Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
Blog Awards
About Me
DIW in the News
- New York Magazine (Kurt Andersen)
- cnnsi (Richard Deitsch)
- Slate (Stuart Taylor)
- National Post (Mary Vallis)
- Chicago Sports Review
- Worcester Telegram(Paul Jarvey)
- New York Sun (John Leo)
- North Adams Transcript (Adam Bloch)
- New Criterion
- New York Observer (Anna Schneider-Mayerson)
- Towerview/Chronicle (Rob Copeland)
- New York Post (John Podhoretz)
- Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren)
- USNews.com (Michael Barone)
- Crime and Federalism
- Chicago Sports Review (Matt Wood)
- Seton Hall Sports Blog
- Wall Street Journal (Randy Barnett)
- N&O (Eric Ferreri)
- Blogger News Network (Jefferson Flanders)
- Slate (Jack Shafer)
- New York Sun (Eliana Johnson)
- Infodder
- Duke Chronicle (Saidi Chen)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(872)
-
▼
October
(30)
- Cooper: Joint Federal-State Investigation Needed
- Why the Civil Suit Matters
- Post-Dispatch on UPI
- Updates: Burness, Group in the News
- Update: McClain--Duke's De Klerk?
- Update: Burness Retirement
- Update: Neal
- Reflections on the Lisker Appointment
- Reflections on the Piot Principles
- Updates
- Update: The Group's Openly Political Agenda
- Update
- Flexibly Forthcoming
- Overall Case Narrative
- Updates
- Sun-Times on UPI
- Reflections on the Civil Suit
- Lawsuit Demands
- (Semi-)Hiatus
- JinC on Starn
- Apologies
- Holsti Letter, Munger Response
- Connect the Dots
- Orin Starn, Researcher
- Anti-Lacrosse Extremist: No Apologies
- Civil Suit Preview
- (Some) Good Things Did Happen in Durham
- Reflections on the Law School Conference, II
- Chronicle on Brodhead Apology
- Reflections on the Law School Conference, I
-
▼
October
(30)
Comments Policy
(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
- "From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review
Links
Motions and Documents
- Attorney General's Report
- DNA motion
- Lineup motion
- Supplementary lineup motion
- Change of venue motion
- Bar amended complaint/Nifong response
- December 15 hearing
- State Bar v. Nifong
- Brewer removal motion
- Nifong December 28 letter to Bar
- Nifong January 16 letter to Bar
- Group of 88 statement (removed from Duke website)
- Group of 88 membership
- Transcript of relevant sections, April 4 "identification" "procedure"
70 comments:
I hope this review appeared in the printed form as well as on-line.
I feel lucky that I snagged my copy of UPI hidden in Borders the day of its release and I hope your publisher is working on getting book stores to display it for sale.
Congratulations, KC. I have been a faithful reader of your blog since almost the first post. I cannot wait to read the book. I am a North Carolina attorney and I fully intend on writing my alma mater, New England School of Law, and ask for it to rid itself of the fiend that is Wendy Murphy. Thanks for all of your insight and hard work. Congratulations again.
What an excellent review. Yet another one of myriad magnificent reviews.
UPI is Hot! Hot! Hot!
Need a hanky...you little envious detractors?
LOL!!!
Congrats, KC, on yet another stellar review of your book, the HBO movie deal, and yet another prestigious academic award (the Hardeman prize) for your real work.
Your successes must be like salt in the wounds of the nitwit 88'ers. Keep it up!
Ivory Tower Decay...
"...America's colleges and universities seemed to be the most open-minded and intellectually rigorous institutions in our society. Today, something very much like the opposite is true: America's colleges and universities have become, and have been for some decades, the most closed-minded and intellectually dishonest institutions in our society..."
Ivory Tower Decay - Michael Barone
Mr. Barone makes some great points regarding speech codes, unequal treatment, racial quotas, and multicultralism.
"...The promotion of bogus scholarship and idea-free propagandizing has been admirably documented by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. It's too bad the rest of America is not paying more attention."
Unfortunatley Mr. Barone omits noting the ramification of fraudulent educations such as the Duke hoax.
Ironically the Duke hoax may very well be the tipping point that effects radical change in academia.
Let's hope so, the alternative isn't pretty.
I just finished reading the complaint. Wow. The only question I have is whether the Defendants will bring in Mangum as a third party defendant. Who wants tickets to that deposition?
I also found the review of the Evil Wendy Murphy's book:
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/books/592538,CST-BOOKS-
duke07a.article
Congratulations on another fine review, Professor Johnson. And I just hope that you and Mr. Taylor and the HBO writer are able to knock off a shooting script before a probable writer's strike shuts down the town (Hollywood, not Durham. The lawyers will shut down Durham.)
Have there been any egregiously bad reviews of UPI? Might be fun to post one as sport for some of my favorite barracudas at this site. (I mean "barracudas" in a nice way. Heh.)
BRAVO!! Except for the bad guys, the reviews have been stunning!
The review of UPI mentions Wendy Murphy's new book (And Justice for Some). Here is the first of the online reviews on that book's webpage:
--- snip -----
STANDING FOR THE VICTIMS
TOM CHASTAIN, I LOVE BOOKSTORES, 09/16/2007
'and justice for some' is a book that really speaks for the victims and not the criminal.the arthur wendy murphy shows countless documented cases were those whoose only goal is to hurt members of society are turned loose and threaten and hurt members of society again and again. I was very amazed at the chapter on child porn this dynamic prosecuter proves with legal documents that it is not only very harmful but the ones who are defending the predators are sometimes guility of the crime themselfs. this book is really amazing they are all true stories.great gift idea for family and friends.
---- snip ------
Presumably- the scholarship of the review mirrors the scholarship of the book but I'm only guessing....
I just wish I culd give as good a review of KC's wonderful tomb.
RL alum medicine '75
I hope the Chicago Public Library staff reads the review. I have asked in three branches as well as the main library that the book be ordered. So far, to my knowledge, it has not been. I was told by the person manning the desk at the main library downtown that Chicago is a very political city and this would not likely be an acceptable book. Wow!!!! I'm still reeling from that statement.
If you stand back and look at this whole case, it's easy to see the interwoven mass of corruption existing among Durham, Duke, and black community "leaders".
Whether or not those relationships are authentic on a personal level, there exists a whole network of "civic activism" and "social and cultural" largesse and philanthropy from some to others.
All in the name of producing a better Durham.
LOL!
When Mrs. Brodhead (Cynthia) participates in those civic organizations, and when she and Dicky schmooze with Englehard and other Trinity Park harrassers, and when they all join the mayor and the city council and city booster Reyn from the Visitors Bureau for various "causes" at the Hayti Heritage Center, etc....etc.....
....they illustrate their many conflicts of interest.
Brodhead never had the independence of thought and authentic strength to look at the Hoax with an objective eye back in the Spring of 2006.
That weakling was only interested in placating the network. He is an astonishingly weak individual.
Many towns and cities are host to a university; however, most university presidents do not turn over the reins of the school to the dictates and the whims of the officials and the "leaders" of the town.
That essentially happened in the Lacrosse Hoax and is another reason Durham will pay big time.
Another significant incestuous player has been Bob Ashley. From his laughable Sunday "columns"--which I call his "diary entries"--he proudly gives details of how he and his wife participate in all the town events.
LOL!!!
As a valentine to his little friends, the H-S has printed nothing on the upcoming lawsuit except for cut and dried news reports.
We don't see any of the constant editorializing and the rush to take sides the way we did when the lacrosse players were accused.
As the civil suit takes shape, watch the H-S's editorial page take on a new brand of silent sleaze.
Regarding legal theories:
Part of the game that is unfolding is the cat-and-mouse game of letting one's opponent know as little as possible, while gaining as much helpful information as possible.
What will follow shortly will be Defendant's response in which they will go paragraph by numbered paragraph with (1) a denial or (2) an obfuscation or (4) an innuendo or (4) in a few cases, a stipulation to facts. The object of the response will be to muddy the waters as much as possible, while still being able to look the judge in the eye with a straight face.
You see, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. (Yep ... Clinton basically laid out the central theme of modern civil rights politics.)
Anyone familiar with the facts as outlined in the complaint (and with any sense of justice as framed by our Forefathers) will be astonished at the response and what will appear to any reasoned human being as out-and-out lies.
But that's just the game. This is only the English opening in what will be a protracted chess match.
Checkmate, if any, will have to wait for final arguments.
___________________________________
Given the nature of the claim and the national visibility, I'd think it appropriate for the plaintiff's to aggressively fight any notion of a protective order. I'd want every court document and every deposition to be available for the light of day. If there ever was a need for Justice Brandeis, it is now:
"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."
A poster on a previous thread mentioned the difficulties posed by the notion of "qualified immunity." Excerpts from the Supreme Court decision: -- HARLOW v. FITZGERALD, 457 U.S. 800 (1982):
“Qualified or "good faith" immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Decisions of this Court have established that the "good faith" defense has both an "objective" and a "subjective" aspect. The objective element involves a presumptive knowledge of and respect for "basic, unquestioned constitutional rights.” The subjective component refers to "permissible intentions." Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [defendant] , or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . ."
“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” (emphasis added)
______________________________________________________
I find it difficult to believe that any of the defendants could argue that they did not know that their actions would violate the constitutional rights of the lacrosse players. And even then, if they did not know, they should have known, for that was their job(s). But then again, maybe Nifong will resort to the 'stupidity defense.' Gottlieb can surely rely on that defense.
It seems to me with only this snippet of the law, its going to be a fairly straightforward argument to assert that Nifong et al “reasonably should have known that the action[s they] took … would violate the constitutional rights of the [defendants]…”
I know if I was on a jury, I wouldn’t grant any of the defendants a “qualified immunity” get-out-of-jail-free card.
I'm getting more upset by the day.
How can we proceed without KC covering these lawsuits?
I have tried to check out other places, but there is nothing to compare.
¡ Muy triste !
Perhaps we can start a new site and call it "Dead Sea Scrolls" featuring KC checking in from Tel Aviv.
LOL!
K.C.,
Ordered UPI over a month ago from Amazon (only place I could find it) and it just arrived two days ago. Hard to put it down. If nothing else, you have rendered an invaluable service to us older alumni. I do not think most of us had the slightest notion of what was and is going on at Duke, both academically and administratively. Or how Duke got to the sorry state the school is in today. Truly, genuinely pathetic!! Can the BOT really be aware of how embarrassed many of us are? Do they care???
The job will be almost complete when the feckless stumblebum (MR. Peepers clone) and his 88 sucklings are shown the gate. Steele and the BOT need to be dealt with and the place needs fumigating VERY BADLY.
Thanks much for an outstanding job. Will sorely miss my daily visits to the blog.
trinity60
It should be very easy to find out where CGM is. I'll bet a PI could find her in half a day. Why isn't there any news about if she's even in the state anymore? And it also seems to me the case laid out charges which can be proven without CGM as witness. The videotapes, for example, of her ID don't require her to personally be present in the courtroom. It isn't HER violating the ID procudedure, it's the cops and DA. Has Scheck et. al. tried to keep from calling her as witness by their language and charges?
The D. B. Hardeman Prize is awarded annually for the best book that focuses on the U.S. Congress, from the fields of biography, history, journalism, and political science. Candidates are judged on the importance of their contribution to scholarship on the Congress, and their literary craftsmanship, originality, and depth of research.
The KC accolades just keep coming.
The Gritty Gang of 88 must be going nuts!
KC wins and prospers.
His detractors lose and seethe.
Just checked with the Barnes & Noble at Southpointe--one of the best and busiest shopping centers in the Triangle--and they have a good supply of UPI in the store.
It's in the True Crime section and is featured in their window.
I told them that they should prepare for a whole new promo of the book once the film comes out.
KC will have to come to Southpointe for a stupendous booksigning.
Such Diva madness!
(If you guys can't find the book at your Barnes & Noble...wherever you live in the U.S....all you have to do is ask for it and you can probably talk them into reordering it.)
Just out of curiosity, has the book received any bad reviews, aside from the recent Coleman/Kasibhatla review?
The book did not get a bad review from the Professors, What Prof Coleman found fault with was KC calling his report a "stunning vindication" of the Lax team. He makes the point that the faculty of DU are generally terrific. Unfortunately, the rabid mob takes any hint that KC is not perfect( even KC knows he is faults)as a wicked enabler of the hoax and a bad person.
You and Stuart Taylor have written a brilliant and searing book. The meticulous research and controlled fury of your narrative end any hope the Duke administation had of rescuing even a shred of its reputation.
Your meticulous dissection of media performance is also sobering. The only bright spots were the N&O's resurrection of its coverage, the Duke Chronicle's extraordinary professionalism and restraint and James Coleman's brave but ignored reporting from within the university.
I can only hope that the press and academy pay very close attention to the professional and cultural rot that you so convincingly present. Thank you for your enoromous contribution to public understanding of two crucial but enfeebled civic institutions--higher education and journalism.
Gil Thelen, Duke '60
James A. Clendinen professor, University of South Florida
Retired publisher and executive editor, The Tampa Tribune
TO Ethical Duke--
A few Hoax enablers have submitted an offering or two.....as the sticky juice of sour grapes dripped from their keyboards.
However, they never last very long inside the Wonderland gates.
:>)
Costco in Durham just re-stocked, they had at least 60 copies of UPI today (they had sold out of their first shipment within 2 weeks). Get 'em while you can!
Duke'82
Loved the book - very much enjoyed the lecture at the Harvard Club of Boston - sorry the Duke Alumni club in the Boston area didn't list the lecture...on other blogs I have read two intriguing things - first, Brodhead was involved in Yale's unfortunate response to the tragic murder of a student a few years ago - Brodhead's actions flamed the initial suspicion that the woman's faculty advisor might have been the perpetrator - his career was ruined, he was never charged - no evidence - the case remains open.....second, a blogger is claiming that Houston Baker was forced to leave Duke - wouldn't that be a credit to some administrator at Duke - any chance that it's true?
Excellent reviews, yeah...but it takes a persistent and heroic effort for folks to find a copy to purchase, Amazon.com notwithstanding. Pretty bizarre on publisher's behalf, considering a book which is critically acclaimed and already working on a movie deal. Why don't they get some visible copies out there and do a little publicity?
Oh wow.
I went over to Liestoppers just now and read Joan Foster's "letter to Al Sharpton".
Quite funny and makes all the points.
However, if you guys think that it has sometimes gotten heated inside Wonderland, you should read some of the posts in response to that letter.
One in particular was a quote from a message board on the WTVD11 website.
That letter is chilling if it is authentic.
Something tells me that the people over in Durham are going to explode before this case is over.
Ethical Duke 4:42 said...
Just out of curiosity, has the book received any bad reviews, aside from the recent Coleman/Kasibhatla review?
::
I have been asked this question several times and spent an evening last week trying to find something negative about the book.
Couldn't find anything negative.
The 'something must have surly happened' group continues with the small arms fire and smoke and the AABlack groups are mad at everyone but other than that ...nothing.
Someone will come forward as they always do. Perhaps the Native Americans in Oklahoma will get fired up over lacrosse not being called 'stick ball' which was the proper name given the sport by the NDN's hundreds of years ago.
::
GP
Anonymous @1:25 PM said...
I just wish I culd give as good a review of KC's wonderful tomb.
I don't normally play spelling nazi but I'm really not ready to contemplate KC's tomb.
That DIW is winding down is bad enough...
Not to rain on KC's parade of yet another positive review (as indeed that should be), but I'm really appalled by the low quality of the reviewer's prose. Jeesh, what a high school newpaper caliber writer! Surely the great Chicago Sun-Times could have found a more literate book reviewer.
Oh I forgot... It's the blogs that are lightweight junk and the the MSM is where the triple editing and fact checking is where it's at, for professionalism and seriousness.
Borders books in N Raleigh had some last week, but no display, you have to look or ask for the book. They did not have them the day the book came out. For some reason they are not promoting the book in the Triangle, gee I wonder why.
"The book did not get a bad review from the Professors, What Prof Coleman found fault with was KC calling his report a "stunning vindication" of the Lax team. He makes the point that the faculty of DU are generally terrific. Unfortunately, the rabid mob takes any hint that KC is not perfect( even KC knows he is faults)as a wicked enabler of the hoax and a bad person."
Two points --
First, you're unfortunately right about the rabid mob, which we do have around here. Thankfully, it's not all that we have or even a majority of what we have.
Second, in reference to Coleman's recent claims that KC and Stuart Taylor misrepresented his committee's report (unusual, as Taylor has pointed out, for Coleman to suddenly be bringing up this objection after almost a year) I really think that it's Coleman who is taking things out of context. If the general perception of the lacrosse players at that point in time had been "god-like young men who can do no wrong" then naturally the findings of the report would have been seriously damaging to that perception. With the players being accused en masse of being racist, sexist thugs, and the New York Times even questioning whether they retain "their standing as human beings", however, then the Coleman Report was a stunning vindication.
" I'm really appalled by the low quality of the reviewer's prose. Jeesh, what a high school newpaper caliber writer! Surely the great Chicago Sun-Times could have found a more literate book reviewer."
One of the lessons of this case is the true state of the MSM.
I would consider this a negative review:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=azByXJkxi5mI&refer=muse
It would seem Nifong's way of doing things was common practice in Durham. This one from H-S's John McCann:
Let's look to a history of injustice
Oct 7, 2007
Can't blame this one on Mike Nifong.
Jim Hardin was the district attorney in 2001 when Erick Daniels was sent to the joint for robbing Ruth Brown.
In 2014, the year Daniels is scheduled for release, he'll be 28. He's 21 now, and was 15 when jurors found him guilty.
And what I'm getting at is Daniels wasn't but 14 when he was nailed for burglary and armed robbery -- hung without a shred of physical evidence, according to Daniels' attorney, Carlos Mahoney. Nobody produced any stolen money, nobody saw Daniels fleeing the scene, nothing, he said.
What jurors did have, however, was the biography of a bad kid -- and the thought back then was all of those Chewning Middle School kids were bad -- who smoked a little reefer and hung out in the razed, but still infamous, Few Gardens housing projects.
Oh, and Daniels had dark eyebrows.
And the jury bought that?
"They did," Mahoney said.
So you mean to tell me this kid never got to go to his high school prom; never, in fact, got to go to high school; never got to take driver ed, because a former Durham police employee, who said she was robbed by masked gunmen, picked out Daniels from a photo lineup based on his … eyebrows?
Which isn't beyond the pale -- unless you're Mahoney and your client was the only one in the photo lineup with dark eyebrows.
Sound familiar? Sound like the flawed photo lineup in the Duke lacrosse case that consisted solely of lacrosse players, so the accuser was bound to pick a dude from the team?
As for the questionable photo lineup in the Daniels case, lack of evidence or possible favoritism shown toward a Durham Police Department employee, police spokeswoman Kammie Michael said, "The case has been adjudicated and the Police Department has no further comment."
But others are talking.
"In light of what we have witnessed recently with the events that have occurred in Louisiana with the Jena Six, it's totally possible that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred and can occur," St. Petersburg Times reporter Demorris Lee said about the Daniels case.
Lee, who used to work for Raleigh's News & Observer, actually was arrested for allegedly making harassing phone calls when seeking comment from Brown. Those charges were dropped. But Lee hasn't let go of the Daniels case. He is expected to fly in from Florida to participate in today's 2 p.m. Community Conversation at Ideas! Coffee House, 5607 N.C. 55, Suite 105. Mahoney will be there.
"The battle ain't just in Jena," Ideas! owner Delbert "DJ Kraze" Jarmon said.
"I'm not talking about the guilt or innocence of the students involved in the Jena Six," Lee said. "But what I am talking about is the process. And I believe there were some serious flaws in the process when it comes to the case of Erick Daniels."
As a show of solidarity akin to what we saw in Jena, formerly accused Duke lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, David Evans and anybody who harped on the miscarriage of justice regarding their sexual assault charges should swing by Ideas!.
And it might not be a bad idea for the city manager, the mayor and the council to put in some face time. You think the Duke lacrosse boys are trying to rape the city with their $30 million lawsuit? Man, you haven't seen anything yet.
"I'm going for their throats," Daniels' mama told me. "I'm going to make sure his life is compensated for three hundredfold."
This left on a message board at WTVD11:
From the WTVD board (local Durham station) on a thread regarding the murder of a 12 year old white girl who happened to be home during a break-in by 4 AA males:
It must be remembered by those whom are bigots, that African-Americans have suffered an almost intolerable amount of abuse, social injustices and humiliation at the hands of America's white people. And this bullying and intolerance continues even today. Consequently, it should be assumed and even accepted that America's black population is eager to extract a modicum of revenge and to retaliate for the collective social injustices which white people have forced blacks to endure. Simply put, it's pay-back time and the playing field must, and will, be leveled.
As a matter of fact, white bigots should welcome a chance to be punished by blacks. It can provide them with a ready-made opportunity to repent, atone for their sins, soothe their guilty souls and feel better about themselves. Consider such an opportunity as a unique and generous gift from an understanding black community. White America should think of retaliation by black America as justified punishment and sacrifices which they must make on the long toll road to absolute ethnic diversity and multiculturalism.
Tomorrow white America will celebrate Christopher Columbus Day. Needless to say, it was Christopher who paved the way for slave routes from Africa to America. Should African-Americans (or anyone else) celebrate this?
Very good column:
Clarence Page
To Gwallan at 12:46
Can you spell satire?
That was supposed to be a take off on the atrocious 'And Justice For Some' review I had pasted into my post.
Sheesh.
RL alum medicine '75
Anonymous said...
I hope the Chicago Public Library staff reads the review. I have asked in three branches as well as the main library that the book be ordered. So far, to my knowledge, it has not been. I was told by the person manning the desk at the main library downtown that Chicago is a very political city and this would not likely be an acceptable book. Wow!!!! I'm still reeling from that statement.
10/8/07 1:34 PM
Does anyone think that Hollywood less of a "political city" (meaning, of course, extreme leftwing politics)? Then what makes us think UPI will be "acceptable" there? I expect that Hollywood will give UPI the same treatment it gave "A Bonfire of the Vanities", and turn a story about anti-white racism in the justice and political systems into something else.
RRH
Anonymous 10:02 said...
...I would consider this a negative review:
...http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=azByXJkxi5mI&refer=muse
::
Yes. I agree with you. The first one I have seen.
The author wants to know if Magnum was raped or not and he did not need to read all the details provided by the authors and he sure did not need to know about the problems in the English Department at Duke and... he has no earthly idea what the English Department has to do with Precious, bless her heart, being raped or not raped by the lacrosse team.
Far to many details for this columnist. That's fine. He just wanted the Cliff Notes version of the Readers Digest Article.
I wonder why he bothers to read anything in the first place. Perhaps those folks who don't read books are his audience.
So it goes!
::
GP
While I think 8:18 AM's second point is one of the better explanations of how Stuart and KC could characterize the Coleman Report as "a stunning vindication" of the lacross players at the time of its release, whereas Coleman, months later, could deny this (i.e., context and timing are everything), I fail to discern the "rabid mob" to which he alludes in his first point:
First, you're unfortunately right about the rabid mob, which we do have around here. Thankfully, it's not all that we have or even a majority of what we have.
So, it's a minority "mob"? A "mob" of 2 or 3? Does being "anonymous" make one part of the mob, or distinguish one from it? Is it vociferousness of expression that characterizes one of the mob? Or is it only those who question the timing of Coleman's belated attack on Stuart's and KC's characterization of his report (a question raised by no less than Stuart himself), or issues of motive or character that the "timing" question raises, who are the "mob"? And since they're "rabid," do they need to be put down?
For a while here, the deprecatory buzzword for these threads was "groupthink." Now " rabid mob." Invariably, those who so describe their fellow commenters are anonymous, and never address the argument raised by those with whom they disagree. They just lump them all together, and call them names– behavior that also characterizes a mob. Who, fortunately, are not a majority.
Never having commented on Coleman, I am,
A Member of the Non-Mob Majority
dear anon at 103pm
Don't even try satire, It'll get you killed.
@RL alum medicine '75
Fair nuff. I was possibly assuming sarcasm rather than satire.
In that case I just wish you'd found a better misspelling of tome...er...tomne...ohh...tom...damn...tohm...oh, never mind.
On the Coleman letter tempest, which has not received the attention it deserves: what troubles me about Coleman's letter is his failure to raise the issue directly with Taylor or Johnson in fora where intellectual honesty required him to speak out.
Reasonable people can disagree with any of the differing characterizations of the report that have been advanced since May of 2006; however, for Coleman to call out Taylor and Johnson in October of 2007 is distressing. Just two weeks before his letter to the Chronicle, Coleman participated with Taylor in a 48 minute discussion of the Duke lacrosse case on Tom Ashbrook's radio show on WBUR in Boston. Bob Ashley and Mike Pressler were also guests.
On two occasions in that interview, Taylor made specific reference to the Coleman committee report. In his second reference, Taylor presented a balanced description of the report and then also used virtually the same language ("stunning" vindication) that Coleman cited in his letter as being "biased" and "misleading". Immediately after Taylor's characterization of the report, Coleman was asked to respond. He was under no time pressure (Ashbrook was very generous in allowing all guests to make their points). Coleman did not in any way challenge Taylor's description of the report (indeed, he did not even mention the report) and intead focused on his disagreement with Taylor's assertion that certain faculty members who criticized the lacrosse team were "extremist" and motivated by a politically correct agenda. Importantly, Coleman also praised Taylor and Johnson for their presentation of the facts relevant to the lacrosse fiasco and said that he did not dispute those facts.
In his letter to the Chronicle, Coleman could have made his point without specifically calling out Taylor and Johnson. His personal attacks on Taylor and Johnson in the Chronicle letter, given his complete failure to speak to the "bias" and "misrepresentation" allegations when fairness and professionalism demanded it during the WBUR interview is, well, "stunning."
Debrah @11.29am re. the post left on the message board at WTVD11:
I had to read it twice trying to understand the viciousness and hate of that person. Truly shocking!
If Wahneema Lubiano were to review the book I suspect it would be less then favorable. However I’m sure she would make-up some new words for us so the entertainment value would still be high.
Ok, we can admit we're getting more work done...and perhaps we're getting a little more sleep since KC has turned down the volume inside the Wonderland gates......
.....however, trippin' from withdrawal pains and the change of pace in the outside world of mere mortals is still a challenge.
Even self-possessed Kitty Diva is curious.....but I have yet to tell her that the Wonderland gates will soon be locked for all time!
After our splendid KC Wonderland scene, we don't look any further.
The above message that was posted on a message board in Durham is scary.
I place the blame for this mentality on Democrats like Dean who quite regularly tell the black community that whites simply owe the blacks.
I am a white male who has already lost jobs to minority quotas. Betrayed by this new, improved, racist, politically correct (religiously incorrect) America. A country that I love and have served for has stabbed me in the back.
My family was new to America in the early 1900’s and never had slaves. But, still I am being forced to suffer for my races mistakes.
What do I tell my family?
Should I continue to hold my head up?
Should I feel that minorities are holding me down?
Should I feel anger against special treatment to minorities?
Should I walk out a business that has a majority of minority employees?
Should I treat minorities fairly and honestly?
If so, why?
How can I re-level the playing field?
Well here is the honest answers:
I tell my family that minorities get special treatment because they can’t honestly compete.
I hold my head up because I don’t need special help or special education.
I do feel that minorities are holding me down.
I do feel anger and resentment against minorities.
I do walk out of businesses that have a majority of minority employees.
I do not treat minorities fairly and honestly since they are anti white-male.
I re-level the playing field by not helping minorities, let the government help them.
I do no consider females as minorities.
White male Americans are not being represented by our government. What happened to no taxation without representation?
The two major political parties have been corrupted by parasitical politicians.
The media is biased against white males.
This should be a flag for ANYONE who has white male children.
From National Journal/The Gate:
October 09, 2007
Parsing The Duke Lacrosse Suit
Stuart Taylor Jr. is a legal columnist with National Journal and the co-author of a book on the Duke lacrosse case.
The lawsuit filed on Friday by the three Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape has been miscast by some critics.
Some see the undoubtedly aggressive, if not unprecedented, lawsuit [PDF] against the city of Durham, N.C., disgraced former District Attorney Mike Nifong, and other officials as a pointless vendetta. Some might also see the suit as a cynical bid for self-enrichment, or even as a legally far-fetched effort to punish the good citizens of Durham.
They're wrong on all counts, or so it seems to me. After spending the better part of a year working on a book about the Duke case and related matters, I have no doubt that Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann will amply prove the heart of their claims, which are as follows:
The prosecution of the lacrosse players over the course of a full year was "one of the most chilling episodes of premeditated police, prosecutorial, and scientific misconduct in modern American history."
As many as 10 Durham police officers and two hired DNA experts along with Nifong "knew that these charges were completely and utterly unsupported by probable cause, and a total fabrication by a mentally troubled, drug prone exotic dancer whose claims, time and time again, were contradicted by physical evidence, documentary evidence, other witnesses, and even the accuser herself. In their rush to accuse, Defendants willfully ignored and were deliberately indifferent to overwhelming evidence of Plaintiffs' actual innocence."
"Instead, Defendants used the accuser's inconsistent and demonstrably false allegations as fuel for a media campaign to obtain indictments and win a hotly-contested election at the expense of the three innocent Duke lacrosse players. With a community and a nation thus inflamed and clamoring for indictments of Duke lacrosse players, but with no evidence that any players had actually committed a crime, Defendants set about to fabricate such evidence [and] conspired to conceal... exculpatory evidence in order to charge and convict Plaintiffs on 'facts' they knew to be untrue."
Critics of the lawsuit ignore the mountain of evidence that is already in the public record supporting each and every one of these allegations.
Is the lawsuit mainly an effort to further humiliate and bankrupt Nifong, the now-disbarred, jailed-for-a-day, rogue DA who was the chief orchestrator of the bogus case?
Hardly. Nifong is the least important defendant, in the sense that everyone knows his career is finished. The other individual defendants have more at stake: 10 Durham police officers, up to and including the top brass, and two allegedly corrupt DNA experts whose private lab was hired by Nifong. None has been punished. All remain on the job.
Is the lawsuit just a bid for self-enrichment by the three plaintiffs? Well, they do hope to recover a lot of money as compensation both for their ordeals and for the damage to their names; their now-spurned settlement offer reportedly included a demand for $30 million.
But a large award of compensatory and punitive damages might also be the best way to get the attention of a city government whose criminal justice establishment the lawsuit alleges to be rotten from top to bottom. And it might help deter other police departments from similarly dishonest conduct.
In addition, the lawsuit, like the spurned settlement offer, seeks to force Durham to submit to a very long list of court-supervised criminal justice reforms for the protection of all defendants, which in that area tend to be black and poor. And if the city ends up agreeing to such reforms, it will reduce the amount of money it has to pay the lacrosse players.
The proposed reforms include putting the Durham Police Department into virtual receivership for 10 years, with a court-appointed monitor empowered to hire, promote and fire police personnel from the chief on down, as well as to set policies. More specific proposed reforms include measures to increase the reliability and prevent manipulation of: scientific evidence, including DNA testing; identification procedures, including lineups; the training of new officers; and the establishment of an independent citizens committee to review complaints of police misconduct.
It's hard to think of another private lawsuit against a city that has demanded such sweeping reforms and so many millions of dollars. But it's also hard to think of another city whose criminal justice system has performed so execrably.
Indeed, the ugliest aspects of Durham's administration of justice may not even come to light until dragged out into the open by the blizzard of subpoenas that the lacrosse players' high-powered lawyers, Brendan Sullivan and Barry Scheck, are itching to serve.
-STUART TAYLOR JR.
H-S letters......(btw, there's a really creepy picture of Diane Cattoti in the paper today....conferring with one of her fellow Durham City Council hopefuls).
LOL!!!
A $30 million award won't reverse damage
I've just finished reading the suit filed by the three Duke lacrosse players and find it hard to believe that former District Attorney Mike Nifong and associates could sink to the level that they did. A large monetary award will be made but will not be sufficient to make these students whole after what they went through. I certainly hope that all of the conspirators associated with Nifong have been dealt with properly and are digging ditches somewhere today.
As one last thought, I would like to say thanks to Moezeldin Ahmad Elmostafu -- the taxi driver witness -- for having the guts to refuse to change his story in the face of threats from Nifong's thugs.
John and Simone Blakely
Cornelius
October 10, 2007
Power to lacrosse players
I hope the Duke lacrosse players win every suit they file. Sure, this will be hard on Durham. It was the citizens of Durham that elected Mike Nifong to serve as district attorney. This should serve as a warning for coming elections -- know who you are voting for. Hold elected officials to their promises.
Nifong was ready to send three young men to prison for years. Had it not been for the national and international media, he may have gotten away with it. Duke's president, Richard Brodhead, should resign. And the 88 or so professors who sided with Nifong should be run out of town.
It's hard to imagine justice when you are assessing the acts of these people. Nifong is reaping the wrath of his actions. He is such a little man.
Dayna Howell
King
October 10, 2007
This was an interesting column from the N&O's public editor concerning bias in the media.
Some things I can agree with and others are a bit of a stretch.
Vaden
Professors: liberal or more moderate?
John Leo
On The View, Whoopi Goldberg said Al Sharpton should apologize to the Duke LAX and got wild audience applause this morning. She said Rev. was down there, nothing ever happened, "those guys went through hell," and he should apologize instead of threatening to "boycott" if Isaih doesn't apologize for alleged sexual harrassment. Drudge has the video.
From the Leo column:
Faculty members who are 35 or younger are less likely than their elders to be left-wing, and less likely to be conservative as well.
More from the Leo column:
Writing on the Volokh Conspiracy site, (Ilya) Somin noted that surveys of the general public showed that moderates voted 54-45 percent for Kerry, while nearly all the moderates in the Gross-Simmons analysis seem to have voted for the Democrat. Somin wrote that "this result certainly suggests that self-described academic centrists are on average much further to the left than moderates in the general population."
*********************************************
This is exactly the point I have been trying to make since arriving in Wonderland.
When someone from the academy shows up professing to be anything close to conservative or Libertarian, you had better read between the lines.
We are only witnessing someone whose rhetoric is a little less strident than his/her colleagues.
As we have seen, they will fundamentally stay inside the stable when all is said and done.
Just saw a clip of Whoopi Goldberg on the view asking for Al Sharpton to apologize to the Duke LAX players - how about that - that was unexpected.
Still more from the Leo column.....this is a great column!
Another finding is that more than two-thirds of all instructors (68.8 percent) say "the goal of diversity should include fostering diversity of views among faculty members." Question of the day: How many professors have actually said this out loud? Fear or indifference may be the reason for reticence. Or maybe a great many professors are caught in a persistent vegetative state, too paralyzing to let them say on campus what they tell pollsters they actually believe.
Does KC think we are going to let him leave us now?
LOL!!!
KC and Stuart are back on the case in the Chronicle
Duke parent 09 asks some great questions when praising KC and Stuart's letter in the Chronicle:
"Lastly, the timing of the Coleman letter was also odd. Was it timed to coincide with the semi-closing of the Johnson blog? Was it because Coleman is feeling the heat from the faculty regarding the findings in the Coleman report? Did it have to do with the Brodhead apology? Is Duke upset by the success of the Taylor/Johnson book and the upcoming HBO movie?"
Wow! Whoopi demands that Al apologizes to the Duke 3. Amazing!
And the audience comes alive with roars of appoval.
"In light of what we have witnessed recently with the events that have occurred in Louisiana with the Jena Six, it's totally possible that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred and can occur," St. Petersburg Times reporter Demorris Lee said about the Daniels case.
What happened in the Duke Lacrosse Burning (using nonstandard lineup procedures to convict the innocent) looks a lot like what happened in the Erick Daniels Case.
What is alleged to have happened in Jena (racially motivated abuse of prosecutorial discretion in the form overcharging/undercharging people who were witnessed committing real crimes) is a quite different wrong.
So why does Demorris Lee bring up Jena rather than the Duke Lacrosse Burning as a reason for believing such a miscarriage of justice could have occurred?
Is it because he thinks the injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Burning could only happen to rich white males, and he needs to demonstrate to his audience that "prosecutorial abuse can happen to poor blacks, too?"
Is it because he thinks his audience doesn't care about white victims?
Is it because he thinks his audience doesn't consider the Duke Lacrosse Burning an injustice because "they deserve punishment for what other white people did long ago?"
I can't find any explanation that isn't damning of Lee. I can't find any explanation that isn't damning of the audience Lee thinks he has. I just hope he's wrong about his audience.
Sincerely,
Debrah
Chapel Hill
(Freelance writer, former professional singer and model, real estate broker, and officer of a holding company..........and someone who has a lifetime of experience with "professors" and what they are SUPPOSED to stand for.)
---------------------------
...but not very good at detecting obvious satire in Chronicle comments by "Faculty"...
;-))
TO 3:21 PM--
You call it satire.
I call it vivid insight into the 88 and their janissaries.
Anonymous 10/10/07 3:21 PM said...
"...but not very good at detecting obvious satire"
Satire, yes. Obvious? Well, if you read it closely it is. But if you've been around academia a while you're used to seeing junk like this intended to be taken seriously, and you learn to skim. Skimmers could easily miss the fact that it's too perfect.
The fact that it takes a small but real effort to be sure something so awful is satire is what makes it so devestating.
rp @ 5:21
I'm not so sure it is satire. Read the follow up piece.
Both of these were composed in a relatively short time frame. If satire, brilliant (could be Gregory -- he has the requisite knowledge of the case and the wit).
But I'd give it at least 50% probability of being real. The second post is motivated by agenda.
"You call it satire.
I call it vivid insight into the 88 and their janissaries."
Just as the 88 call Mangum's tale of vicious racist gang rape a vivid insight into racism and sexism. The little fact that her tale was not true means as little to them as the fact that the "Faculty" letter was obviously not written by any of the 88 means to you.
10/10 3:21 PM, debrah, ralph phelan, inman, 7:11 PM, et. al.:
I'd call it a parody.
Worse, it may be self-parody.
Post a Comment