|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Duke Community Forum > General topics > General Topics ( September 2006 - April 2007)|
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Sep 23 2006, 05:00 PM|
| Dear Friends, we are pleased to welcome you on our new discussion board! This facility will soon replace the General Topics section of the regular FODU site. The transition is expected to be completed by October 30th. As you will soon discover, this new board offers a number of improvements over the old one. I am positive that we will all benefit from the improved functionality offered here.
Some basics: You need to click on Add Reply command to add a new comment. After you finish typing the text of your comment you must click on Add Reply button, below the text box, to post your comment. After you have posted a comment, if you detect that something needs to be revised, use Edit command to revise it. When done with the revisions, click on Submit Modified Post button, below the text box, to post your revised comment.
To review or modify your member profile click on My Controls command.
To read your private messages (PM) click on Inbox command.
To get back to the regular FODU site, click on Return to FODU link on the top left corner of your screen.
October 30, 2006
|Posted by: floria Oct 20 2006, 06:35 PM|
|Does anyone have any news on the Duke Law School journalism forum today? Were there any interesting discussions? If anyone reads or hears something on that topic, please pass it on. Thanks.|
|Posted by: white_fang Oct 20 2006, 07:44 PM|
| Here is a link to WRAL which is reportin on today's forum.
Journalists Discuss Media's Coverage of Duke lacrosse Rape Case
|Posted by: white_fang Oct 20 2006, 08:53 PM|
| Here is more from Brodhead (outtakes from 60 minutes). He does not help himself at all. He seems to be stuck on a set of facts that he belives to be true, or in fact, he wishes to be true. He is clearly much more concened about the feelings of theDuke AA students and alumni than anything else. We see in this clip where his heart really is (not with the lax players).
Brodhead on the Duke Case
|Posted by: wts Oct 21 2006, 02:12 PM|
Could you expand on what you are saying?
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Oct 21 2006, 09:58 PM|
|I thought the out-takes of Brodhead were very interesting. Everyone should watch them. But I didn't have the same reaction as White Fang. In fact, I thought he was very candid. His comments about the AA community at Duke were in response to a direct question from Ed Bradley--was he supposed to ignore that question? It was pretty clear that he believes there are serious issues with the DA's case, and he stated that the captains categorically denied the allegations. I also felt he gave a pretty good description of what was going on in the immediate wake of the initial accusations--while we tend to view his actions with our current perspective, that is not really fair. I know people want him to take a Donna Shalala stand, declare the players innocent and call for Nifong's ouster, but I just don't think that is a realistic expectation.|
|Posted by: Selah_Diva Oct 22 2006, 12:22 PM|
|Brodhead certainly hasn't done all that he could as president of Duke University in this particular situation. His silence and his mouse-like effulgences have been anemic and embarrassing. Moreover, the editorial printed in the Herald-Sun on October 17 illustrates everything anyone needs to know about the position of many "leaders" in Durham. Still....after all the non-evidence of a crime, Brodhead and others sit by and do not make a stand of support. And to no one's surprise the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People----a hideous ode to blatant modern-day racism----has placed its support behind Nifong. Durham, North Carolina is turning itself into the leper colony of the United States.|
|Posted by: wts Oct 22 2006, 04:21 PM|
I share your sentiments. I don't agree with his handling of the case and have told him so. Today however, I'd like to move on and figure out how we can best help Brodhead and Duke IN ADDITION to helping the LAX students.
|Posted by: floria Oct 23 2006, 07:26 PM|
|wts: What help do you think Brodhead needs from us? Please let us know if you have some ideas. Thank you. I thought we needed help from him!|
|Posted by: wts Oct 24 2006, 12:40 PM|
I think our school needs help as does Brodhead. I have not heard from a single person that knows him that says he is a "bad" person - a person that "dumps" students, etc. True, he got involved in other political cases, but not here...why not? SO....that begs the questions, right? What's going on here?
I think we need to help him to do the right things here. His appearance in the 60 Minutes out takes were not perfect...but decidedly better in my opinion. He's being far more clear in his position - Students are presumed innocent. Period. No additional comments, no looking forward to being proved innocent, etc. etc.
Let's help him keep going in the right direction.....let's demand of him a statement of University Values. The LAX team came up with their statements...the Faculty of Duke should do the same if they want to be part of this family...
Let's help him insure that the rest of the world knows the good at Duke in addition to the things that have gone wrong re: the LAX case.
Let's help him to be able to publically state, even as the editor of N&O has begun doing that mistakes were made...
I say these things because our school is under siege and I don't believe in sacrificial lambs - be they accused students, administrators or otherwise.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Oct 24 2006, 01:15 PM|
|I agree with wts. I am not as harshly critical of Broadhead as many of you seem to be--but I agree that there is more that he should say, especially now that so much evidence points to not only the fact that this is a hoax, but that there was prosecutorial misconduct. But rather than dedicate our efforts to slandering him (and much of the sentiment I read hear goes well beyond criticism) we should be trying to elicit the behavior we would like to see from him and the administration. FODU had a good start with the letter it sent him a couple months ago, but what has happened since then? What constructive purpose is served by calling him names? Certainly, if he or anyone in his administration reads this blog, they are not going to be persuaded to change their behavior. There is a lot of brainpower here--let's put that to work and try to show him what we believe needs to happen. Another letter, complimenting the good things in his "60 Minutes" out-takes as well as Prof. Baldwin's letter to the Chronicle, followed by a few simple requests might be a start.|
|Posted by: floria Oct 24 2006, 04:52 PM|
| Okay, this is quite refreshing!
wts, you are suggesting that we help Brodhead do the right thing. I am on board; I am willing to give it a try. Let us take this to the next level. Let us collectively come up with some concrete ideas and present our ideas to him. If he responds in a positive way and engages in a dialog with us, perhaps that could be the beginning of a good thing.
On the other hand, if he rejects us like he rejected the recommendations made to him by FODU, in their Open Letter, than at least we will know where we stand. I am ready to roll up my sleeves and pitch in for this effort. It is worthwhile to try. However, we need to approach him fast. The elections are almost upon us and some things may need to be said before that.
|Posted by: Texas Mom Oct 25 2006, 11:26 AM|
|Please read Jason Trumpbour's comment on the Talk Left board on the level of "support" given to the lax families. His comments are telling about Broadhead's cowardice.|
|Posted by: Leo Oct 30 2006, 04:24 PM|
|I just counted the members who already signed up for the new board. 44 people signed up. And, the old board is not even closed yet. So, I do not see the problem here.|
|Posted by: abb Oct 30 2006, 06:41 PM|
|abb checking in here - from the wild and wooly FreeRepublic forum...|
|Posted by: alice Oct 30 2006, 06:45 PM|
|I am also checking up, all looks fine. I am able to post without any trouble. I wonder why the others are worried about this little move. I hope everyone makes it safely over here. It is really not a big deal.|
|Posted by: Selah_Diva Oct 30 2006, 07:37 PM|
| So "abb"....you are a very busy little bee. :>)
You and others do a good job of posting daily news about the Duke lacrosse case on your message board.
|Posted by: floria Oct 31 2006, 09:45 AM|
| From today's Herald Sun - Letters section
Don't vote for Nifong
Let's for argument sake give District Attorney Mike Nifong the benefit of the doubt that he is not prosecuting this lacrosse case for political gain. Let's say it's true that he is not. Then what we have is a buffoon acting as our DA and that is even worse. After making comments like: "Wonder why one would need an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong?", Nifong also called the players hooligans and said he believed there had been a crime committed. Had he not made these remarks, Nifong might have had the political freedom to back down following the negative DNA tests. That's right, two negative tests. Now we have the revelation this week that Nifong, after all these months, admits he has never spoken to the accuser about the alleged rape. Anyone who votes for Nifong is just as guilty as the people in Washington, D.C., who voted for Marion Barry for mayor after he was released from jail for drugs. Vote to recall Mike Nifong.
October 31, 2006
|Posted by: LIZ Oct 31 2006, 10:18 AM|
| I watched Brodhead's outakes, and I must agree that he sounded more like a man there than he has in any previous statements. However, I still find it troubling that even though he obviously knows the guys are innocent and really said as much in the outtakes, he still maintained that he must wait for the trial before he makes any pronouncements. Why? If there is a trial and God frobid the boys are found guilty, then Brodhead will become a crusader for them? So, he will go visit them in jail or write letters on their behalf then? Oh my. How silly. How backwards the thinking!
He still does not get the importance of his job. He still does not get the message his being silent gives. He still does not get his part in the railroaiding of these kids.
He wants to straddle the fence so frightened is he of offending anyone. He is filled with fear. The fear he should be feeling is for these kids who could go to prison for something they did not do and something he could have taken an active role in preventing.
Yes, the outakes make him look much more a sympathetic man and less a silly buffoon, but no more a leader. He is probably a nice man, but that is not what a major univesity needs. He was the wrong pick for the job, and now the trustees must show what they are made of.
|Posted by: duke09parent Oct 31 2006, 11:08 AM|
| Well, gang, here I am over from the previous board. I see some voices of moderation here, which I applaud.
Liz and floria are you in Europe or UK? The times of your posts haven't even occurred on the East Coast U.S. yet.
I sent Pres. Brodhead a proposed announcement to be made after the election. Since he has said he doesn't want to be seen as throwing Duke's weight around to influence the judicial system, in concern for Durham's electorate reacting adversely, I suggested he could say something once the election is over. I've actually received a couple of replies from him to previous messages I sent. Perhaps it is because I don't start out ranting and calling him names. I think he's coming to D.C. next month, maybe I can sound him out then.
I suggested he apologize to the indicted 3 on behalf of the university for actions elements of university had taken which could be interepreted as prejudging them. The proposed statement called upon Nifong to step down from this case (assuming he wins the election) in favor of a special prosecutor. I would't expect this statement to do anything concrete--just to raise the morale of the student body and partially to redeem himself in the eyes of critical students and alums.
|Posted by: duke09parent Oct 31 2006, 11:10 AM|
|I see my own post is 5 hours ahead of east coast time.|
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 31 2006, 11:10 AM|
| There is a good article in the Newsobserver today about the Finnerty family. Here is the link:
|Posted by: floria Oct 31 2006, 11:16 AM|
| Duke09Parent: Thank you for catching the timestamp problem. I will go figure out what I need to do to fix it. No, I am not in Europe. Thank God I could not afford it. I am on the East Coast.
I think, I need to go to My Controls and set up the correct time zone from there. I will let you guys know. But, I first I have to read this new article about the Finnerties -- in Newsobserver.
|Posted by: floria Oct 31 2006, 11:31 AM|
| The Newsobserver article is truly fascinating. Mr. Finnerty had to borrow money to purchase his wife's engagement ring. Basically, these people worked real hard and succeeded in life, they were not born into wealth and comfort. And, here they are fighting for everything they have including their son just because of a bunch of lies! Where is justice in this, where is it? I fail to see it. I hope those who inflicted these pains and all this suffering on these innocent people will be punished to the fullest soon - by man and by God.
Okay, on the issue of the timestamp, you need to go to My Controls. Then, under the Options, you need to click on Board Settings. This will show you the menu to choose the appropriate time zone from. Since I am in the East Coast, I had to choose GMT - 5:00 Eastern Time - Bogota, Lima, etc. No, do not look for New York or Washington in the list. Those will be way too sensible to include in the list. Anyhow, I am all set with the correct time and everything.
Next, I might venture to send a private message to someone. But, I will wait for the right occasion to do that.
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 31 2006, 11:38 AM|
| Hello everyone, it is good seeing some of you over here.
On the issue of the timestamp, each of you needs to adjust that setting based on your own geographic location. I see that Floria beat me to it. Just follow her instructions above and adjust your time zone. After that, the time stamps will make sense. If you have any difficulty send a PM to me or post a message here and I will help out. Good luck.
|Posted by: LIZ Oct 31 2006, 11:57 AM|
|I changed the time of my posts. I live in NC!|
|Posted by: LIZ Oct 31 2006, 11:59 AM|
|Oh please. I hope I did it right this time.|
|Posted by: K.P. Oct 31 2006, 02:31 PM|
| I read the story on the Finnerty's. I didn't know Collin had any other siblings. I feel really bad for his sister. I hope Collin and his family are doing well.
On the Record last night ? They said that the defense has no change to get this tossed out of court, on the ground of Nifong's misconduct.
They did say what we all have been saying for months. The DOJ needs to come in, and a judge from outside of N.C. also needs to be brought in.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Oct 31 2006, 03:29 PM|
|Nifong said it himself, he is going through this persecution to solve the racial issues in Durham. Maybe he is setting himself up to be a social worker, after he is disbarred.|
|Posted by: RevJames Oct 31 2006, 03:47 PM|
|Does anyone know if Nifong even goes to church?|
|Posted by: floria Oct 31 2006, 03:55 PM|
|Rev James, I asked that question myself. I said, Nifong's priest should talk to him and tell him how he will burn in hell for what he is doing. But then again, perhaps, he is not a believer. That should not be very difficult to establish. His neighbors will certainly know the answer to that question.|
|Posted by: K.P. Oct 31 2006, 04:10 PM|
| If we all think back, there was an article in the N&O about the ABN went and placed flyers in cars in a church parking lot. That was the church that Nifong attends. He was not at services at the time. I will try and find the article and post the link later. I was unable to find the link.
Can someone help me out? I can't find the link to the N&O 4/2 it is the wanted poster if the lacrosse team.
|Posted by: Leo Oct 31 2006, 04:49 PM|
| if you have not seen this video on the 60 Minutes site, it is worth watching. Someone who works at the stripping club where the accuser was dancing shortly after the incident talks to Ed Bradley.
Here is the link:
|Posted by: usa Oct 31 2006, 06:20 PM|
Nifong has a pastor not a priest.
|Posted by: usa Oct 31 2006, 07:58 PM|
| Aldersgate United Methodist Church
|Posted by: anon_y_mous.qqq Oct 31 2006, 08:55 PM|
|Hello to Duke09parent, I hope you are happy now. You don't have to worry about the time, just the name.|
|Posted by: usa Oct 31 2006, 09:07 PM|
Duke09 has identified themselves as a Duke parent. Show some respect and stop harassing this person. The nice feature about the new site is the ability to ban posters.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Oct 31 2006, 09:34 PM|
| This site obviously censors the posters, no profanity, just a little criticism and people have a stroke. Just because someone has a sibling at Duke, doesn't mean that we are critcsizing him. I thought this whole site was about free speech and the right to criticize Nifong and Broadhead, and their actions. Now someone has decided to censure the content of the messages. Wow I did not realize that Nifong was running this site. If we don't like what you say just shut up and go away. That is real "Free Speech". I don't know why I spent 30 year in the Marine Corps for, except to get censored. I wonder what those troops in Iraq and Afganistan are fighting for, obviously not freedom of speech. No one here has used profanity and some post are being pulled, for no other reason, except they may hurt the feelings of another poster. What a joke.
|Posted by: usa Oct 31 2006, 09:39 PM|
I commend you for fighting for our freedom. Read the first part of my post. It said "show some respect". Some people keep insisting one member caused the creation of this new site. We have been told by the moderator that this is not the case. There is nothing wrong with a little civility on this or any other board.
|Posted by: duke09parent Oct 31 2006, 09:56 PM|
| I have read several posts from different sources that lax players were told early on they shouldn't call their parents about the investigation. Can someone who knows tell us who (by name) told the players this? I'd like to have this in my memory bank if I ever get a chance to confront someone about this. I fully expect it to be denied, but I'd like to press the point that such a thing should never happen.
I'm not really interested in sniping back and forth with other posters unless it's on a substantive point. I haven't seen evidence of censorship here so far. It is the moderator's right, though. First Amendment free speech is a prohibition against the government censoring speech. Private forums, like private employers, can limit speech as much as they want, although heavy monitoring tends to chase people away.
WJD--thank you for your service to our country.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Oct 31 2006, 09:56 PM|
| I commend you for fighting for our freedom. Read the first part of my post. It said "show some respect". Some people keep insisting one member caused the creation of this new site. We have been told by the moderator that this is not the case. There is nothing wrong with a little civility on this or any other board
I agree with the Duke09parent all the way, but I disagree when people are censored. The moderator pulled some of my earlier comments. Typical PC, which I do not agree with. Unless the comment is vulgar, it should not be pulled. I was in the Marines from 1969 to 1974 and then joined the Marine Corps Reserve, while in the reserves I was a police officer for 25 years. I totally disagree with the DPD and Nifong with what they are doing to these young men. Duke09parent, obvously has a son or daughter at Duke, but he or she is not charged with rape, if he happen to be the parent of one of the accused I will support him 1000%. The police officer in the DPD and the DA are absolutely violating these young mens civil rights. We should get together and go to the US Justice Department and have Nifong and the DPD investigated. You can e-mail me but we can't e-mail you where is the sign on the postings you make to e-mail you.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 1 2006, 12:12 AM|
K.C. Johnson writes:
Despite this cooperation, Duke administrators actively assisted the state. Without informing President Richard Brodhead, administrators demanded from the captains a candid account of the evening’s events, allegedly citing a non-existent "student-faculty" privilege to encourage the captains to disclose any criminal activity.
Multiple sources confirm that Coach Mike Pressler, apparently acting on orders from above, instructed the other players not to tell their parents about the police inquiry. Meanwhile, Dean Sue Wasiolek arranged for a local lawyer, Wes Covington, to act as a "facilitator" in arranging for a group meeting with police.
The night before the meeting, one player broke down and told his father, who happened to be in Durham. Other parents then were informed, and – recognizing the need to obtain competent counsel – postponed the meeting. In response, Gottlieb, incredibly, gave up, and turned the investigation over to Nifong.
This passage demands a closer inspection. First, it is clear that Brodhead's associates actively were involved in deceptive actions by citing the "student-faculty privilege" nonsense that was aimed at tricking them into speaking with police without representation.
Thus, we ask the pertinent question: What did Brodhead know, and when did he know it? If the accusation against the administrators is true – and those to whom I have spoken tell me it is – and Brodhead either approved of the actions or did not try to stop them when he did know (or cover up these actions), then Brodhead could have been involved in a conspiracy to deprive these students of their rights to an attorney of their own choosing.
Second, conspiracy to deprive someone of his or her civil rights is a federal crime, and while I have been very critical over the years of federal criminal law, nonetheless I point out this alleged transgression because the feds have prosecuted people for actions much more benign than what I have just described.
|Posted by: Selah_Diva Nov 1 2006, 12:24 AM|
| Yeah, I'm sure Nifong is a "prosecutor for G/d" who shows up---hawk nose and wart-laden face in tow---to sing harmony in the gospel choir at White Rock Baptist Church.
He's a righteous dude working hard to get justice for the downtrodden.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 1 2006, 07:04 AM|
| Lots of info today on Durham in Wonderland about how Nifong handled this case differently from any of the other rape cases he has handled.
With the benefit of hindsight, it’s easy to see why Nifong didn’t move for an arrest as soon as the accuser gave her statement to the police on April 6 (inexplicably, three weeks after her initial police interview). Under North Carolina procedures, his seeking an arrest warrant entitled the defendants to a probable cause hearing.
This is the sort of analysis the newspapers of Durham ought to be having; instead, they have puff pieces supporting Nifong.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 1 2006, 07:54 AM|
| Nifong defends interview policy this is in the N&O today.
[People need to understand he is the lead investigator and prosecutor, which makes it different than his cases in 27 years. If you're an investigator, it is your duty to talk to witnesses," Cheshire said.]
|Posted by: job Nov 1 2006, 08:49 AM|
| two articles in today's NYT:
DNA Clears Man In Rape, Judge Rules:
Duke Rape Case Shadows An Unusual Campaign (by Duff Wilson):
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 1 2006, 09:23 AM|
| The procedural irregularities in the Hoax are stunning, and I keep thinking that there must be someone who will stop this farce. But it just keeps going, like the Energizer Bunny.
How ludicrous that the NYT has an article on Larry Fuller, released from jail after being falsely imprisoned for twenty-five years, and another of Duff Wilson's puff pieces tacitly supporting Nifong. I keep wondering WHY Duff Wilson keeps enabling Nifong. Is it just that the accused are white? Larry Fuller is black, does that mean that an African-American is entitled to be exonerated by DNA evidence, but white lacrosse players are NOT entitled to use similar evidence? Wonderland, Oz, where IS Durham located? Why DOES Duff Wilson keept enabling Nifong?
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 1 2006, 09:45 AM|
| Quasi, thanks for the reference.
''Multiple sources confirm that Coach Mike Pressler, apparently acting on orders from above, instructed the other players not to tell their parents about the police inquiry.''
I'd like to know on whose orders, if that part is true. I don't suppose pressler has told who gave those orders?
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 1 2006, 09:52 AM|
No, and I don't think we'll ever find out now short of a civil trial.
"If the accusation against the administrators is true . . . then Brodhead could have been involved in a conspiracy to deprive these students of their rights to an attorney of their own choosing.
Second, conspiracy to deprive someone of his or her civil rights is a federal crime, and while I have been very critical over the years of federal criminal law, nonetheless I point out this alleged transgression because the feds have prosecuted people for actions much more benign than what I have just described."
|Posted by: floria Nov 1 2006, 10:03 AM|
| I should like to think there will be civil suits against Duke, and I should like to think every detail of what the Duke administration did and did not do will be revealed. Once this case is over, I cannot imagine why people would keep those details to themselves. They will have no incentives to do so.
Right now, the only reason the dirt is not coming out is because the lax parents are still naively hoping that Duke will do something good for their sons. They do not realize just how low Brodhead and Co, are. Once, they come to that realization, all of the details will surface. I would imagine there is much more than what we are presently aware of. Truths have a funny way of surfacing when most unexpected.
|Posted by: usa Nov 1 2006, 11:48 AM|
The players and their families continue to say what a wonderful coach and person Pressler was/is.
This is one point that I must go my separate way. For a coach/educator to blindly follow instuctions given by his superiors and if he did instruct them not to tell their parents, it is immoral and unethical. Those boys would have jumped off a bridge for him. If Pressler told them that, I am sorry but I am glad he is gone.
|Posted by: Selah_Diva Nov 1 2006, 11:56 AM|
| "Quasimodo"--Please send your post to the editorial page of the Herald Sun. That's excellent.
I know from personal experience that the current editorial page staff is about 90% Democrat Liberal. That was illustrated well in their October 17 editorial.....which was full of "mistakes", support for the prosecution, and deliberate misrepresentations.
Ironically, Greg Childress--who happens to be black--is the only fair and objective one on the editorial page.
Bob Ashley is busy sucking up to "leaders" in his "new home".
Ron Landfried is just a pathetic partisan and emotional hack.
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Nov 1 2006, 01:37 PM|
| Interesting article today in The Baltimore Examiner:
Editorial: Johns Hopkins University ‘Hood’ party descends into cesspool of hate
|Posted by: usa Nov 1 2006, 01:44 PM|
| Inconcistencies of accuser don't matter? Scary , very scary.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 1 2006, 02:10 PM|
| This came out of the Duke Chronicle today about Fright Festivities in Chapel Hill. Some of the people that attended mocked the Duke Lacrosse Team.
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 1 2006, 02:28 PM|
| The Baltimore Examiner editorial (admin noted above) about a tasteless Halloween party by a frat at Johns Hopkins had the following tidbit:
"Sigma Chi members, like the Duke lacrosse players who last spring became embroiled in a rape investigation after a drunken party, showed they don’t care much about how they treat others."
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 1 2006, 05:58 PM|
|The Baltimore article is just exactly the sort of thing that drives me nuts- the facts of the Duke Hoax are not material. This is just the sort of article that the families need to help determine damages when they file their civil suits.|
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 1 2006, 07:24 PM|
(reposted from a post on another board)
"But Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline, who prosecuted Lofton, said Tuesday that inconsistencies in a victim's story should come as no surprise to anyone."
Remember Tracey Cline? She was the prosecutor in the Leon Brown case :
"9.20.02 - Ok, you tell me if this doesn't sound weird: There's a trial going on right now in Durham, according to the Herald-Sun, in which DNA samples taken from a man accused of rape don't match DNA samples taken from inside the victim. This unusual fact has not stopped the Durham District Attorney's office from prosecuting the man, whose name is Leon Brown. Brown's defense lawyer, Douglas Simons, claimed in his opening statement that there was incriminating evidence against someone else - the victim's cousin:
[Simons] told jurors that Brown voluntarily gave DNA samples that did not match samples from the victim. Nor did pubic hairs surrendered by Brown match...In addition, the victim initially told authorities that she thought her white cousin was the intruder, according to Simons. When the cousin was arrested, duct tape and other incriminating items were found in his car and on his property...District Attorney Jim Hardin Jr. gave the cousin "complete immunity" to testify against Brown, Simons told jurors. "He wanted a deal," Simons said of the cousin. "He got it."
"Defense attorneys say all kinds of things, of course - only some of them true - so we have to be careful here. But let's see if we have this right: The white cousin who was initially fingered by the rape victim strikes a deal for immunity with the D.A. in order to testify against a black guy whose DNA doesn't match the DNA found inside the victim? Is that really what this article is telling us? It's difficult to understand why the guy being charged with rape is apparently not the one whose semen was found inside the victim. Prosecutor Tracey Cline told the jury that her evidence will be sufficient to convince them that Brown was the rapist. We'll see if they agree; the trial is expected to end this week.
"10.2.02 - Update on that Durham rape trial where the DNA from the man being prosecuted by District Attorney Jim Hardin's office didn't match the facts of the case. The Herald-Sun's John Stevenson followed up last week; the suspect, who'd spent a full year in jail awaiting trial, was completely acquitted of all charges. That's not all. The jury foreman, Howard Williams, Jr., had extremely harsh words for the prosecution, describing the trial as "a waste of time":
"We all wondered what we were doing there," he said of himself and fellow jurors. "The evidence was nonexistent. We're very comfortable with the decision we made. I can't understand why that man spent a year in jail when there was no evidence whatsoever against him. It made no sense to us. Where's the justice?"
"Surely something's wrong when a jury foreman calls out the D.A.'s office for locking someone up for a year with "no evidence whatsoever." Given the strange deal-making in the case, is it fair to wonder what on earth prosecutor Tracey Cline - who still insists she had the right man - was thinking? And is it fair to wonder - without engaging in moronic cop-bashing - how often this kind of thing happens in Durham, or in other Triangle jurisdictions? I think it is."
Typical Durham (and evidently Wake County, too) merry-go-round.
|Posted by: usa Nov 2 2006, 07:07 AM|
| DA want to resume Blinco's trial???
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Nov 2 2006, 08:30 AM|
| There is a good article in Duke Chronicle today by Jason Trumpbour on the issue of Duke student voting. Here is the link:
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 2 2006, 09:32 AM|
| Professor Robin Wiegman has moved to vigilante censorship on the Duke Campus. She was offened by the phrase"tarred and feathered". The Johnsville has compiled a list of more phrases she can run off campus.
The Herald Sun's letter to the editor has one really good letter Don't vote for Nifong by Wayne Gooch October 31, 2006 and there is another letter Nifong isn't the problem. November 2, 2006.
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 2 2006, 10:04 AM|
| I read Jason's column/letter and thought it was very good. It IS important for students to consider transferring their voting rights to Durham, not just for this election, but for their whole stay in Durham. In a place where political considerations outweigh ethical ones, the system will treat Duke students better when it is known there is a voting block there.
I do have a little disagreement with Jason on whether elected prosecutors are a good idea. He noted:
"The United States is the only western nation where local prosecutors are popularly elected. In every other nation, prosecutors are selected by merit. They are centrally trained, supervised and evaluated according to exacting professional standards."
The problem with appointment systems for these posts is that they end up being favors bestowed by politicians, either a governor or legislature. So it is still possible to get a political hack in place. We've been lucky in northern Virginia to have highly professional districit attorneys despite the electoral system. In my experience, the judges are more political hacks, having been appointed by legislatures, than the chief prosecutors.
I do have a problem with popularly elected judges, because in making ultimate decisions on issues they should be insulated from changeable public opinion.
I just read the Johnsville News article highlighted by KP. The satirical list of now improper metaphorical phrases was funny:
Since Ms. Wiegman is now throwing vile metaphors, like "tarred and feathered," off the Duke campus here are a few more metaphors/expressions she can expel:
* "throw the baby out with the bath water" - disgusting on so many different levels that this must be purged immediately from all academia
* "gore the ox" - references to bloodsport must be eliminated, it is medieval thinking
* "pissing in the wind" - public urination cannot be condoned, especially at Duke
* "lame duck" - animal rights activists don't want to hear this
* "smoke and mirrors" - secondhand metaphorical smoke is dangerous and must be eliminated for the safety of the children
* "rug rat" - children are not rodents, it is demeaning
* "couch potato" - a third of the people in this country are obese, it is an illness, and it is not funny
Duke will be a far safer educational environment once all these vile metaphors are eliminated.
|Posted by: dcnc1987 Nov 2 2006, 11:48 AM|
|This may be obvious, but just wanted to issue a reminder to all Democrat registered voters in Durham: Do not vote the ticket on Nov. 7 - that will be a vote for Nifong. You have to vote for each race individually so you can vote for Cheek. See the sample ballots at: http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/elec/2006_Election/2006_General_Electio.html|
|Posted by: alice Nov 2 2006, 12:24 PM|
|dcnc1987 above, is this issue not a concern to the newly registered Duke students? If there is a potential confusing situation, it is better to inform them ahead of time. Is their voting for Cheek stratight forward enough? Please share with us what you can. Thanks|
|Posted by: dcnc1987 Nov 2 2006, 12:43 PM|
| Alice, it's pretty straightforward, but I thought that if someone was used to voting the straight ticket they should have a heads-up that Nifong is the Democratic candidate and for Cheek it says unaffiliated, even though he is a democrat. If you do vote the straight ticket be sure to also fill in the circle next to Cheek's name, thereby voting a split ticket. I don't mean to be confusing anyone, just didn't want anyone to vote quickly and do the straight ticket without noticing that's not a vote for Cheek!
Here's the instructions from the ballot:
To vote for all candidates of one party (a
straight party ticket), fill in the oval next to the
party for whose candidates you wish to vote.
b. You may vote a split ticket by not filling in the
oval next to the party, but by filling in the oval
next to the name of each candidate for whom
you wish to vote.
c. You may also vote a split ticket by filling in the
oval next to the party and then filling in the oval
next to the name of any candidate you choose
of a different party.
d. In any multi-seat race where a party oval is
completed and you vote for candidates of
another party, you must also fill in the oval next
to the name of any candidate you choose of the
party for which you filled in the oval to assure
your vote will count.
e. If you wish to write in a candidate, where
permitted, fill in the oval associated with the
office and write the candidate's name on the
line. Write-in votes are authorized only in certain
f. A straight party vote does not vote nonpartisan
offices or other issues.
(You may vote for ONE)
Mike Nifong DEM
Lewis A. Cheek UNA
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 2 2006, 01:44 PM|
| There is an article in The Chronicle that tries to show the personal side of Nifong. It raised several questions in my mind as to why some things were included and others excluded.
I have heard that Nifong has a daughter, yet she is not mentioned in the article although the article talks about his son as many other articles have. Was she from another marriage?
He claims he was offered an Angie B. Duke Scholarship but declined it to go instead to Carolina even though both his parents were Duke grads. Is this true? What are the qualifications for this scholarship? How many kids decline this honor?
All he says about his Carolina education is that he enjoyed protesting the Vietnam War. ---------- uh-huh. That is the salient point of his four years there?
He says his wife is Cy Gurney, and she is the regional administrator for Guardian ad Litem. Do you think she knows Precious and her children personally? I mean, wasn't Nifong's only admitted contact with the accuser some conversation about her kids? ---- Hmmm.
I have a feeling and of course it is only pure speculation that Cy knows CGM and may have had pillow talk regarding this woman and perhaps told her husband to believe the story! The fact that a DA would plod on with a flawed prosecution without even interviewing the accuser is beyond comprehension. However, what if his beloved knows Precious and strongly suggests to prosecute because she believes this woman's story? Again, this is just my hunch. However, up til now I have not seen any reason why a man would jeopardize his entire career, other than for winning the primary, on a flawed case. And , even after he won the primary , he still stuck by his guns. Why did he not dismiss the case then after the primary and before Cheek got on the ballot?
I have heard he was stubborn, but his conduct goes beyond mere stubbornness. I have heard he is a firebrand. I have heard too that many lawyers and judges in NC want him out of office, now.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 2 2006, 02:17 PM|
| The A.B Duke Scholarship was a very prestigious scholarship when I attended Duke, and while I don't remember how old Nifong is, I would assume he went to school around the same time I did. It was the top academic award given out at Duke, and went to a very select group.
Those who received the scholarship were extremely bright, accomplished leaders of their high schools. They had to have very high grades, top SATs, and exceptional extracurricular activities. I doubt many turned down these scholarships. I somehow question whether Nifong truly was offered this scholarship.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 2 2006, 02:19 PM|
|LIZ I posted a link to the letters to the editor of the H-S above and one of them talks about if Nifong didn't dig his heels and call the lacorsse team names,he could have backed down. Now he has to worry about being disbarred after this case is done. There is no way for him to survive this. Nifong is 56|
|Posted by: alice Nov 2 2006, 02:41 PM|
| I keep wondering why Robinson Everett keeps kissing Nifong's back end! What kind of a deal is going on in the background here? When you compare the latest comments Everett makes about Nifong with his previous articles practically calling him to dismiss the lacrosse case, it just does not add up. Both views cannot be true, these views are mutually exclusive! Any idiot can see that. There must be something weird going on here. I find it confusing to say the least.
Then, there is the question of why Chronicle is publishing this "apple pie" piece on Nifong 5 days before the election. The article conveniently ignores all of Nifong’s misdeeds and tries to paint a saint for us – what an insult on our intelligence! It makes one wonder, where does the university really stand? They have been pushing Monks left and right in the Chronicle for days now. They gave him permission to register voters when they refused to do the same for Cheek voters.
What the hell is going on with this administration? Have they no shame? Do they not even care about appearance, not to mention decorum, any more? Why are they so desperate for Nifong to win? It makes my skin curl with anger. I cannot wait to find what exactly is it that makes them so scared about the prospect of “truth and justice” being served in this case.
For those who have not seen the Chronicle article here is the link:
|Posted by: Leo Nov 2 2006, 02:50 PM|
| I saw this on the Links page - quite interesting. I hope Bill Thomas is right in his assertions.
Tales vary on stripper’s dancing
|Posted by: usa Nov 2 2006, 02:59 PM|
| "I have heard that Nifong has a daughter, yet she is not mentioned in the article although the article talks about his son as many other articles have. Was she from another marriage?"
Nifong's daughter Susan is from his first marriage. CY is his second wife.
On the CTV board months ago, a poster who knew Nifong as was in his law school class at UNC said he hated Duke because they rejected him even though he was a legacy. Said he wasns't very impressive back then
Cy is involved as Regional Coodinator of Guardian ad liten (sorry about the spelling). THis is interesting as Judge Debra Sasser (Blinco's judge) was involved with the group. It's on her bio. Not sure if she is up for election.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 2 2006, 03:11 PM|
| To Alice,
I agree in general with your comments, but I don't think we can blame the administration for the puff piece about Nifong in the Chronicle. Student newspapers typically enjoy a pretty liberal freedom of the press--I think this was one student's attempt to show an unbiased view of Nifong. Judging from the other articles we have seen in the Chronicle, I don't think the administration has much, if any, editorial power. I agree that Nifong's mishandling of this case should be reason for him to be removed from office by the citizens of Durham, but I'd guess that the student who wrote the piece would say he was tring to show a perspective most Duke students haven't seen. I doubt many are fooled.
If Nifong is 56, the AB Duke scholarship was, indeed, very prestigious, and one which was offered to only the very best students accepted at Duke. There were only a handful offered each year. (someone may know--maybe a dozen at most???) very suspicious....
AND, you can't be rejected AND be offered an AB Duke Scholarship--either Nifong lied to the Chronicle, or USA's friend is wrong. But my gut says Nifong was rejected by Duke (it would be very interesting to follow up on that--if he lies about being accepted by Duke and being offered the top scholarship, could there be other lies on his resume? That would be additional grounds for removal from a public office.)
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Nov 2 2006, 03:39 PM|
| All Duke students and parents of Duke students, I like to draw your attention to the links below. You may use the first link to make sure your Duke student is properly registered to vote in Durham, on November 7. This may save you some last minute surprises. Once you know your precinct number, you may use the second link to establish the address of your polling station and the type of ballot you will use when voting.
1. To check if you are registered to vote in Durham (and to see your precinct number):
2. To see your polling address and the ballot type:
|Posted by: Leo Nov 2 2006, 03:59 PM|
| Okay, I followed the instruction above and this is what I get.
My son is registered to vote. He is in Precinct 2. The address for his polling station is Watts Street School and his Ballot Style is 1.
Now, does anyone know any complications about Ballot Type 1? Please tell me all about it. I want my son's vote to count properly for Cheek. Thank you.
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 2 2006, 04:36 PM|
| Interesting that he never mentions his daughter. ( No pics of her on walls.) I just guessed that he might have been married before. I found that the daughter is named Sarah Katherine Nifong-- not Susan-- and lives in Charlotte. Maybe that is why Cy kept her maiden name -- since there had been another Mrs. Nifong.
Yes, the AB Duke Scholarship is very difficult to earn. Surely, someone knows someone who went to school with him back in Wilmington who could verify this claim? Or, someone at Duke could look this up. There must be a record of names of students offered this scholarship somewhere at Duke? 1967 was the year? Also, the article said he was a Phi Beta Kappa at UNC? Is this true? I had heard he was not a strong student. Anyone with a 1971 UNC yearbook?------ Was that erroneous? Of course, UNC in the 70's was not nearly as difficult as it is today, and a poli sci major is not the same as a physics or chem BS ; yet, nevertheless, it is impressive because the key does show perseverence.
If these facts are true as he related them to The Chronicle, then we cannot chalk up his misdeeds in this case to stupidity. Therefore, they have to be willfully dishonest misdeeds. Part of me always thought he was just dumb and incompetent, and wanted to please his wife. I had thought maybe he was duped by the stripper. But, if he really had been an AB Scholar, then he is no fool. Unless that scholarship is more political than I had previously thought! ( I know the Morehead Scholarship is political to an unbelievable extent.)
(Also, doesn't Nifong have a brother in Durham? Does anyone know him?)
So, if Mike Nifong is as smart and wonderful as The Chronicle reports, what happened? If indeed, his claims are not true, then one has some sort of narcissitic sociopath with delusions of grandeur running the DA office?
Anyone out there who can investigate?
By the way, whatever happened to John Edwards who was following this case? And where is David Price who had been a Duke prof? Come on guys, Nifong belongs to your party. You are the ones who need to speak up! NOW!!!!!
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 2 2006, 06:09 PM|
| Was Nifong on law review? Order of the Coif? Book award? Anyone with a UNC law school yearbook? I really question his academic credentials since he didn't get a job after law school, but had to work for free at first.
I saw a T.O. Nifong on his contributors list- brother?
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 2 2006, 07:02 PM|
| If Nifong finished law school and passed the bar exam the first time out (or even the second) he has enough smarts to be a good prosecutor. You wouldn't have to be an academic star to do a good job there. One doesn't have to be an academic star to be an ethical prosecutor either.
What I find interesting about the contradictions in the stories about his education is the possibility of some resume padding having taken place. Who really cares if he was offered that scholarship and turned it down? He could have gottten his degree from any law school and still do a competent, ethical job as chief da after so long in that office. He doesn't have to have any particular animus toward Duke to do what he's done. Winning the election(s) is motivation enough.
The fact that he cut so many procedural corners in this case puts his whole career in question, it seems to me. Coleman made the point that if Nifong will do this to defendants who have some wherewithal to fight it, he'll damn sure do it to defendants who are relatively powerless. The Durham electorate, if that poll is accurate, haven't picked up that point.
Too bad that the full extent of NIfong's transgressions were not evident before the primary. Freda probably would have cleaned his clock. It's hard for voters to get excited about a non-candidate.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 2 2006, 07:24 PM|
|The possibility that Nifong has padded his resume is what interests me. I find it very hard to believe that he was offered an A. B. Duke scholarship (which really is very selective) or that he made Law Review....And IF he made up this stuff, then he also may have padded his resume--which could have serious consequences. A lot of "ifs" but worth checking out.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 2 2006, 07:50 PM|
|With respect to the A.B. Duke Scholarship, for those who are currently applying to Duke for admission, if you believe that you are a serious candidate for a Duke scholarship, DO NOT APPLY FOR EARLY ADMISSION. Those students are NEVER considered for a Duke scholarship. If admitted on an early decision basis, Duke has you lock, stock and barrel for 40,000+ per year. They no longer have to lure you to Duke with the promise of scholarship money. Buyer be ware. Hopefully, the guidance counselors out there are smart enough to understand this little trick.|
|Posted by: usa Nov 2 2006, 08:08 PM|
Nifong's bio on his website says he has an AB in political science. Could someone be making a mistake with the AB scholarship comment.
Thanks for correcting me. The daughter is Sarah not Susan. Don't forget the dog Tillie. Too bad Tillie can't vote.
|Posted by: Durham Mom Nov 2 2006, 08:10 PM|
| I am new to this site but I just saw the lead in to the CBS PM news and the anchor said "kidnapped and raped, the accuser speaks". Is this in regards to this case??
If so I think this is really going to tell us a lot! For her to speak is like shooting herself in the other foot!
I will watch and post for those of you who are out of town.
I could be stirring up nothing but I am very curious![FONT=Impact][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue]
|Posted by: RevJames Nov 2 2006, 10:09 PM|
|Duke09parent, I have a question, did you attend Duke? I don't think Nifong was offered a scholarship there, but I don't think so, like you. I do not know where that rumor came from. I really don't think Nifong is that smart. After all he worked in his first year at the DA's office for free, what does that tell you. He could not find a private sector job.|
|Posted by: Durham Mom Nov 2 2006, 10:15 PM|
| Nifong did not attend Duke. He went to Carolina. His nephew plays lacrosse at Jordan High School. It must be fun to be him huh???
He is not smart at all.
He has committed political suicide and I can't wait to see his house of cards FALL.
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 2 2006, 10:33 PM|
Working for free for awhile, in of itself, doesn't mean much one way or the other. It's unusual for a law school grad, but if he really wanted a job there and there wasn't a budget when he went, it's possible to do it in hopes of getting the paying position when it opens up. It's not all that easy to find a job if you're not in the top 1/3 of your graduating class. I didn't have a job until 2 months after I graduated from law school.
The scholarship offer iinformation was published in a student article in the Duke Chronicle today and page 4 here discussed it. I'm just following up on that thread.
I don't think it's important to know whether he's really smart or not. Smart and mediocre students can be good or bad, ethical or unethical prosecutors by equal measure. He was certainly smart enough to seize on this case to carry him to victory in the primary.
I am not a Duke grad, but a parent of a current sophomore (Class of 2009).
DurhamMom, I hope you're right about his political suicide, but I fear not. If you're in Durham, what's your sense of the voters? Was the N&O poll showiing Nifong with 42% of voters in his favor right?
|Posted by: SC Mom Nov 3 2006, 12:04 AM|
| To Jane Chong regarding the "Crisis" at Duke.
Had her letter been written at any point before the first indictments, then her point would have been valid, though misinformed. Written in November, it is shows her youth and unfortunately, her misplaced idiology and ignorance of the central point made by Professor Coleman and those like him. This case is about the rule of law, plain and simple.
Either we are a country that respects the rights of its citizens as stated in the Bill of Rights, or we are not. In this case, justice delayed has been and continues to be justice denied; these boys have been treated as guilty rather than innocent. The accuser has been PROTECTED by the law and treated as innocent rather than investigating in a timely manner the merits of her claim and the evidence related to those she has accused. As a result, she and Mr. Niphong have perpetrated a grave injustice.
So yes, President Brodhead, the Board of Trustees (including my former classmate, Bob Steel), and certain professors who have continued to declare that it is right to punish the innocent for injustices that they did not commit, are not fulfulling their responsibility to protect and defend the students of Duke University.
So, yes, to come to the defense of this administration is without excuse. Period.
FYI: I graduated from Durham High, am the daughter of a Duke professor, an NCState grad, and mother of a present Duke student.
|Posted by: strawberrylane Nov 3 2006, 05:26 AM|
| Interesting article about the AV in this mornings Durham Herald Sun
|Posted by: job Nov 3 2006, 08:13 AM|
| another one by Duff. Duke Accuser was at work 10 days later!!
|Posted by: usa Nov 3 2006, 08:57 AM|
Thanks the link works fine now.
|Posted by: usa Nov 3 2006, 09:06 AM|
| Times article is excellent news.
Club wner now says she worked 23,24, 25 has records to prove it and is signing an affidavit today!
Interesting she went to the hopistal 3/15, 28, 4/3
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 3 2006, 09:44 AM|
| [QUOTE=SC Mom,Nov 3 2006, 12:04 AM]
"To Jane Chong regarding the "Crisis" at Duke.
So yes, President Brodhead, the Board of Trustees (including my former classmate, Bob Steel), and certain professors who have continued to declare that it is right to punish the innocent for injustices that they did not commit, are not fulfulling their responsibility to protect and defend the students of Duke University.
So, yes, to come to the defense of this administration is without excuse. Period. "
I couldn't find Ms. Chong's letter to which you appear to refer. So it is hard to comment. But your blanket statement that the Duke administration cannot be defended in any manner, period, is simply too broad, period.
This board has had much discussion of what members of the administration did wrong and what members failed to do that they should have done. But to say they failed at some things and therefore cannot be defended for anything is unreasonable. For example, would you not defend Provost Lange's open letter to Prof. Baker criticizing him for his outrageous letter?
I've been reading about the case every day and I have not seen Brodhead or any member of the board "declare that it is right to punish the innocent for injustices that they did not commit." You can argue that their silence endorses such a position, but silence really is not a declaration.
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 3 2006, 10:18 AM|
| Dear Duke09 Parent:
In effect, the administration has made moves that did punish innocents for crimes they have not committed. The lacrosse team's season was cancelled. (Please don't tell me that was because someone underage had a beer! Then, we must cancel Duke football, Duke basketball, etc. ) Their coach was fired. Again- punishment. The boy, who wrote the silly e-mail, was suspended. The crime? The captains had to move from their home. Their crime? Marches were allowed to take place on campus that denigrated these boys and the whole team. Again, their crime?
Now these three have been suspended over an apparent hoax, and I know under the rules supposedly they must be suspended because they are indicted. However, several years back there was a divinity student who came to Duke University from prison each day escorted by an officer. So..............
I say two huge billboards should be erected. One near Eno State Park that reads " Nifong Must Go!" The other one should be outside of the gates to East Campus which says, 'Brodhead Must Go!" ( And it would be great if their faces were on cartoon bodies that have been tarred and feathered and riding on a rail carried by a horde of folks , with direction signs leading out of town. Maybe Brodhead's could be pointed toward Conn. and I guess Nifong's toward Wilmington.)
No excuses for the administration nor for the Board of Trustees! They fumbled the ball. Hey, they did worse; they scored points in the other team's basket! lol
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 3 2006, 11:04 AM|
I suggested to Brodhead directly that he should issue an apology for precipitous actions taken early in the case.
But nowhere has he or members of the board "continued to declare" it is right to punish the innocent. That simply overstates the case.
Your essay is less absolute but I still don't fully agree. You can argue there is no excuse for particular conduct or failures to act, but one can't credibly argue there is no defense for any of their actions, can you? If so, how do you respond to the Lange letter to Baker?
I do like your billboard idea. I'm thinking political cartoon for the Chronicle. If Nfiong loses show him tarred and feathered on a rail with Brodhead looking at the tar pot and feathers with a worried look on his face. "Am I next?"
[ANY READERS OF THIS BLOG POST ARE INFORMED THAT ANY SUGGESTION OF COERCIVE OR VIOLENT BEHAVIOR TOWARD ANY OTHER PERSON IS METAPHORICAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A LITERAL SUGGESTION FOR ACTION.]
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 3 2006, 11:07 AM|
| LIZ you forgot about the wanted poster that was created and sent out all over the university, with the pictures of most of the lacrosse team.
As far as the billboard of "Nifong must go" lets add all of the people that have helped. I was thinking of adding like Baker, Himan,Gottlieb and anyone else we have forgotton about.
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 3 2006, 12:12 PM|
| I just keeps getting better.
Just days after the Herald-Sun published it's article about the Platinum club owner claiming CGM didn't work after February and the film of her dancing couldn't have been taken in late March, the owner tells the NYTimes that his first affidavit was wrong.
Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us/03duke.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Go ahead Mikey, have your folks leak something else to your apology rag. Maybe with another snafu like this the voters WILL run your sorry ass out of office.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 3 2006, 12:37 PM|
| There is a really great piece from William Anderson today in the Lewrockwell. He placed a letter from someone, I think it is a professor from duke in full there.
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Nov 3 2006, 03:36 PM|
| Fresh news coming from KC Johnson's blog, here is the link:
|Posted by: usa Nov 3 2006, 03:43 PM|
| Freda Black tells her supporters vote Cheek
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 3 2006, 03:53 PM|
| It is now confirmed Michale Nifong has lost his mind!!!
Mike Nifong Now Claiming Duke Lacrosse Players Raped Him
This is no Joke here is the link.
|Posted by: Whippersnapper Nov 3 2006, 04:19 PM|
KP, The fact that the link to the story exists is no joke. But the story itself is, of course, parody and meant as a joke. And pretty funny at that!
|Posted by: walto Nov 3 2006, 04:44 PM|
| There might be a better forum for this - if I've mis posted, I'm sorry.
Does anyone know if applications are down this year? I ask because I can't believe that we're the only parents that have struck Duke from our list of potential universities.
My father graduated from Duke medical school in '60 (Emory undergrad) and has contributed several thousand a year ever since, so my daughter is a semi-legacy. She's exceptional - national merit scholar, 4.3 GPA, 97th percentile on the SAT and ACT, fluent in Mandarin, French, and Arabic, conversational in Italian, Spanish and Russian. She’s a State ranked fencer (made finals as a Sophomore) and a black belt in Taekwondo. Her college fund is well over funded, she won't need any financial aid - in fact, when we decide where she's going, her fund will buy a condo for her to live in.
As soon as her PSAT scores came in last spring we got a LOT of communication from Duke (I suspect my father had something to do with that) but it’s never been in the running. I can’t blame the school for prosecutorial misconduct, or for a police sergeant that’s out to bust the students. But the school judged their OWN STUDENTS guilty when the facts said they were innocent. They refuse to change their minds, they’re determined to destroy their OWN STUDENTS for no reason other than being “sensitive.”
I’m not going to have her go to a University that is that irresponsible.
If someone ever has the bad luck and judgment to try to rape my daughter she will put him in the hospital. In that case I want her university to be on her side. I’m pretty sure Duke would say she’s a student, he’s a townie, off to jail she goes.
So that’s a couple of hundred thousand dollars that won’t be going to Duke. Maybe the next generation will look there.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 3 2006, 05:05 PM|
|To Walto: Good decision, you are right about the next generation going to Duke, I hope it doesn't take that long to get rid of Broadhead or Nifong. The only question is what will Durham look like for the next generation.|
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 3 2006, 05:34 PM|
|K.P. good article, too bad it is a bad joke.|
|Posted by: floria Nov 3 2006, 05:53 PM|
| Walto: Good decision.
Even if the admission statistics were down, Duke would not tell us. They would tell us the opposite. Their math has gone fuzzy ever since this case broke out. I suppose we will see, in a few months, what happens to the average SAT score of the applicants. And, we will also see what will happen to the rankings. Last year they dropped from 5 to 8, this year they can drop to 15 or worst. We shall see.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 3 2006, 06:14 PM|
| Last year they dropped from 5 to 8, this year they can drop to 15 or worst.
I have to blame the trustees for some of this. Where is their oversight? Why have they not come out with a strongly-worded defense calling for, at the very least,
protection for the civil rights of the accused and a presumption of innocence until
Is that so terribly difficult?
They will probably go down as the only trustees in history to have materially contributed to the ruin of their own university.
|Posted by: floria Nov 3 2006, 06:29 PM|
|Above: Sad but true!|
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 3 2006, 06:53 PM|
| Walto- I have a stepson whom I would not let look at Duke/Durham under any circumstances. Also, I do independent college counseling and can't say that I would encourage any of my clients to apply to Duke these days- Durham is too dangerous and Broadhead is no leader.
That being said, my daughter is a fencer and was on the Stanford team, so I'd check Stanford, Princeton, Penn, and Columbia, if her stats are that good. If she's really a fencer, she should have already been contacted by coaches at NACs. Hope this helps.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 3 2006, 08:56 PM|
| I have to say, Texas Mom, that it seems unprofessional for you to interject your personal opinion about Duke into your dealings with your students. It's one thing to express an opinion among friends, but if you have a professional relationship with students, I would think you would be advising them about how to get into the college of their choice, and about what colleges seem to be good fits, but not steering them away from schools you don't like.
I thought one of the rules of this site was that "above all, our comments should reflect a love of Duke University."
I do understand why people are frustrated that the university hasn't reacted the way we would like, and I don't challenge anyone's right to be upset, but it bothers me that often we are making judgments and assumptions about the motives of the university.
|Posted by: walto Nov 4 2006, 02:00 AM|
| Thanks, TexasMom. Yes, she really is a fencer and it looks like her grades will hold up this year. She took foil up primarily as an edge for university applications. She's talked with the Stanford and Penn coaches, she really want to see if she can get into Harvard. She figures she can get another 20 points on the SAT next month, but she knows it's a crapshoot. We're well off, but we can't endow a chair. Stanford would be nice, my mom went there and I grew up in the Bay, so it's high on the list.
At least we're not asian - one brilliant asian kid from her school last year got 2400 SATs (and perfect grades since 3rd grade, science fair winner, missionary work, published papers and had a job since he was 10). He was turned down by all the top usual suspects, he's at Harvey Mudd now.
She doesn't care about how good the team is - she doesn't care if she's ranked or goes to the Olympics. It's just an extracurricular that she thought could give her an edge.
(oddly, she's much more interested in competing in the martial arts. She's often said "when was the last time anyone killed someone with a foil?" She is very, very tough.)
Dukeparent, I agree with TexasMom. Say you knew that a university which shall go nameless (USC) was in the middle of some of the worst gang violence in America, and that last year it had a murder, 23 rapes, 25 assaults with a deadly weapon, 68 armed robberies, 138 burglaries and 75 stolen cars. If you were advising seniors where to apply, that fact would figure into your thinking.
If you knew that the university covered up football players raping students (Colorado) you'd keep that in mind too.
In this case, Duke is doing something unprecedented. The school is actively participating in the destruction of it's own, innocent students. An applicant should know that going in. She wouldn't just have to deal with the pressure of moving, academics, peer pressure, growing up and dealing with the good people of Durham. No, she'd also have to know that at any moment her professors could go on national TV and try to destroy her life with lies as part of a conflict over the curriculum.
|Posted by: strawberrylane Nov 4 2006, 06:55 AM|
| More articles this morning from Raleigh N&O. Seems as if the AV was looking for money, suprise suprise
The good news is at the bottom, the Durham DAs office is fully aware of these facts
ha ha ha
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 4 2006, 07:17 AM|
| Dukeparentx2- I'm sorry if you are offended. I am an independent counselor, thus, I am hired to assist and to have an opinion. I would be remiss if I ignored the Duke Lacrosse Hoax and its ramifications. I believe Duke to be a good school that has some serious problems right now, which I hope are soon resolved. I do not think that the resentment towards Duke from the Durham community can be ignored. I have been surprised by information about Durham that has been exposed by this hoax- the sex industry, the heroin trade in North Carolina and its resultant criminal element, the abuses of power by the local authorities.
Any parent with a current or potential college student should request a copy of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's "Guide to Students Rights and Due Process." It is free for college students and a nominal cost for others. It should be essential reading material for all college students and their parents. K.C. has been assisted by F.I.R.E. and writes for them occasionally.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 4 2006, 07:59 AM|
| (respost from a post at FR)
Accuser in Duke lacrosse case wanted money, man says
Joseph Neff, Benjamin Niolet and Anne Blythe, Staff Writers
DURHAM - Four days after she said she was raped, the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case told co-workers at a Hillsborough strip club that she was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who hadn't paid her, the club's former security manager said.
"She basically said, 'I'm going to get paid by the white boys,' " H.P. Thomas, the former security manager at the Platinum Club, said in an interview Friday. "I said, 'Whatever,' because no one takes her seriously."
On March 17, the woman showed Thomas a hospital bracelet and paperwork. While she talked about being owed money, the accuser never gave any word or indication of being hurt, he said.
"The other girls would have known if something had happened," Thomas said. "If another dancer had been beat up or raped by a bunch of white boys, there would have been a ruckus."
Records show she had been seen at Duke and UNC Hospitals on March 14 and 15.
Thomas said dancers must sign in when they take guests into the club's VIP room. He said those sheets show that the woman had signed in March 17 and 18. He said she also danced the following weekend. . .
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 4 2006, 08:52 AM|
|Unfortunately, from a poster at FreeRepublic, it appears that this story is "buried" on pg. B6 of the N&O.|
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 4 2006, 09:24 AM|
Perhaps you would suggest some really safe college campus without those elements, maybe Bowdoin in Maine or Liberty? Any college located in a semi-major metropolitan area is going to have those elements around. The sex industry doesn't inject itself onto college campuses; it has to be invited.
I have had good exposure to 5 university administrations, all ranked in the top 25, from Ivy League to ACC. Only one had a university president who had enough independent courage and crisis management skills to have handled this Duke situation any better than Brodhead did. I'm not saying he performed well. I'm just saying the expectations people on this board have had are unrealistic and judgments are made from a retrospective view. I am disappointed in Brodhead because I had high hopes for him. He's not terrible compared to others, just ordinary.
Certainly any top student with elite choices should go somewhere he or she is excited about attending. If the situation at Duke makes it uncomfortable for walto's kid to consider Duke, too bad for Duke. But even the top places have negatives. Would you count out Harvard, MIT, Penn and Yale because they are in or near cities which have active sex trades and criminal elements? If that worries you enough, then you should eliminate them and look for somewhere you will feel safer.
I admit I had concerns about the communities around colleges my son considered. I was hoping he would apply to Princeton because of those concerns. It's in a suburban area, relatively safe and hospitable to students, but a short train ride to NYC or Phila. But he wanted a great academic school with a major college sports scene and he didn't want to go to the West Coast (Stanford) or even as far as Rice in Houston. Duke was what he wanted and he took early admission. We knew from the beginning that Durham was a negative and resented the university.
|Posted by: Advocate Nov 4 2006, 09:30 AM|
| I decided to make the jump to this site, even though I find it much less user-friendly and harder on the ever-aging eyes. I did so for two reasons -- I respect Jason's time and read that the other site is much more time-consuming for him to maintain -- he is volunteering his time, so that's an important consideration. Second, my reasons for following this case and commenting on haven't changed, and the fact that I've now had to be inconvenienced by this new sign-up process ultimately pales in comparison to what these innocent young men are going through at the hands of that psycho Nifong and that Teflon FA, who is now getting at least some of the scrutiny that she should have gotten from the inept police department from Day 1. All along, I've felt that if I could write one comment to help persuade someone of the immense travesty of justice being prepetrated right in front of our eyes it will have been worth my hours of time researching articles and writing observations. I've been a regular participant in the the original blog since the beginning and can't wait for the day when I can say this is all in the past. Right now, however, it's nowhere that day.
Continue to read and write -- continue to be thoughtful in your comments -- I've seen several of my comments in the past actually picked up by the papers and quoted, so it feels like the effort to publicize the innocence of these three wrongly accused individuals hasn't been in vain.
Buy the wristbands -- I wear mine every day and am happy to field questions about what it represents. Send a donation to the Defense Fund -- you don't have to be rich -- just think about what you'd feel like if you and your family were in their shoes and writing that check will be easy. It's a small price to pay to support democracy and to fight injustice.
Finally, don't succumb to "issue fatigue" about this case. Ultimately, this is not about whether you agree or disagree with, like or dislike, Duke, Durham, lacrosse, Democrats, Republicans, etc. It's about what this country is supposed to stand for -- it's about the ability and responsibility of a justice system to handle matters brought before it with integrity and fairness. This DA and his cohorts have made a mockery of everything I hold dear under the Constitution of this great country, one I swore to uphold and defend the proud day I was admitted as an attorney 25 years ago. I can't sit by and let this happen without taking a stand.
As I tell my own children, you need to speak up for what's right, even if it's the unpopular thing to do. Nifong can spout that line as well, but coming from him, it reeks of insincerity and self-promotion, as he had everything to lose professionally and financially if he had acted with integrity. As the Bible says -- For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Ultimately, I hope that the steady voices of the truth will prevail. It's still early yet, and judging by the rank unprofessionalism and unethical behavior I've seen demonstrated in this case thus far by the prosecution, I'm under no illusions that we've seen the last of their tactics. This is small-town, backwater, good ole' boy politics at its worst -- the only thing new here is that until now they've apparently operated like this with relative impunity because they benefited from obscurity. Now that a national spotlight has been trained on their hijinks, one can only hope that the aphorism that "Sunshine is the best disinfectant" will apply.
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 4 2006, 09:58 AM|
Thanks for your note. Sometimes people look at me like I'm an obsessed nut when I talk about this case. My interest partly comes from valuing due process and as a lawyer (though not criminal lawyer) I know enough to know how far off our American ideals of justice this case has gone. The other part is knowing that my son at Duke could very easily have been at a party such as this one and very easily could have been indicted like Dave, Colin and Reade.
On a lighter note, when looking up F.I.R.E. and ordering the booklet on campus due process I found this link to a little bit of P.C. trouble Pres. Amy Guttman of Penn is in for having a sense of humor. She hosted a Halloween party and is pictured smiling next to a student dressed up as a suicide bomber. She did go pc and apologize the next day. But the student reportedly said that Gutmann did not seem to take his costume too seriously. He said when he approached her for to the photo, she joked, "'How did they let you through security?'"
Here's the link for the photo: http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2006/11/maybe_next_year_amy_gutmann_can_dress_up_as_a_nonpr_disaster.html
And here's the link to the Penn student newspaper article on it:
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 4 2006, 11:06 AM|
| The article in the NO is very interesting. It is hard to believe that there will not be tremendous pressure to drop this (after the election...), given all the information coming out lately about the AVs activities in the days after March 13. (She not only was dancing, but she took guests to the "private room" at the strip club two times during the first week after the party!!!)
Why has this information not come out sooner? If this guy Thomas noticed within a few weeks that he had a video of her dancing, why did it take 6 months for the media to find out! Where were the defense attorneys on this! People knew she worked at this club--her driver's statement was clear about that. Why was no one there talking to the other dancers, the bouncer or the manager before now?
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 4 2006, 11:25 AM|
| To Dukeparentx2,
I began to post a response to your earlier post, but decided to self-censor. I have no dog in this fight. I do not have an emotional investment for or against Duke. I only hope that the three boys, and they are boys to me at my age, are absolved and are able to get on with their lives.
What Nifong has done impacts not only these young men, but peripherally, a university, its students and alumni.
P.S. The Penn uproar is silly.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 4 2006, 11:49 AM|
| Texas Mom-- I appreciate your restraint. My referral to you had to do only with your comment that you were steering kids away from Duke in your position as a private counselor. (And I agree with Dukeparent09--if you are concerned about schools that have a dangerous element near campus, that takes a lot of schools off the list--Yale, Penn, Harvard, Columbia...)
My comment about the animosity toward Duke, that I believe I read on this site, was directed at others. I totally understand (even if I don't completely agree) that some are not happy with Brodhead. I think reasonable people can disagree, but it seems those who detest Brodhead have zero tolerance for opinions to the contrary. I DON'T agree with the really nasty comments I read on this site about Brodhead, Duke, and it disturbs me that those who could use their energy to help the 3 indicted players and to denounce the real villains (IMO Nifong and the AV) seem to be worried more about bringing down the university. I believe it is a great university, and my kids are getting great educations there. And this is supposed to be "Friends of Duke."
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 4 2006, 11:55 AM|
|It's unfortunate that Thomas (the bouncer at the Platinum Club) is just now speaking up about the AV. Apparently he was advised by his attorney not to because of a pending cocaine charge against him. However, the question arises: Why would the defense attorneys not have had private investigators trailing the AV and perhaps taking these videos themselves? This accuser could have been discredited months earlier by the bombshells we have had recently in this case.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 4 2006, 12:16 PM|
|Posted by: walto Nov 4 2006, 01:03 PM|
I'm just guessing - because Nifong and the DPD would have grabbed the PI, beat him to a pulp, thrown him in jail, charged him (and the defense attorneys and defendants) with stalking, conspiracy, witness tampering, parking in a red zone and anything else they could make up?
dukeparentx2, I am probably one of those that does feel great animosity toward Duke. It's anger over what Duke squandered - it's honor. It was a great university - certainly when my Father went there - and I hope it will be again. And I agree that the great villian here is Nifong and the DPD. I am also gravely dissapointed in Brodhead's actions. But I'm also angered by the group of 88 - and the deafening silence of the rest of the Duke faculty and administration.
This is what Duke is teaching - the ends justify the means. Destroy innocent people to advance your agenda. Don't stand up for what is right, keep silent and maybe the storm will pass you by.
If it was a University in South America that was teaching these values, I'd just shake my head. It's my previous admiration for the school that leads to my anger.
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 4 2006, 01:20 PM|
|I'm with Walto - remember Elmo? Also, I'd have to access all of the old information, but the defense attorneys probably didn't have any idea about the extent of the hoax at the very beginning and thought Nifong would be a little reasonable about evidence, etc .|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 4 2006, 02:06 PM|
| The defense attorneys knew very early on that Nifong was going to be completely unreasonable (he refused to hear Reade's exculpatory evidence) and they, more than anyone, knew it was a hoax. Plus, it is their job to investigate everything that could help their clients. They have absolutley no excuse for not uncovering the information about the AV's work at the strip club and her comments about getting some money from the boys. The real question is were they derelict in their duty, or have they known all this and were saving it for trial.
As far as Duke, we will always disagree--but this I know. Duke is not teaching the wrong things. The group of 88 did something deplorable, and no one censored them--but virtually all universities operate with a strong no-censorship policy (and those 'safe' liberal arts schools that don't have crime at their doorstep--they don't censor either.) There is plenty of discussion on campus and in classes about this--my own sons have had classes where this whole thing was discussed very fairly. There are so many fantastic professors at Duke--teaching many wonderful things. Let's not brand the entire faculty because of a group of very liberal, biased teachers, who teach a very limited selection of classes. These guys exist on every campus. And their cohorts on other campuses are probably saying the same things about this case in their classes!
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 4 2006, 02:20 PM|
| In good conscience, how could a counselor advise top students to go to Duke in light of all that has transpired this past spring, fall, and summer? I understand dukeparentx2 position that he hates to see counselors not sell the school since he has a vested interest in seeing the school (where two of his children are students) still continue to attract the best and the brightest. However, if he is honest with himself, would he want his child to apply there now in light of what has happened in regard to this big hoax? It is not just the three lacrosse players who have been affected. All DUKE students were put in danger last spring by the 88 professors and an administration who do not have the "proper equipment" to stand up to black racism, gender racism, and mob mentality. There are lots of parallels in history. Look at France in 1789! If you indeed study history, you will find that the peasants were actually not being taxed excessively! But, they perceived injustices were being done to them and so........ off with their heads!
As to the comment that other university presidents are just as bad...... who knows? We only know if they get tested. It's like saying "my kid is a genius" before he has taken his first exam! Brodhead had his first exam, and he failed miserably!
I liked the guy too until this hoax surfaced! He has a deep voice and can deliver his lines! ------He may have inherited the 88 goof-ups from Nan Keohane. I don't know. And, I was not against him in the initial throes of this farce. But now????????? ------- He is a jerk. He is a freeloader. Duke has cheerleaders. Duke has a staff to raise donations. And Duke has a chaplain. What Duke needs is a President who will lead it and protect it! Brodhead should have thought of himself as in charge of Homeland Security with Duke's campus as the territory he needed to protect and its inhabitants as its citizens.
Of course, Nifong is enemy number one! However, Brodhead is our own quisling, FODU!
Nifong is Durham's shame. Brodhead's is Duke's!
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 4 2006, 02:38 PM|
| I understand Dukeparentx2's distress. However, I am an INDEPENDENT college counselor, and I tell my clients and their parents the truth, as I know it, about different schools. That's my job. I tell kids who have never lived in snow that they need to check out Cornell in late January, early February, not in the summer. Parents want to know if girls are getting raped in their dorms (as has happened on different campuses in past years) and about any safety issues that might affect their kids. Parents want to know as much as they can on any number of issues to make an informed decision- core curriculum, NCAA recruiting, specific departments in which their kids are interested, sororities and fraternities, drug culture, etc. I use my own judgement about what is relevant and direct them to websites where they can learn more- usually the college newspapers and the local paper, as well as a variety of books and articles.
Broadhead and the Group of 88, et al have done some serious harm to Duke's reputation. The only thing I can say in Broadhead's defense is that he saw what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard. Personally, I would not want to send my stepson to a school where the administration did such an abysmal job of advising him about his rights and was so disloyal to him. Duke put its own perceived interests ahead of those of its students and it is paying for its cowardice. Broadhead, in being fearful of liability issues, opened the school up to far more liability than it has ever faced in its history. Finesse Couch's million dollar settlement against Duke Hospital will pale in comparison to the liabilities Duke will face from a multitude of parties in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax.
|Posted by: walto Nov 4 2006, 03:37 PM|
Certainly I agree - but I'm thinking of the rest of the school. All the faculty that aren't part of the Crazy 88. Why are they silent?
If a good man remains silent in the face of evil, is he still a good man?
*THAT'S* the great horror that this situation has uncovered. Any school has it's loonies. They can be survived, they will pass. I went to UCLA, we certainly had our share - Angela Davis was only the most famous. But I think - or, I would like to think - that tenured professors at any school would have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to an injustice being done to their own students and say "This is wrong."
(In general, they don't seem to have any reticence standing up for third world despots, terrorists, cop-killers and mass killers)
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 4 2006, 04:27 PM|
| This is in today's Durham-in-wonderland
at an October luncheon, Mike Nifong justified his decision to press froward "If a case is of such significance that people in the community are devived or up in arms over the existence of that case, then that in of itself is an indication that a case needs to be tried.
With this statement Nifong has broken Rule3.8 the rule of Professional Conduct.
I know Nifong has no use for rules of any kind.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 4 2006, 04:55 PM|
| As a retired P/O, I feel and know that it would be done where I worked, the AV should have bee re-interviewed, it is not to late even now. The follow up interview would be to have the AV herself, explain away the excuptory evidence. Explain how she was in so much pain during the day and dancing at night. This is just part of a routine investigation and is taught to all investigators, especially when the AV gave so many different versions of the events of March 13/14. There are many times when the AV, who cannot explain away these problems, will recant her accusations. My gut feeling is that the DPD, has "on the job training" for it's investigators, and that training is flawed, at best. The AV obvioulsy was visiting hospital, in search of narcotics and perhaps hoping to join the roles of persons receiving disability benefits. The DPD or Nifong should interview the AV again and have her explain her actions. I can't believe that any police department would let this go on.
As far as sending your sons or daughters to a school in Durham, unlike other cities, Duke students could become victims of violent crimes, but they also have to concern themselves with an out of control that has already admitted to targeting Duke students.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 4 2006, 06:14 PM|
| I just spoke with my son, who has friends at U of Miami. His friend said the Miami football coach felt the need to tell his players that they shouldn't be carrying guns--apparently some of them were. So Texas Mom can add Miami to her list of schools that are dangerous (or maybe it's safe now that the players can't carry guns!!!) Certainly it is one where the administration supports the players--whether they deserve it or not.
My son does not feel Brodhead messed up--and he said his friends don't either. He felt the president had an obligation to protect ALL the students, and that he took appropriate measures at the time to do that (like NOT allowing the Black Panthers on campus.) He felt that Brodhead had to try to calm the community down, and that he did a good job of that. (And my son was directly affected by the pot bangers and the drive-by threats.) As to Brodhead not making the kind of statements in support of the players that many here would like to hear, my son said that the students he knows at Duke know that Brodhead, from the beginning, urged the community not to rush to judgment, and that they understand Duke's desire to not interfere in any way with the legal process. My son believes doing so would reinflame the community. He says, from the beginning, Duke's number one priority had to be to calm the community and protect all the students.
As to the group of 88, he says no one takes them seriously. Most know they have an agenda, and that they used this to further that agenda, but he doesn't believe Brodhead could censor them in any way.
By the way, my son and his friends are all friends with the lax players. They have always believed they are completely innocent, and they have all registered to vote (and plan to vote against Nifong.) He sees nothing wrong with having the party, or hiring the stripper and acknowledges this happened all the time. they blame the AV, who they think was trying to extort money from the players, and Nifong.
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 4 2006, 06:30 PM|
|dukeparentx2, please get a grip. Whether or not I recommend Duke to my clients is not material to you or your kids. Duke's reputation will not be affected by me. I merely toil in the vineyards, I do not own them. Your children are fine representatives of a fine university. Feel free to attack my opinion as often as you need, I still think that Broadhead is cowardly and that Duke will find that it cannot begin to repair its image until the Duke 3 are exonerated and Broadhead has gone elsewhere. Obviously, Nifong has to go and Durham government needs cleaning up. It's like a corporate reorganization- you cannot restore investor confidence with the same old CEO at the helm. All faculty should be REQUIRED to take a seminar explaining the Federal Educational Right to Privacy Act and what is and is not permissable under same. And every college and university should give a copy of the Student Guide to Due Process to each incoming freshmen and matriculated student. JMO, as I frequently have said and to which I am entitled.|
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 4 2006, 07:02 PM|
|Dukeparentx2, Texasmom is right get a grip on yourself. Not only does Durham have a high crime rate, it appears that the police target the Duke students. So your son has to look out on both fronts. How will the police in Durham respond to him if a crime is perpertrated against him? Will they throw him in jail, for some petty disorderly charge or issue a summons. I was told to issue a summons, unless the person had a criminal record, something more serious then a petty disorderly charge. In Durham it seems that the students are getting it from both sides the criminals and the Durham police, with the full support of DA Nifong and the Chief of Police.|
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 4 2006, 07:07 PM|
|PS to my last. The students are all this treatment from the community and Broadhead is doing to help out the students. He is the one that should be contacting the police department specifically the Chief of Police and telling him to have is officer not discriminate against Duke students.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 4 2006, 07:10 PM|
|Thanks for the kind advice.|
|Posted by: usa Nov 4 2006, 07:18 PM|
| "My son believes doing so would reinflame the community. He says, from the beginning, Duke's number one priority had to be to calm the community and protect all the students."
I disagree with this statement, regardless of whether you son is friends with the lax players. The President of a University's priority is not to calm the community. His job is to run the university and protect all the students, true, but that includes the ones who are being falsely accused and not hand them to the wolves. The community of Durham only benefits from the university through employment and economic benefit. They don't run the show.
Whether you like him or not, anyone who thinks Brodhead will be allowed to continue to be President long term is not facing reality. He will be kept for now because they will need a scapegoat once the civil lawsuits begin and they will. Then he will be cut loose. The trustees will have no choice. Brodhead is not stupid and he must be aware of this. Perhaps like Nifong that is why he is digging his heels in. No other university will ever hire him as President after this fiasco. He is a public relations nightmare.
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 4 2006, 07:57 PM|
|Texas Mom, Finesse Couch lost her case against Duke Medical Center at the appeals level. That changes your argument slightly.|
|Posted by: usa Nov 4 2006, 08:17 PM|
Thanks for that info. That is the first I heard of an appeal. However her case against Duke Medical really has nothing to do with a potential civil lawsuit against Duke and the Durham.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 4 2006, 08:20 PM|
| He felt that Brodhead had to try to calm the community down, and that he did a good job of that. (And my son was directly affected by the pot bangers and the drive-by threats.) . . . My son believes doing so would reinflame the community. He says, from the beginning, Duke's number one priority had to be to calm the community and protect all the students.
Sorry, but every time I hear someone rationalize like that, I keep getting the image of Judea in about 33 AD, where the governor would doubtless have made the same arguements--the main priority is to calm the community and protect all the people; avoid a riot; keep the peace; and don't damage the career. Don't step up to defend an innocent defendant if it means risking civil strife.
But I think history has rejected that argument.
Judge Horton would have quoted, "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall."
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 4 2006, 08:35 PM|
I think those of you who think Brodhead is a goner are the ones drinking the koolaid of this and other blogs. It's wishful thinking. I suspect there is more support for him among alumni than is believed here. He's coming to our local alum association soon, so I may get a better sense of the alums here then. I did not see or hear any anger directed his way over parents weekend. Did anyone reading here go to the President's breakfast that Sunday?
I also have serious doubt about whether the boys and their families will sue Duke in the end. I just don't see the causal connection between what Duke as an institution did or didn't do and the prosecutorial misconduct which resulted in the indictments and prolonged the case.
|Posted by: usa Nov 4 2006, 08:56 PM|
Someone I know who went to the Pres. Breakfast said he was a no show. Was I misinformed???
The boys were told by representative of the University not to tell their parents? Now why do you think they were told that? As a result, some of them innocently went to the police to cooperate fully without benefit of legal counsel.
I'm not an attorney so I defer to you on the legal aspects. I'm more into public relations and marketing. I will tell you what people already know. Nobody likes to be on the losing side. They all want to be viewed as winners. Brodhead was only here a year before this fiasco. By ditching him, they have an opportunity to start fresh. Had he been here 10 plus years it might have been a different story. Why keep him? The folks that love Duke will continue to regardless of whether he is there. The folks with the deep pockets will continue to donate whether he is there or not. He performed miserably. They will cut their losses. Of course that is just my opinion.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 4 2006, 09:47 PM|
| Why wouldn't Brodhead permit Finnerty and Seligmann to transfer their credits, so that they could continue their education elsewhere?
And why did he refuse over and over to meet with the Finnerty parents until forced to do so when the head of alumni fundrasing threatend to resign if he did not?
And why did he then end up getting into an argument and insulting the Finnertys?
That all suggests someone who is not sympathetic to the plight of the indicted.
And where is his statement now, calling upon the governor to appoint a special prosecutor? Or for the feds to intervene and guarantee the rights of the accused?
Forget what he did in the past, what is he doing at this present moment?
|Posted by: usa Nov 4 2006, 10:25 PM|
| "Why wouldn't Brodhead permit Finnerty and Seligmann to transfer their credits, so that they could continue their education elsewhere?"
This is an excellent point Quasi. I was thinking about Duke only allowing them to take two outside courses. But why would they not allow them to transfer their credits? Is this legal? Is this standard operating procedure? Has no one ever transfered out of Duke for whatever reason i.e. ill parent, need to be closer to home. If one have taken the courses how can they not permit them to transfer the courses? Isn't it up to the receiving university to determine if they want to ACCEPT the credits? Would the Brodhead supporters please enlighten us with what purpose that serves?
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 4 2006, 10:36 PM|
No show at the breakast? I don't know since I couldn't go.
I'm bothered by the advice not to call the parents, too. That reportedly came from Coach Pressler and unless and until he writes or says whether he was directed to give that advice and by whom, we won't know if that was a plan or a simple goof or even went higher than him.
I think it takes a lot to chase a university president out before his time. The average tenure is about 10 years. Larry Summers was run off at Harvard last year, but he managed to alienate just about every constituent there is as a president in his 5 years. I don't know the full story but here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#World_Bank_Pollution_Memo
The transfer credit thing is easy. A big shot university like Duke won't take transfer credits from just anywhere. Whether another university would accept Duke credits is not for Duke to say, it's for whatever other college to decide if Reade and Colin want to continue elsewhere. If Princeton is so hot to have Reade, why can't it accept him as a transfer for the Spring and have him play there? Is there a NCAA rule that prohibits him from competing in his current situation? If his season this Spring is shot anyway, why don't they take him as a transfer now even if he can't play there until next year?
I can only guess at Brodhead's motivation for not wanting to meet with the Finnerty's. Perhaps he figured nothing useful could come of it. The insult allegation had to have come from the Finnerty's. With their understandable anger I don't accept that story at face value. Things like that can be open to interpretation, so I won't judge that without hearing just what was said.
I'd like him to step forward to call for a special prosecutor. Once the election is over, I see no reason for him not doing so.
|Posted by: usa Nov 4 2006, 11:10 PM|
No show at the breakast? I don't know since I couldn't go. "
Duke09 you sound very rationale and I have no axe to grind with you whatsoever. A Duke parent went down for Parents weekend and specifically had a ticket to attend a breakfast (?) I believe because they wanted to hear Brodhead. They said he wasn't there. In fact, I thought I read that Brodhead went to DC to make a speech. Now I may be mistaken that it might not have been a breakfast that he was the no show. If you find out otherwise please let me know.
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 4 2006, 11:19 PM|
|He was supposed to appear at the breakfast. The schedule said he would be there. My wife doesn't share my obsession with this case, so we left town without going. He's due in D.C. for an alumni dinner this week.|
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 4 2006, 11:27 PM|
| Brodhead was not at the Exhibition Game against Shaw on Thursday night. I did not go to the one tonight against NC Central.
Last year, Brodhead was at a lot of the basketball games as I recall. He even went down on the court at half time to recognize various scholars.
I'll look for him this year. I know where he sits.
I might go buy a lacrosse shirt to wear to the basketball games.
I am surprised to hear that Duke kids like him. That was not what I have heard.
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 5 2006, 09:51 AM|
To USA - Texas Mom said "Finesse Couch's million dollar settlement against Duke Hospital will pale in comparison to the liabilities Duke will face from a multitude of parties in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax".
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 5 2006, 09:56 AM|
| To USA - I was responding to a comment by Texas Mom that Finesse Couch's million dollar settlement would pale in comparison to the liabilities Duke faces from the multitude of parties in the lacrosse case.
The fact is that Couch did not ultimately receive a settlement because she lost her case on appeals.
Now perhaps you see the potential implication for the Duke Lacrosse case, or at least I hope you do.
|Posted by: alice Nov 5 2006, 10:09 AM|
| Here is a good letter from Today's Herald Sun
No credit due
With all due respect to Amanda Smith, she's missing her own point. Whereas the first part of her Nov. 1 column documents real, problematic, and unjust issues with the way that rape cases have been handled historically, particularly in the south, her argument is flawed, and asks society to do what she rightfully identifies as hateful: pervert justice.
I must assume the editors at The Herald-Sun chose the headline "Give Nifong credit for believing accuser." However, our governor-appointed DA, Mike Nifong, has recently admitted that he has not once personally interviewed the accuser regarding the facts of the case. Previously, he has also admitted that he and his investigators have never interviewed or interrogated the three accused lacrosse players. So give him credit for being willing to believe third parties, the media, and hyperbole. Do not give him credit for doing an honest investigation, seeking justice, or being sure of the facts of the case.
November 5, 2006
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 5 2006, 10:26 AM|
|The Governor of NC was in South Bend, Ind. on Sat. for the ND-UNC game. He spoke to a small group of approximately 70 people at which time he said that his Catholic faith had guided him in political thought and values. He said these values were instrumental in his work to improve wages, education and in addressing issues related to poverty. This faith is apparently absent when its application can be brought to bear on a rogue prosecutor, false accuser and widespread corruption in Durham County. Perhaps as he toured the campus of Notre Dame University the "four horsemen shook down the thunder from the sky" and the Governor rediscovered that faith also requires that you stand up for the wrongfully accused.|
|Posted by: Leo Nov 5 2006, 10:26 AM|
| This was discussed earlier. Sorry for commenting after the fact, but I think it is important to clarify.
Over the Parents' weekend, I was both at the president's brunch and at the exhibition basketball game. President Brodhead did not attend either of those events. If someone else attended and saw him there, please let us know. I would be surprised. I was there for the entire duration of both events and looked for him specifically. I did not see him and assumed he was out of town. Of course, I questioned why he would choose to be away for the Parents' weekend, but that's a different issue. I want to stick to the facts here.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 5 2006, 10:27 AM|
| Voting takes a spirited tone
Soon after he arrived, Nifong approached three members of Duke Students fro an Ethical Durham, a group that has worked against Nifong. The prosecutor told the student that since they were working against him, they might s well meet. Nifong held out his hand. No one shook it. After an awkwark moment, Nifong shook hands with another anti Nifong group.
|Posted by: usa Nov 5 2006, 11:07 AM|
Thank you Firely for the information. I had not read anywhere about an appeal or that they had lost. That information was good to know and I appreciate it.
Whether the families decide to go for a civil case or not is up to them. If it were my son, I certainly would. But then that is me and I am not a litigious person at all.
To the others, we now have from 2 sources that Brodhead was a no show at the Breakfast for what it's worth.
Interesting to know the Gov. is catholic. But how about do the right thing. The DC judge was catholic too and attends mass daily. Look at the results in DC!
|Posted by: usa Nov 5 2006, 11:24 AM|
| Regarding the election and another dumb quote from Monks.
|Posted by: AnotherDukeMom Nov 5 2006, 12:24 PM|
| President Brodhead spoke to the Duke Parent Committee annual meeting on Saturday morning and took questions. He was limited in his time because he had a full day of appearances. I also saw him Saturday afternoon at the Duke Field Hockey game vs. Virginia. He and his wife came for the last part of the game and he personally congratulated the players for a fantastic season. He then posed for group pictures with the players.
Sunday, he was in the Duke Chapel, reading the Gospel and sitting next to the choir. He was also at an event Friday night in the library working the corwd.
Clearly, he not only was present over Parents Weekend was was extraordinarily busy.
|Posted by: AnotherDukeMom Nov 5 2006, 12:35 PM|
| Dr. Brodhead spoke to the Parent Committee at about 10:30 am Sat. He came to the field hockey game at about 3.
I also attended the Blue-White scrimmage and did not notice President Brodhead there but I don't know where he sits.
Chapel Sunday was from 11-12:20.
Also, the time stamps on these posts are WAY off. I just posted at 10am and it stamped it as 5pm. Not a big deal but it occasionally gives me insight into the mental state of the poster (some of the really wacky posts are at 3 am!)
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Nov 5 2006, 02:04 PM|
| Regarding the timestamps on this board, the board itself is set to operate on Eastern Time. However, it seems each member has to set his/her time stamp correctly too. This is a one-time function. If your messages are not appearing with the correct timestamp, this is what you need to do.
1. Go to MyControls
2. Go to Options (under the menu items)
3. Go to Board settings
4. Select the appropriate time zone based on your location. For example, to choose the Eastern time zone, select EST 5:00 (Bogota, Lima, etc).
When done, click on Change my account options. From that moment on, the timestamps on your comments should appear correctly. By the way, do not forget that some people may be posting from the West Coast and their timestamps may look a little odd to us.
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 5 2006, 02:38 PM|
|Firefly, thank you for your correction. I was not aware that Finesse Couch's award had been overturned on appeal. Do you know who represented both Duke and Ms. Couch? I'd be interested who the attorneys were.|
|Posted by: usa Nov 5 2006, 02:41 PM|
| Voters changing dynamics of politics in NC
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 5 2006, 02:56 PM|
Inside Lacrosse magazine article :
Woven throughout the defense attorneys’ arguments will be the strong proposition that the three identification procedures, taken as a whole, offended “standards of decency, fairness and justice.”
They’ll make a compelling argument that the D.A. and police officers suggested certain players, including Seligmann, unnecessarily through their arbitrary selection and improper use of team photographs, gratuitous statements to the accuser and failure to include non-suspects on each occasion. By doing so, they created a scenario ripe for mistaken identification.
If Judge Smith agrees, under North Carolina law and that of the U.S. Supreme Court, he will suppress the accuser’s identification of Seligmann and any later attempt to identify him in court.
If that happens, Nifong will have no other choice but to dismiss this case.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 5 2006, 03:00 PM|
| Favorite sayings found at the same Inside Lacrosse magazine site (for which the poster assumes no liability, read at your own risk. . .) :
"Lacrosse is just a game but it has given many of us a life. "
"Friends dont let friends play baseball."
"if you cant suck it up, baseball practice is that way"
"Lacrosse is just a game.......like death is just a nap"
"lacrosse is a sport invented by native americans to solve tribal disputes when war was not violent enough"
"A day without Lacrosse is like 900 innings of Baseball"
"Donate blood- Play lacrosse"
"Scars are like tattoos but with better stories"
"Lacrosse - legally beating men with sticks since 1492."
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 5 2006, 05:00 PM|
| I was at Parents' Weekend and personally saw Pres. Brodhead at a reception Friday night, the football game on Saturday, and the basketball game Saturday. It really surprises me that someone would actually claim he was not at the basketball game because it is very hard to know for sure if someone is NOT at a game like that! I did not go to the breakfast, but I would be shocked if he really did not attend.
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 5 2006, 08:42 PM|
|To Texas Mom: The story about Finesse Couch came up this past summer on one of the General Topics Boards of FODU when the family of the accuser was reported to have met with a plaintiffs' attorney by the name of Willy Gary. There was much made of this by Kimberly Guilfoyle on the Fox network. At the same time, the unsavory pictures of Destin Couch had surfaced on MySpace and a reference was made that perhaps it was Destin Couch, an assistant DA in Durham Cty. who had put the accuser's family in touch with Willy Gary because he represented Destin's mother in a case against Duke Medical Center for malpractice. She won a large settlement in the local court, but when Duke Medical Center appealed the decision, she lost in the appeals court. The posts of this summer does not indicate who the attorneys were that represented Duke Medical Center. There was much speculation that Willy Gary came to Durham and talked to the accuser's family, that he only took cases that he thought he could win, but thus far he has not resurfaced. With the additional information that has surfaced about the accuser, he may think it in his best interest to remove himself from her and the family.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 5 2006, 10:03 PM|
|Texas Mom: To further clarify my post about the accuser's family contacting Willy Gary, I have scrolled through some of the old posts and found a reference which will give you a little information. The post was 6/28/06 at 12:04pm and it referenced the Sports Illustrated story "The Damage Done". In that story, the accuser's mother is said to have met with Willy Gary and speculation was that she might be planning a civil suit against Duke, the owner of the lax house and the families of the players if they were found guilty. At a later post, which I am still researching in which the poster child of bad ADA's was found on Myspace, someone posted that Gary had represented Finesse Counch and that Destine had gone to high school with the accuser and perhaps had been the contact source for the accuser's family with Willy Gary. I don't mean to take up so much space on this matter which is now of no significance, but I wanted to go back and double check my reference rather than post inaccurately.|
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 6 2006, 03:29 AM|
|Thanks, Firefly. I was aware of C.Destine, et al. I was just not aware that Finesse Couch's lawsuit was overturned on appeal.|
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Nov 6 2006, 08:31 AM|
| KC Johnson has an important story this morning. Here is the link:
The Latest Bombshell
|Posted by: usa Nov 6 2006, 08:38 AM|
| Thanks for doing that research Firefly. I recall reading all that probably on Court TV around that time.
Not only have you not seen Willie Gary, but notice you haven't seen or heard from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Well at least not since Jesse offered a full scholarship to Precious no matter what. Sharpton is still stinging from his involvement in the Tawana Brawley Hoax and probably does not want to be involved in Hoax II.
In Tawana's case she had lied to see her boyfiend and had already been grounded for skipping school. A neighbor saw her cover herself with feces and jump into the garbage. Remember in Hoax I,Mattox lost his law license. Cuomo was referred to as KKK and Attorney General Abrams, a jewish man, was called Hitler.
The major difference between Hoax I and Hoax II is that when Tawana claimed that ADA Pagones raped her, he was able to go before the grand jury and defend himself. The grand jury determined the case had no merit. Meanwhile Tawana fled to Virginia, never to be seen in NY again. NY's trash flew south.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 6 2006, 08:44 AM|
|usa Sharpton was on CNN the other night and they did ask him why he is not invovled in this cass. He replied " He does not believe CGM in no way and this is another TB and this time Jackson can look like the fool. Jesse Jackson has not spoken out in a long time, on this case. I think he now knows he backed a loser, and everyone knows where he stands.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 6 2006, 08:44 AM|
|To USA - not only did the trash fly south (to Virginia), but they took with them approximately $300,000 of money that was raised on behalf of Tawana and her family. Not only was Tawana a lier, but obviously a "hustler" as well. Her family never offered to return the money despite the evidence of this bogus case.|
|Posted by: usa Nov 6 2006, 09:24 AM|
Wow I missed that.
|Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Nov 6 2006, 09:26 AM|
| Three important articles today:
1. Duke Chronicle endorses Cheek
2. Duke Basketball Report (DBR) endorses Cheek
3. Duke students call for action on the lacrosse case
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 6 2006, 09:26 AM|
|William Anderson's piece today "Why the Duke Hoax Continues, Part II: Durham and the Politics of Entitlement" is an absolute must read. If Anderson's thesis is correct, the Duke Rape Hoax should serve as a wake-up call to this country that it is possible to hijack the criminal justice system and the judicial system by those seeking to play the politics of get even.|
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 6 2006, 09:49 AM|
| Re : the above cited Durham in Wonderland article --
Ashley Cannon is, of course, the ADA who prosecuted Evans' 'noise violation', as well as some other cases close to Nifong's heart. She has resigned from the Durham county DA's office and now works for the Wake County DA's office.
Finesse Couch, IRRC, is head of the local bar, and sued Duke Hospital for millions, but lost on appeal.
C. Destine Couch is the ADA who had the notorious Myspace site.
Of course, if there is a complaint, then there must be a trial. A woman's word is enough.
Whether or not such an event (or events) as described took place, is for a jury to decide.
The DA does not have to interview the complaining witness before hand, nor interview the accused, nor look at exculpatory evidence.
I WANT A TRIAL!
There are elements of race and power in this case, which may prove divisive to the community; and for that reason alone there must be a trial to clear the air.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 6 2006, 09:53 AM|
"Second, everyone-staff, students, parents, alumni, faculty, trustees-need to demand that President Richard Brodhead do what he has thus far refused to do: criticize Nifong and implore the state provide a fair rendering of justice for his students. Duke is a vital institution in Durham and very important to North Carolina. If Brodhead chose to use his influence it would have a significant impact. But first, we must use ours, on him.
"So call his office or send an e-mail. Tell him he can't just wait out a trial. When the process is corrupt supporting that process only furthers the corruption. Tell him the rights of Reade, Collin and David matter more than his fear of radical faculty. Tell him he must take a stand. There is no easy refuge, no safe middle ground between justice and injustice."
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 10:04 AM|
|Stephen Miller's article in the Chronicle (referenced as #3 by FODU Admin above) is excellent. While I have been less inclined to criticize Brodhead than most who post here, Miller's position that everyone should be demanding that Broadhead speak out against Nifong's actions and for the students' rights is one I support. Miller writes one of the more concise critiques of the hoax, and calls for action without vilifying the Duke administration.|
|Posted by: dcnc1987 Nov 6 2006, 10:06 AM|
Small point, but as of today she works as a prosecutor for Orange and Chatham counties.
The amazing thing is how buried this story is in the N&O and I haven't found it anywhere in the Herald Sun. Plus the N&O buried Neff's article Saturday quoting the club manager on page A22 of the Durham edition. Strange editing, I'd say!
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 6 2006, 11:21 AM|
|Stephen Miller soundly criticized Brodhead and the entire administration at the ACLU Panel held a couple of weeks ago. I was there. I heard him. He holds the Duke administration's cowardice as responsible for this mess. Maybe you can get a trasncript of it if you do not know how Mr. Miller stands on the subject of his college president. He is indeed a brave young man!|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 12:26 PM|
|There is no doubt that Stephen Miller is criticial of the administration for not speaking out. BUT, first and foremost, he clearly blames Nifong for the corruption of the process (a process Nifong has vowed to administer fairly) that created this mess. And that is where the blame rightfully lies. Miller's point about the duty of the administration to speak up in defense of the rights of its students is well-taken. But it's also pretty clear whom he blames for the mess itself. If he holds more contempt for the administration than his article in today's Chronicle shows, then he is wise to not let his message be overshadowed by vitriol, which would only serve to weaken his credibility with many.|
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 6 2006, 01:57 PM|
| Dear Dukeparentx2:
Yes, it is smart of Miller not to take on Brodhead in this Chronicle article as it would dilute his main intention. However, from your earlier statement, I got the idea that you did not think Miller would vilify the administration. Not true. Mr. Miller is very disdainful of the administration and the 88 profs.
If you do not take my word for it, please ask KC Johnson or anyone else who attended the ACLU Panel discussion.
We all know that you do not think Brodhead is as responsible for this fiasco as many of us on this board feel. Ok. That is your opinion. I just think that your post intimated that Miller thinks as you do. He does not-- at least the words from his mouth gave the idea that he is scornful of the administration i.e. Brodhead. Ask him yourself.
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 6 2006, 02:13 PM|
|Quasimodo, you are hitting on all cylinders today. Looks like you took the same trial law 101 course that Nifong took. In Durham it's counted as a post graduate study with the intent of getting extra credit with the voters of a certain persuasion.|
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 6 2006, 02:27 PM|
| KC Johnson says that Nifong sent out an email to his supporters, where he says, among other things:
"Finally, the Nifong mailer featured the minister of justice unleashing his most chilling description to date of the lacrosse case. He claimed that Cheek supporters consider his prosecution “a threat to their sense of entitlement and that they do not trust a jury of Durham citizens to decide” the case."
My question is, How much longer will Brodhead stay silent? I can't help but wonder if Brodhead had spoken up sooner regarding Nifong's outrageous public attacks, if he (Nifong) would still be at it?
Bullies seek out the weak, the fearful and the disenfranchised. When Brodhead fired pressler, canceled the team's season, apologized to the caller for the racial slurs, and continues to chide the team for "highly unacceptable" behavior, is he indirectly sending Nifong a message that it is OK to continue to slam the school and its students.
Every day that he (Brodhead) lets pass, is another lost opportunity to stand up to this bully and any other future bullies in the town of Durham.
I wonder if the accuser (and her attorneys) are getting the same "message" from Duke and that is why she is continuing. She is clearly after some sort of payout. She knows that Duke apologizes for everything without question. I wonder if the check to the accuser is already made out and is sitting in Brodhead's desk drawer?
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 02:43 PM|
I was attempting to compliment Miller on his article. But for some reason it's very important to you that I recognize how much Miller hates the administration. That's great! There should be room on this board for different levels of animosity towards the administration--I have never said I agreed with everything they have done. but, quite frankly, I believe that the total hatred of the admin by some, and their absolute refusal to accept any comments that even slightly defend the administration, only weaken the credibility of their arguments. Apparently those who do not vilify the administration are not welcome to comment on anything here. I think that's a mistake--you never know whether someone who is "defending" the administration might actually be able to have some influence...
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 6 2006, 02:46 PM|
|How long has Duke had off campus housing? Has this only been since Brodhead came to take over at Duke or has this be going on for much longer? The reason I'm asking is because of something the Attorney General's office said to me.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 03:03 PM|
|KP--Duke students have lived off campus for a very long time, at least 30 or more years. But off-campus housing is not officially Duke housing--students rent off-campus apartments and houses from local owners. The number of students (and groups like fraternities) living off-campus has grown in the past decade--largely due to crackdowns on drinking and parties on campus that occurred during Nan Keohane's tenure as president.|
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 6 2006, 03:07 PM|
For my money (heh) the best reason for Brodhead to say more in support of his students is for the morale of the students, both the indicted and the body as a whole. Nifong would not have done anything different had Brodhead done at the beginning what his harshest critics think he should have done. But students. alumni and supportive faculty would have known they had a leader who stands up for them. Even now, a lot of people would forgive his early actions/inactions if he would publicly acknowledge some of those actions as wrong and issue a supporting statement.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 6 2006, 03:22 PM|
|Critics of Dr. Broadhead, have a right to critisize him. He has some ot the best and birghtest to advise him, right there in the Duke School of Law. When I was in the Marines, Commanding Officers did not make off the cuff decisions, they would seek the advice of other subordinate officers. Why does't Dr. Broadhead seek some guidance from his staff, other the the Group of 88. That appears to be the only one's he will listen too.|
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 6 2006, 03:48 PM|
| duke09parent: I agree. A leader at Duke is very badly needed now. A leader DOES use his influence, however, to effect change. I do not understand why Brodhead feels that he must be "neutral" and wait for the trial. What will a trial resolve? I'm just trying to understand where he is coming from.
I do believe that, had Brodhead spoke up more publicly (or privately) at the beginning, SOME things would have changed. Would Nifong have proceeded with the case? Of course!
But I wonder if the tape of the racial slurs would have been given to the media or if the McFadyen email would have been released, or if the "rich, Duke daddies" or the "I get letters from women who were raped by Duke students" or the "Duke lacrosse players raping a black girl from Durham" or the "committee (DSED) who don't want Duke students to be indicted" comments would have been used. I think not. These comments have nothing to do with the case. They are directed to those in the community who have strong feelings against Duke and its students. And they remain unchallenged by Duke---to this day.
There is no way for us to know but, has Brodhead ever met with Nifong, or Bell, or Baker? He has to use his position to express to them the harm that Nifong's comments are bringing to Duke, and thus to Durham and the community. (Note that I am focusing on only Nifong's comments here, not the case.) The mayor seems to be a reasonable guy. I think he does understand. He didn't want Sharpton to come.
The danger here, as I see it, is that the Duke admin pushes off the blame onto the lax players and Nifong. I don't believe that Nifong would have gotten this far without some enablers.
Imo, Duke will always be a target for the activists in town and will be under the microscope for a while. Privately or publicly, the Duke admin has to deal with that.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 03:55 PM|
| WJDinNJ--I think you are absolutely right--critics of Brodhead have every right to criticize him. But I don't think he is relying on the group of 88 for advice--if you recall, the one rebuke that came from the administration was directed at one of the 88, in response to a call for action against the lax team. I think the administration has allowed its silence towards the group off 88 to be driven by its belief in freedom of speech. The admin at Duke, like at most universities, is loathe to criticize anything a faculty member says, no matter how outrageous, because they think that goes against the essence of freedom of speech. As far as getting advice from the law school, I have reason to believe they have.
Also, this may be common knowledge, but the hierarchy of a university cannot be compared to a corporation or virtually any other entity. The president, contrary to appearances, really has no authority over the faculty. If anything, it may be the other way around. Department chairs, and deans, have more authority over hiring, firing and tenure. However faculty members can affect the longevity of the president.
My own opinion on this is that this was such a unique situation that almost no one would have handled this "correctly." And we know, especially early on, there were loud demands for swift action on both sides--and these demands came from not only the community and the media, but alumni and parents as well. I agree that now that we know so many facts, and it is clear there has been significant misconduct that seems to have violated the rights of Duke students (on the part of the DA and the DPD), the president should speak out. I suspect the admin's concern about the community's perception of perceived interference is still driving the silence. And I don't see how anyone who has read anything on this case can honestly believe Nifong would have handled things any differently. Any statement from Brodhead early on would have played right into Nifong's hands--that Duke and Duke students felt they were entitled to special treatment. And, to Duke10MOm's comments--can you imagine Nifong saying "the duke administration is trying to protect the hooligans" or "duke thinks it can use its influence to buy off the DA's office." Nifong is stubborn, and he has tunnel vision--he would still have made every comment he made, and he would have had more material for sound-bites that would have played to the nation.
I think it is GOOD to continue trying to get statements from the admin supporting the players and the rights of Duke students. I just happen to think that the best way to do that is in a positive way. And I have a great deal of difficulty lumping Brodhead's actions in with Nifong's. The first I consider errors in judgment that were, at least early on, debatable. The second I consider to be significant breaches of ethics that violate the public's trust and consitute grounds for criminal charges.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 6 2006, 04:04 PM|
|To: Dukeparentx2 Professor Coleman has already spoken out concerning this case. Dr. Broadhead may not have much clout with the professors, but he certainly could, simply ask for legal advise and he has an excellent place to go and get that advice. I am sure if he reached out to the Duke School of Law, he would get advice. All he has to do is ask, which I do not think he has done.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 04:09 PM|
|WJDinNJ--do you have evidence to support your claim that he has not gotten advice from the law school? Because I have good reason to believe that, not only does he have ongoing legal advice regarding this situation, but that at least some of it has come from people at Duke law. Is my information incorrect?|
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 6 2006, 04:25 PM|
I know that is the reason. If I get a chance this week at an alumni forum I will suggest to Pres. B that since the election is over (it will be by then) that the fear of supportive statements being counterproductive should be completely outweighed by the good such a statement would do now.
I agree with everything you said in your 3:55 post, by the way.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 6 2006, 04:27 PM|
|To: Dukeparentx2 No, sir, I have no evidence to offer about his discussions with the School of Law, but the way he expresses himself, he just sounds like he has not taken any advice. I think that he could have stated that on this campus, just like in this country, "you are innocent until prove guilty". He has left the impression on a lot of people, by his words and deeds, that these former students are guilty. He should correct that impression.|
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 6 2006, 04:39 PM|
He's said the "innocent until proven guilty" stuff several times, maybe with the phrase "presumption of innocence"instead. Most of his critics want him to say more. Me, too, now that the full disclosure prosecution discovery has been released.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 04:48 PM|
| WDJinNJ: He HAS stated MANY times, and immediately upon the initial release of the story, that in this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty. There is no doubt about that. (You can check the Duke lacosse website for transcripts, if you wish.) In addition, when he has addressed this issue recently in public, he has also stated that new information continues to call into question the veracity of the charges, and that, if allegations prove to be false, there should be significant repurcussions for those who have allowed false charges to stand. I have heard this multiple times myself.
Many are not satisfied with those statements, wanting him to take a more aggressive stand in support of students' rights and challenging Nifong.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 6 2006, 05:05 PM|
Dr. Broadhead, I agree, needs to say more. He has more assets available to him then me and maybe you. He just seems to want to remain neutral, concerning this case. This will not instill confidence in other students or faculity, if a renegade prosecutor goes after any more students. Remember, Nifong threatened to indict other LAX players, for not speaking out, about what happened. I have always stated that if nothing happened, how can anyone come forward and speak out, about a non event. Dr. Broadhead, is either dumb, deaf and blind or ignoring the fact that have come out since this non event. This AV was going to hospitals seeking narcotics while pole dancing at a "gentlemans club". Dr. Broadhead has a responsibility to his University, the faculity and the students, not the City of Durham. He could have taken the same stance as Prof. Coleman and requested that Nifong, request a special prosecutor, for this case.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 6 2006, 05:27 PM|
| dukeparentx2: I never said in my post that Brodhead would convey to Nifong that Duke students are entitled to special treatment or that Duke is trying to protect the "hooligans." My post was regarding Nifong's inflammatory, stereotypical and vastly overgeneralized comments and I do believe that there are ways of expressing disapproval of those attacks, of denouncing inflammatory comments, of defending your school, and getting your point across.
(Do you think it is at all possible that silence on the part of Duke admin might contribute to the public sentiment that Duke students are guilty of all these stereotypes?)
Words are always subject to twisting by someone else. That's the downside of being a leader. It comes with the territory. You can only worry about so much. In the meantime, do the right thing---for the students, for the school, for the community. I get the feeling that there is a radical group in Durham who will always believe the worst of Duke students. Nothing will change their minds.
It is also clear that Brodhead needs to build a support base. Hence my question as to whether or not he meets on a regular basis with Bell, Baker, Chalmers, members of the City Council, etc.
|Posted by: strawberrylane Nov 6 2006, 05:32 PM|
Anyone want to comment on this one. Nifong accused of ignoring sexual harrasment in the DAs office
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 6 2006, 05:41 PM|
| The sexual harrassment claim story is on the AP wire as of about 1 1/2 hour ago. The web sites for N&O and the Herald-Sun have the story already. It's probably Prof. Johnson's post that put AP on it. They had to confirm with their own calls to Cannon before they could run the story. Ironically Cannon is the one who prosecuted Evans for the noise violation in June and Elmo for the shoplifting conspiracy. I wonder if she was forced by Nifong to do these?
Great timing Ashley! The poor SOB can't reply, certainly not in time for the election. It might not have much impact but every little bit helps, particularly with the undecideds.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 6 2006, 05:48 PM|
|Just a reminder to all here, get out and vote tomorrow.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 05:57 PM|
I think I understood your post--but I'm not sure you understood mine. You were making the point that perhaps if Brodhead had spoken up, Nifong would not have made so many inflammatory comments about the Duke players. My point was that, if Brodhead had spoken up, or had tried to meet with Nifong as you suggested, Nifong would have made even MORE inflammatory comments--and he would have accused Duke of trying to use its power to get preferential treatment for its students. The national press would have loved it!
I think I remember that Brodhead did meet with the mayor early on--he and the community leaders met at least once to try to calm the community.
I'm pretty confident Brodhead never met with Nifong, given his stated concern about interfering with the legal process. But even if he asked to meet Nifong, given that Nifong wouldn't meet with defense attorneys, the accused, or the AV, why would anyone think he would meet with Brodhead???
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 6 2006, 06:44 PM|
This is exactly what I would expect from Nifong and further proof that Nifong is using the race card to win elections. He rigged the photo array of the line up by not including fillers. He ignores a subordinate, complaining about "sexual harassment" and pursues a none existant rape case. Why, he needed to keep his job. If the NC Bar has the nerve to punish him, which I don't think they will, remember they are all lawyers, he is finished. He could not get a job flipping hamburgers at the local McDonalds. He is an absolute disgrace to all lawyers in this country and especially to the Justice System in NC. His lack of support for a fellow prosecutor is a disgrace. I just wonder who the original sexual harassment was against, perhaps someone hired after Nifong was appointed as DA, by the Governor. One of Nifongs' friends. Nifong, did not pursue the sexual harassment case, because he is to busy trying to frame the Duke LAX players.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 6 2006, 07:16 PM|
| dukeparentx2: I did understand your post. I just disagree that Nifong would have made as many inflammatory comments.
Nifong is not stupid. Bullies typically don't go up against other leaders---unless, of course, they are weak or fail to lead! I think Nifong took advantage of that perceived weakness. When Houston Baker and the Gang of 88 came out swinging, it looked like Brodhead was not an effective leader. Every action he took (or did not take) showed fear.
Has Nifong attacked James Coleman? Kristin Kimmel? Coach K? Coach Danowski? Did the "national press" print any headlines on Duke trying to get "preferential status" for their students after Coleman's remarks? (C'mon Brodhead, jump in! The water's fine!!)
When the DNA came back negative, it was the perfect time to come out stronger. Momentum began to build that something wasn't quite right with the "story." But later, when just about all of the discovery comes out, Brodhead speaks to "a night of unacceptable behavior" on 60 minutes! What was up with that?
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 6 2006, 07:26 PM|
|Duke10Mom--You should watch the "60 Minutes" out takes of Brodhead's interview. His comments were quite obviously heavily edited.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 6 2006, 07:37 PM|
|Duke10 Mom, you are absolutely correct. While Brodhead is President of Duke University, he is still a citizen. His words at the time this runaway train was leaving the station would have indeed made a huge difference to the corrupt Nifong who might have said to himself "I had better be careful just how far I take this hoax." Instead Brodhead sought to be an appeaser, Mr. Politically Correct, Mr. "why can't we all get along" and as a result he looked impotent and weak and therefore empowered the corrupt prosecution process that we have been witness to. There is much blame to ascribe to the Duke Administration, but it is not too late for them to find a way back - to finally say enough is enough. The silence continues, however.|
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 6 2006, 07:39 PM|
Nobody could edit Brodhead if he wanted to return to NCCU and tell them blunt out the guys are innocent.
Nobody could edit Brodhead if he put a letter in the Chroncle.
Nobody could edit Brodhead if he went live for an interview on WRAL.
Nobody could edit Brodhead if he sent a letter to all students and/or alums, and to the trustees.
If Brodhead really wants to get his message out, he can do that even without the MSM.
Everyone working on this case since April has (painfully) learned that.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 6 2006, 07:59 PM|
|I did see the "60" outtakes. He blamed Nifong, right?|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 6 2006, 08:28 PM|
| Duke 10 Mom, Brodhead has never outright blamed Nifong for anything. He has danced around the issue of the innocence of Reade, Collin and Dave, but certainly has not gone far enough to denounce the prosecutorial abuse of which we have all been a witness. He has indicated that he hoped the boys would prove their innocence at trial (which, by the way, as an educator I am shocked that he does not seem to know that the accused must be proven guilty). He has squandered numerous opportunities to speak out and be heard on the side of justice and he has cowared in the face of the Group of 88 and the leftist community that now holds Durham hostage.
In fairness to Dr. Brodhead, his tenure at Duke had started with a lot of support from students and alums. All of a sudden he is confronted with a crisis that even the most seasoned administrator would have found daughting. He was first and foremost embarassed and angry and granted his crisis management skills had not prepared him for the barrage of media scrutiny. Any reasonable person can cut him some slack on those points. In addition, as we have learned over a period of time, parties with strippers had taken place at Duke prior to this event, including by our esteemed basketball team (oh, that is probably a big no no to confess that one), and for some reason those parties were either ignored by the administration or had not come to the attention of the administration. Now comes the Lacrosse team and they have been excoriated for "bad behavior" when such behavior has been ignored by so many other groups. Thus the hypocrisy.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 6 2006, 08:47 PM|
| firefly: Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I should clarify that Brodhead seemed to point to Nifong to explain away his own confusion as to whether the allegations were true in the "60" outtake. He made reference to Nifong's confidence, as the DA, that a rape happened. (Will have to get the exact comments, but you get my drift...)
Interesting twist here, btw.
Brodhead met with all the co-captains, who looked him in the eye, apologized for the party but said that the allegations were false.
And Nifong said a rape happened but he never spoke to the accuser about it.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 6 2006, 09:22 PM|
|One last reminder to Durham residents and Duke students, vote tomorrow. Let's get rid of Nifong.|
|Posted by: observing1 Nov 7 2006, 07:34 AM|
If they were innocent until proven guilty why are 2 of the players suspended from school?
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 7 2006, 08:18 AM|
|Joan Foster has penned a nice piece in liestoppers today. Just to paraphrase we will party tonight if Nifong goes, and if he stays we all fight harder.|
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 7 2006, 08:41 AM|
|KC has a great summary of all of Nifong's comments today.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 7 2006, 08:49 AM|
|Observing1 - The Duke Three Are Innocent. Two are suspended because Duke and perhaps other universities have a rule that if a student is charged with a felony it is an automatic suspension pending outcome. Their suspension in no way implies guilt on the part of the university.|
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 7 2006, 09:31 AM|
| I took oberving1's question as a suggestion that the students should not have been suspended.
Apparently universities (not just Duke) take the position that anyone charged with a felony violent crime is too dangerous to have around, as a blanket policy. I guess they don't want to be burdened with the task of sorting out whether the charges have any merit at all, so put in a blanket policy.
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 7 2006, 09:49 AM|
|Duke09parent - you are correct. I should have read the question more carefully. I inaccurately read it as a statement. Thanks|
|Posted by: Advocate Nov 7 2006, 12:01 PM|
| Destine Couch is the ADA accused of sexual harassment -- what a surprise. His mom (of the Black group that recently decided, in the face of overwhelming objective evidence recommending against it, to endorse Nifong's re-election) made a series of donations to Nifong's campaign, including one right after the initial allegation was brought to Nifong. Again, how shocking. It reminds me of Claude Rains in Casablanca -- "I'm shocked, shocked, to find out that there is gambling going on at this establishment." "Your winnings, sir." "Yes, thank you."
How can the Black citizens of Durham not see how they're being used to serve the agenda of Mike Nifong and now of the Couch family? How can this electorate possibly return this disgrace to office? Fingers crossed against that eventuality.
Speak up, Cash.
|Posted by: AnotherDukeMom Nov 7 2006, 12:31 PM|
|Are any of you in Durham? The weather looks hideous today. Maybe some of the Nifong supporters will stay home... (we can only hope!)|
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 7 2006, 12:35 PM|
Some do, some don't. The University of N. Dakota permitted two students accused of raping another student to remain on campus for a couple of weeks, until their DNA tests came back. It was only then, after the DNA tests were returned (positive), that the local DA decided to indict them. And only then that they were suspended.
(I guess they do things differently in ND.)
But this still does not explain why
1) Seligmann and Finnerty should not be permitted to take as many credits as possible elsewhere and transfer them to Duke later; or
2) why, considering the extraordinary circumstances in this case, they could not be readmitted to Duke now.
A legalist might quibble, but this is not an ordinary case; and the purpose of rules and laws is not that they be followed for their own sake, but because they are an attempt to create or protect a just result. Where a just result is clearly being impeded or even thwarted by the applications of rules/laws, the rules ought to be set aside on a one-time basis, as the need arises.
That's why we have human leaders instead of machines to make our decisions for us; why the President has the power of pardon; and why the Duke President has the authority to set aside the general practices of the university should he find that justice and fairness are better served by so doing.
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 7 2006, 01:04 PM|
|Quasimodo, you are a rational person. One thing to consider: would Durham at this moment in time be the right place to have Reade and Collin in school?|
|Posted by: DurhamMommy Nov 7 2006, 01:30 PM|
| Hey there. It's raining miserably here and has been since about 9am. My husband and I missed the rain for the polls which was great. Unfortunately, two sweet young Cheek supporters at the corner of Fulton and Erwin were standing in the rain. Poor, soggy things. I asked them if they needed anything, they said "no" but I, being a mom, went to Eckerd and bought them emergency rain ponchos. They were extremely grateful and sweet in giving me thanks, but I just want them to know how much I, as a Durham resident, thank them for putting themselves out there in the Durham democratic (?) process and taking a stand. I imagine they will go on to do great things since they really care.
|Posted by: usa Nov 7 2006, 02:06 PM|
Durham Mommy you sound like a very kind person.
|Posted by: usa Nov 7 2006, 02:09 PM|
| Duke 2006 year books now out. How do Duke parents of 2006 graduates feel about this as a permanent momento of their kids 4 years at Duke???
After a record-setting 17-3 season last year that ended in a heart-breaking 8-9 loss to Johns Hopkins University in the National Championship game, the Mens Lacrosse Team set its sights yet again for a trip to Philadelphia and a shot at the national title. Despite losing first-team All American Aaron Fenton to graduation, the Blue Devils returned 9 starters and 27 lettermen and earned a pre-season #2 ranking.
The Blue Devils had jumped out to a 5-1 start when allegations of rape, robbery, kidnapping, strangulation and racist remarks arose after a March 13th party held at an off-campus house leased to captains of the team. As the investigation began, the team continued to practice, defeating rival University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 11-8 and losing to then third-ranked Cornell 7-11.
Protests ensued as various media swarmed the campus. Some billed the incident a "perfect storm" of race, class, gender and town-gown relations. On March 22nd, 46 members of the lacrosse team were ordered to give DNA samples and a search of the off-campus house was conducted. Athletic Director Joe Alleva suspended the Blue Devils' next two games. He cited the team's irresponsible behavior of under-age drinking and hiring two exotic dancers, both of which the team acknowledged had occurred at the party. University President Richard Brodhead then announced the further suspension of the season until the case was concluded.
On April 4th, head coach Mike Pressler resigned. Coach Pressler was a three-time ACC Coach of the Year and the 2005 USILA National Coach of the Year. He led the Mens Lacrosse Team to a 153-82 record, 3 ACC Titles and 10 NCAA Tournament berths in 16 seasons at Duke.
Since then, at least one player has been suspended and three players have been indicted for 1st degree forcible rape, 1st degree sexual offense and kidnapping. The court date is May 15th. The initial DNA tests returned negative, although results of a new round of tests are still pending. A committee asked by President Brodhead to investigate the conduct of the lacrosse program has recommended that the team be reinstated for the next school year. The members of the team's junior class have all stated that they will remain at Duke for their senior year.
Written 5/15 - Information compiled from the NY Times, CNN.com, the Chronicle and http://www.goduke.com
|Posted by: usa Nov 7 2006, 02:14 PM|
|Posted by: DurhamMommy Nov 7 2006, 03:18 PM|
| I'm just a mom who would want some kind stranger to help my kids if I couldn't be there. So in honor of Reade's, Collin's, and Dave's moms, I voted for Cheek.
Not all Durhamites are toads.
Did you all see the photos of Nifong hijacking Bob Harris? The man is piece of garbage.
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 7 2006, 03:23 PM|
| To Durham Mommy- what a nice, nice thing to do! They're all our children, aren't they? We just borrow them for a while.
USA- how sad to see that article on the lacrosse team in the 2006 yearbook. I sometimes wonder how all of the vituperative Nifongistas can live with themselves when they know how many innocent people they have smeared. Nifong, himself is, in my opinion, a narcissist with no conscience at all- an incurable condition.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 7 2006, 03:36 PM|
|When Bob Harris called the durham police to complain they did what they nomally do when the arrived "NOTHING at all". I hope the rest of Durham now knows what they will be getting if Nifong goes back to the DA's office.|
|Posted by: RevJames Nov 7 2006, 04:58 PM|
If you happen to watch the news in Durham tonight, could you keep us on the site up to date on any exit polls, or any other info on the election for the DA?
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 7 2006, 05:08 PM|
|USA re 2006 Yearbook - If the editorial board of the yearbook would actually allow this entry, they should be tarred, feathered and run out of Duke on a rail. How totally unprofessional. In light of this, the 2007 book should have to include an entry that the three lacrosse players were wrongfully accused and prosecuted, but that loyal Duke fans, lacrosse families, friends, fellow students, and people from across this country supported them and they were vindicated. In addition, I hope that there will be a footnote in bold face type that the real criminal in the affair was the Durham DA and that he was removed from office by the local community and the hard work of Duke students who registered and voted in Durham County. That would be a fitting end of the story.|
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 7 2006, 05:40 PM|
|I read today that one of the group of 88 is not on campus this year. Is this true? I am referring to Stern. Can someone please verify this. If this is true please post a link to the story.|
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 7 2006, 05:52 PM|
|I think he's on sabbatical, but I'm not positive- Starn.|
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 7 2006, 07:34 PM|
On your choices, I pick #2. The university could say there are extraordinary circumstances (the DNA results) which justify the boys' return to campus and their studies (if they wish) for the spring semester. Of course, the problem with that is that if the case goes to trial they will be out of class and focussed on the trial for weeks. It would hardly be fair for the families to spend $20,000+ only to have to withdraw later in the term. Also, if they are reinstated only to have to withdraw, do they use up some of their NCAA eligibility?
I don't think Duke needs (or even should) accept credits from Podunk Community College (I don't know where the boys are taking courses).
wral.com supposedly will have race by race returns on its website.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 7 2006, 07:52 PM|
|duke09parent Collin is taking classes at Hofstra Sorry about the spelling and I don't know about Reade.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 7 2006, 07:57 PM|
| Duke09parent--I agree with you about accepting credits from other schools. While these are special circumstances, a Duke degree has to mean that the courses were taken at Duke--and making an exception would set a precedent that could cause a lot of problems. I have heard of students who have transferred out and then back in again, and I would think that would be an option.
I would hope Duke would find a reason to allow the boys back in the spring if they wish to come. Parents can buy tuition insurance to protect their investment if there is an early withdrawal, but I doubt NCAA eligibility can be protected if they actually play some games and then have to withdraw.
I would assume (and hope) that someone in student affairs has gone through some options with the families.
|Posted by: DurhamMommy Nov 7 2006, 08:01 PM|
RevJames...will try but my toddler has a GI thing going on right now...wish me luck dealing with that. (At least my little one has an excuse for behaving like a baby...unlike Nutfong!)
|Posted by: strawberrylane Nov 7 2006, 08:37 PM|
Looks like Nifong Wins
DISTRICT ATTORNEY 14
You may vote for 1
(WITH 53 OF 59 PRECINCTS COUNTED 89.83%)
Mike Nifong (DEM). . . . . . . . 24,479 48.75
Lewis A. Cheek (UNA). . . . . . . 19,816 39.46
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 5,917 11.78
This is board of elections web site
|Posted by: strawberrylane Nov 7 2006, 08:40 PM|
Looks like the write-in candidate helped Nifong win this one
|Posted by: usa Nov 7 2006, 08:51 PM|
|I hope Monks and his supporters are real proud of themselves.|
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 7 2006, 08:53 PM|
| I was at the polls. Many folks were angry at Cheek saying he would not serve if elected. Some said they had signed his petition and felt betrayed. So, Monks was a spoiler but Cheeks did his part being a suck-up to Nifong.
It poured. It was quite a miserable day. Many came to vote.
It is a true shame the two camps could not have reached an agreement and one drop out.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 7 2006, 08:59 PM|
| I guess we can expect Nifong to be even MORE unbearable from this day forward (as if that is possible!)
Absolutely NO chance of Brodhead doing any speaking up now...
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 7 2006, 09:03 PM|
| Monks is truly the spoiler. Cheek had 10,000 signatures on his petition. I hope Monks understands that this is his last chance at Durham politics and for the people who were stupid enough to think their vote counted today when they cast it for Monks, take a crash course in Political Science 101.
On a better note, We are all disappointed, but not vanquished. I would suggest that we all go back and read that wonderful piece by Joan Foster in today's Liestoppers. It my deep belief that when evil is committed in secret, God reveals it in public. It is not over for Nifong. We will live to rejoice another day.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 7 2006, 09:07 PM|
| It may be better for the outcome of the case, at least, that Nifong won. If he had lost he might have let it drag on until he was out of office in January. And who knows what the new appointee might have done--for sure, he would have had to look at the matter for awhile. . . another month?
And maybe Nifong has intended to drop it all along, and was only holding onto it until after the election.
We'll see. . .
At any rate, nothing about the nature of the case changes.
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 7 2006, 09:07 PM|
| Mike Nifong (i) (D) 24,805 49%
Lewis Cheek (I) 20,189 40%
Steve Monks 6,050 12%
Precincts Reporting - 93%
From WRAL site
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 7 2006, 09:09 PM|
|I just sent a letter to the editor of the H-S I don't think they will publish it, since they are pro Nutfong.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 7 2006, 09:11 PM|
|After the country has digested this election result, the Duke Administration will finally understand the price they will pay for their silence. Who will want to send their child to a University in a town that is controlled by corrupt politics, corrupt police, corrupt judicial system and a population that doesn't seem to care. Perhaps Duke's best move would be to offer a class in Voodoo Politics and Pole Dancing.|
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 7 2006, 09:12 PM|
| It my deep belief that when evil is committed in secret, God reveals it in public.
There may be more revelations coming, which would not have emerged had Nifong been defeated. Look at what has already been uncovered about heroin-politics in Durham because of this case.
The bad guys are in for more bad times, because with this case they have shot themselves in the foot and have only themselves to blame.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 7 2006, 09:17 PM|
|Firefly: That's what frightens me. Did 25,OOO Durhamites really vote for Nifong, or did they just vote against Duke, its (outsider) students and their parents?|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 7 2006, 09:25 PM|
|Duke10Mom, The people that voted for Nifong voted for a prosecution of the three accused. I really believe that when the precincts are evaluated, it will be clear who voted for Nifong and why. The demographics will tell us most of the story. The part that puzzles me the most is the 12% for Monks. There has to be a few available beds on the psyche ward at Duke Medical Ctr. for those people. It is also quite possible that among black voters, there was an effort to deliberately write in Monks to dilute the Cheek vote. Nothing would surprise me in Baghdad south.|
|Posted by: local Nov 7 2006, 09:28 PM|
|Duke10Mom: A large number of Durham voters follow the guidance of a three strong political groups. Each group asks their members to vote for a recommended slate. It is classic machine politics. Two groups gave their members a slate that included Nifong. They did so after meeting privately with the candidates, so the public doesn't know the detailed reasons, except by speculation. The third major group issued no guidance, saying their leadership was divided. With this situation, it is notable that Nifong received less than half the vote total.|
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 7 2006, 09:37 PM|
| Understood. I just can't get over the 25,000 Nifong votes---don't really care where they came from or who they are. It is less than half, but is a staggering amount with all that has come out about this case.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 7 2006, 09:37 PM|
| From a poster over at Talk Left , and worth repeating :
Would you rather be in Joe Cheshire's shoes tonight or in Mike Nifong's . . .
It ain't over till the fat lady sings. . .
|Posted by: usa Nov 7 2006, 09:56 PM|
|Does anyone know how many people voted in the last DA election? I don't mean the primary with Nifong, Black and Bishop.|
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 7 2006, 10:04 PM|
| Mike Nifong (i) (D) 26,116 49%
Lewis Cheek (I) 20,875 39%
Steve Monks 6,193 12%
Precincts Reporting - 100%
It was a long shot from the beginning. Other than publicity to get his name out there it's hard to imagine why Monks stayed in it.
Next best hope is the judge tossing the photo i.d. Nifong will push this case to trial unless the accuser withdraws. I still believe that will happen but not until shortly before trial.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 7 2006, 10:08 PM|
| Where is the motion to suppress the IDs? Last I heard the defense team said they will ask for a trial date at the next hearing (Dec. 15.)
I thought the accuser would withdraw if Nifong lost the elction. Don't think it will happen now.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 7 2006, 10:09 PM|
|It might be wise politically for someone (in Durham) to quickly position these results properly with the media. While Nifong won the election, the "anti-Nifong" vote was larger than his vote--clearly the citizens of Durham want him to review the lax case, and to remember that his obligation as DA is to see that justice is served, NOT to obtain convictions. Either a spokesperson for Cheeks, the ABN campaign, or even Monks could do this. Also, letters to the editor could address the same point.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 7 2006, 10:37 PM|
| As an earlier post mentioned--many who voted for Nifong were probably voting a straight Democratic ticket--the easiest thing to do. We all think this election was about the DA race--but having been part of many elections myself, I know many people who vote are completely unaware of the issues surrounding the individual races. Many who vote in every election come and pull the party lever without even reading the names. So Nifong's 25000 votes mean absolutely nothing. However--those who voted for Cheeks and Monks were definitely voting for an issue--they could not vote for either with a straight party vote. So their combined 26000 votes WERE a statement about Nifong's handling of the case, while Nifong's votes represent a lot of party loyalty. That is why someone needs to position this immediately--with soundbites for the press. The vote really showed that the majority of the citizens of Durham do not approve of Nifong's handling of the Duke case, and the RIGHT thing for Nifong to do would be to request a special prosecutor who the community can trust, and who can take an unbiased look at the case.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 7 2006, 10:49 PM|
| The ONLY way for Nifong to vindicate himself and protect himself from civil action is to take this to trial. He can't let anyone else see his files on the case.
No way is he stepping aside---he's going all the way for the win.
|Posted by: SC Mom Nov 7 2006, 11:16 PM|
| If anyone thinks that Democrat politicians care about the little people, you need look no farther than Durham, North Carolina to see the truth about a population that is heavily Democratic (understatement!). Monk was a joke because he had no experience, but 12% of the vote shouldn't have prevented Cheek from winning if Durham was a reasonable town and Democrats were reasonable people, but they aren't.
I'm a native of Durham, and I've NEVER been more ashamed to say that than I am today. I moved away 25 years ago and I'd never move back.
The greatest shame isn't that Niphong won, it's that the judge hasn't thrown the case out based on numerous irregularities, it's that the newspapers and politicians protect a criminal - Ms. Mangum - while continuing to torment three innocent young men.
We used to call that corruption, now we call it politics as usual in Durham, NC.
If you're from Durham and you don't like what I've just said, then change your town. If you don't like Republicans, then you should start an independent party. But if you think that the Democrat Party machine in Durham is ever going to change, think again. It hasn't changed since the Civil War and it isn't going to start. That's why Durham is a pit even though it sits at the doorstep of the Research Triangle.
|Posted by: DurhamMommy Nov 7 2006, 11:33 PM|
| Hey SC Mom...did you notice that Monks is Republican? And that he said early on if he thought he had no chance to win he would withdraw? And when the polls came out showing him with two percent of the vote he still didn't pull out?
Did you also notice that the majority of voters in the Democratic town of Durham voted AGAINST the Democratic candidate and in favor of a guy who was unable to take the job and a Republican Spoiler?
Go read KC Johnson's post tonight, and remember, he, like me, is a Democrat and wants to see justice done by these boys.
For once and for all, this is NOT about party politics, it is about justice being served for three young men who were used as pawns by a criminally insane prostitute and a megolomaniac narcissist DA. Most of Durham saw that and tried. Lewis Cheek is an honorable man. Monks is not.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 7 2006, 11:50 PM|
| But where did Nifong pick up votes? He only had about 11,000 in the primary. Freda Black asked her supporters to vote Cheek.
Did Nifong pick up the Republicans?
|Posted by: DurhamMommy Nov 8 2006, 06:58 AM|
| Hey Duke10 Mom. Where did he get the votes? Quick answer: race-baiting. Longer answer, Go read KC Johnson's excellent post today on the subject.
AGAIN, this is not about party politics. This is about getting three young men out of harm's way. So strap on the body armor, looks like we've still got a job to do.
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 8 2006, 10:07 AM|
| I stood at a poll from 6:30 am until 7:30 pm yesterday in relentless rain. I approached everyone who came to vote and gave them a "Recall Nifong/Vote Cheek" card. What I saw was many thumbs -up from white folks. No black person did that. The older black couples smiled and were polite toward me. Young black men were a mixed bag-- some being friendly; others not. No black young girl was receptive, and some mumbled things to me, under their breaths while tossing me hostile looks. ( oh well)
The folks helping Nifong passed out lists to black voters telling them how to vote. These yellow flyers said which pacs supported which candidates. All black folks got one and many already ahd them in their hands as they came tot he poll.
Many white men were visibly angry when I asked them to vote for Cheek. One called him a "criminal". One called him a "suck-up" for Nifong. One called him a "partisan." Several said they would not vote for someone who had stated clearly that he would not run. Many called him "dishonest." There was more vitriol towards Cheek than towards Monks for running. I did hear one white man call Monks a spoiler to the girl giving out his materials.
Mr. Nifong and his wife showed up for a short while, and one white man got out of his car and came up to him and called him a "disgrace" and "corrupt." I thought a fist fight might break out. But, the man simmered down, and Mike Nifong never erupted.
My take -on this is that most everyone knows that it is a hoax. Blacks just wanted the story to be true. They bought into it. I think it is very hard for them to admit that "whitey" is not the evil monster they wanted him to be as symbolized by the boys. They look at this as "us versus them." They do not look at the individual rihgts of the boys.
Durham is a Democratic town. Many vote the straight ticket and only those very aware of the case thought to blacken in the oval next to Cheek's name. Many Republicans are only going to vote for a Republican. Some would have voted for Cheeks if he has committed to serving. Some felt that it was just a trick to keep a Democrat in power. They felt that Cheeks was in Nifong's pocket.
Yes, Monks was a spolier. Obviously. However, it is not that simple. If Cheeks had not let down those who signed the petition urging him to vote, there would have been MUCH more support for the man. Oh yeah ,"COWARD" was another word used. And one woman said, "He betrayed me and all the others who signed his petition."
So, I was enlightened! I had no idea when I said I would help at the polls of the animosity toward Cheek by whites in Durham who had previously supported him and who want these boys free!
I did have several conversations with folks and, I think, that Nifong's win may not be all gloom and doom, after all. Now, he can be tried and end up in jail after the lacrosse case is dealt with. Now, nothing is stopping Mr. Brodhead from speaking up. And now, Duke knows how the majority in Durham feels. And the majority wanted Nifong out. The vote was split but its total is a majority, and the majority is saying they support the innocence of the boys. Unfortunately, it is a very clear demarcation between the blacks and the whites. To view it otherwise is to live in WONDERLAND!
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 8 2006, 10:20 AM|
|LIZ it sounds like NC had a good turn out. I was not allowed to cast a vote last night here in my state, do to the fact they had no set up for the disabled. We also had a hot ticket but not for the same reason as Durham. It was reported that Nifong won the black vote in all areas of Durham.|
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 8 2006, 10:26 AM|
| Wow Liz! That post was very enlightening. Still, I do not understand how some voters' disgust with Cheek could overshadow Nifong's misconduct and outright dishonesty in this case. Never mind making Durham look ridiculous in the eyes of the nation.
I would be SHOCKED if Brodhead or the Duke admin spoke up now---they will never be seen criticizing a sitting DA who has half the town backing him. Also, the demarcation between black and white will add to their reluctance. That same issue will prevent any agency from reprimanding him. (I think everyone will just continue holding their breath hoping for acquittals at trial---like THAT will resolve anything...?)
Maybe when the applications numbers are down enough, Duke admin will be forced to speak up. Maybe they don't want to be a nationally-ranked university anyway. Maybe their interests are being served if they are just "City of Durham University?"
P.S. Huge hugs for all your help!
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 8 2006, 10:32 AM|
|Cash Michaels, how does it feel this morning to have watched your little empty headed puppets do the Democrats bidding yesterday in Durham. There they were in lock step with their little yellow flyers telling them which lever to pull. Was there an attendant present to change diapers also?|
|Posted by: usa Nov 8 2006, 10:39 AM|
|LIZ thank you for your post and thank you for standing out in the rain for all of us. You are another hero.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 8 2006, 12:25 PM|
|Liz, That was a long shift at the polls! I've been involved in campaigns several times--twice for my own campaigns. We typically assign people 2 hour shifts, but I guess they were short on volunteers. But, as surprising as some reactions were, most voters have made up their minds before arriving, and almost everyone avoids eye contact with the opposition. Here you had heightened emotions as well, AND the effect of the national anti-republican vote. All things considered, it was a fantastic turnout by the ABN group, and clearly the voters who really voted on the DA issue were against Nifong. A substantial part of Nifong's vote was probably straight-party ticket, and probably there were a lot more of them (than in typical midterms) because of national issues.|
|Posted by: duke09parent Nov 8 2006, 12:35 PM|
| I've tried not to be depressed about this vote. I try to tell myself that this was a very long shot solution, so it's falure should not be depressiing. I try to repeat Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." But I let myself hope, after the 60 Minutes piece and the late breaking story of Nifong's failure/refusal to deal with sexual harrassment in his office, that reason and self-interest would prevail among enough of a majority of Durham voters to vote Nifong out.
Clearly a majority of them, though slim majority, see the injustsice of this case, so I try to take heart in that. I also accept the idea that many votes were cast as slate voting, so those voting for congressional candidates who only cared about voting against the "Republican" war just cast their votes for Democrats
But I keep coming back to the thought that the people with enough civic responsibility to go to the polls occasionally read about the case and occasionally watch t.v. about the case. If a well publicized national news program comes on about their town, I would expect them to watch it, or at least talk to someone who watched it. So they have to be aware that the best evidence of rape, DNA, supports someone else having sex with CGM, rape or not, instead of these boys. And they have to know that the next best evidence, the word of the accuser, is so damaged by her multiple stories and evidence of contradictions that it is incapable of being believed without rank racial prejudice.
So I come to the sad and depressing belief that very large numbers of voters (much less those folk who by education and apathy don't bother to vote) in Durham simplified their vote to poor black woman accuser vs. rich white Duke boys and voted their racist hearts. For them the case IS is about race; it's about getting whitey whenever they can, even if it means voting for a honky.
I'll get over this feelling and eventually come back to believing that the best thing is to support color blind due process and justice over hate and prejudice, but today it is hard.
|Posted by: dcnc1987 Nov 8 2006, 12:36 PM|
| If you are interested to see the break-downs by precinct see:
I realize many of you are not familiar with Durham and the polling locations but my read of it (I live in Durham) was that the voters were divided along racial lines.
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 8 2006, 12:48 PM|
|dcnc1987 Thanks for the break down. It was reported in the wral that Nifong won all of the black vote in Durham county. So it did come down to the race issue. Nifong beat the heak out of it and he will continue to.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 8 2006, 12:57 PM|
|We should not be surprised at the voting demographics. Did you actually expect it to be different. No wonder NC is No. 48 in education.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 8 2006, 01:05 PM|
|To Duke09parent and others--I really don't think we can read too much about people's opinions into this vote. I don't want to be a broken record, but I have often been appalled at how many people are actually completely uninformed when they vote on important issues--and I'm not talking about national issues. As I've said, I have been involved in many local elections, some that involved very emotional, important local issues--a couple that have torn a community apart, have been front page news for months, and resulted in record high voter turnouts. Arriving at the polls would be one after another voter who knew how they were going to vote, but actually had read very little about the topic, including many senior citizens (and others) who did not know a single name on the ballot--(they would vote the ticket...) Cheek and Monk votes can only be explained in one way--but Nifong votes include a lot of "different" votes--some against Bush, some simply for Democrats, some who actually care about the DA race but have limited information about the facts of the case, and some who actually are informed but support Nifong, however warped that may seem to us.|
|Posted by: LIZ Nov 8 2006, 01:44 PM|
| Dear Dukeparentx2:
Yes, indeed, it was a long day for me--13 hours of standing holding an umbrella in pouring rain for the better part of the day while distributing cards that showed folks clearly how to mark their ballots for Lewis Cheek. I am amazed that I held up.
No, there was no relief because there were not enough of us to be spread around to 50 precincts. ( And the Duke kids were placed near the university.) The Nifong people did it in shifts, and I found that most of them were lawyers, like you. Also, the other folks handing out cards for judges were also lawyers. The woman campaigning for Monks was a friend of his, not a lawyer. Monks showed up, too ,to campaign for himself. He is a very high-energy type, who would say " How 'bout those Eagles?" to each black man he saw.
I had many interesting conversations during my long stay with interesting folks in the know. But, some of what was told me was told in confidence, and I will not divulge that.
I have NEVER done this before. I am not a lawyer. I did it because the Duke kids backed Cheek. I followed their lead. Duke U. is close to my heart, and the treatment of these boys by the justice system is despicable. So, I have followed this case and tried to help. And, Dukeparentx2 ,I am very stiff and sore today. You are right,; most minds are already made up, but I do not think it hurt for me to go up to each person and ask each person to RECALL Nifong. It made each voter think-- for a second. And many voters turned to me and said "Thank you" in whispery tones. Many seemed genuinely appreciative of the "Recall Nifong/Vote Cheek" effort. This was not lost on the Nifong supporters passing out cards.
And thank you for your concern, Dukeparentx2. Today I am resting up! lol
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 8 2006, 02:11 PM|
| This case has never been about "boorish" lacrosse players, a "night of highly unacceptable behavior," or about race, class, or gender. It certainly isn't about rape.
This is what the Duke admin don't get. They want to believe that the damage to Duke's reputation and Durham was CAUSED by the party and by the lacrosse players behavior. That is because they don't want to address the real burning issue---that many, many in Durham have a strong dislike of Duke and its students. (Maybe that part is indeed about race and "perceived" class.) There doesn't seem to be any "buy-in" on the part of anyone in Durham with any influence. (I am new to the school so these are my initial impressions.)
This has clearly simmered for a long time and donating $5 million to the Performing Arts Center won't change that.
Is it largely due to the parties off-campus? Is it because a few Duke kids had the ALE charges aginst them dismissed when fellow NCCU students paid the fine?
Brodhead needs to press the flesh in Durham (I AM assuming he hasn't done that.) He must try to build a support base there. He also needs to get Durham to feel Duke's pain. If admissions suffers, Durham needs to feel that too. Duke needs to save every nickel it can to entice highly-qualified applicants who normally would be scared off by Durham. Duke should reneg on the $5 million too. There are higher priorities at play now. Rebuilding the reputation of the school should come first; Durham's needs second.
I can't dismiss the results of the election as easily. In any event, Duke senior officials need to make some long-overdue changes in the way they do business with Durham. The status-quo clearly isn't working...
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 8 2006, 02:26 PM|
|dukeparentx2 and Liz - you make two disturbing observations in your comments. First, that someone could actually vote Nifong and see this as "anti-Bush". Secondly, that lawyers were working for and voting for Nifong.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 8 2006, 02:44 PM|
|Duke 10 Mom - Why is there such a strong anti-Duke sentiment in Durham? Perhaps instead of pressing the flesh in Durham, Brodhead and the Administration should show the community the economic impact that Duke has on the city. It's not just about a gift for the performing arts center, what about employment. Where would these Duke haters be working if not for the University? Durham should be proud that this is one of the top universities in the country and see it as an opportunity to showcase the city instead of caving to petty jealousy. Unfortunately, the University will take the road that most liberal thinkers take and that's make a wholesale effort to buy the city's favor, i.e., please love us - we will initiate more entitlement programs.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 8 2006, 02:57 PM|
| To firefly--My point about people voting against Nifong because they are voting against Bush was about voting mentality and nothing more. Many people really are not informed at all about issues--many don't read the front page of the paper regularly. So people come to vote and vote the whole Democratic ticket because they always have, and this time many more came to vote than usual (in a midterm) because of the anti-Bush sentiment. These people then vote the party line, because they KNOW they don't know anything about the candidates for individual races. It is VERY easy to vote a straight ballot (usually requiring one decision only--you flip one switch, mark one box...) and people do that without ANY consideration to the individual races. Nifong HAD to have picked up a bunch of votes from people who just didn't care that much about the DA race.
Duke10Mom--I do not live in Durham, but I am familiar with Duke. Not all Durhamites resent Duke, and I highly doubt it is even a significant minority. But, like anywhere, a few vocal activists can make it seem like the majority do. I know many people who live in Durham--some went to Duke but not all--that respect Duke and its students. Brodhead HAS been working hard to improve Town-Gown relations, as did Nan before him. In fact, Duke has been ahead of many of its peers (Yale, for example) in recognizing the importance of developing a symbiotic relationship between the college and the town. There are many examples of positive interactions between the two. Duke has been very involved in Habitats for Humanity, and Duke students have helped to build dozens of houses in poorer areas of Durham, for which the residents and the city have been very appreciative. Duke is the larger employer by far--in fact I think it is one of the largest employers in the state when you count all Duke-related entities. This whole situation could have happened anywhere, as far as the attitude of the city towards the students. What made this unique, and caused it to take on a life of its own, was the personality of this particular DA and his specific political circumstances, IMHO.
|Posted by: usa Nov 8 2006, 04:24 PM|
You are an angel. I would have been with you in the rain, but although I tried there was no one to watch my children that day.
Message relayed to me from RNVC was the purpose of the campaign was to send a message. In that RNVC definitely succeeded. Liz you should be very proud of your contribution as we are of you.
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 8 2006, 04:33 PM|
|I know a number of students who also stood in the rain for 9 hours holding Cheek signs and greeting voters. DSED had a very successful voter registration campaign and deserve our praise once again for their success in such a short time period. Thanks to all of them who worked yesterday. We know that these students are disappointed, but this campaign is by no means a failure. There is more work to be done and we are counting on our students to be the trailblazers.|
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 8 2006, 04:40 PM|
| Disagree that this would have happened anywhere. I sincerely doubt that there is another "Nifong-type" DA out there, but isolating the problem to Nifong alone is overly simplistic. As I've said before, Nifong wouldn't have been able to get as far as he did without help. Nifong feeds off his power base in Durham. It is there and it is significant. Unfortunately, some comes from within Duke itself.
Yale is a bad example. (I'm from the NYC area.) The demographics are different. Much more diversity up here and people here aren't hung up about locals vs. "outsiders." That must be a Durham thing. Of course, many schools have town-gown problems but I doubt any town up here would get away with throwing kids in jail for loud noise violations. Or, with selective prosecution. In this case, we have seen a CONCERTED effort to attack Duke kids. I have NEVER seen a local paper throw personal attacks (particularly where serious charges are pending) at ANY college kids for anything they have done. That came as a real shock to me, especially releasing the 911 call on the racial slurs and the MacFadyen email. Even when I heard them, I thought they were irrelevant, but deliberately released to be inflammatory. The news reports up here are factual, and that's it.
I lived off-campus in a very upscale community in New England for 2 years in college. NOT ONCE did I encounter the town police ANYWHERE. They were never called. (And I went to some great parties!) What kind of "adult" calls the police for loud noise? Or drinking? With all the real crime in Durham, they seem to be implying that public urination and drinking takes priority over murders and shootings.
I did not mean to imply that all Durhamites resent Duke. I'm not referring to the local activists, either. (Victoria Peterson and the Trinity park residents.) I'm talking about the mayor, the Chief of Police, the City Manager, members of the City Council, and other working professionals, etc. If there were truly a "significant majority" of those Durhamites who support Duke, where is the outrage? Where is the pressure on those Durham officials? Nifong knew he could get away with making so many outrageous comments about Duke students because he knew Duke did not have enough support in the community to stop him. Even I can't blame him for that. Heck, he even had the "help" of the Kooky 88! The only evidence of outrage and action was the RN-VC campaign. And, of course, the bloggers---mostly "outsiders."
You are preaching to the choir on all the good works Duke and their students have done for Durham. It is truly remarkable. The key word here is "symbiotic." Somehow, Durham is not getting the meaning of the word from Duke. Maybe it's in the delivery.
|Posted by: RevJames Nov 8 2006, 04:42 PM|
|I keep reading about Nifong either being suspended or disbarred after this case is over. Does anyone know who filed a complaint to the NC Bar or is this just all guess work, that someone did?|
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 8 2006, 04:51 PM|
|Rev. James I filed a complaint and so did a lot of other people.|
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 8 2006, 05:30 PM|
| Duke10parent,You apparently know a very different Yale that I do. I also am from CT area--and have some reasons to know Yale very well. There are real town-gown issues there that they have just begun to address. There are safety issues, race issues and there are groups of locals who resent the elite students. Trinity College in Hartford has similar problems. I really don't believe that the Duke/Durham issue is worse than other schools in urban settings--and better than many. And our northern papers can be just as biased (did I read you correctly? wasn't the NY Times the worst paper with respect to the facts they presented in this case?) In this case a lot of unique circumstances came to together to allow false charges to mushroom quickly. We all want to fight to change things. I just don't see what purpose is served by assuming Duke and Durham are evil entities. I also think it is naive to think that this kind of perverted justice system is unique to Durham.
By the way, in spite of the great student turn-out (which was 500 students as of 5PM at the main Duke polling place--that's out of an undergrad population of over 6000), the vast majority of the ABN voters were not students--they were Durham residents. And it really was a remarkable number who took the time in the rain, and broke party lines--which says a lot for Durham.
there is a great editorial in the Chronicle today which discusses the positive conclusions to be drawn from the vote.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 8 2006, 05:35 PM|
| Now that the election is over and this can't be considered just an election ploy, I will post this :
Rumors are said to have been circulating in Durham to the effect that Nifong might consider (legally) going after a couple of bloggers; that if he deals with a couple of them the rest will be intimidated and fade away.
This is just a heads up; so that if anything untoward happens, everyone will know about it in advance and be able to make the connection.
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 8 2006, 06:25 PM|
| Dukeparentx2, I also have some personal experience with different college towns and have never before seen the degree of resentment and the accompanying actions that have surfaced from some Durham residents towards students at Duke. There are always issues of town/gown relations in college towns. However, I have never, ever, seen anything like Durham/Duke.
What has happened in Durham could not have happened in Princeton, nor Palo Alto, nor Charlottesville, nor College Station, nor Austin, nor Houston, nor Boston/Cambridge, nor Nashville, nor even Lexington, VA. Those are just the cities and towns with which I have some college/university personal experience. I do not know why Durham harbors such resentment towards Duke- perhaps it is strictly racial, perhaps it is economic, but it obviously is there.
One of the appeals of Duke is its rural character- parents see the environment as being safer than New Haven, Philly, Boston, etc. Obviously, that perception is untrue- as we have seen from disclosures about the sex industry in Durham, the lack of effective police protection for ordinary citizens, the gang violence that exists, and the recent information, thanks to disclosures about "Dr." Olatoye, about North Carolina's position in heroin trafficking. The Duke Hoax has been enlightening to families considering entrusting Duke and Durham with the education of their greatest treasures- their children. At least, parents can now be informed about how Durham feels about Duke and the students. To be forewarned is forearmed. Just because the area is lovely and forested, it does not mean that it is wholesome or safe.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 8 2006, 07:13 PM|
|I think the idea with Nifong may be also that he might go after a couple of local bloggers, so that if they have anything at all amiss, like traffic tickets, they'll get the Elmostafa treatment.|
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 8 2006, 07:18 PM|
| dukeparentx2: Re: Yale. My niece went there. I don't think she spent much time in New Haven, but she and her fellow students certainly didn't feel "targeted."
Resenting the elite students and wanting to put them in jail are two very different things. Of course, there are many, many urban areas where students generally don't feel "safe." That is not what I'm talking about here.
I absolutely agree about the NY Times, but that is not my "local" paper. I was, of course referring to the N&O who printed the biased interview with the accuser,and who released the 911 tapes, the "We know you know" and "Team Swaggered" columns, etc. And, of course there is the Indy and the Herald-Sun. Bad as it was, even the NY Times couldn't come close to that kind of "reporting."
This kind of perverted justice system is not unique to Durham? The bloggers, the commentators, other attorneys and even former prosecutors sure seem to be shell-shocked over what has gone on in Durham. Maybe it's just the NC justice system that needs a major overhaul?
Of course I am happy that 51% voted against Nifong but, again, the point of my post is that 49% voted for him, with all that has come out. Even if you discount some of that back, he still has a significant amount of support and that is shocking to me. I think this election will further embolden him and he will make more outrageous comments. I can only imagine his "theory" of the crime!
Who said anything about Durham and Duke being evil entities? My post was about the enabling factors that fueled the fire. If people don't recognize the factors, they cannot effect change. If this travesty is too quickly written off as being "unique," it sounds like change isn't really wanted after all.
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 8 2006, 07:19 PM|
|Texas Mom: We cross-posted. Appreciated your input.|
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 8 2006, 07:34 PM|
| I appreciated yours, Duke10. Thanks.
|Posted by: TombZ Nov 8 2006, 07:59 PM|
NIfong might pick a public fight with a person or people who may be anywhere, have a web site, tons o' hyperlinks and too much time on their hands?
Bring it on, you DuFong! Who's first?
Maybe he can go after that emailer from New Jersey...
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 8 2006, 08:04 PM|
|Texas Mom, when you site with certainty that what happened in Durham could not have happened in the college towns that you named, is it because their populations are more evenly split along racial lines? Secondly, is education of the general population a factor, such as a white collar vs. blue collar ? Is is possible that the universities in these towns would have come out of the gate a little earlier in favor of their students? While there are large black populations in some of the areas you name, you seem to indicate that that fact alone would not have influenced the issue quite like Durham. Also, perhaps these towns would not have had a corrupt DA/politician hungrey for a job. There is plenty of crime in the cities you site and the newspapers are the tools of the liberal left, so what's the difference if it's not class envy and class envy is everywhere.|
|Posted by: Firefly Nov 8 2006, 08:11 PM|
|Quasimodo, I guess Nifong has never heard of free speech? The blogs that I read have been extremely careful to document their assertions. Now those that comment on the posts are merely stating an opinion. Nifong had better have a lot of cash stashed away to challenge the bloggers because he would have to count on going all the way to the Supreme Court. The body of evidence that bloggers have against Nifong would certainly deter him from wanting to expose himself before the high court.|
|Posted by: K.P. Nov 8 2006, 08:16 PM|
|Nutfong doesn't want to mess with the e-mailer from NJ he is a retired cop, and he would go toe to toe with him. If Nutfong does he should seek some form of psych counseling. Firefly I agree with you Nifong doesn't want a show down with all of us. we are being very careful to use his own words against him.|
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 8 2006, 08:18 PM|
Maybe he'll go after some local bloggers like he went after Elmostafa.
(They better have lived a perfectly spotless life with no traffic tickets, and never, never have helped catch a shoplifter. )
|Posted by: Texas Mom Nov 8 2006, 08:55 PM|
|Firefly, I don't have an answer to your question. I wish I knew.|
|Posted by: Duke10 Mom Nov 8 2006, 09:04 PM|
| From another Nifong fan:
"This goes to show that justice can't be bought by a bunch of rich white boys from New York," said Harris Johnson, a former state Democratic party official and Durham resident for 56 years.
"Duke has a habit of sweeping things under the carpet. I guess this goes to show that no matter how much money you have, Durham is owned by its citizens," he added.
As I've said before, these comments go way beyond "resentment."
Mr. Johnson is not alone, I am sure, in considering Duke students to be non-residents. Guess Duke just rents there?
I thought Duke had its own zip code? Can they set up their own municipality? Get their own mayor, etc.?
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 8 2006, 09:07 PM|
|To: Quasimodo, I guess I am glad I live in NJ, unless Nifong becomes the US Attorney General, he can't come after me. Plus, is he really going after people for traffice violations, if what you say is true, Nifong needs to seek help for a mental disorder. Where did you hear these rumors?|
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 8 2006, 09:17 PM|
| This was my e-mail to Nifong and his arrogant reply:
What kind of sloppy investigation are you running on the Duke rape case. I
heard you in court saying there was no information from the clinic that the
rape victim was brought to. Now one of the employees states that she took
notes. What kind of scam are you running in Durham. I'll vote ABN-VC, we
only need to live with you for 50 more days
From: Nifong: Gee, Bill. Does this mean you are moving down here from NJ just to vote against me? I am flattered. Bad news, though. You'll be stuck with me at
least until the end of December
I wanted to know where he got my name and where I lived, it was not included in my e-mail. He is misusing state resources to find out who the people are, that are expressing their feelings on this site. As far as I am concerned DA Nifong should be in jail for his abuse of power, he is like a predator snake looking for someone else to strike.
|Posted by: Quasimodo Nov 8 2006, 09:29 PM|
| Plus, is he really going after people for traffice violations, if what you say is true, Nifong needs to seek help for a mental disorder.
Wait till you see Gottlieb's 33 pages of notes of his recollections about the traffic violation...
Where did you hear these rumors?
a trustworthy source.
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 8 2006, 09:46 PM|
Your right about Nifond having a mental disorder. He went after me with his e-mail, in an arrogant way. I do hope your souce is trustworthy. I never knew that Gottlieb wrote a 33 page report on a traffic violation, only the 33 pages he wrote for a rape case, from memory, 4 months after the incident. With a brain like that maybe he should be the Chief of Police in Durham. Gottlieb must have gone to the Barney Pfifes, School for Detectives. Where else would they have a school like that but in the states "Investigators Academy" in Mayberry, NC.
|Posted by: dukeparentx2 Nov 8 2006, 09:52 PM|
| I distrust Nifong as much as anyone, but legally he does not have grounds to go after bloggers. My understanding (I am not a lawyer) is that, since he is a public figure, expressing opinions about his character and job performance are allowed, and the standards for slander and defammation of character are extremely high. He would have to prove that anything that was said/ written about him was 1) factually untrue and 2) caused him measurable harm (it can't just have hurt his feelings or his reputation..he'd have to prove that he suffered financially because of lies expressed by someone who knew they were lies.)
Now if a blogger had an outstanding warrant in Durham County, that could be a different story. But I think at this point too many people would see through even that..
|Posted by: WJDinNJ Nov 8 2006, 10:06 PM|
Nifong could go after a blogger, if he figures out who they are and if they have an outstanding warrant for their arrest, including an unpaid parking ticket. That would take up Durham County resource and time. Is that what a DA is suppose to do hunt down bloggers? Nifong is a disgrace to the office he now holds. Remember the majority of Durham voted against him.