Monday, September 17, 2007

Civil Suit Watch, II

Today’s primary post discusses the transparent biases of some critics of the civil suit settlement. It also raises an obvious, if largely overlooked, point: it’s fanciful to believe that everything bad about the DPD’s performance has already come to light.

For instance, Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge has yet to be deposed. This is the same Ron Hodge who, April 11, 2006, stated to MSNBC that “I don’t think we would be here if it wasn’t (a strong case)”?

As we know now, the case not only wasn’t strong; there was no case at all; Hodge’s portrayal of the evidence was, therefore, false.

Only two explanations exist for his statement: (1) in the highest-profile case in the city’s history, he allowed his fellow officers to mislead him, causing him to mislead the public—calling into question his competence; or (2) he willfully misled the public—calling into question his ethics.

Under oath, what explanation would Hodge provide?


Debrah said...

What a sizzling post!

How are we going to live without the KC brand of verbal dissection?

Anonymous said...

K.C.: Keep the posts rolling, K.C. Like shooting fish in a barrel. The civil lawsuits need to put those liable into bankruptcy. The federal criminal trials need to put the guilty in jail.

Anonymous said...

“I don’t think we would be here if it wasn’t (a strong case)”?

Is an opinion not a statement of fact. He will just say I did not review the facts, I based my "Opinion" on past performance of the DAs office, the DA misled us all.

The written report by the DPD on the case, saying the DPD did everything by the book, is the smoking gun.

Remember what this guy when running for Chief earlier this year?

"During last night's public interviews of finalists to be Durham's new police chief, deputy chief Ronald H. Hodge drew laughter when he said he couldn't think of any major mistakes made by the police department in the past five years.

Anonymous said...

Actions must have consequences. Those responsible for participating in the Hoax must be held to account, as painful as that might be for some. Justice demands no less. Follow the facts--all the facts--to the bitter end and let the chips fall where they may.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Is the review of UPI by Thom Weidlich linked somewhere on the blog? I haven't found it.

Anonymous said...

Under oath, Hodge would give whatever explanation his attorney tells him to provide.

Wait - if he's innocent, why would he need an attorney?

Debrah said...

Last night I read these Sunday forum letters in the print edition, and was going to link them then, but I was just too sleepy.

These are great letters. Also, go to the next page provided to see the last one on the subject.

N&O forum letters

Anonymous said...

With all of these Durham officials -- I'd be interested to know if there are any inter-office or intra-/inter-departmental documents or e-mails that add further color to public statements. Formal discovery could be very interesting indeed.

Also, doesn't a government official have a duty to exercise due diligence in examining so-called "facts" prior to making a public statement relating to those "facts"? Or are those officials allowed to use the Mangum Truthiness Illussion, ... "Well, I believed what I said was true and therefore I was telling the truth."

Debrah said...

This is my favorite letter....and the same sentiment could be applied to the H-S:

Sympathy pay

I am not qualified to say how much is enough if there is to be a Duke lacrosse civil settlement, but I do propose a solution.

The N&O, through Barry Saunders' predictable Sept. 11 column and your Sept. 12 editorial "Cost of justice," is obviously sympathetic toward the citizens of Durham.

The citizens of Durham elected Mike Nifong and are therefore responsible for his actions. Could his election have been helped by The N&O's coverage of the first 90 days of the case? Had your coverage even hinted at a possible rush to judgment, might this have been nipped in the bud?

Let those sympathetic to Durham step up with their sizable financial resources to assist in the settlement. What say you, McClatchy?

Mel Lewis


Anonymous said...

Another comment on the suits..

Durham, newspapers, famous residents (Cash M.).. are now talking about whether the 30 Million is excessive, not whether the players can win the case or not, just how much it will cost Durham. This is why people need to sue. Without the $ threat Durham would just ignore the facts and not fix anything.

Reality is seeping into Durham, they know they are on the hook and have no defense.

Debrah said...

KC's book reviews reprinted:

Minding the Campus

Anonymous said...

Cash doesn't live in Durm.

Anonymous said...

And if the Feds are really on the ground in NC, getting ready to take names and kick some butts, a lot more could come to light that would have a bearing on the civil case too.

I'm sure most of the nefarious players in this hoax would MUCH rather the taxpayers paid out a bundle than see some of these folks doing hard time in a Federal pen.

Anonymous said...

Well cash can kick into the Durham defense fund anyway, he helped the city into its current liability with his unique perspective on "trials to proven your innocence".

Anonymous said...

"Under oath, what explanation would Hodge provide?"

Once again, I gotta go with:
"I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself."

Jim in San Diego said...

A great tragedy in this case is the failure of those representing poor minorities to use the Hoax to form an Alliance for Justice. Would it not benefit poor minorities, who are principle victims of injustice, to ally with rich white victims of injustice?

The "should we settle or not" thread continues the tragedy. A large financial payment, coupled with genuine police reforms, will disproportionately benefit poor minorities.

The Duke Hoax is an aberration. In the usual case, the poor, minority victim of injustice does not have the resources to prove it.

In Los Angeles, a cottage industry has arisen around suing the LA police department for its abuses. As a result, a number of unattractive felons have been paid a lot of money.

Also as a result, the financial pain to the city has forced training and discipline of the P.D. This has resulted in better police behavior. This disproportionatly benefits poor minorities, who have been the primary victims.

In short, the debate over settlement is skewed by the same race/class/gender distortions that got us here in the first place.

Anonymous said...

What we really have here is an army from the North invading a weakly defended city in the South, with its residents refusing to admit a failure of culture. Although many of those residents are beneficiaries of the first such invasion, those same residents may now regret the precedent of the total war and scorched earth policies ordered by General W. T. Sherman. But, none-the-less, this is still a march to "we'll see" ...

...and Durham may not cotton to this. All those tax dollars ... gone with the wind, but ...

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Anonymous said...

Nevermind, I found the review of UPI by Thom Weidlich. Upon reading his review, my only thought was: I've read UPI, but I don't think Mr. Weidlich has.

Anon at 2:11 PM

Anonymous said...

A police view

Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge said Nifong's stepping aside won't change the substance of the evidence collected by the department's detectives that a sexual assault occurred.

Hodge said he thinks that the case will still go forward and that the remaining charges will be prosecuted.

"I don't think it changes anything that we've done," Hodge said. "It just means that we'll have to deal with a different attorney."

January 13th 2007...Ron Hodge say DPD has collected evidence that a sexual assault occurred, and that the case will go forward.


mac said...

LTC8K6 @3:08

"January 13, 2007..."

That's AFTER the bizarre Levicy report (Jan. 10) and well AFTER the December hearings.

They were seriously considering this guy for Chief? Hahahahahahaha!

Anonymous said...

Hodge for Mayor. Vicky for Council chair.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and the 88 for Congress.
Hodge, Vicky, and the 88 elected.

Can you say RECALL VOTE?????

Gary Packwood said...

Jim in San Diego 2:44 said...

...In short, the debate over settlement is skewed by the same race/class/gender distortions that got us here in the first place.
I think you are ahead of the time-line but your point may be true in the future.

Unlike Las Angles we have no idea how many groups in Durham were working together to bring all this harm to their own city.

This is not a yes/no... did they or did they not situation.

We don't know who THEY are yet.

Discovery is needed and then your comments need serious consideration, I believe.