Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Q Section in N&O
The Q section in today's N&O has columns from six people, including me, addressing the question of why the case attracted so much interest. The column from the 60 Minutes producers is particularly interesting.
Check out the moving forward tag line at Liestoppers:
One reader is offering to help: The elation of the first victory is still keeping many of us euphoric, especially since we are acknowledged by the legal team as having played a role, however minor, in that victory (nice word, Victory).
Going forward, however there are many things that need to be done in order to try to rectify the distortions of law that have occurred. One of my first posts was an offer to set up some type of computer generated package, a website or a Windows app, that could help the legal team. In it I offered to provide technical help for a back-end SQL Server design to aggregate and classify events or other data. There are very probably on this board members much better qualified to do this than I am, so my offer is one intended to get the ball rolling, if that is the only thing that is needed. I can also offer help in programming in Visual Basic.Net and ASP.Net. (we could put the site on a cd or DVD if state law does not permit communication in the courtroom.)
I would like to renew this offer. I would be glad to offer more information about myself and my qualifications to a group whose intentions are as clear as mine.
The comments on the role of the media provided by Rogerson - whoever he might be - are just about the most condescending and arrogant it's been my displeasure to observe. Good grief! How can be possibly believe such nonsense? Sound like he's eligible for honorary 88 status!
Your column - and the column from the 60 Minutes producers - was a good summary.
The only thing I could add is that there are significant questions that still remain, including the ones involving the judicial system itself- (e.g. high bail, inexplicable allowance of threats against the accused etc.)
Hopefully, the young men are being represented by Attorneys who will get to the bottom of these unanswered questions.
I'm glad you're still on the case, but your termination of your Sunday summary may be a little premature, given the fact that there appear to be so many things left to discover.
On the other hand, you've given so much of yourself, who are we to demand more?
Sorry, KC, that 60 producer's screed was poorly written public relations. The most important aspect of the case, the rush to judgment by the 88, was not addressed in the 60 report. I'll say it again: this case was all about black bad behavior, and whitey's failure to characterize it as such.
Nifong was a player, but the story is mostly Duke and the 88.
As long as we are on the topic of the media, I am sure that we won't be surprised to learn that Bob Ashley is defending the Herald Sun's coverage:
"We have repeatedly reminded readers of the presumption of innocence and have consistently urged the legal process to proceed, swiftly, to determine the truth in this case. We editorially acknowledged flaws in the case throughout the fall, and said in December "the case certainly raises many questions about his performance...If Nifong is found to have acted unethically, he should face serious consequences."
In January we noted "serious problems" with his case and said the accuser's credibility, and his, were "eroding."
So even though the hoax occurred in March, and serious questions came up in April, the Herald-Sun did it's job since they made some vague references to problems in the fall, and then finally pointed out the serious contradictions in December and January!
Of course, they only changed course after their boy was elected in November. As I recall, their only scoop (on her bizarre behavior at the strip club) was published shortly after the election.
In other words, they want their cake and eat it too. They supported Nifong with their eyes wide shut, but now want to defend their journalistic integrity. But in the same way that this case will be studied in law schools, journalism programs will be examining the Herald Sun for years to come.
Finally, has anybody noticed that Brodhead and Ahsley are sending the same message to weasel out of their participation in this mess?
[By Carlton E. Wilson, Special to The News & Observer
Carlton E. Wilson is chairman of the history department at N.C. Central University.
Aside from the tangled web of timelines, rules of evidence and legal procedure, the Duke lacrosse case attracted attention because it raised questions and concerns related to issues of race, class, privilege and gender.]
I think that it attracted a lot of attention from those concerned with justice. Clearly those concerned with race, class, privilege and gender weren't concerned with justice.
As a parent, I'm protective of my kids and got outraged when I saw a rogue trying to railroad the kids of another set of parents where the evidence and background of the kids pointed to their innocence.
It's like getting thrown in jail for 20 years for doing 60 in a 55 MPH zone.
Suggestion: D-i-W readers should come up with a list of specific questions that still need to be answered; then narrow the list to approximately 250. The final list should be shared with the Liestoppers and John in Carolina sites. As civil suits proceed, this would be useful.
Just read KC's piece - very nice summary of the case and cause.
KC's was the only writer without a picture though.
Seems to me that some of the other writers are still trying to sell something piggybacking on this case and trying to pick at emotions. Like Broverman.
Truthstoppers is a joke. They banned me from the site for telling the truth about the case. If I were KC's editor, I would have suggested calling the book, "Black Privilege: [add subtitle].
"It appears, however, that power, prestige and privilege may be used to rescue us after we exercise poor judgment and a lack of respect for others."
After reading the piece by "Professor" Wilson of NCCU, I can now understand how a woman with Crystal Mangum's severe mental health problems (not to mention her persistent drug and alcohol use) could have maintained a "B" average at NCCU, while simultaneously working for 8 escort agencies.
Since "Professor" Wilson apparently doesn't understand, I'll explain it to him: the three Duke students did not need to be rescued from exercising poor judgment by having a tacky party, or from disrespecting Crystal Mangum by hiring her to dance at their party. Instead, the Duke students needed to be rescued from Crystal Mangum's decision to commit a crime by filing a police report falsely claiming that she had been raped and assaulted, and from Mike Nifong's decision to abuse his office and initiate (and continue for nearly a year) a malicious prosecution.
It's a relief that someone at NCCU has some sense of fairness. Thanks. It's always nice to see that there are good people everywhere.
Other 2:18 poster:
Is this a request from an Attorney? Or could it be a request from a Defense Attorney for people like NoFang, Duke University etc, just trolling to see what the opposition has going for it? - (as they apparentlyhave in other segments of KC's blog.)
It's been noticed by many - (including the AG, the boys' Attorneys and even the dense MSM) - that lots of sharp tacks are posting their notes on this blog.
Just wondering if they might attempt - in their left-wing outrage at seeing the case dissolve before their eyes - to get the records of all the persons posting, perhaps to sue the posters themselves in countersuits?
If you aren't someone whose inquiries are of this nature, please accept my apologies, as you'll understand the nature of the combatants who've perpetuated this horrible miscarriage of justice, only recently remedied (in part.)
However, IF you are one of those representatives of those who trolls are now attempting to minimize their own liability in these cases - (and there will be many cases)- please accept my sincerely-displayed middle IP joint.
Why are there not more public calls for Nifong's resignation? I'd love to see Duke Students for an Ethical Durham reemerge and mobilize the student body as they did before the election and demand his resignation. Even more so, I love to see President Brodhead demand Nifong's resignation. LET'S MAKE SOME NOISE -LOOK WHAT IT DID TO IMUS,(rightly so)
This is OT, but after listening to Jackie Brown's comments about her meeting with Nifong and his wife(?) live-in girlfriend (whatever) Cy Gurney, it occurred to me that someone ought to make sure that Ms. Jean (the prosecutor in the Bar case against Nifong) knows about Jackie Brown's statements.
At Nifong's June trial, one of the things the Bar is going to have to prove is that Nifong had an improper intent when he made the inflammatory statements to the media. (As we know, at least one of his defenses is that he made the statements to calm the community, and to encourage people with information about the "crime" to come forward). In her comments to the newspaper, Jackie Brown said that she tried to get Nifong to stop talking to the media so much, but that he rebuffed her advice, saying that he was getting a million dollars worth of [campaign] advertising for free. That statement by Nifong is direct evidence of his improper intent. If they haven't done it already, the Bar needs to subpoena Jackie Brown to testify at the June hearing.
Well, Carlton Wilson is sulking that he wasn't able to lynch some white boys. Kenneth Rogerson sounds like a German in June 1945 who was 'only following orders'. Seyward Darby obviously lost a girl friend to a Duke lacrosse player which is why he's snipping he prefers basketball. Keith Woods smugly assumes readers are too stupid to realize he just mouthed off his own 'listening statement'. And - okay, Michael Radutzsky DID help produce the excellent '60 Minutes' piece - but the sounds of him smooching his own rear end aren't loud enough to drown out the noise of his fellow journalists still sucking up to personal agendas.
Note: the person I do admire is a blogger - the persons I don't aren't.
Nifong was a great example of self-will run riot. For ten months, the people who could stop him refused to do so. Only after his sins were so obvious, the NC Bar had to step in the case. Po>>>> and GG... deserve banning from any site. Margaret Mitchell already did the book and better.
I found it interesting that KC was the only one who even mentioned the actions of the Group of 88 and their implications. And I find it hard to understand how the Duke Chronicle could have had such good coverage when its editor provides such superficial "analysis". The "Case does not define Duke"? I have news for you, honey, in the eyes of the world, it does. Clearly he was, at bottom, one of the students who just wanted the trucks to get out of their paths to class. Never seems to have occurred to him that unless he never went to a stripper party, the accused might have been HIM.
I didn't know that Jackie Brown had made those comments. This case is hard to keep up with. Even if you do check it every day.
I don't know the format of the bar trial or hearing but if Nifong gets on the stand, they could always just ask him if he said that. I would hope that he wouldn't try to lie himself out of that one at this point with the level of scrutinay on him.
Anonymous at 2:29: You nailed it right exactly on the head citing this outrageous statement by Carlton Wilson:
"It appears, however, that power, prestige and privilege may be used to rescue us after we exercise poor judgment and a lack of respect for others."
This one sentence leapt off the page at me and beat me about the head senseless. Prior to that line, Mr. Wilson's piece was a meandering mess seeming to appeal to all sides and saying that all sides engaged in bad behavior of some sort.
But, in the 3rd to last paragraph, Mr. Wilson lets loose with this whopper of a sentence and thereby revealed his true intent.
This statement by him is so offensive that it needs to be called out in the local press. Those of you who live in the Triangle area please make yourselves heard and let Mr. Wilson know that his 'not getting it' after all this time is really troubling and that he should make a clarifying statement so that hopefully people will learn from this going forward and not simply fall back on such racist revisionism. His statement is similar to the most obnoxious statement that the NC NAACP released after the Roy Cooper decision/statement was released (where the NC NAACP stated that they understood if the AG's office felt that the (voluminous) evidence may not be quite strong enough to go forward).
Revisionist history that is meant to pander to the base audience. The record needs to be set straight for everyone's benefit going forward.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the Democratic legal and political machinery in NC finally did the absolute least they could to right wrongs. And the Duke academic executive and board did essentially nothing. There is a huge lack of accountability remaining to be addressed.
Yes, a declaration of innocence for the young men and condemnation of Nifong are very good things. But this was a nicely judged response, and everyone else who either participated in or supported this collection of crimes on the prosecution side were noticeably absent from the punishment list. Furthermore, the AG excused CGM as a sad victim who, ironically enough, is apparently an entirely different person from the wonderful mom/student/blah-blah who initiated everything with her charges. Bah.
I agree that K.C.'s was the best piece; the "60 Minutes" column sounded awfully self-serving (where were they for SEVEN months- little ol' K.C. was on it before then!).
I acutally thought Keith Woods wasn't so bad- if you can get through the clutter- especially where he asked the reader to substitute the various adjectives. That's the kind of article that MIGHT make those who worship at the altar of political correctness to perhaps choose greater gods- like truth. If they're not so far gone that truth has lost its meaning, that is.
But, far and away, the worst was the Rogerson article. It is the journalistic equivalent of taking these men to trial and finding them guilty, then saying the system "worked". Rogerson learned absolutely nothing with this case. To him, it's okay to drag reputations through the mud and ruin lives for a year (and possibly longer), but since journalists eventually found the truth when hit over the head by the evidence, then the journalists did their job.
If that's the case, then Lord help us when they don't do their job.
You are absolutely correct, sir. Cooper and Brodhead have done less than nothing. These Dook supporters getting all excited about the boys being called "innocent" is laughable at best.
I only hope the boys' families make the right decision, and pound on Dook and the 88.
Yes, I believe that if there had been no affirmative action at Dook, there would have been no rush to judgment; Brodhead therefore would have defended the boys; and Nifong wouldn't have dared try to railroad them.
"What really amazes me is that Nifong is STILL D.A. of Durham. Hopefully that gets addressed tomorrow".
Indeed. How can this be? He has been publicly denounced as a "rogue prosecutor" by the state Attorney-General. Yet he is still prosecuting in Durham? The Banana Republic of North Carolina. He should have been summarily dismissed.
I can imagine that most Defense Attorneys are licking their chops - in cases where NoFang is the lead prosecutor. That's not really a cause for celebration: there really ARE criminals out there. It's a matter of public safety that NoFang is De-Fanged.
Well said. Your humor has disarmed me - keep up your raggin' and ragin'. As if you needed my permission. But the "Dook" spelling is a UNC thing, and we even Wahneema looks down on UNC.
Glad to see that they published your piece above the fold, even though it was on page 24. Did the editors edit out much, or was that the complete piece that you proffered? Would love to read here anything that got edited.
I also loved the N&Os excuse that they only printed one side of the story because the Lacrosse players would not talk with them (other than to say they were not guilty). The N&O seems to think that the press is owed a story by those who that they are bashing. The N&O is also unfairly insinuating that there were no other reports available supporting the players.
Although there has been much recent discussion in the N&O, there is still a bit of a slant towards the opinion that only Duke Lacrosse players have drunken partys and hire strippers. I would love to see the stats for UNC, NCCU and NC State. I have a friend of a relative that was in charge of getting the strippers for his UNC Frat. A "Massage" parlor in Chapel Hill was/is? just off campus on Franklin street, near Campus.
I can respect someone's opinion that hiring strippers is a bad thing, but to leave the impression that Duke Lacrosse players are unique in this respect, unfairly continues their degradation.
If you go to Liestoppers, you can link to a television (NBC-17) forum with KC and, get this, Irving Joyner. KC acquits himself quite well, as does the former federal prosecutor. Joyner does not come across as badly as I hoped, based upon his prior conduct. He does, however, imply that the declaration of "innocent" by the AG is not as important as how the three victims conduct themselves in the future. I guess he means that they are innocent of the crime but not "innocent" in the Grant Farred/Group of 88 context that they are guilty of being white and not downtrodden. Whatever.
The most telling line of all the articles was this one, by NCCU History Professor Dr. Carlton Wilson:
"I am not sure there are any lessons to be learned from this situation."
One thing we have learned about, Prof. Wilson, is the instinctive dismissive of ideologues like yourself who are treating the Duke case as an anomaly, as the "margin of error" in some grand research project on the presumably pervasive evils of power, privilege, race and entitlement.
Reade, Dave and Collin are just bugs on the windshield. Nothing to learn here. Let's keep moving.
It's pretty clear that Joyner is still a fan of Nifong.
He said that Nifong just made this one bad mistake. He's been a good ADA and now a good DA except for this case. He just got caught up in the glare of the media.
I've never seen Cash and Joyner in video before and it was nice to put a picture to a name.
Michaels comes across a lot tougher in his writing. The environment in the video was very cordial.
I haven't heard Nancy, who in my personal opinion is almost of the same slimy-as-all-hell caliber as Nifong, say a peep about the ending of the case. The night/day after the "innocent" speech was handed out by Cooper, she had one of her lackies fill in for her.
Was really hoping to see her eat crow. However, Jon Stewart tore her apart.
You did a great service, that the MSM should've done. You are a true hero to justice.
Here is a letter I worte to Ruth Sheehan of the News & Observer. Something I recommend she do. Apologize to the 3 innocent boys.
Dear Ruth Sheehan;
Here is a great idea for an article.
You can honestly say you were sorry for your rush to judgment about the 3 boys you so falsely went after. But the important word is 'honestly'. If you can find it in you, you can write how many people WANTED this to be true because it fits an agenda. Like the 88 Duke professors who wanted this to true so they could revel in their own self-importance that what they have been spewing was true, when it turned out it was false.
But you probably won't. You will probably erase this email as some right wing white male kook who wrote you to gloat about the dismal of the 3 innocent boys everyone was ready to imprison.
Well, I am not a some white right-wing male. I am a Latino Democrat who knew from the get that there was something wrong when I heard the 'tales' of the two "exotic dancers".
Since when did being fair and clear thinking fly out the window just because it doesn't fits your own agenda and personal wishes. I believe you wished this false rape was true, but sadly for your own preconceived ideas of race and class and victim-hood, it was not. It was just as it was, 3 innocent guys who were at a party, like so many college parties across the nation that are going on every weekend, who got mixed up with two opportunists, who KNEW there would be people like you out there who just wanted this to be true and would champion their plot for monetary gain. After all they are just rich white boys. I guess being rich and white and male, it is somehow OK to attack them and make judgments on them so you can feel better about yourself and what you have, as long as it is not you, this time.
Where is are 'defender of the Court Channel ratings'?
Nancy Grace is in a dark bunker, holed up somewhere in a fetal position, sucking her thumb and repeating to herself as she rocks back an forth "I know they are still guilty, I just know it".
- Nofing lied about not having spoken to CGM early on
- Nofing knew CGM had serious mental problems
What's going to come out next?
Nofing has zero credibility at this point. Hw should roll over on DPD et. al. in an effort to deflect everything from coming down on him -- before he has less than zero. The ire that is directed his way is earned, of course -- but he should not be the only one exposed.
If he doesn't roll, someone else is going to be the first.
Does he still show up at work every day? I guess watercooler discussions are pretty lame nowadays. "hey mikey, had a nice weekend?"
His ADs must be congratulating themselves. Their career prospects are pretty much over. Even the NC democratic party has abandoned them so would be difficult to buy a judgeship in NC. Maybe they should apply to NAACP, ACLU or New Black Panthers.
well, now that the boys have been declared innocent, its time to start asking some questions. since karla holloway herself said that white innocense means black guilt, its time to start thinking about what punishment is appropriate for blacks. she said it not me, so don't even think of editing it kc
Though it sucked. All that wasted time documenting facts everyone already knows about.
Stahl mistakenly referred to the mood stabilizer Depakote as an antipsychotic. This show is a joke.
Hey, 60, no coverage of how to punish Panties, the G88, Durham black community? No, Nifong is the only bad guy.
Polanski
Apr 15, 2007 7:40:00 PM
Polanski, we have been following this case closely. I am guessing the majority of the viewers have not. It is all fine and good the AG came out and said they were innocent, but the majority of people would have benefitted from a rweview of eveidence to figure out the conclusion
I am no fan of Nancy Disgrace, but Catherine Crier, Guilfoil. Lisa Pinto, Ashleight Banford beat on the boys long after Nanct had stopped. None of these women have anything to be proud of in their comments. Last week, Hannarity reminded Guilfoil that she was wrong about the Duke Case. If looks could kill, Sean would have been gone,
It's not that nothing new came out of 60 Minutes. Did you not hear was it Evans' or Seligman's comment about "a hung jury" and then it would go on as a cloud over them forever?
What this means to me is that the students' lawyers were not anticipating anything like an acquittal in court under any circumstances. I've been on Durham juries, in which race trumped. So the issue was a trial with a guilty verdict, damn the evidence (did you listen to the Durham minister today?), or a hung jury.
They were preparing for a rejection of a change of venue motion from Hudson, then if there were a trial, then an hung jury.
Think about it. Given what we know about Durham, isn't this probable, and not something that was discussed here before as central to the lawyers' planning?
The Attorneys KNEW that their clients were innocent; the possibility that a racist jury would have not found them innocent makes Polanski look right, all along.
KC, The N&O print edition listed your academic credentials followed by a 'blogging [on this case] for SEVERAL MONTHS'.
Excuse me I think you have been investigating this for longer than what they were implying; it seems the N&O editors brought you down a little bit? It's no secret that Melanie and friends don't like you that much (the whole part about them leading with credible sources etc which apparently lesser blogs do not do).
Anyway it was made to seem that you have been at this for less time than you have been.
Also time for a THREAD CLEANUP (Offensive language, trolling, etc)
There are many vile villins in this saga: Nifong, Gottleib, Wendy Murphy, Meehan, New York Times, just to name a few. There are also many heros: Dave, Reade, Collin, Joe Cheshire, Jim Cooney, KC Johnson, and others. But the title of Hero of all Heros has to go to Brad Bannon, who, when given about 2,000 pages of DNA goblie-gook, was able to determine that there were multiple male DNA donors (non of which were lax players) and also that a conspiracy between Nifong and Meehan had taken place as early as April 10--a full week before Reade and Collin were indicted! On the fly, in open court he was able to extract this from Meehan, who was a surprise witness at the December 15th hearing. Thus, Brad Bannon played a pivotal role in the ultimate exoneration of the three. For this "Perry Mason Moment" he deserves wide praise and recognition. I have nominated Brad for an American Bar Association award (details at http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=3123 ) and would appreciate anyone who shares my sentiments to drop the ABA a line seconding my nomination or simply adding to his many plaudits. Thanks fellow bloggers.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
Its hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
Its hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
Its hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
Its hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
Its hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
Its hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
1. I liked the 60 minute segment. [Were there two? I watched the first and then went to eat dinner with the wife with waiting to see if the second segment was on this case?] I think this was a large step towards the country understanding these guys are completely innocent and not rape happened at that party.
2. I did not care for the N&O series of case observers. Professor Johnson was a good choice. MSM people think the St.Pete Times institute has prestigue but it does not any more. I would not have had students from Duke or profs from Duke or NCCU. Too close to the story. The CBS guy was a bit of yawn too. Heck I would rather have seen what Wendy Murphy or Nancy Grace would have said than most of them. I would have liked to read the views of an out of state DA. A Judge from elsewhere. Some actual unconnected observers not shaped by living in Durham.
NCCU Prof. Carlton "I'm not sure there are any lessons to be learned from this" Wilson registered students for an ongoing Southern history course at Duke called "The South in Black and White", which is being taught by the undeniably fair and balanced Timothy Tyson.
KC 0 Neff reports today that Doctor Manly did the SANE exam and poor Nurse Tara assisted. The way it should be managed. Duke is a great hospital - dotting is and crossing ts is what they do. Not only did Nifong lie with his "My reading of the nurse's report...." but so did the Duffer when he spoke to you.
U an very glad the truth of what went on at Duke that night has come out - to many people wanted to believe this poor nurse started the hoax. BRW, there are no complaints or investigation of Nurse Tara lodged at the NC Nursing board site. Lynp
It is curious to me that Polanski comes here with a politically incorrect view about the nature of this case and rather than creating arguments one way or the other people here simply attack him personally.
Frankly I think he makes a good point that it is totally politically incorrect to apply the racism tag to blacks. I would be curious to hear from his detractors their IDEAS about that topic rather than their distracting personal attacks.
A couple of commenters in this thread have taken cheap shots at Duke student Seyward Darby, both based on the assumption that Seyward is male. In fact, she is female. While her piece in the N&O was not especially brilliant, her conclusion--that there's a lot more to Duke than the lacrosse case--is right, and her hope--that the university will not be defined in the public mind solely by this case--is understandable whether or not it proves true. As the parent of a 2004 graduate and a student in the class of 2008, I share both her conclusion and her hope.
I have 100% confidence that if you ask 100 black women which is worse, being called 'nigger' or being raped, they're all going to say being raped is worse.
Also, not sure the n-word was even ALLEGED to have been used, and Kim Roberts admits that she started with the racial insults by calling them limp dicked white boys.
Also, not sure the n-word was even ALLEGED to have been used
Well ...
CALLER: "Hi, I don't know if this is an emergency or not, necessarily, but I'm in Durham, and I was driving down near Duke's campus, and it's me and my black girlfriend, and the guy -- there's like a white guy by the Duke wall -- and he just hollered out 'n-----' to me. And I'm just so angry I didn't know who to call. [Crying]
CALLER: "It's right outside of 610 Buchanan [Blvd]. And I saw them all come out of, like, a big frat house, and me and my black girlfriend are walking by, and they called us 'n------.' [Sobbing]
Yeah, that's really credible since Kim is caught in several lies already.
She and her black girlfriend weren't walking by the house, they had, as you may remember, been inside to take their clothes off for money. She's also a convicted felon.
If that's the best you have, I'd say there is zero evidence the n word was ever used.
1. She was not driving down near the campus she had been at the house for a party.
2. Crystal was not her 'girlfriend' she claim she had never met her.
3. She was not 'walking by the wall' she had been at the house.
That is three lies in only the small excerpt you posted. I would say that makes any claims of Kim about racial slurs as not credible unless backed up by other witnesses.
If that's the best you have, I'd say there is zero evidence the n word was ever used.
Okay, how about this one ...
"I called him a little [expletive] white boy," she recalls laughing. "And how he couldn't get it on his own and had to pay for it. So, he was mad. And it ended with him callin' me the n-word. And it echoed, so you heard n….. once, and then you heard, n….., n….., n….. . "
The entire premise of her 911 call...that 2 innocent black women were minding their own business walking by the house and white boys started yelling nigger at them was a lie.
She also said the rape was (a) a crock (b) she believed the victim (c) she didn't know what happened, changing her story to fit prevailing public sentiment.
She also wanted to know how she could profit from the case.
SHE IS NOT CREDIBLE OR BELIEVABLE.
However, even if someone did call her a nigger, really so what? She used racial epithets, if they used them in return, so what.
It has nothing to do with false rape accusation and since two of the three boys wrongly prosecuted were already gone, they could not have yelled anything racial to the strippers anyway.
Check out the moving forward tag line at Liestoppers:
ReplyDeleteOne reader is offering to help:
The elation of the first victory is still keeping many of us euphoric, especially since we are acknowledged by the legal team as having played a role, however minor, in that victory (nice word, Victory).
Going forward, however there are many things that need to be done in order to try to rectify the distortions of law that have occurred. One of my first posts was an offer to set up some type of computer generated package, a website or a Windows app, that could help the legal team. In it I offered to provide technical help for a back-end SQL Server design to aggregate and classify events or other data. There are very probably on this board members much better qualified to do this than I am, so my offer is one intended to get the ball rolling, if that is the only thing that is needed. I can also offer help in programming in Visual Basic.Net and ASP.Net. (we could put the site on a cd or DVD if state law does not permit communication in the courtroom.)
I would like to renew this offer. I would be glad to offer more information about myself and my qualifications to a group whose intentions are as clear as mine.
KC Johnson's N&O piece is worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteThe Radutzky/Simons perspective is interesting because of the "60 Minutes" pedigree of its authors.
The rest? Bland recitations of various pieces of the Party Line.
Far more insightful commentary by 'Craig' of the Lead and Gold blog.
Just Fabulous
ReplyDeleteDr Carlton Wilson, 1 of the commenters, misused the word "euphemism."
That says it all, boys and girls.
Polanski
The comments on the role of the media provided by Rogerson - whoever he might be - are just about the most condescending and arrogant it's been my displeasure to observe. Good grief! How can be possibly believe such nonsense? Sound like he's eligible for honorary 88 status!
ReplyDeleteKC,
ReplyDeleteYour column - and the column
from the 60 Minutes producers -
was a good summary.
The only thing I could add
is that there are significant
questions that still remain,
including the ones involving
the judicial system itself-
(e.g. high bail, inexplicable
allowance of threats against
the accused etc.)
Hopefully, the young men
are being represented by
Attorneys who will get to
the bottom of these unanswered
questions.
I'm glad you're still on the
case, but your termination
of your Sunday summary may
be a little premature, given
the fact that there appear to be
so many things left to discover.
On the other hand, you've
given so much of yourself,
who are we to demand more?
Mac
Sorry, KC, that 60 producer's screed was poorly written public relations. The most important aspect of the case, the rush to judgment by the 88, was not addressed in the 60 report. I'll say it again: this case was all about black bad behavior, and whitey's failure to characterize it as such.
ReplyDeleteNifong was a player, but the story is mostly Duke and the 88.
Polanski
As long as we are on the topic of the media, I am sure that we won't be surprised to learn that Bob Ashley is defending the Herald Sun's coverage:
ReplyDelete"We have repeatedly reminded readers of the presumption of innocence and have consistently urged the legal process to proceed, swiftly, to determine the truth in this case. We editorially acknowledged flaws in the case throughout the fall, and said in December "the case certainly raises many questions about his performance...If Nifong is found to have acted unethically, he should face serious consequences."
In January we noted "serious problems" with his case and said the accuser's credibility, and his, were "eroding."
So even though the hoax occurred in March, and serious questions came up in April, the Herald-Sun did it's job since they made some vague references to problems in the fall, and then finally pointed out the serious contradictions in December and January!
Of course, they only changed course after their boy was elected in November. As I recall, their only scoop (on her bizarre behavior at the strip club) was published shortly after the election.
In other words, they want their cake and eat it too. They supported Nifong with their eyes wide shut, but now want to defend their journalistic integrity. But in the same way that this case will be studied in law schools, journalism programs will be examining the Herald Sun for years to come.
Finally, has anybody noticed that Brodhead and Ahsley are sending the same message to weasel out of their participation in this mess?
[By Carlton E. Wilson, Special to The News & Observer
ReplyDeleteCarlton E. Wilson is chairman of the history department at N.C. Central University.
Aside from the tangled web of timelines, rules of evidence and legal procedure, the Duke lacrosse case attracted attention because it raised questions and concerns related to issues of race, class, privilege and gender.]
I think that it attracted a lot of attention from those concerned with justice. Clearly those concerned with race, class, privilege and gender weren't concerned with justice.
As a parent, I'm protective of my kids and got outraged when I saw a rogue trying to railroad the kids of another set of parents where the evidence and background of the kids pointed to their innocence.
It's like getting thrown in jail for 20 years for doing 60 in a 55 MPH zone.
Suggestion: D-i-W readers should come up with a list of specific questions that still need to be answered; then narrow the list to approximately 250. The final list should be shared with the Liestoppers and John in Carolina sites. As civil suits proceed, this would be useful.
ReplyDeleteJust read KC's piece - very nice summary of the case and cause.
ReplyDeleteKC's was the only writer without a picture though.
Seems to me that some of the other writers are still trying to sell something piggybacking on this case and trying to pick at emotions. Like Broverman.
2:18
ReplyDeleteTruthstoppers is a joke. They banned me from the site for telling the truth about the case. If I were KC's editor, I would have suggested calling the book, "Black Privilege: [add subtitle].
Fuck Liestoppers.
Polanski
"It appears, however, that power, prestige and privilege may be used to rescue us after we exercise poor judgment and a lack of respect for others."
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the piece by "Professor" Wilson of NCCU, I can now understand how a woman with Crystal Mangum's severe mental health problems (not to mention her persistent drug and alcohol use) could have maintained a "B" average at NCCU, while simultaneously working for 8 escort agencies.
Since "Professor" Wilson apparently doesn't understand, I'll explain it to him: the three Duke students did not need to be rescued from exercising poor judgment by having a tacky party, or from disrespecting Crystal Mangum by hiring her to dance at their party. Instead, the Duke students needed to be rescued from Crystal Mangum's decision to commit a crime by filing a police report falsely claiming that she had been raped and assaulted, and from Mike Nifong's decision to abuse his office and initiate (and continue for nearly a year) a malicious prosecution.
2:18
ReplyDeleteThe most important question this case addresses is the question of why stupid jackasses like Wahneema have a sinecure at Duke.
The 2d most important question is why the 88 are not fired.
Polanski
It isn't hard to see why "Polanski" was banned from the Liestoppers site.
ReplyDeleteMichael at 2:18
ReplyDeleteIt's a relief that someone at
NCCU has some sense of fairness.
Thanks. It's always nice to
see that there are good people
everywhere.
Other 2:18 poster:
Is this a request from
an Attorney? Or could it be
a request from a Defense Attorney
for people like NoFang, Duke
University etc, just trolling
to see what the opposition
has going for it? - (as they
apparentlyhave in other segments
of KC's blog.)
It's been noticed by many -
(including the AG, the boys'
Attorneys and even the dense
MSM) - that lots of sharp tacks
are posting their notes on this
blog.
Just wondering if they might
attempt - in their left-wing
outrage at seeing the case
dissolve before their eyes -
to get the records of all the
persons posting, perhaps to
sue the posters themselves
in countersuits?
If you aren't someone whose
inquiries are of this nature,
please accept my apologies,
as you'll understand the nature
of the combatants who've
perpetuated this horrible
miscarriage of justice,
only recently remedied
(in part.)
However, IF you are one of those
representatives of those who
trolls are now attempting to
minimize their own liability in
these cases - (and there will
be many cases)- please accept my
sincerely-displayed middle
IP joint.
Mac
Why are there not more public calls for Nifong's resignation? I'd love to see Duke Students for an Ethical Durham reemerge and mobilize the student body as they did before the election and demand his resignation. Even more so, I love to see President Brodhead demand Nifong's resignation.
ReplyDeleteLET'S MAKE SOME NOISE -LOOK WHAT IT DID TO IMUS,(rightly so)
This is OT, but after listening to Jackie Brown's comments about her meeting with Nifong and his wife(?) live-in girlfriend (whatever) Cy Gurney, it occurred to me that someone ought to make sure that Ms. Jean (the prosecutor in the Bar case against Nifong) knows about Jackie Brown's statements.
ReplyDeleteAt Nifong's June trial, one of the things the Bar is going to have to prove is that Nifong had an improper intent when he made the inflammatory statements to the media. (As we know, at least one of his defenses is that he made the statements to calm the community, and to encourage people with information about the "crime" to come forward). In her comments to the newspaper, Jackie Brown said that she tried to get Nifong to stop talking to the media so much, but that he rebuffed her advice, saying that he was getting a million dollars worth of [campaign] advertising for free. That statement by Nifong is direct evidence of his improper intent. If they haven't done it already, the Bar needs to subpoena Jackie Brown to testify at the June hearing.
Polanski 2:32
ReplyDeleteYou have needs that are beyond the help available to you from people in this room.
But, I'll be damned if you are going to provoke me off this board because of your blather.
I want to learn from others and you are just a terrible teacher and student.
GP
Carolyn says:
ReplyDeleteKC, your words are excellent.
But, as for the others?
Well, Carlton Wilson is sulking that he wasn't able to lynch some white boys. Kenneth Rogerson sounds like a German in June 1945 who was 'only following orders'. Seyward Darby obviously lost a girl friend to a Duke lacrosse player which is why he's snipping he prefers basketball. Keith Woods smugly assumes readers are too stupid to realize he just mouthed off his own 'listening statement'. And - okay, Michael Radutzsky DID help produce the excellent '60 Minutes' piece - but the sounds of him smooching his own rear end aren't loud enough to drown out the noise of his fellow journalists still sucking up to personal agendas.
Note: the person I do admire is a blogger - the persons I don't aren't.
Nifong was a great example of self-will run riot. For ten months, the people who could stop him refused to do so. Only after his sins were so obvious, the NC Bar had to step in the case.
ReplyDeletePo>>>> and GG... deserve banning from any site. Margaret Mitchell already did the book and better.
To Lawyers/Academics
ReplyDeleteCan the listening statement be labeled a hate crime?
Reverse the races--would the US, state of NC, or Duke "stand" for this kind of outrageous speech?
I'm fuck'n curious
Polanski
I found it interesting that KC was the only one who even mentioned the actions of the Group of 88 and their implications. And I find it hard to understand how the Duke Chronicle could have had such good coverage when its editor provides such superficial "analysis". The "Case does not define Duke"? I have news for you, honey, in the eyes of the world, it does. Clearly he was, at bottom, one of the students who just wanted the trucks to get out of their paths to class. Never seems to have occurred to him that unless he never went to a stripper party, the accused might have been HIM.
ReplyDeletePolanski,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the word "fuck'n" a contraction of? Have you been hanging around with Georgia Girl?
re: 2:42
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that Jackie Brown had made those comments. This case is hard to keep up with. Even if you do check it every day.
I don't know the format of the bar trial or hearing but if Nifong gets on the stand, they could always just ask him if he said that. I would hope that he wouldn't try to lie himself out of that one at this point with the level of scrutinay on him.
Hope the bar association members are reading here about the Jackie Brown comments on Nifong.
ReplyDeleteWhat really amazes me is that Nifong is STILL D.A. of Durham. Hopefully that gets addressed tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 2:29: You nailed it right exactly on the head citing this outrageous statement by Carlton Wilson:
ReplyDelete"It appears, however, that power, prestige and privilege may be used to rescue us after we exercise poor judgment and a lack of respect for others."
This one sentence leapt off the page at me and beat me about the head senseless. Prior to that line, Mr. Wilson's piece was a meandering mess seeming to appeal to all sides and saying that all sides engaged in bad behavior of some sort.
But, in the 3rd to last paragraph, Mr. Wilson lets loose with this whopper of a sentence and thereby revealed his true intent.
This statement by him is so offensive that it needs to be called out in the local press. Those of you who live in the Triangle area please make yourselves heard and let Mr. Wilson know that his 'not getting it' after all this time is really troubling and that he should make a clarifying statement so that hopefully people will learn from this going forward and not simply fall back on such racist revisionism. His statement is similar to the most obnoxious statement that the NC NAACP released after the Roy Cooper decision/statement was released (where the NC NAACP stated that they understood if the AG's office felt that the (voluminous) evidence may not be quite strong enough to go forward).
Revisionist history that is meant to pander to the base audience. The record needs to be set straight for everyone's benefit going forward.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the Democratic legal and political machinery in NC finally did the absolute least they could to right wrongs. And the Duke academic executive and board did essentially nothing. There is a huge lack of accountability remaining to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteYes, a declaration of innocence for the young men and condemnation of Nifong are very good things. But this was a nicely judged response, and everyone else who either participated in or supported this collection of crimes on the prosecution side were noticeably absent from the punishment list. Furthermore, the AG excused CGM as a sad victim who, ironically enough, is apparently an entirely different person from the wonderful mom/student/blah-blah who initiated everything with her charges. Bah.
I agree that K.C.'s was the best piece; the "60 Minutes" column sounded awfully self-serving (where were they for SEVEN months- little ol' K.C. was on it before then!).
ReplyDeleteI acutally thought Keith Woods wasn't so bad- if you can get through the clutter- especially where he asked the reader to substitute the various adjectives. That's the kind of article that MIGHT make those who worship at the altar of political correctness to perhaps choose greater gods- like truth. If they're not so far gone that truth has lost its meaning, that is.
But, far and away, the worst was the Rogerson article. It is the journalistic equivalent of taking these men to trial and finding them guilty, then saying the system "worked". Rogerson learned absolutely nothing with this case. To him, it's okay to drag reputations through the mud and ruin lives for a year (and possibly longer), but since journalists eventually found the truth when hit over the head by the evidence, then the journalists did their job.
If that's the case, then Lord help us when they don't do their job.
Excuse my error, above. I meant "finding them not guilty." PIMF.
ReplyDeleteredcybra
ReplyDeleteI'm in total agreement with you. Duke has been defined by this hoax.
In my case, the dictionary entry reads: "University that will not be educating any of your three kids."
p rich 4:14
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct, sir. Cooper and Brodhead have done less than nothing. These Dook supporters getting all excited about the boys being called "innocent" is laughable at best.
I only hope the boys' families make the right decision, and pound on Dook and the 88.
Polanski
Packwood,
ReplyDeleteWhat's your problem, bro?
Yes, I believe that if there had been no affirmative action at Dook, there would have been no rush to judgment; Brodhead therefore would have defended the boys; and Nifong wouldn't have dared try to railroad them.
Yous gots a problem with that, suckah?
Polanski
Polanski,
ReplyDeleteThat proves it - everything you know about spelling you learned from Georgia Girl - but even she can spell "Duke" correctly.
Could it be that your vaunted IQ is lower than that woman's?
"What really amazes me is that Nifong is STILL D.A. of Durham. Hopefully that gets addressed tomorrow".
ReplyDeleteIndeed. How can this be? He has been publicly denounced as a "rogue prosecutor" by the state Attorney-General. Yet he is still prosecuting in Durham? The Banana Republic of North Carolina. He should have been summarily dismissed.
5:01
ReplyDeleteI can imagine that most
Defense Attorneys are licking
their chops - in cases where
NoFang is the lead prosecutor.
That's not really a cause for
celebration: there really
ARE criminals out there.
It's a matter of public
safety that NoFang is
De-Fanged.
Mac
4:59
ReplyDeleteI have already stated that my IQ is a respectable 97--a gentleman's 97. Thank God I can still look down on Wahneema.
Polanski
Polanski,
ReplyDeleteWell said. Your humor has disarmed me - keep up your raggin' and ragin'. As if you needed my permission. But the "Dook" spelling is a UNC thing, and we even Wahneema looks down on UNC.
Glad to see that they published your piece above the fold, even though it was on page 24. Did the editors edit out much, or was that the complete piece that you proffered? Would love to read here anything that got edited.
ReplyDeleteI also loved the N&Os excuse that they only printed one side of the story because the Lacrosse players would not talk with them (other than to say they were not guilty). The N&O seems to think that the press is owed a story by those who that they are bashing. The N&O is also unfairly insinuating that there were no other reports available supporting the players.
Although there has been much recent discussion in the N&O, there is still a bit of a slant towards the opinion that only Duke Lacrosse players have drunken partys and hire strippers. I would love to see the stats for UNC, NCCU and NC State. I have a friend of a relative that was in charge of getting the strippers for his UNC Frat. A "Massage" parlor in Chapel Hill was/is? just off campus on Franklin street, near Campus.
I can respect someone's opinion that hiring strippers is a bad thing, but to leave the impression that Duke Lacrosse players are unique in this respect, unfairly continues their degradation.
If you go to Liestoppers, you can link to a television (NBC-17) forum with KC and, get this, Irving Joyner. KC acquits himself quite well, as does the former federal prosecutor. Joyner does not come across as badly as I hoped, based upon his prior conduct. He does, however, imply that the declaration of "innocent" by the AG is not as important as how the three victims conduct themselves in the future. I guess he means that they are innocent of the crime but not "innocent" in the Grant Farred/Group of 88 context that they are guilty of being white and not downtrodden. Whatever.
ReplyDeleteBTW, has anybody heard from
ReplyDeleteNancy Grace lately?
Mac
BTW, has anybody heard from
ReplyDeleteNancy Grace lately?
Mac
The most telling line of all the articles was this one, by NCCU History Professor Dr. Carlton Wilson:
ReplyDelete"I am not sure there are any lessons to be learned from this situation."
One thing we have learned about, Prof. Wilson, is the instinctive dismissive of ideologues like yourself who are treating the Duke case as an anomaly, as the "margin of error" in some grand research project on the presumably pervasive evils of power, privilege, race and entitlement.
Reade, Dave and Collin are just bugs on the windshield. Nothing to learn here. Let's keep moving.
It's pretty clear that Joyner is still a fan of Nifong.
ReplyDeleteHe said that Nifong just made this one bad mistake. He's been a good ADA and now a good DA except for this case. He just got caught up in the glare of the media.
I've never seen Cash and Joyner in video before and it was nice to put a picture to a name.
Michaels comes across a lot tougher in his writing. The environment in the video was very cordial.
BTW, has anybody heard from
ReplyDeleteNancy Grace lately?
Mac
I haven't heard Nancy, who in my personal opinion is almost of the same slimy-as-all-hell caliber as Nifong, say a peep about the ending of the case. The night/day after the "innocent" speech was handed out by Cooper, she had one of her lackies fill in for her.
Was really hoping to see her eat crow. However, Jon Stewart tore her apart.
7:09
ReplyDeleteThanks.
KC was kind enough to link
the Daily Show. I hadn't seen
his rip on her - and, gosh, did
she ever get whupped!
I wonder where she is NOW?
Crow is a kind word for what
she's consuming, BTW.
Mac
Who many of you think that Durham jury would have acquitted them?
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to say that their chances with Durham jury would have been slim.
re 60 piece
ReplyDeleteThough it sucked. All that wasted time documenting facts everyone already knows about.
Stahl mistakenly referred to the mood stabilizer Depakote as an antipsychotic. This show is a joke.
Hey, 60, no coverage of how to punish Panties, the G88, Durham black community? No, Nifong is the only bad guy.
Polanski
Jamil
ReplyDeleteDon't you know it's taboo to discuss black racism?
Criminologists have documented that black criminals prefer nonblack victims.
When will Dook dispense with race norming?
Polanski
You did a great service, that the MSM should've done. You are a true hero to justice.
ReplyDeleteHere is a letter I worte to Ruth Sheehan of the News & Observer. Something I recommend she do. Apologize to the 3 innocent boys.
Dear Ruth Sheehan;
Here is a great idea for an article.
You can honestly say you were sorry for your rush to judgment about the 3 boys you so falsely went after. But the important word is 'honestly'. If you can find it in you, you can write how many people WANTED this to be true because it fits an agenda. Like the 88 Duke professors who wanted this to true so they could revel in their own self-importance that what they have been spewing was true, when it turned out it was false.
But you probably won't. You will probably erase this email as some right wing white male kook who wrote you to gloat about the dismal of the 3 innocent boys everyone was ready to imprison.
Well, I am not a some white right-wing male. I am a Latino Democrat who knew from the get that there was something wrong when I heard the 'tales' of the two "exotic dancers".
Since when did being fair and clear thinking fly out the window just because it doesn't fits your own agenda and personal wishes. I believe you wished this false rape was true, but sadly for your own preconceived ideas of race and class and victim-hood, it was not. It was just as it was, 3 innocent guys who were at a party, like so many college parties across the nation that are going on every weekend, who got mixed up with two opportunists, who KNEW there would be people like you out there who just wanted this to be true and would champion their plot for monetary gain. After all they are just rich white boys. I guess being rich and white and male, it is somehow OK to attack them and make judgments on them so you can feel better about yourself and what you have, as long as it is not you, this time.
Jose Mora
Nancy Grace?
ReplyDeleteWhere is are 'defender of the Court Channel ratings'?
Nancy Grace is in a dark bunker, holed up somewhere in a fetal position, sucking her thumb and repeating to herself as she rocks back an forth "I know they are still guilty, I just know it".
So things are starting to out:
ReplyDelete- Nofing knew CGM and her family
- Nofing lied about not having spoken to CGM early on
- Nofing knew CGM had serious mental problems
What's going to come out next?
Nofing has zero credibility at this point. Hw should roll over on DPD et. al. in an effort to deflect everything from coming down on him -- before he has less than zero. The ire that is directed his way is earned, of course -- but he should not be the only one exposed.
If he doesn't roll, someone else is going to be the first.
Does he still show up at work every day? I guess watercooler discussions are pretty lame nowadays. "hey mikey, had a nice weekend?"
ReplyDeleteHis ADs must be congratulating themselves. Their career prospects are pretty much over. Even the NC democratic party has abandoned them so would be difficult to buy a judgeship in NC.
Maybe they should apply to NAACP, ACLU or New Black Panthers.
well, now that the boys have been declared innocent, its time to start asking some questions. since karla holloway herself said that white innocense means black guilt, its time to start thinking about what punishment is appropriate for blacks. she said it not me, so don't even think of editing it kc
ReplyDeleteWINDBAG
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletere 60 piece
Though it sucked. All that wasted time documenting facts everyone already knows about.
Stahl mistakenly referred to the mood stabilizer Depakote as an antipsychotic. This show is a joke.
Hey, 60, no coverage of how to punish Panties, the G88, Durham black community? No, Nifong is the only bad guy.
Polanski
Apr 15, 2007 7:40:00 PM
Polanski, we have been following this case closely. I am guessing the majority of the viewers have not. It is all fine and good the AG came out and said they were innocent, but the majority of people would have benefitted from a rweview of eveidence to figure out the conclusion
I am no fan of Nancy Disgrace, but Catherine Crier, Guilfoil. Lisa Pinto, Ashleight Banford beat on the boys long after Nanct had stopped. None of these women have anything to be proud of in their comments. Last week, Hannarity reminded Guilfoil that she was wrong about the Duke Case. If looks could kill, Sean would have been gone,
ReplyDeleteMatthew--re "innocence"
ReplyDeleteBy harping on the boys' "innocence," the media fail to discuss the more important issue: Panties' guilt.
Evans, Seligmann, and Finnerty are crime victims, yet few describe them as such. Why not?
It's unconscionable that Cooper decided against prosecuting Panties.
Remember, no Panties, no Nifong.
What should society do to protect itself from future Protein Anuses?
Polanski
Polanski
ReplyDeletePlease put your name at the beginning of your posts, so I can skip them.
9:26
ReplyDeleteSure thing, provided you cyberfellate me. Beg. Good boy.
It's not that nothing new came out of 60 Minutes. Did you not hear was it Evans' or Seligman's comment about "a hung jury" and then it would go on as a cloud over them forever?
ReplyDeleteWhat this means to me is that the students' lawyers were not anticipating anything like an acquittal in court under any circumstances. I've been on Durham juries, in which race trumped. So the issue was a trial with a guilty verdict, damn the evidence (did you listen to the Durham minister today?), or a hung jury.
They were preparing for a rejection of a change of venue motion from Hudson, then if there were a trial, then an hung jury.
Think about it. Given what we know about Durham, isn't this probable, and not something that was discussed here before as central to the lawyers' planning?
10:00
ReplyDeleteThe Attorneys KNEW that
their clients were innocent;
the possibility that a racist
jury would have not found
them innocent makes Polanski
look right, all along.
How sad.
Mac
KC,
ReplyDeleteThe N&O print edition listed your academic credentials followed by a 'blogging [on this case] for SEVERAL MONTHS'.
Excuse me I think you have been investigating this for longer than what they were implying; it seems the N&O editors brought you down a little bit? It's no secret that Melanie and friends don't like you that much (the whole part about them leading with credible sources etc which apparently lesser blogs do not do).
Anyway it was made to seem that you have been at this for less time than you have been.
Also time for a THREAD CLEANUP (Offensive language, trolling, etc)
I think this pre-election statement is probably the closest thing to truth ever heard from Mike Nifong:
ReplyDelete"I'm getting a million dollars of free advertisements." -- Mike Nifong
There are many vile villins in this saga: Nifong, Gottleib, Wendy Murphy, Meehan, New York Times, just to name a few.
ReplyDeleteThere are also many heros: Dave, Reade, Collin, Joe Cheshire, Jim Cooney, KC Johnson, and others. But the title of Hero of all Heros has to go to Brad Bannon, who, when given about 2,000 pages of DNA goblie-gook, was able to determine that there were multiple male DNA donors (non of which were lax players) and also that a conspiracy between Nifong and Meehan had taken place as early as April 10--a full week before Reade and Collin were indicted! On the fly, in open court he was able to extract this from Meehan, who was a surprise witness at the December 15th hearing.
Thus, Brad Bannon played a pivotal role in the ultimate exoneration of the three. For this "Perry Mason Moment" he deserves wide praise and recognition.
I have nominated Brad for an American Bar Association award (details at http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=3123 ) and would appreciate anyone who shares my sentiments to drop the ABA a line seconding my nomination or simply adding to his many plaudits.
Thanks fellow bloggers.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
People like Polanski don't actually give a damn about any of the lacrosse players or their families. They certainly don't care about D-U-K-E University, a great place that did a lot of screwing up and seems to have its share of idiot employees but is still a place that a lot of people who are most concerned with the injustices of this case care deeply about and want to see recover as best as possible from this insanity.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to determine whether Polanski is more of a racist or a narcissist. He thinks he's being brilliant with his "honesty," but any rational person who reads this board knows that there is little difference between him and Victoria Peterson or Malik Shabazz.
11:05
ReplyDeleteYou repeated the same stupid post 4 times. Are you drunk?
Please do not try to acribe "motive" to someone like me. You obviously abhor polymaths.
That's your loss.
Polanski
JLS says....,
ReplyDelete1. I liked the 60 minute segment. [Were there two? I watched the first and then went to eat dinner with the wife with waiting to see if the second segment was on this case?] I think this was a large step towards the country understanding these guys are completely innocent and not rape happened at that party.
2. I did not care for the N&O series of case observers. Professor Johnson was a good choice. MSM people think the St.Pete Times institute has prestigue but it does not any more. I would not have had students from Duke or profs from Duke or NCCU. Too close to the story. The CBS guy was a bit of yawn too. Heck I would rather have seen what Wendy Murphy or Nancy Grace would have said than most of them. I would have liked to read the views of an out of state DA. A Judge from elsewhere. Some actual unconnected observers not shaped by living in Durham.
Perhaps Dr. Carlton Wilson should get off of his moral high horse and read KC's piece.
ReplyDeleteThe flaw in the 60 Minutes piece was the failure to mention the racial slurs hurled at the two dancers.
ReplyDeletePerhaps no actual sexual assault occurred that night.
But much worse, no one disputes that a group of European-American males called two African-American females "niggers".
Someone must pay.
If not specifically the Duke 3, then someone else.
NCCU Prof. Carlton "I'm not sure there are any lessons to be learned from this" Wilson registered students for an ongoing Southern history course at Duke called "The South in Black and White", which is being taught by the undeniably fair and balanced Timothy Tyson.
ReplyDelete12:10 is the bored, unemployed white guy trying to bother Polanski, who is ignoring him.
ReplyDelete12:10, you have forgotten, or perhaps are merely ignorant of the fact that the first racial slur came from one of the two AA exotic dancers.
ReplyDeleteKC 0 Neff reports today that Doctor Manly did the SANE exam and poor Nurse Tara assisted. The way it should be managed. Duke is a great hospital - dotting is and crossing ts is what they do. Not only did Nifong lie with his "My reading of the nurse's report...." but so did the Duffer when he spoke to you.
ReplyDeleteU an very glad the truth of what went on at Duke that night has come out - to many people wanted to believe this poor nurse started the hoax. BRW, there are no complaints or investigation of Nurse Tara lodged at the NC Nursing board site. Lynp
ReplyDeleteIt is curious to me that Polanski comes here with a politically incorrect view about the nature of this case and rather than creating arguments one way or the other people here simply attack him personally.
ReplyDeleteFrankly I think he makes a good point that it is totally politically incorrect to apply the racism tag to blacks. I would be curious to hear from his detractors their IDEAS about that topic rather than their distracting personal attacks.
A couple of commenters in this thread have taken cheap shots at Duke student Seyward Darby, both based on the assumption that Seyward is male. In fact, she is female. While her piece in the N&O was not especially brilliant, her conclusion--that there's a lot more to Duke than the lacrosse case--is right, and her hope--that the university will not be defined in the public mind solely by this case--is understandable whether or not it proves true. As the parent of a 2004 graduate and a student in the class of 2008, I share both her conclusion and her hope.
ReplyDelete12:10
ReplyDeleteI have 100% confidence that if you ask 100 black women which is worse, being called 'nigger' or being raped, they're all going to say being raped is worse.
Also, not sure the n-word was even ALLEGED to have been used, and Kim Roberts admits that she started with the racial insults by calling them limp dicked white boys.
Also, not sure the n-word was even ALLEGED to have been used
ReplyDeleteWell ...
CALLER: "Hi, I don't know if this is an emergency or not, necessarily, but I'm in Durham, and I was driving down near Duke's campus, and it's me and my black girlfriend, and the guy -- there's like a white guy by the Duke wall -- and he just hollered out 'n-----' to me. And I'm just so angry I didn't know who to call. [Crying]
CALLER: "It's right outside of 610 Buchanan [Blvd]. And I saw them all come out of, like, a big frat house, and me and my black girlfriend are walking by, and they called us 'n------.' [Sobbing]
Yeah, that's really credible since Kim is caught in several lies already.
ReplyDeleteShe and her black girlfriend weren't walking by the house, they had, as you may remember, been inside to take their clothes off for money. She's also a convicted felon.
If that's the best you have, I'd say there is zero evidence the n word was ever used.
1. She was not driving down near the campus she had been at the house for a party.
ReplyDelete2. Crystal was not her 'girlfriend' she claim she had never met her.
3. She was not 'walking by the wall' she had been at the house.
That is three lies in only the small excerpt you posted. I would say that makes any claims of Kim about racial slurs as not credible unless backed up by other witnesses.
If that's the best you have, I'd say there is zero evidence the n word was ever used.
ReplyDeleteOkay, how about this one ...
"I called him a little [expletive] white boy," she recalls laughing. "And how he couldn't get it on his own and had to pay for it. So, he was mad. And it ended with him callin' me the n-word. And it echoed, so you heard n….. once, and then you heard, n….., n….., n….. . "
She's a liar.
ReplyDeleteThe entire premise of her 911 call...that 2 innocent black women were minding their own business walking by the house and white boys started yelling nigger at them was a lie.
She also said the rape was (a) a crock (b) she believed the victim (c) she didn't know what happened, changing her story to fit prevailing public sentiment.
She also wanted to know how she could profit from the case.
SHE IS NOT CREDIBLE OR BELIEVABLE.
However, even if someone did call her a nigger, really so what? She used racial epithets, if they used them in return, so what.
It has nothing to do with false rape accusation and since two of the three boys wrongly prosecuted were already gone, they could not have yelled anything racial to the strippers anyway.
However, even if someone did call her a nigger, really so what?
ReplyDeleteIt is a criminal act for a European-American to verbally assault an African-American with that particular word.
OMG since when did "insults" become a crime. You are crazy.
ReplyDeleteRacist speech, however offensive is protected by the First Amendment.
Good work!
ReplyDelete