Saturday, November 11, 2006

Change of Tune from the Herald-Sun?

With Nifong safely elected, today's Herald-Sun (in the lowest circulation edition of the week, Saturday) for the first time casts skepticism on the accuser's story. John Stevenson interviewed a former manager at the strip club where the accuser once danced. According to Stevenson, the former manager (a woman), "said the [accuser] had to be dragged and carried from the nightspot because she passed out inside. This behavior, according to the former manager, "was just constant, every night. I don't know how many times she fell out on stage." (The accuser had a "driver," and therefore was not responsible for getting herself home.) As Stevenson points out, both Kim Roberts and the initial police officer responding to Roberts' 911 call on the night of the incident described the accuser in nearly identical terms.

Since lead investigator Nifong never interviewed the accuser about either the events of the night or the run-up to the evening of the incident (and the police appear not to have done so, either), he would have no way of knowing whether the former manager's story corroborates or contradicts the accuser's version of events. Such details are, it seems, of no interest to the person who supervised the investigation--contrary to all standard procedures--from March 24 onwards.

Why do I have to be the one," mused supervising investigator Nifong, "that's interviewed somebody? The police, other people can deal with interviews and they can report to me what they do and I can direct them from that. It's not necessary for me to ask you about a specific event from your life for me to get a sense of whether or not you're a reliable individual."

The "minister of justice" had no comment to the Stevenson story, as he refused to respond to the explosive Joseph Neff story from last week: according to the former security manager at the strip club, four days after the incident, the accuser "basically said, 'I'm going to get paid by the white boys.'"

The testimony of the two former employees of the strip club, given to different newspapers on different occasions, will go down as two of the myriad examples of the "facts" that have emerged since he expressed his initial opinion on March 27 that Nifong deemed irrelevant to the case.


Anonymous said...

Kc, do you ever sleep?

Do I ever sleep?


Anonymous said...

I made more comprehensive comments on TL, but one thing has struck me since that post. I wonder if the AV has blackouts that are a result of some medication she is taking? Is there any indication in the case files that she was asked about RX meds that she was taking (even if that would likely not have been revealed as discovery)? If she is on a RX for a disorder, some of these drugs are very powerful and when mixed with alcohol or other meds can simply knock you out.

Then again, Flexerile can knock one out, also, especially if it is is overdosed.


Anonymous said...

PS - I realize that Flexerile is a RX med and AV stated she was taking it. I was postulating about other meds, specifically those often prescribed for substance addicts who manifest symptoms of mental disorders.

Just wanted to clarify so that I don't look like an utter fool. Lack of sleep catches up with me.


Anonymous said...

You've got to admit the H/S headline is one of the worst:

"Dancer: Bruises could have come from club."

Anonymous said...

Stevenson assisting in setting the stage for Nifong to try and wiggle out of this totally false fiasco?

Anonymous said...

I think there is a very important development in this story that we cannot overlook, and that is this notion of "respectability." The people who now are blowing apart the case are the people who in "polite" society are not "respectable." Yet, it is they who are most concerned with the truth.

Look at the "respectable" people in Durham, from the black ministers to the Herald-Sun staff to Liefong and his people to the Evil Gang of 88. All of them are "respected" in their community, yet all of them have worked together to promote The Big Lie.

So, in the end, who is more honest? Now, I can assure you that the Durham "respectables" already are in full spin mode, saying that "You can't trust these people because they are not respectable." Yet, who promotes the lie, and who promotes the truth?

Interestingly, the "respectables" have chosen to believe the lies of the person for whom the people at the strip club have the least trust and respect. Liefong is trying to tell us that he "knows" the accuser is telling the truth. But the people who REALLY know her can say full-out that she is lying.

And, yes, Twaddlefree, none of us are getting sleep anymore. I get maybe five hours a night, and the first thing I do in the morning is get on the Internet and go to Durham-in-Wonderland. K.C. is to blame for my lack of sleep!

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

why isn't anyone writing about the macro angle?: low-iq minorities are the populations most likely to file false police reports--i would guess that the average false accuser has an iq of the underclass

when is duke going to get rid of its low-iq affirmative action faculty?

GPrestonian said...


I too was stunned to see this article this AM. Perhaps you nailed the reason for it - 'now that the election is over'. One can only hope that the defense is all over these interviews and has already taken statements from the Platinum playas. It's obvious that the DA's office hasn't done so [well, nothing in discovery yet, anyway].


This article & your comments bring up 2 important facets of 'what happened before the night of 3/13:

1) - the (minor) injuries to the AV, and their apparent cause. Interesting that she apparently felt that she needed more marks on her (per Kim) to make her rape story more believable.

2) - the tox screen results - Nifong's now-disproven bad-faith suggestion that there might have been date rape drugs involved aside, what other drugs were in her system, and what was her BAC? Was her BAC much higher than her '2 beers(??) at the party' would explain? You're correct in your comment that the presence of other presription drugs would have been redacted from the public discovery docs for privacy reasons, but the defense should have access to the complete results of the tox screen.

The AV's BAC level will be important should this come to trial, pertaining to both the source of her injuries, and her credibility as a witness/accuser. I know several former & current dancers, and all of them tend to drink heavily before & while dancing. They say it's the only way that they can get comfortable with what they do for a living.

William L. Anderson:

Thank you for your great article this AM. Don't worry about going to D-I-W first thing in the morning, it doesn't reach the critical stage until you set it as your home page! But if you've set your cell phone to receive instant updates of D-I-W posts, you know you've crossed the line. ;>)

Anonymous said...

A BAC was not drawn-the date-rape drug test was ordered later (by the Nifungus amoungus) on a sample of her hair. No drug or alcohol screening whatsoever was done during the Duke ED visit and the so-called SANE exam.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Anderson:

I must respectfully disagree with your comment about the "respectables" of Durham. They do not believe these lies. They merely see them as a vehicle to flex their muscle and to advance their agenda.

I'm afraid that you, KC and the other commentators are missing the point of this case entirely. All of you continue to focus on the facts of this case. And for people who believe in our legal traditions, that is the logical thing to do. However, there is no reason to proceed with this factual analysis any longer. It is clear that nothing happened to this woman this night. Anyone can see this. Nifong knows this and so does the gaggle of 88.

The parties pressing this matter are doing so for different reasons. Nifong was doing it to get reelected. He couldn't make a living in private practice so he has to do whatever he has to do to get reelected. There's no way he could come by the approx. $110K a year that he makes as a DA in private practice.

The gang of 88 has finally found an example of the white patriarchy that they have spent their careers battling against. The interesting thing is that at least a few of them are part of this patriarchy. Their views on the case are more about "social justice" than legal justice. Their idea here is that this case, and more importantly, can be used as retribution for 400 years of white oppression. This is roughly where the black community falls.

And this is the point that we as critics of this case should focus our attention. Nifong is just a tool. He's a mere clown in this episode and a scared clown at that. The bar will eventually take care of him. But this latter group that seeks to use western legal traditions against itself is where we should focus our attention. All of these groups know that nothing like rape happened to that woman. But, what they're sure of is 400 years of oppression. They will seek to use majority minority communities to persecute whites to punish the progeny of white oppressors.

At least one Georgetown law prof (whose name escapes me) has argued for jury nullification of blacks accused of crimes. This is essentially what the OJ jury did. They said they didn't care about the facts, but OJ was black so he shouldn't be punished. Now, minorities are seeing that they actually have the power of the state when they can control the DA.

So, stop wasting time talking about the facts. Talk about the manipulation of the system.

Anonymous said...

Wow, way to throw down with the concise analysis. First, K.C.'s comments, then, Bill Anderson's 8:20, 8:32 asks a question about the elephant in the room which no one else will ever acknowledge, and the take on Anderson's comments by 9:20. Faith powered by reason. Thank you! sic semper tyrannis

Anonymous said...

I cannot let that last one pass without comment, as the point made is one that I make, at least in part, on Lew Rockwell's page today:

I agree wholeheartedly that many people who are promoting this lie would not say they believe it if the circumstances were different, or if the defendants were not white lacrosse players. This is a POLITICAL prosecution, pure and simple, and Liefong made sure he greased the skids for re-election.

The larger point is that the "respectables" are the ones who still are publicly insisting that a lie is the truth, while the "unrespectables" are the ones who are openly saying what everyone else knows: the whole thing is a lie.

Still, having facts is not a bad thing, but I also would agree that a black, Durham jury would not be interested in the facts, as the political pressure for a conviction would be too great to overcome. We have seen similar behavior from all-white juries, so there is precedent -- an unhappy precedent.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

I am astonished that the club management just carries someone passed out outside and leaves them in the gravel. I am astounded that the false accuser would return to "work" where she is treated like a bag of trash. Allowing herself to be treated this way shows that the false accuser has some very serious problems. I've heard the arguement that she has to do this type of "work" to support her kids. Oh yeah? Then get yourself cleaned up, get home, and take care of yourself. Her children, who have probably been removed according to statements by Nifong, should be removed from her care. She can't take care of herself much less her children.
Her credibility was zero before this article; now it's minus 10 and counting. This is a disgusting situation. I put it all on Nifong.
He will probably put it all on the false accuser and then he'll throw her away just like the club management.

GPrestonian said...

Anon 9:10 said:

"No drug or alcohol screening whatsoever was done during the Duke ED visit and the so-called SANE exam."

D'Oh! I forgot about that, my bad. Forgive my feeble mind for wanting to continually try to look at this as a 'normal case'.

Absence of timely tox screen can still be presented by the defense as further indication of sloppy investigation, tho.

Is there anything about this case that isn't a total screw de pooch?

To paraphrase that PGA commercial - "These guys are bad!

Anonymous said...

The investigation was sloppy beyond belief, but it never was a serious "rape" investigation to begin with. Liefong and the others were able to gain a wonderful political benefit, Liefong was able to control the grand jury process to secure indictments -- thus presenting the appearance that a real crime had been committed.

This whole thing has been a sham from day one, and all of the major players know it. But, as I have argued elsewhere, because the costs are imposed elsewhere -- and Liefong and company have been able to reap the rewards -- all it took was an unscrupulous DA to set it all in motion.

Keep in mind that Liefong STILL could secure a guilty verdict with a Durham jury. That is why this case is so dangerous: everyone knows it is a lie, but those in authority are keeping it alive in order to "preserve the integrity" of the system. Think about that; the state promotes a lie because the players insist that it promotes "integrity." Indeed, it IS Durham-in-Wonderland.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

I agree with Prof. Anderson that a Durham jury could ignore the facts. Thus a change of venue is essential if this case goes to trial. Also, the defense attorneys are expert in selecting juries and they do have preemptory challenges.The real question is if Nifong wants to go to trial, or will drop the case just before. A trial opens up witnesses to cross-examination by an experienced team of defense lawyers and to the possibilty of perjury. A rational prosecutor would drop the case now (especially since the election is over), but has Mr. Nifong showed he is rational?

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:20 said:

"So, stop wasting time talking about the facts. Talk about the manipulation of the system."

I think there has been an ongoing discussion of this by KC and others, but with a restraint that has been required due to lack of "facts." As more detail is leaked, the environment is ripening for an open discussion of the reasons why manipulation is occurring. It has taken awhile to get there.

However, reasoned minds cannot help but analyze, critique, prove or disprove an "argument" on the basis of facts. It is a comfort to those in a civilized society, a democratic judiciary and a free market economy (or what's left of these at this point).

Without truth, there is no lie. Without fact, there is no error. Without right, there is no wrong. The fundamental core of our society is indeed being chipped away, piece by piece. It is no longer a mere manipulation of facts, but a fabrication of "facts" that are then further manipulated to mold a new truth. Every flaw in deductive thought is used throughout our society with impunity until the capacity to think logically is gone. I have certainly not held back on my view of this, but I am a nobody whose words get nowhere. Bill Anderson, however, has said it well:

"Think about that; the state promotes a lie because the players insist that it promotes "integrity."

Still, one cannot manipulate a substance that has no mass. I am reminded of the monks who understood the dangers of ideological wars (called "terrorism" today by those who understand). They assured preservation of truth to be uncovered by later generations. We must do the same. It is against our nature to do otherwise.

Only the facts will form the foundation for proof of their manipulation.


Anonymous said...

The N&O (Rugh's blog) has a letter from a Durmite (?) who states that the accuser deserves her day in court. It looks like the accuser will get her day in court; actally several of them spent on the witness stand under cross exam. She have quite a day in court going over:
1. Her mental health history
2. Her drug and alcohol habits
3. Her employment history at strip clubs, escort services, and as a free lancer
4. Her criminal record including any other rape allegations
5. Her activities in the 24-48 hours preceding the alleged rape
6. Inconsisitent statements
7. Inability to identify rapists until the thrid line up
8. Identification of 4 rapists during the third line up
9. Statements regarding the alleged rape to others
10. Statements that directly conflict with the other dancer's statements
These are just the top 10. If it's a day in court the Black community wants, it looks like they'll be very happy with many days in court.

Anonymous said...

I sent this info to KC about a week ago and thought I would share it here:

I just figured something out.

This "Platinum Club" in Hillsborough is the former "Club Royale" in Durham. I can tell you with 110% certainty that Club Royale was a whore house where prostitution was blatant. It was about 4 miles from my old apartment in Durham. I went there a few times until I got tired of telling the dancers I was not interested in sex. The dancers would walk up to you and ask you if you wanted sex and went as far as having condoms in their hand bags. According to the guy who answered the phone when I called just now, "They are still the Club Royale, but have just changed names to Platinum Club and moved to Hillsborough." Additionally, the place was so ghetto it was BYOB. The only place I have EVER seen more raunchy than Club Royale is the other club they shut down 1 block down Angier known as "Brothers 3." Brothers 3 was shut down about 2 years ago and to my knowledge has not reopened.

And look who owned Club Royale:

The long and short of what I am saying is this, the false accuser, if she was working at this place, most certainly is a prostitute. I realize this has been the assumption of her true occupation for awhile and is not new news, but further proof.

Anonymous said...

Here are the links again. Sorry I copied them wrong the first time.

Anonymous said...

The problem here is that many black jurors will interpret ANY cross examination as an act of blatant racism and are likely to shut out anything that would discredit her story. Likewise, they are likely to do the illogical thing of insisting that other employees of the strip club are just no-count people who cannot be believed, should their testimony discredit the accuser.

The defense knows this, which is another reason why they do not want this case to go to trial. There are a number of minefields that would not be a problem in most cases, but because of the racial, sexual, and political nature of this case, are a real barrier to justice.

The lynchpin is the ID process. If the charges are thrown out on that basis, it will be impossible to re-instate those charges. The judge knows that, which is why he may be reluctant to make that move, even though he knows that ultimately it would be a reversible error should he permit the charges to remain. Again, we see the politics of this case.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

Bill said:

"Likewise, they are likely to do the illogical thing of insisting that other employees of the strip club are just no-count people who cannot be believed, should their testimony discredit the accuser."

I don't think they will say that, because the black community cannot afford to be divided with the status of "evidence" being non-existant. They will claim that these witnesses were threatened by the DPD or paid off by the Duke whiteys. That accomplishes the purpose of subtlty discrediting them amongst the black community because they were unable to withstand the white power, yet enables them to remain united against the whites, retaining the "integrity" of group loyalty so that there is no condemnation of either the black strippers/prostitutes or their profession.


Anonymous said...

What are we going to hear next? The accuser was extorting the Finnerty's? I don't have any proof, but it is looking like this was a deliberate extortion attempt and the DA didn't care & didn't want to look. Somebody pointed out Finnerty so she could put on that crying act! I doubt the accuser could have done it because what we are seeing is a drug addict who passes out constantly and needs to be driven everywhere. Somebody decided to set up the ID it with a video camera on her.

Nifong went ballistic when the Defense attorneys said they would not be any plea bargains.

I am sure we are all thinking the same thought. Congressmen do steal and maybe we just have a corrupt DA.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Anderson & Twaddlefree:

Please don't misunderstand my request to stop discussing the facts. I am grateful to KC and Anderson for everything they've done to uncover the truth and promote it. In fact, based on what I've seen so far, this is about as close as you can get to actually proving the negative - proof that no rape occurred.

My point is that continuing to discuss what new bomb shell landed today or yesterday is not nearly as important as the analysis of the perverted multicultural and diversity agenda that got us into this place. In my humble opinion, continuing to discuss the "latest" proof that no rape occurred is about like talking about the most recent proof that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.

To take Anderson's point about respectables and push it a bit in the direction that I think is important, I would suggest that the diversity group's strangle hold on the academy is leading people to think they can't question the diversity agenda lest they be castigated as racist rubes who just aren't that "smart."

Anderson, you nailed the "respectables". But why do the respectables act as they do? I submit that it is their diversity agenda and the people fearful of questioning it.

Anonymous said...

Great comments but please - don't give up on exposing the facts. By all means expose the manipulation of the system but the facts reveal that the players are innocent and the more facts the better.

Anonymous said...

I think you are correct. Many of the people in the "diversity" department are not what one would think of being the best scholars at the university or college where they work. Furthermore, even in the standard fields such as history and English, political correctness reigns, and that especially is true at the elite institutions like Duke.

This may seem to be an oxymoron: the elite academics are likely to be promoting inferior scholarship. I say that realizing that this is a "broad brush" kind of comment, as there are very good scholars in these departments.

However -- and this is true in many institutions of higher education -- the hard left is in control and permits no dissent. Anyone who goes against them can expect to be the victim of retaliation.

To be honest, K.C. himself was a "poster child" of this when leftists where he works tried to deny him tenure. However, K.C. fought back and got what he had earned.

I was fortunate in that I am in the College of Business at Frostburg State, and because I have been fairly productive academically, I did not have trouble earning tenure and promotion. Even the people in liberal arts were willing to vote me in. Now, had I been in history, it would have been more difficult, pure and simple, as the people in that department are much more ideological than those of us in the COB.

Anyway, back to grading papers. Yes, I work nights and weekends, too.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

like KC, professor anderson you do not live in durham and do not know what is happening here. let me enlighten you. the reason the respectable people do not beleive this stripper, this bouncer is because unbeknownst to the white community, the private eyes for the defense have been going allover town paying money for info. the strip club people would sell their mama for $50 and the money is big time. Unfortunately for the defense, the strip club people are related to the other blacks in durham and they are telling their relatives about the money. the relative tell their co-workers, and church members and then suddenly, all of black durham thinks that everyone from that club is lying or exaggerting to get paid off. Those rumors were everywhere during the election and is why the black people did not listen to 60 minutes or kim or this bouncer. that is also why that black man made the comment about the rich white boys trying to buy an election.

Anonymous said...

Of course never mind that Precious herself is a stripper?
Why trust her using that logic?

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 6.11:

To the extent that such a rumor--a claim, in effect, that the state's leading defense attorneys would risk disbarment and imprisonment for obstruction for justice so they could win a case for which the overwhelming amount of evidence is on their side as things stand now--could gain any currency provides yet another reason why a fair trial in Durham is impossible.

Anonymous said...

I am so proud that the black people came out in record number this year in support of the accuser. They should be proud.

kcjohnson9 said...

In fact, black turnout was quite low; and noplace lower than in the precinct of the accuser's former institution, North Carolina Central--where, according to preliminary figures, only 8.9 percent of registered voters went to the polls.

Anonymous said...

Well, I see that 6:11 has proved my point. And, it took only four hours and seven minutes before my prediction was realized. All the black witnesses were paid off by the whiteys.

Anony 3:54: I certainly agree with you, with one major caveat. The three innocent boys have not been proven innocent within the Durham judicial system and cannot continue their young lives until they are. Only facts have any chance of proving that innocence. So far, they have not prevented this travesty, but they must be accumulated, knit together, analyzed and exposed.

I absolutely agree with you and Bill. I think KC and Bill are a good balance. Bill will tell you that he heard me screaming at him months ago through my computer monitor to expose this. But, facts have to form the foundation of the manipulation.

I think we will be getting more. There are others to join in the fray. The problem is that this case is overloading with stuff that resulted from Nifong's handling of things due to his election bid. The case is exacerbated by a corrupt DA. Now that the election is over, we are seeing a slow trickle of "new" information. It has a purpose, and not to merely release info to the public. A large segment of that public will not take the time to learn the facts, absorb them, read about them in places like this blog, or bother to analyze them. Another large segment doesn't care...just another crime. Then, there are those who can't process the information. So, the purpose of leaking facts to the public is not what it seems, methinks.

In any case, there is a balance needed at this point. Both the facts of the case and the agenda of the case should be exposed.

Anonymous said...

That last comment was from Twaddlefree. Still needing sleep, sorry.


Anonymous said...

I received these two emails today from attorneys in other states, and they present a picture of what is happening today.

But before I post their comments, let me say that we can be assured that no one is "paying off" the other strippers, and especially for $50. These people know what happened to Elmostafa, and they know they are risking their freedom and perhaps their lives to speak out.

The commentor basically was giving us another rendition of Victoria Peterson's claim that Duke University Hospital "tampered" with the DNA test in order to obtain negative results. This is further proof to me that unless there is a change of venue, if it goes to trial, the blacks on the jury will not listen to anything but the accuser's story. This is disheartening, but it also tells me that at least in Durham, black ministers do not care a whit about the truth.

The sad thing is that this could have been a moment in which the NAACP and the black ministers could have made a statement about justice, about truth, about police malfeasance, and prosecutorial misconduct. The end result would have been -- and I firmly believe this -- a reduction in black men being wrongfully convicted. Blacks over the years have been victimized by the "justice" system. Now I realize, at least in Durham, that they do not object to a corrupt system -- if they can be the ones who are engaged in the wrongful prosecution. I know these are harsh words, but that is the reality of this situation.

Now to the letters I received:

Thank you for a lucid and insightful analaysis. I am a criminal defense lawyer, and I agree on every point you state. Try to explain your premise to a jury, however, and things become difficult, because the judge and the prosecutor will attempt to stop you.

Here is the second one:

Thank you for your articles on the Duke/Nifong situation. They have
added greatly to my understanding of flaws in the system.

I am a lawyer in ------- who defends families against state
social services and in criminal sex abuse cases, when they are
falsely accused of committing abuse. The Duke case is just the sort of thing I see on a daily basis. I can confirm that everything you have said about the system is absolutely true. Your insights have helped me think through many of the policy issues that underlie this unjust system.

For some time, I have believed that the single greatest (and
simplest) change we could make to the "justice" system would be to
remove immunity for government actors, and require accountability for their malfeasance. Immunity is a judge-made contrivance that we inherited from England, and is almost never statutory. Judges from the Supreme Court on down have instituted it as an iron law, in order to protect the system from any accountability for wrongdoing, even when it is venal, open, and deliberate, as at uke. Immunity is perhaps one of the most dangerous doctrines in all of law, because it overtly subverts justice.

In the social services area where I practice, foolish 23 year old
childless liberal do-gooder social workers come storming into homes
with police swat teams and remove children, on the mere suspicion of
abuse. All it takes is an nonymous call from a cranky neighbor, or a school guidance counselor. These removals cause horrific emotional trauma to these poor children, who are often ripped out of the mother's arms at gunpoint, screaming and crying.

Then, a year later, after nearly ruining the children, after thousands of dollars and dozens of hearings, little Suzy social worker often has to admit there was no abuse. Oops. Oh well. No apology will be forthcoming, of course, including if the child was abused while in custody, which happens at a breathtakingly high rate.

They say that immunity is needed for DAs and for social workers,
because it allows the nvestigators to proceed with full discretion
and no fear, etc. etc. It's a lie. It allows them to ruin lives
with impunity, to jail the innocent, to run roughshod over family autonomy, to remove children from families on pretexts, and to perpetrate all the other predations about which you have written.

Thank you for exposing this injustice. People usually don't realize how far the system has drifted from truth and justice until they get pinched by it. They think the system is about justice, and hey, only real criminals have anything to worry about anyway. The truth will come out.

Most of my clients do not believe that the system will fail them. I
warn them about what to expect, and tell them that while they were
not aware, someone has come in and substituted a Soviet-style system
for ours, and that it is totally unpredictable, rarely just, and
completely unaccountable. They scoff, and think I'm just
exaggerating, using hyperbole for effect. Then they go to court, or
meet a social worker at their home. Suddenly, they realize I hadn't told them the half of it. Most are stunned beyond belief. Some never recover from their cynicism. Most are never the same again.

Keep up the principled opposition to injustice. Thank you so much
for all your labors to that end.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting these letters, Bill. They are enlightening.


Anonymous said...

I suggest you have a look at the "tribute" to Ed Bradley that ran in the Sunday morning Herald Sun, as an editorial, albeit the second one.

Back to the same old same old about Bradley taking an unbalanced ("uncharacteristically" it was said) view of the Duke case, and tisking that it would be remembered as his last.

The Herald-Sun has a long history of headlines that can only foster racial animosities. Whoever wrote that editorial is hewing to an ugly tradition.

Anonymous said...

The Bob Ashley cheap shot at Ed Bradley was typical of the Herald-Sun, which wishes for us to believe that "a rape could have happened," given all the information we already know.

Bradley's story was "one-sided" for one reason: the evidence is "one-sided." There literally is NO evidence of a rape, none. Bradley was intelligent enough to figure out the situation; Ashley either is too stupid or too craven.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

Hasn't Nifong himself gone on record as saying that he is obligated to take the case to trial because it has become such a matter of community division, etc., etc.?

Isn't this exactly why there is such a thing as change of venue?

Hasn't he hoisted himself on his own self-serving petard?

Anonymous said...

kc you refuse to believe that the strippers and bouncers are not being paid by the defense private eyes? and that they are not sharing the video and stories for monetary gain? well check out wtvd messageboard and they have a thread in which the precious video is on you tube and you can get a copy of the full tape from someone listed by a contact email on youtube as fats. hp thomas, the bouncer, is called fats sometimes. the contact email is for paying for the complete tape. oh and a regular poster on wtvd who works at the clubs says that the video was not taken at the platinum club cause he goes there alot! and dude is a lax supporter like you and has no reason to lie!