Sunday, October 29, 2006

Sunday Roundup

Joseph Neff’s latest exposé in the N&O deals yet another devastating blow to Mike Nifong’s crumbling case. As the lead paragraph states, the accuser “performed an athletic pole dance at a Hillsborough strip club at the same time that [she] was visiting hospitals complaining of intense pain from being assaulted.”

It’s a fitting commentary on the media coverage of this case that, nearly two weeks after 60 Minutes revealed the existence of this tape, the N&O broke the story about the tape’s origin, described the accuser’s “limber” performance in detail, and provided the necessary context to understand its significance. We have seen little sign of reporting from any other newspaper during recent months.

Testifying to the tape’s damaging nature for the prosecution, Nifong investigator Linwood Wilson resorted to a seemingly desperate asserting of casting doubt as to whether the dancer in the film was the accuser. The former security manager of the strip club, H.P. Thomas, dismissed that claim: “She was regular. She danced like she always danced, good old Precious.”


Apart from offering more evidence that a rape didn’t occur (has there ever been a high-profile case in which the accused could offer more proof of their demonstrable innocence?), Neff’s article has broader ramifications:

1.) Duff Wilson’s reporting was far, far more flawed than even his critics (including me) had contended.

In his widely panned New York Times piece, Wilson relied heavily on the medical reports from UNC Hospital, which he contended proved that “the [accuser’s] condition appeared worse.” His article was the first discussion of the UNC medical report; it could be assumed that, whatever the other flaws with his article, at least he accurately represented the report’s conclusions.

Neff’s article makes clear that Wilson wildly misrepresented the medical information from UNC—which, far from supporting the prosecution’s version of events, appears to bolster the defense. Wilson’s article, for instance, never mentioned that on March 15, one physician wrote, “Due to the patient's long psychological history, she is at very high risk of narcotic abuse, and at clinic, we have recommended not to prescribe the patient any narcotics.” A nurse wrote, “No apparent distress, appears to be in pain.” The accuser apparently got what she wanted: she was prescribed the muscle relaxant Flexeril and 15 doses of Percocet.

Though she continued to complain of identical pain on subsequent visits to UNC, Neff writes that “the doctor noted that she was in no obvious distress and did not renew the prescription for narcotics. And on April 3, a doctor noted, “The patient is a well-appearing African-American female in no apparent distress.”

2.) Former lead investigator's Gottlieb report is far, far more flawed than even his critics (including me) had contended.

Neff’s article contains an almost hilariously wooden excerpt of the sergeant’s “straight-from-memory” report:

The victim had a very slow gate [sic] that was obviously painful while she was walking. Her facial expressions conveyed her pain as she ambulated. ... The victim had to take time to position herself carefully on the sofa so that her exterior portion of either hip was making contact with the cushion. Anytime her bottom touched the sofa cushion while repositioning during our visit, she groaned and had a facial expression consistent with pain.

At the time, defense attorney Joseph Cheshire said the sergeant’s report was “transparently written to try to make up for holes in the prosecution’s case,” a move that “smacks of almost desperation.”

But the Neff article shows that just over a week after the sergeant termed the accuser in dire pain “as she ambulated,” she was performing in a “limber” fashion at the strip club. And the 60 Minutes outtake confirms that the manager said that the accuser made a similar performance just a day after her groaning experience with Gottlieb.

In short, there is every reason to believe that Gottlieb was simply making up his March 16 description of the accuser, which no other officer mentioned, and which Kathleen Eckelt already has described as medically implausible.


One of the single best general narratives of the case recently appeared in, of all, places, Australia’s leading newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald. “Even before three of the players were charged with rape,” correspondent Mark Coultan noted, “university academics, the locals, and especially the media, framed it as a morality play about race and class. But the case is crumbling and the play is not following its expected script.”

And what was that script? “All but one of the lacrosse team were wealthy white boys. After the rape allegations posters of the players went up around the university with the word ‘Wanted’. One professor accused the team of hiding behind ‘silent whiteness’.”

Coultan concludes:

Now the rape charges seem in danger of falling over for lack of evidence. With no DNA evidence, contradictory statements from the woman, a flawed identification procedure and at least one of the players appearing to have a convincing alibi, the pressure is now on the district attorney, Mike Nifong, who won an election on the back of charging the men.

The media, having rushed to judgement, have now exonerated the players and excoriated Mr Nifong. The woman, earlier called the “victim” and an “exotic dancer,” is now called the “accuser” and a “stripper.”

Perhaps the New York Times might want to serialize the Morning Herald rather than wasting the expense of having Duff Wilson do any more reporting on the case.


Joan Foster has been a breath of fresh air throughout this controversy. Yesterday, the Liestoppers regular posted her wittiest piece yet—a poem nominating Nifong as a modern-day Inspector Jacques Clouseau.

A Liestoppers reader hypothesized Inspector Nifong’s closing line during his April 11 non-discussion of the case with the accuser: “Until we meet again and the case is sol-ved.”


Durham’s latest Wonderland moment came Friday afternoon, when Steve Monks held a press conference to claim that he, a candidate polling at 2% in the most recent N&O survey, is the most electable challenger to Nifong.

Monks also cited a dubious poll by “John L. Barker Strategies,” a firm whose website I couldn’t locate. Barker told an associate of mine that on October 17 through October 19, his firm polled 1000 people who had voted in each of the last four elections in Durham County. He didn’t supply the demographic, racial, or partisan breakdown of the poll. (I spoke to Monks advisor Cliff Brandt on the 22nd; he told me the campaign wasn’t expecting any polling data.) Barker reported that “John L. Barker Strategies” doesn’t normally do politically polling, and claimed that “powerful people,” not the Monks campaign, had asked his organization to do the poll. The only name he dropped was Elizabeth Dole.

I’d like to believe the “Barker Strategies” poll is accurate, since it showed Nifong at under 40%. But given the reliability of the N&O poll—which came very close to a dead-on prediction of the primary—I see little reason to doubt the N&O’s numbers.

At this stage, only one rational reason remains for Monks’ continuing presence in the race: he has worked out some sort of covert deal with Nifong. In exchange for diluting the anti-Nifong vote, he will receive post-election favors from the D.A.

Yet everyone to whom I have spoken about this possibility denies that Monks ever would enter into such a deal. (From what we’ve seen of Nifong, of course, there’s little he wouldn’t do to be elected.) And so, much like Ralph Nader in 2000, it appears that no rational reason exists for Monks remaining as a candidate.

At this point, the Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek forces can do little but move forward with their campaign, concede to Monks his 4% or 5% as a write-in, and hope that they can edge Nifong nonetheless.


Readers in Charlotte: I will be appearing on NewsTalk 1110, WBT, today at noon, to discuss the case.


Friday’s Chronicle featured an editorial about the Big Bad Blogs, which mirrored in tone and content the sort of gloom-and-doom portrayals of blogs often seen in national newspapers in the late 1990s. The blogs covering the case, readers were told, have failed to examine the “crucial complexities of the sentiments on campus”; have often violated “the very ethical standards of journalism bloggers castigate major media for overlooking”; and feature “assertions [that] are made from afar with little true reporting.”

All serious charges. Unfortunately, the editorial neglects to give any examples to back up its claims; and its “one-size-fits-all” denunciation seems to miss, to borrow a phrase, the “crucial complexities” needed for sophisticated media criticism.


Over the past several months, Duke’s “blue wall of silence” has gradually come crashing down. First, women’s lacrosse coach Kerstin Kimel became the first Duke employee to publicly defend the lacrosse players’ character. Then Duke Law professor James Coleman became the first Duke professor to condemn Nifong’s myriad procedural abuses. Then Steven Baldwin became the first arts and sciences professor to publicly break from the emotionally tyranny of the Group of 88. The last brick to fall: a member of the Group of 88 itself retracting his or her signature, or at least criticizing the course of the case.

As Philosophy professor and Group of 88 member Alex Rosenberg made clear in Friday’s New York Sun, he will not provide the final step in tearing down the wall. Rosenberg distinguished himself over the summer by proudly affirming he had joined the Group of 88 despite recognizing that Nifong was exploiting the case for political purposes; he added that people who knew Reade Seligmann should keep their opinions to themselves, thereby allowing Nifong’s demonstrably false portrayal of Seligmann’s character to remain unchallenged.

For good measure, he claimed that I sent him an email accusing him of prejudging the case (my email is here: judge for yourself). At the time, Rosenberg informed me, “Blogs like yours do little but preach to the converted, and when the converted are largely the selfish rich for whom conservatism is but a rationalization for the maintenance of their unearned advantages, it’s really a waste of your time.” To Sun reporter Eliana Johnson, however, he denied ever expressing any such sentiments. I make a habit of saving all my e-mails to avoid such creative “reinterpretations” of the past.

In the Sun, Rosenberg explained his rationale for signing the “we’re listening” ad. He decided to join Nifong’s crusade because of his outrage about “affluent kids violating the law to get exploited women to take their clothes off when they could get as much hookup as they wanted from rich and attractive Duke coeds.” Give Rosenberg credit: more than six months after the fact, he has offered a unique, if crude, rationale for the Group of 88’s statement. He might have been better served, however, by echoing the response of William Chafe. The History professor dismissed blogs that have criticized the Group of 88’s statement as “baloney” he wouldn’t “dignify” with a comment.

No word yet on whether the responses of Rosenberg and Chafe capture the kind of “crucial complexities” that the Duke Chronicle fears the blogs have missed.


Anonymous said...

I thought the editorial in The Chronicle on October 27 stating that bloggers get the point but miss the complexity was very astute. Many of the articles and posts that I see on this web site reflect a biased view of events in which people pretend that the LAX players are a bunch of innocent choir boys while blaming everyone else under the sun for the mess they got themselves into through their irresponsible behavior. As the father of a Duke student, I am especially offended by the incessant attacks that the LAX team parents and their supporters have directed against President Brodhead and the Duke Administration for not being aggressive in leading the charge on behalf of their sons. Obviously, I am not alone in feeling this way as several other posters have made similar comments. The LAX players put Brodhead in an impossible situation as a result of their decision to hold a party that violated university policy and the laws of North Carolina. The idea that Brodhead owes the players an apology is just laughable and provides one more great example of the kind of twisted reasoning that permeates this web site. Fortunately, it appears that the editors of The Chronicle are smart enough and objective enough to see through this nonsense.

kcjohnson9 said...

I won't delete the above comment in this instance, but in general I'd ask that people refrain from posting a comment already made in another thread, as was done with the 1.03am.

I've followed this case pretty closely, and am unaware of anyone, either on this blog or anywhere else who has argued that Brodhead and the Duke administration should have been "leading the charge on behalf of" the players. I have, on the other hand, maintained that it is the responsibility of Duke's administration to ensure that all Duke students are treated according to the same procedures as every other resident in Durham.

According to most polls, between 75 and 80% of college students drink alcohol (I assume these are "the laws of North Carolina" to which the above post refers).

I have maintained throughout this affair that if Duke wants to become a 'dry' campus, ala BYU, it should do so. (Perhaps, "The Liberty College of the Triangle!" can be Duke's new slogan.) But if the school wants to pursue that course, it must treat all students who drink equally, not just students who a vocal contingent of the faculty doesn't like. I've been listening hard for Pres. Brodhead's denunciation of the African-American females at Duke who violate "the laws of North Carolina," but haven't heard them. Perhaps it's just that all black women at Duke don't consume alcohol.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your update, KC.

Although I am loath to criticize undergrad students, you are spot on about the Chronicle's arrogant, retro and fraidy cat editorial about blogs.

Several members of the editorial board members at the Chronicle are hard-core Duke 88 allies, and have engaged in an Ashley-style anonymous propagandist defense of their favorite professors.

Just another sign of the Duke 88's dishonest and manipulative behavior.

Anonymous said...

If 1:03A is the "father of a Duke student" then I'm the Archbishop of Durham.

Unless of course Duke is now enrolling Troll, Junior.

Anonymous said...

To 1:03
If the LAX guys committed the crimes of under-aged drinking and pissing in their back yard then by all means proscecute them to the limits of the law.
But wait: they were not accused of that, were they? They were accused of very specific crimes; rape, kidnapping, compound sodomy, etc.
If they did not committ these specific, enumerated crimes then nifong, Brodhead, and many others should burn in Hell for what they are inflicting on three guys who are not 1% different than every other college student in America.

Anonymous said...

1:03 I agree with you completely. It is not a school's "responsibility" to intervene on behalf of its students against a city's law enforcement. Furthermore, any intervention would probably do the players more harm than good (why don't people understand that?).
The lacrosse players were arrested as citizens of Durham, not Duke students. They are adults, not children or boys. Why should the school act as surrogate parents for adults who get arrested off-campus?
At most public schools, this issue would not come up at all. I suppose parents who pay $40K think they are hiring a nanny to babysit their kids.

Anonymous said...

Hey KC, next time female African-American students get in trouble with the law for an incident involving drinking that gets national media attention, let me know. What a ridiculous comment.

Anonymous said...


Like father, Like Son.

(you are one _wordy_ troll.)

Anonymous said...

Hey KC, who better than you to write the book "Durham-in-Wonderland"? I hope you seriously consider it when this case is closed.

I’m sure it would receive a national audience. You might even get that Pulitzer Prize.


Anonymous said...

The comments by the fanatical LAX team supporters posted above provide abundant evidence of the wisdom of what the editors of The Chronicle had to say.

Anonymous said...

The comments by the fanatical LAX team detractors posted above provide abundant evidence of the wisdom of what KC Johnson, Liestoppers, John in Carolina, NDLax84, etc., have to say.

Anonymous said...

To the 1:03 poster:

The editorial in The Chronicle stating that the bloggers don't understand the complexity of the case is just incorrect. There are 3 INDIVIDUAL young men and one woman involved in the case. These young men face serious charges that could land them in prison for 30 years. It is not the lacrosse team on trial and no one was charged with the dreaded underage drinking or public urination. The Chronicle is absolutely incorrect. This is not a complex case: the young men either raped her or they didn't.
For you to say Brodhead doesn't have any responsibility to speak up for his students is horrible. He has spoken up for students in the past, why not now?
Of course, the faculty remaining silent would have certainly have been an improvement over the slanderous statments made against the lax players. For these faculty members to use this case to promote their own agendas is disgusting. To parents such as myself, these faculty members' remarks have been a rude awakening as to the kind of garbage being taught to my child. Perhaps it is beginning to dawn on some in Durham that their initial statements, full of slander, are going to land them in a civil court. Hopefully, when this ends, Duke and Durham will have paid out huge settlements to these families.
By the way, no one ever said these boys are choir boys, few college students are, but when compared to the adminstration, the DA, the DPD, the 88 faculty, and Precious they look pretty darn good.

Anonymous said...

I found it ironic that the Chronicle published an unsigned editorial that complained that the authors of blogs are anonymous. And don't tell me to look at the newspaper masthead. Some one individual wrote the first draft of those words and s/he needs to be identified.

Anonymous said...

There is something else to keep in mind as we read the "Duke father's" obvious talking points. Duke University faces a huge amount of liability in this hoax.

First, university employees out-and-out called the players rapists and circulated a "wanted" poster that clearly was defamatory.

Second, the administration actively worked to box in the players, arranging for an attorney (who clearly was representing the university's interest, not those of the lacrosse players), and then told the players not to tell their parents. As I wrote in a recent article about Richard Brodhead, this action alone was aimed at tricking the accused into not being able to exercise their constitutional rights of having legal representation OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.

Third, the actions of the university administration and the faculty further inflamed the situation and emboldened Liefong to continue and press the hoax. Yes, there was pressure from the local black community, but the Gang of 88 along with Brodhead provided Liefong with the cover that he needed.

Thus, we see that for the sake of the university (or at least the university's bank account) and Brodhead's future at Duke, it is imperative that the case go to trial and at least end with a hung jury. If charges are dropped or something happens before the case goes to trial that (correctly) throws out the whole thing, Duke is sitting on a limb about to be sawed in two.

In other words, Duke University is talking through its lawyers. How ironic that when the players obtained their own lawyers early in this process, Brodhead publicly condemned them for it. Now we see that he and the other people at Duke are spouting the talking points no doubt provided by the university's own lawyers.

The university is trying to portray the team party as being SINGULARLY bad and illegal. Now, I believe that bringing in strippers was awful, and I do not condone that activity, but such actions are not unusual at Duke or elsewhere.

For example, last year the feminist faculty members at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania brought male and female strippers to campus to "celebrate sex workers." I don't remember seeing anyone on the Duke faculty condemning that outrage.

Therefore, we see that the Duke administration could be in trouble, and Duke could be owing some former lacrosse players serious money. Furthermore, because the lawyers are going to cost the players' families huge amounts of money, I have no doubt that they will look to suing Duke to get some of it back.

In the end, we see the coward Brodhead using talking points to cover his own behind. Duke made its bed, and now we shall see what lies in it.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

For those who would like to hear Dr. Johnson on the WBT in Charlotte today at noon, here is a link to listen online live:

I am looking forward to it, good luck.

- 2ndA

Anonymous said...

To 1:03

It scares me to think that anyone could really believe what you wrote. Then I realized that you are one of the parents who is spending $40,000 for your child. The Duke administrations actions are destroying the reputation of the school your child is attending at such huge cost. I have a child who is a senior in High School and there is no way my wife and I would let her attend Duke.

But lets look at some of your points. "this web site reflect a biased view of events in which people pretend that LAX players are a bunch of innocent choir boys" Well atleast one of them may be. Mr. Seligmann was there to support his teamates. We do not know if he had anything to drink that was alcoholic and he did not make any racial slurs.

"I am especially offended by the incessant attacks that the LAX team parents and their supporters have directed against President Brodhead and the Duke Administration for not being aggressive in leading the charge on behalf of their sons. Well there may be some truth to that, but the biggest outrage is that they led the attacks against the LAX team. It would have been one thing if all the administrators and professors had said we have a policy that we follow so the students are suspended until everything is cleared up. That is not what occcured. What happened is that professors representing the school took out a paid for advertisement condemning the students. Mr. Brodhead insinuated if not outright said the LAX students were not cooperating when he knew otherwise. The administration took on a parental role when they told the LAX team not to tell their parents or get their own legal representation.

"I am not alone in feeling this way as several other posters have made similar comments". Like I said above your sentiments scare me. My belief is that if you truly are the parent of a Duke student you have the same character makeup as those in administation at Duke, that you are willing to throw away others for your own agenda/benefit. You are afraid that this school will not ever again have the same reputation that it has had in the past.

Well I would suggest to you that if you are concerned about the reputation of the school that your child is attending that you work for the removal of Mr. Brodhead and those teachers that have no right to be poisening the minds of their students. That would be a good first step. But unfortunately because of the actions of it's faculty and administration and not because of the LAX team it will be years if ever before Duke gets back its reputation.

By the way if my child wants to go to the University of Miami (where they support their students) and financially my wife and I can afford it I know we will support her decision much more than if she wanted to go to Duke.

The Dude said...

Anon 1:25

You have got to be kidding, right? Prof. KC wrote in April about the concept of Loco Parentis. Various posts have been "on topic' this week. The school has a legal obligation to insure the welfare of their students is held in accordance with the law of the land. Duke had no obligation to support these Lax players. They had a full obligation to make sure they had reasonable legal access. They violated all civil responsibility when giving legal advice to these players which was against their own interest. Duke is liable for $$$ because they violated the rights of these students by allowing Durham Police/Pros. to enter the Duke dorms and question persons without their "privately paid lawyers" being present. I'm sure there are rules for Duke, such as registering when on campus. Did the Durham police register with the Duke Police??? If they did, Duke is liable for steering them to these students. If not, Duke is guilty of not enforcing its own policies of which every Duke student has a right to protection.
This does not take into account the fake emails, posters, Coach led voluntary statements. Every person involved in this case has a civil liability suit against Duke and all have a great chance of winning. Funny we haven't heard from Duke's legal counsel.

The Dude said...

Anon 1;03 said:
The LAX players put Brodhead in an impossible situation as a result of their decision to hold a party that violated university policy and the laws of North Carolina

Broadhead put himself in this position. The incident was "off campus" The accusser was not a Duke student. Please relate exactly what policy was broken and cite the law(s) of NC which was broken. You have no student at Duke. You are clearly too stupid to pass along enough DNA to get a person into Duke or any other competitive University.

The Dude said...

Prof. KC
Another wonderful post with so many avenues of debate to follow. Fortunately they all lead in the same direction.
The Accuser has a mmeting with Nifong and discusses drug use(Friday's comments)The medical professionals talk about drug abuse to the point that they refused further medication. Does anyone really think Nifong is not a witness now? This gottlieb guy is gone for many reaons. Not the least is that he made up notes and a scenario where the Accuser could not sit or touch anything that caused her "extreme pain". Yet she was already back dancing. Gottlieb will not be a good witness for the Pros. and that is why he fell on his sword for Nifing. How many regulars at the Dancer's Club do you think can testify to the dancer's condition? I would say many. You already listed the club/security manager. So nifong and Gottlieb can't tell an actor for a *&^%$. Thank God they are not protecting(?) my neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the behavior of the Duke administration toward this case, it does seem to me that if the races were reversed, and a local prosecutor had brought dubious rape charges against three African American citizens in order to gain favor with white voters, an institution like Duke would speak out about such an outrage -- even if the victims of the DA's behavior were not its own students. There was a time in the country's history, after all, when educational leaders behaved this way. I can certainly understand the political calculus that has prompted Duke's behavior in this case, but I don't find it attractive.

Anonymous said...


Great Sunday morning reading. Love the quote by Thomas "good old Precious".

Joan Foster's poem was terrific. Thanks for recognizing the humor, but also how appplicable my post on Liestoppers "Until we meet again and the case is solv-ed" is to the Duke Hoax. Just to be sure to give proper credit, the quote is a line from "The Pink Panther Strikes Again."

K.C., thank you for all you have done in this case. You are a hero to so many of us. I hope one day to show you how much I believe so in a proper fashion.

Anonymous said...

If Prof. Rosenberg has so much contempt for the success of Duke alumni and the families of Duke students who does he think pays his salary and builds research centers, athletic fields (or I should have not mentioned that one), research grants, etc. Perhaps he should not cash his next paycheck and instead donate it to a drug shopping exotic pole dancer who along with him believe that three innocent young men should go to jail just because they are deemed to have some unfair advantage in life. What a sick mindset pouring out of Duke.

Anonymous said...

the duke 88 seems to be taking the case on the road according to your faculty post. rosenberg will probably be next.

Anonymous said...

Anderson, are you the same guy who has been pontificating about the Duke Administration being guilty of a massive violation of the civil rights laws because DSED was not allowed to register students to vote at the football game? I remember that you fired off a letter to the Attorney General of the United States begging him to launch an investigation. How did that turn out? Have the DOJ and the FBI launched some big investigation of the Duke Administration that the rest of us are not aware of? Also, are you an attorney with expertise in all of the many legal issues on which you pontificate in your latest post? If so, perhaps you could provide us with links to the legal authorities that support your expert analysis of these issues.

Anonymous said...

Dude, as usual, your posts are a little hard to follow, but maybe you could bring some clarity to the discussion by providing us with citations to all of the legal authorities you are relying on to support your many statements about Duke having some sort of huge financial liability to the LAX players, or are you too stupid to understand that these issues are resolved on the basis of legal precedent and not on the basis of the drivel that some anonymous poster happens to spew out on a web site like this one.

Anonymous said...

Read Mr. Anderson's post above. He lists several ways Duke has opened itself up for civil suits. It seems KC must be hitting a nerve with the administration judging from some of the posts. Perhaps they are finally realizing just how much liability they created for themselves when they spewed all their slanderous, unfounded remarks about the team. Why it not surprising they are only concerned about their own reputations, while having no remorse for their false, damaging statements that attempted to ruin the lacrosse players' reputations.

Anonymous said...

To 12:05
Maybe this will help: Imagine that you have been accused of a serious crime of which you are completely innocent. Then imagine that someone loudly and publically declares you to be guilty even though they had knowledge that suggested you were innocent. And then imagine that your public tormenter was not a stranger but a colleague who had a formal obligation to look after your best interests.
Are you getting the picture? We do not have to be good at math to get a rough idea as to the scale of damage done to these three young men in terms of loss to their careers and reputations.

Anonymous said...

11:40am poster,

"Anderson, are you the same guy who has been pontificating about the Duke Administration being guilty of a massive violation of the civil rights laws because DSED was not allowed to register students to vote at the football game?...How did that turn out?"

If you think for one second that it was an "honest mistake" that an athletic official told the DSED they couldn't register students outside the stadium, you're crazy. Why doesn't Burness provide the name of the official who banned the DSED from doing so? What's his/her story? Why did it take so long for Burness to finally make a statement regarding the incident? Regardless of a mistake, it is still a huge civil rights violation. Ignorance isn't an excuse. Wake up people...everyone is out for themselves. If NiFong gets reelected, it makes Duke look better because it shows Durham is behind him. If there is a hung jury at trial, Duke looks better because at least some "impartial" citizens believe in the case. I wonder if Duke, or someone in big with Duke, is contributing to Monk's campaign. I would not be surprised if that were the case.

Anonymous said...

Agreed,12:26 and others: I believe a nerve has been touched; and the self-righteous tone of many posters bespeak persons accustomed to making pronouncements yet quite unaccustomed to dissent or disapproval-- soft, coddled bureaucrats safe in their sinecure, until now. As much as I care about Duke, and many of the people I still know there, as happy as we are to hold degrees from the place, I will insist that this Administration and the Despicable 88 be held accountable for immoral and unethical (not to mention really sorrowfully stupid from alumni relations, development and public relations perspectives) behavior, vis a vis the LAX boys, coach and families. So curious as to how the admin posters here and at liestoppers, calling KC and others lying pamphleteers, still just do not get what is going on! Sic Semper Tyrannis

Anonymous said...

Just listened to an outstanding interview with KC on WBT radio in Charlotte. In his extraordinary command of the facts of this case, KC laid out a very dismal profile of the cowardice of our elected officials, i.e., the Governor, Attorney General and the two prior judges who heard prior motions in the case. I am an active voter in this state and I will remember forever the inaction of Easley and Cooper when they seek other elected offices. That we are giving a segment of society this kind of power that they can intimidate public officials from standing up for truth cries to heaven for vengeance. NC deserves the reputation it is getting nationwise.

Anonymous said...

To 12:26 PM and 1:12 PM, sorry to disappoint you guys, but since I am not a member of the Duke Administration, your statement that KC apparently has hit a nerve with them is obviously incorrect.

To 12:58 PM, that would be nice if those were the facts, but they are not. Is it your position that the university has financial responsibility for any statement that any member of the faculty makes on any subject? Still waiting for some legal authority to support your pontifications.

To 1:01 PM, everything you say is just speculation without any proof whatsoever, and your statement that it all adds up to a huge civil rights violation is just worthless drivel in the absence of citation of legal authority to support your position.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I am NOT the person who contacted the U.S. attorney's office. There is no way that the U.S. attorney would investigate this case because it politics are not "correct." That is a hard fact of life.

I AM the William L. Anderson who has written on this case on the Lew Rockwell website. I'm happy to have played a small role, but compared to what KC has done, my part has been very, very small.

I will admit to being "biased" in favor of the defendants, but only because the charges are not true. As the evidence has demonstrated, Nifong has been caught telling a number of untruths, and the consequences have been severe.

Furthermore, Duke President Richard Brodhead was willing to write a letter to the head of state of a foreign country condemning the prosecution there of a Duke student. Yet, Brodhead could not do the same for three students here. Why? The politics of the matter are not "correct."

As for those of you who choose to criticize what KC is saying, I would challenge you to show where he has been wrong. And please do not say that "there were five minutes, so they MUST have committed a rape somewhere during that time." Follow the time lines and use some logic.

And, if the accuser really were so badly beaten up, as Liefong and the police have claimed, then why didn't the ER doctors come to the same conclusion? And why was she able to so easily engage in pole dancing at the same time she was too badly injured she could barely stand?

No, KC's critics have chosen to believe a lie. It is your choice, but it is a choice.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

If you want to know who is contributing to Monks campaign, just check out the list of Monks donors.
I found one guy that was associated with Duke. I am not sure what it means.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many parents of "rich white boys" have told their high school age kids that Duke is off the table?

I wonder how many "rich white male" alumni have decided to close their checkbooks to Duke?

I hope the answer to teh above is "many.many".

Anonymous said...

Well, as there appears to be an open season on rich white men in Durham, with no objection from Duke, rich white men would be smart to stay away.

Anonymous said...

To the 2:58 post - I can only add that not only should the rich, white boys stay away from Duke, but their rich, white daddies should close their pocketbooks. That always has a way of waking people up. Let's see then where the correct politics leads them.

Anonymous said...

Most definetly. Brodhead will be doing a "great job" until money train runs dry.

AMac said...

To the "anonymouses" posting sequentially here:

Your arguments, unfortunately, carry less weight than they might. Us regular readers have a hard time following your arguments from comment to comment, as you rebut the other "anonymouses" also posting numerous times.

Why not make your points more cogently by signing on with Blogger for a pseudonymous "handle"?

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson:

Excellent work.

The Dude said...

to the troll at 12:05

please read my post and tell me where I said that Duke has a huge financial obligation to the LAX players. What I said was:

Duke is liable for $$$ because they violated the rights of these students by allowing Durham Police/Pros. to enter the Duke dorms and question persons without their "privately paid lawyers" being present.
the concept(legal concept) I was referring to is in the first sentence. It is called Loco Parentis". Please read the post and answer the questions asked. I asked you a question:

Please relate exactly what policy was broken and cite the law(s) of NC which was broken.

In my 8:51 post. i still haven't received an answer yet you want me to cite legal precedant. At least i cited a legal concept which I explained. I did not say your "non response" was drivel and dismiss same. Have you ever read a law book? Have you ever practiced in court? Are you a sock puppet?

Cliff said...


Allow me to take exception to the commentary you offer, in today's (10/29/06) "Sunday Roundup" on your main page, in relation to the polling Steve Monks introduced at his news conference last Friday, October 27th.

When you and I spoke on October 22nd, you did ask me whether the Monks' campaign intended to do any polling. My answer was that I did not believe so, which, of course, reflected my own understanding of this matter at that time. And as it turns out, at the time you and I spoke no one in our campaign was aware that the Barker polling was being done given that, as Mr. Barker told your associate, the polling was being conducted on behalf of persons outside the campaign (the "powerful people" that Mr. Barker apparently referred to) interested in assessing the viability of Mr. Monks' candidacy.

No one in our campaign learned of the Barker polling or its results until Wednesday, October 25th, three days after you and I spoke.

The insinuation of your language…

"I spoke to Monks advisor Cliff Brandt on the 22nd; he told me the campaign wasn’t expecting any polling data." the context in which you have inserted it, appears to me to be that there is some legitimate doubt that the Barker polling—conducted from October 17th though 19th—was, in reality, being conducted at that time if I was not aware of it when we spoke three days later. This insinuation is, as I hope is now clear, incorrect, again given that no one in our campaign knew of the Barker polling when you and I spoke.

While in correspondence I have received from you and in your comments in our conversation of the 22nd, you have expressed doubt as to whether the Monks' campaign is large and well-organized enough for us to win, I would like to point out, with all due respect, that your personal doubts do not determine the reality of our campaign. I can assure you that we are large and well-organized enough for us to win and that we have in our campaign many different people doing many different things.

I have various responsibilities in this campaign, as I believe you know, but polling is not one of them. Consequently, even if other persons in the campaign had been aware of the Barker polling as it was being conducted, I personally would have, in the course of discharging my own responsibilities, no need to know of such polling until its results were made available to the campaign.

If you wish to believe that the Barker poll is "dubious", that naturally is your entitlement, but I am hopeful that you are open to reconsidering this position in light of all that you know now, including that the insinuation I've discussed is, under the circumstances, misplaced. So that you will know this also, the sponsors of the Barker poll have a very different view of it than the one you've expressed and are, in fact, lending substantial support to Mr. Monks' campaign.

Just wanted to set the record straight here for the benefit of you and your audience.



Anonymous said...


As the election for District Attorney of Durham grows nearer, I am amazed that Mike Nifong is leading in the polls. I ask myself why would anyone vote for a man, whose job is to be the minister of justice yet has no regard for the truth or justice, who has violated numerous codes of ethics , has disregarded court orders; he did not turn over discovery as on Oct. 20th as order by Judge Smith; has spit on the Constitution of the United Stated by ordering flawed lineups that violated the three innocent boys right to due process, has stripped the entire lacrosse team and probably many others in Durham of their presumption of innocence, has flamed racial tensions in a community for his own benefit, and who has lost his moral compass. Why would the people of Durham vote for a man who has put himself above the law?

In short, Mike Nifong is a tyrant; “any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically. “

So I ask, why would the people of Durham vote for Mike Nifong? It raised the question in my mind, why would the people of Germany follow, Hitler? Hitler was a world class tyrant. However, he looked pretty good to the people of Germany with the help of the media. In 1938, TIME magazine named Hitler their Man of the Year. Like Hitler, Nifong looks pretty good to the people of Durham with the help of the media, specifically the Herald Sun who try to cover and mask all of Nifong’s shortcomings. Only recently has some of the media begun to reveal Nifong’s proclamations as false.

The People in Germany lived in a Republic with strict laws and safeguards against governmental abuses. The people of Durham live in a republic, where they believe there are safeguards against governmental abuses. How wrong the people of Germany were and how wrong the people of Durham are. Mike Nifong continues to abuse his authority as a prosecutor because no one in authority, not the Attorney General, not the Governor, not the North Carolina Bar Association and not Judges Stevens, Titus or Smith has the courage to stop him. The only one policing this rogue DA is himself. Why? I do not know.

In the end, evil Hitler fell to good and so will evil Nifong. Unfortunately, how many innocent people will be left in the wake of Nifong’s prosecutorial misconduct? We can only continue to fight for the truth and justice and try to minimize the casualties. The people of Germany awoke too late from their slumber. Let’s hope the good people of Durham awaken soon.

kcjohnson9 said...

To respond to Cliff's comment:

my doubts about Monks' campaign are straightforward: in a credible media poll--a poll that almost directly forecast the primary outcome--Monks is polling 2%.

Greg Toombs said...

To 7:00 PM Anonymous

I think Nifong leads in the polls for two reasons:

1) He's a key part of the Durham powerbase, and local leadership has strong influence in getting out the vote, and sentiment. Somebody benefits from the current power structure and are defending their privilege, such as it is. It might be expressed as, "Nifong is a can of worms that better not get opened, so let's keep him on the team."

2) I would also characterize some of the voting (in the April primary) and recent polling sentiment as, 'Payback for Whitey'. Racial and class envy, layered on a foundation of encouraged victimization, is a powerful motivator to look beyond the case's facts and circumstances, to take opportunistic advantage for 'justice' now that it presents itself.

Not flattering, but IMHO, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Well, Cliff. It certainly is a very interesting poll, to say the least. According to this poll, Nifong and Cheek are basically running neck and neck. I like this poll more than I like N&O poll, but somehow I think N&O poll is much more accurate. Maybe if I find out more about this poll, I will feel otherwise. Care to tell us how many women were polled? How many men? How many democrats? How many republicans? How many whites? How many blacks? This is not rocket science, Cliff. This information is normally released with the poll. N&O poll included that information. And how about a bit more information on the company that did this poll? Have they done any other polls?

kcjohnson9 said...

To amplify on TombZ's comment:

It's worth remembering that Nifong has deliberately stoked these sentiments. He's not good at much, but he's a demagogue par excellence.

Anonymous said...

The lax players made a mistake in hiring strippers and attending the party. I don't judge this mistake as harshly as some do though. As for drinking - college students drink. It's just a fact. I did my share of underage drinking in college so I'm not about to condemn others for it. As for urinating outdoors, I never did that but I'm female and I don't have the right equipment. If I were a guy - who knows.

Anonymous said...

Cliff, why would "powerful people" sponsor Barker poll if the Barker company does not normally do polls? I would think powerful people would hire a company that normally does polling?
If I am mistaken about Barker company, and it does polling regularly, please let us know.

Anonymous said...

To Cliff Brandt:

Agree with 7:19 PM comment about the importance of disclosing the details of the poll.

Anonymous said...

8:15 AM, just to make sure I understand you correctly, US News ranks Duke as one of the top 8 universities in the country, and the Financial Times of London ranks it as one of the top 13 in the world, but you would never allow your daughter to go there because it has some liberal professors and you do not like how Brodhead has handled the LAX situation. On the other hand, US News ranks Miami as tied for 54th (I do not think the Financial Times has ever heard of Miami), but you would be honored to have your daughter go there because Donna Shalala speaks out strongly on behalf of her football players. A powerful analysis.

Anonymous said...

Cliff, do you know the story of "Little Red Hiding Hood?"

No matter how you paint it, Monks is the wolf in the grand mother's clothes pretending to be the grandmother. That is all! If you buy this nonsense, that is fine. But, please do not insult our intelligence telling us that Monks is a viable candidate and that he wants justice for the 3 indicted lax players. Monks could not care less about the lax players; he only cares about his dirty politics; he is a political opportunist and nothing else.

He is the wolf disguised in grand mother's clothes.

Little Red Riding Hood

Anonymous said...

I don't live in Durham. I have one thing to say as a Republican: You are an idiot. You are not going to win this one. Continue on this path and you and Monks will lose on so many levels that it is not funny.

Furthermore, any legit poll also collects demographics. This poll is so far out of wack from the one legitimate one that we know about that you can't not question it.

Anonymous said...

Cliff, I am a life long Republican, and I am appalled at the fact that you, Mr. Monks and the local Republican party have chosen to play spoiler in this desperately important race.It is reprehensible. It is patently self-serving.

The little credibility our party has in Durham will be destroyed by your enabling of a Nifong victory. Mr. Monks will wear the stain of this from here forward.

And if your vote total and Cheek's might have resulted in a Nifong defeat, you will be deserving of nothing but scorn and outrage.

Why don't you ask the families? Every word you write indicates only concern for your own ego.

Anonymous said...

Re comments 1:03, 1.25, 2.13 et al, it appears someone has struck a nerve. Actually, I think the intentions of Nifong, Brodhead and the 88 are not all bad: they are trying to prevent a riot which they are convinced will occur when the LAX guys are found innocent.

Anonymous said...

TO 8:34 PM. What an outrageous suggestion.

Anonymous said...

To 7:34PM. Duke might be ranked 8th now. Something tells me it will go down because a lot of people will not want to send their kids there.
Regardless of how high Duke is ranked, I would not allow my children to go there.

Anonymous said...

It's Time
Following the Duke case closely for months feels like watching a train wreck in slow motion on a bad TV. The supporters of the falsely accused have tirelessly pushed to have the truth come out. The information and analysis in the public arena is jarring in its exculpatory value. Unfortunately, many people in Durham and in authoritative positions in the NC legal system really don't care. I finally get it. This injustice does not directly impact them and it does not matter to them.
Many times an all out affront is effective. But not here; not now. I think it's time for the lawyers to button up and keep anything and everything left for trial. Don't give Nifong any warning of anything he doesn't know about. Sometimes it's more effective to dig in and wait for the opponent to make his move. Nifong has to make a move. He must either go forward with a trial or drop the charges. There are no alternatives.
If he goes to trial, unreleased information will make a bigger impression on a jury, who will most likely have heard about the case.
If he drops the charges, then I surely hope that the families move quickly with civil suits.
Either way, Nifong will have to go toe-to-toe with the Duke legal team.
It's incredible to me that Nifong and his supporters say you can't judge him based on this case; judge him on 27 years of service. However, he has been the DA for less than two years and look where he is. The people of Durham will get more of him if they elect him. Then, maybe, they'll care.

rds248 said...

I just returned from Parent's weekend at Duke. Every parent I met expressed outrage and disgust at Nifong and his lacrosse hoax. And the new information about him not even questioning the accuser about her bogus story was a lively topic of discussion and amazement.

I doubt that anon 1:03 is a Duke parent. I'm not sure why he is representing himself as such, but his posts make it pretty unlikely that it's true. Just about anyone who is a parent of a Duke student would identify with the parents of the lacrosse players. If their sons were falsely accused of a crime in such a random way, it could happen to anyone at Duke at any time with a DA like Nifong in charge. "Duke father" can't be much of a father if he doesn't understand that. I hope his kids are choir boys (or girls), because everybody else is at risk from Nifong, Gottlieb and the rest of the gang down there.

Just curious "Duke father anon 1:03".. if your son or daughter was walking out of a party with a cup containing beer and they were handcuffed, threatened, roughed up, and thrown in jail overnight.. you would think that's OK? That would be the appropriate punishment for "violating University policy and the laws of North Carolina"? And it would be appropriate that the Police Chief had recommended this sort of treatment as routine policy for Duke students, but not for others in Durham?

That's why we need Nifong and his whole rotten gang OUT down there. Someone needs to come in and clean shop in Durham.

Also the fastest selling T shirts at tailgate were the DEFEAT NIFONG shirts! And I saw mostly Cheeks signs in all the areas around the campus. Not a scientific survey, but when you've got 24% undecided, anything can happen.

Anonymous said...

you are a liar. the neighborhoods right around duke, especially trinity park are full of nifong sign right in the face of duke. most are in the east campus area. those are the neighborhoods that know firsthand what drunken assholes people like you have raised and inflicted on the people of durham. nifong is ahead in the poll because some people around here think he and gottleib are protecting durham citizens from the likes of your horribly behaved kids. keep on buying those t shirts. maybe you can use them to mop up all the tears all the duke parents will be shedding when nifong wins the election.

Anonymous said...

Funny you should mention Gottlieb. Apparently he is no longer on the case? What happened?

Anonymous said...

People who are thinking of sending their kids to Duke should read that 10:35 pm post and get a clue. Why pay a large amount of money for educating your kids in a city where locals will hate them? Surely there are other schools where your kids won't be hated?

Anonymous said...

9:22 PM, if your children have the same powers of analysis that you have, I do not think we need to worry too much about whether you are going to allow them to go to Duke because they will not get in.

Anonymous said...

Pretty soon nobody might want to get in. And please don't worry about my power of analysis-there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Anonymous said...

To 10:35
What exactly does running a corrupt proscecution of 3 demonstrably innocent Duke students have to do with improving the behaviour of the rest? If anything, it is a big lesson that only a fool would trust or cooperate in any way with such a low-rent goon-squad.
Besides, I really really doubt that Duke kids are worse behaved than college students in other places. What I am coming to believe is that the average Duramite is extra-ordinarily insecure in socio-cultural terms when bumping up against the average Duke student and background.
In the reaction of the Duke faculty to the LAX guys; that whole scene reeks of sexual jealosy. The existence of athletic young men, who do not agree with PC nonesense and who get all the hottest girls must torment their shrivelled life circumstances.
A healthy culture would revere such young men. Only a twisted, stunted, flaccid degenerate culture would look for ways to punish them.
Res ipsa loquitor

Anonymous said...


I completely agree. My husband and I both graduated from different colleges, but both towns' hospitality was amazing. It is great to have that support when you are far away from home for the first time. Believe me, I will never advise anyone to send their child to Duke. Last fall, I encouraged two of my daughter's friends to apply to Duke, but now feel guilty for doing so. Definitely my biggest parenting error ever was sending my daughter to that town. Even though it would be difficult to transfer at this point, I would support her doing so, even if it took longer to graduate. I am tired of having to worry about her safety in that corrupt, crime ridden town.
By the way, did anyone catch the Herald-Sun article by the Duke literature professor?(one of the 88). Judging by his remarks, he has been stuck in a time warp since April. To say the piece is disturbing, is definitely an understatement.

Cliff said...

7:59 PM

Let me see if I have this straight.

You're supportive of a victory by a candidate—Lewis Cheek—who will not serve and leads to nothing more than an appointment by our Governor Mike Easley, who—like anyone in his position—cannot help but be more interested in protecting his political interests than in protecting the defendants in this case. I'm supportive of a candidate who will serve, has absolutely no conflict whatsoever with ensuring that this case receives the full, fair, and dispassionate review that it so clearly deserves, and has made such a review a guarantee of his campaign. And I'm an idiot.

You've just got to let me know if it's going to get any richer than this...

kcjohnson9 said...

All of what Cliff says above is true, with one catch: the candidate he's describing polled 2% in the N&O poll.

In an ideal world, would I like to see someone with Monks' agenda win? Yes. But if--as is the case here--the choice is between an ideal world and having the best chance to beat Nifong, I'll take the pragmatic choice every time.

Remember: the liberals who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 on grounds that there was no difference between Gore and Bush regret their ideologically pure vote now.

Anonymous said...

Actually, there is nothing unusual in having a Governor to appoint a DA. Easley appointed a number of DAs in recent years. In two years, citizens of Durham county would be able to vote again, and either keep Easley's appointment, or vote for someone else.

Daddyx4 said...


it is very interesting that you choose to engage in this discussion the way you have. your arguments have been interesting and, as prof. johnson said, very supportable - in an IDEAL world. problem is that we haven't been living in that world. you know this. so does your boss.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with you supporting your boss - in fact, i admire your persistence. that does not mean, however, that you are doing the right thing.

besides your posts being interesting, it is also VERY telling that you have chosen NOT to respond to very pertinent questions posed to you - i.e., what other "write-in" candidate has won a race such as this? or, what demographics, etc., does your "polling" show?

these are legitimate questions - which you have chosen to ignore. instead, you choose to frame this election as a "real" candidate versus someone who will not serve. as i am sure you know, this entirely misses the point of the choice for most in this election. nifong is the "front-runner", quasi-incumbent, which either you support or you don't. if you don't - the choice is THEN between your boss and the cheeks-anybody-but-nifong candidate.

it is fairly typical that people in your boss' position will decide to retire from the election in order to save resources - maybe toward a better end in the future. your boss has chosen not to and to continue fighting. while, again, i might usually admire this persistence IF there were a serious and unique perspective offered (i.e., nader or perot), i find NONE of this with your boss. your claim that your boss stands for fairness, etc., is NOT unique - OUTSIDE of nifong. he offers NOTHING more than another person running against nifong...this is not meant as disrespect towards what your boss may or may not stand for, but simply to say that the ONLY certain conclusion to this decision is the reelection of nifong.

i am very saddened by this. further, until you can answer the questions posed to you, there is little to be gleaned from your postings and support for your boss. as i have no vote in this election in wonderland, i can only hope that cheek OR your boss wins. with the REALISTIC odds of this happening at slim, i hope for your sake that you gain something out of this.

Daddyx4 said...

oh and one more question for you, mr. cliff - what say you regarding the fact that YOUR party (and mine) has chosen to endorse cheek's candidacy NOT your boss'?

wouldn't THAT group be the LINCHPIN support a typical candidate from a party would have to have for a viable candidacy? if you cannot gain the support of your OWN party, how do you believe to garner enough votes in general in a heavily democratic county? very curious....

Anonymous said...

Anderson, you are making a straw man argument for the most part. The critics of Johnson are not claiming that a rape occurred. Most think the players are innocent. The critics are pointing out Johnson's willful mischaracterization of Duke and the administration. Johnson has an agenda, which includes a witchhunt of what he considers political correctness. Unfortunately, he is so obsessed that it often causes him to distort (to put it generously) the truth.

Anonymous said...

I was also at Duke for Parents' Weekend. For the last several months I have worried about our son's safety as a Duke student in a town that clearly hates Duke students. But he absolutely adores the school, is working hard and is getting a fantastic education. He is very active in several organizations which do community service in Durham. Duke students spend huge amounts of time participating in an amazing variety of community service. Furthermore, the amount of money that they, and Duke, spend in Durham, and on projects for Durham, is enormous.

We met many students (and their parents) this weekend at several different events (social, athletic and religious) and I came away feeling so lucky that our son is a student at Duke. I found every one of the students I met to be courteous, bright and very much at ease in all conversations. They were from all different backgrounds and had a wide variety of interests. I did not meet one who struck me as egotistical, obnoxious or impolite. Their parents were also gracious and thrilled to be meeting their sons' and daughters' friends and families. Many had brought siblings--and they were just as interesting and polite. It was one of the most enjoyable weekends we have ever spent! I came away knowing that our son was clearly in the best place he could be, and that he is completely happy. I also realized that I would be very happy if our younger child decided to apply to Duke next year and would be totally supportive if that child were to be accepted and wanted to attend Duke.

I found the comment from one poster here about my "horribly behaved" child to be not only offensive, but demonstrably untrue. Our son has been a terrific student from his first day of school, well-behaved to the point of being almost the proverbial "goody good" and kind to everyone, including his siblings!! The students we met seemed to be of the same caliber.

I think anyone denigrating these students is a mean-spirited and jealous person. Are there students who have participated in underage drinking--absolutely. That has happened since the beginning of time at universities throughout this country. That doesn't make it right, but it is not a felony with a penalty of 30 years in prison. No one deserves to have their life taken away and their life savings ruined because a woman falsely accused them of a crime and an ignorant prosecutor decided to use her, and them, to win an election.

Duke will continue to attract the best and the brightest because the people in this country recognize its strengths as an academic institution and they also know by now that this has been a "persecution" rather than a prosecution.

Cliff said...

Learnedhand at 1:06 AM,

In response to your concern that I have chosen not to respond to pertinent questions, I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's wonderful remark:

If I spent my time answering all my critics, I'd have time for nothing else.

I will try to answer pertinent questions as my time permits. As I'm sure you can understand, I have many other commitments in this campaign and they are tremendously time consuming. That said, I will do all that I can to answer as many pertinent questions as my other responsibilites permit.

In the meantime, I would encourage you and others with any questions or concerns about Mr. Monks' candidacy to visit Steve Monks' Website.

Of particular interest in connection with the reality of Mr. Monks' position on his remaining in the race, may be the Press Release from Steve's Press Conference this past Friday, October 27th. You will find a link to it in the "In The News" section of the site.

Hope this helps and I'll post more important information within the next 24 hours.

In the meantime, if you and others here could do what you can to get the folks at LieStarters (a/k/a LieStoppers) to stop telling lies about me and Mr. Monks, I'd surely appreciate it (does anyone here actually know who these people are?). I've addressed this issue on this blog at LieStarters' Lies at 11:32 and 11:42 PM.

If they were to comply with your requests, it would give me more time to answer your questions.

Thank you,


Anonymous said...

As a former seven year resident of Trinity Park, I can tell you Durham residents do not hate Duke students. Their many great young people at Duke. They do hate arrogant, inconsiderate spoiled people (e.g. the kin of people discribed in the RS article on the Duke 500). If your child is considerate of others and does not play at the fringes of legality, then you really do not have much to worry about.
One more thing, people are so upset by the patterns of arrest, but if they lived in Trinity Park, they'd better understand why they occurred. When students ignore police warnings about noise violations over and over again, when students disregard property rights by urinating, vomiting, and trashing people's yards, when underage students insist on drinking in public places (like sidewalks and outside houses), arrests are going to happen. Many students in Trinity Park were great neighbors and NEVER had problems with the police.

Anonymous said...

My apologies, the first paragraph is full of typos. It should read as follows:
As a former seven year resident of Trinity Park, I can tell you Durham residents do not hate Duke students. There are many great young people at Duke. They do hate arrogant, inconsiderate, spoiled people (e.g. the kind of people described in the RS article on the Duke 500). If your child is considerate of others and does not play at the fringes of legality, then you really do not have much to worry about.

Anonymous said...

Is John L. Barker strategies even a real company? It appears to not have a physical location other than Mr. Barker's home. Has this company ever conducted other political polling. Mr. Barker says they have not. Mr. Barker claims to have made the 1000 phone calls himself. He also claimed that his company was a subsidiary of the John L. Barker Center of Humanities at Harvard Universities. When confronted with the fact that the Center of Humanities was the Robert and Elizabeth Center not the John L. Center he responded that Robert and Elizabeth were his grandparents. Robert had one grandchild at the time of his death, a woman named Mary not a man named John. Are you at all concerned by this apparant lack of credibility or the refusal of Mr. Barker to release any underlying data from his "polling"? When Elizabeth Dole is asked whether she commisioned the poll will she confirm or deny Mr. Barker's claim? If "powerful people" commissioned the poll, why did they not use a reputable firm with a physical address or a business liscense? Does it help the Monks campaign to put forth this poll without substantiating its validity? Why has the media apparently deemed this poll to be nonsense and declined to publicize it?

Anonymous said...

Nice post anon 10:35 PM You've demonstrated nicely that there are some real jerks living in Trinity Park near East Campus.
Duke was there before you moved in, and it will be there long after you are gone. To live near a University and expect that there will be no noise and no disturbance ever is just plain stupid. There are hundreds of other Universities in this country that have areas of frats and student housing adjacent to suburban areas. There are ways to deal with these problems that don't involve arresting students and throwing them in jail. And if it is really so bad, why don't you move out?
That's what I would suggest in your case. As a Duke parent I would feel much better if jerks like you are far away from the campus. I'll even donate some money for that.

And don't be so sure about Nifong... after today's new statement by Kim Roberts about what the false accuser said to her in the car as she was being pushed out ("make marks on me, that's what I want"), It may be your tears and Nifong's that will need to be mopped up. And as far as Duke students being arrested and sent to jail for minor violations in your neighborhood... that's over no matter what happens. That may be grounds for a major civil suit against the DPD, and as a Durham taxpayer, it is going to cost you some money.

Anonymous said...

5:51 Anon...It sounds like a hoax of a poll is being used by the Nifong helpers. How perfect that a hoax poll is used to prop up the hoax via the election. The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)has a code of ethics that polling companies are required to follow. Does this scam poll seem to fit the requirements?

AAPOR members sign a Code of Professional Ethics and Practices that requires disclosure of minimal methodological details about surveys when the results are released.
(The full code can be found at The Code calls for disclosing at least the following items:

1. Who sponsored the survey, and who conducted it.
2. The exact wording of questions asked, including the text of any preceding instruction or explanation to the interviewer or respondents that might reasonably
be expected to affect the response.
3. A definition of the population under study, and a description of the sampling frame used to identify this population.
4. A description of the sample selection procedure, giving a clear indication of the method by which the respondents were selected by the researcher, or whether the respondents were entirely self-selected.
5. Size of samples and, if applicable, completion rates and information on eligibility
criteria and screening procedures.
6. A discussion of the precision of the findings, including, if appropriate, estimates of
sampling error, and a description of any weighting or estimating procedures used.
7. Which results are based on parts of the sample, rather than on the total sample.
8. Method, location, and dates of data collection.

Legitimate surveys generally document their claims at the time the findings are reported.

Does anyone know if using a fake poll to prop up a campaign constitutes election fraud?

Anonymous said...

The National Council on Public Polling offers a list of twenty questions a journalist should ask before deciding to report the results of a poll. The list makes it quite clear why no reputable media outlet has reported the results of the poll being touted by Mr. Brandt. The list might also be helpful for those deciding how much credibility to attach to the poll and the people who would like you to believe it has merit.

Anonymous said...

Nice post 8:49, you've basically made my point for me.
Love, 3:05

Anonymous said...

One more thing 8:49, raise your child to have some respect for others and he/she/it will get along just fine. Of course, if my desciption of what kind of people Durham hates bothers you, maybe it's because the description hits a little too close to home for you.
Love, 3:05

Anonymous said...

The Department of Justice and the FBI are investigating the Duke Case. I know this as fact. The investigation though will take time. Lets just say they are letting Nifong have enough rope to hang himself.
For Monks, if he remains in this race as the spoiler his political career is over. He will forever be blackballed for playing a part of attempting to keep corruption alive. He will be remembered as partnered with the most corrupt DA in the U.S. And the FEDs with prove that.
For the voters, voting for Nifong may aleve your idea of getting back at all the rich white men who you think have persacuted the blacks for two hundred years. But it will only boomerang back to hurt you in the pocketbook. Duke University is already suffering from the financial set back from this case. It will take many years of cleaning house to repair. Your taxes will go up, the city of Durham will have to pay restitution for what has been done to these young men and their families. The longer it is prolonged and the more they have to suffer the more you the taxpayers will pay. So think before you vote, "Do I want to pay money from my own pocket to subsidize Nifongs political career? You and your families will be the ones that suffer. What goes around comes around. The impact on Durham will great when all is said and done.

Anonymous said...

3:05.. I don't need any advice from you how to raise my child. Your assumption that the type of person you "dislike" cuts close to home couldn't be more wrong. My S or D is an honor student at Duke and has never been anywhere near your stupid neighborhood. You should be so lucky to have such a child, and maybe you are.

You claim to dislike only the students that misbehave, but the tone of your posts demonstrates otherwise.

I have been told that Trinity Park residents have done nothing at all in the past to meet with the Duke administration to try to solve this issue. Correct me if I am wrong. All they have done is call the police repeatedly. And we can see how seriously the Durham courts take noise violations.. they don't want to be bothered with that stuff (and rightfully

Let me see if I have this right.. You want Nifong to win because you think he hates Duke students too, and he will arrest them and police your neighborhood. And just because he made a little mistake and indicted three Duke lacrosse students for a serious crime that never occurred, that's not really a problem in your mind. You are still more concerned about noise violations and drinking and peeing on bushes. Do I have that right? Well dream on... like the last poster said, the longer this farce goes on, the more expensive it's going to be for Durham when it's over. So get your checkbook ready.

Anonymous said...

2:02 AM, thank you for taking the time to write such a nice note about your experience at Parents Weekend. We also have a child at Duke and she absolutely loves it. We are so proud that our daughter is attending such an incredible university.

Anonymous said...

12:26 PM, you really are a jerk. I doubt that the arrogant, condescending, in your face tone of your post is going to cause people to have a real high opinion of the LAX players and their supporters. If your goal is to hurt their cause, you are doing a great job.

Anonymous said...

To the two people who wrote about theirchildren's positive experiences at Duke--thank you for providing some balance and some sanity. I have two children at Duke, and they both love it and are getting a fantastic education. One lived in trinity Park last year, and had to deal with the pot-bangers.

I know that many duke students HAVE behaved badly in that neighborhood, and it is more than just under-age drinking. It doesn't justify the vile comments made by the one who would condemn all Duke students, but certainly TP residents have had a right to be angry (and suggesting they should move is absurd.) Hopefully, things will improve now that the university has bought many of the houses, but I suspect, as long as the university has such a strict on-campus drinking policy, the problem will only move farther into Durham.

All these problems are not unique to Durham and Duke--they exist at almost every school to varying degrees. It is naive to think that you can send your kids to other schools and avoid 1)locals who don't like wild parties in their neighborhoods and 2)liberal and PC faculty members. The kids I am most worried about are those at schools like U of Miami--where they don't seem to care about violence!

Anonymous said...

The Trinity Park neighborhood association, when I was living there in the late 1990s, tried to organize meetings and beginning of the school year "socials" with the students every year. Many students as I said were very nice and considerate. The neighborhood always tried to reach out. Some students, however, preferred not to return the courtesy.

Anonymous said...

One more thing, I explicitly said twice that there were "great" students living in Trinity Park. I think it is hardly the case that the tone of my post "demonstrates" my hatred of student. By the way, I am now starting to understand why you are attacking me so vehemently. It is definitely hitting too close to home for you.

Cliff said...

I sent the following email on behalf of Steve Monks to KC yesterday. In that email, Mr. Monks asks KC to post it on this site. As of this writing, KC has not done this, as is, of course, his right. In view of this, I am posting it in it's entirety on Mr. Monk's behalf, as follows...

Dear KC,

I am not very blog conscious and as a result I was not aware of all of the negative sentiment that was being expressed regarding me and my campaign on your blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, and on Liestoppers until it was recently brought to my attention. I have been relying and continue to rely on Cliff Brandt to advise me of any significant web content and I was aware that your blog and others were “critical” of my campaign. This did not alarm me until I actually read what was posted. On the other side of the coin, Cliff has, I believe, been somewhat too “passionate” in reply to some criticisms of my campaign made on your site and others. And, it appears that he may have been insulting in a few of his replies. I appreciate Cliff's dedicated support, but I have not authorized any commentary in support of my candidacy which is offensive. Cliff is my personal advisor and has been instrumental in keeping me in touch with the web, managing press relations, and in developing position papers, advertising, and other media. And, his editorial on behalf of my campaign in the Duke Chronicle last week was principally “his baby” and I believe that he was “right on the money”. Cliff is a very smart guy who can from time to time be abrasive. Therefore, without enumerating exactly what I found inappropriate, I wish to convey my personal apologies for any offensive remarks he has made.

The purpose of my press conference last Friday (10/27/06) was to publicly express that the Monks and Cheek camps need to engage in a constructive dialogue about who would be most successful in their efforts to “take-on” Mike Nifong. I believe you would agree with me on that point. There have been “some” discussions to date but nothing significant…and we’re running out of time. Apparently, my call for dialogue worked because from what can been seen on the blogs, people are talking. However, as offensive as some previous postings from my camp may have been, they were not expressly authorized, and insulting and demeaning me or my camp will not assist in the process of a constructive dialogue.

I am aware that you perceive that, at best, I am delusional to believe that I have a chance given the results of the recent WRAL/N&O survey which basically dismissed my campaign. This presupposes that the survey I introduced at my press conference is not valid. If it is valid, I would respectfully suggest you all need to start reassessing your position. Even if it is not, the WRAL/N&O poll shows that the Cheek camp is WAY underestimating the degree to which Durham voters find the “Vote Cheek – Recall Nifong”, Governor-Replaces-Nifong option undesirable. I am one such person. Robbing anyone in Durham County, myself included, of the full power of their vote for the ill-considered expedient of our Governor selecting who will replace a DA who needs replacing, just does not cut it for me. I honestly do not believe that Mr. Cheek can win, even if I withdraw, and thus it makes sense, at least to me, that the Cheek camp should reconsider supporting me. However, it is beginning to sound as likely that the Cheek camp will reconsider their position as it is that Mike Nifong will reconsider his own.

I cannot understand for one moment why the Anti-Nifong camp did not get another qualified write-in candidate after Cheek bailed out on them. To believe that they could convince Durham voters to “give up” their vote for nothing more than the hope of something better is about as arrogant as you make me out to be; and I am not. Perhaps both camps have good intentions, but we cannot agree on this point. I suspect that is true, but I can only speak for myself. This is why I have sought constructive dialogue over this issue. The Cheek camp cancelled our meeting today, not me. I really question the Cheek camps’ motivations given the fact that they won’t even meet with me. Is this just a partisan thing to keep a Republican from having this office?

Also, when the editorial in the Duke Chronicle spoke of "the support of nearly 27,000 registered Republicans in [Durham] county," this was meant to express the fact that the Durham County Republican Party has formally endorsed me and it is not unreasonable to suppose that its members would be pre-disposed to vote for me.

I suppose that I could review everything on the web both critical and supportive and try to reply to same, but I have a family and 5 law offices to run and I just don’t have the time. So, if you or others need to take “pot shots” at me go right ahead, but what will this accomplish? I will simply say that I am qualified and capable of serving as the Durham District Attorney and I will serve if elected. And, absent evidence to the contrary that Cheek has a chance, I intend to continue my campaign. Show me evidence that Cheek has a chance and I’ll listen. Will the Cheek camp listen if I am right?

Given the generally negative tone of your blog in connection with my campaign to date, I would ask that in fairness you post this correspondence on Durham-in-Wonderland as soon as your schedule permits.


Steve Monks

Official Write-In Candidate for Durham District Attorney

PO Box 51666
Durham, NC 27717

Anonymous said...

Cliff, you have been asked several times on this thread to post the details of the Barker poll, yet you still haven't (see posts at 10:28 AM and 10:43 AM, for example). Monks claims that it is a valid survey, so why not release that information?

Anonymous said...

7:40 - Actually, Mr. Monks does not claim it is valid.

"If it is valid, I would respectfully suggest you all need to start reassessing your position."

He offers the poll's results in support of his viability yet does not even bother to validate its legitimacy.

Monks has been studying up on his Nifongese.

Anonymous said...

To 7:58 PM:

By George, you're right! Looks like I got Monked.

Anonymous said...

Nofongese ... Monked

Well, they are both lawyers.

Anonymous said...

A fellow named Monks has a poll
Which shows his campaign on a roll.
As for the details,
He conveniently bails,
Thus leaving poor Cliff in his hole.

Anonymous said...

To Cliff Brandt and Steve

Come on guys, you've been asked multiple times to release the details of the Barker poll. The N&O gave the details of their poll, so why won't you?

What are you guys hiding?

Anonymous said...

They are hiding the fact that Monks knows he can not win. And in the chance that Nifong does win, he has worked a deal with Nifong to get favors after the election if Monks stays in and takes the heat for being the spoiler. So Monks is just another Nifong parasite. They can't post the details of the Barker poll because they are not legite. Good try Monks but the general public is not as stupid as those in Durham. Must be something in the water down there.

Anonymous said...

We now know why Mike Nifong has been so desperate to
avoid revealing the content of his conversations with
accuser Crystal Mangum. The actions of the DA's
office over the last week indicate Durham police and
chief investigator Nifong were certainly aware that Ms
Mangum was continuing to strip (and likely engaging in
paid "one-on-one" sexual encounters) in the days right
after she made rape accusations.

Nifong likely counciled her in his face-to-face
meeting and his numerous calls to her to stop these
activities (which she did not; having been seen
stripping as recently as last week)

Nifong's attempt to manipulate the media backfired on
him today; and further disgraced the Herald-Sun.

It turns out the only new "fact" in the Duke case ever
reported by the Herald-Sun turns is a knowing lie
fronted by Nifong's office.

Mike Nifong sent his perpetually dishonest
investigator Linwood Wilson out to the media to
attempt to discredit 60 minutes video evidence that
Crystal Mangum was dancing as soon as 1 week after her
false accusation of rape.

The only reporter stupid and malicious enough to print
Mr Linwood's intentional lies was the H-S's John
Stevenson, who claimed that Platinum Club owner Victor
Olatoye contradicted the story of numerous patrons and
his own manager about when Crystal Mangum was doing
lab dances and pole dancing at his club.

Other reporters simply called Mr Olatoye and got the
actual story:

From the NYTimes

"Mr. Olatoye said that a day after he had signed the
affidavit he told the district attorney’s office that
he needed to change it. But an investigator for the
office, Linwood Wilson, said Mr. Olatoye never told
him about the new information, and added that he was
now expected to file a new affidavit on Friday."