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
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"
27 comments:
may they all be happy and get substantial legal satisfaction from beating the duke administration and faculty senate group of 88 in both a knockout that brings sunshine into all the alleged devious actions coinjoined against the players and the program
A bunch of goodlooking successful guys and The Nifong unholy alliance cant stand it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a good article from the Baltimore Sun which highlights Collin Finnerty's stellar reunion performance against his former teammates.
what a terrific picture. so glad they insisted that Collin be part of it--he should be graduating from Duke today with the rest of his teammates!--Buddy
Liestoppers notes that this is the traditional team Senior picture. They guys insisted that Colin join them.
That picture is heartbreaking.
Those are his real teammates and Duke was his real school.
Did Brodhead dare attend that game?
What a tragedy.
At least Precious got to graduate.
Now that's irony.
RL alum medicine '75
Suddenly Dicky B has developed a whole new appreciation and concern for athletics at Duke.
H-S:
Duke athletics get $7.5M lift, so far
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
May 11, 2008
DURHAM -- The Duke University Board of Trustees on Saturday approved a $2 billion budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year, and it also unveiled an innovative, subsidy-doubling "strategic plan for athletics" that is said to be the first of its kind for the Blue Devils.
Projected revenues in the new budget, which takes effect July 1, are about 9.1 percent higher than those for the current fiscal year. Expenditures are expected to increase 9 percent.
A key component of the upcoming budget is $86.4 million to support and enhance Duke's undergraduate financial aid program -- an 18.8 percent hike from current levels. Officials said they estimate the improved aid package will benefit nearly 2,500 students from low- and middle-income families.
In December 2005, Duke announced a three-year Financial Aid Initiative to raise $300 million in new endowment funds to strengthen its financial aid programs for students. As of May 5, $272.5 million had been raised, officials said Saturday.
Among other new developments, Duke trustees on Saturday approved a $20 million renovation of its 1929-vintage steam plant on Campus Drive, which will give the university and medical center more energy-producing capacity and provide a cleaner-burning alternative to coal. The renovated facility will operate on natural gas, with propane as a backup fuel.
But the strategic athletics plan drew a lion's share of attention as Duke President Richard Brodhead briefed media representatives following his Board of Trustees meeting.
"This was the first time that the Department of Athletics had engaged in such a broad-based planning effort, and I'm grateful for the spirit with which the effort was embraced," said Brodhead.
Duke's annual subsidy for athletics is around $7.5 million, far less than that of other ACC colleges and several Ivy League universities, according to information released Saturday.
The strategic plan calls for doubling the subsidy to about $15 million a year, bringing it in line with other top private research universities such as Boston College, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest.
The plan's ultimate goal is to eliminate the university subsidy altogether and replace it with an athletics endowment of around $300 million, officials said.
"We've been operating on an increasingly antiquated funding model," Brodhead said Saturday. "This [the strategic plan] is just an acknowledgement of the fact that athletics needs a different level of investment."
Among other things, an indoor football practice facility is envisioned in the plan.
Varsity athletes aren't the only ones who would benefit from some of the proposed initiatives. Thousands of students involved in intramural and club sports would get a boost as well, as would those seeking general recreation.
Brodhead suggested it was about time for such improvements.
"A school as famous for sports as this is not famous for everyday recreation," he said.
It is expected the strategic plan will serve as a road map for whoever replaces Duke's departed athletic director, Joe Alleva.
Brodhead said Saturday he didn't know when a replacement for Alleva will be hired.
Great photo.
Someone should send a copy to both the N&O and the H-S.
The DukeGroup88 and the Duke administration are sick and don't know it. They represent a perverted academia, and that's as far as I want to comment on them.
Through it all, still together.
Perfect picture. The camaraderie is as manifest as the sunshine. JOHN
Many of the alums, even those who normally give 100k's and millions are contributing 88 cents this year and ongoing.
This is the first year that the duke development office has not made its fundraising goal. Good job 88, who do you think pays for your buildings, salaries, courses.
Put some money aside for the unindicted players. Oh good old Duke what happened to you?
That is a fantastic photo! Thanks for sharing, K.C.!
For the Duke lacrosse athletes, parents and fans who looked out after Collin, you offer proof that when
you go that extra mile, there is very little traffic.
A picture really is worth a thousand words.
::
GP
In the above DOJ post KC asks, ...."why did the DOJ refuse Attorney General Cooper's request for a federal inquiry into the conduct of Mike Nifong, DSI, Linwood Wilson, and the Durham Police?"
Everyone knows---no one better than KC---why the DOJ refused Cooper's request.
For the same reason that such a Hoax remained alive and was able to thrive in the first place.
However, it would be great to have someone in charge admit it out loud.
It's also the same reason that Cooper, himself, chose to put Crystal Mangum on the back burner....characterizing her as someone so unstable she didn't know right from wrong.
Yet Mangum is allowed to keep her children and even more unbelievable, is given a degree from NCCU...as if nothing ever happened.
KC, I hope you & your pals will soon get a life. I am not a Duke alum, indeed, I've never been to North Carolina, but boy was I pleased when some of the best students at my son's high school chose to attend Duke. IMHO, it was a small, but happy, victory over you & those who just can't get over this case.
OK, "reharmonizer" is still on the case.
LIS!
A case about which he knows so very little.
Below is a comment posted by Jeremy Young on "reharmonizer's" blog.
Surprisingly, Young makes a few good points; however, it's amazing to me that he still hasn't read UPI.
It seems so many of KC's critics talk a lot without first knowing what they're talking about.
*********************
Jeremy Young opines:
May 14, 2008 at 10:59 am
"I’ve just seen this now, courtesy of my Sitemeter. I don’t think it’s accurate to say I gave you the brush-off. I thought long and hard about how to answer your e-mail; one of the options involved writing a full-length post, another involved just responding to you privately via e-mail. I chose a middle course in part because I didn’t have a lot of time.
The issue for me is this: the Group of 88 erred shamefully in tying a valid and important argument about racism to a court case pending against their own students. The fact that the case was later proven to be unfounded increases their shame ten times over. But the biggest slam against them is their failure to apologize now that the truth has come out. Signing the statement in the first place was bad; refusing to apologize is unforgivable.
Against that, we have your criticisms of KC’s conduct on his blog. I’m not denying the validity of many of your arguments, but for me it comes down to…it’s a blog. It’s not reflective of his scholarship in any way. Nobody writes the same way on a blog as they do in their scholarly work. I certainly don’t — I say stupid things and make idiotic mistakes that I’d certainly edit out in the runup to an article publication. It’s a completely different medium with completely different rules and goals. I’m more concerned with what made its way into KC’s book Until Proven Innocent; one of the reasons I’m reluctant to delve further into this argument is that I still haven’t found time to read the book, and probably won’t for a while to come. So what might be the most damning against KC is something I can’t comment on because I haven’t read it.
Finally, regarding your being a Duke professor: I’m not really questioning your integrity, since it’s pretty clear to me that you’re not close to any of the principals in the case and are responding to what you’re reading online and after the fact, but you’ve got to admit that when a faculty member defends his colleagues’ actions over an issue that threatens to tarnish the reputation of his institution, it simply looks bad. You’d be better served to seek out critics of D-i-W who don’t teach at the institution he’s attacking, and promote their work; the conflict of interest really detracts from your argument in my view. Would you be more likely to listen to a Democrat or a Republican who thinks Obama’s a great guy? One has reason to say that even if he doesn’t think it; the other doesn’t. Simple as that.
Enough meat on my answer now?"
Reharmonizer responds:
"A fine answer. I disagree with a number of the points–I think at some point (fall 06, maybe), DIW stopped being just a blog, and you think I’m talking about scholarship when I’m actually talking about basic intellectual integrity. Those are all things worth clarifying, and I’ll undoubtedly do that sometime. But the feedback is greatly appreciated."
*******************
Yes, "reharmonizer" will undoubtedly be talking about this issue long from now.
But will he ever apprise himself of some basic facts before continuing to mouth off?
The Diva comment which awaits "approval".
LIS!
Debrah | May 15, 2008 at 10:55 am
Reharmonizer opines:
“I think at some point (fall 06, maybe), DIW stopped being just a blog, and you think I’m talking about scholarship when I’m actually talking about basic intellectual integrity.”
Diva responds:
Give me a break.
You cannot find more solid and more basic intellectual integrity than the way KC’s operates.
Why do you think Stuart Taylor—someone who already had enormous experience reporting and writing about significant legal cases on the national scene—asked KC to collaborate on the book with him?
"Until Proven Innocent" was a project Taylor initially began; however, after having read and followed KC’s blog, he knew that he needed KC’s phenomenal work in order to make the book what it is—the definitive story on exactly what was allowed to take place at Duke and in Durham back in the Spring of 2006.
Numerous other bloggers and members of the academy surface on occasion and begin their screaming sessions from the peanut gallery…..simply because they cannot quite accept or understand what a grand piece of work KC has in Wonderland.
His writing is always a rush!
Granted, it will be a daunting task; however, some really must try to move past their jealousy.
While inside The Diva World, Stu Daddy just made me aware of this:
Summa Cum Loony by Kristin Butler
Great!
This picture is a lasting visual reminder of the tragedy forever known as the Duke Rape Hoax.
Nifong should have this picture stapled to his forehead!
Sweet Thang
What an ebullient shot.
Now if only Brodhead, Crystal, and the 88 were held accountable...
Bittersweet.
KC, Thanks for sharing the picture. It speaks to the truth about the world of lacrosse,once a member, you are never far from a friend. Those boys understand that Collin, while moving forward was punished for being innocent.He would never be safe at Duke. The terrible way Mr.Broadhead,G88 and his administration performed hurt many, but none more than Collin,Reade and Dave. The parent who thinks people should get over this doesn't understand that Duke doesn't deserve to have hard working talented young men play for them until they fix their system. That is why very supportive alums are sending 88 cents. Young men are in danger these days of having their lives ruined over a lie. I wonder why the parent who thinks you should stop was even reading this blog. I'm glad you are still there, though I don't visit as often as before, but when I do it's great to catch up. I guess she just wants people to forget so it can happen again. Thanks KC, alot of people are watching as they should.
Boston Globe Article.
Just in case you have not read this morning's Globe, you should consider skimming an article written by Fluto Shinzawa of the Globe Staff dated May 23, 2008.
Shinzawa buries the outcome of the "scandal" leaving most to assume that the entire team was guilty.
To I. M. Hollett...
Thanks for the tip to Shinzawa's article, Stick-to-itiveness in The Boston Globe.
I disagree with your assessment that the author buries the outcome of the "scandal" leaving most to assume that the entire team was guilty.
It's more likely that Shinzawa takes for granted that most readers have long been aware of the players' full exoneration and declaration of innocence.
Now, let's see if Duke handles Johns Hopkins as expected tomorrow. I watched Hopkins dominate Navy last weekend. Hopkins is always ready when it counts.
By the way, today the upstart lady Blue Devils challenge No. 2 seed Penn in the womens' Final Four in Baltimore.
I saw most of the game. Every time Collin scored, the crowd yelled and clapped heartily to show its approval. After one of the goals, a young Duke fan asked his father why the crowd was cheering for the other team. His father explained that they were only cheering for Collin, who used to play for Duke. He also said that Collin didn’t feel that Duke treated him well but did not go into the whole story.
Post a Comment