left right politics showbiz tech invest good life gossip fun hot
HuffingtonPost Hot Air Wonkette Variety Engadget Seeking Alpha Lifehacker TheSuperficial Daily Beast Drudge
Daily Kos Michelle Malkin Politico Billboard Boing Boing TheBigPicture Luxist TMZ.com Fark digg
ThinkProgress RightWingNews First Read CNN Showbiz Gizmodo FT Alphaville Joystiq Perez Hilton 4chan memorandum
Crooks+Liars Power Line CNN ticker E! Online Techcrunch InfectiousGrd Kotaku gamer Bastardly Post Secret Techmeme
TalkngPtsMemo Ameri..Thinker Swampland TV Guide Ars Technica 24/7 Wall St. TreeHugger Egotastic hascheezburgr tweetmeme
The Raw Story NewsBusters The Caucus Ent. News Mashable bloggingstocks Consumerist PinkIsTheNew dooce trends
Hullabaloo Wizbang fishbowlDC HlywdWiretap Google blog DealBook lifehack.org CelebrityBaby Someth'nAwful Megite
Atrios The Corner WashWhisprs DeadlnHllywd Read/Write Jeff Matthews 43folders GoFugYourself Neatorama PSFK
Firedoglake Big Hollywood The Fix MSN Ent. OReilly Radar PhilsStockWorld Autoblog Page Six Cool Hunter reddit.com
MyDD AndrewSullivan Capital Gains Rot'nTomatoes GigaOM Daily Rec'ng Deadspin BestWeekEver stereogum Timespop
Americablog AceOfSpades Open Secrets Cinematical ProBlogger Zero Hedge DownloadSqd Dlisted CuteOverload media eye
LiberalOasis Redstate WikiLeaks law Cool Tools Bespoke MediaZone PopSugar Dilbert blog TVNewser
SeeTheForest Jawa Report econ law.alltop Scobleizer BtwTheHedges Deviant ArtHollyw'dTuna gapingvoid BuzzMachine
TalkLeft Patterico EconLog Volokh Consp. Apple Blog Minyanville Gothamist x17online DailyGrail Gigaom
Feministing Townhall.com Freakonomics Legal Insurrec.. Valleywag Fast Money Curbed DailyBlabber Prof. Hex Steve Rubel
PolitAnimal OutsideBeltwy CrookedTimbr Conglomerate mozillaZine RealClearMkts FabSugar Gawker OvrheardinNY MediaBlgNRO
Truthdig Moonbattery MarginalRevo SportsLawBlog Smashing W$J Mktbeat Gridskipper Radar Last.fm Threat Level
AlternetPeek RealClearPoli crime W$J Law BlogTechdirt AbnormalRtrns Material Defamer kottke.org Seth's blog
Pandagon Instapundit CrimeblogsBalkinizationMAKE RandomRoger Sartorialist Jossip PumpkinChuckin mediamatters
Shakesville Hugh Hewitt AMW Credit Slips SrchEngLand Stock Advisors Drink'nMadeEasy Just Jared Maps Mania Newshounds
Sadly, No! RightwingNut CourtTV FindLaw VentureBeat Slope of Hope Mark Cuban Celebitchy CollegeHumor FAIR

Friday, September 29, 2006

Duke Case: Don "Nifong" Quixote

updated:

He was seized with one of the strangest fantasies that ever entered the head of any madman. This was a belief that it behooved him as well for the advancement of his glory as the service of his county to become a district attorney, redressing every species of grievance and exposing himself to a high publicity trial which, being surmounted, might secure to him eternal glory and renown.

We are all prisoners of a madman. He is holding us hostage as he tilts at rapists.

madman
Don Quixote
Mike Nifong

occupation
Don Quixote: wandering rogue
Mike Nifong: rogue district attorney

imaginary occupation
Don Quixote: foolish knight
Mike Nifong: foolish crime fighting prosecutor

cause of madness
Don Quixote: gone mad from reading too many books about chivalrous knights
Mike Nifong: gone mad from reading a book about a righteous lawyer & too many blogs

trusty squire
Don Quixote: Sancho Panza
Mike Nifong: Sergeant Gottlieb

delusional ideal
Don Quixote: chivalry
Mike Nifong: integrity

muse/imaginary maiden in distress
Don Quixote: Dulcinea of El Toboso
Mike Nifong: Crystal Gail Mangum

evil enchantment turns maiden into
Don Quixote: peasant girl
Mike Nifong: drugged & strangled sex worker

imaginary adversary
Don Quixote: windmills
Mike Nifong: Duke lacrosse rapists

misadventures
Don Quixote: courts disaster
Mike Nifong: disaster in court

criminal freed
Don Quixote: Ginés de Pasamonte a.k.a. Ginesillo de Parapilla a.k.a. Master Peter
Mike Nifong: Kim Roberts a.k.a. Kim Pittman a.k.a. "Nikki"

friend
Don Quixote: Nicholas, the barber
Mike Nifong: Ashley, the editor

key characters
Don Quixote: The Duke and Duchess
Mike Nifong: Duke and Brodhead

story is really about
Don Quixote: a man who lost his way in search of adventure
Mike Nifong: a man who lost his way in search of an election victory

nickname
Don Quixote: "the Good"
Mike Nifong: Liefong

ass
Don Quixote: Dapple
Mike Nifong: Orin Starn

fictional writer
Don Quixote: Cide Hamete Benengeli
Mike Nifong: Duff Wilson

award nominations:
Don Quixote: world's greatest work of fiction
Mike Nifong: world's greatest legal hoax

song
Don Quixote: Don Quixote
Mike Nifong: "Everybody Plays the Fool"

musical
Don Quixote: Man of La Mancha
Mike Nifong: Madman of Durham

From Sparknotes - Don Quixote de la Mancha:
No single analysis of Don Quixote’s character Mike Nifong can adequately explain the split between his madness and his sanity. He remains a puzzle throughout the novel case, a character with whom we may have difficulty identifying and sympathizing. We may see Don Quixote Nifong as coy and think that he really does know what is going on around him and that he merely chooses to ignore the world and the consequences of his disastrous actions. At several times in the novel, Cervantes validates this suspicion that Don Quixote Nifong may know more than he admits. Therefore, when Don Quixote Nifong suddenly declares himself sane at the end of the novel, we wonder at his ability to shake off his madness so quickly and ask whether he has at least partly feigned this madness.

Duke Lacrosse Case [TJN Archives]

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Duke Case: Durham's Priorities?

Durham has real problems - gang problems. How are Mike Nifong and the Durham Police Department able to justify in their minds expending the time and effort on prosecuting a hoax against three innocent lacrosse players, when gang violence is erupting in the Durham courthouse?

If the "Stop Snitching" - code of silence, gang culture has fully taken root in Durham like it appears to, every law abiding citizen in Durham will regret the day the authorities took their eye off that ball to play fools in a hoax.

ABC reported:

The first-degree murder trial of 17-year old Calvin Nicholson is on hold. He is accused of gunning down an 18-year-old Hillside High School student on Bacon Street in 2005. Police say it was gang-related.

Tuesday's courthouse melee erupted on the fifth-floor, after key witnesses backed out of the Nicholson trial. They said they were being threatened.

"An incident occurred when information came up that caused people from one courtroom and gang to come to the other courtroom, where members of a rival gang were involved," said Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Durham police are investigating the threats, which are a major challenge in prosecuting gang-related trials.

"You can't really conduct trials in an atmosphere, where there is intimidation of witnesses, or where there is fear that something might happen," Nifong said. "The District Attorney's Office is not equipped to protect witnesses in any situation. There aren't any local witness protection programs, or anything of that nature. The fact is people are to some extent on their own, in terms of their protection."
The District Attorney's Office is ill equipped to protect witnesses in any situation or protect the citizens of Durham from gang violence because the office is totally distracted by this lacrosse hoax. Until this hoax is dropped and Mike Nifong is removed from office the Durham District Attorney's Office will be fighting crime with one hand tied behind its back.

Who does not think that Mike Nifong is emotionally involved with this case? His obsession certainly impacts the performance of the entire DA's office.

Nifong is spending his time filing ridiculous legal motions in the Duke case about telephone surveys that involve his wife. Last Friday he spends basically the entire day at courthouse on his hoax. This doesn't count Nifong's countless hours of case related preparation, time obsessing about the case, and time spent dealing with at least seven outstanding defense attorneys. Forget the time he is now investing in his re-election bid against "Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek."

Nifong spends his evenings reviewing what's been said on the Internet about the case and responding to email criticism.

Nifong wasted $23,000 of tax payer money on needless DNA testing at an outside laboratory when the money should have been spend on real public safety matters.

The trial if it is held next year could be the longest in Durham and maybe North Carolina history. How much real crime fighting will Nifong, the DA's office, and the Durham PD be able to focus on while the circus is in town for an extended stay?

The Durham Police Department also needs to look at its priorities. Cracking down on Duke students and intimidating an honest cab driver are clearly not appropriate when gang issues boil over and a courthouse melee erupts during a murder trial and witnesses fear for their lives. How is police time better spent: sending a car by to keep an eye on witness safety or hassling Duke students?

Someone should conduct a survey of Durham residents and ask them what they see as a priority: fighting gang violence/witness intimidation or prosecuting a hoax?

If Nifong really cared about the citizens of Durham he would have handed the Duke case off to a special prosecutor months ago and returned to real crime fighting. The people of Durham need to say - ENOUGH! They are being cheated. The ego and personal issues of the district attorney should not be a distraction from the real priorities of public safety.

source:

Police: Gang Threats Postpone Murder Trial [abc11tv, Sept. 27, 2006]

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Duke Case: Wednesday PM linkage

Ruth Sheehan says the News & Observer's story about Mike Nifong has not been deep sixed.

Out in cyberspace, there is new speculation about the reason The News & Observer promised a story on Durham DIstrict Attorney Mike Nifong for last Sunday -- and didn't deliver.

Apparently the News & Observer took a deeper look at Mike Nifong and became very frightened by what they found and wanted to spare their readers the ordeal.

Fear not. It is my understanding that the Nifong story is still on its way. The promo got ahead of the horse....

It would be nice if they could track down the Dukee who bitch slapped Nifong years ago, that would go a long way toward explaining things. Ruth, cyberspace is a frontier and the natives are very restless.

Must reads about the hoax if you haven't done so yet, slow poke:

M. Nifong, Revisionist [Durham-In-Wonderland]
Reinventing The Theory of the Hoax [LieStoppers]
Kristiana Bennett, What Do You Know? [Crystal Mess]

Random Observation

The star witness for the defense will not be Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, or David Evans. The star witness for the defense might be one or two of the Duke lacrosse players who took the series of digital photos showing the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, during various times at the party.

19 digital photos were shown to Dan Abrams of MSNBC and other media organizations.
11:02:36 p.m. Men are sitting around the house. Many have plastic cups in their hands.
11:08:28 p.m.
Men throw their arms in the air as if they are cheering and posing for the camera.
11:09:25 p.m.
A closer picture of a few men posing for the camera.
12:00:12 a.m.
The first picture of the dancers. The accuser, wearing pink and white lace lingerie, is lying face down on the floor.
12:00:21 a.m.
The accuser and the second dancer are dancing together.
12:00:29 a.m.
Dancers are performing. The accuser has what looks like bruising on her knees. Her right shoe is missing from her foot. It can be seen in the background.
12:00:40 a.m.
The two dancers are performing. A crowd of about 15 men is visible in the photo. The men are sitting on couches. They are not showing much reaction.
12:02:16 a.m.
The accuser is on top of the second dancer. The accuser's right thumbnail does not have a fingernail or polish on it. Her right pinky nail also does not have a nail. The men are smiling. The dancers are smiling.
12:02:46 a.m.
A young man, who appears to be passed out, sitting in a chair.
12:03:57 a.m.
The dancers by the door. The accuser's right shoe is on the floor. The men in the room are sitting.
12:10:39 a.m.
A young man passed out. His shorts are slightly pulled down.
12:30:12 a.m.
The accuser is on the back steps of the house, alone. Her right shoe is off. She has a purse.
12:30:34 a.m.
The accuser is still on the back steps of the house.
12:30:34 a.m.
The accuser is still on the back steps of the house.
12:30:47 a.m.
The accuser is on the stairwell of the back steps. Her mouth is open and her teeth are showing.
12:37:58 a.m.
The accuser is lying on her back on the back stairs. She has a cut on her right foot. She has cuts on her right butt cheek. The stair rail has pink spots on it.
12:38:07 a.m.
The accuser is lying on the back steps. A tan object can be seen in the background.
12:38:18 a.m.
The accuser is still on the ground.
12:41:32 a.m.
The accuser is seen getting into a black Honda Accord.
The fact that was missed here, back in April, was that these photos were reportedly taken by at least two different cameras. ESPN reported:
Durham attorney Bill Thomas said some of the photographs, taken when she arrived at the house, indicate the woman was injured before getting to the party March 13. They show extensive bruises and scrapes on her legs, especially around the knees, he said.

"This young lady was substantially impaired. She had fallen several times during the course of the evening," Thomas said.

He declined to identify the player he represents and said he would not release the photos, taken by at least two cameras, until pending DNA tests are completed.

He also wouldn't say whether the photos were taken by a lacrosse team member or someone else; court documents have indicated that only team members were present at the party.
This is an interesting question to consider: who will be the star defense witness at the trial? Kim Roberts? The accuser herself? One of these Duke photogs? Everyone?

source:
Attorney: Photos will clear Duke lacrosse players [ESPN]

Duke Lacrosse Case [TJN Archives]

Duke Case: Truth is Calling

One of Mike Nifong's more amazing acts of arrogance during this Duke rape hoax was his posturing that information from the accuser's cell phone was not that important to his investigation.

At a May 18th hearing, WRAL reported:

Nifong said prosecutors are not interested in the contents of the phone, such as the last 10 numbers called...
Nifong's statements at the hearing regarding the accuser's cell phone as reported by the N&O:

An attorney for Seligmann, Kirk Osborn, spent much of the hearing trying to make sure that his experts get access to the cell phone, seized by police at the house days after the party. Osborn told the judge that if the phone is not handled properly, or if the battery loses its charge, the call log and other information could be lost. The evidence in the phone, according to a defense filing, could help track the woman's movements that night.

Nifong said the phone would be evidence in his case but not for its contents: It would help support the woman's story that she left the party in a hurry after three men raped her in a bathroom. The players deny that any assault occurred at the March 13 party.

"It would be evidence not with respect to anything contained therein, but obviously it confirms some of the testimony we've received about where items were left behind and some of the circumstances," Nifong said.

This incredible position regarding the cell phone records flies in the face of all commonsense law enforcement investigative procedures. Cell phone evidence has become a vital law enforcement tool. Cell phone records could provide crucial information in developing a timeline for the crime.

Nifong even had the audacity to make these comments regarding the accuser's cell phone after he knew that the defense would be using Reade Seligmann's cell phone records to support his alibi. Information that Mike Nifong was not interested in when Seligmann's attorney, Kirk Osborn, tried to bring it to him.
Lawyers representing some players have also complained that Nifong has refused to discuss the case with them or examine evidence they say helps their clients.

"I've known him for 25 years. It sure surprised me," said Kirk Osborn, representing Reade Seligmann, one of the players charged.

What is Nifong's problem with evidence? It's like kryptonite in his fantasy world, staring himself as a super prosecutor. Cell phone evidence must be especially evil because it destroys his alternate reality minute by minute.

The defense was justifiable worried that Nifong would intentionally "lose" the accuser's cell phone evidence. Because some of the information within the phone itself does not exist with the phone company. Once the cell phone's battery goes, that information goes with it. Judge Ronald Stephens interceded to force Nifong to protect the cell phone evidence.

In July Joe Neff and the N&O provided some details about the accuser's cell phone records:
In the middle of a Duke lacrosse party where a dancer said she was gang-raped for 30 minutes, a call was placed from her cell phone to a Durham escort service. The 12:26 a.m. call to the service, Centerfold, lasted one minute, according to a copy of her cell phone bill reviewed by The News & Observer.

According to a copy of the accuser's phone bill reviewed by The N&O, she received short calls at 11:11 p.m. and 11:22 p.m., and then called her father at 11:25, a call that lasted 7 minutes....

She received two more calls, at 11:33 and 11:36. This last call lasted three minutes, indicating she did not arrive at the party until 11:39 p.m. at the earliest.

Brian Taylor, a friend who drove her to the party, told The N&O in May she was late and he had difficulty finding the house.

"On our way there, she got two calls on her cell phone saying if you don't come soon, it's going to get canceled," Taylor said in an interview in May.
The information about the call that the accuser made from 11:36 to 11:39 is crucial in pinpointing the time that she arrived at the party. She finished that call just before or as she was arriving at 610 N. Buchanan St. As Joe Neff indicates: "she did not arrive at the party until 11:39 p.m. at the earliest." The arrival time as indicated by the cell phone information is also confirmed by her driver, Brian Taylor.

Last Friday Mike Nifong was again ignoring the cell phone evidence when he said he believed the attack took place between between 11:30 p.m. on March 13, when the accuser arrived at the party, and 12:55 a.m. on March 14, wral.com reported:
Nifong said he is not required to state the exact time of the alleged attack, but offered that authorities believe it took place between 11:30 p.m. on March 13, when the accuser arrived at the party, and 12:55 a.m. on March 14, when police arrived and found no one at the house.
Losing 9 minutes of his crime window, which is now from 11:39 p.m. (instead of 11:30) to 12:55 p.m. is a loss of 10.6% of Nifong's time. Nifong apparently wants to keep pretending that he has all this 85 minutes to now reinvent his reduced 5 or 10 minutes of attack scenario. So Nifong will just "never mind" the cell phone info.

The one minute call at 12:26 a.m. from the accuser's phone is also problematic to Nifong's alternate reality. Who but the accuser would be calling her escort agency? This call was completed just three minutes before the accuser is seen on the back steps of the party house looking very intact, except for her shoe.

12:30:12 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is on the back porch, carrying what appears to be her purse and a makeup bag. Her clothes are intact. She is missing one white shoe.

accuser on the back porch

Here's another slice of time flicked away from Nifong by the cell phone records.

Nifong's 85 minute window is now a shrunken 37 minutes (11:39 p.m. - 12:26 a.m.). This remaining 37 minutes has already been dissected, but the point is that the accuser's own cell phone, the one Nifong said wasn't important, is helping to expose her lies.

Cell phone records will certainly help destroy this hoax and shame on any law enforcement official who ignores their value. However, for a man with no shame it hardly matters. The truth came calling in the form of cell phone records and Nifong hung up.

sources:
Judge Says Duke Lacrosse Case Won't Be On Fast Track [wral.com, May 18, 2006]
Lacrosse case goes to court [NewsObserver.com, May 19, 2006]
DA on the spot for comments [NewsObserver.com, April 22, 2006]
Duke Defense Seeks Accuser's Cell Phone [abcnews, May 23, 2006]
Cell Phone Evidence Becomes Key Law Enforcement Tool [newhousenews.com, Dec. 1, 2005]
DA: Alleged Duke Party Attack Took 5-10 Minutes [wral.com, Sept. 22, 2006]

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

NY Times Drops Journalistic Standards

Wikipedia.org:

Journalists are expected to follow a stringent code of journalistic conduct that requires them to, among other things:

> Report without bias, illustrating many aspects of a conflict rather than siding with one;
> Approach researching and reporting a story with a balance between openmindedness and skepticism.
> Abstain from reporting or otherwise participating in the research and writing about a subject in which the journalist has a personal stake or bias that cannot be set aside.

The New York Times does not follow these standards anymore. Example 1:
Linda Greenhouse is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who covers the United States Supreme Court for the New York Times. As we all know, the New York Times, along with the rest of the mainstream press, is adamant about their commitment to unbiased journalism. Reporters don't have opinions, at least not opinions that impact their journalism. It's nonsense, of course, but nonsense that's maintained by the likes of the Times.

Well, Linda Greenhouse, in a recent speech at her alma mater, Radcliffe, expressed some opinions. And if she really feels this way, there's absolutely no way that it could possibly not color her reporting...
Greenhouse's surprising speech at Radcliffe even caught the attention of NPR today, which interviewed journalism experts who felt she had acted unprofessionally.

Daniel Okrent was the Times' first public editor -- or in-house journalism critic. He says he is amazed by Greenhouse's remarks.

"It's been a basic tenet of journalism ... that the reporter's ideology [has] to be suppressed and submerged, so the reader has absolute confidence that what he or she is reading is not colored by previous views," Okrent says.


Example 2, Duff Wilson, also of the New York Times.
In his latest article—a scant 292 words—Wilson again proves how the New York Times is supplying Mike Nifong with publicity money can’t buy. Unlike his previous effort, Wilson at least avoids out-and-out factual errors in his account of last Friday’s court hearing. But he slants his coverage in transparent ways.
Duff Wilson has become the main stream media cabana boy for Mike Nifong and the Duke lacrosse hoax. Wilson doesn't realize that being a journalistic cabana boy will sentence him to spending months in a Durham courtroom mopping up Nifong's lies with a wet nap.

What mainstream media organization has the highest journalistic standards? In other words who do you trust. The New York Times has vacated the field.

sources:
Honesty From A NY Times Reporter [NewsBuster.org, Sept. 26, 2006]
Critics Question Reporter's Airing of Personal Views [npr.org, Sept. 26, 2006]
Duff's Spin Machine [Durham in Wonderland, Sept. 26, 2006]

Duke Case: Fumigation Efforts

The fumigation efforts are still continuing this week to clean up the latest stench of lies that DA Mike Nifong brought into the Duke lacrosse pretrial hearing last Friday.

The News & Observer in its own politically correct way points to Nifong's hypocrisy and lies:

Nifong responded that revocation of law licenses should be the penalty for violating the rules.

"No attorney should have any objection whatsoever to complying with the bar rules," Nifong said.

Nifong then downplayed the extent of his public comments early in the case. He disagreed with reports that he had given 50 to 70 interviews, saying he had "15 listed on my desk calendar that I actually gave."

In an interview with The News & Observer on March 31, Nifong said he had given "in excess of 50" interviews. In an April 3 statement, Nifong said the interviews took in excess of 40 hours.
KC Johnson deconstructs more of Nifong's bizarre behavior:
If we’ve learned nothing else over the past six months, however, Mike Nifong isn’t a reasonable man. How else to explain his bizarre attempt to stimulate memories of his unethical (but politically useful) pre-primary publicity barrage? Last week, the district attorney accused defense lawyers of “prima facie evidence of an attempt to influence jurors,” citing a defense poll of 300 Durham County voters.
The hot TalkLeft.com topic is unraveling the newest lie - where Nifong now "speculates" that the gang-rape only lasted 5-10 minutes: Where Nifong's "5 minutes -- 10 on the outside" comes from

John in Carolina looks at Nifong’s enablers and their back stories:
I count as prime among Nifong’s enablers certain Durham police officers; Duke University’s trustees, its President, very many of Duke’s top administrators and its faculty; those at the Raleigh News & Observer who produced, beginning on March 24, Duke lacrosse coverage that was so recklessly biased, inaccurate and inflammatory that it helped launch a witch hunt and endangered many innocent people; and finally, organizations that claim to advocate justice for all, but in reality are interest groups for those they favor.
Duke professor Karla FC Holloway brought her intellectual backstabbing knife to a gun fight. LieStoppers shoots some more holes in the intellectual and ethical mess that is professor Karla FC Holloway:
It is unfair to assert that those who argue the three accused players are innocent are therefore advocating black guilt and women's guilt. We are simply arguing that no lacrosse player sexually assaulted either of the two dancers at the party. No one of consequence is arguing that women as a gender are guilty or that African Americans as a race are guilty. This case shouldn't be about identity politics; it should be about what did and did not happen.
More hoax linkfest:
Mike "Nefarious" Nifong now claims that the three accused students restrained, beat, raped and sodomized a stripper/prostitute in a scant five minutes, rather than the thirty minutes previously alleged.
Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Is Tawana Brawley Redux [The Autonomist, Sept. 26, 2006]

Durham Mayor Bill Bell and Senior Legal Analyst Norman Goldman visit with Ed about the Duke lacrosse controversy. Mayor Bell on the community reaction, university relations, and a bad light cast on the city of Durham.
Durham Mayor Bill Bell and Senior Legal Analyst Norman Goldman (audio, MP3) from [The Ed Schultz Show - wegoted.com]

Like the Plame/Wilson case, the Duke lacrosse travesty presents us with a legal case in which the MSM is both chronicler and secret-keeper. While they tout the public’s “right to know” as they try to unseal court records and publish salacious minutia, they also hide important information from public when it serves their interest or ideology.
Duke lacrosse: Custom, interest, and the pursuit of truth [leadandgold, Sept. 25, 2006]

sources:
Durham DA's stand draws fire [newsobersver.com, Sept. 26, 2006]
Nifong's Peculiar Motion [durhamwonderland, Sept. 26, 2006]
Nifong’s enablers and their back stories [John in Carolina, Sept. 25, 2006]
Our Collective Voice - Letter to Holloway [LieStoppers, Sept. 26, 2006]
Where Nifong's "5 minutes -- 10 on the outside" comes from [forums.talkleft.com]

Duke Lacrosse Case [TJN Archives]

Monday, September 25, 2006

Duke Case: Judging Oz

updated:

William L. Anderson tries to get a fix on Judge Oz, and concludes he's "getting it wrong" in Durham.

North Carolina law requires that the prosecution lay out his evidence – all of his or her evidence – to the defense before the trial begins. Judge W. Osmond Smith III (the third judge to take this sorry case) has declared that the rules do not apply to D.A. Michael Nifong. Furthermore, the judge has permitted an altering of the rules in another breathtakingly cynical move: Nifong has changed his story without securing new "evidence."

...I am much sorrier that the "officials" are getting it wrong in a criminal case involving real lives and real families. However, no one who can set things right in North Carolina seems to care...

update:
N&O reported - Dancer gets 2 months under house arrest:
Kim Roberts, a dancer who performed at a Duke lacrosse party that ended with rape charges, admitted five probation violations today and will serve up to two months under house arrest.

Roberts, also known as Kim Pittman, appeared in Durham County Superior Court with her lawyer today.

As part of a deal with the probation department, Roberts also agreed to have her probation extended for three years.
Source:
Nifonging the Standards of Justice, Part II [LewRockwell.com, Sept. 25, 2006]
Dancer gets 2 months under house arrest [newsobserver.com, Sept. 25, 2006]

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Duke Case: Nuking Nifong?

Ever since Michael Gaynor put out a report in August that 60 Minutes was doing "a blockbuster expose" about the Duke lacrosse case everyone who has followed this case has been very hopeful. Perhaps 60 Minutes would be the catalyst that would finally help destroy this hoax. But where is the tick tock?

On August 16th Gaynor said:

...The current plan is for its thirty-ninth season to begin with a blockbuster expose on the Duke case.

Mike Nifong, make a note: as of now, on September 24, 2006, an inevitable hour of infamy finally will follow your undeserved and disgraceful fifteen minutes of fame and you will realize that your short-term political gain from your deplorable (political) decision to prosecute (and persecute) the Duke Three was NOT worth it.

Gaynor recently made this comment on John in Carolina's blog:
"60 Minutes" long planned a Duke case expose as its season opener, but wisely delayed after Judge Smith scheduled a court conference on September 22, two days earlier.
Geez, it must be nice to have a pipeline right into the heart of CBS News to know what they are thinking. U.S. Presidents should be so lucky.

Crystal Mess posted a comment that highlights the high hopes for an eventual 60 Minutes story:
I happen to be in the camp that believes 60 Minutes is going to NUKE Nifong and the rest of the corrupt Durham power brokers into but burned-on-wood shadows. Sources inform that I am well-grounded in that belief.
The longer everyone waits for a 60 Minutes story the more you have to wonder how much actual "nuking" can a 60 Minutes segment or even double-segment length story do? 60 Minutes is not really 60 Minutes, it's a small fraction thereof.

Last season some hour long primetime TV shows had 19 minutes of commercials:
Only five years ago, a prime-time hour averaged 16 minutes total ad time for 26 ads and promotional spots. The two prime-time hours I timed last week — Fox's "Prison Break" and CBS' "CSI" — averaged 19 minutes an hour of commercial time. The number of different products and promos during those hours flashed by too quickly to count
A 60 Minutes segment is around 13 to 14 minutes of actual story time. A show normally has three segments plus Andy Rooney. Sometimes like the recent Katie Couric report, on "The Dust at Ground Zero," they do a double-length segment.

Unless 60 Minutes is going to dedicate a full show to the Duke hoax it's hard to see how they can adequately tell the story in 13 or even 26 minutes. Try it yourself. Call someone you know who is aware of the Duke story and believes that "something must have happened," and then explain in detail how this case is one big hoax and convince them of that fact. Look at the clock when you finally hang up, how long did that take?

The fact that three innocent men have been framed is just the tip of the iceberg. The hoax is a big sprawling mess and has so many layers of corruption and deceit. There are a large number of lies to deconstruct. So many lies so little time.

The 60 Minutes formula of mixing in some interviews with video background footage and presenting both sides of an issue will leave them precious little time to "nuke" anything. If they just want to raise questions about the case that will be easy. It's answering the questions that will be hard.

Since 60 Minutes is still apparently trying to put this story together the expectations here will be put in check. Hopefully the diminutive 60 Minutes will find a way to do some hoax busting.

later:
Sept 11 - 17
1. Dancing with Stars (Tues) ABC 13.0 rating
2. N.F.L. Redskins vs. Dallas NBC 11.9
3. Dancing with Stars (Wed) ABC 10.9
4. CSI (Thur, 9 pm) CBS 10.0
5. CSI (Thur, 10 pm) CBS 9.9
6. Survior: Cook Islands CBS 9.8
7. House Fox 9.1 rating
8. 60 Minutes CBS 8.7 rating
9. Men in Trees ABC 7.7
10. Extreme Makeover Home Ed. ABC 7.2

sources:
The "60 Minutes" season opener should close the Duke case [renewamerica.us, Aug. 16, 2006]
Let Me Make Myself Perfectly Clear [CrystalMess, Sept. 24, 2006]
What's on? Ads, ads and maybe a TV show [austin360.com, Oct. 11, 2005]

Duke Case: Hiding the Nifong

The News & Observer was promising a major article about DA Mike Nifong in today's Sunday paper:

News & Observer: COMING SUNDAY September 24, 2006

Who is Mike Nifong? We take a deeper look at what drives the man who is driving the Duke lacrosse case.
There is no story today about Mike Nifong. Apparently the News & Observer took a deeper look at Mike Nifong and became very frightened by what they found and wanted to spare their readers the ordeal.

forums.Talkleft.com is also wondering what happened?
...on Friday morning one the N&O writers was on a local Radio show...at the end they were given a chance to speak about what the N&O had in store for readers.

The N&O writer mentioned Friday's court date in Durham and said well on Sunday we have a in-depth article on District Attorney Mike Nifong. So what happened?

Duke Case: The Lie Campaign

Mike Nifong has lived a lie ever since he started prosecuting the Duke lacrosse rape hoax. The lie campaign was in full swing in March and April, but Nifong is now trying to lie about that.

"I'm glad Bannon brought up the internet. The internet is reporting that I gave 50-70 interviews. I've checked my calendar and have approximately 15 interviews noted on my calendar the last being April 1st. Otherwise I've been responding with no comment." Mike Nifong, Duke Hoax hearing, September 22, 2006
The News & Observer pointed out this Nifong lie, regarding interviews:
HOW MANY?
When one of the defense lawyers said that Nifong gave 50 to 70 interviews about the case, Nifong said he wanted to set the record straight. He checked his schedule and it showed that he actually gave more like 15 to 20 interviews. He said he had many conversations with reporters, some just to say that he would not comment on the case.

But the number 50 came from Nifong himself.

In a March 31 interview with a News & Observer reporter, Nifong was asked "How many interviews do you think you've given?"

"In excess of 50," Nifong said.
LieStoppers started listing Nifong interviews:
To help determine which of Mr. Nifong's statements was false, we've compiled the following "brief" list of DA Nifong's television appearances, newspaper interviews, public appearances and press releases. Please note: this list is incomplete and does not include all of Mr. Nifong's public statements before and after April 1 with regard to the Duke Hoax.
LieStoppers were well on their way to 40.

Here is another Nifong interview reference that was sitting in the TJN archives:

CNN, NANCY GRACE, aired April 19, 2006:
KEVIN MILLER, WPTF RADIO: a lot was made of the DNA. He [Nifong] did over 70 interviews. He told me personally on the air at WPTF that DNA is bullet-proof. You don`t get a false positive. Then when the DNA didn`t come back the way that the prosecutors thought it would, you have a second DNA test.
Nifong was covering all the bases - TV, radio and print media. Here's another Nifong interview cited on April 25th by the News & Observer - Lacrosse players face old charges:
Nifong said he will reinstate the charges against players whose deferred prosecution deals are still active, unless they can show they were not at the party.

He said he is reinstating a noise violation and an alcohol possession charge against Evans because he was one of the men who threw the party.

"He was one of the people who rented the house that was serving alcohol to underage people and hiring strippers," Nifong said in an interview. "In order to put somebody under deferred prosecution, the DA has to, under requirements of the statute, certify that he does not believe the person is likely to do any further criminal acts. Under the circumstances, it's hard for me to see how we could maintain that."
Additionally the Dan Abrams interview where he demonstrated the infamous choke hold - 'The Abrams Report speaks with N.C. District Attorney, April 7, 2006:
NIFONG: That's a possibility, and certainly we did investigate that particular possibility. But let me point out that the evidence that she would present with respect to that particular situation is that she was grabbed from behind. So that in essence, somebody had an arm around her like this, which she then had to struggle with in order to be able to breathe, and it was in the course of that struggle that the fingernails—the artificial fingernails broke off.
Another long list of Nifong interviews and quotes is also posted on CourtTV.com.

sources:
DA gets to wait on his theory [NewsOberver.com, Sept. 23, 2006]
Nifongian Mathematics [LieStoppers, Sept. 24, 2006]
Duke Lacrosse Scandal: Mike Nifong the Liar [TJN, June 15, 2006]
Defense wants DA Nifong thrown off case [TJN, May 2, 2006]
Lacrosse players face old charges [NewsObserver.com, April 25, 2006]
Nifong Quotes [courttv.com]

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Duke Case: Oz Moves to Wonderland

Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III a/k/a OzKC Johnson calls his blog that covers the Duke lacrosse scandal - Durham-in-Wonderland and yesterday a new character moved into the neighborhood. Oz is now in Wonderland.

Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III presided over his first lacrosse pretrial hearing since being assigned the case in August. Hopes were high for Judge Smith.

Lawyer Kirk Osborn, representing Seligmann, said Friday [Aug. 18th] that he was "really excited the case has been declared exceptional, and delighted we got Judge Smith. He's a very bright and competent judge who can focus on this case. We all greatly respect Osmond Smith."
Photios on the Talkleft board reviews Oz Smith - Smith, worthy successor to Stephens and Titus?
(1) Denied the bill of particulars motion, approving in advance Nifong's jury-nullification trial strategy...

(2) He is also allowing the hoax to continue at the expense of taxpayers from across the whole state of NC...

(3) ...he is going to ignore all the publicity by Nifong before he was personally involved in the case..

(4) He has continued to tolerate Nifong's unprofessional smirking and giggling demeanor in the court room...

(5) Blandly accepted the DPD's destruction of the tapes from the night in question.

(6) ...the judge's most eggregious action of all, taking Nifong's word that no discussions happened with the accuser on April 11. That is unbelievable to me. She didn't talk!

Duke Case: Battle for 85 minutes

updated:

Time is crucial in the Duke lacrosse case. Issues about how Duke University treated the lacrosse players, backstabbing faculty and administrators, medical examinations, bruises, date-rape drugs, SANE, wanted posters, racial slurs, email hacking, lineups, bogus hush money, DNA testing, journalistic jackassery, credibility, state and local politics, legal motions, bar fights, hassling students, rogue cops and a narcissistic rogue district attorney are all secondary to knowing exactly what happened in the 85 minutes between 11:30 pm on March 13th and 12:55 am on March 14th, 2006.

The 85 minutes is the time between 11:30 pm when the alleged victim, Crystal Gail Mangum, arrived at the Duke lacrosse house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., according to some accounts, and 12:55 am when the police arrived to investigate an anonymous 911 call about racial slurs being made at that address. Everything depends on establishing a credible timeline.

Fox News reported
:

Three Duke lacrosse players took five to 10 minutes to sexually assault a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a team party, and not the 30 minutes she originally described to investigators, a prosecutor said Friday.

"When something happens to you that is really awful, it can seem like it takes place longer than it actually takes,"District Attorney Mike Nifong said.

Nifong's comments came as Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III denied a defense request that prosecutors provide a detailed accounting of the alleged assault, including the exact time, place and type of sexual act the accuser said each defendant committed.
You just knew that Nifong would have to deprecate the 30 minute statement made by Ms. Mangum. So here it came today at the prelim hearing. Nifong said the gang-rape really was "five to 10 minutes" and his alleged victim just suffered time distortion during the assaut. How can you further destroy the credibility of someone who has no credibility? This is just further proof that Nifong is living in a world where commonsense is uncommon. It will be a perverse pleasure to see the alleged victim take the witness stand and try to remember all the new lines that Nifong has written for her.

The Johnsville News Duke lacrosse timeline for March 13-14 has been updated and double checked yet again. Mike Nifong will find it near impossible to steal 5 to 10 minutes where he can put Ms. Mangum and Reade Seligmann together. The same will apply to Evans and Finnerty.

wral.com:
Nifong said he is not required to state the exact time of the alleged attack, but offered that authorities believe it took place between 11:30 p.m. on March 13, when the accuser arrived at the party, and 12:55 a.m. on March 14, when police arrived and found no one at the house.

"Out of his client's whole life, we have given him an hour and a half that he has to account for," Nifong said.

The timing is crucial to Osborn, who again pledged Friday to present an alibi defense for Seligmann. He said the then-sophomore made eight calls on his cell phone between 12:05 a.m. and 12:14 a.m., when he called a cab company for a ride. The cab took Seligmann to an ATM, a fast-food restaurant, and finally back to his dorm at 12:46 a.m.

"When is the exact time this occurred, because we have accounted for our time," Osborn said.
The laws of physics will defeat the lies of Nifong.

Next hearing Oct. 27 at 9:30.

More discovery to be turned over on Oct 20.

Update:
LieStoppers summarizes the Duke Hoax Hearing:
From a LieStoppers’ perspective, the "highlight" of the Duke Hoax hearing came with the announcement by the prosecution that the recordings of all Durham Police Department radio calls for March 13th and 14th had been destroyed. It seems Durham Police Department tape use policy calls for tapes to be reused after 60 days. So, even though tapes were requested in April 28th motion by the defense, and ordered by Judge Stephens on May18th, the prosecution now maintains that the tapes were destroyed on or after May 13th, just five days or less before Judge Stephens’ order.
KC Johnson covers some relevant issues from the hearing:
1.) The NC Open Discovery Law needs to be strengthened.
2.) “My timeline” is really no timeline.
3.) Due process and normal prosecutorial conduct remain under assault.
4.) What was yesterday’s bait and switch?
News & Oberver, Sept. 23rd - DA gets to wait on his theory:
"If I had to speculate, I'd say this whole event took five minutes, maybe 10 minutes at the outside," Nifong said.
The man is clueless. Everytime Nifong opens his mouth he lies:
HOW MANY?
When one of the defense lawyers said that Nifong gave 50 to 70 interviews about the case, Nifong said he wanted to set the record straight. He checked his schedule and it showed that he actually gave more like 15 to 20 interviews. He said he had many conversations with reporters, some just to say that he would not comment on the case.

But the number 50 came from Nifong himself.

In a March 31 interview with a News & Observer reporter, Nifong was asked "How many interviews do you think you've given?"

"In excess of 50," Nifong said.
There are two bathrooms at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., which one is the alleged crime scene? Maybe someday someone will provide a floorplan. The Herald-Sun - Judge to review telephone survey about lacrosse case:
Osborn also said the accuser had further muddled the situation by giving at least a dozen inconsistent or implausible versions of what allegedly happened to her.

For example, she claimed she had been raped in a bathroom containing a blue carpet and a full-length mirror, but the only full-length mirror was in a different bathroom, according to Osborn.

So Nifong should be required to specify which bathroom was at issue, Osborn argued unsuccessfully.
sources:
DA: Alleged Duke Rape Took 5-10 Minutes [foxnews, Sept. 22, 2006]
DA: Alleged Duke Lacrosse Party Attack Took 5-10 Minutes [wral.com, Sept. 22, 2006]

Duke Lacrosse Rape Timeline [TJN]
Reade Seligmann's Alibi in Detail [TJN]

related:
Sept. 22 Defense Survey Affidavit [wral.com]
Amazing Stagecraft Needed for Hoax Performance [TJN, Aug. 23, 2006]

Duke Lacrosse Case [TJN Archives]

Friday, September 22, 2006

Duke Case: Slur Analysis

updated:

Why is the Duke lacrosse scandal such a big deal? The one word answer is "race." A highly charged combustible mix of alleged racial slurs were poured onto a fraudulent gang-rape allegation to ignite the scandal.

So exactly how many racial slurs were said on the night of the Duke lacrosse party? Who said them? When and in what context were they said? How many times was the N-word used?

A statement analysis of Kim Roberts/Pittman handwritten statement that she made to police on March 22nd shows that she only has two sentences mentioning racial slurs:

...By this point, it seemed that the fellas may have been ready for the evening to be over. I told them that if they could get her to my car, I would get her out of their hair. Within minutes, she was being helped out of the back yard and into my car. At this point, she did not have the bag that I saw her come with and I asked her if she had the most important thing, her money. She told me yes but she did not seem coherent.

She then told me that we should go back to the house because there was more money to be made there. I asked her again where her things were and she said "Here," "It's here." But I did not see her things so in my opinion, she was talking crazy. I made an attempt to get her things. I took my belongings, locked her in my car and went back up to the house to try and retrieve her bag. I looked around with Dan and we didn't see anything so I said I've done all I could and went back to my car. I finally began leaving and the boys began yelling "Nigger" to us. I called the police to report racial slurs.

While in the car, I repeatedly asked Precious if she had her money. At this point, she was basically out of it. I tried to ask her where she lived but she would not tell me. I tried calling Melissa to get a hold of the driver that dropped her off but received no assistance from her. I decided go to the 24 hr. grocery store and seek the help of an off duty police officer. Only a security guard was there so we proceeded to call 911...
Prior to writing these two sentence Ms. Roberts gives no indication that there are any racial tensions. She refers to the lacrosse players as "the boys" and "the fellas." They helped Ms. Roberts get Ms. Mangum out of the backyard and into the car. Dan helped Ms. Roberts look for Ms. Mangum's bag. Ms. Roberts does not provide any details or include any emotional context about the incident with the alleged racial slurs.

Statement analysis expert, Dr. Susan H. Adams, in one study found three features of statements--the length of the criminal incident section, the presence of unique sensory details, and the inclusion of emotions--that accurately discriminated truthful statements from deceptive ones.

Ms. Roberts fails to have these three features of truthfulness when she describes the racial slurs. Remember for Ms. Roberts the racial slurs were the only "injury" that she suffered the night of the Duke lacrosse party. Yet, it is an injury that she barely mentions, she provides no unique sensory details, and she includes no emotional context. Her sentences about the slurs almost seem an afterthought. She does remember that she made a 911 call about racial slurs eight days prior so she logically concludes that she should at least mention them in this statement. She does that by using the sparest possible language. They are not a big deal in her statement.

Kim Roberts' 911 call to police is clearly a fraud. She is very calm and calculating as she reports that she and her "black girlfriend" were called the N-word. The fake sobbing and crying that Ms. Roberts tries to employ to add credibility to her call would be almost laughable, if they weren't so destructive - Kim Roberts 911 call:
CALLER: "Hi, I don't know if this is an emergency or not, necessarily, but I'm in Durham, and I was driving down near Duke's campus, and it's me and my black girlfriend, and the guy -- there's like a white guy by the Duke wall -- and he just hollered out 'n-----' to me. And I'm just so angry I didn't know who to call. [Crying]

Seconds into the call, Ms. Roberts said she wasn't driving anymore she was walking.

CALLER: "It's right outside of 610 Buchanan [Blvd]. And I saw them all come out of, like, a big frat house, and me and my black girlfriend are walking by, and they called us 'n------.' [Sobbing]

..."And they didn't harm me in any way, but I just feel so completely offended, I can't even believe it. I thought, you know what I'm saying, times have changed, and I don't even know what's going on."
Roberts tells the operator twice that she was not harmed, but is "completely offended." However, the offense was such that she was "not going to press the issue." She makes a point to mention the address of the house three times. Ms. Roberts told Newsweek that she yelled out at the boys, "I called the cops, you dumbasses." Ms. Roberts was mad at the players about something and is getting back at them the only way she know how, by calling the police over to hassle them.

Kim Roberts had her first on-the-record interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, April 2oth. At the very end of this interview she said the following:
"Don't forget that they called me a damn nigger," she said. "She (the accuser) was passed out in the car. She doesn't know what she was called. I was called that. I can never forget that."
Ms. Roberts did not totally forget the incident, but again she almost forgot to include the N-word in her story. Roberts had an interview with NPR's Juan Williams in June.
WILLIAMS: Roberts says this is what happened next: The players continued to make racial insults. Roberts threw angry words back at them mocking their manhood. Eventually Roberts called 911 from the car, in tears, to report that the young men were calling them niggers.
So now we hear that Roberts is throwing "angry words back at them mocking their manhood." This information was not mentioned in her initial March statement.

Conclusion: Ms. Roberts is lying about the true nature of any racial slurs.

Moezeldin ElmostafaThe taxi driver, Moezeldin Ahmad Elmostafa, was in a very good position to hear any possible racial slurs when he returned to the off-campus party to pick up a second fare after dropping off Reade Seligmann.
While waiting for the four passengers whom he would later drive to a nearby gas station, Mostafa said, he saw a woman walking through a crowd of men toward a car.

He said he saw about 20 people on the lawn of the home, "yelling, talking back" to each other, including one African-American woman (Kim Roberts?) who he said didn't appear to be injured.

Mostafa said the woman appeared to exchange words with some people in the crowd before getting into the driver's side of a car.

"She looked, like, mad," he said. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."

Four men got into the taxi, Mostafa said, and they appeared to be drunk. One of them said, "She's just a stripper, She's going to call the police." Mostafa quoted.
Later, when asked by a reporter with CBS News if he had a feeling that something had gone wrong or someone had been hurt at the party that night, Mostafa said, "Yeah, I got the feeling something had gone wrong." But, he did not indicate that he heard any racial slurs, or the N-word.

Conclusion: the cab driver, Mr. Mostafa, did not hear any racial slurs.

The neighbor, Jason Bissey, said this in his written statement regarding racial slurs:
10. At this point, I believe that I was in my bedroom checking email and reading the news. At some point, I heard a renewed commotion outside. I estimate that another 15-20 minutes had elapsed, making the time approximately 1:00 a.m. As I opened the screen door to my residence and stepped onto my porch, the car that I had seen parked in front of 610 was driving north on Buchanan towards Markham, and young men were beginning to disperse from the house. Most of the men were walking towards Duke's East Campus, but some to the west towards Watts St. Before the car that was parked in front of 610 sped off, I distinctly heard one young man's voice who was walking towards East Campus. He yelled at the car that was driving off. "Hey bitch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt."

11. Within five minutes, the situation was total silence. It appeared that the party had dispersed completely, and no cars were left in the vicinity.
Bissey did not hear the N-word being used according to his statement. If it was used, the N-word would surely have been a word that would have loudly punctuated any commotion.

Conclusion: Jason Bissey heard one insult, that everyone has concluded is a racial slur.

The alleged victim, Crystal Gail Mangum, in her only interview on March 24th with the News & Observer said the players "started barking racial slurs" soon after they started to perform:

Just moments after she and another exotic dancer started to perform, she said, men in the house started barking racial slurs. The two women, both black, stopped dancing.

"We started to cry," she said. "We were so scared."

This statement, about the men "barking racial slurs" in the house just after the performance started does not agree with Ms. Roberts' written statement. No examples were provided of what racial slurs were barked. This interview with the News & Observer is yet another version of Ms. Mangum's story that is inconsistent with all the others that she has told. The defense should subpoena the News & Observer to get their records of this interview. The reporter should also be required to testify or make a statement regarding the interview. It would be more evidence showing a consistent pattern of lying by Crystal Gail Mangum.

Ms. Mangum, in the portions of her April 6th written statement that have been released includes one sentence where a racial threat was apparently made:
"We went into the bathroom and shut the door."1

"Dan knocked on the door and asked if we wanted a drink. We said yes. He gave us a drink and we continued to talk."1

"Nikki and I started crying."2

"We ran out to the car screaming and crying."2

"Nikki told me that they were sorry and that they were going to give us $1200 if we stay. Nikki and I got out of the car and went back into the house. As soon as we got back into the house, they were more excited and angry."2

"Nikki and I started to leave again, and three guys grabbed Nikki and Adam, Matt and Brett grabbed me. They separated us at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other."1,2

"The boys hit and kicked me. Matt grabbed me and looked and me and said sweetheart you can‘t leave. He grabbed the back of my neck and said I‘m going to kill you (BLANK) (BLANK) if you don‘t shut up. They started kicking me in my behind and my back. Matt hit me in the face while Dan and Brett kicked me."1

"I heard Nikki on the other side of the door, and when Adam opened the door she rushed in and helped Adam to get me dressed. They dragged me out to the car because my legs couldn't move. Nikki said, "What happened girl, did they hurt you," I said yes, and she said that she would get help for me."2
One MSNBC graphic was shown that indicated the (BLANK) (BLANK) was N----- B----, which would probably mean the words were "Nigger Bitch."

In the portions of her statement released so far Ms. Mangum does not say if she was scared or otherwise indicate if she had any emotional or sensory reaction to the threat that was made during the sexual assault. Other racial remarks have not been released. If there were more inflammatory racial remarks included in her statement why would the main stream media have not released them? Especially, if they were "barked racial slurs."

Conclusion: Ms. Mangum lied about being gang-raped and is certainly lying about any racial threats or remarks made during the incident.

None of the players so far has admitted to saying any racial slurs. That does not mean that racial slurs were not said. It just means that there is really only one reasonably well established racial slur that was said, the one Bissey overheard. The use of the N-word as part of any racial slurs has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. Roberts and Ms. Mangum are both liars.

For a case that is all about race there are precious few real racial remarks to analyze. However, it only took the mere allegation of racial slurs involving the N-word by Ms. Roberts to send Duke and Durham into bedlam.

Duke President, Richard Brodhead was very quick to respond on March 29th to the alleged racial slurs:
In a written statement released late Wednesday afternoon, Duke University's president called language allegedly used by members of the university's lacrosse team, now at the center of a rape investigation that has gained national attention, "disgusting."

At a news conference Tuesday evening, reporters asked Richard Brodhead about a 911 call released in which the caller tells an operator that players shouted racial slurs at her and her friend.

"I have now had the opportunity to listen to the tape," Brodhead said in the statement. "It is disgusting. Racism and its hateful language have no place in this community. I am sorry the woman and her friend were subjected to such abuse.
Brodhead is apologizing to two anonymous women who have not yet been identified about racial slur allegations that were "disgusting," but not verified. Whatever happened to that old standard about not responding to hypothetical questions?

President Brodhead apparently wanted to get out in front on this issue, and would wait for facts to catch up. Who has ever had to apologize for an apology? But his apology gave more credence to the case that the players were somehow the bad guys.

The police were still lying on March 30th when they said they didn't know who made the 911 call. This despite the fact Roberts had told them twice that she had made the call. She told Sgt. J.C. Shelton on the night of the incident that she made the 911 call. Investigator Benjamin Himan also knew she made the call after taking her statement on March 22nd. On Friday, March 31sth, the News & Observer reported:
Police said they don't know who made the 911 call to report the racial slurs, and the complainant was gone when police arrived at the house. But Durham police spokeswoman Kammie Michael said Thursday that they are convinced the call was not made by the same woman who later said she was raped and sodomized by three men at the party.

Police released new details Thursday on what they found when responding to that first call...
The police timed the release of the 911 call recording at just around the time Mike Nifong was taking active control of the case. It was one more weapon he could use to inflame Durham against a criminal conspiracy of Duke lacrosse players.

Therefore after doing an analysis of the alleged racial slur(s) involved in this case it can only be concluded that they were just another tool used to perpetrate a great hoax.

sources:
Kim Roberts/Pittman Police Statement [TJN]
Are you telling me the truth? Indicators of veracity in written statements [Findarticles.com, Oct. 2004]
Kim Roberts 911 call, mp3, 12:53 a.m., March 14, 2006 [newsobserver.com]
2nd Duke Stripper Didn't See Alleged Rape [abcnews, April 21, 2006]
Duke Lacrosse Scandal: Spin Dancer etc. [TJN, June 15, 2006]

Defense attorneys: Timeline clears Duke rape suspects [cnn.com, April 21, 2006]
Taxi driver says suspect was acting normal [MSNBC, April 20, 2006]
Warrant Details Search Of Lacrosse Player's Dorm Room [wral.com, April 20, 2006]
Reade Seligmann's Alibi in Detail [TJN]
Duke president discusses rape case with students (911 Transcript) [ESPN, Mar. 31, 2006]
Duke President Calls Alleged Slurs 'Disgusting' Before Student March [wral.com, March 29, 2006]
Statement by President Richard H. Brodhead on 911 Tape [duke.edu, March 29, 2006]
Police arrived at quiet house [newsobserver.com, March 31, 2006]

1 'The Abrams Report' for June 19 [MNSBC]
2 Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case [newsobserver.com, Aug. 6, 2006]

Duke Lacrosse Case [TJN Archives]

Duke Case: More Evidence Turned Over

This morning the News & Observer reported:

District Attorney Mike Nifong handed over three packets of evidence to defense lawyers in the Duke lacrosse rape case this morning.

During a pretrial hearing in Durham County Superior Court, Nifong also harangued the lawyers for seeking more information about DNA testing of the three lacrosse players charged with raping a dancer in March....

Nifong said that the State Bureau of Investigation could produce much of the information the attorneys want and that a private lab used in the testing could, too, but that it could cost the state $4,035.
Nifong first asked for the outside DNA testing at DNA Security of Burlington, NC., which cost nearly $23,000. USA Today:
The DNA tests that failed to conclusively link Duke lacrosse players to a woman who alleges she was raped at a team party cost taxpayers nearly $23,000, according to court papers.

DNA Security of Burlington analyzed 23 "evidence specimens" at $450 apiece and 50 "reference specimens" that cost $250 each, according to papers filed in Durham County Superior Court.

The company's analyses last month found no evidence that the three players charged with rape — or any of the other team members — had sex with the accuser, defense attorneys have said.
Nifong is now trying to pinch pennies regarding the DNA testing? He is the one who ordered the second round of testing at the private lab. He dropped this mess on the floor and now he won't pay to clean it up.

sources:
Evidence handed over in Duke lacrosse case [NewsObserver.com, Sept. 22, 2006]
DNA tests for Duke lacrosse case cost taxpayers nearly $23,000 [USAToday.com, June 7, 2006]

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Duke Case: Missing Their Watergate

The Duke lacrosse scandal is a smaller regional version of the infamous Watergate scandal and a generation of young reporters and journalists in and around North Carolina are letting it pass by without blinking an eye.

The big crime in the Watergate scandal was the Nixon administration's cover up and obstruction of the investigation of the Watergate burglary. The burglary itself became secondary. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein kept the Watergate story in the spotlight. Their investigative stories eventually helped lead to Nixon's resignation and to the Washington Post winning the Pulitzer Prize.

In the Duke scandal, the initial fraudulent charge of gang-rape has been overshadowed by a larger and far more serious cover up of police and prosecutorial misconduct. The Duke case was prosecuted to further the political career of the local DA, Mike Nifong. Nifong manipulated the North Carolina grand jury system to frame three innocent men. Just like Nixon and his administration "stonewalled" the investigation of their misdeeds, so too, have Nifong and the authorities in Durham stonewalled efforts to get at the truth.

The Watergate scandal showed the corruption in a federal government operating under an "Imperial Presidency." The Duke scandal has demonstrated the corruption in a state and local government operating under an "Imperial Prosecutor" legal system.

Who will win a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the Duke scandal?

Duke Case: Never Meet Your Heroes

Never meet your heroes they're bound to disappoint. The corollary is true. Heroes should never meet you, they will be disappointed. If an Atticus Finch could meet Mike Nifong he would go take a shower after he shook his hand. Nifong listing "To Kill a Mockingbird" as his favorite book is evil irony.

Mike Nifong - Damned Liar

Mike Nifong (D)-
Personal and Political

Interests and Hobbies: Reading, fitness/walking, baseball, music (listening, performing, writing)

Favorite TV Show: The only shows I see on a regular basis are SportCenter (when I am getting ready for work in the morning) and the 11:00 news (when I am getting ready for bed at night)

Hero: When I was a young man, my hero was Mickey Mantle. Since reaching the age where one realizes that there are no perfect humans, I have not had heroes, although there are many people whom I greatly admire, and I certainly place my parents in this category.

Favorite Book: Among my favorites are To Kill a Mockingbird, Watership Down and Faulkner's Light in August. I also enjoy Tolkien and LeCarre. Of late, most of my reading has been of history (non-fiction).

Self-ranking on political scale: Not only could I not reduce my own politics to a single number on your scale, but I suspect that it would be hard to find two people who can precisely agree on what the labels actually mean. I tend to be somewhat liberal on such things as social, environmental, and first amendment issues, middle-of-the-road on economic issues, and somewhat conservative on issues of accountability and personal responsibility.

Linkfest:

NewsOberver.com, Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006 - Nifong assails phone survey:

District Attorney Mike Nifong on Wednesday accused defense lawyers in the Duke University lacrosse rape case of using a telephone poll as a "thinly disguised" attempt to influence jurors.

The defense lawyers said they were only trying to assess how Nifong himself might have influenced a potential jury with his early public comments on the case, in which three men are accused of raping a woman hired to dance at a March lacrosse team party...
Herald-Sun, Sept. 20, 2006 - Lacrosse defense survey questioned:
In his motion, Nifong attached a sworn statement from his wife, Cy Gurney, who told of engaging in a one-hour call last week with a woman from the polling company, Central Research Services Inc. The pollster said she was calling from New York.

Internet listings show Central Research Services to be an established market research company more than a half-century old and based in Tokyo.
TalkLeft.com hot topic - News & Observer to do piece on NIFONG Sunday:
News & Observer: COMING SUNDAY September 24, 2006

Who is Mike Nifong? We take a deeper look at what drives the man who is driving the Duke lacrosse case.
and Inside Information on the Upcoming Article on Nifong

LaShawn Barber - Duke Rape Case: Denial of Due Process?
Nifong ought to be ashamed of himself on so many levels.
Crystal Mess - Dear Cowards,
Group of 88 Duke professors

Shame! Not for making a mistake. For not admitting it and seeking to make it right. You, and each of you, are a disgrace to scholarship, values-molding, yourselves, Duke University. Charades you are! You're nearly a laugh. But you're really a cry.

The votebook page profiling Nifong put up by The Herald-Sun says:
"Candidate is Unopposed"
KC Johnson on the inaccuracy:
The "votebook" inaccuracy isn't the first time the Herald-Sun has wildly distorted news regarding the Cheek effort. In a July 30 editorial, editor Bob Ashley opined,
On Thursday, Cheek said being district attorney would be too much of a distraction from the business of his Durham law firm, so supporters shouldn't vote for him after all.
In fact, Cheek had said exactly the opposite regarding how his supporters might vote. As N&O reporter Benjamin Niolet noted after the county comissioner's press conference,
Cheek . . . said anyone dissatisfied with Nifong could vote for him. Cheek said that he would vote for himself but would stay out of the election and the campaign.
source:
Mike Nifong (D) [votebook.com]

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Duke Case: Holloway's Jungleland

Speaking of dense undergrowth....Dr. Holloway I presume?

You need a guide, a machete, and a weedwacker to chop your way through Karla FC Holloway's essay, "Coda: Bodies of Evidence." The essay is her take on the Duke lacrosse scandal. Holloway is a member of the Group of 88 at Duke and a professor of English.

KC Johnson draws a map to help us find the missing Karla Holloway, who is sinking in a pool of self-pity deep in a jungle of "men's sports" that is infested with "both masculine and white racial disrespect."

The "troubled terrain"..."can be so abusive to women and girls and those "othered..."

It is a tortured journey to follow her arguments. Amazingly Holloway had three porters that helped carry her baggage into the wilderness. Bloggers should be so lucky.

I am grateful to Professors Robyn Wiegman and William Chafe for their generous and careful reading and response to early drafts of this essay, and to Janet Jakobsen for her intuitive and tremendously helpful review.
Hopefully, Wiegman, Chafe and Jakobsen were given adequate insect repellent and lotions so they could escape the savage jungle without getting bit or suffering a rash.

Holloway wasn't so lucky, she's developed a bad case of jock itch. Naturally, it's the lacrosse team that irritates her the most. They are an "assault to the character of the university." She also said, "their reinstatement was accompanied by a code of conduct they inexplicably wrote for themselves." Apparently students should not be caught writing anything for themselves at Duke.

The women's lacrosse team is another open sore with her.

One weed growing in Holloway's jungle is her take on the actual Duke rape hoax. She said:
Those injured by this affair, including the student and the other young woman who were invited to dance under false pretenses and then racially (at least) abused, as well as Duke's campus and Durham's communities, are bodies left on the line...
She refers to the alleged victim a second time as "a student from North Carolina Central University." Using the "student" label instead of "sex worker" is nicer, but not necessarily accurate.

The alleged victim, Crystal Gail Mangum, was not a student when she went to the Duke lacrosse party, she was an experienced, but intoxicated, sex worker. Based on the statement of her driver, Jarriel Johnson, in the three days before the party Ms. Mangum spent the majority of her time preparing for, or doing sex work, not studying.

Those most injured by this affair are the three male Duke lacrosse players not the two women. The alleged physical and emotional injuries suffered by the women are part of this grand hoax, they both have lied and lied about being injured by the lacrosse team.

Ms. Mangum injured herself by becoming intoxicated and falling down on brick steps. She was also injured by her "dance partner," Kim Roberts, who probably stole her money and then had the cops forcefully remove Ms. Mangum from her car.

The part about "the student and other young woman" dancing under false pretenses and then being racially (at least) abused are all assertions that are not fully verified facts yet.

Kim Roberts is not a young women. Kim Roberts a/k/a Kim Pittman was thirty-one years, ten months old at the time of the party. She is also an experienced sex worker, an opportunistic convicted embezzler and a documented liar.

These ladies were not lambs, they were hustlers. They were not "invited" to the party, they were hired to perform. One just happened to be off her game that night.

Ms. Roberts checked out the driver's license of Duke captain and party organizer, Dan Flannery, and she knew they were a Duke sports team. The only ones "dancing under false pretenses" were Ms. Mangum, "Precious," and Ms. Roberts, "Nikki," who were using their professional aliases.

Additionally, there is a very good chance that Ms. Roberts may have started hurling the racial insults in order to distract the players and Ms. Mangum from her theft of Ms. Mangum's money outside the house. The neighbor, Jason Bissey, then just heard and reported the tail end of an exchange of insults that was part of a con perpetrated by a clever convicted thief and liar.

Using the Duke rape hoax to build a case that college sports is immoral is a logical leap that fails to work as persuasive writing. Poor Karla Holloway, jungle fever has softened her brain. Her "bodies of evidence" have all decomposed in the jungle.

Maybe "coda" is Holloway-speak for "Swan Song." Hopefully, she finds her way to safer ground that is far away from Duke or any young minds. How does she get away with teaching English at Duke?

sources:
Coda: Bodies of Evidence [columbia.edu]
The Travails of Karla Holloway [DurhamWonderland, Sept. 20, 2006]
Who Robbed Crystal Gail Mangum? - Part 3: The Art of the Heist [TJN, Aug. 24, 2006]

related:
Duke Case: Slur Analysis [TJN]

Duke Lacrosse Case [TJN Archives]

Duke Case: Hitching up the Truth

Wendy McElroy writes the Foxnews "ifeminists" viewpoint. She now hitches up the ifeminists wagon to the truth and sends it out to chop down some cotton pick'n lies planted in Durham's field of injustice by Mike Nifong. She says:

I believe the accused are blatantly innocent and that the prosecuting District Attorney Mike Nifong is acting with willful disregard for both the evidence in the case and the Constitutional rights of the accused. In this case, I believe the legal system is the enemy of justice...and nakedly so...

How naked? Consider one of the suspects, Reade Seligmann. He is scheduled to be tried on three felony charges despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence: exculpatory DNA tests, a corroborated alibi, a string of contradictory statements by his accuser and an irredeemably tainted I.D....

As long as Nifong is the face of government, I find no reason for public confidence.
The truth is sharp steel. The truth well set Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans free. The truth is picking up speed and allies.

Joan Foster at LieStoppers was worrying:
This [Duke] case is like that. There's 500 acres of lies out there, and there are people who own Really Big Equipment, commercial heavy-duty machinery that could mow that field to dust in hours. But the Big Guys haven't shown up...
Well, Ms. McElroy has a mule and just started cutting her 40 acres. Maybe more mules will get hitched as people rush in to claim their 40 acres before the 60 Minutes combine gets fired up?

sources:
Where Is the Justice? Accused Denied Due Process in Duke Lacrosse Case? [foxnews.com, Sept. 19, 2006]
Yard Work [LieStippers, Sept. 20, 2006]

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Duke Case: Vestige Media Organ has No Pulse

updated:

The Herald-Sun is "a dead man walking" to use a phrase we've heard before in Durham. "Letters to the Editor" are a joke.

Mike McCusker at Crystal Mess tried to respond to a misleading letter from "Jimmy D. Haynes" that The Herald-Sun used. Mr. McCusker was first told:

Mr. McCusker,

Thank you for your letter to the editor. We've edited your submission just a bit to bring it within the 250 word limit. Hope you don't mind. we believe this edited version (just a few words removed and added here and there) still fairly represents your thoughts. Look for it to be published later this week. Thank you for your interest and loyalty to the H/S.
Then got the word:
Letter is much too long. The rule length is 250 words. Please edit and resubmit.
It's funny, when Professor James E. Coleman Jr. wrote his letter to the News & Observer they published it and waived the length limit.
The writer, a law professor, recently led Duke's study of the men's lacrosse program. The length limit on letters was waived.
Our favorite media pundit, Jeff Jarvis, on - "Letters to the editor: Return to sender"
..it’s such rubbish to say that newspapers have always been conversational because they took letters.

...rubbish on rubbish

Update: John in Carolina has started working on a eulogy for The Herald-Sun:
When Ashley first took over, the H-S had a weekday circulation of about 54 thousand. My best guess is that the H-S weekday circulation is now about 35 thousand or so, and continuing to decline. The decline is occurring in a fast-growing region with a strong and expanding economy.

It isn’t just readers who are abandoning what many people now call “Ashley’s H-S.”

Advertisers are abandoning it, too...

I’ll be saying more soon about the demise of a once fine newspaper.

sources:
More Herald-Sun Hilarity* [Crystal Mess, Sept. 19, 2006]
Nifong the Ghostwriter? [Crystal Mess, Sept. 19, 2006]
Letters to the editor: Return to sender [buzzmachine.com, June 9, 2006]
Duke lacrosse: Ashley’s ashes [JinC, Sept. 19, 2006]

related:
Death Spiral for The Herald-Sun [TJN, Sept. 18, 2006]

zero hedge

Calculated Risk

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Paul Krugman - NY Times

The Big Picture - Barry Ritholtz

naked capitalism - Yves Smith

Pragmatic Capitalism

Washington's Blog

Safe Haven

Paper Economy

The Daily Reckoning - Australia

Financial Sector and Stocks Analysis from Seeking Alpha

Gold / Oil

Loading...