Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
The committee's counsel, Wade Barber, told Dees that he is still going through the case file; Mayor Bill Bell observed, "We said from the start we didn't want to sacrifice speed for thoroughness . . . I don't want anybody to rush to judgment to try to meet some artificial time table we really don't have."
The delay, of course, eliminates any excuse the committee might have for not being thorough in its conclusions.
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
32 comments:
It will be thorough, alright. Thoroughly worthless.
The excuses may be eliminated, what about point of fact? Too many of us still see this as a whitewash committee. Hopefully the shredders are not working overtime at DPD.
Was anyone expecting it to be anything BUT a whitewash?
He said "we didn't want to sacrifice speed for thoroughness . ."? I presume he means that he didn't want to sacrifice thoroughness for speed. Does he always say the precise opposite of what he means?
Other cities and countries have held investigations into police misconduct and wrongful convictions, heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, reviewed thousands of documents, and issued their reports in less time than it will take for the Whichard committee to decide upon lunch.
(See, for example, the Kaufman Commission Report in Canada, which probably is the world standard
on this type of commission.)
In Durham, though, they seem to do things differently.
I hope that Whichard realizes that his name will forever be attached to whatever piece of work his commission puts out.
He won't be remembered for any of his other work, just this; ditto for all those who are associated as members of this whitewash 'commission'.
Its not the exact opposite of what he means, because what he means is "we hope if we wait long enough it will go away."
-RD
They don't want to know the truth because (to borrow a phrase from Jack Nicholson), they can't handle the truth. (If they admit the truth, then they'll have to do something about it, and none of them want to do that).
Excuse me? Could the one person who actually thinks the Whichard Committee will NOT be a pathetic whitewash of the Duke hoax please raise their hand?
(Nope, that is not MY hand!)
Counsel is probably scrubbing the file to determine potential problematic testimony and then how to avoid it without appearing to "whitewash." After all this is free discovery for the pending plaintiffs.
And, I'd be willing to bet that insurance companies have sent in their counsel to review. Those who are going to pay are the ones who would be motivated to evaluate early and, if exposed, attempt to settle early. Funny how money motivates action.
But, my hedge bet ... we are seeing a "deep blue" checkmate in progress.
"we are seeing a "deep blue" checkmate in progress. "
Huh? I understand the man vs computer chess reference...but which player is deep blue?
Durham - like Duke is toughing it out. They do not care what ousiders think about them.
It won't be a whitewash to the extent of claiming that Nifuck and DPD did everything just great.
No, the report will say that what happened was just terrible -- and, was all the fault ("miraculously") of the 2 people who no longer work in law enforcement, namely Liefong and Chalmers.
And, any wrongdoing by Chalmers will be downplayed (or cast in terms of legally non-culpable negligence), because he worked for the City, which will continue to bear legal responsibility for his conduct (or his utter lack thereof).
Liefong is a State emplolyee, hence not the problem of the City which created this Committee, and, MUCH more importantrly, Liefong is not the problem of Durham's scumbag insurance company -- whose lawyers, you can bet, are really calling ALL the shots here. Insurance industry scumbags run the world -- don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
So, look for Whilchard et al. to say that the diligent, well-intentioned li'l DPD piggies, being good li'l piggies, did everything desired by the flaming flagrant criminal, Mike Nifuck, whom they recognized as supreme boss.
Of course, Liefong was NOT the police boss, but, in the lame abscence of "no-show" Chalmers, what else do we expect a low-life liar like Gottlieb to do -- but to give Liefong the exact lies that he craves?
Whilchard himself is a good man, but his Committee will issue a useless statement to the effect that dumbshit Durham cops had no idea they were intentionally framing innocent people -- no, no of course, they were merely "working with the information available" -- from lying piece-of-shit Nifong (instead of doing their jobs, by finding out the actual facts).
Sad, sad. I hope to hell I am dead wrong about this! Occasionally, as we have seen, truth and justice do triumph.
topher @ 6:54
"deep blue" refers to Duke, hence the team and the players...
and 7:22
Unlike Duke, Durham almost certainly has to tough it out. Duke on the other hand hired public relations specialists to provide counsel on the "lacrosse problem." I know...I met one of their hires. (And this also begs the question why Duke with all its wisdom didn't require confidentiality agreements with its agents.)
But public relations specialists would counsel based upon expected behavior. SO to make Duke's administration accountable requires unexpected behavior...like an alumnus who, my sense tells me, has every right to be on campus,...carrying a sign as freshman arrive for orientation saying "Beware of the Gang of '88 --- google them" ---
I'd be willing to bet that an organized effort could even be of interest to national media ....
Isn't there a mayoral election this year? Whichard has to protect his buddy Bell through to re-election.--Buddy
I think they are waiting for KC to leave the country and stop updating Durham in Wonderland.
a bif off-topic but how about a pro-feminist (perhaps even mexican feminist) campaign to stop spousal hires at Duke. It is demeaning to the qualified women.
G88 should be happy to join the campaign..
perhaps an email to Duke feminist maililing lists to stir up the feminist G88 discussion.
KC, why aren't you listed as first author on your book? Even alphabetically this would have made sense. In academic review, this means you contributed less than the first author. Is this so? Why did you need a co-author, and is it the case that you contributed substantially less than Taylor? Or is it a matter of distinction and name recognition?
To the 8.26:
Stuart initially got the contract; he (as had I) had expected that the case would go to trial and so a book wouldn't be finished till fall.
When that wasn't the case, he asked if I would collaborate, and I agreed. I initially wasn't planning on doing a book at all--if it hadn't been for Stuart's offer, the blog would have been my "publication" on the case.
The order of names is partly from Stuart getting the contract, but also a matter of distinction--Stuart is much better known than I am to just about anyone who hasn't followed the case closely.
KC - I have a lot of respect for Stuart. My Harvard law school family members think he is a diety, but I bought ten copies for XMas presents because of you. If I had to quess (in the words of Nifong) that is true of a lot of folk.
I doubt that any bloggers are stirring up anything at Duke, Durham, DPD, DUMC or any other Lax related instituation. They are done with us and will continue to tough it out.
I recall Stuart's commentary during the OJ Simpson trial, which was always very good. When I saw that you were collaborating with him, I knew it would be a great book.
"... we didn't want to sacrifice speed for thoroughness ..."
How many times did hizzoner have to practice saying that in front of a mirror before he could deliver it without breaking to gales of laughter.
From the moment the formation of this committe was announced, I expected neither speed nor thoroughness. I am confident that these people will live up (or should that be down?)to the Durham tradition of turning whatever they touch into crap.
As it relates to this committee: Draw the curtain, the farce is played.
Well, I'm not surprised.
The Whichard Committee is bending to the culture at Duke/Durham with a committee and typed report someday that is ...forthcoming.
I should have seen that one coming a month or so ago.
::
GP
kc writes at 8:32:
"I initially wasn't planning on doing a book at all--if it hadn't been for Stuart's offer, the blog would have been my "publication" on the case.
Well ......... (planting tongue firmly in cheek) in addition to your book, be SURE to list your Blog and all of the previous and future interviews on your CV ...
In all seriousness, the blog should appear ... it is a hell of a piece of work!
One Spook
It's a cover-up Big Time!
At this point in time they don't know whether Gottlieb and Himan will testify?
They will sacrifice Chalmers, who's happy to be blamed on paper. He knew his part time work would have a price. He gets a sweet retirement, and it's not like he has a good reputation anyway.
Mark my words, they'll go after Chalmers and blame much on Nifong.
I thought he said: "We may be slow, but we do poor work."
Sad to say but it feels like this case peaked at the DHC in June as far as validating our view of the case, and holding someone responsible. Unfortunately I think Nifong is the only one who will be called to account. It's hard to see who is even following this anymore, besides the few of us here.
Haskell...
No...what I heard was: "We may be slow, but we're also sluggish."
"I don't want anybody to rush to judgment to try to meet some artificial time table we really don't have."
More like "It looks like we're not going to be able to avoid saying at least a few negative things, so let's wait until after Mayor Bell is reelected."
Is Nifong a Communist?
10:34
He would have been considered an ideal prosecutor in the Soviet Union.
Post a Comment