Friday, October 05, 2007

Lawsuit Demands

Here are the demands for the lawsuit. Monday’s “blog epilogue” post will discuss the suit in greater detail.

It is, to put it mildly, highly unfortunate that the city of Durham found these demands to be unacceptable.

The players want a judge to issue an order that:

i. appoints an independent monitor (the “Monitor”), to be determined by the Court, who shall oversee certain activities of the Durham Police Department for a period of ten (10) years, and who shall report to the Court on an annual basis regarding Defendants’ compliance or non-compliance with the terms of the Permanent Injunction;

ii. authorizes the Monitor to establish, review, and enforce all policies applicable to the management of the Durham Police Department;

iii. provides the Monitor with the authority to hire, fire, and promote all Durham Police officials, including the Chief of Police;

iv. establishes an independent citizen Police Review Committee, composed of three members selected by the Court, which shall review and hear publicly complaints of misconduct by Durham residents against Durham Police personnel and make recommendations to the Monitor as to discipline or innocence;

v. orders that all eyewitness identification arrays, lineups, and similar procedures conducted by the Durham Police Department, whether formal or informal, and/or of suspects or “witnesses,” conform to the provisions of General Order No. 4077 and be recorded by videotape;

vi. orders that any reports of DNA or other scientific testing requested by the Durham Police Department or District Attorney’s Office include the results of all testing, and all notes, charts, or raw data generated during such testing, and that a copy of each such report be provided to the Monitor to ensure compliance;

vii. orders that the Durham Police Department provide proper training, based on materials and plans approved by the Monitor, to all current and new personnel (the “Remedial Training”) on the following matters:

1. the appropriate chain of command in criminal investigations;

2. the issuance of public statements relating to an open investigation;

3. the conduct of eyewitness identification procedures;

4. the service of outstanding warrants on witnesses in a criminal investigation or proceeding;

5. prohibiting threats, inducements, or intimidation of witnesses;

6. the standards for police reports, investigator’s notes, and other reports of investigations, including the timely and truthful preparation of such documents;

7. the supervision of private companies engaged to provide scientific testing or other services in connection with a police investigation; and

8. the standards for probable cause;

viii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from issuing any press releases, written statements, posters, flyers, or other materials intended for publication relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor;

ix. enjoins the Durham Police Department from making any oral public statements relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor as to the substance of the statement;

warrants on a person known to be a witness in a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor;

xi. enjoins the Durham Police Department from delegating any supervision over a Durham Police investigation to the District Attorney’s Office;

xii. orders the Durham Police Department to implement a policy requiring Durham Police personnel to present exculpatory evidence when testifying before a grand jury.

xiii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from targeting students of Duke University for selective enforcement of the criminal laws, and from refusing to protect the legal and constitutional rights of students of Duke University;

xiv. requires the City of Durham to pay all costs relating to the Monitor, Police Review Committee, and Remedial Training for the duration of the Permanent Injunction; and

xv. enjoins DSI and Meehan from providing any reports of DNA or other scientific testing, or providing any expert testimony, in any court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, for a period of ten (10) years;

b. damages in an amount to be established at trial as compensation for constitutional deprivations; past and future economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of privacy, and loss of reputation; loss of education; and expenses associated with defending against the criminal proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants’ unlawful conduct;

c. damages in an amount to be established at trial to punish Defendants for outrageous conduct pursued out of actual malice that recklessly and callously disregarded and was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, to discourage them from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and to deter others similarly situated from engaging in similar misconduct;

d. an award of attorneys’ fees, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1988(b);

e. an award for reasonable and customary costs, expenses, and interest incurred in pursuit of this action; and

f. whatever additional relief the Court may deem proper.


1 – 200 of 206   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

They filed minutes ago --- against city and Nifong. WRAL and Drudge picked it up.

Anonymous said...

How soon before we see this at trial anyone????????????????

Anonymous said...

Well that is a lot to "digest" don't know if I agree with them all, but would certainly like to have a debate/info on them. Changes certainly needed to be made. I assume they were well thought out and put together by attorneys. Since I am not an attorney I can't agree at this point, but it certainly would be great for Durham to have at least negotiated time for them and the public to give them serious consideration. (and information) At first glance it seems like it would have been a good starting point. Too bad the powers that be in Durham did not embrace this as a start in the need for change.

Debrah said...


There should be a trial for all to see.

KC---you can't leave us!

Anonymous said...

It must be noted that CGM is not listed as a defendant in the suit.

Anonymous said...

What a burn, KC -- Coleman calls your position "destructive," "biased and inaccurate." He specifically rebuts your contention that "the Lacrosse Committee report... is a 'stunning vindication" of the team.' Any authentically impartial reader would find that it 'very carefully details a pattern of behavior that the committee characterized as 'socially irresponsible' that should 'have been a cause for alarm.'" But wait -- the knife goes a lot deeper -- "Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts."

"Biased and unjustified" -- wow, if the shoe fits...

And as for your ranting on the faculty? "Nothing could be further from the truth."

Coleman ACCURATELY says that faculty -- including the 88 -- "care deeply about students and are passionately committed to their personal and intellectual growth. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the daily life of a faculty member will quickly appreciate the time, effort and energy that faculty put into teaching, advising and mentoring students."


But wait -- there is a cherry on this cake: "To suggest otherwise, on the basis of isolated and selective incidents that occur over the course of complex events and are taken out of context, is nothing more than a tragic rush to judgment."

Tragic rush to judgment -- sound familiar? Maybe you and Nifong are soul mates...

Anonymous said...

good nurse Tara NOT named. guess that Duke settlement covered her ass pretty good.


Anonymous said...

Great news. Also, since Gonzales is finally out, maybe feds can start a criminal investigation. Perhaps non-illegals do have constitutional rights, after all.

I also wanted to thank KC for this great blog and all the work so far and wish him good luck in Israel.

Debrah said...

H-S just now:

LAX civil rights suit names city, ex-DA, lab

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun

Three men falsely accused of rape in the Duke lacrosse case have filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the city of Durham, a DNA lab and the law-enforcement personnel who orchestrated the charges against them.

Lawyers for David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann filed the 155-page lawsuit Friday morning in U.S. District Court in Greensboro.

It named as defendants the city government, former District Attorney Mike Nifong and DA's investigator Linwood Wilson, former Durham Police Chief Steve Chalmers, Durham Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge, Police Department Majors Beverly Council, Steve Mihaich and Lee Russ, police Capt. Jeff Lamb, Lt. Mark Ripberger, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Investigator Ben Himan.

Also named as defendants were DNA Security Inc., lab director Brian Meehan and lab president Richard Clark.

The lawsuit alleges 22 separate "causes of action" against the defendants, starting with malicious prosecution, concealment of evidence and fabrication of evidence.

It asks that a federal judge appoint an independent monitor to oversee the Police Department for 10 years. The monitor would have full power to change any departmental policies and the authority to hire and fire all departmental personnel, including the police chief.

The suit also seeks the appointment of a three-person citizen police review committee to review misconduct complaints filed against police.

It termed the lacrosse case "one of the most chilling episodes of premeditated police, prosecutorial and scientific misconduct in modern American history."

Debrah said...

The N&O

Debrah said...

I wonder if they will allow KC to postpone his teaching duting in Tel Aviv until next year?

Or perhaps they could provide him with a special schedule which would allow him to blog on the continuing lacrosse saga.

No doubt, this case is known in Israel as those who keep up with international news.

And they must know that KC's book is now the subject of a film!

Anonymous said...

what film?

Debrah said...

HBO has secured rights to KC's book for an upcoming film about the lacrosse case.

Dan Weber said...

To save others the trouble of Googling, the 11:28 anonymous poster is referring to this:

Anonymous said...

Let's hope the Feds include Levicy in their conspiracy investigation. The Duke settlement won't protect her there.

Debrah said...

It was amusing to see the scowl on the face of the local WTVD11 reporter when she was discussing the lawsuit.

People in Durham had better get used to scowling a lot more before things are over.

And they deserve everything that is now coming to them.

Anonymous said...

Not in your lifetime.

Anonymous said...

No wonder the city did not agree. No city is going to turn its police department over to a federal judge to be micro-managed, and frankly I doubt a federal judge would have signed the order even if the city did agree. I doubt these defendants even have standing to demand all this. Whatever the merits of their claim for damages, the proposed structural injunction is just over the top.

Debrah said...

H-S letter:

Hoping for $300 million

At long last Duke's President, Richard Brodhead, apologized for his despicable role in the premature persecution of the lacrosse players. But where is the apology from his Gang of 88 professors for their vitriolic rant in Duke's student newspaper? Have they no remorse? No shame? And where is the long overdue apology from The Herald-Sun, which had the opportunity to calm misdirected community outrage but instead stoked its fires?

I wholeheartedly agree with those letter writers who argue that Durham should not settle the lawsuit for $30 million. I fervently hope the case goes to trial, where, if there is any justice at all, the award will be in the nine figures, instead of just eight.

A strong message must be communicated that subversion of the judicial process by officers of the court, academics of influence, and media types seeking to advance their leftist agendas rather than the truth will absolutely, positively not be tolerated. I believe $300 million will make that point quite nicely.

St. Petersburg, Fla.
October 5, 2007

Parker Smith said...

I would think that Durham could at least agree to those parts of the settlement that are, basically, just asking them to follow the law.

Or is that somehow optional, for them?

Anonymous said...

On the 11:28 poster: If underage drinking is the best you have, you are quite sad. The graduation % and academic credentials of the Lacrosse team are the best of any Duke athletic team and equal to or better than the general population of Duke. As an employer who requires highly skilled and motivated individuals I would sooner higher a Lacrosse athlete than the standard Duke student. Being intelligent, competitive, academically skilled, athletically gifted and driven are good qualities to have. Being white is not a bad thing. Being a racist apologist, like many of the potbangers and Group of 88 is a bad thing. They reap what they sow. They are losers, destined to accomplish nothing.

Anonymous said...

The lawsuit PDF document posted is searchable rather than the non-searchable image version the court will make avilable.

Anonymous said...

to anononymous (of course) 11:28 AM

get ready to open up your pockets. And you can thank your G88 buddies for expediting the process


Anonymous said...

Well, how very "loyal" of Prof. Coleman.

Just because the man has some integrity, does not mean he's too dumb to know on which side his bread is buttered. And he has to work daily with scum like the 88, while he never has to see KC Johnson. Get real.

KC never, to my recollection, has cited Coleman as a critic of Coleman's academic colleagues, but rather as an informed source on the lacrosse players' disciplinary record (in which regard, KC has always acknowledged both the good and the, ooooh, "naughty-naughty"! bad college boys, drinking beer!), and as a legally learned critic of Nifong.

It should come as no surprise that Coleman is ultimately "one of them" -- that's his job. He still deserves huge credit for his honest contributions to the legal debate.

Anonymous said...

What is interesting here is that each of the defendants probably has interests that are not necessarily compatible with interests of the other defendants.

Each defendant may need his/her/its own separate legal counsel. If a defendant was acting outside the bounds of his/her/its authority or responsibility, such as Nifong, then they may be personally responsible for legal expenses.

The fact that it's not just the City of Durham is most noteworthy!!!

All those individual folks better understand that they are about to get the moral equivalent of a proctology exam with a buzz saw. And, good grief,...they better not destroy or alter any documents, e-mails, handwritten notes, etc. Judges frown on that.

And the City of Durham, ... I wonder if any of the defendants have a cause of action against the City? It would be amazing to have other claims surface in and among the defendents...


Anonymous said...

With all due respect to Prof. Coleman, he is a good man, but he is wrong. He must work in that environment, therefore he can't be called to be unbiased, practical or accurate in how he views the situation. The Group of 88 are intellectually dishonest, and liars. They took an indefensible position and have not backed off. Prof. Coleman wishes to believe the best in people. Sadly, some people are just garbage, regardless of their education and training.

Anonymous said...

The list of demands tends to create a mistaken impression that the City of Durham, or the Durham PD, is the sole defendant. Not so.

Also sued are Michael B. Nifong (hahahahaha!) and his employer, North Carolina; and a number of individual swine including Mark Gottlieb (hahahahaha!) and other cops, as well as Brian Meehan (hahahahaha!) and DNA Security.

I hope the TV cameras will be present when LaFong gets served!

Anonymous said...

Apparently the report from the Fox is that all is in order at the henhouse.

One wonders whether any scholar worthy of the name would accept as final the word of someone from WITHIN the organization that the operations of the organization are satisfactory.

If Rumsfeld had said everything at G'tmo was above-board, would any member of the Dook faculty have accepted the SecDef's as the final word?

Of course not, but everyone else is supposed to accept as binding Prof. Coleman's conclusions that his boss has acted correctly ("Daddy, what's a tainted source?") and his colleagues did not convict their own students in the pages of their own campus newspaper, despite all evidence to the contrary.

This is just another example of the Dook faculty double standard. Brodhead trots out the last remaining credibile person on campus (other than the Econ Department) to try to strong-arm the critics. We are of course supposed to suspend disbelief and ignore the 88 imbeciles hiding in plain sight but caught red-handed in print for eternity.

Usually confined to the isolated safe havens of tenure and irrelevance, a Leftist faculty finds it has thrust itself into a debate productive people actually care about. They quickly find themselves overmatched with people used to being held accountable for results and their behaviors, and the usual tactics of revisionism, mischaracterization and name-calling can't provide cover in a fight with people they can't control through grade retaliation. Scared that their cover has been blown, they launch attacks like this one at a Professor brave enough to say things that would cause his other opinions to "not carry much weight in [his] world" (to borrow a phrase).

It is funny how people guided by their own demons of hate and knee-jerk identity-politics in lieu of reason and cold-blooded analysis just look silly. Who knew not waiting for real evidence to come in and instead base judgments solely on your own racial prejudices would backfire? Weird.

You hanged yourselves with your precipitous but gleeful race to prejudgment of this case solely along racial lines. Next time do your due dilligence before you publish your prejudgments for all of the world to see.

It is time for the Dook community to face facts: there are people on campus in positions of power who don't have the credentials, maturity or judgment to be there. Dook needs to restore merit and accomplishment to the forefront of its hiring criteria. The pendulum has swung too far left (as it has on most campuses), but since yours is the one in the sunshine, you are hemhorraging credibility and relevance. Save yourselves before it is not too late and amputate the dead weight.

J. Publius

Debrah said...

To 11:28 AM--

Your little faux schadenfreude dance will serve as an example of the kinds of people with whom Coleman surrounds himself.....when he isn't sucking up to the other side.

These unfortunate comments made by him now only show what a dishonest and almost shocking coward that he is.

In the beginning, as Ed Bradley's "60 Minutes" piece allowed him a few comments, he was the clean-shaven, thoughtful, fair, and objective professor whose interest in justice seemed to mirror KC's.

Now that KC has tried to turn him into the hero he has never been for over a year......he has had so much undeserved attention that it has apparently gone to his head.

He now sports a new set of "race identity" balls with his new beard and mustache......and a defiant attitude toward anything that tells the true story about his Gang of 88 colleagues.

I would argue that someone like James Coleman has turned out to be the very heart of what Gang of 88 mentality defines:

Self-serving ingratitude and harm to others....while accepting unlimited largesse with no accountability.

I sure hope that the hop-along Coleman enjoys the personal rewards and the undeserved accolades of the new law school program which Brodhead made sure to give him.

Enjoy, you pathetic, dishonorable man!

How dare you lie about what KC has revealed. We all know you are the one lying...and we know why.

Anonymous said...

No city, town or hamlet is going to allow Monitors of their government. Surely Barry knows that. I don't think the Duke University settlement extended to DUMC or the nurse. Besides, If the Feds were coming, they would already be here.

Anonymous said...


It is going to be great fun watching the exposure of this rot.

The sunlight will disinfect.

Now if the other Lax players sue Duke....the fun will really begin.

Anonymous said...

Nice try, 11:28am. The group of 88 will forever live in infamy. Prof KC, however, will not. He has done more to ensure that justice prevailed in this sorry episode than you or any of the group of 88 members ever will. Time for your eye exam.

Anonymous said...

Great! Durham officials will finally get a chance to prove their innocence!

I wonder if Professor Coleman will take this case on pro bono.

Anonymous said...


Please, don't abandom us now that the Civil Lawsuit is on!

Boy, I really thought they'd settle. It goes to show that some people never learn!

Anonymous said...

With all respect to Prof. Coleman, he is an attorney in full damage-control mode. There is an addage in law that when the facts are on your side you pound the facts, when the law is on your side you pound the law, and when neither are on your side you pound the podium.

Prof. Coleman is pounding the podium. The G88's so-called listening statement, clarification and (individual) subsequent hateful statements are not "isolated and selective events." In particular, their refusal to retract and apologize for their rush to judgment, despite all that has transpired since, has gone on for almost two years.

Prof. Holsti's recent comments are gas on the fire. I guarantee that Duke's attorney's are pulling their hair out on that whole fiasco.

HBO's purchase of the film rights to UPI has got to be devastating to Duke.


Anonymous said...

Once again the lying prostitute is covered with teflon.

Why is she protected?

Topher said...

88 symapthizers and anti laxers will paint this as the Versailles Treaty of 2007, but let's be honest - why shouldn't EVERY local gov't have provisions like this?

The attitude of Durhamites, their lawyers and cops, that this was business as usual, is rotten and sickening. They should all be thrown out on the curb for that and any first-world government that operates like that is downright craven.

redcybra said...

Give up power and control of the DPD? No way. I'm not surprised they're going down swinging.

Cedarford said...

From lawsuit - provides the Monitor with the authority to hire, fire, and promote all Durham Police officials, including the Chief of Police for 10 years.

I generally have a big problem with the Courts taking over Departments of the Executive for years on end. To order Legislatures to fund Court Mandates or risk contempt charges.

Especially in Durham where the cops are singled out to catch shit, while the lawyers in the DA's office and judges (lawyers dressed in robes) like Stephens and Smith working with Nifong escape consequences.

Consent decrees, like Judges putting themselves in charge of a cities busing and racial allocations with hiring and foring power over all school district employees is imperial overreach and destructive to democracy.

Better they just sued for a consent decree to fire, fine, or demote specific cops and lawyers guilty of unprofessionalism, obstruction of justice, various other crimes.

Anonymous said...

I think it is grand that the defendants have elected to pursue the Richard Brodhead Option and will seek the opportunity to prove their innocence in court.

Stupid, but grand from the point of view that facts turned up during the discovery and trial phases will demonstrate far beyond what has already been exposed the huge amount of sleaze existing in Durham -- the Armpit of the Piedmont.

Anonymous said...

To the 11:23-

The City had 30 days to research deliberate, discuss and decide whether to settle or to defend the suit. Looks like money is no object to Durham, since it'll probably cost them more than 30 million to defend and settle up, should a trial be held to a verdict and conclusion.

Those of us who would like to see sunshine (the best disinfectant) applied to the curious and possibly sordid behavior of all the named defendants, and others outside the DPD who enabled them (particularly Duke staff), would be greatly pleased to see this trial take place. Its discovery and cross-examinations would furnish material for another report as extensive as UPI, and we may hope that a chronicler as astute and impartial as KC Johnson would take the job on.

Anonymous said...

It isn't often one catches KC in a factual inaccuracy, but here's one from his previous posting:

For the last 408 days, this blog has had (at least) a daily post on the lacrosse case. Today’s is the final such post. For the next several weeks, I’ll be doing weekly posts to wrap up some of the themes and events of the blog as new developments (civil suit negotiations, the election) warrant. These posts will appear on Mondays, through October and into November.

Just couldn't give it up, could ya?

Anonymous said...

If I understand this, it means Durham thinks that, by going to trial, they won't be required to do/pay so much?

Maybe so--anything's possible--but the discovery is going to kill them. And Duke. The result will be worse than settling.

They thought they had the laxers wrapped up. Maybe they think they have the judge/jury wrapped up on this one.

I can hardly wait.

Anonymous said...

wow - stunning bitch slap of KC by name on his way out the door by Coleman. Comments?

Anonymous said...

I have a question for Dbrah and other local residents -

If the police department were to be taken over by (the dreaded) "outsiders," and they did indeed focus on procedure and doing things "by the book," what are the likely short-term and long-term effects on Durham politics?

Anonymous said...

I think that Professor Coleman appears to be freaking out. In that disordered and undisciplined mental state he has offered outlandish and over-the-top criticisms of Johnson and Taylor.

Professor Coleman is dismayed and alarmed because he knows that, after Durham loses the lawsuit which was filed today, Durham is going to turn on Duke to pay the tab.

Duke, totally in thrall to the cockamamie and gibberishy constructs of political correctness and race/class/gender nonsense will have to pay without demurer. This will cost the Duke educational endowment $30 million. Maybe that will be enough to shake up Bob Steel and the lock-step Methodists on the Board of Trustees.

There are, also, still 43 players to settle with for Duke. But, will they all settle? What is just one of those families has the wherewithal and the desire for retribution for what was done to their child?

The evidentiary situation for Duke is deterriorating seriously on an almost daily basis.

This situation will only become more widely known and will reverberate for many years if not decades.

This is the stress that Professor Coleman and many others must deal with. I'm not the least surprised that the stress is showing. The fact that it is getting to Professor Coleman is a sign of just how distressing this all must be for Duke.

Anonymous said...

Thats weak 11:28. Does socially irresponsible mean they are deserving of jail terms? And biased in which way? They really don't deserve due process?

Sorry, Bubalah, the cat is out of the bag and the faculty are going to get their hands slapped. I'm sure Prof. Coleman wishes this wouldn't happen, but it's too late to stop it. Others will decide.

By the way, which one are you?

Anonymous said...

The news accounts say that the City of Durham has vowed to vigorously fight this suit. Fight what? Giving American citizens their due rights? Fight doing things the way they should be done? What's to fight? I see this as EXTREMELY reasonable--kind of what you thought every American city was doing.

Steven Horwitz said...

I gotta say - no offense KC - this suit is just as good a read as UPI. ;)

I cannot possibly see how:

1. The city refused to settle.

2. A jury (outside Durham) would not find guilt.

But Wonderland has surprised us before, suffice it to say.

Anonymous said...

Just noticing .... Aaron Beard's story on the suit ends with the same ".... it becake clear the charges had no merit." Gotta reckon his copy editors really are on board with the characterization as originally stated. Also gotta wonder if the NY Times will attempt to change it to their own spin again .....

Anonymous said...

It is Prof. Coleman's privilege to praise his boss, especially now, when Brodhead's chair is at stake. Coleman's criticism of UPI, in my opinion, has no merit.
I stumbled onto this blog last spring and became addicted to it. As someone earlier stated, my dailky routine starts with DIW, coffee, more regading, DIW.. etc.
I would like to thank you but, I really don't know how to, in order to stand out amidst those who have written earlier and English is only my second language.
You, Professor Johnson, have not only revealed the truth and shortened the agony of the three players and their family, you have taught us enormously. For me, born and educated in a Communist country and still learning about this country, this blog has meant a continuous lesson, a course in justice and the protecton of our civil rights.
Your book and reading the commentaries posted above have enriched me intelectually and I probably have become a citizen, more aware of my civil rights and how a vicious and corrupt but powerful DA can ruin one's life.

Anonymous said...

Bear in mind that at this juncture, these are only claims on the part of the plaintiffs and have yet to be proved to a jury. Granted, much of the detail in 100+ pages is tied directly to facts put before the NC Bar, and in the contempt hearing which found Nifong guilty. Still, there will be disputed testimony and the game is far from over. When we are at the final day of the trial, I believe the vast majority of the claims will be proved by the depositions which will be given by all those involved. There is also the possibility of one or more of the principals rolling over.
I still think the US Attorney plans to continue being AWOL, so there prolly won't be a federal criminal trial. Get your popcorn and a tall drink, kick back and enjoy the show. Good things are (finally) happening in Durham.

Anonymous said...

11:28, clutching at straws, says:

Tragic rush to judgment -- sound familiar? Maybe you and Nifong are soul mates...

Perhaps you and Coleman can write a book about it, or start a blog, or do something other than whine about it.

Anonymous said...


Tragic rush to judgment -- sound familiar? Maybe you and Nifong are soul mates...

KC can take care of himself, as he already has in response to this same, inanely-repeated comment from the earlier "(Semi-)Hiatus" thread (cf. anonymous@9:29AM, parroted by anonymous@10:09AM, and KC's response@11:07AM. bob h's follow-up@11:10AM also worth reading.)

That anonymous@11:28AM continues to post the same nonsense as she did on the above-cited thread at 9:29AM, and probably at 10:29AM, after KC's reply at 11:08AM, betrays that she either isn't keeping up or, more seriously, is another sad example of the fundamental dishonesty that we've all come to expect from the G88 and aligned faculty at Duke University.

Tragic rush to judgment -- sound familiar? Maybe you and Nifong are soul mates... is simply too idiotic to merit a reply (which is why I'm assuming that KC won't bother) but one can point out a few of the idiocies, anyway:

1) Nifong is a disbarred attorney and convicted perjurer, in addition to being a Durham jail-bird who may yet serve time in a federal penitentiary if the Feds drag him into federal court, as they now have abundant reasons to do. Last I heard, KC is headed to Israel as a Fulbright Scholar, after having played a major role in exposing Nifong's "rush to judgment" in a well-documented book that is Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture (well, an HBO special, anyway). Nothing tragic about KC's career that I can see. Nifong's is dust. The comparison between the two is not only odious, but ludicrous. KC doesn't come close to qualifying as a Nifong cell-mate, much less a soul-mate.

2) At the risk of someone invoking Godwin's Law, I'd suggest that it is fairer to classify the commentator who continues to post the same refutable nonsense over and over, after it has been refuted, as a soul-mate of Goebbels, with whom the technique of the repeated-enough-and-they'll-believe-itBig Lie is usually associated. Add anonymous@11:28 to his acolytes.

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school?

Anonymous said...

In Jewish history, getting Nifonged is known as "blood libel."

The latest blood libel is the Mohammed al-Dura case, in which the (alleged) death of a young Palestinian Arab boy has been a windfall for the Hate Israel crew (of whom Duke has its share, with tenure). Now a French court had ordered the newsgathering organization that broke the story to turn over raw video which, Israel claims, holds exculpatory evidence.

KC should find it just like home.

Anonymous said...

"No city is going to turn its police department over to a federal judge to be micro-managed..."

Remember court-monitored bussing? In Boston the courts took over the school district.

Courts mandate reforms in prisons all the time.

It would be no large stretch for a court to take over and manage a city police department.

Anonymous said...

If you haven't read the lawsuit in its entirety (it's long, 149 pages), do... do. It reads like a précis of UPI. Someone read the book.

That lawsuit's gonna leave a mark.

M. Simon said...

Why is the prostitute shielded?

To avoid making her a hostile witness. Strategy people. Strategy.

BTW I'm loving the suit. Loving it.

$30 mil is $142 mer citizen payable over 5 years. Less than $30 bucks a year. $300 bucks a year for 5 years is a much better number.

The remedies are not dissimilar to losing a racial discrimination suit.


For those interested I did a short tribute to KC at:

He Retires Victorious

Anonymous said...

inman notes: "What is interesting here is that each of the defendants probably has interests that are not necessarily compatible with interests of the other defendants."

Yes, this is a subtle and astonishingly astute bit of strategic pleading by Sullivan & colleagues. This complaint just forked a whole bunch of folks. Their respective legal interests, exposures, liabilities, etc. part instantly.

Yeah, this will be fun to watch. This Hoax just gives and gives and gives....

Anonymous said...

A prediction: It is going to get nasty at Duke. There are faculty members who know where the bodies are buried. They can't speak out publicly because their 'colleagues' will attack them like pitbulls. But...they can provide information. They already have and will continue to do so.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to see attorneys get Linwood Wilson, Himan, and Gottlieb on the stand. How do think it's going to play for Gottlieb when Barry Scheck explores his note taking and propensity to arrest Duke students? The fact that the Durham PD has never admitted any error or taken any corrective measures against Gottlieb will not look good.

I am sure that these attorneys will expose some very embarrasing things about the folks in Durham.

Anonymous said...

No one will bother with that drug-addled hooker unless she is called on to testify by the defense. That is, if they are even stupider than they appear. Can you imagine her testimony or deposition?

I hope Levicy has saved up her frequent flyer miles. She'll need them.

Anonymous said...

3:34 is right.

Without strong leadership, Duke University may implode. I can see it now, the executive recruiters who specialize in academic searches are already strolling through their rolodexes and talking with various other presitgious universities about potential additions or replacements in their various departments. And just like Houston Baker scalawagged himself off to Vanderbuilt, some others of the '88 may be equally enticed to other academic appointments.

That may be considered good news to some, but unfortunately, the search committees at major research institutions won't restrict their targets to the soft sciences of the Group of '88. They'll likely cast a wide net and in so doing, Duke may very well lose some stellar scholars in other areas.

For Duke, on the other hand, recruiting new scholars just became a whole lot tougher, for the litigation will likely proceed over an extended period of time (years -- not months -- even in the 'rocket docket' (Eastern District of Virginia) 6 months to a year would be considered a reasonable pace). Accordingly, for some extended time now, Duke's sullied reputation will continue on the front page of the world's blog and printed news. That surely won't help retaining and recruiting of world class scholars.

Let me reiterate a point: Duke needs new leadership -- and quick.


(PS: I wonder if a major world-class research university has done a reverse split and become a junior college?)

Anonymous said...

If nothing wlse, this suit sums up the problems, issues, and grips for all of history.

cathyf said...

Once again the lying prostitute is covered with teflon.

Why is she protected?

Look, the best reason for leaving Mangum alone is that we have absolutely no idea how much (or more to the point, how little) of the things which the liars told the world she said and did are things which she actually said and did. All of the credible witnesses (the players at the party, Kim Roberts, the security guard at the store, the cops that took her to the hospital, the doctor who examined her) depicted her as being incoherant, raving, and in a condition inconsistent with actually remembering much of anything that happened that night. The only people who claim that she had some coherent, consistent story of being raped are all people that we know lied about everything else important in the case.

Sure, maybe Mangum really made up most of the contents of most of the myriad shifting stories attributed to her. But in order to get a criminal conviction, you've got to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt; a civil judgement requires preponderence of evidence. In this case, what you've got is more like "possible but highly improbable" -- not even close.

I think that the people who go after Mangum still don't fully get it... Like every reasonable person, they just can't believe that Nifong would indict 3 people with nothing as evidence. Levicy, the cops, Nifong, they were all duped by the scheming prostitute. They are victims, not really liars, they were just suckered in by the whore's lies. Well, sorry, I don't believe it. I think that Levicy believes all women are rape victims and just so desperately wanted a rape victim that she could heroically help. Nifong wanted to win an election and obviously didn't care about destroying Duke students to get it -- why should I believe that he had any hesitation about destroying some whore while he was at it?

That's the most logical explanation here -- Nifong indicted the players while he had nothing, no evidence, nada, that any crime had been committed. And nothing really means nothing -- Mangum never gave them anything that came remotely close to a credible accusation. Every single person who claims that Mangum was an accusor is a known liar, or is relying entirely on the statements of various known liars.

Anonymous said...

Holsti and the rest of the Duke faculty ought to keep in mind that the settlement that protected them from individual liability only covers their statements through the date of the settlement.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Anonymous@11:28 realizes that KC has captured his/her IP address.

Anonymous said...

Levicy is not being sued. As she is not an expert witness and never claimed to be, who would call her to testify to anything. When she did testify,under the Bar Hearing, it was a nonevent. The few questions asker her were concerning the rape kit Report. Sorry folk, this won't float. If you want to see nursing incompetence, watch the boot camp trial.

Anonymous said...

I hope I live long enough to see the trial. It is not going to be tomorrow, but years away.

Anonymous said...

The thugs on this board have crucified anyone who did not agree with their opinions. Now it is Jim Coleman = are you kidding. The man is a brilliant genius and helped the team and defendents. Kc can stand the criticizm - but not you guys an gals. Does anyone think Jim Coleman cares about any of our opinions, except maybe KC? This is be more fodder for the 88 and BOT to use - See, the bloggers can't even take any criticizm.

Anonymous said...

I've never blogged before, but wanted to comment on debate over Brodhead's apology. I wonder if maybe � whatever you think about its motivation or sincerity � maybe we should accept this apology as a gift and meet it with the grace of forgiveness, and maybe even exchange it for an apology of our own to whomever we might owe an apology. Maybe then we might move from brokenness to wholeness. .

Maybe now is the time for all of us who have been spectators of this event, shouting and yelling from the sidelines, maybe it�s time for us to leave � to leave a space and time for the participants to begin to heal and move on; to leave time and energy for each of us to return to our own lives and maybe even to begin applying some of the lessons we�ve learned here about our capacity to hurt each other and to be hurt by each other and to apologize to each other and to forgive each other. Maybe we should all go home and make home a better place to live. Maybe there are people who need us there.

Anonymous said...

"No town or city is going to allow a monitor..."

I believe the LA Police Department has had one. And does anyone remember "court ordered busing" and the related stuff that put public schools under court supervision?

It's a good solution when the locals have been found to lack credibility and integrity.

Jim in San Diego said...

There is an important sleeper in a Civil Rights lawsuit. If the plaintiffs prevail, the plaintiffs may recover their attorneys fees in addition to any other relief.

If the defendants prevail, they can only recover their fees if the lawsuit was completely without merit. What do you think will happen?

This is a huge additional risk to all the defendants. Durham's insurance policy, if it is typical, includes the costs of defense in the face amount. That is, if Durham spends $5 million defending the lawsuit (a distinct possibility), they will be completely uncovered for any damage award.

Anonymous said...

Sic'em, guys. the feckless stumblebum is next.


Anonymous said...

Why now, Prof Coleman? Two days and 2 anit-lacrosse statements. Just as KC is leaving. Hmmmm.
"Firstly, we reject the characterization put forward by critics like Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson that the Lacrosse Committee report, that examined the past behavior of the lacrosse team, is a "stunning vindication" of the team "
I did read the report and I do agree that the "stunning vindication" comment may be stretching it a bit. The report outlines the extensive violations of alchohol abuse and the many related offenses related to drinking.
"On the contrary, the report very carefully details a pattern of behavior that the committee characterized as "socially irresponsible" that should "have been a cause for alarm." Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts."
When I read the report, the only conclusion i could reach was that Duke considered the offenses as trivial or "boys will be boys". They included offenses as far back at 1995 and and over and over again nothing was done. They even gave Coach Pressler an extension of 3 years on his contract, which was amazing. Year in and year out, NO ONE DID ANYTHING ABOUT THE DRINKING. Most of the reports of violations never even reached the coaches--and this is for all sports. Duke even had a fenced off area where students that had been drinking could "hang" out with no law enforcement--Duke's idea that the students would not bother anyone and would not get hurt. I had to believe that until the "case", the "drinking problems" were something that Duke could live with.
"Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the daily life of a faculty member will quickly appreciate the time, effort and energy that faculty put into teaching, advising and mentoring students"
What does this have to do with the price of beans? Are we to believe that if you teach, you do no wrong? Why did Duke pay $$$ to the 4 Duke students? What about grade retribution? Pot bangers? Just because you work hard does not give you a pass when you step over the line. Prof Coleman, the subject is whether some of the 88 are ideologs who have extreme agendas and care little for students who don't buy their agendas. It seemed as though most of the 88 were more interested in the false accuser, than in due process for their students.
"To suggest otherwise, on the basis of isolated and selective incidents that occur over the course of complex events and are taken out of context, is nothing more than a tragic rush to judgment."
The way you can judge if statements like this are truly moral, is if they can be applied to everyone. So, Prof Coleman, isn't that what you and others have done? I'm just talking about the 3 LAX. When you read all they have done in their communities, and even in Durham, wouldn't you say that judging them on one incident (hiring dancers and drinking) one night, IS NOTHING MORE THAT A TRAGIC RUSH TO JUDGEMENT?

One only has to look at the greater society to see what a high price is paid by drinking and especially underage drinking. We have actors, judges, teachers, moms and dads, and teens getting in trouble becasue of drinking. Is anything really being done? Nothing that is very effective, and this is across the US where there are many deaths due to binge drinking, or accidnets. But Duke did nothing about the drinking on said night. It was all about the "rape." Now that we know that there was no rape, Duke has to dig up the drinking bit--"if they had not been drinking, this would never have happened." What a stupid statement for faculty to make. (I think it is fine for the parents to make this comment.) I can just imagine Coleman at the beside of a REAL rape victim telling her that if she had not worn such a short skirt and had a drink, she would not have been raped. I hope Duke stops violating student rights, and yes, I hope they find a way to curb the drinking of underage students. Maybe they can look at the "sober" schools--BYU, Wheaton, the military Academies, etc.


Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

1. As others have pointed out, Professor Coleman has many incetives to praise the Duke president. As one of the few Duke faculty members with credibility in the public, he might have been under a good bit of internal pressure to do so. Still his shots at Johnson and Taylor are oddly placed in a forum where neither Johnson nor Taylor have written anything as far as I know. Could Coleman have writen a book review and the had it turned down or turned into a letter to the editor?

2. There are lost of parts of the relief that Durham probably can not except, for example agreeing to any particular testimony at future grand juries. But this is a law suit and as in most law suits you begin asking for the moon and what you get or what is settled is less than the moon.

3. The divergent intersts of the various defendants is not as important as some like Wilson, all the DPD officers and probably now Nifong have very limited financial resources. The money in such a case is coming from Durham and NC. These others can only really be hurt if they commit a crime like perjury during this suit. Nifong may not understand this and Gottlieb may have prior criminal actions to hide, but others will understand that being forthright is there best move.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1243 said: "No city, town or hamlet is going to allow Monitors of their government."

You are right that government does not want to give up power. Sometimes, however, cities, towns and hamlets have the authority to monitor their own systems and programs taken out of their "hands." Federal Courts across the country monitor school districts all the time. Why? Because of lawsuits establishing discrimination.

Now, what happened in Durham? A lawsuit has been filed. Why? Because of discrimination.

The scale of the corruption requires a strong remedy. If Durham is smart, it will settle the financial aspects of the lawsuit very soon, then negotiate a Consent Decree to be enforced by the Federal Court. At least if they negotiate it, it might not be as bad as the one the Judge imposes.

This could be a $200 Million Dollar verdict AND a Court-Enforced Injunction. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

When Duke is added to the list of defendants, then I'll be duly impressed. No point turning Durham into a one horse town, not when the horse is named Duke.

Regarding men in bow ties, KC saw Coleman coming from the start. No news here.

Anonymous said...

Hey begas,

Scurry on back to the penny slots at the Western. When you do the buzzing in your head will subside and the mean level of intellectual capacity reflected in the comments here will increase noticeably.

You absence is always appreciated.

Jack said...

inman @ 3:56 pm

…the search committees at major research institutions won't restrict their targets to the soft sciences of the Group of '88... Duke may very well lose some stellar scholars in other areas.

I am beginning to wonder if Duke really has that many "stellar scholars".

As this scandal has unfolded over the last year and a half, Duke has come to resemble, to me, the old Soviet Union of the late 80's - a strong, powerful, and impressive if not intimidating entity on the outside. Once the layers were peeled back, it was revealed to be a rusting old hulk, all smoke and bluster, but, at it's core really just a rotten carcass. Corrupt, without values or principles, with leaders who promote image, prestige and ideology at the expense of its own people.

Duke alums must feel awfully ashamed.

Anonymous said...

anonymous@4:14PM concludes:

This is be more fodder for the 88 and BOT to use - See, the bloggers can't even take any criticizm.

If we've learned anything about the G88 in this case and on this blog (and KC knows which ones have commented here), it is that they are too lazy and clueless even to compile the evidence--"fodder"-- to prove their assertions. "Proving," of course, further entails the use of logic and reasoned argument-- in which they've also demonstrated a deplorable deficiency.

Not that any of this slows their attempts to advance their sophistries. It's just that, after 18 months of this, sophistry doesn't get them as far as it used to. No cares what they say or think anymore, least of all the majority of the commenters here.

I keep returning to anonymous' beautifully-written summation at 12:41PM "(Semi-)Hiatus" thread:

"Certain qualities only manifest themselves above certain quantities."
-- Pierre Tielhard de Chardin

The methodical acretion of fact, the judicious
[ness] of tone, the openness to correction and commentary, all these qualities accumulated over 18 months of truly extraodinary and disinterested labor speak for themselves. Dissenters who take on this blog, even decent ones like Professor Coleman, must come armed with better ammunition than generalizations about the good intentions of the Duke faculty and administration.

They are attacking a bull elepahant with a pea-shooter.

Anonymous said...

OT: More Feel-Good PR from Duke Medical

Anonymous said...

Are the Lacrosse team players still drinking the way they did in the past? I bet not. If they and others did not learn a lesson from this evenet, they are serious drinkers.

Anonymous said...

Jena6 were labeled "good kids" by the hate groups (NAACP etc) and Drive By media MSM (at least one of Jena6 had criminal record and violent past- MSM lied and told otherwise). Compare their record with Lacrosse3.

It is truly a bizarre world, but at least New York al-Times continues its role in spreading fraudulent misinformation. Somethings never change.

Anonymous said...


Might not the "divergent interests" of the lawsuit defendants, discussed in your third point, have less to do with "financial interest" than "I don't want to go to prison interest"?

I'm not an attorney, but isn't it possible that any discovery of criminal activity in the course of the lawsuit bounces some of these guys into criminal court to face charges? The lawsuit certainly alleges a number of state and federal statute violations which are yet to be prosecuted. Would the "discovery" and admission (both senses) of these violations in the civil trial force the hand of state and federal prosecutors to go after the perps at a later date?

That is what I understood Iman's 12:24PM and 3:21PM's comments-- on which I assume you're commenting-- to mean: the "divergent interests" (some financial for those with resources, obviously) are principally each defendent's interest in making sure any culpability falls on someone else. It was the common interest of the defendants to cooperate with and support one another in perpetuating the Duke hoax. It now is each individual's interest to deny his part in it, by foisting it all off on one of the other individuals, in order to stay out of jail. I agree that most of them will understand that it is in his best interest to be forthright--or forthright enough to shift the blame to the other guy. I think that's what we're all looking forward to. They're all going to be telling on each other.

Debrah said...

Looking back, that little beaten-to-death comment by Coleman..."Nifong is mooning the system.".....seems even more like a line used one too many times and has lost its slightly funny--however unoriginal--pizzazz.

James Coleman sat back and allowed all those fine things to be said about him......allowing everyone to turn him into something other than a run-of-the-mill professor obsessed with race and the rewards of playing its card.

Now he has effectively "mooned" KC and Stuart.

Stuart even mentioned the azzhole in glowing terms every time he went somewhere to discuss the did KC.

What a bum.

Anonymous said...

Take a quick look at the signature blocks at the end of the complaint. The defendants are effed.

Anonymous said...

Prediction: the most interesting phase of this lawsuit will be discovery. Even those who think they know how bad Durham is will be appalled when they see what really happened. Durham will settle before a jury is selected.

I really regret that Duke settled. Statements like Coleman's would probably have been impossible after the discovery phase of that case, and I believe Coleman knows it. I'm sure that's why Duke settled.

Anonymous said...

A bit off-topic and not as riveting as today's developments, but in the Sept/Oct issue of Yale Alumni Magazine, just received in the mail today, Anthony Kronman, Sterling Professor of Law and former dean of Yale Law School, published an essay, "Against politcal correctness: a liberal's
cri de coeur."

The two-page essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, "Education's
End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life."

A quotation from this very academic essay: "Today's idea of diversity is so limited that one might with justification call it a sham diversity, whose real goal is the promotion of a moral and spiritual uniformity instead."

Anonymous said...

""Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts.""

Yes, it is, and that would be highly relevant if anyone had ever dismissed it as trivial. Perhaps Jim Coleman got confused and forgot that the players were not being accused in front of a national audience of having problems with alcohol; they were being accused in front of a national audience of a vicious racist and sexist assault that showed complete and total disrespect for another person. If Coleman understood that that was the question at issue, not "were the lacrosse players perfect?" then he would certainly realize that his Committee's failure to find any racist or sexist incidents in the team's record, and their record of being quite courteous, was quite vindicating indeed.

ou'd think a smart guy like Jim Coleman would know the difference between "trivial" and "not quite as important when the immediate issue is whether three innocent men will be locked up for thirty years each for something they didn't do."

Anonymous said...

One might conclude that Professor Coleman must defend Brodhead, otherwise he would be protrayed in a favorable light in the HBO movie.

This of course would be the kiss of death in the totalitarian environment know as the modern academy.

Anonymous said...

"No one will bother with that drug-addled hooker unless she is called on to testify by the defense. That is, if they are even stupider than they appear. Can you imagine her testimony or deposition?"

Only with "Inna-Gadda-Da-Vida" playing in the background.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:28's comments are interesting only inasmuch as they demonstrate the sort of composite fallacies which are the hallmark of the G88 and its supporters. In this case, 11:28 implicitly argues that, because Prof. Johnson has praised Coleman's conduct during the Hoax, Coleman is therefore an Authority (in some imagined general sense). That non sequitur is followed by an appeal to that authority.

This is typical G88 material: absent any logical arguments or facts with which one can support one's case, one resorts to unwarranted assertions. Few are deceived by this sort of tripe.

So, what can we make of Coleman's criticisms of Johnson and Taylor? They are as empty of reason as any of the G88's pronouncements. Of course the Coleman report was a vindication of the players. When we consider the context (in which the players were being vilified as the worst sorts of libertines), it's clear that the import of the document was that it undercut the slanders of the G88 and their ideological allies.

As for Coleman's absurd claims that the Duke faculty have been unfairly depicted, Prof. Johnson has already ably refuted that. All that I'll say is that if any are in doubt, they can read UPI (and this blog). Johnson's arguments, one well-reasoned point after another, are here for all to see. Intellectual honesty and a total dedication to fact and logic are his stock in trade. Small wonder the G88 & co despise him.

As for Coleman, one can only believe that either he knows far more about the law than he does about society and politics, or that he was given his marching orders by the Duke administration, regardless of what he might personally believe. Maybe it was both.

I also suspect he may be tired of being called an "Uncle Tom."

Sorry to see this blog come to an end, but congratulations, KC, on a job well done.

Anonymous said...

4:30 PM --

While I am glad that Brodhead has acknowledged, in public no less, that yes, his administration did make mistakes that needed to be apologized for. What a change that makes, from when Duke's official position was being represented by John Burness, who when asked if the players would receive apologies, said "For what?"

But I cannot blame those who feel that Brodhead's apology simply did not go far enough. I don't want blood. What I want is for Brodhead to acknowledge the full extent of his mishandling of the case. Brodhead apologized for "not repeating the need for the presumption of innocence equally vigorously at all key moments". To read that, you'd think that he had always believed in the presumption of innocence, and had simply failed to express to others how much he believed in it. But the fact is that Brodhead announced to the Durham Chamber of Commerce that even if the players didn't do what had been alleged, "whatever they did was bad enough." In effect, he told his audience "it doesn't matter if you presume them innocent or presume them guilty -- either way, feel free to presume them scumbags." If I was falsely accused of a terrible crime -- and I have been -- I'd have more respect for someone who honestly, incorrectly believed that I was 100% guilty and who hated me on that basis, than someone who said "well, I don't know what really happened, but I'm certain that he did something which justifies my hatred."

I can't speak for the players. Maybe they want an apology above all else. Maybe Brodhead's apology is enough for them. I don't know. What I know I want, however, above apologies, is for the lessons of the case to be learned. Sadly, the signs for that don't read "Mission Accomplished" yet.

Anonymous said...

Twenty-two causes for action. This will provide additional reading.

I played golf today with a gentleman who happens to host a talk radio show in a major market. He had not read the book, but will be receiving a copy. His producer will love the bountiful material.

It is interesting to me that while everyone has heard about the hoax, and most understand the injustice, very, very few know the sordid details. They will learn them in time, which I think will lead to even more rabid, Amanda Marcotte-styled responses from the frauds.

We'll see.

It is too funny to me that some consider Nifong, the Klan of 88, the administration, et al street fighters.

They've been fighting straw-men in non-consequential pillow fights and have not had any real competition.

One may expect that their true colors will be revealed and they will begin to viciously eat their own. They always do when a real fight develops.

The intellectual dishonesty remains appalling.

Anonymous said...

Is Jim Coleman's letter to the editor in todays Chronicle posted on this site?

Anonymous said...

Meeham and the Lab have been skating since 12/15 - even the bloggers gave them little attention. Glad to see they are in the game. Will Lawyer Anton appear from Pennsylvania? Forget an apology - go for the big bucks.

Anonymous said...

Read Professor Coleman's letter. He is not referring to 88, but the remaining 2000 Professors at Duke University. I am sure he is right. Typically, some of the bloggers shot whenever KC is put a light that does not resemble an angel.

Anonymous said...

6:35PM James Coleman is not a bum. I resent him being portrayed that way - I do not know him. He is a gentleman, scholar and brilliant. Calling him one is in line with prior stupid posts.

M. Simon said...


I think he will get to apologize again when the movie comes out.

Anonymous said...

Is Begas a communist? What absence?

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: anon 6:34

You raise a good point. [I am not an attorney either.] I think while several of the defendants have potential criminal liability most don't. I do not see any sure fire criminal liability for anyone other than Nifong, Gottlieb, Wilson and Meehan. That leaves lots of defendants with little wealth who really only stand to lose if they commit a crime during discovery in this case.

I guess one could argue all of the DPD defendants have a future getting along with each other. The fear of Nifong and the desire to get along with the DA in the future reason to hang in any conspiracy is gone.

Finally, I just finished reading most of the filing. It is breath taking. Another interesting class of missing defendants is anyone from Durham's city government not in the DPD. Certaily the allegation that everyone named was involved in a conspiracy is still just an allegation. The laying out of the ignored exculpatory evidence was interesting and there were some new detail in it. I WONDER IF THE DON'T SETTLE CHORUS IS SINGING A DIFFERENT TUNE AFTER READING THAT FILING?

Anonymous said...

12:06 Quite correct. They might wind up owning City Hall (I doubt it) but they won't be running it.

Anonymous said...

5:51 What an answer to the facts. You can not argue the truth. Typical - pray tell what you saw at the Bar Hearing - Please not that stupid stuff about "boring holes into the defendents".Sticks and stones..... - talk about grammer school thinking.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply, JLS@8:05PM.

Now I wonder, if the plaintiffs are able to demonstrate "conspiracy" between any 2-3 of the defendants (say, Nifong, Gottlieb or Himan, and Meehan), does anyone who should have known what they were about (say, Chalmers or Clark) become complicit, i.e., co-conspirators?

It may all be designed to turn the defendants against each other, but the complaint certainly reads like the plaintiffs' attorneys are prepared to show a veritable web of conspiratorial behavior in Durham. Although they're not named in the complaint, we learn that even Mayor Bell and City Manager Baker were in some of the loops.

Hope the Israelis understand if Professor Johnson appears a little distracted in the coming months.


DaveW said...


What a read that lawsuit is - boy did they cover every aspect of this fiasco, and in just the appropriate language. Obstruction of justice. Witness tampering.

Wow again. I wonder how Durham voters will react.

Anonymous said...

This is interesting.

“Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place....

There can be no neutrality between justice and cruelty, between the innocent and the guilty. We are in a conflict between good and evil,...

By confronting evil and (the)lawless..., we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem..."

A prescient view of Durham? Any guesses on who said this and when?

It was not Richard Brodhead. Ever.

Steven Horwitz said...

It gives me great joy to imagine that, over the last 30 days, each and every person in Durham whose actions somehow might have contributed to the Hoax were sitting around wondering whether THEY would be among those named in the civil suit. "Are they gonna pick me?"

Might give them a little empathy for what they did to 40 or so lacrosse players for a month or two.

Even if it didn't, it sure is fun to imagine them sweating it out.

Anonymous said...

The suit filed today seems so simple and so logical and so basic to effective and ethical conduct of a Police Department. The fact that they request a "Monitor" has got to be galling. But what a creative and NON-PUNITIVE way to clean up a mess that the locals show that they neither have the will nor the ability to clean up.

Just think how many INNOCENT people would be protected if these standards were met.

These are not exhorbitant demands. They should not have ever been needed.

I understand the abhorance that any city or state has to submitting to oversight from an independant, or federally-mandated agent. But Durham officials have proven themselves incapable of doing anything but whitewashing ( or blackwashing???) the truth.

I'm wondering how this whole thing will play out in Greensboro, given that is where Crystal was purported to be "studying".

I am also wondering if the Greensboro can provide a jury of "peers".

I am also wondering about the personal inclinations of the judges who might get the case.

Anybody know?


Anonymous said...

They're playing with the big dogs now. The unusual aspect of this case is that a huge, silk stocking firm like W&C is representing the Plaintiff in this case. They will turn over every rock to win this case. The third party discovery alone is going to be huge. Normally, smaller firms take these cases, mainly because Federal Court is a harsh environment for Plaintiffs, and larger firms tend to defend suits, not bring them, in Federal section 1983 actions.

This should be interesting. Steptoe and Johnson is representing the Defendants, and their lawyers are certainly good as well.

But they aren't Brendan Sullivan.


Anonymous said...

And the dis-Honorable Judge Stephens still weeps for Nifong. Why the heck is he not mentioned?

W. R. Chambers said...

The Report of the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Committee (the Coleman Report) is here

The Coleman Reports documents for Duke what so many parents know or fear about the lives their children lead: drinking among high school and college students is a terrible problem. Drinking seems to be an end in itself. College weekends begin on Thursdays with college night at local bars and run through Sunday. For too many students, getting drunk or partying with people who are drunk is par for the course along with the kind of lousy, dangerous and sometimes fatal judgments that people make when they're having such a "great time."

And behaving in a disrespectful way to neighbors is shameful.

Behavior of that sort is by no means limited to athletes. Athletes are only a part of a much larger group. But athletes are easily identifiable individually and as a group. Conduct of team members is likely to be attributed to the entire team.

But it's a mistake, I think, to talk about those things in the same conversation as the "Duke case." Under the circumstances, to single out and criticize Duke lacrosse players for drinking and otherwise behaving in a way that disrespects the community is a little bit like criticizing somone who was the victim of mob violence for parking in a handicapped zone before the attack took place.

The perils of student drinking and related behavior deserve to be addressed on their own. To confound the drinking issue with how the Durham justice system worked in the Duke case is to risk not dealing with either issue in a meaningful way.

The lawsuit is about the Nifong case, but it is about much more. More than most lawyers, Barry Scheck of Project Innocence knows how often innocent men and women are convicted as a result of the criminal justice process in which George Bush as Governor of Texas expressed so much confidence when he explained why he would not commute any death sentences. Alberto Gonzales, Bush's personal A.G. assured then Governor Bush that all the condemned men had due process and that the system was fair. So, he concluded,there was no basis for any petition for clemency.

Arguably the two most important parts of the criminal justice system are prosecutors and science. Both were corrupted in this case. William and Connolly, Edward Bennett Williams firm, is providing its vast resources and talent, including Brendan Sullivan who represented John Hinkley and Oliver North, to the cause. Edward Bennett Williams would be proud that his firm has jointed the cause. And that's what this now is, at least in part, a cause. Too many men, women and juveniles are treated unjustly. Some innocent people are convicted. Some are sentenced to death. Some are executed. And those are only the relatively high profile cases.

In some cases there are villans. This is one such case.

But in others the responsibility for injustice and the risk of injustice is widely shared. Sometimes prosecutors are not properly trained, are not well paid, have too many cases to handle, are subject to public, political and administrative pressures and have woefully inadequate investigative staff and scientific resources. Just look at the qualifications of Nifong's lead investigator.

The usual response to all of this is that "they" are guilty of something and society is better off with them behind bars. "They" are criminal defendants, most of whom can not afford a real criminal defense lawyer and many of whom are minorities. Public defenders often do a wonderful job with even fewer resources than prosecutors have. But justice - criminal justice - costs a lot of money. For those who can't afford such justice, all depends on the judgement and integrity of the prosecutor.

So this case is no longer principally about Duke, or President Broadhead, or Prof. Starn, or Prof. Holsti, or Prof. Coleman or the Gang of 88, whose members - whatever, if anything, they still stand for - are in any event only a small fraction of Duke faculty. It isn't about what seem to me to be essentially petty (at least by comparison to the criminal justice issues) arguments about apologies. Was it enough? Was it too late? Who should apologize but hasn't? Whose repeated apologies have been either forgotten or ignored?

This case is an opportunity for Durham. Durham should authorize its counsel to call Barry Scheck and Brendan Sullivan NOW - tonight - and ask to meet with them to try to figure out how to make the criminal justice system in Durham fulfill the responsibilities that Nifong and so many others ignored. Instead of asserting that it intends to vigorously defend the case, Durham should announce its willingness to cooperate. Meet with plaintiffs' counsel. Hire a mediator. Sit down and figure this out. It isn't rocket science. Change is necessary. Change is gong to happen. It's just a question of when and how much it is going to cost Durham in terms of reputation and taxpayer dollars.

The leadership challenge has shifted from Duke to Durham.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12:06 said...

...No wonder the city did not agree. No city is going to turn its police department over to a federal judge to be micro-managed, and frankly I doubt a federal judge would have signed the order even if the city did agree. I doubt these defendants even have standing to demand all this. Whatever the merits of their claim for damages, the proposed structural injunction is just over the top.
I wouldn't be to sure about that.

If we have many more 'found guilty' but 'innocent' inmates popping up on the front page of our newspaper in this country, I suspect the system design that is demanded in the current law suit may be in much demand from cities across the country.

It has become rather apparent that we do have DA's and Grand Juries across the country that will lock 'em up and throw away the key ...without blinking an eye.

I would not have believed this myself until the Durham DA and a Durham Grand Jury attempt to lock up three young Duke white male student athletes for harming a stripper in her upper twenties who is a black women.

Even the lady at my dry cleaners said...Well that didn't happen!

Anonymous said...

Legal Eagle: Duke settled with the players months ago. See this blog item for details.

Anonymous said...

Innocent Project - 200 to 300 freed via DNA - mostly convicted on eye witness identification. I commend the Project but this is not even a bubble on the hundreds of thousand of inmates in the prison system,

Anonymous said...

9:46 says that Steptoe & Johnson is counsel for the defendants. Which defendants?

They could not in any way represent all of the defendants. They would be ethically impaired if they thought that the interests of each of the defendants in this case were uniformly the same.

Steptoe & Johnson, I suppose, has been retained by the City of Durham (or more likely, AIG -- Durham's insurer). The City of Durham is the only party who appears to have been represented by counsel to this point.

The rest of the defendants are about to find out that they are at sea in very rough waters and with no life jacket.

Now -- the following is informed advice for each of the individual defendants from someone who has a modicum of experience with attorneys and litigation:

I somewhat feel sorry for Himan. He is a young man, new to his job, who thought he was doing what his bosses ordered. He most likely thought that his actions were covered by his superiors. After all, they would know better, right? He followed orders. He was a good soldier, but now, his actions are central to the conspiracy.

If I was Himan, I'd hire independent counsel -- who may very well be inclined to do this pro bono -- and ask that, in return for my cooperation pursuant to which I'd tell the whole story, that I'd be vacated as a defendent. (I don't know if that can be done, but it sounds good.)

Frankly, if Himan knows what really happened, he should call Jay Bilas in Charlotte. Jay Bilas could then refer him to competent legal counsel who could then advise him regarding his potential liabilities.

In fact, I'd suggest that all of the defendants who feel a need to distance themselves from this mess call Jay Bilas's firm or their own counsel and discuss their options.

Good lawyers will listen and evaluate and tell a potential client tht truth regarding their own predicament. If a good lawyer hears a meritorious claim or defense, they will likely negotiate a representation.

My bet. Himan is the first domino.

Michael said...

re: 4:39 [It's a good solution when the locals have been found to lack credibility and integrity.]

Busing in Boston was a disaster. Judge Garrity living in the very nice suburb of Wellesley mandated what Boston parents and students had to do. Those that could escape the resulting chaotic mess did so whether it was fleeing to the suburbs, or going the private school route. Garrity's own children, of course, were unaffected.

Judges are people and can screw up too (as in Stephens).

Anonymous said...

Duke and Durham always wanted the lacrosse defendants to "prove themselves innocent." Well now Durham is getting a chance to prove the same thing.

Anonymous said...

12:06 pm: " No city is going to turn its police department over to a federal judge to be micro-managed. . . "

Numerous cities have had to do exactly that with their police or fire departments when they enter into federal civil rights consent decrees. I don't see why Durham shouldn't be compelled to do the same thing, given the racism of city fathers.

Anonymous said...

After all the ranting done on blogs denouncing the folk who disagreed with the majority view, I, for one, am proud to be in the company of Professor Coleman, who now is in the same boat. You Go, Professor/

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:18 says:

Innocent Project - 200 to 300 freed via DNA - mostly convicted on eye witness identification. I commend the Project but this is not even a bubble on the hundreds of thousand of inmates in the prison system,

Yeah. 95% of those in prison are innocent. Just ask em.

Jim in San Diego said...

There are two reasons that conflicts of interest among the defendants are important:

1. Any defendants with conflicts of interest will have to be represented by different attorneys. This could drive up the cumulative cost of defense exponentially.

2. Related to the need for separate attorneys, the risk to the defendants increases that one of the defendants will turn "state's evidence" and spill the beans on the others. In a joint defense, this outcome could be devastating to the joint defense.

Having separate attorneys significantly raises the probability this will happen. An attorney must work in the interest of his client, and only his client. If offered a chance to a reasonable settlement, a good attorney will persuade his client to take it, the other defendants be damned.

The pleadings are immensely skillful. Reading a 150+ complaint is like reading a book - but worth it for those who have followed this case closely.

Anonymous said...

RE: "Legal Eagle: Duke settled with the players months ago. See this blog item for details." - 10/5/07 11:21 PM

Shows you what "I" know.

Still, the settlement appears to have had little effect regarding the status quo at Duke. The rot is still there, led by Brodhead - who pulled off a similar hangman's stunt at Yale, which paved the way to his current position.

Although Durham deserves what's coming, they don't possess the intellectual credentials, much less the financial resources, of Duke. And it was the intellectuals of Duke who worked the Durham townspeople into a frenzy.

Now, some old lady living on Maple Street will see her property taxes increase beyond her ability to pay - to teach the "Durham PD" a lesson. While Brodhead and his cohorts go right on enjoying their chocolate lattes.

Jim in San Diego said...

The Brodhead administration is not home free yet. It is highly likely that most of the key administration players - Brodhead, Moneta, Burness, perhaps even Steel, and others - will be deposed under oath. Certainly as to their communications with Durham officials. This process will take months.

The resulting serial disclosures of leadership failures; lawbreaking (turning over student information to Nifong without a court order; cooperating with apparently unlawful searches); failures of responsibility; cowardice; misjudgment; violations of internal policy in order to feed their own students to the sharks, may yet be the end of this administration.

Duke has the option of toughing it out while the University's top leadership is shown to be inept and craven. Will Duke tough it out, or finally decide to cut its losses?

mac said...

I'd guess Professor Coleman is looking at a position at Duke; Duke is facing a settlement with a number of young men.

And he's wrong.

I agree with Jack at 5:53 pm. I'm leaning toward agreement with many of Jack's earlier statements, in retrospect: Duke may not be worth saving, after all.

Certainly Professor Coleman remembers in American History when a certified war hero decided that the American Revolution didn't meet his standards.

mac said...

Guess an HBO movie will have to look really hard at Professor Coleman's position on all this. Maybe he turned a little early?

Hey, James: which is your best side for the camera?

Anonymous said...

Leave George Bush out of this! Clinton was such an example of judicial justice! Please!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:44 PM said...

"Is Duke a state school?"

It appears to be a police state school.

WesternBlot said...

The filing is breathtaking in scope. Almost every count alleges conspiracy to deny civil rights. It is no longer possible that criminal civil rights charges will not follow.

The city of Durham needs to be looking at bankruptcy at this point. That is probably why plaintiffs were looking to settle for a "modest" 30 million spread over 5 years.

Anonymous said...

I found this info at Durham's local CBS affiliate. The post is by a self-proclaimed law professor who goes by the handle elcid889.

Durham Faces Federal Lawsuit From Ex-Lacrosse Players

I've read the complaint. Thanks for the link.

As discussed briefly below, they are seriously reaching with the interpretation their arguments are based on. Beyond that, virtually the entire basis of their complaint is multiple instances of creative interpretation of the same statute.

They're going to have difficult time pressing that argument up through the 4th Circuit. In the unlikely event that they prevail in the Middle District, Durham will immediately appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. It's unlikely, with that court's current composition, that the arguments would be upheld.

We'll have to watch and see what happens.

Anonymous said...

Another post from "elcid889" @

elcid take2

Municipalities are specifically immune from punitive damages in 42 USC 1983 actions.

City of Newport v. Fact Concerts - 453 U.S. 247 (1981)

Regardless of what happens, there will be no punitive damage awards in this case.

There are other significant hurdles that the plaintiffs are going to have to overcome in order to prevail, not the least of which are the "custom or policy" requirements defined in 1983 case law and qualified immunity, which will be pressed as a defense and will be difficult to overcome.

As it stands currently, Durham definitely has the stronger legal position. How this all plays out will be interesting.

Anonymous said...

To 8:48PM:

Since this is a civil suit, the plaintiffs could still win big without proving an actual conspiracy that was more than tacit. There are enough bad malicious and negligent acts on record to win the case.

This suit is probably disappointing to those who were expecting the lacrosse lawyers to unravel a big, bad conspiracy involving various Durham elements. There is no claim that the City of Durham and/or the DPD were a monolith pressing this prosecution in order to achieve larger goals. Instead, it's apparent that Scheck & Sullivan are bearing down on the investigators and Nifong as plotters and doers of illegal acts, while attacking the other defendants as negligent or meddling enablers liable for hurtful but lesser contributions. That includes City Hall for interfering in a criminal case, and DPD supervisors of Himan and Gottleib for going AWOL and ducking for cover to dodge the racial backlash that could have damaged their careers.

City Hall politicians aren't named as plotters and the middle level supervisory cops aren't being branded as co-conspirators. Only the main triad, plus Meehan. All of the other fantastic, imagined conspiracies were left by the wayside by the excellent plaintiff lawyers. They know better than to muck up a slam dunk win with lulu, crackpot, wack-job sideshows that would turn off the jury.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:49 PM wrote:
This case is an opportunity for Durham. Durham should authorize its counsel to call Barry Scheck and Brendan Sullivan NOW - tonight - and ask to meet with them to try to figure out how to make the criminal justice system in Durham fulfill the responsibilities that Nifong and so many others ignored. Instead of asserting that it intends to vigorously defend the case, Durham should announce its willingness to cooperate.

But, you're assuming that there is at least some degree of competence in Durham city government. There isn't. The "Durham Committee" has assured that incompetence will reign supreme, it certainly has in most of the 30 years I've lived in these parts.

For the many people that read this blog who aren't "from around here", it must be hard to understand how a government entity should be so incompentent and corrupt. The LAX Hoax case only scratches the surface in this regard. Even after all the facts were in, it was really no surprise to me that Nifong and the Durham PD thought they could get by with what they tried to do. It is also no surprise that there are still some people in Durham that still think "something happened" and that Nifong and the DPD did nothing wrong.

Unfortunatly (for me), I only started reading the blog regularly over the past couple of months, and don't know if the blog explored in-depth the local politics of Durham. Professor Johnson has already saved the Lacrosse guys from a terrible fate, it would be much too much to ask to expand his scope to try and save Durham, too. Hopefully someone with his intelligence and dedication to the truth will step up and use this new media vehicle of the blogosphere to show what is really going on in Durham. As incompetent as the government is, there are many fine people who live in the city, and one only has to go downtown and visit the American Tobacco complex to see what good private citizens can do even when hampered by a corrupt government.

I'm hopeful that the Federal lawsuit will take place in Greensboro with jurors selected from the Piedmont area (it is possible that it could take place in Durham). Having lived near Greensboro before moving to the Triangle, I believe there will be much less tolerance of government incompetence and a rather incredulous degree of shock and disgust by a jury pool from the Piedmont. Maybe the result will be the slap-upside-the-head that Durham needs to finally start down the path of good government.


Anonymous said...

I have two brief comments to bring everyone back to reality.

First, defendents in a civil trial can invoke their Fifth Amendment rights if the actions being alleged civilly also represent criminal actions. So I suspect that the civil depositions are not going to be as informative as we would very much like them to be.

Second, employees whose jobs are such that they are at risk of civil suits for actions arising in the course of their employment very frequently have a right to rely on their employer's indemnification policy. (The policy that covers me personally explicitly says that those covered have a right to rely.) So I'd be less sanguine that a bunch of people are about to feel the pressure of legal fees, at least immediately. It raises the importance of a federal criminal trial: many indemnification policies do not cover criminal defense, and many do not cover civil damages awarded for acts that have been adjudged criminal by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

Can a Durhamites spell punitive damages?Check out this portion of the compaint filed yesterday:
80. On March 14, 2006, responsibility for investigating Mangum’s rape claim was assigned to Investigator B. Jones. On or about March 15, 2006, Jones concluded that there was no evidence to proceed with a criminal investigation and that the file would be closed.
Professor of ethics

Anonymous said...

This case should be a wake-up for Durham officials and other cities and county officials to be reminded that they are serving and work for the public. If they are doing there jobs right oversite should be welcomed.

There is recent history of Feds taking control of local government operations to "clean up". The DC Financial Control Board effectively
ran DC for years. And not without local protest.

Vol.59/No.18 May 8, 1995

Financial Control Board
To Run D.C. Government
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Stepping up the bipartisan attacks on the rights and living standards of working people in this city, U.S. president Bill Clinton signed a bill April 17 creating a powerful financial control board to oversee the D.C. government.

The board is empowered to run D.C. affairs into the next century. It is charged with ensuring that the city comes up with a balanced budget by 1999. Towards this end, the board will have the power to slash thousands of city jobs and cut hundreds of millions of dollars of spending on various social programs and services.

The five members of the control board, who will be appointed by Clinton within the next few weeks, can reject city budgets and impose their own spending plans. The board also has the power to overrule new labor agreements and other contracts, reject local legislation, and change almost any decision made by the mayor and city council.

According to the Washington Post, the control board "would be the strongest such panel ever created to oversee a U.S. city." It would remain in existence at least until the city balanced four budgets in a row and repaid all money borrowed in doing so. It is modeled after a similar financial board imposed on New York City some 20 years ago.
The board's power "is absolute and it is absolutely necessary," stated Republican representative James Walsh, chairman of the House subcommittee on the District of Columbia. "This authority needs to have control."

see also:
Remarks by Vice Chair Alice M. Rivlin
Before the 1998 Student Conference of the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
March 19, 1998

Anonymous said...

If you cant name CGM as a Defendant, then it is clear that the lawsuit is just a cash grab. Everyone who is responsible needs to be held accountable, not just those with deep pockets or power.

Anonymous said...

Just curious, but if after a settlement is reached and a verdict rendered, some average citizen in Durham sues the city because their taxes go up to pay for it. I think all the white people in Durham who can afford to move will do so.

Anonymous said...

For everyone says there is a strategy of not making CGM a Defendant, am I the only one stupid enough to think that Durham or Nifongs Answer to the Complaint will include a cross claim against CGM? She should be in the case as a Defendant and the defense surely should bring her in if the Plaintiffs wont.

Steven Horwitz said...

w.r. chambers writes:

The perils of student drinking and related behavior deserve to be addressed on their own. To confound the drinking issue with how the Durham justice system worked in the Duke case is to risk not dealing with either issue in a meaningful way.

This is among the more wise words said in recent days here.

High-risk drinking by college students, and its associated costs both to the students themselves and members of the community, is a huge problem on college campuses and interferes with the educational mission more than just about anything (certainly more than varsity athletics).

The reported drinking behavior of the Lax team and other Dukies is within the range of typical campus behavior. But let's deal with that problem on its own and not let us be misdirected from the real issues here.

Just to be clear - my concern is with *high-risk drinking* not six guys having a couple of beers watching a football game.

Finally, if there's one thing we could do to address the high-risk drinking problem on college campuses it would be to start treating college kids like adults and lower the drinking age to 18. You might be surprised to find how many college presidents and administrators would support such a move. All of the student complaints at Duke about the administration invasiveness with respect to student parties would disappear if colleges didn't face liability issues for not having policies in place that prevent underage drinking. As an administrator, the last thing I want to be doing is policing student parties, but the age 21 law makes it a legal necessity.

Reduce the age to 18 and you'd do a ton of good on college campuses.

Anonymous said...

A minority proposition:

While it will be nice if Durham city government is cleaned up and stays clean, I hope that the LAXers do NOT get one penny out of this suit. Ditto their attorneys. They've already gotten plenty of money. If this isn't about money, but about reform, why demand money? If it is about revenge, don't hide behind the cloak of reform.

Yes, one year of their lives was hell. too true. But they didn't lose life or limb or gainful employment. (Dave Evans has a job, yes?) Not did the two lose educational opportunities. One might argue that RS even came out ahead--a Brown degree is nothing at which to sniff. (That's for the preposition Nazis who post here.) They didn't lose property or health. In they end, they didn't even lose their reputations.

Before you attack: I am not
a. a member of the 88 who signed the letter nor do I know any of them
b. a faculty member at Duke
c. a professor of African American Studies, Women's Studies, or any of the studies attacked here.
d. Nor am I a part of the anger studies people who rage here about professors in the fields mentioned in point c.
e. Finally, I don't consider myself a troll.

Anonymous said...

I wish somebody blogging on here knew phonics. "Dook" would be pronounced like "took" or "look", so what is the purpose of this sophmoric, juvenile expression? Jealously makes for strange words, I guess. Anyway, my brilliant and beautiful daughter (pre-med Chemistry major) is home for fall break from "Duke", where she is happy and getting a fantastic education. Ah, nothing better than Duke!

Anonymous said...

The post below was originally up at LieStoppers, but I think it's appropriate here as well.

The evils of "affirmative action" were front and center throughout the hoax. The so-called Group of 88 could more appropriately been dubbed "Friends of Affirmative Action."

What is "affirmative action"?

Quite simply, it's parasitism. Does anyone really think the race-normed blacks involved in railroading your children--Lubiano, Holloway et al.-- are anything but middle class? Why does Duke dole out academic welfare to the black middle class?

If you start to think of affirmative action for what it really is--parasitism--you will end it pronto. Do you think a G88 would exist in a parasite-free university environment?

Time to begin exterminating. Cockroaches are infesting every department at Duke, and the diversity pimps now have their sights on the hard sciences.

It's time to act. Start telling the truth about the academic infestation.

Gary Packwood said...

No justice, no peace 9:17 said...

...By confronting evil and (the)lawless..., we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem..."
...A prescient view of Durham? Any guesses on who said this and when?
Reckless Disregard by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson?

Gary Packwood said...

inman 12:48 said...

...My bet. Himan is the first domino.
Himan will need some help to even understand the complex spider web of lies that surround this case.

Hopefully his professors of criminal justice will help him find his 'truth' button before he becomes hopelessly ensnared in the web created by his elders.

Debrah said...

Below is Stuart Taylor's response to James Coleman's unfortunate letter in the Chronicle.

He makes all the points that need to be made and he outlines exactly why some of us do not need to make excuses for Coleman. Such a long time he waited to change his mind!

Thank you, Stuart...for saying what needed to be said. Perhaps even a few third-tier professors who have attacked me on this blog will get the point.

Try as they might.......they will not be able to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

There is no excuse for Coleman that doesn't have the stench of the Gang of 88 lathered all over it.

Stuart Taylor
posted 10/05/07 @ 12:47 PM EST
I am surprised and saddened to see Professor James Coleman joining in a grossly misleading attack on KC Johnson's and my work on the Duke lacrosse case, and in particular to see his attack on our characterization of the May 1, 2006 Coleman Committee report as – on balance –a stunning vindication of the lacrosse team.

I agree entirely with KC's response. I write to add these facts and observations:

I first wrote that the Coleman Committee report was, on balance, a "stunning vindication" of the team members' characters more than 16 months ago, on May 22, 2006, in National Journal: "Alcohol aside, this report's findings are a stunning vindication of the characters of a group of kids who have been smeared from coast to coast as racist, sexist, thuggish louts." KC has repeatedly made similar comments on his blog. Yet until now, Professor Coleman has never hinted to me, and as far as I know has never hinted publicly, that I or KC had mischaracterized his committee's report. If he really believed that, he has passed up numerous opportunities to say so. One such opportunity came during a panel discussion this September 14, with Professor Walter Dellinger moderating and Professors Erwin Chemerinsky, Coleman and I as panelists. Although Professor Coleman did criticize our book's criticisms of Duke faculty members on that occasion, he never suggested that our book had mischaracterized his report. Professor Dellinger ended the panel on a gracious note, which I paraphrase: Surprise! Three liberal Duke professors disagree with the book's criticisms of liberal Duke professors.

I wonder what pressures Professor Coleman has come under from colleagues, and/or from the Duke administration, that have motivated him suddenly, 16 months late, to misleadingly accuse us of mischaracterizing his report.

It should also be clear that neither KC nor I has ever dismissed or ignored the Coleman Committee report's criticisms of the lacrosse players' drinking and drinking-related petty misconduct.

As for the Coleman-Kasibhatla letter's attack on our portrayals of the dozens of Duke faculty members who joined the rush-to-judgment mob: I do not see how anybody who reads the detailed facts in our book – not one of which the Coleman-Kasibhatla letter disputes – could take their letter seriously. It is a lamentably lame apologia for shameful conduct by a very substantial minority of the Duke faculty.

Our book praises Professor Coleman's wisdom and courage in going against the rush-to-judgment crowd while the case was pending. I am very sorry to that his wisdom, at least, has run dry.

Sincerely, Stuart Taylor

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: inman

My bet. Himan is the first domino.

I too have long thought that Himan was a weak link for these guys and that seemed to be the case in the NC Bar hearing. I also expect a couple of these defendants to be severed from his lawsuit. I would think that Himan and Addison are to prime guys to tell all that they know about how this happened with no personal tort or criminal liability.


1. Himan is a rookie investigator following the lead of an experienced investigator and the local DA. That would a pretty tough combinnation for any rookie investigator to stand up to. He can certainly testify whether or not their was an actual conspiracy here or whether it simply was a case of an anti Duke student investigator and a self interested in his election DA.

2. Addison merely stated the DPD official position on the hoax. He can certainly testify as to whether the DPD and his supervisor generally we fooled by Nifong or actually KNEW what was alledged in the filing.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what Professor Coleman would have found had he subjected Chauncey Nartey's Fraternity to the same degree of scrutiny as the lacrosse team before the National Authority, whatever it was, suspended it.

Anonymous said...

Take a deep breath folks...the filing of the suit is only ONE step in the legal process and makes the plaintiffs reveal their strategy.
Due to the unpredictabilty of ANY jury, and the enormous costs involved in preparing a case like this to go to trial, neither side wants the case to be tried.
Sooner or later the case will be settled out of court for less than the 30 million.
Unfortunately it's not about's about making a good business decision. Not taking this case to trial is a good business decison for both the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Debrah said...

I'm not sure this link will work because it's a link to the webcast of the panel KC was on at Duke last week.

This is one I didn't get a chance to see earlier.

Watched it just a few minutes ago and it's informative. The woman on the panel gave a great presentation of the various elements of the blogosphere; however, KC's presentation was obviously the best.

I'm going to archive this one with his Duke appearance at Page if I want to listen to KC in the future...he's there!

He really looks fabulous on this panel. A very different bowtie--(muted color scheme)--LIS!

His voice is one of my favorite voices. It's almost as sexy as Christopher Hitchens.

When you feel upset with KC, you can listen to this one....and fall in love with him all over again.

Such Diva madness!


KC at Duke conference

Anonymous said...

Nifong isn't City of Durham employee. Who does he have representing him, anyone know?

Anonymous said...

At every turn, Durham failed to stop the Hoax or do anything about it. Subsequently, the City failed to take action to prevent future hoaxes and illegal police conduct.

1. Even before the Hoax, the Durham Police Department made it a policy to discriminate against Duke students.

2. Very early on in the Hoax, City Manager Patrick Baker indicated he spoke to all the police officers and that they indicated Mangum's claims were consistent.

3. About the time Nifong was telling Himan "we're f$@#ed," Himan is explaining the evidence to the Mayor and City Manager.

4. At a time when everyone paying attention knew that the fix was in with the Hoax, the City Manager is making public statements in support of the "investigation," and the Mayor is donating to the lead conspirator's political campaign.

5. When given the chance to investigate the Hoax, the City Manager and Police Chief came up with a "report" that consisted of a few pages of obvious whitewash.

6. When the city had a second chance to investigate their own misdeeds, they closed down the Whichard Committee when it appeared that the committee might actually investigate the Hoax.

Additionally, Durham has not taken any action that would alleviate some of the problems with the Hoax. For example:

A. Gottlieb, Himan, Ripberger, Lamb, etc. are still on the DPD payroll.

B. No obvious, public action has been taken to alleviate chain of command issues, grand jury issues, photo lineup issues, etc....

C. Durham still has not investigated their Hoax with other than white paint.

Durham officials had the opportunity to check this Hoax or investigate it. For whatever reason, the city has failed to do so. It is time that a responsible entity do everything that the irresponsible entity (Durham) has failed, and continues to fail, to do. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

w r chambers said:

"This case is an opportunity for Durham. Durham should authorize its counsel to call Barry Scheck and Brendan Sullivan NOW - tonight - and ask to meet with them to try to figure out how to make the criminal justice system in Durham fulfill the responsibilities that Nifong and so many others ignored. "

This is an easy problem to fix. You don't need meetings and committees. They all broke the law. They need to stop. You give people justice by due process. There are thousands of individuals who work in the justice system that do their work honorable every day. That's it. Do not manufacture evidence, do not hide evidence, follow line-up procedures (they were all ready written), do not lie, do not have hidden agendas. Do your work as though someone is following you with a movie camera.
Or, just like we learned in golf, you NEVER cheat--even when no one is looking.


Anonymous said...

I think I finaly discened a connection between the Silence of the NC Senators, who are conservative Republicans and would normally be ready to call for a Federal investigation of the Lacrosse Scandal and Steele, BOT Chairman, who is a Bush appointee as Undersecretary of the Treasurery.

Such an investigation would mean that influential Republicans would be investigating other such Republicans.

Well, as far as I can tell, our Democratic friends mustered the courage to do just that to Nifong, et al.

Partisanship can only go so far.

Action by the NC Senators is WAY overdue... regardless of how much Steele may contribute to their campaigns.

( From a die-hard conservative NC Republican Duke alum)

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson, I know that this isn't the right thread to post this in, I am a reader of your blog not a commentator, but it seems Australia will not learn anything from the Duke Hoax:

From today's Sydney Morning Herald

"Sex victims saved from court torment"

"BARRISTERS will be refused permission to cross-examine children and sexual assault victims under an Australian-first law to be brought in by the NSW Government.

Changes to the Evidence Act will mean the most vulnerable crime victims and witnesses will be able to give their evidence uninterrupted, in story form.

"These changes will mean vulnerable witnesses and traumatised victims will be able to give their evidence in narrative form, rather than traditional question and answer," Mr Iemma said. "Children and victims of sexual assault are more comfortable in relating their experiences in a narrative form, without interruption to their account.

"Narrative evidence gives victims ownership of their experience in court, rather than having it controlled by lawyers. These changes will [provide] a greater [level] of respect for what can be a difficult experience in court."

An Aussie who had hoped that we would have learned by now.

Anonymous said...

Himan was a main cog in an attempt to put 3 innocent young men in prison for most of their lives.
Himan should go to prison for his actions. At worst Durham will ante up money for him. Big deal.
Feel sorry for Himan? You must be kidding.

Anonymous said...

To 11:28:
Duke paid off the players, with protection for the group of 88 written into the settlement.
If the faculty members were so caring, why do you think that was necessary?

Anonymous said...

to the 1:51 from the 11:23

The city officials have had the info, but not the citizens of Durham.

I think the debate on the requests for change will (or should) bring about some education and debate (for those in Durham paying attention) My fear is that the citizens of Durham are not paying attention and have little faith (rightfully so) in the officials. I watched one of the lawyers on TV yesterday morning and he stated that there may be more negotiating going on.

I have raised 2 white males, who many would say were "privileged" and am greatly concerned about improvements in Durham. I think what was done to these 3 young men,the team, all the families, Coach Pressler and his family, and the women's lacrosse team was totally unacceptable and shameful.

I also think that maybe it should go to trial so all of the informtion will come out. I think a settelment may leave a lot of issues unanswered.

I applaud the young men for going for change as well as money, I hope it happens. I also think it is sad that all the people covering this story (relentlessly) are not covering the issues now and the good change that may come out of this. (instead of B Spears!)

It would be nice if the media would stop referring to them as the Duke lacrosse players, they have names and it is time they were used. Maybe someday, they will be referred to as the 3 men, that are responsible for citizens rights in Durham. The fact that this could happen to someone else is very sad. I hope as much comes from the dialog as the changes.

Anonymous said...

I am so much missing the daily dose of DIW!

Anonymous said...

Just read the suit and I'm wondering why Bell and Baker aren't named personally under City of Durham as defendant? Supervisory personnel in the DPD are being personally named; why not Bell and Baker as supervisoryy over City?

Anonymous said...

All those words from Barry and friends and not one word involves Levicy or DUMC in any wrong doing.

Anonymous said...


"Tooth" "loose" "goose".....

Check your grammar and spelling too, Dook shill. Hopefully your B&B daughter is better equipped to not commit so many gaffes in written communications (probably not; anytime I read adjectives like that my BS meter gets pegged).

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 12.55:

A civil suit settlement already has been reached with Duke. Its terms are confidential, but I would be amazed if it allowed for some current or former Duke employees or institutions to be sued in the future by the plaintiffs in the proposed suit. Most civil suit settlements preclude such actions--that's the whole purpose of the defendant in a civil case entering into an agreement.

Anonymous said...

elcid apparently says:

There are other significant hurdles that the plaintiffs are going to have to overcome in order to prevail, not the least of which are the "custom or policy" requirements defined in 1983 case law and qualified immunity, which will be pressed as a defense and will be difficult to overcome.

Yeah, but then, we were repeatedly told that the DA has some big guns in his trousers, and the Duke wouldn't settle, and that Nifong would never see the inside of a jail.

Ho hum.

Anonymous said...

KC - There is absolutly no indication that the settlement with Duke University involved DUMC or its employees,

Anonymous said...

A word of cocngratulations and caution.First,let me again commend youon your scholarship and efforts in helping to save these youngmen.Yeoman's work of a scale to rank with that at Agincourt.My cautionis to not let yourself be enticed into becoming a champion of the anti PC forces for all things.Certainly ,there is am Aegean Stables to be cleansed inmany of the "studies" inacademia,but I fear for your professional standing if you become the Avenger for the other side.
Finally,I just finished "Until Proven Innocent" and am buying a few more for family members to read.You and Mr.Taylor are to be congratulaed.
sincerely yours,

Colin Elliott

Anonymous said...

Does Liefong have to hire his own lawyers, or is he covered with the rest of defendants?

Anonymous said...

I wonder why Coleman is now speaking out?

It is possible he is getting pressured, but he's been pressured from day one.

It is also possible that he is hoping to become the next president of Duke.

Anonymous said...

If Brodhead resigns precipitously Duke will need someone who knows the system to step in quickly.

That someone has to be acceptable to the Gang of 88 - or at least tolerable.

There is a reason - a BIG reason - Coleman is speaking out like this now. The reason is much bigger than a center for innocence at the law school.

You'll see.


Debrah said... attorney representing the lacrosse players:

Brendan Sullivan

Debrah said...

And the other one:

Barry Scheck

Debrah said...

On the lawsuit against Durham:

"Mr. Nifong could not be reached for comment."


NY Times

Debrah said...


I was just checking the book appearance schedule that KC posted and saw that this past Thursday (Oct.4) he went to the Society of Professional Journalists Conference.

It might have been shown on C-SPAN and I missed it.

Anonymous said...

8:57: Your post would ring more true if these three young men (That's fewer letters than all of their names, which may explain the failure to identify them all of the time.) were just going after change instead of [more] money. The American judicial system needs some reform, part of which should be lower monetary awards.

PS It's always easy for the privileged to have consciences, they have the time and the $!!!

Anonymous said...

Cathyf notes:

I think that the people who go after Mangum still don't fully get it... Like every reasonable person, they just can't believe that Nifong would indict 3 people with nothing as evidence.

I think this is a very important insight, given - as Cathyf also mentioned - that it appears that nearly everyone who came into contact with CGM that night and early am. got the idea that she was so mentally disordered that she virtually couldn't possibly have been immediately credible concerning the alleged rape incident - that is, absent witnesses and physical evidence to come possibly weeks later.

But there seemed to be an almost manic need to keep the rape narrative hot, which we've also seen many times before in other areas as a political propaganda tactic, regardless of truth.

Which brings me to the question I'm really trying to get at once again:why was a Medical Blood Alcohol test not done at any time during CGM's visit to the DUMC E.R.?

I practiced E.R. medicine for 28 years and can assure everyone that a MBA test would be virtually automatic, given a patient who presented with CGM's apparently disordered mental state and bizarre behavior, even without any other complaint whatsoever, not to mention with the added complaint of alleged [violent] rape.

Medically, you'd simply have to figure out asap what is/is not causing her bizarre behavior, regardless of the question of her "credibility". This would mandate an immediate barrage of tests, perhaps even in an automatic written protocol form, including a MBA.

So, excluding incompetence as a reason, I submit the possibility instead that the MBA test was not done by any of the DUMC staff involved exactly because the staff had also determined CGM's credibility to be essentially nil concerning the rape claim and, under the pernicious effect of P.C., purposively didn't want to possibly prove it further by getting a high MBA result!

Given an [immediately obtainable] MBA of, say, >.25, it would hopefully have been a lot more difficult for anyone to run so quickly with the class-sex-race-rape narrative we've come to loathe so much - because of alcohol's well known effect on mental faculties, and especially upon memory.

Without other evidence, a high enough MBA result could have also possibly really hurt CGM's credibility at trial - as well as the all-important and urgent rape narrative in the meantime.

But it also would have protected CGM - further than her bizarre behavior - from the charge of making a false rape charge, because it would have made it even more apparent that she probably couldn't have made any credible charge at all, and likely that others were actually responsible for any charge they tried to attribute to her. Which seems to be what actually happened - as per Cathyf, again.

So is it possible that the DUMC staff also knowingly contributed to the "running with nothing" situation, and at the potential expense of the patient, CGM - both medically and legally?

When P.C. strikes an institution, now anything seems possible.


Anonymous said...

3:30 pm -- there is also no indication that it didn't. What part of confidential don't you understand?

Grendal said...

Coleman's statement at this late date really seems to be a halfhearted attempt to save Brodhead and the friends he has in the group of 88.
Maybe Coleman should write his very own letter, and tell everyone why the statements made by the 88 'caring' faculty and Brodhead are not what they seem, and why Duke had to payoff the Duke 3,Kyle Dowd and probably in the future, the rest of the lax team.

Anonymous said...

Dear Julian and others,

Those who signed the letter (the "88") may actually care a great deal about their students. That may have been the motivation behind the letter.

I assume you don't get that because you don't want to see shades of gray. Your loss.

I kind of like Coleman, he has a sense of proportion. And I was fascinated that so many of the folks who post here claimed not to have know that W.L. was black, but they sure knew J.C. was. Interesting. Very interesting.

Debrah said...

"The reason is much bigger than a center for innocence at the law school."


It's about future cushy security for himself and his wife at Duke.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that Coleman will be president of Duke; however, it makes for a nice touchy-feely scenario.

No one seems to understand that Coleman and his wife are friends with the faculty members who have become known as the Gang of 88.

These people are in his social circle.

Nothing in this case is a mystery. Do you think Coleman is not an ultra-Liberal and does not hold the same ideology as the Gang?

Then you need to do some research.

Anonymous said...

I understand that Dunke University and Duke University Medical Center are two different organizations. They meet at the top of an organization chart and are different subsideries of an over all Duke Corporation. The settlement notice said "duke University settled". DUMC is not under Duke University,

Anonymous said...

Oops - subsidiary

Anonymous said...

Professor Coleman , who wrote the report did not agree with the view of KC's "stunning vindication". Okay. My interpretation of the letter was that the Professor was supporting the Duke FACULTY and not the 88, It's American folks. afFreedom of thought and speech speech is what we are about.
Congradulation on the LBJ award - I bet the 88 are pea green and furious.

Anonymous said...

If "pea green" is available for affirmative action and PC perks, I am sure some of the 88 would volunteer for it.

Furious is not a racial trait, I have learned from this blog. It can apply to either side. Don't change your color, just your blood pressure.

Anonymous said...

To the person claiming to practice medicine for 28 years, how can you be so sure that incompetence and/or later exaggeration of CGM's bizarre behavior is not to blame for the failure of the medical staff not to do a blood alcohol level and full toxic screen?

There is plenty of evidence of incompetence and faulty documentation,IMO. The wrong person( Levicy) even signed off on the exam, not the MD. There is no word as to whether a wet prep was done, which would have revealed a yeast infection THAT NIGHT at the time of the exam as the doctor examines that under the microscope. Instead, we have Dr. Manley saying that white matter she found in the vaginal vault might have been evidence of a yeast infection months after the fact when her exam said no such thing at the time. The exam also did not document bruises, cuts on her legs that were seen in the photos and less than 24 hours later at UNC.

Also, there is no documentation of "very bizarre behavior" as you term it on the medical exam; the only notation is that the patient had to be calmed down after a male staff member entered her room unexpectantly and she cried(not unusual at all with a rape victim) and that she was in a lot of pain on the speculum portion of the exam. There was no notations of agitation, hallucinations, or violent behavior or overtly psychotic behavior in the ER whatsoever so one can either conclude that Manley, etc left this off( doubtful but possible as the documentation seems off otherwise) or that she was not as impaired or psychotic as the defense has alleged , which is VERY probable! Further, as a physician, you know( or should know) that someone with CGM's job should be very easy to examine with a speculum,playacting by the patient or not so there is indeed plenty of ? raised by what we do know about the exam and incompetence is high up there as well as possible( and IMO,probable)exaggeration of CGM's mental state by the defense.

It is very doubtful to me that if the patient was really with an altered mental status and therefore at risk for a toxic ingestion( which can have fatal consequences) that the DUMC team would risk a patient death or other bad outcome by not getting lab tests just to further a rape case for the sake of PC. That does not make sense as malpractice would loom large in a case in which a mentally altered patient died or went into a coma and no tests were done before the clinical picture changed. That scenario is not likely at all so I conclude she was not as altered as the defense has alleged and that is why the tests were not done and that the exam was sloppy at any rate( they have a colpo machine there and there is not even mention if they did colpo pictures of her vagina!)with borderline or overt incompetence,IMO. Your hypothesis of failure to do tests because of PC is farfetched, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Changes need to be made, yes. For one, when police find a woman passed and collapsing, they should suspect date rape drugs. Then, Duke hospital should immediately test for these as part of the rape kit. If this test had been done, police may have had more information to assess why Mangum's statements were so confused and inconsistent. Difficulty reporting and remembering is typical of rape trauma. Police who deal with rape victims are probably aware of this. They are also probably aware how difficult it is for the public to believe victims whose minds are dazed by trauma. Some victims risk having a psychotic break when pressured by questioning. Expecting them to give a crystal clear report is being unaware of rape trauma.

When the suit mentions the police were overheard saying charges beyond misdemeanor could probably not be filed, the suit claims this is because the police knew the story is a hoax. Actually, police know many rape cases can be difficult to prove, without DNA, credible witnesses, or videotape.

Certainly, had a test for date rape drugs been done that night and come back negative, this would have helped the young men's case, if they are innocent? So, why not include this in the reforms that the suit calls for? Do the young men want justice to prevail in rape cases, for whoever is right? Where are the signs that they care about real victims?

Also, the suit does not mention that Mangum collapsed when police took her out of the car, though the News and Observer article does. Collapsing would be what would be expected if she'd been given a date rape drug. A test for a date rape drug was finally done, I read, but it was not certain that the technology used would work, given the length of time that had transpired. Such drugs leave victim's minds a wreck.

Anonymous said...

Also, the suit says that the officer who found CGM, based on his training and experience, could tell she was pretending to be unconscious. Yet, it also says he couldn't send her home or to jail, because she was "pretending" to be unconscious. Actually, if he'd known she was pretending, he would know she was actually conscious. Doesn't this mean he could have sent her to home or jail? If he had her assessed at the mental facility because he wasn't sure, then this means he didn't know for sure she was pretending.

Also, did the officer have any training and experience knowing what victims behave like if they awaken after being given a date rape drug? Since she was not tested for a date rape drug that night, how could police rule out that that could explain her bizarre behavior? Due to the lack of that timely evidence, I think the police have some points to defend themselves regarding some things in this case.

I'm referring to pages 17-18 of the PDF:

M. Simon said...

Re: custom and policy,

I believe DPD claimed it followed policy.

I believe they have trapped themselves.

M. Simon said...

PS It's always easy for the privileged to have consciences, they have the time and the $!!!
10/8/07 1:52 AM

So you claim that the poor have a lower moral standard than the rich?

OK. I'm down with that.

M. Simon said...

10/6/07 11:11 AM,

You may know phonics. However, etymology is not your strong point.

Dook is a popular contraction of Dookie.

You know. The brown stuff you try to wipe off your shoe once you've stepped in it.

M. Simon said...

For everyone says there is a strategy of not making CGM a Defendant, am I the only one stupid enough to think that Durham or Nifongs Answer to the Complaint will include a cross claim against CGM? She should be in the case as a Defendant and the defense surely should bring her in if the Plaintiffs wont.

Very dangerous if they "coached" her.

M. Simon said...


No need to go after the city in the way you suggest some might want. That is the job of the Feds.

Every pleading of the Fifth points out a place to investigate.

Anonymous said...

12:35 Both Levicy and Manly signed the rape kit report - apparently in the wrong place - I am in Levicy's corner and understand that a drug/alcohol test five hours after admittance to the hospital is of little value. I do agree that the other three physician who evaluated Crystal upon her arrival to the ED, for liability reasons alone should have ordered a Tox screen. The problem here is that the rape kit exam (if a nurse and not a Doctor does it is called Sexual Assualt Nurses Exam) has been blown way out of preportation. The Doctor took the swabs and did the physical exam - the nurse did the Question and Answer Check List. Yes, they substituated each other signature in the wrong place on the report - who cares?

Anonymous said...

I though the idea of a date rape drug was to make the recipent not remember the rape and make them pliable. Sure did not happen here.

Anonymous said...

To mi.simon and co...I know where "Dook" comes from. The sophmoric and moronic moniker, when used, immediately marks the user as a silly, stupid,and immature. One can instantly ignore anything the user has to say. Although, it is always a reminder to me of how jealous people are of Duke. So many of you just couldn't get in with your 950 SAT scores and it still hurts to realize that you just don't have and never will have the intelligence and motivation to get into an elite university. So you sit, hunched over your computer in your shabby surroundings, flinging around little kid words like "Dook" and "Dookie" and you practice them to prepare for basketball season, so you can yell them at the TV and doesn't that make you feel better about your mediocrity?

Anonymous said...

"Certainly, had a test for date rape drugs been done that night and come back negative, this would have helped the young men's case, if they are innocent? So, why not include this in the reforms that the suit calls for? Do the young men want justice to prevail in rape cases, for whoever is right? Where are the signs that they care about real victims?"

Say, inorout, let's play a little game. The players are you, versus, well, just about anyone in the world who wants to trash your reputation.

Here's how we play. The players came up with a list of fifteen reforms that might have prevented the injustice they endured in their own case from happening again in Durham. You came up with a sixteenth. Now we go out and ask everyone who wants to see you taken down a peg if they can think of even one more reform. If they can, you lose, and everyone gets to smear you as not caring about, quote, "real victims", because you didn't think of that particular reform.

So, want to play? I'm betting you don't, actually, because the game is rigged against you. But that's exactly the sleazy game that you tried to play, trying to smear the falsely accused players as 'not caring about real victims' (as if false accusers and corrupt prosecutors don't leave "real" victims in their wake) with your only "evidence" being that their lawsuit did not include a reform that you think is a good idea (and by the way: do you know what the cost is of a full toxicology report, the kind needed to rule out all detectable date rape drugs? Exactly what criteria do you think should be used to determine whether such a toxicology report should be done on a particular incoming patient, or are you suggesting that every patient should automatically be given such screening no matter what symptoms they present with? From where will all the funding for this suddenly hugely expanded toxicology testing come? Are you suggesting that it should come from the municipality's funds for combatting sexual assault, since sexual assault seems to be in your mind the only thing that produces "real" victims?)

Anonymous said...

Thanks to the 2:08 for pointing out the obvious jealousy of Duke...I've never seen so much silly invective from people I assume are adults, if not in maturity, at least in years of age. Duke is an excellent university. It has overwhelmingly excellent faculty. It has excellent students. It had a very unfortunate incident with members of one of its sports teams. That has been rectified. Move on.

Anonymous said...

Behavior of people given drugs for rape is described here:

Quotes: "Today’s drugs may at some point render a victim unconscious, but even worse, at least initially... the victim may appear to participate or may even appear to be the aggressor early on in the attack."

"not only is a victim disinhibited... she most likely truly will not even remember such conduct."

"many victims whose stories had remained untold out of fear and confusion or whose stories were told but disbelieved and ignored by the system. Worse yet are those whose stories were simply mishandled."

"waking up with little idea of what has taken place... leaves one confused, dazed and hesitant to run to the police."

Based on reports, Mangum did not mention rape to the officer, when he found her.

Mangum's behavior at the party is described on page 7-8 of Attorney General Cooper's report:

Quotes: "She was overheard talking incoherently." She was experiencing difficulty "with her balance as she attempted to walk." She attempted to "engage in a disjointed conversation." She was "lying in a prone position on the back porch."

People given date rape drugs are commonly known to sometimes remember parts of the night -- little bits -- like a puzzle with a lot of pieces missing. People who have rape trauma can also get memories confused and mixed together -- memories from different events. With time and support, they can better sort things out. Lots of time will elapse before this case goes to court? They don't want CGM in there as a defendant?

See "Are Recovered Memories Accurate?" at:

Cooper's report does not mention that the women were given drinks by the men at the party. These other reports mention that:

Why would men give women drinks? Would that make the women safer, more protected, outnumbered by all those men? Why would the report leave that out?

Anonymous said...

Ah, InOrOut is a disciple of the "recovered memories" cult. That explains a lot. It's sad that even after the scientific evidence has shown so clearly that so-called "recovered memories" are anything but reliable, misguided crusaders like InOrOut still try to wreck reputations, families and lives based on nonsense pseudoscience. Heck, she probably even still believes in the "Satanic sex rings" BS that caused so many false prosecutions in the 1980s -- the nonsense she quotes about "Do predators tell victims things to confuse them during assaults? Yes. Do predators do extraordinary things during assaults so a report will sound incredible? Yes." is straight out of the manual of a witch-hunter. It's the creed of "we must never look at the evidence and decide what it tells us; we must always assign guilt (it's forbidden to find innocence) and then no matter what the evidence is -- even if it's nonsense! -- we'll always have a way to convert that into a 'sign of guilt.'"

Anonymous said...

8:43, I think it was necessary because it's the United States, where almost everyone settles disputes with court cases. OF COURSE, they paid them off. It has nothing to do with not caring about students.

I think a large group of young men, however, nice, upstanding, yadda, yadda, yadda, they might otherwise be, who attend a party with only two women--strippers--is not a pretty picture. Indeed, there have been apologies. If faculty criticize this kind of behavior, more power to them.

While it would be nice if the drinking age in the US were lowered to 18 and nicer still if a group of young men didn't think it was ok--even briefly--to hire strippers, I don't think it's going to happen. And I think unfortunate situations will continue to be the result. Different than what happened in Durham, to be sure, but unfortunate just the same.

Look at the LAX III: they've gone in my book from victims to victimizers with their latest demands. Whose going to pay the cost of all of these suits? The citizens of Durham, some of whom had adsolutely NOTHING to do with this case. That's guilt by association in my book, but I guess that doesn't matter.

I frankly don't think the LAX 3 deserve any more money. If they plan to donate anything else they get to charity, fair enough. As far as that goes, I wonder if the authors of UPI are planning to donate any of their earnings to innocence projects? (After KC Johnson buys himself a proper tie, of course!)

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 206   Newer› Newest»