I’m continuing a trial to see whether responding to your comments in the form below allows me to respond to more comments with the time I have.
I read all your comments. If a comment isn’t specifically noted, it may be because I’ve noted recently the matter your comment deals with, the matter is too complex for a brief answer, it’s some nice words which I appreciate but don’t need to comment on, etc.
Today I'm responding to a least a part of every comment on the Pricing Durham Suits thread as of Noon today.
Anon @ 2:49 noted there may be many other expensive suits in the making in Durham. I agree.
Anon @ 2:49 wants to see Crystal Mangum “measured” for a suit.
In a perfect world, that would happen. But every attorney I talk to says it won’t “because there’s no money to collect from her.”
Anon @ 2:54 said : “The problem for Durham is not just that these events occurred, but that they [released] a report saying nothing was wrong. The Deputy police Commissioner even is on video commenting that "he could not even recall an issue with the DPD in recent years" (the crowd all laughed at him).
Durham embraced the fraud and endorsed it. Now they are on the hook. They could pass a "boy, are we dumb tax" to cover the lawsuits. “
The attorneys I talk to say Anon @ 2:54 has it right about the city making itself libel by virtue of knowing what happened; not taking action to correct it: and, in some instances, saying what was done was OK
Ken @ 2:57 provided the address where you’ll find in pdf form Durham’s annual budget:
Thank you, Ken.
Ken also expresses a hope many of us have that the suits will enable us to learn more about what really went on and who did what with whose approval.
Anon @ 3:08 doesn’t “believe this corruption can be hidden away much longer. …
The curtain is about to rise.”
“The curtain is about to rise.” Gee, I wish I had thought to say that first.
Anon @ 6:39 pointed out that a $5 million liability policy isn’t much in this day and age.
Yes. I wonder why Durham doesn’t have more coverage. I’d also like to know how much, given the $500,000 deductible, Durham pays for the $5 million coverage; and how that compares with what cities of comparable size pay for the same amount of coverage with the same deductible.
Mike in Nevada @ 11:00 says “The facts were clear enough by November to determine Nifong did not have a case.”
Mike goes on to say that therefore anyone who voted for Nifong was either “a moron or a racist.”
Some were certainly either one of the other; and many were both.
There were also, I believe, many decent and intelligent blacks who voted for Nifong because they couldn’t break from the Democratic line on which Nifong ran.
Then there were many white liberals, leftists, academics and others who aren’t morons but voted for Nifong because he was just the kind of DA they wanted.
They saw Nifong using the power of the state to validate their prejudices; and they loved it. Those people were, to use a crude figurative description President Lyndon Johnson once used, “so excited they were peeing all over themselves.”
A more genteel way to say that might be to call such people “Nifong activists with hyperactive urinary tract systems.”
Anon @ 11:07 hopes Councilman Stith will beat Mayor Bell in the November election.
I don’t plan to say anything about that race now. But I’ll come back to it.
Anon @ 12:29 wants the three players considering suits to bring them to trial so the knowledge the public gains can be used to hold the malefactors and their enablers to account.
I’d like to see that happen but I respect people who’ve been victimized deciding to accept a settlement and avoid a trial.
Whether or not the suits go to trial, we are still going to need the state and federal investigations many of us have been asking for for more than a year.
And finally, folks, this comment responding to my saying 4 X $125 = $600 per family of four:
Anonymous said...You’re right, Anon. Thank you for pointing out my error.
4 X $125 = $500 dollars
not $600 per family of four
And thank you all for commenting.