Duke/Nifong Hoax: Day #315

Updated - today's items: ...

Joseph Neff & Anne Blythe, News & Observer:
Defense waits for DNA test results — Defense lawyers in the Duke lacrosse case still have not received all the DNA test material in the case, according to a motion filed today.

A private laboratory, DNA Security of Burlington, has provided only some of the underlying data in the case, said the motion, which comes a month after the N.C. State Bar charged Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong with withholding DNA evidence favorable to the defense...

The lawyers discovered the laboratory had found DNA from at least four unidentified men in samples from the accuser's body and clothing. The DNA did not match that of any of the lacrosse players...

"The defendants are still in the dark," the motion said. "The statistical likelihood is that such data will show that there was even more exculpatory, unidentified male DNA discovered by DNA Security in the rape kit extractions that had, by Jan. 12, 2007, still had not been reported to the Defendants by Mr. Nifong and Dr. Meehan in any way."...

related:
N&O: Addendum to Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert D.N.A. Analysis [.pdf, 7 pages]

from page 3 of motion: DNA Security discovered the DNA of at least two males in the accuser's rectum that did not match the Defendants, their lacrosse teammates, or anyone else who provided a reference DNA sample.

dicussion:
KC Johnson: Latest Bombshell Motion — Mike Nifong obtained the indictments of three people on a charge of rape, in which the accuser’s then-present version (her April 6 statement) claimed that the crime had included anal rape. Even if North Carolina did not possess an Open Discovery law (which required turning over of all material to the defense), and even if North Carolina law did not require turning over of all test results obtained from a non-testimonial order to the defense, how would it not be exculpatory to have “discovered the DNA of at least two males in the accuser’s rectum that did not match the Defendants, their lacrosse teammates, or anyone else who provided a reference DNA sample”? ...

John in Carolina: New DNA’s not laxers'. Now what? — I think if the Feds come in and put the pressure on Meehan, he'll reveal quite a bit and his testimony will likely send Nifong to prison.

ex-prosecutor comment: As for prosecutorial misconduct, this case occupies a universe unto itself. In all other cases of which I am aware, the prosecutor committed unlawful acts of a particular type, such as blistering defendants prior to the trial, to prejudice potential jurors, or hide evidence which was exculpatory or even proof of actual innocence. However, Mr. Nifong's misconduct goes from A to Z, some of which nobody else ever even thought of, as far as I know...

LieStoppers: Defense Files Motion in Duke Lax Case
FreeRepublic: More Motions Filed in Duke Lax Case
TalkLeft: More Motions Filed in Duke Lax Case

---

Shae Crisson, ABC11-TV/WTVD:
More Motions Filed in Duke LAX Case (with Wade Smith interview video) — Attorneys for three former Duke lacrosse players have accused Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong of withholding evidence, including more DNA. Now the defense wants all DNA test results from when the case was originally in the D.A.'s office.

If the information was had December was explosive, then this is doublely explosive," said Wade Smith, defense attorney... "This is not on the watch of the North Carolina attorney general, it's on the watch of Mr. Nifong...

---

Elizabeth Dunbar, WRAL:
Duke Faculty Committee Releases Report on Campus Culture — From raising admissions standards to changing the rules for campus housing, a committee charged with evaluating Duke University's campus culture released a set of recommendations Tuesday that, if implemented, could dramatically change the school's undergraduate experience.

But university officials hesitated to commit to any of the proposals offered by the "Campus Culture Initiative," formed last year after rape allegations involving Duke's lacrosse team led the school to cancel the team's season.

"I don't think any of the recommendations should be considered anything but starting points for conversations," Provost Peter Lange said...

related:
Duke.edu:
Statement by President Richard H. Brodhead on Release of CCI Report — The important thing now is to have the conversation the Report is meant to launch. None of its recommendations is a “done deal.” Nor should any of its suggestions be off the table. This is a time for vigorous debate, which is a healthy thing in a university. The core values the report advocates are the promotion of active, independent thinking and education through engagement with those who think differently from ourselves. We will have a chance to build these strengths as we discuss how best to move forward...

discussion:
KC Johnson: CCI: DOA? — The full report of the Campus Culture Initiative is now out. President Brodhead’s reaction was, to put it mildly, less than enthusiastic.

LieStoppers: CCI Report released by Duke

---

Letter by Pete Klein, Durham, Herald-Sun:
Pot-bangers were MIA — Saturday was a beautiful day to watch a lacrosse game. It was great to see so many people at Koskinen Stadium to support the Duke lacrosse team. I am happy for the players and coaches on a great performance.

While sitting in the bleachers with my 11-year-old son watching the media scurry about the field, I couldn't help but wonder where were the protestors? Were they banging pots outside President Richard Brodhead's house to protest how poorly he handled the situation? Were they at Joe Alleva's house protesting his lack of courage and concern for his own job by not standing up for one of his most successful and loyal coaches who was under fire from a knee-jerk administration? Were they organizing a petition to censure the group of professors who publicly condemned their own students? Or maybe they were outside of District Attorney Mike Nifong's house protesting abuse of prosecutoral power? Who knows?...

---

comment: So ESPN's Bomani Jones, who believes: "without question, I’d say that Duke is a white supremacist institution," wants to kick some more dirt on the Duke lacrosse team. If he wants to kick dirt on someone, why not start with a professional athlete behaving very badly like Adam "Pacman" Jones? Every sports pundit in the business has weighed in on that story except Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones on his "Real talk blog,"and his ESPN Page 2 column, seems to have ignored the most talked about sports story of the last week? Huh? Are they related?

update: Bomani posted a very brief bit on "Pacman" Jones shortly after this comment was written. Bomani barely lays a glove on "Pacman" Jones, just says he brought shame on the NFL. No mention of the Pacman video where is he is allegedly seen punching out a stripper and biting a bouncer. Underage lacrosse drinking - shame on you. Beating women, assault and involvement in a shooting that left one person paralyzed - equal shame on you too Packman, but let's not go into details. Bomani won't call "Pacman" a thug. More double standards and hypocrisy.

Bomani Jones, ESPN:
Duke lacrosse celebrated for wrong reasons — "Around here, we believe the guys [former players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans] are innocent," Antonacci said, "and that [last] season should not have been canceled."
.
“Perhaps that's true, but that's no reason to celebrate the team. After all, none of the three players charged with crimes surrounding a March 9 [sic], 2006, house party are still on the team.” ...

related:
Joan Foster, LieStoppers: Overkill — Today I read the Bomani Jones article for ESPN. I felt an old familiar reaction. Is it just me, or are we on overkill here? ENOUGH about the stripper party and underage drinking! Spare me one more description of this "racist" team! To paraphrase Shakespeare ( are you out there President Brodhead?) whatever happened was a grievous fault and grievously have these boys PAID for it.

LieStoppers:
ESPN's Jones Mocks Celebration of Return of Lacrosse to Duke — For nearly a year, the three randomly indicted players and their teammates have been assailed repeatedly by many Hoax apologists and enablers, not only for the crime that did not occur at the party last March 13, but also for everything and anything else that could be used to smear them individually and collectively. As a team, their names and faces appeared on vigilante wanted posters. As a team, they were paraded before waiting media as they complied with an overreaching non-testimonial DNA order, believing DA Nifong's false promise that the testing would allow them to demonstrate their innocence. As a team, they were reviled and protested against by certain Duke faculty and students, despite their innocence. As a team, they’ve incurred legal expenses totaling millions of dollars to defend themselves against a crime that never occurred. As a team, they fled the campus when the new Black Panther Party visited with a threat to conduct their own investigation. As a team, their season was precipitously cancelled. Most importantly, however, as a team they have shared their trust in truth, and their hope for justice...

Misrepresentation of petty misbehavior by some will continue to be used to smear them all.

Dr. Melissa Clouthier:
Duke (non) Rape Case not over — You know, this acknowledgment that the lacrosse players are innocent, but they are still white, privileged, thuggish jerks is maddening. Bomani Jones illustrates how massaging the facts can leave the perception that the lacrosse players got away with something and deserved the suspended season and everything else they all got...

---

KC Johnson:
The Group of 88's Imagined Reality — In their increasingly desperate attempt to redeem their reputations, the Group of 88 has succeeded only in digging themselves a bigger hole. The latest example came in an article published yesterday in Diverse, in which Group members rationalized their actions in a way that appeared detached from reality.

Reporter Christina Asquith’s scrupulously fair article featured quotes from four Group members (Wahneema Lubiano, Karla Holloway, Mark Anthony Neal, and William Chafe) but did not cover up the arts and sciences faculty’s performance from last spring...

I’m not sure which option is more frightening: that a tenured Duke professor would intentionally mislead a reporter; or that a tenured Duke professor [Chafe, Neal, Lubiano] would make a statement that appears to have no basis in reality...

comment: How can Duke University sit back and let faculty like this have their way?

One footnote regarding the infamous "Group Gang of 88" and their follow-up re-grouping the, "Concerned Duke Faculty," who posted the "Open Letter to the Duke Community" back on January 16th. Many writers have been referring to this group as consisting of "87" members, but the TJN count finds the "Concerned Duke Faculty" has 89 names listed?

Jane Stancill's News & Observer article, "Duke post seeks to defuse '88' ad," dated January 17th, is where the number "87" first appeared to originate.

Dozens of Duke professors have posted "an open letter to the Duke community" on the Web, explaining an ad last spring that has been widely criticized as a condemnation of lacrosse players.

The new letter, signed by 87 faculty and posted at www.concerneddukefaculty.org, refuses to apologize for the ad and reiterates concerns about issues of race and sexual violence on the Duke campus. It says the so-called "Group of 88" ad published in the Chronicle last April has been grossly misinterpreted. That ad has been a subject of heated debate on blogs, and its signers have received angry and sometimes racist e-mail messages.

Is it possible that Duke faculty members are still signing up to jump on-board this crash-and-burn bandwagon? Some more research is needed.

update:
Meg Bourdillon of the Duke Chronicle in her article, "Faculty letter aims to clarify '88' ad," dated Jan. 18th, said:

A group of approximately 90 faculty members calling themselves "Concerned Duke Faculty" posted an open letter addressed to the University community online Tuesday...By yesterday afternoon, 90 professors and lecturing fellows appeared on the list of signatories to which the letter links. Of them, 64 were among the 88 signers of the ad printed in April.

Here is the current list of "Concerned" Duke Faculty:

1. Stan Abe
2. Benjamin Albers
3. Anne Allison
4. Srinivas Aravamudan
5. Lee Baker
6. Sarah Beckwith
7. Paul Berliner
8. Tolly Boatwright
9. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
10. Jack Bookman
11. Matt Brim
12. Bill Chafe
13. Leo Ching
14. Elizabeth Clark
15. Rom Coles
16. Michaeline A. Crichlow
17. Kim Curtis
18. Roberto Dainotto
19. Leslie Damasceno
20. Ariel Dorfman
21. Laura Edwards
22. Grant Farred
23. Jeffrey Forbes
24. Mary M. Fulkerson
25. Erin Gayton
26. Jehanne Gheith
27. Margaret Greer
28. Michael Hardt
29. Erik Harms
30. Joe Harris
31. Kerry Haynie
32. Karla Holloway
33. Bayo Holsey
34. Mary Hovsepian
35. Sherman James
36. Alice Kaplan
37. Keval Khalsa
38. Ranjana Khanna
39. Fred Klaits
40. Claudia Koonz
41. Robert Korstad
42. Pedro Lasch
43. Caroline Light
44. Marcy Litle
45. Ralph Litzinger
46. Michele Longino
47. Wahneema Lubiano
48. Anne-Maria Makhulu
49. Tamera Marko
50. Paula McClain
51. Louise Meintjes
52. Sean Metzger
53. Walter Mignolo
54. Alberto Moreiras
55. Cary Moskovitz
56. Mark Anthony Neal
57. David Need
58. Diane Nelson
59. Jocelyn Olcott
60. Charles Payne
61. Charlie Piot
62. Ronen Plesser
63. Maureen Quilligan
64. Jan Radway
65. Tom Rankin
66. Marcia Rego
67. William Reichert
68. Deb Reisinger
69. Alex Rosenberg
70. Marc Schachter
71. Stephanie Sieburth
72. Laurie Shannon
73. Pete Sigal
74. Irene Silverblatt
75. Joshua Socolar
76. Kristin Solli
77. Helen Solterer
78. Fiona Somerset
79. Roxanne Springer
80. Rebecca Stein
81. Kenneth Surin
82. Susan Thorne
83. John Transue
84. Maurice Wallace
85. Priscilla Wald
86. Kathryn Whetten
87. Robyn Wiegman
88. David Wong
89. Tomiko Yoda

---

Michael Gaynor:
Duke case: Academic credentials can be deceiving - The Duke Six's [John Aldrich, Peter Burian, William Chafe, Kerry Haynie, Fred Nijhout, Wendy Wood ] guest column is dated February 23, 2007 and entitled "Moving forward at Duke." It includes a very selective statement of facts worthy of Durham County District Attorney Michael B. Nifong leading a Durham grand jury to indict innocent persons.

Instead of attempting to make amends, the Duke Six overlook what is enormously important, focus on minor problems and try to "move forward." ...How myopic are the Duke Six?

Instead of addressing the "related issues" (like the framing of Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, aka the Duke Three, for first-degree felonies by a politically opportunistic prosecutor who pandered to black voters who wanted a prosecution regardless of the actual facts and the failure of Duke University's administration and many of its faculty members to stand up for the presumption of innocence and the due process and equal protection rights of the Duke Three), the Duke Six focused on racial epithets at the party...