Friday, August 31, 2007

Nifong Contempt Hearing — Day 2

Today's items — updated:

KC Johnson:

  • Morning in Wonderland -- Even in the Wonderland that is Durham, this morning’s session was surreal.

    A sitting judge served as a de facto character witness for a district attorney who was forced to resign his office after being disbarred.

    A sitting ADA testified as the Durham equivalent of Sgt. Schultz, suggesting that he “knew nothing”—or at least as close to nothing as absolutely possible—about how the case was prosecuted...

  • Morning Session II -- Nifong testimony...

  • Morning Session I--Meehan: Nifong Statement to Court "False"--The morning session resumed with Dr. Brian Meehan returning to the stand...

  • Avoiding the Issue -- Nifong attorney Jim Glover might be seeking to seize from Dr. Brian Meehan the title of “Mr. Obfuscation.” In an entire day of questioning and arguments yesterday, Glover never once specifically referenced Nifong’s remarks in the September 22 court session, for which he’s on trial...
Mike Nifong (ctr), wife Cy Gurne Gurney (left), attorny Ann Peterson (rt)--------

Anne Blythe and Joseph Neff, News & Observer:
Jim Glover (ctr l) and Ann Petersen (ctr r), Judge W. Osmond Smith III, (2nd fm rt), prosecutors Charles Davis (r) and Boyd Sturges III (l)Nifong might testify today on charge -- The former Durham DA could defend himself against a judge's charge that he lied to the court -- Mike Nifong, who has raised more questions than he has answered about his zeal to prosecute the Duke lacrosse case, could take the stand today in the criminal contempt case against him.

The disbarred former district attorney pleaded not guilty on Thursday to Judge W. Osmond Smith III's charge that he lied in court.

Smith's accusation focuses narrowly on an oral exchange between Nifong and the judge during a court hearing last September.

But Thursday's hearing meandered as Jim Glover, the Chapel Hill lawyer representing Nifong, went on at length about the intricacies of DNA testing and the procedural history of the Duke lacrosse case.

Nifong's defense is similar to the unsuccessful one he mounted before a State Bar disciplinary panel in June. [...]
Nifong attorneys - Ann Petersen (second from right) and Jim Glover (right)William West, Herald-Sun
[registration required]
DNA expert denies lacrosse case scheme -- A DNA expert in the Duke lacrosse case on Thursday claimed he didn't engage in any scheme with since-disbarred Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong to hide information that would have helped the defense.

Brian Meehan, director of the Burlington testing lab DNA Security, was testifying in a contempt of court hearing against Nifong that opened Thursday. Nifong is accused of misrepresenting to the court in September 2006 that all evidence, including all DNA evidence, had been turned over to the lacrosse players' defense team.

Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith is presiding in Nifong's contempt case. The hearing resumes at 9:30 this morning. Nifong has pleaded not guilty.

Moments after testifying Thursday afternoon, Meehan told reporters that Nifong "never indicated or said anything or suggested anything to me to withhold any information from the report" he prepared for the then-prosecutor after meetings with Nifong and two Durham police investigators in the spring of 2006.
Nifong hearing arguments get heated
KC Johnson:
Hearing Highlights -- Nifong attorney Jim Glover had no discernible defense strategy, instead changing arguments on the fly and without warning, often in ways that contradicted his previous remarks.

During the day, Glover pursued at least seven separate approaches to the Nifong defense: [...]

The highlight of the day—as in the Bar proceedings—came from Brad Bannon. Bannon eviscerated Glover’s claim that the multiple male DNA found by Meehan was “not significantly exculpatory.” Bannon responded, “That’s absolutely false.” He then paused before adding, “And you know it.” [...]
LieStoppers forum: What's your take?, On Thursday's proceedings
Saint Raymond NonnatusLieStoppers blog:
Feast day of St. Raymond Nonnatus -- Whether one believes in the saints and religion is a personal matter. However, the irony that the last day of Mike Nifong’s criminal contempt of court hearing falls on Saint Raymond Nonnatus' Feast Day is fitting. Saint Raymond is Patron Saint of the Falsely Accused. . .
John in Carolina:

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Nifong Contempt Hearing — Day 1

Today's items — updated:

Mike Nifong at Aug 30th contempt hearingAP/ABC11-TV:
Defense: Nifong Didn't Intentionally Try to Mislead Court [video] -- The former prosecutor who led the now-discredited Duke lacrosse rape case never intentionally tried to mislead the court and believed he gave all DNA test results to defense attorneys, a lawyer for Mike Nifong said Thursday during his criminal contempt trial. [...]

"The question is not whether those statements Mr. Nifong made are literally true or literally false," Glover told Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III. "The question is were they willfully and intentionally false and were they also part of an effort ... to hide potentially exculpatory evidence, and that's the issue before the court."

Anne Blythe & Joseph Neff, News & Observer:
Nifong contests contempt charge -- Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong began fighting a criminal contempt of court charge today in the same courtroom where he once prosecuted people accused of crimes.

Mike Nifong at Aug 30th contempt hearingNifong, who was stripped of his law license this month, is facing Judge W. Osmond Smith III on the charge, which arose from his handling of the Duke lacrosse case.

The former prosecutor pleaded not guilty this morning. And at the close of prosecution evidence this afternoon, Smith refused Nifong's motion to dismiss the charge.


The contempt charges are limited to a short exchange during the September hearing, when Smith asked Nifong whether the May 2006 DNA report given to defense lawyers was complete: "So his [Meehan's] report encompasses it all?"

Nifong answered haltingly: "His report encompasses ever -- because we didn't -- they apparently think that everybody I speak to about, I talk about the facts of the case. And that's just, that would be counterproductive. It did not happen here."

The judge pressed for an answer: "So you represent there are no other statements from Dr. Meehan?"

Dr. Brian Meehan, director of DNASINifong responded, "No other statements. No other statements made to me."

Himan testified today that the report did not include everything Meehan had discussed with Nifong and police in April and May.

Meehan has said that he told Nifong several times that tests found DNA from unidentified men on Mangum's body and underwear. Nifong has confirmed Meehan's account in interviews and sworn testimony.
LieStoppers blog: The Return of Mr. Obfuscation
Lawyer: Nifong Never Read DNA Report That He Gave Defense [video] -- Former Duke lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong never read a report about DNA evidence in the case before giving it to defense attorneys and, therefore, did not intentionally lie to the court last fall, his attorney argued Thursday. [...]
LieStoppers blog: Nifong Didn't Intentionally Lie, His Attorney Says
KC Johnson:
Afternoon Session -- -- Kathryn Jean is the first witness after lunch.

Appearing under subpoena with the State Bar file dealing with Nifong grievance.

Begins by discussing her grievance notice to Nifong re DNA—December 19, 2006 letter of notice and substance of grievance; and Nifong’s wild Dec. 28, 2006 response. A long pause ensues while Nifong attorney Jim Glover reads (for the first time?) the Dec. 28 letter.

Nifong response, as read by Kathryn Jean: in that, Nifong conceded that Meehan had told him about the unidentified male DNA. Also reads from Nifong response to the Bar: Smith’s “failure” to sanction him showed that Smith believed he had not behaved unethically.

[Nifong is, in effect, being hoisted by his own words, ad his varying stories in his responses to the Bar.] . . .
News & Observer:
Letter from Mike Nifong to NC State Bar (7 pages, .pdf, 28Dec06)
KC Johnson:
Morning Session -- Nifong, looking gaunt, arrived in the courtroom just after 9.00am. In an event that hardly gives people confidence in the Durham judicial system, he received a warm hug from Durham judge Marcia Morey. [...]

Nifong pleads not guilty. [...]
Anne Blythe & Joe Neff, News & Observer:
Nifong faces judge today -- Fallen prosecutor Mike Nifong, who spent the past 30 years accusing people of crimes, knows now what it is like to be the accused.

The former district attorney, stripped of his law license this month, faces Judge W. Osmond Smith III today on a criminal contempt charge that arose from his handling of the Duke lacrosse case. If found in contempt, Nifong could do jail time.

Some longtime court observers said they could not recall another case in which a judge filed contempt charges against a prosecutor.

"I've never heard of it," said Jim Drennan of the School of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill."I can't think of anything like this," said Peg Dorer, director of the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys for the past 15 years.

Smith, the superior court judge assigned to the Duke lacrosse case, entered a strongly worded order against Nifong in late June.Smith's accusation? That Nifong lied to him on Sept. 22, 2006...
LieStoppers forum: Live Coverage of Nifong Contempt Hearing
WAMU Radio (Wash., DC):
Stuart Taylor/Barry Scheck on D Rehm Show, Prosecutorial Misconduct [audio] -- Former North Carolina prosecutor Michael Nifong was disbarred for withholding exculpatory evidence, dishonesty and fraud. What the case against the Duke lacrosse players may reveal about the power of prosecutors and the potential for prosecutorial misconduct
KC Johnson:
Editorial, News & Observer:
... truth and risks -- It makes sense to think strategically when a lawsuit dangles over your head, which is where the City of Durham finds itself regarding false charges of rape lodged against three former Duke University lacrosse team members.

Ex-District Attorney Mike Nifong lost his law license and his job over his eyes-closed pursuit of the accusations leveled by a hired exotic dancer. But Durham police played a role in the misguided prosecution, whether by going along with Nifong's efforts, by not protesting strongly enough that the evidence did not justify charges, or by both. Because a report in May by City Manager Patrick Baker and Police Chief Steve Chalmers totally failed to explain the department's conduct, the City Council had to order an independent investigation, conducted by respected experts and headed by former state Supreme Court Justice Willis Whichard.

City administrators have put that investigation in neutral gear for the next several days because the insurance company that would face a big payout if the students sue and the city loses is having the jitters. [...]

Reaching the truth as to how this case went so badly awry has to trump an insurance company's bottom line.

Moezeldin Ahmad ElmostafaJohn Stevenson, Herald-Sun:
Cabbie who figured in (Duke) lacrosse case sues -- Durham cabbie Moezeldin Ahmad Elmostafa is suing a department store chain and a security guard over a shoplifting charge that figured heavily in the now-ended Duke lacrosse case.

As it turned out, Elmostafa beat the shoplifting rap and was known among lawyers as the "hero of the lacrosse case" for becoming a defense alibi witness and standing up to former District Attorney Mike Nifong and Nifong's then-investigator, Linwood Wilson.

Nifong recently resigned and was stripped of his law license for misconduct in the lacrosse scandal. Wilson also lost his job.

Elmostafa's lawsuit was drafted by lawyer Tom Loflin and filed in Durham County Superior Court just before the close of business Wednesday.

The named defendants are Hecht's Company Inc.; May Stores X Inc, with which Hecht's is now merged; and Jonathan Massey, a former Hecht's security guard who originated the shoplifting charge against Elmostafa at Northgate Mall.

Attempts to reach the corporate defendants for comment were unsuccessful Wednesday evening. Likewise, someone at Massey's house said he was working and wouldn't be home until after midnight.

Defense lawyers had accused Nifong of belatedly bringing the misdemeanor shoplifting charge against Elmostafa as a pressure tactic in the controversial lacrosse case.

The alleged shoplifting incident was in 2003, but Elmostafa wasn't formally accused until May of last year.

The charge came shortly after Elmostafa signed a sworn affidavit saying lacrosse suspect Reade Seligmann was in Elmostafa's taxi around the time an exotic dancer claimed she was raped by Seligmann and two others during a party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March 2006.

Elmostafa said he drove Seligmann to a bank machine, a fast-food restaurant and a Duke dorm.

When the shoplifting incident came up in court a year ago this week, Elmostafa testified that he merely gave a cab ride to a woman who later pleaded guilty to stealing several handbags from the Hecht's store at Northgate Mall. He claimed he didn't know what the woman was up to and didn't aid or abet her thievery.

Elmostafa was acquitted. [...]
LieStoppers forum: Cabbie who figured in lacrosse case sues Cabbie who figured in (Duke) lacrosse case sues
John in Carolina:
Michael Gaynor,
Duke Case: Herald-Sun Hysteria -- When it came to the Duke case, Durham. North Carolina's horrible Herald-Sun was an utter disgrace.

Now the day of reckoning is here and it's accusing the true victims of being punitive! [...]

I say that the Three should be compensated fully and then do whatever they want with the compensation they receive.

After all, reparations to them are in order and the North Carolina NAACP should be demanding that they be paid!
La Shawn Barber:
PC and Injustice in the Duke Lacrosse Case -- I just received a review copy of Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, by journalist Stuart Taylor and blogger/professor KC Johnson (who’s attending former Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong’s criminal contempt hearing). Buy this book! [...]
TalkLeft: The Book: Until Proven Innocent -- "Anyone interested in this travesty of a prosecution simply must read this book."--Jeralyn Merritt, criminal defense attorney and publisher, TalkLeft
Will the tenured vigilantes in the Group of 88 go back to teaching? Or will they continue to pursue extracurricular activities and advancing their pet agendas?

Jordan Everson [Trinity senior], Duke Chronicle:
Dear professors -- Please note your job title. It is not expert, not researcher, not congressional testifier, not future Nobel winner. It is professor, maybe associate or assistant, but still professor.

So then profess! Enlighten your students with the marvelous task you have undertaken, the ideas that inspired you, that you have dedicated your life to studying.

I know, I know, you spent years researching for that Ph.D., and before arriving here your main concern has probably been research.

There is little for you to gain from professing; Research, not teaching, determines your career advancement. Only disastrously bad student evaluations will hinder your upward mobility, an easily avoidable fate so long you reserve low grades only for the truly indolent and hand out evaluations during the last day of classes.

Still, as professors you have an obligation to teach us, your students...

I fear that I am not receiving the education that I should be receiving in the basic world of knowledge. For that is, I think, the purpose of our undergraduate years-to get our real education, not to train for our profession. I hope that you will understand my pleas, that you will rededicate yourselves to professing and to resuming the sacred conversation between teacher and student.
Jon Ham, Right Angles blog:
Duke student asks professors to reassess their role -- Everson’s point is among those addressed in a new research paper published by the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy and written by Princeton Lecturer Russell K. Nieli.
Shuchi Parikh, Duke Chronicle:
Prez blasts judicial policy, cites alternative plans -- Duke Student Government President Paul Slattery discussed his agenda at the organization's first meeting of the 2007-2008 academic year Wednesday night. [...]

At the meeting Slattery presented comparative data showing that Duke lags behind peer institutions in the number of procedural rights reserved to students.

"We continue to not fare so well," Slattery said. "In fact, I think [the Duke administration] hates us."
Guess Not. Group of 88 professor goes off the reservation again.

LieStoppers blog:
Say What? Part II -- Duke University has begun another academic year and that means the group of professors called the Duke 88 are back. It didn’t take long for one of them to cause controversy. No, not about the Duke Lacrosse Case. They were warned that their indemnification from lawsuits only would include any actions before the settlement date of June 2007. This time it was about the Michael Vick Dog-Fighting Case.

Duke Professor Mary Kathy Rudy is an associate professor of women's studies and she wrote a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on August 28.

White culture's hypocrisy about Vick

Unable to withhold herself she had to introduce Race & Class issues in her column. [...]

Stanley B. Chambers Jr., News & Observer:
Duke students play nice in town -- Incidents drop off after lacrosse case -- Don Ball has had fewer sleepless nights since the Duke lacrosse case erupted in his Durham neighborhood.

Off-campus incidents involving Duke University students for the 2006-07 school year declined more than 75 percent from the previous year, according to a recent report by Duke's Office of Judicial Affairs.

For neighbors, the drop indicates how the lacrosse case, in part, has caused students to realize the ramifications of their behavior, said Ball, 46, who has lived in the Trinity Park neighborhood, which borders Duke's East Campus, for 16 years.

"Everyone was nervous and concerned," Ball said. "There was a heightened awareness of not misbehaving off-campus. And I think it had a positive effect for a lot of people." [...]
Edward G. Robinson III, News & Observer:
Duke seniors decide to play -- Lacrosse players to use extra year -- Four former Duke men's lacrosse players have decided to return to the team for the spring season, accepting an extra year of eligibility granted by the NCAA.

Duke announced Monday that Matt Danowski, Dan Loftus, Nick O'Hara and Tony McDevitt were accepted as graduate students and have enrolled for the fall semester. The four completed their undergraduate studies at Duke and graduated in the spring.

Now they are back in school.

The four players were key contributors to the Blue Devils' run toward a 2007 NCAA Division I national title. The Blue Devils lost 12-11 to Johns Hopkins in the championship game. [...]

Duke Lacrosse Case — When's Picture Day?


Big day coming up.

Former Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Heads to Court -- The criminal contempt case against former Duke lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong is scheduled to begin Thursday in Durham.

The hearing will be broadcast live on and the WRAL NewsChannel (digital cable channel 256 or over the air at 5.2) beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith found probable cause in June to believe Nifong willfully and intentionally made false statements during a Sept. 22 hearing last year in the case against three former Duke University lacrosse players who were accused of raping, sexually assaulting and beating a woman at a party in March 2006.

Smith's order stems from a 42-page motion in which the players' attorneys alleged that Nifong broke at least a dozen rules in court on two occasions. His violations, they said, involved potentially exculpatory evidence that indicated DNA profiles based on evidence from the accuser, Crystal Mangum, matched the profiles of four men who were not lacrosse players. [...]
LS forum: Nifong/Smith hearing 8-30-07, Handcuffs anyone?
Mike Nifong went to jail and had his mug shot taken on September 7, 2008.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Duke Lacrosse Case Update — Durham Punishment

Punishment in Bob Ashley's/H-S Durham Gas Chamber
Bob Ashley-led Editorial, Herald-Sun [registration required]:
City next target in lacrosse case -- The train wreck that is the Duke lacrosse case is about to come crashing into the City of Durham's living room. The total damage is yet to be determined, although it seems likely to be extensive.

Former District Attorney Mike Nifong has already been disgraced and disbarred for pursuing sexual assault charges against three former Duke students despite having no evidence. Now the students and their families have retained some of the highest profile lawyers in the nation to punish the city and its Police Department.

The players' attorneys for this round of blood-letting include Barry Sheck, (sic) who helped represent O.J. Simpson, Brendan Sullivan Jr., who defended Lt. Col Oliver North during the Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal, and David Rudolf, who represented former Carolina Panthers player Rae Carruth and Durham murder defendant Michael Peterson. You know it's going to be a bad day when these three want to see you.

The City of Durham is in a tough spot because, as they say, mistakes were made. We already know that a police lineup in which an exotic dancer identified the three lacrosse players violated police procedures. We can wish, in retrospect, that someone inside the department had stood up and screamed that the lineup was wrong and the case was a sham, but that didn't happen. We can take some solace that a new police chief, Jose Lopez, will come on board next month.

We may also wish that the players would refrain from demanding a huge settlement that will only hurt Durham taxpayers who played no part in putting them through what, admittedly, was a long nightmare. But the players appear to have a case, and they certainly have every right to pursue it.

The latest news is that the city's insurance company has demanded that a committee created to get to the bottom of what happened at the police department halt its work. The insurance company is understandably nervous that the committee will be performing unpaid services for Sheck, Sullivan and Rudolf.

We supported the committee's work in order to seek accountability in the case. But there's no choice now but to shut it down. Reality can be a difficult pill, and this is no time for the city to lose its insurance company. Even without the committee, we know enough to realize that a bad crash is probably unavoidable. Now we're just bracing ourselves.

comment: Didn't the fine Durham taxpayers vote Mike Nifong into office on November 7th, 2006, when it was clear to all, but the blind, that this was a trumped up case? The fine fine citizens of Durham therefore allowed the injustice to continue for another five months, until April 11, 2007. The taxpayers voted this guy in, now they can apologize with their wallets, thank you. Bob Ashley just continues to vent gas against the lacrosse families.

KC Johnson:
Editorial Page Extremists [see comments] -- Two truly astonishing editorials today. [...]

Durham taxpayers can wish, in retrospect, that the city’s only newspaper had stood up and screamed that the lineup was wrong, but that didn’t happen.

It’s not easy to make the Bob Ashley-led editorial board look moderate, but Group of 88 member Kathy Rudy was more than up to the task. Writing in today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution [...]

Bill Anderson:
Email to Bob Ashley and his reply --- Now you have the gall, the utter gall to call for the former accused and their parents to modify their demands so poor, poor Durham won't have to pay through the nose. If you two were so damned interested in Durham not having to pay and pay and pay for what city employees did, then why were you not urging caution when it counted? [...]

Bob Ashley: Thank yor sharing your thoughts.
We clearly disagree on our performance, and in the end, our success here will be assessed more by our readers and this community than by observers from afar...
Editorial, Duke Chronicle:
Restoring faith in the Durham Police -- Although the lacrosse players have every right to demand retribution for their losses-including the heavy financial burden of attorney fees-their pursuit of justice may hinder the revelation of truth that only an external investigation of the case can procure.

It is difficult to blame the stalling of the external investigation on Durham city officials because they are caught in such a "lose-lose" situation.

If officials move forward with the external investigation, they risk losing taxpayer money as payment for potential lacrosse claims if AIG withdraws its liability coverage. And the company has hinted it may do just that.

To do so will likely lead to charges of city officials' fiscal irresponsibility.

If council members cave into AIG demands and end the external investigation of DPD, they will fail to bring the truth of DPD's missteps in the lacrosse case to light...

At the very least, the DPD's investigation procedures need to be examined independently. To lay this issue to rest without further examination of DPD is to willingly obliterate our already uneasy faith in our city's police department.
KC Johnson: Chronicle On Target, Again
The running KC Johnson is a "Horowitzian" and "right-wing trope" debate has moved over to this thread:
Scott Eric Kaufman / Acephalous blog:
More on KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland; or, "Horowitzian," adj.
-- KC Johnson: "If I'm a "Horowitzian" or a "right-wing trope," what does that make the 80 or 85 percent of the American public that's to the right of me?"

Ralph E. Luker, Cliopatria:
KC's Moment -- At Acephalous, our colleague, Tim Burke, addresses the suggestion that KC's Durham-in-Wonderland fostered an anti-intellectual commentariat...

Chronicle of Higher Education:
The Book on the Duke Lacrosse Case -- it takes a slam at how academics, Duke administrators, the news media, and the prosecutor responded to accusations of rape leveled at several Duke lacrosse players last year...

Expect a lot more next week, after people receive their books.
Dr. Helen's blog [forensic psychologist]
Men, Rape and Injustice -- I have been reading the fascinating new book by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor on the Duke Lacrosse fiasco entitled, Until Proven Innocent ...

My favorite chapter in the book is entitled "Presumed Guilty: Feminist Overkill" as it describes the statistics for false rape allegations. The chapter opens with a look at Catharine MacKinnon's Yale commencement speech in 1990 in order to understand the eagerness of so many journalists and academics to find the Duke lacrosse players guilty. MacKinnon's words that day, capture the radical feminist line clearly that has permeated current PC circles. She stated, "Look to your left, look to your right, look in front of you , and look behind you. Statistics tell us you have just laid eyes on someone guilty of sexual assault." The radical feminist line is that women never lie about rape. But statistics belie this belief....
On the road again
KC Johnson / Durham-in-Wonderland (KC's second home):
The Contemptible Nifong, II -- Here’s Nifong on September 22, 2006 [...]

The Contemptible Nifong, I -- Tomorrow in Durham, Mike Nifong faces a criminal contempt hearing before Judge Osmond Smith. (I am heading down to Durham later today and will be live-blogging the event.) At issue, did he lie to the court on September 22, 2006? ...
John Stevenson, Herald-Sun [registration required]:
Nifong up on lying charge Thursday -- After 30-odd years of wielding legal power, defrocked chief prosecutor Mike Nifong will be in a far more humble role Thursday when he goes eyeball to eyeball with a judge.

He may make history as the first former elected district attorney in North Carolina to be hauled into court for alleged dishonesty.

Numerous lawyers and judges say they remember no other incident of its kind.

Nifong will be in the defendant's chair Thursday, charged with lying about DNA evidence favorable to three defendants in the now-ended Duke lacrosse case.

If Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith rules against him, he could be jailed 30 days for contempt or fined up to $500, or both.

The contempt charge accuses Nifong of lying about DNA evidence indicating three lacrosse players did not sexually assault an exotic dancer during an off-campus party on North Buchanan Boulevard in mid-March 2006.

The same genetic results showed the woman did have intimate contact with several other men.

Nifong allegedly withheld the scientific information and told Smith and defense lawyers he didn't have it when indeed he did.

It is a far cry from the garden-variety contempt cases that routinely arise in Durham.

Most involve more predictable issues, like mouthing off to a judge or failing to show up for jury duty. For example, a man was fined $500 last weekend and jailed 30 days for being loud and boisterous in the Magistrate's Office, which is considered a court of law. [...]

John in Carolina continues to investigate the News & Observer's role in starting the rape hoax firestorm. The N&O editors and reporters started the "wall of silence" lie about the lacrosse team despite some people in the newsroom knowing the truth about the lacrosse co-captains cooperation:

N&O police blotter story on March 22, 2006
According to the report, the victim, who told police she was raped March 13 at a party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., was also robbed of a $300 cell phone and a large amount of cash.

It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify victims of reported sex crimes.

No suspects have been named in the case, but Sgt. Mark Gottlieb of the Durham Police Department said Tuesday that police are following several leads and that the residents of the rental house, which faces the university's East Campus, are being cooperative.

About 30 people were at the party, which started late March 13 and went into the early morning, and alcohol was involved, Gottlieb has said.
News & Observer's Crystal Mangum is a victim story, March 25, 2006:
Forty-six members of the men's lacrosse team submitted DNA samples Thursday in the unusual case. As of late Friday, there had been no arrests. Duke officials briefed university staff Friday on the allegations, and authorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity.
Ruth Sheehan, N&O column, March 27th: Teams’ Silence Is Sickening

John in Carolina:
N&O, Duke & Player Cooperation (Post 2) -- If the N&O had reported on Gottlieb’s and Duke University’s statements about the players' cooperation, the “wall of silence” lie would have been challenged by intelligent and fair-minded people.

And in that case, the “wall of silence” lie would have been exposed for the lie it was.

The N&O helped trash the entire lacrosse team and frame David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

John in Carolina:
N&O, Duke & Player Cooperation (Post 1) -- Does anyone know why the N&O’s March 25 story doesn’t mention the Duke statement and the players’ cooperation?

Does anyone know why the N&O made no mention of the Duke statement in its Sunday, April 26, story reporting on a vigil Saturday night in support of “the victim" or in its April 27 story reporting the “potbanger” rally in which “the activists” gathered around a large “CASTRATE” banner?

Of course, we can all understand why Ruth Sheehan wouldn’t mention the Duke statement in her “Teams’ Silence Is Sickening” column. Mentioning the Duke statement would have destroyed the whole point of her column.

Final question: Does anyone know when the N&O finally reported the very important news that Duke had issued a statement on March 24 saying the players were cooperating?
Link list of recent stories:

There they (G88 sympathizers) go again
Charlotte Observer:
UNC News in Brief /Professor to discuss Duke lacrosse case -- Syracuse University professor Linda Alcoff will discuss the Duke lacrosse case in a lecture on Sept. 6 called "Racial Profiling as Epistemic Practice: When is Identity Relevant?"
LieStoppers: Say What? -- Since Crystal Gail Magnum did lie, no lacrosse player sexual assaulted her, and she did portray herself as a victim of a crime that never happened, we recommend a pass on the lecture and a reevaluation of the use of Narratives when dealing with matters of Guilt or Innocence.
Duke Chronicle, August 28th, 2007KC Johnson:
  • Item re Scott Kaufman
  • Gene Upshaw; On the Schedule -- National Football League Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw, on Until Proven Innocent: The Duke lacrosse hoax is fundamentally a tale of incredible courage and integrity on the part of the falsely indicted players, their families, their defense team, a few of their faculty (particularly Professor James Coleman), and the entire Duke lacrosse team, including their current and former coach. Theirs is a tale of incredible grace under searing pressure.
  • Butler on Brodhead
  • Credentials
News from Little Bighorn
New & Observer:
Review of lacrosse case halted
Insurance company wants city to halt independent probe into lacrosse case
Duke Basketball Report:
Durham About To Get Sued & More High Comedy

Big Trouble for Durham?
News & Observer:
Suits endanger lacrosse panel
Lawsuit Threat Could Suspend Duke LAX Panel
Lawsuit Threat Puts Panel Probing Durham PD in 'Holding Pattern'
related forum topics:
LS forum: More news on lawsuits coming, City's Insurance Policy and the lawsuits
FreeRepublic: (Civil) Suits endanger lacrosse panel (Duke Lacrosse)

William L. Anderson:
Socialists, Deceit, and Duke -- socialists in this country have decided that politics trumps all truth and are still declaring the three young men to be rapists, the evidence be damned. To obtain a better sense of what I am saying, I will show what is being said on a socialist web site and then point out why the lies that socialists are saying are perfectly consistent with that ideology...

Duke Chronicle, August 27, 2007
John in Carolina, August 26th
New suits in Durham

KC Johnson
Enough from Duff Anniversary

John in Carolina, August 24, 2007

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Please Buy: Until Proven Innocent

If you are reading this blog then please buy Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson's book:

Until Proven InnocentUntil Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case

“A gripping, meticulous, blow-by-blow account of the whole grotesque affair. It is beautifully written, dramatic, and full of insights, exposing how vulnerable the prosecutorial system is to abuse and how ready the liberal media and PC academics are to serve as leaders of the lynch mob. A must read for anyone who cares about individual rights and justice.”
—William P. Barr, former attorney general of the United States
Glenn Reynolds the InstaPundit:

K.C. JOHNSON & STUART TAYLOR'S BOOK ON THE DUKE NON-RAPE CASE is now up to 590 on Amazon. I hope it gets a lot of attention. With a cover blurb from John Grisham, it just might.
Michael Gaynor:
Why to buy Until Proven Innocent -- Race hustlers, political correctness extremists and feminuts will not be buying the book. People who care about the truth instead of reinforcing their prejudices will...
TJN reasons to buy Until Proven Innocent:

If you think that citizen journalism and blogs are an important counterbalance to the sloppy and biased journalism of main stream media then you absolutely owe it to yourself to kick in a few bucks for this book.

The knock against bloggers is that they never investigate anything, they just leech off the good work of MSM journalists. Well, here's a blogger, KC Johnson, who investigated the hell out of an important story. He made twelve trips to Durham to cover the case and conduct interviews, plus he delivered the absolute highest quality investigative journalism for over a year (DIW celebrated its one year anniversary earlier this month) on his blog for free.

Come on, it's only $17.79 + shipping at [eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25]. If you don't buy it then you are a wanker. If you don't have time to read it, buy it and give it to your local library, or to your friendly neighborhood enabler or race-baiter, or to a 'something must of happened' head up their keister acquaintance.

If you are a 'Group of 88' vigilante buy it so you can perhaps see your name in a published book before you pass away.

Full disclosure: We get brownie points if you use the Amazon link above or on our sidebar to order.

Diversity: Version 1.0

Diversity: Version 1.0

An inconvenient truth: Diversity Hurts Higher Education

One of the stories that flew past the radar this month was the Boston Globe article entitled the "Downside of Diversity" by Michael Jonas. The stunning finding that it reported has had a few weeks to rattle around the blogosphere. It was a shocker:

A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth? -- IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The related issue about the value of diversity in higher education was raised today by Prof. KC Johnson's profile of Duke Group of 88 member, Prof. William Chafe. Prof. Johnson's post made these observations regarding academic diversity:
William Chafe is Alice Mary Baldwin Professor of History, where his scholarship, as his website states, “reflects his long-term interest in issue of race and gender equality.” He specializes in U.S. history after World War II, with a particular focus on African-Americans, women, or radical whites [...]

In a 2002 address, he explained his strategy to faculty personnel matters: “There has remained a tendency to think of Duke as a place of wealth, whiteness and privilege. We aim to change that.” The Chronicle added that “Chafe said faculty diversity is still lacking, and that the University must continue to seek new ways to attract women and minorities.” [...]

Chafe’s policies drew strong praise from the expected quarters. His associate dean, future Group stalwart Karla Holloway, gushed later that Chafe “managed, urged and encouraged institutional change around the issues of diversity.” (The diversity of which Holloway spoke, of course, did not include intellectual or pedagogical diversity, in which neither she nor Chafe have shown any interest.) [...]

Elite schools normally have placed academic excellence, not “diversity,” as their primary goal in hiring, as Economics professor Roy Weintraub pointed out at the time[...] Duke makes choices at the margin in every resource allocation decision and every programmatic expenditure. Have we chosen to settle for using our resources to achieve a more diverse faculty instead of a more intellectually distinguished one? The record of the past decade seems to indicate that the answer is ‘yes.’”

Chafe dismissed the concern, glibly suggesting that “diversity enhances our quality rather than diminishes it.” But Chafe—like extreme “diversity” advocates more generally—eluded Weintraub’s point [...]

Critics from outside the academy often suggest that “diversity” leads to the hiring and retention of under-qualified minority candidates. There are, of course, a few examples of the pattern among the Group of 88—take, for instance, Wahneema Lubiano (Ph.D. 1987, no scholarly monographs published) or Thavolia Glymph (Ph.D. 1994, no scholarly monographs published). [...]

Duke also has a highly unusual policy requiring the provost, “in the event the AP&T Committee’s recommendation is negative . . . to determine whether all factors relating to the merit and value of the candidate, including ethnic, racial, and gender diversity, have been fully and adequately considered.” [emphasis added]

That said, it’s illegal to openly restrict the applicant pool by advertising that no white males (or, in some cases, white females as well) need apply[...]

if a “diversity” dean wants more African-American female professors, he more likely can achieve his goal through green-lighting new positions in African-American cultural studies than by granting the Economics Department a new line to hire a specialist in high finance—again because the applicant pool for the former slot will likely contain a disproportionate share of African-American females [...]
The part about a "diversity" dean would have been considered funny once upon a time. But, after watching the diversity enabled Duke Group of 88, attack, vilify, and academically injure their own students, the word diversity now makes us flinch as if a dark dangerous shadow swept over us.

If diversity hurts civic life, then it seems logical that it could also hurt academic life, especially in the extreme. It's been said, "job security tends to corrupt, and tenure corrupts absolutely." Tenured diversity looks like the extreme that fostered Duke's tenured and corrupt G88 vigilantes.

The Duke lacrosse scandal and the diversity fueled and fed Group of 88 and its rabid supporters is solid proof of the inconvenient truth that too much academic diversity hurts the academy. Duke is a much poorer institution for diversifying to a point where a Group of 88 could stage a putsch and drag the whole university down the toilet.

Assorted reactions to "The Downside of Diversity"/Putnam study:

Rick Garnett / PrawfsBlaw -- I came away from the article wondering if Putnam's study provides some support for my intuition that some non-"diverse" institutions (e.g., some religious universities) are important in pluralist societies precisely because of their non-"diversity." What can we learn from this study, or what should this study make us want to know, about what Paul Horwitz calls "First Amendment institutions" (like universities, etc.).

Prof. C.N. Le / -- as an academic myself and given the descriptions of his credentials, I will presume for now that Prof. Putnam’s study is indeed methodologically sound and that its results are scientifically valid. The question then becomes, what do they mean?

After reading the Boston Globe article and after getting over the initial shock of it, I sat back and reflected on what it means for American society in general and me in particular as one of many who has sincerely believed all along that cultural diversity does indeed produce more benefits than costs for American society.

In trying to understand and explain these findings, one quote kept coming to mind and struck me as a profound rebuttal to the study’s results -- Audre Lourde’s famous quote “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.”

In other words, as applied to this particular study, I think part of the answer to the question of how would diversity harm American society is to say that the respondents in this study may not have been reacting to high levels of racial/ethnic diversity per se, but rather, to the political and social climate that have and continue to frame such demographic changes. Blog -- The study is part of a fascinating new portrait of diversity emerging from recent scholarship. Diversity, it shows, makes us uncomfortable — but discomfort, it turns out, isn’t always a bad thing. Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam’s work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.

Charles P. Nelson / Explorations in Learning blog -- These are serious findings. Diversity is important for creativitiy and learning. At the same time, it creates friction and distrust. As noted in the post Multiculturalism and Prejudice, promoting multiculturalism has a side effect of increasing prejudice for some people. Somehow, while maintaining respect for all cultures, we, our schools, and our communities need to emphasize and teach what we have in common instead of our differences.

Stephen Downes / Stephen's Web blog -- The proposal that diversity results in less civic engagement - reported here, from a (very biased) story (on a site that blocks access after four pages) - sounds dire, but should be discounted. The conclusion is obtained, not by actually measuring civic engagements in diverse cities (such as, say, Toronto) but rather by surveying people. So now we know that Americans think that diversity in their community would reduce civic engagement. But we knew that already. Here's a more interesting proposal: diversity in a community results in less of an emphasis on collaboration (a group phenomenon) and more of an emphasis on cooperation (a network phenomenon). So you might get, say, less voting and charity work, but more political activism and community networking.

Whitney Tilson's School Reform Blog
-- These are some very interesting (and troubling) findings. I wonder what the same analysis would show about the impact of diversity in school settings? If all other variables were held constant (a rarity, to be sure), might schools with little or no diversity yield better educational outcomes? It seems heretical to even ask the question, but it's important to think about because many of our schools are de facto segregated and some (like Jonathan Kozol) feel a huge effort should be made to desegrate them (somehow), while others (like me) view the segregation as unfortunate but largely inevitable and that efforts would be better made to improve the schools as they are. I've visited roughly two dozen KIPPs nationwide and recall only two that had even a single white student, yet that isn't preventing the minority children from achieving at extraordinarily high levels.

Monday, August 27, 2007

More 'Group of 88' Spraying

Like General Sherman marching through Georgia, Professor KC Johnson has burned a swath through the boll weevil infested academic cotton fields of Duke University. Prof. Johnson's searing analysis and criticism of the Duke Group of 88 academics and their addled agendas conducted at his Durham-in-Wonderland blog has exposed an insidious blight on higher education.

So the question is, will Prof. Johnson's forthcoming book "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, written with Stuart Taylor, elevate the discussion of the moral and ethical rot in higher education to a broader audience? Will the book lead to any changes in higher education?

Hopefully yes, but the blight runs deep. Here we can just nibble around the edges of that issue; while the academic heavy weights slug it out, alumni vote with their financial donations, and incoming freshman classes pick their schools. Seeing Duke President Richard Brodhead burrow into his plush Duke cotton bud and tell the world that it's time to move on is a sign of how virulent the problem is.

The Taylor/Johnson book sounds like it will be sweeping in scope. A preliminary review said, it "covers all five aspects of the case (personal, legal, academic, political, and media) in a comprehensive fashion."

How much academic rot can Taylor/Johnson possibly fumigate given the massive corruption of Mike Nifong and the Durham PD that they have to map out? The main stream media's horrible performance is also a vast and juicy target. The still simmering scandal brings the phrase "target rich environment" to mind.

This target rich Duke environment is well documented on Prof. Johnson highly regarded and extremely popular blog (TJN has touched on it too). Prof. Johnson points out that his blog has grown to around 750,000 words spread over 970+ blog posts, and with just under 2.9 million unique visitors. The book, he says, is about 130,000 words. So every word should hit a case-related academic vector.

The timing of the book is good. Releasing the book at the start of the back-to-school, back-to-work period should help sales if the publisher and merchants can get it out on the bookshelves. Plus there should be another good burst of news and attention shortly if Nifong gets thrown in jail for his criminal contempt. To say the book is highly anticipated in the small corner of the world known as Johnsville is an understatement.

However, Prof. Johnson doesn't sound like he's giving up his day job. He's pointed out that blog popularity doesn't necessarily translate into a best seller. He said, "that isn't a business model that has frequently occurred in the blogosphere. (If it did, we'd all be rich!) That said, I hope the book sells extremely well."

Some of the impact of KC Johnson's book and blog on academia, a/k/a the academy, is starting to percolate in the blogosphere. Recently, Scott Eric Kaufman at his Acephalous blog aimed some criticism at Prof. Johnson:

If the research presented on the blog is indicative of the content of his soon-to-be-published book—Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case—then I can only conclude that the book'll be positively Horowitzian in tenor and substance.

Like Horowitz—and clocks twice a day—Johnson occasionally nails his target...
Prof. Johnson responded to Kaufman in the comment section of Kaufman's post:
I'm a bit amused by the Howoritzian argument, as I have been publicly denounced by Horowitz and have publicly opposed (through an AHA amendment) the ABOR. In any event, Until Proven Innocent has received strong words of praise from ACLU president Nadine Strossen, former Crossfire co-host and LA Times editorial page editor Mike Kinsley, defense attorney and author John Grisham, and Kirkus Reviews. It would strike me as rather unlikely that such figures would endorse a book that was "positively Horowitzian in tenor and substance."
For the non-academic, you can better understand the "Howoritizian" label by going to this reference - Wikipedia: David Horowitz - Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR)

There are more interesting back and forth comments on the Kaufman article. It will be interesting to see if there is any serious fallout from Until Proven Innocent. But aren't weevils second-cousins to cockroaches, and they've survived pretty well.

Hopefully, the book royalties will at least reimburse KC for his twelve trips to Durham to cover the case. And good folks will learn not to send their kids into infested schools.

Scott Eric Kaufman, Acephalous blog:
On K.C. Johnson's Durham in Wonderland and Until Proven Innocent

John in Carolina:
Kristin Butler, Duke Chronicle:
Bye-bye, Brodhead?

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Duke Lacrosse Case Update — Durham in Legal Crosshairs

Barry Scheck was an O.J. Simpson lawyer, so you can say: "If the rape charges are not true, the city you must sue."

Barry Scheck (l), Brendan Sullivan (r)Ray Gronberg, Herald-Sun [registration required]:
Lacrosse Players Tap Legal Team -- Two of the country's best-known lawyers are representing three former Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape and may file a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the city next month, multiple sources say.

The players have hired Washington, D.C., lawyer Brendan Sullivan and New York City litigator Barry Scheck to represent them in the pending civil case.

Sullivan -- who gained fame in the 1980s while representing former Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North -- is working for lacrosse players David Evans and Collin Finnerty.

Confirmation of that came Friday from Chris Manning, a law partner of Sullivan's in the Washington firm Williams & Connolly.

Manning said that Scheck -- a member of O.J. Simpson's legal "dream team" in the 1990s -- is representing the third falsely accused player, Reade Seligmann.

Sources say Sullivan and Scheck contacted the city's lawyers recently and told them Durham faces litigation over how police handled the Duke lacrosse case.

Their move prompted City Council members, senior administrators, City Attorney Henry Blinder and a private-practice attorney retained by the city, Joel Craig, to huddle behind closed doors twice this week for consultations.

Blinder and Craig are supposed to attend a face-to-face meeting with the players' attorneys sometime in the next few days to hear them describe the basis for a lawsuit and perhaps terms for an out-of-court settlement.

The council has scheduled a closed-door meeting on Sept. 6 to hear a report from Blinder and Craig on the results of that meeting.

Supporters of the three players have anticipated the filing of a lawsuit for months, even before state Attorney General Roy Cooper pronounced bogus the rape, kidnapping and sexual assault charges police and former District Attorney Mike Nifong tried to pin on the students last year.

The news that players had retained Sullivan and Scheck was not a surprise in those quarters.

"That was the whole point of why this case was so extraordinary," Duke Law School professor James Coleman said Friday. "These were not run-of-the-mill, poor, unconnected people. These are students who could command the very best lawyers in the country."

LieStoppers Forum: Lacrosse players tap legal team
LieStppers blog: Is the Day of Reckoning approaching for Durham? -- News of this development should be the final five-alarm fire bell warning to Durham’s City Leaders. Despite the many warnings that disgraced, disbarred, and former DA Nifong along with the Durham PD were attempting to imprison three innocent players for a crime which never happened, the Durham Leaders did little to stop the impending train wreck. Those heady days of indignation, protests, and false statements of March-April 2006 are coming home to roust.
Other items:

Nifong's Bar Tab: $8,897.71Anne Blythe, News & Observer:
Nifong must pay some costs of hearings -- Mike Nifong had to pay dearly for his misdeeds in the Duke University lacrosse case this month when he surrendered his law license.

Now the ousted former district attorney is going to have to pay more.

The State Bar sent Nifong an invoice Friday for $8,897.71.

The bill covers the the cost of having a court reporter at hearings Jan. 24, April 13 and June 12-16. It also covers costs for depositions of Linwood Wilson ($865.60), the former investigator for the Durham District Attorney's Office, police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb ($1105.05), Investigator Benjamin Himan ($1295.00) and Nifong himself ($2523.05)...

The ex-prosecutor, stripped of his law license, is to face Judge W. Osmond Smith III next week on a criminal contempt charge...

LieStoppers blog:
How's that Hoax working out for you Nifong?
KC Johnson:
Nifong's Bill from the Bar
The Smoking Gun:
Paying For Your Own Funeral
Anne Blythe, News & Observer:
Next Durham DA still up in air -- When Jim Hardin stepped in to run the District Attorney's Office after Mike Nifong's fall from power, he expected to fill in for a couple of months and go back to being a judge.

But Wednesday was the end of Hardin's second month as interim district attorney, and the governor's office has been mum about how much longer he might be there.

Gov. Mike Easley did not respond to requests for an interview. His staff said he would not comment on his search for a district attorney or say whether Hardin might stay in the job for a year, as some lawyers speculate.

Instead, Renee Hoffman of the governor's press office recycled responses that Easley gave a reporter Aug. 9...
John in Carolina:
Former DPD Sgt Says Top Cops Involved --
The Whichard committee is currently investigating the Police Department. Some leaders of the department may be held accountable. The trail leading to ineptness will most certainly reach the highest levels of the department. (emphasis added)

When the end of the trail is reached, it will be interesting to see if the new chief and the City Council really believe change is needed.

Jerry Grugin

The writer is a former Durham Police Department sergeant.
William L. Anderson,
Narratives and Nonsense -- Duke's Bourbon Intellectuals - They learn nothing, and they forget nothing -- in statements made by many Duke faculty members and others following the very public exoneration, the True Believers have made it quite clear that Cooper’s words mean nothing. By emphasizing that since one cannot "prove" a negative, the three young men are guilty until proven guilty. Literally, with much of the Duke faculty, absolutely nothing has changed; in fact, the very dropping of the charges, should one follow the thinking of Dean Deutsch, is in itself a travesty of justice.

One asks how we ever got to this point where facts don’t matter and, to further the point, the insistence upon emphasizing the facts of the case is in itself "proof" of guilt. The answer lies in the modern application of academic Marxism, for while Marx and his Labor Theory of Value have long been discredited among economists, the Marxian "narrative" and the "polylogism" of which Ludwig von Mises writes in Human Action have become the polestar of higher education. One cannot understand what is happening in disciplines such as literature, English, history, sociology, and the gaggle of "identity studies" (such as African American Studies, Womens’ Studies, Queer Studies, and the like) that are dominating much of the academic curriculum, unless one understands the Marxist mindset, with its emphasis upon "narratives" and power...
John in Carolina:
Democracy & Journalists --
News & Observer reporter, Joe Neff: we did not use a single anonymous source or unnamed source in our – uh – I think as of now we’ve written 541 articles by – with at least 19 different bylines on it...
The N&O’s Duke lacrosse reporting relied on so many anonymous and/or unnamed sources ( Is there a difference?) that three weeks after the “Dancer … ordeal” story appeared, the N&O published a story, Mother, dancer, accuser , identifying its sources as “former classmates and neighbors, friends and family members.”

The N&O even published on April 2, 2006 a photo of a “Vigilante” poster which it obtained from an anonymous source...
Michael Gaynor:
Duke case: THE book is coming -- Read the book. Carefully. And try to read between the lines too. -- Until Proven Innocent is the only book that covers all five aspects of the case (personal, legal, academic, political, and media) in a comprehensive fashion. Based on interviews with key members of the defense team, many of the unindicted lacrosse players, and Duke officials, it is also the only book to include interviews with all three of the defendants, their families, and their legal teams...

Friday, August 24, 2007

Link List — August 24, 2007

Twitter | Ukraine World

Twitter | Volodymyr Zelenskyy (Ukraine President)

Twitter | Euromaidan Press

Twitter | The Kyiv Independent

Twitter | Ukraine Weapons Tracker

Daily Reckoning