Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
Blog Awards
About Me
DIW in the News
- New York Magazine (Kurt Andersen)
- cnnsi (Richard Deitsch)
- Slate (Stuart Taylor)
- National Post (Mary Vallis)
- Chicago Sports Review
- Worcester Telegram(Paul Jarvey)
- New York Sun (John Leo)
- North Adams Transcript (Adam Bloch)
- New Criterion
- New York Observer (Anna Schneider-Mayerson)
- Towerview/Chronicle (Rob Copeland)
- New York Post (John Podhoretz)
- Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren)
- USNews.com (Michael Barone)
- Crime and Federalism
- Chicago Sports Review (Matt Wood)
- Seton Hall Sports Blog
- Wall Street Journal (Randy Barnett)
- N&O (Eric Ferreri)
- Blogger News Network (Jefferson Flanders)
- Slate (Jack Shafer)
- New York Sun (Eliana Johnson)
- Infodder
- Duke Chronicle (Saidi Chen)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(872)
-
▼
April
(95)
- Baker: No Outside Inquiry
- Chafe: Some in Group of 88 Presumed Guilt
- Reade Seligmann Letter
- The Farred File
- Sunday Roundup
- Wilson and the Prosecutors
- Summarizing the Report
- A One-Two for the DPD
- AG's Report
- Assessing the Post
- Seligmann Receives Delbarton Medal
- If the Herald-Sun Had an Ombudsman . . .
- The Finnerty Timeline
- Wojciechowska's Counterfactual
- What Byron Calame Should Have Written
- Araton: No Apologies
- Miller Signs Off
- The Times: No Harm, No Foul
- Abandoning the Sinking Ship
- The Chronicle: Right Again
- Cartoon
- A Duke Conversation: Chicago
- 60 Minutes Outtakes
- Week in Review
- Understanding Levicy
- Neff's Scoops
- Finnerty Lawyer: Criminal Investigation of Nifong
- Nifong Office: No Witnesses for Us
- Self-Serving, Pathetic Hatred
- WSJ Letters on the Group of 88
- NDAA: "The Primary Ethical Duty of a Prosecutor Is...
- Some Good News
- Ashley's Apologia
- Continued Character Assault
- Herald-Sun: Biased to the End
- Redeeming the Times
- Q Section in N&O
- Neff: Nifong Knew Mangum
- Sunday Roundup
- Brown Speaks Out
- Broverman Clarifies
- Dave Evans Statement
- The Nifong Preliminary Hearing
- Mike Nifong, Criminal?
- Decision
- Recess
- Update So Far
- Hearing Begins
- Marquis Clarifies
- In the Hearing Room
- Charns: More Apologies Needed
- Live Blogging
- Live-Blogging; Additional Charges Justified?
- Herald-Sun: Nifong Must Go
- Nifong's False Apology
- Naming the False Accuser
- Taylor's Analysis
- Star-Ledger Speaks Out
- Steel E-Mail
- Duff Wilson's New Version
- The Herald-Sun: "Love Yourself, Durham"
- Yesterday's Highlights
- Cheshire Summary
- Wade Smith Summary
- Summary of Jim Cooney Statement
- Reade Seligmann Statement
- Collin Finnerty Statement
- The Cooper Statement
- Live-Blogging
- Haagen Quote
- Case Narative, III
- Nifong on Open Discovery
- Mindboggling
- Responding to Marcus
- Case Narrative, II
- Channeling Selena Roberts
- Nifong on DNA and the Case
- The Man with No Name
- The Durham Police: Re-Accreditation?
- Carrington, Schoeffel Speak Out
- Sunday News
- Rewarding Dubious Behavior
- Today Does Nifong
- Continued Group of 88 Mysteries
- Evaluating the Evaluators
- Pulling the Plug
- Nifong Hearing
- Well-Deserved Award
- A Herald-Sun Classic
- The Early Bird
- Butler's Latest
- The CCI's Impending Train Wreck
- Nifong's Political Base Crumbles
- The Hon. Ronald L. Stephens
- Sunday Roundup
-
▼
April
(95)
Comments Policy
(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
- "From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review
Links
Motions and Documents
- Attorney General's Report
- DNA motion
- Lineup motion
- Supplementary lineup motion
- Change of venue motion
- Bar amended complaint/Nifong response
- December 15 hearing
- State Bar v. Nifong
- Brewer removal motion
- Nifong December 28 letter to Bar
- Nifong January 16 letter to Bar
- Group of 88 statement (removed from Duke website)
- Group of 88 membership
- Transcript of relevant sections, April 4 "identification" "procedure"
21 comments:
What happened to the report that was supposed to be issued this week?
8:44
Today it was reported as a side note in one of the NC newspapers that the summary report would be out next Weds (i think).
Is anyone still paying attention to this?
(since sarcasm is hard to get over e mail...remember that poster who had earlier asked the same question?)
I say yes...many are!!!!!
What has happened in the grade-retaliation lawsuit? We are long past the date for filing an Answer unless the Plaintiff has agreed to delay the answer date.
Why did 60 Minutes not report on the racial slurs hurled at the two dancers?
Troll Alert for 10:31 comment. There is no credible information that any slurs were made toward the dancers, and certainly NO CLAIM that anything was said by the Duke 3. The only claim was made by Kim, and she admitted she provoked a comment by another player. A false allegation of several felonies, with 30 years of imprisonment is a billion times more significant than where 10:31 wants to led the discussion. Ignore that troll
gak
Anonymous said...
Why did 60 Minutes not report on the racial slurs hurled at the two dancers?
Apr 20, 2007 10:31:00 PM
Because there is no proof that the racial slurs came from any of the falsely accused. I believe the second dancer and the team captains identified the player who made the comments, and he wasn't any of the 3 who were charged. If they wanted to know more about it, they would have interviewed that other player.
If anyone is interested in an unedited black view of the lacrosse case, visit blackcommentator.com. If someone would care to provide a link...
It's an interesting publication from a sociological standpoint.
I watched the 60 Minutes outtakes. The clip of Brodhead is truly emetic. He is now SO circumspect. He even claimed that "I chose my words carefully". Can't say I noticed that in his open letter to the Duke community of 6 April 2006, which makes no sense other than on the assumption that a heinous, racially-motivated sexual assault took place. If that man slithers through this fiasco to hold on to his job, it will be a MAJOR setback for justice. It seems apparent from the Duke lacrosse players' parents that they are none-too-pleased with Brodhead.
It is striking from the 60 Minutes outtakes just how restrained the lacrosse players and their parents are. Indeed, it is a touch frustrating to see how much they pull their punches (Evans is a possible exception). Compare them to the Gang of 88, potbangers, et al, who have been shrill and extreme and gone out of their way to stoke racial, gender and class tensions.
But, 11:55, we also mustn't forget that a significant portion of the potbangers were Caucasian. A lot of anti-male feminist freakiness that tries to unite (theoretically) racism with hatred-of-women are to blame as well. Truly sick, stupid, unsubstantiated theories that they HOPED would be true and concrete in the Duke case. (Though I respect and agree with reasonable feminists who just want equality for real).
11:51
The three men and their families have exuded class, intelligence and restraint when in public (and we could all understand if they vented in private). Emotionalism, rage, and hate-spewing are the tools of special interest groups.
While we wait for KC's book - I will probably purchase this one:
"Peter Wood traces the roots of anger’s triumph in our social and political world. He examines the “liberating” bromides of psychotherapists, the bellicosity of the war between the sexes, the broadsides of the ethnic separatists, and the jeremiads of fundamentalists of all stripes. A provocative dissection of an alarming phenomenon, A Bee in the Mouth is also a call for Americans to reject the transitory satisfactions of anger and instead summon the older traditions of tolerance and moderation that have always kept us one nation." (Part of review from Encounter Books)
They are so entitled to wreak havoc with the perps in this hoax....but the three men give every indication that they are not ones to resort to the ugly tactics of the race/class/gender propagandists.
I watched many of the clips and did not hear anyone say the obvious;
Its not over until the rule of law is restored in North Carolina.
To me that means that a number of items have to be addressed:
Nifong
Group of 88
Linwood
Broadhead
Reporters
Judges
Police
There is alot of work to do
As a public posture, the restraint of the lacrosse players and their families is wise and makes a good impression. But I hope that, privately, they are seething with rage and are ready to unleash the dogs of war (i.e. lawyers). There is just SO MUCH that remains unresolved. Reform needs to come at Duke, NC courts, DA's office, police, etc.
This troll alert is an effort to silence people who disagree with the main body of posters. Are they afraid of the views challanging their own? What happened to the support for free speach. I, for one am not afaid of differing thoughts and expressions. "I disagree with every word you have said, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
These guys (Reade, Cooper, Seligmann, Evans) showed an incredible amount of poise under pressure. They were measured, thoughtful and serious in their comments.
You would expect that from Cooper given his age and accomplishments. But to see it in a consistent way from the three players gives one pause to reflect on the quality of the parents that raised these three.
Black commentator. Power to the man!
POWER!
Someone provide a clue for this warped mentality.
More excuses
Debrah
Roy Cooper for governor!
re: 2:23
They have a lot of gall to charge $50 for a subscription.
If he thinks that something happened there, then he should prove it. The burder of proof is on the person making the claim; not the accused.
Post a Comment