Tuesday, September 11, 2007

On the Schedule


I'll be speaking tonight at Duke, 7pm, Page Auditorium; Q&A session to follow; copies of the book will be for sale.

The N&O previews the speech; here is the response of John Burness to the book:
While we disagree with many of its conclusions, it's not going to serve any good purpose to engage in a point by point rebuttal. It's one interpretation of the history of the past two years. There have been other interpretations, and we assume there will be more.

This line is similar to the reaction in Newsweek, where Burness said, “This book provides one interpretation.” That Duke cannot offer any specific criticisms of the book is revealing.

At noon today, Stuart Taylor will be speaking at the Cato Institute; C-SPAN will cover.

Finally, comments will be slow to appear on the blog today, since I'll be traveling a good portion of the day.


Anonymous said...

Duke’s Educational Adventures 2008. I’ll bet!

On August 3-9, The Lazy L&B Wyoming Dude Ranch is a “destination for the entire family” with fishing, crafts, riflery, picnic lunches, a hot tub …and informative lectures, and evenings by the campfire. Your Duke faculty host?

Sarah “Sally” Deutsch, professor of history and dean of social sciences.

From $1,500.00 per person plus airfare, doesn’t that sound fun? Spending evenings around the fire or in the hot tub with professor Deutsch discussing the Duke rape hoax?

Instead one may spend from $4,999 plus airfare, traveling China with Robert Litzinger, associate professor, department for cultural anthropology. Imagine strolling atop the Great Wall discussing the uniquely American concept of innocence until proven guilty.

A really fun trip for $6,595 per person plus airfare appears to be the tour of the historic cities of the sea, from Seville to Malta with associate professor of Romance languages Roberto Dainotto a signor of the clarifying statement. As you cruise the Mediterranean and Adriatic seas one could sip cocktails and ask him who authorized departmental support for both the Listening and Clarifying statements.

If you’re a real thrill seeker you might consider one of the other tours where the brochure doesn’t name the Duke Faculty host. One might hit it big and join Holloway, Lubiano, Farred, Glymph, Baker, or Allison.

Anonymous said...

Best of luck tonight! I hope the angries are on their best behavior. Since I can't be there, I have a question that I would have asked at the lecture if the opportunity arose: In what sense do you view the 88 as on the "fringe" of the Duke faculty? Hope you have time to repsond.

Anonymous said...

nj, np, When will you cyber stalkers get a life? I'd go on the Duke trip just to make sure it made & to give people like you a hint: find something useful to do with your time.

Your moniker is correct: you want neither peace nor justice.

Anonymous said...

A little transparency never hurt anyone, does it? What about honesty and accountability?

One wonders if those attending know anything at all about their tour guides?

Anonymous said...

By the way it is important to note that it is Justice, then Peace. One begets the other.

Words and there ordering have meaning.

Anonymous said...


My sense is that the talk at Duke will be very popular, and that there are a lot of professors who are going to be walking about in a total snit today and tomorrow.

As for Burness, I have NO idea as to what he is saying. Here is someone who was a snake behind the scenes, and that is being charitable.

Anonymous said...

Now that the official Durham settlement offer "blowback" is underway, this reveals little more than the obvious--any change to business-as-usual attitude in the plantation they call Durham will require a literal jackhammer.

So help me, I truly hope and pray the Durham morons are actually stupid enough to reject the *generous* $30M settlement offer. Watching these clowns under oath having to confront the truth and take some accountability jammed down their collective throats for once would help me get through the winter months. I can't *wait* for a trial as it will be a spectacle for the ages.

Anonymous said...

JP(No! I don't want any! I want to bother people!)--

Does it ever occur to you that people do NOT care? After reading some of the postings here, I am losing sympathy for the LAXers, because they haven't told KCJ stop it already and disassociated themselves with some of the absolute rot that is posted.

Anonymous said...

To 7:30:

Why does it matter to you that Professor Dainotto is Italian & why have you chosen the courtesy title (signor)? Why not extend courtesy titles to the other faculty you mention?

Anonymous said...

Good luck on your travels & keep safe.

Anonymous said...

Burness job is not to have a brain, it's to be Brodhead's mouthpiece. In this case, he's doing his job. If the board grows a backbone and sends Brodhead packing, and if Burness retains his position, he will say (or not say) whatever his new boss tells him to.

For all we know, Burness may have once had a functioning brain. If so, he must be miserable now. Too bad.

Anonymous said...

Burness et.al. cannot provide any alternative explanation (at least one that makes them look like anything other than pond scum)...therefore he goes for the ever popular "no good purpose" escape valve. We always knew they were wimps, everytime the man opens his mouth the wimpdom of Duke's leadership shines through. BTW what are the "other interpreations" out there?


Anonymous said...

bill anderson said...
"there are a lot of professors who are going to be walking about in a total snit today and tomorrow."

I hope the effect lasts longer than that!

Anonymous said...

inre: "...one interpretation..."

Maybe Mr. Burness is alluding to the honest interpretation.

Anonymous said...

Inre: "...cyber stalking..."

I should point out that I have and will not likely ever have direct contact with any in the Klan of 88. I've never published a letter to the editor or an opinion piece in any MSM publication. I've never lied by commission or omission while attempting to send three innocent young men to prison for thirty years, grade-retaliated, or misled the public after facts were known. I've never been paid or been charged with educating anyone. I've never encouraged violence or intentionally race-baited anyone.

So, am I more or less of a stalker than the Klan of 88 and their abettors whose actions and inaction will "stalk" innocent people for their lifetimes?

You may be interested to know that "Dave Evans Duke" returns 2,070,000 hits this morning on a Google search.

Would this make me less or more of a stalker than the Klan of 88 members?

I wish I was able to attend tonight.

Anonymous said...

Barry Saunders of the N&O seems to be trying out for the G88. He has the condescending ad hominem attack part down pretty well.
Barry Saunders

Anonymous said...

"Words and there ordering have meaning."


Anonymous said...

wondering if the settlement between Duke and the innocent players will keep the 88, and possibly all, Duke faculty and staff from offering their opinions this evening at Page.

hope not, wouldn't want to be denied the clown act of the Wonderland Circus.

Shaddee, Nartley and Sam Humjob aren't covered by the agreement, so there is still some hope!

Tim Murray said...

Can't wait to hear how you're received at Duke. They should be on their hands and knees with gratitude that an outsider played such an important role in righting the many wrongs of Durham.

Anonymous said...

the link in my post of 9:12 is broken. sorry for any inconvenience. here is the article:


Anonymous said...

Sorry, I gave the wrong site. Trying again:


Anonymous said...

KC -

Good luck tonight!

I suspect the 88ers will stay well away.

I offer the following "Leno-esque" reasons for my above prediction:

- They will not be in a position to control proceedings, including recordings,

- They know you are the master of the material and, hence, likely to rebut them painfully and publicly,

- Anything they might say or instigate could and proabably would be used against them,

- Anything that was particularly ripe would appear in hours on your blog and elsewhere on the net,

- Anything reallllly good might be showcased in your sequel book,

- They're fearful of you because you have published more than most of them have, especially in the last ten years, and the top reason,

- You're a lawyer!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9/11/07 8:15 AM said, with no apparent consciousness of the irony inherent in his so doing:
"Does it ever occur to you that people do NOT care? "

Anonymous said...

"The book, also written by Stuart Taylor, a columnist for the National Journal, has received mixed reviews on a campus that spent the past 16 months battling fallout from the Duke lacrosse case."

Yeah, I hear Upton Sinclair's The Jungle received mixed reviews from the meat-packing industry, too.

Anonymous said...

8:15 --

"I am losing sympathy for the LAXers, because they haven't told KCJ stop it already and disassociated themselves with some of the absolute rot that is posted."

So, in your head, it is the obligation of any person who has become a public figure, willingly or not, to monitor any prominent blog which discusses the events that made them unwillingly public figures, and to assume responsibility for those bloggers?

What a fascinating interpretation of the world you have. I am sure that the lacrosse players are simply weeping tears in their cereal that such a clear-thinking individual with such a realistic paradigm is withdrawing his/her so-meaningful sympathy. I guess the players are going on your blacklist -- where they will join Jodie Foster, who apparently didn't exercise sufficient control over John Hinckley Jr.

Anonymous said...

inre the Burness comments…

What he is saying is something akin to: “It depends on what version of the truth you believe.”

Anonymous said...

Burness should write a book with his interpretation. Then we can put it side-by-side with UPI and decide which comes closer to the truth.

Come on, Burness, do your part to get the official Duke side of the story out on the table. Their silence since April 11th is deafening.

Oh, I forgot for a moment there. Duke paid several million $ for the opportunity not to be indecently exposed.

Anonymous said...

KC, although Burness has indicated that, "it's not going to serve any good purpose to engage in a point by point rebuttal," I hope that tonight you will encourage Duke to do precisely that. In fact, you might offer to publish their rebuttal in DIW, along with your own response.

Ironically, the position of some of the enablers at Duke has gone from "Don't dare to say anything against us" (Shut Up and Teach) to "Now we don't dare say anything" (since it would just make us look even more foolish).

Good luck with your talk.

Anonymous said...

Here is the URL for the live feed of Stuart Taylor's talk at Cato:


Is tonight's talk at Duke going to be on the web, either live or after the fact?

Anonymous said...

As far as I can tell, there is very little advertisement for this event by any group on campus. There is absolutely nothing in today's Chronicle.

There will probably be a lot of people there from Durham, but perhaps not Duke.

Unknown said...

If my son, a new freshman there, is any indication, you should get a good reception there. He's hoping he has time to go.

Anonymous said...

8:15 AM

So if you don't like this blog, and have such disdain for the participants, why do you show up here?

There is a search for TRUTH here. If you don't like that, go to a place where they enjoy SPIN.

Anonymous said...

KC - would you be live blogging the event at the Page for us? :)

One Spook said...


Here is the link:

Barry Saunders

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to seeing the video of your time with Duke! I predict the crazies will stay home. They attack only the weak. And you are not weak! I'm sure you will enjoy yourself. I wish I could be there!

Anonymous said...

Inre; 9:13, "Words and there ordering have meaning."

Hey, I'm a product of my environment...

My editor was too busy creating a race-based meta-narrative to catch my error...

We are not paid professionals...

We're busy developing a spell-check feature for Blogger...

I coulda been a contender, but I wasted time learning about transgendered Mayans, instead of grammar...

Regardless, I'm glad I generated a chuckle...

Anonymous said...

I am a local resident(work in Raleigh and live nearby)and have been obsessed with the case since the beginning.

I remember in the very early days of the case seeing John Burness being interviewed on a local news station by a male reporter. The interview was being conducted outdoors on the Duke campus and Burness was talking about how tumultuous things were on the campus. Toward the end he said "these are good kids" and broke down in tears.

At the time I thought it was a bit unprofessional but at the same time I was glad to hear someone from Duke stick up for these guys. My question is how did he go from weeping on camera to undermining the players at every opportunity?

Does anyone else local(calling Debrah)recall seeing the same interview? Sorry, don't know which news station aired it.

Anonymous said...

KX - Whats with the book distribution? Is the problem being solved by the publisher and Book Sellers?

Anonymous said...

Dear Professor Johnson,

I am writing to say that I think most your work in exposing the juducial misconduct surrounding this case has been meticulous and honorable. I have been deeply disturbed by the procedural wrongdoing in this case (among others in this nation's history) and the harm it did to individuals who were not guilty of the crimes of which they were accused.

I am an individual you have blogged a fair bit about and would also like to say that the action you described me participating in was incorrectly described by a reporter. I am working to have this error fixed because it has caused me distress to know that my name is been dragged in mud because of something I didn't do.

I have always believed that the presumption of innocence is a FUNDAMENTAL tenet of this country. In fact, I made this statement prior to ALL public statements I made. However, at the time of this tragedy on Duke's campus, the media was only interested in tweaking the words of all students so that they would FURTHER the momentary national sentiment/media current. I have learned some lessons from this incident that I will carry on in my work forever.

Anonymous said...

Hope you'll wear the Duke Bow Tie I sent you this summer!


Anonymous said...

Re 2:27

Chan Hall ?
Serena Sebring?
Polanski hoax?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Wow, Barry Saunders really is hateful. Check out the first two paragraphs:

"Only a heartless misanthrope would argue against giving something to the dear, sweet former Duke lacrosse players who have been through such an ordeal. Why, I think one of them even spent an hour in custody -- not in jail, but waiting for a magistrate to finish his lunch so daddykins could post bail."

Very professional of Saunders to use the technical term "daddykins". Really emphasizes that he's thinking about the issue involved, and not just how to viciously slant coverage to fit the stereotypes in his head.

Anonymous said...

Sent to Barry Saunders this day:

I read your column today and I think you may have missed a central aspect to the threatened lawsuit.

First of all, your column pretty much admits Durham's guilt and consequential legal vulnerability.

The key element that you seem to have missed is that the 3 -through their lawyers - have offered Durham decision-makers a choice.

The choice is for Durham to endure the public scrutiny (and risks) that a public trial and its associated discovery processes would entail, or to pay out such a large sum that the results would be sufficiently painful that voters might demand accountability.

The risks that I noted parenthetically above include greater than $30M awards, criminal sanctions, and mandated federal remedies and/or oversight. Nifong's criminal guilty verdict does not bode well for Durham's trial prospects.

Even your paper and you personally might not be without risk in such legal proceedings.

In any case, the 3 - through their lawyers - have offered Durham a choice: $30M now, or face the public exposure of all the facts that the proper and robust use of US legal processes will entail. If Durham has nothing to hide, then Durham has nothing at risk. After all, it's not like Durham might be put in jail for 30 years for something that Durham did not do.

Anonymous said...

2:27 PM - would it be asking too much for you to reveal your real name?

An accusation of unfair labeling by KC Johnson and an anonymous mea culpa is worthless otherwise.

Anonymous said...

It's simple really. Duke has no defense. They acted solely on politics and self-interest rather than doing what was best for their students. They helped further ignite the flames.

Anonymous said...

Assuming Anon at 2:27 is not a hoax in writing: "I am an individual you have blogged a fair bit about and would also like to say that the action you described me participating in was incorrectly described by a reporter. I am working to have this error fixed . . ."

As this blog has existed for over a year and you have not given any temporal description of your actions, has the "error" you vaguely referenced been corrected? How long have you been "working" on having this "error" fixed? As you noted, "most [of Prof. Johnson's] work in exposing the juducial [sic] misconduct surrounding this case has been meticulous . . . ". If the "error" you allege had been corrected, I suspect he would have likely reported the same. Did you try a letter to the editor of the paper that made the erroneous report? If your "name [has] been dragged in mud because of something [you]didn't do", you must feel some of the same emotions of the falsely accused players, though, without the threat of incarceration.

Anonymous said...

"However, at the time of this tragedy on Duke's campus..." you mean the lack of due process and critical thinking, right?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Well,who's to say who's actually right about anything?There is no way to believe someone who has spent thousands of hours researching and writing may have a more valued opinion than anyone else.Is there?
Some weeks ago,you had a brief slogan contest-and I submitted,"Reality-what a concept."
This is a hoped for miasma alnog those lins.Good luck and your work has aided these young men greatly.
Colin Elliott

Anonymous said...

2:27 writes: "I have learned some lessons from this incident that I will carry on in my work forever."

Good, then why don't you "carry on in your work" by pulling out your checkbook and writing your beloved City of Durham a personal check for $30M and salve your guilt?

Nice try, moron. You've elided by personal accountability for far too long. Why don't you actually do something useful instead of more self-indulgent whining. Grow some.

Anonymous said...

10:55 TRUTH???? Posters here are looking to fashion DATA to fit their own, often, twisted view of the world. Far from the basics of the case.

Anonymous said...

Heard you were over at the NandO today, K.C.

Hope you said "hey" to Mini-Cash Saunders while you were there!

Anonymous said...


The only avenue for the ilk of the 88 tonight would be to try to shout you down. They are not enablers of due process and fairness. Then the Sun Herald would report that they were "engaging in debate."

Maybe they will re-display the "castrate" signs.

In any event, have fun, keep the faith (so to speak), and watch your privates! :)

Resolve that: "The truth has this funny way of finding the light of day." (David Caruso, CSI Miami)


Anonymous said...

Only the settlement will be keeping 4:18 from attending tonight!

It's actually a restraining order for "lesser academics"

One Spook said...

The 2:27 posting should have everyone's "B.S. Meter" pegged in the Red zone. It sounds a lot like the fake letter from Professor Ho.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

To the 4:18 - An untwisted, fact-based view says that three boys could have spent 30 years in jail for something they did not do. Contrasted to the more recent Duke rape case (no demonstrations, no need to discuss the "larger" issues, no ads, no statements by the president, etc), the three's harassment and possible fate was enabled by some faculty, NAACP, and other organizations, and others - because they are white males. The DA (going for the black vote) sensationalized the case and played to some apparently pretty strong bias in Durham; the Duke administration showed clear duplicty; there was grade-retaliation, etc. All the lofty principles that the aforementioned instigators "stood for" did not apply in this case because the accused were not of the right gender, race, or socio-economic class AND some of them still defend the indefensible. If they are ready to apologize and/or have real dialogue in a fact-based sense, then let's get on with it. Unitil then, it is not over. Not because of KC's blog, but because of the afore-mentioned's lack of "getting it" (justice, due process, equal treatment, sense of ethics from the faculty and administration). It appears not to fit their stereotypes and generalizations, which is the foundation of bigotry - whether in Birmingham in the 50's or in Duke/Durham today.

It's a good thing that MLK didn't just "move forward."


Anonymous said...

Re: Barry Saunders

I often enjoy Barry's columns, without taking him too seriously, but make no mistake about his bias in this matter: In one of his earlier comments about the case, he made the flat-out statement, which I quote verbatim:

"I hate Duke."

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

From abb on FR:

Durham DA appointment may violate law

Anonymous said...

Forensic Talk has an interesting article about Nifong and "a certain nurse."

Dukex4 said...

no justice,no peace--
thanks for the heads up on what surprises await many who pay thousands to go on Duke-sponsored trips - up close and personal time with angry, intellectually dishonest faculty. I laughed out loud at your post - Deutsch on a dude ranch was priceless. Aren't cowboys the enemy in her world? And what about those horses...aren't they the instrument of domination of the serfs! Frankly, given that the 88ers hate privilege, why would they want to go and spend their time with a bunch of privileged people doing something so privileged as being on vacation--maybe they just hate privilege when they don't get a cushy trip out of the deal....

Gary Packwood said...


Best of luck tonight.

Since the G88 will no doubt be missing in action, I will e-mail Letterman in a moment and ask him to dedicate one of his 'Old Turkey Buzzard Flying High' tunes tonight in honor of the G88 and their buddies on campus and in honor of those members of the Duke lacrosse team who joined Dan to watch Letterman rather than watch old Turkey Buzzard Precious, bless her heart....Flying High.

Gary Packwood said...

no justice, no peace 7:30 AM said...

...Duke’s Educational Adventures 2008. I’ll bet!
The up side of all of these trips is that the G88 faculty will not be lurking around Durham with their Durmanite friends harming Duke undergraduate students.

Anonymous said...

Ed at 5:03 couldn't have said it better. No more pretending. Until those who did wrong in this case (all those he mentioned) are prepared to apologize and admit real facts about the Duke case, about rape statistics, etc., there is nothing to discuss and no way to "move forward." So....for now, let the actual, very real, concrete lawsuits against Durham continue, and let the Duke 3's lawyers set the DPD reforms going.

Anonymous said...

When someone posts as "anomymous" and then starts complaining about his reputation you know either this is pure trollery or hopeless stupidity.

Anonymous said...

Another obvious use of the "something happened" delusion. I guess not everyone has the persistence to follow KC Johnson's lead.

Duke1965 said...


I agree that some of the posters here are obviously advancing their own agenda, whether "twisted" or otherwise............ such is the nature of blogs that allow comments. However, it is foolish, I think, to dismiss this blog because of the existence of silly comments........... KC's work is important, and some of the comments "get it" in a very profound way, as do most Duke students. For an excellent, inciteful comment on this blog, take a look at the posting by Ed @ 5:03.............. that post says it all. To paraphrase one of the Bill Clinton's campaign slogans, "It's about fairness for all people, stupid!"

There's a very wierd reasoning which has become apparent in this case: "don't worry about fairness for rich white kids, they've got their fancy lawyers, and their "daddykins" to buy them out of trouble". If this case illustrates anything, it's that the government is potentially far more powerful than all the money and fancy attorneys in the world.... just ask Martha Stewart, or (RIP) Leona (the Queen of Mean) Helmsley (or Al Capone, for that matter) if money, power and fancy attorneys can buy them out of trouble. Given the potential power of Government, disadvantaged people don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting justice if the "wrong" people gain political power. In the end, justice should be a constant for all people, not just for the group that holds political power at the moment. The larger meaning of this case may well have nothing to do with race, class or gender, but with abuse of government power.

Anonymous said...

OK, I guess we won't be able to tune in to the talk from out here in WWW-land. Hope someone is taking good notes and posts them afterward!

Anonymous said...

So...can anyone tell me if Nifong's misdeeds cost him one cent in retirement pay?

Anonymous said...

Barry Saunders seems to feel the falsely accused and wrongfully indicted suffered nothing worse than missing "the season finale of Friends." He points out they never went to jail and juxtaposes their situation with that of an unfortunate man who spent 18 years in jail. Saunders is an idiot. Does he not realize that these young men likely would have received serious jail time if not for their excellent team of attorneys? Does he really think that excellent team of attorneys worked for free? Does he not realize that unfortunate man he mentions most likely didn't have an excellent team of attorneys when he was convicted? Does he not realize that if Durham is not held accountable more innocent people who cannot afford excellent teams of attorneys will serve heavy jail time? Forcing the city to pay the very real damages (those families really did shell out millions to defend these men) for its prosecution's misconduct is probably the best way to inspire it to reform its ways.

Stuart McGeady said...

Stuart Taylor's riveting remarks about the case are on video at the Cato Institute's website:


Victoria Toensing also provides commentary, highlighted by her visibly empathic recollection of the beginning of Brad Bannon's examination of Brian Meehan on December 15, 2006.

Finally there is a terrific question and answer session with Stuart hitting home runs, one after another.

I believe I spotted Robert Novak sitting near the front row, listening carefully to every word.

Anonymous said...

Re: 2:27- Chauncey Nartey???

Anonymous said...

One Spook 12:52

Thank you very much for fixing the Barry Sanders link. I appreciate your kindness.

Anonymous said...

Can the 88'ers resist showing up tonight? I bet they send their useful idiots as defaults. For cheap shot lefties like themselves, it is what they do. Watch for some pathetic gaggle of student gigglers and distractors, paid for by hard working serious parents, to position their misplaced indignation at KCJ.

When are parents going to wise up, close their wallets, and remove their kids from the rot that infects Duke? Or any other notorious campus? The Group of 88 are a symptom of the rot infecting campuses.

Debrah said...


Just got home from Duke.

I will give all the details a bit later.

Just a little fun tidbit:

When I came walking into the lobby of Page, I ran right into Stephen Miller. I love him!

He flew in from L.A. just to be there to introduce KC and hear the talk.

After having a little chat, he got me a ticket right beside the camera. Mike from Duke Media Services, who taped KC's entire appearance was so much fun.

He let me use his earphones when I wanted and also view the stage through his lens.

Such Diva madness!

I felt as though I was in Film101 again.

When they get the video up and running, my voice will be the one yelling at the end:

((((((((((((((() Thanks, KC! We love you! (((((((((((((((()

Mike assured me that it would be on the audio.

I might have yelled on the tape once before......have to check it out.

There were a few good questions from the audience during that session....and a few doughnut-type questions.

KC answered them respectfully.

Anonymous said...

KC was wonderful tonight -- received a standing ovation at the completion of his talk then entertained 45 minutes of questions. If any of the 88 were in attendence, they were very (very) quiet.

Thank you KC for everything.

Anonymous said...

I was at KC's event at Duke tonight. It was as dumb and stupid in person as it is on this blog and in the book. KC distorts, misrrepresents, and out and out lies. I'm glad the folks down here got a chance to see and here for themselves. What a flop!

Anonymous said...

You folk are sad. Get over it, Duke has moved on, whether you want it to or not. Alleva has been reappointed, the university is raking in more doe than ever, the number of admissions applications is as high as ever, Brodhead will be reappointed, there have been no sanctions against any faculty members and won't be, Roy Weintraub has be outed as a fraud and a fool, and KC was a big dud tonight. I counted only 119 people in the auditorium. You could have held this side show in Houston Baker's living room!

KC, are you still sensoring the negative comments and only letting youe little minions post here?

Anonymous said...

KC, I heard your talk tonight. Are you sure that you area professor? Damn man, your performance may knock Britney Spears out of the news. I'm glad that the folk at Duke got to see this in person. Weak, weak, weak. Perhaps you should let Taylor be the front man.

Michael said...

UPI at the Cato Institute is online. They have the mp3 online in addition to a few other formats. Nice backgrounder on Taylor.

Debrah said...

BTW....the Clarence Page column from the Chicago Tribune which we discussed here was printed in the N&O today...and smack in the middle was Mikey's mugshot.


Anonymous said...

Rumor has it that you blamed Levicy, as one of three, again tonight for the event. As the NCBON iniated no discipline action, despite complaints from non nurse bloggers. Kathleen states in her Forensic Talk blog that "She did not complain to the Nursing Board." The NHBON issued her a license which is under no cloud, your claim can not be true. Levicy's governing boards do not agree with you that she did anything wrong. You are incorrect on this one and Kingsbury made up a story.

Anonymous said...

The City of Durham joined into a tacit agreement to lynch innocent people for racio-political reasons. That must be deterred and punished. My suggestion: $5.00 for every google hit on the names "Reade Seligmann," "Dave (or David) Evans" and "Collin Finnerty."

To punish a wrongdoer with a monetary sanction, one must make sure the sanction stings. The budget adopted by Durham in fiscal year 2005-06 called for a total general fund of $176,000,000.00.

Of that general fund, Public Protection took $61,000,000.00. Community Service and Development had a $49,000,000.00 slice of the pie. Administrative and Support Services had $29,000,000.00, and Governance another $7,500,000.00.

There was a fifth category of funds, which the City of Durham called "Non-Assigned." That amount was $29,100,000.00. Is it a coincidence that $30,000,000.00 is the current settlement demand? I think that fund should be re-named the "Duke Lacrosse Plaintiffs' Fund."

For those unaware, Liestopper poster Dtownres has posted K.C.'s appearance at Duke at Liestoppers.blogspot.com.

Every fortune cookie K.C. has ever cracked open reads: "You tell me." Jay Leno, Sept. 11, 2007.

"K.C. Johnson's Zodiac sign is the Thermonuclear Bomb." Entertainment Tonight. MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

To all of you humorous detractors above: I believe you to be some of the pathetic Gritty Gang of 88 members who were too cowardly to show up tonight.

What the matter?

Afraid the next time you guys stage a ghetto-esque démarche against your own students, the spool-headed, rhymin' little peewee Brodhead won't be there to bail you out?

Anonymous said...

To 11:45
If what you say about Levicy is correct, she should have no trouble finding work as a SANE nurse in the future. Likewise, lawyers for the defense will be unable to impugn her credibility.
Indeed, if you are right, she has nothing to worry about.

Anonymous said...

The G88 skipped the talk but seem to be posting here to make up for it!

BTW, Durham is going to pay the $30M -- because the people making the call know there is a real risk of a much higher award and because they and their allies would be exposed as more than complicit, to the extent that a criminal investigation would be inescapable. Besides, it is not their money and the voters are not going to hold them responsible -- they will even try to use the settlement as an issue to inflame things and swindle voters into keeping them in power. Perhaps enough voters will have had their eyes opened to effect a real positive change...

The G88 have been exposed as first-order hypocrits and, for the most part, academic frauds. Further, the very causes they sought to advance have been set back by their thoughtless actions. Many people who may have been somewhat sympathetic, or at least willing to leave them alone in their domain, even as they worked to expand it, are now considerably wiser and will not be so easily fooled in the future...

Nofing, Will-sin, Goatleeb, and others may be the target of a final suit, unless Durham covers for them in the settlement (expect it to seek to do so). However, once a settlement is signed, there is a good chance more of these may be unemployed. At the least, they and others of their ilk will be less likely to attempt a frame or run roughshod over the rights of students like my son, at least for a time...

Debrah said...

TO Gregory--

You need to find out what KC's is....as in zodiac.

Anonymous said...

She will find work alright - probably already has. I hope she has quit the SANE gig - it is a nothing deal. Lawyeres impugn her credibility - well, no law suits, no lose of license, no censure from her governing bodies. What are they going to challange her credibility on? BTW, all the SANE testifies to is he/she collected the samples and did the QA. Not much to impugn there. The hearsay information attributed her by non medical bloggers? I don't think so. How come Nifong forgot to say "Levicy made him do it?" If this statement was good enough for the Duffer - why not Nifong?
Even Kathleen is backing down. Check her blog.

Anonymous said...

Also, the disgrace is going to cost Durham more than $30M in terms of lost growth. Who would move into an area where there is such bad government and so many voters who choose it? What business is going to locate in Durham? Look at at $30M settlement as a way to staunch this flow by keeping the horrors of this case out of open court and off of the national stage...

Debrah said...

A camera crew was there from the local ABC affiliate--WTVD11--as well.

And some Duke students were taking lots of photos. Perhaps for the Chronicle.

Didn't see anyone from the H-S......but I might have been too busy and just missed them.


Anonymous said...

jim2 said...
KC -

Good luck tonight!

I suspect the 88ers will stay well away.

I offer the following "Leno-esque" reasons for my above prediction:


- You're a lawyer!

9/11/07 9:40 AM

He's not, but I am, and calling him one may be actionable libel :)

Anonymous said...

Great riposte:

Anonymous said...
"The book, also written by Stuart Taylor, a columnist for the National Journal, has received mixed reviews on a campus that spent the past 16 months battling fallout from the Duke lacrosse case."

Yeah, I hear Upton Sinclair's The Jungle received mixed reviews from the meat-packing industry, too.

9/11/07 9:55 AM

Anonymous said...

I am pretty much a centrist/middle of the road person. The so called swing voter that both sides go after.

But I have to ask: is the left as delusional as they act? There must be more liars, antisemitics, and plain fools on the left as anywhere on earth.

Anonymous said...

To 1:06
I too hope Levicy quits the SANE gig. I suppose it is a "nothing deal", unless you are a victim of a real sexual assault who needs a competent advocate for justice in your case.
In the end, it does not matter whether you defend her or not. Too much is on the record. Google is your real nemesis.

Anonymous said...

H/S was there -- Bill West and Ray Gronberg. Someone said Burness was there -- didn't see Brodhead tho.

Debrah said...

Stu Daddy opines:

Finally there is a terrific question and answer session with Stuart hitting home runs, one after another.

I wish I had been able to see that.

Today was too busy....Had to get things done before going to see KC at Duke.

Wish you could have been there. KC has such a great speaking voice.

Very succinct and clear...which is great for someone lecturing.

Actors and entertainers can get by with little quirks and affectation, but for KC's purposes, he has a great speaking voice.

And he speaks off the top of his head. Not bogged down with notes like a lot of others.

Debrah said...

TO 1:33PM--

You know what?

I am so glad to know that....really.

I called their newsroom twice to tell them about it and didn't use my name. At that time, no one had any idea that the Duke engagement was on.

They have cut their staff to the bone, apparently.

Perhaps I should use that strategy more often.


Debrah said...

I was looking for the Santa from New England, but didn't see him.

KC made some stunning points about his role in this case....(Chafe).

Anonymous said...

"What a flop!"

Hence, the standing O.

Debrah said...

The entire Triangle area has been in a 90's to sometimes 100 degree heatwave for weeks now.

Tomorrow is supposed to usher in cooler and more seasonal temps.

It was very hot out tonight, and when I was walking around Duke Chapel....then going to one of the dining halls to get a Coke....the grass, like all places here at this moment, was almost brown.

Quite a contrast from the always-lush landscaping of the campus.

And....you look at those old gothic structures and imagine how so many of those 88 mental midgets have tried to transpose all that strength and earned significance onto themselves. LOL!!!

Then you cringe at such a thought....if you are a Diva.......thirsty in the throes of the heatwave, and waiting for the Midnight Rider to take the stage.


Debrah said...

TO 1:33AM--

Here's what the H-S has for today from KC's appearance: (Go, Stephen Miller !!!)

Lacrosse case critic blasts Nifong

BY WILLIAM F. WEST : The Herald-Sun
Sep 12, 2007 : 1:17 am ET

DURHAM -- The New York professor and Internet blogger known for his tracking of the Duke lacrosse case has co-authored a book that he calls "the story of the highest profile case of prosecutorial misconduct in American history that unfolded before our very eyes ... ."

KC Johnson added that "critical groups -- the media, the academy, civil rights groups -- not only did not stand up against this injustice, but basically cheered it along."

Johnson was at Duke University's Page Auditorium on Tuesday to speak and sign copies of the book, "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case."

He said the book has sold at least 13,000 copies since becoming available this month.

Johnson is a professor at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York Graduate Center, and his blog -- or Internet bulletin board -- is titled "Durham-in-Wonderland." Johnson wrote the book with Stuart Taylor, a nationally known legal journalist.

Johnson, 39, said his interest in the case resulted from a faction of Duke professors -- known as the "Group of 88" -- taking out an ad in the university's student newspaper, The Chronicle, that many felt convicted the lacrosse players in the public eye.

The group maintains it didn't rush to judgment.

"It is unheard of," Johnson said of the ad. "I mean, I can never remember an instance really in the history of American higher education where you saw faculty behave in that fashion."

The case exploded onto the national scene after an exotic dancer falsely claimed she was raped after being hired to perform at a March 2006 party at a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., next to Duke's East Campus.

Three players -- David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann -- were wrongly indicted for kidnapping, rape and sexual offense after then-District Attorney Mike Nifong had made several inflammatory statements about the case.

One of Nifong's proclamations was that he wasn't going to let Durham become known for "a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl."

Nifong, elevated from chief assistant district attorney in spring of 2005, was in the midst of an intense election campaign for a full term in 2006.

Johnson said one of the most shocking moments was reports prior to the May 2006 primary showing Seligmann with a solid alibi. It included video tape of Seligmann getting money from an automatic teller machine at the time the rape was allegedly occurring at Buchanan Boulevard.

"Naively, I assumed that that would be just a killer for Nifong, that there's no way anyone could go to the polls and vote for a guy that they were able to see had indicted a demonstrably innocent person," Johnson said.

During a Sept. 22 Superior Court hearing, Nifong told the presiding judge, Osmond Smith, that he had provided all his information to the defense, including a May 2006 DNA report by Nifong-hired expert Brian Meehan. The defense on Dec. 13 filed a motion calling for a full disclosure of exculpatory evidence.

The defense, at a court hearing two days later, scored a huge hit to Nifong when Meehan admitted that the May 2006 report failed to include positive DNA matches from unidentified men who had had sexual contact with the accuser.

Johnson recalled the courtroom scene as "The Perry Mason moment," a reference to the iconic television drama starring Raymond Burr.

Shortly before Christmas, the accuser changed her story and Nifong dropped the rape accusations, though he let kidnapping and sexual offense charges stand. Nifong in January turned the case over to state Attorney General Roy Cooper, who in April declared Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann innocent and blasted Nifong and his prosecution of the case.

In June, a disciplinary tribunal disbarred Nifong for numerous ethics violations. On Aug. 31, Smith found Nifong guilty of contempt for misleading the court about the DNA data. Nifong last week served a 24-hour sentence in the Durham County Jail.

Johnson's supporters include Stephen Miller, who was executive director of the Duke Conservative Union while a student and who, early in the case, pleaded on national television for a presumption of innocence.

Miller said he believes people who read the book will "learn about the dangers of having a prosecutor that is given carte blanche to run roughshod over peoples' rights and just how essential due process is in this country.

"The second thing is that they learn how political agendas were responsible for allowing -- and even propelling -- what happened. This was not something that occurred in isolation. It came out of very virulent and aggressive political and social agendas that we saw from our own professors at Duke," including in the African-American and women's studies departments, Miller said.

Anonymous said...

hman said...
To 11:45
"If what you say about Levicy is correct, she should have no trouble finding work as a SANE nurse in the future... [etc.]."

Exactly. I'm quite sure that Levicy's work is truely par for the whole insane course. Iow, it fits the non-medical standard of practice which dictates *legal* advocacy for the [a priori] victim at the expense of neutral or balanced fact-finding. Hence, also, the failure to do a tox. screen which would instead involve *medical* advocacy regarding the patient's actual health and wellbeing at the time of the exam.

Conveniently, therefore, the future defense can never get an equivalent opportunity.

Those are the standards of practice now obtaining. So Levicy should be in the clear, at least as far as her advocacy exam goes.

But why does the E.R. itself function according to this unmedical standard, again, assuming no tox screen was done?


Anonymous said...

the city is going to fight. The local papers are full of articles about the outrageousness of the settlement request. They are going to have to go before a jury and get their money. They have made a pr mistake. Even some of their supporters are re-thinking after this demand.

Anonymous said...

Kc, your talk was poorly attended tonight at Page. You were not charismatic and you need to drop the bow tie. Maybe now that you sae the lack of interest the people in Durham have for what you have to say you will realise the the people who blog here do not represent Durham and like yourself, are out of touch with what is going on down here. I will tell you the latest trend: like Barry Sanders, a lot of people are now getting angry about this $30 million bit and are spoiling for a fight and even if the City eventually loses, it is not going to be as easy as the Duke 3 and their supporters here think it is.

Anonymous said...

"BTW, Durham is going to pay the $30M"

Not so sure. The lawyers cleverly set up their settlement offer so that Durham would have to agree to it before election day. In which case Stith can run on a platform of "You moron! You cost the city $30,000,000!"

I'm sure Bell would love to run out the clock and get reelected, then cave and pay the $30,000,000, and hope that four years will be enough for the people of Durham to "move on" from his expensive mistake.

But he isn't necessarily going to be given that option.

Anonymous said...

As usual, Debrah is wrong. There were at least 9 of th so-called group of 88 present. One even asked a question. I knew KC's scholarship was suspect, but I had know idea that the the guy can't give a comprehensible and intelligent lecture. I agree with the earlier post that suggested the event was a flop.

Debrah said...

"One even asked a question."


That must have been the one when everyone was looking at each other saying: Huh???

You guys were a lot less vocal and rowdy than you were in the Spring 0f 2006.

Stone cold quiet, actually.


Debrah said...

"I agree with the earlier post that suggested the event was a flop."

I was wearing heels last night and almost tripped over a very narrow stairstep myself.

Next time, watch more closely where you are going.

Anonymous said...

"but I had know idea that the the guy can't give a comprehensible and intelligent lecture"

Remarkable how all the postings trying to run KC down have very similar errors: Punctuation, use of homonyms and so on. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, I goofed on the "lawyer" bit. I apologize, KC!

The N&O says "several hundred" were there.

An interesting read:


redcybra said...

the city is going to fight.

Oh, I hope it does. I really, really hope that the case goes to trial and every last thing Nifong and the DPD (and hopefully Duke) did gets aired in the media for weeks and weeks.

The local papers are full of articles about the outrageousness of the settlement request. They are going to have to go before a jury and get their money.

The leaders of Durham have no good options. Either they agree to a settlement, outraging their constituents who have been told that the DPD didn't do anything wrong, or go to trial, airing all the city's dirty laundry in public.

They have made a pr mistake.


Even some of their supporters are re-thinking after this demand.

Maybe. Not me.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9/12/07 7:04 AM said...
"There were at least 9 of the so-called group of 88 present."

Names please? I couldn't make it due to distance, and I'm curious whcih "big names" from the events of last year made it to the talk.

Duke1965 said...

If the case goes to trial in Federal court, it is very unlikely that any of the jurors will be from Durham. Why? They would have a direct conflict of interest as taxpayers, since a verdict for plaintiffs would hit the juror/taxpayers directly in their own wallets.

Anonymous said...

" a lot of people are now getting angry about this $30 million bit and are spoiling for a fight "

Sounds like Durhm.

Circuit City and Walmart better make sure their insurance premiums are paid-up.

Anonymous said...

What a success the event must have been! Otherwise why are the teeth gnashers out screaming that it wasn't?

Wish I could have been there.

I did watch the video on You Tube......thanks for posting it.

KC does have a great speaking voice and content was excellent!

Anonymous said...

the troll that keeps appearing here has, for over a year, been on the boards and blogs telling all kinda lies and rumors. not one has come to pass. ignore the troll.
rejoice that the players' "settlement" offer will bring about changes in Durm, one way or the other.
troll and friends had many a chance to make this ugly situation right along the way and did nothing.
time to reap the whirlwind.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9/12/07 3:47 AM said...
"They have made a pr mistake."

You're making the same mistake Duke made. This isn't about PR anymore. It's about the truth.

Anonymous said...

"like Barry Sanders, a lot of people are now getting angry about this $30 million bit and are spoiling for a fight"


I hope they're also 'spoiling' for an ass-kicking.

Fellow commenters and hooligans, we are blessed almost beyond measure. No matter how this shakes out (settle, DEFEND) we are schedualed for years of watching a magnificent show of bad people getting their comeuppance. There will be whining and gnashing of teeth on an almost unprecedented scale.

Durham and 88ers everywhere will blame us and our ilk, but in all modesty we'll have to tell them that we couldn't have done it without them.

An exquisite entertainment.

Anonymous said...

Stuart Taylor's talk was great!


Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 7:04,

You claim the event was a flop, but give no criteria for how you determine a success from a failure. We have already read KC received a standing ovation. We know nothing about you except you post anonymously and contradict half a dozen other posters.
If your point is to influence readers and have a voice in the conversation, then you are not succeeding. Everyone here assumes you are simply agitating because you disagree with KC's views. Instead of attacking his lecture, why don't you explain where KC is wrong in his research, his finding of facts, or his conclusions. I know this is difficult and takes time. But if you think the issue is really worthwhile, then put in the time. KC has demonstrated par excellence how influential one voice who pursues truth and facts can have as history unfolds. Even as you disagree with his conclusions, his influence has been widely felt. Your anonymous attacks on his message board is spitting in the ocean.

Jack Straw

LarryD said...

"a lot of people are now getting angry about this $30 million bit and are spoiling for a fight"

I hope so. I want Durham (and Duke) to face a fair trial, to turn over all the rocks and expose the vermin underneath. I don't think anything less will result in the badly needed housecleaning.

Anonymous said...

1:29 Most hospitals do the rape kit the "old fashion way" - The Medical Doctor collects the speciments and the RN gets the answers to the QA from the complaint. NO big deal Why KC is fixated on this nurse is a mystery. Even Nifong, has failed give her credit for the event - other than the original "My reading the the nurses report". We know he did not read the report - we know the report was in direct conflict with his statements. Hearsay on the net is not evidence.

Anonymous said...

8:15 Reade did write a letter "thanking everyone and then requested them to "help others." Which was a polite way of saying "Move ON."

Anonymous said...

3:12AM Any of the three Doctors who evaluated Crystal in the five hours could have ordered a Tox Screen. Dr Manly, herself, could have ordered a Tox Screen. Any of the four RNs who helped the Physicians with their care of Crystal could have suggessted a Tox Screen to the Physicians. Doctors do the ordering - not the nurses. But in the view of the rabid bloggers, only Tara (who the other medical personall dumped Crystal on at 7:00 AM) "could have ordered a Tox Screen. See why the governing boards "Pay you no mind."

Anonymous said...

I'm not seeing the video on youtube. Where is it?

Anonymous said...

Re: 7:08. You must have learned to spell from a diversity professor.

You have made the same mistakes ( incorrectly using " know" for "no" ) in repeated entries.

If you are going to be taken seriously, at least learn how to spell!

Anonymous said...

Durham will fight and not pay up!??? YES!

I would MUCh rather let it all go to trial. Let the evidence happen.

PLEASE, DURHAM, fight it!

After all, if you are innocent, you dcon't even need a lawyer, do you?

Let the truth begin :)

Anonymous said...


To find KC's video on You Tube:

Go to "Johnsville News" under "Links" on the right side of DIW.

Click on "Liestopper's Hot Topic" on right side of page.

Scroll down to:

"Tonight only! Live at Page!"

One of the posters has put a link up there so just scroll until you see it.

Anonymous said...

Flop: poor attendance in the heart of Duke(Page is the main auditorum there for these type of events). Speech was not exciting, many people around me commented negatively on the bow tie and overall appearance. A lot of the factual matter was off as well. as many of you know, KC loves to denigrate Nurce Levicy, etc. Some of you are puzzled as to why he does so. The reason should be obvious. The medical findings are the only physical statement that something was amiss that night and have not been entirely debunked( Cooper's report discussed them cursorily) and KC cannot attack the doctor as well as he can the Sane nurse, whose findings and role he can twist into following an agenda. The doctor has no such obvious agenda and being at Duke( even as a resident)she has great credentials so KC cannot use an agenda in his fantasy that no evidence existed to even investigate so he leaves her alone to focus on Levicy. It is simple as that.

Debrah said...

First of all---Why doesn't SOMEONE put up a link to KC's appearance here?

Why have to hunt for it on some other blog?

If you guys have found it, bring it here.

Debrah said...

As 3:25PM lectures.....

"Speech was not exciting, many people around me commented negatively on the bow tie and overall appearance."

.....I am left with tiny droplets of Starbucks Frappuccino all over a pulsating Diva breast as I read this Cindy Adam-esque BS.

Here's what's going on: So many people are disturbed and uncomfortable that KC's blog as well as his book have had such endurance.

Many people expected this to be business as usual in Durham where the sleaze, incompetence, and filthy greed.....along with heavy doses of open racism.....are just swept under the rug.

For problems in the past, public money has always been the remedy so the culprits could continue on as before.

There has been real accountablity this time...and in no small measure because of the work of KC and others who have dissected this Hoax with a clean, razor-sharp, and glistening knife.

There are many people with whom I disagree, and if anyone saw the style of dress and the overall physical appearance of many of the Gang of 88, then you know these are the last people to have authority on how one should dress.

The sleaze factor registers very high for the type of poster above because they come to someone else's blog to supposedly disagree......but mainly leave silly ad hominems...along with details of what other people around them thought.


Does anyone see a resemblance to how the Listening Statement was devised back in the Spring of 2006?

These poor souls are desperate for a comeback and cannot find any traction at all.

Hey, if you don't like bowties, then you will simply hate my little diamond-studded ankle bracelet!

Could you perhaps come back and give us a rundown on the evils of ankle bracelets in modern America......and how they might collide on the 88 radar screen of floating phalluses?


Debrah said...

There is clear evidence that some on the Duke campus made a concerted effort to keep many students from finding out about the Page appearance and book signing.

Signs that would have prompted the campus about it were somehow mysteriously taken down.

When I was walking from my car over to Page, I chatted with a few guys on campus and asked them if they were going.

They said..."OMG, is that tonight? Yes, we will try to get there if we can. We didn't know about it."

Here's the truth: The auditorium was about 2/3 full---which is good for any lecture.

And I'm certain that the other 1/3 would have been filled if so much effort had not been exerted to keep people from knowing the details and the time it was taking place.

In any case, last night was a rousing success....unless you were on the wrong side of the Hoax.

Anonymous said...

3:25PM: As has been stated repeatedly, each of us is entiltled to our own opinion but not to our own facts. Your attmpts to base an argument on falsehoods aren't going to fly.

The physician did not have much interaction w/ CGM and Levicy wound up signing the paperwork -- this says something, but I can see no way to twist it around to your desired end. What it says to me is that the Dr. did not want to be involved in this from the outset.

The medical "findings" were of very specific and slight non-abnormalities that are perhaps consistent w/ finding the DNA of a bunch of men and/or a yeast infection, but in no way cast suspicion that "something happened".

Levicy is rightly criticized for following an adgenda, rather than the evidence -- to the point of going well beyond her position and allowing herself to be used to prop up the frame when it might have otherwise died.

Continuing to profess in beliefs that are so out-of-touch w/ the undisputed facts doesn't convince anyone of anything other than that some people are both exactly wrong and so driven by an adgenda that they refuse to see.

Anonymous said...


IIRC the Chronicle reported about 1/3. You say 2/3. Since you guys are basing these estimates on just looking around the room, I imagine, let's agree it's about 1/2. How many people is that? One of the anti-KC posters this morning said there were about 100-120 people. Does that make sense?

Debrah said...

Does that make sense?


I've been to lots of concerts at Page when the place was full--as it usually is for some entertainment venue, and last night was 2/3 full.

If prior ads around campus had not been intercepted, it would have been full.

But let me tell you how I really feel: It doesn't matter if KC's detractors could say that only 2 people showed up, attempting to navel-gaze about how many posteriors filled how many seats does not help their cause.

Debrah said...

And let me add this very important fact:

There were quite a few older adults who came to hear KC speak and then left after he had finished without staying for the Q&A.

The Chronicle people trotted around taking photos during the Q&A which might have seemed to them a lesser number at that time.

For KC's talk Page was 2/3 full.

Anonymous said...

6;35 Here are undisputed facts - Crystal was evaluated by four Physicians and the Physicians were assisted by five nurses (One of whom was Levicy, five hours after her admittance to the ED.) In the nursing Profession, we call this a dump of the patient. None of the Doctors ordered a tox screen, I do not know if the Docs wanted to get involved or not -neither do you. Your "undisputed facts" is from non nurse bed panbangers and many of us dispute your facts.

Anonymous said...

BTW, both Levicy and Manly signed the paper work - both in the "wrong place." No big or little deal on that one. Is this news to you???

Anonymous said...

"Flop: poor attendance in the heart of Duke(Page is the main auditorum [sic] there for these type of events)."

Page has 1,200 seats. At only one-half full, that's 600 attendees. For a lecture on a serious topic, that is an amazing turnout. Anyone, like myself, who has serious experience organizing such events at Duke (and I don't mean hosting entertainers), knows that you're luck to attract 50 students. And even then, they're often "bribed" with free pizza.

Yet another Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

Debrah et al.--

I was in Page auditorium last night, and estimated that it was less than 1/3 full. People were sitting more than half of the way back in the downstairs portion, but with many empty seats left open, and whole rows empty on the sides. The balcony had few people in it.

This is an estimate, but since I was seated in the back and had a good view of the room, I feel pretty confident in it. However, since DSED was issuing tickets, the actual number is probably available, should you desire it.

Several students left during the initial talk (not unusual for undergrads), and many more left before the Q&A (again, not unusual). During the Q&A people continued to leave rugularly, and after roughly five questions I'd estimate that roughly half the original audience remained.

The Chronicle photographer took pictures almost continuously throughout the talk, moving around quite a bit at the beginning and getting up several times throughout the talk itself and the Q&A. In no way were pictures only taken after people began to leave.

There was a standing ovation, though it's worth noting that not all of the audience stood (not surprising, especially given the circumstances), and that it was quite brief, though this could have been out of a desire to move quickly to the Q&A.

Regarding your assertion that posters advertising the event were removed, I find it likely that you are correct. However, given the plastering that was done by the advertisers -- whole bulletin boards covered with the same 8 1/2 X 11 ad -- that's not surprising. In fact, this seems to be a normal practice for flyering at Duke: some groups flyer sparingly, while others attempt to blanket every available space. Other groups retaliate by removing some of the superfluous flyers to place their own, and the process continues. A few times a semester notices go up that there is only to be one flyer per event per bulletin board, but after a while those are taken down and the process repeats itself.

All of this is to say that there was no conspiracy to keep this talk a secret on campus, and that it was well-publicized: I saw at least one and usually multiple (sometimes quite a few) in each common advertisement spot I passed over the past few days. No one who regularly looks at bulletin boards on campus would have had any trouble finding out about the talk.

It's entirely possible that the moderate attendance was the result of other talks that particular evening, as well as the unfortunate scheduling of the event on 9/11, as opposed to some vast conspiracy. Some might even say that is likely. It also might be an indication of a waning interest in the case by the student body and Durham community at large, though it would be hard to know for certain. What I can safely assert that the size of the crowd was not diminished by a lack of flyers, or advertising more generally.

I hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

Thanks 3;25 You make good sense about the attack on the nurse. KC has not attacked the Doc, even though the Docs are in charge and nurses assist them. He and some others have whipped up non nursing pot bangers to center on Levicy. No longer a mystery.

Anonymous said...

7;51 Your post makes absolute sense. Of course, the conspiracy folk will ignore it and carry on with their "dark mutterings." The scheduling on 9/11 was very unfortunate for the event. Maybe this will help them get off the "grassy knoll."

Debrah said...

"It's entirely possible that the moderate attendance was the result of other talks that particular evening, as well as the unfortunate scheduling of the event on 9/11, as opposed to some vast conspiracy."

It's also entirely possible that you possess the same odious and raw desires as a little redneck Texas mother of an ugly daughter unable to ever make the cheerleading team.

If you sit back long enough and watch lint collect on furniture, you will, indeed, find some.

"I hope this helps."

It does.

I now know what the tribulations of the fissiparous detractors produce.

A huge number of petty pungent refugees.

Anonymous said...

Debrah et. al--

I am the 7:51 poster.

I am sorry that you took offense at my post -- that's not what I had intended. I was not trying to say that the event was a failure, or that attendance was below expectations. As for the former, I think that's something that each person can decide.

As for the latter -- whether the attendance was at or below expectations -- I imagine that only the organizers with DSED can answer that question. They may have been very pleased with the turnout or not -- I really don't know.

I do know that the turnout was lower than I expected, especially from Durham community members that might be interested in the case. Undergrads -- at any university -- are hard to count on to attend talks like this, but I had expected to see more people from Durham and around the Triangle there. Perhaps, however, my anticipations were skewed because I read this blog and I was looking forward to the event.

I did want to disagree with you regarding your implication that advertising for the event had been sabotaged in some systematic way, and I stand by this assertion: to suggest otherwise is to go against all of my experiences with the Duke community.

Again, I posted my response because I think that few readers of the blog were able to attend the talk, and I wanted to accurately describe some of its parameters. I'm sorry if this doesn't agree with your impressions.

I hope this clears some things up for people.

--ss (also the 7:51 commenter)

Debrah said...

"I hope this clears some things up for people."

Oh, my.

You need to tell everyone why your take on last night is supposed to be the definitive one.

There is no need to clear up anything for me or any other reader with a decent radar for your brand of BS. Here is how you come off:

("I'm just trying to help....as I dictate to everyone as if I am the only person in the room.....just trying to save you from yourselves as I dump on other people....I do it nicely).

I see through you like the soft cellophane that you are.

If it were your quest to do anything but display a negative vibe, you wouldn't still be trying to argue with me.

How old are you?

Could it be that you are borderline blind and that would explain your inaccurate description of last night?

(Just a rhetorical question. I have no desire to know more about your personal issues.)

Anonymous said...

I'm 6:35.

I never claimed to be able to read the mind of the physicians, but there is no doubt that Levicy at least allowed herself to be used by the prosecution, when everyone else apparently had the good sense to avoid entanglement with a very doubtful claim. This makes the very charitable assumption that Levicy was played for a fool, rather than participated in bolstering the wrong interpretation to at least some degree. Perhaps this was done for some seemingly noble reason, but this makes it no less of a mistake, nor does it reduce the consequences.

I wasn't there (were you?), but I've read the discovery material that relates to this topic, prepared by the prosecution. I've also seen statements made by Levicy when questioned by the defense. If nothing else, let us agree that it was wrong to assert that women never lie about rape -- this position is patently ridiculus and calls into question the objectivity of anyone who would make such a claim.

In this particular instance, there was plenty of evidence that came out while Levicy was there that this was essentially a con job. This evidence was not only ignored but suppressed, or at the very least, selectively presented.

I'd say this is something deserving of criticism, if only to reduce the frequency of history repeating itself. I also fault whomever it was at Durham Access who led CGM to initially claim rape, but that person has managed to remain anonymous.

I can accept that Levicy has garnered criticism out of proportion to her involvement, but as some have been so eager to point out, this criticism is very likely to be the only sanction that will accrue to her. If this was only a mistake, it was one she had been predisposed to make, through training. Thus, criticisms of Levicy are, in no small pert, criticisms of this indoctrination.

Anonymous said...


The value of last night's talk is the same if 12 people or 1200 people showed up.

My guesstimate (based on hearing that Page holds 1200 people) was 1/3 full or about 400. Chronicle said one-third. Anne Blythe of N&O said several hundred supporters (don't know how she determined they were supporters but they did seem like a friendly crowd given tone of questions and standing ovation).

But who cares about my back of the envelope math?

In September 2003, I saw Bruce Springsteen at Kenan Stadium in Chapel Hill and half the seats were empty. He was great and not the least bit diminished by the empty seats.


Anonymous said...


I am not positing my view of the evening as the only one possible. In fact, if you read my post you'll notice that I actually make reference to other perspectives that might be more pertinent in this case, such as DSED's attendance expectations, and each individual's appraisal of the event itself.

What I am doing is giving my view of the attendance in the hall, as well as how the audience fluctuated throughout the event. I would say that my view is roughly in agreement with that of the Chronicle, if lower than your estimate. Clearly we disagree on this point.

I also disagree with you regarding the conspiracy that you imply was responsible for the attendance numbers (which you bizarrely want to champion as being high and defend as being low, but that's another point). What I have attempted to offer is my opinion of the flyers on campus, something that I feel in a unique position to do as a member of the Duke community. I also offered possible explanations for why more people weren't there, explanations that did not attempt to detract from the talk, but only to provide further context.

I never at any point gave my impression of the talk's contents, nor did I denigrate anyone else's impressions. Neither of these has in any way been the point of my two prior posts, nor is it the goal of that one.

You have bizarrely also taken issue with me for being nice. I suppose I'm sorry about that, too.

KC, on a side note I do think that Debrah's post represents the kind of personal attack that you were going to disallow from these discussion boards.

Thanks all, --ss

Debrah said...

TO Savant--

No need for this kind of condescension.

Bruce Springsteen should be grateful for even 12 bored tourists on the Jersey shore paying some attention to him.

Page was 2/3 full.

Mike, the guy who video taped the appearance for Duke Media Services, said this to me even before the talk began.

He should know. He does this kind of thing for a living.

Debrah said...

TO 10:04PM--

I cannot possibly add anything to this post of yours.

Only that I hope ALL DIW readers and participants have a chance to see it.

You have just given us the best example of how the PC crowd operates than I have seen in a while.

You denigrate with euphemisms.

You try to assume a perch of authority over all.

Then you put everything in your special sewer of doom and gloom--although a few nice adjectives are added...like deodorant on a man who hasn't bathed in 2 weeks.

Now here's where you really show yourself: When you are outed for your true mission, you want to censor that person.


You are one hilarious navel-gazing PC urchin, you are!

Anonymous said...


I really don't know what I've said that's gotten you so angry. We disagree on how many people were in Page auditorium -- that I get. I disagree with your assertion that flyers were systematically and consciously removed so as to sabotage the event.

Both of these things I understand, but I don't see how they leads you to say things like "I now know what the tribulations of the fissiparous detractors produce.
A huge number of petty pungent refugees.
" Or, "You denigrate with euphemisms. You try to assume a perch of authority over all." In fact, I'm not sure what you mean by either of those comments, but I do understand that I'm supposed to be insulted by them. So be it.

I am at least happy that I could make you "LOL!!!", and that you think that I'm "hilarious," if an "urchin." (Is this supposed to be a knock at my age? Really?)

I am sorry that I mentioned that I thought that your attack should be removed by Professor Johnson -- point taken. The reason that I did so is that I didn't feel that your somewhat bizarre accusations added anything productive, something that I was certainly trying to do. It's obviously fine that Prof. Johnson has decided not to, and thus I've chosen to respond.

If possible, would you mind being more specific about what I've said that is so offensive? I would like to understand if it is something that I've done intentionally or unintentionally.

Hey, maybe since we're both in the area we could actually get together and discuss it. Imagine that: a collegial, interesting discussion in person instead of on the web!

Have a good night,


Anonymous said...

Dear ss,

Mixed in among Debrah's many good qualities, is a protective feeling toward K.C. which can sometimes be directed with a ferocity that few "little redneck Texas mothers" can match :)


Anonymous said...



If only one person was there to listen, KC Johnson, being the man he is, would have provided his thoughts. Look at the early posts of Durham in Wonderland -- there were few if any comments -- for all KC knew at that point, he was talkling to himself.

I agree with many of the posts regarding attendance ... whether there were only a few or several hundred ... this was a well attended event. A success. No need to quibble over an accurate count.

I'd rather you provide me with the link to KC's talk ... so I can listen ... do you have it?

Thanks! And regards.

One who adores a diva.

Anonymous said...

Inman, did that "pulsating breast" imagery get to you? :) RRH

Anonymous said...

6;35 What Levicy said was "SHE (Levicy) had never met a woman who lied about rape." Which may well be true. The SANE nursing position is a part time on call job - obviously, no one is calling the police for crowd control for the numer of woman claiming rape - Thank Gd. We have no idea the number of woman she has assesed for rape - it could be one or 100.
Discovery has never been published about her interview with Kingsbury. Everyone on the blogs would like to see it. I have asked KC many times to publish it. Never has it been done. All we have ever read is snipets, taken out of conte. If you saw it - where? Can you make it availabe to all of us?
I also saw her testimony at Nifong's bar trial and it does not get more benign that. There was no there - there. She was subpoened and did not volunteer.
Have enjoyed the exchange of ideas and will think about your points. Certainly more fun that the snipping going on.

it i

Anonymous said...

it i said:
What Levicy said was "SHE (Levicy) had never met a woman who lied about rape." Which may well be true.
Given that she had already met Crystal that statement is clearly false. So it appears that the reality is that she is unwilling or unable to ever believe a woman is lying about rape. If she's doing SANE, that's bad.

Anonymous said...

Ralph - This is way out of context and you know it. Even the AG said "Magnum believed she had been raped."

AMac said...


Thanks for offering your perspective on Prof. Johnson's appearance. Helps to visualize the event. It'll be interesting to view the video, esp. the Q&A.

Debrah said...

TO "Amac"--

You haven't yet reached the brink of gullibility?

I thought your past footsie parades with Cash and the troll who put on a show here for so long about being married to someone who was a SANE expert would have cooled your engines a bit.

Does your radar ever go up?

Mr. Larrey--who organized the Page event--made a clear and unequivocal statement that many, many of their flyers had disappeared after being put up.

The fact that the helpful cretin above spent such an inordinate amount of energy on denying that fact.....and then repeatedly kept underscoring the number of people (small, he wants everyone to believe) who showed up....should tell anyone what this lurker's game is.

Debrah said...

Beware people!

There are countless out there from the Duke community who want us to think that everyone has moved on.

They desperately need to believe that themselves.


AMac said...

Debrah (9/14/07 1:50pm) wrote --

> I thought your past footsie parades with Cash...

Debrah is alluding to two attempts I made at Cash Michaels' "Batcave" website to get this journalist to state his meaning clearly. He is a sly writer who leans heavily on complicated grammar and conditional phrasing. Because Michaels doesn't use plain language to make his key points, he rarely takes responsibility for them.

The third comment at this John-in-Carolina post summarizes one of these exchanges.

The other is here.

Readers can judge the merits of Michaels', Debrah's, and my positions for themselves.

One pseudonymous commenter's unwillingness to entertain differing points of view is not evidence of another pseudonymous commenter's gullibility.

Anonymous said...

amac, Debrah, and anyone else who's still listening--

First, thanks for those who have voiced support. I've read this blog for a long time, but have posted very occasionally, and only when I thought that I had something useful to add to the discussion. As I was in Page Auditorium on Tuesday night to hear Prof. Johnson speak, and tried to be observant for how the performance went, I wanted to share my observations with those who could not attend.

What I was not doing was trying to forward my take on the events as the only one possible. Yes, I feel as if I have a fairly informed view of the situation, being a member of the Duke community, having kept up with the blog, and having attended events at Page auditorium in the past, and so I thought it useful to share that information.

Debrah, this was not to discount what you wrote, though it certainly did disagree with your impressions. I was not at all trying to belittle or demean the event (as you seem to think that I was doing), as I declined to give my opinion of its success or failure. I'm sorry if you took offense at this -- I meant to attack neither you nor Professor Johnson -- and I'll be certain to temper my responses in the future.

Thanks again for those who responded: this experience has been instructive, to say the least. I hope everyone enjoys their Friday.


AMac said...

ss --

No worries, your point of view as you described it immediately supra came through clearly, all along.

As you note, web-logs can be rough-and-tumble. Despite (because of?) that, Prof. Johnson has shown that it's a format that can lead to the discovery and dissemination of important information.