write the decision for hudson that he then signed which openly lied and put down cline first? I always did think it was duke that wrote that piece that ended with cline being blamed for what hudson was doing wrong. I think they did.

Anonymous said...

are you serious?

reade then got the brown lacrosse team to come back and attack cline?

never stops does it

Anonymous said...

you guys are seriously callous to women aren't you? What were they going to sue her for anyway? There is no proof about anything other than some of the guys she identified as being at the party were actually at the party. She has no control of what everyone else did that was wrong, because they were doing it with or without her for their own purposes and means to an end. How do you know she wasn't raped? Do you have proof of that?

Chris Halkides said...

Anonymous at 10:33, KC supported AG Cooper's decision not to prosecute Ms. Mangum because she probably has significant mental health issues (paraphrasing here). I don't disagree. I think that the players wanted to go after those that conspired against them, and Ms. Mangum was more of a pawn, IMO.

What bothers me is that Daniel's view of this case seems to be stuck in the summer of 2006. Lord Keynes once said words to the effect, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" The facts did change from June to December of 2006. Not only was there no DNA from any players (that was known since the spring), but we then learned that there was DNA from other men. It is virtually impossible to have a rape (with or without condoms) which leaves no DNA when DNA from prior sexual encounters remains.

Anonymous said...

that still doesn't mean there was no rape, and as far as proof from the duke nurse or the dna testing co., their evidence has already been discredited. So, where's your proof she wasn't raped?

Anonymous said...

as far as i can tell, even the ag is discredited in this case because he has a major conflict of interest with duke, to the point that it even conflicts with his doing his job in oversight of antitrust issues.

He DID NOT need to represent NC at the picture op of the duke bb team with the prez, yet he choose to thinking that no-one would mind the obvious conflict of interest his action posed. He had no legal right to declare innocence or noninnocence of the students, only to direct a mistrail was committed and send his info back to court. I gather this mainly from the fact that the people in the innocence commission charade that hudson and cline got tangled in were not judged innocent or not innocent by the ag when cline asked for his opinion about hudson's rulings. His decisions were simply made part of the appeals process. This is my understanding to date.

I am not accusing those 3 of rape btw, in case there are any misunderstandings by them that i am. i am simply stating that the ag has no legal standing in their innocence nor noninnocence, that he should have reclused himself from the case given his obvious conflict of interest, that his ability to be discretionary in antitrust issues concerning duke are at question by his own obvious actions portraying conflict of interest, and that there is no credible proof of anything, except perhaps where some of the guys had already left the party when whatever happened that is in question in this case happened.

those are the facts as i see them, to date.

One Spook said...

To the Anon on 3/19/13 at 1:46 AM:

You write: "those are the facts as i see them, to date."

Permit me to summarize with your own words in quotes:

1. The AG despite "a major conflict of interest" in "his doing his job in oversight of antitrust issues" should have declared a mistrail (sic) in the Duke Lacrosse Scandal.

2. The AG should have "reclused (sic) himself from the case given his obvious conflict of interest"

Got it.

Now, having read this and most all of your previous comments in this thread, I am certain this will not be off topic. Thus, here is my question for you.

It is believed by some people that in 1947, a spaceship crashed near Roswell, NM. These same people believe that the bodies of the alien crew members of the spacecraft were taken away.

Do you know if those bodies were taken to Area 51, or was it Studio 54?

One Spook

Anonymous said...

seriously, what is so hard to understand about what i said. He didn't recluse himself - so he then - as a nonrecluser - should have declared a mistrail (just because it isn't the absolutely correct way to say what i'm trying to convey doesn't make what i'm trying to say nonobvious to most.)

You must also be dukie as they tend to treat most with spookingly disrectful demeanor like you are behaving. where do you think the bodies were found - and do you think you are one of them trying to survive in durham/duke???

Chris Halkides said...

anon., I only have time for a short comment right now. However, it is difficult to be a supporter of the accused (and to an extent all of the players) and to be a dukie (supporter of Duke?) at the same time. I am the former but not the latter.

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

* S i g h *

DiW has finally become a Troll Playground. Illogical, argumentative, snarky comments that only disrupt conversations. No response to counter-arguments, merely tossing grenades and wandering off to the next wild accusation.

Do . N O T . Feed the Trolls

Anonymous said...

none of this 'should' be happening to begin with if there weren't some enormously huge antitrust issues raised by this entire fiasco of 'justice' to begin with.

duke dad - do you feel your child is safe in durham duke or NC because of durham/duke antitrust issues? if so, you might just be the only one.

Anonymous said...

ok, correct this logic if it is illogical if you'd like:

1. the ag is NOT a judge, he is an attorney general (no judgeship indicated there). But, if he is a judge in his role as ag, then should he not also be bound by the creed of behavior for judges and not be seen, nor appear to have, nor actually have a bias toward or against any one in his ability to perform judgeship duties?

2. A judge, acting as a jury, can and does make decisions of innocence or noninnocence based on the facts presented to him in a court of law, but those decisions are questionable (as for any jury member) if he/she is biased, has a conflict of interest, or is unable to fairly and resonably determine innocence or noninnocence based on the facts and the laws as presented and understood, or due to his/her bias, conflict of interest, or other mitagating factors that make it unreasonable for justice to be upheld for either the jury member or those whom he/she plays a judgeship role as a jury member.

3. If there are more facts found at later dates for some crimes, then those facts can be brought before a court at later dates for some cases involving some crimes.

Were those guys given a dismissal with prejudice indicating their absolute innocence? I may not be saying that completely right in legal terms, but from the discussion here that i have followed so far, it does seem like an important question.

Jim In San Diego said...

On some blogs I read, especially blogs about popular games, "trolling" is considered sport.

A troll post is one that is preposterous, but has just enough credibility that the reader reacts to it, at least initially, as if the writer were serious. This is actually a lot of fun, and there is a worthy literary history of trolling.

Consider, for example,
Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay entitled "A Modest Proposal". In that essay he proposed the Irish deal with famine in Ireland by eating their own children.

It sure likes we are being trolled here, folks. No hard feelings.

Jim Peterson

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

For those who do not live in the Durham area, I just read a news story concerning one of Mangum's former attorneys, Chris Shella. Shella, you may recall, quit the case last year because Mangum gave defense information to wingnut Sidney Harr and because Mangum allowed Harr to file motions on her behalf.....all without any consultation with Shella. Now, Shella finds himself in a pickle, as they say.....having been arrested in a prostitution sting in Wake Forest. Apparently, Mr. Shella ordered up a "date" and got caught. Oh, don't we all love Durham.

Anonymous said...

mangum has the right to an attorney who can reasonably assist in her defense. if he were still her lawyer, where would she be now? still without a lawyer who can reasonably assist her?

I will find it extremely difficult to accept anything coming out of the Durham Court System if she is not provided with an attorney whom she can trust and who can reasonably assist in her defense, and who has no conflicts of interest. The issue of whether or not Duke will kill a patient in order to frame someone who they regard worthy of their framing is in question. This case has an affect on all - so should be taken very, very seriously, not another charade.

One Spook said...

Duke Dad and Jim in San Diego: You are both correct. Mea culpa

From the DIW "Comments Policy":
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. ... "

It would seem that KC's "lightest of touches" has given way to "no touch."

One Spook

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.
Bored with Anonymous said...

New Contest:

Guess the Identity of the Anonymous Troll -

[ . ] Sidney Harr Harr Harr
[ . ] Victoria Peterson, Video Crasher
[ . ] Fast Eddie Clark, Coauthor
[ . ] Just Ice Fer Nifong Groupie
.

Anonymous said...

naw, just someone concerned about all residents in nc and victims of duke/durham/ and nc judicial system, sorry, you lose

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

Crikey, KC! Your useful blog is being hijacked. I suggest it's time to eliminate anonymous postings.

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

Please do not feed the troll.

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

Anonymous 9:02,
Just for once, I'll make believe that I don't consider you a troll. That being so, I'll give you the same advice I gave Sidney Harr. If you really think the Durham justice system is controlled by evildoers (Duke Hospital, Rae Evans, whoever), then go to the U. S. Department of Justice. Otherwise no one will take you seriously.
I'll add that you have a better chance of getting a fair hearing if you improve your grammar, spelling, etc. I realize you'll claim that I'm bullying you or something, but frankly it's the type of bullying that you deserve.

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

So you are a troll!

Anonymous said...

why do you say that? seriously.
what about what i said was being a troll. explain it to me, i might understand, other than that:

so you are a bully!
oi

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

Is guiowen a Communist?

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

To the 10:13,
Wouldn't you like to know?

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

back in court today...

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/localnews/x145781318/Mangum-wants-still-another-attorney

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

that still doesn't mean there was no rape, and as far as proof from the duke nurse or the dna testing co., their evidence has already been discredited. So, where's your proof she wasn't raped?

3/19/13, 1:07 AM"

You seem to believe in the concept, guilty until proven innocent. So why are you not asking the question, where is the proof that Crystal Mangum did not murder Reginald Daye?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3/22/13, 10:04 AM

Totally irrelevant answer. If the innocent Lacrosse players had to prove their innocence, then why should Crystal not be required to prove her innocence?

Anonymous said...

Someone is ranting about how the AG's declaration of innocence was inappropriate. That is one of SIDNEY HARR's repeated statements.

The AG never proclaimed anyone innocent. I watched his press conference in real time. What AG Cooper said was that he and his office thoroughly reviewed the case, found no evidence of a crime and concluded the falsely accused defendants were innocent.

SIDNEY HARR once claimed the New Black Panther Party's guilt presuming statements were Constitutionally protected free speech. The same SIDNEY HARR seems to believe that Mr. Cooper's expression of his belief in the Lacrosse players' innocence should have been suppressed.

SIDNEY, it should be pointed out, never did review the case file.

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...
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.
gwallan said...

What an amazing sight. A troll having a conversation with herself.

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

Somebody needs to have their meds adjusted :-)

Kevin M-R

Anonymous said...

yeah, cuz things are only going to get worse ... which is just what duke medicine wants ... so hey ... you first ... typical response btw.

i'm not surprised.

simply more examples of what duke really is to most. harm - only

Anonymous said...

Do you think Duke's professional and medical malpractice that has caused many in the state of NC emotional, mental, and psychological abuse, neglect, exploitation, pain and suffering to the point of death and other major crimes in some instances is a valid reason to sue Duke for same in a class action law suit against their continued harm to the many in NC and elsewhere?

Solicitors in Luton said...

nice post and also glad to see a good discussion.

Bored-With-Anonymous said...

More than 2/3 of this thread's posts are by "Anonymous" individuals.
Other than pouring distracting words into the blog, they add no contribution to the Duke LAX issue.
The British lawyer's comment is equally suspect.

Trolls are truly quite annoying, and they drive out serious discussion.

Anonymous said...

The question about whether or not the verdict of innocence by the AG is of higher legal standard than not quilty in court of law really relies upon the laws of what an AG can and cannot do. There is some question about whether or not the AG has that power in that case. Many do not think that he did, and there has been no other cases that most are aware of where he has done anything similar for anyone else in same type situations. Is there a directive or law that gives the AG that legal judicial power, and if so, what is it?

Anonymous said...

The fact that the innocence commission, which is sponsored in large part by Duke, played a huge role in the very public and destructive battle between Cline and Hudson is suspect in another conspiracy attempt to achieve other than justice in the Durham and NC court and justice systems by those aligned with Duke and innocence commission.

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

KC -

Thank you for deleting the ridiculous postings. - - They truly detracted from the blog.

Anonymous said...

I assume you have seen the latest from Selena Roberts.

Beau Dure said...

"Keep in mind: though the paper’s title remains the same, no undergraduates who currently write for the Chronicle were students at Duke during any element of the lacrosse affair, except for the now-all-but-routine promotions of various Group of 88 members to key administrative positions."

Um ... what? So, somehow, the Group of 88 hasn't learned anything from the lacrosse case and is now exerting some sort of pull over The Chronicle?

KC Johnson said...

To the 4.56:

I'm not sure how it could be asserted that I argued the Group of 88 "is now exerting some sort of pull over The Chronicle." The post suggests no such linkage, and to claim such a linkage would be absurd.

As to whether the Group has learned anything from the lacrosse case--could you please point me to any comment from a Group member (with the possible exception of Arlie Petters)suggesting they learned anything from the case? Certainly there has been no public apology (or private apology) to any of the students the Group members wronged.

Chris Halkides said...

Beau Dure, I doubt that is what KC Johnson is saying. I interpret this as meaning that the same journalists who did such a good job in 2006 are long gone, and the new journalism students must not have looked into the case very closely. Have you read the article in question? I was very disappointed that the only lesson about the case that the author was able to assimilate concerned tasteless parties, not the misbehavior of a large segment of the faculty. I am reproducing my comment there below:

"The lacrosse scandal breathed life into an unflattering narrative about Duke social life that has persisted ever since." We can all agree that the 2006 party was an example of poor judgment. Peter Applebome of the New York Times wrote, "How did college kids with no shortage of character witnesses become such a free-fire zone for the correct thinkers in academia, the news media and the socially conscious left? Like l’affaire Imus in reverse, why did denouncing them remain fair game long after it was clear that the charges against them could not be true, and that even most of the misbehavior originally alleged about the team party was distorted or false?" A better issue to address than any raised by this editorial is, "And why were members of the faculty and administration, who should have been standing up for due process, so eager to paint bull's eyes as targets on the players' backs?"