Nifong was smug and self-assured [at their early April meeting, Bill] Thomas said: "I had 27 years of experience with him, and he was looking me in the eye. He said he had interviewed her, he discussed the details of the case, he believed her and that my view of her as perhaps being a call girl working for an escort service, running around making things up for financial gain, was absolutely false. ... He went on to say what a wonderful person she was. He said she was fully believable, she was intelligent, articulate ... and telling a convincing story about what happened."
Nifong didn't tell Thomas that he knew Mangum and her family. In 1992, one of her uncles who owned a small grocery store in Durham was slain in a robbery. The case dragged on for three years, but finally the killer was tried and convicted.
Nifong was the prosecutor, and the case earned him the Mangum family's confidence, which would have helped Crystal Mangum feel comfortable with Nifong in the Duke case, according to her mother, her brother and a family friend.
"The whole family knew him and trusted him because of that case," said Delois Burnette, a minister who has known the Mangums for decades. "People had confidence in him that he would do us right because he had prosecuted that case."
Neff's revelation should serve to raise additional questions about newspapers' policies of not identifying those who claim sexual assault. That Nifong had a history with the family of the person he came to call "my victim" is relevant--not determinative, but one piece of the puzzle worth considering. Granting the accuser anonymity prevented this type of information--or the damning testimony of Mangum's strip-club supervisors--from coming to light.
Maybe the time has come to identify the so-far anonymous semen specimens found on the accuser.
ReplyDeleteJust how well did Nifong know her?
This sounds extreme, but given his behavior to date, one has to wonder...
KC
ReplyDeleteGives a little credence to the "Dulcinea syndrome" idea, huh? Great work!
Neff is killing Nifong. He is doing it the way he has done it throughout, with specific detailed facts and superberbly organized presentation.
ReplyDeleteNeff has been in front of the story but his articles have never editoriallized, even when the reader (me) emotionally wanted more. By not doing what other reporters have done, his articles over time crush the wrongdoer and should remove any level of sympathy people have for Nifong.
streeeetwise
Neff is killing Nifong. He is doing it the way he has done it throughout, with specific detailed facts and superberbly organized presentation.
ReplyDeleteNeff has been in front of the story but his articles have never editoriallized, even when the reader (me) emotionally wanted more. By not doing what other reporters have done, his articles over time crush the wrongdoer and should remove any level of sympathy people have for Nifong.
streeeetwise
No, I can't agree with you on this one, KC. We didn't need CGM's name to get to the truth about the false rape charges. The cops knew she was lying the very first night. Let's not make legitimate rape victims suffer because of the police department's and the DA's ruthless disregard for the truth.
ReplyDeleteWondering if a certain judge
ReplyDeletewas a member of CGM's private
club?
Mac
Is Nifong a compulsive LIAR or what ?
ReplyDelete1) You're innocent of ANY crime until you are proven guilty in a court of law.
ReplyDelete2) Some drunk, pill popping, bipolar prostitute dreams up a fantastic lie.
3) YOUR name is splashed all over the media without even the slightest hint of restraint.
4) The psychotic whore gets a free pass.
So unfair.
I read the entire article this morning and I'm confused about one section:
ReplyDelete"He [Nifong] said he had interviewed her, he discussed the details of the case, he believed her and that my view of her as perhaps being a call girl working for an escort service, running around making things up for financial gain, was absolutely false. ... He went on to say what a wonderful person she was. He said she was fully believable, she was intelligent, articulate ... and telling a convincing story about what happened."
This is a pretty complicated case so I may be wrong, but I thought that Nifong claimed that he had never discussed the accusations with her until much later. If so, was he lying to the attorneys initially or to everyone else later on? Or did he simply assume that if she was crying and apparently suffering, and since he knew her when she was 16 or so, then something terrible must have happened? Did this entire thing happen because Nifong knew her before the psychological, drug, and alcohol problems, and as a result he concluded that he didn't have to ask her the tough questions?
Whoa! I never saw THAT coming.
ReplyDeleteThis confuses me.
ReplyDelete"The SBI found no semen, blood or saliva from what she said was a vicious 30-minute assault."
How did DNA Security find semen?
CGM needs to be sued by the
ReplyDeletefamilies, if only to get
her on the stand for the
world to see.
So far, she's been hiding
behind the few remaining
MSM supporters, and the
belief that she "may be
mentally ill, but..."
May be that there was a
LOT of contact between her
and NoFang - (not suggesting
sexual contact) - and her
family. Both had potential
ulterior motives:
NoFang had an election to win;
her family had some rich
boys to sue.
The issue of the judge-in-question
could be the biggest news in the
whole ordeal, why he seemingly
colluded with NoFang. What did
he have to gain? Or what did
he - perhaps - have to lose?
Neff and the Defense Attorneys
and all involved should dig
deep into that particular
mine: there may be gold in them
there hills!
Mac
The SBI is terrible at finding DNA. They are slow but they are incompetent.
ReplyDeleteAs Laugh in used to say:
ReplyDelete"Here come de Judge!"
You may interpret that in any
non-slanderous way that you
find appropriate.
Mac
Nifong is psychotic. His hatred for Cheshire, his smirking, his bizarre statements (such as he wasn't paying attention to his ONLY case given the campaign) and so forth. Whether he was telling the truth to Thomas or not doesn't matter, he should go to jail.
ReplyDelete"He went on to say what a wonderful person she was. He said she was fully believable, she was intelligent, articulate ... and telling a convincing story about what happened."
ReplyDeleteTo me, this sounds like Nifong had a personal relationship with CGM.
Maybe the time has come to identify the so-far anonymous semen specimens found on the accuser
ReplyDeleteIn a rape case, isn't this something a prosecutor would have to investigate?
In other words, isn't this one more additional issue for the state bar (and eventually, jury in a criminal trial)to examine? This shows once again, that Nifong was not conducting good faith prosecution. He knew Magmum was lying (semen was largely from her clients).
10:24
ReplyDeleteI don't think Panties' mental state had any relevance to her vile false accusation.
She's a quotidian thug/sociopath.
The only reason she's not going to be prosecuted is because she's a member of a certain race that doesn't feel that it has to be subject to the same rules as other races.
Do you think that a Japanese woman as stupid as Lubiano would sue Duke for discrimination if she were turned down for a job?
Let's be honest about this.
Polanski
I have actually wondered, as the bizarreness of Nifong has gradually emerged,whether or not the man is mentally ill. He isn't stupid, yet he convinced himself that he could hide vital evidence from the smartest lawyers in North Carolina. Did he truly think these resourceful parents would tuck their tails between their legs and run, letting their kids go to jail for 30 years? How did he imagine this case playing out? What story was he telling himself?
ReplyDelete"The issue of the judge-in-question
ReplyDeletecould be the biggest news in the
whole ordeal, why he seemingly
colluded with NoFang. What did
he have to gain? Or what did
he - perhaps - have to lose?"
If you have some evidence, produce it. If you want to criticize the judge in this case, do so. But let's not now start inventing theories that have no basis in fact. Surely that's a lesson this case teaches us.
Maybe he (Nifong) was in it for a kickback. If she won crim case she (accuser) would have sued Lax3 civilly. I would not put it past Nifong.
ReplyDeleteTaken as fact, what has been in this series of stories is pretty brutal. Nifong, if this is true, is much worse than he's been painted previously and is in deep &hit.
ReplyDelete11:01 Anon ...let's not start inventing theories...
ReplyDeleteWhy did the pig fire Freda Black?
Listen to Jackie Brown say it in the clip...
'...rumor was Freda was going to sweep out the whole court house....'
What happens when we sweep out?
We sweep out the dirt.
When the whole court house gets swept out
the pig and his cronies go away,
the judges would be next.
Follow the money.
ReplyDeleteIt is advice that never fails.
A most fascinating article and one that makes Mr. Nifong a much more interesting and nuanced person. By my calculations Ms. Mangum would have been about 13 during the trial for the murderer of her uncle--before even the first alleged rape and probably before mental illness manifested itself in her. I can see how Mr. Nifong could have developed a bond with that family and committed himself to "being there" for them. He was really way to interested in the case before it even began. The perceived opportunity to use the case for election purposes combined with a personal attachment to the accuser and her family combined with a deep prejudice against highly gifted Duke student/athletes...and maybe Yankees or outsiders...combined with no caution lights from the University, the police, his own staff, the media, the clergy, the city officials or anyone else, except the defense lawyers whom he also held in contempt, combined with an his own apparent propensity for lying or delusions, ignited this conflagration of destruction from which the LAX families have been plucked but from which Mr. Nifong cannot now escape.
ReplyDeleteObserver
JLS says....,
ReplyDelete1. Nifong did either lie to this attorney or various judges in this case in open court about having inteviewed Mangum. The bar could ask her and add more charges on Nifong, but why both. The comment to the lawyer is probably admissible at trial under the hearsay exception of statements against your own interest.
2. I am not sure anyone has ever said that DNA-SI found DNA from blood or saliva or semen on or in Mangum. They just found DNA which could have even been skin cells someone left "behind." Another possilbe meaning is that the State Lab was not able to isolate DNA from blood, saliva or semen on Mangum but DNA-SI was because they use a more advanced y-chromosone test to isolate male DNA.
3. The reason that sexual crimes complaintants names are public information as they are everywhere and that the media should not hide them is that witnesses might come forward if they hear about the case. As it is now someone with exculpatory evidence might fail to come forward because they don't know who is claiming this crime was committed against them.
4. The evidence that might make someone wonder about a particular judge in this case was his curious strong and immediate concern about the privacy rights of third parties whose phone numbers might be on Mangum's cell phone.
With a slight smirk on my face, I have joked for the past month that Nifong is probably the daddy of The False Accuser's new baby. And today I learn that he's been her knight in shining armor for the past decade. Weirder things have happened.
ReplyDeleteOr, possibly, he conspired with her for monetary gain. (Or perhaps he was one of her clients since he knew her well) That would explain his lack of interest in any exculpatory evidence - if the fix was in.
ReplyDeleteThe part about them knowing each other was discussed on Liestoppers quite some time ago but it is tough to keep up with everything going on over there.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case, Nifong checked his reasoning ability based on his familiarity with the family from long ago.
Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. But you do need to look at the facts.
Johnson and Joyner (believe it or not) came across the best in the NBC video. Check it out.
ReplyDeletePolanski
Nice that Neff can add "draft dodger" alongside race-baiter, fraud, coward and shameful opportunist on the 'Fong's resume.
ReplyDeleteKnife-Fong, incidently, should probably spend some time looking that resume over.
JLS says....,
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case, Nifong checked his reasoning ability based on his familiarity with the family from long ago.
Please, everyone needs to give this up. Look at Nifong's behavior. Look at his reaction to the various attorneys particularly Chesshire.
Nifong is an ego maniac. He did not do this for anyone else. He did it for his extra $15,000 a year in pension. He did it for himself to win an election. He of course pretended some noble excuse for his actions, but don't believe that for a second. There is nothing noble about Nifong.
A commentator before the Cooper press conference said that Finnerty was not at the party and had electronic receipts to show he was at a restaurant. Wade Smith, Finnerty's attorney, suggested something similar when he spoke of Colin having an "alibi for something that did not happen". Does anyone know if this is true? Did Nifong indict someone who was never at the party?
ReplyDeleteIhe Hurled-Scum has three articles up this morning: Broadhead defends handling, DPD defends handling, and Duke LAX beats defending champ UVA. Thet just started requiring you to register to read, and I can't bring myself to do anything yhat might benifit them financially.
ReplyDeleteReading Neff seems to me there may well have been conspiracy with accuser - could take 2 forms
ReplyDelete1. I win election. You collect civil damages after boys are jailed.
2. I win election. We both somehow share civil damages u win after boys are jailed.
A few thoughts:
ReplyDeleteI think it would be suicide to sue Crystal alongside Dook, the State and Nifong. It would yield no monetary value, it would only engender sympathy from the Durham jury pool and make the Dook3 look vindictive as opposed to wronged and looking for fair compensation. If you sue 'Fong, you will have to call her as a witness (result achieved!) and her testimony will run over and over again, but you score the "good guy" points by not suing her and trying to collect your verdict in singles.
THE MINUTE THAT TRIAL IS OVER, you sue her individually. Why? Because SCROOW her, that's why.
Finally, I would hope we can "learn the lessons of this case" (Hat Tip to Brodhead) and repeal those ridiculous and Unconstitutional PC crowd sponsored Rape Shield laws, and MSM policies that obscure the accuser's identity. Frankly, if any of her bio had been known, would these guys have been indicted? Would anyone? Would her filing of false rape charges go to the credibility of her scientifically unsupported ad internally-contradicted allegations? Of course it would, but the Left and MSM would rather harm wrongfully accused people then ask accusers to stand-behind their accusations. Do me a favor: square that with the Confrontation Clause and the spirit of public trials. I'm waiting.
If they are heck-bent on picking and choosing the admissible evidence for juries with a broad brush (Why should a jury in a given case be allowed to decide how much weight to give provably true histories of false accusations? It's not like the guilt...I mean the accused have a Constitutional right to jury trial on ALL the facts. It is only those facts the Left/PC crowd wants them to hear, right? --Remove tongue from cheek---)
In all seriousness, who should have a better claim to a witheld identity: the person filing a charge that could ruin another person's life, or the person who is PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY?
Rape shield laws are obsolete. They are leftover from a much more prudish society. Rape is now discussed openly and a woman who has been raped is no longer the subject of morbid curiosity.
ReplyDeleteJLS says...,
ReplyDeletere: Finnerty's alibi
Finnerty's alibi is much like Selgimann's without the cabbie or the ATM picture.
1. He left the party soon after Mangum showed up.
2. He went to a Mexican eatery with others and apparently charged food creating an electronic record and witnesses.
3. He went back to his dorm creating an other electronic record.
4. He called his sister creating a third electronic record and another witness. Unlike Seligmann calling his girlfriend, he actually talked to his sister.
I read about it on a Liestopper thread. I think maybe his attorney outlined it. Some times were mentioned and I remember one being 11:22, but I don't remember which electronic record that was.
In Neff's Saturday installment of his series he tells how Nifong stumbled upon the LAX investigation at the office copier, and IMMEDIATELY proclaimed that he was in charge of the investigation and case. When he saw Crystal Gail Mangum's name as the accuser, and rich, white boys from Duke as her alleged rapists he instantly knew that the Devil was offering $15,000 per year for his soul. Right now I am sure Nifong's trying to figure out what went so wrong with his diabolical plot as well as wondering why that lying Devil tricked him!
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:00 "What story was he telling himself?"
ReplyDeleteDo you mean "what was his internal 'metanarrative'?" lol
JLS says....,
ReplyDelete1. The will have to sue Mangum or she will financially benefit from this. They need to sue her, get a default judgement. You are right they do not want to sue he in an action against Duke and Durham. They will get a default judgement because she will not even show.
2. Rape shield laws make evidence of most types of prior sexual behavior of the complaining witness inadmissible in rape trials. The complaining witness' name is public information. It would be unconstitutional to keep the complaining witness' name hidden. The MSM's self-imposed censorship about complaining witnesses names is at issue here. But private companies can have their own rules and the market in this case via the internet will determine where the public goes for news, the self-censored outlets or the places where all the information is.
This episode reminds me of Brooklyn. KC should be fully aware of this: Local (black) democratic party boss in Brooklyn was selling judgeships for $50,000 to interested democratic party members. This guy (Clarence Norman) has been convicted several times. Naturally, Brooklyn black community supports him 100% (somehow I'm not surprised). Basically, every judge in Brooklyn is a corrupt member of democratic party who bought the position from Norman.
ReplyDeleteI would expect that things were done similarly in Durham (and every dem controlled city in this country). This would also explain judge Stephens.
Clarence Norman lost his law licence so I would expect him to be a congressman in 2008 (along with Mike Nifong). I'm sure they would win easily.
For those interested, google Clarence Norman.
Sue Nifong in Civil Court and call CGM as a witness. Nifong's defense would have to paint her as an ureliable witness. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't
ReplyDeleteThis confuses me.
ReplyDelete"The SBI found no semen, blood or saliva from what she said was a vicious 30-minute assault."
How did DNA Security find semen?
No one else answered so I'll give it a shot. If I understand correctly, the SBI did a preliminary exam of the evidence and did not find semen, blood or saliva so they did no evidentiary DNA testing at all. They did run the reference DNA samples from the lax team.
DNASI has a much more sensitve test that would extract out male DNA only and ignore CGM's necessarily present and dominant DNA. This test was so sensitve that, under laboratory conditions, lab director Meehan apparently contaminated one sample.
Carolyn says:
ReplyDeleteAs regards the two statements which both Crystal and her driver gave explaining what happened in the days just before the March 13 party - Liestoppers pointed out something stunning.
BOTH Crystal and her driver 'lost' an entire day. Both timelines cover the days from Friday (March 10) to Monday (March 13). That's 4 days. Yet both only account for the actions of 3 days. An entire day is missing. It's difficult to figure exactly which day that is - but the fact is that both Crystal and her driver apparently date the March 13 party as March 12.
The only logical conclusion about the missing day is that 'something happened' during that period which neither Crystal nor her driver want to reveal.
Does anyone have any clues about this?
Probably met with nifong to work out the details.
ReplyDeleteEven the best of intentions can cloud somebody's judgments as Sean Penn has shown in his movie The Promise starring Jack Nicholson. Check it out. I wish Nifong would resign and Crystal would leave Durham.
ReplyDeleteRe: the missing day.
ReplyDeletePerhaps whatever happened on that day would explain why Crystal had the DNA of five different men on her person?
11:55--very good post
ReplyDeleteMy only cavil is your insistence on amending the rape-shield laws. They are not the principal problem--we need to create feony sex-crime statutes for female sociopaths like Panties. Remember, thugs like Panties are incredibly stupid, vindictive, and sociopathic; therefore, society needs to make laws to "curb their enthusiasm" for mayhem.
Polanski
This article eliminates any doubt that I had that CGM would be sued. She is going to be sued and the civil lawyers are going to have fun getting her and Nifong to explain their relationship in detail and then blame each other for the mess.
ReplyDeleteAs a man who handles legal work soley on contingency, Id love to have this case money or no money.
11:01
ReplyDeleteBroken record here:
scrutiny of the judge's actions
should be paramount, because
without the high bail - (among
other things)- he couldn't have
signalled his stong support
for NoFang's case.
Perhaps the Judge in question
should be made to testify
in any case involving a lawsuit
(against NoFang or whomever.)
Perhaps he should also be required
to turn over a sample of his own
DNA, just as was required of the
boys. That goes for NoFang, too.
The first thing that must be
done, before all of that:
copies of the DNA must be
safeguarded, test-results
included - (of course,
DNA itself is damaged/destroyed/
dissected in the process of
processing it.)
The Judge(s) in question
should, at the very least,
give a full public accounting
for why they went along with
the Hoax. More importantly,
they should give a full, public
apology to the boys. Even
more important than that, a
personal apology should be
offered.
Mac
Please - no more sperm-semen stories. I know more about Crystal's sex life than I do my own.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the rape shield laws need a second look and ammended. The Judges surley need looking into - what were they doing?
Do strip club dancers have supervisors?
ReplyDeleteI would love that. DNA samples from Nifong and it is compared against Crystal's huge collection of DNA.
ReplyDeleteNeff is terrific once again, but Liestoppers did break the news about Nifong knowing Mangum and her family from the previous case. Follow the money is the best advice. Did a rape hoax turn into an extortion plot? Why were the three particular players chosen by Mangum and did Durham police direct her to those three players? This case needs to be pursued until all of these questions are answered. This case is for the law books and the ages. Too bad bloggers and the Internet weren't in play during the Amirault debacle in Massachusetts.
ReplyDeleteJust ran across this on a Chronicle thread:
ReplyDeleteFrom the perspective of a Duke parent, the students and their families are not merely victims of "the tragic result of a rush to accuse" but are also equally victims of President Brodhead's and the administration's tragic rush to appease.
This is spot-on!
Exactly what does the latest Reverend to weigh in's comment about Nifong -- "he would do us right" -- mean? Who is "us"? CGM's family? The black community? All of Durham? This is not supposed to be a contest with both sides choosing who they want to play for them. This is supposed to be about fair and impartial justice, for God's sake. The DA is not supposed to be one's personal lawyer. This additional piece of information makes an already disturbing case even more disturbing -- if that's possible.
ReplyDeleteAs for the suggestion to sue GGM despite Wade Smith's comments -- I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Having said that, a judgment against her would certainly put a crimp in her possible plan down the road to sue them or profit from this mess, even though she has no legitimate or rational basis for doing so. I'm sure they've been discussing this angle.
1:25
ReplyDeleteyou're wrong
Panties done tol a lie to get out of drunk-tank duty
she's about as subtle as a hooker's rectum
speaking of rectums...
Earlier in the morning, Al Sharpton refused to apologise in Fox News, regarding his role in Duke hoax.
ReplyDeleteSomehow I'm not surprised. He refused to apologise for his role in Tawana hoax . Several people have been killed by black mob incited by Sharpton's anti-semitic and racists rants in NY.
This guy is not just nutty fake reverend, he is a dangerous, convicted criminal and racist hate-mongerer.
Al Sharpton's resume
Are any D-i-W readers knowledgeable about judges Stephens and Titus? More needs to be known about these two judges and the judicial system in Durham.
ReplyDeleteThe commenter at 1:10 should volunteer to take on the case. Let the lawsuits begin.
Extortion and appeasement, nefarious collusions, hypocracy and deliberate creation and use of inflamatory incidents -- this is what has been exposed.
ReplyDeleteThe real way to correct things is to continue to expose this, going deeper and deeper...
The fact that Nifong had known CGM and her family for years might indeed be a large piece of the puzzle. I see several implications; First, it must be a mistake to imagine the Mangum family as being a barefoot type of people who live in a shotgun shack. Despite her mental instability, CGM was showing signs of middle class upward striving - the Navy, some effort at college - she was not from the bottom of Durham society by any means. Assistant DAs do not establish personal relations with bottom dwellers.
ReplyDeleteOK, if was turning tricks on occasion it is not unreasonable that her client list included - not likely Nifong - but guys at Nifongs level of society.
Mikey would have been in his comfort zone taking her side as soon as he saw her name on the case file. And many in the local LE establishment may have had their own reasons to stay on good terms with her.
In other words, if she had their numbers in her cell phone and could describe their "distinguishing characteristics" then they would hesitate to drop this case if that would piss her off.
From the Chronicle:
ReplyDelete"From the perspective of a Duke parent, the students and their families are not merely victims of "the tragic result of a rush to accuse" but are also equally victims of President Brodhead's and the administration's tragic rush to appease".
Exactly right. Brodhead has so much to answer for. He just backed the wrong horse. Now he must accept the consequences of his choices. That means resignation. A willingness to "learn from our mistakes" is too little too late now. Evidently, he failed to learn from mistakes he made at Yale. What makes people think he'll learn from his latest mistakes. He has not been neutral in all this. He backed the accusers. Now he must go.
Lurid speculation with no foundations about Nifong, Magnum and the judge is pointless and unfair. Granted, they are a sad bunch. But aren't people here surrendering to the temptation to prejudge before there is evidence? Isn't that what this case was all about in the first place? Why not keep the arguments proportioned to the evidence? Failure to do so will only leave the lacrosse players' supporters open to the charge of hypocrisy. Don't sully the moral purity of this victory with scurrilous and groundless speculation. Leave that to Ms Grace et al.
ReplyDeleteTo 2:17
ReplyDeleteBy all means, we agree that rushing to judgment and over-trusting first impressions can lead to bad outcomes.
On the other hand, we have the behaviour of the Durham establishment to explain. Why, for example, did the LE establishment fail to act to slow down this train when so many must have known how bogus these charges were? And don't try to claim they did not know; we here on this blog knew back last spring. There never was another side to this story, there never was any evidence a crime occurred - and that was known locally no doubt better than anywhere else.
So why the silence from so many? Do you care?
A work in progress….
ReplyDeleteCriteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:*
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
•“….At the same time, it is important to remember that the Attorney General had the opportunity to review this investigation and to make this decision because I requested that he do so. [Copies of my letter making that request and the Attorney General's response thereto are attached.]”
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal Love:
•“There is no way to tell if it hurt or helped. I really felt like I was by far the best candidate. ... I'm glad that the people of Durham agree with me.”
•The next day, Nifong told Durham police he was taking over. At 9 a.m. March 24, a police captain told the senior investigator, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, that "Nifong was going to be running and prosecuting this case. ... Go through Mr. Nifong for any directions as to how to conduct matters in this case."
3.believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
•My impression is that the association was formed at a time when relations between the District Attorney's Office and the defense bar weren't very good. But now, I believe relations are generally quite good. I think, overall, the defense bar is pleased with the response we have taken to meet their concerns.”
4. requires excessive admiration
•At a luncheon yesterday to kick off “Prosecutorial Misconduct Week,” Defendant Nifong applauded the event's organizers, Victoria Peterson and Jackie Wagstaff, for being in touch with reality unlike his critics, who it should be noted include the North Carolina State Bar, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, members of the NC General Assembly and the US Congress, and other “hecklers" from coast to coast.
5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations"
•“Gentlemen, I know a lot more about this case than any of you do, and I'm going to proceed as I see fit."
6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
•There are four victims of District Attorney Mike Nifong’s twisted tactics in the Duke Lacrosse case.- The first three, of course, are the young men who never would have been charged with anything had Nifong adhered to the standard practices in his own office. With luck, they will ultimately be exonerated, and be able to move on with their lives, albeit after having endured a chapter in hell.
•The fourth victim is unlikely to be so lucky; she will not be exonerated at trial, and she will not be able to move on with her life. She will be destroyed by this case, and while she is partly to blame for that herself, the other part of the blame rests squarely on Mike Nifong’s shoulders.
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
•Nifong "is not going to talk with any attorneys while there have been no charges filed, and ... if Joe Cheshire feels that his client should be charged, then he should tell the police department."
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
•Nifong--displaying the political tin ear for which he is becoming famous--celebrated the event. "If you rely on certain media, you might think there is universal disapproval of me. But if you're closer to home, you realize that's not true."
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
•They don't want to go up against me.”
•Nifong was smug and self-assured, Thomas said: "I had 27 years of experience with him, and he was looking me in the eye. He said he had interviewed her, he discussed the details of the case, he believed her and that my view of her as perhaps being a call girl working for an escort service, running around making things up for financial gain, was absolutely false. ... He went on to say what a wonderful person she was. He said she was fully believable, she was intelligent, articulate ... and telling a convincing story about what happened.
-Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association
My apologies. Above post on wrong thread.
ReplyDelete2:02
ReplyDeleteAre you implying assistant DAs were Panties' clients?
Have you seen Panties' photo?
This pimp who hoodwinked the players into thinking they were getting a white and a Hispanic would not have the same luck with an assistant DA. Panties is an ugly pig.
2:10
ReplyDeleteWRONG: the issue is not that Brodhead backed "the wrong horse."
The real issue is that white society is hardwired into thinking that blacks are not responsible for their own bad behavior. Do you really think that Brodhead was even thinking rationally at the time? He was scared, and he caved to the diversity pimps, a k a the G88.
Yes, this bastard has a lot to answer for. Someone should hold him accountable for elevating an academic cesspool to full departh
mental status AFTER the 88 published its version of "Mein Kampf."
Polanski
Jacqueline, what is your problem?
ReplyDeleteThis psyhomumbojumbo reminds me of a bad porno film
Jacqueline
ReplyDeleteVery nice post; good
dissection of the personality
as it relates to DSM IV.
The grandeur that NoFang
supposed is surely being
replaced by Nero's death-throes:
"What an artist the world
is losing." That quote -
(perhaps allegorical) -
as he takes his own life.
NoFang may be a danger to
himself, as he has been to
others.
2:42:
Don't think there is a clear
implication that any of the
players involved are clients -
as it relates to sexual congress.
She performed as a dancer and
an Escort, too. Lap dances
and other non-sexual or semi-sexual
connections should be
investigated, as well as any
fiduciary comingling.
(You get my picture, I think.)
But then, I'm not 2:02.
A word of caution to 2:02
and the rest of us:
I think we should all be
concerned about who might
be taking notes here.
Mac
Highfong obviously played politics when he had no business, experience, or savvy doing so.
ReplyDeleteJacqueline,
ReplyDeleteGreat job! You have managed to nail Polanski too.
"Follow the money" - always a good strategy. I posted over at Liestoppers that it would be interesting to see what largess Duke has bestowed upon Durham since April of last year. If Nifong needed tacit approval from Bell and others, he could have alluded to the potential benefits to the "townies". There was an early interview (PBS) with Stevenson - did he serve as the Nifong or Durham emissary to Duke? His responses in that interview make it sound as though he was personally involved in the email situation. Was the McFayden email the leverage used to goad Duke into completely abdicating any
ReplyDeletecontrol of or influence over the situation, essentially abandoning the team to the Durham PD and Nifong?
Was the ability to manage town/gown relations something considered when hiring Broadhead? Did someone know he could be easily bullied if threatened with the prospect of a race relations problem (maybe even riots!) in the middle of a small southern town with a large black population?
How far would Nifong have gotten, even stirring up the race and class resentment simmering in Durham, if Duke had a strong, authoritative leader who crossed his arms across his chest, looked Durham reps in the eye and said "I'll be watching"?
Since Duke does not have that....I hope they are ready to keep shelling out the reparations.
In his own way, Nifong was almost as delusional as Mangum. His behavior was not only unethical but bizarre and will be studied by psychologists and legal experts for years to come.
ReplyDeleteNancy Grace - who I hereby rename Nancy Nifong - is not far behind. Such a loudmouth bully when it suits her but not a peep when she was shown to be a wrongheaded fool.
Mac - Us real conspiracy folk are still working on Dealey Plaza.
ReplyDeleteCan the escort service who contracted with CGM be sued, as well??? Wasn't she basically an employee? If an employee commits an act of wrongdoing while on the job, MOST companies would be sued. Yes????
ReplyDeletecf
So, let me get this straight. Nifong lied repeatedly about having interviewed Mangum? About knowing Mangum and her family?
ReplyDeleteWhoo, boy. That's very interesting.
Dianna
Anon 3:32
ReplyDeleteNancy Grace, Al Sharpton,
Jesse Jackson, "Cruella" Murphy:
all of them seemingly have
characteristics that Jacqueline
has so kindly shared with us.
MSM should be so kind as to have
called upon Bill Cosby, rather
than JJ and AS for comments about
this case. He would have a
different take on things, having
been the recipient of false
accusations.
Instead, they always speed-dial
the first bozos they can get to
make unsubstantiated comments:
JJ and AS, who feed on
faux-adulation just like a drug
addict feeds on crack, except
that they feed, apparently,
on their own intrinsic
crack - (cocaine.) They're
just like OJ, who still dreams
that he's someone's hero,
somewhere.
A person who obviously has
experience with the mental
health system stated in one
of the posts that NPD
is virtually untreatable.
Maybe. But here's a suggestion
for two persons who might be
suspected to suffer from the
disorder:
"Cruella" Murphy and "Nancy Drew"
Grace should be made to watch
videos of themselves making silly,
unbelievable assertions; about 6
months in solitary, alone with
only their own voices?
That should do the trick!
(Either that, or they'll leave
their confines seeking others
who look and talk just like them,
and try to hook up?)
Trouble is, our society feeds
that kind of mentality - as
we see people like Willy Jeff
Clinton, an obvious case of NPD,
so I hear from persons qualified
to make those distinctions,
treated with fuel for his own
unquenchable fires.
Ted Haggard, liar extraordinaire,
also was fed by the drugs provided
by his megachurch, another
version of the BAM (Big Adulation
Machine.) BAM is also known
as "MSM."
KC will know better than to let
anyone get his head bloated
with dreams of grandiosity.
Unless MSM stops feeding the
beast, NPD will destroy whatever
remains of our civilization.
Mac
CF,
ReplyDeleteCould the escort-service companies
be sued for the actions of their
employees (in this case, CGM?)
Well, probably not: they would
have a contract with her -
and she would likely be considered
a subcontractor in that contract.
They usually indemnify themselves
from prostitution charges by
including employment agreements
that state that the employee is
not being paid for sexual
activities - and that any of
those activities are not their
responsibility, as they aren't
required of the employee.
On the other hand, if an employee
at a fast food chain puts a rat
turd in the chicken nuggets,
the responsible party will be
held to be the Corporation -
unless the customer put the
turd in the nuggets themselves.
The only thing that is likely
to happen to the employee is that
they are jailed: they won't be
sued.
Not hard to imagine the
congregation of persons who
conspired to put the rat
turd in this particular batch
of nuggets!
(apologies for re-treading an
earlier comment I made.)
Mac
I was two years behind Nancy Grace in law school and did not have any contact with her. One story is that her boyfriend was murdered, and that is why she went into law. I can tell you that her conduct as a lawyer in the district attorney's office got a conviction reversed because of blatant pandering to the jury's worst instincts and flirting to the point of distraction. That is why she is on TV today. She was so outrageous as a prosecuting attorney that the appeals courts reversed her convictions.
ReplyDeleteCF,
ReplyDeleteYour question likely has to
do with Duke University's
liability for the actions
of the 88. Some distinctions
here:
Duke might not be sued for
their actions, but Duke might
be sued for the BoT and
President's prejudgement
of the case, and letting
employees use the University
as a podium for slander.
The 88 might be sued individually,
for any future profits they might
make on the issue - (like OJ
may lose his royalties for
his semi-ghostwritten:
"Because I Did It And You Can't
Do a Damned Thing About It."
Duke may end up settling the
case with an out-of-court
sum, but I'd guess -(and I mean
guess)- that they'd be "encouraged"
to find a way to use the
University rules governing
employees/students to terminate
the worst offenders of the 88,
and that would be part of the
settlement. (Might reduce
the damages a bit?)
We'll see if my guess is right.
Mac
"I was two years behind Nancy Grace in law school and did not have any contact with her. One story is that her boyfriend was murdered, and that is why she went into law. I can tell you that her conduct as a lawyer in the district attorney's office got a conviction reversed because of blatant pandering to the jury's worst instincts and flirting to the point of distraction. That is why she is on TV today. She was so outrageous as a prosecuting attorney that the appeals courts reversed her convictions".
ReplyDeleteThis is the tip of the iceberg. She has left a trail of scandal in her wake. She's a one-woman disaster area. She's leading the race to the bottom in American television "news".
Focusing on particular journalists/media commentators is kind of missing the point. It is the producers and owners they work for who are ultimately to blame. They give irresponsible loud-mouths like Grace a forum so that she will be outrageous and unfair... and thereby boost ratings. Ethics and standards be damned.
ReplyDelete"The 88 might be sued individually,
ReplyDeletefor any future profits they might
make on the issue".
Sued for what?!? Are you comparing them to OJ? Meanwhile, back on earth...
"Duke may end up settling the
case with an out-of-court
sum, but I'd guess -(and I mean
guess)- that they'd be "encouraged"
to find a way to use the
University rules governing
employees/students to terminate
the worst offenders of the 88,
and that would be part of the
settlement".
None of them will be fired. This is just wishful thinking. They have tenure and are untouchable. They were wrong and foolish. That isn't a sufficient basis to be fired if you have tenure. Brodhead might resign. That's it.
I posted about Nancy Grace earlier. The primary case, Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701 (1997), was reversed on multiple grounds, but included the statement that Grace disregarded notions of due process and fairness. It said her conduct was inexcusable. It also pointed out that she made improper closing arguments and patent misrepresentations of fact. She, in fact, alleged physical abuse when she knew that there was no evidence to support it.
ReplyDeleteRecently, the 11th Circuit upheld a conviction she obtained, but went out of their way to criticize her for her conduct.
I do want the people of America to know that she is not representative of the legal abilities and ethics of the other lawyers in the State.
4:52
ReplyDeleteYou're right: President Brodhead
should resign.
Trust me: Duke will find a way
to remove the profs.
Have you ever been fired from
a job where the job itself
is what has been terminated?
That your job responsibilities
are no longer required?
There are certain classes and
course studies that could be...
ah...made obsolete. We all
know what some of those are.
Also...professors and instructors
who have misused department
funds and hijacked the authority
of the department -
(e.g. claiming the right
to speak for the department
without authorization)-
will find that they lack the
support of the administration.
Could be that funding for the
department are diminished -
especially those departments
that have been the largest
contributors to this injustice.
(Do you want Polanski to spell
that out for you? I thought
not.)
No one thought Robespierre
would end up on his own guillotine,
either.
Mac
4:52
ReplyDeleteYou sound awfully cocky.
Yes, Brodhead will be fired. But there is a chance a smart lawyer/administrator will find a way to make life impossible for the parasites. And yes, there may be a cause of action against the 88. Possible infraction of university rules--that would be enough for a cause of action. Remember, the prime movers among the 88 are stupid; I believe they will be destroyed by the discovery process. All the lawyers have to prove is that the 88 (read Holloway and Lubiano) INTENDED for the listening statement to serve as a rush to judgment.
I always have to laugh at people who are uncreative.
Folly, Mr Folly?
Polanski
cedarford says:
ReplyDeleteGiven the high frequency of false rape accusations, 10-42% of reported rapes - and given The Innocence Project says the greatest proportion of truly innocent men in jail are there on rape lies - wouldn't it make sense to discourage false rape accusations in the 1st place?
While I agree that rape has been turned into some sort of taboo subject by certain segments that want society to simply accept the alleged victim's word, I think you fail to analyse the situation carefully enough as well.
As I have said before, there are three cases with rape allegation, but the fact that so many black men who were charged and sentenced in relation to rape are exhonerated by the innocence project does not necessarily mean that false rape claims are around 42%.
Since eye-witness identifications are so unreliable, a good percentage of them could simply have identified the wrong perp.
5:36
ReplyDeleteYeah, sometimes the wrong
perp has been ID'd.
And sometimes, "any perp
will do." As long as
they possess the correct
racial makeup. It's
not right - but it has
happened, and is still
happening.
Thank God for DNA!
Mac
Mac, Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. If I were sueing, I'd throw the escort service on the list just for the heck of it to see what shakes out, but you are probably right. Not a winner. Thanks again.
ReplyDeletecf
5:55
ReplyDeleteThanks!
As I said, I'm guessing...
based upon what is said about
employment contracts in
that profession - but then,
it hasn't always worked out
that way with regard to
criminality - (Heidi Fleiss,
anyone?) Doubt anyone coulda
sued her, though.
Now as for the driver of
the car carrying CGM to the places
she...worked? He might be liable,
considering his failure to get
his timeline straight, missing
a day-here or a day-there.
Then again, the Escort Services
and the driver (both) could be
required to answer questions -
under oath! That might
lead to the lair of the beast!
That's what NoFang tried to do,
but not with the preferred
method: it's called "being under
oath!"
That being the case, they'd
better keep some strong-arms
nearby, just for their own
safety. Look at what the LAW
attempted to do to the Taxi
driver! People who have a lot
to lose can't afford to NOT
take big risks.
They'd be better off moving to
Bahrain.
Mac
JLS says...
ReplyDeleteNone of them will be fired. This is just wishful thinking. They have tenure and are untouchable.
Speaking of reality, a surprising number of the 88 Gangsters are instructors, visiting assoiciate Profs etc. They in fact can be terminated by a letter between now and the end of the Spring term. Of course a letter of termination means their contract is not renewed and they will be out of a job at Duke at the end of the Spring 2008 term.
6:17 One can only hope Taking Burness with them. Would like to see the tenured driven out via the handbook. Duke Admin does not appear to be that smart.
ReplyDeleteI am retired through no fault of my own - darn heart betrayed me.I think I am part daytime audience. The only way I can show my displeasure with these fools is to turn them off and send pithy emails. Catherine Crier, Ansleigh Banford, Guilfoil are as bad as Nancy Disgrace. does the station care? does not look that way. BTW, Greta is a nice lady and rarely engages in denouncing folk. Ted and Bernie are plain dumb.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 4:52pm
ReplyDeleteYou make this wishful thinking point every time someone mentions possible repercussions for the 88. What makes you so sure? Do you know something we don't? If so, please tell us what. The tenure thing has already been debated here. We all know that firing a tenured professor is hard. However, "pushing" one out is not impossible and it happens more often than you seem to think. The issue is not tenure, the issue is what the administration wants to do.
FYI, I am a tenured professor at an elite institution. Your info better be good if you want to be taken nseriously.
"You make this wishful thinking point every time someone mentions possible repercussions for the 88. What makes you so sure? Do you know something we don't? If so, please tell us what. The tenure thing has already been debated here. We all know that firing a tenured professor is hard. However, "pushing" one out is not impossible and it happens more often than you seem to think. The issue is not tenure, the issue is what the administration wants to do.
ReplyDeleteFYI, I am a tenured professor at an elite institution. Your info better be good if you want to be taken nseriously".
Your first point arrogantly assumes that I am the ONLY person making the claim of wishful thinking.
Your second point is no less arrogant, even if it is true. As it happens, I'm a tenured professor at an Ivy league institution, so you have no special authority over me in this matter. If you are a tenured professor, then you should know that tenured professors are hardly ever fired. When they are, it is for things like gross professional misconduct, or conviction for a serious crime, or sexual harassment, molesting students, financial improprieties, etc. None of that applies here. The 88 are guilty of being reckless fools. They mentioned no names in their advert. Trying to fire anyone with tenure for that will invite a HUGE backlash from the professoriate. Brodhead and the Trustees won't take that risk. It would be easier just to settle with cash or Brodhead's head on a platter. Personally, I would be content with that. You should stop trying to persuade people that any of the professors is going to be fired.
My first ever post. First of all great job, KC, I have followed this blog from the earliest days, and believe you are a big reason for the charges being dropped.
ReplyDeleteNext, I think the N&O has gotten too much credit for their reporting, which I think was extremely immflamatory early on and caused this story to have legs when it seemed incredible from the beginning. They come off as johnny-come-Pultizer now that the charges are dropped. So many of the questions & inconsistnecies that have been brought up here and other blogs, never quite made it to the newspaper--how come it is just being reproted by Neff that Nifong knew the accuser & her family?
When I first read this story, I thought it was a shakedown attempt by the accuser that blew up to something out of her control. When I saw articles about Nifong'spolitical base/contributions having dried up just prior to the alleged incident (and knowing he fired Freda Black and suspecting she would retaliate if elected) it all came together for me.
If one considers the qualifty of student Duke would recruit/admit, I found it incredible from the get-go that 43 guys would stand around while 3 raped the accuser. There is no way that would have accurred where I went to college, and it seemed to be too fantastic to have that expectation at Duke. Earlier this week, I wrote President Brodhead and called him a coward and told him his lack of leadership was a discredit to his position and employer and that he should resign to prevent further embarassment to Duke U. The same can be said for the Head of Durham PD.
Sorry for being so wordy.
Fred
6:27
ReplyDeleteYou're right: I've gotten
a few replies from Greta,
and she is very gracious.
She's also not a big fan
of NoFang's.
6:43
I respect your comment.
I was waiting for someone
in academia to clarify the
issue a bit - (in writing.)
Thanks.
BTW, those people who throw
cold water on the potential
repercussions for NoFang et al
are sometimes Attorneys.
Hard to say what their
motives are, but thowing
sand on the tracks to slow
the train seems to be the
main objective.
Mac
7:02
ReplyDeleteCertainly grade-tampering is
a job-loser? Then how
about gossip, inciting hatred
against students? Aren't
those parts of your Code Books
or Rules of Conduct?
(I assume you have those at
your institution.)
Perhaps you could call some
of the remarks by the Profs
and instructors racial
harrassment? How about
"molesting students?"
Remember that assault is
not the same thing as battery,
and molesting students doesn't
neccessarily have to do with
physical molestation. Same
as sexual harrassment doesn't
have to include physical acts.
Have you been paying attention
to DIW for a very long time,
or are you new to the site?
Inciting hatred against students
(and you can ask the Lacrosse
players themselves, if you like)
is something that might be
actionable. Or is that,
too, just "arrogant?"
Mac
452
ReplyDeleteto railroad the students off of the duke campus by encouraging posting POSTERS as VIGALLEMTES, by PUBLISHING manifestos that demeaned the students without any facts to support there hysteria, using DUKES owned publishing ARM, the duke chronicle, makes them a party to the slander and libel that they encouraged as a matter of multiple "hate language" and 'denial of civil rights" of the students
they are alleged accessories to many potential civil and criminal charges ...
as well the PHD thesis of all duke professors who signed this manifesto need to be EXAMINED...for the LACK OF FACTS that was evident as the basis of the Group of 88 manifesto argues that this is a condition that might potentially exist in their previous work
GROUP 88 professors didnt have any facts to back up their MANIFESTO ...if they could allegedly sign off on the maifesto why isnt it logical they have this as a pattern ?
Point of interest, at least to me:
ReplyDeleteThe defense has - apparently - the complete DNA information on the five heretofore unidentified semen specimens. After all, Nifong's idea of disclosure was to dump several thousand pages of raw data on them.
What is to stop somebody with that information from running their own database check on the results - if necessary, with the assistance of a friendly law enforcement official?
7:17
ReplyDeleteGood points. However, I think
the good professor might have
been new to the issue, and
didn't see the writeup on
the misuse of department
protocols. (That's called
"the benefit of the doubt.")
Go back a few days/weeks/months,
Doc. You might change your
mind, and might agree that at
least some of the instigators
in the 88 have engaged in
questionable professional
conduct. (I won't use the
words "gross professional
misconduct," even if it might
apply, simply because I'd
prefer to hear a judge say it.)
Mac
7:18
ReplyDeleteYou are right.
And while they're at
it, obtain a court order
for the DNA of certain law
enforcement/criminal justice
officials.
Maybe later in the game,
and that won't be wishful
thinking. There's an open
question, and you've asked
it!
Mac
Anon @ 7:02
ReplyDeleteSo we are colleagues. Good to know. Now, care to state anything of substance beside repeating yet again that tenured prof are hard to fire? We got that, thank you.
The only information you added is that YOU think the 88 SHOULD NOT be fired because "they are guilty of being reckless fools" but nothing else since "They mentioned no names in their advert" and "Trying to fire anyone with tenure for that will invite a HUGE backlash from the professoriate."
I agree with the last part about the backlash -- although who knows what the rest of the faculty thinks at this point. But my point is that firing them is not necessary. In case you missed it, let me repeat it: the issue is not tenure, the issue is what the administration wants to do. There are ways of
"pushing" tenured profs out or making them marginal to the point of irrelevance.
One last thing. Several people here disagree with your assessment that the 88 are not guilty of "things like gross professional misconduct, or conviction for a serious crime, or sexual harassment, molesting students, financial improprieties, etc."
I will let them debate you on these aspects since I did not bring them up and, contrary to what you seem to think, I do not feel a particular need to see the 88 fired. I am curious, however, to know how far these "reckless fools" went in pursuing their foolishness.
8:10/7:02 (not 7:02 "Fred")
ReplyDelete7:02 must not be aware of the
factors that brought KC into
this battle: the ganging-up
of Duke University and many
of it's professors against
3 young men who hadn't had
even the essence of fairness
drift their way from these
professional educators and
the Administration at
Duke University.
Since that's what brought him
into this, perhaps you ought
to ask him?
To 8:10
In one post - (you probably
missed it, since these things
get kinda...thick) - I mentioned
that Corporations often don't
need to fire anyone these days:
they just do away with the
position. The so-called "Angry
Studies" group could be dismissed
if the departments they represent
were dismantled.
No reason neccessary.
So...we are in agreement.
Back to 7:02
And don't believe that there
aren't a huge number of pissed-
off professors, angry that some
of their best students are
being called ugly names, truly
vile names that they in no
way merit. Don't think those
hostile, abusive instructors and
profs are going to be very happy
with the reception from other
professional educators who
actually DO care about their
students.
Would you respect someone who
just called a good student
from one of your classes
a racist rapist? A barnyard
beast?
It is also not appreciated
when you - (a professor) call
another professor "arrogant,"
when you obviously haven't
seen all the issues involved.
He made several valid points,
which had to be explained to
you: perhaps your field of
study isn't in the area involving
logic? I don't know: I'm
just wondering how you jumped
to the conclusion that
8:10 is "arrogant?"
Perhaps you teach at Duke U.?
Good luck, 7:02!
And try to STUDY for the
next quiz! You only get to
drop one grade this semester!
This must be it!
Mac
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, I'm a tenured professor at an Ivy league institution, so you have no special authority over me in this matter.
As it happens, I am a tenured professor at no less tnan five Ivy League institutions, and the president of another.
You guys really have no credibility compared to me.
9:10pm
ReplyDeleteYou might as well tell us who you are and spare us the effort of finding out on our own. Your hint is, I imagine, enough but why post anonymously if you are willing to drop it?
9:10
ReplyDeleteI agree: I possess no
credibility comparable
to yours. Couldn't
even begin to argue
that point, and wouldn't.
I'm not the enemy:
when you said "you guys,"
I only hope you weren't
lashing out at my post,
since I'm in agreement
with you.
And it wasn't very nice
to hear you described as
"arrogant" by the other professor
(you did manage to misspell
a word, "nseriously" and maybe
the other guy went after you
for that? Who knows?)
In this saga, there are lots
and lots of villains. Professors
aren't exempt from being regarded
thusly. I've seen my share
of ignorant, arrogant and bullying
professors and instructors,
and tenure made them more of
what they were, deep down:
distal ends of the digestive
lumen, lined with prodiginous
endothelial goblet cells,
secreting-while-excreting.
Gross, but that's what some
of these guys are.
Just not you.
Mac
re 9:10
ReplyDeleteI doubt he teaches at an Ivy League school. In that brief post he made 2 grammatical errors: uses less instead of fewer and compared to instead of compared with. The latter is excusable, not the former.
Polanski
9:33
ReplyDeleteYou may be right, but he
may also be an older
gentleman, unused to the
computer and with fading
faculties. (Just a benefit-
of-the-doubt, just-in-case.)
There are lots of poseurs
on these sites.
In any case, I'd prefer
to let my words talk,
not my credentials -
(mostly because I've
no credentials to speak
of!)
Certainly it would be useful
if this "University Professor"
actually has had tenure
at 5 Ivy League Universities,
and "was President of another."
It would be a shame if he is
just another of the NPD variety.
Mac
Maybe the couple Crystal performed for at the hotel was Nifong and Gottlieb!
ReplyDeleteAnyone can claim to be a tenured professor at one or more colleges.
ReplyDeleteUnless they give us their name, they are not really credible!
Given the typos and bad writing of the 6:43 comment I would have to assume that the writer was indeed a tenured professor. Probably an afirmative action hire. Maybe Larry Sommers' replacement. Maybe even more important than that - whoa - what was I thinking - no one is more important than a professor at an elite institution of higher learning. Plus, everything one writes in the comment section of a blog on the interweb has to be true!
ReplyDeleteMac--
ReplyDeleteI've been following this case since the beginning. I have been reading this blog for a very long time, including (alas) your all-too-frequent and all-too-puerile contributions. You seem to have expertise in nothing but comment on everything.
As for the rest of the rubbish you wrote, I won't even bother replying to it. It's really just too stupid. You don't know a thing about academic tenure. That's why your message is just so much childish schoolyard name-calling. Instead, I will just wait for your apology when you discover in the fullness of time that NONE of the Gang of 88 with tenure gets fired over this. Or, more likely, you do a "Grace", and reveal yourself to be every bit as nasty and stupid as the 88 professors you misguidedly think will get fired. We have already seen plenty of evidence of that on here.
Polanski--your ambulance is waiting. Some men in white coats to see you.
ReplyDelete11:42
ReplyDeleteI'm not Polanski, but I am curious about the meaning of your post. Are you bored?
"So we are colleagues. Good to know. Now, care to state anything of substance beside repeating yet again that tenured prof are hard to fire? We got that, thank you.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the last part about the backlash -- although who knows what the rest of the faculty thinks at this point. But my point is that firing them is not necessary. In case you missed it, let me repeat it: the issue is not tenure, the issue is what the administration wants to do. There are ways of
"pushing" tenured profs out or making them marginal to the point of irrelevance".
Strange use of the word "colleague" of which I was not previously aware.
I added nothing of substance, you say, yet you concede my point about a likely backlash. So what counts as a matter of substance? Even the appearance of people with tenure being "pushed out", as you put it, rather than fired outright risks a big backlash, since it would be seen by many as an assault on tenure (albeit by the back door). The point of tenure is to make getting rid of people extraordinarily difficult. It would be useless otherwise. We disagree on the likelihood that any of them will be "pushed out". (McClain has just been "pushed UP"!) So we must wait and see. Time will tell who is right here. What evidence/arguments have you offered to make you so damn sure it WILL happen? Only your own say-so, backed up by a claim to authority as a "tenured professor at an elite institution". Did it never occur to you that there may be lots of tenured professors at "elite institutions" who visit this blog? I don't doubt you are what you claim to be: you are just pompous enough to be a tenured professor.
T Randall:
ReplyDelete"The SBI found no semen, blood or saliva from what she said was a vicious 30-minute assault."
How did DNA Security find semen?
DNA Security has testing capabilities more sensitive than those available at SBI. Nifong went to DNA Security precisely because he was unhappy with the exculpatory results provided by SBI, and he hoped Keenan's firm could find evidence of player guilt with its cutting edge, highly sensitive tests.
DNA Security has such sensitive tests that Keenan's own DNA, the DNA of the tester himself, appears in the results for the case. And, as we know, DNA from several other males, none of whom were Duke players, was also found by DNA Security.
beckett
11:41
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments.
As I see that you have neither
handle and are anon, I will
take your comment that I
"comment on everything but
have expertise on nothing"
as Gospel. But perhaps you
are right: I WAS a Liberal
Arts undergrad at one time,
after all.
I would ask you one question,
and it deserves a yes-or-no
answer:
Do you want the 88 to remain
unscathed and unaccountable?
Mac
KC,
ReplyDeleteGuess I've been uninvited from
these pages (11:41) by an
"88."
Thanks for all your hard work
KC! You've been a hero - you
are a hero.
Bye. I'll keep reading,
but I'm not into micturition
contests, and don't like
attacks that are personally
directed. Generally directed,
I understand: personally, and
I'm outa here.
Thanks again!
Mac
It is not unusual for ADAs (which Nifong was for all but a couple of years) to know lots of folks that have run through the system as victims or defendants. Go to any small to medium size DA's office and any DA that has been there for more than 10 years can give you family histories of the "usual suspects." That fact that Nifong knew the victim does not strike me as odd in the least.
ReplyDelete