tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post7649808310950194558..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: The Finnerty Timelinekcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-51508124409976061092008-12-06T15:05:00.000-05:002008-12-06T15:05:00.000-05:00Bill Anderson has a good post on the innocence Pro...Bill Anderson has a good post on the innocence Project at his site. He gently chides Neufeld for inadvertantly muddying the waters with his comments. I, for one, am reluctant to infer that Neufeld set out to harm the Duke 3's case. However, an implicit point here, that this case should have brought together a coalition of old-school civil libertarians and neo-civil libertarians, is an interesting one, and one that should be discussed further.<BR/><BR/>ChrisChris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-37787779415290006582007-04-27T03:35:00.000-04:002007-04-27T03:35:00.000-04:00RE: 1:34:00am It appears Dahlia Lithwick (SLATE) ...<B>RE: 1:34:00am</B> <BR/><BR/>It appears Dahlia Lithwick (SLATE) was issuing an indictment against Peter Neufeld, but based on what, a single Neufeld quotation?: <I>“There’s an old saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.”</I> <BR/><BR/>I don't see how this lone reference turned the Innocence Project into the <I>Guilty Project,</I> or how it undermines the use of DNA to undo wrongful convictions. It's a clever quip with an obvious element of truth - not a verdict.<BR/><BR/>In the context offered, however, it casts a negative light on Neufeld's opinion regarding the absence of DNA evidence that would have supported Nifong's case.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, the <I>context</I> is severely limited, unless that's all there is(?).Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455115946266214907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-29080720756616761152007-04-26T12:04:00.000-04:002007-04-26T12:04:00.000-04:007:09 Yeah - Yeah - Yeah -Yeah!!!!!!7:09 Yeah - Yeah - Yeah -Yeah!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19622126844798070342007-04-26T09:56:00.000-04:002007-04-26T09:56:00.000-04:00Please stop these Haditha nuts from hijacking.Please stop these Haditha nuts from hijacking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31062251685986421362007-04-26T09:28:00.000-04:002007-04-26T09:28:00.000-04:00has anyone commented on the fact that the DC court...has anyone commented on the fact that the DC court chose to reconvict Collin before a trial in Durham and revoke his probation and punish him for violating probation because of the "accusations" in Durham?tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04834401103583478642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81853460729260750582007-04-26T07:16:00.000-04:002007-04-26T07:16:00.000-04:00To anon at 9:37pm regarding Murtha group of 88 - t...To anon at 9:37pm regarding Murtha group of 88 - thank you so much for posting that. I am outraged beyond speech at our media and our government.<BR/><BR/>Has there been anything published about these revelations in the same media that blasted these charges against these good men all the way around the world? How about the original reporter?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-69563982227153786162007-04-26T07:09:00.000-04:002007-04-26T07:09:00.000-04:00To anon at 1:33 who said, "bakerman - clearly ever...To anon at 1:33 who said, "bakerman - clearly everyone is not capable of critical thinking."<BR/><BR/>You need to include yourself in the crowd. And by the way, that should be, "Clearly not everyone is capable of critical thinking" instead of what you wrote if you want the statement to make sense, unless you think not one person on the face of the earth is capable of critical thinking, which would then make your statement a paradox since you are, presumably, a person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76234362835470105992007-04-26T07:04:00.000-04:002007-04-26T07:04:00.000-04:00Bakerman said, " RE: ...The only one to comment di...Bakerman said, " RE: ...The only one to comment directly on this case from any Innocence Project was Peter Neufeld, and he felt called to disparage the defense case. But this was not just about the guilt of the Duke Three, but about the entire issue of whether or not DNA is a reliable tool for determining innocence. 7:13:00 PM<BR/><BR/>This assertion lacks citation and context, kindly provide a link.<BR/><BR/>...Not a single DNA expert ventured out to speak up on behalf of DNA testing in this matter.<BR/><BR/>The DNA results in this case were not called into question. What the state (Nifong et al) did with those results, that became the singular question.<BR/><BR/>Apr 26, 2007 12:56:00 AM"<BR/><BR/>Not even a good try at a straw man argument there, Bakerman. The point, which you artlessly attempted to evade, is that Neufeld, who has utilized and touted DNA evidence as exonerating some 200 people in this country from rape and murder convictions, back-pedaled on its value to do exactly what he does with it when exactly the same reasoning was applied to the Duke boys. Furthermore, you forget that Nifong himself touted DNA as being definitive in this case (and used that as the basis for getting the NTO on all the lacrosse players) - until he got the results. Note that Neufeld's response was AFTER the results came back.<BR/><BR/>If DNA isn't exonerative before conviction, it isn't exonerative AFTER conviction. Neufeld can't have it both ways, and he's done his own cause a great disservice because of his bias against these boys.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88523493460514129732007-04-26T02:16:00.000-04:002007-04-26T02:16:00.000-04:00Richard Aubrey @ 8:23:00 PM said... Interesting...Richard Aubrey @ 8:23:00 PM said...<BR/><BR/> <I>Interesting, if dismaying, that Finnerty's lawyer felt he had to hold the evidence close to avoid Nifong's probable efforts to rejigger his so-called evidence.<BR/> I talked to a couple of lawyers about this some time ago. <B>Apparently, if you don't disclose this sort of thing to the prosecutor, you can't use it. Sort of a reverse discovery rule.</B> But I guess you can hold it until the prosecution's case is sufficiently fixed that it can't be undone and redone.<BR/> Too bad defense attorneys have to think like that.</I><BR/><BR/>That may normally hold true, but remember that Nifong refused to even look at Reade's alibi evidence. I can't imagine that it would be held against the defense if it was offered and refused. Don't DAs usually ask to see evidence of someone's innocence before proceeding? Nifong wouldn't have accepted Collin's evidence just like he wouldn't accept Reade's. He needed to win that primary in order to have a chance to keep his pension intact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-35365158255986626572007-04-26T02:14:00.000-04:002007-04-26T02:14:00.000-04:0011:43: I can't find any information that says that...11:43: I can't find any information that says that Kim Roberts was or is associated with any university.<BR/><BR/>I also see no evidence that Kim instigated the rape allegations. The allegations of racism, yes, but not rape.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-30218854264998397612007-04-26T01:36:00.000-04:002007-04-26T01:36:00.000-04:007:13 Excellent. well thought out and well presente...7:13 Excellent. well thought out and well presented post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-51352253702575239872007-04-26T01:34:00.000-04:002007-04-26T01:34:00.000-04:00To bakerman: This is from a Dahlia Lithwick articl...To bakerman: <BR/><BR/>This is from a Dahlia Lithwick article in Slate, April 22 last year.<BR/><BR/>"And what about all this "physical evidence?" That unambiguous, objective scientific evidence? Supporters of the Duke students say the lack of a DNA match exonerates them. Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project says, "There's an old saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." Nurses say the injuries are consistent with rape. The boys say someone else raped her. Time-stamped photos suggest the alleged victim was already injured before she arrived at the party. Other time-stamped photos suggest new injuries occurred while she was there. Lost fake fingernails in the bathroom suggest a fight. The lack of any DNA material under those nails suggest she never fought back. Photos say she was intoxicated upon arrival. The second stripper implies she was drugged at the party."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-61192886528440309282007-04-26T01:33:00.000-04:002007-04-26T01:33:00.000-04:00bakerman - clearly everyone is not capable of crit...bakerman - clearly everyone is not capable of critical thinkingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-15828047229516843642007-04-26T00:56:00.000-04:002007-04-26T00:56:00.000-04:00RE: ...The only one to comment directly on this ca...RE: <I>...The only one to comment directly on this case from any Innocence Project was Peter Neufeld, and he felt called to disparage the defense case. But this was not just about the guilt of the Duke Three, but about the entire issue of whether or not DNA is a reliable tool for determining innocence.</I> 7:13:00 PM<BR/><BR/>This assertion lacks citation and context, kindly provide a link.<BR/><BR/><I>...Not a single DNA expert ventured out to speak up on behalf of DNA testing in this matter.</I><BR/><BR/>The DNA results in this case were not called into question. What the state (Nifong et al) did with those results, that became the singular question.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455115946266214907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39876436234382206492007-04-25T23:43:00.001-04:002007-04-25T23:43:00.001-04:00Anonymous (Debra) 10:42 said... ...There's a provo...Anonymous (Debra) 10:42 said... <BR/>...There's a provocative letter-to-the-editor in the H-S today submitted by a man from Durham.<BR/><BR/>...In reply to some who think that Crystal Mangum should be charged with a crime, he says no.<BR/><BR/>...His take on the hoax is that Kim Roberts is the real instigator. This might be worth some thought, IMO.<BR/>::<BR/>I agree but we hear so little about her.<BR/>Is she tied in with the Office of Student Affairs at either University?<BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-29169282622564523372007-04-25T23:43:00.000-04:002007-04-25T23:43:00.000-04:00erratummeant bacteriumPerratum<BR/><BR/>meant bacterium<BR/><BR/>PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86296378681110686592007-04-25T23:41:00.000-04:002007-04-25T23:41:00.000-04:00KC Johnson,Don't you think it's about time to deco...KC Johnson,<BR/><BR/>Don't you think it's about time to deconstruct what the G88 really is?<BR/><BR/>Do you think affirmative action is a virus or a bacteria?<BR/><BR/>PolanskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-43996737123039239702007-04-25T22:51:00.000-04:002007-04-25T22:51:00.000-04:00Re: No justice, no peace said... "the best Mexican...Re: <BR/><BR/>No justice, no peace said... <BR/>"the best Mexican food on the planet."<BR/><BR/>Another Durham lie... <BR/><BR/>Apr 25, 2007 2:06:00 PM <BR/> <BR/>*******************<BR/><BR/>Actually, it's pretty darn good. <BR/><BR/>-- Durham LawyerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-7919120704190012342007-04-25T21:49:00.000-04:002007-04-25T21:49:00.000-04:00walter cronantyGreat comments! It's scarey to thin...walter cronanty<BR/>Great comments! It's scarey to think what it says about our society when the anti-white, anti-male agenda (as displayed in the Duke case), is spearheaded by white males!<BR/><BR/>What happened to our men? Have feminist liberal educators succeeded in making white males hate their own whiteness and their own maleness?<BR/><BR/>Where are the brave men who will push to have white male empowerment programs become the new wave within our Universities?<BR/><BR/>Colin? Reade? Dave?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-8694719086812700412007-04-25T21:37:00.000-04:002007-04-25T21:37:00.000-04:00THE MURTHA GROUP OF 88some time ago, rep murtha(PA...THE MURTHA GROUP OF 88<BR/><BR/>some time ago, rep murtha(PA)allegedly accused the hadita marines of criminal offenses on national TV and was given the TUBE to do it...JUST LIKE the DUKE group of 88 accused the three lax players<BR/><BR/>NOW comes news that will shock you<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=lh<BR/><BR/>Bombshell Cripples Case Against Haditha Marines<BR/> Philip V. Brennan<BR/> Wednesday, April 25, 2007<BR/><BR/>Convincing evidence that corroborates NewsMax.com's accounts of the Haditha<BR/> insurgent ambush has compelled the prosecution to take extraordinary steps<BR/> to bolster their crumbling case.<BR/><BR/>The stunning announcement that all charges are being dropped against Sgt.<BR/> Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident<BR/> where 24 Iraqis were killed during an insurgent ambush against the Marines,<BR/> is indication that the prosecutors have a very weak case against all the<BR/> defendants, lawyers for the some of the accused say.<BR/><BR/>Crumbling Case<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"Dela Cruz provided several sworn statements to the government," Mark Zaid<BR/> said. Zaid is one of the attorneys representing defendant Sgt. Frank<BR/> Wuterich adding that as part of its obligations the government turned over<BR/> statements to Wuterich's defense team.<BR/><BR/>"Unless there's something new that he is suddenly going to come forward with,<BR/> it's not entirely clear that it's damaging to my client at all," Mark Zaid,<BR/> one of the attorney's representing Sgt. defendant Frank Wuterich, told<BR/> NewsMax.com<BR/><BR/>"Those statements were available for the government to use, and we found that<BR/> there are numerous conflicting statements within his own statements."<BR/><BR/>The announcement of the deal with Dela Cruz is further evidence that the<BR/> cases against the Kilo Company Marines and several of their superior<BR/> officers are in deep trouble. It comes on the heels of postponements of<BR/> Article 32 hearings slated for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion<BR/> commander and two of the enlisted men charged with murdering civilians in<BR/> Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.<BR/><BR/>Baseless Charges<BR/><BR/>Although the prosecutors said they needed more time to prepare their cases,<BR/> there is much more to the story than that NewsMax.com has learned, and it<BR/> paints a shocking picture of a prosecution that should never have been<BR/> pursued.<BR/><BR/>In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped a<BR/> bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he revealed the<BR/> existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been obtained by the<BR/> Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from the<BR/> prosecutors.<BR/><BR/>This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the best<BR/> and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine Corps, was in<BR/> possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the<BR/> entire day's action — material which he had amassed while monitoring the<BR/> day's action in his capacity as the battalion's intelligence officer. That<BR/> material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS.<BR/><BR/>Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the<BR/> entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses.<BR/> Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action<BR/> between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the<BR/> Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo<BR/> Company troops were videotaping the action — the same video that after<BR/> editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time<BR/> magazine.<BR/><BR/>When asked by the prosecution team to give his copies of the evidence to the<BR/> prosecution, he told NewsMax.com that he was reluctant to do so, fearing it<BR/> would again be suppressed or misused, but later relented when ordered by his<BR/> commanding general to do so.<BR/><BR/>Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources tell<BR/> NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha Marines are<BR/> baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the Article 31 against Lt.<BR/> Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an attempt to regroup.<BR/><BR/>By granting immunity to the officer on the scene of the house-clearing<BR/> effort, the prosecution, lawyers say, has further weakened its case.<BR/><BR/>Because the intelligence officer was slated to return to Iraq for another<BR/> tour of duty, arrangements were made prior to his departure to videotape his<BR/> testimony for use in the hearings which would take place after his<BR/> departure.<BR/><BR/>Those familiar with his testimony, which included masses of classified<BR/> material, insist that the narratives of the day's events disclosed by<BR/> NewsMax.com in a long series of stories about Haditha were accurate<BR/> presentations of the true facts and a total repudiation of all the<BR/> slanderous material leaked by the Pentagon to the media.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to this officer's testimony, the defense team was able to present over<BR/> one hundred classified exhibits, including video.<BR/><BR/>Lawyers for some of the accused told NewsMax that the officer's eight<BR/> hour-long deposition will be made available to the defense in all the cases<BR/> for use at the various Article 32 hearings which begin with Lt. Col.<BR/> Chessani in May. Because most of it remains classified, it will be reviewed<BR/> in private by the hearing officers and not revealed in the open hearings.<BR/><BR/>NewsMax, however, can reveal that the facts of what happened early that<BR/> November morning clearly show that the incident was part of a planned ambush<BR/> by insurgent forces, that the civilians tragically killed in the were used<BR/> as human shields by the insurgents, and that despite claims by Rep. John<BR/> Murtha, there was indeed an ongoing firefight between the Marines and the<BR/> enemy.<BR/><BR/>In short, what the intelligence officer provided, was a fully backed up<BR/> account that puts the listener at the scene of the action and takes him<BR/> though the entire day's action. All of this information was made available<BR/> to senior officers up the command ladder including the Battalion commander<BR/> Lt. Col. Chessani.<BR/><BR/>It was so complete it eliminated any need for further investigation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who questioned the officer,<BR/> told NewsMax in a statement, "The intelligence officer is a crucial witness<BR/> in this case. During his testimony, he effectively described the enemy<BR/> situation prior to, during, and after the November 19 terrorist attack,<BR/> providing the necessary context for the decisions that were made as a<BR/> result. His testimony shows the complexity of the attack this day, the<BR/> callousness of the terrorists toward the local civilians, whom they use to<BR/> their advantage, and the error of viewing this incident in a vacuum.<BR/><BR/>"The officer also showed how the insurgents used allegations of wrongdoing by<BR/> Marines as propaganda to support their cause. In fact, another witness, who<BR/> was the assistant intelligence officer during the attack and is now the<BR/> current intelligence officer for the battalion, testified that since the<BR/> Haditha incident received so much negative attention, terrorist propaganda<BR/> alleging law of war violations against American servicemen in Iraq has<BR/> 'ballooned.'"<BR/><BR/>Addressing this point, Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel of<BR/> the Thomas More Law Center said, "The government's politicized quest to find<BR/> wrongdoing in this case will ultimately harm the war effort, and it has<BR/> already resulted in an incredible expenditure of time, money, and scarce<BR/> resources, which could be better used fighting the terrorists.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Our job is to allow the facts of November 19, 2005 and beyond to be<BR/> presented to the investigating officer rather than the scurrilous and<BR/> unfounded accusations from anti-war politicians and media who rely on<BR/> insurgent sources for their stories about our decent and hard fighting men<BR/> in uniform."<BR/><BR/><BR/>In the past few days, as an apparent part of the prosecution's damage control<BR/> effort, some Pentagon officials leaked the once classified 130-page report,<BR/> by Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell of the Army, to the New York Times and The<BR/> Washington Post. That report, however, failed to conclude that any officers<BR/> covered up evidence or committed a crime — the basis of the charges against<BR/> Lt. Col. Chessani and the other officers charged.<BR/><BR/>In previous attempt to stir up animosity to the defendants, some people in<BR/> the Pentagon leaked information allegedly compiled by the NCIS to the<BR/> Washington Post.<BR/><BR/>As NewsMax demonstrated, that information was false.<BR/><BR/>Biased Media Weighs In<BR/><BR/>A shocking example of the sort of slanderous material being leaked to the<BR/> media was this story broadcast by WKRN in Nashville, Tenn., which reported<BR/> that military prosecutors said marines went on "a killing rampage in<BR/> November 2005 in Haditha, Iraq, after their Humvee was destroyed by a<BR/> roadside bomb killing one marine and injuring two others."<BR/><BR/>According to the WKRN report, "The surviving marines went on a killing spree<BR/> shooting two dozen Iraqi civilians including unarmed men in the street and<BR/> men, women, and children in their homes."<BR/><BR/>They went on to quote one Gen. Jack Keane, rescribed as an ABC News<BR/> consultant, who said that "at that point, there was a fundamental . . .<BR/> breakdown in the chain of command. They became more like a gang than a<BR/> military unit. The order and the discipline fundamentally broke down and<BR/> they were seeking revenge."<BR/><BR/>The Pentagon report, WKRN admitted, "did not find specific evidence of a<BR/> cover-up but concludes that nobody was interested in investigating the<BR/> allegations."<BR/><BR/>The facts show that these reports are blatantly false, and typical of the<BR/> shamefully distorted media coverage of the Haditha killings.<BR/><BR/>On April 3, the prosecution granted immunity to talk to prosecutors to Lt.<BR/> Max Frank, who arrived at the scene after the IED blast of the explosion.<BR/> The grant was made as part of an order to "cooperate and truthfully answer<BR/> all questions posed by investigators."<BR/><BR/>He has not been charged in the case.<BR/><BR/>According to Muise and Brian Rooney of the Thomas Moore Law Center both<BR/> former Marine officers now representing Lt. Col. Chessani, Frank, who<BR/> personally witnessed the scene of the attack shortly after the fighting and<BR/> assisted with removing the civilian bodies from the insurgent-occupied<BR/> homes, insisted that there was no evidence of "executions" and that he saw<BR/> no evidence of misconduct.<BR/><BR/>Muise observed that Frank was testifying under a grant of immunity by the<BR/> government, which he said added further credibility to his testimony.<BR/><BR/>Lt. Col. Shelburne, the military defense counsel for Chessani who questioned<BR/> Kallop, noted, "This officer's testimony is significant. He was on the scene<BR/> shortly after the attack. He saw the location of the bodies. He personally<BR/> observed the damage caused by the attack. And yet, he saw nothing that<BR/> caused him to suspect any wrongdoing on the part of the Marines. Moreover,<BR/> this officer was given immunity by the government, so the only way he can<BR/> get in trouble is if he testifies untruthfully<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR/><BR/>http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/04/24/bombshell-in-haditha-case/<BR/><BR/><BR/>Bombshell In Haditha Case<BR/>Newsmax is reporting that an intelligence officer provided substantial<BR/>exculpatory evidence in the Haditha case, evidence he says the NCIS<BR/>sat on, evidence that supports the defendants' version of the facts,<BR/>and evidence which indicates the entire incident was an ambush which<BR/>was being videotaped by our enemies who edited it and handed it over<BR/>to anti-war activists to present the case in the worst possible way to<BR/>our troops. If this is so, it would substantiate the belief of Steve<BR/>Gilbert who early on was sceptical of the claims underlying this case.<BR/>http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/haditha_is_mcgirk_the_new_mary.html<BR/>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=lh[quote]<BR/>In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped<BR/>a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he<BR/>revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have<BR/>been obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and<BR/>withheld from the prosecutors.<BR/>This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the<BR/>best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine<BR/>Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute<BR/>narrative of the entire day's action — material which he had amassed<BR/>while monitoring the day's action in his capacity as the battalion's<BR/>intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of<BR/>the NCIS.<BR/>Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of<BR/>the entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe<BR/>houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the<BR/>ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion<BR/>headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the<BR/>insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were<BR/>videotaping the action — the same video that after editing ended up in<BR/>the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine.<BR/>When asked by the prosecution team to give his copies of the evidence<BR/>to the prosecution, he told NewsMax.com that he was reluctant to do<BR/>so, fearing it would again be suppressed or misused, but later<BR/>relented when ordered by his commanding general to do so.<BR/>Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources<BR/>tell NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha<BR/>Marines are baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the<BR/>Article 32 against Lt. Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an<BR/>attempt to regroup.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-79622058722575313902007-04-25T21:15:00.000-04:002007-04-25T21:15:00.000-04:00T. Levicys opinions are her own? Well, sometimes y...T. Levicys opinions are her own? Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no.<BR/> For example; while working on a case of an alleged sexual assault in the ER at DUMC within the protocols of that institution - no - her opinions are not hers to desperse according to her whims. <BR/> There are lots of ways that "expressing an opinion" out of turn can get medical folks in a great deal of trouble.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05714452170132445150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-85879538969673434672007-04-25T21:09:00.000-04:002007-04-25T21:09:00.000-04:00O/T - K.C. - If you want to see why many of us sto...O/T - K.C. - If you want to see why many of us stopped watching the MSM years ago, read:"The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict" By Marvin Kalb<BR/>Working Paper Number:RWP07-012 at<BR/>http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-012. Then, go back and research Walter Cronkite's newscasts concerning the Tet Offensive of 1968, and compare with General Giap's [Commander-in-Chief of the People's Army of (North) Vietnam], who described it as a costly military defeat. From then to now, the MSM has consistently bent its coverage to anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-traditional values. The MSM's coverage of the Duke LAX non-rape case is merely one of a long and continuing line of these "anti" meta-narratives [this one fitting in nicely as a cross between anti-American values and anti-Traditional values in that it is: anti-white, anti-male, anti-people who have worked hard and accomplished something with their lives]. The MSM "journalists" and the Group of 88 are merely the more ostentatious members of the horde that missed the last bus out of the 60's, or those who were taught by them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-42161408504677664472007-04-25T20:58:00.000-04:002007-04-25T20:58:00.000-04:00DUKE'S ACADEMIC THUG RULEIn New York City, which i...DUKE'S ACADEMIC THUG RULE<BR/><BR/>In New York City, which is 24% black, blacks commit 68% of all murders, rapes, assaults, and robberies (see Heather Mac Donald's current article in City Journal, the magazine of the Manhattan Institute).<BR/><BR/>One of the best ways of protecting yourself from thugs is to identify them, and then prosecute them, if possible. Tenure used to work in a university populated by faculty that weren't thugs. Affirmative action has changed all that. At Duke University, for example, black thugs tried to railroad innocent students.<BR/><BR/>TIME TO END TENURE, AND CREATE SPECIFIC PUNISHMENTS FOR THE ACADEMIC THUGS THAT ARE POISONING UNIVERSITIES ACROSS AMERICA<BR/><BR/>Affirmative action has made tenure obsolete. Fire the G88, destroy black studies. Let the mediocrities go back to the community colleges.<BR/><BR/>PolanskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-20293743597270872942007-04-25T20:43:00.000-04:002007-04-25T20:43:00.000-04:00Crystal can be sued by the players. There have bee...Crystal can be sued by the players. There have been cases where men accused of rape sued their accusers and won. Of course if she has no money even if there is a judgement against her they couldn't collect. Still, they could sue her in case she makes any profit from this. Frankly I don't know how she can sue players. This is different from Ron Goldman's, because OJ was found not guilty, not declared innocent. Not the same thing at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-54198993375973922212007-04-25T20:36:00.000-04:002007-04-25T20:36:00.000-04:00You can defeat diversity by suing Duke, or the pro...You can defeat diversity by suing Duke, or the property owner, or any of the lacrosse players who reside in NC. If she sues, it won't be removed - not a chance. And, there are plenty of NAACP backed lawyers who would take the case. The only issue for them is Rule 11 which would require the attorneys to have a good faith basis for a suit. They could find themselves on the receiving end of significant sanctions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com