Thursday, January 11, 2007

Meehan on 60 Minutes

From a 60 Minutes press release regarding Sunday's broadcast, which includes an interview with the hapless Dr. Brian Meehan.

Meehan acknowledged that he has never omitted potentially exculpatory evidence before. “We haven’t done that before,” he tells Stahl. “In retrospect, I should have done a better job of conveying that information.” Meehan has stated that he told the prosecutor, Michael Nifong, about the other DNA for the first time in mid-April. Later that same month, Nifong indicted three Duke lacrosse players. Meehan has also said in court proceedings that he and Nifong agreed before the evidence tests were completed that his report should be limited to positive matches between the accuser and the players at the team party where she says she was sexually assaulted last March.

Meehan says writing an incomplete report violates his own firm’s standards. “It was an error in judgment on my part….It certainly was a big error,” says Meehan. He says his firm wasn’t trying to hide the information and that it released it when it was asked. But his client’s behavior irks him, he says. Nifong took six months to tell the players’ defense attorneys about the other DNA – a requirement by law – and during that time, Nifong filed a court motion that stated he was not aware of any potentially exculpatory evidence.


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

oh, no. they aren't getting off that easy. yes, nifong is going under the bus, but so is meehan and broadhead and the gang of 88. these people are no better than nifong. they need to accept responsibility for their actions, resign from their respective posts and move to siberia.


Anonymous said...

Judge Smith: Will you please end this ridiculous case and let the lawsuits against Nifong and his enablers begin?

Hey said...

Wrong Families indeed. Go Mamas!

To think that Nifong is only worried about the lawyers at the Bar committee, the lawyers at DOJ, and the civil lawyers. Those piranhas have nothing on the aggrieved mothers. It's not just the 3, it's the moms of every player on the team, since they know that it was only by luck that their son wasn't picked.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. But each and every one of those momma-bears also had their son put on that vigilante poster, which caused them all danger from the nuts of Durham. Payback is coming.

Anonymous said...

KC: As you have probably guessed, I know the Evans family from the Naptown area.

I have never, ever seen Rae Evans emit that kind of emotion. She is top shelf, a lobbyist, not prone to quick statements or anger. To get that family this upset took some doing, but Nifong hiding evidence was obviously the last straw. They are now mortal enemies. Mr. Evans is an attorney as well, and I am sure he is smouldering with anger, though he has not said a word to anyone in my community during this whole ordeal.

Nifong picked his enemies quite unwisely. When the flood gates of vengeance open, it's going to be like a steam roller crushing a cockroach. Buckle up.


Anonymous said...

Interesting that the DLX moms are such a powerful force - and the women of the "Gang of 88" are proving to be, ultimately, powerless in comparison - the 88'ers have been oppressed by their own foolish agenda-pushing.

Anonymous said...

Duke Accuser Contradicts Herself in Interview

Duff is taking shots at the accuser in the NY Times.

Anonymous said...

This case has died on the vine. I would like to know from everyone on this blog, what a satisfactory penalty would be for: (a) Mike Nifong (b) Precious (c) Duke University (d) the group of 88 (e) Individual Professors.

I doubt the honorable Robert KC Johnson would care to weight in on this, but the rest of you, please have at it!


Anonymous said...

Althought the 88 did of course cause great harm to the students and their families, the 88's long-term prospects do not look promising

Anonymous said...

Dr. Meehan is NOT on my list of scoundrels. He made a mistake and he seems to be prepared to admit it. Don't forget that he did give honest self-incriminating testimony last month. I am given to believe that happens very rarely in a North Carolina courtrom.

Anonymous said...

Here's the link folks.

Nifong better put everything into trust.


Steven Horwitz said...

Face it folks: take it from a fellow liberal arts faculty member - the Group of 88 will bear little to no cost from this when it's all over. Many of them have tenure, and all that's sullied is their reputation among the people they care the least about - the general public. It will have no professional cost to them and no university president or dean will attempt to deal with them through the weak internal processes that most universities have.

The non-tenured might face a little more heat, seeing the end of their terminal contracts at Duke come a little quicker. But even they will find other jobs and any connection with this hoax will have no relevance.

It's possible that some might be named in civil suits, but I think finding them guilty of anything significant is a stretch.

Tenure is a powerful thing and when what you care mostly about is your reputation among your peers, it's hard to shame you about something like this.

Anonymous said...

I think, once the charges are dismissed and Nifong is dealt with, the accused and their families will do an unexpected thing:


They will jointly issue a statement of gratitude that justice has ultimately been served, issue recriminations to no one at Duke or in Durham and magnanimously close this regretable chapter in American history.

They will leave the lectures to others. They will turn the other cheek, knowing the judgment of time will honor them and that their graciousness in refusing the bitterness to which they are entitled will demonstrate to all who misjudged them, legally and socially, what true character is really all about.

They will be exactly what the Group of 88 and their ilk never expected them to be. And that will be their sweetest revenge.

Anonymous said...

I would forgive after I sue. They have massive legal bills. And a jury will feel sorry for them. NC and Duke have deep pockets.

Anonymous said...

8:25 - I think if they thought he was just stupid, they would forgive.

However, now that facts have come out that he calculated to frame their kids, I think forgiveness just jumped out the window.

No, they will now seek revenge in the form of law suits, attachments, etc. against Nifong and Durham.

Would you feel differently if this were your child?


Anonymous said...

Forgive, you must be kidding? That's for happy ever after storybooks. These families should seek justice in the most ardent and swift way possible. Those who participated in this horrific event should pay dearly for the pain and suffering they have caused these families. I only wish I could sit on the jury.

Anonymous said...

8:25 said "Once Nifong is dealt with"

I assume that includes the State. CGM has nothing but time on her hands.

Anonymous said...

8 25
Not if it were my kids.

Anonymous said...

I would go after everyone except Meehan. He seems generally sorry for his incompetence and has been a stand up guy since he was exposed.

Michael said...

On Nifong, how would you ensure that he never does this again? And how would you send a message to others doing this now or thinking about it in the future?

How about sending him to Iraq as a
judicial consultant?

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

Damn, lost an a post somehow.
Here is the short version, God Bless them if they are that forgiving, but the Bible says, Justice is ours.

Justice is making those who made wrong choices PAY. It is the American way, you F**K up you pay. It is time for Nifungu and the rest to PAY.

PLEASE Don't give it up. You all are the only folks that can sue and have recovery. I know the continuation of this will be hard, BUT you all MUST keep on keeping on.

Everyone who has supported you all wants pay back, having said that it is none of our business.

Good days coming, it is almost over,


Anonymous said...

Kim Roberts is someone who has gone out of the picture. How do you think she, or her testimony will play in the case in the near future?

Anonymous said...

To the 8:25pm

I think most would term your prediction as munificent but highly unlikely. Personally, I would come at these people with tanks rolling, guns blazing and everyone watching. I’d even ask Spielberg if he would want the movie rights to lampoon these people.

Let’s not forget that if these people could have convicted these boys they would be doing hard time for crimes committed eons ago. Some might consider this an overstatement, some and understatement, but I would exact a KILOTON of flesh from each and everyone, who till this very day is without remorse.


thomas said...

sounds like Nifongs actions are typical racist, judging people based on skin color. The strange thing is that he seems to love being racist toward people that have the same skin color as his wife and momma souns effeminte to me. Maybe we need a new term "femaracist"

Anonymous said...

I guess the next DA to try this stunt will be smart enough to plant DNA.

Anonymous said...

According to WRAL, the NC Bar set May 11 as Nifong's trial date. He hired an attorney so he must be guilty.

Question - If new ethics violations, witholding evidence, are made, will another trial have to be set?

Anonymous said...

Horowitz is right about the gang of 88. They'll be fine. the only person who will ultimately suffer is nifong. and i'll bet meehan will pay a professional price. but that's it.

in a few months, only the accused and a few people on this board will remember that this ever happened. durham will "heal". Campuses accross the country will continue to "educate" on sexual assault and preach about the virtures of diversity.

its really too bad though. my guess is it will take convictions, and probably more than one to get people to realize that there is simply something wrong with "racial/social justice".


Anonymous said...

Yeah, I am sure the boys will want to put this saga behind them as quickly as possible, but what of the lost year of their lives, million dollar legal bill, and the other collateral damage (climate of fear and harrassment on campus, Lax coach, the poor cab driver, grade retaliation,etc)?

People need to be held accountable. If you can't get them criminally, get them where it hurts: in their wallet.

Anonymous said...


It would be unkind of the lax families not to deal with these perpetrators of injustice in court.

It's their American Civil Duty to do so.

It is possible for them to forgive Nifong & Co while pursuing legal avenues to receive compensation for the enormous expenses they've incurred as a result of this evil.

I expect they will remain gracious and dignified while suing the pants off the parties who are liable.

Anonymous said...

For those of you who missed the Ann Coulter piece, here it is in full:
Stripper Lied, White Boys Fried
By Ann Coulter

“About a month after members of the Duke lacrosse team were falsely accused of raping a stripper last year, 88 members of the Duke faculty fanned the flames of hysteria by signing a letter announcing that they were "listening" to students "who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism."

Maybe they should have been listening to the accused, several of whom had iron-clad alibis. Now the professors are going to need a new example of "racism and sexism" at Duke since their case in chief has turned out to be a fraud.
In lieu of a gang rape perpetrated by high-stepping white male athletes against a poor black woman, the Duke Lacrosse case has turned out to be another in a long string of hoax hate crimes in which whites are falsely accused.
The lacrosse players denied that any rape had occurred and immediately submitted their DNA to the state, confident that the DNA would prove them innocent.

It did: Not a trace of DNA from any of the lacrosse players was found on the accuser, though this girl had more DNA in her than a refrigerator at a fertility clinic.
She had DNA from five other men, which ought to have raised suspicions about her story that she had not had sex with anyone for the week before the alleged gang rape. Well, that was one of the several versions of events the accuser has offered police to date, although my personal favorite was the one in which Elvis came back from the dead and sexually assaulted her. (I think that was version No. 3 -- I'd have to check my notes.)

This is the second time this woman has accused a group of men of gang-raping her. One more time and it's officially considered a hobby.
And yet despite the vast privilege, untold wealth and bright shiny whiteness of the defendants, they are still under criminal indictment in this case. Three of the players face up to 30 years in prison for a crime every sane person knows they did not commit. Ah, the life of the privileged!

Duke English professor Cathy N. Davidson recently wrote an opinion piece defending her signing of the "listening" letter, noting that it was "not addressed to the police investigation," but rather "focused on racial and gender attitudes all too evident" after the alleged rape. She explained that the letter had merely "decried prejudice and inequality in the society at large."

This would be like defending a letter written during the Dreyfus affair on the grounds that the letter did explicitly accuse Alfred Dreyfus of treason against France, but simply took the occasion of his arrest to decry the treasonable attitudes of the Jews in society at large.
If poor black women are constantly being raped by rich white men, then how about they produce one case?

Professor Davidson's column -- written when it was clear to everyone except Nancy Grace that three innocent men were facing 30 years in prison for a rape they did not commit -- notes that she remains "dismayed by the glaring social disparities implicit in what we know happened on March 13" and says the incident "underscores the appalling power dynamics of the situation."

OK, this one they made up, but the case still illustrates a larger truth!

If anything, our awareness of the "power dynamics of the situation" is too high. What we need is a little of that skepticism liberals bring to every single criminal case that is not a white-on-black crime or a rape case involving Bill Clinton.

The truth, as opposed to the larger truth, is that the allegedly powerful white males are at risk of losing their freedom at the hands of a lunatic accuser and a power-mad prosecutor. Meanwhile the allegedly powerless poor black woman has destroyed people's lives with her false accusations, for which she will walk away scot-free.
Don't liberals ever have to pony up at least one example of a powerful privileged white male trampling on the rights of a powerless black woman in order to keep droning on about powerful privileged white males? Every real-life example invariably turns out to be a hoax, among the most spectacular the Tawana Brawley case and now the Duke lacrosse case.

According to the Los Angeles Times -- in an article about another hoax "hate crime" on a college campus -- false reports of racist hate crimes on college campuses have averaged about one a year for 20 years.

Liberal professors believe that crying wolf is valuable for calling attention to the societal problem of wolves, even though there's never a wolf in any particular case. Evidently, awareness of an alleged societal ill -- of which we have no actual examples -- is worth ruining the lives of three innocent people. After all, they're just powerful white men.

At the next White Males of Privilege meeting, someone ought to bring up how they can use their vast power to win the right not to be put on trial for crimes they didn't commit.”


Anonymous said...

This "omission" is now even more relevant given Nifong's latest theory of the case. The amazing appearing towel now seems to be even more magical that it can wipe away just the DNA of the 3 accused and then beam it away, presumably to Mars, before the DNA labs can test the towel. Wow, that's one amazing towel.

Oh, no, wait, this lady is just a liar. That's a more believable explanation, isn't it? Magic towel or wildly unstable and lying hooker...hmmm...what's the truth? I just can't figure it out.

Anonymous said...

The families may indeed be magnanimous and forgive but one thing is for certain - the legal battle has only just begun. You can count on the families seeking legal redemption and recompense as provided by law, for the needless suffering caused by Nifong’s incompetence and arrogance.

In my opinion, you will NOT see these students return to Duke for completion of their degrees – they will transfer with hope to salvage and rebuild their futures. On the outside chance they do return - you can bet these families will expend resources to build support through alumni and others for the removal of Broadhead.

While I am not predisposed to revenge or getting even as a matter of character – I have no problem holding others accountable for their actions – I bet these families, who have incurred tremendous cost in resources and reputation are having these types of discussions with their lawyers –I know I would.

Greg Toombs said...

8:25 -

If it were my child, I'd:

1) Fight on through dismissal.
2) Sue the pants off everyone against whom I have the slightest chance of winning.
3) Expose all the dirty laundry that is discovered.
4) Collect damages and recover costs.
5) Go on a long vacation.
6) Donate the rest to charity.
7) Forgive, depending.
8) Forget.

There is no point in forgiving the unrepentant.

Anonymous said...

Liefong has hired an attorney to defend him. Why hire an attorney if you're innocent?

kcjohnson9 said...

On the fate of the 88:

To reinforce a couple of the comments here, one thing recent events is the contempt that most (not all) of this group has of its critics, including Duke students and parents of Duke students.

This, it seems to me, is an important issue that needs to be examined as part of Duke's exploration of its campus culture, but the faculty, unsurprisingly, want to confine this examination to the student body.

Anonymous said...

KC you're the Delacroix of blog jounalism.


Anonymous said...

Before you get all warm and fuzzy about Brian Meehan.

After the coverup story broke, his lab subsequently posted two sequential fraudulent "explanations" on their website trying to justify his conduct.

1. The first (posted on DIW)tried to claim, Meehan and Nifong were just protecting the team's identity and (falsely) claimed that he never identified them by name in his May report.

He named all team members in that report, just not the lack of a match.

-This first DNASI letter was pulled after I reported it to Meehan's regulatory agency.

2. The 2nd letter, still posted on the DNASI site

also contains _intentionally_ misleading information in these two sentences:

"The (May) report described three identifications: one from a sexual assault kit sample (not a Lacrosse team member), and two from the victim’s fingernails (Lacrosse team members). Our report also stated that other results from DNA profiles obtained from additional reference specimens and evidence items that did not yield a match were being retained pending instructions."

There are 3 misleading or outright false statements in these two sentences.

1. The mix of material analyzed at DNASI that had been scraped from a number of fingernails _at another lab_ did not belong to the "victim", were not fingernails (but scraped debris) and as yet no court of law has concluded who they belonged to.

Meehan's scrap from the fingernails contained no amplifiable DNA.

2. Most importantly, this prior scraping sample did not contain a "match" to anyone. That is an outright fraudulent representation of Meehan's own report.

3. Meehan never reported that he had samples that did not contain a match in his May report.

That is a flat-out misrepresentation.

These mistakes/lies were pointed out to Mr Meehan on several occasions, and he has refused to correct them as of this date.

Draw your own conclusions.

Michael said...

Duke Students decline to return

Anonymous said...

Here is my prediction (if it gets that far): CGM is called to testify, either in early February or at a subsequent date. My guess is she may be somewhat low wattage, and will be fretting about the near impossible task of replicating her most recent version of the story. This will be her thought process:

[Cartoon thought bubble]

"Evans and Seligman look a liitle alike. How do I tell them apart? What if I can't tell them apart. Which one was Matt? Which one was Brett? Which one was Adam? Which one was Dan? That one guy, was he Adam and Brett, or was he Dan and Adam? Were there two or were threre three? Did I get there at 11:00, 11:30 or 12:00? Did I run out of the house or was I dragged out of the house? etc. etc. etc.etc."

In any event, CGM will be plenty nervous. So what will she do. She will reach for some crutch as the reports make it seem she is prone to do: some form of drug, painkiller, muscle relaxant or worse. So either she shows up incoherent and can't keep anything straight, or she shows up sober and and freaks out completely. Either way, it will be a disaster for the prosecution.

Anonymous said...

Somebody please delete 7:58. Have some maturity people.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"He says his firm wasn’t trying to hide the information and that it released it when it was asked"

- yah right. He provided a 'heap of 1800 pages of paper' that experts had to filter through to "then understand" that CGM was storage tank for half the 'johns in Durham'

-at leaast hes getting better at spinning, but his daysare numbered just the same.

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

I just read a post on a black blog which was not very sympathetic to the Duke 3. "Cry Me a River" (Unfortunately I cannot find it again) It gave account of a black defendant who could not make bail, was dragged into court each time in shackles, did not have help from the blogosphere, but who was ultimately exonerated.

I must admit. The poster has a point. And, the point is this. How many innocent defendants has Nifong railroaded into prison by hiding evidence or reshaping the theory of the crime to fit the changing facts? How many rigged photo lineups has he conducted? In light of his conduct in the Duke case, how can we have confidence in a single Nifong conviction? Who is going to review his past cases for prosecutorial misconduct?

Can anyone imagine sitting in prison just so a prosecutor can put another notch on his gun?

MOP Nevada

Anonymous said...

The point of that article, which I have read, was that because this Johnson person had been frramed some years ago there was no reason to feel badly for tghe Duke 3.

That was the explicit tone and intent of the article.

Anonymous said...

Forgive? I think it's extremely hard to forgive someone who has absolutely no remorse. I expect the families to proceed with the dignity and grace they have shown throughout this ordeal but until Nifong admits very publicly and unequivocally that no crime was ever committed and that the accuser lied I can't see any forgiveness.

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

I'm with 9:45 on this one. The writer seemed to think two wrongs make a right, especially if the second wrong is to whites compensating for a past wrong to a black.

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

Sorry! I've asked KC to delete my above post!

What I said was - I_cannot_believe that Meehan's attorney is allowing him to speak on 60 Minutes.

Wonder if he's in the process of deal-making right now?

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

What about Buster Roth -- I mean Coach K? Why was he quiet as a mouse during the wonderlandia?

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

Since I only recieved a dozen or so responses I decided to repost in the hope of engaging other posters:

I would like to know from EVETYONE on this blog, what a satisfactory penalty would be for: (a) Mike Nifong (b) Precious (c) Duke University (d) the group of 88 (e) Individual Professors.

RM PAM - Master Map Reader

Anonymous said...

7:58 post should deleted.


Anonymous said...

Nifong - there is no sufficient punishment allowed in the US in this enlightened age which would do justice.

Anonymous said...

KC & Bill Anderson:

Is the new Duff Times article the first where he's described Joyner as 'a law professor monitoring the case for the N.A.A.C.P.'?

Anonymous said...

b - jail
c - #11

others, I don't know.

Anonymous said...

The issue of forgiveness is not irrelevant here. However, there are some real problems that Nifong caused that the families cannot ignore. First, the legal bills are about $80K a month, and even though these are well-off families, having to chunk out nearly a million dollars is going to cause financial pain to anyone except maybe Bill Gates.

Second, the stress that these families underwent is the kind that shortens lives. Nifong stole a portion of their lives, and he still is trying to steal from them by his constant changing stories, lying, and the like. The guy cannot be permitted to practice law again, and the families are the best people to do this.

Duke University also bears a responsibility. Just the "rapist" gauntlet those students had to run last spring is something that Duke did nothing to stop.

All of this cost the families dearly, and while I am one who believes strongly in the power of forgiveness, right now Nifong and company are not even admitting they have done anything wrong. And there are plenty of people out there who are still enabling this hoax.

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

I believe this is the first time Duff has identified him correctly, although I could be wrong. Duff definitely KNOWS that Nifong has been lying to him, and I think he wants to help make things right.

Also, the NY Times does not like to be caught on the losing side.

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

So, what has John Edwards had to say about all this?

And David Price?

Anonymous said...

KC perhaps you can weight in on what you believe a satisfactory penalty would be for: (a) Mike Nifong (b) Precious (c) Duke University (d) the group of 88 (e) Individual Professors.

Put yourself in Reade, Collin or Davids shoes and elucidate.


PS. Bill Anderson is right on.

Anonymous said...

LOL @ 10:18 poster


kcjohnson9 said...

I cleaned up the thread--and thank you to those who emailed me.

Anonymous said...

Meehan will come out looking like a rube on 60 minutes, but my guess is that he will at least save himself from civil litigation and eventually become the plantiff's best friend in the civil actions. He screwed up royally, but he answered the defense attorney's questions honestly and will probably end up being considered an ignorant pawn to the evil Fong. Appearing on 60 minutes is probably a strategy by his attorney to limit damages and gain sympathy and I would guess there is some type of deal between his lab and the families. Meehan's appearance on 60 minutes will be the shot in the hull of the SS Fong that finally sinks the ship. After Sunday, I don't see how the judge can let this frame-up continue and I don't see how the NC Bar will be able to just give the Fong a slap on the wrist.

Anonymous said...

I could see this episode in a movie: Nifong delivering stillborn injustice while the DUKE 88 capriciously and wantonly cheerleading.


Anonymous said...

Make no mistake about it; the Black Blog "Cry Me A River," is a rant about the "justice of revenge." It's a more pointed elaboration of NCCU student leader Chan Hall's remark that he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past." Clearly to some persons, two wrongs DO make a RIGHT.

Sorry, truly humane blacks and whites both disagree. In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Michael said...

re: 10:21

I emailed his presidential campaign with this question.

All I received back was several invitations to spread the word about John Edwards' campaign.

So my conclusions is that he's not going to say anything about it. He was on Leno last night too and Jay threw him a bunch of softballs.

Anonymous said...

Re the Duke 3 families: I can't beleive no one else has mentioned Kipling's 'Deadlier Than The Male'...

Anonymous said...

re 10.31:



Anonymous said...

Is there any parent of a son or sons out there who would not completely understand why noblesse oblige could wait until a son's name was cleared both legally and publically? Legal exoneration achieved... after a few moments to breathe, the next goal would be total public exoneration. Graciousness, forgiveness....those are not going to help because the Nifongs and Crystals of the world aren't motivated by nobler sentiments. They are motivated by money.

Anonymous said...

Professor KC,

Thak y'll foh klenin up thred.

Wuz thah hangin from mah pantis?

Howdydoody pickaninny!

Your precious Precious

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

This is probably been suggested already, but doesn't seem that if the D.A. or his investigator is purposefully discrediting their own witness, the FA, with the December 21 interview?

Reading it is worse than ‘whose on first.. what’s on second..”

I think Diphthong wants the case thrown out before the Feds or the Bar or the Governor or State Legislature get a hold of the case to see how close to nothing he had when he used it to his political advantage…

If the case goes away because the extra flaky accuser, that may take some heat off him, compared to if someone intervenes and looks closely at his case file (hoax-file).

Anonymous said...

Much of the damage that has been done is not really reparable. The gesture of inviting Colin and Reade to return to campus falls somewhere between the silly and the cynical. They would be fools to return, either now or later. The numerous suggestions that the signers of the Manifesto of Eighty-Eight are now in jeopardy of "punishment" reflect a most naive view of Duke University. The strategy of its damage-control machine obviously will be to "move on", to "heal" their wounds with the balm of oblivion. And the institution certainly has suffered damage that cries out for controlling. The blow to the institution is of course mot mortal, but it is severe. Perhaps the Board of Trustees is up to a little more than nibbling the canapes at the Honorary Degree reception. but if so there is no public evidence to that effect. It is probably too late in the year to arrange an immediate dignified exit for Brodhead, but it he's still here in September of 2008 Duke will be accepting at least a decade of mediocrity in a ferociously competitive "market".

Anonymous said...

there he is!

Anonymous said...

How about on the Group of 88?


"My Professor threw me under the bus when he published an advertisement in the student paper associating me with a gang rape because I'm white and play crease attack."


Anonymous said...

10 36
Nothing will take the heat off him, those parents are MAD.

Hell, I'm mad and I do not even know the boys.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Windbag - I hope they don't get off that easy. Is the Lab losing business? Certainly firing Meeham a must. Obviously, Nifong picked the wrong kids. How could he have been so stupid to think the families would not fight back? Nifong is glib and the master of double speak and misdirection. How could he not have known he was a big fish in a little pond?

Anonymous said...

Full disclosure, I am not a lawyer. I have been reading KC's blog for some time and it is, IMHO, the best on the net.

Thanks KC!!

Even if Nifong drops everything, he should stil be held accountable for the way he handled this case.


Anonymous said...

Just saw Greta's Fox News piece on today's developments. Entire panel threw Nifong under a bus. I guess they can't find any shills to support the prosecution anymore.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think that "60 Minutes" is still relevant?

AMac said...

anon 10:43pm --

As has been pointed out on earlier threads, don't worry about Lab Director Meehan. He needs to find a new career far, far removed from his soon-to-be former profession.

Imagine being a defense lawyer or a D.A. and needing to have some forensic DNA work done. After this, would you allow it to be done by a lab that was in any way associated with Meehan's name? Wouldn't you think it better to not get laughed out of court?

And this hypothetical assumes that the self-regulating organization that governs forensic scientists allows Meehan to keep his certification. That seems like a very long shot.

Anonymous said...

Can't wait for (a) vindication, and (b) Durham in Wonderland, the book by K.C., which will be truly delicious. Movie will be decent, but book will be great. It will be a legal "Into Thin Air".

Anonymous said...

Linwood Wilson & Gospel.

Anonymous said...

Ann Coulter is a magnificant writer - on a par with KC and Bill A. I am a liberal but enjoy her articles a lot. "One more and its considered a hobby" can't be beat.
I am not warm and fuzzy about Meeham - he knew the truth and did nothing about it until it was time to commit perjury. He knew exactly what he was doing when he conspired to hide evidence.Mr Good Guy, he is not.

Anonymous said...

to 10:08
Satisfactory punishments?

Nifong: disbarment, loss of pension and some prison (sounds like the $$ loss would hurt him the most).

Crystal: A current photo and a sworn statement that she made it all up (she can blame mental problems or Nifong - who cares?) - to be published all over the MSM just like the accused.

Gottlieb - off the force, no pension, criminal conspiracy charges.

Durham - massive lawsuit payout

NCCU - Gang of 88 - fed up with racist, sexist environment at Duke, they leave for greener pastures.

Duke - loss of two exemplary young men, continued flabby leadership, growth of AA Dept. due to affirmative action policies. Women's Studies Dept. known for such progressive couses as Cry Rape: the use of rape as a tool for positive political and social change.

Anonymous said...

And yet Meehan has still not explained how his own DNA got in the "victim's panty swabs.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson is the best instructor that I have had at Harvard.

Harvard AB

Anonymous said...

10:57pm AMac:

Props on your Duke Chron post re: Holloway's son. I posted in support of you.

Anonymous said...

11:05 Bullseye

Anonymous said...

This case has died on the vine. I would like to know from everyone on this blog, what a satisfactory penalty would be for: (a) Mike Nifong (b) Precious (c) Duke University (d) the group of 88 (e) Individual Professors.

Anyone who cares to weight in on this, please have at it!


Anonymous said...

who is doing the DNA testing on Precious' little one?

Can't be Meehan, can it?

The SBI lab would seem to be inappropriate given that it's a paternity issue and other labs don't have the extensive DNA bank already assembled in this case.

Also wouldn't likely all sperm suspects have to be tested as well.

And that essentially would include every male in Durham

Starting with our friend the CM Patrick Baker.

Anonymous said...

Just a general comment that doesn't really fit with any particular post.

I'm a 46 year old white suburban republican NRA mom. I've just been picked for jury duty in a rape case. The case starts next week. I expect we'll be given instructions to not read the newspapers, watch TV news or read the internet so I'd better say this now while I still can.

Up until this case I would have been generally favorable towards the prosecution. I would have generally believed that labs, experts, cops and prosecutors were telling the truth, and that defendants - with their own lives on the line - would have the incentive to lie.

I don't believe that anymore. And I'm probably not the only one to have come to this.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone now feel the Federals will want to come in and tidy this festering mess up very soon?

The whole affair has taken on a mind of its own.Its a joke, not even Lenny Bruce could do this one any justice!

North Carolina, Injustice State of the USA.

Anonymous said...

Hear, hear 11;26

Do a good job for us.

And puts the lie to Hollowayism

White loss of innocence does not mean black guilt

Anonymous said...

To 11:26 --

Keep an open mind about both arguments, use your gut-feeling assessing the credibility of the lawyers on both sides...

Reasonable doubt....

Best to let 10 guilty men go free than falsely deprive one man of his liberty..

Anonymous said...

Governor Easley and AG Cooper still on extended vacation or have they gone to the moon?

Your state needs you, d** quick,it's going down the drain fast!

Anonymous said...

Anyone interested in a book of Brodhead's speeches

THE GOOD OF THIS PLACE, Values and Challenges in College Education by Richard H. Brodhead.

They are on special at the Duke Bookstore.

There is a chapter on the value of institutional cowardice that is oddly compelling

Roux said...

I wonder how many other times the lab and Nifong have conspired to withhold evidence? If they lies once, could they have lied before? Could this be a chance for anyone who has been convicted to get an appeal?

Nifong has opened a huge can of worms.

Anonymous said...


Nifong - disbarment, 1 year imprisonment. Civil judgment against him and Durham for $1.5 million per defendant.

Precious - 6 mos. jail time, 5 suspended conditioned on drug rehab treatment, 2 years probation with monthly drug testing.

Duke - nothing formal. What will happen is enough, i.e. drop in rating and prestige, drop in alumni giving for a few years. Held up as an example of how not to handle a crisis.

Group of 88 -- continued calumny. Permanent reprimand in their personnel jackets. Anyone not already tenured should be knocked off tenure track.

Individual professors -- Curtis or anyone else shown to retaliate on grades be dismissed for cause, with the reason noted in their personnel jackets. $25,000 civil judgment to Dowd and $10,000 to the other kid against Curtis for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Anonymous said...

"The point of that article ["Cry Me a River"], which I have read, was that because this Johnson person had been framed some years ago there was no reason to feel badly for tghe Duke 3.

That was the explicit tone and intent of the article."

Yes, that was the tone of the article.

A very surprising tone from the author, Greg Kane - the lone conservative columnist of the Baltimore Sun - whose thoughtful and brutally honest work I have admired for many years.

His hardened callousness towards the obviously falsely accused Duke LAXers was more than a little surprising.

Anonymous said...

I'll take 'Irony' for $100, Alex

Regarding defendant Nifong's recently-hired attorney -

From Jason T on LS:

"How ironic. David Freedman was a guest on MSNBC early on and was critical of Nifong's conduct in general and his extrajudicial statements in particular:"

DAVID FREEDMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, that everything has been mishandled from the start. You had a district attorney coming out and making potentially unethical statements, saying he believed a crime occurred, which he should not do. He should not be commenting on the evidence. He took an adversarial position from the start.

We had a situation recently in Winston-Salem that could have been racially divisive represented, Wake Forest, black football player, white female student. If the D.A. who was actually a former Duke lacrosse player himself, Jim O'Neill (ph), had taken the position and come out strong like Mr. Nifong had that something definitely occurred and sort of played the race card, it would have been very racially divisive.

Instead, he listened to the evidence. He let everyone be interviewed. We were all able to meet in a more congenial fashion and after a careful determination they determined that there was no charges that needed to be brought. Nobody was hurt. Nobody's face was plastered all over the front of “USA Today”...

The Abrams Report for April 19

Anonymous said...

A huge comeback for Jason T.

Only the blog journalism would have broken that story


I guess Nifong will have to go with Woody Vann now.

This is going to be fun watching Fong go from lawyer to lawyer on a daily basis.

Friggin hilarious

Michael said...

re: 11:46

What would be really cool is
getting Meehan on the stand and asking this very question.

Something like: is it the practice of this lab to hide information when the client requests it?

Have you ever done this before with Nifong?


Bailiff, take Mr. Nifong into custody.

Michael said...

re: 11:54

The Bar should include Freedman's comments on the next set of charges.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to repeat a comment, but how does all this square with her driver, Brian Taylor's, statements? All I could find is an interview in the N&O which states: "According to a copy of the accuser's phone bill reviewed by The N&O, she received short calls at 11:11 p.m. and 11:22 p.m., and then called her father at 11:25, a call that lasted 7 minutes. She received two more calls, at 11:33 and 11:36. This last call lasted three minutes, indicating she did not arrive at the party until 11:39 p.m. at the earliest. Brian Taylor, a friend who drove her to the party, told The N&O in May she was late and he had difficulty finding the house.
"On our way there, she got two calls on her cell phone saying if you don't come soon, it's going to get canceled," Taylor said in an interview in May"

Anonymous said...

The evaluations of KC should not be taken at face value.

I use ratemyprofessor and am aware of the abuse that sometimes occurs on it (I was a moderator). Faculty often post positive reviews to counter real student reviews that are negative (and generally legitimate). Students attack faculty after receiving poor grades-which is usually their own fault (the class was too difficult - happens to be one of the complaints here). Political viewpoints are another and even extend into the economic courses (professors are not willing to engage in communist theory for example but stick to orthodox economics).

1. The majority of the comment are HIGHLY POSITIVE and full of praise. Those that are not and that predate the lacrosse hoax had to do with individuals that wanted KC to know that they go to 'Brooklyn' not 'Harvard' (ie too difficult) or that he was not 'accepting' of other 'viewpoints'. Exactly what this means is never discussed (an example would help and I provide them with all reviews that I write).

1. A student can post a comment at a university they DO NOT ATTEND. This happens frequently when a professor becomes nationally known due to some controversial/hot button issue. One example is the 'native american' professor that called the victims of 9/11 'little eichmans'. He received many, many reviews that were vicious (this is supposed to be about courses taken not your feelings about someone whose courses you have never took).

2. Several of the comments were obscene and the moderators deleted the text left after it was flagged by another registered member. The 'frown face' remains regardless (if they delete a comment they do not and cannot delete the frown face for whatever reason).

3. KC is not well liked by certain individuals including certain students and faculty in Durham, NC. Actually this would extend to anyone (ratemyprofessor is available to all)

4. KC had 'bad press/good press' due to his tenure process. It was contentious and left people 'hurt' (faculty) and with the impression that is a conservative (he is not) because he was 'forced' to allow that label to be used to prevail in his tenure dispute (the reasons for his initial denial were petty and some were outright fabrications - witness the union rep collegiality issue - the other professor never wanted the job).

Anonymous said...

My numbering is off on the ratemyprofessor post. Sorry. Happens when you add another point and are in a hurry to post so you can sleep.

Anonymous said...

Read the ADAMS REPORT OF APRIL 19th. You read Susan Filan saying " could have been seven minutes - when something really awful happens to yo etc,etc." Nifong lifted the entire statement used by Susan Filan to the judge in court in September when he changed the timeline to five to ten minutes max. Does Susan not remember what she said or is she covering for the Fong? I find this astonishing.

Newyorkstateofmind said...

Re Steven Horwitz's comments: Much of what you lay out as the limited potential fallout for the G88 from this case seems fairly plausible. In fact, in the more rarefied multiculti circles at Duke, I'm sure the G88 will find their reputation enhanced by this travesty, nothwithstanding the case heading toward a complete unravelling.

The wildcard here is going to be the potential feeding frenzy of civil litigation following the dismissal of charges. What construction contractors were to post-Katrina New Orleans, civil litigators may well be to Duke come this spring. The exposure--and free advertising--for any hotshot or hotshot-wannabe attorney associated with any suit in connection with any of the potential liable parties will be huge. Novel legal approaches may well be deployed to try to get some of those more peripherally involved before a civil jury. Some or all of the G88 may fall into this camp; any who have taken a more active role in making potentially defamatory or inciting statements about this case at critical junctures, like Davidson, may well end up in court.

The biggest question will be whether Duke will pick up the legal tab for any or all of the G88 who are sued, be they sued as a group, or under some particular suits, as individuals. The legal theories of the suits will likely argue in the alternative for suing the G88 as acting within the scope of employment vis a vis Duke (to reach Duke's deep pockets in relation to suing the G88), but also sue them individually, in case the Duke suit--in relation to the G88 only I am talking here-- doesn't go forward. Of course, Duke will want very much to avoid the ongoing publicity generated by a protracted series of lawsuits, and will likely pony up millions to settle the multiple claims brought against Duke, both those involving the G88, and otherwise.

I will be surprised if Duke does not bundle the G88 into any settlement they make, covering all their legal costs. Woe to a G88'er who Duke decides to cut loose. They better be ready to take out a second mortgage on that colonial their princely Duke salaries paid for.

Anonymous said...

There is the answer - give the Duke facility to NCCU. Move Duke to a different city - up north.

Anonymous said...

Were I a Duke alumnus, I would suggest that if Duke wishes to receive any more contributions from me they should:

-1- Adjust the G88 prof's course loads and the University's graduation requirements so that no course that counted toward graduation was taught by a G88 prof. This may require hiring additional profs, but if Duke followed the instructions here contributions should cover that.

-2- Give the G88 profs new cubicles and classrooms in a minimally-remodeled storage building.

-3- Pay the G88 profs no more than absolutely required, and take them off payroll as soon as contractually possible.

G88 profs who were to individually write letters of apology might be able to avoid reassignment if the apologies were sincere and contrite. Not sure how many would be able to take up such an offer, though.

Anonymous said...

This firm should be out of business by sun up!

Cuz right now iffin I was this feller, I'd be packin up and making my best attempt to disappear off the face of the earth!

But then again, you can run, and you can hide, just means you will be tired and worn out when found is all!

Anonymous said...

"they need to accept responsibility for their actions, resign from their respective posts and move to siberia."

They are all Democrats, they don't resign they pull a Clinton! 100% of the time!

Sorry did not mean to bring such into this, as it really does go way beyond red blue crap. But such is the history...

Anonymous said...

The DLax Moms are powerful...we love our sons...have spent so much time and energy giving them the right educational basis to be admitted into Duke University, as well as the commitment to the sports. It takes years of development to play at at strong D1 program.
This DA took on the wrong group of people. Why? JUSTICE!!!
We all know these boys. Although not perfect, they are most certainly not the 'bad boys' as has been portrayed in the media. We are fighting for their reputations.
THe flight from the university, the misconduct from the DA and the assured...EVERY member of the team will be SO due compensation for the civil rights that were taken from the boys.

Anonymous said...

Bio on Nifong's attorney

David B. Freedman

Practice Areas: Federal and State Criminal Law; Personal Injury Law.

Admitted: 1982, North Carolina; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit; U.S. District Court, Eastern, Western and Middle Districts of North Carolina

Law School: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, J.D., 1982

College: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, B.A., 1979

Member: Forsyth County (Former President) and North Carolina Bar Associations; North Carolina State Bar; North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers; Joseph Branch Inns of Court; Business North Carolina Elite Superlawyers of N.C.

Biography: Listed in The Best Lawyers of America, Criminal Law Section. Adjunct Professor, Wake Forest University, School of Law. (Board Certified Specialist in Federal and State Criminal Law)

Born: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, December 1, 1956

Anonymous said...


Noticed Nifong's attorney is originally from Philadelphia. I find it ironic he has selected a "yankee" to represent him. Why did he hire an "out of town, Yankee" lawyer to defend him? I thought all Durham problems demanded a Durham solution.

Anonymous said...

To 10:35 #1

Goldwwater was cooked over the use of the word pic#$%^ny. It is a about the same as the n-word.

Anonymous said...

I disagree that the G88 will be let off. Their statement did not disclose that they were not acting on behalf of Duke and they signed it while on the face of the document other departments at Duke were recognized. Its a clear violation of trust in my opinion and acting without authorization.

Duke did nothing to protect the boys and everything to allow them to be the center of a 3 ring circus.

Not only that, a decent net detective could probably trace many of the inflammatory forum postings and emails back to some of the 88. If that is the case then they should be sued for defamation etc.

On top of all this, the internet keeps everything. In my opinion an enterprising lawyer could go back and sue the pants off all the bloggers who called them rapists (like redstatefeminist and other feminist groups), not to mention all the people calling them rapists in the comments.

This is a clear example of how rape can be used as a political tool and its also a clear example of how the pseudo sciences aren't really eductation but indoctrination and a political soapbox.

Sorry, but I'm sick of the political correctness, upside down, black is white world. Lets clean up academia, drop women's studies and get some real education in our colleges before China and India school us on common sense.

Just my 2cents

Anonymous said...

Time to flood the NC AG with demands for a new & improved legal system ...
1. Whatever happened to the constitutional right to a speedy trial. I guess NC is exempt.
2. How is it possible that Grand Jury proceedings are not recorded in some way, that is absurd and BEGS for abuse of power.
3. The orignal judges gag order was unconstitutional, how does NC prevent this from happening again.
4. How is it possible that civil rights get violated (line-up), evidence hidden (DNA Lab), The liar is not interviwed until December (alleged crime in March) in a high profile case ?
5. Why do these defense motions get tabled for so long (back to speedy trial I suppose)
6. Freedom of speech is one thing, but public vilification of these young men was a crime as far as I am concerned, it has to have caused enormous pain and suffering for they as well as their families.
7. Finally, the police are supposed to be our protectors, we pay them via our tax dollars. THe public has a right to DEMAND honest, unbiased execution of their duties.

How can all this happen in one case, it's not possible, statistically, it has to go on all the time. !!!!!