The Liestoppers board brings protests from Al McSurely (chair of the state NAACP’s Legal Redress Committee) and Irving Joyner (NAACP “case monitor”). Their claims, according to Cash Michaels? “The Wilmington Journal contacted Rev. Barber and attorneys Joyner and McSurely, and shared the above passages with them for comment. Each made clear that they were never contacted by either Taylor or Johnson for comment in the book about issues specifically relative to them as noted.”
One reason I prefer dealing in e-mails is that doing so leaves a written record, making it easy to respond to claims such as the one above. I reproduce the e-mails that I sent to McSurely and Joyner over the course of the case.
Mr. McSurely:
Reading through the Nifong response to the Bar, I was struck by the DA’s claim that he isn’t required to turn over to the defense full tests results as long as they have access to the underlying data. The inference would seem to be that wealthy defendants, who can hire the best lawyers to figure out such data, are OK; but others are out of luck.
I realize that the state NAACP has vigorously associated itself with Nifong’s case, but do you share his belief that defendants are not entitled to full reports?
KC Johnson
This e-mail was first sent March 2, 2007, at 2.33am; it was resent on March 3, 2007 and March 6, 2007. McSurely, given an opportunity to deny my claim that "the state NAACP has vigorously associated itself with Nifong’s case," never replied.
--
Mr. McSurely:
My name is KC Johnson; I am a professor of 20th century US political and constitutional history at Brooklyn College, CUNY. My academic CV is below: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/cv.htm
I have blogged extensively on the Duke lacrosse case, and am puzzled by two legal issues related to the case and the NAACP’s role. I was hoping you could answer my questions, if you have the time:
1.) I did a post, which I’m going to expand into an academic article, on the photo lineup procedure used in the case, and its relationship to statewide patterns. It’s my sense (this is certainly what I teach in my constitutional history class) that the NAACP has been at the forefront of opposing suggestive lineups or prosecutors who don’t follow their own procedures.
Yet in this case, I’ve seen no protest from the NAACP on the lineup tactics; Irving Joyner has even suggested that the issue is best resolved by a jury. Has the NC NAACP involved itself in any cases in the past regarding suggestive or procedurally flawed lineups, or is this an issue usually not of concern to the NC NAACP?
2.) I read a couple of months back in the Durham Herald-Sun that you considered filing, on behalf of the state NAACP, a request for a gag order, or what you called a “quiet zone/let’s let justice work” motion, since “media coverage of the alleged rape may deprive the alleged victim of her legal rights to a fair trial.”
I’ve looked over the NC ethics code, and it seems to me under the exception in 3.6 involving responding to statements by the prosecutor, the defense in this case can pretty much say whatever they want. Did the NAACP criticize Nifong’s publicity barrage in late March/early April?
Also, I’m unclear on what you meant when you spoke about depriving “the alleged victim of her legal rights to a fair trial.” I’m pretty knowledgeable of the NAACP’s long tradition of trying (and, alas, not always succeeding) to ensure the right to a fair trial for defendants (I teach the Klarman and Tushnet books regularly), but I haven’t known of the organization to be at the forefront of the victims’ rights movement. It seems to me a claim that an accuser has “legal rights to a fair trial” would represent a 180-degree shift from the NAACP’s traditional positions on criminal justice issues.
Do you see the NAACP now moving more toward defending victims’ rights and lessening its traditional concerns with the rights of the accused?
Thanks--
KC Johnson
This e-mail was sent on August 15, 2006; McSurely replied, and we quote from his reply in the book.
--
Prof. Joyner:
My name is KC Johnson; I am a professor of history at Brooklyn College and have blogged extensively on the lacrosse case.
Some time ago, Cash Michaels suggested to me that I needed to look more closely at your record to get a better sense of your approach to the law. I’ve been looking through some of your old cases, and am a bit puzzled. I realize lawyers must represent their clients, but it seems that some positions you’ve taken in previous cases are inconsistent with positions on the law you’ve taken in the lacrosse case. I should say, with the exception of the Taylor case and perhaps your Shamsid-Deen appeal, I’m quite sympathetic to most of the arguments you presented in the cases I examined.
1) For instance, the argument you expressed in State v. Sanders/Randolph, regarding the constitutional violations in the state not providing a bill of particulars. As you know, in the lacrosse case, the defense was denied a motion for a bill of particulars--in a case where the timeline was vital because of unimpeachable alibi evidence. I hadn’t seen you comment in protest of that decision.
I was wondering why you felt the denial of a bill of particulars was a constitutional violation in Sanders/Randolph but not in the lacrosse case.
2) I also noted your sympathetic portrayal of Matthew Lawrence Taylor in the media, even after his conviction. Most people would consider this sort of hate crime to be a horrific act. I haven’t seen any favorable comments from you about the three defendants in the lacrosse case; and I was wondering what you saw in Taylor’s character that made you, apparently, view him more favorably than the three defendants in this case.
More generally, as I was looking over cases of yours I could find in Lexis/Nexis, you generally seemed to be quite critical and in some cases extremely critical of the police and the prosecutor’s office. That obviously hasn’t been your position in the lacrosse case. I was wondering if you could pass on to me cites of other cases where you had generally remained silent while credible allegations of prosecutorial and police misconduct had been made. I wasn’t able to find any in the record, but I presume there are several such cases.
Thanks--
KC Johnson
This e-mail was sent on January 19, 2007, at 12.47am. Joyner replied but skirted my questions.
--
Prof. Joyner:
My name is KC Johnson; I’m a professor of 20th century legal and political history at Brooklyn College, CUNY: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/cv.htm.
I have followed the lacrosse case closely, in part as a blogger, and noticed that you had commented frequently about it. I had a couple of questions:
1.) I recently completed a study of eyewitness ID procedures from around the state. The study revealed that the procedures used in this case wildly varied from North Carolina norms, in ways ranging from the non-use of filler photos to the decision of the police officer overseeing the identification to tell the witness that the array would be confined to suspects only.
I know in New York, the state NAACP and civil rights community has been very aggressive (and effective) in demanding that authorities act in accordance with their procedures. In your dealings with the organization, does the North Carolina NAACP support the consistent following of procedures by authorities?
2.) I was struck by a comment you made to Sports Illustrated:
“Much of what the defense is putting out there now will never be presented to the jury,” adds North Carolina Central law professor Irving Joyner. “We have a rape
shield law and other evidentiary barriers. Nifong may have been engaging in some political showmanship at the beginning of the case. But that does not take away from the value of his evidence and the fact that he has probable cause to pursue the case. He still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham.”
I’m obviously not familiar with NC’s legal code; I know you are. Most of the evidence I’ve seen from defense consists of such things as police or eyewitness reports, transcripts of the lineup ID session, cellphone records and a videotape of one of the accused showing he wasn’t even there at the time of the alleged attack. Is it your sense that this evidence “will never be presented to the jury”?
Also, why did you state “jury in Durham” instead of just “jury”? Is it your experience that juries around the state operate differently?
Thanks--
KC Johnson
This e-mail was sent on August 1, 2006, at 7.14pm. Joyner replied, and we quote from his reply in the book.
[I should note, for the record, that Michaels never contacted me before publishing his article to verify the recollections of McSurely and Joyner. Had he done so, I would have gladly supplied him with the e-mails I reproduced in this post.]
McSurely and Joyner might not like the conclusions that Stuart Taylor and I drew about their efforts in bolstering Mike Nifong’s prosecution. Indeed, I can see where they would be embarrassed by their performance in the lacrosse case, since their stated positions so consistently contradicted the NAACP’s traditional principles on criminal justice issues. But they certainly cannot claim with any credibility that I did not present them with an opportunity to respond to issues raised in the book about their behavior.
50 comments:
The sad reality is "journalists" such as Michaels report comments, denials, accusations like the "never contacted" remark without looking "more closely at your record" as he, himself advised you to do. Did he contact you for a comment? Offer you the opportunity to rebut the statement? You, not a professional journalist, are held to a higher standard than actual "professionals" who see themselves as above criticism. Little wonder the public can seldom find the truth.
Your system of notes is just breathtaking and humbling as is your professional dedication to updating and working those files and notes in order to get at the truth.
Thanks for all that you do KC.
::
GP
JLS says...,
I can't say I blame Michaels as journalism has become he says v. she says. They just report what people say with no investigation as to whether or not it is true.
Although this may be a real stretch, McSurely and Joyner appear to be racists practicing under color of law. Of course, my opinion may be quickly re-painted if either Joyner and/or McSurely ever represented, say, a white person.
McSurely and Joyner also seem to share a marked lack of perception - in that Professor Johnson presented himself at all.
Most troubling, however, is how the law itself was shaded to match the man.
No one can argue the good the NAACP has done in the past, but now it certainly appears that this particular organization has reached the point of seriously diminished returns – and that no matter of law or conscience is worth a plug-nickel when applied by them.
These statements are commonly known as "lies" -- busted.
Nice job!
b
Note to self:
Never argue with a history professor.
-RD
.
I'm sorry - Cash is Trash.
KC Johnson does a superb job of sourcing and documenting everything and has done a great job using logical and following the facts to arrive at conclusions.
I cannot say the same about the others making claims against KC at this point.
One side has a sterling record and the other side has more baggage than Oprah on a trip.
How likely is it that Michaels will publish a retraction?
Why would he publish a retraction? He'll just claim he was reporting what someone else said and thus it was legitimate. He'll argue he had no obligation to discern the truth or falsity of the statement. Not that it matters much anyway. Most of his reporting seems to be bull$hit.
Cute Quote:
Clarence Page -Chicago Tribune
"We believe in your integrity and goodness." I wonder if they believe in the tooth fairy too.
What the Duke lacrosse case has taught us
It is important that we have a criminal law professor representing the NAACP who is on the record as demanding that exculpatory evidence that favors a defendant be excluded for political reasons.
Furthermore, we have a criminal law professor representing the NAACP speaking on the record as saying that a jury in Durham would be more likely to ignore exculpatory evidence, which would be a good thing.
I will say that the performance of the NAACP and other racialist groups in this case was so craven and so dishonest that they have given up any legitimate right to criticize the racist "justice" that has occurred in this country against blacks, and especially black males charged with rape.
In order to have moral authority, one must act in accordance to the standards of morality and justice. When one sheds those standards in order to railroad a conviction for the sake of racial politics, one had shed one's moral authority, period. People like Joyner and McSurley and Barber and others have willingly and consciously thrown away whatever moral authority they have.
That Barber also has used his status as a minister of the Gospel to further his call for race-based injustice is another sad chapter in the history of the NAACP. Barber could have done the right thing; indeed, his theological and moral training was such that he knew what was right.
However, he and other men of the pulpit in Durham decided that the pursuit of the lie was more politically advantageous than pursuit of the truth, and all that implies.
It is no surprise that the national NAACP has not come forward to defend the NC chapter. I have seen no statements from them implying that statements made by the NCNAACP leadership were misstated or misinterpreted. This could be because there is no defense of what has been so stated.
Unfortunately for the NAACP, ministers of the fifties and sixties, who had credibility, have been replaced by self-serving preachers (definitely not ministers of the gospel) and other organizations who share "common goals" (Jesse, Al, et al) are more concerned with promoting their political agendas than in promoting justice.
All this simply diminishes the good work done for many years by the NAACP. The NC branch is becoming no better than the KKK in their focus. Unfortunately, their moral compass no longer points to justice rather it points to MONEY and POWER.
This was like the piece on ABC criticizing Dateline NBC last night. Chris Hansen and the head police guy denied that Hansen was in control of the police operation.
ABC then showed video of Hansen directing. Ooops.
Wasn't there an NAACP guy talking about the Vick case that indicated that the Durham branch (or NC) was wrong on TV? KC had a video clip of this on a post.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Kudos to Jay Crawford: Atlanta NAACP Speaks Up
In an important statement, Atlanta NAACP head R.L. White has admitted his North Carolina counterparts erred in their rush to judgment about the lacrosse case.
Durham In Wonderland July 31, 2007
My two favoirite parts of Cash's review area:
1. Even the influential Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People endorsed the inexperienced and questionable black candidate over Nifong.
2.Joyner, who was asked for commentary and analysis from major news organizations like CNN and Court TV, said he answered a lot of pro-prosecution questions because that’s what he was asked.
Ha - So Cash admits that blacks vote for inferior candidates just because they're black. Oh, that's smart. Look where voting along racial issues got you guys.
And, poor Mr. Joyner. He can only answer questions he is asked. He can't insert any information into an interview. If only one reporter would have asked a pro-defense question (whicht they did by the way), he could have told them what he really thought.
What a bunch of trash from Cash. I've lost total respect for him as a person and journalist.
C'mon, People. Most of us have known for years that organizations such as the NAACP are larded with hypocrisy.
These groups profess to based upon principles, such as the defense of civil liberties, but they are actually nothing more than political advocacy organizations operating under a tax-free sham.
In any event, it is fun to have such a clear opportunity to expose blatant hypocrisy by once-proud but now decrepit organizations such as the NAACP.
Wait, wait! You mean, all this time, Cash Michaels was supposed to be a journalist? Wow, what a surprise! I mean, I never actually looked at the masthead but I assumed that his position there was listed as "Spin Doctor"... So he was posing as a journalist all this time? Huh. Who knew.
Make sure to go here:
What the Duke lacrosse case has taught us
and leave an honest star rating. There's very obviously been some vote-stuffing by dishonest, delusional Nifong supporters.
The N&O is reporting that Mikey had spaghetti last night for dinner....in solitude.
It's a headline in the print version, but can't find it to link on their website.
Looks like Mikey is filling up on carbs during his stay.
They let you sleep better.
LIS!
1:30 AM
No offense, but "This is not about the truth anymore." or words to that effect are the truth of this whole affair. You are right, but this whole thing has been acted upon by fools, very shallow people who had no sense of decency at their core . . . decency is not conferred on an individual with a PhD. These people always "knew" even before hand what the "facts" were. It is just a mark of how fractured society has become . . . a howling mob with no one knowing "whose' ya daddy" . . . a collective group of bastards . . . academic thugs really and their walkabout enablers yelling for blood in the streets of Durham and the country at large.
Al McSurely was a straggly nobody until he represented some black female cop in Chapel Hill named "Keith" a long time ago.
She had been done wrong by the man and granola king McSurely was successful in suing the town. He must have made some big bucks, himself.....so.....
...consequently, he's been trying to resurrect shades of Morris Deas ever since.
Trouble is, most of the people he represents and supports are shakedown con artists like his NAACP buds.
Humorous, that.
The saddest thing about the NAACP and its leaders, is that they have lost sight of the true high ground. If they had vision, they would be able to see that recognition of truth, reassessment of the their position, and articulation of new, improved, and re-stated goals can only lead to progress. I believe that this is what most leaders do. I expect though, that some of their followers would be confused; the more angry of their followers would accuse them of "breaking the faith" (leading, of course, to these angry followers own bid for power}. Please repeat after me Haskell's First Law (obviously stolen from somebody -- I have no idea who}: Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
KC, I hope that you will send a copy of these comments to Cash, with copies to Joyner and McSurely (not that Michaels will ever bother to publish it). As I recall, you appeared on a television show with Joyner and Michaels, and at least Michaels was familiar with your work, so there is no excuse for him not to check with you. I have your book on order at B&N so I haven't seen it yet, but I look forward to reading your comments on Joyner and company.
Cash Michaels has performed a valuable service. He has printed for, all to see, the bold-faced lies of the leaders of the NAACP and the black community.
If Cash were more clever his attempts to undermine the credibility of the book would be more successful.
Thank you Cash for helping to publicize such dishonesty and racism.
The fact is the NAACP and its representatives have shown they are willing to tell outright lies to further their agenda. Months after the charges were dismissed by the AG and Mike Nifong publicly said there was NO evidence in this case, the NAACP touted a mountain of evidence on their website.
Anyone who has shown they are willing to lie to further their agenda is not worthy of any respect.
Just when I think I cannot possibly be shocked by another DIW post --- I am shocked to my roots!
Mikey's been sprung!
Why do these pathetic people who come out to support Mikey wear sunglasses?
It's something that needs to be featured in a SNL skit.
Do they really think they are a part of high drama....instead of a sleazy comedy show?
And they all affect this kind of solemn expression.
Someone slap these clowns.
Conjuring up Cher's character in "Moonstruck":
Snap out of it!
TO 7:o8AM--
Clarence Page did a good job with that column.
He's almost always objective...or at least he puts forth effort in that direction most of the time.
Have hese three maroons gone far enough over the line that their statements are actionable?
KC proves once again that you must document everything, especially when confronted by unscrupulous and dishonest people.
This post brings me back to something from weeks and weeks ago when I went to the NBC17 website to link one of their Sunday "At Issue" shows.
Cash Michaels is on that panel every week...as is Donna Martinez. These two are the regulars who take on issues using their opposing viewpoints.
That particular show had James Coleman and another guy as guests. They were talking about the lacrosse case along with other examples of injustices in the legal system.
When the show was about to end, Cash Michaels and Donna Martinez summed up their views...each taking a few minutes.
In the last moments, Cash slipped in an intemperate remark to Donna...knowing she would not have a chance to respond.
She did anyway and said, "Cash, don't put words in my mouth!"
I tried for days to get that video link from their website, but they didn't put it up. They had all the other recent videos of the show available, but not that one.
LOL!!!
Cash Michaels is dishonest with no standards.
Organizations, like people, have a life-cycle. The NAACP, just like the ACLU, after having seen the brilliance of their youth pass, are now suffering from extreme 'old age'.
Some people were and still are demanding a jury trial so that "everything will come out..." OK. How about insisting that Crystal be charged with making a false accusation? Then she could tell us "what happened."
"That Barber also has used his status as a minister of the Gospel to further his call for race-based injustice is another sad chapter in the history of the NAACP"
The "good" Reverend must have forgotten this commandment:
"THE 9th COMMANDMENT
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
11.28:
"Maroons"? LIS
"The N&O is reporting that Mikey had spaghetti last night for dinner....in solitude.
"
-----------
Oh, the humanity!
1:59 --
LOL!! That is absolutely perfect! You're absolutely right -- if Mangum is being denied "her" right to a fair trial, then let's give her a trial -- her own trial, for false accusations!
The AP reported that Nifong had chickenloaf for lunch and that he was peeved because it was very dry. When Victoria Peterson heard about it, she immediately began a one-woman protest outside the jail, shouting:
"Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy,
We won't stop 'til Mike gets gravy!"
_____________
The book was awesome in every respect. It really has a heavy cumulative effect. Hearing all that the Gang of 88 did in sequence is very sickening. I also found out a lot of things I did not know, and I've read a TON about this case.
My only criticisms: [Spoiler Alert!] There was not a single enchanter or droid in the whole book, and I would have liked to have had at least one person say, "I have come from the future," at some point in the narrative. That ALWAYS spices things up. Otherwise the book was perfect!
______________
This case was filled with BIG HYPOCRICIES, such as the police failing to do justice, the Gang of 88 failing to research their actions, and the media failing to print important facts. But, for me, the GRAND HYPOCRISY was the NC NAACP seeking to lynch the innocent students based not on evidence (if lynching is any better based on evidence), but based on emotional, race-based sterotyping.
______________
Thanks for being brave, K.C.!
9/8/07 11:20 PM
=================
=================
Absolutely agree with this. It's much more difficult to tell a lie after the fact these days. I keep thinking of that Harvard student who plagerized that book---> the Internet catches these types.
Nowadays,I always follow up a work discussion with an email.
Cash Michaels responds
If you will allow a non-intellectual no-advanced degree fellow to intrude for a moment in this exchange I would like to offer this. The obvious overshadowing issues in this matter are plainly race and money. Our society seems to have conflicted views about both.
Race is an easy target as long as we view people as classes. It is easy to find examples of wrongs perpetrated by every racial group. When we start looking at people as individuals we then have to deal with their real character. My family dates from the Revolutionary War with a string of European immigrants settling in the Midwest. Four years ago we added a black branch to the family with the arrival of black a son-in-law. I love my son-in-law and his arrival has made me more sensitive to the positives and negatives blacks face. I want the best for my interracial grandchildren and I know that their faith, character and education will go a long way in securing the life they and I would want for them.
Money also brings conflicted views for most people. Some seem to hate the rich, yet they want to become rich themselves. I think the term for that is “envy.” My family had almost no money and I left college with nothing but debt and a degree. I am now a multi-millionaire and I saw my own children denigrated for being “rich kids”. A lot of this ill will toward the rich is nothing more than basic envy.
To top it all off I am one of those non-thinking, easily led Christians. My consolation is that I am still happily married to my college sweetheart of forty-five years, and my children actually love and respect me (including my black son-in-law).
Anomoneyous
Anomoneyous @ 4:15
Thank you for your thoughts. They are certainly welcome. Some may agree with you, others may not. But you put forth a reasoned statement without barbs directed at others.
Your comments indicate that you are a lucky man indeed. It would be nice if our society could uniformly appreciate others, as you suggest.
But the Duke Lacrosse Burning ... the HOAX ... shows that all too many have alternate, vicious, agenda-driven and racist views. Those alternate views are a catalyst to mobilize opposite opinion and even violent rage.
It may take more than the next generation for that polarity to abate.
Until then, I wish the best for you and your family.
Anomoneyous 4:15.
Thanks!!! We are who we are. I was born into a white family in Tenn. and grew up in a 900 Sq.Ft. home. My parents valued education, so I was sent to a college with a work/study program where I received a BS.
After many years of traveling the world ( Peace Corps in India will re-define poverty for you), I returned to study nursing and receive a MSN from DUKE.
I taught nursing for years and have been proud of my association with the great university and grateful for my top-notch education.
After many years as a pastor's wife, and home schooling my kids, I found myself a widow in my 50's, and with a health issue that prevented me from returning to the nursing field. (It's another subject... but by then the prevailing political winds in health care no longer appealed to me)
I was blessed to find a business opportunity that I could believe in and I worked very hard and have become rather wealthy. Now I pay more taxes per month, than my husband used to earn in a year.
I was STUNNED, as I began to work myself out of the financial mire, to find the counter-prejudice against me. When I was poor, the liberals loved me. Now I am rich, and they hate me ( but would be glad for a donation).
When I was growing up in Tenn. my parents taught me to value honesty, work hard, and respect others. The basic, old-fashioned American philosophy.
Now, I am 65 years old, healthy, wealthy, and much wiser.
And my heart aches to see this great university that has given so much joy,and such a great education to so many people in academics and in athletics as well become a laughing stock.
Two of my three children were born in Durham.
My family's ties to NC go back to 1690, and EVERY generation has at least one person born in NC.
There is much to be grateful for and proud of in NC.
But we need some people who love the heritage more than they love their selfish agendae to take back the institutions for us. My opinion is that too many of the people in Durham and in Duke have no real love nor respect for our heritage. I think it is going to have to be the dedicated public servants in the legislature. They have the most to loose, and the most to gain. I just hope they have the stomach for the battle.
North Carolina knows how to play their trump cards. I'm not a historian at all, but I believe I recall that is was some courageous NC policy makers who held out on ratifying the US Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included.
Even then, NC statesmen understood how very important personal freedoms were/are.
I do earnestly hope that there are still some of their kind still willing to use the OPPORTUNITIES and lessons of the LAX hoax to return freedom to NC.
Re: 10:20. My mistake.
"In the past, North Carolina history-makers knew how to play....."
( Grammar - police, please forgive ?)
af said...
"It is no surprise that the national NAACP has not come forward to defend the NC chapter."
Nor is it a surprise that they have not publicly rebuked them.
"C'mon, People. Most of us have known for years that organizations such as the NAACP are larded with hypocrisy."
Casual viewers of the news don't necessarily, expecially given the free pass from tough questions "civil rights" groups always get. A whole bunch of people who took an interest in this case learned something new.
This case has put another great big chip in the NAACP's Teflon.
Cash and Co. seem to have no notion of the fact that I am a thinking person with a memory. At what point did the little boy cry wolf too many times to be believed?
Cash, NAACP, Peterson and crowd are all such transparent racists, with their views on any particular issue dove-tailing perfectly with whichever side in an argument has the black person on it. It is as if they forget that I have the ability to remember that for years the NAACP has championed the rights of the falsely accused; suddenly they come on the scene demanding the victim have a right to a fair trial.
As far as I am concerned, Cash and Co. do more damage to the interests of black people in this State. Cash is such an intensely polarizing figure that the debate is just poisoned the minute he injects himself into it.
I do think it is cute that he tried to take on K.C. Cash, do what's left of your credibility a favor and stop picking fights with K.C. He got into Harvard PhD, without racial preferences. I always suspected he was out of your league, but you were kind enough to prove to for the whole world. Don't mess with the bull unless you want the horns. Stick to sliding in factually incorrect and dishonest one liners on the way to commercial breaks before literate people have the opportunity to respond.
"Cash and Co. seem to have no notion of the fact that I am a thinking person with a memory."
You're not their target audience. Folks who have neither (e.g. Durham voters and professional journalists) are.
"At what point did the little boy cry wolf too many times to be believed?"
When his donations started to dry up. Hasn't happened yet.
Thanks KC!
The shame here is what Cash and his leaders have wasted.
This case could have been perfect for them to illustrate the misconduct of the law and prosecutors that is much more common than the public admits. The media would have followed them on all the stories they could have told about those convicted wrongly.
The added problems they'll see in the way of waste will be the local budget cuts brought about by the settlement that will take place at some point. The cuts will be felt in the poorest areas of Durham the hardest. If they'd have stood up simply for what is right, the pressure in the media or the election could have eliminated that problem.
Now that they've missed the boat, they're out there whining. They have accomplished nothing beyond that whining and helping Mike Nifong to get elected since this case started.
Thanks so much for the work you did to call attention to this sickening mess.
I've heard that for a modest "tuition surcharge," Duke now offers protection against defamation by faculty. That's right: you pay the optional surcharge and your name goes on a list of students faculty is forbidden to publicly judge before a trial has taken place.
Reasonable, right?
Post a Comment