Thursday, July 19, 2007

Hochberg and the "Raucous" Party

As mentioned below, in his report on the post-exoneration press conference (which he described as “long” and “sometimes bitter”), NPR’s Adam Hochberg asserted, “Defense lawyers said the players are not proud of throwing the party, which included not only the strippers, but underage drinking, threats of violence, and an exchange of racial slurs.”

Asked for comment about the remark, Andi Sporkin, NPR’s Vice President for Communications, replied, “Your use of the isolated soundbite does not include its context in the larger NPR News piece - which was, in fact, about the clearing of these false charges . . . NPR stands by Adam’s report.”

Despite Sorkin’s suggestion, Hochberg retained his interest in the network’s race/class/gender storyline right up until the end. At the post-exoneration press conference, Hochberg displayed his fixation with what he had repeatedly termed the “raucous” party. Abandoning his opportunity to inquire “about the clearing of these false charges,” he instead asked about . . . the party, and whether the players would apologize. (For reasons that remain unclear, Hochberg apparently either had not notice or did not consider sufficient the repeated apologies from the captains for holding the party.) Even though the attorneys had said the players would take no questions, Hochberg directed his question at the players.

The question generated strong responses from both Joe Cheshire and Jim Cooney (58.44 at this link). A transcript of the Q+A session doesn’t seem available on Lexis/Nexis, so I’ve transcribed the exchange. When he termed the attorneys’ responses “sometimes bitter” in his report, Hochberg didn’t mention that Cooney had, appropriately, denounced the absurdity of the NPR reporter’s own question.

I’d ask readers if they see anything in the comments below that would support the insinuation in Hochberg’s report that defense attorneys conceded that there were “threats of violence” at the party.

The transcript begins after Hochberg’s question:

Joe Cheshire: I think if you go back and review Dave Evans’ statement, when he courageously went out in front of the Durham Safety Center, you will get the answer to that question.

Jim Cooney: I’d like to address that as well—because it seems to me we’ve lost an absolute sense of proportionality here. [Applause.]

Reade Seligmann went to a party; he left the first chance he got. Collin Finnerty was leaving shortly afterwards. And Mike Nifong—and somehow the people who think this [prosecution] was a good thing to do—think they should go to jail for 30 years.

Now, the fact of the matter is, no one is proud of that party, and they’ve expressed regret for it. But to somehow say that well, since they were at a party that a lot of 19 and 20 and 21 year olds go to across the country, that that justifies the gratuitous pain that’s been inflicted over the last year, and the potential of a 30-year jail sentence, is beyond me.

Let me tell you something: I don’t want to be judged by the worst thing (or by a lot of the things) I did when I was 20. And I don’t think anyone else in this room does, too. But these young men nearly lost their productive lives because of it.

And that’s just simply a question that makes no sense in terms of logic or proportionality.

Joe Cheshire: Well said.

I don’t think it’s too difficult to figure out why Hochberg elected not to include Cooney’s response in his report.


Anonymous said...


NPR is correct on this one. You aren't.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much of the biased reporting is caused by reporters simply not wanting to face-up to mistakes in their initial judgment? Is the bad reporting a result of an ego problem?

Anonymous said...

anon 11:53.
Please elaborate.

Do you think reporters STILL don't know we can find out what happened despite their reporting? Do they still think, perhaps as a matter of habit, that we have to believe what they tell us because we have no alternative?
That would seem to be the only answer. Nothing else fits.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 11:53

Dude -- half truths won't get it anymore. People don't get away with weaseling their words, selective omissions, and fudging their statements (e.g., G87 revised statement). There was no balance in the NPR report. The reporter, who should have kept his trap shut, was convinced that something should have happened, and if it was only a rowdy party that might get news space. Truth? I suspect that when the "entertainment" started most of the guys went OMFG lemme out of here. Which way did that con run?? Kindly give me a break, and button 2 on my radio is now Classic Disco instead of NPR, huge improvement.

Anonymous said...

Ok, all of you who are so quick to back KC Johnson's insistence on reporting that is "my way or hit the highway," was the party raucous or was it calm and quiet? Was there not a race (black v. white), class (expensive private mainly white school vs. a poorer predominantly black one), and gender (duh!!!) component to this story? Or course, there was!! Get a clue you guys, you're not anywhere completely correct on the conclusions you draw.

Anonymous said...

Like all the other liberal media types, writers write for their own kind. They write for the "adoration" of sympathetic ears. NPR, NYT, --- none of them care what you or KC or me or anyone says. They write for their own kind...truth doesn't factor in --- only their own biases and "narratives." Period.

Anonymous said...

You could understand Cooney's remarks as apologia for boarish (sic) and oafish behavior. Which that party was. Remember, the LAXers apologized for it. (I'd bet the hosts figure it was stupid and immature, or at least, thoughtless, behavior.) It's you guys who seem to think it was just a fine and dandy party.

Anonymous said...

Do you mean "data" rather than truth? Truth is a fairly moveable feast unless it is data based...

Anonymous said...

The party was fine. To the anonymous posters, obviously directly affiliated with the Group of 88, Amanda Marcotte or some other wingnut group based in self-flagellation, NOTHING happened at the party. There were no racial epithets said by the attendees against the hookers, there were NO acts of violence, there was NO rape, there was NO obstruction/kidnapping of the 2 hookers from leaving the party. These same parties occur at every University all over the world. Ironic, isn't it that these anonymous posters get their panties in a bunch and refuse to believe the truth, but prefer to cling foolishly to Nifongs' etc. fairy tale version. Grow up. This was a gross miscarriage of justice. Crystal Mangum MUST be prosecuted since this is at least her 2nd false claim of rape.

MikeZPurdue said...

Jim Cooney's response was awesome - absolutely.

BUT it is outrageous that he had to even make that
point -- it is so beyond obvious.

And for Hochberg to ask that question on the day
of exoneration is his way of justifying his outrageous
reporting on the case. He can go to hell.

to 12:09: the answer to your question is yes BUT
it was Mike Nifong who built this into a case about
race and class.

Anonymous said...

"Was there not a race (black v. white) ... component to this story?"

Yeah, but because the race component turned out to be "black people are in favor of railroading innocent people, as long as they're white" rather than the expected "white people abusing blqack people" most of the media still either can't perceive it or refuses to report on it.

Anonymous said...

There was only a race element because racists like Jesse Jackson and the Group of 88 infected and inserted it into the situation. Otherwise, race was not an issue until then. Crystal Mangum was not attending NCCU, period. If you want emprical data here it is: NO DNA, bank/computer/audio tape records that the 3 were not there, etc. What else do you need? Nothing happened, period.

Anonymous said...

If Adams' claim that "threats of violence" were made is factually incorrect I can't see what context could possibly justify it.

Anonymous said...

Sheesh, NPR seems to have sent its trolls over here. Just in case they don't "get it" yet, we're not going to be fooled by NPR propaganda.

NPR has proven itself to not be a reliable source of credible, valid and accurate information. Instead, NPR is a source of propaganda for the left and as such IMO should not be used as a news source. KC and other bloggers have demonstrated that they are much more reliable than The NYT, NPR and a host of other members of the MSM for accurate reporting of this case. Sad.

Anonymous said...

"Are you going to apologize for wearing that short skirt now ma'am?"

NPR was certainly NOT correct. It clung to its bizzare notion that the LAX players had done something "wrong." Something that diminished them as human beings and allowed everyone to suspend human decency, common sense and justice to "pile on" the players.

NPR frowns on restricting lap dancers, adultry, gay marriage, the sexual behavior of college students, medicinal marijuana, or federal fnding for art projects depicting a crucifix in urine. (Except for the last one so do I.) But its reporter might have been angling for a date with Ann Coulter in clucking at the "very idea" of young men hiring a ...stripper? Drinking "alcohol."?

So for these offenses against Calvinism, NPR must extract an "apology" --not from the serial accuser, the Grand Inquisitor, the willingly used Police or the shamefully compliant media. Instead from the real victims: three innocent men.

How is NPR any different from the sterotypical small-town, adulterous judge, rebuking the genuine rape victim for doing somehting "wrong"-wearing a short skirt or going to a bar alone.

So much for NPR's view of women as equals: they evidently can't be trusted to tell the truth and can't be held accountable when they don't.

And so much for its view of justice: it does not exist for those with Original Sin--in this case three men who did nothing illegal but offend NPR's very soul because of their race, sex and membership on a sports team.

What a pathetic group of small-minded provincials.

Anonymous said...

12:22 & etc.,

No, Mike Nyfong didn't build the case--the elements were already there.

The case, the reactions, and the overreactions are all about race, class, and gender. Read the posts to this blog if you doubt that the continuing reactions are precisely about race, class, and gender.

Anonymous said...

hey mb - write your Congresstheives and ask them to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Anonymous said...

You don't do the LAXers any good with your comment either. I suspect that at least some of them are NPR fans.

Better a troll than a troglodite!!


Anonymous said...

Uh... anonymous...

Adam Hochberg is white, privileged and (most likely) hetero.

Here's one of the great contradictions of the PC insanity. While hetero white men are the designated devils, a white man can get a pass by damning other hetero white men, wearing a hair shirt and a halo.

NPR's audience is almost entirely upper and middle class whites.

Class snobbery is, indeed, what this is all about. I suggest that you visit any NPR office. You will discover that it is overwhelmingly upper and middle class whites.

Anonymous said...

I assume all of you who think there's nothing wrong with alcohal at that party also support lowering the drinking age in the US to 18?

Anonymous said...

Is Hochberger a Communists?

Too many here are overlooking the fact these boys were doing a compassionate act. They were assisting Miss Magnum support her family and attend college while working at her chosen profession.

They paid her even though they had contracted for white girls and/or a Hispanic.

These boys helped where it cou;nts. That is more than the "do-gooders" accomplish.

Anonymous said...

Do you really think they think of themselves as "BOYS"????????

Anonymous said...

I believe that K.C. Johnson's hand-typed transcript of the response to Hochberg's question shows exactly what happened. That attention to detail by K.C. is much appreciated. Here is what I get from that transcript:

1. There is no mention or implication of violence; and

2. Hochberg put his Politically Correct bias out in the open, and he was "laughed" at. Cooney soundly and logically trashed the underlying bias under Hochberg's question with his response, which was:

COONEY: "I'd like to address that as well - because it seems to me we've lost an absolute sens of proportionality here. [APPLAUSE]

Hochberg was put in his place, and everyone there conceded that fact (i.e. 'APPLAUSE'). His subsequent report was infected by his anger at being shown up (and shown for what he is). Bridge:
Psychiatric help 5 cents
The doctor is IN

I think Americans would take NPR more seriously as a threat if they weren't so boring. Also, they don't get the ratings or audience that television personalities and shows can command. It's like the nerd in the back of the class making faces behind your back. Is it really worth another detention? Bridge:
Sociology help 5 cents
The sociologist is IN

"Society must pay its debt to K.C." President Obama, "Speech to a Grateful Nation" (7/4/10) MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

12:33 That is a racist statement! Shame on you.

Anonymous said...


I don't think Shouting Thomas' statement--while not necessarily factually based--was in fact racist. But, you think you're being cute, yeah?

Anonymous said...

And well-said on your part, K.C. It is beyond obvious that NPR had an agenda that did not include the truth.

Anonymous said...

Does Hochberg have a squeaky-clean personal history? If not, then he needs to shut up.

Anonymous said...

Well, there's a new chief of police.

Anonymous said...

"And for Hochberg to ask that question on the day of exoneration is his way of justifying his outrageous
reporting on the case. He can go to hell."

I agree completely with both 12:22PM and with KC's taking Hochberg to task. Given the opportunity to ask a relevant question on the day of the exoneration about how this fiasco ever happened, Hochberg , by focusing on the party, simply gave us one more demonstration of how the press got this story so wrong.

Listening again to the press conference, Hochberg's question reminded me of Nifong, who when given the opportunity by Lane Williamson to redeem himself at his disbarment proceeding, sealed his fate by maintaining that he still believed "that something happened" at that party.

The press who got it wrong still cling to that justification.

Anonymous said...

Jeez -- NPR is off the air temporarily! They've got everyone
trolling here. They should always spend this much time focusing on an issue instead of just reading off their talking points. Nice to see them feeling the heat!

AMac said...

Anonymous NPR Supporters (ANSs) --

Reporter Hochberg said, "Defense lawyers said the players are not proud of throwing the party, which included not only the strippers, but underage drinking, “threats of violence, and an exchange of racial slurs.” (Maybe NPR also claimed that 1+1=2. Irrelevant.)

To review: NPR presented as a fact that the party included threats of violence.

ANSs, respond with one of the following:

1) KC is misrepresenting what Hochberg said about threats of violence. The evidence is [link here].

2) There were, indeed, threats of violence at the party. The evidence is [link here].

3) Hochberg and NPR have already apologized and corrected the record. The evidence is [link here].

4) Facts and evidence are no match for my pure intentions (no links required).

Further ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies will be counted along with #4.

Let the voting begin.

kcjohnson9 said...

A few responses:

The issue, as Cooney pointed out, was not whether the party was a good thing, but the question of proportionality. And since the captains had apologized (repeatedly) for the party, Hochberg's question, in that particular context, was very odd.

On the drinking age: yes, I support lowering it to 18.

On the race/class/gender perspective, I should clarify: I use that in the blog as shorthand for a specific ideology, one that suggests American society is deeply oppressive on terms of race, class, and gender.

As such, it seems to me that this case is remarkably ill-suited to examination through such a perspective. The acknowledged behavior of the lacrosse players (a spring break party with alcohol and sexual tastelessness) is common to college students of all classes, to college-age men and women, and to both black and white students.

Meanwhile, it would be very difficult to argue that the accused players received beneficial treatment from the legal system because of their race, class, or gender, as would be expected by those who adhere to the race/class/gender worldview.

Anonymous said...

Are these damned reporters so engrossed or protective of their own egoes that they cannot tell the truth. Is this something they learn to do in grduate schools of English discussing post modernism and deconstruction, things which a less educated person would call a lie? Do these people not feel a responsibility to truth or even handedness or fairness? What in the hell is wrong with these bastards? NPR my ass.

Anonymous said...

The photos taken during the big "dance" routine show how "raucous" the party was: the attendees are barely able to stay awake, slumping and bleary-eyed. They're obviously bored to death by all this "raucous entertainment".

Even one of the "dancers" (Precious) was unable to stay upright, and opted to "dance" by crawling around on all fours like a dog.

"Raucous"? You gotta be kidding me. It was a snoozefest.

Anonymous said...

I heard brief NPR items on Cooper's announcement over the next 24 hours. Most were the minimal "all charges were dropped". Some said the players were "cleared". The "Innocent" word was quite scarce, and I doubt NPR has ever had a report with the big three: "Innocent", "no credible evidence of an attack" and "rogue prosecutor".

Sadly that's not too different from other MSM outfits.

Anonymous said...

Hochberg got spanked and that's the bottom line.

Like the 88, he feels humiliated that the players were exonerated since he was so heavily invested in their guilt.

And, like the 88, he could have come in from the intellectual desert any time he chose.

Anonymous said...

What you need to know about Hochberg (from NPR's website) which explains his hatred for Duke:

"[Hochberg] taught in the Duke University Continuing Education program and served on the Board of Directors for the University of North Carolina Journalism Alumni and Friends Association. . .

"A native of Chicago, Hochberg received his master's degree in 1986 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. . . . He and his wife Heidi live in Chapel Hill."


(Sorry but I don't know how to link.)

Anonymous said...

Yes, Hochberg is heavily invested in the Chapel Hill "elite" which includes our own very favorite Allan Gurganus. They run in the same circles... sniffing each other's butts.

Anonymous said...

12:33 pm (the second one)--
I can't speak for everyone who posts here. As for me, though, I can say the following:

1) I've read few, if any, posts that say there is "nothing wrong" with alcohol at the party. There was underage drinking at the party, that is illegal, and the players apologized for it. Many posters have suggested that such behavior, though illegal, is very, very common--and they are obviously right. To say this is not to say that there is nothing wrong with it, it's just to say that such behavior, by itself, is clearly not so unusual or depraved that it justifies a misbegotten and unsupported rape prosecution, or even public reputation trashing, because "they asked for it."

2) Actually, many people do think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 (again, I don't know about the posters on this board). I am among them--or at least, I think it should be given serious consideration (I haven't devoted sufficient study to the matter to state a position conclusively.)

This seems to be one of those situations where, in solving one problem (raising state drinking ages to 21 in order to reduce the rate of alcohol-related car accidents) we have created other ones--
a) eliminating opportunities for college-age young people to be served alcohol in supervised adult settings, where they can learn that it's possible--and usually preferable--to drink responsibly and in moderation;
b) driving social life at many colleges and universities off campus, thus increasing the related dangers and decreasing the safety net that would otherwise be provided by, for example, dorm resident assistants, campus police, and adults on campus generally.

It might be argued that our culture has some problems with drinking more generally. But if that's the case, maybe we should try to address them more generally instead of scapegoating some kids who have clearly and adequately apologized for what they did do and have suffered a great deal for what they didn't do.

Anonymous said...

It is easy to see what motivated Nifong - - the power of an elected position and the increase to his retirement pension . The motivation for Gottlieb & company is slightly less obvious . The last several days of postings here have concerned the press . It is difficult to discern why the press - NPR, NYT, etc . Would persist with falsely presenting the facts when the truth has been made evident . Any fair minded person would rejoice in the news that no crime occurred and that an attempt to frame 3 young men had been exposed . NPR NYT and others have the excuse that they believed Nifong which can explain their initial mistake but now that Nifong has been discredited , why not express the truth ? There is evidently some agenda and a belief that the end justifies the means . What is that end ? Why was it so important that the lives of 3 innocent boys be destroyed ? A healthy mind would welcome the truth even it reveals an earlier mistake There is a sickness which infects many to include the 88 , the Duke U heirarchy , purveyors of " news " , the intelligentsia , male -hating feminists .

Anonymous said...

This case is about race/class/gender in the sense that the **88, NAACP, Nifong, NPR, et. al. chose to MAKE IT about race/calls/gender, rather than about the functional facts (behavior) of the case.

The reactions on the blog usually are to illustrate the stereotypes and bigotry of those above**

That is, their race/class/gender lens discriminates, in their minds, who should be afforded justice, due process, protection from harrassment, detremental/differential treatment. You must be - according to them - the CORRECT race/class/gender.

That is, simply put, a form of racism/classism, and it is sexist.


Apologies to KC for repeating...

Anonymous said...

"On the drinking age: yes, I support lowering it to 18."

I also support this position. As a parent who has had at least one child in college every year since 1994 (this year I had two) I think that the 21 year-old drinking age is ridiculous. The age of "adulthood" should be 18 across the board. If my son or daughter can vote and serve in the military at the age of 18 they should be able to consume alcohol.

I believe the emphasis should be on responsible consumption of alcohol and not prohibition. I totally support ex-Middlebury president, John McCardell, and his campaign to lower the drinking age.

Anonymous said...

KC at 1:07

Just because you use race/class/gender in that particular way doesn't mean the majority of people who employ these terms do. You should clarify.

Anonymous said...

12:09 PM

Yes, and you and people like you projected race/class/gender into the whole sorry mess from the start. Much of it came welling up from the gutter of life. There are subtle aspects of culture that have not been discussed at all as to how this was manipulated into the mess that it became. I will say this, had a Gypsy Rose Lee showed up she would have handled the whole affair with grace and good humor and the guys would have been laughing and waving goodbye to her as she left the house at the end of the "show" with all pleased and happy about their youth and sexuality and the shared open secret of growing up instead of this horribly puerile and adolescent crap that passes for journalism and grownup judgement based on an agenda of politically correct gender/race/clss baiting. The whole affair in the reporting had no basis in morality or rather it represented the bankrupted hypocrisy of the pot-banging, castrate, finger pointing fools who rushed to judgement or who never showed any real "judgement" or maturity in this sordid mess. Perhaps it was this finger pointing mob who were the "boys will be boys" in this that turned all on its head where the so-called tolerant liberal people were the bigots forming the crowds outside the courtroom. Who would have thought that these people still believed in "witches" or perhaps they were the real witches.

Anonymous said...

Neither Hochberg nor NPR have *ever* been balanced, fair, objective, or even accurate. That they reflexively tried to push their agenda while *posing* as journalists during the Duke Hoax should surprise nobody.

Anonymous said...

To the NPR supporter:

Is this how it feels when a bigoted left wing invalid world view is exposed for what it is? Must have been like Bull Conner felt in the fifties. His pre-conceived notions and stereotypes came crashing down around him. Yet, he continued to spout blind ideology until he was forced to deal with his own prejudices (in fact, like many of today's liberals, he was unable to come to terms with reality).

White and black liberals then were instrumental in focusing on that discrimination. It is sad to see how unjust and cliched many of them have become...They have become the very sort of bigots they purported to overcome.

I guess life has been to easy and without real intellectual conflict.

Sad, sad.

Anonymous said...


I didn't project anything anywhere, dipshit, so don't make accusations. I've simply observed, not least by reading the posts on the blog, the elements of race, class, and gender that appear repeatedly in discussionsof this case. This happens on all sides. Live with it.

Anonymous said...

1:30, You are creating a straw person to knock it down. Read the posts. Outloud if need be, so you understand precisely what they say.

Anonymous said...

1;28 has now gone to the next level of today's left - vulgarity.

Raelly adds a lot and suggests lack of intellect.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, I would say that the three were indicted BECAUSE of their race and social status. That made them Great Villains in the eyes of the hard left that was pushing this prosecution.

Hochberg simply is part of that clique and is doing nothing more than holding to the basic and fundamentalist tenets of his religion.

And, like K.C., I support bringing the legal drinking age back to 18. This idea that "underage drinking" amounts to a Crime Against Humanity is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Dear 1:30,

If you could rephrase for clarity, it would be useful. I don't get your point...

Anonymous said...


The vulgarity started earlier in the day. Didn't you notice?

Anonymous said...

1:34 - No

Anonymous said...

"If you could rephrase for clarity, it would be useful. I don't get your point..."

B/c 1:30 doesn't have a point.

Anonymous said...

Good, so everyone can move to France where this ridiculous 21 business doesn't exist. And the wine is good...

Anonymous said...

Start reading from the top...

Anonymous said...

1;35 - Nope.

Anonymous said...

Don't bring up the underage drinking argument. If that is the best you can do (1:19:00 PM poster) than thank you proving the point that NOTHING happened. Drinking occurs at ALL colleges and universities, everywhere. It is not the source of all that is evil and unholy. Get a life.

Anonymous said...

Dear 1:37,

What got your knickers in a twist?

Anonymous said...


What, you can't read?

Anonymous said...

They were charged with RAPE, not underage drinking.

The next young female who is raped will be denegrated for underage drinking and flirting, therefore lessening the injustice against her?

What duplicitous nonsense.

Anonymous said...

1:41--I think the underage drinking referred to the raucous party. Remember, Hochberg was being raked over the coals for his choice of adjectives, etc.

There is already plenty of concern about so-called underage drinking and date rape, etc. I don't understand your second comment.

Anonymous said...

PS 1:41 for the record I support the enlightened European especially southern attitudes toward drinking.

AMac said...

At 1:06pm, I asked the commenting NPR supporters to offer their insights on reporter Hochberg's key claim: that the party included threats of violence.

No takers yet, unless Anon 1:30pm's use of obscenity is a vote for #4 ("My righteousness is what counts").

Now, it's underaged drinking rather than Hochberg's assertion of threats of violence that's taken center stage. (FWIW, I too am a supporter of lowering the drinking age.) And discussions of the importance of defining race, and gender, and class.

Curious change of subject.

Anonymous said...

Poor AMac doesn't get to guide the posts. ;-(

Anonymous said...

"Poor AMac doesn't get to guide the posts." ;-(

Guide them? Hell, AMac can't even *read* them.

Anonymous said...

I hate it when people who bring dissenting views to this forum are classified as "trolls". Can someone explain the meaning of this word and usage to me? I first saw the word used on "The Tenured Radical's" blog site. Her supporters classified dissenting opinion writers as "trolls", and it pissed me off because comments oposing her view were legitimate and factual. One of the factors that keeps me coming back to this site multiple times daily is the quality of the comments posted here. (But I have to say that they have deteriorated quite a bit over the past month or so). And while I feel that the comments appearing above and on yesterdays post supporting NPR have little merit, why are the writers classified as "trolls"?

Anonymous said...

Hochberg was being raked over the coals primarily for his lack of proportionality and down-right one-sided, bigoted coverage. You are the one making mountains out of mole hills rather than addressing the 800 lb gorilla of his (and NPR's) duplicity.

That he would focus on the nature of the party on the day of the boy's innocent declaration is akin to, say, a man being found guilty of rape - and the reporter there instead keeps asking the victim about the short skirt she wore at the party the night she was raped.

Topher said...

I normally don't care much for lawyers, but I love seeing a righteous attorney smack down morally-turpid flies in the ointment. The transcript is one of those examples.

Anonymous said...

1:48 "Troll" is the politically correct terminology for inferring one is a Communist.

mac said...

An Interview With a (NPR) Vampire:

Scene: An antebellum town, where
deep distrust seeps out of the ground and swirls, the miasma
penetrating every home and dance-hall.

Interview with Tara Levicy
by Adam Scott Simon-Berg

ASS: "Ms. Levicy, can I call you Ms. Levicy?"

TL: "I'd rather you call me Dr."

ASS: "I, how about Nurse Tara? Can I call you that?"

TL: "I'd rather you call me Dr."

ASS: "How about the Duke Case, the one where you bravely alerted the world
to the violent, savage rape of
a mother, a scholar, an exotic dancer?"

TL: "What about it?"

ASS: "Don't you wish to say something about it?"

TL: "Nope."

ASS: "Don't you wish to tell the world about the savagery inflicted
upon the victim by purile, drunken boars and oafs?"

TL: "I don't think so."

ASS: "There you have it, in Tara Levicy's own words:
the rapists, drunken orgy-philes, the boars and oafs who cut a class
on one particular Friday for an away game."

Duke1965 said...


Regarding threats of violence at the party, consider this:

"During the performance, there was sexual banter involving the use of sex toys between “Nikki” and some of the party attendees. This culminated in one of the attendees holding up a broomstick and suggesting its use as a sexual object for the dancers. “Nikki” was angered by this comment and the performance abruptly ended. After 12:04 a.m., the dancers left the room and retreated to the back of the house."

The above is a quote from the Attorney General's Report..... whether that was a "threat of violence", or merely an off-color remark, is a matter of interpretation. I personallly think it was just an off-color remark...............

Anonymous said...

Anom 12:09

"Was there not a race (black v. white), class (expensive private mainly white school vs. a poorer predominantly black one), and gender (duh!!!) component to this story? "

Oh my, yes! No question about it.

Black versus white...the black person was shown to have falsely accused the white lacrosse players;

Class... the prestigious school faculty was shown to have falsely punished the white lacrosse players;

Gender...The femininist groups were shown to have falsely denounced the white male lacrosss players (without a shread of evidence.)

Yes. Lots of race , class and gender angles...


One Spook said...

KC posed the question:

I’d ask readers if they see anything in the comments below that would support the insinuation in Hochberg’s report that defense attorneys conceded that there were “threats of violence” at the party.

The defense attorneys conceeded no such thing, and any assertion that they did is a lie.

For a moment, let's assume that Hochberg's reference to "threats of violence" was an oblique reference to the "broomstick" comment.

And, let's examine that assumption by a quick review of "Stripper Dance 101."

Strippers (both female and male), particularly two veteran strippers with several years of experience such as Mangum and Roberts, know exactly what they're getting into when they agree to "dance" at any party.

They do not ask what type and size the party is out of any concern for their safety but rather, so they will know what the potential is for making money and whether or not to accept the gig. If they do not accept, the pimps simply call the cell phone of some other hooker.

I hate to break it to NPR reporter Hochberg and the other rose-colored glass wearers among us, but these "exotic dancers" are not there to perform the "Dance of the Sugar-Plum Fairy."

The old Burlesque days of catcalls and "take it off!" have given way to "show us your tits/dick" and the standard calls for the use of dildos and other sexual "toys." The "broomstick comment" was a typical comment at best and a crude joke at worst, and would have been either ignored or laughed off by any stripper.

Many such "dances" by strippers of both sexes also involve touching the dancers (as disgusting as that might seem), and that activity generally means the dancer receives a "tip" for that act.

I am not advocating the acceptance of any of this behavior, but I am suggesting that we stop pretending that these activities do not exist. Boorish or not, let's keep this entire episode in perspective.

If you think that experienced hookers such as these women were "offended" or "threatened" by such a suggestion (remember, evidence revealed that CGM had performed at a party prior to this dance where she used a dildo), then you are in some bizarre parallel universe.


I suppose if NPR reporter Hochberg found Playboy magazines hidden under his son's mattress, he might feel that plucking out his son's eye would be just punishment.

I believe that is the "proportionality" to which attorney Cooney referred.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

A troll is a commenter who posts a provocative remark in hopes of getting attention. Usually that remark serves to divert the discussion away from its original subject.

Adam Hochberg, in his questioning of the players at their post-exoneration press conference, did his best to divert the discussion away from the Attorney General's straightforward esposure of the 'rape' case as a travesty. Hochberg wanted to rub our noses in the trivia of an ordinary student party, while demonizing the players once again.

EG, Hochberg is a troll.

Gary Packwood said...

I would support federal legislation making it illegal for the hard left to use the phrase 'in context of...' throughout the remainder of this decade.

I would consider adding 'as viewed through the prism of'...,also!

Punishment would be a $5 fine per instance with the accumulated proceeds going towards the purchase of a copy of KC's book for all entering freshmen in American universities.

mac said...

An Interview with an NPR Troll:

Conducted by KC Johnson

KC: What did you say your name is?
T: I din't.

KC: You've certainly responded a lot to our posts.
T: I din't. That was someone else.

KC: Umm...I can tell, you know.
T: Din't, din't, din't.

KC: What's your opinion on the Hoax?
T: You're an ass.

KC: What do you think about NPR's reporting on this case?
T: NPR is correct on this one. You aren't.

KC: Do you think the players received beneficial treatment from the legal system because of their
T: You're such a slut!

KC: Do you think there was a rush to judgement by the MSM?
T: What are you so threatened by?

KC: How do you think the "88" handled themselves throughout the affair?
T: What are you so afraid of?

KC: Was there collusion between the DPD and Duke University to
infiltrate the records of certain
T: You're so cute when you get mad.

KC: Did Dr. Meehan conspire with
Mike Nifong to withold exculpatory evidence?
T: Calling names shows a lack of ideas.

KC: Why did the DPD/DA charge two students who were provably
somewhere else when the alleged
offensed occured?
T: Define "troll."

Anonymous said...


You are correct in many of your assumptions. You did, however, leave out things like: would expect to hear bigoted, anti-white remarks from the New Black Panther Party would expect a DA whose campaign was in deep doo-doo to wage an intense prosecution of 3 white guys in a town with a large black voting block would expect to hear about racial slurs being made by the white party-goers IN RESPONSE TO a racial slur by a black stripper would expect to hear anti-white, anti-male commentary from the Duke president, who is ashamed to be white and male would expect to hear slants from the appropriate media outlets

What else is new?

Anonymous said...

Geez, folks. Can we see a toning down of the proclivities for incivilities? They mess with my sensibilities, and joining such hostilities are beyond my capabilities.
I note with interest the discussions regarding lowering the drinking age to 18 again. Growing up here in NC, we could have beer and wine at the age of 18, but had to wait until age 21 to buy the harder stuff. Many other states had the same laws. That seemed like a decent thing for us at the time.

I would support a return to such a scheme. The "noble experiment" of raising the drinking age to 21 has been a social engineering disaster in many, many respects. While statistics might say the "highway death rate among teens from DUI's" is down, it's my sense these statistics may be what they are because of much greater awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, the greater enforcement of DUI laws and harsher penalties, coupled with a de-stigmatization of taking cabs home or depending upon designated drivers.

Forcing drinking underground or off-campus was noted by observers above, and I agree that college kids are forced to imbibe illicitly -- as an example, we recently hosted a large party for college aged kids with a band at an eastern NC municipal civic center. Our invitations explicitly stated alcohol was not allowed, and that police would be there to enforce the prohibition.

What was the response? Numerous guests simply "got their drink on" in the privacy of their rooms at the adjacent hotel, and some were pure-T blotto upon their arrival at the party -- and were simply turned away. A number of others chartered a bus to the party from a town 45 miles away, and one girl on the bus was so sick from her quick imbibing that she had to be transported to the county hospital's emergency room for fear of alcohol poisoning.

I submit that, if we had been able to supervise the serving of five or so kegs of Bud or Miller Lite to the college kids that night, we would have had much more "responsible" drinking, a much better time at the party and certainly wouldn't have had to budget for 8 police officers to be present.

I join John McCardell with his efforts to revisit a social engineering effort that has gone awry.

Anonymous said...

A thought.

Many of the 88-types and their friends in the media have been itching for something like this since their defense of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair and the impeachment trial.

When they saw the first reports, they couldn't believe their luck that finally they could return the favor to people that they perceived (and still perceive, IMHO) as part of the right-wing conspiracy that almost succeeded to impeach Clinton.

If I add this consideration to the others that have been discussed, I realize that for them rational thought became an impossibility... the temptation was just too great!

I think that many of them also thought that these people, being simple private citizens, were easy targets that lacked the resources to fight back -- and by this I do NOT mean the lawyers; the lawyers were great but without public indignation much of what they accomplished could not have been accomplished.

Anonymous said...

Well I'll say this about the US drinking age. It's ridiculous. Full stop. America sends young men to foreign countries to potentially be killed at the ages of 18, 19 and 20 but does not allow any of these men to legally order a drink. You can add women of those ages to the list too since although they aren't technically on the "front lines" they are certainly placed in dangerous situations. This notion is something, as a non-American, I've always found to be...... a bit odd. Sorry. But in any country in Europe these men would have been able to drink legally.

Jim Cooney is right on target. I doubt most people would want to be judged by the things they did as a teenager or student in their early twenties. It's a risk to have two strangers from an escort service into your house. But young people at that age are prone to making mistakes and frequently do not see how a bad thing can happen. That's what happened here but that's all that happened here. You would have to be very puritanical, at the very least, to think that what subsequently happened to the team and particularly the formerly indicted players was a fitting punishment for the mistake they made.

AMac said...

Duke1965 and One Spook, thanks.

Recall, the Adam Hochberg quote is, "Defense lawyers said the players are not proud of throwing the party, which included not only the strippers, but underage drinking, threats of violence, and an exchange of racial slurs.”

The 60 Minutes account of stripper Roberts' view of the broomstick is the most damning one I could find:

"What happened next would alter the outcome of the entire evening. The women danced for a few minutes until one of the lacrosse players asked them if they had any sex toys. That player then followed up with a provocative comment about a broomstick.

'He asked about the sex toys. I was not offended about that question. Didn't bother me at all. I told him 'Didn't have any. Good idea though fella. You know, that would've, you know, eaten up some time,'' Roberts recalls, laughing. "But as soon as I said that, he said 'Don't worry, don't worry, we'll just use this on you.' And I started to think, 'What if they did really want to use a broomstick?' What if, you know?'

Asked if she felt threatened or intimidated by the broomstick, Roberts tells Bradley, 'Definitely. All of that. Not necessarily completely threatened that he might use that actual broomstick but threatened that if he would say that and I've only been on this dance floor for ten minutes, what's the next step? You know what I mean? What's next? What's the next thing they might say?'"

The A.G.'s Report's account of the same incident:

"During the dancing, there was 'sexual banter' between those at the party and the other stripper, the report said. 'This culminated in one of the attendees holding up a broomstick and suggesting its use as a sexual object for the dancers.' The report said the other dancer 'was angered by this comment and the performance abruptly ended.'"

So Hochberg's report:

* Stated as fact that threats (plural) were made--not that Roberts claimed she felt threatened by a single ambigous remark (a threat requires intent on the part of the utterer).

* Used a sentence structure that led listeners to believe that defense lawyers said the players are not proud of throwing a party that included strippers, underage drinking, and threats of violence. As One Spook states, Defense lawyers said no such thing.

The appalling thing is not that Hochberg was mistaken, or even that Hochberg and his peers were, herd-like, biased about the same things and in the same way. Reputations are being tarnished because of the refusal of these media figures to hold themselves accountable for their errors.

Given that arrogance, why would anyone trust the next story bylined Duff Wilson, John Stevenson, or Adam Hochberg?

Anonymous said...

"Given that arrogance, why would anyone trust the next story bylined Duff Wilson, John Stevenson, or Adam Hochberg?"

Any respectable employers, *especially* organizations that purport to do journalism, would have fired these idiots long ago.

The degree to which and manner these three morons screwed things up, I guess we all should be relieved that they aren't neurosurgeons. (And their palpably incompetent work product shows us *why* they aren't neurosurgeons.)

Anonymous said...

To all those who are 'outraged' at the underaged drinking that occurred at the party, consider this: Those people were 1) 18 years old or older; 2) young men, who are required by our society to register for the selective service and thus make themselves available to be drafted in the military to fight wars if need be. So, given these facts, are you saying that you have a problem with those kids drinking beer at an off-campus party when they are supposedly mature enough to learn to operate some of the most deadly weapons ever invented by mankind? In my book, if they can be trusted with an AK-47, they can be trusted with a Budweiser; however, they should most definitely not mix the two.

It should be obvious that I support lowering the drinking age to 18. Hell, if we can require 18 year old boys/young men to be available to go to war if required, they should be able to drink a beer legally in their own country before they go off and die for it. I will support the same for women, just as soon as we require them to register with the Selective Service too.

Anonymous said...

Minor oint, but perhaps worth noting:
1) In their coverage the day following the AGs unprecedented anouncement, the word"Innocent" did NOT appear in any coverage by the NYT, Washington Post, or NPR
2) I was physically present in the front row at the news conference in question. Hochberg's question was treated derisively by the entire audience (including other reporters), not just by Cooney and Cheshire. In fact, a reporter sitting next to me from the N & O said, "My God, the guy makes our entire profession look like morons."



Unknown said...

The numerous posts on the Legal Age 21 law, in particular the thoughtful ones by newly pseudo and tatercon, are very interesting. I will not repeat their well-reasoned points advocating repeal, but suggest that all interested posters go to John McCardell's new website - - for more information. What you will find there are interesting factoids like the slowest decline over the last 25 years in the alcohol-related automobile death rate is the 21-24 year-old age group, which today has double the number of such deaths as the 18-20 year-old age group. So we are saving all these lives (according to MADD) for three more years, so they can kill themselves then!!! Sounds like we are doing a great job of educating those "underage" future drinkers! And what about all the non-automobile alcohol poisoning/murder/suicide deaths of under 21's from the "pre-gaming" described by tatercon? Who's tracking that stat? What do the MADD mothers say to those mothers, about the social environment that was responsible for their child's death?

There is a movement afoot here that is gaining momentum and the silent majority with some sense, rather than pure emotion, needs to rally behind getting a public dialogue started. Send McCardell & Co a few bucks (I have), and start talking up this issue with your friends.

And for KC, can you verify this and maybe post on it sometime. I heard from my Duke daughter, friend of several LAX players, that the origin of the team party was in fact related directly to Legal Age 21. Rather than head for Caribbean Islands where they can have a fully legal Spring Break, the LAX players stayed behind and practiced on the deserted campus like they do every year. The tradition had become at the end of that hard week of practice that they would all party at a local Raleigh "adult" entertainment establishment - adult as in 18, the legal age of majority for EVERYTHING in this country except possessing alcohol. Pretty harmless when you think about the sex/alcohol/drugs/partying going on in say, Cancun. As a father of a college age son I think I would rather him practice his sport on campus and go out to a such an adult club, compared to spring breaking it in Cancun, any day. I am not naive enough to think he is going to go to the movies for popcorn and sodas.

Anyway, the story I heard from my daughter is that in the past this adult club would let in under 21's but they would be wrist-banded, marked, whatever, so they could only purchase/consume soft drinks - like many bars and restaurants with bars do in heavy college age customer communities. Then you had the customary fake IDs possessed by many to buy as well. Apparently the fake ID bit did not cover everyone, and what I heard is this Raleigh club changed its policy from prior years and would not even let in those under 21 this year, so the captains, faced with excluding a number of teammates, hit on the not-so-great in hindsight idea of creating their own private adult (and in this respect completely legal) event. Maybe the club did not change the policy - the context is still an interesting one.

Can you confirm this KC, and perhaps post on the irony of creating incentives for this type of activity to be conducted behind closed doors in unsupervised, unsafe environments? How many security and off-duty police officers does that Raleigh club employ? Now I am not endorsing strip clubs (although nobody seems to have had any issue with CM earning her living taking her clothes off) nor advocating we need to drop the drinking age to 18 so that young adults can consume their porn and alcohol together like everyone else (as long as they take cabs or have DD's take the wheel, of course, as newly pseudo points out), but we do have to be careful what we wish for -and what is clear is that Legal Age 21 is not working.

AMac said...

Off-topic but brief: John in Carolina has a well-written post on the AJR Review's coverage of the N&O's performance in the Hoax/Frame.

Anonymous said...

There's no doubt in my mind that the drunken jibe, "Hey, why don't you use this (broomstick)?", was just an immature, stupid joke. It's exactly the kind of joke a drunken 20-yr-old guy would make in such a situation

That being said, I don't doubt there was a moment when the thought crossed Roberts' mind, "hey, what if these guys actually decide to do something like that?" In fact, dancers like Roberts _should_ be asking themselves questions like that, all the time. But, she quickly realized that the situation didn't hold that kind of menace.

What really crosses the line, is Crystal Gail Mangum obviously lying about it, when she deliberately twisted this harmless, dumbass remark into "And then they all screamed and yelled, We're going to shove this broomstick up our ass!!!" That threat didn't happen, or Roberts would have said so (not to mention, neither woman would have returned to the house after leaving, if that happened).

The only real terrorist threat came from Mangum, later that night, and she damn near got away with carrying it out.

Anonymous said...

Adam Hochberg's question was as ridiculous, in its own way, as the questions of the "Desert Storm" reporters parodied in that classic Saturday Night Live skit:

REPORTER: "I am Farud Hashami with the Baghdad Times. How many American troops are in that province, and where are they located?"
Satire Help 5 cents
The Satirist is IN

I think that "insufficiently sensitive" @ 2:08 is right in saying that Hochberg was a troll, trying to change the subject at the press conference.

I also believe that the choice of that question by Hochberg is particularly illuminating. Here, he had one of the greatest open FRAUDS in the history of American justice, which was, and this is the interesting part, perpetrated by a PROSECUTOR (among others), which led to another great story, the largest tidal wave of REVERSE RACISM ever documented on television. In other words, there were some huge stories out there.

Now, as a "press conference reporter," Hochberg must know he has one, maybe two, questions that he gets to ask.

He chooses to ask about college-age kids having a party!

He is either retarded (in the sense that he is really very stupid), or he is biased.
Logic help here 5 cents
The Logician is IN

Mac @ 1:58 - The Levicy interview was VERY funny! "I'd rather be called 'doctor'." In the immortal word of Edna Krabapple: "Ha!"

Criticism here 5 cents
The Critic is IN

This is the most excitement NPR has ever experienced. Well, at least since that awesome 1996 donor telethon when they offered those cute Civil War tote bags for the low, low "Friends of NPR" sponsorship rate of $500.


"Original sin was created so K.C. Johnson would share in at least some of the blame." Acts 37:12 MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Um, that was meant to be, "we're going to shove this broomstick up _Your_ ass" -- although the alternative image, yelled as a threat, is pretty funny.

Anonymous said...

Specific to student drinking, if colleges are unhappy with underage drinking on and off campus there's an easy way to set a standard:

No more open bars on campus for trustees, faculty, staff, etc. No more banquet tables with forests of crystal and wine bottles.

I'd not like giving up a free drink or two, before and especially during the remarks segment, but can recall not long ago the only alcohol served at grown up campus parties was sherry.

Cheers, JL, Jr.

Anonymous said...

New Webusers Dictionary additions:

Exotic dancer--the PC name for a stripper. One who removes her clothes and performs lap dances for a larger fee than a stripper

Escort--the PC name for a prostitute or slut

Rapist--one who is actually guilty of rape

Kidnapper--one who is actually guilty of kidnapping

Klan of 88--a group of faulty faculty members who seek to advance their agenda by using university money

Underage drinking--a bad habit common on 99% of all US college campuses

Boorish--a PC term for behavior of non-PC students

Troll--posters who are hopelessly trapped under the bridge of truth without the ability to see it


Anonymous said...

Anyone interested in the disconnect between how reporters report what is said and what is actually said would be well served to read the transcript of Harvard President Larry Summers' infamous speech about the paucity of women in science. NOWHERE did he say that women are not as good at science as men. Nevertheless, the NYT alone has stated that he did in literally hundreds of times by now.

Anonymous said...

It is truly amazing that people can still believe that "something happened".

Personal opinion: CGM was looking for a quick buck and, even though she was barely able to stand due to her drinking, quickly realized that a gravy train lay before her eyes at that house. Something happened--at some point between arriving and dancing, she saw the light or rather the dollar signs and devised her plan. Not being in control of her faculties or at least not having sense enough to realize the fallicies of her thought, CGM figured whe could cry rape. AND SHE DID. Her idea was to get some hush money out of most of the guys there.
She didn't count on the LAX players having enough sense to rely on the truth. Maybe CGM figures with as much DNA as was found in her body, there had to be a "match" with someone!


Anonymous said...

A very simple Google archive search will show NYT & Washington Post both used the word "innocent" that day, contrary to your statement. Didn't bother with NPR but bet they did too.

Anonymous said...

I had no idea NPR had such nerve!! I usually enjoyed their grass-roots journalism because it provided me with viewpoints from real people on-the-ground with real-time opinion and witness.

It is a shame I will no longer enjoy that journalism. This listener will no longer contribute to NPR.

Such a shame. And to think I've used NPR reporting as facts to form opinions. How long will it take me to realign my frame of reference? A rhetorical, but honest question.

Goodbye NPR.

Anonymous said...

Re NPR: when you catch a report on something you know a lot about, and the report is patently wrong and/or patently biased, why then trust the same source on reports you know nothing about?

I don't. So I long ago stopped with NPR; and the NYT. And others. Sometimes it's kind of lonely!

I do appreciate KC the historian pointing this out to us, though.


Topher said...

I would consider supporting a measure to lower the drinking age to 19 - an age where the vast majority of high school seniors would still be unable to purchase alcohol.

What I don't want to see is 18-year old high school seniors (I was 18 throughout my entire senior year) buying alcohol for freshmen and sophomores, or buying it themselves and serving to the youths.

I agree that restrictive alcohol laws push parties into undersupervised areas. They also make college deans actors in a lets-pretend game - they claim to be upholding law and safety but they are looking the other way on most underage drinking cases. This hurts their moral authority when they have to crack down on more serious unseemly behavior.

Anonymous said...

I hold in my hands the ORIGINAL paper copies of the articles. The word "innocent" simply does not appear. Both were revised in the online versions. Happy to send you copies if you care to provide an address-or maybe the truth doesn't really matter.

Anonymous said...


"when you catch a report on something you know a lot about,

1.) Don't assume how much I know or do not know about this case.

and the report is patently wrong and/or patently biased,

2.) I did not know anything about this NPR report until today.

why then trust the same source on reports you know nothing about?"

3.) I never stated I would trust NPR again. In fact, I do say "Goodbye NPR" at the end of my post. Meaning -- I will no longer tune in to NPR.

mac said...

Doncha just hate it when you're confronted with
the facts?

Thanks ERDOC1

Anonymous said...

AF @ 4:10:00 PM

She was on her cell for 7 mins. to her father's number immediately prior to dancing. Nobody knows who was on the other end of that call. If it was her father, you might recall him stating his disgust seeing his daughter's battered body.

I have no freaking idea why the state is not investigating CGM and Co. for fraud, extortion, etc.

Anonymous said...

Let us not forget that the 2nd dancer contacted a PR agent (the same on used for a very popular female pop/rap star) for advice on what to do "to get the most out of this". She wanted money too, only she took the wrong side with "something maybe happened" and "i wasnt in the bathroom" (indicating she wont testify either way).

Let us be real people...these dancers perform lewd acts for money. Stealing money in any fashion is NOT beneath is something they all aspire to.

Anonymous said...

Can those samples be linked to Nifong, J.J., A.S., or anyone in Durham law enforcement?

Maybe NPR should be sent to investigate for repentance.

Anonymous said...

1:28 PM

Not once did I refer to you as a "dipshit" anywhere in my posting, and as for your "live with it" please deport yourself as a gentleperson which, of course, you failed to recognize was the purpose of the posting. Grow up, behave yourself, and try to do better, which, of course, was the underlying theme of my posting to people of your ilk and the likes of what has passed for an elite in Durham. You have this mess regardless of what the media did to it.

GaryB said...

I'd like to say this about that.

Back in the day I was working on options trading models on a trading floor in Charlotte, NC.. After long stressful days, I'd get in the car, turn on the tunes and get nothing but "Praise the lord and fill my collection cup or be damned" radio. Without NPR I would have gone mad. I can't hate NPR, sorry. I also love a bunch of public radio shows such as "This American Life".

That said. I too attended my share of such types of parties as lax & co held. It's scary to think that it was all nearly 30 years ago. Ah wasted youth! If I had it to do all over again, I'm sorry (my apology) but I would have attended more such parties. But hey, that's just ol'moralizing me.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who has seen the photos from the party would not conclude the party was "raucous"---the guys were sitting around looking bored holding beers. From the captains' written police statements it sounds like perhaps they hoped to have a raucous party but failed --perhaps worse than anyone has ever failed at throwing a raucous party. It was a debacle from the start--she was not capable of performing--was acting strangely, they wanted her to leave, were paying her to leave. They feared she would cause a noise complaint because she was pounding on their door to get back in. Raucous it soinds like it was not---Foolish it certainly was-- but as the defense attorneys have said, if your reaction to the Nifong disbarrment is to ask someone like Reade for yet another apology you have no sense of proportionality.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really expect that demagogic hustlers are going to have epiphanies? These guys ain't exactly traveling the road to Damascus.

Anonymous said...

Race element to the case?, I am sure of it. Whan people are so blinded that they say they are going to stand behind someone who makes a claim of rape regardless of whether she is lying or not based simply on the fact that she is of a certain skin color.....yeah that is a race aspect..

And we have a word for it too.

Anonymous said...

It's nice to see at least one NPRacist finally found a backbone, because in high school he absorbed the cruelest taunts with gentle good humor, and, of course, a fevered commitment to kill ... I mean, someday get back at the privileged few. Unfortunately, his backbone is only solid enough as a base to launch what amounts to an anonymous internet "slap fight."

Face facts. The NPR is, to put it mildly, very biased against rich white males. It must just kill them to go to work every day and see all the other rich white males working at NPR. In the hallway, it must be something like this:

RICH WHITE GUY: Did you hear about what those rich white guys did in Washington?

RICH WHITE GUY: Yeah, gag me. Why are rich white guys so evil?

RICH WHITE GUY: What are you rich white guys talking about?

RICH WHITE GUY: Oh, we were just blabbing about how bad rich white guys are.

RICH WHITE GUY: I spy three rich white guys with my little eye! Let me guess, you're talking about those "raucous" rich white guys in Durham?

K.C. Johnson has painstakingly proved a system-wide media bias that even our "National" team latched onto like an Erie Lake lamprey --

mac said...

MSM: the documentary about the tribes with open marriages in South American rainforests.

True story: you may've seen the
so-called "documentary."

Guy goes into the jungle to find the rumored tribe that
encourages "open" marriages.
What he finds is a tribe that has
one woman who enjoys entertaining
most of the other men in the tribe
down by the river.

No "open" about it. The woman is a head-case.

The other women despise her; her husband is upset, and the
"researcher," disappointed that
he's only found one, stupid woman
with a sex-disorder, instead
ridicules the husband as "jealous"
and somehow unworthy.

Yup. A real NPR-type documentary,
except I doubted that even THEY
couldn't a hack-job like that. Until recently, anyway...

Anonymous said...

ERDOC1, I respect your credentials and especially appreciate your first-hand report of the laughter that greeted the NPR reporter making a jerk of himself. But please don't get too puffed-up over proving the "facts" of what the NYTimes reported.

I can't argue with clippings that you say you have in your hand -- but 4:11 isn't crazy, or lying. Below is the NYT article on April 12 2007, as archived by one of the world's largest online information services.

Note the word "innocent" in the FIRST SENTENCE, followed soon thereafter by the "no credible evidence" quote. Just a bit later (although I won't include the full article here) is the "rogue prosecutor" quote.

The lead below is from the Late (Final) Edition. Maybe your hard-copy is an earlier version?

I am NOT defending Duff Wison's coverage of this case -- it was an abomination. But it's just not true that he failed to report what the AG said.


New York Times Fulltext
(c) 2007 The New York Times. All rights reserved.
New York Times , Late Edition - Final ED , Col 6 , p 1
Thursday April 12 2007

RALEIGH, N.C., April 11 -

North Carolina's attorney general declared three former Duke
University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a
stripper innocent of all charges on Wednesday, ending a prosecution
that provoked bitter debate over race, class and the tactics of the Durham County district attorney.

The attorney general, Roy A. Cooper, said the players -- Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty -- had been wrongly accused by an "unchecked" and "overreaching" district attorney who had ignored contradictory evidence and instead relied on the stripper's "faulty and unreliable" accusations.

"We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations," Mr. Cooper said at a news conference.

"We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred," he added.

Anonymous said...

Kudos to YOU KC, you are correct on this one, NOT NPR. Take as evidence NPR's clear bias and agenda driven posture now that the facts are in. ANY investigative report who has done the investigating knows the truth at this point. NPR contiunes to withhold the name of the false accuser. Until they come clean, you are right KC.

mac said...

Good points.
No argument.
So much for my "confronted with the facts" comment.
I'm sorry.
There appear legitimate differences in editions,
and my comment didn't exactly
add light to the subject (nor weight.)

Now. That wasn't that hard, to apologize. See?
Anyone can do it!

Why is it so hard for NPR, the NYT and HS?
Ashley? Grranus? The 88?
Murphy? Nifong?
Baker and his bumbling boys?

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

Is duke a state school like n.c.c.u.?

mac said...

How many NPR staffers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Change? What's "change?"

Anonymous said...

1:09 superb

While we all have bantered about the extent to which the party was raucous, the truly observant "anon" points out that the photographic evidence shows that it was indeed a "snoozefest."

In each of the photos I have seen, the party-goers were either sitting down (with, in almost all cases, a relatively alert and NON-drunk look on their faces) or standing in relatively relaxed poses. Now...I can assure you that I have been to some raucous parties with alchohol flowing like Niagra falls, with lust and ambitition flowing like Viagra falls, and with expensive drugs in the background and $50,000 bands and girls who preceded Paris Hilton's panty escapade by decades. We called them "debutante" parties.

Judging from the photo evidence and with the help of this observant post -- that party could not in any way, shape or form, be called "raucous".

AMac said...

Anon 6:28pm, ERDOC1 3:22pm, Anon 4:11pm --

Lexis-Nexis brings up the same NYT text that Anon 6:28pm posts.

Interestingly, as ERDOC1 claimed, the 4/12/07 front page story in the WaPo indeed lack the words "innocent" and "innocence."

-- begin fair-use excerpt --

"All Charges Dropped Against 3 at Duke"

by Peter Whoriskey and Sylvia Adcock

The Washington Post, Pg. A01
Thurs., April 12, 2007--Met 2 Edition

RALEIGH, N.C., April 11 -- Rather than simply drop the remaining charges against three former Duke University lacrosse players, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper turned the tables on the prosecutor Wednesday and, after castigating him as a "rogue" who acted out of "bravado," said he could face a criminal investigation for his pursuit of the sexual assault case.

"We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations," Cooper said. "There were many points in this case where caution would have served justice better than bravado."

-- end excerpt --

Same with this Sports story on page E01 by Adam Kilgore:

"Charges Dropped, Perceptions Linger; Beleaguered Lacrosse Claims Redemption; Growth Ensures More Visibility, Scrutiny"

But this article on page A20 did use the word, twice:

-- begin excerpt --

"Teammates' Parents Relieved, Worried; Sons' Reputations Harmed, Some Fear"

by Katherine Shaver

Glued to the television in his Potomac living room yesterday, Jeff Clute heard North Carolina's attorney general utter the one word he and other parents of Duke University's lacrosse team had been waiting more than a year to hear: "innocent."

-- end excerpt --

mac said...

Maybe there was a parakeet or parrot in one of the back rooms,
being "raucus?"

Ah, the "excited parakeet" theory:
anyone tell Bob Ashley about that?

Anonymous said...

Interesting... a cross-marketed insurance solicitation from Liberty Mutual and the Duke Alumni came today.

One wonders if Liberty Mutual knows who they've crawled in bed with and if one should let them know?

I've got four weeks to respond. It's taken Duke 14 months...what's up with that?

Anonymous said...

KC...regarding your view of the drinking age.

One could argue that the Dane's have a better system than even a lower age of 18 for alchohol consumption.

They allow it at any age. Kids grow up unimpressed with the notion that they can drink. For the Dane's, it has none of the allure of the illegal -- and its attraction as a risk taking behavior, a behavior that may have its origins in our genetic makeup. Same with many other forms of risk-taking behavior -- for example, driving fast.

The Dane's are particularly aware of this. They allow their children to drink. But forget about the right to drive. I've forgotten the exact age -- but when my sister (who lived in Den,ark for a while -- her husband was there protecting Nato from those frisky Swedes) told me, it was clear that it was a much older age than 16.

Car accidents don't factor into the lives of Daneish youth.

mac said...

When I was a lad of 12, 13 or so,
I'd wander along the country roads
and find singles, six-packs, sometimes hidden
cases of beer, Ripple and
other unopened treasure.
I had a nose for hidden/discarded

We'd either sneak out at night, later on, or we'd arrange to "camp" in the nearby fields.
It didn't matter if it was warm: we were young.

I still did dumbshit things as a young adult, like drinking and driving (a motorcycle.)

Not sure age-limits make a difference, one way or another.

Anonymous said...

Mac @ 2:26


mac said...

Inman 7:34
Thank you!

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

Gary @ 6:00

Options huh? My game too. Are you a math or physics kinda guy?

mac said...

I don't know if you're the only schmuck or not...(joking!)
but Panties/Samples really needs
to be held accountable in some way.

I don't blame Cooper, though:
he likely didn't want blame to shift
away from Nifong, at least until
the ol' Nifongii lost his law license.

May be that Panties/Samples will be
helpful in prosecuting the DPD,
which is more of a serious issue.
Lots of perps out there: it gets more serious
when you can't tell the perps from the police.

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


You are absolutely right. And the failure to indict this clear example of a criminal mind is an injustice equal to the Hoax. She should be sent to prison and her children should be placed in the care of foster parents.

So what if she is judged, by virtue of mental disabilities or psychiatric problems, unable to stand trial. Aren't there people like John Hinkley still in a perpetual lockup for similar "issues". Doesn't a judge in NC have the power to order the protective incarceration of someone who is found insane or "mentally challenged"?

C. Mangum is a serial criminal. She should be considered dangerous, just as if she was a carrying an assult weapon to be aimed at innocence at the Mall. Cooper and North Carolina should treat her as such.

And then let J. Jackson and A. Sharpton and the New Black Panthers get their collective underwear in a bunch and REALLY polarize this country.

God...I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

And importantly, I too am a schmuck and accordingly it is might right to respond.

Anonymous said...

Appreciate it, Inman


mac said...

Schmuckies! (you said it, I didn't) Bad enough: Mom called me a noodge (yup,)
and nebbish (gee, thanks!); said I would be handsome, if I had a chin -
(thanks again, Ma! Helps with the confidence!) Thinking Polanski might be a shmok?)

I agree about the prosecution. Except for the order.

Get the ol' ducks in a row, first.
Inman, surely you remember the duckpins of yesteryear?
(Polanski is likely too young to remember such things...?)

Anonymous said...

My nephew spent a year in England when he was 16. He and his teen host would go to pubs and drink.

Was there a problem? No. Unlike his hometown in Orange County, CA where there are 5 cars per household, in England none of the teens had cars. No problems with drunk driving accidents there.

Anonymous said...

I know raucous, and this sir, was no raucous party.

An appears that those that attended the event left early, did not try to stop the broom stick joke, did not try to mitigate the situation by calming the women and imploring them to continue, and instead had seen enough, taken their financial hit and locked them out of the house.

That tells me it was god awful event and that everyone was ready to call it a night.

One wonders if it meets the technical definition of a party? Even that has been mischaracterized. Raucous...hardly.

Anonymous said...

I have no freaking idea why the state is not investigating CGM and Co. for fraud, extortion, etc. "

Me neither. She must have pictures of Governor Easley in the nude.

Anonymous said...

So NJ,NP, you think the whole accusation process started when Precious realized she had put on such a lousy show, she was so dying of flop-sweat, that she had to get back at the boys? The money she got wasn't good enough?
A "woman scorned" kinda thing going on?

Hell, I'll buy it!! Nothing surprises me now!!

Anonymous said...

Have yaw'll seen Panties' picture. Good-god-a-mickey-mighty, I do declare, I remember a picture of Seligmann at the "party" in which he looked part nauseous and part "i gotta get outta here." Rightfully so. His picture showed that he was disgusted, as frankly any self-respecting white, privileged male athlete --- or any self-respecting black privileged male athlete --- or any self-respecting asian privileged male athlete.... fact, I don't even think that "athlete" isrequired, ...or even race for that matter, ... much less privileged.

That woman was a gutter snipe. A tragic but all too real manifestation of the benevolence of the Great Society.

Given what I've seen, about the only people who'd think that Panties / Samples / Precious /"Louvre of DNA" was at all appealing would have to be her mother... and then only of the mother was marginally less intelligent than the lower primates.

I get nauseous thinking about it.

Anonymous said...


If we had a "just," as opposed to a great, society, Panties the Accuser's photo would have been posted alongside the vicious "rapists'" mugshots.

How funny would that have been?

Any artists out there?

Let's create 3 Panties/CDR diptychs.

1. Panties/Finnerty
2. Panties/Seligmann
3. Panties/Evans

That artwork, more than anything else, would illustrate the absurdity of the allegation.

While viewing the diptychs in Brodhead's former office, I think it would be a good time to release Panties' new perfume.

Eau du Crotch

Here's the tagline:

"You'll never believe semen could smell so divine"

Anonymous said...

I want to call the poster Gary Packwood out for his recent diatribe against the people who comment here. Rarely do I comment, but having reviewed the last few threads it appears that his attack on this blog has emboldened some of KC's detractors and attacks on some of the effective posters here. No doubt about that. Just look at the some of the ridiculous pro-Nifong and anti-lacrosse players comments that have surfaced. Packwood has brought bloggers from otehr websites her who haven;t showed up before by attacking people here. Says he wants this place to change. Well it has! You brought out the pro-Nifong filth!

Thanks Gary Packwood. With your Jesus-fied narrow outlook we can look forward to some of the strongest defenders of the Duke lacrosse team to stop showing up just to avoid you. Why assist NPR and their like? Can't you get your own blog if you don't like someone else's? Wuss.

Anonymous said...


Who cares? It's an open board. As long as the attackers are sincere in their loathing, I'll play along.

Anonymous said...

I dunno about prosecuting Mangum. Who'd want to cross examine her? Imagine trying to keep her on track.

I have this idea that NPR, or at least All Things Considered, started out in May of 1971. Covering the MayDay Mobe when the hippies were going to shut down the Pentagon and, in order to make a broader point, vandalized cars and buildings on their way.

I was watching it on the television of Ward 9A in Valley Forge Army Hospital with a bunch of shot-up grunts (ftr, I was not a combat injury).
The cops were trying to get a handle on things.
While the NPR guy was weeping that "today, in our nation's capital, it is a crime to be young,", the grunts were cheering the cops.
At one point, there was a bunch of hippies temporarily held in a stadium someplace. The news had some good footage. One grunt growled, "Bring a gunship in on their ass."
I wasn't aware of NPR at the time, but they ran a self-congratulation retrospective some years later and I put the two together.

I was pretty sure they weren't connected to the real world then. Haven't bothered with them much unless they're running something like hearings, which they do or did sort of like C-Span does now.

Liars and cheats.

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


Wait...are you saying that Panties is a "dip-stick" or that she's known too many "dip-sticks" ...

I had to look up the word "diptych". Thank you for introducing me to a new word. Of course, I would have struggled to find a use for it in daily discourse. Any suggestions? and how do you pronounce it. Is the "ch" a hard "k" sound or a softer "ch" as in cheese or a "sh" as in "sheese, Panties is ugly"?

Anonymous said...

good story, aubrey

I have a vision of a nursing home somewhere in 2055 where the last living Vietnam vets are fighting it out with the last surviving 60's hippies.

Hopefully NPR and the NYT won't be around to cover it.

D White

Anonymous said...


That was I, Polanski.

Sorry; I sometimes forget to post my name.

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

Re: Polanksi @ 10:48

"Is a harmonious multiracial society viable?"

Yes. But the price of admission must be intellect. The extent of harmony is inversely related to the intelligence of the individual. Until one considers the retarded where there is harmony as well. At the highest level of intellect, the races do just fine together. For at that level, the concept of "we can agree to disagree" exists.

Among the average -- the 1.5 standard deviations on either side of the norm -- agreeing to disagree is not an option, for that taxes emotional and societal and political intellect way too much.

Among the lower intellect, agreeing or disagreeing, both are irrelevant. There are more pressing emotive responses guiding that group. My sense is, that this group is generally well-intentioned -- race is not a factor.

Finally, I'll posit that among the truly brilliant, race becomes significant again, for the truly brilliant begin to understand racial nuance and the impact of that nuance on understanding. This is equivilent to a racial bias toward the structure of thought and language, with associated bias toward certain types of thoughts and emotions.

Your thoughts?

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


I could not care less.

You must not know your grandparents names. huh?

Anonymous said...

Oh and 10:58

You're comment proves my point about diversity and it's on-way dimension.

Its okay for blacks to demand respect and for hispanics to demand respect, but someone who knows from whence he/she comes cannot demand respect?


Anonymous said...


Please. Share yourself. Make yourself vulnerable to attack. Put yourself at risk. Live a little.

Who the F are you?

Anonymous said...

10:48 polanski, one of the BEST posts I've read in a while. Very honest and true. We all experience this everyday.

Anonymous said...

One final point 10:58

Nowhere in this particular thread did I discuss my past.

Are you stalking me?

Would you like my address and telephone number?

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

inman, get the knot out of your ass. I am 10:59. You are so freaked that someone upset your apple cart you don't even pay attention to what you're doing.
you are a bigot. and not a talented one.

Anonymous said...

Somebody frame this goddamn post. If you want to know why this country is in the fix it's in. If anything good has come out of the lacrosse hoax it is that decent hardworking people are waking up.

I was PC in my use of the word "multiracial." My experience as a citizen and a producer tells me that East Asians are a godsend to this country. A multiracial society composed of whites and Asians would be paradise.

Today, in the US, the only reason there is not racial anarchy is the fact that whites are allowing blacks to live comfortably in a virtual kindergarten. The black agenda plays out in almost every policy decision--education, crime, welfare, taxes, real estate--whatever.

Inman, I'm fed up with this shit--crime; hoaxes; taxes; affirmative action; fear of being labeled a racist for discussing skills differences; etc.

Whites and Asians are prey for a large percentage of the black community. CDR was prey--or didn't you know that?

Let me put it to you this way: Visualize paradise. Then take a walk through New Orleans. This is not a civilization I want to support.


Jul 19, 2007 11:27:00 PM

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


State you business.

And you have no idea who I am and what I represent. You are a presumptuous idiot. But if you want to pick a fight, go ahead.

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

Just for the record. I'm well aware that 12:19 is a provacateur who wishes to pull my chain.

Thanks! Since you choose to remain anonymous, I decline. And if there are any big words in this discourse for which you need an explanation, please...I'll help all I can.


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


Europe and China. I rest your case.

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

Has anyone ever been quoted by a reporter? I have --- it was nothing like I had said. Not even close.

mac said...

I've been quoted.
Not even close.
It helps when they can read their
own writing...when they take notes.

Many of 'em use the "Gottleib technique": straight from memory.

Anonymous said...

"My experience as a citizen and a producer tells me that East Asians are a godsend to this country."

Let's not forget India as a source of incredibly high-quality immigrants.

Polanski - there's experimental evidence indicating that at least part of the white-black achievement divide is cultural: The children of immigrants from Africa and the Carribean achieve like the children of immigrants from anywhere else. But by the third or fourth generation the achieve like American blacks. Once you identify with the black ghetto culture, you're hosed.

Now consider the implications of all those white kids listening to rap....

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

I didn't say it was purely cultural, I just said there's an observable cultural component. The more members of an immigrant group identifies as "African American" the worse they do.