I've made many individual replies on the threads.
Also ---
For all the “nice work, John” comments: Thank you. I appreciate them very much.
For all the “heads up, John” comments: Thank you. They often point out things I’d otherwise miss.
Just yesterday morning I’d gone to the Duke Chronicle site expecting to find a story that would add to the N&O’s Sept. 9 story about Gottlieb’s arrest record and conduct re: Duke students. But yesterday’s Chronicle wasn’t up yet, and I moved on.
Most likely I wouldn’t have gone back to the site again until very late last evening. But someone just after I’d been to the site sent a “Gottlieb story at the Chronicle” email comment.
I jumped on the story and posted, mentioning in the post that the N&O and Chronicle stories reported on less than 6% of the time Gottlieb’s been a DBP officer.
That post and another I’d done on the Sept. 9 N&O story were at hand when the N&O’s Editors’ Blog unexpectedly posted on their Sept. 9 Gottlieb story. So I was able to quickly draw on those posts and get a detailed, questioning comment up at the EB. It’s the first one there and will be read by many who don’t come to JinC or other blogs reporting and commenting on the Hoax.
The readers’ “heads up” helped make that possible.
To those of you who have concerns regarding tech issues pertaining to emails, especially email destruction: I’ve passed on and highlighted as best I could your concerns. It’s certainly an important area but one about which I’m ignorant. There’s not much more I can do.
One thing we can all be sure of: The defense team includes people who are very tech savvy.
If you haven’t read the whole "60 Minutes proposal" blog comment thread, you really ought to. Lot’s of pith and humor. Just what threads can be at their best.
Now, as they used to say on Monty Python, for something completely different.
I want to respond directly here on the main page to some critical Anonymous commenters. I’m responding not because their comments are critical (fair and informed criticism is welcome here) but because the commenters made false statements.
One false statement has to do with President Brodhead’s position with regard to wishing to see David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann placed on trial. Some commenters object to my saying he wants to see them on trial; and tell me I’m losing credibility for saying it. Here’s a sample:
I should note that this thread began when JIC stated that President Brodhead wants to see the LAX players tried for gang rape and other felonies, a really ludicrous statement which suggests that JIC is more interested in pandering to the more extreme and rabid of the lacrosse apologists than in finding the truth.Well, the commenter is certainly clear, albeit wrong.
Let’s look at what President Brodhead said on July 25 in a letter to the Friends of Duke University:
[W]e can't speak with certainty of matters that only the criminal justice system can resolve. We are eager for our students to be proved innocent. We share the wish for a speedy resolution of all the matters that are now in doubt.That’s pretty clear, isn’t it?
If President Brodhead ever decides he doesn’t want to see the students put on trial, all he has to do is say so. His statement will be headline news.
Until then, let’s not misrepresent President Brodhead by claiming he doesn’t want to see the students put on trial. And let’s not be so hard on old JinC for only speaking truthfully about Brodhead.
Moving on –
A comment on the "Duke lacrosse: ALERT – Those DPD memos" post thread contains a very serious false statement I’ve put in bold:
I agree that some of your positions are getting too extreme. Specifically, it is extremely far fetched to assert that an entire police department is corrupt based on its response to discovery requests. I am an attorney who works for the federal government.I never said an entire police department is corrupt based on it response to discovery requests. I never said anything close to that.
One of the nice things about blogging, at least if you have your facts straight and are telling the truth, is you can refer people back to whatever is at issue.
So I can say to any of you who doubt what I’m saying: “ Friend, I just gave you a link to the post the commenter’s talking about. Take a look at it.”
The commenter self-describes as “an attorney who works for the federal government.”
If that’s the case, it’s very troubling to think there’s an attorney working in the federal government who because of carelessness, mendacity or something else would make a false statement regarding so serious a matter.
That said, it’s also important to remember that a self-identification on the web may or may not be true.
A few final thoughts – If you look back over JinC posts, you’ll see I’ve not really said much explicitly critical of Brodhead.
Saying that Brodhead wants to see the students put on trial is, as we can now agree, simply stating a fact.
So is saying that while Brodhead has been very critical of the lacrosse players’ conduct, he’s said not a single public word of criticism of either DA Nifong or principal investigator Sgt. Gottlieb.
Stating those important facts about Brodhead is not necessarily being critical of him.
Indeed, there are many people who admire and support Brodhead precisely because those facts are true. They would be very upset if they weren’t.
Can you imagine, for instance, the reactions of Professors Orin Starn and Pater Wood, Community Activist Victoria Peterson, and Duke’s faculty’s Group of 88 if Brodhead were to say tomorrow he believes the Nifong/ Gottlieb investigation was and is a travesty; and that he agrees with Duke Law Professor James Coleman that Nifong should step aside and allow Governor Easley to appoint a special prosecutor for the case?
In the days to come, I plan to say a lot more about President Brodhead. Much of it will be critical of him.
I plan to make my criticisms based on facts. I ask President Brodhead’s many supporters at this blog to please not get upset with me when I state something factual about him.
I’m not responsible for what President Brodhead has said and not said, done and not done. He is.
John
20 comments:
I look forward to what inevitably will be an excellent critique of the Brodhead administration. Whether it's responding to horrors at the medical center (washing of instruments in hydraulic fluid) or responding to dozens of current and former students lives being upended by the Durham criminal justice system, we expect our University's leadership to respond to crises with an even hand. Good luck!
Thanks, John. ..for leading the way once more. Buckle up, Brodhead, methinks you doth have a bumpy ride ahead.
Good job John for addressing the false statements made on your blog. I saw those statements and knew that they were blatantly false. You certainly correctly pointed out Brodhead's position, which I consider misguided and misinformed.
Looking forward to your critical analysis of Brodhead's role in this affair.
Newport
Your blog is always a must read. Excellent work, John
Texas Mom
Brodhead thinks he's pretty darned clever. OK, technically, when he says he wants to see the Duke players proven innocent, he didn't state exactly that he wanted to see them tried, but: 1) you're never proven "innocent" (although you're certainly placed in jeopardy when you go through a trial as a defendant); and 2) how else but a trial could he possibly expect this proving of innocence to occur? There's simply no other way to interpret his stance. It is not unfair to characterize it that way. Oh, he's trying to sound broad-minded and supportive but without EVER expressing concern that the process by which a trial would come about be a fair process or result in a fair trial. Taken at his word, then, he manifestly expects the LAX players to prove themselves not guilty rather than allowing them any presumption of innocence. Entirely consistent with his behavior thus far. Hope 60 Minutes just skewers him.
John, thanks for posting the quote from President Brodhead on your website. I am glad to know exactly what you were relying on when you said that he wants to see the LAX players put on trial for gang rape and other felonies. You know I read that quote several times, and I must need a new pair of glasses because I just do not see the word “trial” in there anywhere. What I do see is a statement by President Brodhead that is very friendly to the LAX players. He says that he looks forward to a speedy resolution of the case in which the LAX players are shown to be innocent. As you know, there are several ways in which the case could be resolved without a trial. For example, the accuser could admit that she lied about the rape, or the DA could come out and say that he no longer believes the accuser and that he is dropping the charges, or the trial judge could dismiss the indictments before trial on the ground that there is not sufficient evidence of a rape and therefore the three LAX players never should have been indicted in the first place. I believe this is what Brodhead had in mind when he said that he looked forward to a speedy resolution of the case in which the LAX players were shown to be innocent. Of course in the fantasy world of the Brodhead bashers, a statement from President Brodhead can never just be given its plain meaning. Instead, it must be twisted and distorted and new words must be added so that the statement can be characterized as dark and evil. When I ask myself why you and the other ringleaders of this fantasy world are doing this, the conclusion I reach is that you are pandering to the more extreme and rabid LAX team apologists in your audience. Accordingly, I will stick by my original critique of your performance.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/sounds-of-selective-silence_11.html
[begin excerpt] In 2005, a Duke graduate student in cultural anthropology, Yektan Turkyilmaz, was placed on trial in Armenia. The charges resulted from procedurally dubious conduct by Armenian authorities and seemed politically inspired: Turkyilmaz, a Turk, had been researching the Armenian genocide.
Based on the institution's behavior in the past several months, President Richard Brodhead should have championed a trial, in which Turkyilmaz could have the opportunity to be "proved innocent," coupled with a presidential statement that he could not comment on the procedures, however irregular, used to bring Turkyilmaz to trial.
[snip]
In fact, Brodhead wrote to the president of Armenia, asking him to intervene in the trial. "As the leader of a great country," Brodhead wrote, "you have the ability to intervene in this matter and to determine the appropriateness of the actions of your government and the Armenian prosecutors and police. You also have the ability to release Mr. Turkyilmaz. With respect, I urge you to do so." Did Brodhead suddenly lose interest in protecting civil liberties for Duke students between 2005 and 2006? [end excerpt]
Should we hold our breath until Brodhead invites Mayor Bell and Chief Chalmers to explain why over 37,000 duke employees and over 12,000 duke students should feel safe when the DPD is spending more resources chasing open container violations and hoax rape charges than in solving quadruple murders?
"Rabid LAX team apologists"
You ought to find a little more decency in your heart. You ought to think about what comments like yours say to the parents of these wrongly accused boys. I wonder what Philip Selligman thinks of your comments. His son had nothing to do with the hiring of strippers, something that you seem to despise so much. His son had nothing to do with racial epithets, and his son is demonstrably innocent.
It is beyond sad that you would mindlessly support a Duke administration that has done little to support its student athletes or to reign in the rampant abuses of certain faculty members directed toward the lacrosse players. It is beyond sad that you would support a Duke administration that has remained silent as more and more procedural violations committed by Nifong and the DPD have come to the fore.
These kids held an ill-advised party like college kids do all over America. Hiring strippers, as far as I know is a legal activity and it appears to be something that is socially acceptable. It has been going on for years, and it is not just the males that hire strippers.
The lacrosse accused did not bring this on themselves. No one ever brings on a false accusation of rape. Your attitude is pathetic and very similar to blaming women who dress in a certain for being responsible for any resultant sexual assault. "They brought it on themselves." Well, I disagree with that. You need to climb down of your high horse.
I think the team captains showed poor judgment in bring Durham escorts to their home to strip. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But, this does not mean that we should abandon those who show poor judgment when they are set upon by a faulty justice system and falsely accused of very serious crimes that they obviously did not commit.
In 99 out of 100 cases, attitudes like yours and Brodhead's might be justified, but this case is anything but ordinary and if you spent any time studying the facts, instead of trying to blindly promote a failed administration, you might come to understand that what is going on here is unadulterated evil.
These lacrosse players have paid plenty for any indiscretion they may have committed. But, you, like the Duke administration, want to wash your hands of the matter and blindly support Duke, the institution, rather than the kids who make Duke what it is. I'll take the kids anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
I always thought Duke was in the "kid business," as Coach K so wonderfully pointed out. You don't turn your back on your "kids" when they make poor decisions. You don't throw them under the bus to appease the pot-bangers who want blood in their zeal to promote their own agenda.
No, I want my university to show more courage than that, and to stand up for justice for its students.
Newport
John, I think you are correct in your post. Moreover, anyone who thinks that being an attorney employed with the federal government gives him (or her) special expertise is engaging in fantasy. Remember, it was a Department of Justice attorney who misread the law when agents wanted to inspect the computer of someone who later was a suspect in the 9-11 plot.
I have found in my research that federal prosecutors tend to be sloppy and not very good with the law. They get convictions because they can apply broad statutes and because they can pile on false charges, lie, and get away with it. (The federal criminal system is a sick joke, and Candice E. Jackson and I have written a number of articles on it.)
As for Richard Broadhead, I never have seen him come out foresquare in favor of the students, no matter how specious Nifong's "evidence" has been shown to be. Broadhead, in his desire to quote Shakespeare, has been a Hamlet without any of Hamlet's eloquence. The guy needs to be sweeping floors or digging ditches, as he clearly is not qualified to be doing anything that requires making decisions.
William L. Anderson
Anonymous at 7:56 PM...The Brodhead bashers, as you call those who think he has done a poor job at Duke, are not living in a fantasy world...in my opinion, Brodhead has equivocated over and over during the Duke fiasco...take his July 25 statement to the FODU site..
[W]e can't speak with certainty of matters that only the criminal justice system can resolve. We are eager for our students to be proved innocent. We share the wish for a speedy resolution of all the matters that are now in doubt.
That first line is very clear...he is pretty much saying what all of the AV supporters are saying, which is, "Let's wait til the trial." Of course, he adds the, "eager for our students to be proved innocent" line...that's good, of course, but then he speaks of a "wish for a speedy resolution of all the matters that are now in doubt", which strikes me as a hedging of his bet, so to speak...that's thrown in just in case they are NOT found to be innocent, which imo shows that he really has no confidence *in* their innocence...I almost think he'd be better off saying nothing...I know that it would be far too much to expect for him to come out forcefully and say what most reasonable people believe, which is that the charges are FALSE...but he could speak up for the players without having to say specifically that she is lying...it just takes a bit of guts...when you are a leader, you must have courage...courage to do the right thing, even if you might catch some slack for it...Brodhead is in CYA mode and has been from day one of this debacle. My husband is a naval officer...to him, the well-being of the men and women serving under him are his top priority...when you build good men and women, it benefits them, and it benefits the entire navy...and my husband tries to never lose sight of the individual who is a part of the navy...when his guys get into trouble, and some have gotten into serious trouble, he stands by them...even when one was arrested for murder, he stood by that man, and we were there for his mother...he didn't bail on his sailor...it seems that Brodhead is bailing on his students, who are what make Duke the institution that it is...sure, it has history, and beauty, but it is the living, breathing students that make Duke what it is...if the President of the University can't see this, if he so quickly acts to appease the repugnant pot bangers, at the expense of *his* students, well, he has no business being the head of that University...
Can't wait for your piece on Brodhead. He hasn't said one word in defense of his own students and I doubt he ever will. Worse, he pre-judged them guilty and kicked them to the curb.
Brodhead's attitude throughout this case shows that he doesn't care at all about fundamental fairness for Duke students. Due process and other constitutional rights don't seem to matter to him at all. He really needs to have a talk with James Coleman but I guess he is too busy quoting Shakespeare.
Your work has been great on the lax case. Did anyone else notice in the Chronicle that another Duke student was assaulted in her off campus apartment? The young lady should be commended for her composure during the ordeal, but not reassuring that it took the police 15-20 minutes to arrive. They blame "poor" lighting for the delay. The girl could have been severely harmed or worse during that amount of time. Seems they never have trouble locating students promptly for noise violations, but being strangled - oops sorry, we couldn't locate you.
By the way, this is a very well known apt. complex, so police should be familiar with the layout.
Hey, could you please turn on your RSS or XML feed so that those of us who are busy can keep up with what you write using our RSS readers? Thanks in advance!
John,
I've thought long and hard about the Duke Administration's acquiesence in the face of the Duke Hoax Tragedy, and how there must be some scintilla of a silver lining yielded from this mess.
It finally struck that with fewer elite students matriculating to Duke as the school gets pummeled in the press, my child's opportunity for admission just increased. Thanks Dick.
John,
I notice that you have not responded to my last post. Can we assume from your silence that you now agree that President Brodhead does not want to see the LAX players put on trial for gang rape and other felonies? Also, since you have said several times on the main page of your website that Brodhead does want to see the LAX players put on trial for these crimes, and since we now know that those statements were (to borrow a phrase from Newton) blatantly false, are you planning to print a retraction on the main page of your website that will receive the same prominence as your original false accusations?
You know life is full of small ironies, John, and in one of the small ironies of the LAX mess, you are now in the same position as some of the media organizations you have been criticizing. You have rightly criticized some of these organizations for making false statements about the LAX players and never correcting those statements. However, you have now been caught making false statements about President Brodhead in order to pander to your audience of LAX team supporters. Are you going to have the courage to admit your mistake and print a retraction, or are you just going to move on and hope nobody notices, like the media organizations you have been criticizing?
Hey "anonymous" (last comment)--
You wrote,
"I notice that you have not responded to my last post."
I notice that there are 13 comments by "anonymous" prior to yours. If you want to take part in an extended conversation in a way that readers can follow what you're arguing, how about using that "Choose an identity" feature that Blogger offers?
Anon "I look forward to what..."
Thank you for your confidence and good wishes.
Joan,
Also thank you but in this case I'm not leading the way. KC's been way out in front on Brodhead just as you were w. Sheehan.
To Newport,
Thank you for you confidence and affirmation.
To Texas Mom who said: “Excellent work, John”
Now why didn’t I have more school teachers who marked like you?
Thanks, Texas Mom.
To Anon “Brodhead thinks he’s pretty darn clever”
You state the case very well.
To Anon “John, thanks for posting the quote …”
You speculate on all sorts of possibilities that you say you believe “Brodhead had in mind when ….”
Too bad Brodhead won’t confirm any of your speculation.
If Brodhead doesn't want to see the students on trial he knows all he has to say is: “I don’t think the three should be tried.”
If he didn’t support the “Nifong/Gottlieb” travesty that's making a trial necessary all he has to say is five simple words: “I agree with Professor Coleman.”
Think about that, Troll
To Anon re Yektan Turkyilmaz,
Excellent, on point example of President Brodhead speaking up when he doesn't want a Duke student put on trial.
Just the kind of thing Troll above hates.
Thank you.
To Anon “Should we hold our breath until … “
Many very thoughtful citizens here in Durham feel just as you do.
Newport,
You wrote a beautiful letter.
Thank you.
Dear William,
Put me down as mostly with you.
Disagreements? Brodhead can make decisions; and he’s often firm and clear about what he decides.
Consider his swift, full, and unequivocal apology to the first 911 caller.
Mind you, I’m not saying he made the right decision, but he sure made one.
He also decided very early in the Hoax to publicly and sharply criticize the lacrosse players for planning the party and for their conduct there.
He also decided very early in the Hoax to say not a word of criticism of DA Mike Nifong and Sgt. Gottlieb traveties.
To Emmy954,
You're right.
Brodhead has bailed out on his students; and I don’t mean just those on the lacrosse team.
His “bailout” on all Duke students will be a major theme of some upcoming posts.
Please thank your husband for his service to our country. And thank you. The families serve too as you know.
To Anon “Can’t wait for your piece …”
I too would love to hear Brodhead quote Coleman.
Or even Kim Roberts: "It's a crock."
Anon “Your work has been…”
Thanks for you nice words, and thanks for pointing out an important part of the story which I didn’t mention.
Anon “Hey, could you please turn on your RSS …”
I’ll get that done Saturday.
Why the delay? I never trust myself to do such thinks correctly. A tech savvy friend is coming by Saturday.
Sorry I haven’t done it before.
To Anon “John, I’ve thought long and ….”
I know what you mean but on the other hand if Duke doesn’t acknowledge and correct the things that led it to embrace a wildly improbable hoax, would you really….
To Anon “John, I notice that you have not responded ….”
Yes, I have. Often. So have others as you see up this thread and on other threads here.
Your comments are almost entirely baseless, mean-spirited attacks on other people.
The next time, it’s the delete button, Troll.
In closing, folks, to all excepting Troll, thank you again.
John
John,
From your last post, I gather that you do not have the courage to retract your false accusations about President Brodhead and that you are going to use that weak comeback about speculation on my part to try to slide away from the problem. I do not think you are going to get away with that one, John, because in their hearts, your audience knows that what I have said is true and that you are just too embarrassed to admit it.
You say that my comments are mean spirited. Let me see. Your audience has called President Brodhead a coward, spineless, inept, should be sweeping floors or digging ditches. However, I am sure these comments were meant with the greatest respect and consideration for his feelings, right? Certainly not mean spirited in any way.
Ah, yes: the delete button gambit. I knew you would be playing that card soon, John. This is the last refuge of those who are not able to defend their ideas. What you really want is to be able to publish all kinds of nonsense about Brodhead and then have all of your readers pat you on the back and tell you what a great job you are doing. But when someone like me comes along who challenges your ideas and pushes back hard, you cannot handle it, so you resort to the delete button. All I can say, John, is that if you feel that you have to start pushing the delete button because you are not able to handle the free exchange of ideas, it will be (to borrow a phrase from Newton) beyond sad.
Troll? John, I am disappointed in you. Can’t you do better than that? However, I am sure you meant it with the best of intentions. Not mean spirited in any way.
anonymous 9:08 PM wrote:
...in their hearts, your audience knows that what I have said is true...
Not really, anonymous. You, along with most of the reporters covering this case are missing one of the important elements of blogging: the hyperlink.
What John in Carolina says Pres. Brodhead says doesn't mean that much in and of itself. He links to accounts and sources. (If Brodhead posted transcripts, he'd link to them.) John in Carolina's reader can follow those links. We can follow analyses and links provided by other bloggers, notably KC Johnson, on the same and related topics. Thus, we can decide for ourselves (1) whether John in Carolina is a generally trustworthy source and analyst, and (2) whether we agree with his interpreteation on any given point.
Readers judge my comments by the same standards.
Now for the bad news. Your contributions also get evaluated this way.
anonymous 9:08 PM, here's a suggestion. Rather than continuing down the nanny-nanny-noo-noo route in John in Carolina's comments section, why don't you start a blog of your own (it's free)? You'll be in complete control of what you post; no deletion threats. Then you can apply this powerful tool (the hyperlink) to your arguments, the way John does for his.
In my opinion, John, KC Johnson, and the other prominent bloggers covering the Duke Hoax have shown themselves to be open to differences of opinion. You'll have no trouble leaving polite comments, offering readers links to your posts. People will click through and see what you have to say.
Then you can lose the victim pose that permeates your last comment, and focus on what you think the issues really are.
My two cents.
Post a Comment